\-i]''\'X^{-M'-::\\\. i A ^^^^^n A— ^^^H — "^^^H: 7 — §^^^H^ 4 i^^^K- 3 — -^^^H 7 =="^^^^H 9 '-^^^H ?li! UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES SCHOOL OF LAW LIBRARY A TREATISE ON THE LAW OF CARRIERS VOLUME ONE ^ TREATISE LAW OF CARRIERS AS ADMINISTERED BY THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES, CANADA AND ENGLAND, COVERING THE PRINCIPLES AND RULES APPLICABLE TO CARRIERS OF GOODS, PASSENGERS, LIVE STOCK, COMMON CARRIERS, CONNECTING CAR- RIERS, AND INTERSTATE AND INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORTATION BY LAND AND WATER, AND THE METHODS AND PROCEDURE FOR THEIR ENFORCEMENT, FURNISHING A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO LITIGANTS IN THE JURISDICTIONS NAMED, A^'D INCLUDING THE TEXT OF THE ACT TO REGULATE COMMERCE AS AJVIENDED AND ALL ACTS SUPPLEMENTARY THERETO REVISED TO JANUARY 1, 1914 By DEWITT C, MOORE Of the Johnstown, New York, Bar ; Author of " The Law of Fraudulent Conveyances." IN THREE VOLUMES VOLUME 1 Albaxy iSr. Y. MATTHEW BENDER & COMPANY 1914: T vo(J Copyright, 1914, By MATTHEW BENDER & CO. PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. The fundamental principles of the law of carriers have long been firmly established in jurisprudence. But the changed con- ditions of modern life and progress have made essential important modifications and limitations upon the liability of the common carrier which have found expression in judicial decisions and statutory enactments. The law of carriers in its actual operation, touching and regulating, as it now does, transportation by modes and means formerly unknown and under circumstances and con- ditions hardly conceivable to the fathers of the law, has become so broad and comprehensive, and the cases to which it has been applied have become so multitudinous and of such infinite variety, that the author of these volumes necessarily could not have covered the entire field of the law on this subject in the one volume pre- pared by him and published in 1906, and it is scarcely to be ex- pected that he has succeeded in accomplishing so great an under- taking in the three volumes now presented. An effort has been made, however, to widen the scope of the- work and add to its usefulness to the profession. The chapters, of the first edition have been revised and amplified and brought down to date by the later decisions, and new chapters, treating of new topics of great and growing present interest and importance, have been added. It has been the aim of the writer not only to present to his brethem in an engrossing profession the latest cases in the various jurisdictions but also to show the reason, source, and foundation of the principles and rules set forth and the authorities by which they have been established and are maintained. He has aimed to show the present law and the specific rules applicable in a multi- tude of cases, in an orderly arranged, concise form, easily acces- sible and readily adaptable to the use of the practitioner. Comprehensive tables of contents and chapter headings, a copi- ous general index covering both text and notes, an appendix giving the text of the Act to Tiegulate Commerce, as amended, and Acts PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. Supplementarj thereto, as revised to January 1, 1914, carefully indexed, and a complete table of cases cited, make the contents readily available for expeditious use. The writer avails himself of this opportunity to express his deep appreciation of the favorable reception accorded by the profession to the first edition. It has been said that that writer does the most who gives his reader the most knowledge and takes from him the least time. Continuing in the exercise of the privilege which a preface allows to an author to speak of himself, it may be said, in addition to what has already been said, that it has taken more time and labor to abridge these pages than to write them and that the work con- tains that which is the result of much reading, study, and reflec- tion, and painstaking, diligent application. The writer, like all others, is better qualified to speak of the pains that his efforts have cost him than any one who may make use of his work can possibly be; but to what purpose he has devoted his labors is a question upon which his readers would not regard it as within the limits of privilege or propriety for him to express an opinion. The utility of the results attained must be the test of their value to the profession. In the hope and confident belief that, even though there may be found some phases of the subject under consideration which have not been presented, or, if presented, not exhaustively covered, the work will be found to amply and accurately give the law upon all matters considered within its pages, the work is respectfully submitted. Johnstown, I^. Y., April 4, 1914. Dewitt C. Mooke. PREFACE TO FIRST EDITION. The author of this volume performed the greater portion of the work necessary to the preparation of Nellis' " Street Railroad Accident Law," published in May, 1904, and was generously ac- corded the credit therefor by the author of that work in the preface to that volume. The favorable manner in which that publication was received by the profession led him to undertake the more laborious ta&ik of preparing this volume covering the broader field of " The Law of Carriers." The public interest in questions concerning the rights, duties, and liabilities of common carriers in their relations to shippers and travelers, and their regulation by statutory enactments, and the increasing litigation over questions growing out of such rela- tions, seemed to render the subject a timely one. The multitude of cases demonstrates how important and far-reaching the subject hag become, and how laborious was the task involved of presenting this mass of decisions and precedents in practicable form for pro- fessional use. It has been the chief aim of the author to furnish suitors with a practical guide in this class of litigation by as full a presentation as possible of the established principles and rules governing the various and varying phases in which controverted questions have been and may be presented for judicial adjustment. The decisions and rulings in different jurisdictions, and the reasons therefor, so far as practicable, have been set forth, and the latest as well as the earliest authorities in the different States are cited and conven- iently arranged. A chapter is devoted to Interstate Transportation, giving the decisions of the courts upon the principal questions arising in the course of the administration of the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887, and- the amendments thereto. These decisions forecast to a e£)nsideral)le extent the probable construction that wnll be given by the courts to many of the provisions of the recent Act of Congress, ^own as the Railroad Rate Act. The full text of the new law is Preface. given, with its many important and in manv respects radical changes. The principal purposes and objects of that law are set foi-th, but only when the law is in actual operation can it be de- termined wlu'lher it will prove as effective and beneficial as thiKse who are responsible for tlie legislation have urged and insisted that it would be. In the confident belief that the work will be well received and serve a useful purpose to the profession, which will amply repay tJie author for the care and labor conscientiously bestowed upon it, and that its accuracy of statement and authority will be found to be what the author has aimed to make it, the volume is sub- mitted to the consideration of the profession. Dewitt C. Moo KB. Johnstown, N. Y., June 2, 1906. TABLE OF CONTENTS. TOLUME L PiMBE. Table of Ga^es ^^^ CHAPTER I. Careiers Generally. Section 1. Carrier defined 1 2. Classes of carriers 1 3. Carriage of goods a bailment 2 4. Private carriers 3 5. Duties and liabilities of .private carriers 4 6. Private carriers without hire 5 7. When transportation is gratuitous 7 8. When compensation is implied 9 9. Proof of negligence 10 10. Private carriers for hire 11 11. Liability of private carriers for hire 13 12. Special contracts increasing or diminishing liability 14 13. Lien of the private carrier 15 CHAPTER II. Common Carriers. GKcmoiT 1. What constitutes a common carrier 19 2. Liability of the common carrier 26 3. Liability in the carrying of live stock 31 4. Liability where the loss or injury results from the inherent nature of the goods 32 6. Where the loss or injury is the result of the acts of the shipper 35 6. Where the loss or injury is the result of delay in the trans- mission of the goods 30 7. Where the loss or injury is caused by the exercise of public authority 37 (i) ii TABLE OF CONTENTS. Page. Skotion 8. Liability of carrier of passengers 38 9. Express companies 38 10. Railroad companies 4U 11. Receivers and assignees of railroad company operating the road 45 12. Trustees of mortgage bonds of railroad company 47 13. Street railroad companies 48 14. One railroad transporting the cars of another — terminal railroads 50 15. Transportation or dispatch companies 52 16. Express freight lines 53 17. Owners of canal boats 53 18. Owners of tow boats towing water craft on the Mississippi. 54 19. Owners of boats employed in towing other boats or vessels. 55 20. Ferrymen . , 58 21. Hackmen . . . 60 22. Proprietors of omnibuses 61 23. Proprietors of stage coaches 62 24. Palace and sleeping .car companies 63 25. Pipe line for carrying oil 69 26. Wagoners , 70 27. Carriers by river craft 71 28. Truckmen, freightmen, draymen, cartmen, and porters.... 72 29. Owners and masters of ships and steamboats or vessels.... 74 30. Lightermen and hoymen 77 31. Owners of toll bridge 77 32. Canal companies 78 33. Forwarding merchants 80 34. Warehousemen and wharfingers 82 35. Postmasters, mail contractors, and mail carriers 84 36. Log-carrying, or log-driving, or boom companies 86 37. Telegraph companies 87 38. Telephone companies 95 39. Railroad company transporting a circus, menagerie, or show 96 40. Railroad company in South Carolina only over its own line 97 41. Railroad company carrying a dog for accommodation of passenger 97 42. Carrier under a contract exempting " river risks " 99 43. Owners of passenger elevators 99 44. Car-switching companies 104 45. Telegraph messenger companies 105 46. Carriers of money and bank bills 108 47. An irrigation company 110 TABLE OF CONTENTS. Ul Page. Section 48. Transfer companies 112 49. Owners of grain elevators 113 60. Storage and transfer companies — public moving van com- panies . . 114 CHAPTER III. Caekiees of Goods. — Duties and Liabilities. Section 1. Carriers of goods 115 2. Duty of carrier to receive and carry 116 3. Must haul cars and freiglit of other carriers 121 4. May be compelled by mandamus 123 5. When failure or refusal to carry is legally excusable 125 6. May demand prepayment of charges 131 7. When carrier may select mode of transportation 133 8. Duty to furnish shipper facilities for transportation 134 9. Failure or refusal to furnish facilities for transportation.. 141 10. Special contracts for means of transportation 144 11. Duty to furnish facilities declared by statute 147 12. Must furnish suitable and safe cars 150 13. Tender of goods by shipper 153 14. Illegal purpose of shipper as a defense 154 15. Proximate cause of loss or injury 155 16. Discrimination in charges or facilities 156 17. The rule does not require the same rates and facilities for all 160 18. The compensation of the carrier 163 19. Excessive charges and actions therefor 165 20. Injunctions 167 CHAPTER IV. Commencement of Caekiee's Liability. — Deliveey to Caeeiee. Section 1. Commencement of carrier's liability 168 2. Effect of delivery and acceptance other than initiating lia- bility of carrier 173 3. Acts constituting delivery to and acceptance by carrier. ... 174 4. Constructive delivery — Custom and usage 179 5. Questions of law and fact — Question for jury 181 6. Acceptance may be implied from proper tender 181 7. Deposit of goods elsewhere than at regular office or depot. . 183 |y TABLE OF CONTENTS. Page, 8«CTiow 8. Delivery to agent of icarrier — Authority of agent to receive goods 185 9. Bill of lading not essential to constitute delivery ISJi 10. Bill of lading as an evidence of delivery 190 11. Duty to issue bill of lading 191 12. Lioading goods on cars Ifii 13. Proof of delivery to the carrier 195 CHArTER V. Termination of Liability. — Deliveky by Cakriee. fiscnon 1. Termination of carrier's liability 196 2. Unloading and storing goods 202 3. Liability for injury while goods are being unloaded 204 4. Delivery must be made to the consignee or his agent 205 6. Delivery may always be nuule to the true owner of the goods 209 6. Delivery to fraudulent purchaser 210 7. Delivery of goods sent in care of carrier's local agent 212 8. Consignor's right to change of consignee 213 9. Delivery to holder of bill of lading 215 10. Carrier entitled to demand bill of lading 219 11. Carrier's liability to innocent purchaser of bill of lading. . 220 12. Laches of holder of bill of lading 221 13. Goods received from connecting carrier 222 13a. Where stoppage in transitu is provided 223 14. Stoppage in transitu as a defense 223 15. Holder of bill of lading has priority over creditors 224 16. Effect of the word " notify " in a bill of lading 22.') 17. Bill of lading attached to draft 226 18. EflFect of bill of lading as estoppel 227 19. Duplicate bills of lading 23 1 20. Necessity of endorsement of bill of lading 232 21. Carrier's liability for misdelivery 23". 22. Delivery to one of two persons of the same name 236 23. Place of delivery 238 24. Right of owner or consignee to change place of delivery . . . 242 26. Statutory requirements as to delivery of grain 245 26. When place of destination is not on carrier's line 246 27. Time of transportation and delivery in general 247 28. When personal delivery is required. — The common law rule. — Bule as to express companies 2.51 29. When personal delivery is required. — Carriers by rail 255 TABLE OF CONTENTS, Page. 6KCTION 30. Delivery hy carriers by water 257 31. Delivery where consignee refuses to receive 259 32. Delivery of goods sent f. 0. D 2ti 1 33. Confusion of goods 26U 34. Statutory penalties for refusing to deliver promptly 268 36. Demand of goods by consignee 270 36. Waiver of right of action for wrongful delivery 271 37. Right of carrier to demand receipts upon delivery 273 CHAPTER VI. Conversion by Cabkier — Actions Against Caeeiee. Sscnon 1. Carrier is liable in conversion for misfeasance 275 2. Receiving goods from one in possession not conversion . . . 283 3. Carrier not liable in conversion for mere nonfeasance .... 284 4. Action for loss or injury. — ^Nature and form of action 287 5. Actions for loss or injury. — Actions ex contractu or ex delicto 289 6. Actions for loss or injury. — Rights of action 290 7. Actions for loss or injury. — Payment of freight 291 8. Chistody and control of goods. — Rights of carrier. — ^Action by carrier against third persons 292 9. Actions for loss or injury. — Parties 293 10. Actions for delay. — ^Nature and form 294 11. Actions for delay. — Conditions precedent 295 12. Actions against connecting carriers. — Nature and form... 295 13. Actions against connecting carriers. — Rights of action 296 14. Actions against connecting carriers. — Parties 297 16. Actions for refusal to receive or transport goods 298 CHAPTER VII. Liability foe Loss oe Damage. Section 1. Liability of carrier for loss or damage 806 2. Distinction between act of God and inevitable accident 307 3. Loss or damage by act of Grod, vis major, or inevitable acci- dent 308 4. Proximate cause of loss or injury 318 6. Loss or injury by the public enemy 323 6. Seizure under legal process. — 'Attachment 327 7. Seizure under legal process. — Garnishment 331 yi TABLE OF CONTENTS. Page. Section 8. Seizure under police regulations 332 9. Duty of carrier after disaster 334 10. Loss or injury from inherent nature of goods 336 IL Care required of carrier in general 338 CHAPTER VIII. Liability fok Delay. Section 1. Liability for delay in transportation 341 2. Usage or course of business 347 3. Diligence required of carrier 348 4. Liability where there is a special contract 349 5. Liability where there are special instructions by the shipper. 352 6. Liability under statutes requiring prompt forwarding of freight 352 7. Delay in delivering perishable freight 354 8. Delay must have been the proximate cause of injury 356 9. Waiver of right of action for delay 358 10. Excuses for delay generally 358 11. Unusual floods and storms 362 12. Accumulation or shortage of cars and congestion of freight. 364 13. Low water or freezing of water-way 367 14. Strikes by employes 368 15. Delay caused by levy on goods 370 16. Limitation of liability for delay 371 17. Carrier's duty during delay 371 18. Delay concurring with inevitable accident 371 CHAPTER IX. Liability as Warehouseman. Section 1. Carrier's liability as warehouseman before transportation.. 374 2. Carrier's liability as warehouseman during transportation. 378 3. Carrier's liability as warehouseman as to goods awaiting de- livery. — Massachusetts rule 379 4. The New Hampshire rule. — English rule. — Origin of diflTer- ent rules 383 5. Change in nature of liability of carrier in general 388 6. Conflict of laws 389 7. What is reasonable time for removal of goods generally. . . 390 8. Time extended by failure or refusal to deliver 395 9. Notice to consignee held not essential 396 TABLE OF CONTENTS. ^j Page. SECTION 10. Necessity of notice maintained 397 11. Suificiency of notice 399 12. Notice to consignor 400 13. Liability of connecting carriers 402 14. The burden of proof 403 15. Effect of special contract or usage on rule 403 16. Duty of carrier as warehouseman to store safely 407 17. Carrier's liability as warehouseman for negligence 409 18. Statute making railroad company liable for losses by fire.. 414 19. Proximate cause of loss 415 CHAPTER X. Limitation of Liability. Section 1. Limitation of carrier's liability generally 41g 2. Operation and effect of limitation in general 419 3. Limitation by public notice 424 4. Limitation by special contract 428 5. Special contract must be express and will not be presumed. 433 6. Contract need not be signed by shipper unless required by statute 434 7. Where there are two contracts limiting liability.... 435. 8. Conflict of oral and written agreements 43t>; 9. Contract must have been fairly entered into 438 10. Necessity of consideration 438, 11. Contract signed by shipper without examination 444 12. Contract must have been made at time of shipment 445 13. Contract must be legible and intelligible 447 14. By what law validity of contract is determined 447 15. Who may make special contract 452 16. Carrier may not limit its liability for negligence 453 17. The New York rule 459 18. Rule in Illinois and Wisconsin 462 19. The English and Canadian rule 463 20. Reasons upon which the different rules are based 466 21. Liabilities subject to limitation 468 22. Mode or form of limitation. — Bill of lading or shipping re- ceipt 471 23. Limitation of time in which to bring suit 477 24. Requirement of notice of loss or presentation of claim within fixed time 480 25. To what damages stipulation does not apply 484 26. Limitation of liability as ground for defense. — Pleading... 485 Viii TABLE OF CONTENTS. Paokl Sbotion 27. Limitatiou of liability as ground of defense. — Presumptions and burden of proof 486 28. Stipulation i-equiring claim to be made before removal of goods 487 29. Limitation of liability to forwarder or warehouseman.... 488 30. Limitation of amount of liability 490 3L Limitation of amount wliere value is not disclosed 509 32. Limitation of amount where loss is caused by negligence or wrongful act of carrier 510 83. Stipulations that measure of damages shall be invoice value or market price at place of shipment 51tt 84. Construction of special contracts 517 35. When stipulations of contract inoperative 521 36. Fraudulent concealment or misrepresentation of value by shipper 522 37. Carrier's duty to inquire as to value of property 62* 38. Shipper's duty to state value and character of goods 52T CHAPTER XI. Caeeiee's Relation to Goods and Authority of Agents. Bbotion 1. Carrier's relation to goods. — Rights of the carrier 529 2. Power and authority of carrier's general freight agents.... 533 3. Powers and authority of local agents 538 4. Authority of other agents and employes 545 5. Carrier and insurance company 546 CHAPTER XIL !N^EGLIGENCE OF CaRRIER. Sboxiok 1. General rule of liability as to negligence of carrier 548 2. Negligence must have been proximate cause of injury 552 3. Negligence in stowage of goods 552 CHAPTER XIII. Contributory ISTegligence of Shipper. SeotioIT 1. Contributory negligence of shipper generally 5.55 2. Defective packing or marking 553 3. Goods improperly loaded 5(J0 TABLE OF CONTENTS. IX Section 4. Liability of shipper or consignee to carrier for negligence in unloading 662 5. Liability of shipper for injury caused by goods of dangerous character 563 6. Goods lost because of defects in cars or appliances fur- nished by carrier 565 7. Goods lost because of defects in appliances furnished by shipper 567 CHAPTER XIV. Peesumptions and Burden of Proof. (Section 1. Presumptions and burden of proof generally 568 2. Presumption as to state of goods when received 573 3. Defense of loss by the act of God 574 4. Where goods lost consist of several kinds 575 6. Where liability is limited by special contract 57o 6. Proof of loss by fire under contract limiting liability 578 7. Where carrier is merely a warehouseman 57fl TOLUME n. CHAPTER XV. Damages. BiX^TiON 1. Measure of damages in case of loss of goods 581 2. Interest as part of damages 587 3. Freight charges, advances and attorney's fees 590 4. Damages where goods are only injured 592 5. Measure of damages in case of delay 595 6. Damages for refusal or failure to carry 60!) 7. Damages for refusal to deliver 611 8. Damages for misdelivery 612 9. Damages where goods have no market value 613 10. Damages for mental sviflering 614 11. Remote and speculative damages 615 12. Contract of sale as measure of damag<'s. 617 13. Damages for loss or delay in delivery of goods intended for a specific purpose 618 14. Prospective, contingent, or possible consequences 623 3t TABLE OF CONTENTS. Page. CHAPTER XVI. Carrier's Lien. Seottow 1. Carrier's lien for charges 625 2. Carrier's lion for general balance due 629 3. What carriers are entitled to lien 631 4. What property lien applies to 632 5. When lien attaches 634 6. Delivery of goods and payment of freight 635 7. Lien of carrier where consignee fails or refuses to receive.. 635 8. Lie» of the last of connecting carriers 636 9. Priority over other liens 640 10. How lien is lost, satisfied, or discharged 642 11. Lien waived by express agreement or stipulation inconsist- ent with it 648 12. How lien is enforced 649 CHAPTER XVII. Carrier's Charges. Section 1. Right of carrier in general 653 2. Rates of freight 655 3. Advances for charges and expenses 661 4. Charges for storage 662 5. Special contracts as to aanount of charges 664 6. Rebates 668 7. Persons liable for charges 669 8. Payment or tender of charges 673 9. Right to examine goods before payment 675 10. Time of payment 676 11. Actions for rebates and advances 677 12. Actions for charges 680 13. Rights of connecting carriers 683 CHAPTER XVIII. Demurrage and Liability of Consignee or Owner for Delay. Seotioit 1. Right of carrier to charge demurrage 689 2. Liability of consignor, where consignee does not accept goods or otherwise 693 3. Notice of regulations 694 TABLE OF CONTENTS. Xli Page. Sbction 4. Construction of regulations 695 5. Sufficiency of notice to consignee to render him liable for de- murrage 699 6. Defense. — Setting off damages in action for demurrage , 699 7. Amount of demurrage 700 8. Lien for demurrage. . , 701 CHAPTER XIX. DiSCEIMINATION AND OvERCHAEGE. SEcnON 1. Eights and liabilities of carrier in general 704 2. Unlawful discrimination 704 3. Excessive charges 711 4. Actions for discrimination 716 5. Actions for excess of charges paid 720 CHAPTER XX. Connecting Caeeiees. Section 1. Who are connecting carriers 727 2. Relation of connecting carriers to shipper and to each other. 728 3. Carrier not bound to carry beyond its own line 729 4. Delivery to succeeding carrier , 730 6. Notice of arrival of goods 732 6. Duty to receive goods from connecting carrier......... 733 7. Liability for delay 734 8. Liability of initial carrier for losa or injury limited to its own line 738 0. Liability of initial carrier for loss or injury extends over whole route 742 10. Liability of intermediate carriers 745 11. Liability of terminal carrier 749 12. Liability for miscarriage or diversion of goods 751 13. Special contracts for through transportation 753 14. What is sufficient to establish a through contract 756 15. Charging and collecting entire freight in advance 758 16. Collection of entire charges by terminal carrier 759 17. Accepting goods to be transported to or delivered to a cer- tain point 760 18. Carrier as forwarder or warehouseman 761 19. Limitation of carrier's liability to its own line 764 Xii TABLE OF CONTENTS. Paqb. Section 20. When conni^cting carriers entitled to benefit of limitations. 770 21. What coustitutes delivery to n conn ic ling carrier 773 22. Notice to connoetitig ciuriej of arrival of gooda 774 23. Presumptiona and burden of prout 776 24. Connecting lines as partners 778 25. Rights of connictiiig carriers as to charges 781 CHAPTER XXL Caeriers of Live Stock. Skction 1. Carriers of live stock are common carriers 784 2. Nature of carrier'* duties and liabilities in general 78;") 3. Duty to receive and carry 787 4. Duties in respect to transportation 790 5. Duty in respect to facilities and means of transportation.. 792 6. Duties as to mode and means of transportation 79.3 7. Stock pens and yards 797 8. Duty in respect to loading and unloading live stock 801 9. Shipper's knowledge of defects in cars 80:{ 10. Duty to provide food, water, and rest for stock 8()> 11. Duty to provide food, water and rest under Federal 28- hour law 809 12. Where shipper assumes duty of caring for stock 814 13. Other duties in respect to transportation 818 14. Statutes limiting confinement of cattle 820 15. Liability for loss or irijury 821 16. Liability for loss or injury of stock awaiting transportation or delivery 828 17. Inherent nature, propensities, or vices 829 18. Commencement and termination of liability 832 19. Liability for delay in transportation or delivery 834 20. Delay by stoppage for food, rest, and water. . . 843 21. Delivery to carrier 846 22. Delivery by carrier 847 23. Contributory negligence of owner 851 24. Loss or injury. — Proximate cause 856 25. Measure of damages 858 26. Limitation of liability 870 27. Stipulations that shipper will accompany stock, load and unload 873 28. Injuries caused by vicioiisness of animals or defects in cars. 878 29. Stipulations as to claims for damages 880 30. Limitation of liability to a specified amount 889 31 . Loss or injury due to carrier's neg:ligence 895 TABLE OF CONTENTS. Xui Page. Sbotzon 32. Stipulation requiring shipper to report condition of stock. . 898 33. Limitations rendered inoperative 899 34. Waiver of notice or defects tlierein 900 35. Presumptions and burden of proof 903 36. Liability of connecting carriers 907 37. Connecting carriers. — Loss or injury 910 38. Delivery to connecting carrier 913 39. Food, water, and rest under 28-hour law 915 40. Delay in transportation or delivery 917 41. Power to limit liability 920 42. Validity of contract limiting liability 922 43. Operation and effect of limitation 923 44. Liability for improper loading or unloading 926 45. Liability for animals escaping 927 46. Special contract for transportation 929 47. Validity of contract 931 48. Modification or merger 934 49. Actions against carriers of live stock. — ^Nature and form of action. 936 50. Rights of action 937 51, Defenses 939 CHAPTER XXII. Cakeiees of Passengees. Smrnow l. Definition and nature of carriers of .passengers 944 2. Relation between carrier and passenger 946 3. Contract of carriage. — By what law governed 949 4. Who are passengers. — In general 954 6. Who are passengers. — Changing cars or leaving train tem- porarily. — Persons transferring 96(i 6. Who are passengers. — Conveyances and places not proper for passengers 964 7. Who are passengers. — Invitation or acquiescence of car- rier's employes. 966 8. Commencement of relation. — In general 972 9 Commencement of relation. — Going to or awaiting train or car 978 10. Commencement of relation.— Signaling car or train to stop and boarding the same 982 11. Purchase of ticket 984 12. Entry of vehicle of carrier 986 13. Parmont of fare 990 14. Chilflron riding without paymont of fare 996 XIV TABLE OF CONTEJSITS. Page. Section 15. Termination of relation. — In general 996 It). Termiuatiou of relation. — Keaciiing destination and leaving tram or carrier's premises 1000 17. Termination of relation. — Changing cars or leaving train temporarily. — Persons transferring 1004- 18. Termination of relation by failing to alight at destination.. 1008 19. Termination of relation by failing to use way provided for departing from premises 1009 20. Leaving the vehicle of carrier 1011 21. After leaving vehicle of carrier 1012 22. Stop-overs on continuous passage tickets 1014 23. Who are not passengers 1016 24. Limited and unlimited tickets 1024 25. Nontransferable tickets 1028 26. Persons riding gratuitously generally 1030 27. Persons riding on passes 1032 28. Persons riding on drover's pass. — Shippers and their agents accompanying shipment 1036 29. Persons riding on trains not generally used for passengers. 1039 30. Persons riding on engines 1042 31. Persons riding on hand cars 1044 32. Employes of others carried under contract with carrier... 1045 33. Employes of others carried under contract. — Mail clerks.. 1048 34. Employes of others carried under contract. — Express mes- sengers 1051 35. Persons riding on freight trains 1055 36. Persons accompanying passengers 1060 37. Employes of carrier as passengers 1062 38. Employes of carrier as passengers in elevators 1067 39. Rules and regulations of the carrier 1067 CHAPTER XXIII. Duties and Liabilities of Carriers of Passengers. Section 1. Care required of carrier in general 1079 2. Sufficiency and safety of means of transportation. — Rail- road tracks and roadbeds 1084 3. Sufficiency and safety of means of transportation. — Street railroads 1087 4. Sufficiency and safety of means of transportation. — Defects in street cars 1089 5. Sufficiency and safety of means of transportation. — Eleva- tors 1094 6. Obstructions on or near tracks 1097 TABLE OF CONTENTS. XT Page. Section 7. Obatructions on or near tracks. — Street railroads 1100 8. Duty of railroad company to fence tracks. — Duty to avoid collision with cattle 1103 9. Locomotives, cars, and appliances 1105 10. Locomotives, cars, and appliances. — Cars of other carriers. 1112 11. Improved appliances and methods 1113 12. Duty of inspection 1115 13. Liability for latent defects 1117 14. Negligence of persons engaged in construction or manu- facture 1119 15. Liability of carrier employing leased lines or using cars of another company 1120 16. Liability for injuries caused by inevitable accident 1122 17. Means and appliances for receiving and discharging pas- sengers 1124 18. Passengers carriers by stage coaches 1128 19. Carriers of passengers by water 1129 20. Carrier's liability as to employment of servants 1130 21. Duty to receive and transport passengers 1134 22. Persons who may be refused transportation 1139 23. When refusal to transport must be made 1144 24. Duty to carry passengers on freight and special trains 1144 25. Duty of carrier to protect passengers 1146 26. Acts and omissions of carrier's employes 1148 27. Who are employes 1151 28. The New York rule 1155 29. Acts of employes for which carrier is liable. — In general... 1156 30. Acts of employes for which carrier is liable. — Elevators... 1164 31. Carrier's liability for assaults by servants 1166 32. Liability for insult and abuse by servants 1175 33. Liability for expulsion by servants 1180 34. Liability for false arrest of passenger 1181 35. Liability for acts of fellow-passengers or other third per- sons ^185 36. Liability for assaults by passengers or other third persons. 1189 37. Indecent language and conduct of fellow-passengers or in- truders 1^^^ 38. Duty to protect from acts of drunken passengers 1193 39. Care required as to intoxicated persons 1195 40. Protection from accidental injuries 1198 41. Protection from incidental injuries.— ^In general 1200 42. Same subject. — Duty to protect passengers from falling or flying objects 1204 43. Same subject.— Injuries caused by opening or shutting door. 1207 44. Care of carrier in the carriage of passengers 1210 XVI TABLE OF CONTENTS. Page. Skctioii 45. Management of conveyance. — iSudden jerks and jolts 1220 46. Duty of carrier to announce stations tl'M 47. Duty of carrier to stop at stations 122(> 48. Warning of departure of trains 1230 49. Duty to provide sate means of ingress and egress J2;il 50. Reationable time for iiipress and egress 1231) 51. Duty to warn, instruct, or inform passengers 1241 52. Duty to assist intiim, aged, and helpless j)assengers 1245 53. Care as to persons under disability 1249 54. Care required as to children 1252 55. Duty to carry to point of destination 12.')4 56. Carrying passengers beyond deslination 125t> 57. Duty to carry promptly 1259 58. Safety of passengers 1261 59. Safety of passengers on freight and other trains 1264 60. Duty of carrier to provide passengers with seats 1265 61. Liability for injuries caused by collision 1267 62. Duty of carrier for safety of sick passengers 1270 63. Persons to whom carrier is liable 1274 64. Persons awaiting arrival of ^passengers or boarding trains to meet incoming passengers 1281 65. Persons accompanying passengers to station or on board cars or vessels 128:i 66. Persons on wrong train 1284 67. Passengers acting as employes 1285 68. Persons riding at invitation or by acquiescence of employes. 1287 CHAPTEE XXIV. Passenger's Baggage or Effects. Section 1. Articles constituting personal baggage 1290 2. Duty to carry baggage 1302 3. Liability of carrier for loss or injury 1306 4. Loss or injury of money or valuables 1311 5. Notice to carrier of nature and value of goods 1312 6. Liability of carrier for baggage generally ISlfi 7. Liability for loss or injury of merchandise other than per- sonal baggage 132(» 8. Loss or injury of property under control of passenger 1322 0. Proximate cause of loss or injury of baggage 1325 10. Loss or injury of baggage. — Contributory negligence of pas- senger 1326 11. Limitation of liability 1328 12. Limitation of liability. — Power to limit liability 1334 TABLE OF CONTENTS. XVU Page. Sbotiok 13. Mode and form of Imitation in general 1336 14. Provisions in ticket, check, or receipt 1338 15. Charges and lien for transportation of baggage 134:i 16. Baggage checks mere receipts or vouchers 1344 17. Commencement and termination of liability 1347 18. Carrier's liability as warehouseman 1352 19 Carrier's liability as warehouseman. — Liability before ship- ment • 1354 20. Carrier's liability as warehouseman. — Liability after reach- ing destination 13o5 21. Connecting carriers ^^'''^ 22. Liability of initial carrier 1365 23. Liability of final carrier 1368 24. Actions for loss of or injury to passenger's baggage 1370 25. Actions for loss of or injury to passenger's baggage.— Who may bring the action 1374 26. Same subject.— Evidence.— Burden of proof 1377 27. Same subject. — Damages 1383 28. Same subject.— Questions for jury.- Instructions 1386 CHAPTER XXV. Ejection of Passengees. anmOH 1 Ejection of passenger for failure or refusal to procure ticket or pay fare 1389 2 Passenger entitled to reasonable time to pay fare or procure ticket 1393 3. Extra fare when paid on train 1393 4. Tender or payment of fare to avoid ejection 1396 5. Ejection of intoxicated passengers 1401 6. Ejection of disorderly passengers 1407 7. Ejection for violation of reasonable rules of the carrier... 1408 8. Defective or invalid ticket 1*1* 9. Ejection of persons riding on freight trains 1423 10. Manner of ejection 14" 11. Place of ejection 12. Use of force and resistance.— Right to use necessary force. 1431 13. Use of force and resistance.— Excessive force 1433 14. Use of force and resistance.- Resistance 1435 16. Negligence in ejecting person under disability 1438 16. Ejection of intruders and trespassers , 1439 17. Repayment of fare or return of ticket 1442 18. Readmission after reject ion ^444 19. Proximate cause of injury 1446 iVlU TABLE OF CONTENTS. Page. VOLUMi; III. CHAPTER XXVI. Limitation of Cakrier's Liability. Section L Limitation of carrier's liability generally 1449 2. Essentials of contract limiting liability for negligence 1454 3. Limitation of liability for negligence 1457 4. The New York rule 1461 5. The English rule 1463 6. Limitation of liability for negligence as to particular classes of passengers 1464 CHAPTER XXVII. Presumptions and Burden of Proof. Section 1. Presumptions as to negligence from mere proof of injury.. 1474 2. Acts of servants or defects in instrumentalities of transpor- tation 1486 3. Breaking of machinery or instrumentalities, and defects therein 1490 4. Presumption arising from collisions 1494 5. Presumptions arising from derailment of train or car 1499 6. Presumption arising from defects in means of transporta- tion 1504 7. Presumption of negligence as to injuries to persons other than passengers 1507 8. Reasons for presumption of negligence 1511 9. Rebutting presumption 1512 10. Other presumptions 1513 11. Presumptions as to contributory negligence 1515 12. Presumption arising from instinct of self-preservation.... 1517 13. Presumption and burden of proof where injury is caused by sudden jerks, or sudden or premature starting of the car. 1520 14. Presumption where person injured is passenger on freight train 1526 15. Where injuries are caused by explosion or electric shock. . . 1527 16. Injuries to passenger in elevator 1529 17. Presumption as to carrier's knowledge of violation of its rules 1531 18. Statutory regulations 1531 TABLE OF CONTENTS. XIX Page. Section 19. The burden of proving negligence 1533 20. The burden of proof as to contributory negligence 1541 21. Presumptions and burden of proof as to contributory negli- gence 1547 22. Presumptions and burden of proof in actions for assault. . . 1550 CHAPTER XXVIII. Evidence. Section 1. Authority, competency, and negligence of servants 1552 2. Condition of means of transportation 1553 3. Evidence of other and similar accidents 1555 4. Subsequent repairs and precautions 1556 5. Custom or habit of carrier or passenger 1557 6. Tickets as evidence of contract for transportation 1558 7. Declarations and admissions of injured passengers 1559 8. Declarations and admissions of employes 1562 9. Declarations and conduct of other persons 1564 CHAPTER XXIX. CONTEIBUTOKY iN^EGIilGENCE. Section 1. Contributory negligence must be proximate cause of injury. 1567 2. Acts in disregard of warning or disobedience of carrier's rules 1^^^ 3. Acts by permission or direction of carrier's employes 1575 4. Sudden peril. — Acts in emergencies. 1580 5. Contributory negligence of children 1587 6. Contributory negligence of aged or infirm persons 1591 7. Contributory negligence of parents, guardians, or custo- dians 1^^^ 8. Intoxication as evidence of contributory negligence 1595 9. Contributory negligence as a question of law or fact 1597 10. Traveling in violation of statute not contributory negli- gence 1^^^ 11. Awaiting and seeking transportation 1600 12. Entering conveyance 1^07 13. Entering conveyance. — Elevators. . . 1612 14. Boarding train or car in motion 1612 15. Place of entering cars or train 1624 16. Riding in dangerous position 1626 17. Standing in car 1631 18. Riding on platform, steps, or running board 1637 Xs TABLE OF CONTENTS. Page. Section 10. Ridinjr with part of poraou projecting from window lGr)5 20. Riding in elevator lOSH 21. Persons aiToiupanying live stock. IGOD 22. Changing position 165ft 23. Pa^ssing from one car to another KiGl 24. Leaving tonvoyance lUt)4 25. Preparing to leave conveyance before it stops lUfiS 26. Alighting at place otlier than station or platform 1670 27. Alighting at wrong end or part of ear, or on wrong side of train 1670 2S. Alighting at improper ])lace or in improper manner 1671 29. Aligliting from train or ears in motion 1675 30. Alighting from moving tar on failure to stop at station... 1685 31. Alighting from moving car on failure to stop for sufficient time 1686 32. Defective or unlighted platform 1687 33. Leaving premises by improper course 1687 34. Standing near or between tracks and crossing intervening tracks 1688 35. Crossing other tracks 1693 36. Negligence as to incidental dangers 1695 37. Injury avoidable by care on part of carrier 1697 38. Willful injury by carrier's employes 1700 CHAPTER XXX. Damages. Section 1. Compensation is the general rule as to measure of dam- ages 1701 2. Injury aggravated by passenger's negligence or imprudence. 1704 3. Injury aggravated by existing disease or injury 1705 4. Damages for failure to carry 1707 5. Damages for setting down passenger at place other than destination 1709 6. Damages for ejection or assault of passenger 1710 7. Damages for personal injuries 1714 8. Mental suffering as distinct cause of action or element of damage 1718 9. Exemplary damages. — Malice or willfulness 1719 10. Exemplary damages. — Cross negligence 1722 11. Exemplary damages for carrier's acts 1723 12. Exemplary damages for acts of servants 1724 13. Elements affecting the amount of damages 1726 ? 14. Excessive or inadequate damages 1728 TABLE OF CONTEi^TS. XiL Pa«e. CHAPTER XXXL Inteestate and Inteenatiowal Tbanspoktation — What Con- stitutes Commerce — Federal Regulation. SBCmON 1. Commerce defined 1730 2. The commerce clause in the Constitution. — What is inter- state commerce 1732 3. Commerce as including intercourse 1735 4. Commerce with foreign nations 1737 6. Commerce among the several States 1737 6. Historical comment 1739 7. Commencement of Federal regulation 1745 8. The Railroad Act of 1866 174!> 9. The Granger Cases 1752 10. The Interstate Commerce Act 1754 CHAPTER XXXII. Interstate and International Transportation. Section 1. Regulation of interstate transportation 1758 2. The Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 1759 3. The Railroad Rate Act of 1906 17«3 4. The Mann-Elkins Act of 1910 1770 5. The purpose, scope, and effect of the acts 1771 6. Carriers subject to the acts 1775 7. Charges must be reasonable and just 1780 8. Unjust discrimination 1784 9. Unjust discrimination in specific cases 1789 10. Undue or unreasonable preference or advantage 1793 11. Undue preference in particular cases 1798 12. Preference and discrimination. — In general 1801 13. Wliat constitutes preference or discrimination 1806 14. Justification or defense 1812 15. Preference or discrimination by giving rebates 1814 16. Discrimination in car distribution 1818 17. No discrimination by demand of prepayment of charges. . . 1822 18. Equal facilities for interchange of traffic 1823 19. Charges for long and short hauls 1827 20. Schedules of rates, fares, and charges • • • 1832 21. Change of rates 1841 22. Charges in general 1^^2 23. Special rates ^^'^^ 24. Pooling of freights or dividing earnings 1848 25. Tnterniption nf eoTitiriuoiis Piirriag<' 1851 ^^ TABLE OF CONTENTS. Page. Section 26. Mileage, excursion, or commutation tickets 1853 27. Authority of Commission as to regulations or practices affecting rates. . . , 1854 28. Transportation of passengers 1857 2& The commodities clause. — Construction and constitution- ality 1859 30. Switching privileges. — Construction of the act 1866 31. Discrimination as to switch connections 1868 32. Power of the Commission to fix rates under amendments of 190G and 1910 1871 33. Carriage of particular articles 1874 34. Enforcement of the act. — Judicial proceedings to enforce regulations 1876 35. Contracts in violation of regulations 1882 36. Damages for violation of regulations 1886 37. The common law in interstate commerce 1891 38. Common law remedies of the State courts in interstate commerce 1893 39. Commerce Court created. — Jurisdiction and powers 1896 40. Commerce Court abolished.— Jurisdiction vested in it trans- ferred to and vested in the District Courts 1901 CHAPTER XXXIII. Liability of Initial Cakrieb fok Loss oe Damage on Con- necting Lines. — Limitation of Liability. Section 1. Liability of initial carrier for loss or injury under the Car- mack Amendment 1902 2. Constitutionality of the act 1909 3. Limitation of amount of liability to agreed value 1912 4. Limitation of liability.— In general 1918 5. The purpose and effect of the act 1920 6 Initial interstate carrier cannot limit its liability to its own line 1924 7. What law governs. — Jurisdiction of courts 1925 8. Application of the act generally 1927 CHAPTER XXXIV. Offenses. — Penalties fok Violation of Regulations. — In- dictments. — Under Interstate Commerce Act. Section 1. Offenses against the United States. — Nature and elements of crime 1929 2. Constitutionality of penal and criminal provisions 1930 3. Construction of the statute as a penal statute 1931 TABLE OF CONTENTS. Page. Section 4. Summary of the penal and criminal provisions of the stat- "^^ 1933 5. Rebates, discriminations, and concessions from tariff rates. 1940 6. Venue of prosecution for giving or receiving rebates and for false billing j942 7. Venue of prosecution for failure to file a rate schedule 1944 8. Offenses and counts. — Duplicity I945 9. Parties criminally liable. — Joinder of parties 1947 10. Criminal intent or knowledge 1950 11. Rebates from joint tariff. — Liability of carrier not publish- ing or filing the rate 1952 12. Judgment for giving rebates abated by death of the accused. 1955 13. Free passes as a preference or discrimination 1955 14. Transporting without a filed rate 1956 15. False billing, classification, weighing, false representation of contents of package, etc 1957 16. Conspiracies to commit crime I959 17. Offenses prosecuted by information I960 18. Indictments. . . . 1961 19. Indictment for rebating. — Evidence. — Variance. — Drawing of jury 1969 20. Limitation of prosecution 1972 21. Appeal. — Prejudical error. — Defective indictment 1972 22. Appeal. — Prejudicial error. — Instructions and submission to jury 1973 23. Hepburn Act prospective only. — ^Effect of repealing section. 1974 24. When act took effect. — Time when rate law took efi'ect 1976 25. Offenses 1976 26. Penalties for violation of regulations 1979 27. Penalties for violation of Federal 28-hour Law 1982 CHAPTER XXXV. Exemptions of Owners of Vessels from Liability. — The Harter Act and Other Statutes. Section 1. Statutory exemptions from liability in general 1986 2. Statutory exemption from liability by diligence of owner as to vessel. — In general I993 3. Statutory exemption from liability by diligence of owner as to vessel. — Seaworthiness, manning, equipment and supplies 1996 4. Statutory exemption from liability by diligence of owner as to vessel. — Causes of loss or injury 2003 5. Limitation of liability by contract or bill of lading. — In general 2010 xxiv TABLE OF CONTENTS. Page. Section 6. Limitation of liability by contract or bill of lading. — Ex- emption from particular risks or causes of loss. — In gen- ^ri»l 2016 7. Limitiition of liability by contract or bill of lading. — Ex- emption from particular risks or causes of loss. — Man ner of loading or stowage 2022 8. Limitiition of liability by contra, t or bill of lading. — E.\- emption from particular risks or causes of loss. — Perils of the sea 2025 9. Limitation of liability by contract or bill of lading. — Ex- emption from particular risks or causes of loss. — Unsea- worthiness, or defective equipment or apparatus 202S 10. Limitation of liability by contract or bill of lading. — Re- quirements as to notice and time to sue vessel 2032 11. Persons liable for loss or damage 2034 12. Carriage of passengers. — Personal injuries. — Limitation of liability 203(; 13. Carriage of passengers. — Passengers' baggage or effects. — Limitation of liability 2038 APPENDIX. Contents 2043-2048 The Act to Regulate Commerce (Revised to January 1, 1914) .... 2049-2098 District Court Jurisdiction Act 2099-2102 Compulsory Testimony Act 2103 Immunity of Witnesses Act 2104 Elkins Act 2105-2109 Expediting Act 2110-2111 Government-Aided Railroad and Telegraph Act 2112-2116 Lake Erie and Ohio River Ship Canal Act (Sec. 17) 2142-2143 Safety Appliances Acts 2117-2124 Accidents Reports Act 2127-2128 Arbitration Act 2132-2139 Hours of Service Act 2144-2146 Medal of Honor Act 2140-2142 Ash Pan Act 2147-2148 Transportation of Explosives Act 2149-2151 Boiler Inspection Act 21.54-2150 Block Signal Resolution 2125-2126 Coal and Oil Resolutions 2129-2131 Street Railways Act 21 52-2153 Act to Punish Larceny of freight, etc 2160-2161 Harter. Act 2162-2164 Parcel Post Act (Sec 8) 2165 Index to Appendix 2167 Index 2227 T^BLE OF CJ^SES. (The references are to the pages.) A. Aaron v. Adams Express Co., 27 Ohio L. J. 183—266. Aaronson v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 23 Misc. Rep. 666 — 411. Abbe V. Eaton, 51 N. Y, 410—272. Abbett V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 30 Minn. 482—1545. Abbey v. The Robert L. Stevens, 22 How. Pr. (N. Y.), 78—56. Abbot V. ToUiver, 71 Wis. 64—1727. Abbott Gin Co. v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 57 Tex. Civ. App. 263—170. Abbott V. Johnstow^n, etc., H. R. Co., 80 N. Y. 31—123, 1136. Abbott V. Oregon R. Co., 46 Ore. 549 —998. Abelson v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 84 Ark. 181—1574. Abilene &, S. Ry. Co. v. Burleson, (Tex. Civ. App.), 157 S. W. 1177— 1504. Abilene Cotton Oil Co. v. Texas & P. Ry. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 85 S. W. 1058—1879. Abraham v. Western Union Tel. Co., 23 Fed. Rep. 315—88. Abrams v. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co., 87 Wis. 485—463, 495, 806, 838, 1456. Abrams v. Piatt, 23 Misc. R. (N. Y.), 637—186. A Cargo of Hard Coal, 84 Fed. 495— 646. Acheson v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 61 N. Y. 653 — 139, 162. Ackerson v. Erie R. Co., 32 N. J. L. 2.54—1725. Ackley v. Kellogg, 8 Cow (N. Y.), 223—80. A. C. L. Haase & Sons Fish Co. v. Merchants' Despatch Transp. Co., 143 Mo. App. 42—328, 370, 424. Adams v. Blankenstein, 2 Cal. 413 — 207. Adams v. Chicago, etc., R. Co. (Iowa), 135 N. W. 21—1406, 1427, 1441. Adams v. Clark, 9 Cush. (Mass.), 215 —651. Adams v. Colorado & S. Ry. Co., 49 Colo. 475—880, 883, 884, 897, 901. Adams v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 74 Mo. 553—1564, 1580. Adams v. Lancashire, etc., R. Co., L. R. 4 C. P. 739—1584. Adams v. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co., 87 Wis. 485—1457. Adams v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 100 Mo. 555—1232. Adams v. Xashvllle, 95 U. S. 19 — 389. Adams v. New Orleans Tow-Boat Co., 11 La. 46—75. Adams v. O'Connor, 100 Mass. 515 — 637. Adams v. Scott, 104 Mass, 164—37. 328, 331, 332. Adams v. St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 137 S. W. 437— 1271, 1480. Adams v. Union Ry. Co., 80 N. Y. Supp. 264—1486. Adams v. Washington & G. R. Co., 9 App. D. C. 26—1223, 1476, 1489, 1639. Adams Express Co. v. Berrv & Whit- more Co., 35 App. D. C. '208— 512. Adams Express Co. v. Bratton, 106 111. App. 563—427, 905. Adams Express Co. v. Byers, 95 N. E. 518—507. Adams Express Co. v. Carnahan, 29 Ind. App. 606, 63 N. E. 245—430. 440, 471, 493. 521. Adams Express Co. v. Chamberlin- Johnsori-Du Bose Co., 138 Ga. 455 — 474, 512. Adams Express Co. v. Cressop, 6 Bush (Ky.), 572—7. Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U. S. 491—500. .502, 1912, 1913, 1914, 1915. Adams Express Co. v. Darnell, 31 Ind. 20—7, 26, 198, 254, 264. Adams Express Co. v. Fendrick, 38 Ind. 150—455, 1458. Adams Express Co. v. Green, 112 Va. 527—516. Adams Express Co. v. Guthrie, 9 Bush (Ky.), 78—455. Adams Express Co. v. Harris, 120 Ind. 73—455, 493, 647, 651, 675, 772. (xxv) XXVI TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pages.) Adams Express Co. v. Haynes, 42 111. 89 — 433, 1452, 1455, 1400. Adams Express Co. v. Hibbard, 145 Ky. SIS— 347. Adains Express Co. v. Hoeing, 88 Ky. 373—494. Adams Express Co. v. Holmes (Pa.), 9 Atl. 1G6— 495, 570. Adams Express Co. v. Holmes (Pa.), 8 Cent. Kep. 155—1459. Adams Express Co. v. Jackson, 92 Tenn. 32G— 310, 364, 838. Adams Express Co. v. McConncll, 27 Kan. 23S — 260. Adams Express Co. v. McDonough, 6 Ohio Cir. Ct. Rep. 539—260. Adams Express Co. v. Mellichamp, 138 Ga. 443—474. Adams Express Co. v. MuUins, 212 U. S. 311—328. Adams Express Co. v. Nock, 2 Duv. (Ky.), 562—118, 429, 430, 438, 455, 1452. Adams Express Co. v. Reagan, 29 Ind. 21 — i55, 481, 482, 1450. Adams Express Co. v. Schlessinger, 75 Pa. St. 246—228. Adams Express Co. v. Scott, 113 Va. 1_824, 840, 879. Adams Express Co. v. Sharpless, 77 Pa. St. 516—458, 1456. Adams Express Co. v. Stettaners, 61 111. 184—425, 433, 455, 463, 493, 897. Adams Express Co. v. Walker, 26 Ky. Law Rep. 1025—891, 903. Adams Express Co. v. Williams (Ark.), 14 S. W. 40—356. Adams Express Co. v. Wilson, 81 111. 339—743. A. D. Blowers & Co. v. Canadian Pac. R. Co., 155 Fed. 935—277. Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. v. United States, 175 U. S. 211—1733, 1758. Adger v. Blue Ridge R. Co., 71 S. C. 213—1368. Aetna Ins. Co. v. Wheeler, 49 N. Y. 616—354, 472, 759, 765, 767, 771, 774. Aetna Ins. Co. v. Wheeler, 5 Lans. (N. Y.), 480—241. Aetna Nat. Bank v. Water Power Co., 58 Mo. App. 532—191. Agnew V. Steamer Contra Costa, 27 Cal. 425—33, 574, 821. A. G. Russell Co. v. Miller, 98 Mias. 185—132. Ahern v. Minneapolis St. R. Co., 102 Minn. 435—949. Ahlbock V. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., 39 Minn. 424—1345. Aigen v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 132 Mass. 423—739, 746, 749, 778, 781. Aiken v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 68 Iowa 363—189, 788. Aiken v. Southern Pac. Co., 104 La. 162—1117. Aiken v. Wabash R. Co., 80 Mo. App. 8—1340, 1366. Aiken v. Western Union Tel. Co., 69 Iowa 31—87. Aiken v. Western Union Tel. Co., 5 S. C. 358—88. Aikin v. Frankford, etc., R. Co., 142 Pa. St. 47—1646. Airey v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 50 La. Ann. 648 — 69. A. J. Tower Co. v. Southern Pac. Co., 195 Mass. 157—2023. Akerson v. Erie R. Co., 32 N. J. L. 254—1723. Alabama & V. R. Co. v. Beardslev, 79 Miss. 417—992. Alabama & V. Ry. Co. v. Hayne, 76 Miss. 538—361. Alabama & V. R. Co. v. Livingston, 84 Miss. 1—966. Alabama City, etc., R. Co. v. Brady, 160 Ala. 615—614. Alabama City, etc., R. Co. v. Cox — 629, 1000. Alabama City, etc., R. Co. v. Sampley (Ala.), 53 So. 142—1172. Alabama City G. & A. R. Co. v. Ven- tress (Ala.), 54 So. 652—1548. Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. Arnold, 84 Ala. 159—1236. Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. Arnold, 80 Ala. 600—1704, 1723. Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. Beardsley, 79 Miss. 417—1267. Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. Brichetto, 72 Miss. 891—240, 363, 369. Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. Grabfelder, 83 Ala. 200—384. Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. Guilford, 119 Ga. 523—1114. Alabama, etc.. R. Co. v. Hawk. 72 Ala. 112—1572, 1563, 1638. TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pages.) XXVil Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. Hill, 93 Ala. 514—1215, 1501, 1554, 1723, 1724. Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. Kidd, 35 Ala. 209—198, 204, 384, 405. Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. Little, 71 Ala. 611 — 454, 492, 570, 572, 576, 1451. Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. Moorer, 116 Ala. 642—549. Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. Mt. Vernon Co., 84 Ala. 173—84, 376, 743, 774. Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. Pouncey (Ala.), 61 So. 601—1180. Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. Purnell, 69 Miss. 652—1722. Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. Sampley, 169 Ala. 372—1175. Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. Searles, 71 Miss. 744—151, 585. Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. Sparks, 71 Miss. 757—819, 838. Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. Stacy, 68 Miss. 463—1125. Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. Thomas, 89 Ala. 294—454, 728, 730, 743, 752, 908. Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. Thomas, 83 Ala. 343 — 454, 756, 766, 896. Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. Yarbrough, 83 Ala. 238—987, 1057. Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Arnold, 80 Ala. 600—1704, 1723. Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Coggins, 88 Fed. 455—959, 1605, 1690. Alabama G. S. R. Co. v, Eichoofer, 100 Ala. 224—204. Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Elliott & Son, 150 Ala. 381—322. Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Frazier, 93 Ala. 45—1562. Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Gewin & Son, 5 Ala. App. 584—833. Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Gilbert (Ala. App.), 60 So. 542—1540, 1652. Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Godfrey, 156 Ala. 202—1236. Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Hawk, 72 Ala. 112—1503, 1572, 1638. Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Hill, 93 Ala. 514—1215, 1554, 1723, 1724. Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Jones, 71 Ala. 487—1107. Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Little, 71 Ala. 611—454, 492, 570, 572, 576, 1451. Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. McCleskey, 160 Ala. 630—511. Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Mt. Vernon Co., 84 Ala. 173—84, 376, 743, 774. Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Quarles & Conturie, 145 Ala. 436—309. Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Seller, 93 Ala. 9—1256, 1709, 1710, 1720, 1722. Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Thomas, 89 Ala. 294 — 454, 728, 730, 743, 752, 908. Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Thomas, 83 Ala. 343—454, 756, 766, 896. Alabama Midland Ry. Co. v. Darby, 119 Ala. 531—280. Alabama Midland R. Co. v. Guilford, 119 Ga. 523—954, 1086, 1105, 1211. Alabama Nat. Bank v. Mobile, etc., R. Co., 42 Mo. App. 284—221. Alair v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 53 Minn. 160^94, 889. Albin V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 103 Mo. App. 308—980, 1059. Albion V. Hetrick, 90 Ind. 545—1269. Albion Lumber Co. v. De Nobra, 72 Fed. 739—87, 944, 1500, 1065. Albrecht v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 10 Kv. Law Rep. 449—597. Albright v. Penn, 14 Tex. 290—59. Alcorn v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 108 Mo. 81—410. Alden v. Carver, 13 Iowa 253 — 625, 636. Alden v. New York Cent. R. Co., 26 N. Y. 102—1106, 1114, 1117, 1505. Alden v. Pearson, 3 Gray (Mass.) 342—291, 570. Alderman v. Eastern R. Co., 115 Mass. 233—223, 227. Aldrich v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 100 Mass. 31 — 410, 411. Aldrich v. Southern Rv. Co. (S. C.) 79 S. E. 316—1814, 1891. Aldrick v. St. Louis Trans. Co. (Mo. App.), 74 S. W. 141—1081. Aldridge v. Great Western R. Co., 15 C. B. N. S. 582—9, 465, 768, 1464. Alexander v. Green, 7 Hill (N. Y.) 533—19, 461, 462, 518. Alexander v. Green, 3 Hill (N. Y.) 9 —14, 56. Alexander v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 83 Ky. 589—1131. Alexander v. New Orleans R., etc. Co., 129 La. 959—1175. IXVlll TABLE OF OASES. (The references are to the pages.) Alexander v. Pejiiisvlvania 11. Co., 7 Pa. Super. Ct. lS;i— 918. Alexander v. Toronto, etc., R. Co., 35 U. C. Q. B. 453—1454. Alexander v. Toronto, etc., R. Co., 33 U. C. Q. B. 474—1456. Alexandria Bay S. Co. v. New York Cent., etc., r'. Co., 18 App. Div. (N. Y.) 527-1128. Alexandria, etc., R. Co. v. Brown, 17 Wall. (U. S.) 445—1143. Alexandria, etc., R. Co. v. Herndon, 87 Va. 193—1125. 1557. Alford V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 771—1825. Alford V. Home, 3 Stark. 136—463. A. L. Hasse & Sons Fish Co. v. Mer- chants' Despatch Transp. Co., 143 Mo. App. 42—328, 370, 424. Alkali Co. v. Jackson, L. R. 7 Exch. 267—73. Allam V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 183 Pa. 104 — 205, 381, 399. Allam V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 3 Pa. Super. Ct. 33.5—1475. Allan V. State Steamship Co., 132 N. Y. 91—1133. Allday v. Great Western R. Co., 5 B. & S. 903-806. Allen V. Camden, etc.. Ferry Co., 46 N. J. L. 198—1711. Allen V. Cape Fear, etc., R. Co., 100 N. C. 397—163. Allen V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 82 Neb. 726 — 796. Allen V. Coltart, 11 Q. B. Div. 782— 525. Allen V. Galveston City R. Co., 79 Tex. 631—1237. Allen V. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co., 57 Ohio St. 79—1146. Allen V. London & S. W. R. Co., L. R. 6 Q. B. 65—1184. Allen V. Northern Pac. R. Co., 35 Wash. 221—1479. Allen V. Sackrider, 37 N. Y. 341—1, 4, 11, 13, 19, 21, 22, 72. Allen V. Sewall, 6 Wend. (N. Y.) 335 —75. AUen V. Sewall, 2 Wend. (N. Y.) 327 —29, 75, 108, 109, 163, 526, 957, 1030. Allen V. Texas * P. Ry. Co., 100 Tex. 52.5—143. 148. Allen V. Willard, 57 Pa. St. 374— 1533. Allen V. Williams, 12 Pick, (Maes.) 297—227, 232. Allen 3a (Tenn.) 304—155, 7^5 Baker v. Maher, Howell (Mich. N. P.), 39—39. Baker v. Manhattan R. Co., 118 N. Y. 53.3— 1G33. Baker v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 34 Mo. App. 98 — 1458. Baker v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co., 145 Mo. App. 189—788, 899. Bakor v. St. Ix>uis & S. F. R. Co., (Mo. App.), 129 S. W. 436—366. Baker & Penniston v. Chicago, etc., R. Co. (Minn.), 97 N. W. OoJ— 536. Baldraff v. Camden, etc., R. Co., 2 Fed. Cas. 507—1330. Baldwin v. American Exp. Co., 23 111. 197—39, 202, 253, 743. Baldwin v. Collins, 9 Rob. (La.) 468 —427, 455, 527. Baldwin v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 64 X. H. 596—1429. Baldwin v. Grand Trunk Ry., 128 Mich. 417—966. Baldwin v. Great Northern R. Co., 81 Minn. 247 — 371. Baldwin v. Liverpool, etc.. Steam- ship Co., 74 N. Y. 125—522, 525, 527, 712. Baldwin v. London, etc., R. Co., 9 Q. B. Div. 582—555, 594, 606. Baldwin v. People's Ry. Co., 7 Penn. (Del.) 81—1131. Baldwin v. United States Tel. Co., 45 X. Y. 744—89, 92. Baldwin Sheep & Land Co. v. Colum- bia Southern Ry. Co., 58 Or. 285— 725, 1779, 1885. Ball V. Xew Jersey Steamboat Co., 1 Daly (N. Y.), 491—179. Ball V. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 83 Mo. 574 — 457, 837, 896, 904, 1458. Ballentin© v. North Missouri, 40 Mo. 491-136, 312, 355, 365, 606, 788, 838. Ballou V. Earle, 17 R. L 441 — 430, 432, 494, 1459. Ballou V. Farnum, 9 Allen (Mass.), 47—46, 48. Baltimore & C. R. Co. v. Hill, 104 :\Id. 295—602. Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Barger, 80 Md. 23—1171. Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Dever, 112 IMd. 296—825. Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Diamond Coal Co., 61 Ohio St. 242—711. Baltimore & 0. R. Co. v. Duke 38 App. D. C. 164—1470. Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Fisher (Com. PI.), 3 Oliio N. P. 122— 695. Baltimore & 0. R. Co. v. Grav's Ferry Abattoir Co., 27 Pa. Super. Ct. 511— G02. 695. Baltimore & 0. R Co. v. Griffith, 159 U. S. 60.3—1517. iXWl TABLE OF CASES. (Tlie reicieucca arc to the pages.) Baltimore &i O. R. Co. v. llaiiibuig. r, lo5 Fed. 841) — 1840. lialtimore &, O. R. Co. v. llubbai'd, 25 Ohio C. C. 477—586. Jialtimore & O. R. Co. v. Kaue (Md.), 13 AU. 387—11)15. Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. La Due, 128 App. Div. 5'Ji, 108 N. Y. Supp. 659 — 681, 1846, 1847, 1879, 1882, 1886. Baltimore k 0. R. Co. v. Leapley, 65 Md. 571—1272. Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Oriental Oil Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), HI S. W. 979—508. Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Samuel, 48 Pa. Super. Ct. 274—694. Baltimore 6c. O. R. Co. v. State, 72 Md. 36—1049. Baltimore &, O. R. Co. v. State, 60 Md. 449—961, 1007. Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Thornton, 188 Fed. 868 — 1416. Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. United StaU>s, 200 Fed. 779—1818. Baltimore &, 0. R. Co. v. United States, 165 Fed. 113—1818. Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Whitehill, 104 Md. 295—789, 840, 864. Baltimore & 0. R. Co. v. Wilkens, 44 Md. 11—229. Baltimore &, O. S. W. Ry. Co. v. New Albany Box & B. Co., 48 Ind. App. 647 — 683. Baltimore City Pass. Ry. Co. v. Baer, 90 Md. 97—1238. Baltimore City Pass. R. Co. v. Kemp, 61 Md. 74 — 1706, 1718. Baltimore City Pass. R. Co. v. Mc- Donnell, 43 Md. 534 — 1588, 1589. Baltimore City Pass. R. Co. v. Nugent, 86 Md. 349 — 1215. Baltimore City Pass. R. Co. v. Wil- kinson, 30 Md. 224 — 1071. Baltimore, etc.. Express Co. v. C\>oper, 66 Miss. 558 — 484. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. I'.anibrey fPa.), 16 Atl. 67—1417, 1418. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Barger, 80 Md. 23, 30—949, 1170. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Blocher, 27 Md. 277—1071, 1148, 1175, 1725. Baltimore, etc.. R. Co. v. Brady, 32 Md. 333—427, 432, 456, 578, 1450, 1453, 1456, 1458, 1460. Baltimore, etc.. R. Co. v. Breinig, 25 Md. 378—946, 1212, 1681. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Campbell, 36 Oiiio St. 647—744, 1333, 1361, 1452, M58. Baltimore, elc., R. Co. v. Oarr. 71 Md. 135—1069, 1071, 1702, 1707. 1708, 1719, 1727. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Caaoii, 72 Md. 377—1489. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. y. Clift, 142 Ky. 573—792, 822. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Cox, 66 Uiiio St. 276—548. Bal'timore, etc., R. Co. v. Davis, 44 Ind. App. 375 — 1177. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Davis (Pa.), 12 Atl. 335—328, Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Diamond Coal Co., 61 Ohio St. 242 — 160. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Evans, 169 Ind. 410—1421. Baltimore, etc., R. C^. v. Fox, 113 111. App. 180—785, 873, 904. Baltimore, etc., R Co. v. Green, 25 Md. 72—256, 385, 755. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Hubbard, 25 Oliio Cir. Ot. Rep. 477 — 882, 887, 894, 896. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Kane, 69 Md. 11—1243, 1552, 1614. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Kane (Md.), 17 Atl. 1032—1229. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Keedy, 75 Md. 320—338. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Klift, 142 Ky. 573—911. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Leapley, 65 Md. 571—1243, 1673. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. McCkrney, 12 Ohio C. C. 543—1054. Baltimore, etc., R. Go. v. McDonald, 68 Ind. 316 — 1407. Baltimore, etc., R. 'Co. v. McLauah- lin, 73 Fed. 519—1457. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Morehead, 5 W. Va. 293—338. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. New Al- bany Box, etc., Co., 48 Ind. App 647—669, 1836, 1885. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Noell, 32 Gratt (Va.), 394^1082, 1301 1504. Baltimore, etc., R. Oo. v. Norris 17 Ind. App. 189 — 1426. Baltimore. ot01. Baltimore, etc., Steamboat Co. v. Brown, 54 Pa. St. 77—740, 755. Bfiltimore. etc.. Turnpike Road v. Boone, 45 Md. 344—1711. Baltimore, etc.. Turnpike Rood v. CB.son, 72 Md. 377—1477. Baltimore, etc., Turnpike Road v, Leonhardt, 66 Md. 70—1101, 1212, 1572, 1598. Baltimore, Railway Oo. v. Bennett, 50 Fed. 496—1415. Baltimore Sti am Packet Co. v. Smith, 23 Md. 402—1293, 1363, 1377. Baltimore Tract. Co. y. State, Ring- gold, 78 Md. 409—1018, 1249. Bamberg v. International Ry. Oo., 53 Misc. R. (N. Y.) 403—1497. Bamberg t. South Carolina R. Oo., 9 S. O. 61—33, 591, 822. Bamberger v. Schoolfield, 100 U. S. 149—1735. Bancroft v. Boston, etc., R. Corp., 97 Mass. 275—1607, 1689. Bancroft v. Merchants' Despatch Transp. Co., 47 Iowa, 262—53, 772, 775. Bank v. Ohamplain Transp. Oo., 23 Vt. 186—109. Bank v. Champlain Transp. Co., 16 Vt. 52—207. Bank v. CJiicago, etc., R. Co., 153 App. Div. 469—802. Bankard v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 34 Md. 197—456, 576, 907. Bank of Batavia v. New York, etc., R. Co., 106 N. Y. 195—218, 228. Bank of Columbia v. Lawrence 1 Pet. (U. S.) 578—85. Bank of Commerce v. Bissell, 72 N. Y. 615—220. Bank of Kentucky v. Adams J^xp. Co., 93 U. S. (3 Otto) 174 — 39. 40, 41, 418, 1912. Bank of Orange v. Brown, 3 Wend. (N. Y.) 158, 161—19, 1030. Bank of Oswego v. Doyle, 91 N. Y. 42—414. Bank of Rochester v. Jones, 4 N. Y. 497-213, 232, 233. Banner Grain Co. v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 119 Minn. 68—705. Bansemer v. Toledo, etc., R. Co., 25 Ind. 434—26, 2.k">, 257. 381, 413. Barasch v. Richards, 113 N. Y. Supp. 100.5—82. Barber v. Broadway, etc., R. Co., 10 Misc. R. (N. Y.) 109 — 1020. Barber v. Broadway, etc., R. Co., 9 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 20—1560. XXXV 111 TABLE Oi<" CASEy. (The references are to the pages.) Barber v. Chicngo, etc., Ry. Co., 86 Kiui. 277 — 14 to. Barber v. Collin, 31 Barb. (N. Y.) 55l>— 1014, lUi!5. Barber v. Meyerstein L. R., 4 H. L. 317—221. Barbour v. Soutb Eastern R. Co., 34 L. T. N. S. U7— 555. Barclay v. CurvuUa of Gana, 3 Doug. 369—324. Barclay v. Southern Ry. Co. (Ala. App.), 60 So. 479— 2U0, 384. Bard V. Penns\lvania Tract. Co., 7G P'a. St. 97—1616. Bardtn v. Bos ion, etc., R. Co., 121 iiass. 426—1631, 1633. Barden & Swarthout v. Lehigh Val- ley R. Co., 12 I. C. C. Rep. 193— 1S6S. Bardwell v. Mobile, etc., R. Co., C3 Miss. 574—1577, 16S0. Bare v. Amer.can Forwarding Co., 146 111. App. 338— S2, 762. Barker v. C^utral Park, etc., R. Co., 151 N. Y. 237—1273. Baiker v. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co., 243 Id. 482—1276. Barker v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 149 111. App. 520—1049, 1497. Barker v. Dinsmore, 72 Pa. St. 427— 210. Barker v. Havens, 17 Johns (N. Y.), 243—625. Barker v. New York Cent. R. Co., 24 N. Y. 599—1243. Barker v. Oliio River R. Co., 51 W. Va. 423—1602. BarksduU v. New Orleans & C. R. Cb., 23 La. Am. 180-1591. Barlick v. Baltimore & 0. R. Co., 41 Pa. Super. Ct. 87—1536. Barnard v. Kobbe, 54 N. Y. 516— 328. Barnard v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 60 Md. 555—1476. Barnes v. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co., 167 Mo. App. 62—1377. Barnes v. Danville St. Rv., etc., Co., 235 111. 506—1480. 1497, 1573. Barnes v. Marshall, 83 E. C. L. 785— 132, 133. Barnett v. London, etc., R. Co., 5 H. & N. 604—453. Barnev v. RTirnstenhindor, 64 Barb. (N. Y.) 212—563, 564. Harney v. Oyster Bay S. B. Co., 67 N. Y. 301—1127, 1136, 1142, 1409. Barney v. Prentiss, 4 liar. & J. 317 — 420, 1452. Bainham v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 63 Me. 298—1444. Barre v. Railway Co., 155 Pa. 170— 1590. Barrett v. Great Northern R. Co., 87 E. C. L. 423—150. Barrott v. Indianapolis, etc., R. Co., 9 iMo. App. 226—779. Barrett v. Third Ave. R. Co., 45 N. Y. 628 — 1211, 1269. Barrett v. Salter, 10 Rob, (La.) 434 —170. Barron v. Eldredge, 100 Mass. 455 — 83, 84, 172, 376, 380. Barron v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 1 Biss. (U. S.) 453—1263. Barron v. Mobile & 0. R. Co., 2 Ala. App. 555—223. Barrott v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 51 Fed. 790—63, 65, 66. Barry v. Boston, etc., R. Ct)., 172 Mass. 109—1672. Barry v. Third Ave. R. Co., 51 App. Div. (N. Y.) 385—1184. Barry v. Union Ry. Co., 105 App. Div. (N. Y.) 520—1010, 1020. Barry v. Union Tract. Co., 194 Pa. St. 576—1221. Bartelt v. Oregon R., etc., Co., 57 Wash. 16—787, 937. Barter v. Wheelar, 49 N. H. 9 — 46, 47, 48, 180, 181, 377, 451, 457, 746, 778, 779, 13G0, 1450. Earth v. Houghton Co. St. R. Co. (Mich.), 93 N. W. 620, 9 Det. Leg. News, 595—1489. Barth v. Kansas Citv Elev. R. Co., 142 Mb. 535—975, "1238. Bartholomew v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 102 N. Y. 716—1633. Bartholomew v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 53 111. 227—198, 199, 259, 1353. Bartle v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 121 App. Div. 72—1671. Bartlett v. Carnley, 6 Duer. (N. Y.) 194—634. Bartlett v. New York, etc.. Ferry, etc., Co., 130 N. Y. 659—1627. Bartlett v. New York, etc., Transp. Co., 57 N. Y. Super. Ct. 348—113;], 1495, 1627. TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pages. XXXIX Bartlett v. New York, etc., Ferry, etc., Co., 8 X. Y. Supp. 3U9— 990. Bartlett v. Ortgon K., etc., Co., 57 Wash, 16—875. Bartlett v. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co., 94 Ind. 281—326, 3U9, 419, 493. Bartlett v. The Philadelphia, 32 Mo. 256—251. Bartlett t. Western Union Tel. Co., 62 Me. 209—88, 91. Eartley v. Georgia R. Co., 60 Ga. 182 —1114. Bartley v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 148 Mo. 124—1222, 1223, 1489. Bartram v. McKee, 1 Watts (Pa.), 39—163. Basnight v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., Ill N. C. 592—83, 84, 171, 376, 399, 411. Bass V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 42 Wis. 654 — 1563, 1724, 1725. Bass V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 39 Wis. 636—1149. Bass V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 36 Wis. 450—1069, 1070, 1071, 1149, 1266, 1410. Bass V. Cleveland etc., Ry. Co., 142 Mich. 177—997, 1009. Baas V. Concord St. R. Co. (X. H.), 46 Atl. 1056—1125. Bass V. Glover, 63 Ga. 745—219, 274. Bassett v. Connecticut River R. Co., 145 Mass. 129—380, 415. Bassett v. Los Angeles Tr. Co. (Cal.), 65 Pac. 470— 1488, 1489. Bassf-tt &, Stone v. Aberdeen Coal & Mining Co. (Ky.), 88 S. \Y. 318— 57. Bastard v. Bastard, 2 Show. 81 — 132. Bates V. Oliicago, etc., R. Co., 140 Wis. 235—1547. Bates V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 60 Wis. 298—332. Bates V. Old Colony R. Co., 147 Mass. 255 — 1450, 1465. Bates V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 715—1786. 1704. Bates V. F'.anton, 1 Duer (N. Y.), 79 —209, 328, 532. Betes V. W'eir, 105 N. Y. Supp. 785 — 510. Bates V. White, 13 St. R. (N. Y.) 602— CC2. Batson v. Donovan, 4 B. & Aid. 27 — 132, 523, 527. Battle V. Atkinson, 9 Ga. App. 488 — 680. Battle V. Columbia, etc., R. Co., 70 S. C. 329—1294, 1295, 1349. Batten V. South, etc., Alaoama R. Co., 77 Ala. 591—1193. Baugh V. McDcUiiel, 42 Ga. 641—755. Baughman v. Louisville etc., R. Co., 94 Ky. 150—494. Bauld v. Smith, 40 Nova Scotia, 294 —599. Baum V. Long Island R. Co., 58 Misc. (N. Y.) 34 — 252, 255, 474, 1335. Baum V. New York & Q. C. Ry. Co., 124 A.pp. Div. (N. Y.) 12—1492. Baumann v. New York, etc., R. Co., 35 Misc. R. (N. Y.) 223—601. Baumbach v. Gulf, etc., Ry. Co., 4 Tex. Civ. App. 650^260, 608, 663, 693. Baunj^tn.in v. New York C. R. Co., 56 Misc. R. (N. Y.) 498—1173, 1185. Bausemer v. Toledo & W. Ry. Co., 25 Ind. 434 — 251. Baxendale v. Bristol, etc., R. Co., 103 E. C. L. 787—158. Baxendale v. Eastern Counties R. Co., 93 E. C. L. 78—162. Baxendale v. Great Eastern R. Co., 10 B. & S. 212—435, 465. Baxendale v. London, etc., R. Co., L. R. 10 Exch. 35—745. Baxley v. Tallass?e, etc., R. Co. (Ala.), 29 So. 451—146. Baxter v. Dominion Tel. Co., 37 U. C. Q. B. 470—88. Baxter v. L;:land, 1 Abb. Adm. (U. S.) 348—553. Baxter v. Tx)uisville, etc., R. Co., 165 111. 78—021. Bay V. Cortland, etc., R. Co., 19 App. Div. (N. Y.) 530—1703. Bavles v. Diamond St. Omnibus Co., 173 Pa. St. 378-1563. Bavles v. Kansas, etc., R. Co., 13 Colo. 181—160, 181, 678. Bavlpv V. Manchester, etc., R. Co., 28 L. T. N. S. 366—1150, 1181. Bazin v. Steamship Co., 3 Wall. Jr. (C. C.) 229—588. Beach v. Canadian Pac. R. Co., 1 Manitoba, 158 — 728. Beacli V. Parmcter, 23 Pa. St. 197— 1122. TABLE 0¥ CASES. (The references are to the pages.) B^'ach V. Raritan, etc., U. Co., 37 N. Y. 468—53. Btacham v. Vorthsmoiith Bridge (N. H.), 40 Atl. 1066— IfiOO. Beal V. Soutii Devon R. Co., 3 H. & C. 341—337, 464. Bean v. Green. 12 Me. 422—1338. Bean v. Sturtemnt. 8 N. H. 146—38, 63, 186. Beard v. Conn. 4, Pass. R. Co., 48 Vt. 101—1126. Beard v. Illinois C. R. Co., 79 Iowa, 518—152, 749, 777. Beard v. Si. Louis, ete., R. Co., 79 Iowa, 527—152, 743. Beardslee v. Richardson, 11 Wend. (X. Y.) 25—5, 10, 532. Beardsley v. Minneapolis St. R. Co., 54 Minn. 504—1563. Beasley v. Baltimore & P. R. Co., 27 App. D. C. 595—249, 282, 640. BeaUi V. Rapid R. Co., 119 Mich. 512 —1560. Beattie v. Boston Elev. Ry. Co., 201 Mass. 3-1528. Beattv V. Central Iowa R. Co., 58 Iowa, 242—313. Beatty v. [Metropolitan West Side Elev. R. Co., 141 111. App. 92— 1522. Beauchanip v. International, etc., R. Co., 56 Tex. 239—1227. Eeaulien v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 103 Minn. 47—1385. Beaumont v. Canadian Pac. R. Co., 5 Montreal L. R. Superior Ct. 255 —768. Beaumont v. Philadelphia & Rv. Co., 38 Pa. Super. Ct. 224—205. Beaumont Traction Co. v. Happ (Tex. Civ. App.), 122 S. W. 610— 968, 1579. Beaver v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 20 Ont. App. 476—999. Beaver v. Pittsburg, etc.. R. Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 564—1787. Beck V. Evans, 16 East, 244—13, 34, 464. Bexik V. Quincv, etc., R. Co., 129 Mo. App. 7—1399, 1429, 1435. Becker v. Great Eastern R. Co., L, R. 5 Q. B. 241—1298. 1375. Becker v. Hallgarten, 86 N. Y. 167 — 199, 232. Becker v. Lincoln Real Estate, etc., Co., 174 Mo. 246—103. Backer v. Pennsylvania K. Co., 109 App. Div. (N. Y.) 230—408, 558. Becker v. Western Union Tel. Co., 11 Neb. 87-92. Beckford v. Crutwell, 5 C. & P. 242 —464. Becknian v. Shouse, 5 Rawle (Pa.), 179—12, 62, 63, 426, 428, 4.J8, 1451, 1453, 1460. Beckwith v. Cheshire R. Co., 143 Mass. 68^ — 1391. Beckwith v. Frisbie, 32 Vt. 559—54, 368, 373, 712. Beddle v. Oity Elec. R. Ck)., 112 Mich. 547—1560. Bedell v. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 94 Ga. 22—351. Bedford Bowling-Green Stone Co. v. Oman, 115 Ky. 369—710. Bedford Bowling-Green Stone Co., v. Oman, 24 Ky. Law Rep. 2274—116. Bedford Bowling-Green Stone Co. v. Oman. 134 Fed. 441—184. Bedford, etc., R. Co. v. IXainbolt, 99 Ind. 551—1082, 1478, 1501. Beebj v. Ayres, 28 Barb. (N. Y.) 275 —1014, 'l016. 1070, 1411. Beebe v. .lohnson, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 500—349. Beecher v. Long Island R. Co., 161 N. Y. 222—1609. Beekman v. Saratoga, etc., R. Co., 3 Paige (N. Y.), 45—1136. Beekman v. Southern Pac. Co., 39 Utah, 472—814. Beers v. Boston, etc., R. Co. (Conn.), 34 Atl. 541—1301. Beers v. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 34 Fed. 244—122, 733. Beeson v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 62 Iowa, 173 — 1138. Behrens v. The Furnessia, 35 Fed. 798—1261. Beidler v. Branahaw, 200 HI. 425 — 1626. 16.59. Beisiegel v. New York Cent. R. Co., 40 N. Y. 9—1728. Belcher v. Missouri, etc.. R. Co. of Texas, 92 Tex. 593—558. Belden v. Pullman Palace Car CJo. (Tex. Civ. App.), 43 S. W. 22—64. Belfa.st, etc., R. Co. v. Keys, 9, H. L. Oa.3. .556—543, 1300. TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pages.) xli Belger v. Dinsmore, 51 N. Y. 166 — 38, 430, 528. Bell V. Central Elec. Ry. Co., 125 Mo. App. 660 — 1525. Bell V. Dominion Tel. Co., 25 L. C. J. (Can.) 248—90. Bell V. Drew. 4 E. D. Sm. (X. Y.) 59—1300. Bell V. Incorporated Town of Clarion, 113 Iowa, 126—1519. Bell V. Mobile Light & R. Co., 146 Ala. 309 — 996. Bell V. Reed, 4 Binn (Pa.), 127—75, 574. Bell V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 6 Mo. App. 363—391. Bell V. Windsor, etc., R. Co., 24 Nova Scotia, 521—344. Belle City Mfg. Co. v. Frizzell, 149 Fed. 486—1738. Bellefontaine R. Co. v. Schneider, 24 Ohio St. 670—1520. Bellman v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co.. 42 Hun (X. Y.) 130—1012, 1286, 1673. Bellows V. Wabash R. Co., 118 Mo. App. 500—886. Belton Oil Co. v. Gulf, etc., Rv. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 92 S. W. 411— 668. Belt Ry. Co. v. Banicki, 102 111. App. 642—549, 1460. Belt Rv. of Chicago v. United States, 168 Fed. 542—1956. Benbow v. North Carolina R. Co., 61 N. C. (Phil. L.) 421—238, 241. Benedict v. Minneapols & St. P. R. Co., 86 Minn. 224—1642. Benjamin v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 245 Mo. 598—976, 981. Benner v. Equitable Safetv Ins. Co., 88 Mass. (6 Allen) 222—653. Benner Livery & U. Co. v. Busson, 58 111. App. 17—1030. Bennett v. American Express Co., 83 Me. 236—330, 333, 570. 1758. Bennett v. Byram, 38 Miss. 20 — 27, 243, 367. Bennett v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 151 Mo. App. 29.3-597, 865, 'Y.W. 940. Bennett v. Drew, 3 Bosw. (N. Y.) 355 — «14. Bpnnett v. Dutton, 10 X. H. 481— 427, 945, 948, 113ii. 1137, 1213. Bennett v. Filyaw, 1 Fla. 451, 453— 20, 75. Bennett v. Lycoming, etc., Ins. Co., 07 N. Y. 278—391. Bennett v. Manchester, etc., R. Co., 95 E. C. L. 707—150. Bennett v. New Jersey R., etc., Co., 36 X. J. L. 225—1269. Bennett v. Xew York, etc., R. Co., 57 Conn. 422—1601. Bennett v. Xorthern Pac. Express Co., 12 Ore. 49—212, 483. Bennett v. Peninsular, etc.. Steam- boat Co., 6 C. B. 785—944. Bennett v. Railroad Co., 7 Phila. (Pa.) 11—999. Bennett v. United States, 194 Fed. 630—1857. Bennett v. Virginia Transfer Co., 140 X. Y. Supp. 1055 — 473. Bennitt v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 46 Mo. App. 656—774, 775, 776. Benson v. Baltimore Traction Co., 77 Md. 535—958. Benson v. Gray, 154 Mass. 691 — 848. Benson v. New Jersey R., etc., Co., 9 Bosw. (N. Y.) 412—1259, 1705. Benson v. Oregon Short Line R. Co., 99 Pac. 1072 (Utah, 1909)— 72. Benson v. Tacoma R., etc., Co., 51 Wash. 216—1196, 1271. Benson v. Wilmington City Ry. Co., 1 Boyce (24 Del.), 202—1520, 1669. Berg v. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 30 Kan. 561 — 744, 766. Bergan v. Central Vermont R. Co., 82 Conn. 574—968. Bergeman v. Indiana, etc., Ry., 104 Mo. 86 — 1563. Bergen County Tract. Co. v. Demar- est, 62 N. J. L. 755—1500. Bergin v. Missouri, etc., Rv. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 150 S. W. 'll84 — 1807. Bergner v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 13 Mo. App. 499—381. Berje v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 37 La. Ann. 468—26, 119, 295, 342. Berkelliamer v. Johne, 113 N. Y. Supp. 921—1421. Bermel v. New York, etc., R. Co., 172 N. Y. 639—498, 505, 518. Bermel v. New York, etc.. R. Co., 62 App. Div. 389—505. 510. Bernard v. Adams Exp. Co., 205 Mass. 254, 259—1914, 1916. xlii TABLE OF CASES. (The roforences are to the pages.) Bernhardt v. Carolina & F. W. R. Co., 135 N. C. 258— 7 IG. Bernstein v. Weir, 40 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) C35 — 400. 545. Berry v. Carolina, etc., Ry. Co., 155 N. C. 2S7— 140S. Berrv v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 24 S. D.* 611—508, 795, 867, 879, 897. Berrv v. Cooper, 28 Ga. 543—576, 1458. Berry v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 156 Mo. App. 560—1523. Berrv v. Southern Ry. Co., 122 N. C. 1002-170, 174. Berry v. Utica Belt L. S. R. Co., 76 App. Div. (N. Y.), 490—1615. Berry v. Utica, etc., St. Ry. Co., 181 N. Y'. 198—1008. Berry v. West Virginia, etc., R. Co., 44 W. Va. 538—386, 391, 392. Berry Coal & Coke Co. v. Chicago, etc., Rv. Co., 116 Mo. App. 214— 626, 640, 687. Berthel v. Mellor & Rittenhouse Co., 131 Fed. 129—2024. Bertram v. McKee, 1 Watts (Pa.) 39—650. Besheer v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 151 Mo. App. 80—892. Bethea v. Northeastern R. Co., 26 S. C. 96 — 445. Bethman v. Old Colony R. Co., 155 Mass. 352—1667. Bettis V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 131 Iowa, 46—1426. Betts V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 150 Iowa, 252—891. Betts V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 92 Iowa, 343—793. Betts V. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 21 Wis. SO— 459, 804, 873, 928. Bevis V. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 26 Mo. App. 19—64, 68. B. F. Schwartz & Co. v. Erie R. Co., 32 Ky. Law Rep. 777—337. Bibb Broom Corn Co. v. Atchison, etc., Ry. Co., 94 Minn. 269—323, 349. Bibl'in v. McMullen, 2 P. C. 317—410. Bickford v. Metropolitan Steamship Co.. 109 Mass. 151 — 405. Biddle V. Bond, 6 B. & S. 224—209, 530, 533. Bigolow V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 104 Wis. 109—146, 153, 540. Bigolow V. lleaton, 4 Den. (N. Y.) 496—642, 644. Bigelow V. Maine Central R. Co. (Me.), 85 Atl. 396—69. Biggus V. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 141 N. Y. Supp. 827—1606. Bigiiold V. Waterhouse, 1 M. & S. 255—463. Big Sandy & C. R. Co. v. Blankenship, 133 Ky. 438—1587. BigwoodV. Boston & N. St. Ry. Co., 209 Mass. 345—1528. Bilsjer v. Dinsmore, 51 N. Y. 166 — 497, 524. Bills V. New York Cent, R. Co., 84 N. Y. 5—816. Bingemann v. International Ry. Co., 131 N. Y. Supp. 4—1072. Bingham v. Lamping, 26 Pa. St. 340 —206. Bingham v. Rogers, 6 W. & S. (Pa.) 495—428, 430, 458, 1453, 1460. Bingham v. San Pedro, etc., R. Co., 39 Utah, 400—893. Binns v. Pigot, 9 C. & P. 208—649. Bird V. Cromwell, 1 Mo. 81, 13 Am. Dec. 470—33, 336. Bird V. Georgia R. Co., 72 Ga. 655— 223, 271, 638, 639, 651, 753. Bird V. Great Northern R. Co., 28 L. J. Exch. 3—1501. Birkett v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 103 Mich. 361—93. Birkett v. Willan, 2 B. & Aid. 356— 456, 464. Birmingham v. Rochester City, etc., R. Co., 137 N. Y. 13—1082, 1118, 1120. Birmingham v. Rochester, etc., R. Co., 59 Hun (N. Y.) 583—1120, 1121. Birmingham & A. R. Co. v. Norris, 4 Ala. App. 363—976. Birmingham Ry., etc., Co. v. Ander- son, 163 Ala. 72—1685. Birmingham Ry., etc., Co. v. Ander- son (Ala. App.), 57 So. 103—1136. Birmingham Ry., etc., Co. v. Baird, 130 Ala. 350—1170. BirmJngham Ry., etc., Co. v. Baird, 130 Ala. 334—1150. Birmingham Ry., etc., Co. v. Barrett, (Ala.), 60 So. 262—1669. Birmingham Ry., etc., Co. v. Bynum, 139 Ala. 389—975, 1211. I TABLE OF CASES. xliii (The references are to the pages.) Birmingham Ry., etc., Co. v. Glenn (Ala.), 60 So. 111—1179. Birmingham Ry., etc., Co. v. Grant, 2 Ala. App. 552—1374. Birmingliam Ky., etc., Co. v. James, 121 Ala. 120—1221, 1640. Birmingham Ry., etc., Co. v. Jung (Ala.), 140 So. 434 — 1158. Birmingham Ry., etc., Co. v. Lan- drum, 153 Ala. 192—1695. Birmingham Rv., etc., Co. v, Lee, 153 Ala. 79—1400. Birmingham Ry., etc., Co. v. IMason (Ala.), 34 So. 270—1150, 1175. Birmingham Ry., etc., Co. v. Mayo (Ala.), 61 So. 289—1525. Birmingham Ry., etc., Co. v. Mc- Curdy, 172 Ala. 488—1537. Birmingham Ry., etc., Co. v. McDon- ough, 153 Ala. 122—1075, 1411. Birmingham Ry., etc., Co. v. Moore, 148 A.la. 115—1496. Birmingham Ry., etc., Co. v. Mullen, 138 Ala. 614—1170, 1171, 1392. Birmingham Ry., etc., Co. v. Nolan (Ala.), 32 So. 715—1721. Birmingham Ry., etc., Co. v. Parker, 161 Ala. 248—1177. Birmingham Ry., etc., Co. v. Sawyer, 156 Ala. 199—1062, 1484. Birmingham Rv., etc., Co. v. Seaborn, 168 Ala. 658—1004. Birmingliam, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, 90 Ala. 60—1237. Birmingham Ry., etc., Co. v. Stalling, 154 Ala. 527—1075, 1411. Birmingham Ry., etc., Co. v. Turner, 1.54 Ala. 542—1546. Birmingham Ry., etc., Co. v. Weld- man, 119 Ala. 547—1239. Birmingham Ry., etc., Co. v. Wise, 149 Ala. 492—979. Birmingham Ry., etc., Co. v. Yates, 169 Ala. 381—1660. Birmingham Ry., etc., Co. v. Yielding, 155 Ala. 359—1.396, 1433. Birmingham Union Ry. Co. v. Hale, 90 Ala. 8—1560. Birney v. New York and Washington Tel. Co., 18 Md. 341—88, 92. Birney v. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 20 INIo. App. 470-585. Bischoff V. Schultz, 5 N. Y. Super. Ct. 757—1534. Bishell V. Huntington, 2 N. H. 142— 531. Bishop V. St. Paul City R. Co., 48 Minn. 26—1114. Bishop V. Williamson, 11 Me. 495 — 85. Bissel V. Campbell, 54 N. Y. 353— 272. Bissell V. Michigan Southern, etc., R. Co., 22 N. Y. 259, 307—778, 973. Bissell V. New York Cent. R. Co., 25 N. Y. 442—31, 460, 468, 1030, 1119, 1120, 1331, 1449, 1451, 1455, 1461, 1462, 1467. Bissell V. New York Cent. R. Co., 29 Barb. (N. Y.) 602—1460. Bissel V. Price, 16 111. 408—638, 782. Black V. Ashley, 80 Mich. 90—385, 520, 767, 1990. Black V. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 82 S. C. 478—515, 1338, 1374, 1385. Plack V. Brooklyn City R. Co., 108 ' N. Y. 640—1238. Black V. Camden, etc., R. Co., 45 Bark. (N. Y.) 40—587, 592. Black V. Carrollton R. Co., 10 La. Ann. 33—1270. Black V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 30 Neb. 197_312, 815, 822, 838. Black V. Goodrich Transp. Co., 55 Wis. 319—463, 495, 571, 1460. Black V. New York, etc., R., 193 Mass. 448—1569. Black V. Third Ave. R. Co., 3 App. Div. (N. Y.) 629—1488. Black V. Wabash, etc., R. Co., Ill 111. 351—418, 433, 480, 880. Blackburn v. Chicago, R. I. & G. Ry. Co., 52 Tex. Civ. App. 443—539. Blackman v. West Jersey & S. R. Co. (N. J.), .52 Atl. 370—1563. Blackmer & Post Pipe Co. v. Mobile & 0. R. Co.. 137 Mo. App. 479— 290, 444, 1902. Blackmore v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 162 Mo. 455—1352. Blackmore v. Toronto St. R. Co., 38 U. C. Q. B. 172—958, 1019. Blackstock v. New York, etc., R. Co., 20 N. Y. 48—36. 136, 326, 365, 369. Blac'kwell v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 137 Mo. App. 654—1093. Blackwell v. O'Gorraan, 22 R. I. 638 —102, IGIO. xliv TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pages.) Blackwell Milling & Elevator Co. v. Western Union Telejiraph Co., 17 Okl. 376—03. Blaiu V. Canadian Pae. Ry. Co., 5 Ont. Law. Rep. 334— 11!H. Blair v. Erie K. Co., 66 N. Y. 313— 462, 1052, 1449, 1454, 1461, 1463, 1465. Blair v. Lewiston, etc., St. Ry. (Me.), 85 Atl. 792—1653. Blair v. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co., 20 Wis. 254—1104. Blair v. Philadclpliia Rapid T. Co., 36 Pa. Super. Ct. 319—946, 954. Blair & Jackson v. Wells, Fargo & Co. (Iowa), 135 N. W. 615—795, 853, 893, 911, 1838. Blaisdell v. Connecticut River R. Co., 145 Mass. 132—380, 415. Blaisdell v. Long Island R. Co., 136 N. Y. Supp. 768—1174, 1550. Blake v. Burlington, etc., R. Co., 78 Iowa, 57 — 1571. Blake v. Nicholson. 3 M. & S. 168— 16. Blakely v. Le Due, 19 Minn. 187 — 169, 945. Blakemore v. Lancashire, etc., R. Co., 1 F. & F. 76—345. Blakiston v. Davies, Turner & Co., 42 Pa. Super. Ct. 390—22. Blanchard v. Isaacs, 3 Barb. (N. Y.) 388—19, 63, 172, 186. Blanchard v. Page, 8 Gray (Mass.), 285—214, 670. Blanchard v. Windsor, etc., R. Co., 10 Nova Scotia, 8—1727. Blanchett v. Holyoke St. Ry. Co., 175 Mass. 51—1267. Bland v. Adams Express Co.. 1 Duv. (Ky.) 232—26, 324. Bland v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 65 Cal. 626—1440. Bland v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 55 Cal. 570—1398, 1443. Bland v. Womack, 2 Murph. (N. C.) 373—5, 10. Blank v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 182 111. 332—1464, 1465. Blank v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 80 111. App. 475 — 1055. Blankenship v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 160 Mo. App. 631—286, 892. Blanz V. Boston & A. R. Co., 157 Mass. 377—1434. Blatcher v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 31 App. D. C. 385—897, 912. Bleecker v. Colorado & S. Ry. Co., 50 Colo. 140—1176. Bleiwise v. Pennsylvania R. Co. (N. J.) 78 A. 1058—1110. Blew V. Philadelphia Rap. Transit Co., 227 Pa. 319—1499. Blin v. Mavo, 10 Vt. 56 — 199, 258. Blitch v. Central R. Co., 76 Ga. 333 —1226, 1637. Blitz v. Union Steamboat Co., 51 Mich. 558—1.34, 339. Bliven v. Ilud.son River R. Co., 36 N. Y. 403—37, 328, 329, 333, 340. Block v. Bannerman, 10 La. Ann. 1 — 1148, 1166, 1175, 1259. Block v. Fitchburg R. Co., 139 Mass. 308—767, 778, 779. Block V. Harlem, etc., R. Co., 28 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 495—1587. Block v. Milwaukee St. R. Co., 89 Wis. 371—1560. Blocker v. Whittenburg, 12 La. Ann. 410—36. Blodgett V. Abbot, 72 Wis. 516—354, 744. Blodgett v. Bartlett, 50 Ga. 353— 1244. Blomsness v. Puget Sound Elec. Ry.. 47 Wash. 620—963, 1007, 1149. Bloom V. Sioux City Traction Co., 148 Iowa, 452—1569. Bloomenthall v. Brainerd, 38 Vt. 402 —27, 46, 385, 392, 394, 427, 430. 459, 584, 599, 1529. Bloomingdale v. Memphis, etc., R. Co., 6 Lea (Tenn.) 618—234. Blossom V. Dodd, 43 N. Y. 264—30, 426, 433, 447, 1333. 1451. Blossom V. Griffin, 13 N. Y. (3 Kern) 569—81, 83, 170, 377, 761. Blower v. Great Western R. Co., L. R. 7 C. P. 655—793. Blum V. Monahan, 36 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 179 — 498, 569. Blum V. Southern Pullman Palace Car Co., 1 Flip. (U. S.) .500—63, 65, 1304. Blumantle v. Fitclihurg R. Co., 127 Mass. 322—1300, 1.301. Blumenthal v. Maine Cent. R. Co.. 79 Me. 550—1300, 1301. Blythe v. Denver, etc., R. Co., 15 Colo. 33.3—313. TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pages.) xlv Board of Trade v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 233—1786. Board of Trade Bldg. Corp. v. Cralle, 109 Va. 246—1165. Boards of Trade Union v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 1 Int. Com. Rep. 608— 1794. Boatmen's Savings Bank v. Western, etc., R. Co., 81 Ga. 221—227. Boaz V. Central R. Co., 87 Ga. 463, 289, 607, 815. Bobbink v. Erie R. Co., 82 N. J. L. 547—196, 414, 422. Boden v. Boston Elevated R. Co., 205 Mass. 504—964. Bodenham v. Bennett, 4 Price, 31 — 197, 235, 464. Boehl V. Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 44 Minn. 191—4.56, 494, 570, 822, 906, 1458. Boehm v. Dukith, etc., R, Co., 91 Wis. 592—1057, 1424. Boehncke v. Brooklvn City R. Co., 3 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 49—1114. Boering v. Chesapeake Beach Ry. Co., 193 U. S. 442—1464. Boering v. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 20 App. D. C. .500—1033. Boesen v. Omaha St. Ry. Co., 79 Neb. 381—1630. Bogard's Admr. v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 144 Ky. 649—1136. 1141, 1407. Boggess V. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 37 W. Va. 297—988, 1057, 1582. Boggs V. Martin, 13 B. Mon. (Ky.) 239—643, 644, 650. Bohannan v. Hammond, 42 Cal. 227 —26. Bohannon's Adm'x v. Southern R. Co., 23 Ky. Law Rep. 1390—1405. Boice V. Hudson R. Co., 61 Barb. (N. Y.) 611—1024, 1025, 1026. Boies V. Hartford, etc., R. Co., 37 Conn. 273—570, 580. Boise Citv Trrig., etc., Co. v. Clark, 131 Fed. 41.5—112. T.oisin v. Cobbs & Mitchell, 147 Mich. 429—1580. Bolan V. Williamson, 2 Bay (S. C.) 551—85. Bolan V. Williamson, 1 Brev. (S. C.) 181—85. Bolnnd v. Missouri R. Co., 36 Mo. 484 —1081. Bolles V. Kansas Citv Southern Ry. Co., 134 Mo. App. 696—1074. 1393. Bolles V. Lehigh Vallcv R. Co.. 159 Fed. 694—202, 422. Bolton V. Missouri Pac. R. Co.. 172 Mo. 92 — 1467. Bolton Steam Shipping Co. v. Cross- man, 206 Fed. 183—2014. Bomar v. Maxwell, 28 Tenn. (9 Humph) 621—62, 1291. 1292, 129.5, 1302. Bonce v. Dubuque St. Ry. Co., 53 Iowa, 278 — 60, 1212, 1541. Bondv v. American Transfer Co., 15 Cai. App. 746—387. Boner v. Merchants' Steamboat Co., 1 Jones L. (N. C.) 211—27, 343. Bonneau v. North Shore R. Co.. 152 Cal. 406—1497. Bonner v. Blum (Tex. Civ. App.), 25 S. W. 60—1294, 1296. Bonner v. Grumbach, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 482—1475. 1501, 1512. Bonner v. Marsh, 10 Sm. & M. (Miss.) 376—215, 330. Bonner v. Mayfield, 82 Tex. 234 — 1083. Bonsteel v. Vanderbilt, 2\ Barb. (N. Y.) 26—1707, 1708. Book V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 84 Mo. App. 76—1428, 1429. Booker v. Reillv, 85 App. Div. 614— 632. Boon V. Steamboat Belfast, 40 Ala. 184—520. Boone v. Oakland Trans. Co. (Cal.), 73 Pac. 243—1563, 1565, 1681. Boorman v. American Express Co., 21 Wis. 152 — 425, 430, 459, 496. Booth V. Missouri, etc., R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.). 37 S. W. 168—752. Booth V. Spuyten Duyvil Rolling Mill, 60 N. Y. 487—623. Booth V. Terrill, 16 Ga. 20—531. Bordeaux v. Erie R. Co., 8 Hun (N. Y.), 579—1394. Borden v. Richmond & D. R. Co., 113 N. C. 570—667. Berk V. Norton, 2 McLean (U. S.), 422—314. Boscowitz V. Adams Express Co., 93 111. .52.3—4.33, 455. 526, 527, 1460. Boslev V. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 54 W.V^a. 563— 896, 903. xlvi TABLE Ob' CA8ES. (The reforonccs are to the pu^jes.) Boson V. Sanford, 2 Salk, 440—75. Bosqui V. fc^uiro Ky. Co., 131 CaJ. 390—1215, 121G, 14SG. Boss V. rrovidenco, etc., R. Co., 15 R. I, 140, 21 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 364 — 1213, 154li, 1606. Boston Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 36 W. Va. 31S— 1U68. Boston V. Donovan, 4 B. & Aid. 21 — 490. Boston V. Pennsylvania Co., 116 Fed. 235—736. Boston & A. R. Co. v. Brown, 177 Mass. 65—1127. Boston & M. R. R. v. Sullivan, 177 Mass. 230-167, 1127. Boston Chan^ber of Commerce v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 1 Int. Com. Rep. 754—1794, 1796, 1829. Boston, etc., R. Co. v. Chipman, 146 Mass. 107—999. Boston, etc., R. Co. v. Ordway, 140 Mass. 510—542. Boston, etc., R. Co. v. Proctor, 1 Al- len (Mass.), 267—1025. Boston, etc., R. Co. v. Shanly, 107 Mass. 568—128, 563, 564. Boston. Fruit, etc., Exch. v. New York, etc., R. Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 493—1775, 1783, 1832. Bostvvick V. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 45 N. Y. 712—372, 445, 452, 469. Boswell V. Hudson River R. Co., 5 Bosw. (N. Y.) 699—1450, 1456, 1460, 1461. Bosworth V. Carr, Rider & Engler Co., 179 U. S. 144—123. Bosworth V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 87 Fed. 72—123. Bosworth V. Union R. Co., 25 R. I. 202—1187, 1202, 1217. Bosworth V. Walker, 83 Fed. 58— 1427. Botany Worsted IMills v. Knott, 82 Fed! 471—2004. Bctts V. Wabash R. Co., 106 Mo. App. 397-898. Boucher v. Boston & M. R. Co., 76 N. H. 91—1481. Bouker v. Long Island R. Co., 89 Hun (N. Y.), 202—127. Boureo v. White, 159 Mass. 216— 1094. Bourland v. Choctaw, etc., R. Co. (Tex.), 90 S. W. 483—623. Bourne v. Gatliff, 42 E. 0. L. S37— 3;)9. Bourne v. Gatliflf, 11 CI. & Q. 45— 256. Bowdtm V. Fargo, 2 Misc. R. (N. Y.) 551-509. Bowden v. San Antonio, etc., R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 25 S. W. 987— 618. Bowen v. Lake Erie Tel. Co. (Ohio), 1 Am. L. Reg. 685—90. Bowen v. New York Cent. R. Co., 18 N. Y. 408—947, 1080, 1114, 11 IS, 1124, 1211, 1268, 1269, 1486, 1495, 1512, 1535. Bowie v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 1 McArthur (D. C), 94—180, 181, 182, 183, 847, 926. Bowie v. Buflalo, etc., R. Co., 7 U. C. C. P. 191—386, 396. Bowler v. Toledo, etc., R. Co., 10 Ohio C. C. 272—1301. Bowler, etc., R. Co. v. Toledo, etc., R. Co., 3 Ohio Dec. 41—1294, 1300. Bowles v. Indiana R. Co., 27 Ind. App. 672—1063. Bowles V. Rome, etc., R. Co., 46 Hun (N. Y.), 324—1494. Bowlin v. Nye, 64 Mass. (10 Cush.) 416—285. Bowlin v. Union Pac. R. Co., 125 Mo. App. 419—1501. Bowman v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 125 U. S. 465—1749, 1751, 1758. Bowman v. Hilton. 11 Ohio, 303—76, 637, 638, 650, 759. Bowman v. Teall, 23 Wend. (N. Y.) 306—13, 53, 75, 315, 358. Bowring v. Wabash R. Co., 90 Mo. App. 324—890. Bovce V. Anderson, 2 Peters (U. S.), i50— 24, 31, 940. Bovcp V. California Stage Co., 25 Cal. 460—1488, 1717. Bovce V. Manhattan R. Co., 118 N. Y. 314—1226, 1232, 1234. Boyd V. Dubois, 3 Campb. 133 — 33. Bovd V. Spencer, 103 Ga. 828—306, 1025. Bovden v. Fitchburg R. Co., 70 Vt. 125—1600. Boy Ian v. Hot Springs R. Co., 132 U. S. 146—999. Boyle V. Bush Terminal R. Co., 151 App. Div. (N. Y.) 551—510. TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pages.). xlvii Boyle V. Case, 18 Fed. 880—1727. Boylea v. Texas, etc., K. Co. (Tex. Liv. App.), 86 S. W. 936—1106. Bracco v. Merchant's Despatch Tr. Co., 61 Misc. R. (N. Y.) 60-622. Bracket v. McXeir, 14 Johns. (N. Y.) 170—609. Brackett v. Edgerton, 14 Minn. 174 — 585. Brackner v. Public Service Corp., 77 N. J. L. 1—1562. Bradburn v. Great Western R. Co., L. R. 10 Exch. 1—1728. Bradburn v. \Miatcom County Ry., etc., Co., 45 Wash. 582- 1U35. Bradford v. South Carolina R. Co., 7 Rich. L. (S. C.) 201—740, 779. Bradford v. South Carolina R. Co., 10 Rich. L. (S. C.) 221—781. Bradford v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 93 Ark. 244—1410. Bradley v. Chicago & N. W, R. Co., 147 111. App. 397—1354. Bradley v. Chicago, etc., R. Co. (Wis.), 68 N. W. 410—616. Bradley v. Lake Shore & M. S. Co., 145 App. Div. (N. Y.) 312—565. Bradley v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 153 Fed. 350—2002. Bradley v. Lehigh Val. R. Co. (U. S. S. D. N. Y.), New York Law- Journal, March 10, 1906—547. Bradley v. New York, etc., R. Co., 21 Conn. 294—121. Bradley v. Ohio River, etc., R. Co., 126 N. C. 735—548. Bradley v. Second Ave. R. Co., 90 Hun (N. Y.), 419—1642, 1643. Bradley v. Second Ave. R. Co., 8 Daly (N. Y.), 289—1596. Bradley v. Waterhouse, M. & M. 154 —523. Bradney v. Philadelphia R. T. Co., 232 Pa. 127—1621. Bradshaw v. Irish Northwestern R. Co., 7 Ir. R. C. L. 252—203, 386. Bradshaw v. Irish Northwestern R. Co., 21 W. R. 581—398. Bradshaw v. Railroad Co., 135 Mass, 407—1415. Bradwell v. Pittsburg, etc., Ry. Co., 139 Pa. vSt. 404—1544. Brady v. Manhattan R. Co., 127 N. Y. 4C— 1234. Bradv v. Pennsvlvania R. Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 78—1781. Eradv v. Springfield Traction Co., 140 Mo'. App. 421— 124S, 1524. Bragg's Adm'x v. Norfolk & \V. R. Lo., 110 Va. 867—1009, 1404, 1446. Brainard v. Nassau Elec. R. Co., 44 App. Div. (N. Y.) 613—1634, 16:39. Brailhwaite v. Aikin, 1 N. D. 475 — 243. Braker v. F. W. Jarvis Co., 166 Fed. 987—2029. Braly v. Fresno City Ry. Co., 9 CaL App. 417—1431, 1586. Branch v. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 88 N. C. 573—342, 353, 371, 457, 542, 1458. Branch v. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 77 N. C. 347—135, 353. Brand v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 32 Ky. Law Rep. 1335—621. Brand v. New Jersey Steamboat Co., 10 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 128—399, 410. Brand v. Schenectady, etc., R. Co., 8 Barb. (N. Y.) 368—1131. Brandenstein v. Douglass, 105 Ga. 845—536. Brandon v. Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Co., 146 Ky. 639 — 94. Brandt v. Bowlby, 2 B. & Ad. 932 — 583. Branley v. Southeastern R. Co., 104 E. C. L. 74—162. Brannon & Potts v. Atlantic & W. P. R. Co., 4 Ga. App. 749—803. Brant v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 22 Ont. Rep. 645—744. Brasher v. Denver, etc., R. Co., 12 Colo. 384—208, 210. Brass v. Maitland, 6 El. & Bl. 471 — 33, 128. 563. Brass v. North Dakota, 153 U. S. 391 —70, 113. Brassell v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 84 N. Y. 241—1229, 1690. Brauer v. Compania De Navigacion La Flecha, 66 Fed. 776 — 2010, 2027. Brauer v. Oceanic Steam Nav. Co., 34 Misc. R. (N. Y.) 127—615, 624. Braun v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 79 Minn. 484—1443. Braun v. Union Ry. Co., 115 App. Div. (N. Y.) 560-1502. Braun v. Webb, 65 N. Y. Snpp. 668, 23 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 243—67. Br;uin«tein v. People's Rv. Co. (Del. Supar.), 78 Atl. 609—1502. xl \' i i i TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pages.) iJiciwlov V. The ,liiii W ai>un, - Uoml. (V. S.) .35(1 — .'Hi. Jtravmer v. Soattlc IJ., etc.. Co., o.') Uasii. ;m(;--i;5!)1, Brazie v. St. Unii.s Tr. Co. (Mo.), 70 ^;. \V. 7US— 10>S1. Brtiitknofk Canal Nav. Co. v. Prit- ohard, G T. R. 750—14. Breeil v. Mitchell, 48 Ca. 533— 261, 5G9. Breen v. N.-w York C«nt. R. Co., 109 N. Y. •i;)7— 1479. 1511. 1512, 1656. Breen v. St. Ixmis Transit Co., 108 Mo. App. 443—1392. Breen v. St. Louis Transit Co., 102 Mo. App. 479—1426. 1712. Breen v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 50 Tex. 43—1015. 1027, 1391. Broese v. Cnited States Teleg. Co.. 48 N. Y. 132. 141—87, 92. Brehm v. Croat Western R. Co., 34 Barb. (X. Y.) 256—1501, 1512. Brelwne v. A4ams Express C<3., 25 Md. 328—430, 456. Brehme v. Dinsmore, 25 Md. 328— 425. ."Bremer v. Pleiss, 121 Wis. 61—1610. Breiinan v. Fair Haven, etc.. R. Co., 45 Conn. 284—996, 1288, 1644. Brennen v. St. Louis, 92 Mo. 488 — 410. Bretherton v. Wood, 3 Brod. & B. 54 —948, 957, 1136. Brevig v. C'hicago, etc.. R. Co., 64 Minn. 168—1017, 1059. Brewer v. Central of Ga. R. Co., 84 Fed. 258—162. 1829. Brewer v. New Y'ork, etc., R. Co., 124 N. Y. ,-)9— 498, 1049, 1452, 1454, 1463, 1465. Brewster v. Interborough Rap. Tr. Co., 68 Misc. R. (N. Y.) 348—1152. Brewster v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 145 App. Div. 51 — 474. Brice v. Southern Rv- Co., 85 S. C. 216—1159. 1574. Brick V. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 145 X. C. 20.3—1294, 1375. Bricker v. Philadelphia & R. Co., 132 Pa,_ 1 973. Briddon v. Great Northern R. Co., 28 L. J. Exch. 51—344, 838. Briddon v. Great Northern R. Co., 32 L. T. 94 — 363. Bridge v. Austin, 4 Mass. 115 — 2035. r.ridge v. Johnson. 5 Wend. (N. Y.) n.-iO— 165. I'.ridge V. Oshkosh, 71 Wis. 363— 1 561). Bridges v. Ashville, etc., R. Co., 27 S. C. 462—449, 451. Bridges v. Jackson Elcc. Ry., etc., Co., 80 Miss. 584—1102. Bridges v. North London R. Co., L. R. 6 C^. B. 377, L. R. 7 H. L. 213— 1226, 1235, 1593, 1673. Bridges v. Southern Rv. Co., 137 Ga. 107—1382. Bridgman v. The Steamboat Emily, 18 Iowa, 509—597. Brien v. Bennett, 8 C. & P. 724—987, 976. Briggs V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 6 Allen (Mass.), 246—80, 223, 453, 637, (i;!8. 639, 649. Briggs V. Durham Tr. Co., 147 N. C. 389—1496. Briggs V. Grand Trunk R. Co., 24 I.e. Q. B. 510—1015, 1026. Brigtjs V. Minneapolis, 52 Minn. 36 — 1404, 1592. Briggs V. New York Cent. R. Co., 72 N. Y. 26—1510. Briggs V. New York Cent. R. Co., 28 Barb. (N. Y^) 515—276, 285, 3G8, 600. 604. 605, 607. Briggs V. Tavlor, 28 Vt. 180—6, 549, 1461. Briggs V. Varid'erbilt, 19 Barb. (N. Y.) 346—1707. 1708. Brightman v. Union St. R. Co., 167 :\Iass. 113— 1589. Brignoli v. C^hicago, etc., R. CO., 4 Daly (N. Y.), 182—1727. Brill V. Grand Trunk R Co., 20 U. C. C. P. 440—530. Brimmer v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 101 111. App. 198-1486. Brinck v. North German Lloyd S. S. Co., 186 N. Y. 525—2040. Brind v. Dale. 8 C. & P. 207—13. 73. Brind v. Dale, 2 M. & Rob. 80—107. Brineger v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 24 Ky. Law Rep. 1973—1164. 1633. Brintnall v. Saratoga, etc., R. Co., 32 Vt. 666—741, 747, 776, 778. Brisbin v. Boston Elevated Rv. Co., 207 Mass. 553-1625. Bripcoe v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 222 Mo. 104—1522. TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pages, )^ Tflix Bristol V. Rensselaer, etc., R. Co., 9 Barb. (N. Y.) 158—132, 212. Bristol V. Wilsmore, 1 B. & S. 514— 644. Bristol, etc. R. Co. v. Collins, 5 H. & N. 969—744. British Columbia, etc.. Co. v. Net- tleship. L. R. 3 C. P. 499—83. 589, 599. British, etc.. Ins. Co. v. Gulf, etc., R. Co., 63 Tex. 475—547. British, etc., Ins. Co. v. Portland Flouring Mills Co., 124 Fed. 855— 669. British, etc., Ins. Co. v. Southern Pac. Co., 72 Fed. 285—676. Brittan v. Barnaby, 62 U. S. (21 How.) 527—635, 636, 643, 645, 676. Britton v. Atlantic, etc.. Air Line R. Co., 88 N. C. 536—1069, 1070, 1071, 1133, 1143, 1190. Broadway v. American Expiess Co., 168 Mass. 257—814. Broadwell v. Butler & Co., 6 McLean (U. S.), 296—367. 391. Broadwood v Southern Express Co., 148 Ala. 17—560. Brock V. Gale, 14 Fla. 523—454, 1297. Brockway v. American Expres.? Co., 171 Mass. 158—931. Brockway v. American Express Co., 168 Mass. 257—38, 803. Brockway v. Lascala. 1 Edm. Sel. Cas. (N. Y.) 13.5—1211, 1241. 1672. Brodie v. Northern R. Co.. 6 Ont. Rep. 180—768. Brokaw v. New Jersey, etc., Co., 32 N. J. L. .328— 1181, 'l 184. Bromlev v. Birmingham M. R. Co. (AlaO, 11 So. 341—1517. Bromlev v. New York, etc., R. Co., 193 Ma.ss. 45.3—1661. Broiisfiri V. Atlanti*' Coast Line R. Co., 76 S. C. 9—385. Broodnox v. Baker. 94 N. C. 67.5—58. BrookC' V. Grand Trunk R. Co.. 15 Mich. 332—1024. Brooke v. Nmv York, etc., R. Co., 108 Pa. St. 529—218. 228, 449. Brooke v. Pickwick 4 Bing, 218 — 62. .527. Brooks V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 135 Mass. 21—1237. 1675, 1677. Brooks V. Delaware, etc., R. Co.. 88 N. y. Supp. 961—248. Brooks V. Diusmore, 3 6t. K. (N. Y.) 587—568. Brooks V. New York, etc., R. Co., 108 Pa. St. 529—218. Brooks V. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 38 Or. 387—1384. Brooks V. Old Colony R. Co.. 168 Mass. 164—1203. Brooks Mfg. Co. v. Southern Ry. Co., 152 N. C. 665—382. Brookstone v. Westcott Express Co., 29 Misc. R. (N. Y.) 634—280. Brooman v. Houston, etc.. R. Co., 7 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 234—1647. Brown v. Adams, 3 Tex. App. Oiv. Cas., § 390—614. Brown v. Adams Express Co., 15 W. Va. 812—419, 425, 428, 432, 577, 1452. Brown v. Atlantic Coast L. R. Co., 8S S. C. 53—1482. Brown v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 19 S. C. 39—176, 183, 410, 414. Brown v. Brooklyn, etc., R. Co., 136 App. Div. (N. Y.) 690—1422. BrowTi V. Camden, etc., R. Co., 83 Pa. 316—450. 451, .522, 527, 953, 1306, 1346, 1352. Brown v. Canadian Pa,c. R. Co., 3 Manitoba L. Rep. 496 — 1350. Brown v. Central of Ga. R. Co., 128 Ga. 635—1395. Brown v. Chicago, etc., R. Co. 51 Iowa, 235—1258, 1427, 1428. Brown v. Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 80 ^Yis. 162—1675. Brown v. Cliicago, etc., R. Co., 54 Wis. 342—1701, 1706, 1709. Brown v. Clayton, 12 Ga. 564, 580 — 355, 625. Brown v. Clegg, 63 Pa. St. 51—55, 57. Brown v. Collins, 53 N. H. 442 — 1122. Brown v. Congress, etc., R. Co., 49 Mich. 153—1476, 1487, 1533. Brown v. Cunard S. S. Co., 16 N. K 717—516. Brown v. Dennison, 2 Wend. (N Y ) 593—80. Brown v. Eastern R. Co., U Cush (Mass.) 97—1330. 1333, 1452 1453. Brown v. European, etc., R. Co 58 Me. 384—1591. Brown v. Georgia, etc,, R. Co 119 Oil, RS_i7os. TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pages.) Brown V. Grand Trunk R. Co., 54 N". n, 535—412, 413. Brown v. Grmt Western R. Co., 52 L. T. N. S. G22— 1G!)0. Brown v. ITadley, 43 Kan. 267 — 604. Brown v. Hannibal, etc., E. Co.. 60 Mo. 58S. 114S, 1181, 1560 170G, 1713. Brown v. Harris, 68 Mass. (2 Gray) 35i1 — 653. Brown v. Hodgson, 4 Taunt. 180 — 530. Brown v. Houston, 114 U. S. 622— 1735, 1748, 1758. Brown v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 100 Ky. 525—886. Brown v. Interborouc;h Rap. Tr. Co., 56 Misc. R. (N. Y.) 637—1174. Brown v. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 38 Kan. 634—1071. Brown v. Kendall, 6 Cash. (Mass.) 296—1122. Brown v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 36 111. App. 140 — 441, 453, 775. Brown, v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. (U. S.) 419—1734, 1742, 1747. Brown v. Memphis, etc., R. Co., 7 Fed. (U. S.) 51—1138, 1407, 1409, 1435. Brown v. Memphis, etc., R. Co., 5 Fed. 499—1409. Brown v. Memphis, etc., R. Co., 4 Fed. 37, 51—1070, 1390, 1727. Brown v. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 102 Minn. 298—1433. Brown v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 64 Mo. 536—1016, 1017, 1038. Brown (H. W.) v. Mott, 22 Ohio St. 149—251, 744. Brown v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 75 Hun (N. Y.) 355—1, 60, 1127. Brown v. New York Cent. R. Co., 34 N. Y. 404—1114, 1118, 1119, 1211, 1269. Brown v. New York Cent. R. Co., 32 N. Y. 597—1126, 1561. Brown v. Oregon-Washington R., etc., Co., 63 Ore. 396—785, 789. Brown v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 36 App. D. C. 221—645, 657. Brown v. Piper, 91 U. S. 37—780. Brown v. Pontiac, etc., R. Co., 133 Mich. 371—848. Brown V. Powell D. S. Coal Co., L. R. 10 C. P. 562—229. Brown v. Raleigh, etc., R. Co., 108 N. C. 34—1068, 1613. Brown v. Ralston, 4 Rand (Va.) 504 —677. Brown v. Rapid Ry. Co. (Mich.), 96 N. W. 925—174, 999, 1390. Brown v. Scarboro, 97 Ala. 316—986, 1066, 1627. Brown v. The Water Witch, Fed. Cas. No. 1971—189. Brown v. Union Pac. R. Co., 81 Kan. 701—1536. Brown v. Washington & G. R. Co., 11 App. D. C. 37—1615. Brown v. Wier, 95 App. Div. (N. Y.) 78—600, 023. Brown & Haywood Co. v. Pennsyl- vania Co., 63 Minn. 546 — 241. Browne v. Johnson, 29 Tex. 43 — 580. Brown, etc., Co. v. Pennsylvania Co., 63 Minn. 546—402. Brownell v. Columbus, etc., R. Co., 4 Int. Com. R. 285—1786, 1787, 1789. Brownell v. Pacific R. Co. 47 Mo. 239 —1562. Browning v. Belford, 83 App. Div. (N. Y.) 144—631. Browning v. Goodrich Transp. Co., 78 Wis. 391—571, 586, 773. Browning v. Long Island R. Co., 2 Daly (N. Y.) 117—482. Brown's Admin'ri v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 103 Ky. 211—1448. Broyles v. Central of Ga. R. Co., 166 Ala. 616—1029, 1030. Bruce v. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co., 136 Mo. App. 204—1659. Bruflf v. Illinois Cent. R. Co. (Ky.), 121 S. W. 475—1484, 1604. Bruhl V. Coleman, 113 Ga. 1102—211. Brulard v. The Alvin, 45 Fed. 766— 1256. Brumberger v. Joline, 125 N. Y. Supp. 519—1490. Brumer v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 101 111. App. 198—1534. Bruno v. Brooklyn City R. Co., 5 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 327—1638, 1641. Brunson v. Boatwright v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 76 S. C. 9 — 196, 400. Brunswick & W. R. Co. v. Moore, 101 Ga. 684—997, 1000, 1212. TABLE OF CASES. li (The references are to the pages.) Brunswick, etc., R. Co. v. Ponder, 117 Ga. 63—1192. Brusch V. Railway Co., 52 Minn. 510 —1222. Brusch V. St. Paul City R. Co. (Minn.) 55 N. W. 57—1640. Brush V. Sabula, etc., R. Co., 43 Iowa, 554 — 455. Brush V. St. Paul City R. Co., 52 Minn. 572—1561. Bruty V. Grand Trunk R. Co., 32 U. C. Q. B. 66—1292. Bryan v. Chicago & A. R. Co., 169 111. App. 181—383. Bryan v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 63 Iowa, 464—1170, 1175. Bryan v. Memphis, etc., R. Co., 11 Bush (Ky.) 597—754. Bryan v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 32 Mo. App. 228—1450, 1461, 1465. Bryant v. American Tel. Co., 1 Daly (N. Y.) 575—90. Bryant v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 53 Fed. 997—958, 1064, 1513. Bryant v. Clifford, 13 Mete. (Mass.) 138—267, 531. Bryant v. North Western R. Co., 68 Ga. 805—815. Bryant v. Rich, 106 Mass. 180—1130, 1131, 1147, 1166. Bryant v. Southwestern R. Co., 68 Ga. 805 — 454, 745, 897. Buchanan v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 655—1781. Bucher v. Cheshire R. Co., 125 U. S. 555 — 450, 1600, 1891. Bucher v. Fitchburg R. Co., 131 Mass. 156—998, 1600. Bucher v. Long Island R. Co., 161 N. Y. 222—1690. Bucher v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 98 N. Y. 128—1227, 1243, 1236, 1254, 1256, 1676, 1677, 1679. Buck V. Manhattan R. Co., 15 Daly (N. Y.) 550—1220, 1476. Buck V. Oregon R., etc., Co., 53 Wash. 113—879. Buck V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 150 Pa. St. 170—550, 570, 571, 576, 578. Buck V. Peoples St. R., etc., Co., 108 Mo. 179 — 975, 906, 1057. Buck V. Peoples St. Ry.. etc., Co., 46 Mo. App. 555-990, 1031. Buokhoe V. Third Ave. K. Co., 64 App. Div. (N. Y.) 360—1108, 1583. Buckeye Pipe Line Co. v. Fee, 15 Ohio Civ. Ct. R. 637—241. Buckland v. Adams Exp. Co., 97 Mass. 124—39, 40, 41, 419, 427, 453. Buckland v. New York, etc., R. Co., 181 Mass. 3—1118. Buckley v. Great Western R. Co., 18 Mich. 121—385. Buckley v. Old Colony R. Co., 161 Mass. 26—1013. Buckman v. Levi, 3 Campb. 414 — 182, 185. Buckmaster v. Great Eastern R. Co., 23 L. T. N. S. 471—1261. Budd V. New York, 143 U. S. 517— 70, 113, 114. Budd V. United Carriage Co., 25 Or. 314—1487. Buddy V. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 20 Mo. App. 206—255, 381, 570. Budgett V. Binnington, 1 Q. B. 35 — 369. Buol V. New York Cent. R. Co., 31 N. Y. 314—1580, 1581. Buesching v. Gaslight, 73 Mo. 229— 1545. Buesching v. St. Louis Gas L. Co., 6 Mo. App. 85—1476. Buffalo V. Troy, etc., R. Co., 40 N. Y. 168—973, 974, 976, 986, 990. Buffalo, etc., R. Co. v. O'Hara (Pa.), 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 317—1034, 1451. Bugge V. Seattle Electric Co., 54 Wash. 483—961, 1003, 1007, 1245. Bulkley v. Naumkeag Steam Cotton Co., 24 How. (U. S.) 386—192. Bullard v. American Exp. Co., 107 Mich. 695—163, 254. Bullard v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 64 N. H. 27—1555. Bullard v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 21 Pa. Super. Ct. 583—1293, 1306. Bullard v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 10 Mont. 168—1759, 1791. Bullock V. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 152 N. C. 66—961, 1007, 1429. Bullock V. Charleston, etc., Rv. Co., 82 S. C. 375—354, 598, 607. ' Bullock V. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 60 N. J. L. 24—283. Bullock V. Houston, etc., R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 55 S. W. 184—972. Bullock v. White Star S. S. Co., 30 Wash. 448—1123, 1708- lii TABLE OF CASES. (The refercuocs arc to tlie pages.) Buman v. Miciiigaii lout. R. Co., lliS Mich. G51— 97S. BunvWar v. United Tract. Co., 198 Pa. yt. 198—1042. Bunch V. Cliaileston & VV. C. Rv. Co., 91 vS. C. i:?9— 1480. Bunting v. Hogsett, 139 Pa. St. 30:5 — 12()7. Burbridge v. Kansas; City Cable R. Co.. 31) Mo. App. (i09— 1690. Burckle v. l^khart, 3 N. Y. 132— 450. Burdette v. Chicago Auditorium Ass'n, 166 111. App. 186—1531. Burge V. Georgia Rv.. etc., Co.. 133 Ga. 423—1392. Burger v. Omaha, etc.. St. Ry. Co., 139 Iowa, 645—1585. Burgess v. Atcliison, etc., R. Co., 83 Kan. 497—1399. Burgess v. Stowe, 134 Mich. 204 — 101. Burgevin v. New York Cent. R. Co., 69 Hun (X. Y.). 479—1349, 1350, 1356. Burgher v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 105 Iowa, 335—876. Burgher v. Wabasli R. Co., 139 Mo. App. 62—442. 886. Burgoyne v. Chicago Citv Ry. Co., 167 'ill. App. 59—1540. ' Burke v. Bay Citv Traction, etc., Co., 147 Mich. 172—1087. Burke v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co.. 108 111. App. 565—997, 998, 1212, 1250. Burke v. Concord R. Corp.. 61 N. H. 160—778. Burke v. Erie R. Co., 119 N. Y. Supp. 309—422. Burke v. Missouri Pac. R. Co.. 1") Mo. App. 491—1056. 1071, 1145, 1424. Burke v. Piatt, 172 Fed. 777—707. Burke v. Seventh Ave., etc.. R. Co.. 49 Barb. (N. Y.^ 529—1588. Burke v. South Eastern R. Co.. 5 C. P. Div. 1—431. Burke v. State, 64 Misc. Rep. 558— 1490, 1538. Burke v. United States Express Co., 87 111. App. 505—830. Burke V. Witherbee, 11 Allen aiass.), 312—1115. Burlingame v. Adams Express Co., 171 Fed. 902—349. Biirliiigtun & M. R. Co. v. Chicago liuniber Co., 15 N<>1.. 390—693. lUuliiigton, etc., R. Co. v. .'Vrnis, 15 Ndb. 09—385, 396. Burlington, etc., R. Co. v. Northwest- e-rn Fuel Co., 31 Fed. 65:^—1788. Burlington, etc., R. Co. v. Ruse. 11 Neb. 117—1145, 1423, 1424. Burlington, etc., R. Co. v. Spearman, 12 Iowa, 117—121. Burnoll v. New York Cent. R. Co., 4") N. Y. 184 — 44, 230, 570, 1306, 1331, 1349, 1353, 1356, 1361. Burn(?s v. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co., 167 Mo. App. 62—1304. Burnes v. Cliioago, etc., K Co., 144 Mo. App. 71—1387. Burnett v. Great North, etc., R. Co., L. R. 10 App. 147—1228. Burnett v. Lvnch, 5 B. & C. 589 — 1702. Burnett v. Pennsvlvania R. Co., 176 Pa. St. 45—952'. Burnham v. Cape Vincent Seed Co.. 142 N. Y. 169—217. Burnham v. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 168 Mich. 55—1398. Burnham v. Grand Trunk, etc., R. Co., 63 Me. 298—1417. Burnham v. Wabash Western R. Co.. 91 Tex. 180—1012. Burns v. B'llefontaine, etc., R. Co., 50 Mo. ir^9— 1640. 1641. Burns v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 151 Mo. App. 573—442. 885, 893. Burns v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 104 Wis. 646—814, 856. Burns v. Cork, etc., R. Co., 13 Ir. ('. L. R. 543—1120. Burns v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 233 Pa. 304-1206,' 1538. Burr V. Pennsvlvania R. Co. (N. J.), 44 Atl. 84.5—1661. Burrell v. North, 61 E. C. L. 681— 194. Burritt v. Rench, 4 McLean (U. S. ) . 32.5—26, 591. Burroughs v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 67 Mich'. 351—413, 772. Burroughs v. Norwich, etc.. R. Co., 100 Mass. 26—81, 539, 739, 763, 766, 780. Burrowes v. Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 85 Neb. 497-171. Burrows v. Erie R. Co., 63 N. Y. 556 —1598, 1675, 1680. TABLE OF CASES. liii (The references are to the pages.) Bursley v. Hamiliton, 15 Pick. (Mass.) 40—532. Burt V. Douglass Countv St. Ry. Co., 83 Wis. 229—1)08, 1487. Burtis V. Buffalo, etc.. R. Co., 24 N. Y. 269—533, 739, 754. Burton v. Davis, 15 La. Ann. 448 — 1122. Burton v. Hudson River R. Co., 18 N. Y. 248—1541. Burton v. Ringrose, 63 Hun (N. Y.), 163—645. Burton v. Wichita R., etc., Co., 89 Kan. 611—1684. Burton v. Wilkinson, 18 Vt. 186 — 328. Burton Stock Car Co. v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 1 Int. Com. R. 329—1787, 1826. Burwell v. Raleigh, etc., R. Co., 94 N. C. 451—133, 190, 551, 569. Busch v. Interborough Rapid T. Co., 187 N. Y. 388—980. Bush V. Barnett, 96 Cal. 202—1475, 1488, 1512. Bush V. Northern Pac. R. Co., 3 Dak. 444—586. Bush V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 3 Mo. App. 62—210, 235, 237. Bushnell v. Wabash R. Co., 118 Mo. App. 618—902. Business Men's Assoc, v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 41 — 1781, 1828. Bussey v. Mississippi Val. Transp. Co., 24 La. Ann. 165 — 54, 55. Bussey v. Memphis, etc., R. Co., 13 Fed. 330—138, 755. Bussey v. Memphis, etc.. R. Co., 4 McCrarv (U. S.), 405—137, 365, 596, 729. Buston V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 119 Fed. 808— 762. "776. Butcher v. Ix)ndon, etc., R. Co., 16 C. B. (N. S.) 13—1295. Butcher's, etc. Stockyards Co. v. I^uisvillp, etc., R. Co., 67 Fed. 35 —124, 161. 1869. Butler V. Basing, 2 C. & P. 613—108, 186. Butler V. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co., 8 Lea (Tenn.), 32—381, 398. Butler V. Hudson River R. Co., 3 E. D. Sm. (N. Y.) 571—44, 186, 1299, 1300. Butlor V. Manhattan R. Co., 4 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 401—1562. Butler V. Pittsiburg, etc., R. Co., 139 Pa. St. 195—1643. Butler V. Steinway R. Co., 87 Hun (N. Y.), 10—1595. Butler V. Wilmington City Ry. Co. (Del. Super.), 78 Atl. 871—1536, 1285 Butler V. Woolcott, 2 B. & P. N. R. 64—630. Butt V. Great Western R. Co., 11 C. B. 140—464. Butterfield v. Stranahan, 192 U. S. 470—1734. Button v. Frink, 51 Conn. 342—1533. Button V. Hudson River R. Co., 18 N. Y. 248—1507, 1516, 1543, 1545. Buxton V. Northeastern R. Co., L. R. 3 Q. B. 549—1104. Bvrne v. Brooklyn Citv, etc., R. Co., ^6 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 260—1555. Byrae v. Fargo, 36 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 543—197, 384. Byrne v. Nevr York Cent., etc., R- Co., 83 N. Y. 620—1587. Byron v. Lynn, etc., R. Co., 177 Mass. '303—1089, 1106, 1222. Buzby V. Philadelphia Traction Co., 126 Pa. St. 559—1690. c. Cabban v. Downe, 5 Esp. N. P. 41 — 83. Cable V. Southern R. Co., 122 N. C. 892—1256. C'adwallader v. Grand Trunk R. Co. (Can.), 9 L. C. Rep. 169—1292, 1294, 1296. Caher v. Grand Trunk R. Co.. 75 N. II. 125—1431. Cahill V. London, etc., R. Co., 100 E. C. L. 154—1300, 1301. Caihn V. Michigan Cent. R. Co. 71 III. 96—256. 407. Oailiff V. Danvers, 1 Peake N. P. 114 13, 412. Cain V. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 74 S. C. 89—1085. Cain V. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 39 Minn. 297—1148, 1181. Cairo First Nat. v. Crocker, 11 Mass 16.S— 233. Cairus v. RnbinvS, 8 M. & W. 258 — 84 ins, 413. Calderon v. Aila>« S. S. Co., 170 U S 272—1913, 2010. liv TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pages.) Caldwell V. Erie Transfer Co., 13 Misc. R. (N. Y.) 37—1303. Ciildwell V. Felton, 21 Ky. Law Rep. 397—030. Caldwell v. Murphy, 1 Duer (N. Y.), 233—948, 1211. Caldwell v. New Jersey Steamboat Co.. 47 N. Y. 282—578, 947, 1080, 1114, 1118, 1120, 1505, 1511, 1533, 1724. Caldwell v. North Carolina, 187 U. S. 022—1734. Caldwell v. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 89 Ga. 550—44, 944, I2o0, 1250. Ca'dwell v. Southern Express Co., 1 Flipp (U. S.), 85—324, 325. CakMider-Vanderlioof Co. v. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co., 99 Minn. 295— 505. Calhoun v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 119 Fed. 540—07, 1423. California Ins. Co. v. Union Compress Co., 133 U. S. 387—190. California Nav. & Imp. Co. v. Stock- ton, Milling Co., 184 Fed. 309— 2013. California Powder Works v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 113 Cal. 329—470. Callaway v. Mellett (Ind. App.), 44 N. E. 198—1025. Calumet Elec. St. Ry. Co. v. Jen- nings, 83 111. App. 012—1488. Calvin v. Jones, 3 Dana (Ry.), 370^ 592. Camblos v. Philadelphia & R. Co., Fed. Cas. No. 2331—009. Camden, etc., R. Co. v. Baldauf, 10 Pa. St. 07—420, 458, 527, 1330, 1453. Camden & A. R. Co. v. Bausch (Pa.), 7 AtL 731—9.53, 1450, 1405. Camden, etc., R. Co. v. Belknap, 21 Wend. (N. Y.) 354—01, 02, 420, 1451. Camden, etc., R. Co. v. Burke, 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 611—24, 41, 44, 02, 948, 1084, 1300. Camden, etc., R. Co. v. Forsyth, 01 Pa. St. 81—740, 759, 767, 771, 772. Camden, etc., R. Co. v. Hoosey, 99 Pa. 492—1200, 1506, 1038. Camden Iron Works v. United States, L58 Fed. 501—1932, 1953, 1903. Camer v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 153 Iowa, 103—1813. Cameron v. Lewi^ton, etc., St. Ry., 103 Me. 482—1101, 1473. Camp V. Hartford, etc., Steamboat Co., 43 Conn. 333—418, 429, 1457. Camp V. Western Union Tel. Co., 1 Mete. (Ky.) 104—87, 91, 92. Campbell v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 86 Iowa, 587—1732. Campbell v. Conner, 70 N. Y. 424— 041. Campbell v. Consol. Tract. Co., 201 Pa. 107-1507. Campbell v. Iowa Cent. Ry. Co. (Iowa), 99 N. W. 1001—587. Campbell v. Los Angeles R. Co., 135 Cal. 137—1571. Campbell v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 78 Neb. 479—1358, 1381. Campbell v. Moore, 1 Harp. (S. C.) 408—308. Campbell v. Morse, Harper (S. C.) 408—72. Campe v. Weir, 28 Misc. R. (N. Y.) 243—509, 572. Campion v. Canadian Pac. R. Co., 43 Fed. 775—133, 396. Campion v. Colvin, 3 Bing. N. Cas. 17—048. Canaday v. United Rys. Co., 134 Mo. 282—954. Canadian Pac. R. Co., v. Charbonneau, Montreal L. R. Q. B. 287—708. Canadian Pac. R. Co. v. Johnson, 6 Montreal Q. B. 213—1017. Canada Southern R. Co. v. Interna- tional Bridge Co., L. R. 8 App. 723 —102, 1702. Canady v. United Rys. Co. of St. Louis, 134 Mo. App. 282-940. Canal Co. v. Jenkins, 1 Colo. App. 425 —111. Candee v. New York, etc., R. Co., 73 Conn. 067—667, 873. Candee v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 21 Wis. 584—744, 1361. Candee v. Western Union Tel. Co., 34 Wis. 471—88, 91, 93. Candiff v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 42 La. Ann. 477—1059. Canfield v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 93 N. Y. 532—402, 509, 575. Canfield v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 46 N. Y. Super. Ct. 238—568. Canfield v. Northern R. Co., 18 Barb. (N. Y.) 586—782. Cantling v. Hannil)al, etc., R. R. Co., 54 Mo. 385—98, 1297. TABLE OF CASES. Iv (The references are to the pages.) Canton v. Ruiuicv, 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 387—52. Cantu V. Bennett, 39 Tex. 303 — 155, 307, 448. Cantwell v. Pacific Express Co., 58 Ark. 487—344, 354. Cantwell v. Terminal R. Ass'n of St. Louis, 160 Mo. App. 393—1344. Capehart v. Granite Mills, 97 Ala. 353—190, 232, 590. Capehart v. Louisville, etc., E. Co., 3 Inter. Com. Rep. 278—729, 1825. Capehart v. Seaboard, etc., R. Co., 81 N. C. 438—487. Capehart v. Seaboard, etc., R. Co., 77 N. C. 355-481. Capital Traction Co. v. Brown. 39 App. D. C. 473—1650. Caples V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 17 Mo. App. 14—516, 584. Car Co. V. Reed, 75 111. 125—1415. Card V. New York, etc., R. Co., 50 Barb. (N. Y.) 39—1270. Cardot v. Barney, 63 N. Y. 281—45. Carleton v. Lombard Avres & Co., 19 App. Div. (N. Y.) 297—1721. Carleton v. Union Trans., etc., Co., 121 N. Y. Supp. 997—421. Carli V. Interstate Consol. St. R. Co. (R. I.), 51 AtL 305—1215. Carlisle v. Central of Ga. Ry. Co. (Ala.), 62 So. 759—1700. Carlisle v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 97 Mo. App. 571—166. Carlson v. Oceanic Steam Nav. Co., 109 N. Y. 359—1294. Carlton Produce Co. v. Velasco, etc., Ry. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 131 S. W. 1187—1907. Carmanty v. Mexican Gulf R. Co., 5 La. Ann. 70.3—1131. Carnahan v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., 145 Ky. 676—1383. Carnegie, etc., R. Co. v. Sawver, 69 Ilk 285—387. Carney v. Cincinnati St. R. Co., 8 Ohio S. & C. P. Dec. 587—975. Carpenter v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 6 Pen. (Dek) 15—21, 308, 312, 336. Carpenter v. Baltimore & 0. R. Co. (Dek), 64 Atk 252—560. Carpenter v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 97 N. Y. 494—989, 1156, 1186, 1205. Carpenter v. Eastern R. Co., 67 Minn. 188—881. Carpenter v. Eastern Transp. Line, 67 Barb. 570—56. Carpenter v. New York, etc., R. Co., 124 N. Y. 53—63, 66, 1296. Carpenter v. Trinity, etc., R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 119 S. W. 335—1178. Carpenter v. United States Express Co., 120 Minn. 59—501, 1918. Carpue v. London, etc., R. Co., 5 Q. B. 747—1479, 1501. Carr v. Eel River, etc., R. Co., 98 Cak 366—1237, 142,5, 1676. Carr v. Lancashire, etc., R. Co., 7 Exch. 707-^64. Carr v. Miller-Morris Canal Irrig., etc., Co., 105 La. 239—111. Carr v. Schafer, 15 Colo. 48—153, 351. Carr v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 194 U. S. 427—441. Carrico v. West Virginia Cent., etc., R. Co., 39 W. Va. 88—1501. Carrico v. West Virginia, etc., R. Co., 35 W. Va. 389—1098, 1655, 1656. Carrizzo v. New York, etc., R. Co., 123 N. Y. Supp. 173—689. Carroll v. Boston Elev. Ry. Co., 200 Mass. 527—1503. Carroll v. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co., 82 Ga. 452—1564. Carroll v. International Rap. T. Co., 107 Mo. 653—1614, 1626. Carroll y. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 88 Mo. 239—1037, 1450, 1456. Carroll v. New York, etc., R. Co., 1 Duer (N. Y.) 584—1576, 1628. Carroll v. Southern Express Co., 37 S. C. 452—236. Carroll v. Staten Island R. Co., 58 N. Y. 126—957, 991, 998, 1030, 1035, 1080, 1119, 1137, 1211, 1220, 1599. Carruth v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 45 La. Ann. 1228—1581. Carson v. Harris, 4 Greene (Iowa) 516—748. Carson Lumber Co. v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co., 198 Fed. 311—656, 714, 722. Carstens v. Burleigh, 20 Wash. 283 — 543. Carstens Packing Co. v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 58 Wash. 239—887, 894, 897. Carswell v. Macon, etc., R. Co., 118 Ga. 826—1064. Carter v. Boston & N. St. R. Co., 205 Mass. 21 — 983, 1611. Ivi TABLE OF CASES. (Tlip rofm'os are to ilic jiatjos.) Cartor v. Cl>ioa<;i), otc, 1\. Co., 14(5 Iowa, 201— 01 S. t'artor v. Coluiiil)ia. etc., H. Co. 1!) S. C. 20— 147G, 1.'.45. Carter v. Graves, 17 Toiiii. (!• Yerg. ) 446— 2S!1. Carter v. Howe Machine Co., 61 Md. 2!)0— 1184. Carter v. Kansas Citv Cable R. Co., 42 Fed. 37—1475. Carter v. Kew Orleans & N. E. R. Co., 143 Fed. 09—1081. Carter v. Tei-k. 4 Sneed (Tenn.) 203 —744. Carter v. Rockford & I. Ry. Co.. 147 Wis. 8G— 1002. Carter v. Towne, 98 Mass. 567 — 563. Carton v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 59 Iowa, 148—449. Cartwright v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 52 Mich. 606—1233. 1666. Cartwright v. Rome, etc., R. Co., 85 Hun (N. Y.) 517—354, 734, 747, 748. Carv V. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 29 Barb. (N. Y.) 35—1350, 1351,1356, 1361. Case V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 64 Iowa, 762 — 1476. Case V. Cleveland, etc.. R. Co., 11 Ind App. 517—481. Ca-se V. Delaware, etc, R. Co.. 191 Pa St. 450—1281. Case V. New York, etc., R. Co., 1 E D. Sm. (N. Y.) .522—1376. Casey v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co. 78 N. Y. 518—1587. Casey v. St. Louis S. W. Rv. Co. (Tex Civ. App.) 83 S. W. 20—798. Cash V. \\abash R. Co., 81 Mo. App 709—785. 905. Cashill V. Wright, 6 El. & B. 891—6 Cashman v. New York, etc., R. Co. 201 Mass. 35.5 — 1210. Casper v. Drv Dock, etc., R. Co.. 23 App. Div. (N. Y.) 451—1505. Casper v. Drv Dock, etc., R. Co.. 22 App. Div. (N. Y.) 156—1647. Casper v. New Orleans Ry., etc., Co., 121 La. 603—1484. Cass V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 96 Mass. 45.T — 411. Cassady v. Old Colonv St. Ry. Co. (Mass.), 68. N. E. 10—1477, 1692. Cassady v. Texas &. l\ \\y. Co., 131 La. 264 — 1606. Cassidy v. Angel. 12 R. 1. 449—1544. 1546. Cassilay'v. Young, 4 B. Mon. (Ky. ) 265—259. Cassio V. Brooklyn H. R. Co., 50 A.j)p. Div. (N. Y.) 617—1619. Castclano v. Cliicago, etc., R. Co., 149 111. App. 250—1480. Caswell V. Boston, etc., R. Corp., 98 Mass. 194—1083, 1601. Caterhani R. Co. v. London, etc., R. Co., 87 E. C. L. 410—150. Cathey v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 140 Mo. App. 134—1074, 1412. Catlin V. Adirondack Co., 81 N. Y. 639—^289. Caton V. Runiney, 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 387—56. Cau V. Texas, etc., R. Co., 113 Fed. 91—469. Cavallaro v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 110 Cal. 348—232, 339, 384. Cavenv v. Neely, 43 S. C. 70—1114. 1131. Cave V. Seaboard Air L. R. Co. (S. C), 77 S. E. 1017—1180. Cawfield v. Asheville St. R. Co., Ill N. C. .597—1245. Cayo V. Poole's Assignee, 108 Ky. 124 —73, 631, 646. Cayuga Countv Nat. Bank v. Daniels. 47 N. Y. 631—213. Caywood v. Seattle Electric Co., 50 Wash. 566—1669. Cedar Rapids & I. C. Ry. & L. Co. v. Chicago Co., 145 low'a, 528 — 1871. Central Coal & Coke Co. v. Hartman, 111 Fed. 0()— 623. Central, etc., R. Co. v. Brvant, 73 Ga. 722—454, 815. Central, etc.. R. Co. v. Chicago Por- trait Co., 122 Ga. 11—649. Central, etc., R. Co. v. Georgia Fruit. etc., Exch., 91 Ga. 389—369. Central, etc., R. Co. v. Miles, 88 Ala. 261—1508. Central, etc., R. Co. v. Morris, 68 Tex. 40— lis. 132, 154. Central, etc., R. Co. v. Motes, 117 Ga. 023—1076, 1077, 1151, 1170. Central, etc., R. Co. v. Price, 106 Ga. 170—1175. TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pages.) Ivii Central, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, 80 Ga. 526—1555. Central Iron Works v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 2 Dauph. Co. Rep. 308—156. Central of Ga. Ey. Co. v. A. C. Douw & Co., 6 Ga. App. 858—1908. Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. A F. Mer- rill & Co., 153 Ala. 277—384, 395, 421. Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Bagley, 173 Ala. 611—986, 1430, 1438. Central of Ga. Rv. Co. v. Bagley (Ala.), 55 So. 894—1422. Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Bashinski, 8 Ga. App. 116—296. General of Ga. Rv. Co. v. Bird. 10 Ga. App. 423—1731 Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Brown, 165 Ala. 493—493, 1157. Central of Georgia Rv. Co. v. Brown, 113 Ga. 414— 1150,"^1166. Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Burton, 165 Ala. 425—196, 423. General of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Butler Mar- ble & Granite Co., 8 Ga. App. 243 — 423, 512. General of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Butler Mar- ble & Granite Works, 8 Ga. App. 1 —168, 174, 475. Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Carleton, 163 Ala. 62—1197, 1663. Central of Ga, Ry. Co. v. Chicago Varnish Co., 169 Ala. 287—1924. Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Citv Milk Co., 128 Ga. 84i— 475. Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Cook & Lockett, 4 Ga. App. 698—129, 154. Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Felton, 110 Ga. 597—541. Central of Ga. Rv. Co. v. Geopp. 153 Ala. 408—1496. Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Glascock & Warfield, 117 Ga. 938—871. Central of n<>orgia Rv. Co. v. Hall, 124 Ga. 322—42, .308, 317, 784. Centra] of Ga. Ry. Co. v. James, 117 Ga. 832—852. ' Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Jon<'s, 150 Ala. 379-1357! 1381. Central of Ga. Rv. Co. v. ,Jon<'>, 7 Ga. App. 16.5—288! Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Lippman, 110 Ga. 66.5— .306, 427, 1215, 1221, 1458. CcTitral of Ga. R. Co. v. Madden, 135 Ga. 205—1271. Central of Ga. R. Co. v. McKinney, 118 Ga. 535—1572. Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Motes, 117 Ga. 923—1076, 1077, 1151, 1170. Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Murphy, 116 Ga. 683, 196 U. S. 194—297, 492. Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Patterson (Ala. App.), 60 So. 465—664, 1811. Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Price, 106 Ga. 176—961, 1006. Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Ricks, 109 Ga. 339—306. Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Rogers, 111 Ga. 865—852. Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Shdlnut, 131 Ga. 404—284. Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Sigma Lum- ter Co., 170 Ala. 627—142, 168, 309. Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Sims, 109 Ala. 29-5—1886, 1918, 1924, 1925. Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Stoirs, 1G9 Ala. 361—959, 1005. Central of Ga. Ry. C<). v. Turner, 143 Ala. 142—663. Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Willingham & Sons. 8 Ga. App. 817—658, 682. Central Pass R. Co. v. Kuhn. 86 Kv. 578—1475, 1494, 1512. Central Pass R. Co. v. Rose. 15 Kv. L. R. 209—1615. Central R. Co. v. Brown. 78 Md. 394 -1183. Central R. Co. v. Brinson. 64 Ga. 475 —1518. Central R. Co. v. Combs, 70 Ga. 533 —1452, 1707. Central R. Co. v. Cooper, 95 Ga. 406 —277. Central R. Co. v. Dwight Mfg. Co., 75 Ga. 609—743. Central R. Co. v. Freeman, 75 Ga. 331—1080, 1211, 1500. Central R. Co. v. Glass, 60 Ga. 441— 1258. Central R. Co. v. Green, SO Pa. St. 421—1143. Central R. Co. v. llassclkus, 91 Ga. as2— 570. 574. Central R. Co. v. Henderson. 60 Ga. 71.'^- 1013, 1064. Central R. Co. v. MacCartnev, 68 N". J. L. 165—660, 671. Central R. Co. v. Mackcy, ]f>3 III. A/pp. 1.5—1406. Iviii TABLE OL^ CASES. (The icfereucea are to the pages.) Central R. Co. v. Poiicuck, 09 Md. 257—111)8. Central R. Co. v. Pickett, 87 Ga. 734 —483, 484, 785. Central R. Co. v. Rogers, 6G Ga. 251 —585, 777. Central R. Co. v. Sanders, 73 Ga. 513 —1500. Central R. Co. v. Smith, 74 Md. 212 —1215, 1237, 15G7. Central R. Co. v. Strickland, 90 Ga. 5G2— IOCS, 1071, 1712. Central R. Co. v. Thompson, 76 Ga. 770—1212, 1235. Central R. Co. v. Van Horn, 38 N. J. L. 133—1226, 1673, 1567. Central R. Co v. Whitehead, 74 Ga. 441—997, 1245. Central R. Co. v. Wiegand, 79 Fed. 991—1330, 1351, 1358. Central R. Co. v. Wolff, 74 Ga. 664— 1558. Central R., etc., Co. v. Anderson, 58 Ga. 393—380, 519, 551. Central R., ete., Co. v. Avant, 80 Ga. 195—195, 766. Central R., etc., R. Co. v. Bayer, 91 Ga. 115—748, 777. Central R., etc., Co. v. Bridger, 94 Ga. 471—758. Central R., etc., Co. v. Georgia Fruit Exch., 91 Ga. 389—734. 757, 758. Central R., etc., Co. v. Lampley, 76 Ala. 357—20, 84, 277, 283. Central R., etc., Co. v. Latcher, 69 Ala. 106—1678. Central R., etc., Co. v. Miles, 88 Ala. 256—1236, 1598, 1676. 1677. 1678. Central A., etc., Co. v. Perry, 58 Ga. 461—973, 989, 1212, 1240, 1G07, 1624, 1220. Central R., etc., Co. v. Sawyer, 78 Ga. 784—651. Central R. Co. v. Skellie, 86 Ga. 686 —584. 617. 757. Central R.. etc., Co. v. Smith, 80 Ga. 526—1556. Central R., etc., Co. v. Smitha, 85 Ala. 47—454. 873, 878. Central Stock Yards Co. v. Louis- ville, etc., R. Co., 118 Fed. 113— 849, 1823. Central Texas, etc.. Rv. Co. v. Hollo- ^vnx (Tox.), 54 S. W. 419—1248. Central Tpxas, etc., R. Co. v. Fmith C^'^x. Civ. App.), 73 S. W. 537— 1267. Central Trust Co. v. East Tennessee, etc., Ry. Co., 70 Fed. 7G4— 289, 396. Central Trust Co. v. Pittsburg, etc., R. Co., 52 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 195 — 18G6. Central Trust Co. v. Savannali, etc., R. Co., G9 F'e,d. 683—616. Central Trust Co. v. Wabash, etc., R. Co. (Mo.), 31 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 103—738. Central Trust Co. v. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 39 Fed. 417—1294, 1298, 1301. Central Trust R. Co. v. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 31 Fed. 247—757, 1360. Central Union Teleph. Co. v. Brad- bury, 106 Ind. 1—87, 95. Central Union Toleph. Co. v. State, 123 Ind. 113—95. Central Vermont R. Co. v. Bateman, 26 U. S. App. 584 — 1114. Central Vermont R. Co. v. Soper, 59 Fod. 879—477, 482. Certain Logs of Mahogany, Fed. Cas. No. 2,559 (2 Sumn. 589), 648—676. ChaflFee v. Boston, etc., R. Corp., 104 Mass. 108—1242, 1598, 1691. Chaffee v. Consol. Ry. Co., 196 Mass. 484—1496. Chaffee v. Mississippi, etc., R. Co., 59 Miss. 182—214. Chaffee v. Old Colony R. Co., 17 R. I. 658—1613. Chalk V. Charlotte, etc., R, Co., 85 N. C. 42.3—202, 255, 393, 394. Chamberlain v. Chandler, 3 Mason (U. S.), 242—1176. Chamberlain v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. (Mich.), 68 N. W. 423—1395. Chambirlain v. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co., 7 Wis. 425—1477. Chamberlain v. Pierson, 87 Fod. 420 —1053. Chamberlain v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 55 ^To. Ar^v- 474—64. Chamberlain v. Westprn Transp. Co., 44 N. Y. 305—1990. Chamberlain v. Western Transp. Co., 45 Barb. (N. Y.) 218-1306. Chamber of Commerce v. Great Nor- thern R. Co., 5 Int. Com. C. Rep. 71—1794. Chambprs v. Keeper-Bensnu Hotel Co., 154 Mo. App. 249—977. Cliampnne v. La Crose City R. Co., 121 Wis. 554— IGSl. Champion v. Ames, 188 U. S. 321 — 1733, 1735. TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pages.) lus Chandla v. St. Louis Tr. Co., 213 Mo. 244 — 149(5. Chandler v. Belden, 18 Johns. (N. Y.) 157—648, 649. Chandler v. Fulton, 10 Tex. 24—224, Chandler v. Sprague, 38 Am. D<3C. 410, 229. Chapin v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 79 Iowa, 582—798, 903, 927. Chapman v. Atlantic Refining Co., 108 N. Y. 638—562. Chapman v. Capital Tract. Co., 37 App. D. C. 479—1658. Chapman v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 20 Wis. 295—583, 589. Chapman v. Erie R. Co., 55 N. Y. 579 —1133. Chapman v. Great Western R. Co., 42 L. T. N. S. 252, 5 Q. B. Div. 278, 28 W. R. 566—386, 392, 405, 566. Chapman v. New Haven R. Co., 19 N. Y, 341—1269. Chapman v. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 21 La. Ann. 224—570. Chapman v. Railroad Co., 7 Phila. (Pa.) 204—273. Chapman & Dewey Land Co. v. Jones- boro, etc., R. Co., 97 Ark. 300— 721. Charbonneau v. Nassau Electric R. Co., 123 App. Div. (N. Y.) 531— 1075. Charlebois v. Gogebie, etc., R. Co., 91 Mich. 59 — 549. Charles H. Lilly Co. v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 64 Wash. 589—716. Charles Schlesinger & Sons v. New York, etc., R. Co., 85 N. Y. Supp. 372—206. Charleston, etc., R. Co. v. Moore, SO Ga. 522—523. Charlotte, etc., R. Co. v. Wooten, 87 Ga. 203—316. Charlotte Trouper Co. v. Seaboard Air Line Ry., 139 N. C. 382—1357. Cliarnock v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 113 Fed. 92—469. Chase v. Alliance Ins. Co., 91 Mass. (9 Allen) 311—653. Chase V. Jamestown St. R. Co., 00 Hun (N. Y.), 582—1124. Chase v. New York Ctemt. R. Co., 26 N. Y. 52.3-1.394. Cha.gp v. Washington Mut. Ins. Co., 12 Barb. (N. Y.) 595—546. Chase v. Westmore, 5 M. & S. 180— 648. Chattanooga Elec. Ry. Co. v. Roddy, 105 Tenn. 666—1002, 1693. Chattanooga, etc., R. Co. v. Huggins, 89 Ga. 494—976, 1212. Chattanooga, etc., R. Co. v. Li,ddle, 85 Ga. 482—1723, 724. Chattanooga, etc., R. Co. v. Lyon, 89 Ga. 16—1229. Chattanooga R. T. Co. v. Venable, 105 Tenn. 460—1065. Chattanooga Southern R. Co. v. Thompson, 133 Ga. 127—139, 596. Chattock V. Bellamy, 64 L. J. Q. B. (N. S.) 250—83. Check V, Little Miami R. Co., 2 Disn. (Ohio) 37—1364. Checklev v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 257 111. 491—1472. Cheesman v. Exall, 6 Exch. 341—209. Chelsea Jute Mills v. Britain S. S. Co., 123 Fed. 176—205. Cheney v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 11 Mete. (Mass.), 121—1015, 1070. Cherokee, etc., Coal Co. v. Dixon, 55 Kan. 70—1562. Cherokee Packet Co. v. Hilson, 95 Tenn. 1—1282. Cherry v. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 52 Mo. App. 499—1016, 1425, Cherry v, Kansas Cltv, etc., R. Co., 1 Mo. Api-. Rep. 253—754. Che.sapeake & O. R. Co. v. Buckman (Va.), 76 S. E. 278—887, Chesapeake & 0. R. Co, v, Clowes, 93 Va. 189—1661. Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. Crank, 32 Ry. Law Rep. 1202—1404. Chesapeake & 0. R. Co. v. Dobbins, 23 Ky. Law Rep. 1588—667. Chesapeake & 0. R. Co. v. Dodge, 23 Ky. L. R. 1959—549, 1460. Chesapeake & O. Rv. Co. v. Fran- ci.sco, 149 Ky. 307—1179. Chesapeake & 0. R. Co. v. Hall, 136 Ky. 379—108, 120, 1295, Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. King, 99 Fed. 251—997, 1011, Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. Magowan, 147 Ky. 422—786, 863. Chesapeake & 0. R. Co. v, Morgan, 129 Ky. 731—1106. Chesapeake & 0. R. Cb. v, Morton, 143 Ky. 201—723. TABLE UF CASES. (Tlie refereuces are to the pages.) Chesapeake & 0. K. Co. v. Paris Adm'r, 111 Va. 41— loOD. Chetiapeako & 0. Ry. ^o. v. Tatton, 23 App. D. C. 113— 104'J, rJTli. Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. Robinette, 32 Ky. L. R. 1077—1390, 1401. Chesapeake & 0. R. Co. v. Buckinan (Va.), 7G S. E. 278—030. Ohesapouke & O. R. Co. v. Saulsberry, 126 Kv. 17!)— 24!), G07. Chesape;{ke & O. Hx. Co. v. Selsor, 142 Ky. 103—1140. Chesapeake & 0. R. Co. v. Standard Lumber Co., 174 Fed. 107—1811. Chesiipeake & 0. R. Co. v. Steele, 84 Fed. 93—1543. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. Wills, 111 Va. 32—1568. Chosaptake, etc., R. Co. v. American Exchange Bank, 92 Va. 495—495, 79S, 816, 820, 851. Chi^apeake, etc., R. Oo. v. Anderson, 93 Va. 650—1425. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. Board, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 1118—549. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. Dodge, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 15)59—549, 1460. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. Jordan, 25 Ky. Law Rep. 574—1212. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. Patton, 23 App. D. C. 113—1049, 1276. Che-sapeaka, etc.. R. Co. v. Radbourne, 52 III. App. 203—570, 746, 749. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. Reeves (Ky.), 11 S. W. 464—1563. Chesapeake, etc.. R. Co. v. Wells, 85 Tenn. 613—1070, 1143. Chesapeake, etc., Teleph. Co. v. Bal- timore, eftc., Tel. Co., 66 Md. 399— 95. Chesley v. Mississippi & R. R. Boom Co., 39 Minn. 83—86. Chesley v. St. Clair, 1 N. H. 189— 531. Chester Nat. Bank v. Atlantic, etc.. Air Line R. Co., 25 S. C. 216—225, 227. Chevalier v. Patton, 10 Tex. 344— 551. Chevallier v. Straham, 2 Tex. 115 — 20, 25, 27, 71, 73, 310, 458. Cheviot V. Brooks, 1 Johns. (N. Y.) 369—324. Chewnin^ v. Ensley R. Co., 100 Ala. 493—1562, 1602. Clioyne v. Van liiunt St., etc., R. Co., 97 App. Div. (N. Y.) 56—1199. Cliicagu &. A. R. Co. v. Addizoat, 17 111. App. (17 Bradw.) 632—1356. Chicago &, A. R. Co. v. Buckmaster, 74 111. App. 575—200. Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Carlock, (J9 111. App. 498—686. Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Cary, 115 III. 1L5— 1518. Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Dnmser, 161 111. 190—1216. Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Flaherty, 9t) 111. App. 563—1164. Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Gates, 61 111. App. 211—1664. Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Hall, 69 111. App. 497—686. Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 173 Fed. 930—1821, 1855. Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Kansas City Suburban Belt R. Co., 78 Mo. App. 245—292, 531. Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Kirby, 22.1 U. S. 155—839, 1808. Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Noble, 132 III. App. 400—1668. Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Suffern, 129 111. 274—117. Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Suffern, 27 111. App. 4G4— 117. Chicago & A. R. Co. v. United States, 156 Fed. 558—1816. Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Walker, 217 111. 605—973, 1281. Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Winters, 175 111. 293—961, 1007, 1036. Chicago & E. I. R. Co. v. Igo, 130 111. App. 373—862. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Smith, 81 111. App. 364—921. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Stanbro. 87 111. 195—245, 246. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Weeks, 98 111. App. 518—1023. Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co. v. Williams, 200 Fed. 207—1036, 1467. Chicago City R. Co. v. Burrell, 70 111. App. 60—1124. Chicago City Ry. Co. v. Carroll, 102 111. App. ,202—15,34. Chicago City R. Co. v. Catlin, 70 IlL App. 97—1476. TABLE OF CASES. ^Tlie references are to the pages.) 1X1 Chicago Citv Ry. Co. v. Considine, 50 111. App. 471—1180. Chicago City Ry. Co. v. Cooper, 128 111. App. 528—1169. Chicago Citv Rv- Co. v. Delcourt, 35 111. App. 430—1614. Chicago Citv Ry. Co. v. Engel, 35 111. App. 490—1212, 1494. Chicago City Ry. Co. v. Lewis, 5 111. App. 242—1595. Chicago City R. Co. v. Mead. 206 111. 174—1475. Chicago City Ry. Co. v. Morse, 98 111. App. 602—1215, 1222, ±534. Chicago City Ry. Co. v. Mumford, 97 111.^560-1237. Chicago City R. Co. v. Rood, 163 111. 477—1476. 1477. Chicago Citv Rv. Co. v. Rural, 127 111. App. 652—1485. Chicago Citv Ry. Co. v. Schaefer, 121 111. App. "334-1632. Chicago City R. Co. v. Schuler, 111 111. App. 470—548. Chicago City R. Co. v. Wilcox (111.), 24 N. E. 419—1589, 1587. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Abels, 60 Miss. 1017—33, 456, 495, 906. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Addizoat, 17 111. App. 632—1531. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Albert Pfeifer & Bro., 90 Ark. 524—294. Chicago, etc.. R. Co. v. Ames, 40 111. 249—587, 589. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Arnol, 144 111. 261—1212, 1226, 1237, 1265, 1673. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Bannerman, 15 111. App. 100—1029. Chicago, etc.. R. Co. v. Barrett, 16 111. App. 17—998, 1147, 1148, 1150. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Baugh, 175 Ind. 419—139, 801. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Bay Shore L. Co., 140 Mo. App. 52—681. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Beatty. 27 Okl. 844—557. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Becker, 76 111. 25—1580. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Benjamin, 63 HI. 283—569. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Bills, 104 Ind. 1.3—986, 1227, 1433. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Binsley, 69 Til. 630—204. 381. .393. 407. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Boger, 1 111. App. 472—1428, 1445. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Boggs. 101 Ind. 522—1510. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Bosworth, 179 U. S. 442— 123. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Boyce, 73 HI. 510—1293, 1298, 1350, 1355. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Bozarth, 91 111. App. 68—479, 480. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Brandon, 77 Kan. 612—1504. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Brisbane, 24 111. App. 463—1394. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Broe, 16 Okla. 25—598. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Bryan, 90 111. App. 126—1135, 1148, 1181. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Bryant, 65 Fed. 969—988, 1064. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Burlington. etc., R. Co., 34 Fed. 481—122, 124, 733. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Calumet Stock Farm, 194 111. 9—890. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Calumet Stock Farm, 96 111. App. 337—896. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Carey, 115 111. "115—905. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Carpenter, 5& Fed. 451—1036. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Carroll, 5 111. App. 201—948, 1144, 1638. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Carroll, 56 Tex. Civ. App. 359—871. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Casazza, 83 111. App. 421—1425, 1431, 1433. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Casey, 9 111. App. 632-988, 1016, 1042. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. C. C. MiH Elev., etc.. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 87 S. W. 753—599. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Champion (Ind.), 32 N. E. 874—1556. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Chancellor, 60 111. App. 525—989. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Chapman, 133 111. 96—492, 1460. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 721—1852. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Chisholm, 70 111. 584—985, 1027, 1712, 1729. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Church, 12 111. App. 17—758. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. daunts, 99 Ark. 248—1668. Ixii TABLE OF CASES. (The reforonces are to the pages.) Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Clayton, 78 111. til6— l;l-15, 1347. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Clements (Tox. Civ. App.), 115 S. W. (;G4— 795, 1926. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Collins, 56 111. 212 1292. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Conklin, 32 Kan. 55—1301, 1302, 1306, 1330. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Conley, 6 Ind. App. 9—1712. Chicago, etc.. R. Co. v. Conway, 34 Okl. 356— SS3. Chicago, etc.. R. Co. v. Clough, 134 111. 586- 15S0. Chicaoo. etc., R. Co. v. Coss, 73 111. 394—1232. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Cotton, 87 Ark. 339—922. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Crenshaw (Tex. Civ. App.), 126 S. W. 602— 800. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Curtis, 51 Neb. 442—123. Chicaso, etc., R. Co. v. Dane, 43 N. Y. 240—146. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Davis, 159 111. 53—403, 518. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Davis, 54 111. App. 130—151. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Dewey, 26 111. 255—1002. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Dickinson, 74 111.^249—509, 582, 596. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Dingman, 1 111. App. 164—1665, 1666. Chicasro, etc., R. Co. v. Dodson & Wil- liams, 25 Okl. 822—724. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Dorsey Fuel Co., 112 111. App. 382—627, 6S9. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Drake, 33 111. App. 114—1241, 1246. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Elliott, 55 Fed. 949—1608. Chicago, etc.. R. Co. v. Erickson, 91 111. 613—788. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Fahey, 52 111. 81—1302, 1363. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Fairelough, 51 111. 106-199. Chicago, etc.. R. Co. v. Feintuch, 191 Fed. 482—1838, 1887. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Felton, 125 111. 458—1533, 1583. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Field, 7 Ind. App. 172—971, 987. Cliicaco. etc., R. Co. v. Filmore, 57 111. "265-1563. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Fisher, 141 111. 614—1638, 1639. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Fisher, 06 111. 152—1256. Cliicago, etc., R. Co. v. Fisher, 31 111. App. 36—1144, 1558. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Fisher, 49 Kan. 400—1212. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Flagg, 43 III. 364—128, 1145, 1394, 1423, 142 J, 1711, 1712, 1719. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Flexman, 103 111. 546—1012, 1131, 1170, 1261. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Flexman, 9 111. App. 250—1150. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Frazer, 55 Kan. 582-1008, 1039. Chicago, etc., R. co. v. Frye-Bruhn Co., 184 Fed. 15—941. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Fuller, 17 Wall. (U. S.) 500—1758. Ch'cago, etc., R. Co. v. George, 19 III. 510—1212. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Goldman, 46 111. App. 625—747. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Graham, 3 Ind. App. 28—1068, 1071, 1394, 1416. Chicago City Ry. Co. v. Greinke, 13 111. App. 77—1496. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Gretzner, 46 111. 74—1212. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Griffin, 68 111. 499—1146, 1175, 1407, 1705. 1713. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Gustin, 35 Neb. 86—740. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Hale, 2 111. App. 150—624. Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Hall, 69 111. App. 497—686. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Halsell, 36 Tex, Civ. App. 522—858, 871. Chieafjo, etc., R. Co. v. Hambel (Neb.), 89 N. W. 043—1465. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Harmon, 17 111. "App. 640—463, 516. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Harmon, 12 111. App. 54—33, 427, 433, 493, 822, 824. 800. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Harrison, 100 Til. App. 211—1010, 1012. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Hawk, 42 III. App. 322—463. TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pages.) Ixiii Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Hazzard, 28 111. 373—1106, 1264, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Henderson (Tex. Civ. App.), 73 S. W. 36— 166. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Herring, 57 111. 59—1713. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Hoffman, 82 111. App. 453—1040. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Holdridge, 118 Ind. 281—1711, 1727. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Hostetter, 171 Ind. 465—792, 1039. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Hoyt, 37 HI. App. 64—404. Chicago, etc., R. Co, v. Iowa, 94 U. S. 155—113, 1753, 1761. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. James, 81 Kan. 23 — 480. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v, Jenkins, 103 111.^599—381, 626, 701, Chicago, etc., R. Co, v, Jennings, 190 HI, 478—1018. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Johnson, 36 III, App. 564—1559. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v, Jones (Tex, Civ. App.), 118 S. W, 759—599, 867, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 171 Fed, 680-1803, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Kapp (Tex. Civ. App.), 117 S. W. 904—869. Chicago, etc., R, Co. v. Kapp (Tex, Civ. App.), 83 S. W, 233—909. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Katzenbach, 118 Ind. 174—479, 517, 584. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co, v. Kehn, 121 Minn. 34.3—242, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Kendall, 72 111. App. 105—196, 380. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Koehler, 47 HI. .App. 147—1162, 1613. Chica'^o, etc., R. Co. v. Lagerkrans (Neb ), 91 N. W. 385-1691, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Lampman, 18 Wyo. 106—1667, 1682. Chicnfro. etc., R. Co. v. Landauer, 36 Nrb. 642—1241, 1676. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Latta, 226 V S. 519—500. 502, 1915. Chicnio. ntc, R. Co. v, Lee, 92 Fed, P,]fi — nn2. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Lee, 68 111. 576—1270. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Lena Lumber Co., 99 Ark, 105—721, Chicago, etc, R. Co. v. Lewis, 145 111. 67—1082, 1083, 1117, 1212, 1270. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Lewis, 48 111. App. 274—1555. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. v. Lloyd, 129 111, App. 156—1682. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Lowell, 151 U, S, 209—1573, 1666, 1689. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Mann, 78 Neb. 541—1059, 1287, 1469. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Manning, 23 Neb. 552—314, 338, 363. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Martelle (Neb.), 91 N, W. 364—1678, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v, McAra, 52 111, 296—1104, 1270. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. McLallen, 84 111. 109—1069. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Meech, 59 111. App. 69—1717, 1728. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Mehlsack, 131 111. 61—1016. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v, Mehlsack, 44 111, App. 124—1099. Chicago, etc., R, Co, v, Merrill, 48 111. 425—262, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Michie, 83 111. 427—988, 1042, 1U59. Chicago, etc, R, Co. v. Miles, 92 Ark. 573—601, 842, 861, 919, 1924, Chicago, etc., R, Co. v. Mill Elevator, etc., Co. yTex. Civ. App,), 87 S, W. 753—623, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Miller, 226 U, S. 513, 519—500, 1915. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Mitchell (Tex. Civ. App.), 85 S. W, 286—806, 882, 887, 896. Chicago, etc, R. Co. v. Mock, 88 IlL 87—1477, 1533. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v, Mnntfort, 60 HI. 175—455, 463, 743, 766, 769, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Moran, 129 111. App. 38—1022. Chicago, etc, R. Co, v, Moran, 117 111. App. 42—1019. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Morris, 16 Wyo. 308—831, 839, 855, 870. 880. Chicasro, etc, R. Co. v. Moss, 60 Miss. 100.3—456, 495, 552, 576. 577. 579. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Ncusch, 99 Ark. 568—294, 607, Ixiv TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pages.) Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Newburn, 27 Okl. 9—1417. Chicago, etc.. R. Co. v. Newhouse Mill, etc., Co., 00 Ark. 452—622. Chicago, etc.. R. Co. v. New York, etc., R. Co., 24 Fed. 516—733. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Northern Line Packet Co., 70 111. 217—217, 748, 772. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Northwestern Union Packet Co., 38 Iowa, 377 — 62G. 643. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. OBrien. 132 Fed. 593—1053. Chicago, etc., Co. v. Olsen, 7 Ind. App. 698—1445. Chicago, etc., R. Co, v. Osborne, 52 Fed! 912—729, 1759, 1775, 1790, 1797. 1833. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Owen, 21 111. App. 339—927. Chicago, etc.. R. Co. v. Parks, 18 111. 460—1069, 1394, 1423, 1429, 1721. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Peacock, 48 111. 253—1016. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 1 Int. Com. C. Rep. 86, 1 Int. Com. R. 357—729, 1824, 1825. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. People, 105 111. 657—1230. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. People, 67 111. 11—159. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. People, 56 111. 365—743. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Pfeifer & Bro., 90 Ark. 524—607. Cbicago, etc., R. Co. v. Pillsbury, 123 111. 9— 1131, 1143, 1147, 1187, 1212. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Planters Gin & Oil Co., 88 Ark. 77—349, 546, 608. 621. Chicago, etc.. R. Co. v. Pollock, 16 Wyo. 321—801, 834. Chica:aux v. Leech, 18 Pa. St, 224 — 33, 334, 338, 740. Christensen v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 137 Fed. 708—1103. Christenson v. American Kxp. Co., 15 Minn. 270—39, 40, 81, 453, 456, 762, 890, 1450. Christenson v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 134 App. Div. (N. Y.) 703— 1011. Christenson v. Oregon Sliort Line R. Co., 35 Utah, 137—1493, 1495, 1096. Christian v. First Div. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., 20 Minn. 21—273. Christie v. Griggs, 2 Campb. 79—948, 1118, 1505. Christie v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 94 Mo. 453—678. Christy v. Smith, 23 Vt. 663—85. Ohrystal v. Flint, 82 Fed. 472—1986, 2036. Chudnooski v. Eckels, 232 HI. 312— 993. Cliurch V. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 1 Okla. 44—740, 747. Church V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 81 Neb. 615—786. Cliurch V. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 135 App. Div. (N. Y.) 914 — 1357, 1380, 1388. Cicero & P. St. R. Co. Neixner, 160 111. 320—1616. Cincinnati & C. Traction Co. v. Nor- folk & W. Ry. Co., 28 Ohio Cir. Ct. R. 543—700. Cincinnati Chronicle Co. v. White Line Cent. Transp. Co., 1 Cine. Super. Ct. Rep. 300-620. Cincinnati, etc.. Mail Line Co. V. Boal, 15 Ind. 345—8, 109. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Berdan, 22 Ohio Cir. Ct. 326 — 419, 432. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Branden- burg, 142 Ky. 814—1442. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Brown, 2 Ohio D"c. 494-1501. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Butler, 103 Ind. 31—1541. TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pages.) Ixvii CSncinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Carper, 112 Ind. 26—988, 1013, 1285. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Carson, 145 Ky. 81—1417, 1546. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Case, 122 Ind. 310—342, 834. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Cole, 29 Ohio St. ]26— 1714. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Cooper, 120 Ind. 469—1220, 1247. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Disbrow, 76 Ga. 253—816. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Eaton, 94 Ind. 474—1701, 1703, 1709, 1710. Cincinnati, etc., R. to. v. Giboney, 30 Ky. Law Rep. 1005—1279. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Graves, 21 Ky. L. Rep. 684—896. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Greening, 30 Ky. Law Rep. 1180—786, 912. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Gregg, 25 Ky. Law Rep. 2329—820, 915, 938. Cincinnati, etc., Ry. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 206 U. S. 142—1804, 1842. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Com., 162 U. S. 184 — 1760, 1761, 1773, 1775, 1781, 1793, 1825, 1829, 1956. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Jackson, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 630—972, 1221. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Kelsey, 9 Ohio C. C. 170—1475. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Logan & Handley, 29 Ky. Law Rep. 1123— 863. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Lohe (Ohio), 67 N. E. 161—1071, 1572, 1639. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Lorton, 33 Ky. Law Rep. 689—1109. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Marcus. 38 111. 219—1294, 1295, 1300. 1302. Cincinnati, e-tc, R. Co. v. McCool, 26 Ind. 140—381. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. McMuHen, 117 Ind. 439— 1.542. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. N. K. Fair- banks & Co., 90 Fed. 467—340. Cincinnati, etc.. R. Co. v. Nolan, 8 Olno C. C. 347— 15r3. CinciT^n'ti, etc., R. Co. v. Pby, 134 lud. 563—1148. Citv Bank v. Rome, etc., R. Co., 44 N. Y. 13(i— 222, 232, 233. City Electric Ry. Co. v. Salmon, 1 Ga. App. 491—1058. City Electric R. Co. v. Shropshire, 101 Ga. 33—1426. City, etc., R. Co. v. Brauss, 70 Ga. 368—380, 1711, 1712, 1722. City, «tc., R. Co. V. Findley, 76 Ga. 311—1475. City, etc., R. Co. v. Sveddorg, 20 App. D. C. 543—1475. City of Kansas Citv v. Orr (Kan.), 61 Pac. 3!)7— 1599. Citv of Vicksburg v. Hennessey, 54 Mass. 391—1541. Citv R. Co. V. Lee, 50 N. J. L. 438— 1641, 1644. Claflin V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 7 Al- len (Mass.), 341—21, 234, 245, 277. Claflin V. Meyer, 75 N. Y. 260—413, 570. Claiborne v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 21 Tex. Civ. App. 648—1164. 1221. Clanton v. Morgan's La., etc., S. S. Co., 127 La. 1—1660. Clanton v. Southern Ry. Co., 165 Ala. 485—1650. Clapp V. Hudson River R. Co., 19 Barb. (N. Y.) 461—1718, 1729. Clapp V. Stanton, 20 La. Ann. 49.5 — • 54. Clara Turner Co. v. New York, etc., R. Co., 86 Conn. 71—172, 178. Clark V. American Express Co., 130 Iowa, 254 — 597, 606. 607. Clark V. Atchison, etc., Ry. Co., 164 Cal. 36.3—1684. Clark V. Barnwell, 12 How. (U. S.) 272—75, 76, 551, 569, 575, 578. Clark V. Boston, etc., R. O., 64 N. H. 323—1511. Clark V. Brewer, 6 Gray (Mass.), 320—332. Clark V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 127 Mo. 197—1404. Clark V. Colorado, etc., R. Co., 165 Fed. 408—970. Llark v. Durham Traction Co., 138 N. C. 77—962, 1007, 1249. Clark V. Eastern R. Co., 139 Ma*J8. 423—1351, 1353. Clark V. Eighth Ave. R. Co., 36 N. Y. 135—1642, 1644. Clerk V. Faxton, 21 Wend. 153—61, 62, 424, 1338, 1451. Clark V. Great Northern R. Co., 37 Wash. 537—1433, 1434. Clark V. Harrisburg Traction Co., 20 Pa. Super. Ct. 76—1406. Clarke v. Louisville & M. R. Co., 101 Ky. 34 — 1655. Clark V. Louisville & N. R. Co., 33 ' Ky. Law Re-p. 797—969. Clark V. Lowell, etc., R. Co., 9 Gray (Mass.), 231—633. Clark V. Martin, 135 N. Y. Supp. 664 —474. > Clark V. Alassacluisetts, etc., Ins. Co., 19 Ma^s. 2 (Pick.) 104—243. Clark V. Masters. 14 N. Y. Super. Ct. (1 Bosvv.) 177—675, 676, 677. Clark V. McDonald, 4 McCord (S. C), 223—31, 948. Clark V. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 68 App. Div. (N. Y.) 49—1607. Clark V. Nassau Elec. R. Co., 9 App. Div. (N. Y.) 51—1509. Clark V. Needles. 25 Pa. St. 338—81, 119, 170, 342, 352, 372, 375. Clark V. New Y'ork Cent., etc., R. Co., 141 N. Y'. Rupp. 966—1382. Clark V. Pacific R. Co., 39 Mo. 184— 324, 372. Clark V. Railroad Co., 127 Mo. 210 — 1488. Clark V. Richards, 1 Conn. M — 75. Clark V. Rochester, etc., R. Co., 14 N. Y. 570—31, 784, 816, 823. Clark V. Spencer, 10 Wartits (Pa,), 335—571. Clark V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 64 Mo. 447—485, 822, Clark V. Ulster & D. R. Co., 189 N. Y. 93—931, 935. Clark V. Union Ferry Co., 35 N. Y. 485—59. Clark V. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 91 N. C. 512—1391, 1393, 1396. Clarke-Lawrence Co. v. Chesapeake & 0. R. Co., 63 W. Va. 423—277, 508. TABLE OF CASES. Ixis (The references are to the pages.) Clarkson v. Edes, 4 Cow. (N. Y.) 470—625. Clarkson v. Erie & Noth Shore Di- spatch, 6 111. App. 284—48. Claybrook v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 73 S. W. 24— 1026. daypool V. McAllister, 20 111. 504— 59. Cleary v. Bloomington, etc., Elec. Ry. Co., 150 111. App. 418—1650. Clegg V. Gulf, etc., Ry. Co., 104 Tex. 280—787. Clegg V. Southern Ry. Co., 135 N. C. 148—291. Clegg V. St. Louis & F. R. Co., 203 Fed. 971—1811. Clegg Lumber Co. v. Atlantic & B. Ry. Co., 123 Ga. 603—682. deghorn v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 56 N. Y. 44—1131, 1723, 1724, 1725. Clement v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 9 N. Y. Supp. 601—234. Clemmens v. Wasliington Park Steamboat Co., 162 Fed. 815— 1515. Clendaniel v. Tuckerman, 17 Barb. (N. Y.) 184—164, 198. Clerc V. Morgan's L. & T. R. Co., 107 La. 370—1100, 1166, 1199. Cleve V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 84 Neb. 158—825. Cleve V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 77 Neb. 166—841. Cleveland v. Bangor, 87 Me. 259 — 1600. Cleveland v. Louisville, etc., R. 94 Ind. 276—1257. Cleveland v. New Jersey Steamboat Co., 125 N. Y. 299—1124. Cleveland v. New Jersey vSteamboat Co., 98 N. Y. 562—1115. Cleveland v. New .Jersov Steamiboat Co., 68 N. Y. 306— 986, 990. 1627. Cleveland 4 Pine Bluff, Arkansas, Ry. Co. (Ark.), 154 S. W. 191— 1045. Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. Rv. Co. v. Henry, 170 Ind. 94—13, 24, 97. 121, 1277, 1458. 1468. Cleveland Citv Rv. Co. v. Os'bom, 66 Ohio St. 4.5—1223, 1486. Cleveland Citv R. Co. v. Roi:buck, 22 Ohio C. C.'R. 99—1425. Cleveland Elec. R. Co. v. Wadsworth, 25 Ohio Cir. Ct. 376—1692. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Anderson, 21 O. C. 0. R. 288, 110 C. D. 765 —1081. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Balleutino, 84 Fed. 935—548. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Bartram, 11 Ohio St. 457—991, 1058, 1069, 1136, 1145, 1411, 1423, 1614. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Beckett, 11 lud. App. 547—1394, 1416. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. B^t, 169 111. 301—971, 1044. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. C. & A. Potts & Co. (Ind. App.), 71 N. E. 685—481, 573. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Carey (Ind. App.), 71 N. E. 244—552. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Cline, HI 111. App. 416—548, 549. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. ClosSer, 126 Ind. 348—146, 160, 679. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Crawford, 24 Ohio St. 631—571, 905, 1476, 1478. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Curran, 19 Ohio St. 1—8, 457, 1033, 1037, 1038, 1450, 1461, 1467. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Druien, 26 Ky. Law Rep. 103—449. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Hadley, 170 Ind. 204 — 1491, 1696. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Hayes (Ind.), 102 N. E. 34—317. Cleveland, etc.. R. Co. v. Heath, 22 Ind. App. 47—349, 545, 903. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Hirsch, 204 Fed. 849—1818. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Holden, 73 111. App. 582—628, 762. Cleveland, etc.. R. Co. v. Hollowell, 172 Ind. 466—893. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Illinois, 177 U. S. 514—1894. Cleveland, etc.. R. Co. v. Jones (Ind. App.), 99 N. E. .503—982. Cleveland, etc.. R. Co. v. Ketcham, 133 Ind. 346—1030, 1049. Cleveland, etc.. R. ( o. v. Kinsley, 27 Ind. App. 135—1416. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Kamm, 73 111. App. 592—528, 691, 702. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Lindsay, 109 111. App. .533—549, 5o2. jxx TABLE OF CAfeES. (The references are to the pages.) Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Louisville Tin & Stove Co., 33 Ky. Law Hep. 924 — 5GJ. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Manson, 30 Ohio St. 451—1213, 121!), lliOl. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. McClurg, li:t U. S. 454—026. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. McHenry, 47 111. App. 301—1107, 1665. Clevokvad, etc., R. Co. v. Moline Plow Co., 13 Ind. App. 225—218. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Moneyliun, 141) ind. 147, 44 N. E. HOG— 1506, 1647. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Newell, 104 Ind. 264—116, 1512, 1556. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Newell, 75 Ind. 542—1083, 1261, 1501, 1558. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Ncwlin, 74 111. App. 638—479. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Patterson, 69 III. App. 438—876. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Patton, 203 111. 376—858, 906, 933. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Perishow, 61 111. App. 179—133, 287. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v, Perkins, 17 Mich. 296—585, 838. Cleveland, etc., R. Co, v. Reese, 93 111. App. 657—1200. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Rudy, 17 Ind. 181—680, 830, 887, 901. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Sargent, 19 Ohio St. 438—272, 847. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Scott, 111 111. App. 234—985. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Sutherland, 19 Ohio St. 151—1727. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Troesch, 68 111. 545—1533. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Wade, 18 Ind. App. 346—1112, 1601. 1607. Cleveland, etc , R. Co. v. Walrath, 38 Ohio St. 461—68, 945, 1106, 1505. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Wright, 25 Ind. App. 525—206. Cleveland, etc., Traction Co. v. Ward, 27 Ohio Cir. Ct. Rep. 761-1100. Cline v. Pittsburg Rys. Co., 220 Pa. 586—1522. Clintock v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 21 W. N. C. (Pa.) 13.3—1675. Clinton v. Prooklvn Heights R. Co., 01 App. Div. (N. Y.) 374—1620. Clinton V. Root, 58 Mich. 182—1576, 1608. Clotworthy v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., SO Mo. 220—1678. Cloud v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 14 Mo. App. 136— yjO. Clough v. Grand Trunk & Western K. Co., 155 Fed. 81—1047. Clow v. Pittsburgh Traction Co., 158 Pa. 410—1475, 1486, 1494, 1504. Clubb v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co., 136 Mo. App. 1—885, 901. Clunn V. Willianisport, etc., R. Co., 39 Pa. Super. Ct. 591—591, 998. Clyde V. Hubbard, 88 Pa. St. 358— 740. Clyde Steamship Co. v. Burrow, 36 Fla. 121—26, 485. Coasting Co. v. Tolson, 139 U. S. 557 —1543. Coates V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 8 S. D. 173—539. Coates V. United States Express Co., 45 Mo. 238—754, 779. Cobb V. Boston El. Ry., 179 Mass. 212—1194. Cobb V. Great Western R. Co., 1 Q. B. 459—1701, 1704. Cobb V. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 88 HI. 394—136. Cobb V. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 38 Iowa, «01— 117, 136, 185, 344, 556, 582, 615, 617, 727. Cobb V. Lindell R. Co., 149 Mo. 135— 1239. Cobb V. St. Louis & H. R. Co., 149 Mo. 609—1086. Cobban v. Downe, 5 Esp. N. P. 41— 186. Coburn v. Moline, E. M. & W. Ry. Co., 243 111. 448—1509. Coburn v. Moline, etc., Ry. Co., 149 111. App. 132—1531, 1574. Coburn v. Morgan's L. & T. R. Co., 105 La. 398—1025. Cocliran v. Dinsmore, 49 N. Y. 249 — 575, 578. Coddinatnn v. Brooklyn, etc., R. Co., 102 N. Y. 66—947, 1080, 1214, 1218, 1208. Cody V. Central Pac. R. Co., 4 Sawy. (ij. S.) 114—1029. Cody y. Duluth St. Ry. Co, (Minn.), 102 N. W. 201—1682. Cody y. New York, etc., R, Co., 151 Mass. 462—1628. Coe V, Errol, 116 U, S, 517—1852. TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pages.) Ixxi Coe V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 3 Fed. 775 — 246, 733. Coffin V. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 56 N. Y. 632—452. Coffin V. New York Central R. Co., 64 Barb. (N. Y.) 379—431, 447, 452. Coggins V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 18 111. App. 620—1150, 1170. Coggs V. Bernard, 2 Ld. Rayn. 909 — 5, 7, 11, 27, 28, 29, 75, 324. Cogsville V. West St., etc., E. R. Co., 5 Wash. 46—1717. Cogswell V. West Side, etc., R. Co., 5 Wash. 46—49, 990, 1218, 1646. Cohen v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 127 N. Y. Supp. 561—1529. Cohen v. Hume, 1 McCord L. (S. C.) 439—75, 169. Cohen v. Missouri, etc., Ry. Co., 126 Mo. App. 244—763. Cohen v. Morris European & Ameri- can Express Co., 136 N. Y. bupp. 489—509. Cohen v. Southern Express Co., 45 Ga. 148—339, 743. Cohen v. South Eastern R. Co., 2 Exch. Div. 253—428. Cohen v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 59 Mo. App. 66—1350, 1353. Colin V. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 6 App. Div. (N. Y.) 193—1553. Cohn V. Piatt, 48 Misc. R. (N. Y.) 378—791. Cohn-Goodman Co. v. Wells, Fargo E.cpre?R Co., 32 Ohio Cir. Ct. R. 190—501. Coine v. Chicaeo, etc., R. Co., 123 Iowa, 458—1711. Colbeck V. Sampsell, 140 111. App. 506 —1023. Coldwcll V. Manhattan Ry. Co., 57 Hun (N. Y.), 452—1207. Col dwell V. Murphy, 11 N. Y. 416— 1501, Cole V. Atlnntic, etc., R. Co., 102 Ga. 474—1178. Cole V. Gonrlwin. 19 Wend. fN. Y.) 251 — 44. 02. 76, 116. 424. 426, 429, 464, 490, 948, 1302. 1330. 1338, 1449, 1451. Cole V. Minneapolis, etc., Ry. Co., 117 Minn. .3.3—513. ole V. Now York Cent. R. Co., 48 N. Y. 079-1506. Cole V, Wabash, etc., R. Co., 21 Mo. App. 443—234. Cole V. Western Union Tel. Co., 33 Minn. 227—478. Colegrove v. New York, etc., R. Co., 20 N. Y. 492—1209. Coleman v. Boston, etc., R. Co,, 106 Mass. 160—1148. Coleman v. Frazier, 4 Rich (S. C), 146-85. Coleman v. Georgia, etc., R. Co., 84 Ga. 1—986, 1061. Coleman v. New York, etc., R. Co., 106 Mass. 160—1181, 1425, 1434. Coleman v. New York, etc., R. Co., 102 N. E. 92—424, 500. Coleman v. Riches, 16 C. B. 104— 229, 542. Coleman v. Second Ave, R. Co., 114 N. Y. 609, 612—1097, 1642. Coleman v. Yazoo & M. V. R. Co., 90 Miss. 629—1170. Coles V. Central R., etc., Co., 86 Ga. 251—191, 730. Coles V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 41 111. App. 607—445, 481, 766, 785, 880. Cole's Adm'r v. Chesapeake O. Ry. Co. (Ky.), 113 S. W. 822—1284. Colfax Mountain Fruit Co. v. South- ern Pac. Co. (Cal.), 46 Pac. 608— 752. Colgate V. Pennsylvania Co., 102 N. Y. 120—217, 220. 222, 225. Coll V. Eastern Trans. Co., 180 Pa. St. 618—1503. Coll V. Toronto R. Co., 25 Ont. App. 5.5—1020. Collard v. South Eastern R. Co., 7 H. & N. 79—599, 617. Collenrler v. Dinsmore, 55 N. Y. 205 —203. Coller V. Frank-ford, etc., R. Co. (Pa.), 9 W. N. C. 477—1587. Collctt V. London, etc., R. Co.. 16 Q. B. 984. 6 Eng. L. & Eq. 305—948, 1050, 1052. Collier v. Langan & Tnvlor Storage & Moving Co. (Mo. App.), 127 S. W. 435-39, 72. Collier v. Swinney. 16 Mo. 484 — 350. Collins V. Alabama, etc., R. Co., 104 Ala. 390—384, 397, 398, 399, 405, 411. Lxxii TABLE OF CASES. (The rofi'it'iK'i.'s are to the pages.) Collins V. Boston, L-tc., R. I'o., 04 Mass. (10 Cnsh.) oOli— 1201, 1300. Collins V. East TcniK'ssoo R. Co., 9 Heisk. (Tenn.) S41 — 1511. Collins V. Union Tiansp. Co., 10 Watts. (Ra.) 3S4— ti72. Collnian v. Collins, 2 Hall. (N. Y.) 51)8—033. Colorado &, S. Ry. Co. v. Manatt, 21 Colo. App. 593—442, 506. Colorado B. R. Co. v. Breniman, 22 Colo. App. 1—171, 178, 799, 829, S72. Colorado Fuel & T. Co. v. Southern Pac. Co., 6 Int. Com. Rep. 488— 1790. Colorado Springs, etc., R. Co. v. Petit, 37 Colo. 326—961, 1006. Colseh V. Chicago, etc., R, Co., 14!) Iowa, 170, 117 N. W. 281—786, 827, 854, 876, 897. Colt V. McMechen, 6 Johns. (N. Y.) 100—27, 75, 313, 569. Colton V. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 67 Pa. St. 211—576, 578. Columbus, etc., R. Co. v. Arnold, 31 Ind. 174—1063. Columbus, etc., R. Co. v. Bridges, 86 Ala. 448—314. Columbus, etc.. R. Co. v. Farrell. 31 Ind. 408—1231, 1250. Columbus, etc., R. Co. v. Flournoy, 75 Ga. 745—248, 600, 603, 618. Columbus, etc.. R. Co. v. Kennedy, 78 Ga. 646—309. 576. 1510. Columbus, etc., R. Co. v. Ludden, 89 Ala. 612—384. 391, 393, 394. Columbus, etc.. R. Co. v. Powell. 40 Ind. 37—988, 1228, 1247, 1248, 1390. 1592. Columbus Ry. v. Muns. 27 Ohio Cir. Ct. R. 277—1000. Columbus Ry. Co. v. Asbell, 133 Ga. 573—997, 1002. Columbus Southern Ry. Co. v. Wool- folk, 94 Ga. 507—677. Colwell V. Manhattan R, Co., 57 Hun (N. Y.), 542—1645. Colyar v. Tavlor, 1 Coldw. (T^nn.) 3*72—5. Combe v. London, etc., R. Co., 31 L. T. N. S. 631—153, 805, 927. Comer v. Columbia, etc., R. Co., 52 S. C. 36 — 815, 915. Cfmer v. Stewart. 97 Ga. 403—815. (omly V. Pennsylvania R. Co. (Pa.), 12 At!. 496—1018. Comnierce Commission Denver & R. Co. V. Interstate Commerce, 195 Fed. DOS- 1 838. Commercial iJank v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 100 111. 401—220, 227. Commercial Bank v. Pfeiffcr, 108 N. Y. 242-220. Commercial Club v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., Int. Cora. Rep. 647—1794. Commonwealth v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 129 ]\Iass. 500—1011. Commonwealth v. Carey, 147 Mass. 40 —1127. Commonwealth v. Connecticut River R. Co., 15 Gray (Mass.), 447—1302, 1303, 1304. Commonwealth v. Doe, 44 Pa. Super. Ct. 333—1074. Commonwealth v. Power, 7 Mete. (Mass.) 596—1069, 1070, 1127, 1409. Commonwealth v. Vermont & M. R. Co., 108 Mass. 7—1020, 1066. Compania De Navgacion La Flecha v. Brauer, 168 U. S. 104—2010, 2027. Compton V. Long Island R. Co., 41 Hun (N. Y.), 642—1220. Compton V. Long Island R. Co., 1 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 554—1228. Compton V. Shaw, 1 Hun (N. Y.), 441 —025, 645. Compton V. Van Valkenburgh, 34 N. J. L. 13.5—1070. Com'r V. Eastern R. Co., 103 Mass. 258—121. Comstock V. Affoelter, 50 Mo. 411 — 134. Concord, etc., R. Co. v. Forsaith, 50 N. H. 122—161. Condiet v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 54 N. Y. 500—372, 461, 735, 739, 754, 753, 770. Condon v. Marquette, etc., R. Co., 55 Mich. 218-773, 775. Condy v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co.. 85 Mo. 79—1487. Condy v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 1.3 MJ. App. 588—1220, 1632. Condran v. Railroad, 67 Fed. 522 — 992, 1017. Cone V. Southern Ry. Co., 85 S. C. .■524—1347, 1388. TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pages.) Ixxiii Cougar v. Galena, etc., R. Co., 17 Wis. 477 — 551, 752. Conger v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 2i Wis. 157—36, 559. Conger v. Hudson River R. Co., 6 Duer (N. Y.), .375—360, 596, 823. Conger v. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., 45 Minn. 207—1150. Conheim v. Chicago Great Western R. Co., 104 Minn. 312—1303, 1385. Conkey v. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co., 31 Wis. 619—359, 745, 746, 773, 774, 776. Connaughton v. Brooklyn, etc., R. Co., 13 Misc. R. (N. Y.) 403— ini3. Connell v. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 93 Va. 44—1167, 1190. Connell v. Mobile, etc.. R. Co. (Miss.), 7 So. 344—1069. Connell v. New York, etc., R. Co., 134 App. Div. (N. Y.) 231—1173. Connell Bros. v. Southern Ry. Co. (N. C), 56 S. E. 559—322. ConneU's Ex'rs v. Railway Co., 93 Va. 44—1190. Connelly v. Manhattan R. Co.. 68 Hun (N. Y.), 456—1123. Conner v. Citizens St. Ry. Co., 105 Ind. 62—1645. Connoble v. Clark, 38 Mo. App. 476 —624. Connolly v. Crescent City R. Co., 4I La. Ann. 57—1258. 1273. Connolly v. New York, etc., R. Co., 158 Mass. 8—1691. Connolly v. Warren, 106 Mass. 146- — 1296. Connor v. Concord & M. R. Co., 67 N. H. 311—1201. Connover v. Pacific Express Co., 40 Mo. App. 31—403. Conolly V. Knickerbocker Ice Co., 114 N. Y. 107—1587. Conowingo Bridge Co. v. Hedrick, 95 Md. 669—78. Conroy v. Boston Elev. R. Co., 188 Mass. 411—1003. Conroy v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 96 Wis. 243—961, 1007. 1200. Conroy v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 1 Pittsb. (Pa.) 440—1213. 1567. Cx)ns^)l. Tract. Co. v. Srott. 58 N. J. L. 682-1692. Consol. Tract. Co. v. Thalheimer. 59 N. .7. L. 474—1224. 1475, 1487. Constable v. National Steamship Co., 154 U. S. 51-258, 488. Continental Pass. R. Co. v. Swain, 13 W. N. C. (Pa.) 41-1487. Converse v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 58 N. H. 521-271. Converse v. Norwich Transp. Co., 33 Conn. 166—184, 185, 241, 739, 757, 774, 780. Converse Bridge Co. v. Collins. 119 Ala. 534—685. Conway v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 161 Mo. App. SI— 981. Conway v. New Orleans & C. R. Co., 46 La. Ann. 1429—1239. Conwell v. Voorhees, 13 Ohio 523 — 85. Conwill V. Gulf, etc., R. Co., 85 Tex. 96—1235. Cook v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 81 Iowa, 551—157, 160, 1785. Cook v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 78 Neb. 64—886. Cook v. Erie R. Co., 58 Barb. (N. Y.) 312—203. 259, 405, 407. Cook V. Gourdin. 2 Nott. & M. (S. C.) 19—169. Cook V. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 57 Mo. App. 471 — 798. Cook v. Long Island R. Co., 19 N. Y. Supp. 648—1487. Cook v. Marshall County, 196 U. S. 261—1743. Cook y. Pennsylvania. 97 U. S. 566 — 1742. Cook v. Southern Lime & Cement Co. 146 Fed. 101—2027. Cooke v. Boston, etc., R, Co., 113 Mass. 185 — 1082. Cooley y. Board of Warners, 53 U. S. (12 How.) 299—1747. Cooley y. Minnesota Transfer Co., 53 Minn. 327—332. 641. Cooley v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 40 Misc. R. (N. Y.) 239—1707, 1708. Coon y. .'Atchison, etc., Ry. Co., 8^ Kan. 311—1694. Cooney v. Pullman Palace Car Co , 121 Ala. 368—65. Cooper v. Berry. 21 Ga. 526 — 523. Coojjer V. Century Realty Co., 224 Mo. 709—103. 1530. Cooper v. Georgia Pac. R. Co.. 92 Ala. 329—777. Ixxiv TABLE OF OASES. (Tlio referenoea are to the pagea.) Cooper V. Kane, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 3SG — 355. Coopor V. London, etc., R. Co., 99 E. C. L. 73S— lliL Cooper V. Ealoigh & G. R. Co., 110 Ga. U59 — S30. CoopLM- V. Young, 22 Ga. 2G9— 620. Coor D'Alene & S. Ry. Co. v. Union Pac. R. Co., 49 Wash. 244—1845. Coosa Kivir Steamboat Co. v. Bar- clay. 30 Ala. 120—314. Coos Bay, etc., Kav. Co. v. Siglin, 34 Or. 80-281, 328. Cope V. Cordova, 1 Rawle (Pa.), 203 —198, 190, 257. Copclnnd v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 177 N. Y. 570— 1G92. Copp V. Louisville & R. Co., 43 La. Ann. 511— 187G. Coppin V. Braithwaite, 8 Jur. 875 — • 1712. Coppock V. Long Island R. Co., 89 Hun (N. Y.), 18G— 1450, 1454, 14G2. Corbett v. Chicacro, etc., R. Co., 86 Wis. 82— 43G, 819, 848. Corbett v. Twenty-third St. R. Co., 42 Hun (N. Y.), 587-1182, 1183. Corcoran v. New York Cent., etc.. R. Co., 25 App. Div. (N. Y.) 479— 14GG. Cordell v. New York Cent., etc., R, Co., 75 N. Y. 330—1533. Cordiner v. Los Angeles Traction Co., 5 Cal. App. 400— 1G98. Cork Distilleries Co. v. Great South- ern, etc.. R. Co., L. R. 7 H. L. Cas. 269—242. Cork-hill v. Camden, etc., R. Co. (N. J.), 54 Atl. 522—1268. Corley v. Southern R. Co., 89 S. C. 4.32—1417. Corlin v. West End St. Ry. Co., 154 Mass. 197— 1G15. Cormack v. New York, etc., R. Co., 196 N. Y. 442—247. Cormiek v. Pennsylvania Cent. R. Co., 80 N. Y. 35.3—1306. Cornelius v. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 74 Kan. 599—883. Cornin? & Co. v. Peoria, etc.. R. Co., 144 111. App. 407—170, 174. Cornith Ensrine & Boiler Works v. Mississippi Cent. R. Co., 95 Miss. 817—673. Cornman v. Eastern Counties R. Co., 4 11 & N. 781—1124. Cornwall v. Sullivan 11. Co., 28 N. H. IGl— 1270. Correll v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 38 Iowa, 120—1510. Corsar v. J. D. Sprecklcs & Bros. Co., 141 Fed. 260—2005. Corso V. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 48 La. Ann. 1286—592. Corwin v. Long Island R. Co., 2 N. Y. City Ct. Rep. 106—1183. Cosgrove v. Consolidated Ry. Co., 80 Conn. 717-1684. Cossitt V. St. Louis & S. Ry. Co., 224 Mo. 97—1685. Costello V. St. Louis Transit Co., 119 Mo. App. 391—1625. Costello V. Syracuse, etc., R. Co., 63 Barb. (N. Y.) 92—1107. Costello V. Third Ave. R. Co., 161 N. Y. 317—1588. Costello V. Throe Hundred and Sev- enty Two Thousand Seven Hundred Laths, etc., 44 Fed. 105—645. Costikyan v. Rome, etc., R. Co., 58 Hun (N. Y.), 590—1084, 1107. Cotant V. Boone Suburban Ry. Co. (Iowa), 59 N. W. 115—1061, 1232. Cotting V. Kansas City Stock Yards Co., 82 Fed. 839-1776. Cotting V. Stock Yards Co., 183 U. S. 79-1762. Cottrell V. Pawtucket St. Ry. Co., 27 R. I. 565-1635. Coulter V. American, etc., Expr. Co., 55 N. Y. 585—1580. Council V. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co., 123 Mo. App. 432—854, 865. County of Leavenworth v. Barnes, 94 U. S. 70—389. County of Mobile v. Kimball, 102 U. S. "691-1733, 1742, 1746, 1747, 1748. Coup V. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 56 Mich. 111—96, 449, 456, 470, 896. Coupland v. Housatonic R. Co., 61 Conn. 531—427, 492, 518, 528, 804, 819. 821. Courteen v. Kanawha Dispatch, 110 Wis. 610—420. Cousins V. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 96 Mich. 386—1613, 1675, 1676. Coventry v. Great Eastern R. Co., 11 Q. B.'Div. 776—231. TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pages.) Ixxv Covey V. Bath, 35 N. H. 530—1599. Covington v. Western, etc., E. Co., 81 Ga. 275—1676. Covington v. Willan, Gow. 115, 5 E. C. L. 481^63. Covington Bridge Co. v. Kentucky, 154 U. S. 204, 218—1734, 1758. Covington, etc., R. Co. v. Sandford, 164 U. S. 578—1782. Covington Stock Yards Co. v. Keith, 139 U. S. 128—797, 798, 799, 821, 1895. Covington Transfer Co. v. Kelly, 36 Ohio St. 86—1269. Cowan V. Bond, 39 Fed. 54—1787, 1795, 1801. Cowan V. Western Union Tel. Co. (Iowa), 98 N. W. 281—1701. Coward v. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co., 16 Lea (Tenn.), 225 — 494, 1294, 1333. Cowdrey v. G. H. & H. R. Co., 93 U. S. 352—46. Cowell v. Simpson, 16 Ves. Jr. 275 — 648. Coweta County v. Central of Ga. Ry. Co., 4 Ga. App. 94—129, 557. Cowherd v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co., 151 Mo. App. 1—397. 618, 622. Cowles V. Pointer, 26 Miss. 253—80. Cowley V. Davidson, 13 Minn. 92 — 589, 610. Cowley V. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 68 Wash. 558—1808. Cox V. American Express Co., 147 Iowa, 137—935. Cox V. Bruce, L. R. 18 Q. B. Div. 147—229. Cox V. Columbus, etc., R. Co., 91 Ala. 392—202. Cox V. London, etc., R. Co., 3 F. & F. 77—34, 552. Cox V. Norfolk, etc., R. Co., 123 N. C. 613—1544. Cox V. Peterson, 30 Ala. 608 — 203, 238, 272. 368. Cox V. South Shore & B. St. Ry. Co. (Mass.), 65 N. E. 82,3—1541. Cox V. Vermont Cent. R. Co., 170 Ma«s. 120—479. Cox V. Wilmington City R. Co. (Del.), 53 Atl. 509-1533 Coxe V. Hoisloy. 19 Pa. St. 243 — 524. Coxe V. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 460—1761, 1786, 1790. Coxe Bros. v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 460— 1SG4. Coxon V. North Eastern R. Co., 4 Ry. & C. T. Cas. 284—391. Coxon V. Great Western R. Co., 5 H. & N. 274—749, 759. Coyle V. People's Ry. Co., 7 Pen. (Del.), 454—1667. Coyle V. People's Ry. Co. (Del. Su- per.), 80 Atl. 638—1520, 1548. Coyle V. Southern R. Co., 112 Ga. 121 —1076, U33. Coyle V. Western R. Corp., 47 Barb. (N. Y.) 152—186, 375. Coyne v. Pittsburgh Rys. Co., 239 Pa. 17—965. Craddock & Co. v. Wells, Fargo Co. Express (Tex. Civ. App.), 125 S. W. 59—707. Craft V. Boston Elevated Ry. Co., 211 Mass. 374—979. Crafter v. Metropolitan R. Co., L. R. L C. P. 300—1115. Cragin v. Lamkin, 7 Allen (Mass.), 395—390. Cragin v. New York Cent. R. Co., 51 N. Y. 61—31, 189, 371, 460, 821, 823, 895, 905. Craig V. Childress, Peck (Tenn.), 270 —25, 27, 71, 338. Craig V. Groat Western R. Co., 24 U. C. Q. B. 504—1015. Craig V. Mt. Carbon Co., 45 Fed. 448 —1041. Craig V. Wabash R, Co., 142 Mo. App. 314—1683. Craighead v. Brooklvn City R. Co., 123 N. Y. 391—1097. Grain v. Petrie, 6 Hill (N. Y.), 522 —1567. Craker v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 36 Wis. 657—1150, 1176, 1713, 1725. Cram v. Northern, etc., R. Co., 1 N. D. 260—1544. Cramer v. American Merchant's U. Exp. Co., 56 Mo. 524—381. Cramer v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 190—1652. Cramer v. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. 153 Iowa. 103—1837. Crandall v. Goodrich Transp. Co., 16 Fed. 75—1533. Crandall v. Nevada, 73 U. S. (6 Wall.) 35—1734, 1747. Ixxvi TABLE QV CASES. (The references are to the pagc».i, Cranston v. Marshall, 6 Exch. 396 — 1707. Crauwell v. Ship Fanny Fosdick, 15 Lii. Ann. 43G — 26. Crary v. Loliiyh Valley R. Co., 203 Pa. 525—141)0. Crass V. Memphis, etc., R. Co., 90 Ala. 447—641, 050. Cratty v. Citv of Bangor, 57 Me. 423 —1600. Craven v. Central Pac. R. Co., 72 Cal. 345—1557. Crawford v. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 26 Ohio St. 580—991), 1009, 1071. Crawford v. Gre«t Western R. Co., 18 U. C. C. P. 510—7.30, 744, 772. Crawford v. International & G. N. R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 109 S. W, 987—920. Crawford v. Southern R. Assoc, 51 Miss. 222—740, 757, 761. Crawford v. Southern Ry. Co., 56 S. C. 136—778. Crawshay v. Homfrav, 4 B. & Aid. 50 —648. Cray v. Hartford F. Ins. Co., 1 Blatchf. (U. S.) 280—478. Craycroft v. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 18 Mo. App. 487—453. Cream Citv, etc.. R. Co. v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 21 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 71—459. Cream Citv R. Co. v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 63 Wis. 93—463, 518. Creamer v. West End St. Ry. Co., 156 Mass. 320—1002, 1013, 1693. Crcason v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 149 Mo. App. 22.3—1110. Creed v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 86 Pa. St. 139—959, 1031, 1057, 1145, 1287. Creel v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 137 Mo. App. 27—829, 892. Creenan v. International Ry. Co., 124 N. Y. Supp. 300—1668. Crescent Brewing Co., v. Oregon Short Line R. Co. (Idaho), 1.32 Pac. 975—120. Crescent Coal Co. v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 143 Ky. 73—120, 304. 657, 706. Crescent Liquor Co. v. Piatt, 148 Fed. 894 — 707. Oresson v. Philadplpliia. *^tc., R. Co., 11 Phila. (Pa.) 597—993. Crews V. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 1 Int. Com. Rep. 703—1705, 1801. Crine v. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co., 84 Ga. 051—1265. Crocker v. New London, etc., R. Co., 24 Conn. 249—1394, 1395, 1436. Crockeron v. North Shore, etc., F. Co., 56 N. Y. 650—1115. Crockett v. St. Louis & H. Ry. Co., 147 Mo. App. 347—297, 535. Croft v. Baltimore, etc.. R. Co., 1 McArthur (D. C), 492—780, 1361. Crofts V. Waterhouse, 11 Moore, 133 —948. Orofts V. Waterhouse, 3 Biiig. 319 — 24—1214. Crommelin v. New York, etc., R. Co., 4 Keyes (N. Y.), 90—626. Crommelin v. New York & H. R. Co., 1 Abb. Dec. (N. Y.) 472—701. Cronan v. Crescont City R. Co., 49 La. Ann. 65—1589. Cronan v. St. Louis &. S. F. R. Co., 149 Mo. App. 384—136, 141, 304. Cronk v. Wabash R. Co., 123 Iowa, 349—1500. Cronkite v. Wells, 32 N. Y. 247—128, 187. Croom V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 52 Minn. 290—1142, 1247, 1592. Crosby v. Fitch, 12 Conn. 410—75, 76, 134, 315, 372. Crosby v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 69 Me. 418-1029. Crosby v. Pere Marquette R. C^., 131 Mich. 288—302. Cross V. Graves, 4 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. § 99, 100—144, 149, 436, 484. 541. Cross v. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 56 Mo. App. 6G4— 985. Cross V. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. (Mich.), .37 N. W. 361—1145. Cross V. McFaden, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 461—137, 145. Cross y, O'Donnell, 44 N. Y. 661— 499. Crossan v. New York, etc., R. Co., 149 Mass 196—637, 639. Crouch V. Great Northern R. Co., 11 Exch. 742—117. Crouch V. London, etc., R. Co., 14 C. B. 255, 78 E. C. L. 25.5 — 42, 117 523, 528, 744. Crouch V. I^uisville, etc., R. Co., 42 TABLE OF CASES. Ixxvii (The references are to the pages.) Mo. Aspp. 248 — 538, 740, 757, 758, 778. Crough V. Great Western E. Co., 2 H. & N. 491—259. Crow V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 57 Mo. App. 135—441, 823, 904. Crowell V. Van Bibber, 18 La. Ann. 637—232. Crowley v. Fitchburg, etc., R. Co., 185 JVIass. 279—999, 1390, 1392. Crum V. Bliss, 47 Conn. 592—390. Crumbacker v. Tucker, 9 Ark. 365 — 529. Crump V. Davis (Ind. App.), 70 N. E. 886—1212. Crumpley v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co. (Mo.), 19 S. W. 820—1544. Crutcher v. Choctaw, etc., R. Co., 74 Ark, 358—620. Crutcher v. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 132 Mo. App, 311—1415. Crutcher v. Kentucky, 141 U. S. 47— 1734, 1758. Cubbedge v. Napier, 62 Ala. 518—390, CHiddy V, Horn, 46 Mich. 596—1269. C\iff V, 95 Tons of Coal, 46 Fed. 670 —643. Culberson v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 50 Mo. App. 556—1246. Culberson v. Empire Coal Co., 156 Ala. 416—1175. C\ilbreth v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 3 Houst. (Del.) 392—26, 203, 407, 410, 555. Culhane v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 60 N. Y. 133—1567. CuUen v, Higgins, 138 111. App. 168— 1067. Cullen V. Seaboard Air Line R. Co., 63 Fla. 122—713, 723. Cumberland Teleph. & Tel. Co. v. Morgan's L. & T. R. Co., 51 La. Ann. 29—118, 124. 708. Cumberland Valley R. Co. v. Mau- gans, 61 Md. 5.3-1676, 1677. Cumberland Vallev R. Co. v. Myers, 55 Pa. St. 288—286, 1066. Oumble v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. (Ark.), 151 S. W. 240—140. Gumming v. Barracouta, 40 Fed. 498 —570. Cummings v. Dayton, etc., R. Co. (Tnd.), 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 36— 739. 754, 756. Cummings v. National Furnace Co., / 60 Wis. 603—1479. Cummings v. Wichita R. & L. Co. (Kan.), 74 Pac. 1104—1657. Cummings v. Worcester, etc., St. R. Co., 166 Mass. 220—1639, 1G41, 1655. Cunard S. S. Co. v. Kelley, 115 Fed. 678—190, 537, 2020. Cunningham v. Great Northern R. Co., 49 L. T. N. S. 394—550. Cunningham v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 50 Pa. Super. Ct. 609—422. Cunningham v, Pennsylvania R. Co,, 40 Pa. Super. Ct. 212—209. Cunningham v. Seattle Electric R., etc., Co., 3 Wash. 471—1150, 1167, 1184. Cunningham v. Wabash R. Co., 167 Mo. App. 273—830, 837. Cunningham v. Wabash R. Co., 79 Mo. App. 524—363. Currie v. Mendenhall, 77 Minn. 179 — 1221. Currie v. Seaboard Air Line Co., 156 N. C. 432—337, 556. Curry v. Canadian Pac, R, Co., 17 Ont. Rep. 65—1244. Curry v. Kansas, etc., R, Co., 68 Kan. 6—1800. Curtis v. Avon, etc., R. Co., 49 Bark. (N. Y.) 148—1351. Curtis V, Central R. Co., 6 McLean (U. S.), 401—1211, 1261, Curtis V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 18 Wis. 312—351. Curtis V. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 74 N. Y. 116—450, 950, 1298, 1346, 1352, 1353, 1375. Curtis V. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 2T Wis. 158—1624. Curtis V. Rochester, etc., R. Co., 18 N. Y. 534— 1084, 1106, 1118, 1120, 1131, 1486, 1501. 1511, 1512, 1533, 1703, 1715, 1716. Curtis V. Pvoclioster, etc.. R. Co., 20 Barb. (N. Y.) 282—1715. Curtis V. Southern Ry. Co., 151 N. C. .523—1538. Gushing V. Breck, 10 N. H, 111—116, 280. Gushing v. Breed, 14 Allen (Mass.),. 376—267. Gushing V. Wells, 9S Mass. 550 — 583. CiitHifT V. Birniiiijrhnm Ry. etc., Co,, 148 Ala. 108— 1I1S6. Cufl'-r V. Rae, 7 How. (U. S.), 729— 042. Ixxviii TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pages.) Cutler V. Winsor, 23 Mass. (6 Peck.) :V^o — 7G, 203G. Ciittor V. Wells, Fargo & Co., 237 IH. 247—513. Cutting V. Florida R., etc., Co., 30 Fed. 003—1784. 1823. Cutting V. Florida Ry. & Nav. Co., 40 Fed. 641—1852. Cutting V. Grand Trunk R. Co., 13 AUon (Mass.), 381—597, G03. Cutts V. Boston Flee. Ry. Co., 202 ]Mass. 450 — 1575. Cutt3 V. Brainera, 42 Vt. 50G— 459, 740, 756. Curler v. Docker, 20 Hun (N. Y.), 175—1581. C. W. Elphicke, 122 Fed. 439-1998. D. Daibney v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 140 111. App. 2G9— 1197. Daa;,'i'».; Dodsun V. Grand Trunk H. Co., 7 Caii- Hda L. J. N. S. 2G[\ — «(>4. noorner v. St. Uniis. etc.. K. Co.. 140 Mo. App. 170— l'2!t4, i:?S7. Doliorr v. Tlio Etoiiii. 04 I\d. 880 — 1S)!)4, li>S!t. Oohortv V. Northern Piu-. K. Co.. 43 Mont. 2!)4— i:?!tO. Dole V. N. E. Insiinmco Co., 88 Mass. 373—324. Donaldson v. .T. W. Perry Co., 138 Fed. (•.43—2007. Donloji liros. v. Southern Pac. Co., 151 Cal. 703- .'>12, 803. Doniii'i^an v. Krhardt. 119 N. Y. 4G8 —1103. Donoho V. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 30 Misc. R. (N. Y.) 433—1596. Donohoe v. London, etc., R. Co., 15 W. R. 792—344. Donohue v. Brooklyn, etc., R. Co., 53 App. Div. (N. Y.) 348—1561. Donovan v. Greenfield, etc., St. R. Co., 183 Fed. 526—1195, Donovan v. Hartford St. R. Co., 65 Conn. 201—925, 973, 975, 1509. Donovan v. Kansas City Elev. R. Co., 157 Mo. App. 649—1088. Donovan v. Pennsylvania Co., 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 91—1126. Doolan v. Midland R. Co., L. R. 2 App. 792 — 428. 466. Doolittle V. Southern Ry. Co., 62 S. C. 130—1639. Doorman v. Jenkins, 2 Ad. & El. 256, —11. Doran v. Chicajjo, etc.. R. Co., 154 Iowa, 140—1110, 1485. Doran v. East River Ferry Co.. 3 Lans. (N. Y.) 105—990. Dorff V. Brooklyn H. R. Co., 95 App. Div. (N. Y.) 82—1199. Dorr v. Crosstown St. R. Co., 106 N. Y. Supp. 1122—1497. Dorr V. New Jersev Steam Nav. Co., 11 N. Y. 48.-)— 30, 424, 429, 433, 460, 466, 1451. 1461. Dorr v. New Jersey Steam Nav. Co., 4 Sandf. (N. Y.) H.'S— 497. Dorrah v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.. 65 Miss. 14—1225, 1237, 1702, 1710. 1718. Dorrance v. International, etc., R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 126 S. W. 694— 598, 621. Dorrance & Co. v. International & G. N. U. Co., 103 Tex. 200—131, 589. Dorsett v. Atlantic Ci>ast L. R. Co., 156 N. C. 439—1420. Dorsey v. Ateliison, etc., R. Co., 83 Mo. App. 528—990. Doss V. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 59 Mo. 27—1060. 1_';U). 1283, 1678. Dotson V. i:rie K. Co. (N. J.), 54 AU. 827—1601. Doty V. Strong, 1 Pin. (Wis.) 313— 20, 117, lis. 153, 573. Dougan v. Cliamplain Transp. Co., 56 N. Y. 1—1115, 1124, 1556. Dougherty v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 137 Iowa, 257—969. Dougherty v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 86 111. 467—1676. Dougherty v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 9 Mo. App. 484 — 1511. Dougherty v. Missouri R. Co., 81 Mo. 325—1237, 1264, 1478, 1487. Dougherty v. Yazoo, etc., R. Co. (Miss.), 36 So. 699—1661. Dough itt V. Louisville & N. R. Co., 136 Ga. 351—1532. Douglass V. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 53 Mo. App. 473—606, 838. Doughiss V. Peoples' Bank, 86 Ky. 176 —217, 218, 219. Douglass Co. V. Minnesota Transfer R. Co., 62 Minn. 288 — 494. Dow V. Portland Steam Packet Co., 84 Me. 490—570, 822, 905. Dow V. Syracuse, etc., R. Co., 81 App. Div. (N. Y.) 362—1032, 1456,1466. Dowd v. Albany Rv., 47 App. Div. (N. Y.) 202—1068. Dowd V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 84 Wis. 105—1000, 1283. Dowd V. New York, etc., R. Co., 170 \. Y. 4.59—1535. Dowling V. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 90 N. Y. 671—1588. Downe^ v. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 28 W. Va. 732—1071, 1572, 1627. Downey v. Hendrick, 46 Mich. 498 — 1640, 1643. Downs V. Fromiont, 4 Oampb. 40 — 463. Downs V. New York Cent, etc., R. Co., 47 N. C. 83—1559. Downs V. New York, etc., R. Co., 36 Conn. 287—999. 141.5. Dows V. Greene, 24 N. Y, 641—224. TABLE OF CASES. Ixxxv (The references are to the pages.) DowB V. Perrin, 16 N. Y. 325—224. Dows V. Rush, 28 Barb. (N. Y.) 157 —224. Doyle V. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 126 Fed. 841 — 490. Doyle V. Central R. C. of N. Y., 45 Pa. Super. Ct. 216—1342, 1387. Doyle V. Fitchburg R. Co., 162 Mass. 66—1064, 1066, 1465. Doyle V. Kansas City, etc., R. Co. (Mo.), 95 S. W. 200—1059. Doyle V. Kiser, 6 Ind. 242—1291, 1295, 1300. Doyle V. Lynn & B. R. Co., 118 Mass. 195—1600. Drake v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 24 S. D. 19—801, 854, 928. Drake v. Nashville, etc., R. Co., 125 Tenn. 627—1918. Drake v. Nashville, etc., R. Co. (Tenn.), 148 S. W. 214—120, 1904. Drake v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 137 Pa. St. 352—1071, 1557, 1664. Drake v. United States Express Co., 87 111. App. 505—339. Draper v. Delaware, etc.. Canal Co., 118 N. Y. 118—384, 392, 396, 403, 578. Dresback v. California Pac. R. Co., 57 Cal. 462—256, 756, 774. Dresser v. Bosanquet, 4 B. & S- 460 — 16. Dr«.sseT v. West Virginia Transp. Co., 8 W. Va. 55.3—616. Dres«lar v. Citizens' St. R. Co., 19 Ind. App. 383—1476. Drew V. Central Pac. R. Co., 51 Cal. 425—1014, 1070. Drew v. Red Line Transp. Co., 3 Mo. App. 495 — 457. Drew v. Si.xth Ave. R. Co., 26 N. Y. 49—975, 1246, 1248. Dr.-w V. Wabash R. Co., 129 Mo. App. 459—1440. Driggs V. Interborough Rap. Tr. Co., 49 Misc. R. (N. Y.) 621—1204. Drinkwater v. The Brig. Spartan, 1 Ware (U. S.), 149—648. Drisooll V. Market St. R. Co., 97 Cal. .55.3—1692. Drogmund v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 122 Mo. App. 154 — 970, 1426, 1441. Drohan v. Lumber Co., 75 Minn. 251 —536. DroRte V. Wabnsh R. Co., 138 N. Y. Supp. 20.3—228. Drummond v. Southern Pac. Co., 7 Utah, 118—1029. Dube V. Reg, 3 Can. Exch. 147—1119. Du Bois V. New York, etc., R. Co., 110 N. Y. Supp. 996—1381. Du Bose V. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 132 Ga. 587—957. Du Bose V. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 81 S. C. 271—1280. Dubuque, etc., R. Co. v. Richmond, 19 Wall. (U. S.) 584—1230. Duchemin v. Boston El. Ry. Co., 186 Mass. 353—975, 984. Dudley v. Camden & Phila. Ferry Co., 13 Vroom. (N. J.) 25—58. Dudley v. Front St. Cable R. Co., 73 Fed. 128—1240. Duff v. Budd, 3 B. & B. 177—197, 211, 244. Duff & Alleghany Valley R. Co., 91 Pa. St. 458—1059. Duffy V. St. Louis Trans. Co. (Mo.), 78 S. W. 831—1681. Duffy V. Thompson, 4 E. D. Sm. (N. Y.) 178—1293, 1295, 1296. Dufoit V. Gorman, 1 Minn. 301—633. Dufur V. Boston & M. R. Co. (Vt.), 53 Atl. 1068—1191. Dugan V. Blue Hill St. Ry. Co., 193 Mass. 431—1471. Duggan V. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 159 Pa. St. 248—1183. Duiney v. Wheeling, etc., R. Co., 28 Wis. 32—1580. Duke V. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 166 Mo. App. 121—1415. Dukes V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 102 Minn. 99 — 1049. Dulaney & Wharton v. Philadelphia &. Ry. Co., 228 Pa. 180—536. Du Laurans v. St. Paul, etc. R. Co., 15 Minn. 49—1394, 1395, 1398, 1442. Duling V. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 66 Md. 120—1070, 1227. Dun V. Seaboard, etc., R. Co., 78 Va. 64.5—1642, 16.55. Dunbar v. Boston, etc., R. Corp., 110 Mass. 26—210, 235. Dunbar v. Charleston, etc., R. Co. (S. C), 40 S. E. 884—767. Dunbar v. Port Roval, etc., R. Co., 36 S. C. 110-740", 758, 767. Duncan v. Atcliison, otc.. R. Co., 4 Tnt. Com. Rep. 38.5—18.50. Duncan v. Moiii Cent. R. Co., 113 Fed. 508- 14(i5. Ixxxvi TABLE OF CASES. ('l'lu> ri>firciu'os mo to the i)aj;;cs.) Diinli;im v. Boston, otr., R. Co., 70 -M<'. llil— 3o7, 372, 55)7, 730. Diiuliiim V. Boston, olc, R. Co., 40 Hun (N. Y.), 245— 3!)5. Dunlap V. Cliioago, etc., R. Co., 143 Mo. App. 21.")— 1277. Dunlup V. Intvrnational, etc., R. Co., 08 .Mass. 371—524, 1291, 1295, 129S, 1300, 1301. Dunlap V. Xortliorn Pac. R. Co., 35 Jlinn. 203 — 105S. Dunlap V. Steamboat Reliance, 2 Fed. 249—1505. Dunlav v. Traction Co., 18 Pa. Super. Ct. 200—1582. Dunlop V. Edinburg, etc., R. Co., 16 Jur. Pt. 2, 407—1200. Dunlop V. Munroe, 7 Cranch (U. S.) 242-85. Dui:n V. Grand Trunk R. Co., 58 Me. 187-1057, 1147, 1205, 1423, 1573. Dunn V. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 68 Mo. 268-487, 580, 590, 732, 806. Dunn V. Pennsylvania R. Co. (N. J.), 58 Atl. 164—1267. Dunn V. Pennsj-lvania R. Co., 20 Phila. (Pa.) 258—1232, 1237, 1633, 1672. Dunn V. Western Union Telegraph Co., 2 Ga. App. 845—94. Dunne v. New York, etc., R. Co., 99 App. Div. (N. Y.) 571— 1060, 1061. Dunne & Grace v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 166 Mo. App. 372—722, 1882. Dunphy v. Erie R. Co., 42 N. Y, Supp. Ct. 128—1014, 1070. Duplan Silk Co. v. American & For- eign Marine Ins. Co., 205 Fed. 724 —1818. Dufont de Nemours v. Vance, 19 How. (U. S.) 171—642. Dupseth V. Wade, 2 Scam. (111.) 285 —75, 76, 576. Dunson v. New York Cent. R. Co., 3 Lans. (N. Y.) 265—308, 372. Duntlev V. Boston, etc., R. Co. 66 N. H. 263—494, 889. Dunton v. Allen Line S. S. Co., 115 Fed. 250 — 1122. Durgin v. American Express Co., 66 N. H. 277—494, 528. Dusar v. Murgatroyd, 1 Wash. (U. S.) 317—26, 584. Driven ick v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 57 yfn. App. 550 — 439, 815. Dwi^^ht V Brewster, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 50—19, 24, 02, 03, 77, 109, 110, 187, 520, OSS. nwineilo V. New York tint., etc., R. Co., 120 N. Y. 117— OS, 945, 948, 1015, 1147, 1155, 1150, llOS. Dwyer v. Auburn & S. Elec. R. Co., 131 App. Div, 477 — 1074. Dwyer v. Gulf, etc., R. Co., 75 Tex. 572—208, 209. Dwyer v. Gulf, etc., R. Co., 69 Tex. 707 — 220, 209, 274. Dyo V. Virginia Midland R. Co., 20 D, C. 03-1243. Dyo V. Virginia Midland R. Co., 19 Wash. L. R. 309—1514. Dyer v. Erie R. Co., 71 N. Y. 228— 1209, 1581. Dyer v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 42 Vt. 441—620, 651. Dyer v. Great Northern R. Co., 51 Minn. 345—206. Dyer v. Railway Co., 43 Vt. 441 — 163. Dyke v. Erie R. Co., 45 N. Y. 113— 448, 450, 451, 950. Dysart v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 122 >ed. 228—1055. E. Eads v. Metropolitan R. Co., 43 Mo. App. 536—1147, 1170. Eagan v. Maguire, 21 R. I. 189 — 1599. Eagen v. Jersey City, etc., Ry. Co., 74 N. J. L. 699—1694. Eagle V. White, 6 Whart (Pa.), 505 —41, 248, 2.52, 261, 343, 381. Eagle Packet Co. v. Defries, 94 111. 598-1130, 1505. Eagle White Lead Cb. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 188 Fed. 256—1873. Eames v. Texas, etc., R, Co., 63 Tex. 600—1105. Earle v. Cadmus, 2 Daly (N. Y.), 237—1333. Earnest v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 149 App. Div. 330—1903. Earnest v. Southern Express Co. 1 Woods (U. S.), 573—491, 523, 1457. Eastern Counties R. Co. v. Broom, 6 Exch. 314 — 1184. Eastern R. Co. v. Brown, 6 Exch. 314 1150. TABLE OF CASES. Lxxxvii (The references are to the pages.) Eastern R. Co. v. Relief F. Ins. Co., 98 Mass. 420—546. Eastern Rv. v. Littlefield (Tex. Civ. App.), 135 S. W. 1086 — 869. Eastern Ry. of New Mexico v. Little- field, 154 S. W. 543—938. Eastern Ry. Co. of New Mexico v. Montgomery (Tex. Civ. App.), 139 S. W. 885—1908. Eastern Transportation Line Hope, 95 U. S. (5 Otto) 297—56. East Indian Railway v. Kalidas Mu- kerjee, 70 L. J. P. C. 396—49. East Line & R. Co. v. Rushing, 69 Tex. 306—1248. East Line, etc., R. Co. v. Hall, 64 Tex. 615— 1G9, 189. East Line, etc., R. Co. v. Rushing, 69 Tex. 306—1219, 1241, 1262, 1.592. East Line, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, 65 Tex. 167—1106, 1241, 1262. Eastman v. Association, 65 N. H. 176 —280. East Omaha St. R. Co. v. Godola, 50 Neb. 906 — 49, 1215, 1647. Easton v. Dudley, 78 Tex. 236 — 145, 149, 541. Easton & Co. v. Erie R. Co., 147 111. App. 594-596. East Saginaw City R. Co. v. Bohn, 27 Mich. 503—996, 1094, 1253, 1595, 1644. East St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Wabash, etc., R. 123 111. 594—51, 387, 743, 748. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. Bayliss, 75 Ala. 466—1270. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. Brumly, 5 Lea (Tenn.) 401 — 430, 458, 744, 767, 769. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. Con- nor, 15 Lea (Tenn.) 254—1673. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. Dcaver, 79 Ala. 216—1270. East Tcnnps.see, etc., R. Co. v. Fleet- wood, 90 Ga. 2.3—1170. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. Hale, 85 Tenn. 69—584, 598, 838. East Tennrssee, etc., R. Co. v. Herr- man. 92 Ga. 384—708. 927. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. Holmes, 97 Ala. 332—1673, 1678. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. Hughes, 92 Ga. 388—1577, 1680. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. Hunt, 83 Tenn. (15 Lea), 261—626. 701. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. Hvde, 89 Ga. 721—1713. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. Inter- state Com. Com., 181 U. S. 1 — 1830. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. Inter- state Com. Com., 99 Fed. 52—1771, 1830, 1877. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. John- son, 75 Ala. 596 — 454, 576, 582, 794, 820, 906. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. John- son, 85 Ga. 497—588, 596, 600, 618, 736, 743. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. Kelly, 91 Tenn. 699—381, 396, 415, 582. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. Lock- hart, 79 Ala. 315— 1256, 1703, 1706, 1709, 1710, 1719. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. Maloy, 77 Ga. 237—1562. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. Maa- sengill, 15 Lea (Tenn.) 328—1229. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. Mitch- ell, 11 Heisk (Tenn.) 400—948, 1214, 1477. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. Nelson, 1 Coldw. (Tenn.) 272—42, 117,136, 343, 458, 744. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. Rogers, 6 Heisk. (Tenn.) 143—744. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. Stew- art, 13 Lea (Tenn.) 432—571, 1476. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. Whit- tle, 27 Ga. 535—51, 793. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. Win- ters, 85 Tenn. 240—1270, 1403. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. Wright, 76 Ga. .532—748. Eaton V. Central R, Co., 62 N. J. L. 7—1603. Eaton v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 57 N. Y. 382—959, 1021, 1055, 1058, 1145, 1423, 1572. Eaton v. Neumark, 37 Fed. 375 — 267. Eaton V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 12 Mo. App. 386—381. Eaton V. Wilmington City Rv. Co., 1 Bovce (24 Del.) 435—1100, 1536, 1.548, 1585. Eaton v. Wilmington Citv R. Co. (Del. Super.), 75 Atl. 369—1087. Ixxxviii TABLE Ol- CAfciES. (The lefcrciK'os are to the puycs.) Eiui Clairo Hoard of lia.lc v. Clii- i"a>jo, ott'., K. Co., 4 Int. Com. Kop. ().">— 1704. 17!>(>. Eberhardt v. Metropolitan St. Kv. Co., 0!) App. Div. (M. V.) ,->()0— 1!>2;{. Eberts v. Detroit, etc.. Rv.. ir)l .Midi. 2()l>— 1468, 1515. Echols V. Louisville, etc., K. Co., 90 Ala. 30(5— 5S_'. .">84. Eckerd v. Chiiaj;o. etc., R. Co., 70 Iowa, ;553 — lliHO. Eekert v. Peiinsvlvania R. Co., 211 Pa. 267—885. " Eckstein v. Woobcrton, 111 N. Y. Supp. 21—1381. EclitT V. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 64 Mich. IDO— 987. Ecton V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 125 Mo. App. 223—811, 844. Eddy V. Rider, 79 Tex. 53—1068. Eddy V. Syracuse Rap. Trana. Ry. Co., 50 App. Div. (N. Y.) 109— 1435, 1721. Eddy V. Syracuse, etc., R. Co., 63 N. Y. Supp"^ 645—1416. Eddy V. Wallace. 49 Fed. 801—1232. Edgar v. Northern R. Co., 11 Ont. Rep. 452—1677, 1680. Edgar Lunilier Co. v. Cornie Staye Co., 95 Ark. 440—105, 707. Mgerly v. Union R. Co., 67 N. H. 312—1401, 1407, 1447. Edgerton v. New York, etc., R. Co., 39 N. Y. 227—985, 957, 1057, 1145, 1500, 1511. Edgerton v. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 115 N. C. 645—231. Edminson v. Baxter, 4 Hayw. (Tenn.) 112—582. Edmunds v. Hill. 133 Mass. 445—532. Edmunds v. Merchants' Despatch Transp. Co., 13.'> Mass. 283—210. Edniunson v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 92 Fed. 824—66. Edsall V. Camden, etc., R. Co., 50 N. Y. 661—472, 518, 1330. Edson y. Weston, 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 278 —328, 532. Edwards v. American Express Co., 109 Me. 444 — 792. J]dwards \. Cheraw. etc., R. Co., 32 S. C. 117—213, 261. Edwards y. Foote (Mich.), 88 N. W. 404—1559. i;d\vards V. Leo. 147 Mo. A|)p. 38— 311, 828, 850, 865. ICdwards v. Loudon & N. W. R. Co., L. R. 5 C. P. 445—1184. Edwards v. Manufacturing B. Co. (R. 1.), 61 Atl. (146—1216. Edwards v. Maiiufaeturers' Bldg. Co., 27 R. I. 248—102. Edwards v. Siierratt, 1 East 604—130, 523. Edwards v. 'iodd, 1 Scam. (111.) 462 — ](;3. 050. Edwards v. Wliite Line Transit Co., 104 Mass. 159—37, 328. 329, 333. Eells V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 52 Fetl. 903—4.50, 454, 491, 517. 14.56. E. E. Teanzer & Co. v. Chicago, etc.. Ry. Co.. 191 Fed. 543—1814. E. E. Taen/.cr Co. v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 170 Fed. 240—104. Egan V. A Cargo of Spruce Latli, 43 Fed. 480—642. Egan V. Old Colony St. R. Co., 19.". Mass. 1,59—1497. Eggerraont v. Cunard S. S. Co., Lim- ited. 119 N. Y. Supp. 1110 (N. Y. Mun. Ct.)— 2040. Eichberg v. Central of Ga. Ry. Co.. 109 Md. 211—507. Eickhof y. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 77 111. App. 196—1487, 1046. 1664. Eidem v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 158 111. App. 82—1062. Eidson v. Southern Ry. Co. (Miss.). 23 So. 309—1439. Eikenburv v. St. Louis Tr. Co., 103 Mo. App. 442—1020. Ela V. American M. U. Express Co.. 29 Wi^. 011-208. Elam V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 131 Mo. App. 115—311. Elam V. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co., 117 Mo. App. 453—311, 321. Elder y. International Ry. Co., 68 Misc. R. N. Y.) 22—1073, 1422. ]']ld ridge y. Boston Elec. Ry. Co., 203 Mass. 582-1051. Eldrige y. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 32 Minn. 253—1512. Electric Car Co. v. Carson, 98 Ga. 052—1475, 1500. Elgin City R. Co. v. Wilson. .56 IlL App. 304—1475, 1480, 1500. TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pages. )^ Ixxxix Elgin, etc., Ry. Co. v. Bates Mach. Co., 200 ni. 636—128. Elgin, etc., R. Co. v. Bates Mach. Co., 98 111. App. 311—128, 757, 766. Elgin, etc., Traction Co. v. Hench, 132 111. App. 535—1085, 1484. Eli Hurley & Son v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., OS W. Va. 471—200, 382. Elkina v. Boston R. Co., 23 N. H. 275—20, 41, 42, 44, 72, 100, 186, 542. Elkins V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 19 N. H. 337—524. Elkins V. Empire Transp. Co., 81 Pa. St. 315 — 495. Ellet V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 76 Mo. 518—1123, 1513. KUinger v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 153 Pa. St. 213—1198. Elliot V. Wilmington City Ry. Co., 6 Pen (Del.), 570—1520, 1548, 1667, Elliott V. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., Ill N. Y. Supp. 358—1498. Elliott V. Newport, etc., R. Co., 18 R. I. 707—1476, 1517, 1646. Elliott V. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 33 N. Y. St. Rep. 861—1449, 1454, 1463. Elliott V. Russc-ll, 10 Johns. (N. Y.) 1—75, 319. Elliott V. Seattle, etc., Ry. Co., 68 Wash. 129—1649. Elliott V. Southern Pac. R. Co., 145 Cal. 441—1444. Elliott V. Van Buren, 33 Mich. 49— 1533. Elliott V. Western, etc., R. Co., 58 Ga. 454—1034. Ellis V. American Tel. Co., 13 Allen (Mass.), 232—87, 92. Ellis V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 120 Wis. 645—1227. Ellis V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 82 Wis. 246—12.32. Ellsworth V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 05 Iowa, 98—985, 992, 1416. ?:ilsworth V. Tartt, 26 Ala. 733—780, 1360. Elmore v. Naugatuck R. Co., 23 Conn. 4.57—739, 757. Klmnro v. Sanrls. .54 N. Y. 512—1024, 10'.'.'-,, 1070, 1558. FA l';iHo & N. E. Ry. Co. v. Landon (Tex. Civ. App.), 124 S. W. 744— 952. El Paso, etc., R. Co. v. Lumley (Tex. Civ. App.), 120 S. W. 1050—853, 867. Elser V. Southern Pac. Co., 7 Cal. App. 493—1400, 1416. Elvey V. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 804—1792. Elwell V. Skiddy, 77 N. Y. 282 — 525. Elwood V. Chicago City Ry. Co., 90 111. App. 397—1535. Elwood V. Connecticut Ry., etc., Co., 77 Conn. 145—1237. Elwood Grain Co. v. St. Joseph & G. I. Ry. Co., 202 Fed. 845—1811. Ely V. Ehle, 3 N. Y. 506—529. Ely V. New Haven Steamboat Co., 53 Barb. (N. Y.) 207—398. Ely v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 77 Mo. 34—1556. Elzy V. Adams Express Co., 141 Iowa, 407—621. Emerson v. Burnett, 11 Colo. App. 88 —1562. Emerson v. Butte Elec. Ry. Co. (Mont.), 129 Pac. 319 — 1481. Emerson v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., Ill Mo. 161—795. Emery v. Dunbar, 1 Daly (N. Y.), 408—661, 662. Emery v. Ilersey, 4 Greenl. (Me.), 407—8, 265. Empire State Cattle Co. v. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 210 U. S. 1—827. Empire State Cattle Co. v. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 135 Fed. 135—312, 321. Empire Transp. Co. v. Steele, 70 Pa. St. 18S— 219, 227. Empire Transp. Co. v. Wallace, 68 Pa. St. 302—134. Empire Tran.sp. Co. v. Wamsutta Oil Kef., etc., Co., 63 Pa. St. 14 — 458. 571. Enehcs v. New York, etc., R. Co., 135 Pa. St. 194—1598. Kngberman v. North German Lloyd S. S. Co., 84 N, Y. Supp. 201— 1333. Engesetiier v. Groat Northern R. Co. 65 Minn. 168 — 486, 881. ' England v. Boston, etc.. R. Co. 153 Mass. 490—1678, 1679. England v. International, etc., R. Co, xo TABLE OF CASES. (The icfcrenccs ure to the pagca.) (Tox. Civ. App.), 73 S. W. '24— 1419. Hnglehuupt v. Erie R. Co., 209 Pa 182—1227. Eii'^ler V. Intoriuitiimal Uv. Co., 133 App. Div. (N. Y.) 059—1005. English V. Diliiwarc, etc., C. Co., 66 N. Y. 454 — 126. 11.^1, 1425, 1435. English V. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 13S N. Y. Supp. 830—1198. Enslev v. Detroit United Ry. Co, (Mich.). 90 N. W. 34—1502. Eno3 V. Rhode Island Suburban R Co., 2S R. I. 201—1005, 1490. E. 0. Standard Milling Co. v. Whit« Line Cent. Transit Co., 122 Mo 25S — 110. 413, 571. Ephland v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 137, Mo 187-1101. Ephland v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 71 Mo. App. 507—1101. Eppendorf v. Brooklyn City, etc., R. Co.. 09 N. Y. 105-1015. Eppendorf v. Brooklyn, etc., R., 67 N. Y. 52—1241. E. R. Darlington Lumber Co. v. Mis- souri Pac. Ry. Co., 210 Mo. 658— 135. Erdman v. United Rys. (Mo. App.), 155 S. W. lOSl— 1485. Erie & P. Dispatch v. Cecil, 112 111. 180—608. Erie Boatmen's Transp. Co. v. Gen- eral Supply & Construction Co., 139 Fed. 755—2034. Erie City, etc., R. Co. v. Schuester, 113 Pa. St. 413—1587, 1589. Erie Despatch v. Johnson, 87 Tenn. 490—234. 277. Erie, etc.. Dispatch v. Stanley, 22 111. App. 459—586. Erie, etc., Transp. Co. v. Dater, 91 111. 195—433. 455. 463. Erie R. Co v. Littell, 128 Fed. 546— 1419, 1426. Erie R Co. v. Lockwood, 28 Ohio St. 35S_419, 577, 579, 582, 589, 746, 773. 774. Erie R. Co. v. Star & Crescent Milling Co., 162 Fed. 879—489. Erie R. Co. v. United Statns (C. C. A.). 200 Fed. 400—811. 10S!5. Erie P. Co. v. Waite, 62 Misc. R. 372 —690. Eric U. Co. V. Wanaque Lumber Co., 75 N. J. L. 878—1845. Erie R. Co. v. Wilcox, 84 III. 239— 425. 42!l, 4:!3. 455, 403, 559, 743, 700, 1452, 1400. Erskino v. Thames, 6 Miss. 371 — 196, 234. Erwin v. Kansas, etc., R. Co., (Mo. App.), 08 S. VV. 88—1221. Estes V. Denver & R. G. R. Co., 49 Colo. 378—807. Estes V. Denver & 0. R. G. R. Co., 113 Pac. 1005—421. Estes V. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., 7 N. Y. Supp. 803—1302. Estill V. New Y'ork, etc., R. Co., 147 U. S. 591—592. 904. Etliorington v. Prospect Park, etc., R. Co., 88 N. Y. 401—1081. Etliridge v. Central of Ga. Ry. Co., 136 Ga. 677—131. Etson v. Fort Wavne, etc., R. Co., 110 Mich. 494—1470. Eureka Springs R. Co. v. Timmons, 51 Ark. 459—41, 43, 1088, 1121, 1500. Euston Co. v. Erie R. Co., 147 111. App. 594-017. Evans v. Bristol, etc., R. Co., 10 W. R. 559—251. Evans v. Chicago & A. R. Co., 76 Mo. App. 472—037. Evans v. Fitchburg R. Co., Ill Masa. 142—32. 33, 35.5, 822, .823, 005. Evans v. Gale, 17 N. H. 573—530. Evans v. Memphis, etc., R. Co., 66 Ala. 240—1423. Evans v. Rudy, 34 Ark. 385-58, 59. Evans v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 11 Mo. Apn. 403-1028, 1702, 1710, 1712, 1722. Evansville. etc., R. Co. v. Androscog- gin IMills, 22 Wall. (U. S.) 594— 753. 758, 705, 771, 772. Evansville, etc., R. Co. v. Athon, 6 Ind. App. 295—68, 1241. Evansville. etc., R. Co. v. Barnes, 137 Ind 300—988. Evansville, etc., R. Co. v. Baum, 26 Ind. 70—1131, 1433. Evansville, etc., R. Co. v. Gates, 14 Ind. App. 172—1416. Evansville, etc.. R. Co. v. Darting, 6 Ind. App. 375—1166, 1189. TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pages.; ZCl Evausville, etc., R. Co. v. Duiiean, 28 Ind. 441—1235. Evansville & Q. E. Co. v. Gilmore, 1 Ind. App. 468—1433. Evansville, etc., R. Co. v. Keith, 8 Ind. App. 57—180, 182, 184, 292. Evansville, etc., R. Co. v. Kevekordes (Ind. App.), 69 X. E. 1022—189, 493, 521, 890, 90G, 931. Evansville, etc., R. Co. v. Kyte, 6 Ind. App. 52—1256. Evansville, etc., R. Co. v. Marsh, 57 Ind. 505—637, 675, 686. Evansville, etc., R. Co. v. Mills, 37 Ind. App. 598—1037. Evansville. etc., R. Co. v. Montgom- ery, 85 Ind. 494—584. Evansville, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, 65 Ind. 92—785. Evansville, etc., R. Co. v. Wilson, 20 Ind. App. 5—1228. Evansville, etc., R. Co. v. Young, 28 Ind. 516 — 427, 816, 1452. Everett v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 69 Iowa, 15 — 1427. Everett v. Oregon, etc., R. Co., 9 Utah, 340—1057. Everett v. Saltus, 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 474 — 649. Everett v. Southern Express Co., 46 Ga. 303—523. Everliart v. Terre Haute, etc., R. Co., 78 Ind. 292—1066, 1287. Evershed, London, etc., R. Co., 3 Q. B. 135—162. Evershed v. London, etc., R. Co., 2 Q. B. Div. 254—162, 255. Ewald V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 70 Wis. 420—1063. Ewart V. Kerr. 1 Rich L. (S. C.) 203 —163, 626. 650. Ewart V. Street, 2 Bailey (S. C.), 157 —27, 336. 571. Exchange Fire Ins. Co. v. Delaware & Hudson Canal Co.. 25 N. Y. Super. Ct. (10 Bosw.) 180—79. Ex parte Attv.-Gen., 17 N. B. (Can.) 667—124. Ex parte Benson. 18 S. C. 42 — 42. Ex partf Great Western R. Co., 22 Ch. Div. 470—0.30. Ex parte Kochler. 31 Fed. 315—1792, 1829, 1S.14. Ex parte Knchler, 30 Fed. 867—1775, Express Co. v. Kountze, 8 Wall. (U. S.) 342—134. 1457. Exton V. Central R. Co. of N. J., 63 N. J. Law, 356—980, 1191. F. Fadley v. Baltimore & 0. R. Co., 153 Fed. 514—1669. Fahr v. Manhattan R. Co., 9 Misc. R. (N. Y.) 57—1613. Fairbank v. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 66 Fed. 471—520, 771. Fairchild v. California Stage Co., 13 Cal. 599—1129, 1488, 1512. Fairchild v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 148 Pa. St. 527—307, 448, 771. Fairfax v. New York Cent. R. Co., 73 N. Y. 167—1295, 1296, 1353, 1362. Fairfax v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 67 N. Y. 11—570, 1349. Fairfax v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 37 N. Y. Super. Ct. 516—1347. Fairfield v. County of Gallatin, 100 U. S. 47—389. Fair ford Lumber Co. v. Tombigbee Valley R. Co.. 165 Ala. 275—725. Fairmont, etc., Pass. R. Co. v. Stutler, 54 Pa. St. 375—1237. Faison v. A'abama, etc., R. Co., 69 Miss. 569—778. Faith V. East India Co., 4 B. & Aid. 630—642. Falk V. NeAv York, etc., R, Co., 56 N. J. L. 380—1124. 1232. Falke v. Second Ave. R. Co., 38 App. Div. (N. Y.) 49—1494. Falkins v. Boston Elev. R. Co., 188 Ma.ss. 153 — 1112. Falkne v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 106 Minn. 64 — 864. Falkner v. Ohio, etc., R. Co., 55 Ind. 309—1424. Fallon V. Central Park, etc., R. Co., 64 N. Y. 13—1587. Fall River & M. Co. v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 4 Ohio N. P. 26— 64. Falls V. San Francisco, etc., E. Co., 97 Cal. 114—1247. Falvey v. Georgia R. Co., 76 Ga. 597 ^1, 743. Falvey v. Northern Transp. Co., 15 Wis. 129— .549, .'>78. zcu lAltLE UF CAttES. (The rcfiTonoi'S are to tlie pages.) Fanning v. St. Louis S. W. U. 0<>. of Toxas. S Tfx. t'iv. .\\>y>. 513— 100!». FarlHT V. Missouri I';u\ U. <«>.. 13!) Mo. 272— 142.>. FivrbiT V. Missouri Tac. K. Co., IIG Mo. SI— lOUi, 107(>. 1147, 1280. Farewell v. Ciranil Trunk R. Co.. l-> U. C. C. P. 427—102(5. Fargo V. Miehigan. 121 U. S. 230— 1758. Faris v. Brooklyn (,'itv & N. R. Co., 46 App. Div." (N. V.) 231—1216, 1647. Farish v. Koigle, 11 (.Jratt (Va.), 097 —27, 607. 1107, 112!). 1133, i214, 1513, 1713, 1725). Farlev v. Chicago, t't<'.. R. Co., 42 Iowa, 234— 10S2. Farley v. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 108 Fi^. 14—74. !)46. Farlev v. Lavary, 107 Ky. 523—74, 307'. Farley v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 67 W. Va. 350—1578, 1G86. Farley v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 132 Pa. St. 58—1476, 1477. Farlow v. Kelly, 108 U. S. 288- 1099, 1267, 1656. Farmers' & Mechanics' Nat. Bank v. Hawks (Tex. Ciy. App.), 128, S. W. 147—102. Farmers' Bank of Laddoaia v. Wabash R. Co., 119 Mo. App. 1— 598, 902. 924. Farmers' Bank v. Champlain Trans. Co.. 23 Vt. 186—36, 110, 425, 490, 741, 768. Farmers' etc., Bank v. Champlain Transp. Co., 18 Vt. 131—27, 459. Fanners' etc.. Bank v. Champlain Transp. Co., 16 Vt. 52—257, 405, 427. Farmers', etc., Nat. Bank v. Tjognn, 74 N. Y. 568—222. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 120 Fed. 873—147, 189, 534, 738. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 83 Fed. 249—1760. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. v. Oregon R., etc., Co., 73 Fed. 1003 — 410. Farmington Mercantile Co. v. Chi- cago, etc., R. Co., 116 Ma,ss. 154 — 778. Farnliam v. T amden, etc., R. Oo., 55 Pa. St. 53—419, 428, 430, 49.5,576. 578. Farnon v. Boston &, A. R. Co., 180 Mass. 212—1634. Farnsworth v. National Express Co.. 166 Mich. 676—476. Farnsworth v. N»>w York Cent., ifU.. R. Co., 84 \. Y. Supp. 658—765. Farr v. Great Western R. Co., 35 l. C. Q. B. 534—466, 895. Farr & Bailey Mfg. Co. v. Interna tional Nav. Co., 98 Fed. 636—1997. 1999. Farr & Bailey Mfg. Co. v. Interna- tional Nav. Co., 94 Fed. 675—1997. Far rant v. Barnes, 11 C. B. N. S. 553 —128, 563. Farrar v. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co.. 1 Int. Com. Rep. 764—1828. Farrar v. New Orleans, etc., R. Co.. 52 La. Ann. 417—1594. Farrell v. Great Northern Ry. Co.. 100 Minn. 361—1674. Farrell v. Houston, etc., R. C^., 4 N. Y. Supp. 598—1083. Farrell v. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 102 N. C. 390—199, 642. Farris v. Cass Air, etc., R. Co., 80 Mo. 32.5—1588, 1591. Farwell v. Boston R. Co., 4 Metr. (Mass.) 49—947. Farwell v. Davis, 66 Barb. (N. Y.) 73—368. Fassett v. Ruerk, 3 La. Ann. 694 — 527. Fast V. Canton, etc., R. Co., 77 Miss. 498—939. Fasy V. International Nav. Co., 177 N. Y. 591—573. Fatman v. Cincinnati, etc.. R. Co., 2 Disney (Ohio), 248—577, 770. Faucett v. Nichols, 64 N. Y. 377— 412. Faucher v. Wilson, 68 N. H. 338— 73, 74, 336. Faulk V. Columbia, etc., R. Co.. 82 S. C. 369—515, 895. Faulkner v. Chicago, etc., R. Co. (Mo. App.), 73 S. W. 927— .539, 754. Faulkner v. Hart, 82 N. Y. 413— 384, 390, .395. Faulkner v. Hart. 44 N. Y. Super. Ct. 471—47. Faulkner v. South. Pac. R. Co., 51 Mo. 311—136, 138, 598. TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pages.) XCllL Faust V. South Carolina R. Co., 8 S. C. 118—330. Fay V. Davidson, 13 Minn. 523 — ■ 1505. Fay V. Parker, 53 X. H. 342—1720. Fay V. Steamer New World, 1 Cal. 348 —6. Fayerweather v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 118 N. Y. 324—547. Fearn v. West Jersey Ferry Co., 143 Pa. St. 122—1262. Fearon v. Bowers, 1 Smith's L. C, 792—218. Feary v. Metropolitan St. Rv. Co., 162 Mo. 75—1114, 1124, 12i7. Federal St.. etc., R. Co. v. Gibson, 96 Pa. St. 83—1476, 1477. Feeback v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 167 Mo, 206-1280. Fediber v. Manhattan Dist. Telegraph Co., 21 Abb. N C. (N. Y.) 11— 106. Feiber v. Manhattan Dist. Telegraph Co., 4 N. Y. Supp. 555 — 106. Feiber v. Manhattan Dist. Tel. Co., 3 N. Y. Supp. 116—106, 262, 265. Feige v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 62 Mich. 1—385, 429, 456, 488. Feil V. West .It'rsev * S. R. Co., 77 N. J. Law 502—1491. Feinberg v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 52 N. J. L. 451—798, 815, 819. Feital v. Middles(?x R. Co., 109 Mass. 398 — 1478. 1500, 1512, 1600. Feld V. Piatt, 107 N. Y. Supp. 21— 1381. F«ld€r V. Columbia, etc., R. Co., 21 S. C. 3.5—747, 779, 1360. Feldheim v. Brooklyn, etc., R. Co., 122 App. Div. (N. Y.) 883—1492, 1628. Feldschnoider v. Chicago, etc., R. Co. (Wis.), 99 X. W."^ 1034—1467, I486. Fell V. Xorthern Pac. R. Co., 44 Fed. 248—1706, 1719, 1725, 1729. Fellows V. The R. W. Powell, 10 La. Ann. 316—229. PVIton V. Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 69 Iowa, 577 — 1190. Felton y. Chicago C. W. R. Co., 86 .Vfo. App. 322-1353. Folton V. Clarkson, 103 Tonn. 457— 832. Felton V. McCrearv, etc., Livo Stock Co., 22 Ky. L. Rep. 1058-908. Fenig v. New Jersey S. Ry. Co. (N. J.), 46 Atl. 602—1239. Fenner v. Buffalo, etc., R. Co., 44 N. Y. 505—198 251, 252, 255, 384, 392, 396, 398, 403, 405, 773, 775. Fentiman v. Atchison etc., R. Co., 44 Tex. Civ. App. 455—311. Fenton v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 2a U. C. Q. B. 367—1351. Ferguson v. Brent, 12 Md. 9—27. Ferguson v. Cappean, 6 Har. & J. (Mxi.) 394—291. Ferguson v. Citizens' St. R. Co., 16 Ind. App. 171—1188. Ferguson v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 144- Mo. App. 262—1415, 1421, 1432. Ferguson v. Southern Ry. Co., 91 S. C. 61—316. Ferguson v. Truax, 132 Wis. 478 — 959. Ferrin v. Myrick, 41 N. Y. 315—47.. Ferry v. Manhattan R. Co., 118 N. Y. 497—1486. Fewings v. Mendenhall, 83 Minn. 237 —1187. F. H. Smith Co. v Louisville & N. R. Co., 157 Mo. App. 160—590. Fibel v. Livingston, 64 Barb. (N. Y.> 179—424, 425, 429. Fick v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 68 Wis.. 469—1149, 1167. Ficklin v. Wabash R. Co., 117 Mo.. App. 221—787. Ficklin & Son v. Wabash R. Co., 115- Mo. App. 633—857. Fidelity Lumber Co. v. Great North- ern Ry. Co.. 193 Fed. 924—1808. Field V." Chicago, etc., R. Co., 71 III. 458—433, 743, 766, 1452. Field V. Newport, etc., R. Co., 3 H. & N. 409—651. Fielder & Turley v. Adams Express Co.. 69 W. Va. 138— ,502. 1914, 1916. Fields V. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.), 1.55 S. W. 84.5— File V. Wilmington City Ry. Co. (Del. Super.), 7 Pen. (Del.) 1657, SO Atl. 523—1520. 1548, 1621, 1049, 1667. Filer v. New York Cent. R. Co.. 49 N. Y. 47—1227. 1233. 12.36, 1242. 1243, 1.598, 1077, 1679, 1680. Files V. Boston, r^tc. R. Co., 149 Ma^s. 204—1043. 1577. 1027. Fillebrown v. Grand Trunk R. Co.> XCIV TAULE OIP CASi:s. (The roferciu'i's are to tlie im{,a'a. I 55 Mo. 4(12— '2C., 42li. 428, 455, 577, 1452. 145S. Fillin<;luiiii v. St. Uniis TnuisiL Co., 112 Mo. App. 573— 9U8. Kink V. Allaiiv, ok-., H. Co., 4 Liins, (N. \.) 147—1410. i<2l. Fink V. A»h. 09 Ga. 10(5—1425. Fink«'l(Kv v. Omnibus CaWe Co., 114 Cal. 28—974, 1(515, 1G18. Finlev v. Ihi.lson Elic. Ry. Co., 64 Hun (N. v.). 373—1289. Finn v. IMiihulolphia, oti-., R. Co., 1 Houst. (Dol.) 4G9— 103G. Finn v. ValU'v City St., etc., R. Co., SG Midi. 74—1237. Finn v. Wi-stern R. t'orp., 102 Mass. •j.S.l- 219, 22G, 559. Finnon v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 119 Iowa. 261—971. Fitzeil)l)on v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 108 Iowa, 614—1021. Fitzmaurice v. New York, etc., R. Co., 192 Mass. 159—986. Fitzpatrick v. Bloomington City R. Co., 73 111. App. 516—1553. Fitzpatrick v. Cusack, 12 L. C. R. 306—630. Flagg V. Manh-attan R. Co.. 49 N. Y. Su|)€r. Ct. 251—1125. Flahertv v. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 39 Minn. 326—1269. TABLE OF CASES. XC7 (The references are to the pages j Flanagan v. Met., etc., K. Co.. 31 Misc. Rep. (X. Y.) 820—1239, 1241. Flaniigan v. Xew York, etc., K. Co., 55 Hull (X. Y.), 611—1233, 1236. Flannery v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 4 Mivckey (D. C), 111—1189. Flautt V. Lashley, 36 La. Ann. 100— 54. Fleck V. Union R. Co., 134 Mass. 480 —1645. Fleischman, Morris & Co. v. Southern Ry., 76 S. C. 237—1382, 1354. Fleming v. Brooklyn City R. Co., 74 N. Y. 618—1019. Fleming v. Kansas Citv, etc., R. Co., 89 Mo. App. 129—105, 1267. Fleming v. Mills, 5 ]\Iich. 420—118. Fleming v. Pittsburg}), etc., R. Co., 158 Pa. St. 130—1476, 1477, 1504. Fleming v. St. Louis & S. R. Co., 101 Mo. App. 217—1202. Fletcher v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 1 Allen (Mass.), 9—1263. Fletcher v. Fletcher, 7 N. H. 452— 280, 281. Flick V. Union R. Co., 134 Mass. 481 —1641. Flinn v. Philadelphia R. Co., 1 Houst. (Del.) 469—454, 1450, 1452, 1458, 1467. Flint V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 73 N. H. 141—797. Flint V. Christall, 171 U. S. 187— 1986, 2036. Flint V. Norwich, etc., Transp. Co., 34 Conn. 554—1140, 1147, 1186, 1194. Flint, etc., R. Co. v. Stark, 38 Mich. 714—1231, 1237. Flint, etc.. R. Co. v. Weir, 37 Mich. 111—1031, 1306, 1372. Flood V. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 25 Kv. L, R. 213.5—1390. Florida Cent. &, P. R. Co. v. Berry, 116 Ga. 19—362. Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. v. United States, 43 Ct. CI. fU. S.) 572—290. Florida Ea-sit fk)ast Rv. Co. v. United States, 200 Fed. 797—1874. Florida R., ete., Co. v. Webster, 25 Fla. 394 — 1083. Florida R. & Xav. Co. v. Webster (Fla.), 5 So. 714—12.35. Florida Rv. Co. v. Dorsev. 50 Fla. 260—1686. Florida Southern R. Co. v. Hirst, 30 Fla. 1—990, 1054, 1068, 1071, 1211, 1572, 1628. Florman v. Dodd & Childs Express Co., 79 N. J. L. 63—1903. Flournoy v. Shreveport Belt Ry. Co., 50 La. Ann. 491—1268. Floutroup V. Boston & M. R. Co., 163 Mass. 152—1580. Flower v. Downs, 12 Rob. (La.) 101 —190. Flower v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 69 Pa. St. 210—1042. Floyd V. Bovard, 6 W. &, S. (Pa.) 75 —209. Fluker v, Georgia R. Co., 2 L. R. A. 844—1127, 1143, 1409. Flynn v. Central Park, etc., R. Co., 49 N. Y. Super. Ct. 81—1155, 1166. Flynn v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 43 Mo. App. 424—778. Foard v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 8 Jones L. (N. C.) 235—83, 559, 620. Foden v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 13d App. Div. 765—1538. Foggan V. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 16 N. Y. Supp. 25—208, 220, 278. Foley V. Boston & M. R.' Co., 193 Mass. 332 — 1635. Fonseca v. Cunard Steamship Co., 153 Mass. 553—448, 451, 951, 13.33, 1455. Forbes v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 76 N. C. 454—1107. Forbes v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 133 Mass. 154—197, 215, 219, 222, 234, 235, 267, 277, 590. Forbes v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 135 Iowa, 679—1008. Ford V. Atlantic Coast L. R. Co., 8 Ga. App. 295—1373, 1.384. Ford V. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 53 N. C. (8 .Jones L.) 235—376. Ford V. Chicago, etc.. Rv. Co. (Minn.), 143 N. W. 249—1*835. Ford V. East T^uisiana R. Co., 110 La. 414 — 1139. Ford V. Kansas City, 181 Mo. 137 — 548. Ford V. T^ondon, etc., R. Co., 2 F. & F. 730—1115. Ford V. Mitchell, 21 Tnd. 54 — 185, 187. Ford V. ParkiT, 4 Olijo St. 576 — S."j. 'XCM TABLE OF CASES. (The rcliToiucs are to tlic pages.) l-"or*lvtv V. Reocher, 2 Tox. Civ. App. 29— lis 1. Fonlyi-c v. Cluiiuvy, 2 Tex. Civ. App. •J4 — 1557. Kordyce v. Dilliiiglmin (Tex. Civ. Ap'p-^. 23 S. \V. 550—1257. Forii\oe' v. Jaokson. 50 Ark. 5H4^ 1054, 1103. 1270, 1495. Fonlyce v. Jolinson, 56 Ark. 430^ 2l)9. 638. 639. Konlvco V. Mo( aiil*<. 51 Ark. 509 — 1.159. Fordvco v. McFlynn, 5C Ark. 424— 784, 026. 927. Fordyce v. Withers, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 540 — 1.'')01. 15.")7. Fordvco & Swanson v. Dempsey &> B^'lisley, 72 Ark. 471—293. Foreman v. Great Western K. Co., 38 U T. X. S. Sol— 465. Foreman v. Norfolk, etc., R. Co., 106 Va. 770—1023. Foreman v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 195 Pa. St. 499—1049, 1050, 1087. Forepaugh v. Delaware, et«., 128 Pa. St. 217—449. Forrester v. Georgia R., etc.. Co., 92 (Ja. 699—777. Forsee v. Ala.hama G. S. R, Co., 63 Miss. 66— 15G3. Forsyth v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 103 Mass. 510—1601. Forsvthe v. Walker, 9 Pa. St. 148— 36', 560. Fort. See Ft. Fort v. Southern Rv. Co. (S. C), 42 S. E. 196—1722. Forth v. Simpson, 66 E. C. L. 680— 642. Fortier v. Pennsylvania Co., 18 111. App. 260— 758, "769. Forward v. Pittard, 1 T. R. 27—28, .307. 310. .324, 372. Forwood v. Toronto, 22 Ont. Rep. 351 — 1509. Fosnes v. Diiluth St. Ry. Co., 140 Wis. 45.5—1683. Foss V. Boston, etc., R. Co.. 66 N. H. 2,56—1 2:^.1. 1247. 1248, 1256, 1592. Foster v. Atlanta Rapid Tr. Co.. 119 Oa. 675—1565. Foster V. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 56 Fed. 434—614, 1792. 1800. Foster v. Colby, 3 H. & X. 705—644. Fo.-ter V. Essex Bank, 17 Mass. 501 — 14. Foster v. Framptim, 6 B. A, C. 107 — • 244. Foster v. Metts, 55 Miss. 77—85. Foster v. Seattle Electric Co., 35 Wash. 177—1018. 1214, 1237. Foster, Glassel Co. v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., 121 La. 1053— 058, 606. Foulkcs v. Metropolitan Dist. R. Co., 28 W. R. 526—749. Fourche River Lumber Co. v. Bryant Lumber Co.. 230 U. S. 316-1883. Four Thousand Bags of Linseed, 1 Black. (U. S.) 108—642. Foust V. Lee, 138 Mo. App. 722— S.SO. Fowle V. Pitt Scott, 183 Mass. 351— 761. Fowler v. Davenport, 21 Tex. 626— 307, 583. 587. Fowler v. Liverpool, etc., Steam Co., 87 X. Y. 190—352, 431, 462. Fowler v. W-estern Union Tel. Co., 80 Me. 381—87. Fowles V. Great Western R. Co.. 22 L. J. Exch. 76, 7 Exch. 699—197, 234, 768. Fox V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 148 Mass. 220—315, 343, 597, 735. 742. Fox V. Holt, 36 Conn. 104—643. Fox V. Mayor, etc., of N. Y. 5 App. Div. (N. Y.) 349—1234. Fox V. McGregor, 11 Barb. (N. Y.) 41—640. Fox V. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co.. 114 Minn. 336-1282. Fox V. Philadelphia, 208 Pa. 127— 104. Fox V. Wabash R. Co., 16 Misc. R. (X. Y.) 370—1364. Fov V. London, etc.. R. Co., 18 C. B. N. S. 228—123.3. 12.34. Fov v. Trov, etc.. R, Co., 24 Barb. (X. Y.) 382—739, 760. Fraam v. Grand Rapids & I. Ry. Co., 161 Mich. 550-1354. 1387. Francis v. Cockrell, L. R. 5 Q. B. 184 —1120. Francis v. Dubuque, etc., R. Co., 25 Iowa, 60—255. .381. Francis v. Xew York Steam Co., 114 X. Y. .38.5—1650. 1657. Francis v. Xew York Steam Co., 13 Daly (X. Y.), 510—1101. Frnneis v. St. Louis Transfer Co., 5 Mo. App. 7—1704. 1707. 1708, 1709. TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pages.)| xcvn Frank v. Central R. Co., 9 Pa. Super. Ct. 129—38, 329. Frank v. Grand Tower, etc., R. Co., 57 Mo. App. 181—391, 399. Frank v. Keith, 2 Bush. (Ky.) 123— 324. Frank v. Memphis, etc., R. Co., 52 Miss. 570 — 737, 751, 755. Frank v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 91 App. Div. (N. Y.) 485—1151. Frankford, etc.. Turnpike Co. v. Phila- delphia, etc., R. Co., 54 Pa. St. 345 —1115. Franklin v. Louisville & N. R. Co. (Ky.), 116 S. W. 765—620. 622. Franklin v. Low and Swartwout. 1 Johns. (N. Y.) 396—85. Franklin v. Southern California, etc.. R. Co., 85 Cal. 63—1211. 1233, 1256, 1690. Franklin v. Third Ave. R. Co., 52 App. Div. (N. Y.) 512—1166. Franklin v. Twogood, 25 Iowa, 520 — ."00. Franklin Sugar Refining Co. v. Red Cross Line, 68 Fed. 230—1988, 1994. Frank L. Smith Meat Co. v. Oregon R. & Nav. Co.. 59 Or. 206—886. Fraser v. Harper House Co.. 141 III. App. 390 — 1658. Frazier v. Atchison, etc., R. Co.. 104 Mo. App. 355—283. Frazier v. Charleston & W. C. Ry. Co., 81 S. C. 162—1980. Frazier v. Kansas Citv. etc., R. Co., 48 Iowa, 571—175, "l83. 838. Frazier v. Smith, 60 HI. 145—624. Prazier v. Telegraph Co. (Ala.). 4 So. 831 — 1267. Freck v. Philadelphia, etc.. R. Co.. 30 Md. 576—1544. 1546. Frederick v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 133 Ala. 486. Fredericks v. Northern Cent. R. Co., 157 Pa. St. 10."?— 1213. 1475, 1513. Freeburg Coal Co. v. Union R.. etc., Co., 10 Mo. App. 596—740. Freedman v. Metropolitan St. Rv. Co.. 85 N. Y. Snpp. 986-1178. Freedom v. New York Cent., et'.. R. Co., 24 .App. Div. (N. Y.) 306— 1140, 1402. Freeman v. Costlev (Tex. Civ. .\pp.), 124 S. W. 458—1396. 1420. Freeman v. Davis (Tex. Civ. App.), 117 S. W. 186—1502. Freeman v. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 56 Mich. 577—1228. Freeman v. Kemendo (Tex. Civ. App.), 148 S. W. 605—656. Freeman v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 32 Fla. 420—735. Freeman v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 95 Mo. App. 94—1170, 1217. Freeman v. Newton, 3 E. D. Sm. 246 —424, 1338. Freeman v. Pere Marquette R. Co., 9 Det. L. N. 436—1626. Freeman v. Quebedeaux (Tex. Civ. App.), 151 S. W. 643—323. Freeman v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co., 138 Mo. App. 322—423. Freeman v. Wilmington & P. Traction Co. (Del. Super.), 80 Atl. 1001— 1520, 1548, 1669. Freemantle v. London, etc., R. Co., 100 E. C. L. 95—1115. Freight Bureau v. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 4 Int. Com. Rep. 592—1849, 1850. Frelsen v. Southern Pac. Co., 42 La. Ann. 673—1119. Fremont v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 83 App. Div. (N. Y.) 414—1610. Fremont, etc.. R. Co. v. French, 48 Neb. 638—946, Fremont, etc., R. Co. v. Ilagblad, 72 Neb. 772-980, 998. Fremont, etc., R. Co. v. New York, etc., R. Co. (Neb.), 92 N. W. 131 —535, 767. Fremont, etc., R. Co. v. Waters (Neb.), 70 N. W. 225—740. 781. French v. BufValo. etc.. R. Co., 4 Keyea (N. Y.). 108—462. 575, 1460. 1462. French v. Merchant's, etc.. Trans. Co., 199 Mass 43.3—1341. French v. Star Union Transp. Co., 134 Mass. 288-328. Frey v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 114 App. lYiv. (N. Y.) 747—356, 596. Friar v. Orange & N. W. R. Co. (Tex Civ. App.). 101 S. W. 274—1173. Friek v. St. Fxiuis. etc., R. Co '>^ Wis. 186—1587. Fricdlander v. Te.xas, etc., Ry Co 130 IT. S. 416. 424—218, 229. XCVIU TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pages.) Friedman ▼. Metropolitan S. S. Co., 45 Mise. Rep. (N. Y.) 383—258. Friend v. Woods, 6 Gratt. (Va.) 189 —27. Frink v. Coe, 4 (Ireeiie (Iowa), 55;") — 045, 1132. 1722. 1724. Frink v. Potter, 17 111. 400-1581. Frink v. Selirover. 18 111. 416—000, 1716. Fri/ZA-'U V. Omalia St. Ry. Co., 124 Fed. 176—1072. Frobisher v. Fifth Ave. Transp. Co., 151 N. Y. 431 — 1120. Frothinnrhani v. Jenkins, 1 Cal. 42 — - 635, 642, 648. Fry V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 103 Ind. 265 — 781. Fry V. Southern Pac. Co., 247 111. 564 —1912. 1026. . Fry V. State. 63 Ind. 562—1758, 1857. Ft. Smith & VV. 11. Co. v. Chandler Cotton Oil Co., 25 Okl. 82—724. Ft. Wayne Tract. Co. v. Hardendorf (Ind.), 72 N. E. 593—1057. Ft. Wayne Tract. Co. v. Morvilius (Ind.), 68 Me. 304—1680. Ft. Worth & D. C. Rv. Co. v. Day (Te.v. Civ. App.), Ill S. W. 663— 1490. Ft. Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. v. Willie S. & J. B. Ikard Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 140 S. W. 502-869. ■ Ft. Worth & R. G. R. Co. v. Neal (Tex. Civ. App.), 140 S. W. 308— 1496. Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Albin (Tex. Civ. App.). 142 S. W. 933—845. Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Alexander (Tex. Civ. App.), 81 S. W. 101.5— 852. Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Chicago, etc., R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 105 S. W. 829—916. Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Daggett, 87 Tex. 322—815. Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Greatliouse, 82 Tex. 104—486, 516, 585. 589, 590, 602, 617. 881. 906, 1456, 1450. Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Gribble(Tex. Civ. App.), 102 S. W. 157—1391, 1426. Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Hyatt, 12 Tex. Civ. App. 4.35—1110. Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Johnson, 5 Tex. Civ. App. 24—780. Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Lillard (Tex. Civ. App.), 10 S. W. 654— 269. Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Martin, 12 Tex. Civ. App. 464—180, 184. Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Masterson, 95 Tex. 262—908. Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. McAnulty, 7 Tex. Civ. App. .321—759. Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. McCarthy, 42 Tex. Civ. App. 514—1346. Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Pointdexter (Tex. Civ. App.), 154 S. W. 581— 818. Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Richard (Tex. Civ. App.), 105 S. VV. 236— 867. Ft. Wortli, etc., R. Co. v. Rilev (Tex. Civ. App.), 1 S. W. 446—183, 832. 846. Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Rosenthal Millinery Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 29 S. W. 196—1299, 1301, 1376. Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Rogers, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 605—1459. Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Ryers (Tex. Civ. App.), 35 S. W. 1082—735. Ft. W'orth, etc., R, Co. v. Thompson. (2 Tex. Civ. App. 170—1555. Ft. Worth, etc.. R. Co. v. Waggoner Nat. Bank, 36 Tex. Civ. App. 293— 831. Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Whitehead, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 595—1775. Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Wliiteside (Tex. Civ. App.), 141 S. W. 1037— 840, 868. Ft. W^orth, etc., R. Co. v. Williams. 71 Te.x. 121—750, 757. 768. 781 Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. W..od (Tex. Civ. App.). 32 S. W. 14—026. Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. V\ord (Tex. Civ. App.), Ill S. W. 753. Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Wright, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 291—923. Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Wright (Tex. Civ. App.), 58 S. W. 846— 767. Ft. W^orth St. R. Co. v. Witten. 74 Tex. 202—1081. Fuhry v. Chicago Citv Ry. Co., 144 111. App. 521-1497." Fulghum V. Atlantic Coast L. R, Co. 15 N. C. .55.5—1584, 1693. ,' TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pages.) XCIX Fulks V. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co., Ill Mo. 335—1.54, 1571, 1613, 1614. Fuller V. Bradley, 25 Pa. St. 120 — 15, 17, 20, 0^4. Fuller V. Chicago, etc., E,. Co., 31 Iowa, 187—1730. Fuller V. Dennison & Sherman Rv. Co. (Tex.), 74 S. W. 940— 1239, 'l6Sl. Fuller V. Illinois Central R. Co., 164 111. App. 284- 168. Fuller V. Jamestown St. R. Co., 75 Hun (N. Y.), 273—1561. Fuller V. Naugatuck R. Co.. 21 Conn. 557—41, 1211. 1237, 1557. Fulton V. Grand Trunk R. Co., 17 U. C. Q. B. 428-1016, 1396. Fulton V. Lydecker, 17 N. Y. Supp. 451—271. Fultz V. Metropolitan St. Rv. Co. (Mo. App.), 148 S. W. 210—1620. Furgaaon v. Citizens' St. E. Co. (Ind. App.), 44 N. E. 936—1198. Pnrman v. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 81 Iowa, 540—329, 331, 400. Furman v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 62 Iowa, 395—207, 329. Furman v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 57 Iowa, 42—207, 329. Furman v. Union Pac. R. Co.. 106 N. Y. 579—206, 220, 222, 223, 225. 233. Furnish v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 102 Mo. 438—1116, 1117, 1213, 1500. Furstenheim v. Memphis & 0. R. Co., .56 Tenn (9 Heisk) 238—1370. Fusselman v. Wabash R. Co., 139 Mo. App. 198—1275, 1629. G. Gahhert v. Hackett, 135 Wis. 86— 969. 993. 10.35. Gfabriel v. Long Island R. Co., 54 App, Div. (N. Y.) 41—1555. Gabriel v. St. Ix>uis. etc., Ry. Co., 135 Mo. App. 222—1635. Gabrielson v. Wavdell, 67 Fed. 342— 1133. Gadsden, etc. R. Co. v. Causler. 97 Ala. 23.5—1133, 1227. 1567. 1673. Gaffney v. Brooklvn Citv R. Co., 8 Misc. Rep. (X. Y.) 1—1106. GafTney v. St. Paul City R. Co., 81 Minn. 459—975, 983. Gage V. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 75 Miss. 17—1259. Gage V. Tirrell, 9 Allen (Mass.), 299 —75, 324, 350. Gaines v. Chester Traction Co., 224 Pa. 52—1088. Gaines v. Union Transp., etc., Co., 28 Ohio St. 418—419, 427, 433, 577, 579. Galaviz v. International & G. N. R. Co., 15 Tex. Civ. App. 61 — 1060. Gale V. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 7 Hun (N. Y.) 670—1014, 1025, 1026. Galehouse v. INIinneapolis, etc., R. Co., 22 N. D. 615—1023. Galena, etc., R. Co. v. Fay, 16 111. 558—1541, 1565. Galena R. Co. v. Rae, 18 111. 488 — 116, 117, 132, 136, 138, 184, 295, .343, 597, 605, 610, 612, 625. Galena, etc., R. Co. v. Yarwood, 15 111. 468—1135, 1501, 1512, 1581. Gales V. Hailman, 11 Pa. St. 515 — 23. Galesburg, etc., R. Co. v. West, 108 111. App. 504—166, 245. Galigan v. Old Colony St. R. Co., 182 :\lass. 211—1102. 1215. Gallagher v. Bowie, 66 Tex. 265 — 1129, 1132. Gallagher v. City of Piiiladelphia, 4 Pa. Super. Ct. 60—80. Gallagher v. Great Western R. Co., 8 Ir. R. C. L. 326—465. Gallaway v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 87 Iowa, 458 — 1679. Gallegly v. Kansas City, etc., R. Co. (Miss.), 35 So. 420 — 1407. Gallena v. Hot Springs R. Co., 13 Fed. 116—1131, 1170, 142.5, 1427, 1721. Galliers v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 116 Iowa, 319—587. Gallin v. London, etc., R. Co.. L. R. 10 0. B. 212—1451. 1456. 1467. Gallowav v. Erie R. Co., 116 App. niv. (N. Y.) 777—878. Gallowav v. Erie R. Co., 102 N Y Supp.' 25—421. Galloway v. Erie R. Co., 95 N. Y. ^'ipp. 17. 107 App. Div. 120 — SO.*?. Gallowiiv V. TTnirhps, 1 Bayley L (S C.) 55.3— 199. 219, 258. " " ' ' Gallowav v. Hughes, 1 ( onk. Adm. 96 —219. Gait V. Adams K\p. Co.. McArthur & TABLE OF CAPES. (The roftii'iuos are to the pages.j M. ^D. C.) 124—40. 5-24. .->2(i, rv27, 1450, 1458. (^alt V. Archer. 7 Gratt. (Va.) .107— «4*>. (i:>0. Ualvostoii City R. I'o. v. llowitt, 07 Tex. 47;J— 1214. Galveston, etc.. R. Co. v. Allison. 59 Tex. IJKJ— 41!), 741. 770. Galveston, etc.. R. Co. v. Ball, 80 Tex. 602—458. 4S5. 516. 5!)0. Galveston, etc.. R. Co. v. Barnett (Tex. Civ. App.), 26 S. W. 782— S42. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Bean (Tex. Civ. App.), 99 S. W. 731—1471. Galveston, etc.. R. Co. v. Boothe. 3 Tex. Civ. App. Cas., § 3():i— 486. Galveston, etc.. R. Co. v. Botts. 22 Tex. Civ. App. 936, 70 S. W. 113— 859. 907, 936. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Cobb & Mc- Crarv (Tex. Civ. App.), 126 S. W. 63— o98. 868. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Cooper, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 42—1607, 1728. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Crier (Tex. Civ. App.), 100 S. W. 1177—1503. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Crippen (Tex. Civ. App.), 147 S. W. 361— 515. 868. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Crispi, 73 Tex. 230—1233, 1257. Galveston, etc.. R. Co. v. Crow (Tex. Civ. App.), 117 S. W. 170—1902, 1910. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Donahoe. 5G Tex. 162—1149, 1183, 1724. 1725. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Efron (Tex. Civ. App.), 38 S. W. 639—579, 583. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Fales. 33 Tex. Civ. App. 457, 77 S. W. 234— 1294, 1330. Galveston, etc.. R. Co. v. F. A. Piper Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 115 S. W. 107 —1911, 1912, 1926. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Fink (Tex. Civ. App.). 99 S. W. 204—994. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Gildea. 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas., § 271—569. Galveston, etc.. R. Co. v. Gracia (Tex. Civ. App.), 100 S. W. 198—1502. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Harman. 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas., § 13.5— SSO. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Herring (Tex. Civ. App.), 113 S. W. 521— 15.50. Galveston, etc.. R. Co. v. Herring (Tex. Civ. App.), 36 S. W. 129— 837. Galveston, etc.. R. Co. v. Herring (Tex. Civ. App.), 28 S. VV. 580— 593. Galveston, etc.. R. Co. v. Herring (Tex. Civ. App.), 24 S. W. 939— 742. Galveston, etc.. R. Co. v. Houston (Tex. Civ. App.), 40 S. W. 842— 924. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Hubbard (Tex. Civ. App.), 70 S. W. 764— 1237. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Ivey (Tex. Civ. App.), 23 S. W. 321—815. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Jackson (Tex. Civ. App.), 37 S. W. 255— 797, 832, 837. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Johnson & Johnson (Tex. Civ. App.), 133 S. VV. 725—939, 1912. 1919. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Johnson (Tex. Civ. App.), 37 S. W. 243— 780. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Johnson (Tex.), 19 S. W. 867—590, 594. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. .Johnson, 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas., § 18.5—1187. Galveston, etc , R. Co. v. Jones, 104 Tex. 92—845, 911. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Jones (Tex. Civ. App.), 123 S. W. 737—801, 807, 822, 830. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Karrer (Tex. Civ. App.), 109 S. W. 440—369, 869. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Kelley (Tex. Civ. App.), 26 S. W. 470—591. Galveston, etc.. R. Co. v. Kinnebew, 7 Tex. Civ. App. 549—1451. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Krenck (Tex. Civ. App.), 138 S. W. 1154—1682. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. LeGierse, 51 Tex. 189—1613. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. La Prelle, 27 Tex. Civ. App. 496—1167. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Long (Tex. Civ. App.), 36 S. W. 485—1194. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Malzdorf (Tex. Civ. App.), 107 S. W. 882— 1282. Galveston, etc.. R. Co. v. Morria (Tex.), 61 S. W. 709—1661. TABLE OF CASES. CI (The references are to the pages.) Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Noelke (Tex. Civ. App.), 125 S. W. 909—842. Galvedton, etc.. R. Co. v. Noelke ( Tex. Civ. App.), 110 S. W. 82—918. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Parsley, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 150—346. 1047. Galveston, etc.. R. Co. v. Patillo (Tex. Civ. App.), 101 S. W. 492—166.3. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. F. A. Piper Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 115 S. W. lOT —1911, 1912, 1926. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Powers (Tex. Civ. App.), 117 S. W. 459—830. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Rutledge (lex. Civ. App.), 37 S. W. 176— 837. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Schmidt (Tex. Civ. App.), 25 S. W. 452— 147. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Scott, 18 Tex. Civ. App. 321—1134. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Scott (Tex. Civ. App.), 79 S. W. 642—1391. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Short (Tex. Civ. App.), 25 S. W. 142—286, 741, 767. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Silegman (Tex. Civ. App.), 23 S. W. 298— 152, 294, 749. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Smith. 81 Tex. 479—1353, 1531. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, 59 Tex. 406—1677. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Smith (Tex. Uv. Apn.), 24 S. W. 668—13.50. G«lveston, etc.. R. Co. v. Stovall, 3 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. § 250—904. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Thompson (Tex. Civ. App.), 23 S. W. 930— 486, 806. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Thorns- berry (Tex.), 17 S. W. 521—1236, 1715. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Tuckett (Tex. Civ. App.), 35 S. W. 150— 344, 595. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Van Winkle, 3 Tex. Civ. App. Cas. §§ 442, 443— 261, 741, 748. Galveston, etc.. R. Co. v. Wallace, 223 U. S. 481—1902, 1925. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Wallace (Tex. Civ. App.). 117 S. W. 169— 1902, 1911, 1912. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Warnken (Tex. Civ. App.), 35 S. W. 72— 820. Galveston, etc., R. Co., v. Watson, 1 Tex. av. App. Cas. § 813—260. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Williams (Tex. Civ. App.), 25 S. W. 1019— 486. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Wiseman (Tex. Civ. App.), 136 S. W. 793— 952. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Wood (Tex. Civ. App.), 124 S. W. 478—305, 1854. Galveston, etc.. R. Co. v. Young (Tev. Civ. App.), 100 S. W. 993— 1492. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Young & Webb (Tex. Civ. App.), 148 S. W. 1113—910. Galveston Chamber of Commerce v. Railroad Commission (Tex. Civ. App.), 137 S. W. 737—705. Galveston H. & S. A. Rv. Co. v. Karrer (Tex. Civ. App.), 109 S. W. 440—604. Galveston H. S. R. Co. v. La Prelle iTe.x. Civ. App.), 65 S. W. 488— 1171. Galvin v. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 21 Mo. App. 273—598. Gamble-Robinson Commission Co. v. Chicago & X. W. R. Co., 168 Fed. 161—1822, 1823. Ganiard v. Rochester Citv, etc., R. Co., 50 Hun (N. Y.)^ 22—975, 1211, 1238, 1553. Gann v. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 72 Mo. App. 34—145, 351, 539, 843, 936. Gannell v. Ford, 5 L. T. X. S. 604— 873. Gannon v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 141 Iowa, 37—960. 1005. Gannon v. Xew York, etc., R. Co., 173 Mass. 50—1580. Ganiiner v. Xew York Cent., etc., R. Co., 201 X. Y. 387— 501. 511, 1339, 1384. Gardiner v. Xew York C^'nt., etc,, R. Co., 139 App. Div. 17—1384. Gardner v. Detroit St. R. Co., 99 Mich. 182—1241, 1563. Gardner v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 223 Mo. 380— 1 101. 1538. Gardner v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 167 Mo. App. 605—1674. Oil TABLE OF CASES. (The rcfortiuos are to tlie \n\gvi Garduor v. New Haven, eti .. K. Co., 51 Conn. 14:$— !>u;. 974, UKJS, 1059. Garilner v. Soutli. K. Co., 127 N. C. •J!);$— 427, 457. 471. Caniner v. St. Ixniis & S. K. K. Co., 117 Mo. App. i:5S— 104t). Gardner v. \\ "aveross Air Line R. Co., 97 Gu. 4S2— 1475, 1487. Garey v. Mea^'lier, 33 Ala. 630—10!). Garland v. Southern R. Co., Ill Ga. 852—1221. Garliugton v. Fort Worth, etc., R. Co., 34 Tex. Civ. App. 234—601, 602. Garncau v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 109 111. App. 169—1232. Garner v. Cliicago Consol. Tr. Co., 150 111. App. 149—1481. Garner v. Green, S Ala. 06—59. Garner v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 79 Ark. 353—170, 189. Garnett v. Willan. 5 B. & Aid. 53— 463. Garoni v. Campagnie, etc., R. Co., 39 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 63—1114. Garoni v. Compagne Nationale de Navigation, 131 N. Y. 614—1590. Garrett v. Atlantic Citv &. S. R. Co., 79 N. J. La^v 127—997. Garrett v. St. Louis Transit Co., 219 Mo. 65—1425. Garrett v. Wabash R. Co., 159 Mo. App. 63—1584. Garrison v. Baggage Transp. Co., 94 Mo. 130—230. Garrison v. Memphis Ins. Co., 19 How. (U. S.) 312—75. Garrison v. United Rep. & Elec. Co. of Baltimore (Md.), 55 Atl. 371— 1392, 1415. Garside v. Trent Nav. Co., 4 T. R. 581—198. 386. 392, 768, 774. Garton v. Bristol, etc., R. Co.. 1 B. & S. 112, 5 C. B. N. S. 669—21, 465. Garvev v. Rhode Island Co., 26 R. I. 80—1021. Gashweiler v. W'abash, etc., R. Co., 83 Mo. 112—258. 381, 404. Gass V. New York. etc.. R. Co., 99 Mass. 220—181, 747, 759, 776. 778, 781. Gasway v. Atlanta, etc., R. Co.. 58 Ga. 216-1131, 1148. Gatens v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 85 App. Div. (N. Y.) 311, 85 N. Y. Supp. 967—1222, 1644. Gates v. Bekins, 44 Wash. 422, 87 Pac. 505—282. Gales v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 42 Neb. 379—119, 207, 215, 220. 342. Gates v. Quiney, etc., R. Co., 125 Mo. App. 334—993, 1400, 1425. Gates V. Ryan, 37 Fed. 154—249, 525. Gaukler v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 130 Mich. 666—1406, 1427. Gault Lumber Co. v. Atchison, etc., Rv. Co. (Okl.), 130 Pac. 291—647, 690, 697, 703. Gaiisman v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 134 App. Div. (N. Y.) 989— 1357. Gavett V. Manchester, etc., R. Co., 16 Gray (Mass.), 501—1675. Gay V. Milwaukee Ry., etc., Co., 138 Wis. 348—1529. Gaynor v. Old Colony, etc., R. Co., 100 Mass. 208—1012, 1242, 1598, 1601. Gay's Gold, 13 Wall. (U. S.) 358— i.io. Geary v. Stephenson, 169 Mass. 31 — ■ 1562. Geraty v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 81 S. C. 367—423. Gee V. Lancashire, etc., R. Co., 6 H. & N. 211—619. Gee V. Metropolitan R. Co., L. R. 8 Q. B. 161—1584, 1632. Geiger v. Pittsburgh Rvs. Co., 234 Pa. 54.5—1022. Geiler v. Manhattan R. Co., 11 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 413—1560. Geipel v. Steinway R. Co., 14 App. Div. (N. Y.) 551—1081. Geismer v. Lake Shore, etc.. R. Co., 102 X. Y. 563—36, 137, 248, 326, 340, 341, 343, 359, 369. 370, 371. Geitz v. Milwaukee Citv R. Co., 72 Wis. 307—1639, 1641,'^ 1644. Gelley v. New Orleans City & L. R. Co., 49 La. Ann. 588—1642. Gel])cke v. City of Dubuque, 1 Wall. (U. S.) 17.5—390. Gelvin v. Kansas Citv. etc.. R. Co., 21 Mo. App. 273—187. 541, 618. Geneva, etc.. R. Co. v. Sage, 35 Hun (N. Y.), 9.5—642. General Fire Extinguisher Co. v. TABLE OF CASES. CUl (The references are to the pages.) Carolina & N. W. Ry. Co., 137 N. C. 278—320. Geogan v. Adams Express Co., 114 Pa. St. 523—457. Cieogagn v. New York, etc., E. Co., 10 App. Div. (N. Y.) 454—1675. George v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 214 Mo. 551—885, 887. Crcorge V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 67 Mo. App. 358—570. George v. Los Angeles R. Co., 126 Cal. 357—976. George v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 34 Ark. 613—1080, 1083, 1211, 1501. €reorge C. Vagley Elevator Co. v. American Express Co., 63 Minn. 142 —551. GJeorge F. Ditman Boot, etc., Co. v. Keokuk, etc., R. Co., 91 Iowa, 416 —1350, 1353. George N. Pierce Co. v. Wells, Fargo & Co., 189 Fed. 561—1847, 1918. Georgetown & T. R. R. Co. v. Smith, 25 App. D. C. 259—1102. Georgia Coast & P. R. Co. v. Dur- rence & Sands, 6 Ga. App. 615 — 142, 545. Georgia, etc., R. Co. v. Barfield, 1 Ga. App. 20.3—308, 317. Georgia, etc., R. Co. v. Du Bose, 9 Ga. App. 607—1379. Georgia, etc., R. Co. v. Doughcrtv, 86 Ga. 744—1416. Georgia, etc., R. Co. v. Elliott, 3 Ga. App. 773—360. Georgia, etc., R. Co. v. Eskew, 86 Ga. 641-1446, 1720. Georgia, ftc. T?. Co. v. Murray, 113 Ga. 1621—1672. Georgia, etc.. R. Co. v. Olds, 77 Ga. 673—1416. Georgia, etc.. R. Co. v. Pound, 111 Ga. 6—380, 382. Georgia, etc., R. Co. v. Reid, 91 Ga. 377—469, 873. Georgia, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, 83 Ga. 626—782. Georgia, etc., R. Co. v. Usry, 82 Ga. 54—1673. Georgia Pac. Rv. Co. v. Gaines, 88 Ala. 377-780. Georgia Pac. Rv. Co. v. Hughart, 90 Ala. 36—492, 777. G«orgia Pac. Rv. Co. v. Love 91 Ala- 432—1487, 1497, 1.'526. Georgia Pac. Ry. Co. v. Propst, 83 Ala. 518—1286. Georgia Pac. Ry. Co. v. Robinson, 68 Miss. 643—984, 1018. Georgia Pac. Ry. Co. v. Underwood, 90 Ala. 49—1655. Georgia Pac. Ry. Co. v. West, 66 Miss. 310—1677. Georgia R. Co. v. Beatie, 66 Ga. 438 — 455. Georgia R. Co. v. CJole, 68 Ga. 623— 279, 358, 752. Georgia R. Co. v. Creety, 5 Ga. App. 424—1881. Georgia R. Co. v. Dorsey, 116 Ga. 719 —1710. Georgia R. Co. v. Gann, 68 Ga. 350 — 427, 749, 777, 1458. Georgia R. Co. v. Hayden, 71 Ga. 518 —1261. 1701, 1704. Georgia R. Co. v. Homer, 73 Ga. 251 —251, 1212. Georgia R. Co. v. Murden, 86 Ga. 434 —1070. Georgia R. Co. v. Olds, 77 Ga. 673— 1711, 1712, 1721. Georgia R. Co. v. Pound, 111 Ga. 6 — 196. Georgia R. Co. v. Spears, 56 Ga. 485 — 433, 454, 821. Georgia R. Co. v. Thompson, 86 Ga. 327—1353. Georgia R. Co. v. West, 66 Miss. 310 —1241. Georgia R. & B. Co. v. Greer, 7 Ga. App. 292—1139. Georgia R., etc., Co. v. Baker, 120 Ga. 991—1712. Georgia R., etc., Co. v. Baker, 1 Ga. App. 832-1178. Georgia R. etc., Co. v. Crossley & Co.. 128 Ga. 35—721. Georgia R., etc., Co. v. Eskew, 86 Ga. 641—1446, 1720. Georgia R., etc., Co. v. Gilleland, 133 Ga. 021—1531. Georgia R., etc., Co. v. Haas, 127 Ga. 187—293,533. Georgia R., etc., Co. v. Hopkins, 108 Ga. 324—1170. Georgia R., etc., Co. v. Johnson, 113 Ga. 589—1293. Georgia R., etc., Co. v. Keener, 93 Ga. 80H— 492. CIV TA151.K OF CASES. (The rcftMciuts uri> to I lie pages.) G— 1278. Georgia R., etc., Co. v. Thompson, 86 Ga. 327 — 380. Georgia R. R. v. Richards, 9 Ga. App. 639—674. Georgia S. & F. R. Co. v. Greer, 2 Ga. App. 516—898. Georgia S. & F. R. Co. v. Marchman, 121 Ga. 235—534. Georgia Southern R. Co. v. Bigelow, 68 Ga. 219—1028. Gerber v. Wabash R. Co.. 63 Mo. App. 145—1832, 1833. Gerhard v. Xeese, 36 Tex. 635—359. Gerke Brewing Co. v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 4 Int. Com. C. Rep. 596— 1828. Germain v. Montreal, etc., R. Co., 6 L. C. Rep. 172—1505. German v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 38 Iowa, 127 — 822. German Exchange Bank v. Commis- sioners, 57 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 187 — 530. Germania Fire Ins. Co. v. Memphis, etc., R. Co., 72 N. Y. 90—431, 444, 452, 578. German State Bank v. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co. (W. S. C. C. Minn.), 113 Fed. 414—86. Germantown Pass. R. Co. v. Walling, 97 Pa. St. 55 — 1641, 1644. Gerstle v. Union Pac. R. Co., 23 Mo. App. 361—1639. Getman v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 162 N. Y. 21—1583. Ghio V. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 125 Mo. App. 710—1683, 1698. Ghormley v. Diiismore, 51 N. Y. Super. Ct. 196—461. 484. Gibbons v. Farwell, 63 Mich. 344 — 234, 270, 330. 333. (!il)bons v. Paynton, 4 Burr. 22))8 — 463. 523. Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. (U. S.) 1, 229—1731, 1735, 1736, 1737, 1742. 1747. 175S. 1894. Gibbons v. Wade, 8 N. J. L. 255 — 427. Gibbons v. Yazoo & M. V. R. Co., 130 La. 671—385. Gibler v. Terminal R. Ass'n of St. Louis, 203 Mo. 208—78. Giblin v. McMullen, L. R. 2 P. C. 317 —6. Giblin v. National Steamship Co., 8 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 22—823, 905. Gibson v. American Merchants', etc., Express Co., 1 Hun (N. Y.) 389— 264, 401, 765. Gibson v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 88 S. C. 360—1926. Gibson v. Culver, 17 Wend. (N. Y.) 30.5—251, 398. Gibson v. Draughn v. Little Rock. etc., Ry. Co., 93 Ark. 439—1907. Gibson v. International Trust Co., 186 Mass. 454—101, 1096, 1165. Gibson v. Little Rock, etc., R. Co., 93 Ark. 439—1902. Gibson v. St. Louis, etc., Ry. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 135 S. W. 1121— 1577. Gilbert v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 132 Mo. App. 697—818, 842. Gilbert v. N. Y. Cent., etc., R. Co., 4 Hun (N. Y.) 378—193. Gilbert v. Third Ave. R. Co., 54 N. Y. Super. Ct. 470—1.556. Gilbert v. West End St. R. Co., 4 Am. Elect. Gas. 456, 160 Mass. 403— 1240. Gilbert Bros. v. Chicago, etc., R. Co. (Iowa), 136 N. W. 911—786. Giles V. Diamond State Iron Co. (Del.), 8 Atl. Rep. 368 — 1534. Giles V. Fargo, 60 N. Y. Super. Ct. 117—461. Giles V. Taff Vale R. Co., 2 El. & Bl. 823—185, 543. Gilhooly v. New York, etc.. Steam Nav. Co., 1 Daly (N. Y.) 197—996, 1531. TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pages.) CY Gilkerson v. Pacific R. Co., 39 Mo. 354—372. Gill V. Erie R. Co., 1.51 App. Div. (N. Y.) 131—1514. 1774. Gill V. Manchester, etc.. R. Co., L. R. 8 Q. B. 186, 42 L. .J. Q. B. 89—198, 204, 744, 745, 823, 848. Gill V. Rochester, etc., R. Co., 37 Hun (N. Y.) 107—1258, 1402. Gillenwater v. Madison, etc., R. Co., 5 Ind. 330—944, 957, 1031, 1064, 1131, 1212. Gillespie v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 178 N. Y. 347—1147, 1149, 1156, 1175, 1709. Gillespie v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 144 Mo. App. 508—843. Gillespie v. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co., 6 Mo. App. 554—1123, 1220, 1477, 1513. Gillespie v. Yonkers R. Co., 87 App. Div. (N. Y.) 38—1681. Gillet V. Roberts, 57 N. Y. 28—27.1, 285. Gillikin & Gaskill v. Lake Drummond Canal Co., 147 N. C. 39—80. Gilliland v. Illinois Cent. R. Co. (Miss.), 32 So. 916—160. Gilliland v. Southern Rv. Co., 8.') S. C. 26 — 421, 803, 813, 900. Gillingham v. Ohio River R. Co., 35 W. Va. 588—24 582, 944, 948, 9.59, 1100, 1132, 1147, 1184, 1186, 1214. Gillis v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 59 Pa. St. 129—1019. Gillis V. Western Union Tel. Co., 61 Vt. 461—91. Gillshannon v. Stony Brook R. Corp., 10 Cush. (Mass.) 22H— 1063. Gilmore v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 6 App. Div. (N. Y.) 117—1474, 1487. Gilmore r. Carman, 1 Sni. & M. (Miss.) 279—27, 75, 310. Gilmore v. City of Utica, 121 X. Y. 561—1082. Gilmore v. Milford & U. St. R. Co., 193 Mass. 44—1091. Gilman v. Postal Tclcirraph Co., 48 Misc. R. (N. v.) 372—107, 108, 109, 110. Gilson V. Gwinn, 107 Mass. 120—633. Gilson v. Jackson, etc.. R. Co., 76 Mo. 2S2— lOSO, 1213, 1202. Gilson V. Madden, 1 Lans. (N. Y.) 172—670. Ginn v. Ogdensburg Transit Co., 85 Fed. 98.5—2034. Ginsburg v. Adams Express Co., 160 111. App. 566—513. Giraldo v. Coney Island, etc., R. Co., 16 X. Y. Supp. 774—1588. Girard College Pass. Rv. Co. v. Mid- dleton, 3 \V. X'. C. (Pa.) 486—1507. Gisbourn v. Hurst. 1 Salk 249 — 626. Gladson v. State (Minn.), 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 627—1230. Glasco v. X'ew York Cent. R. Co., 36 Barb. (X. Y.) 557—1302, 1330. Glascock V. Cincinnati, etc., Ry. Co., 140 Ky. 720—1669. Glass V. Goldsmith, 22 Wis. 488—178. Glasscock v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 86 Mo. App. 114—834. 859. Gleadell v. Thomson, 56 N. Y. 194— 163, 650. Gleason v. Goodrich Transp. Co., 32 Wis. 85—185, 1291, 1298, 1330. Gleason v. Metropolitan St. Rv. Co., 99 App. Div. (X. Y.) 209—1619. Gledliill Wall Paper Co. v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 119 N. Y. Supp. 623— 623. Gleeson v. Virgini? Midland R. Co., 140 U. S. 435—313, 1049, 1083, 1265, 1475, 1479, 1501. Glenn v. Charlotte, etc., R. Co., 63 X. C. 510—410. Glenn v. Lake Erie & W. R. Co.. 165 Ind. 659—998. Gloucester Ferrj' Co. v. Pennsylvania, 114 U. S. 196—1733, 1747, 1758, 1759. Glovinsky v. Cunard Steamship Co., 6 Misc. R.'p. (X. Y.) 388—1291. Glovinsky v. Cunard Steamship Co., 4 Misc. Rep. 212, 266 — 1296, 1330. Glover v. Atcliinson, etc., R. Co., 129 Mo. App. 563—1434. Glover v. Cape Girardeau, etc., R. Co., 95 Mo. App. 309—687. GIvn V. East, etc, India Dock Co., L. k. 7 App. 591—231. Glvn V. Xew York, etc., R. Co.. 85 Hun (X. Y.) 408-1198. Godbout V. St. Paul Vn'um D. Co., 79 .Minn. 188—1127. CVl TABLE OF CASES. (The ri'fcrencos arc to (lie pagi'S.) GuiManl v. Grainl Trunk K. r.«.. 'u Mo. 202—1131. 1147, 1175, 1720. Godfriv V. Oliio, etc., K. C\>.. IKi Ind. :w—\nnK Godfrey v. I'lillinan Co., 87 S. C. MU — 12!)4, 12!i:.. Goebel v. Cliicago. B. & Q. R. Co., 14!) 111. App. 154!)— 582. Goettcr v. Fickott, 61 Ala. 387—440. Goff V. Great Northern R. Co., 3 El. & El. 672-1183. Goff-Kirby Coal Co. v. Bessemer, etc., R. Co., 13 Int. Com. Rep. 383— 1976. Goggin V. Kansas Pac. R. Co., 12 Kan. 410—45.-), 481. 482, 880. Coins V. Western R. Co., 68 Ga. 190 —1702. Golcar S. S. Co. v. Tweedie Trading Co., 140 Fed. 503—2023. Goldberg v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 133 N. Y. 561-1606. Goldbowitz V. Metropolitan Express Co., 91 N. Y. Supp. 318—280. Golden v. Manning, 2 W. Bl. 916— 256. Goldey v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 30 Pa. St. 242 — 458. Goldrick v. Union R. Co., 20 R. I. 128—1081. Goldsmith v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 12 Mo. App. 479—759. Goldsmith v. Great Eastern R. Co., 44 L. T. N. S. 181—459. Goldsmith v. Holland Bldg. Co., 182 Mo. 597—103, 1096. Goldsmith v. Tower Hill Steamship Co., 37 Fed. 806—837. Goldstein v. Sherman, etc., R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 61 S. W. 336— 741. Gomm V. Oregon R. & Kav. Co., 52 Wash. 685—1305, 1336, 1308. Gonthier v. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 28 La. Ann. 67—1351. Gonzales v. New York, etc., R. Co., .38 N. Y. 440—1203, 1090. Gonzales v. New York, etc.. R. Co., 33 N. Y. Super. Ct. 57—1073. Gonzales v. New York, etc., R. Co., 39 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 407—1242, 1263, 1474. Good V. Chapin, 10 Barb. (N. Y.) 612 —310. Good V. Galveston, etc., R. Co. (Tex.) 11 S. VV. 854 — 480, 806. 854. Goodbar v. Wabash R. Co., 53 Mo, Ajip. 434—8:5, 375, 1348. Goodfellow V. Detroit Union Hy., 155 Mich. 578—1159. Goodliold V. Piatt, 130 N. Y. Supp. 355—510, 023. Goodin & Goodin v. Southern Ry. Co., 125 Ga. 030-022, 680. Goodloe V. Memphis & C R. Co., 170 Ala. 233—1109. Goodloe V. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 120 Mo. App. 194—1496, 1651. Goodman v. Oregon R., etc., Co., 22 Or. 14—555, 574. Goodrich v. Pennsylvania, etc.. Canal Co., 29 Hun (N. Y.) 50—1505, 1638. Goodridgc v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 35 Fed. 35—716, 719. Goodsell V. Taylor, 41 Minn. 207— 102, 1095. Goodwin v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 50 N. Y. 154—258, 394. Goodwin v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 58 Barb. 195—272. Goodwin v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 84 Me. 203—1637, 1638. Goodwin v. Cincinnati Tract. Co., 175 Fed. 01—1168. Goold v. Chapin, 20 N. Y. 259—379, 402, 775. Gordon v. Buchanan, 5 Yerg. (Tenn.) 71—71. Gordon v. Great Western R. Co., 34 U. C. Q. B. 224, 8 Q. B. 44—744. Gordon v. Great Western R. Co., 26 U. C. C. P. 488—773. Gordon v. Grand St., etc., R. Co., 40 Barb. (N. Y.) 546—974, 976, 989, 990, 991. Gordon v. Hutchinson, 1 W. & S. (Pa.) 285—19, 25, 70, 71, 72, 119. Gordon v. Little, 8 S. & R. (Pa.) 533—75. Gordon v. Manchester, etc., R. Co., 52 N. Y. 596—1058, 1260. Gordon v. West E. St. Ry. Co., 175 Mass. 181—975, 983. Gorham Mfg. Co. v. Fargo, 45 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 90—526. Gorham Manf. Co. v. Fargo, 35 N. Y. Super. Ct. 434—527. TABLE OF CASES. evil (The references are to the pages.), Gorman v. New York, etc., R. Co., 194 N. Y. 488—1087. Gorman v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 97 Cal. 1—1711, 1720. Gorman's Admr. v. Louisville, etc., K. Co., 24 Ky. L. Rep. 1938—1081. Gorton v. Railway Co., 54 \Yis. 234 — 1415. Gosa V. Southern Ry., 67 S. C. 347^ 549. Goss V. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 48 Or. 439—1493. Gott V. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 110 App. IMv. (N. Y.) 18—1090. Gott V. Dinsmore, 111 Mass. 45 — 425, 434, 446, 1452. Gottlieb V. New York, etc., R. Co., 100 N. Y. 462—1107. Gottwald V. St. Louis Transit Co. (Mo.), 77 S. W. 125—1392. Gou"h V. Hamburg Amerikanische Packetfahrt Aktiengesellschaft, 158 Fed. 174—2026. Gould V. Hill, 2 Hill (N. Y.), 624— 310, 429, 460, 1449, 1451. Government St. R. Co. v. Hanlon, 53 Ala. 570—1588, 1591. Gowdy V. Lyon, 9 B. Mon. (Ky.) 112 —34. Gowling V. American Express Co., 102 Mo. App. 366—471. Grace v. Adams, 100 Mass. 505—430, 431, 444. 1450. Grace v. St. Louis R. Co., 156 Mo. 295—1215, 1239. Gracie v. Palmer, 8 Wheat. (U. S.) 635—625. 642, 649. Gradert v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 109 Iowa, 547—963, 1008. Gradin v. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., 30 Minn. 217—958, 988, 1057. Graefe v. St. Louis Transit Co., 224 Mo. 232—1698. Graeff v. Phila. & R. Co., IGl Pa. St. 230—1188. Graff V. Bloomer, 9 Pa. St. (9 Barr.) 114—234. 2.52. Graffam v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 67 Mo. 234—1.303. Graham v. Burlington, etc., R. Co., 39 Minn. 81—1475. 1494. Craham v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 131 Iowa. 741—1279. <':raliam v. Chicago, etc.. Ry. Co., 53 Wis. 473-679. Graham v. Davis, 4 Ohio St. 362—30, 457. 577, 579, 1452, 1453. Graham v. Delaware, etc.. Canal Co., 46 Hun (N. Y.), 386—1104. Graham v. Great Western R. Co., 41 U. C. Q. B. 324—1268. Graham v. Macon, etc., R. Co., 120 Ga. 575 — 728. Graham v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 166 N. Y. 336—1195. Graham v. McNeill, 20 Wash. 466— 1266. Graham v. Pacific R. Co., 66 Mo. 536 —1037. Graham v. Pennsvlvania R. Co., 39 Fed. 596—1665." Graham v. Toronto, etc., R. Co., 23 U. C. C. P. 541— 95S. Graham & Morton Transp. Co. V. Young, 117 111. App. 257—1345. Grand v. Livingston, 4 App. Div. (N. ,^ Y.) 589—448. Grand Rapids & I. R. Co. v. Diether, 10 Ind. App. 209—692. Grand Rapids, etc., R. Co. v. Boyd, 65 Ind. 526—1106, 1131, 1?,12. Grand Rapids, etc.. R. Cu. v. Ellison, 117 Ind. 234—1212, 1581. Grand Rapids, etc., R. Co. v. Huntley, 38 Mich. 537—101, 948, 1120, 1213, 1554. Grand Tower Mfg. & Transp. Co. v. UUman, 89 111. 244—171, 182. Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Ives, 144 U. S. 408—1517. Grand Trunk R. Co. v. McMillan, 16 Can. Sup. Ct. 543—482, 744, 768, 770. Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Stevens, 95 U. S. 655—418, 991, 1031. 1449, 1457. Grand Trunk R. Co. v. United States, 191 Fed. 80.3—1985. Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Vogel, 11 Can. Sup. Ct. 612—428, 466, 878. Granier v. Louisiana W^estern R. Co., 42 La. Ann. 880—1027. Grant v. Baker, 12 Or. 329—1544. Crant v. Chicago, etc., R. Co. (Mo.), 1.32 S. W. 311—802. Grant v. Newton. 1 E. D. Sm. (N. Y.) 9.5—1295, 1.300, 1375. Grant v. Nortliern Pac. R. Co., 22 Ont. Rep. 64.5-748. 7.50.. Grant v. Xorwav. 10 C. B. 605, 70 E. C. L. 605—191, 192, 229. CVIH TABLE OF OASES. (The references are to the pages.) Grant v. Raleigh, etc., R. Co., lOS N. C. 462—1050, lOOS. Grant v. Southern Ry. Co., 84 S. C. 114—1605. Grant v. Wood, 21 N. J. Law (1 Zab.) 202—670. Granville v. Western Union Tel. Co., 37 Iowa, 214—91. Gratiot Street Warehouse Co. v. Mis. souri, etc., Kv. Co., 124 Mo. App. 545—133, 322, 514. Gratiot Street Wareiiouse Co. v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 221 111. 418— 408. Graven v. MacLeod, 92 Fed. 846^ 1690. Graves v. Fitcliburg R. Co., 29 App. Div. (X. Y.) 591—1356. Graves v. Hartford, etc., Steamboat Co., 38 Conn. 143—385. Graves v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 137 Mass. 33—493, 505, 522, 528, 1458. Graves v. Miami S. S. Co., 29 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 645—530. Gravev v. Rhode Island Co., 26 R. L 80—1691. Graville v. ]\Ianliattan R. Co., 105 N. Y. 525—1637, 1643. Gray v. Boston & M. R. R., 168 Mass. 20—1202. Gray v. Cincinnati Southern R. Co., II Fed. 683—1069. Gray v. Columbia River, etc., R. Co., 49 Or. 18—1048, 1575. Gray v. Jackson, 51 N. H. 9—339, 451, 744, 754. Gray v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 39 App. Div. (N. Y.) 536—1590. Gray v. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 124 Minn. 1100—698. 690. Gray v. Missouri River Packet Co., 64 Mo. 47—9, 589. Gray v. Mobile Trade Co., 55 Ala. 387—1131. Gray v. New York. etc.. R. Co., 30 Hun (N. Y.), 399—1397. Gray y. Rochester City, etc., R. Co., 61 Hun (N. Y.), 212-1097. Gray y. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 54 Mo. App. 666—615. Gray v. Wabash R. Co., 119 Mo. App. 144 — 130. Grayson y. St. Louis Transit Co., 100 Mo. Apn. 60—1103, 1178. Grayson County Nat. Bank v. Nash- ville, etc., R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 79 S. W. 1094—279. Great Falls, etc., R. Co. v. Hill, 34 App. D. C. 304—1514. Great Northern R. Co. v. Bruyere, 114 Fed. 540—1426. Great Nortliern R. Co. v. Harrison, 10 Exch. 376—1017. Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Loonan Lumber Co., 25 S. D. 155—1832. Great Nortliern i{y. Co. v. Shepherd. 8 Exch. .30—131, 1301. Great Nortliern Ry. Co. v. SwaflSeld, 9 Excli. 132—259. Great Nortliern Ry. Co. v. United States, 155 Fed. 945—1773, 1974, 1975. Great Western Despatch, etc.. Line v. Glenny, 41 Ohio St. 106—181. Great Western R. Co. v. Braid, 1 Moore P. C. N. S. 101—1123. Great Western R. Co. v. Burns, 60 111. 284—118, 138, 139, 355, 365. Great Western R. Co. v. Crouch, 3 H. & N. 183—259. 205, 650. Great Western R. Co. v. Fawcett, 9 Jur. N. S. 339, 8 L. T. N. S. 31, 1 Mo. P. C. N. S. 101—1082, 1501. Great Western R. Co. v. Glenister, 22 W. R. 72, 29 L. T. N. S. 422—464 465, 1460, 1464. Great Western R. Co. y. Hawkins, IS Mich. 427—456, 785, 793, 804. Great Western R. Co. y. McCarthy, L. R. 12 App. 218—465. Great Western R. Co. v. McComas, 33 111. 18.5—330, .5.30. Great Western R. Co. v. Miller, 19 Mich. .30.5—1390, 1425, 1426. 1427. Great Western R. Co. y. Redmayne L. R. 1 C. P. 329—344, 613. Great Western R. Co. y. Sutton, L. R. 4 H. L. 226—1785. Great Westorn R. Co. v. Willis. 18 C. B. N. S. 748—542. Greb y. Pennsylvania R. Co., 41 Pa. Super. Ct. 61, 72—1172. Greek-American Produce Co. y. Hli- noia Cent. R. Co.. 4 Ala. App. 377 —196. Green y. Atlantc Coast Line R. Co.-, 83 S, C. 498—622. Green v. Baltimore & L R. Co., 206 Mass. 331—286. TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pages.) CIX Green v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 128 Mass. 221—614. Green v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 156 Mo. App. 259—824, 630, 910. Green v. Clark, 12 N. Y. 343—244. Green v. Houston Electric R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 89 S. W. 442—983. Green v. Indianapolis, etc., R. Co., 56 Mo. 556—570. Greene v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 163 Ala. 138—320. Green v. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co., 41 Iowa, 410-184, 1347. Green v. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co.. 38 Iowa, 100—184, 1349. Green v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 121 Mo. App. 720—1111. Green v. New York Cent. R. Co., 4 Daly (X. Y.), 553—739, 1362. Green v. Pacific Lumber Co., 130 Cal. 435—1112. Green v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 36 Fed. 66—1236. Green Bay First Xat. Bank v. Dear- born, 115 Mass. 219—232. 233. Greene v. St. John, etc., R. Co., 22 N. B. (Can.) 252—117, 122. Green, etc., Nav. Co. v. Marshall, 48 Ind. 596—402. Greenfield v. Detroit, etc.. R. Co., 133 Mich. 557, 95 N. W. 546—1055, 1071, 1145, 1146. Greenfield v. Wells, Fargo & Co., 134 N. Y. Supp. 913—503. Greenfield First Nat. Bank v. Mari- etta, etc., R. Co.. 20 Ohio St. 259— 1296. 1297. Greenleaf v. Illinois, etc., R. Co., 29 Iowa, 14 — 1541. Greenwald v. Barrett, 199 N. Y. 170— 502, 503, 1914. 1916. 1917, 1924. Greenwald v. Weir, 130 App. Div. 090 —1903. 1916. Greenwald v. Weir, 59 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 431—1917. Greenwald v. Weir, 115 N. Y. Supp. 311—503. Grer-nwald v. Weir, 111 N. Y. Supp. 235—501. Green-Wheeler Shoe Co. v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 130 Iowa, 12.3—312. Greenwich Ins. Co. v. Memphis, etc., Packet Co., 1 Oliio N. P. 126—1300. Gropnwond r. Cooper, 10 La. Ann. 796 — 170. 192. Gregg v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 147 111. 550—271, 380, 387, 393, 407, 645. Gregg v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 49 Wash. 183—990. Gregory v. Chicago & N. W. Rv. Co., 100 Iowa, 345—99, 1077, 1412. Gregory v. Elmra W'ater, etc., Co., 190 N. Y. 363—1652. Gregory v. Stryker, 2 Denio (N. Y.), 628—16. Gregory v. Wabash R. Co.. 46 Mo. App. 574—169, 343, 377, 805. Gregory v. Webb, 40 Tex. Civ. App. 360—1347. Gregory v. West Midland R. Co., 33 L. .J. Exch. 155—466. Greinke v. Chicago City Ry. Co., 234 111. 564—1496. Grev V. Mobile, etc.. Trade Co., 55 Ala. 387 — 418, 576, 1133. Grieve v. Illinois C. R. Co., 104 Iowa, 659—572, 876. Grieve v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 25 App. Div. (N. Y.) 518 — 407. Grieve v. New Jersey St. Rv. Co., 64 N. J. L. 409—1626, 1627."' GriflTee v. Burlington, etc., R. Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 194—1792, 1942. Griffin v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 89 S. C. 547—173. Griffin v. Colvin, 16 N. Y. 489—596. Griffin v. Great Western R. Co., 15 U. C. Q. B. 507—926. Griffin v. Manice, 166 N. Y. 188—100, 1095, 1216. Griffin v. Manice, 74 App. Div. (N. Y.) 371—100, 101. Griffin v. IManice, 47 App. Div. (N. Y.) 70—100. Griffin v. Manice, 36 Misc. R. (N. Y.) 364—100, 101. Griffin v. Southern Rv. Co., 65 S. C. 122—1719. Griffith v. Atohison, etc., R. Co., 114 Mo. App. 591—1366. Griffith V. Cave, 22 Cal. 534 — 59. 1514. Griffith V. Long Island R. Co., 147 App. Div. (N. Y.) 693, 1694. Griffith v. Missouri Pac. R. Co 98 Mo. 168—1037. Griffith V. Utica. etc., R. Co.. 6.3 Hun fX. Y.), 626-1561. Griffith V. Kreizcr, 62 .\np. Div (N Y.) 414-100. ex TABLE OF CASEb. (The refereiaia are to tlie payea.) Grigsby v. Cbappell, 5 Kich (S. C.) , 443—77. Grig«by v. Tcxiia & 1". Hy. Co. (Tex. riv. App.). 137 S. W. ; OH— 360. Gripps V. Austin, 20 Mass. [3 Pfck.) 20— 1)53. Grill V. General Iron Screw Collier Co.. L. R. 1 C. r. 012- G. tirinies v. l^ake Krit> & \V. Ky. Co., 142 111. App. .132—541. Grimo.s v. PiMinsylvania Co., 30 Ftd. 72 — 974 985, 'l23U. Grimmel v. Bord (Neb.), 142 N. W. S93— 1612. Grindle v. Eiistem Express Co., 67 Me. 317—519, 604, 619. Grinnoll v. Wiwtorn Union Tel. Co., 113 Mass. 299—88, 89, 92. Griunell v. Wisconsin Cent. R. Co., 47 Minn. 569—517. Grimshaw v. Ijake Shore, etc., R. Co., 205, N. Y. 371—967 Griswold v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 64 Wis. 652—1060, 1282. Griswold v. Haven, 25 N. Y. 595— 601. 228. Griswold v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 90 Iowa, 265—455. Griswold v. New^ York R. Co. (Conn.), 4 Atl. 261—1033, 1331, 1450, 1457. 1461, 1462. 1465. Griswold v. Webb. 16 R. I. 649— 1127. Groff V. Bloomer, 9 Pa. St. 114—196. Grogan v. Adams Express Co., 114 Pa. St. 523—495, 570, 1459. Grogan v. Brooklyn H. R. Co., 97 App. Div. (N. Y.) 413—1188. Groot V. Oregon Short Line R. Co., 34 Utah, 152—605, 808, 818, 840, 868. Gro.ssman v. Dodd, 63 Hun (N. Y.), 324—426, 1333. Grossman v. Fargo, 6 Hun (N. Y.), 310—401, 407. Grosvenor v. New York Cent. R. Co., 39 N. Y. 34—172, 174, 184, 185, 188 Grote V. Choster. etc., R. Co., 2 Exch. 251—1082. 1120. Grotsch V. Stfinwav Ry. Co., 19 App. Div. (N. Y.) 130—1486. 1636. Grover & B. Mach. Co. v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 70 Mo. 672—533, 539, 740. Groves v. Slaughter, 15 Pet. (U. S.) 449—1733. Grows V. Muine Cent. R. Co., 67 Me. 100—1270. Grubmau v. The Ontario, 115 Fed. 769—2008. Grund V. IVndergast, 58 Barb. (N. Y.) 216—610. Grunfehli'r v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 143 App. Div, '89—1577. G. S. Roth Clothing Co. ▼. Maine S. S. Co., 44 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 237 —596. Guosnard v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 76 Ala. 453—543, 626, 638. Guess & Glover v. Southern Ry. Cf>., 73 S. C. 264—622. Guiterman v. Liverpool, etc., S- S. Co., 83 N. Y. 3.58—1993. Gulf C & S. F. R. Co. V. Coulter (T<-x. Civ. App.), 139 S. W. 16— 593. Gulf C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Jackson & Edwards, 99 Tex. 343— 53fi. Gulf Citv Const. Co. v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 121 Ala. 621—663. 691. Gulf City, etc., R. Co. v. Hodge (Tex. Civ. App.), 30 S. W. 829— 137. Gulf Compress Co. v. Alabama Great Southern R. Co., 100 Miss. 582— 120, 706. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. A. B. Frank Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 48 S. W. 210— 240. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Adair (Tex. App.), 14 S. W. 1076—269. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Adams, 3 Tex. Civ. App. Cas. § 422—1401. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Asmore, 88 Ga. 529—1390. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Baird, 75 Tex. 256—741, 781. Gulf, etc.. R. Co. V. Barber (Tex. Civ. App.) , 127 S. W. 258—599, 622. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Barry (Tex. CiT. App.), 45 S. W. 814—1982. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Batte (Tex. Civ, App.), 81 S. W. 81.3—589, 916. Gulf, etc.. R. Co. V. Baugh (Tex. Civ. App.), 42 S. W. 245—247. Gulf, etc.. R. Co. V. Beattie (Tex. Cir. App.). 88 S. W. 367—599. Gulf, etc.. R. Co. V. Bell (Tex. Civ. App.), 58 S. W. 614—1122. TABLE OF CASES. CXI (The references are to the pages.) Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Booth (Tex, Civ. 3.pp.), 97 S. W. 12S— 1550. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Booton, 4 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. § 230—517. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Boston, 4 Tex. Civ. App. Cas. § 66—261. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Browne, 27 Tex. Civ. App. 437—687. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Butler, 26 Tex. Civ. App. 494, 73 S. W. 84—858, 859. Gulf, et«., R. Co. V. Campbell, 79 Tex. 174—1059. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Cason (Tex. Civ. App.), 154 S. VV. 367—825. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Chambers (Tex. Civ. App.), 149 S. W. 1182—1383, 1385. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Cherry (Tex. Civ. App.), 129 S. W. 152—623. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Chinskie, 53 Tex. Civ. App. 21, 114 S. W. 851—606, 621. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Clark, 5 Tex. Civ, App. 547 — 478. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Clark, 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. § 512—238, 526, 527, 583, 585, 613 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Clark (Tex.), 18 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 628—271. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Cole, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 635, 28 S. W. 391—540, 1037. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Compton (Tex. Civ. App.), 38 S. W. 220—178, 188, 313. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Coopwood (Tex, Civ, App.), 96 S. W. 102—1251. Gulf, etc.. R. Co. V. Copeland, 17 Tex. Civ. App. 5.5—1417. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Crossman, 11 Tex, Civ, App. 622—768. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Cunningham (Tex. Civ. App.), 113 S. W. 767— 795, 817, 869. 925. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Daniels (Tex. Civ. App.), 29 S. W. 426-1711. Gulf, etc.. R. Co. V. Darbv (Tex. Civ. App.), 67 S. W. 12n— 363. Oulf. etc., R. Co. V. Dawkins, 77 Tex. 228—1044. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Dinwiddle. 21 Tex. Civ. App. 339—540. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Diinm:tn (Tex. CTr. App.), 81 S. W. 789—585, 797, 896. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Dwyer, 84 Tex. 194—269. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Dwyer, 75 Tex. 572—268, 733. 781, Gulf, etc., R. Co, V, Eddins, 7 Tex. Civ, App. 116—458, 776, 847. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Edloff, 89 Tex. 454—750, Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. EdloflF (Tex. Civ. App.), 34 S. W. 410—768, 779. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Elliott (Tex, Civ. App,), 26 S, W. 636—479. Gulf, etc., R. Co. Ellison, 70 Tex. 491 —33, 34, 785, 838. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Everett & Long (Tex. Civ. App.), 83 S. W. 257— 289, Gulf, etc,, R, Co. v. Freeman, 4 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. 245—236. Gulf, etc., Ry. Co. v. Ferguson-Mc- Kinnev Dry Goods Co., 97 Miss, 266—200. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Forst (Tex. Civ. App.), 34 S, W. 167—594. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V, Fort Grain Co. (Tex. Civ, App,), 73 S, W, 845 — 1852, Gulf, etc., Ry. v. Fort Grain Co- (Tex. Civ. App.), 72 S. W. 419— 1853. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Fowler, 12 Tex. Civ. App. 683—285. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Fox (Tex.), 6 S. W. 569—1241. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Gatewood, 7^ Tex. 89—369, 469, 478, 483. 768, Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Gilbert. 4 Tex. Civ. App. 366—608, 616. 620. Gulf, etc.. R. Co. v. Gillespie & Carl- ton (Tex. Civ. App.), 118 S. W. 628—869, 942. Gulf, etc.. R. Co. V. Glenk, 9 Tex. Civ. App. 599—998. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Godair, 3 Tex, Civ. App. 514—592, 733, 747. Gulf, etc., R, Co. V. Golding, 3 Tex. App. Civ. Ca.s. § 33—741, 768. Gulf, etc.. R. Co. V. Gray, 87 Tex. 312—806. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Green (Tex. Civ. App.). 141 S. W. 341—1430, 1447. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Griffith (Tex. Civ. App.), 24 S. W. 362—741. 7.59. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Harris (Tex, Civ. App.), 72 S. W. 71—767, 909. oxu TAni.K Ob CASK8. I rill' rofi'ii'iK'i'8 ure to the pages.) Cull, etc., K. I o. V. II. H. Pitts & Son, 37 lox. (. iv. App. 21J— 289, 3:Jo. Gulf. t't«., R. Co. V. Iloiiii, 4 Tex. Civ. App. las. § 20!)-r_':!.->. 12r)'J, 1710, 1727. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. ll.iuv, 84 Tex. G78— 1015, 1025. Gulf, etc., K. Co. V. Hoilgo. 10 Tm. Civ. App. 543—350, 541. 611, 1(J02. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. liolbrook (Tex. Civ. App.). 33 S. W. 1028—1417. Gulf, etc.. R. Co. v. Holder, 10 Tex. Civ. App. 223—509. Gulf, etc.. R. Co. v. Holt (Tex. Civ. App.), 70 S. VV. 519—12(57. Gulf, etc.. R. Co. v. Houghton (Tex. Civ. App.), 03 S. W. 7 IS— 858. Gulf, etc.. R. Co. v. House VVatkins (Tex. Civ. App.), 88 S. W. 1110— 828. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Hume, 87 Tex. 211—137, 145, 479. 605, 773. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Hume, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 653—137, 353, 606. Gulf, etc.. R. Co. V. Insurance Co. of 1 N. A. (Tex. Civ. App.) 28 S. W. 237—741, 755. 774. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Ions, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 019—1303. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Irvine &, Woods (Tex. Civ. App.), 73 S. W. 540— 540, 793. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Jackson. 4 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. § 47—1362. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. .Jackson (Tex. App.), 15 S. W. 128—1.350. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Jackson & Ed- wards (Tex. Civ. App.), 86 S. W. 47—934. Gulf, etc.. R. Co. V. Jacobs, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 485 — 545. Gulf, etc.. R. Co. V. Jones, 1 Inl. Terr. 354 — 741. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Kemp (Tex. Civ. App.), 30 S. W. 714—591, 819. Gulf. etc.. R. Co. V. Key. 4 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. § 257—516. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Kill'-brpw (Tex.), 20 S. W. 182—1082. 1056. Gulf, etc.. R. Co. V. Kimble (Tex. Civ. App.). 109 S. W. 234—874, 922. Gulf. etc.. R. Co. V. Leatherwood, 29 Tex. Civ. App. 507—667, 770, 852. Gulf, etc.. R. Co. V. Lee (Tex. Civ. App.) 65 S. W. 54—860. Gulf, ete., R. Co. v. I^vi. 76 Tex. 337 —30, 325. 309. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Lewine (Tex. Civ. App.) 29 S. VV. 83.'->— 748. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Loonev, 85 Tex. 158—1020, 1028. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Looney, 51 Tex. Civ. App. 381—599, 602, 605, 870, 934. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Loonie, 84 Tei. 25!)— 270, 005, 619. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. J^owery (Tex. Civ. App.). 155 S. VV. 992—175. Gulf, etc.. R. Co. V. Luther (Tex. Civ. App.) 90 S. VV. 44—1162, 1178. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Maetze, 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. § 631—201, 458, S.V,). 020. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Malone (Tex. Civ. App.), 25 8. VV. 1077—708. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Martin (Tex. Cir. App.). 28 S. VV. 576—540. 611, 617. Gulf, etc.. R. Co. V. McAulev (Tex. Civ. App.), 26 S. W. 475—137, 599. Gulf, etc.. R. Co. V. McCampbell (Tex. Civ. Ai)p.), 85 S. W. 1158—599. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. McCartv, 82 Tex. 608—440, 478, 589. Gulf, etc.. R. Co. V. MeCormick (Tex. Civ. App.), 100 S. W. 202—1391. Gulf. etc.. R. Co. V. McCorquodale, 71 Tex. 41—145, 350, 363, 835. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. MeCown (Tex. Civ. App.) 25 S. V^. 435—220, 269. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. McGown, 65 Tex. 040—1031. 1451, 14.')9. 1463, 1465. Gulf, etc.. R. Co. V. Miami Steamship Co., 86 Fed. 407—1762. 1787, 1825, 1826. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Moodv (Tex. Civ. App.), 30 S. W. 574—1068, 1071, 1351. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Moore (Tex. Civ. App.), 83 S. W. 362—1703. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Nelson (Tex. Civ. App.), 139 S. W. 81—623, 1906. Gulf, etc.. R. Co. V. North Texas Grain Co., 32 Tex. Civ. App. 93— 414, 649. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Patten Mfg. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 151 S. W. 1158— 651. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Pettit, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 588—618, 619. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Pickens (Tex. Civ. App.), 58 S. VV. 156—239. TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pages.) CXIU Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Pierce, 7 Tex. Civ. App. 597—1563. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Pomeroy, 67 Tex. 498—1123. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Porter, 25 Tex. Civ. App. 491—834, 835. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Rather, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 72—1417. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Redeker (Tex. Civ. App.), 100 S. W. 362—1250. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Roberts (Tex. Civ. App.) 85 S. W. 479—582. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Rowland, 82 Tex. 166—1553, 1556. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Rvan, 4 Tex. Civ. App. Cas. § 305—1229. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Shelton (Tex. Civ. App.) 69 S. W. 653—966, 1155, 1163, 1245, 1576. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Shepard (Tex. Civ. App.), 132 S. W. 90—1404. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Shultz (Tex. Civ. App.), 129 S. W. 84.5—247. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Simmons (Tex. Civ. App.), 28 S. W. 825—593. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Smith, 10 Tex. Civ. App. 338—1203. Gulf, etc., Ry. Co. v. Somerville Mer- cantile Agency (Tex. Civ. App.), 104 S. W. 1072—346. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Somerville Mer- cantile Agency (Tex. Civ. App.), 91 S. W. 321—608. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Sparger (Tex. Civ. App.), 39 S. W. 1001—139.). Gulf, etc.. R. Co. V. Stanley (Tex.), 33 S. W. 110 — 478, 881. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Stanley, (Tex. Civ. App.), 29 S. W. 806—592. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. State, 97 Tex. 274—1853. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Staton (Tex. Civ. App.), 49 S. W. 277—832. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Tennant (Tex. Civ. App.), 22 S. W. 761—768. Gulf, etc., xi. Co. v. Texas Star Flour :Mill8 (Tex. Civ. App.), 143 S. W. 1179—317. Cnlf. etc., R. Co. v. Thompson (Tex. Civ. App.), 21 S. W. 186—767. Gulf. etc.. R. Co. V. Travvick, 80 Tex. 270—169. 189, 377. 797. 846. Gulf, etc.. R. Co. V. 'Irawick. 68 Tex. 314—458, 477, 479, 481, 485. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Ware & Walker, 34 Tex. Civ. App. 455—808. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. White (Tex. Civ. App.), 32 S. W. 323—478. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Wilbanks, 7 Tex. Civ. App. 489 — 768. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Wilhelm, 3 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. § 458 — 458, 805, 806. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Williams, 70 Tex. 159—1231. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Wilson, 7 Tex. Civ. App. 128—768, 779. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Wilson, 79 Tex. 371—946, 990, 1033, 1050, 1103, 1715. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Wittnebert, 101 Tex. 368—561. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Wood (Tex. Civ. App.), 63 S. W. 164—1122. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Wood (Tex. Civ. App.), 30 S. W. 715—446, 797. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Wright, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 402—440, 482, 540, 585, 1028. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Yates (Tex. Civ. App.), 32 S. W. 355—881. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. York, 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. § 812—798, 881. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Zimmerman, 81 Tex. 605—579. Guillaume v. General Transp. Co., 100 N. Y. 491 — i52, 559. Guillaume v. Hamburg, etc.. Packet Co., 42 N. Y. 212—234, 460. Guimby v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 150 Mass. 365—1463. Guina v. Second Ave. R. Co., 67 N Y 596—1642. Guina v. Second Ave. R. Co., 8 Hun (N. Y.) 494—1644. Guinn v. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 20 Mo. App. 453—138, 155, 342, 363, 788. 838. Gulliver v. Adams Express Co., 38 Til 502 — 39, 199, 259. Gulzoni V. Tyler. 64 Cal. 334—1562. Gumb V. Twontv-Third St. Ry. Co 58 N. Y. Super.' Ct. 1—1507. Gumby v. Metropolitan St. Ry Co 171 N. Y. 63.')— 1.588. Gurley v. Armstoad. 148 Mass. 267 — ■ 284. Gurley v. Springfield St. Ry. Co., 206 Mass. 534—1625. CJilV TABLE OF CASES. (Tl>e lofcrenccs are to the pages.) Guniey v. Belirond, ;t Kl. A I'.l. 622 — 218, 224. Gurney v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 59 Hun (N. Y.) 625—1297, 1208. Guthrie v. Louisville, etc., K. Co., 11 Lea (Tonn.) 372—1120. Guy V. Now York, etc., R. Co. 30 Hun (N. Y.) 399—1402, 1408. Gyle y. Joline, 130 N. Y. Supp. 761— 994. Gwyn Harper Mfg. Co. v. Carolina R. Co., 128 N. C. 280—481. Gwynn v. Citizens' Telephone Co., 69 S. C. 434—94. H. Haas V. Kansas City. etc.. R. Co., (Ga.), 7 S. E. 629—327. 369. Haas V. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co., 128 Mo. App. 79—1109. Haas V. Wichita R. & Co., 89 Kan. 613—1625. Haase v. Oregon R., etc., Co., 19 Or. 354—1018. 1021, 1058, 1624. Habeck v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 146 Wis. 645— 1406, 1430. Haberzettle v. Trinitv. etc., R. Co., 46 Tex. Civ. App. 527—622. Hackett v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 35 N. H. 390—582, 593. Hadd V. United States, etc.. Express Co., 52 Vt. 335 — 740, 755. Haddock v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 302—1864. Hadenleigh v. Paul, etc., R. Co., 39 Minn. 3—992. Hadley v. Baxendale, 9 Exch. 341, 18 Jur. 358—616, 619. Hadley v. Clark, 8 T. R. 259—14, 340, 359. Hadley v. Cross, 34 Vt. 586—1118. Hafer v. St. Louis S. W. R. Co., 101 Ark. 310—882. Hawan v. Providence, etc., R. Co.. 3 R. I. 88—1723. 1725. Hagar v. Donaldson, 11 Pa. Co. Ct. R. 252—677. Hagedorn v. St. Louis Perpetual Ins. Co., 2 La. Ann. 1005—661. Hageman v. Western R. Corp., 16 Barb. (N. Y.) .353—1716. Ha^enloeher v. Coney Island, etc., R. Co., 99 N. Y. 136—1560. Hahl V. Laux. 42 Tex. Civ. App. 182 —25, 628, »)40. Hahn v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 141 Mo. App. 453-^23, 865. Haile v. Clayton-Hoff Co., 61 N. J. Law, 197—63. Haines v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 21) Minn. 160—1300, 1301. Halbert v. St. liouis, etc., Ry., Co., 147 111. App. 316—1603. Halden v. Great Western R. Co., 3i» U. C. C. P. 89—1614. Hale V. Barrett, 26 111. 195—644, 645. Hale V. Bonner, 82 Tex. 33 — 615. Hale V. Grand Trunk R. Co., 60 Vt. 605—1050. Hale V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 36 Neb. 266—821. Hale V. New Jersey Steam Nav. Co., 15 Conn. 539—75, 76, 307, 418, 427, 448, 449, 1452. Hales V. London, etc., R. Co., 4 B. & S. 66—134, 343, 344, 345, 605. Haley v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 21 Iowa, 15—1402. Hall V. Bessemer & L. E. R. Co., 36 Pa. Super. Ct. 556—998, 1001. Hall V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 14 Alien (Mass.), 439—197, 234, 235. HaU V. Cedar Rapids, etc., R. Co., 115 Iowa, 8—1559. Hall V. Cheney, 36 N. H. 26—132, 419, 570. Hall V. Connecticut River Steamboat Co., 13 Conn. 324—75, 1131, 1211. Hall V. Dimond, 63 N. H. 565—626, 645. Hall V. Grand Trunk R. Co., 34 W. C. Q. B. 517—386. Hall V. McFadden, 19 New Bruns. 340 —1231. 1238. Hall V. Memphis & C. R. Co., 15 Fed. 57—1436. Hall V. Murdock, 119 Mich. 392—101, 1096, 1563. Hall V. Northeastern R. Co.. L. R. 10 Q. B. 437—771, 1451, 1456. Hall V. Ogden City St. R. Co., 13 Utah, 24.3—1081. Hall V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 1 Fed. 226—327. 369. Hall V. Railroad Co., 13 Wall. (U. S.) 367—23. Hall V. Rcnfro, 3 Mete. (Ky.) 61— 2G. TABLE OF CASES. CXV (The references are to the pages.) Hall T. Smith, 2 Bing. C. P. 156— S5. Hall V. South Carolina R. Co., 28 S. C. 261—1258, 1722. Hall V. Southern Ry. Co., 88 S. C. 430—1603. Hall V. Terre Haute Elect. Co., 38 Ind. App. 43—983. Hall V. Wabash R. Co., 80 Mo. App. 463—737. Hallahan v. New York, etc., R. Co., 102 N. Y. 194—1565, 1656. Halliday v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 74 Mo. 159—222, 485, 746, 770. Halihan v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 71 Mo. 113—1122. H^lverson v. Seattle Elec. R. Co.. 35 Wash. 600—1089. Ham V. Canal Co., 142 Pa. 617—1397. Ham V. Delaware, etc.. Canal Co., 155 Pa. 548—1258. Ham V. Georgia R., etc., Co., 97 Ga. 411—1209. Haman v. Omaha Ry. Co., 35 Neb. 74 1170. Hamburg Amercan Co. v. Gattman, 127 m. 598—1297, 1299, 1300. Hamel v. Brooklyn, etc., Ferry Co., 53 Hun (N. Y.) 634—1182. Hamil v. New York, etc., Exp. Co., 177 Mass. 474—545. Hamilton v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 103 Iowa, 325—282. Hamilton v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 23 U. C. Q. B. 600—466. Hamilton v. Great Falls St. R. Co., 17 Mont. 334 — 1216, 1475, 1494. Hamilton v. New York Cent. R. Co., 51 N. Y. 100—1014, 1411. Hamilton v. McPherson, 28 N. Y. 72 —595, 615. Hamilton v. Pittsburg, etc., R. Co., 183 Pa. St. 638—1447. Hamilton v. Texa-s, etc., R. Co., 64 Tex. 251—1060, 1061, 1283. Hamilton v. Third Ave. R. Co., 53 N. Y. 25—949, 1156, 1703, 1720. 1722. Hamlton v. Third Ave. R. Co., 13 Abb. Pr. N. S. fN. Y.) 378—1426. Hamilton v. West End St. R. Co., 163 MnsH. 199—1124. Hamilton v. Western North Carolina R. Co.. 96 N. C. 398—144. 147, 369, 437, 602, 838. Hamlin v. Great Northern R. Co., 1 H. & N. 408— 12G0, 1707. Hammond v. North Eastern R. Co., 6 S. C. 130—1050, 1054. Hampton v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 42 Mo. App. 134—64, 65. Hance v. Pacific Express Co., 48 Mo. App. 179—570, 576, 822. Hance v. Wabash Western R. Co., 56 Mo. App. 476—438, 439, 441, 758, 769. Hancock v. Chicago & A. R. Co., 131 Mo. App. 401—883, 887, 890. Hancock v. Leggett, 115 Ind. 544 — 1560. Hand v. Bavnes, 4 Whart. (Pa.) 214 —14, 134, 349, 350, 582, 598, 638. Handley v. Houston, etc., R. Co., 2 Tex. Unrep. Cas. 282—1034. Hanks v. Chicago & A. R. Co., 60 Mo. App. 274—1271. Hanks v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 92 Neb. 594—1812. Hanley v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 154 Iowa, 60—792, 830. Hanley v. Harlem R. Co., 1 Edm. Sel. Cas. (N. Y.) .395—1083, 1106, 1117. Hanley v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co., 187 U. S. 617—1761. Hanley v. North Jersey St. R. Co. (N. J. Sup.), 47 Atl. 45—1729. Hanlon v. Central R. Co. of N. J., 187 N. Y. 73—1158. Hanlon v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 109 Iowa, 136—1025. Hanlon v. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co. (Wis.), 95 N. W. 100—548. Hanlon v. South Boston R. Co., 129 Mass. 31—1510. Hanna v. Nassau El. R. Co., 18 App. Div. (N. Y.) 137—975, 1136, 1443. Hanna v. Pitt & Scott, 121 App. Div. (N. Y.) 420—565. Hannibal, etc., R. Co. v. Husen, 95 U. S. 469—1758. Hannibal, etc., R. Co. v. Martin, 111 Til. 219—1046, 1261, 1576, 1662, 1704, 1716. Hannibal, etc., R. Co. v. Martin, 11 111. App. 386—973, 986. Hannibal, etc., R. Co. v. Swift, 79 U S. (12 Wall.) 262—51, 131, 102. 1136, 1144, 1291, 1297, 1.301. 1303 1306. CiVl TABLE OF CASES. (The icfereucca iire to tlio pages.) Iliuiiion V. St. Louis Transit Co. (Mo.) 77 S. W. 15S— KiSO. llimrahan v. Manlialtan K. Co., 53 llun (N. Y.), 420— L'»r)5, lo.lG. llaiualian v. Manliattaii U. Co., 52 llun (N. Y.), 111 — 1125. llansbprgir v. Soilaiia Kl., etc., Co., S2 Mo. Apii. 5()() — 121ti, 1U15. Hansen v. Flint, etc.. R. Co., 73 Mis. 34(t— 5.S8, 7.S0, 7(50. Hanson v. New Jersey St. R. Co., 64 N. J. L. 686—1215. Hanslev v. .Taniesvillc. etc., R. Co., 115 N. C. 602— i>74, !)!)7. Hanson v. Boston Elev. Ry. Co., 182 Mass. 425—1208. Hanson v. P^uropoan. etc., R. Co., 62 Me. 84—1147, 1171. 1726. Hanson v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 18 N. D. 324—508. Hanson v. Havwood Bros. &, Wakefield Co., 152 Fed. 401—1993. Hanson v. Lancashire, etc., R. Co., 20 W. R. 297—1479. Hanson v. Mansfield R., etc., Co., 38 La. Ann. 111—1567, 1572, 1573, 1627. Hanson v. North Jersey St. R. Co., 64 N. J. L. 686—1217. Hanson v. Third Ave. R. Co., 27 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 524—1617. Hanson v. LTrbana, etc., St. R. Co., 75 HI. App. 474—1002, 1150. Hapgood Plow Co. v. Wabash R. Co.. 61 Mo. App. 372—412. Harbison v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 24 Wash. L. Rep. 438, 9 App. D. C. 60—1097. 16,39. Harby v. Southern Rv. Co., 75 S. C 321—348, 925. Hardaway v. Southern Rv. Co.. 90 S. C. 475—657, 684, 713, 18S3. Harden v. Chesapeake & 0. R. Co., 157 N. C. 238—786, 795, 807, 830, 892. Hardenbergh v. St. Paul. etc.. R. Co., 39 Minn. 3—1265, 1429. Hardin v. Chicago & A. Ry. Co.. 134 Mo. App. 681—201. Hardin v. Fort Worth, etc.. R. Co., 33 Tex. Civ. App. 44S— 996, 1012. Hardin v. Ft. Worth & D. C. Rv. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 100 S. W. 905. Hardin v. I'ort Worth, etc., R. O). (Tex. Civ. App.), 77 S. W. 431— 1214. Harding v. International Nav. Co., 12 I'Vd. "168—738. Hardin v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 120 Mo. App. 203—597. Harding v. New York, etc., R. Co., 36 Hun (N. Y.), 72—1715, 1719. Harding v. Philadelphia R. T. Co., 217 Pa. 69—1653. Harding v. Townsliend, 43 Vt. 536 — 172S. Hardnian v. Booth, 32 L. J. Exch. 105 —210. Hardinan v. Brett, 37 Fed. 803—606. Hardman v. Montana Union Ry. Co., 83 Fed. 88—382, 386, 415. Hardman v. Willcock, 9 Bing. 382— 209, 532. Hardwick v. Georgia R., etc., Co., 85 Ga. 507—1209. Hardwick Farmers' Elev. Co. v. Chi- cago, etc., Ry. Co., 110 Minn. 25— 698. Hardy v. American Express Co., 182 Mass. 328—266. Hardv v. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 32 Kan. 698—1780. Hardy v. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 56 Fed. 657—1727. Hardy v. North Carolina Cent. R. Co., 74 N. C. 734—1117. Harker v. Dement, 9 Gill (Md.), 7— 107. 209, 333. Harkless v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 151 Mo. App. 463—1006. 1391, 1425. Harkness v. Western Union Tel. Co , 73 Iowa. 190—91. Harlev v. Aurora, etc., Ry. Co., 128 Hl.^Xpp. 643—1575. Harmon v. Jensen, 176 Fed. 519— 1029, 1279. Harmon v. New York, etc., R. Co., 28 Barb. (N. Y.) 32.3—525. Harmon v. United Rys. Co. of St. Louis, 163 Mo. App. 442—1547. Harmony v. Bingham, 12 N. Y. 99— 165, .350. 351. Harms v. Hunt. 107 Fed. 628—882, 886. Harned v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 51 Mo. App. 482—482, 484, 487. Harp v. Choctaw, etc., R. Co., 123 Fed. 445 — 127, 709, TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pages.) CXVll Harp V. Choctaw, etc., Ry. Co., 118 Fed. 169—26, 1869. Harp V. Southern Ry. Co., 119 Ga. 927 —999, 1390. Harp V. The Grand Era, 1 Woods ( U. S.), 184—1361. Harper v. Pittsburg, etc., R. Co., 219 Pa. 368—1603. Harper v. Railroad Co., 37 Conn. 272 —576. Harper Furniture Co. v. Southern Ex- press Co., 148 N. C. 87—604, 621. Harrell v. Columbia Elec. St. Ry., etc., Co., 89 S. C. 97—1700. Harrell v. Owens, 1 Dev. & B. (N. C.) 273—27, 117. 343. Harrell v. Wilmington & W. R. Co., 106 N. C. 258—185, 187, 540. Harriman v. Interstate Com. Com., 211 U. S. 407—1773. Harrington v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 143 Mo. App. 418—884. Harrington v. Lyles, 2 Nott & M. (S. C.) 88—53. Harrington v. McShane, 2 Watts (Pa.), 443—8, 76, 110, 265. Harris v. Cheshire R. Co. (R. I.), 16 Atl. 512—758, 779. Harris v. Citv, etc., R. Co., 69 W. Va. 65—1065. Harris v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 61 N. Y. 656—581, 1375. Harris v. Detroit City R. Co., 76 Mich. 227—1560. Harris v. Fargo, 113 N. Y. Supp. 577 —622. Harris v. Grand Trunk R. Co.. 15 R. I. 371—740. Harris v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 48 Wash. 437—477. Harris v. Great Western R. Co., 1 Q. B. Div. 515—403, 431. Harris v. Gugfrenlieim, 138 N. Y. Supp. 1037-104. Harris v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 89 Mo. 233—1032. Harris v. Howe. 74 Tex. 534 — 1451. Harris v. .Tex. 55 N. Y. 421—390. Harris v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 35 Fed. 116—1183. Harris v. Midland R. Co., 25 W. R. 63—465. 906. Harris v. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 36 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 181—737. Harris v. Northern Indiana R. Co., 20 N. Y. 232—804, 805, 806. Harris v. Packwood, 3 Taunt. 264 — 165, 490, 576, 579. Harris v. Panama R. Co., 5 Bosw. (N. Y.) 312—581. Harris v. Pittsburg, etc., R. Co., 32 Ind. App. 600—1232. Harris v. Pratt, 17 N. Y. 249—199. Harris v. Puget Sound Elec. Ry., 52 Wash. 289—1065, 1468, 1495. Harris v. Rand. 4 N. H. 259—164, 315. Harris v. Seattle, etc., R. Co., 65 Wash. 27—1002. Harris v. Stevens, 31 Vt. 79—1019. Harris v. Union Pac. R. Co., 13 Fed. 591—1100. Harrison v. Fink, 42 Fed. 787 — 992, 1012, 1170, 1714. Harrison v. London, etc., R. Co., 110 E. C. L. 122. 1 C. & E. 540, 2 B. & S. 122—90, 466, 873, 1504. Harrison v. Midland R. Co., 62 L. J. Q. B. 225, 68 L. T. 268—122, 632. Harrison v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 74 Mo. 364—350, 359, 436, 540, 543, 819. Harrison v. Roy, 39 Miss. 396 — 71, 73. Harrison v. Stewart, Taney's Dec. (U. S.) 485—624. Harrison v. Weir, 71 App. Div. (N. Y.) 248—98, 856. Harrison v. Weir, 69 N. Y. Supp. 957 —828, 929. Harrison Granite Co. v. Grand Trunk Ry. System (Mich.), 141 N. W. 642 — 444, 501. Harri.son Granite Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 154 Mich. 48—305. Harrison Granite Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 145 Mich. 712—303. Hart V. Allen, 2 Watts (Pa.), 114— 76. Hart V. Baxemdale, 16 L. T. N S 390, 6 Exch. 769—128, 186. Hart V. Capital Traction Co.. 36 App D. C. 502—1548. 1574, 1649. Hart V. Cliicairo. etc., R. Co.. 69 Iowa 48.5—23. 455, 824. 851, 1450. Hart V. Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 56 Iowa, 166—556. Hart V. Fletcher Land Co., 175 Fed 985—1097. cxvin TABLK OF CASES. (Tho ri'lcrt'iioi's are to the pages.) Hart V. lliuls..ii Kiv. K. fo.. 8-1 N. V. 0(5— ir)4_\ Hart V. Uu.Immi K. Bridge Co., SO N. Y. 622— 1 JO.S. Hart V. Ilydo. 5 Vt. 328— »31. Hart V. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 65 App. Div. (N. V.) 4!»;!--lUiS. Hart V. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 34 Mise. Kep. (N. Y.) 531—1072, 1156, 1426, I4;{4. Hart V. Pennavlvania R. Co., 112 U. S. 331 — 400, 505, 523, 526, 890, 1456. 1457, 1912, 1913, 1915. Hart V. Rensselaer, etc., R. Co., 8 N. Y. 37—754. Hart V. Spalding, 1 Cal. 213—596. Hart V. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co., 80 Kan. 699—1539. Hart V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 94 Mo. 255—1241. Hart V. Western R. Corp., 13 Mete. (Mass.) 99—23, 547. Hart V. Western Union Tel. Co., 66 Cal. 579—87, 92. Hartan v. Eastern R. Co., 114 Mass. 44 — 1361. Hartley v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. (Iowa), 89 N. W. 88—766. Hartley v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 115 Iowa, 612—907. Hartman v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 39 Mo. App. 88—242, 381, 392, 449. Hartshorne v. Johnson, 7 N. J. L. 108 —629. Hartwell v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 15 Ky. Law Rep. 778—294. Hartwell v. Northern Pac. Express Co., 5 Dak. 463 — 435, 454, 480, 485, 1452, 14.55. Hartwig v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 49 Wis. 358—1233, 1601. Harty v. New York, etc., R. Co., 95 App. Div. (N. Y.) 119—1223. Hartzig v. Lehigh Vallev R. Co., 155 Pa. St. 364—1576, 1665. Harvard Co. v. Pennsylvania Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 257—1781. Harvey v. Atlantic Coast L. R. Co., 153 N. C. 567—1399. Harvey v. Connecticut, etc.. Rivers R. Co., 124 Mass. 421—610. 618. Harvev v. Deep River Logging Co., 49 Or. "583—1288, 16-30. Harvey v. Dnnlop, Hill & D. Supp. (N.'Y.) 19.3—1122. Harvey v. Eastern R. Co., 116 Mass. 209—1613. Harvev v. Grand Tiiink Kv. Co., Fed. Cas.'No. 6, 180 (2 llask.) 124—660, 720. TTarvev v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 3 Int.' Com. Kep. 793—1791. llarvcy v. Proctor, 142 N. Y. Supp. 709—1530. Harvey v. Rose, 26 Ark. 3—58, 59. Harvey v. Terre Haute, etc., K. Co., 74 Mo. 541—457, 493, 524, 576, 592. Harvey v. Terre Haute & T. R. Co., 6 Mo. App. 585—291, 592. Hasbrouck v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 202 N. Y. 363—1305, 1335. 1339, 1378. Hasbrouck v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 64 Misc. R. (N. Y.) 478— 950, 1367. Haselton v. Portsmouth, etc., St. Ry., 71 N. H. 589—972, 1081. Haskell v. Boston Dist. Messenger Co., 190 Mass. 189—107. Haskett v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 35 N. H. 390—595. Haslam v. Adams Express Co., 19 N. Y. Super. Ct. (6 Bosw.) 235—38, 253, 272. Hass V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., Ill Mo. App. 70&— 1064. Hasse v. American Express Co., 94 Mich. 133—264, 385. Hassen v. Nassau Elec. Ry. Co., 34 App. Div. (N. Y.) 71—1639. Hastings v. Boland, 136 Mich. 240— 1681. Hastings v. Central Crosstown R. Co., 7 App. Div. (N. Y.) 312—1640. Hastings v. Central, etc., R. Co., 40 N. Y. Supp. 93—1486. Hastings v. New York, etc., R. Co., 53 Hun (N. Y.) 638—520. Hastings v. New York, etc., R. Co., 6 N. Y. Supp. 836—837. Hastings v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 53 Fed. 224 — 1581, 1598. Hastings v. Pepper, 11 Pick. (Mass.) 41—35, 75, 550. Hastings Express Co. v. City of Chi- cago, 135 111. App. 268— .39. Hatch V. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 15 N. D. 491—880. Hatch V. Pullman Sleeping Car Co. TABLE OF CASES. CXIX (The references are to the pages.) (Tex. Civ. App.), 84 S. W. 246— 65. Hathaway v. Haynes, 124 Mass. 311 —227. flatten v. Railroad Co., 39 Ohio St. 375—1014. Hathorn v. Ely, 28 N. Y. 78—392. Haug V. Great Northern R. Co., 8 N, Dak. 2,3—1258. Uavemeyer v. Iowa County, 3 Wall. (U. S.) 294—390. Haver v. Central R. Co., 62 N. J. L. 286—949, 1175, 1434. Haverly v. State Line, etc., R. Co., 135 Pa. St. 50—372. Hawcroft v. Great Nortliern R. Co., 8 Eng. L. & Eq., 362, 16 Jur. 196— 350, 1227. Hawes v. Boston Elev. R. Co., 192 Mass. 324—1112. Hawes v. Burlington, etc., R. Co., 64 Iowa, 315—1544. Hawes v. Southern R. C!o., 54 L. J. Q. B. Div. 174 — 345. Hawk V. Chicago, etc., Rv. Co., 130 Mo. App. 658—1,527. Hawkins v. Front St. Cable R. Co., 3 Wash. 592—1476, 1648. Hawkins v. Great Western R. Co., 17 Mich. 57—456, 578, 579, 1458. Hawkins v. HoflFman, 6 Hill (N. Y.) 586—62, 234, 275, 285, .526, 1291, 1297, 1298, 1300, 1306. Hawkins v. The Viola, 59 Fed. 632— 1989. Hawkinsville, etc., R. Co. v. Living- ston, 132 Ga. 203—726. Hawlev v. Screvcns, 62 Ga. 347—749, 1361. Haycroft v. Lake Sliore, etc., R. Co., 2 Hun (N. Y.) 491—1587. Hayden v. Davi.s. 9 Cal. 573—328. Hayes v. Cami)bell, 63 Cal. 143—452, 633. Haves v. l"\)rtv-Sccond St.. etc.. R. Co., 97 N. Y. 259— 1224, 1489, 1506, 1534, 1648. Hayes v. Kennedy, 2 Pittsb. (Pa.) 262—520. Hayes v. Michigan, etc.. R. Co., Ill U. S. 22fV— 1511. 1534. Hayes v. Millar, 77 Pa. St. Rep. 238 —67. Hayes v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 84 Kan. 1—883, 936. Hayes v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 34 Hun (N. Y.) 627—1393. Haves v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 12 Fed. 309—160. Hayes v. Railroad Co., Ill U. S. 228 —1104. Hayes v. St. Louis R. Co., 15 Mo. App. 583—1553. Hayes v. Wells, 23 Cal. 185—36, 110, 523, 526, 527. Haygood v. 1310 Tons of Coal, 21 Fed. 681—627. Hayman v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co., 43 Misc. Rep. 74—273. Havraan v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 118 Pa. St. 508—1477. Hayman v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 8 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 86—906. Haymarket Theatre Co. v. Rosenberg, 77 III. App. 183—1095. Havne v. Union St. Ry. Co., 189 Mass. 551—1162. Haynes v. Great Western R. Co., 41 L. T. N. S. 436—466. Haynes v. Wabash Ry. Co., 54 Mo. App. 582—794, 804. Haynie v. Baylor, 18 Tex. 498—25, 71. Haynie v. Waring, 29 Ala. 263 — 110. Havs v. Gainesville St. R. Co., 70 Tex. 602—1131. Hays V. Houston, etc., R. Co., 46 Tex. 272—1724, 1725. Hays V. Monille, 14 Pa. St. 48—641. Hays V. Paul, 51 Pa. St. 134—57. Havs V. Pennsvlvania Co., 12 Fed. 309—1788. Hays V. Riddle, 1 Sandf. (N. Y.) 248—644. Hays V. Wabash R. Co., 51 Mo. App. 438—1234. Ilayter v. Brunswick Tract. Co., 66 N. J. Law, 575 — 1434. Havward v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 32 U. C. Q. R. .39,3—637. 645. Hayward v. Middleton, 3 McCord (S. C.) 121—669. Hayward v. Middleton, 1 Mill Const. (S. C.) 186—669. Haywood v. Daves, 81 N. C. 8 — 390. Hazard v. Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 1 Bias. (U. S.) 50.3— 1056, 1145, 1211. cxx TABLK OF CASES. (The ri'tVioiKH's are to ttie pages. Jla/,»'l V. Cliiiuuo, vU\, H. Co., S2 K)\\ii, 477 — loi"), 44!t, 4.->4. Ilii/inau V. llohokoii. oti-., Co., li Duly (N. Y.) i;JO — I'iai. U527. H. C. Judd & Rout V. Now York, etc., S. Co., 130 Fed. DOl — ill. lli'ud V. Georgia, etc., K. Co., 70 Ca. :?r>8— 14 IG. Headrick v. Virginia, etc., Ry. Co., 4S C.a. 545— l»!li. llealey v. City Passeiiger R. Co., 28 Ohio St. 23— 142G. Iloarn v. Louisville lV N. R. Co. (Ala. App.), CO So. 600 — 384. llealh V. Cleus Fulls, etc., St. Ry. Co., HO Hun (N. Y.) 5G0— 1580. llfath V. South liend R. Co., 40 S. C. 104—300. Heaton v. Alorgan's La., etc., R., 1 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. § 774—458. lleazle v. Indianapolis, etc., R. Co., 76 in. 501—1501, 1512. Hebert v. Portland R. Co., 103 Me. 315—1004. Heck V. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co., 1 Int. lorn. Rep. 775—1784. Ik'ck V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 51 Mo. App. 532—456, 570. Heckle v. Southern Pac. Co., 123 Cal. 441—1561. Hedding v. txallagher, 72 N. H. 377— 1127. Heddles v. Railroad Co., 77 Wis. 238 —1717. Hedge v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co., 164 Mo. App. 201-1152. Hedges v. Hudson River R. Co., 49 N. Y. 223—384. 391, 393. Hedges v. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 73 N. C. 558—1554. Heenrich v. Pullman Palace C'ar Co., 20 Fed. 100-1148. Heffron v. Detroit City R. Co., 92 Mich. 406—1025. Hegi;man v. Western Ry. Co., 13 N. Y. 9—947. 1080. 1084. 1114, 1118, 1119, 1120. 1131, 1505. Hegenian v. Western R. Corp., 16 Barb. (N. Y.) 3,3.3—1474. lleggen V. Fort Dodge, eitc, R. Co., 150 Iowa. 31.3—1174. Heidcn v. Atlantic Coast L. R. Co., 84 S. C. 117—1372, 1381. Ileil V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 16 Mo. App. 362—576, 592. Ileiiiemim V. Grand Trunk R. Co., 31 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 430—27, 460, 815, 895. Heiiileiii v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 147 Mass. 130—1010. Heirn v. McCaughan, 32 Miss. 17 — 1200, 1703, 1708, 1721. Hcituuin V. Cliieago, etc., R. Co., 45 Mont. 406—830, 865. Heller v. Cliicagn, etc., R. Co. (Mich.), 66 N. W. 607—819, 822. Helliwcll V. (Jrand Trunk R. Co., 10 Riss. (U. S.) 170—137, 138. Hellman v. Iloiladay, 1 WoUw. (U. S.) 365—1300. Hidin V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 98 Mo. App. 410—859, 936. Helmlv V. Savannah Office Bldg. Co. (Ga. App.), 79 S. E. 364—1530. Hemmingway v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 72 Wis. 42—1232, 1252, 1505, 1587, 1675. 1677. Hemphill v. Chenie, 6 W. t S. (Pa.) 62—100, 257, 258. Hempstead v. New York Cent. R. Co., 28 Barb. (N. Y.) 485—746, 775. Henderson v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 20 Fed. 437—64. Henderson v. Maid of Orleans, 12 La. Ann. 352—502. Henderson v. Mayor of New York, 92 U. S. 250—1737, 1747, 1758. Henderson v. Nassau Elec. R. Co., 46 App. Div. (N. Y.) 280—1634. Henderson v. Three Hundred Tons Iron Ore, 38 Fed. 36—287. Henderson v. Walker, 55 Ga. 481 — 45. Hendrick v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 170 Mass. 44—594. Hendrick v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 136 Mo. .548—1010. Hendricks v. Sixth Ave. R. Co., 44 N. Y. Super. Ct. 8—1189, 1.563, 1722. Hendrick's Admr. v. American Ex- press Co.. 138 Ky. 704—347. Hendrix v. Knnsa-s City, etc., R. Co., 45 Kan. 377—1016. 1058. Hendrix v. Wabash R. Co., 107 Mo. App. 127—441, 605, 606, 6.55, 860. Hengstler v. Flint etc., R. Co.. 12.> Mich. 530—033. Hennessy v. St. Ixiuis, etc., R. ( o., 173 Mo. 86—1267. TABLE OF CASES. CXXl (The references are to the pages.) Hennewell v. Taber, 2 Sprague (U. S.), 1—34. Henning v. Louisyille Ry. Co., 24 Kj. L. R. 2419—1681. Hennington v. Georgia, 163 U. S. 299 —1752. Henry v. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 83 Kan. 104—309. Henry v. Canadian Pac. R. Co., 1 Manitoba, 210—466, 571. Henrj- v. Central R., etc., Co., 89 Ga. 815^594, 606. Henry v. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 67 Fed, 426—554. Henry v. Grant St. Elec. R. Co., 24 Wash. 246—1125. Henry v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 76 Mo. 288—1710. Henry Sonneborn &, Co. t. Southern Ry. Co., 65 S. C. 502—1123. Hensler v. Stix (Mo. App. 1905), 88 S. W. 108—103. Hepworth v. Union Ferry Co., 62 Hun (N. Y.), 257—1156. Herbert t. St. Paul City R. Co., 85 Minn. 341—1092. Herbick v. North Jersey St. Ry. Co., 67 N. J. L. 574—1223. Herdman v. New York, etc., R. Co., 62 Hun (N. Y.), 621—1201. Herdt v. Rochester City, etc., R. Co., 65 Hun (N. Y.), 625—1097. Herf &. Frericks Chemical Co. v. Lackawanna Line (Mo. App.), 73 S. VV. 346—203. Herf & Frericks Chemical Co. v. Lackawanna Line, 100 Mo. App. 164—607, 608. Hermann v. Goodrich. 21 Wis. 536 — 207, 399. 402, 774, 776. Hermann v. St. Joseph Rv., etc., Co., 144 Mo. App. 147- 1139. Heme v. Carton, 2 El. & EL, 66— 563. Hernsheim v. Newport News, etc., R. Co., 18 Ky. L. Rep. 227—119, 357. llernck v. Gallagher, 60 Barb. (N. Y.) 566—266. Herring v. .\tlantic Const Line R. Co.. 160 N. C. 252—514. Herring v. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 101 Va. 778—312, 314, 755, 858. Herring v. Galveston, et-c., Ry. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 108 S. W."977— 1660. Herschberger v. Lynch (Pa.), 11 Atl. 642—1533. Hersfield v. Adams, 19 Barb. (N. Y.) 577—38, 40. Herstine v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 151 Pa. St. 144r— 1476, 1487, 1533. Hertzberg v. San Antonio Traction Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 120 S. W. 572—1569, 1687. Heshion v. IBoston Elevated Ry. Co., 208 Mass. 117—1650. Hess V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 40 Mo. App. 202—587. Hester v. Savannah Electric Co., 130 Ga. 454—1668. Hestonville, etc., R. Co. v. Biddle (Pa.), 24 Wkly Notes Cas. 156, 16 Atl. 488—1278. Hestonville, etc., R. Co. v. Kelly, 102 Pa. St. 115—1122. Hestonville Pass. Ry. Co. v. Connell, 88 Pa. St. 520—1591. Hestonville Pass. R. Co. v. Grey, 1 Walk (Pa.), 513—1288. Hett V. Boston, etc., R. Co. (N. H.), 44 Atl. 910—280, 281, 328. Heugh V. London, etc., R. Co., L. R. 5 Exch. 51—198, 211. Hewes t. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 76 Md. 154—1533. Hewett V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 63 Iowa. 611—242, 315, 354, 373, 739, 744, 773. Hewlett V. The Millie R. Borannon, 64 Fed. 883-1996. Hewpon v. Interurban St. Rv. Co., 95 App. Div. (N. Y.) 112—1156. Hevde v. St. Louis Transit Co., 102 Mo. App. 537—1213, 1500. Hevc V. North German Lloyd, 33 Fed. 60-1991. Hevl V. Inman Steamship Co., 14 Hun (N. Y.), 564—372. Hevman v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., .54 N. Y. Super. Ct. 158-821. (^m. Hovman v. Strvker, 116 N. Y. Supp. 038— .306. 317. Hozel Milling Co. v. St. Tx)uis, etc., R. Co.. 3 Int. Com. Rep. 701—1791. Hibbard v. New York, etc., R. Co., 15 N. Y. 455—1068, 1155, 1273, 1389, 1.'596. Hibl)nrd v. Western Union Tel. Co.. 33 Wis. 565—88. Hibernia Ins. Co. v. St. Louis Transp. Co., 120 U. S. 166—520. cxxu TABLE OK OASES. (The reforcuces arc to the page».; llK-k V. Missouri I'lU'. K. To.. 51 Mo. App. 5;{2 — 45b, 571'. Hickonbottom v. IVliiware. otc, R- Co., 122 N. V. 91—1706, 1715. liickey v. Hoston, etc., R. Co., 14 Al- len (M;u>s.), 429—1497, 1026, 1637, 1642. UuU'v V. riiioago City Ry. Co., 148 111." App. 197—994, 1497, 1502. 1571, 1628, 1699. lliokrv V. Kailroad Co., 14 Allen (Mii«s.), 429—1673. llickiev V. Cape Cod, etc., R. Co., 120 Mass. 257—1541. Hickory Marble &. Granite Co. v. Southern Ry. Co., 147 N. C. 53— 173.-), 1738. Hickox V. Naugatuck R. Co., 31 Conn. 281—1295, 1296, 1345, 1347. Hickb V. Do'rn, 42 N. Y. 47—85. Hicks V. Georgia, etc., R. Co., 108 Ga. 304—1637. Hicks V. Xew York, etc., R. Co., 164 Ma-ss. 424—1479. Hicks V. Union Pac. R. Co., 76 Neb. 496—1021. Hiddink v. Woolverton, 67 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 611—583. Higby V. Gilraore, 3 Mont. 97—1544. Higg'inbotham v. Great Northern R. Co.. 10 W. R. 358—559. Higgins V. Bretherton, 5 C. & P. 2 — ■ 626. Higgias V. Cherokee R. Co., 73 Ga. 149—1220, 1626. Higgins V. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 36 Aio. 418—1063. Higgins V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 64 Miss. 80—1722. Hiwgins V. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 28 La. Ann. 133—455, 1455, 1458, 1463. 1465. Hicgins V. New York Cent., etc., R. Co.. 2 Pwisw. (N. Y.) 132—1637. Higgins V. Watervliet Turnpike, etc., Co.. 46 N. Y. 23—1155, 1166, 1181, 1390, 1425, 1434. Hig?inson v. Weld, 14 Gray (Mass.), Tor)— 350. Highland Ave., etc., R. Co. v. Winn, 93 Ala. 309-1576, 1582, 1679. Higlev V. Gilmer, 3 Mont. 90—046, 954, 974. 086. 992. 1016. 14«S. 1.^44. Hill V. Adams Express Co., 77 N. J. L. 19—169. 475. Hill V. lioston, etc., R. Co., 144 Masa. 2S4— 431, 452, 493. Hill V. l^irlington, etc., R. Co., 80 Iowa, 19t)— 748. Hill V. Chicago City Ry. Co., 126 HI. App. 152-1501. Hill V. Cliicago, etc., R. Co., 72 Iowa, 228-66. Hill V. Georgia, etc., R. Co., 43 S. O. 461—767. Hill V. Humphreys, 5 W. & S. (Pa.) 123—248. 261, 272, 343. Hill y. Leudbrtter, 42 Me. 572—163, 650. Hill V. Mis.souri Pac. R. Co., 46 Mo. App. 517—767. Hill V. New Haven, 37 Vt. 501—1545. Hill V. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 11 La. Ann. 292—1702, 1715, 1727. Hill V. Ninth Ave. R. Co., 109 N. Y. 239—1488, 1494. Hill V. Northern Pac. R. Co., 33 Wash. 697—471. Hill V. Scott, 2 Q. B. 371—465. Hill V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 85 Ark. 529—997, 1000. Hill V. St. Ix)uis, etc., Ry. Co., 67 Ark. 402—240. Hill V. Syracuse, etc., R. Co., 73 N. Y. 351—431, 444. Hill V. Syracuse, etc., R. Co., 63 N. Y. 101—1025. 1027, 139S. Hill V. Union Ry. Co., 25 R. I. 565— 1727. Hill V. Western Union Tel. Co., 85 Ga. 425 — 478. Hill V. Windsor, 118 Mass. 251—1567. Hilliard v. Goold, 34 N. H. 230—1.394. Hilliard v. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 6 .Jones L. (N. C.) 343—381, 393. Hillis V. C:hicag'0, etc., R. Co., 72 Iowa, 228—65. 66, 68. Hill Mfg. Co. V. Boston & L. R. Corp., 104 Mass. 122—399, 739, 754, lit92. Hill Mfg. Co. V. Providence, etc., S. S. Co., 113 Mass. 49.5—1992. Hillsdale Coal & C. Co. v. Pennsyl- vania R. Co., 229 Pa. 61—719. Hincklev v. Ne.'>;"). 9;V(). Hohl V. Xorddeuk'her I^loyd, 175 Foil. 444— -2018. Uolil V. Nordilfiitschor Lloyd, 109 Ki'd. 990—2011. Uolbiook V. Iticii, etc., R. Co., 12 N. Y. 2:57— 147t). 1478, 1479. 1504, 1500. lilU. 1512. ISO."?, 1G5G. Iloloonib V. Town of Dauby, 51 Vt. 4 2 S— 10(10. IIoMon V. New York Cent. R. Co., 54 N. Y. 602—590. llolderni'ss v. CoUinson, 1 M. & R. 55. 7 B. & C. 212—15, 16, 630. Iloldridge v. Utica. etc., R. Co., 56 Raib. (N. Y.) 191—1350, 1531. llolladav V. Kennard. 12 Wall. (U. S.) 254—6, 26. 339, 1133. Ilolhihan v. Metropolitan St. Rv. Co., 73 App. Div. (N. Y.) 164—1535. Holland V. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 113 Mo. App. 694—924, 925. Holland V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 163 Mo. App. 251—877. H06— 14.50, 1465. Ilostetter v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 11 Atl. 609 (Pa.), 32 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 549—436, 740, 751. Hotchkiss V. Artisans' Bank, 2 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. (N. Y.) 403—207, 272. Hotel Co. V. Camp, 97 Ky. 424 — 102. Hot Springs R. Co. v. Deloney, 65 Ark. 177—1416. Hot Springs R. Co. v. Hudgins, 42 Ark. 485— 5G9. Hot Springs R. Co. v, Trippe, 42 Ark. 465—778, 780. Houck V. Southern Pac. R. Co., 38 Fed. 226—1069, 1143. Hough V. Railway Co., 100 U. S. 226 —1543. Houghton V. Louisville Ry. Co., 26 Ky. L. R. 393—1681. House V. Chicago & N. W. Ry Co (S. D.), 138 N. W. 809—1387. Housem v. Merchants' Dispatch Transp. Co., 104 Mich. 300—597. Houseman v. Fargo, 124 U. S. Supp 1086—1837. Houston v. Vicksburg, etc., R. Co., 39 La. Ann. 796—1270. Houston Electric Co. v. Nelson (Tex Civ. App.), 77 S. \\\ 978—1214. Houston Electric Co. v. Park (Tex Civ. App.), 1?5 S. W. 229—1172. Houston, etc., Nav. Co. v. Dwyer 29 Tex. 376—30. ' Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Adams, 49 Tex. 748—220, 226, 234, 235, 23tf, 238. 385. 398. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Anderson (Tex. Civ. App.), 147 S. W. 353— 130.>, 1355, 1377. Houston, etc.. R. Co. v. Batchler, 37 Tex. Civ. App. 116—998. Houston, etc.. R. Co. v. Batchler, 32 Tex. Civ. App. 14 — 997. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Batchler (Tex Civ. App.), 73 S. W. 981-1714 Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Barron (Tex Civ. App.), 124 S. W. 996—599 Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Bath, 17 Tex T'lv. App. 697 — 579. Houston, etc.. R. Co. v. Booiim 57 Tex. 1,52—1717, 1728. Houston, etc.. R. Co. v. Bolline 59 Ark. 395-1044. ' Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Buchanan GXXVl TABLE OF CASKS. (Tho roforcncrfl ure to the pages.) (Tex. Cir. App.K SJ S. \V. KC.T — l>0!>. Houston, etc., K. Co. v. lUu-lianan (IVx. Civ. App.). xp. Co. v. Wile, 64 Pa. St. 201—7. Howard Supplv Co. v. Chrsapeake & 0. Ry. Co.. 102 Fed. 188—1887. Howatt v. Barrett, 78 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 156—1905. Howatt v. Barrett, 137 N. Y. Supp. 915—629. Howe V. Oswego, etc., R. Co., 56 Barb. (X. Y.) 121—27, 260. Howell V. Lansing City Elec. R. Co., 136 Mich. 432—1105. Howell V. New York, etc., R. Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 162—1782, 1790. Hower v. United Traction Co., 231 Pa. 626—1668. Howland v. Milwaukee R. Co., 54 Wis. 226—1063. Howland v. Oakland Consol. St. R. Co., 110 Cal. 513—1717. i Howser v. Cumberland, etc., R. Co., 80 Md. 146—1479. Howze V. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 91 Miss. 695—882, 900. Hoye V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 191 N. Y. 101—421, 423. Hoylman v. Kanawha & M. Ry. Co., 65 W. Va. 264—1682. Hoyt V. Chicago B. & Q. R. Co., 93 111. 601—246. Hoyt V. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 112 Mich. 638—1228. Hoyt V. Hudson, 41 Wis. 105 — 1545. Hrebrick v. Carr, 29 Fed. 298—1011. Huba v. Schenectady Ry. Co., 85 App. Div, (N. Y.)— 199. Hubbard v. Harnden Express Co., 10 R. I. 244—324, 458. Hubbard v. Mobile & 0. R. Co., 112 Mo. App. 459—952, 1356, 1365. Hubbard v. New York, etc., R. Co., 15 N. Y. 455—999. Hubbard v. Town of Mason City, 60 Iowa, 400—1403. Hubbell v. Yonkers, 104 N. Y. 434— 549. Hubbersty v. Ward, 8 Exch. 330 — 191, 214, 229. Hubener v. Heide, 62 App. Div. (N. Y.) 368—100. Huber v. Cedar Rapids, etc., R. Co., 124 Iowa, 550— le.H. Iluckstep V. St. Louis & H. Ry. Co., 166 Mo. App. 330—1465. Iluddleston v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 90 Ark. 378—1204, 1483. Hudson V. Baxendalc, 2 II. & N. 575 — 40n, 401, 412. CXXVIU TABLE OF CASES. (Tha references are to tlu- pages.) Ihulson V. Kansas Pac. R. Co., 3 Mc- Orary (U. S.) 24S>— 10'28. Huilaou V. Lyun & B. R. Co., 178 Mass. 64— 14()'2. Hudson V. Lvnn & Boston R. Co., 183 Mass. 010—91)2. ITuilson V. Lvnn, etc.. R. Co. (Mass.), 59 N. E. tJ47— 1428. Hudson V. Midland R. Co., 10 B. & S. 504, 30 L. T. R. Q. B. 213—1292, 1293. Hudson V. Northern Pac. R. Co., 92 Iowa. 231 — 4S3. 597. Hudson V. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 2 App. Cas. (D. C), 98—958. Hudson County Water Co. v. McCar- tcr, 209 U. S. 349—1735. Hudson River Lighterage Co. v. Wheeler Condenser & E. Co., 93 Fed. 374—572. Huelsenkarap v. Citizens R. Co., 37 Mo. 537—1213. Huelsenkamp v. Citizen's R. Co.. 34 Mo. 45 — 1641. Huff V. Austin, 46 Ohio St. 386—1507. Huffard v. Grand Rapids, etc., R. Co., 64 Mich. 631—1075, 1076, 1417. Hufford V. Railway Co., 53 Mich. 118 —1415. Hughes V. Chicago & A. R. Co., 127 Mo. 447—1204'. Hughes V. Great Western R. Co., 14 C. B. 637—343, 464. Hughes V. New York, etc., R. Co., 36 IN. Y. Super. Ct. 222—1181, 1425, 1552. Hughes V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 202 Pa. 222—909. Hughes V. Pullman Palace Car Co., 74 Fed. 499—65. Hughes V. Western R. Co., 61 Ga. 131 —1702. Hughson V. Richmond & D. R. Co., 2 App. D. C. 98—1020. 1046. Huguelet v. Warfield, 84 S. C. 87— 515. Hubert V. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 40 N. Y. 145—1231, 1673. Hulchan v. Green Bay, etc., R. Co., 68 Wis. .527—1544. Hull V. Boston & M. R. R., 210 Mass. 159—1177, 1412. Hull v. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 41 Minn. 510—570, 572, 576, 579, 905. Hull v. East Line, etc., R. Co., 66 Tex. 619—1229. Hull V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 00 Mo. App. 593 — 400. Humboldt Lumber Manufacturers' Ass'n V. Christopherson, 73 Fed. 239—1989. Humphrey v. Micliigan United Rys. Co., 106 Mich. 645—1178. Humphreys v. Reed, 6 Whart. (Pa.) 435 — 53, 163, 050. Humplirevs v. Perry, 148 U. S. 627— 44, 1294, 12!)9, 1301, 1330, 1331. Humpliries v. lllitiois Cent. R. Co., 70 Miss. 453—1229, 1255. Hungerford v. Winnebago Tug Boat, etc., Co., 33 Wis. 303—258. Hunt y. Haskell, 24 Me. 339—649. Hunt y. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 126 Mo. App. 79—1490. Hunt y. Mississippi Cent. R. Co., 29 La. Ann. 446—229. Hunt y. Missouri, etc., R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 74 S. W. 69—319. Hunt y. Missouri, etc., R. Co. (Tex. Ciy. App.), 31 S. W. 523—694. Hunt v. Morris, 12 N. J. L. 175—570. Hunt v. New York, etc., R. Co., 1 Hilt. (N. Y.) 228—738, 748. Hunt y. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 212 Mass. 102—979. Hunt y. Nutt (Tex. Civ. App.), 27 S. W. 1031—151, 742. Hunter y. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 72 S. C. 336—1064. Hunter y. Borst, 13 U. C, Q. B. 141— 345. Hunter v. Charleston & W. C. Ry. Co., 81 S. C. 169—1980. Hunter y. Cooperstown, etc., R. Co., 126 N. Y. 23—1613. Hunter y. Cooperstown, etc., R. Co., 112 N. Y. 371—1244, 1577. Hunter v. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 85 Fed. 379—548. Hunter v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 150 Ala. 594—1669. Hunter v. Potts, 4 Campb. 203—33. Hunter y. Southern Pac. R. Co., 76 Tex. 195—741, 757, 708. Hunter v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co., 167 Mo. App. 624 — 722, 1835. Hunterson v. Union Tract. Co., 205 Pa. 568—1610, 1015, 1020. Hunting Elevator Co. v. Bosworth, 179 U. S. 41,5-123. Huntington v. Dinsmore, 4 Hun (N, Y.) 00—430. TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pages.) CXXL2C Huntley v. Dows, 55 Barb. (X. Y.) 310—627, 693. Hurd V. Hartford, etc.. Steamboat Co., 40 Conn. 48—198, 413, 655, 663. Hurlburt v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 81—1781. Hurley v. Metropolitan St. Rv. Co., 120' Mo. App. 262— 16G9, 1687. Hurst V. Great Western R. Co., 19 C. B. N. S. 310—1259. Hurt V. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 145 Ky. 475 — 1621. Hurt V. Southern R. Co., 40 Miss. 391 —987, 990, 991, 998. Hurt V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 94 Mo. 255—1246. Hurwitz V. Hamburg American Packet Co., 27 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) S14 — 1292. Huschberg v. Dinsmore, 12 Daly (N. Y.) 429—478. Hussey v. Saragossa, 3 Woods (U.S.) 380—906. Huston V. Peters, 1 Mete. (Ky.) 558 —258, 488, 5S6. Huston V. Wabash R. Co., 63 Mo. App. 671—144. Hutcheson v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 108 Ky. 615 — 160. Hutcheson v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 22 Ky. Law Rep. 1871—160. Hutchings v, Ladd, 16 Mich. 493— 262. Hutchings v. Western, etc., R. Co., 25 Ga. 61—1291, 1295, 1296. Hutchins v. Brackett, 22 N. H. 252— 85. Hutchins v. Pennsylvania, 181 N. Y. 186—1366. Hutchins v. Western & A. R. Co., 25 Ga. 61—1344. Hutchinson v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 37 Minn. 524—36, 456, 560, 851, 927. Hutchinson v. United States Express Co., 63 W. Va. 128—253, 254, 255, 400. Hutchinson v. York, etc., R. Co., 6 Eng. Ry. & C. Cas. 580—1063. HutkofT V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 29 Misc. R. (N. Y.) 770—402. 572. Ilutto V. Southern R. Co., 75 S. C. 29.5—1343. Hutton V. Osborne, 1 Sel. N. P. 420 Hyde v. New York, etc.. Steamship Co., 17 La. Ann. 29—524. Hyde v. Trent. Nav. Co., 5 T. R. 68 — 53, 251, 257. Hyman v. Central Vermont R. Co., 66 Hun (N. Y.), 202—1345, 1363. Hyman v. Nye, 6 Q. B. Div. 685 — 1129. Hynds v. Wynn, 71 Iowa, 593 — 370. I. Ickenroth v. St. Louis Tr. Co., 102 Mo. App. 597—1433. I. C. Levy's Son & Co. v. Gibson Line of Steamers, 130 Ga. 581—1994. Idaho Gold Reduction Co. v. Croghan (Id.), 56 Pac. 164—85. Igo V. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 156 IIU App. 190— S62. Ihl V. Forty Second St., etc., R. (>)., 47 N. Y. 317—1587. Ilges V. St. Louis Transit Co., 102 Mo. App. 529—1220. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Able, 59 111. 131—1676. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Adams, 42 111. 474—806, 819, 823, 1460. Ilinois Cent. R. Co. v. Alexander, 20 111. 23-380, 413, 662, 664. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Allen, 28 Ky. Law Rep. 108 — 1141, 1272. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Anderson, 184 111. 294—1460, 1467. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Ashmead, 58 111. 487—84, 325, 376. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Axley, 47 111, App. 307—1264. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Beebe, 174 111 13—1036. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Beebe, 69 111 App. 36.3—951, 1475. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Brelsford, 13 111. App. 251-821. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Black, 122 HI App. 439—1514. niinois Cent. R. Co. v. Bogard, 78 Miss. 11 — 456, 902. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Brookhaven Mach. Co., 71 Miss. 663—612. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Brown 77 Miss. .-^38— 1627. Illinoi.s Cent. R. Co. V. Bundy, 97 JH App. 202—793. C-\\.\ TAIU.K t)F CASES. (Tlie rrfcrpiioi's are to the pages.) Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Cartoi, IC.) 111. :)7l)— ;iJ»l>, 743. 7(i9. Illinois Cent. K. Co. v. Clitik, Ij-i Ind. (>t)3— 124J. I(i08. Illinois lent. R. Co. v. Cobb, 72 111. 14S— r>8y. 5117, 601, 604. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Cobb, 64 111. I2S— 130, 1.S5, 138, 251), 345, 364, 616. 617, 624. Illinois Cent. K. Co. v. Cobb, 48 J II. 402—330, 331, 332. Illinois Cent. K. Co. v. Copeland, 24 111. 332—74.!. 1295, 1296, 1361. Illinois Cent. K. Co. v. Colter, 31 Kv. Law Rep. 675) — 986, 1279. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Cowles, 32 111. 117—743. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Cruse, 29 Ky. Law Rop. 914-1271. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Cunningham, 67 111. 316—1394, 1724. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Cunningham, 102 111. App. 206—1676. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Curry, 32 Ky. Law Rep. 513—863, 912. ' Illi-ois Cent. R. Co. v. Dallas Admx., 150 Ky. 442—957, 1669. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Daniels, 96 Miss. 314 — 1604. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Davenport, 177 in. 110—1057, 1426. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Davidson, 76 Fed. 517—1215. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Dick, 91 Ky. 434—998. Ilinois Cent. R. Co. v. Eblen, 24 Kv. L. Rep. 1009—815. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Fleming. 148 Ky. 473-1884. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Foley, 53 Fed. 4.50—1036. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Frankensburg, ,54 111. 88—131, 425, 427, 433, 743, 758. 766. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Friend. 04 111. .30.3—198, 255, 380. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Goodrich, 163 111. App. 208-6.54. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Gortikov, 90 Miss. 787—1417. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Green. 81 111. 19—1672. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Gross (Miss.), 22 So. 946—288. Illinois Cent. R. Co. t. Gunterman,. 1.35 Ky. 438—1173, 1206. Illinois lent. R. Co. v. Hall, 58 111. App. 409—584, 804. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Handy, 63 Miss. 609—64, 66, 1296. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Harper (Miss.), 35 So. 764—1417. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Harris, 184 111. 57—797. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Harris (Miss.) , 32 So. 309—1027. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Ilaynes, 64 Miss. 604—343, 344, 589, 624, 838. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Haynes, 63 Miss. 485—794. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Henderson Ele- vator Co., 226 U. S. 441—1836. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Henderson Ele- vator Co.. 138 Ky. 220—1837. niinois Cent. R. Co. v. Hobbs, 58 111. App. 130—1476, 1477. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Holt, 29 Ky. Law Rep. 135—597, 790, 791, 840. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Hopkinsville Canning Co., 132 Ky. 578—597, 621, 622. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Hornberger, 77 111. 457—84, 130. 37G. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Illinois, 163 U. S. 142—1230. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 206 U. S. 441—1846. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Jackson, 25 Ky. L. R. 2087—1417. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Jennings, 229 111. 608—1527, 1579. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Jennings, 217 111. 140—1037, 1043. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Johnson, 07 in. 312—114.5, 1394, 1424, 1724. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. .Johnson, 34 111. 389—743, 757. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Johnson, 123 111. App. 300—1675. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Johnson, 116 Tenn. 624—608, 622. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Jolly, 25 Ky. L. R. 173.5—1633. Ilinois Cent. R. Co. v. Jonte, 13 111. App. 424—431, 463, 743, 1460. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Keegan, 210 [II. l.")0— 1232. TABLE OF CASES. CXTtXI (The references are to the pages.) Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Kerr, 68 :Miss. 14—740, 758. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Kuhn, 107 Tenn. 106 — 1080. 1082. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Laloge, 113 Ky. 896—976. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Lancashire Ins. Co. (Miss.), 30 So. 43—440. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Langdon, 71 Miss. 146—584. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Latimer, 128 111. App. 163—1428, 1429, 1439, 1719. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Louthan, SO 111. App. 579—1413. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Lutz, 84 111. 598—1676. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Massey, 97 Miss. 794—1669. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Matthews, 114 Ky. 973—1377. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. McClellan. 54 111. 58—26, 33, 84, 138, 345, 364, 376, 521, 550, 555, 617. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. McMillian, 129 111. App. 27, 37—1000, 1059. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Meacham, 91 Tenn. 428—1041. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Miller, 32 111. App. 259—215, 757, 766. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Minor, 69 Miss. 710—1167, 1187. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Mitchell, 68 111. 417—379, 775. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Morrison. 19 III. 136—452, 822, 847, 878, 1454, 1456, 1460. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Mossbarger, 28 Ky. Law Rep. 1217-597, 620. Ilinois Cent. R. Co. v. Nelson, 59 111. 110—1145, 1204, 1423. 1702. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Nelson, 30 Ky. Law Rep. 114—621. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Nowicki, 148 111. 29—1518. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. O'Keefo, 108 111. 115—946. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. O'Kec-fe, 63 111. App. 102—1033. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Pearson (Mis?.) 31 So. 435—1721. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. People. 143 111. 434—1230. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. People, 19 ill. .\pp. Ml— 148. niicois Cent. R. Co. v. Peterson, 68 Miss. 454—819, 820, 873. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Phelps, 4 111. App. 238—130, 138. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Phillips, 49 111. 234—1119. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Proctor, 28 Ky. Law Rep. 598—980. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Radford, 23 Ky. Law Rep. 886—882, 886, 890. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Read, 37 111. 484—1450, 1463, 1465. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. River & Rail Coal & C. Co., 150 Ky. 489—139, 302. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Roberts, 148 Ky. 478—1884. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Robinson, 58 111. App. 181—1716, 1717. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Rothschild, 134 111. App. 504—1039, 1480. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Sauper, 38 111. 354 — 455. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Schwartz, 13 111. App. 490—130, 429. 530. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Scruggs, 69 Miss. 418—456, 469, 822. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Seitz, 214 111. 350—659, 711. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Seitz. 105 111. App. 89—659. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Sheehan, 29 111. App. 90—1171, 1403. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Simmons, 49 111. App. 433—350, 606. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Simpson, 17 111. App. 325—206. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Slatton, 54 111. 135—1676. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Smiesni. 104 111. App. 194—1122. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Smith. 85 Miss. .349—1141. Ilinoi> Cent. R. Co. v. Smvser. 38 111. 3.54—175, 182, 18.5, 188, 463. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Southern Bank, etc., 41 111. App. 287—216, 226. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Southern Seat- ing, etc., Co., 104 Tenn. 568—600. lUiniiis Cent. R. Co. v. S. Segari & Co., 205 Fed. 008—1881. Illinoi.=? Cent. R. Co. v. Stewart, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 637—549, 1460. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Strauss, 75 Miss. 367—1689. CXXXll TARLE OF CASES. (Tbo referencca are to the pages.)' Illinoia Cent. R. Co. v. Sutton, 42 111. 43S— 14l!9, ir)59. llliunis (.out. 1\. Co. V, Swanson, 92 Miss. 4So — r)l4. Illinois Cent. K. Co. v. Taylor, 46 111. A pp. 141 — 1237. Illinois Cent. 11. Co. v. Team (Miss.), 20 8o. TOO— }H)IJ. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Treat, 179 III. 57()— 9S5. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Troustine, 64 Miss. S:!4— S;5. 1306, 1348. Illinois Cent. K. Co. v. Vinson, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 38-1221. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v, Warren, 149 Fed. 658 — 1636. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Waters, 41 111. 73—343, 585, 607, 838. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Watklns, 28 Ky. Law Rep. 1254 — 597. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Whitteraore, 43 III. 420—1068, 1390. 1429. Illinois, ftc. Co. v. Beaird, 24 111. App. 322—717. Illinois Match Co. v. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co., 153 111. App. 568—476. Illinois Southern R. Co. v. Hubbard, 106 III. App. 462—1212. Ihvaco R.. etc., Co. v. Oresron Short L., etc., R. Co., 57 Fed. 673—1800. Imhoff V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 22 Wis. 681—1231. Imhoff V. Chicago, etc., R. Co. 20 Wis. 344—998, 1225. 1237, 1238. Imperial Coal Co. v. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 436—1790, 1796. Independence Mills Co. v. Burlington, etc., R. Co., 72 Iowa, 535—381, 394, 395, 779. Independant Refiners' Assoc, v. West- ern New York, etc., R. Co., 4 Int. Com. Rep. 162—1785, 1790, 1850. Indianna Cent. R. Co. v. Hudelson, 13 Ind. 325 — 989, 1018. Indiana Cent. R. Co. v. Mundy, 21 Ind 48—1450, 1460. Indiana, etc., R. Go. v. Ditto, 158 Ind. 669-1426, 1437. Indiana, etc., R. Co. v. Doremyer, 20 Ind. App. 60.5 — 328, 329. Indiana, etc., R. Co. v. Green, 106 Tnd. 279—1543. Indiana, etc., R. Co. v. James, 18 111. App. 65.5 — 904. Indii'na, etc.. R. Co. v. Zilly, 20 Ini App. 569-359, 1357. Indianapolis v. Rutherford, 29 lud. 82—1106, 1506, 1642, 1655. lnilianaj)oli8 Abattoir Co. v. Neid- linger, 174 Ind. 400—1067. Indianapolis & G. R. T. Co. v. Andis, 33 Ind. App. 625—1062. Indianapolis & G. R. T. Co. v. Derry (Jnd. App.), 71 N. E. 912—1249. Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Adaju-s, 36 111. App. 629—897. Indianopolis, etc., R. Co. v. Allen, 31 Ind. 394—455, 896, 927. Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Anthony, 43 Ind. 183—1148. Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Beaver, 41 Ind. 49.3—497, 1037, 1038, 1145. Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Birnoy, 71 III. 391—1227, 1704, 1707, 1708. Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Cox, 29 Ind. 360—427, 1330. Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Davis, 32 111. App. 67—680. Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Forsythe, 4 Ind. App. 326—289, 455, 576. Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Hall, 106 111. 371—1270. Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Herndon, 81 111. 143—279, 679. Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Herring, 93 U. S. 298—1.543. Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Horst, 93 U, S. 291—49, 1036, 1211, 1264. Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Jiincrten, 10 111. App. 295—326, 333, 369. Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Juroy, 8 III. App. 160—33, 433. Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Kennedy, 77 Ind. 507—1423. Indian;! polis, et<;., R. Co. v. Murray, 72 111. 128—752. Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Pitzer, 109 Ind. 179—1248, 1258, 1591. Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Remmy, 13 Ind. 518—1460. Indiiinapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Rinard, 46 Ind. 29.3—1135, 1390, 1394. Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Strain, 81 111. 540—584, 793. Indianapolis, etc.. R. Co. v. Vanduzen, 81 111. 143—234. liidiannpolis, etc.. Rap. Trans. Co., Wash. 45 Ind. App. 42-1668. Indiana Rv. Co. v. Maurer (Ind.), 66 N. E. 156—1581. TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pages.) cxxxni Indiana Ry. Ck>. v. Orr, 41 Ind. App. 426—1416. Indianapolis Southern R. Co. v. Tucker, 98 N. E. 431—955. Indianapolis Southern R. Co. v. Wall (Ind. App.), 101 N. E. 680—976. Indianapolis St. Ry. Co. v. Brown, 32 Ind. App. 130—1212. Indianapolis St. Rv. Co. v. Darnell, 1 St. Ry. Rep. 23*7—549. Indianapolis St. Ry. Co. Dawson, 31 Ind. App. 605—1191. Indianapolis St. R. Co. v. Hockett, 161 Ind. 196—1019, 1392, 1425, 1441, 1447. Indianapolis St. Ry. Co. v. Robinson, 157 Ind. 414, 61 N. E. 936—1081, 1545. Indianapolis St. Ry. Co. v. Schmidt (Ind.), 71 X. E. 201-1098. 1475. Indianapolis St. Ry. Co. v. Tavlor find.), 72 N. E. 1045—1565. Indianapolis St. R. Co. v. Tenner. 32 Ind. App. 311—997, 1002, 1692. Indianapolis St. Ry. Co. v. Wilson (Ind.), 66 N. E. 950 — 1416. Indianapolis Traction & T. Co. v. Lawson, 143 Fed. 834—1032. Indianapolis Traction & T. Co. v. Klentschy, 167 Ind. 598—995, 1032. Indianapolis Traction et<;., Co. v. Beckraan, 40 Ind. App. 100 — 1630. Indianapolis Traction, etc., Co. v. Lockman (Ind. App.), 96 N. E. 970 —1390, 1408. 1437. Indianapolis Traction, etc., Co. v. Romans, 40 Ind. App. 184 — 1065. Indianapolis Union R. Co. v. Cooper, 6 Ind. App. 202-1150. Indiana Union Tract. Co. v. Bena- dum, 42 Ind. App. 121—801. Indiana Union Traction Co. v. Keiter, 175 Ind. 268—1540. Indiana Union Traction Co. v. Lang- l«'y find.), 98 X. E. 728—1065. Indiana Union Traction Co. v. Maher, 176 Ind. 289-1495. Indiana Unitfd Traction Co. v. Scrib- ner. 47 Ind. App. 621 — 1117. Inpiills V. Bills. 9 Mote, (^fa>;s.) 1 — lOSO, 1118, 1129, 1214, 1582. Innjalls V. Brooks, 1 Edm. Sel. Cas. (X. Y.) 104—638. Innate v. Christie, 3 C. & K. 61—23. 73, 77. Ingersoll v. Van Bokkelin, 7 Cow. (X. Y.) 670—531. Ingledew v. Xorthem R. Co., 7 Gray (Mass.), 86—569, 597, 606. Ingraur v. American Forwarding Co., 162 111, App. 476—82. Ingram v. Weir, 166 Fed. 328 — 477, 480. Ingwersen v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 116 Mo. App. 139 — 902, 924. Inland & S. Coasting Co. v. Tolson, 139 U. S. 551—1265. Inman v. Buffalo, etc., R. Co., 7 U. C. C. P. 325—386. Inman v Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co., 159 Fed. 960—442. Inman v. South Carolina R. Co., 129 U. S. 128—451, 454, 547. Inman v. St. Louis S. W. R. Co., 14 Tex. Civ. App. 39—715. Inman v. St. Louis Southern R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 37 S. W. 37— 735. Inman & Co. v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. (C. C, Ga.), 159 Fed. 960— 116, 475, 509. In re Benson, 18 S. C. 38—668. In re California Xav. & Imp. Co., 110 Fed. 678—2002, 2037. In re Charge to Grand Jurv, 151 Fed 834—1732, 1738. In re Charge to Grand Jury, 66 Fe4. 146—1792. In re Debs, 158 U. S. 564 — 1745. In re Emerson Mar low & Co. 199 Fed. 95-82. In re Grand Jury, 62 Fed. 840—1733. In re Green, 52 Fed. 194 — 1892. In re Huntington (D. C), 68 Fed 881—1967. In re Lakeland Transp Co., 103 Fed 328—2015. In re Meyer, 74 Fed. 881 — 1989. In re Minneapolis & St. P. Suburban Ry. Co., 101 Minn. 132—24. In re Missouri Steamship Co., L R 42 Ch. Div. 321—307, 451. In re Palliser, 136 U. S. 257 — 1944. In re PiprT Aden Goodall Co., 86 Fed 670—1995. In re Pooling of Freights, llf) Fed ,588—1848, 1949. In re State Fieight Tax, 82 U S (15 Wall.) 232-1857. Insurance Co. of Xorth America v. CXXMV TABLE OF CASEtJ. (The roferciicee arc to the pages.) D.liiwiir,' l^lut. Paf.tv Ins. Co., 91 'ri'iiii. fi.sT — ifjij. lii.-maiui' (.'<). ol North AiiuMica T. Kaston, 73 Tox. 1(57—547. Insuraiu'c Co. of North America v. Lake Erie, etc., K. Co., 152 liul. 3:53 —340, 578. Insuraiioe Co. of North America v. N\ rth (lorinan Liovd Co., lOtJ Foil. 973—19^7, 2018, 2024. In>u ranee Co. of North America v. yt. Ix)iiis. etc., R. Co., 11 Fed. 380 —551. International & G. N. R. Co. v. Bing- ham (Tex. Civ. App.), 89 S. W. 1113—297. International & C N. R. Co. v. Davis, 17 Tex. Civ. App. 340—1050. International & G. N. R. Co. v. Dun- can (Tox. Civ. App.), 121 S. W. 3r.2— 1004, 1275. International & G. N. R. Co. v. Gil- mer, 18 Tex. Civ. App. 680—1257. International & G. N. R. Co. v. Han- na (Tex. Civ. App.), 58 S. W. 548 —1042. International & G. N. R. Co. v. Heitt- ner (Tex. Civ. App.), 94 S. W. 189 —885, 903. International & G. N. R. Co. v. Hood (Tex. Civ. App.), 118 S. W. 1119— 1431. International & G. N. R. Co. v. H. P. Drought & Co. (Tex. Civ App.), 100 S. W. 1011—561. International & G. N. R. Co. v. Hugen (Tex. Civ. App.), 100 S. W. 10!"0— 1154, 1278. International & G. N. R. Co. v. Mc- CuUough (Tex. Civ. App.), 118 S. W. 558—800. 802. 855. International Coal Mine Co. v. Penn- sylvania R. Co., 162 F.'d. 996— 720. International, etc., R. Co. v. Aneh- onda (Tex. Civ. App.), 68 S. W. 74.3—1709. International, etc., R. Co. v. Ander- son, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 8—137, 138, 516, 599, 742, 768, 780. International, etc., R. Co. v. An- thony. 24 Tex. Civ. App. 9—1100. International, etc., R. Co. v. Aten (Tex. Civ. App.), 81 S. W. 346— 742. liiterMiitional, etc., R. Co. v. Berg- man (Tex. Civ. App.), 64 S. W. •".•!l— 314, 318. lnt<>rnational, etc., R. Co. v. Brazzil, 78 Tex. 314—1716, 1724, 1729. etc., R. Co. Civ. App, v. Camp- 509—768, International, bell, 1 Tex 1037, 1451. Intcniiitional, etc., R. Co. v. Cock, 68 Tex. 713-1044. lnt^^rnatiollal, etc., R. Co. v. Cope- land, 60 Tex. 325—1634. International, etc., R. Co. v. Davia, 17 Tex. Civ. App. 340—1111. International, etc., R. Co. v. Dim- mit County Pasture Co., 5 Tex. Civ. App. 186—189. International, etc., R. Co. v. Earnest & Bost (Tex. Civ. App.), 77 S. W. 29—852, 908, 924. International, etc., R. Co. v. Folliard, 60 Tex. 603—1349, 1672. International, etc., R. Co. v. Foltz, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 44—1360. International, etc., R. Co. v. Garrett, 5 Tex. Civ. App. 540—482. International, etc., R. Co v. Giesen (Tex. Civ. App.), 69 S. W. 653— 1713. International, etc., R. Co. v. Gilbert, 64 Tex. 536—988, 1258, 1712. International, etc., R. Co v. Gold- stein, 2 Tex. Civ. App. Cas. § 274 —1068. Tnteraational. etc., R. Co. v. Gray, 65 Tex. 32—991, 1044, 1267. International, etc.. R. Co. v. Hallonn, 53 Tex. 46—1083, 1115, 1117, 1123, 1131, 1214. International, etc., R. Co. v. Harder (Tex. Civ. App.), 81 S. W. 356— 1701. International, etc.. R. Co. v. Hassell, 62 Tex. 256—1410, 1582. International, etc., R. Co. v. Heittner Tox. Civ. App.), 94 S. W. 189— 924. International, etc., R. Co. v. Ilyne.*, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 20—138, 359, 838. International, etc., R. Co. v. Ing (Tex. Civ. App.), 68 S. W. 722—1028. International, etc., R. Co. v. Irvine, 64 Tex. 529—1058. 1714. International, etc.. R. Co. v. .Tones (Tex. Civ. Ajip.), 91 S. W. 611— 939. TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pages.) cxxxv International, etc., R. Co. v. Kentle, 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. § .303—1716, 1150. International, etc., R. Co. v. Lane (Tex. Civ. App.), 127 S. W. 1066— 1160. International, etc., R. Co. v. Lewis (Tex. Civ. App.), 23 S. W. 323— 137, 83S. International, etc., R. Co. v. Mahula, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 182— 76S, 771. International, etc., R. Co. v. McRae, 82 Tex. 614—798, 819. International, etc., R. Co. v. McCoun, 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. § 712—1295. International, etc., R. Co. v. McCrary (Tex. Civ. App.), 131 S. W. 11G2— 855. International, etc., R. Co. v. Miller, 9 Tex. Civ. App. 104—1187, 1190. International, etc., R. Co. v. Moody, 71 Tex. 589—614, 449, 485. International, etc., R. Co. v. Nichol- son, 61 Tex. 5.50—590, 613. International, etc., R. Co. v. No- waski (Tex. Civ. App.), 106 S. W. 437—822. International, etc., R. Co. v. Philips, 63 Tex. 590—590. International, etc., R. Co. v. Pool, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 575—795, 857. International, etc., R. Co. v. Prince, 77 Tex. 560—1044. International, etc., R. Co. v. Ritchie (Tex. Civ. App.), 26 S. W. 840— 119, 342, 344. International, etc., R. Co. v. Satter- white, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 102—1676. International, etc., R. Co. v. Server, 3 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. § 440—345, 369, 370. International, etc.. R. Co. v. Shuford (Tex. Civ. App.), 81 S. W. 1189— 1214. International, etc., R. Co. v. Smith (Tex.), 14 S. W. 642—1244. International, etc., R. Co. v. Smith (Tex.), 44 Am. & Eng. R. Co., 324 —1560. International, etc.. R. Co. v. Smith, 1 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. § 844—906. International, etc.. R. Co. v. Startz, 97 Tex. 167—908. International, ertc., R. Co. v. Startz (Tex. Civ. App.), 33 S. W. 575— 610, 618. International, etc., R. Co. v. Terry, 62 Tex. 380—1257, 1709, 1710. International, etc., R. Co. v. Thorn- ton, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 197—768. Internatdonal, etc., R. Co. v. Tisdale 74 Tex. 8—327, 369, 746, 779. International, etc., R. Co. v. True (Tex. Civ. App.), 57 S. W. 977— 541. International, etc., R. Co. v. Under- wcod, 62 Tex. 21—479, 483, 517. International, etc., R. Co. v. Wash- inorton (Tex. Civ, App.), 117 S. W. 992—1171. International, etc., R. Co. v. Watt, 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. § 781 — 431, 432. International, etc., R. Co. v. Wel- bcurne (Tex. Civ. App.), 115 S. W. 111—1924. International, etc., R. Co. v. Welsh 86 Tex. 203—1214. ' International, etc., R. Co. v. Went- worth, 87 Tex. 311—351, 757. International, etc., R. Co. v. Wilkes 68 Tex. 617—1393. International, etc., R. Co. v. Wolf, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 383—778. International, etc., R. Co. v. Young (Tex. Civ. App.), 72 S. W. 68—830. 834, 858, 924. International, etc., R. Co. v. Young (Tex. Civ. App.), 28 S. W. 819— 135. International Nav. Co. v. Farr & Bailey Mfg. Co., 181 U. S. 218— 1997. International Ry. Co. v. Central Ice Co., 121 App. Div. (N. Y.) 77— 666. International Text-Book Co. v. Lynch 81 Vt. 101—1732, 1733. International Text- Book Co. v. Pitrrr 217 U. S. 91—1736. International Watch Co. v. Delaware etc., R. Co., 80 N. J. L. 553—1907.' Interstate Commorco Com. v. Alalm'-i M. R. Co., 168 U. S. 144—1783 178.5, 1787, 1788, 1791, 1792, 1796* 1797, 1800, 1828, 1830. Interstate Commerce Com. v. Ala- bama M. R. Co., 74 Fed. 175— 17S1 1795. t'XXW 1 TABl.E OF CASES. (The refeii'iK't's an" to llic juiges.) Iiitorstule t onimorce Coin. v. A'a- l)iima M. K. Co., ft!) Fod. 227 — 17()0. Interstate Coniinerce Coin. v. Atflii- son U. Co., r.O Fed. 2!!;")— 182!). Intfistiito Comincrco Com. v. ]iaird, 15>4 V. S. 25—1734. Interstate Coininerce Com. v. Balti- more & O. K. Co.. 22;") U. S. 32() — 1812. Interstate Coinnx-rce Com. v. Balti- more, etc.. R. Co., 145 U. S. 2(5:? — 1751), 1771, 1772, 1785, 1790, 1702, 17!M, 17J»C, 1797, 1800, 1822. 1829, 1854. Interstate Commerce Com. v. Balti- more, etc., R. Co., 43 Fed. 37—1771, 179(1. 1832. Interstate Commerce Com. v. Brim- son. 154 U. S. 447—1736, 1742, 1759, 1776, 1780, 1784, 1793, 1823, 1828, 1852. Interstate Commerce Com. v. Chesa- peake & O. R. Co., 200 U. S. 361— 1798. 1865. Interstate Commerce Com. v. Chesa- peake & O. Ry. Co., 128 Fed. 59— 1786, 1798. Interstate Commerce Com. v. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 94 Fed. 272—1760. Interstate Commerce Com. v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 218 U. S. 88—1803. Interstate Commerce Com. v. Chicago G. W. Rv. Co., 209 U. S. 108—1802, 1806, 1841, 1845. Interstate Commerce Com. v. Chicago G. VV. Ry. Co., 141 Fed. 1003— 1771, 1801. Interstate Commerce Com. v. Cincin- nati, etc., R. Co., 167 U. S. 479— 510, 1759. 1771, 1780, 1782, 1828. Interstate Commerce Com. v. Cincin- nati, etc., R. Co., 146 Fed. 5.59— 1804, 1842. Interstate Commerce Com. v. Cincin- nati, etc., R. Co., 124 Fed. 624— 1795. Interstate Commerce Com. v. Cincin- nati, etc., R. Co., 76 Fed. 183— 1760, 1771, 1773. Interstate Commerce Com. v. Cincin- nati, etc., R. Co., 56 Fed. 925— 1761, 1775, 1799. Interstate Commerce Com. v. Clyde S. S. Co., 181 U. S. 29—1830. Interstate Commerce Com. v. Dela- ware, etc., R. Co., 220 U. S. 235 — 1810. Interstate Commerce Com. v. Dela- ware, cte., R. Co., 216 U. S. 536— 1S()8. Interstate Commerce Com. v. DifTeii baugh, 222 U. S. 42—1809. Interstate Commerce Com. v. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co., 85 Fed. 107 1759. 1761, 1783, 1787, 1799, 182H. Interstate Commerce Com. v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 215 U. S. 452—1821, 1855. Interstate Commerce Cora. v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 74 Fed. 784—1783. Interstate Commerce Com. v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 69 Fed. 227—1760. Interstate Commerce Com. v. Louis- ville & N. R. Co., 190 U. S. 273— 1830. Interstate Commerce Com. v. Louis- ville & N. R. Co., 118 Fed. 613— 1784, 1877. Interstate Commerce Com. v. Louis- ville & N. R. Co., 73 Fed. 409— 1759, 1783, 1787, 1796, 1797, 1841, 1876. Interstate Commerce Com. v. Nash- ville, etc., R. Co., 120 Fed. 934— 1783, 1830. Interstate Commerce Com. v. North- eastern R. Co., 83 Fed. 611—1760. Interstate Commerce Com. v. North - em Pacific Ry. Co., 216 U. S. 538— 1859. Interstate Commerce Com. v. Reich - mann, 145 Fed. 235—1948. Interstate Commerce Com. v. Soutli- ern Pac. Co., 132 Fed. 829—1849, 1876. Interstate Commerce Com. v. South- ern R. Co., 122 Fed. 800—1829, 1830, 1877. Interstate Commerce Com. v. South- ern R. Co., 105 Fed. 703—1782. Interstate Commerce Com. v. Stick- ney, 215 U. S. 98—1838, 1845. Interstate Commerce Com. v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 52 Fed. 187—1784, 1786, 1788, 1790, 1795. Interstate Commerce Com. v. West- ern, etc., R. Co., 93 Fed. 83—1702, 1760, 1785. 1798. 1799, 1825. TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pages.) cxxxvn Interstate Commerce Com. v. West- ern, etc.. R. Co., 88 Fed. 186 — 1783, 1785, 1799, 1829, 1830. Interstate Stock-Yards Co. v. Indian- apolis U. R. Co., 99 Fed. 472— 481, 1867, 1869. Interurban Rv-. etc., Co. v. Hancock, 75 Ohio St.' 88—1658. Investment Co. v. Ohio, etc., R. Co., 41 Fed. 378—778. lonnone v. New York, etc., R. Co., 21 R. I. 452—1063. Irish V. Milwaukee, etc.. R. Co., 19 Minn. 376—730, 740, 774, 775, 776. Irish V. Northern Pac. R. Co., 4 Wash. 48—1608. Iron R. Co. v. Mowery, 36 Ohio St. 418—945, 1479, 1494, 1582. Irvine v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 184 Fed. 664—1537. Irvine v. Midland Great Western R. Co., L. R. 6 Ir. 55—611, 616. Irwin V. Louisville & N. R. Co., 161 Ala. 489—1110, 1205. Irwin v. Nashville, etc., R. Co., 92 III. 103—780, 781. Irwin V. New Y'ork Cent. R. Co., 59 N. Y. 653—738. Irwin v. New York Cent. R. Co., 1 T. & C. (N. Y.) 473—780. Isaacs V. Third Ave. R. Co., 47 N. Y. 122—1155. Isaacson v. New York Cent. R. Co., 94 N. Y. 278—447, 538, 1302, 1.306, 1.344, 1345, 1361, 1362. Isbell V. New York, etc., R. Co., 27 Conn. 393—1258. Isham V. Greenham, 1 Handy (Ohio), 357—651, 675. 676. l8herwof)d v. Whitmore, 11 AL & W. 347—266. Ives V. Smith, 55 Hun (N. Y.), 606— 1849. J. Jacobs V. Central R. Co. of N. .J., 208 Pa. 535—1330, 1331. 1340. Jacobs V. Hooker, 1 Kdm. Sel. Cas. (N. Y.) 472-756. 757. Jacobs V. Third Ave. R. Co., 71 App. Div. (N. Y.) 199—1703. Jacobs V. Tutt. 33 Fed. 412—1298, 1299. 1.350. 1356. Jacobs V. West End St. Ry. Co. (Mass.), 59 N. E. 639—1246. Jacobson v. Adams Express Co., 1 O. C. D. 212—307, 471. Jackson v. Crilly, 16 Colo. 103—1598, 1626. Jackson v. Georgia R., etc., Co., 7 Ga. App. 644—1571. Jackson v. Grand Ave. R. Co., 118 Mo. 199—1593. Jackson v. Kansas City R, Co., 31 Kan. 761—1476. Jackson v. Metropolitan R. Co., 26 W. R. 175—1262. Jackson v. Natchez & W. R. Co., 114 La. 981—1085, 1202. Jackson v. Nieol, 7 Scott, 577 — 642. Jackson v. Old Colony St. Ry. Co., 206 Mass. 477—1152, 1546. Jackson v. Philadelphia Tract. Co., 182 Pa. St. 104—1637. Jackson v. Rogers, 2 Show. 327 — 117. Jackson v. Sacramento Valley R. Co., 23 Cal. 269—384, 413, 574. Jackson v. Second Ave. R. Co., 47 N, Y. 274—1155, 1425, 1434. Jackson v. St. Louis S. W. R. Co., 52 La. Ann. 1706—1440. Jackson v. Tollett, 2 Stark. 37—1214. Jackson Architectural Iron Works v. Hurlbut, 151 N. Y. 34—11, 19, 24, 30, 72, 73, 74. Jackson Architectural Iron Works v. Hurlburt, 15 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 93—30. Jacksonville, etc., R. Co. v. South- worth, 135 111. 250—1555. Jacksonville S. E. Ry. Co. v. Rabbitt, 29 111. App. 288—679. Jacksonville St. Ry. Co. v. Cappell, 21 Fla. 175—1247, 1593. Jacobus V. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., 20 Minn. 125 — 419. 1031, 1033, 1450 1450, 1461, 1465, 1573. Jacques v. Sioux City Tr. Co., 124 Iowa, 257 — 1620. Jagorer v. People's St. Rv. Co., 180 Pa. 436—1163. James v. Canadian Pac. R. Co., 5 Int. Com. C. Rep. 612-1794. James v. Canadian Pac R. Co., 4 Int. Com. Rep. 274 — 1797. James v. Metropolitan St. Rv. Co.. 80 App. Div. (N. Y.) .364—1109. James, etc.. Buggy Co. v. Cincinnati, CXXXVIH TAIU.K OF CASES. ('Jlie roforonces are to the pagee. ) "tc. R. Co., 3 Int. Com. Ucp. 082— 1829. Jainiiiet v. AiiuMiiiUi Storujje & Mov- ini: Co., 100 .Mo. App. 257—74, 114. Jamison v. Chesupoake, etc., R. Co., 9-2 Vii. 327— 12r)S. Jamison v. McDaiiiel, 25 ]\liss. 83 — 350. Jamison v. San Jose, etc., R. Co., 65 Cal. 5!)3— 10S2. 1211. Jaiinv V. Great Northern Ry. Co., G3 Minn. 380—105!!. Jaipu'tte V. Cajiital Traction Co., 34 App. D. C. 41—056. Janline v. Cornell. 50 N. J. L. 485— 1181. 1301. 1434, 1713. Jarrett v. Atlanta, etc., R. Co., 83 Ga. 347 — 1G78. Jarrett v. Great Northern R. Co., 74 Minn. 477 — 271. Jasper Trust Co. v. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 09 Ala. 416—179. Jav Wai Nam v. Anglo-Araorican Oil Co., 202 Fed. 822—2006. J. C. Williams & Co. v. Pensacola, etc., S. S. Co., 57 Fla. 544—311. Jean v. Bart, 197 Fed. 1002—1999. Jeffersonviile, etc., R. Co. v. Cleve- land. 2 Bush (Ky.), 468, 473—385, 301, 397. Jeffersonviile, etc., R. Co. v. Irvin, 46 Fed. 180—227, 232. Jeffersonviile, etc.. R. Co. v. Parmalee, 51 Ind. 44—998, 1237. Jeffersonviile, etc., R. Co. v. Riley, 39 Ind. 508—1013, 1169. Jeffersonviile, etc.. R. Co. v. Rogers, 93 Ind. 1106—1722. Jeffersonviile, etc.. R. Co. v. Swift, 26 Ind. 450—1577. 1680. Jeffersonviile R. Co. v. Cotton, 29 Ind. 498—306. Jeffersonviile R. Co. v. Hendricks, 26 Ind. 228-1212, 1234, 1237. 1675. Jeffersonviile R. Co. v. Rogers, 38 Ind. 116—1148, 1181, 1304. 1726. Jeffersonviile R. Co. v. Rogers, 28 Ind. 1—1427, 1428, 1431. Jeffersonviile R. Co. v. Smith, 26 Ind. 4.50—1234. Jeffersonviile R. Co. v. White, 6 Bush fKv.), 251—530. Jeffrey v. Bigelow, 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 518—564. Jeffries v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 88 Neb. 208—250, 817, 840, 897. Jeffries v. Western Uuiou Telegraph Co., 2 Ga. App. 853—94. Jeffris v. Fitchburg R. Co., 93 Wis 250—644. Jellett V. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., 30 Minn. 265—234, 262, 277, 582. Jemison v. McDaniel, 25 Mias. S3 — 145. Jemison v. Southwestern R. Co., 75 Ga. 444—145, 1297. Jeneks v. Coleman, Fed. Cas. No. 7.258 (2 Sumu. U. S.) 221—75, 945, 1070, 1127, 1137, 1407. Jenkins v. Brooklyn, etc., R. Co., 51 N. Y. Supp. 216—1416. Jenkins v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 41 Wis. 112—1059. Jenkins v. Mbtlow, 1 Sneed. (Tenn.) 248—5, 9. Jenkins v. Picket, 17 Tenn. (9 Yerg.) 480—12, 71. 186. Jennings v. Clyde S. S. Co., 133 N. Y. Supp. 298—2016. Jennings v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 127 N. Y. 438—30, 44, 452, 472, 480, 482, 497, 735, 738, 753, 756, 759. 1307. Jennings v. Grind Trunk R. Co., 15 Ont. App. 477—1054. Jennings v. Great Northern R. Co., 35 L. J. Q. B. 1.5—1071. Jennings v. Smith, 160 Fed. 139 — 889. Jennings v. Smith, 99 Fed. 180 — 473. Jessel v. Bath, L. R. 2 Exch. 207 — 220. Jessup v. Carnegie, 80 N. Y. 441 — 300. Jewell V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 54 Wis. 610—1572. 1680. Jewell V. Grand Trunk R. Co., 55 N. H. 84—241, 272, 383, 405. Jewett V. Klein, 27 N. J. Eq. 550— 1000. Jewett V. Olsen, 18 Or. 419 — 328, 320. J. H. Carter &. Co. v. Southern Rv! Co., 3 Ga. Aj)jy. 34 — 443. J. H. Cownle Glove Co. v. Merchants' Dispatch Transp. Co., 130 Iowa, 327 — 22. J. .T. Douglass Co. v. ]MiT;n "o'l. Transfer R. Co., 62 Minn. 288 — 522, 528. lABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pages.) CXXXIX J. '^L Pace Mule Co. v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co., 160 N. C. 215—514. Joerg V, Atchison, etc., Ry. Co., 152 111. App. 229—407. John V. Bacon, L. R. 5 C. P. 437— 1121. John V. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 42 Mont. 18 — 146U, 1481. John J. Radel Co. v. Borches, 147 Ky. 506—1281. Johns V. Georgia Rv., etc., Co., 133 Ga. 525—1609. John Schroeder Lumber Co. v. Chi- cago & X. W. Ry. Co., 135 Wis. 575 -780, 796. Johnson v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 25 Hun (N. Y.). 251—1534. Johnson v. Alabama, etc., R. Co., 69 Miss. 191—456, 578, 819, 1458. Johnson v. Alabama Great Southern R. Co. (Ala.), 37 So. 226—860. Johnson v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 125 Mass. 75 — 1015. Johnson v. Cavuga & S. R. Co., 11 Barb. (N. Y'.) 621—669. Johnson v. Chicago R. Co., 58 Iowa, 348—1258. Johnson v. Concord R. Corp., 46 N. H. 213—1015, 1025, 1027, 1069, 1070, 1558. Johnson v. Detroit, etc.. R. Co., 130 Mich. 453—1167. Johnson v. Dominion Express Co., 28 Ont. Rep. 203—162. Johnson v. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co., 90 Ge. 810—29, 343, 359, 736, 745, 749. Johnson v. Fort Worth, etc., R. Co., 9 Tex. Civ. App. 619—270. Johnson v. Friar, 4 Yerg (Tenn.), 48—71. Johnson v. Grand Trunk R. Co. X. H. 626—328, 331. Jolinson V. Hudson River R. Co. X. Y. 6.5—1542, 1543. 1545. Johnson v. Int'Turban St. R. Co., 88 X. Y. vSupp. 866-1477. Johnson v. Lightsey, 34 Ala. 169 — • 358. Johnson v. Tymisville, etc., R. Co., 104 Ala. 241—1402. •Tolinson v. ]VIanliattan R. Co., 52 Tliin (X. Y.), 111—1556. Joln«on V. Midland R. Co., 4 Exch, 307—117, 126, 135, 345. 44 20 Johnson v, Xew York Cent. R. Co., 33 X. Y. 610—551, 638, 752. Johnson v. New York Cent. R. Co., 39 How. Pr. (X. Y.) 127—753, 776. Johnson v. Xorthern Pac. R, Co., 47 Minn. 430—1716. Johnson v. Pensacola, etc., R. Co., 16 Fla. 623—41, 101, 165. Johnson v. Philadelpliia, etc., R. Co., 63 Md. 106—999, 1014, 1026, 1455. Johnson v. Seattle Electric Co., 35 Wash. 382—1214. Johnson v. St. Joseph Ry., etc., Co., 143 Mo. App. 376—1622, 1686. Johnson v. Stoddard, 100 Mass. 306 —191. Johnson v. Stone, 11 Humph. (Tenn.) 419—1291, 1296. Johnson v. Texas Cent. R. Co., 42 Tex. Civ. App. 604—1066. Johnson v. Toledo, etc., Ry, Co., 133 Mich. 596—566, 754. Johnson v. Town of Irasburgh, 47 Vt. 28—1600. .Johnson v. Washington Water P. Co., 62 Wash. 619—1002. Johnson v. Wells, 6 Xev. 224 — 1702, 1718. Johnson v. West Chester, etc., R. Co., 70 Pa. St. 357—1613. Johnson v. Winona, etc., R. Co., 11 Minn. 296—1665. Johnson v. Yazoo & M. V. R. Co., 94 Miss. 447—1651, Johnson v. Yonkers R. Co., 101 App. Div. (X. Y.) 6.5-1681. Johnson Express Co. v. Citv of Chi- cago, 136 111. App. 368—39, 72. Johnson, Xesbitt & Co. v. Gulf &, Chicago R. Co., 82 Miss. 452—293. Johnston v. Chicago, etc., R, Co., 70 Xeb. 364—284, 837, 849. Johnston v. Davis, 60 Mich. 56 — 635. Johnston v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 150 Mo. App. 304 — 1109, 1651. Johnstone v. Richmond, etc., R, Co., 39 S. C. 5.5—431, 445, 458, 494, 496, 571, 577, 889. 896, 1459. Joliet St. R. Co. V. Call, 42 HI. App. 41—1556. Joliet St. Rv. Co. v. Diiggan, 45 IIL .App. 450—1583. Jolly V. Atchinson & S. F. Ry. Co. (Cal. App.), 131 Pac. 1057—242. cxl TABLE OK CASES. (Tlie refori'ncos are to tlio pages.) Jonas V. Long Island R. Co., 21 Misc. U. (N. Y.) 300— 14S(). Joiii's V. Alabama Miuoral 11. Co., 107 Ala. 40^)— 15U9. Join's V. Andoi-son, 82 Aliu 302—530. Joiu's V. Bond, 40 Fed. 281—1297. Jones V. Boston, etc., K. Co., 03 Me. 18S— 039. Jones V. l^tv-^toii & N. St. R. Co., 205 Mass. lOS— 1472. Jones V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 103 Mass. 245— !)S5, 1018. Jones V. Brooklyn, etc., R. Co., 3 N. Y. Supp. 2r);i— 159S. Jones V. Cliicago, etc., R. Co., 43 Minn. 279—1573. Jones V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 42 Minn. 183—1243, 1680. Jones V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 20 Minn. 125—1628. Jones V. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 89 Ala. 376—760, 771. Joni'5 V. Earl, 37 Cal. 630—214, 499. Jones V. Fivcman, 29 Md. 273—693. Jones V. ^Tinneapolis, etc., R. Co., 91 Minn. 229—308. 312. 575, 857. Jones V. Newport News, etc., Co., 65 Fed. 736—1867. Jones V. New York Cent., et-c., R. Co., 46 App. Div. (N. Y.) 470—1009. Jones V. New York, etc., R. Co., 29 Barb. (N. Y.) 633—119, 357, 596. Jones V. Norwich, etc., Transp. Co., 50 Barb. (N. Y^) 193—198, 1350, 1353. Jones V. Pearl, 1 Stra. 556 — 649. Jones V. Pitcher, 3 Stew. & P. (Ala.) 13.5—26, 76. Jones V. Pricster. 1 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. § 613—1296, 1298. Jones V. Quinev, etc., R. Co.. 117 Mo. App. 523—902. Joneuis, etc., R. Co., 89 Mo. App. 653—770. Jones V. St. Ixiuis T. M. & S. Ry. Co., 135 Mo. App. 408—1160. Jones V. Union Ry. Co., 18 App. Div. (N. Y.) 207—1478, 1508. Jones V. Voorhees, 10 Ohio, 145 — 62, 427, 457, 1294, 1295, 1338, 1449, 1452, 1453. Jones V. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 17 Mo. App. 158—1050, 1424. Jones V. Western Union Tel. Co., 18 Fed. Rep. 717—93. Jones V. Western Vermont R. Co., 27 Vt. 399 — 42. Jones-Lane Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 148 N. C. 580—888. Jordan v. American E.vpres8 Co., 80 Me. 225—571. Jordan v. Fall River R. Co., 6 Cush. (Ma.ss.) 09—117, 1291, 1295, 1347, 1348, 1364. Jordan v. Gulf, etc., R. Co. (Miss.), 58 So. 595—911, 938. Jordan v. New York, etc., R. Co., 165 Mass. 346—1600. Jordan v. Pennsylvania Co., 18 Am. & Eng. R. Cas'. 647—232. Jordan v. Seattle, etc., Ry. Co., 47 Wash. 503—1485. Jordan v. St. Louis & M. R. Co., 122 Mo. App. 330-1492. .Jorpev V. \\ il.iams, 3 Dalv, 162 — 135*6. Joseph V. Georgia R., etc., Co., 88 Ga. 426—747. Joslin V. Grand Rapids, etc., R. Co., 53 Mich. 322—1562. Joslyn V. Grand Trunk R. Co., 51 Vt. 92 227. Jov V. Winnisimmet Co., 114 Mass. 63—59. Jovnes V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 235 Pa. 232—348, 365. Jovnes V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 234 Pa. 321—723. J. P. Williams & Co. v. Pensacola, etc., R. Co., 57 Fla. 544—362. J. Russell Mfg. Co. v. New Haven Steamboat Co., 50 N. Y. 121—249. J. S. Appel Suit & Cloak Co. v. Piatt, 132 Pac. 71—500. J. T. iMorgan Lumber Co. v. West Kentucky Co., 811 Fed. 271—55. Judd v. Littlejohn, 11 Wis. 176— 675. TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pages.) cxli Judd V. New York, etc., S. Co., 117 Fed. 206—412. J*Udson Freight Forwarding Co. v. IXlaware, etc., E. Co., 163 111. App. 22—629. Judson V. Giant Powder Co., 107 Cal. 549—1479, 1507. Judson V. Western R. Co., 6 Allen (Mass.), 486 — 424, 425, 427, 493, 528, 1452. Judson V. Western R. Corp., 86 Mass. (4 Allen) 520—171, 375, 7G3, 774. Julien V. Steamer Wade Hampton, 27 La. Ann. 377— 12G2, 1512. Junction Puiilroad Co. v. Bank of Ashland, 12' Wall. (U. S.) 226— 450. June V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 153 Mass. 79—1018, 1019. Junod V. Chicai^^o, etc., R. Co., 47 Fed. 290—1829. Jurkic^vicz v. 111. Cent. R. Co., 145 111. 44 — 1686. K. Kaase v. Gulf, etc.. R. Co., 41 Tex. Civ. App. 370—1009. Kaeiser v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 18 Fed. 151—1758. Kahn v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 115 N. C. 638—1352. Kain v. Smith, 80 N. Y. 468—45, 46. Kaiser v. Hoey, 1 N. Y. Supp. 429— 478, 480. Kaiser v. Latimer, 40 App. Div. (N. Y.) 149—1478. Kaisnr v. Northern Pac. Rv. Co., 203 Fed. 993—1570, 1606. Kaiser v. St. Ivouis Tr. Co., lOG Mo. .•\pp. 708—1619. Kalina & Cizek v. Union Pac. R. Co. (Kan.). 76 Pac. 438 — 906. Kallman v. United States Express Co.. 3 Kan. 20.5—425, 455, 493, 576, 578. Kallmrrten v. Cowen, 111 Fed. 297 — 1520. Kambour v. Boston & M. R. R. (N. 11.), 86 Atl. 624—1.591, 1098. Kane v. Cicero, etc.. R. Co., 100 111. .\pp. 181—954, 1215. Kansas A A. V. P. Co. v. Ayers, 63 Ark. 331—887. Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. Barnctt, 69 Ark. ioO— 860. Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. Beck- ham (Tex. Civ. App.), 152 S. W. 228—824, 818. Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. Cox, 25 Okla. 774—172. Kansas Citv, etc., R. Co. v. Dalton, 65 Kan. 661—1710. Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. Flvnn, 78 Mo. 195—1545. Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. Foster, 134 Ala. 244—1448. Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. Fite, 67 Miss. 373—1722. Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. Graham (Tex. Civ. App.), 145 S. W. 632— 877. Kansas Citv. etc., R. Co. v. Higdou, 04 Ala. 286-98, 1297. Kansas Citv, etc., R. Co. v. Holden, 66 Ark. 602—1428. Kansas Citv, etc., R. Co. v. Holland, 68 Miss. '351— 151, 518, 804. Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. Kellv, 36 Kan. 655 — 1181. Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. Kirksev, 48 Ark. 366—1019. Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. Lilly (Miss.), 8 So. 644—128, 156, 184. Kansas City, etc.. R. Co. v. Little, 66 Kan. 378—1711, 1719. Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. McCun- ninghara '(Tex. Civ. App.), 149 S. W. 420—853. Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. McGahev, 63 Ark. 344—1358. Kansas Citv, etc., R. Co. v. Morrison, 34 Kan. 502—396, 1297. Kansa-s City, etc., R. Co. v. Patten, 3 Kan. App. 338—385, 13.10, 1.356, 1359. Kansa.s City, etc., P. Co. v. Phillihcrt, 25 Kan. 586—1544. Kansas Citv, etc.. R. Co. v. Phillips, 98 Ala. 159—1154. Kansas Citv, etc., P. Co. v. Rilov, 68 Miss. 76.5-1027, 1417. Kan.sas City, etc., P. Co. v. Rode- baugh, 38 Kan. 45 — 1452, 1454 1455. Kansas Citv, etc., R. Co. v. Sanders, 98 Ala. 293—1131. 1263, 1726. Kansa,s City, etc., R. Co. v. Simp- oilii TABLE OF CASES. (The reffroiicoH arc Id tlu' pagea.) »on. 30 Iviui. 645 — 438, 4i>j, 4l>3, 1450. Kiuiaits Cit^', t'tc, K. Co. v. SU>uor, 4y 1«W. -JO'J— 141)4. Kansiis City, etc-., U. Co. v. SIoiut, 51 Fttl. tJ49— liiUS. 12t>it. Kansas City, etc., H. Co. v. \\ usliing- lon, 74 Ark. D— 13G1. Kansas City, etc.. K. Co. v. Wi'st (Tex. Civ. App.), 149 S. W. 20li— S45, S74. Kansas Citv Soutliom H. Co. v. Carl, 227 U. S. lJ31t— 500, 1!)14. Kansas Citv SoiiUuTn K. Lo. v. Carl, !)1 Ark. 07—11)20. Kansas City S. K. Co. v. C. H. Albers, Commission Co.. 223 U. S. 573— 1S3G, 1S43, 1847. Kansas City Suutlicrn R. Co. v. C. H. AllK'rs Ck>mmission Co., 79 Kan. 50 — GG5, 713. 724. Kansas Citv Southern R. Co. v. Davis, 83 Ark. 217—1532. 1597. Kansas City Southern R, Co. v. Rose- brook-Josey Grain Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 114 S. W. 436—104, 177, 290. Kansas Citv Southern R. Co. v. Thomas, 97 Ark. 287—1358, Kansas Citv Southern R. Co. v. Wat- son, 102 Ark. 499—1006. Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Wor- thington, 101 Ark. 128-1685. Kansas City S. R. Co. v. Brooks, 84 Ark. 233—1981. Kansas City S. R. Co. v. Nixon-Mc- Clintock Co. (Ark.), 154 S. W. 205 891, 913. Kan.'^as City S. R. Co. v. vSkinner, 88 Ark. 189—1291, 1292, 1293. Kansas Citv Transfer Co. v. Neis- -n-anger, iS Mo. App. 103—381, 631. Kansas, etc.. R. Co. v. Avres, 63 Ark. 331—843, 880. Kansas, etc., R. Co. v. Bayles, 19 Colo. 348—160. Kansas, etc.. R. Co. v. Dorough, 72 Tex. 108-1577. Kansas Pac. R. Co. v. Keesler, 18 Kan. 52.3—1424, 1145. 1722. Kansas Pac. R. Co. v. Ludin, 3 Colo. 94—1083. Kansas Pac. R. Co. v. McCann, 2 Wvo. 3—693. Kansas Pac. K. Co. v. Miller, 2 Colo. 442—1082, 1220, 1501, 1557. Kansas Pac. K. Co. v. Moutelle, 10 Kan. Hit— 1345. Kan-as Pac. K. Co. v. Nichols, 9 Kan. 235, 25.3—23, 12G. Kansas Pac. R. Co. v. Pcavey, 29 Kan. 169 — 455. Kansas Pac. R. Co. v. Reynolds, 17 Kan. 251—419, 440, 446, 1452, 1456. Kansas Pac. R. Co. v. Reynolds, 8 Kan. 623—576, 579, 597. Kansas Pac. R. Co. v. Salmon, 11 Kan. 83—1063. Kaplan v. Lyons Building & 0. Co., 61 Misc. li. (N. Y.) 315—1612. Kaplan v. Midland R. Terminal Co., 88 N. Y. Supp. 94.')— 821, 832. Kaplan v. Titus, 140 App. Div. (N. Y.) 416—1350. Kappes v. Brown Shoe Co., 116 Mo. App. 154—1067. Karle v. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 55 Mo. 476—1511. Karr v. Milwaukee Light, etc., Co., 132 Wis. 662—983, 1604. Kaskaskia Bridge Co. v. Shannon, 1 Gilm. (Iil.( 15—163. Kates V. Atlanta Baggage & Cab Co., 107 Ga. 630—708, 1127. Katz V. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 46 Misc. R. (N. Y.) 259—623, 1363. Katzenstein v. Raleigh, etc., R. Co., 84 N. C. 688—353. Kauevsky v. New York, etc., R. Co., 53 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 564—1341. Kauffman Milling Co. v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 400— 1787. Kaweabany v. Boston & M. R. Co., 199 Mass. 586—626. Kav V. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 29 App. Div. (N. Y.) 466—1494. Kean v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 61 Md. 154—1596. Kearnev v. London, etc., R. Co., L. R. 6 Q. B. 759—1479. Kearnev v. London, etc., R. Co., L. R. 5 Q.'B. 411—1478. Kearnev v. Seaboard Air Line Ry,, 158 N. C. 521—1568, 1667. Keating v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 97 Mich. 154—1021, 1041. Keating v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 49 N. Y. 673—1236, 1238, 1243. TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pages.) cxliii Keating v. New York Central, etc., R. Co., 3 Lans. (N. Y.) 469—1230, 1624. Keator v. Scranton Traction Co., 191 Pa. St. 102—962, 1007, 1505. Kebbee v. Connecticut Co., 85 Conn. 641—1634. Keefe v. Boston, etc., R. Co.. 142 Mass. 251—1012. Keegan v. Third Ave. R. Co., 34 App. Div. (X. Y.) 297—1214, 1217. Keegan v. Western R. Co., 8 X. Y. 115—1541. Keeler v. Goodwin. Ill Mass. 490 — 267. Keeling & Field v. Walter Connolly & Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 157 S. W. 232 —673. Keen v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 129 Mo. App. 301—1169. Kecne v. Lizardi. 5 La. 431 — 1176. Keene v. The Whistler, Fed. Cas. Xo. 7.645 (2 Sawy. 348)— 1991. Koeney v. Grand Trunk R. Co.. 47 N. Y. 52.5—157. 402. Keeter v. Wilmington, etc.. R. Co., 86 X. C. 346—353. Kofaurer v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 122 Fed. 966—1505. Kehan v. Wa-shinErton Rv.. etc., Co., 28 App. D. C. 108—1547. Keifner v. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co., 223 Pa. St. .50—979. 1603. Keith V. Pinkham. 43 Me. 501—1627. Kelham v. Steamship Kensington, 24 La. Ann. 100—570. Keller v. Baltimore & 0. R. Co., 196 Pa. St. 57—923. Keller v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 174 Pa. St. 02—707. Keller v. Hestonville. etc., P. R. Co., 149 Pa. St. 6.5—1607. Keller v. Xew York Cent. R. Co.. 2 Abb. App. Dec. fX\ Y.) 480—1225, 1243. Keller v. Sioux Citv. etc., R. Co.. 27 Minn. 178— 1237." 12tO, 1542. 1565. Kellprman v. Kansas City, etc., R. To. (Kan.). 34 S. W. 41—431. Kellerman v. Kansas Citv, etc., R. To., 136 Mo. 177—660. KHlev V. Oriind Trunk W. R. Co.. 46 Ind. Apn. 697—1408. 1537. Kellev V. Xew York, etc., R. Co., 109 X. Y. 44— nOS. 1488. Kellogg V. Boston & M. R. R. Co., 210 :Mass. 324—1667. Kellogg V. Xew York Cent., etc., R. Co., 79 X. Y. 72— 172S. Kellogg V. Sowerby, 87 N. Y. Supp. 412—710. Kellogg V. Suffolk, etc., R. Co., 100 X. C. 158—128, Kellow V. Central Iowa R. Co., 68 Iowa, 470—1212, 1263, 1268. Kelly V. Adams Express Co., 134 Ky. 208—797. Kelly V. Grand Trunk W. Ry. Co., 46 Ind. App. 697—1468, 1537. Kelly V. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 70 Mo. 604, 607—1598, 1677. Kelly V. Lewis Inv. Co. (Or.), 133 Pac. 826 — 1530. Kelly V. Manhattan R. Co., 112 X. Y. 443—1081. 1108. 1125. Kelly V. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 89 App. Div. (X. Y.) 159—1211. Kelly V. Rhoads, 188 U. S. 1—1734, Kelly V. Southern Minnesota R. Co.,- 28 Minn. 98—1556. Kelton V. Taylor, 11 Lea (Tenn.), 264—551. Kemendo v. Fruit Dispatch Co. (Tex. Civ. Ap.), 131 S. W. 73—298, 1904, 1920. 1924. Kemp v. Coughtrv, 11 Johns. (N. Y.) 107—8, 75, 109, 110, 265. Kemp v. Western Union TeL Co., 28 Xeb. 661 — 92. Kendall v. London, etc., R. Co., L. R. 7 Exch. 373—822, 823. Kennard v. Burton, 25 Me. 39 — 1541. Kennedy v. Birmingham Ry., etc., Co (Ala.), 35 So. 108—1394. Kennedy v. ^^lobile, etc., R. Co 74 Ala. 430—198, 384. Kennedy v. Xorth Jersey St. R Co 3 St. Ry. Rep. 608 (X^ J. Supp.) — 975. Kennedy v. Rochester, etc., R. Co 130 X. Y. 054—1561. Kenney v. New York Cent., etc.. R. Co., 125 X. Y. 422—92, 462 1440 14.54. 1463. Krnnon v. Railroad Co., 51 La Ann l.Sflfl — 1222. Kenny v. Xew York Cent., etc R Co.. 125 X. Y. 422—519. Kent v. Tfudson River R. Co.. '>2 Barb (X. Y.) 278—357, 590. C.\llV TABLE OF CA^ES. (Tlie loftTi'iiffs urc to llie [fiiges.; KiMit V. Miillaiul U. (,\... L. K. 10 Q. H. 1— 74!t, 7 lis. Kent & Downs v. \\ aiUi'v Soutlicrii Ky. Vo., I. Hi (ui. S.">7— fiO'J. Kontuckv Bank v. .vdiims Kxpross Co., !);! r."s. 174— S!)a, 1457. Kfutiu'kv font. R. Co. v. Dills, 4 nnsli."(Ky.) 593—15158. \lS.i. Kcntiukv (.Vnt. R. Co. v. Thomas, 79 Kv. TCO— 1114. 1244. 1544, 1(J27, U;2S. Kcntuikv tVnt. R. Co. v. Thomas, 6 Ky. Law Rep. 5!)'.)— 1053. Kentucky, etc.. Bridgo Co. v. Tx)uis- ville, etc., R. Co.. 37 Fed. 507—77, 105. 729, 751. 1760, 1701. I77G, 1791. 1S24. 1825, 1S52. Kentucky, etc., Brid}?e Co. v. Quin- kort. 2 Iml. App. 244—1220, 1254, Kills. Kcntuikv. etc.. Ins. Co. v. Western & A. R. Co., 67 Tenn. (8 Baxt.) 268— 242. 774. Kentucky Wagon Mfg. Co. v. Ohio & M. Ry. Co., 98 Kv. 152—627, 093, 701. Keokuk Northern Line Packet Co. v. True. 68 Til. 008-1013. 11G9. Kinkuk Packet Co. v. Henry, 50 111. o(;4_95P. 12S4. 1005. Kepner v. Harrisburg Tract. Co., 183 Pa. 24—1508. Keppel V. Petcr.sburg R. Co., Chase's Dec. (a. S.) 167—324. Kerr y. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 100 111. App. 148-1020. Kerr v. Grand Trunk R. Co.. 24 U. C. C. P. 209— ]:Mn. Kerr t. Liverpool, etc.. R. Co., 12 Wklv. Dig. (N. Y.) 20.5—447. Kerwhacker V. Cleveland, etc.. R. Co., 3 Ohio St. 172—1258. Kes«enger v. Fitzgerald. 152 N. C. 247—866. 941, 19.')2. 1979. Kessler v. New York, etc., R. Co., 61 N. Y. 538—1300. Ketchum v. American Merchants' U. Exp.. 52 Mo. 390—425, 457, 572. Kettenhofen v. Globe Transfer & Stor- age Co.. 70 Wa-sh. 645—114. Keves-Marshall Bros. Livery Co. v. St. Louis & H. Ry. Co., 105 Mo. App. 556—786. Keves-Marshall Bros. Livery Co. v. St. Leans, etc.. H. Co. (Mo. App.), 81' S. \V. 53—904. Keyser v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 66 Mich. 390—1504. Keystone Lumber Yard v. Ya/.oo & M. V. R. Co., 97 Miss. 433—251. Kidd v. Pear.son, 128 U. S. 1—1735. 1S52. Kid will v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. (W. Va.). 77 S. K. 285—977. Kill" v. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 32 Kan. 263—459, 771. Kill" v. Old Colony, etc., R. Co., 117 ]\!ass. 591—37, 330, 333. Kiglit V. Metropolitan R. Co., 21 Ai>i>. D. C. 494—1199, 1211. Kight V. Wrightsville & T. R. Co., 127 (Ja. 204—380. 400, 409. Kilduir V. Boston Elev. R. Co., 195 Mass. 307—1003. Killam v. Wellesley & B. St. Ry. Co. (Mass.), 101 N. E. 374-1520. Killniever v. Wheeling Traction Co. (W.'Va.), 77 S. E. 908—902, 1577. Kilpatrick v. Pennsylvania Co., 140 Pa. St. 502—1680. Kilroy v. Delaware, etc.. Canal Co., 121 N. Y. 22—257. Kimball v. American Express Co., 76 N. H. 81—829. Kimball v. Rutland Railroad, 26 Vt. 247—14, 33. 42, 51. 289, 427, 419, 785, 822, 1452, 14.56. Kimball v. Western R. Corp., 6 Grav (Mass.), 542—193. 204, 404. Kime v. Southern Ry., Co., 100 N. C. 457—889, 926. Kime v. Southern Ry. Co., 150 N. C. 451—887. Kime v. Southern Ry. Co., 153 N. C. 398—880. 884. Kimcs V. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co.. 85 Mo. 611—589. Kimic V. San .Tnse-Los G. T. R. Co., 150 Cal. 379—1497. Kindall v. London, etc., R. Co., L. R. 7 Exch. 37.3—33. Kindellan v. Mt. Washington R. Co., 70 N. H. 54—1004. Kindlev v. Seaboard Air Line L. Ry., 151 N. C. 207—1369. King V. Central of Ga. R. Co., 107 Ga. 754—961, 1006. King V. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 69 Miss. 245—1184. TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pages.) cxlv King V. Interstate Consol. St. R. Co. (R. I.), 51 Atl. 301—1215. King V. Macon, etc., R. Co., C2 Barb. (N. Y.) 160—739, 760. King V. New Brunswick, etc., R. Co., 36 Misc. R. (X. Y.) 555—203, 383, 393. King V. New York. etc.. R. Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 272—1797. King V. Ohio, etc., R. Co., 22 Fed. 413 1187. King V. Richards, 6 Whart. (Pa.) 418 —209, 532. King V. ShcDherd, 3 Story (U. S.), 349—75, 318, 588. King V. Southern Ry. Co., 128 Ga. 285—1179. King V. Woodbridge, 34 Vt. 565 — 437, 599, 602, 616. Kingman v. Lvnn & B. R. Co.. 181 Mass. 387— i092. Kingman St. Louis Implement Co. v. Southern Ry. Co.. 133 Mo. App. 317 —202. Kingsford v. Merrv, 26 L. J. Exch. 83 —210. Kingsley v. Lake Sliore, etc., R. Co., 125 Mass. 54—945, 1266. Kingston v. Fort Wayne & E. R. Co., 112 Mich. 40—1198. Kinkade v. Atlantic Ave. R. Co., 9 Mi.sc. Rep. (N. Y.) 273—1218, 1238. Kinnavey v. Terminal R. Ass'n of St. Louis,' 81 Fed. S02— 1964. Kinnear v. Midland R. Co., 19 L. T. N. S. 387— 6;J2. Kinner v. Lake Shore, etc.. R. Co., 69 Ohio St. 339—1029. Kinney v. Central R. Co., 34 N. J. L. 51.3—1033. Kinney v. Central R. Co., 32 N. J. L. 407—1331, 1450, 1462, 1465. Kinney v. London, etc., R. Co., L. R. 5 Q. B. 411—1479. Kinney v. Ivouisville & N. R. Co., 99 Ky. 59—1166, 1194. Kinney v. Loui-ville. etc.. R. Co. (Ky.) 34 S. W. 1066— 1190. Kinney v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 125 N. Y. 422—497, 1165. Kinnick v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 69 Iowa, 665—34, 359, 819, 823, 838 926. Kinsley V. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 125 Mass. 54—68. Kirby v. Adams Express Co., 2 Mo. App. 369—23. 39, 41, 457. Kirby v. Chicago & A. R. Co., 242 IlL 418—538, 839. 929, 1804. Kirby v. Chicago & A. R. Co., 146 111. App. 31— ISS.l. Kirbv V. Delaware, etc., Canal Co., 20 App. Div. (N. Y.) 473—549. Kirov V. Western Union Tel. Co., 7 S. D. 623—70, 90. Kird V. New Orleans & N. W. R. Co., 105 La. Ann. 226—1216. Kirk V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 59 Minn. 161—385. Kirk V. Folsom, 23 La. Ann. 584 — 576, 1993. Kirk V. Lehigh Vallev Transp. Co., 135 Mo. App. 99 — 763. Kirk V. Seattle Elec. Co., 58 Wash. 283—1392, 1396, 1399, 1411, 1432. Kirkendall v. Union Pac. R. Co., 200 Fed. 197—1467, 1495. Kirkland v. Charleston, etc., R. Co., 79 S. C. 273—1391. Kirkland v. Dinsmore, 62 N. Y. 171 — 430, 431, 434, 445. Kirkland v. Leary, 2 Sweeny (N. Y. ) 677—358, 596. Kirkman v. Shawcross, 6 T. R. 14 — 630. Kirkpatriek v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 161 Mo. App. 515—967, 1538, 1628. Kirst V. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co., 46 Wis. 489—571, 1479. Kirtland v. Montgomery, 1 Swan Crenii.) 452—5, 9, 10, 14, 76, 108, 110. Kizir V. Tdxarkana. etc., Rv. Co., 66 Ark. 348—1847. Klair v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. (Del. Super.), 78 Atl. 1085—785, 830, 861. 893, 897, 900, 911, 932. Klair v. ^^■ilmington Steamboat Co. (Del. Super.) 54 Atl. 694 — 492. Klass Commission Co. v. Wabash R. Co., 80 Mo. App. 164—398. Klauber v. American Express Co., 21 Wis. 21-560, 555. Kleflman v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 116 App. Div. 334—1652. Kleiber v. Peoples R. Co., 107 Mo. 240 — 1565, 1583. Klein v. Dun lap, 16 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 34—738. ex Ivi TAHl.E OF CASKS. (The references are to tlie pages.) Klein v. Hamburg- Amerieiiii Paeket Co., 3 Daly (N. Y.) 3!)0— 1350, 13:)1, 1350. Kl.in V. Jewett, 27 N. J. Eq. mO— 1213. KKin V. Jewett, 20 N. J. Eq. 474—46, 47. 1213. Klenk v. Oregon Short Line R. Co., 27 Utah. 42S— 1434. Kline v. Central Pae. R. Co., 37 Cal. 4t)0— 12r)S. 142ti. l.')S2. Klinger v. United Tract. Co.. 02 App. Div. (N. Y.) 100—1211. ir)01. Kloppenburg v. Minneaitolis, etc., Ry. Co. (iMinn.), 143 X. W. 322— 16r)9. Klutts V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 75 Mo. 042—1704. 1705, 1715. Knapp V. Curtis, 9 Wend. (N. Y.) GO — S2. Knapp V. Murray, 18 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 165—1269. Knapp V. Sprague, 9 Mass. 262 — 530. Knapp, etc., Co. v. McCaffrey, 178 111. 107—17. Knauff v.. San Antonio Tract. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 70 S. W. 1011— 1218. Knauss v. Lake Erie & W. R. Co. (Ind. App.), 64 N. E. 95 — 1655. Knell V. United States, etc., S. Co., 1 J. & S. (N. Y.) 423—453, 461. Knieriem v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 116 App. Div. (N. Y.) 661— 1386. Knieriem v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 109 App. Div. (N. Y.) 709— 1295. Knight V. Pontchartrain R. Co., 23 La. Ann. 462—1613. Knight V. Portland, etc., R. Co., 56 Me. 234—1016, 1212, 1361. Knight V. Providerce, etc., R. Co., 13 R?I. 572—638, 740, 778. Knight V. Quincy, etc., R. Co., 120 Mo. App. 311—788. Knight V. Southern R. Co., 65 S. C. 78—385. Knott V. Botany Worsted Mills, 179 U. S. 69—2023. Knott V. Raleigh, etc., E. Co., 98 N. C. 73—740, 754. Knowles v. .\tlantic, etc., R. Co., 38 Me. 55—10. Knowles v. Dabney, 105 Mass. 437— ;f.')0. Knowles v. Norfolk Southern R. Co., 102 N. C. 59—1720. Knowles v. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co., 4 IJiss. (U. S.) 466-745. Knowiton v. Erie R. Co., 19 Ohio St. 260—449, 451, 457, 1450. Knowiton v. Milwaukee City R. Co., 59 Wis. 278—998, 1580, 1599. Knowiton v. Providence, etc., S. S. Co., 33 N. Y. Super. Ct. (1 Jones & S.) 370—1992. Knox V. Rives, 14 Ala. 249—10, 101). Knoxville Iron Co. v. Dobson, 7 Lea (Tenn.) 367—1120. Knoxville Traction Co. v. Lane, 103 Tenn. 376—1150, 1176. Knoxville Traction Co. v. Wilkerson, 117 Tenn. 482— Knuckey v. Butte Elec. Ry. Co., 41 Mont. 314—1482. Knudsen-Ferguson Fruit Co. v. Michi- gan Cent. R. Co., 148 Fed. 968— 1841, 1890. Koch V. Brooklvn Heights R. Co., 75 App. Div. (N. Y.) 282—1186. Koeline v. New York, etc., R. Co., 32 App. Div. (N, Y.) 419—1116, 1214. Koeneg v. Union Depot R. Co., 173 Mo. 698—1081. Koetter v. Manhattan R. Co., 13 N. Y. Supp. 458—1562, 1716, 1717. Kohra V. Interborough Rapid Trans. Co., 93 N. Y. Supp. 671—1108. Kohn V. Nassau Electric R. Co., 117 N. Y. Supp. 231—963, 1007. Kohn V. Packard, 3 La. 224—257, 398, 399. Kolm V. Riclimond, etc., R. Co., 37 S. C. 1—206, 209, 331. Kohner v. Capital Tr. Coi, 22 App. D. C. 181—1486. Kolb V. Southern Ry. Co., 81 S. C. 536—620. Konieszny v. Detroit & M. Rv. Co., 17 Detroit Leg. N. 1002, 128 N. W. 1096—1535. Konkle v. St. Paul City Ry. Co., 119 Minn. 177—1400. Konky v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 40 Iowa, 205—1270. Koran v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 85 Kan. 707—963, 1007. TABLE OF CASES. cxlvii (The references are to the pages.) Korn V. Chesapeake & 0. R. Co., 125 Fed. 897—1405. Kouea v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 86 App. Div. (N. Y.) 611—1681. Koumm v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. (Ark.), 76 S. W. 1075—1632. Kowalski v. Newark Pass. Ry. Co., 15 N. J. L. 50—1097. Kozminsky v. Oregon Short Line R. Co., 36 Utah, 454—1391. Kramer v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 100 N. Y. Supp.'276, 114 App. Div. 804—1652. Kramer v. New Orleans City & L. R. Co., 51 La. Anm 1689—1596. Kreimelmann v. Jordan (Mo. App.) 80 S. W. 323—1609. Kremer v. Southern Express Co., 6 Coldw. (Tenn.) 356—393, 400. Kressin v. Central R. Co. of N. J., 119 App. Div. (N. Y.) 86—1344, 1359, 1382. Kreuder v. Woolcott, 1 Hilt. (N. Y.) 223—81, 559. Kreusen v. Fortv-Second St., etc., R. Co., 13 N. Y. Supp. 588—1189. Kreuziger v. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 73 Wis. 158—1710, 1719, 1728. Kriedermacher v. Union Ry. Co., 110 N. Y. Supp. 113—1623. Krone v. Southwest ^Missouri El. Ry. Co.. 97 Mo. App. 609—1198. Kroner v. St. Louis Tr. Co., 107 Mo. App. 41—1681. Kruck V. Connecticut Co., 84 Conn. 401—1548, 1698. Krudler v. Ellison, 47 N. Y. 37—244, 272. Kruger v. Omalia. etc., St. Ry. Co., 80 Noh. 490—1684. Krulevitz v. Eastern R. Co., 143 Mass. 228—1184. Krulevitz v. Eastern R. Co., 140 Mass. 57:{_1148. Kruse V. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co.. 97 Ark. 137—962, 968, 1019, 1275. Kueblor v. New York, etc., R. Co., 15 N. Y. Supp. 187—1587. Kuhnen v. Union R. Co., 10 App. Div. (N. Y.) 19.5—1.541. Kumler v. .Tunction R. Co., 33 Oliio St. 150— 10(;:i. Kilter V. Micliigan Cent. R. Co.. 1 BiPS. (U. S.) 3.5—108, 454, 524, 526. Kuttner v. Central R. Co. of N. Y., 80 N. J. Law, 11—1490. Kyle V. Buffalo, etc., R. Co., 16 Q. C. C. P. 76—482. Kyle V. Laurens R. Co., 10 Rich. L. (S. C.) 382—582, 587, 740, 758. L. Labar v. Taber, 35 Barb. (N. Y.) 305 —388. La Barge v. Union Elec. Co., 138 Iowa, 691—1088, 1658. La Bourgogne, 144 Fed. 781—2039. Labovteaux v. Swigart, 103 Ind. 596 — i46. Lacey v. Oregon R. & Nav. Co. (Or.) 128 Pac. 999—297, 442. Lackawanna & B. R. Co. v. Chene- with, 52 Pa. St. 382—1046, 1103, 1105, 1567. Lackawanna, etc., R. Co. v. Doak, 52 Pa. St. 379—1115. Lackland v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 101 Mo. App. 420—832, 852. Lacky v. McDermott, 8 S. & R. (Pa.) 500—72, 649. La Crosse Manufactuters', etc., Union v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 9—1761, 1782. Ladd v. Foster, 31 Fed. 827—310. Ladd V. Foster, 12 Sawy, (U. S.) 547—1211, 1581. Ladd V. New Bedford R. Co., 119 Mass. 413—1063, 1118. Ladue v. Griffith, 25 N. Y. 364—81, 83, 773, 775. Lafayette, etc., R. Co. v. Sims, 27 Ind. 59—1260. Laffiin v. Buffalo, etc., R. Co., 106 N. Y. 136—1108, 1125, 1234, 1245. Laffrey v. Grummond, 74 Mich. 186 — • 1356, 1531. La Fitte v. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 43 La. Ajin. 34—1108, 1147, 1175, 1183. La Floridionnc J. Bnttgonhach & Co., Socioto Aiionviiie v. Atlantic Coast Line 1{. Co.. 63 Fla. 208-723. Laing v. CoMor. 8 Pa. St. 479—428, 1715. 1716, 1728, 1131, 1213, 1453, 1475, 1504. 1513. 1655. Laird v. Pittsburgii Tract. Co., 166 Pa. 4—1417. :xl CXlVUl TAULIJ Oi- CASEb. (Tht> referoiKi's are to the pages.) I^ko V. Cincinnati Tnc. P. li. Co.. 13 Oliio C. C. 4!M— 1047. Luko Kno A VV. K. Co. v. Cotton. 45 Irul. App r,SO—l. '■):?.'». l().-il. Lake Krie A: \V. R. Co. v. Delonjj, lOD 111. App. 241 — ir>i;{. Lake Kri.- & W. K. C^o. v. Roclv. 43 Ind. App. 70—9.34. Lake Erie, etc., R. Co. v. Acres, 108 Inil. .'")4S— 114{). l-ak»> Krii', etc., R. Co. v. Arnold (Ind. App.), 5!) N. K. 3H4— 1101. I>ako Krie, etc., R. Co. v. Cliristiaon, 30 III. App. 4!tr)— 1711, 1720. Lake Krie, etc.. R. Co. v. Condon, 10 Ind. App. 536 — 72(5, 7(56. I^ako Eric. etc.. R. Co. v. Fix, 88 Ind. 3S1— 1242, 1418, 1719. Lake Erie, etc., R. Co. v. Hatch, 52 Ohio St. 408—385, 395, 399. Lake Erie, etc., R. Co. v. Holland. lf)2 Ind. 406—419, 439, 878, 879. Lake Erie, etc., R. Co. v. Mavs, 4 Ind. App. 113—985, 986, 992, 999. 1394. Lake Erie, etc., R. Co. v. Oakes, 11 111. App. 489—777. Lake Erie, etc.. R. Co. v. Rosenberg, 31 111. App. 47—540. 607, 848. Lakeman v. Grinnell, 5 Bosw. (N. Y.) 625—188, 584, 587, 596. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. v. Gibson, 28 Ohio Cir. Ct. R. 538—8.55. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. v. State of Ohio, 173 U. S. 285-1780. Lake Shore Elec. Ry. v. Hobart, 32 Ohio C. C. R. 154—1504. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Anderson, 39 Ind. App. 112—796. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Banjos, 47 Mich. 470—1677. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Bennett, 89 Ind. 457—326, 370, 455, 822, 878. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Bodomcr, 1.39 111. .596—958. Lake Sliore, etc., R. Co. v. Brown, 123 111. 162—1036, 1043, 1058, 1241, 1264. 1627. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Brown (111.), 14 N. E. 492—1145. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 30 Ohio St. 604—1267. Lake Shore, etc.. R. Co. v. Duer, 21 Ohio Cir. Ct. 512—1045. Lake Shon. etc., R. Co. v, Ellaey, 85 Pu. St. 283—644. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Foster, 104 Ind. 293—175, 986, 1347. Lake Sliore, etc., R. Co. v. Greenwood, 79 I'a. St. 373—1069. Lake Slioie, etc., R. Co. v. Ilochstim, 67 111. App. 514—1376. Lake Sliore, etc., R. Co. v. Hotchkiss, 24 0. C. C. 431—1037, 1610. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. llodapp, 83 Pa. St. 22—559. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v, Lassen, 12 111. App. 659—1345. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Luce, II Ohio Cir. Ct. Rep. 543 — 210. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. National Live-Stock Bank. 178 111. 506—209. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. National Live Stock Bank, 59 111. App. 451 —215, 227. Lake Sliore, etc., R. Co. v. Orndorff, 55 Ohio St. 589—1443. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Perkins, 25 Mich. 329—126, 785. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Pierce, 47 Mich. 277—1071, 1227, 1228, 1243, 1255, 1390. Lake Shore, etc., Ry. Co. v. Prentice, 147 U. S. 101—1168, 1184, 1713, 1723, 1725. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Rosenz- weig, 113 Pa. St. 519—988, 1070. 1258, 1453, 1428. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Salzman, 52 Ohio St. 558—1248, 1592. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Scofield, 2 Ohio Cir. Ct. R. .305—716. Lake Shore, etc.. R. Co. v. Smith, 173 U. S. 684—1762. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Teeters. 166 Ind. 335—1037. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Warren, 3 Wyo. 134—1306, 1372. Lake Shore Nitro-glycerine Co. v. Il- linois Cent. R. Co., 75 111. .394— 568, 575. Lake Steam Shipping Co. v. Bacon, 129 Fed. 819-1988. Lake St. Elev. R. Co. v. Collins, 118 111. App. 270—1278. Lake St. Elev. R. f'o. v. Gorraley, 103 111. App. 59—997. TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pages.) cxlix Lake St. Elev. R. Co. v. I»ng Island K. Co., 32 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 669 —625. Lakin v. Oregon Pac. R. Co., 15 Or. 220—1132. Lallande v. His Creditors, 42 La. Ann. 705—219. Lam&r v. New York S. Nav. Co., 16 Ga. 558 — 117. Lamb v. Camden, etc., R. Co., 46 N. Y. 271 — 469, 497, 575, 577, 578, 738, 746, 759, 770. Lamb v. Camden, etc., R. Co., 4 Dalv (X. Y.), 483 — 445. Lamb v. Caiudeu, etc., R. Co., 2 Dalv (N. Y.), 454 — 134, 384, 391. Lamb v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 101 Wis. 138—339. Lamb v. Parkman, 1 Sprague ( U. S. ) , 343—553. Lamb v. We.stem R. Corp., 7 Allen (Mass.), 98 — HI, 580. Lambert v. Robinson, 1 Eap. N. P. 119—642. Lambeth v. North Carolina R. Co., 66 X. €. 494—1213, 1233. 1243, 1254, 1677. I.amont v. Nashville, etc., R. Co., 9 Heisk (Tenn.), 58—338, 359, 373. La Motte v. Angel. 1 Hawaiian, 237 —650. Lamphear v. Buckingham. 33 Conn. 237—46, 48. Larapkin v. Louisville, ate., R. Co., 160 Ala. 278—1147. Lampkins v. Vicksburg. etc., R. Co., 42 La. Ann. 997 — 1552. I^ampley v. Scott, 24 Miss. 52S — 11. Lancaster Mills v. Merclianta' Cotton Presa Co., 89 Tenn. 1—382, 519. Land v. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 104 N. C. 48 — 128. 183. Landa v. Hoick, 129 Mo. 663—328, 329, 331. Landa v. Missouri, etc., R. Co. (Mo.), 31 S. W. 900—331. Ijai.< v. Oarland Canal Co., 52 La. -Ann. 146.5—111. I^n'ics v. Pacific R. Co., 50 Mo. 346 —118. liandon v. Proctor. 39 Vt. 78 — 186. Landripan v. Brooklvn Heighta R. Co.. 32 App. Div. ■ (N. Y.) 43 — 1693. Landrigau v. State, 31 Ark. 50 — 1142, 1409. Landsberg v. Dinsmore, 4 Daly (N. Y.), 490—38, 401. Lane v. Atlantic Works, 111 Mass. 136—1567. Lane v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 112 Mass. 455 — 6, 380, 408, 411. Lane v. Chadwick, 146 Mass. 68 — 262, 651. Lane v. Choctaw, etc., R. Co., 19 Okl. 324—1630. Lane v. Cotton, 1 Ld. Raym. 646 — 85, 127. Lane v. Cotton, 12 Mod. 472—117. Lane v. Coiton, 1 Salk, 143 — 24. Lane v. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co., 5 Lea (Tenn.), 124—1395, 1423. Lane v. Old Colony, etc., R. Co., 14 Gray (JVIass.), 143—644. Lane v. Smith, 2 Salk, 279—979. Lang v. Interborough Rap. T. Co., 134 N. Y. Supp. 627—1547. Lang V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 154 Pa. St. 342—309, 340. Lang V. Sanger, 76 Wis. 71 — 564. Langdon v. Howell, 4 Q. B. Div. 337 —1029. Langdon v. New York, etc., Ry. Co., 15 N. Y. Supp. 255, 60 Hun, 584 — 718. Langdon v. New York, etc., R. Co., 9 N. Y. Supp. 245—718. Langdon v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 194 Fed. 486—1808, 1812, 1887. Langford v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 142 N. Y'. Supp. 336—322. Langley v. Brown, 1 M. &, P. 583 — 464. Langley v. Metropolitan St. Rv. Co., 36 Misc. R. (N. Y.) 804—1488. Langworthy v. New Y'ork. etc., R. Co., 2 E. D. Smith (N. Y.), 195— 44. T^anning v. Sussex R. Co., 1 N J L. J. 21-117, 119, 301. I>apham v. Atla.s Insumnce Co., 24 Pick. (Mass.) ] — 553. L«,pin V. North w<'stprii Elev. R. Co 162 111. App. 290— 974. La Point.c v. Po-rnn & M. R. Co., 1;;2 Mass. 227—1078. La Pointe v. Grand Trunk R Co 26 U. C. Q. B. 479—744, 768. TAIJI.E OF CASES. (Tlio rcfiMi'iicos iiro to (lie papjcs. ) Ijapoint*' V. MiddU-six 1{. (."o.. Ill -Mass. IS— Kill. Laporlo v. Wells, Fargo, etc., Ex- prt'ss, 23 Ajip. Div. (A. Y.) 2G7— 410. IxiraU-o Flour Mills Co. v. Missouri Pai'. Kv. Co., 74 Kan. SU8— 125, 143. 074, 704, 18!)3. Larimore v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 65 ilo. App. lt)7 — 771). LarkJu v. Origou Pac. R. Co., 15 Or. 220— U)OS. Larnod v. a-ntral H. of N. J. (N. J.), 79 Atl. 280—1359. Larrison v. Chicago, etc., R. Oo., 1 Init. com. Rep. 3G9— 1787, 1792, 1832. Larsen v. Allan Line S. S. Co., 37 Wash. 550—2038. Larsen v. Oregon Short Line R. Co., 38 Utah, 130—502, 1915, 1917. Larson v. Boston Elev. R. Co., 212 Mass. 262—1210. Larson v. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. (S. D.), 141 N. W. 353—1620. Larson v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 108 Minn. 519—1373. Lasher v. Third Ave. R. Co., 27 Misc. R. (N. Y.) 824—1389, 1425. Lasky v. Southern Express Co., 92 Miss. 268—480. Lassiter v. Western Union Tel. Co., 89 N. C. 33&— 92. Latch V. Rummer R. Co., 27 L. J. Exch. 155—1513. Latta V. Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 172 Fed. 850—1927. Latta V. New Orleans & N. W. Ry, Co., 131 La. 272—319. Laubheim v. De Koninglyke Nedor- landsche Stoomboot Maatschappy, 107 X. Y. 228-1133. Lauchtamacher v. Boston Elevat"d Ry. (Mass.), 100 X. E. 1008-977. Lauglilin v. Grand Rapids St. R. Co., 80 :\Tich. 154-1560. Lauglilin v. Grand Rapids St. R. Co., 62 Mich. 220—1554. Laughlin Bros. Co. v. Philadflphia & R. Rv. Co., 225 Pa. 540—320. Laurel Cotton Mills v. Gulf & S. J. R. Co.. 84 Miss. 339—1848. Laurel Fork. etc.. R. Co. v. West Vir- ginia Tran.'ip. Co., 25 W. Va. 324 — Lauiiiit V. Vaughin, 30 Vt. 90 — 583» ;')9!>, 600. LauUror v. Manliattan R. Co., 128 Fed. 540—1231, 1608. Laveroni v. Drury, S lOxch. 166 — 75. Laviu V. ScKvond Ave. R. Co., 12 App. Div. (N. Y.) 381—1509. Lavis V. Wisconsin Cent. R. Co., 5i ill. App. 636—1487. Law V. Illinois, etc., R. Co., 32 Iowa, 534—1423. Lawrence v. Aberdein, 5 B. & Aid. 107—32. I^wrence v. Green, 70 Cal. 417 — 1488. Lawrence v. Kaul Luinln'r Co., 171 Ala. 300—955, 967, 1281. Lawrence v. New York, etc., R. Co., 36 Conn. 63—425, 1450, 1458. Lawrence v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 144 Mass. 1—66. Lawrence v. Smith, 45 N. H. 533 — 330, 332. Lawrence v. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co., 84 Wis. 427—927, 793. Lawrence v. Minturn, 17 How. (N. Y.) 100—219. Lawronce v. Winona, etc., R. Co., 15 Minn. 390—740, 776. Lawrenceburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Mont- gomery, 7 Ind. 474—1040, 1567. Lawshe v. Tacoma R. Co. (Wash.), 70 Pac. 118—1418. Lajvreon v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 64 Wis. 447—1037, 1038, 1454. Lawson v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 64 Wis. 455—463, 1460. Lawson v. Connolly (Mich.), 141 X. W. 623—114. Lax V. Forty-Second St., etc., R. Co., 16 N. Y. Super. Ct. 448—1648. Lay V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 157 Mo. App. 467—840. 844. Lay V. Northern Pac. R. Co., 68 Wash. 33—1396. Layne v. Chesapeake & O. Rv. Co., 66 W. Va. 607—1151, 1169. Lavng V. Stewart, 1 Watts & S. (Pa.) 222—672. Lazer v. Chicago City R. Co., 152 111. App. 319-1496."^ L. Craddock & Co. v. Wells, Fargo Co. Express (Tex. Civ. App.), 125 S. W. 50-129. 651. Leacli V. New York, etc., R. Co., 89 ITun (X. Y.), 377—132. TABLE OF CASES. cli (The references are to the pages.) Leader v. Northern R. Co., 3 Out. Rep. 92—268, 583. Leahey v. Ca»s Ave., etc., R. Co., 97 Mo. 165—1559. Leas V. Quincy, etc., R. Co., 157 Mo. App. 455—442, 892. Leasum v. Green Bay & W. R. Co., 138 Wis. 593—1579. Leavenworth Elec. R. Co. v. Cusick, 60 Kan. 590—1153, 1239. Leavenworth, etc., 11. Co. v. Maris, 16 Kan. 333-385, 391, 394, 455. Le Barge v. Union Elec. Co., 138 Iowa, G91— 1088, 1658. Le Barron v. East Boston F. Co., 11 Allen (Mass.), 312—59, 945, 1115. Lebeau v. General Steam Xav. Co., L. R. 8 C. P. 88—526. Le Blanc v. Sweet, 107 La. 355 — 1215. Lo Blanche v. London, etc.. R. Co., 1 C. P. Div. 286—1259, 1704. Le Blanche v. London, etc., R. Co., 24 W. R. 808—1261. Lebov V. Consolidated Ry. Co., 203 Mass. 380—1020. Jjftbreuz v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 240 Pa. 495—1606. Leclaire v. Tacoma Ry. & P. Co., 62 Wash. 157—998. Ijd Dean v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 19 Idaho, 711—1205, 1537. Jjee V. Barreda. 16 Md. 190—661. Lee V. Boston Elev. R. Co., 182 Mass. 454—1003. Ivoe V. Bnrgoss, 9 Bush. (Ky.) 652— 108, 109, 110. I^e V. Elizabeth P. & C. J. Ry. Co. (N. J.), 55 Atl. 106—1681. Lee V. Fidelity Storage & T. Co., 51 Wash. 208—82, 283. Jjee V. Grand Trunk R. Co., 36 U. C. Q. B. 350—1300. Tice V. Knapp, 155 Mo. 610—103. Lee V. Marsh, 43 Barb. (N. Y.) 102 —847. Lee V. Publisher, George Knapp & Co., 55 :Mo. App. 390—1095. Lee V. Ralfiph. etc.. R. Co., 72 N. C. 236—419, 822, 927. Lee V. Rhode Island Co. (R. I.), 68 Atl. 475—1623. Lee V. Salter. Hill & D., Supp. (N. Y.) 103-050, 661, 079. Lee & Co. v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 136 N. C. 533—622. Leech v. Baldwin, 5 Watts (Pa.), 448 — 34, 163, 650, 681. Lees V. Lancashire, etc., R. Co., 18 Sol. Jour. G2S— 161. Leeson v. Holt, 1 Stark, 286 — 463. Lefebure v. American Express Co. (Iowa), 139 X. W. 1117—894. Legge V. New York, etc., R. Co., 197 Mass. 88-1010. Leggett V. Western New York, etc., R. Co., 143 Pa. St. 39—1598, 1677, 1679. Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Greiner, 113 Pa. St. 600—1627. Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 145 U. S. '192—1858. Lehigh Valley R- Co. v. Rainey, 112 Fed. 487—1785. Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. United States, 204 Fed. 986 (U. S. Com. Ct.) 1878 Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. United States, 204 Fed. 5^6—1842. Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. United States, 188 Fed. 879—1840, 1977. Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. United States, 187 Fed. 1006- -809, 1984. Lehigh Valley Transp. Co. f. Pitts- burg, etc.. 'Co., 92 111. App. 628 — 743. Lehigh Valley Transp. Co. v. Post Sugar Co., 128 HI. App. 600—131. Lehman v. Louisiana, etc., R. Co., 37 La. Ann. 705—1225, 1232, 1241. Lehman v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 3 Int. Com. R. 44—1709. Lehmann v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 3 Int. Com. R. 700—1827, 1833. Lehner v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 110 Mo. App. 215—1619. Lehner v. Pittsburg Rys. Co., 223 Pa. 208- 15Sfi. Lchr v. Steinway, etc., R. Co., 118 N. Y. 556— 1198.* Leigh v. :\Iobile, etc., R. Co., 58 Ala. 16.5—646. Leigh v. Smith. 1 C. & P. 640—182. Leinkauf v. Ivombard, A. & Co.. 12 App. Div. (N. Y.) 302—535. Leisv v. Hardin, 135 U. S. 106—1749, 1852. Lf'land v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 23 N, W. 390—410. olii TABLE OF CASES. (Tlif rcforoni-cs arc U> the padres.) l.v]o\\[> V. Port of Mobilf, li>7 U. S. r.40— 1744. LomU'rk v. Jarvis Terminal C". S. Co., GO X. .1. Kq. 781— G44. IjCIiutv v. Crt'iit Nortliorn Uv. Co., S3 Minn. 47— !HiO, 9til, lOO.V, lOOG. Lonikt' V. Chicnpo, etc., R. Co., 39 Wis. 440— ;$sr), a!)i. ;t!):}. :{!)4. Lomon V. Chanslor. f!S Mo. 340—944, 94"), 1031, 10:!3. 1-213. 12(i0, 1505. Lemon v. Crand Kupids. etc., R. Co., 11 Dot. L. N. 151 — 1232. Lemon v. I'nllnian Palace Car Co., 52 Fed. 262—03. G6. Lenient v. New York, etc., R. Co., 28 Fed. 920—327. 320. Lemont v. Washington, etc., R. Co., 1 Mackey (D. C), 180—1140, 1194, 1407. Lenekliart v. Cooper, 3 Ring. N. C. 99—042. Lennon v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 127 Iowa, 431—1347. Lent V. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 120 N. Y. 460, 467—1225, 1231, 1576, 1061, 1662. Leo V. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., 30 Minn. 438—778. Leonard v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 57 App. Div. (N. Y.) 125—1108, 1116, 1217. Leonard v. Brooklyn H. R. Co.. 7 Am. Electl. Cas. 58.3—1582. Leonard y. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 57 Mo. App. 300—343. Leonard v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 54 Mo. App. 29.3—345, 346, 371, 436, 439, 456, 484. 785. Leonard y. Columbia Steam Nav. Co., 84 N. Y. 48—390. Leonard y. Fitchburg R. Co., 143 Mass. 307—153, 584, 794. Leonard y. Hcndrickson, 18 Pa. St. 40—27, 57, 574. Leonard y. New York, etc., Teleg. Co., 41 N. Y. 544. 571—87, 89. Leonard y. Southern Pac. R. Co., 21 Or. 555—1554. Leonard y. Tidd, 3 Mete. (Mass.) 6— 284. Lepford y. Charlotte, etc., R. Co.. 7 Rich L. (S. C.) 409—318. Le Sage v. Great Western R. Co., 1 Daly (N. Y.), 306—739, 751. Losan V. Maine Cent. R. Co., 77 Me. 85-1542. Leainskv v. Great Western Dispatch, 13 JVio. App. 575—259, 400, 598, 733. Leslie V. Atchison, etc., Ry. Co., 82 Kan. 152—1470, 1575. T>eslie v. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 88 Mo. 50—1213, 1202, 1077, 1078. Lessard v. Boston & M. R. Co., 69 N. H. 648—1365. Lesser v. St. Louis & S. Ry. Co., 83 Mo. App. 326—1077. lister y. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 92 Ihm, 342—234, 271, 273, 282. Letter y. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 73 Hun (N. Y.), 308—214. Letts V. Wabash R. Co., 131 IMo. App. 270—801, 880. Letts-Spencer Grocer Co. y. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 138 Mo. App. 352— 332. Leu y. St. Louis Tr. Co. (Mo. App.), 80 S. W. 273, 86 S. W. 137—1609, 1620. Levan y. Atlantic Coast L. R. Co., 8G S. C. 51.3—1417. Levensohn y. Cunard S. S. Co., 162 111. App. 421—2042. Leveret y. Shreveport Belt Line Co. (La.), 34 So. 579—1081, 1117, 1125, 1C20, 1672, 1602. Levering v. Union Transp., etc., Co., 42 Mo. 88—410, 430, 457. Levi y. Lynn, etc., R. Co., 11 Allen (Mass.)*, 300—50. Levi y. Missouri, etc.. R. Co. (Mo. App.), 138 S. W. 699—1356. Levi y. Missouri, etc., Ry. Co., 157 Mo. App. 530—1379. Levien v. W^ebb, 30 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 196—68. Levin v. Second Ave. Tract. Co., 201 Pa. St. 58-1590. Levin v. Philadelphia & R. R. Co., 228 Pa. St. 206-1481. Lcvine v. Brooklyn, etc., R. Co., 134 App. Div. 006— 149S. Levins v. New York, etc., R. Co., 183 Mass. 175—1205. Levois V. Gale, 17 La. Ann. 302—527. Levy y. Campbell (Tex.), 19 S. W. 4.38—1214. 1216, 1565. Levy y. Pontchartrain R. Co., 23 La. Ann. 477—409. Levy v. Southern Express Co., 4 S. C. 2:!4— 410, 427, 772. TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pages.) cliii Levy T. Weir, 38 Misc. R. (N. Y.) 361—197, 286. Lewark v. Norfolk, etc., R. Co. (N. C), 49 S. E. 882—619. Lewis V. Delaware, etc.. Canal Co., 145 N. Y. 508—1242. Lewis V. Flint, etc., R. Co., 54 Mich. 55—1710. Lewis V. Galena, etc., R. Co., 40 111. 281—214. Lewis V. Great Western R. Co., 5 H. & N. 8G7— 452, 482, 1464. Lewis V. Great Western R. Co., 47 L. J. Q. B. Div. 131—406. Lewis V. Great Western R. Co., 26 W. R. 255—459. Lewis V. Great Western R. Co., 3 Q. B. Div. 195—464. Lewis V. Houston Elec. R. Co. (Tex.), 88 S. W. 489—974. Lewis V. Houston Electric Co., 39 Tex. Civ. App. 625—983. Lewis V. London, etc., R. Co., 43 L. J. Q. B. 8—1233. Lewis V. London, etc., R. Co., 9 Q. B. 66—1235. Li'wis V. Louisville & N. R. Co.. 135 Ky. 361—200. Lewis V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 13 Ky. Law Rep. 144 — 1356. Lewis V. Ludwich, 6 Coldw. (Tenn.) 368—27, 324. Lewis V. New York Cent. R. Co., 49 Barb. (N. Y.) 330—991. Lewis V. New York Sleeping Car Co., 143 Mass. 267—04, 66, 67. 1452. Lewis V. Pennsylvania R. Co.. 220 Pa. 317—1046. Ivcwis V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 71 N. J. L. 339—8.30, 830, 876. I>€wis V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 70 N. J. L. 132—904. Lewis v. Pennsylvania R. Co. ( N. J. Sup.), 56 Atf. 12S— 815. Lewis V. Itichniond, etc., R. Co., 25 S. C. 249-782. Lewis V. Van Horn, 24 Misc. 11. (N. Y.) 765—186. Lewis V. Western R. Corp., 11 Mete. (.Mass.) 509—205. 207, 244. I^wisolin V. National Steamsliip Co., 56 Fed. 602—451. Lewke v. Dry Dock. «•!<■., R. Co., 46 Hun (N. Y.) 2.S.'J— 1560. Lewyt V. Dry Dock, etc., R. Co., 56 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 496—994. Lexington, etc., R. Co. v. Lyons, 104 Ky. 28—1417. Lexington Ry. Co. v. Coznie, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 1137—1721. Lfxington Ry. Co. v. Herring, 29 Ky. Law Rep. 794—1022. Lexington Ry. Co. v. Lowe, 143 Ky. 339—1667. Leyh v. Newburgh Elec. Ry. Co., 168 N. Y. 667—1092. Leyser v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 138 :\ro. App. 34—1421. 1432. Lezinsky v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 88 Fed. 437-1184. Libbey v. Cent. R. Co., 85 Me. 34 — 1124. Libby v. Ingalls, 124 Mass. 503 — 225, 226. Libby v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 85 Me. 34—314, 1049, 1117, 1123, 1187, 1212. Libby v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 137 Mo. App. 276—443, 597, 822, 841, 884. Lickbarrow v. Mason, 6 East, 21 — 649. Lickbarrow v. Mason, 2 T. R 63 — 224. Liefert v. Galveston, etc., R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 57 S. W. 899—278. Light V. Detroit & M. R. Co., 165 Mich. 433—1399. Lightfoot V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 126 Mo. App. 532—311, 321, 335. Ligon V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 3 Tex. App. Civ. Cas , § 1—619. Lillard v. Mitchell, 3 Tex. Civ. App. Cas., § 457—541. Lillis V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co.. 64 Mo. 464—992, 1025, 1390, 1429. Lillstrom v. Northern Pac. R. Co, (Minn.), 20 L. R. A. 587—1517. Liniburgcr v. Westcott, 49 Barb. (N Y.) 28.3-1333, 1451. 1454. Lin V. Terre Haute, etc., R. Co., 10 Mo. App. 12.5—1350. 1361. 1370. Lincoln v. Walker, 18 Neb. 247 — 1544 1545, 1546. Lincoln Board of Trade v. Burlington, etc.. R. Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 95 — 1781, 1797, 1829. Lincoln St. R. Co. v. Cox, 48 Neb 807—1509. .'liv TABLE OF CASES. (Tlic rofiTonoos are to the pl^ge8.) l.imuln St. R. Co. v. Mi-CIoHaii, 34 Nob. 672 — 49. I'ilf). 1472. l.inoeiln Tout & Awniiip C^>. v. Mis- souri Vac. Hy. Co., 86 Neb. 338— 534. l.iiu'dln Tniition Co. v. Brookover (Neb.). 100 N. W. 168— If).'??), him-oln Tnu'tion Co. v. llflk-r, 72 Nob. 127—40, 147r>. Lindcnbaura v. New York, etc., R. Co., 197 Mass. 314—1409. Lindley v. Ridmiond. cto.. R. Co., 88 N. C. 547— r>OS. 618, 754, 778. Lindsay v. Central R., etc., Co., 46 Ga. 47—1154. 1552. Lindsav v. Wabash R. Co., 141 Mich. 204—1431. Liiidsev V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 64 Iowa, 407—1637. Lindsov v. Maine S. S. Co., 88 N. Y. Supp. 371—2039. Lindsey v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 26 App. D. C. 50.3—1049. 10.50, 1111. Lindslev v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 41 ]\[inn. 539—905. Lindsley v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 3G Minn. 539—578, 822. 907. Lippman v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 414—1791, 1798, 1828. Lippman v. Pennsylvania R. Co.. 127 App. Div. 187—249. Liscomb v. New Jersey, etc., R. Co., 6 Lans. (N. Y.) 75—1231. Lister v. Lancashire &. Y. Ry., 73 L. J. K. B. 3S.->— 336. Litchfield & M. Ry. Co. v. People, 22 111. 242—1135. Litt V. Cowley, 7 Taunt. 169—499. Litt V. Wabash R. Co., 131 Mo. App. 270—902. Litt V. Waba«h R. Co., 50 App. Div. (N. Y.) 550— ,593. little V. Boston, etc., R. Co.. 66 Me. 21^9 — 428. 522, 527. 570. 582. Little V. Dusenberry, 46 N. J. L. 614 —46. Little y. Fargo. 43 Hun (N. Y.), 233 —327, 341. 343, 369, 769. Little V. Haekett, 116 U. S. 366— 1269. Little V. Riley, 43 N. H. 9—451. Littleiohn v.' Fitchburg R. Co., 148 Mass. 478—996. ttlcjolin v. .Itmes, 2 McMull. (S. C.) :iti5— 10, 11, 20, 60. ttlc Miami, etc., R. Co. v. Wash- hum. 22 Oiiio St. 324—752. ttle Miami R. Co., v. Wetmore, 19 Oiiio SI. 110—1150, 1170. ttle Rock V. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co., 3 Int. Com. C. Rep. 1—729, 1825. ttle Rock, etc., R. Co. v. Atkins, 46 Ark. 423—1676, 1677. ttle Rock, etc., R. Co. v. Bruce, 55 Ark. ()5— 268. ttlc Rock, etc., R. Co. v. Cavenesse, 48 Ark. 106—1607, 1688. ttle Rock, etc., R. Co. v. Conatser, 61 Ark. 560—154, 624. ttle Rock, etc., R. Co. v. Corcoran, 40 Ark. 375—575. ttle Rock, etc., R. Co. v. Cravens, 57 Ark. 112—439, 468. ttle Rock, etc., R. Co. v. Daniels, 49 Ark. 352—781. ttle Rock, etc., R. Co. v. Dean, 43 Ark. 529—1015, 1028. ttle Rock, etc., R. Co. y. East Ten- nessee, etc., R. Co., 47 Fed. 771 — 1800. 1824. ttle Rock, etc., R. Co. v. Eubanks, 48 Ark. 460—439. ttle Rock, etc., R. Co. v. Glidewell, 39 Ark. 487-4.'], 233. ttle Rock, etc., R. Co. y. Hanniford, 49 Ark. 291—268, 270. ttle Rock, etc., R. Co. v. Harper, 44 Ark. 208—575. ttle Rock, etc., R. Co. y. Hunter, 42 Ark. 200—83, 171, 375, 1348, 1353, 1531. ttle Rock, etc., R. Co. v. Lawton, 55 Ark. 428—1162, 1284. ttle Rock, etc., R. Co. v. Miles. 40 Ark. 298-1036, 1211, 1227, 1500, 1576. 1626. ttle Rock, etc., R. Co. y. Odom, 63 Ark. .326—281, 760. 781, 924. ttle Rock, etc., R. Co. v. Record, 74 Ark. 12.5—1330, 1361. ttle Rock, etc.. R. Co. v. St. TvOiiis Southwestern R. Co., 63 Fed. 775— 729, 1759, 1795, 1820, 1823, 1S26. ttle Rock, etc., R. Co. v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 59 Fed. 408—734. 1795, 1801, 1823, 1824. TABLE OF CASKS. clv (The references are to the pages.) Little Rock, etc., R. Co. v. St. Louis R. Co., 41 Fed. 559—729. 1826. Little Rock, etc., R. Co. v. Talbot, 39 Ark. ,52.3—418, 576. 579, 1457. Little Rock, etc., R. Co. v. Walker, 64 Ark. 144—1183. Little Rock, etc., Tel. Co. v. Davis, 41 Ark. 79—87. Little Rock Traction & E. Co. v. Nel- son. 66 Ark. 494—970. 996, 1248, 1564. 1589. Littman v. Drv Dock. etc.. R. Co., 6 Mi.sc. Rep. ('X. Y.) 34—1647. Liverpool, etc.. Steam Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. A.. 129 U. S. 464—547. Liverpool, etc.. Steam Co. v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 129 U. S. 397—75, 307, 448. 450. 451, 454, 547, 1772, 1449, 1451. Live Stock Co. v. Kansas Citv, etc., R. Co., 100 Mo. App. 674—908. Livingston v. Miller, 48 Hun (X. Y. ) 232—328. Livingston v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 76 N. Y. 631—354, 747, 774. Livingston v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 5 Hun (N. Y.), 562—359, 596. Llovd v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 53 Mo. 509-1677. Lloyd V. Haugh & Meenan Storage & Transfer Co., 223 Pa. 148—20. Lloyd V. Waterford, etc., R. Co., 15 Ir. C. L. R. 37—465. Lobsenz v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 72 App. Div. (N. Y.) 181— 1225. Lochner v. New York, 25 S. Ct. 539 — 1762. Locke v. Sioux City, etc.. R. Co., 46 Iowa, 109—1082. Lockliart v. Lichtenthaler. 46 Pa. 151 — 1269. Lock-wood V. Boston Elev. R. Co.. 200 Mass. 537-982. 1623. Lockwood V. Manhattan, etc.. Ware- house Co., 28 App. Div. (N. Y.) 68 —569. Loeb V. Wabash R. Co. (Mo. App.), 85 S. W. 118—238. Loeffler v. Keokuk Northern Line Packet Co., 7 Mo. App. 18.5—279, 611. Loeser v. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 94 Wis. 571— 878, 889, 896. Loewenberg v. Arkansas, etc., R. Co., 56 Ark. 439—269, 637, 675. Loftus V. Union Ferry Co., 84 N. Y. 455—549. 1115, 1124, 1231, 1261. Logan V. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 77 Mo. 603—1227, 1410. Losan V. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 183 Mo. 582—1501. Logan V. Mobile Trade Co.. 46 Ala. 514—430. Logan V. Pontchartrain R. Co., 11 Rob. (La.) 24—427. Losran Coal Co. v. Pennsvlvania R. Co., 154 Fed. 497—1821.' Logwood V. Memphis, etc., R. Co., 23 Fed. 318—1143. Lomas v. New York Citv Rv. Co., 188 N. Y. 628—1524. London & L. Fire Ins. Co. v. Rome, etc., R. Co., 144 N. Y. 200—168, 171, 172, 175. 192, 434. London & L. Fire Ins. Co. v. Rome, etc.. R. Co., 68 Hun (N. Y.) 598— 31, 377. London, etc., R. Co. v. Bartlett, 7 H. & N. 400—242, 244, 452. Long v. Lehigh Vallev R. Co., 130 Fed. 870—1053. 1466. Long V. Mobile, etc., R. Co., 51 Ala. 512—651. Long V. New York Cent. R. Co., 50 N. Y. 76 — 430. Long V. Pennsvlvania R. Co., 147 Pa. St. 343—311. Loom is V. Jewett, 35 Hun (N. Y.) 313 —1428. Loomis V. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 203 N. Y. 312—140. Loomis V. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 17 Mo. App. 340—238, 256, 538. Loraine v. Pittsburg, etc., R. Co., 205 Pa. 132—125. Lord v. Jlaine Central R. Co., 105 Me. 255—176, 185, 188, 609. Lord V. Midland R. Co., L. R. 2 C. P. 339—6. 465. Lord V. Steamship Co., 102 U. S. 54— 1775. Lorickio v. Brooklyn H. R. Co., 44 App. Div. (N. Y.) 628—1.543. Lorimer v. St. Paul City R. Co. 48 Minn. .391—1114. T.oring v. Mulcahv, 3 Allen (Mass.), 575—284. clvi TABLi; OF CASKS. (Tlio rt'fiTiiu'os ;iif U> the piv^i'S-) Losoe V. W'atcrx liot Tunip., cti-.. U. Co.. ()3 llun (N. Y.) 404— ltl4r.. Losie V. n.Imviiro & H. Co.. 12(1 N. Y. Supp. S71. 142 App. Div. 214— 14^0. Lothrop V. .\ilnms. l".*? Mass. 471 — 1184. Lotspoioli V. Central Uailnunl. etc., Co., 7:i Ala. 3(K>— Ifll. 720. 720.743. Lott V. Now Orliaiis City, vU:, It. Co., 37 La. AiiM. 337— 11S:». Lottery Case. 1S8 U. !S. 321—1733, 173.1. Loud V. South Carolina, e(e.. R. Co., 4 Int. Com. Rep. 20.') — 17S0. Loud V. South Caroli)ia. etc., R. Co., 5 Int. C.>m. C. Rep. 52!)— 17S3. Loudon V. Eijvhth Ave. R. Co., 102 N. Y'. 3S0— 1474. 1494. Lough V. Outerbridse. 143 N. Y. 271 —10. 101. Loush V. Outerbridge, GG Ilun (N. Y.) 103—717. Louisiana. Nat. Bank v. Laveille, 52 Mo. 3S0— 229. Louisiana Rv. & Nav. Co. v. Holly, 127 La. 61.-)— 684, 1882. Louisville & A. R. Co. v. Bennett & ^Morgan. 25 Ky. Law Rep. 834 — 919.' Louisville & C. Packet Co. v. Rogers, 20 Ind. App. 594—2015. Louisville & E. M. Co. v. Barnes* Adni'r. 25 Kv. L. Rep. 2030-1192. Louisville & E." R. Co. v. McXally, 31 Kv. Law Rep. 1257—1140. Louisville & E. R. Co. v. Vincent, 29 Ky. Law Rep. 1049—1159. Louisville & J. F. Co. v. Nolan, 135 Ind. 60-1134. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Allen, 152 Kv. 14.5— 183G, 18S2. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Arnold, 22 Ky. Law Rep. 199—851. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Bay's Adm'r, 142 Ky. 400—1000. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Behlmer, 175 U. S. 648—1828. 1955. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Berg, 17 Ky. L. R. 1105 — 1661. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Bernheim, 113 Ala. 489—427. Lnuisville & N. R. Co. v. l'.uisvilie & X. R, Co. v. United civiii ■J AliLK Ob' CASES. ('riu' iffon-iK'i's are U> tlic pajj^^a.) st«t»'<. :ii» ct. CI. (U. s.) 4o:)— 171, 348, 370, 37S. Ijouisvillf & N. K. Lo. v. Wiiabl.', 13J (la. .iiil— :>1J. LouisvilU- \ N. K. I'o. v. Wado, tlJ bill. i!t7— Ul4J. Louisvillo & M. R. Co. v. WarlicKl & Li'e. I) Cia. App. 5.)0 — ;jOO. 883, ISIOS. 1!)10. 1917. 192.^. Ixiuisville & N. R. Ca\v Rop. 352 — 82li. IxmisvilU' & !N. R. Co. v. Wathen, '22 K\. Law Ri'p. 82— !)38. Loiiisvilli' tV N. R. Co. v. Woodford, 152 Ky. 3!»iS— 507. 825, 850. Ijouisville (St S. 1. Traction Co. v. VVor- ndl. 44 Ind. App. 480—1528. 1547, 1586. Louisville Citv Rv. Co. v. Iludgins, .iO Ky. Law Rep. 316—1609. Louisville Citv R. Co. v. Mercer, 11 Ky. Law Rep. 810—1426. 1437. Louisville Citv R. Co. v. Weanis. SO Ky. 420— l'il2. Louisville, etc., Ferrv Co. v. Nolan. 135 Ind. UO— 1187,' 1475, 1504. Louisville, etc.. Pack't Co. v. Bottorff, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 1324—604. Louisville, etc.. Packet Co. v. Rogers, 20 Ind. App. 594—228. Louisville, etc.. R. Co. v. Allen, 78 Ala. 494—1470. Louisville, etc.. R. Co. v. Ballard, 88 Ky. 159—1721. Louisville, etc.. R. Co. v. Ballard, 85 Ky. 307-1176, 1721, 1726. Ix>uisville, etc.. R. Co. v. Barkliouse, 100 Ala. 543—233, 278. Louisville, etc.. R. Co. v. Behlmer. 175 U. S. 648—1787, 1829, 1830. Louisville, etc., R. Co, v. Bennett & Morgan, 25 Kv. L. Rep. 834— S30. Louisville, etc.. "R. Co. v. Bell, 100 Kv. 203—1037, 1408. Louisville, etc.. R. Co. v. Bell, 13 Ky. Law Rep. 393—309. Jjouiaville. etc., R. Co. v. Bcrrv, 88 Ky. 222—1557. Tx>uisville. etc., R. Co. v. Big^T. 66 Miss. 319—906. Tx)uisvire. etc.. R. Co. v. Bisch, 120 Tr;d. .^49— 1242. 1265. 1576. 1637. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Bisch and. I. 22 N. E. 662—1506. Ivouisville, etc., R. Co. v. Bourne, 16 Ky. Law Rep. 825—775. 922. Louisville, ctL-., 11. Co. v. Bowlds, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 1212—1593. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Breckin- ridge (Ky. ), 34 S. VV. 702— i3iw. liDwisville, etc., R. Co. v. Brinley (Ky.), 29 S. VV. 305—344, 838. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Brownlee, 14 Hush (Ky.), 590—431, 1458. Louisviile, etc., R. Co. v. Buck, 110 Ind. 500—1560. Louiaviille, etc., R. Co. v. Burke, loldw. (Tenn.) 45 — 1267. Louisvillr. etc., R. Co. v. Campbell, 7 Heisk. (Tenn.) 253—396, 733, 744, 774. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Case, 9 Bush (Ky.), 728—1209. Lduisville, etc., R. Co. v. Champion, 24 Ky. L. R. 87—1722. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Common- wtia til (Ky.), 57 S. W. 508—159. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Conrad, 4 Ind. App. 83—1416. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Cowherd, 120 Ala. 51—579. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Cravcraft, 12 Ind. App. 203—438, 440' Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Cravton, 69 Miss. 152—1143 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Crumpler, 122 Fed. 425—1080. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Crunk, 119 Ind. 542—1061. 1675. 1676, 1677. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Cunning- ham, 88 111. App. 289—485. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Danev, 97 Ala. 338—1233, 1257. I.K>uisville, etc., R. Co. v. Dies, 91 Tenn. 177—153. 805. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Douglass, 09 Miss. 72.3—1102. Ivouisville, etc., R. Co. v. Du Bose, 120— Ga. 339—1146. Jjouisville, etc., R. Co. v. Duncan, 137 Ala. 446—908, 918. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Echols, 97 Ala. 556—183, 568. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Ellis, 97 Kv. 330—1563. Ijouisville. etc., R. Co. v. Espenscheid, 17 Ind. App. 558—1062. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Falvev, 104 Ind. 400—1718. Txjuisville. etc., R. Co. v. Faylor, 126 Ind. 126—1032. 1033, 1267, 1494. Ix)uisville, etc., R. Co. v. Flanagan, TABLE OF CASES. (The refereuccs are to the pages.) clix 113 Ind. 488—116, 128, 146, 153, 184. Louisville, etc., R. Ck). v. Fleming, 14 Lea (Tenn.), 128—1008, 1219, 1248, 1390, 1446, 1592, 1702, 1712, 1720. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Fliim, 16 Ky. L. E,ep. 57 — 1166. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Frazee, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 1273—890. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Ft. Wayne Electric Co. (Ky.), 55 S. W. 918— 211. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Gaines (Ky.), 36 S. W. 174—1417. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Garrett, 8 Lea (Tenn.), 438—1397. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Gatewood, 14 Ky. Law Rep. 108—1405. Louisvil'e. etc., R. Co. v. Gerson, 102 Ala. 409—7. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Gilbert, 88 Tonn. 430—440, 451, 494, 1456. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Gilmer, 89 Ala. 534—239, 582. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Godman, 104 Ind. 490—788, 803, 838, 846. Louisville, etc., R. Ck). v. Grant, 99 Ala. 325—454, 492. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Gregory's Adm'r, 141 Ky. 747—1109, 1196. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Hailey, 94 Tonn. 383—1059. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Hamed, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 1651—818, 905. Louifiville, etc., R. Co. v. Harris, 9 Jjea (Tenn.), 180—999. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Hartvvcll, 99 Ky. 436—208, 213. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Hartwell, 18 Ky. L. Rep. 745—612. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Hedger, 9 Bush (Ky.), 64.5—822, 907. Lou sville, etc., R. Co. v. Heilprin, 95 111. App. 402—280, 358, 597, 607. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Hendricks, 128 Ind. 462—1103. 1495. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Hull, 24 Ky. Law Rep. 37.5—600. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Jackson, 18 Kv. L. lU'p. 20(1— r2.")6. Lonisvillo, etc., R. Co. v. Johnson, 108 Ala. 62—1258, 1402, 1428. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Johnson, 92 Ala. 204—992, 998. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Johnson, 44 111. App. 56—1230, 1676. Louisville, etc.. R. Co. v. Johnston, 79 Ala. 430-1229. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Jones, 100 Ala. 263—777. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Jones, 83 Ala. 376—1115, 1131, 1235, 1475, 1500. 1700. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Jones, 108 Ind. 551—1500. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Katzen- leiger, 16 Lea (T(.nn.), 380—1306. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Keefer, 146 Ind. 21—12. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Keller, 20 Ky. Law Rep. 957 — 1220. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Kelly, 92 Ind. 371—1148, 1242, 1244, 1261, 1266. 1576, 1662. Louisville, etc., Co. v. Kelsey, 89 Ala. 287—492, 582. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Kingman, 18 Ky. Law Rep. 82—1049. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Klyman (Tenn.), 67 S. W. 472—1024. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Kupper (Ky.), 118 S. W. 266—1156. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Landers (Ala.), 33 So. 482—469. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Lee, 97 Ala. 325—1678. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Lewis, 14 Ky. L. Rep. 770—1256. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Logan, 88 Ky. 232—1194, 1401, 1407. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Logsdon, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 1500—548. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Long, 94 Ky. 410-1207, 1024. Loui-sville, etc., R. Co. v. Lucas, 119 Ind. 583—1155. 1232, 1235, 1236. Louisvilh?, etc., R. Co. v. Mahan, 71 Ky. (8 Bush) 184—1350, 1352. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Manoliester Mills. 88 T.nn. 653—413, 49(), 551, 576. 579, 1459. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Martin, 8 Ky. L. Rep. 432—815. Loiii-^villc. otv., R. Co. v. Mask, 64 Miss. 738-1225, 1257. Louisville, etc., 11. Co. v. Mason, 11 dx i AbLK Ul"' CASE.s. (The ri'fori'iicis ;ire to tlio pagvs.y l/-a (Touii.). lU>"r)S'J, 58-1, oS."), OIKS. Louisville, i-U'.. II. Co. v. McL'liiin, 2;i Ky. L. Hop. 1S78— 17t21. Louisvillt", (>ic.. R. Co. v. McCoy, 81 Ky. 4U3— 1722. Louisville, etc., 11. Co. v. MeEvvan, 17 Ky. L. Rep. -lOli— lltiO, 1I.S7. Louisville, etc., K. Co. v. MoCuiro, 79 Ala. ;{!).J— 2G, 1S8. 384, 3!)r>. (i46. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. McNally, 31 Kv. Law Kep. 1357— ltl22. Louisviile, etc.. R. Co. v. AI. etc., R. Co. v. Miller, 141 Ind. 533—1706, 1716, 1717, 1727, 1728. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Minogue, 90 Ky. 369—1716. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Natchez, etc., R. Co., 67 Miss. 399—552. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Nicholai, 4 Ind. App. 119—26, 1306, 1333, 1450, 1453, 1455, 1456. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Oden, 80 Ala. 38—395, 405, 488, 516, 1456, 1457. Louisville, etc.. R. Co. v. Odil, 96 Tenn. 61—773. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Orr, 84 Ind. 50—1541. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Owen, 93 Kv. 201—494. 896. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Parke, 90 Ky. 580—1215. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Patterson, 69 Miss. 421—1175, 1266. lyouisvillt?, etc., R. Co. v. Pcdigo, 108 Ind. 481—1212, 1.501. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Phillips, 22 Ky. Law Rep. 842—1587. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Plummcr (Ky.), 35 S. W. 1113—455. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Queen City Coal Go. (Ky.), 35 S. VV. 626—137, 369. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Rammacher, 21 Kv. L. Rep. 250— 12.']9. Louisville, etc.. R. Co. v. Reynolds, 24 Ky. L. R. 1402—1477. Louisvillp. etc., R. Co. v. Ricketta, 93 Kv. IIG— 1065. louisviile, etc., R. Co. v. lliclimond, 2:; Ky. L. Rep. 2394—1267. Loui.^viile, ete., R. Co. v. Ritter, 85 Ky. 368- 1098, 1212, 1235, 1495, 1513. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Robbins 4 Tex. App. Civ. C'as., § 43 — 495. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Robinson, 13 Ky. Law Rep. 275—600, 838. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Scott's Adui'r, 108 Ky. 392—1065. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. S. D. Chest- nut & Bro., 24 Ky. Law Rep. 1840 —700. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Shepherd (Ala. App.), 61 So. 14—874. Louisville, etc.. R. Co. v. Sherrod, 84 Ala. 178—491, 454. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, 2 Duv. (Ky.) 556—1500. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Snyder, 117 Tnd. 435—1082, 1212, 1475, 1708, 1718. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Sowell, 90 Tonn. 17—439, 458, 494, 881, 1459. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Stacker, 86 Tenn. 343—1040, 1229, 1080. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v, Steele, 6 Ind. App. 183—881. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Stewart, 56 Fed. 808-1563. Louisville, etc., Rv- Co. v. Stout, 66 lU. App. 298—1664. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Stubcr, 108 Fed. 934—1002. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Sullivan, 81 Ky. 024—1258, 1402, 1408. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Tarter (Ky.), 39 S. W. 698—739, 757, 700. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Taylor, 126 Ind. 120—1450, 1459. Ijouisvillo, etc., R. Co. v. Tennessee Brewing Co., 96 Tenn. 677—749, 778. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Thompson, 107 Ind. 44Z— 314, 959, 1021, 1029, 10.34, 1082. 1501. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Thompson, 04 Miss. 584—1716. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Touart, 97 Ala. 514—119, 137, 341, 570, 578. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Trent, 1(5 Lea (Tenn.), 420—593, 605. TABLE OF CASES. (The references are tx) the pages.) cbd Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Trent, 11 Lea (Tenn.), 82 — 815. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Turner, 100 Tenn. 213—1025, 1145. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Walker, 110 Ky. 961—159. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Walker, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 453—165. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Weaver, 9 Lea (Tenn.), 38-744. 758, 1345, 1361, 1303. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Whitman, 79 Ala. 328-1148, 1181, 1719. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Wilsey (Ky.), 12 S. W. 275—1702, 1711. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Wilson, 132 Ind. 517—157, 720, 1185. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Wilson, 119 Ind. 3.52—165, 628, 660, 720. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Wilson, 30 Ky. Law Rep. 1055—1683. Louisville, etc.. R. Co. v. Wolfe, 128 Ind. 347—1705, 1713, 1740. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Wood, 113 Ind. 544—1150, 1237, 1241, 1706, 1716. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Wurl, 62 111. App. 381—1719. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Wvnn, 88 Tenn. 320—458, 494, 496, 571, 822, 881. 905. Louisville R. Co. v. Hutti, 141 Ky. 511—1390. Louisville R. Co. v. Mitchell. 138 Ky. 190—1001, 1699. Louisville R. Co. v. Wilder, 143 Ky. 436—1195, 1253. Louisville St. Rv. Co. v. Brownfield, 29 Ky. L. R. 1097-1502. Tvouisviile S. W. Rv. Co. v. Mitchell, 101 Ark. 289—874. Love V. Ross, 89 Iowa, 400 — 624. IvOvejoy V. Murray, 3 Wall. (U. S.) 1—531. Loveland v. Burke, 120 Mass. 139 — 36, 567. Loverin & Browne Co. v. Travis. 135 Wis. .322-1736. Lovett v. Hobbs, 2 Show. 127—135 182. 945. Low V. Dp Wolf, 8 Pick. (Mass.) 101 —232. Lowe V. East Tonrif^spo, etc., R. Co., 90 Ga. 85 — .T15. 359. Lowp V. Martin. IS Til. 286—16. Lowe V. Moss, 12 111. (2 Peck) 477— 358. Lowell Wire Fence Co. v. Sarg.nt, 8 Allen (Mass.), 189—39, 739. Lowenstein v. Lombard, Avres & Co., 164 N. Y. 324—537, 533," 815, 2013. Lowenthal v. Vicksbiirg, etc., R. Co., 117 La. 1007— HOG. Lowery v. Manliattan Ry. Co., 99 N. Y. 158—552, 1478. Lowery v. Manhattan R. Co., 12 Daly (N. Y.), 431—1114. Lowery v. Western Un. Tel. Co., 00 N. Y. 198—1567. Lowry v. Mt. Adams, etc., R. Co., 63 Fed. 827—1717. Loy V. Northern Pac. R. Co., 68 Wash. 33—999, 1418, 1438. Loyd V. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 53 Mo 509—1679. L. Starks Co. v. Grand Rapids & I. Ry. Co. (Mich.), 131 N. W. 143— 1879. Luby V. Hudson R. R. Co., 17 N Y 131—1564. Lucas V. Burlington, etc., R Co (Iowa). 84 N. W. 673—404. Lucas V. Detroit City R. Co., 92 Mich 412—1582. Lucas V. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co., 33 Wis. 41—1057, 1145. Lucas V. New Bedford, etc., R. Co., 6 Gray (Mas.^.), 64— 159S, 1675. Lucas V. Noekells, 4 Bing. 729 048. Lucas V. Taunton, etc., R.^Co., 6 Gray (Mass.). 64—1061, 1247. Lueiso Oil Co. v. Pennsylvania R Co 2 Pittsb. R. (Pa.) 477—335. Luckel v. Century Bldg. Co., 177 AIo 608—1213. ' *= Lucy v. Chicago G. W. R. Co 64 Minn. 7—1167, 1194. Ludwig y. Meyre, 5 W. & S. fPa ) 435—271, 343. Luosco Oil Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co 2 Pittsb. 477—582. Lugner v. Milwaukee Elec. Ry etc Co., 146 Wis. 175—993, 1447. ' Luke y. Lyde, 2 Burr, 887 — 243. Lukon V. Lake Shore, etc., R Co '>48 111. 377—1857. Lundquist V. Grand Trunk W. R Co 121 Fed. 915-1789. I-i-ruly V. Central Pac. R. Co., 66 Cal ''^1-1028. clxu TABLE OF CASES. (The retVroiuH\j are to the pagt!8.) Lunsiford v. lx)uisville & N. R. Co., 15:5 Ky. -is:?— Ulii'.l. Lveett V. Manhiiltuii Hy. Co., 12 App. "Div. (N. V.) 321)— 08. Lv:^) V. Newbolil, 9 Exch. 30G— 9S8. Lygo V. Newliuld, 8 E\eh. 302— !)58. Ly.e V. Barker, 5 Bin. (Pa.) 457 — 531. LmicIi v. Metropolitan Elev. R. Co., ■yo X. Y. 77— 9!I9, 1183. Lvnch V. New York Cent., etc., R. 'Oo., 8 App. Div. (N. Y.) 458— 10!)S. Lvne V. Chesjipeake & 0. R. Co., 68 "W. Va, 213—1001. Lvne V. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 170 *I-\h1. 847— ISSi). Lvn? V. Michigan, 135 U. S. IGl— '2l'i!l. Lvnn V. Southorn Pac. R. Co., 103 'Cal. 7—1222. Lvod V. Haugh & Kecnan Storage & 'Transfer Co., 223 Pa. 148—73. Lvon V. Erie R. Co., 57 N. Y. 489— *451. Lyon V. MelLs, 5 East. 428—150. Lvon V. Western New York, etc., R. 'Co., 88 Hun (N. Y.), 27—754. Lyons v. Boston Elev. Ry. Co., 204 'Mass. 227—1515. Lyons v. Broadway, etc., R. Co., 32 N. Y. St. R. 232—1156, 1166. Lyons v. Hill, 46 N. H. 49—266. Lyons v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 136 App. Div. (N. Y.) 903—406. M. Mabry v. City Electric R. Co., 116 Ga. 624—1712. Ikiac Andrew v. Electric Tel. Co. (Eng.). 17 C. B. 3—90, 465. Mace v. Southern R. Co., 151 N. C 404—1417. Machu v. London, etc., R. Co., 17 L. J. Exch. 271—186. Mack y. Great Western Despatch, 2 O. C. D. 22—427. Mack v. Los Angeles Tract. Co. (Cal.), 73 Pac. 455—1692. Maekav y. Western Union Tel. Co., 16 Nev. 226—616. Ma-kenzie v. Cox, 38 E. C. L. 263— 579. Maeken/.ie v. Cox, 9 C. & P. 032— 412. Ma.klin v. Waterliouse, 5 Bing. 212— 527. Maekoy v. Mi>s(iuri Pac. R. Co., 5 Melrary (C. S. ) , 538—1703, 1716, 1727. Matkoy v. MLssouri Pac. R. Co., 18 Fed. 236—1211. Maeleiinaii v. Long Island R. Co., 107 N. Y. 623-1602. Jlacleiinan v. Long Island R. Co., 52 N. Y. Super. Ct. 22—1602. Maeloon v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 3 Int. Com. Kep. 711-1793. Macon Consol. St. R. Co. v. Barnes, 113 Ga. 212—1080, 10S2, 1216. Macon, etc., R. Co. v. Johnson, 38 Ga. 4()()_1514^ 15G5, 106!), 1071, 1727, 1728. Macon, etc., R. Co. v. Moore, 125 Ga. 810-1438. Macon, etc., R. Co. v. Moore, 108 (jra. 84—1221, 1633. Macon Grocery Co. v. Atlantic C. L. R. Co., 163 Fed. 738—1873. Macon Ry. & El. Co. v. Vining, 120 Ga. 511—1249, 1681. Macrow v. Great Western R. Co., L. R. 6 Q. B. 612—1296. MacVeagh v. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 3 N. Mex. 205—328, 329, 331, 373. Madan v. Covert, 81 N. Y. 296—407. Madan v. Sherrard, 73 N. Y. 329— 30, 426, 433, 447, 1333. Madden v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 50 Mo. App. 666—1237, 1475, 1504, 1676. Madison, etc., R. Co. v. Whitesel, 11 Ind. 55—244. Mad River R. Co. v. Fulton, 20 Ohio, 318—1295. Maercker v. Brooklyn H. R. Co., 137 App. Div. (N. Y.) 49—1549. Maercker v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 122 N. Y. Supp. '87-1649. Magar v. Hammond, 54 App. Div. (N. Y.) 532-1168. Magdeburg General Ins. Co. v. Paul- sen. 29 Fed. 530-587. Maggioli v. St. Louis Tr. Co., 108 Mo. App. 416—1620. Maghee v. Camden, etc., R. Co., 45 N. Y. 514—222, 738, 760, 770. TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pages.) clxiii Magill V. Seaboard Air Line Ev., 84 S. C. 416—953. Magnin v. Dinsmore, 70 X. Y. 410 — 3tJ, 2S5, 497, 499, 504. Magnin v. Dinsmore, 62 X. Y. 35 — 504, 524, 617. Magnin v. Dinsmore, 56 N. Y. 168— 371, 461, 504, 528, 570, 1463. Magnin v. Dinsmore, 51 How. Pr. (X, Y.) 457—522. Magnus v. Piatt, 115 N. Y. Supp. 824 —506. Magnus v. Platt, 62 Misc. Kep. (N. Y.) 499—535, 705. Magoflin v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 102 Mo. 540—1050, 1494. Magoric v. Little, 25 Fed. 627-1130. Magrane v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 183 Mo. 119—549, 1213, 1494. Maguire v. Middlesex R. Co., 115 Ma-s. 239—1553, 1596, 1640. 1643. Maguire v. St. Louis Tr. Co. (Mo.), 78 S. W. 838—1620. Mahar v. Xew York Cent., etc., R. Co., 5 App. Div. (X. Y.) 22—1225. 1243. Maher v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 64 Mo. 267—1270. Maher v. Central Park, etc., R. Co., 39 X. Y. Super. Ct. 155—1640. Mahon v. Blake, 125 Mass. 477—234, 241, 599. Mahoning Valley R. Co. v. De Pas- cale, 70 Ohio 'St. 179—1714. Mahoning Valley R. Co. v. De Pas- cale, 3 St. Ry." Rep. 737—1170. Mai'rnan v. Xew Orleans, etc., R. Co., 24 La. Ann. 333—385. Maillefcrt v. Interbnrough Rap. Tr. Co., 50 Misc. R. (X. Y.) 160—1208. Mairs v. Ba'.t'rnore, etc.. R. Co., 175 N. Y. 409—217. Maisels v. Drv Dock, etc., R. Co., 16 App. Diy. TX. Y.) 391—1564. Majeslic Conl & Coke Co. v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.. 162 Fed. 810-1820. Malcolm V. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 106 X. C. 63— in:;8. Mnl'Of'k y. Tower Tirove. etc., R. Co., 57 ^ro. 17—1150, 1175. Malhndo v. Brooklyn City R. Co., 30 X. Y. 372— 124.r Mali V. Lord, 39 X. Y. 381—1184. Mnllard y. Ninth Ave. R. Co., 27 St. llcp. (N. Y.) 801 — 1587. Mallorv v. Burrett, 1 E. D. Sm. (N. Y.) 234—223. 634, 639, 756. Mallory v. Tioga R. Co., 39 Barb. (N. Y.) 488-52, 97, 121. Mallory S. S. Co. v. G. A. Bahn Dia- mond & Optical Co. (Tex. Ciy. App.), 154 S. W. 282-2003. Malone y. Boston, etc., R. Co., 12 Gray (Mass.), 388—1333, 1377, 1452. Malone y. Metropolitan Express Co., 86 X. Y. Supp. 1039—1333. Malonev y. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 95 App. Diy. (N. Y.) 393—1681. .ualott V. Central Trust Co., 168 Ind. 428—1049. Malott y. Weston (Ind. App.), 98 N. E. 127—1470. Malott y. Woods, 109 111. App. 512— 1711. Malpass y. Hestonville, etc., R. Co., 129 Pa. St. 599—1648. Maltby y. Chica.oro, etc., R. Co., 52 Mich. 108-1082. Manahan y. Stpinway, etc., R. Co., 125 X. Y. 760—1588. Manchester, etc., R. Co. v. Brown, L. R. 8 H. L. 703 — {65. ]Manda y. Wells. Fargo & Co., 21 Misc. R. (X. Y.) 308— 287. Manegold y. The E. A. Shores, Jr., 73 Fed. 342—1989, 1905. Mangan v. Brooklyn R. Co., 38 X. Y. 455—548, 1588."^ Manhattan Oil Co. y. Camden, etc., Transp. Co., 54 X. Y. 197-771. Mann y. Birchard, 40 Vt. 326 — 343 345, 360, 427, 459, 571, 758, 1452, 14.59. Mann y. Pere Marquette R. Co. (Mich.), 07 X. W. 721—456, 457. Mann v. Philadelphia Tract. Co., 175 Pa. St. 122—1642. Mann v. White River Log & Boom- ing Co., 46 Mich. 38 — 86. Mann-Boudoir Car Co. y. Dupre 54 Fed. 64r — 1559. Manning y. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 67 Mich. 677—1533. Manning v. Louisville, etc., R. Co 95 Ala. 392—999. Manning y. Watson, Cheyes (S C ) 60—681. Manning v. West End St. R. Co., 160 Mass. 230—1508. .•Ixiv TABLK OF CASJiS. (Tlio rofori'iiccji aie (<> tlio p;',:^'s.) Maniion v. raiiuliu IntcrstiUe Kv. Co., .>(! \V. Va. 5.")4— 1(»S7. Mnimon v. CaiiuU'ii Iiitorstato Ry. Co., 3 St. Ry. Rep. J)2S— 1.'>82. Manser v. Kustorn Cmintios R. Co., 3 L. T. N. S. 5S5— llO.l, lll(i. Maiison v. Jacob, 93 Mo. 3.] 1—112. Maiison v. Jacob, 12 Mo. App. 125 — 112. Mantw York Cent. R. Co., 45 Barb. (N. Y.) 502—170, 355, 590, 596. Marshall v. New York Cent. R. Co., 45 Barb. (N. Y.) 620—583. Marshall v. Pontiac, etc., R. Co., 120 Mich. 4,5—1355. Marshall v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co.. 78 Mo. 610—1228, 1423, 1798. Marshall v. York, etc., R. Co., 73 E. C. L. 655—991. Marshall & Michel Grain Co. v. Kan- sas City R. Co., 176 Mo. 480—770. Marshall, etc.. Grain Co. v. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 176 Mo. 480— 751. Martin v. American Express Co., 19 Wis. 336—291, 768, 772. Martin v. Boston & N. St. Ry. Co., 205 Mass. 16—1528. Martin v. Boston Elev. Ry. Co. (Mass.), 101 N. E. 1089 — 1525. I\Iartiii v. Central R. Co., 121 App. Div. (N. Y.) .552—1.-536, 1373. Martin v. Cliicago, etc., R. Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 32—1797, 1795. TABLE OF CASES. clxv (The references are to the pages.) Martin v. Fort Worth, etc., R. Co., 3 'J ex. Civ. App. 556 — 1S!>. Martin v. Great Northern Rv. Co., 110 Minn. 118— 301. Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. (U. S.) 339—1895. Martin v. Kansas Citv, etc.. R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 139 S. W. 615— 917. Martin v. McLaughlin. 9 Colo. 153 — 650. Martin v. Xew York, etc., R. Co., 103 N. Y. 626—1559. Martin v. Rhode Island Co., 32 R. I, 162—1073. Martin v. Second Ave. R. Co., 3 App. Div. (N. Y.) 448—1486, 1616,1643, 1665. Martin v. Southern Ry. Co., 51 S. C. 150—965, 974. Martin v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 2 Int. Com. R. 1—1781, 1786, 1827, 1829. Martin v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 55 Ark. 510—156, 176, 190, 191, 552. Martin v. The Southwark, 191 U. S. 1—2001, 2029. Martindale v. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 50 Mo. 508—1227. Martindale v. Snith, 41 E. C. L. 592 645. Martland v. Bekins Van & Storage Co., 19 Cal. App. 283—629, 647. Marx V. Louisiana Western R. Co,, 112 La. 108.5—1419. Maskos V. American S. S. Co., 11 Fed. 698—1370. ^laslin V. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 14 W. Va. 180—33, 43, 822, 838, 1037, 1429, 1451, 1456, 1461. Mason v. Grand Trunk R. Co.. 37 U. C. Q. B. 16.3—379, 773, 776. Mason v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 25 Mo. App. 473—798, 846. Mason v. Nasliville, etc., R. Co., 135 Ga. 471—1172. Mason v. Richmond, etc., R. Co., Ill N. C. 482—457. Mason v. Seaboard Air L. Rv., 159 N. C. 183—1420. Massachusetts L. & T. Co. v. Fitch- hurp R. Co., 143 Mass. 318— .590. MasHcll V. Boston Elcr. Rv. Co., 191 Mass. 491 — 1020, 1274, 1441. MasHoth V. Delaware & H. C. Oo., 64 N. Y. 524 — 1516. Masterson v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 102 Wis. 571—1150, 1429. Masterson v. Crosstown St. Rv- Co. of BufTalo, 201 X. Y. 499—1521. Masterson v. Macon City, etc., E. Co., 88 Ga. 436-1680. Mate v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 27 Iowa, 22—1356. Math v. Chicago City Rv. Co., 24o 111. 114—1651. Matheson v. Southern Rv. Co., 79 S. C. 155 — 515. Mathevsr v. Wabash R. Co., 115 Mo. App. 468—1140, 1270. Mathieson v. Burlington, etc., R. Co. (Iowa), 100 N. W. 51—1602. Mathis V. Thomas, 101 Ind. 119—647. Mathison v. Staten Island M. R. Co., 72 N. Y. Supp. 954—66 App. Div. (N. Y.) 610—1403. Matter of Application of Clark, 2 Int. Com. R. 797-1826. Matter of Boston, etc., R. Co., 5 Int. Com. C. Rep. 69 — 1791. Matter of Chicago, etc., R. Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 137—1761. Matter of Grand Trunk R. Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 406—1791, 1832, 1852. Matter of Indiana Supplies, 1 Int. Com. Rep. 22—1854. Matter of Louisville, etc., R. Co., 5 Int. Com. R. 406—1790, 1791. Matter of U. S. Commissioners of Fish, etc., 1 Int. Com. Rep. 606 — 1854. Matter of Webb, 8 Taunt. 443—256, 386, 392. Matteson v. New York Cent. R. Co., 57 N. Y. 552—1356. Matteson v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 76 N. Y. 381—1353, 1356. Matteson v. New York Cent. R. Co., 35 N. Y. 487—1561. Matteson v. New York Cent. R. Co., 62 Barb. (N. Y.) 364—1562, 1716 Matthews v. American Cent. Ins. Co. 154 N. Y. 449 — 483. Matthews v. Cliarleston, etc., R. Co. 38 S. C. 429 — 1229. Matthews v. Metropolitan St. R. Co. 150 Mo. App. 715—1022, 1276, 1621. Mattingly v. Pmnsylvania Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 806—1776, 1784, 1793. Mattison v. New York Cent. R. Co., 76 N. Y. 381—1351. cl xvi 'lAIM.i: OF CASKS. (The refereucoa ure to tlio pages.; Mattison v. New York, etc., R. Co., 57 N. Y. 5r)-2— lyn, l.-ial. KJf.ii, 1. {,■)(>. Miitur V. Oliio Cent. Triiitioii Co., 81 Ohio St. 4!»4— 1C.22. Matz V. St. Paul City U. Co. (Minn.) o.} N. W. 1071— IIJIO. MauKlin v. Srahoard .\ir Lino Kv., 73 S. C. !)— KJG. Maiiritz v. New York, etc., \l. Co., 23 Fed. 7li7— 1201. 12!):5. 12!)7, 1330, 1332, 1340, 13(;i, 13(52. Maurit/ v. New York, etc., R. Co., 21 Am. & Enp. R. Cas. 286—1293. Maury v. Talniadpc, 2 McLean (U. S.) 157-1129, 1211. Maverick v. Eigiith Ave. R. Co.. 36 N. Y. 378—947, 1080, 1211, 1217. Maving v. Todd. 4 Campb. 225 — 463. Maving v. Todd. 1 Stark, 72—83, 490. Mavrow v. Great Western R. Co., L. R. 6 Q. B. 612—1291. Maximum Kate Case, 107 U. S. 479— 1759. 1760, 1761. Maxwell v. Mclvry, 2 Bibb (Ky.) 211 — 85. Maxwell v. Soutliern Pac. R. Co., 48 La. Ann. 385 — 455. May V. Hanson, 5 Cal. 360 — 59. Mav V. New Orleans, 178 U. S. 496 — 1735. May V. Ontario, etc., R. Co., 10 Ont. Rep. 70—1063. May V. Shreveport Traction Co., 127 La. 420—1177. Mayall v. Boston & M. R. Co., 19 N. H. 122—185. Maybin v. South Carolina R. Co., 8 Rich. L. (S. C.) 240—80, 81. Mavell V. Potter, 2 Johns. Cas. (N. Y.) 371—198, 401, 404. Mayer v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 31 U. C. C. P. 248 — 392. .Mavfield v. Soutliern Ry. Co., 84 S. C. 393—866. Mayhew v. Eames, 3 B. & C. 601— 403. Mayo V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 104 Mass. 142 — 1598. Mavo V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 104 Mass. 137—1242. 1691. Mavor V. Oregon Short Line Co., 21 Utah, 141—1215. Mavor, etc., of New l^ork v. Starin, 100 N. Y. 1—59. Mavsville, etc., R. Co. v. llorrick, 13 iJusli. (Ky.) 122—1716, 1722. Mc.Xbsher v. Richmond & D. R. Co., 108 N. C. 344—147. 155, 838. McAdoo V. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 105 N. C. 140—6. McAfee v. Huidekoper, 9 App. D. C. 36—1664. McAlan v. Trustees New York, etc., Bridge, 43 App. Div. (N. Y.) 374— 1672. 1677. McAlistor v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 74 Mo. 351—122, 330, 333, 552, 616, 734, 805. McAlister v. Peoples Ry. Co. (Del.), 54 AtL 743-1085, 1131, 1216, 1267. McAllister v. Soutliern Pac. Co. (U. S. D. C. N. Y.), Ill Fed. 938—204. Mc Andrew v. Electric Tel. Co., 33 Eng. L. & Eq. 180—92. McAndrew v. Wliitlock, 52 N. Y. 40 — 199, 257, 259, 272, 354, 384, 399. McArthur v. Sears, 21 Wend. (N. Y.) 190—76, 308. jMcBcatli V. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 20 Mo. App. 44.5—907. McP.ride v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 19 Oreg. 64 — 1518. McBurnie v. Stetsly, 29 Ky. Law. Rep. 1191—12. McCabe v. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 154 111. App. 380—596. McCaffrey v. T\vcnty-Third St. R. Co., 47 Hun (N. Y.) 404 — 462. McCaig V. Erie R. Co., 8 Hun (N. Y.) 599—1533, 1534. McCall y. California, 136 U. S. 339 —1733. McCall V. Forsyth, 4 W. & S. (Pa.) 179— 14S8. McCanipbell v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 150 Ky. 723— R30. McCance v. Ixjndon, etc., R. Co., 7 H. & N. 477—522. McCann v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 20 Md. 202—774. IMcCann v. Eddy, 133 Mo. 59—767. McCann. v. Sixth Ave. R. Co., 117 N. Y. 505—1168. Mc-Carn v. International, etc., R. Co., 84 Tex. 352—767. McCarragher v. Rogers, 120 N. Y. 535—1587. McCarten v. North Eastern R. Co., 54 N. J. Q. B. Div. 441—1261. TABLE OF CASES. clxvii (The references are to the pages.) McCarthy v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 102 Ala. 193—306, 318, 372, 559, 561, 576, 749. McCarthy v. Terre Haute, etc., R. Co., 9 Mo. App. 159—138, 740, 756, 758, 759. McCarty v. Gulf, etc., R. Co., 79 Tex. 33—145, 149. 478, 485. McCarty v. Xew York, etc., R. Co., 30 Pa. St. 247—381, 4l0. McCarty v. St. Louis & S. R. Co., 105 Mo. App. 596 — 983, 1U92, 1504. McCaslin v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 93 Mich. 553—1576, 1679. McCaslin v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 69 Miss. 136—1243. McCauley v. Davidson, 10 Minn. 418 —118. McCauley v. Tennessee, etc.. Coal Co., 93 Ala. 356—958, 1288. McCawley v. Furnace R. Co., L. R. 8 Q. B. 57—1451. McCTanahan v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co., 147 Mo. App. 386 — 1535. McClary v. Sioux City, etc., R. Co., 3 Neb. 44—373, 1477, 1513, 1704. McClelland v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 94 Ind. 276—1403. McClenaghan v. Brock. 5 Rich L. (S. C.) 17—945. 948. McClure v. Hammond, 1 Bav (S. C), 99—23, 72. 75. McClure v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 34 Md. 532—1015, 1025, 1027, 1390, 1415, 1427. McClure v. Richardson, Rich L. (S. C.) 215—12, 72, 186. McCollora v. Indianapolis, etc., R. Co., 94 111. 534—821. McCombn V. North Carolina, etc., R. Co., 67 N. C. 193—412. McConnf^ll v. Norfolk, etc., R. Co., 80 Va. 248—741. McConnell Bros. v. Southern Ry. Co., 144 N. C. 87—514. McCook v. Dublin, etc., R. Co., 2 Ga. App. 374 — 1395. McCook V. Northup, 65 Ark. 225 — 1428, 1145. McCord V. Atlantic, etc.. Air Line R. Co. (N. C), 45 S. E. 1031—1487, 1656. MoCormack v. Tnterborough Rap. Transit. 117 N. Y. Supp. 532, 132 App. Div. 703—1490. McCormick v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 14 1. C. C. Rep. 611-1868. McCormick v. Hudson River R. Co., 4 E. D. Sm. (N. Y.) 181—1294, 1363. McLormick v. Pennsylvania Cent. R. Co., 99 N. Y. 65-1298, 1348, 1371. McCormick v. Pennsylvania Cent. R. Co., 80 N. Y. 353—1371. McCormick v. Pennsylvania Cent. R. Co., 49 N. Y. 303-588, 1375. McCosson V. Grand Trunk R. Co., 23 U. C. C. P. 107—392. M'cCoun V. New Y'ork Cent., etc., R. Co., 66 Barb. (N. Y.) 338—1552. McCourt V. London, etc., R. Co., 3 Ir. R. C. L. 107—186. McCoy V. Atlantic Coast L. R. Co., 84 S. C. 62—1380. McCoy V. Erie, etc., Transp. Co., 42 -Md.' 498 — 456. :McCoy V. Keokuk, etc., R. Co., 44 Iowa, 424—33, 419, 822, 905. McCranie v. Wood, 24 La. Ann. 406 —325. McCrary v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 109 Mo. App. 567—903. McCrary v. Missouri, etc., Ry. Co^ 99 Mo. App. 518—818. McCullen v. New York, etc., R. Co., 68 App. Div. (N. Y.) 209—1432. McCullough V. Hellweg, 65 Md. 269 — 635. McCullough V. Wabash Western R. Co., 34 Mo. App. 23—441. McCune v. Burlington, etc., R. Co., 52 Iowa, 600—455, 494, 527, 861. McCurrier v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 122 Cal. 558—1215, 1488. McDade v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 67 W. Va. 582, 08 S. E. 378—1051, 1170. McDaniel v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 24 Iowa, 412— .S07. 440. 793. McDaniel v. Highland Ave. R. Co., 90 Ala. 64—1065, 1662. McDeiTTiott v. Boston Elev. Ry. Co., 1 St. Rv. Rep. 325 (Mass.) 68 N. E. 34— i588 McDermott v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 82 Wis. 246—1666. McDonald v. Central R. Co. (N. J.), 62 -Vtl. 40.'">— 12.55. McDonald v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 2!) Iowa, 170—1557. cixvui TABLE OF CASES. (The ri'iVionci's uro U> the pages.) W<'lX>naia V. Cliioago. I'ti-., K. Co., 26 lu\v.vi, 124— l-.!oJ, 1572, llJ24. AicIX>ii.iKl V. lluspiuil, 12vi Alu^s. 4^2—1133. ilicDouald V. Illinois C<'nl. U. Co., 88 Iowa, o4.> — 1242, ililili. MelXuuild V. l/oiig l.slaiul R. Co., 110 N. Y. o-lU— 1225, 12JI), 1240, 1243, 1247, lOUo. AfrUonalil v. Jx)ng Islaiui K. Co., 71 N. V. 54li— 1241. McDonald v. Metropolitan St. Rj. Co., 21!> Mo. 4GS— 1503. MclX)nald v. Montgomery St. R. Co., 110 Ala. Itil— 1470, 1545. McDonald v. liailruad Lo. (Iowa), oo N. \V. 102—1220. McDonald v. Sinipson-Cravvford Co., 114 App. Div. (X. Y.) 85!)- 1007. McDonald v. St. Ixjuis, etc., R. Co., 105 Mo. App. 75—907, 1287, 1427, 1435. McDonald v. St. lx)uis Tr. Co., 108 Mo. App. 374 — 1081. McDonald v. Western K. Corp., 34 N. Y. 407—379, 774, 775. McDonnell v. Chicago City Ry. Co., 131 111. App. 227—1491. McDunough v. Boston Elev. Ry. Co., 208 Mass. 430—1527. McDonoiigh V. Metropolitan R. Co., 137 Mass. 210—975, 987, 1600, 1015. McDunough v Third Ave. R. Co., 95 App. Div. (N. Y.) 311—1198, 1681. McDougal V. Central R. Co., 63 Cal. 431—1544, 1545. McDuffee v. Portland & R. R. Co., 52 N. H. 430—118, 121, 157, 1138. McEacheran v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 101 Mich. 204—701. Mci^.achran v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 115 Mich. 318—133, 040. McElroy v. Iowa Cent. Ry. Co. (Iowa), 110 N. W. 915—1298. McElroy v. Nashua, etc., R. Co., 4 Cush. (Mass.) 400—1083, 1213. McElroy v. Railroad Co., 7 Phila. (Pa.) 206—1025. McElvain v. St. Louis &, S. F. R. Co., 151 Mo. App. 126—442, 657, 892, 1918. McPIIvane v. Central of Ga. R. Co., 170 Ala. 525—1161, 1282. .\ulvlvea aro to tlic pa^s.) McT;i0. Mclv<'an V. Hurbaiii^, 11 Minn. 277 — 1154. ir>o.'). iiui;. McLean v. Fleming. L. R. 2 Sc. App. Ca.>*. 128— 22il. MeLean v. Kutherford. 8 Mo. 109—10. McLeod V. (iiiitlier. 80 Kv. :VJl)— 1562. MeLeod v. New York, etc., R. Co.. 72 App. Div. (N. Y.) Ill)— 1147, 1182. Me.Mahon v. t'liieago City Ry. Co., 2;5!) HI. ;?;i4— 1179. MeMahon v. Chieago City Ry. Co.. 143 111. App. 008-1170. Me.Maiion v. Maey, 51 N. Y. 155—430. McMalion v. New Orleans Ry., etc., Co., 127 La. 544— 1C50. McMahon v. New York El. R. Co., 50 N. Y. Super. Ct. 507—1125. McMahon v. Northern Cent. Ry. Co., 39 Md. 438—1591. McMahon v. Third Ave. R. Co., 16 J. & S. (N. Y.) 282-1026. McManus v. Chicago G. W. R. Co., 138 Iowa, 150—925, 935. McManus v. Chicago G. W. Ry. Co. (Iowa), 136 N. W. 769—723, 1883. McManus v. Chicago G. W. Ry. Co. (Iowa), 115 N. W. 919-724." McManus v. Lancashire, etc., R. Co., 4 H. & N. 327—405. Mc:Master v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 65 Mir^s. 271-449. McMeekin v. Southern Ry. Co., 82 S. C. 468—621, 623. McMelon v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 126 La. 606—1009. McMillan v. American Express Co (Towa), 98 N. W. 629—890. ^Mc^Iillan v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 147 Iowa, 596—877. McMillan v. Michigan Southern, etc., R. Co.. 16 Mich. 79— 385, 416, 425, 427, 4.32, 453, 456, 578, 739. McMorrin v. Canadian Pac. R. Co. (Can.), 1 Ont. Law Rep. 561—466, 469, 1786, 1787, 1790. McMurrav v. Fargo, 131 N. Y. Supp. 884 — 937. McMurrv v. Pullman's Palace Car Co., SO Mo\ App. 619—64, 66. McMurtrv v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 67 Miss. 601-1014. .McNally v. Mitropolilan St. Ry. Co., 145 Mo. App. 127—1074. .McNaniara v. Great Nortiiern 11. Co., 01 Minn. 290—991. McXaniara v. St. Louis Tr. Co., 106 Mo. Ap]). 349—1020. McNaughLon v. Mcliirl, 20 Mont. 124 — 1732, 1734. McNeill V. Durham, etc., K. Co., 135 N. C. 082—948, 1033. McNeill V. Southern R. Co., 202 U. S. 543—1894. McNichol V. Pacific Express Co., 12 Mo. App. 401—203. McNulta V. En.sch, 134 111. 46—1073. McNulty V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 182 Pa. St. 479—1005. McPadden v. New York Cent. R. Co., 44 N. Y. 478—315, 1106, 1118, 1123. McPheeters v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 45 Mo. 22—6. McPherson v. Co.v, 86 N. Y. 479 — 350. McPherson v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 97 Mo. 253—1123. McQuade v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 53 N. Y. Super. Ct. 91—1231, 1238. McQueen v. Central, etc., Pac. R. Co., .30 Kan. 689—1003. McQuerrv v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 117 Mo. App. 255—1413, 1433. McQuilken v. Central Pac. R. Co., 64 Cal. 46,3—1567, 1598. 1600. McQuillcn v. Central Pac. R. Co., 50 Cal. 7—1540. McRae v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 125 Mo. App. 562—1528. McRae v. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 88 N. C. 526—1025. 1020, 1069, 1070. McSwegan v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 7 App. Div. 301—272. McVeagh v. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 3 N. M. (Gild) 205—375. McVeety v. St. Paul, etc., R. Co.. 45 Minn'. 268—988, 1017. Meade v. Boston Elev. Rv. Co. (Mass.), 70 N. E. 197—1086. Mearns v. Central R. Co., 163 N. Y. 108—1224. Mears v. New York, etc., R. Co., 75 Conn. 171—472. Mears v. New York, etc., R. Co., (Conn.), 52 Atl. 610—273, 439, ,570, 771. TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pages.) clxxi Mechanics', etc., Bank v. Gordon, 5 La. Ann. 606—110. Medbury v. New York, etc., R. Co., 26 Barb. (N. Y.) 564—357, 615, 617, 624. Meegan v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 101 Mo. App. 45—1495. Meeker v. Lehigh Valley R. Lo., 162 Fed. 354—1773, 18S9. Meesel v. Lynn & B. R. Co., 8 Allen (Mass.), 234—1639, 1641. Meetze v. Southern Express Co., 91 S. C. 379—1979. Mehalek v. Minneapolis, etc.. R. Co., 105 Minn. 128—969. Meier v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 64 Pa. St. 225 — 49, 1106, 1114, 1118, 1215, 1512. Meier v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 4 U. C. C. P. 543—1505. Meisner y. Detroit, etc., Ferry Co., 154 Mich. 545—60, 1138. Meister v. VVoolverton, 140 App. Div. (X. Y.) 926—1305. 1335. Meister v. Woolverton, 67 Misc. R. (X. Y.) 167—113. Melbourne v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 88 Ala. 44.3—7, 240, 243, 730. Melendy v. Barbour, 78 Va. 544 — 889. Mellier v. St. Louis, etc., Transp. Co., 14 Mo. App. 281—81, 551. Mellor V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 105 Mo. 45.5—1049. Mellquist v. The Wasco, 53 Fed. 546— 98.'3. 990, 991, 992. Meloche v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 116 Mich. 69—178, 189. Melody v. Great X'orthern Ry. Co., 25 D. C. 606—1880. Meloy v. Chicago, etc., R. Co. (Iowa), 37 X. W. 33.5-1556. Melton V. Birmingham Ry., etc., Co., 153 Ala. 95—997. 1002. Memphis, etc.. Packet Co. v. Abell (Ky.), 30 S. W. 658—594. Memphis, rtc.. Packet Co. v. McCool S3 Ind. 392—1487. Mfmphis. etc., R. Co. y. Benson. 85 Tcnn. 627—1069, 1265, 1558. Memphis, etc.. R. Co. v. Green, 52 Miss. 779—1721. 1723. Memphis, etc.. R. Co. v TInllnway, 9 Haxt. (Tf-nn.) 188 — 483. 4HH. Memphis, etc., R. Co. v. Rorves, 10 Wall. (U. S.) 170—339, 372. Memphis, etc., R. Co. v. Salinger, 46 Ark. 628—1638. Memphis, etc., R. Co. v. Steel (Ark.), 156 S. W. 182—1472. Memphis, etc., R. Co. v. Stringfellow, 44 Ark. 322—1226, 1G73. Memphis, etc., R. Co. v. Whitfield, 44 Miss. 466—1125, 1232, 12o3, 1234, 1246, 1702, 1715, 1723. Memphis Xews Pub. Co. v. Soutliern Ry. Co., 110 Tenn. 684—709, 718. Memphis St. Rv. Co. v. Graves (Tenn.), 75 S. W. 729—1393, 1419. Memphis St. R. Co. v. Shaw, 110 Tenn. 467—1246, 1247, 1250. Menaugh v. Bedford Belt Ry. Co., 157 Ind. 20—1041. Mendenhall y. Atchison, etc., R, Co., 66 Kan. 438—1017. Mensing y. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 117 Mich. 606—1242. Menzell y. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 1 Dill. (U. S.) 531—518, 520. Mercantile Mut. Ins. Co. v. Chase. 1 E. D. Smith (X. Y.), 115—40, 52, 81, 429. Mercantile Trust Co. y. Columbus, etc., ii. Co., 90 Fed. 148 (1898) — 1867. Merchant v. South Chicago C. R. Co., 104 111. App. 122—1216. Merchants' & Miners' Transp. Co. v. Eichberg, 109 Md. 211—294, 507, 658. Merohants' & Miners' Transp. Co. v. Moore & Co., 124 Ga. 482—276. Merchants' & Miners' Transp. Co. y. United States, 199 Fed. 202-1972. Merchants' Bank y. Union R., etc., Co., 69 N. Y. 374—219, 232. Merchants' Cotton Press, etc.. Co. v. Insurance Co. of Xorth America, 151 U. S. 368—216. Merchants' Despatch Co. y. Smith, 70 111. 542—310. Merchants' Despatch, etc., Co. v. Com. forth, 3 Colo. 280—52, 418, 1457. Merchants' Despatch, etc., Co. v. Moore, 88 111. 1.36—379, 381, 463, 701. Merchants' Despatch Transp. Co. v. Bloch, 86 Tenn. 392—52, 53. 458, 571. 744, 707, 1456. MiTclmnts' Despatch Transp. Co. y. clxxii TABLE OF CASES. (TTie referenoca are to the page*.) BollM. 80 lU. 473—53, 626, 527, 771. 77'^. Mcrclmnts' DespaUh Triinsp. Co. v. Kuittiuiann, 14» HI. GG— 433, 445, 44i). Mercnants' Despati-h Traiisp. Co. v. Halluck, 64 HI. 284—240, 250, 380. Meroliaiits' Dospatoh Transp. Co. v. Hatcly, 14 Cau. Sup. Ct. 572—744, 773. Merclianta* Despatch Transp. Co. v. Joist iiiji. 89 111. 153— 433, 455. Meroliants' Despatch Transp. Co. v. Kahn. 70 111. 520—134. Merchants' Despatch Transp. Co. v. Lcysor. 89 111. 43—433. 455. Merchants' Despatch Transp. Co. v. Merriam, 111 Ind. 5—213, 25G, 407. Mercliants' Despatch Transp. Co. v. Theilbar, 8C 111. 71— 433. 455. 463. Merchants' Union v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 4 Int. Com. R. 183—1827. Merchants' Wharfhnat Assoc, v. Wood, 64 Miss. GGl— 453, 737, 776. Mering v. Southern Pac. Co., 161 Cal. 297-500. Meriwether v. Quincy, etc., R. Co., 128 Mo. App. 647—887, 931, 932, 935, 940, 1238. Merriam v. Hartford, etc.. R. Co., 20 Conn. 354—116, 172, 179, 180, 184, 185. Merrick v. Brainard, 38 Barb. (N. Y.) 574— 5G, 531. Merrick v. Gordon, 20 N. Y. 96—780. Merrielees v. Wabash R. Co., 163 Mo. 470—1280. Merrill v. American Express Co., 62 N. H. 514—430, 457, 483. Merrill v. Eastern R. Co., 139 Mass. 23S— 1017. Merrill v. Grinnell, 30 N. Y. 594. 619 —44. 1293, 1294. 1295, 1296, 1300. Merrill v. Metropolitan Co. (N. Y.), 73 App. Div. (N. Y.) 401—1217, 12''-''> Merrill v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 158 111. App. 38—979. Merrill v. Pacific Trans. Co., 131 Cal. 58.3—1340. Merriman v. Great Northern Express Co., 63 Minn. 543—38, 333. Merritt v. Earle. 29 N. Y. 115—27, 29. 163, .306, 307, 308, 372, 550. Merritt v. Old Colony, etc., R. Co., 93 Mass. (11 Allen) 80—192, 193. Merritt Creamery Co. v. Atchisoa, etc., R. Co., 139 Mo. App. 149—312. Merritt Creamery Co. v. Atchison etc., Ky. Co., 128 Mo. App. 420 — 2S8. Mejshon v. Hobcnsack, 22 N. J. L. 372—19, 287, 1136. Merz V. Chica^'o & N. W. Ry. Co., 86 Minn. 33—329, 302. Merwin v. Butler, 17 Conn. 138—62, 249. Mcrwin v. Manhattan R. Co., 48 Hun (N. Y.) 608-1038. ^le-cimeck v. Brooklyn, etc., R. Co., 125 App. Div. 205—1484. McsiTole V. Brooklyn City R. Co., 57 Hun, 591—1692. Messenger v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 37 N. J. L. 531—41, 117, 121, 158, 160. Messenger v. Valley City St., etc., R. Co., 21 N. D. 82—974. Messerno v. Nashville R. Co., 1 Sneed. (Tcnn.) 220—1270. Metcalf V. Baker, 2 J. & S. (N. Y.) 10—1209. Metcalf V. McLaughlin, 122 Mass. 84 —284. Metcalf V. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co., 150 Ala. 240—1005. Metcalf V. ^azoo & M. V. R. Co., 97 Mi.ss. 455 — 978. Metropolitan Bank v. Van Dyke, 27 N. Y. 400, 510—1730, 1741. Metropolitan R. Co. v. Collins, 1 App. Cas. (D. C.) 38,3—1563, 1505. Metropolitan R. Co. v. Falvey, 5 App. D. C. 170—1252. Metropolitan R. Co. v. Falvey (D. C. App.). 23 Wash. L. Rep. 53—1114. Metropolitan R. Co. v. Rnashall, 3 App. D. 420—1470, 1477, 1489, 1517. 1040. Metropolitan St. Rv. Co. v. Hanson (Kan.). 72 Pac. 75—1080. Metropolitan St. R. Co. v. Hanson, 1 St. Ry. Rep. 234—1214. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co. v. Ryan, GO Kan. 538-1692. Metropolitan Trust Co. of N. Y. v. Toledo, etc.. R. Co., 107 Fed. 628— 882, 886, 889. Metropolitan West Side El. Ry. Co. V. Sutherland, 139 111. App. 85— 989, 1274. Mettlestadt v. Ninth Ave. R. Co., 4 Robt. (N. Y.) 377—1614. TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pages.) clxxiii Metz V. Buffalo Corry & P. R. Co., 58 N. Y. 61—45. Metz V. California Southern R. Co., 86 Cal. 329—1294. Metz V. St. Paul Citv R. Co. (Minn.), 92 N. W. 502— lol9. Meuer v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 5 S. Dak. 568—1451, 1452, 1453, 1460. Meux V. Great Eastern R. Co., 2 Q. B. 387 (C. U. 895)— 1375. Mexican Cent. Ry. Co. v. DeRosear, 109 S. W. 949—1297, 1385. Mexican Cent. R. Co. v. Lauricella, 87 Tex. 277—1098, 1495. Mexican Nat. Ry. v. Savage (Tex. Civ. App.), 41 S. W. 663—801, 1852. Mexican Nat. R. Co. v. Ware (Tex. Civ. App.), 60 S. W. 343—952, 1294, 1336. Mever v. Atlantic Coast L. R. Co., 92 S. C. 101—1378. Meyer v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 24 Wis. 56ti — 396. 559. Mever v. Dresser, 15 C. B. (N. S.) 6'46— 229. Meyer v. Harnden's Express Co., 24 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 290 — 453. Meyer v. Lemciie, 31 Ind. 208 — 262. Mever v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 2 Neb. 320—1122. Mever v. Second Ave. R. Co., 21 N. Y. Super. Ct. 305—976. Mever v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 84 Fed. 116—1141, 1142, 1187, 1211, 1247. Meyer v. Vicksburg, etc., R. Co., 41 La. Ann. 639—180, 184, 377. Mevers v. Missouri, etc., Ry. Co., 120 Mo. App. 22S — 442. Meverstcin v. Barber, L. R. 44 L. 317 —231. Miami Powder Co. v. Port Royal & W. C. Ry. Co.. 38 S. C. 78—280, 201, 292, 590, 591. Michaels v. Now York Cent. R. Co., 30 N. Y. 564—27, 53, 308, 372, 574, 736, 745, 837. Michie v. New York, etc., R. Co., 151 Fod. 694—1804. Michigan TVnt. R. Co. v. Boyd, 91 III, 268—446. 449. Mif'iic'nn Cent. R. Co. v. Burrows. 33 Mif.1, 6—1.'?.';. 136, 138, 163, 315, 355, 361, 373, 735. Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 1 111. App. 399—332. Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Coleman. 28 Mich. 440—101, 1213, 1237, 1259, 1607. Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Curtis, 80 111. 324 — 34, 343, 344, 736. Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Hale, 6 Mich. 24.3—392. 400, 430, 456, 776. Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Lantz, 32 Mich. 502—406, 776. Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Mineral Springs Mfg. Co., 16 Wall. (U. S.) 318—376, 402, 406, 426, 430, 730, 734, 774, 1362. Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Philips. 60 111. 190—226, 232. Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Smithson, 45 Mich. 212—122. Micliigan Cent. R. Co. v. Ward, 2 Mich. 538 — 255, 406, 456. Michigan, etc., R. Co. v. Carrow. 73 111. 348—1294, 1298, 1300, 1301, 1306. Michigan, etc., R. Co. v. Caster, 13 Ind. 164—597, 739. Michigan, etc., R. Co. v. Shurtz, 7 Mich. 515—171. Michigan Southern, etc., R. Co. v. Bivens, 13 Ind. 263 — 256, 261, 270. Michigan Southern, etc., R. Co. v. Caster, 13 Ind. 164—597, 739. Michigan Southern, etc., R. Co. v. Day, 20 111. (10 Peck.) 375—242. Michigan Southern, etc., R. Co. v. Day, 20 111. 375—196, 343, 345, 752. 755. Michigan Southern, etc., R. Co. v. Heaton, 37 Ind. 448 — 455, 493. Michigan Southern R. Co. v. McDon- ough, 21 Mich. 165 — 126, 823, 838 785. Michigan Southern, etc., R. Co. v. Shurtz, 7 Mich. 515 — 83, 376, 4I_>. Michigan Southern R. Co. v. Oelun 56 111. 29.3—1292, 1300. Midbury v. Now York, etc.. R. Co., 20 Barb. (N. Y.) 564 — 506. Middle, etc., R. Co. v. Juroy, HI U S. 584 — 581. Midland Nat. Bank v. Missouri Pac i;. Co., 132 Mo. 402—221. 231. Midland Nat. Bank v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 1 Mo. App. Rep. 417— 22o! clxxii lABl.E OF CAMiifcJ. (Tlic nMoroiK'os are to tho pages.) Midland Valley R. Co. v. K/.oll, 20 Ok\. 40— SSG. Midliiml Vallov U. Co. v. E/.ell (Okl.K 12!> Tao. 7:U— 851. Midland \allt>v R. Co. v. George (Okl.). 127 Pae. 871— 8(U5. Midlaiiil Vallov R. Co. v. Hamilton, 84 Ark. 81—1157. 1507. Midland Valley R. Co. v. HolTnian Coal Co.. 01 Ark. 180—136. Midland Vallov R. Co. v. Piigh. 33 Okl. (548—824, 038. Midland Valley R. Co. v. State (Okl.) 133 Tac. 27—1073. Miorson v. Hope, 2 Sweeny (N. Y.) 561—328. .308. Miles V. James. 1 McCord L. (S. C.) 157—50. 75, 160. Miles V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 00 Ark. 485-1483. 1540. Miley v. Norttiorn Pac. Rv. Co., 41 Mont. 51—1470. Miliman v. New York Cent., etc.. R. Co.. 6 T. & C. (N. Y.) 585—1500. Milkerson v. Corrigan Consol. St. R. Co.. 26 Mo. App. 144—1404. Millard v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 86 N. Y. 441—1300. Miller v. Atlanta, etc., Ry. Co., 144 \. C. 54.5—1631. Miller v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 89 App. Div. (N. Y.) 457—1704, 1708. Miller v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 127 App. Div. '(N. Y.) 197—1432, 1434. Miller v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 124 App. Div. (X. Y.) 537—062, 1007, 1173. Miller V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 85 Neb. 458—897. Miller v. Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 1 Mo. App. Rep. 474—350, 539, 541. Miller v. Cornwall R. Co., 154 Pa. St. 473—1048. !^Iiller v. Georgia R., etc., Co., 88 Ga. 56.3—002. 095. 696, 701. Miller v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 90 X. Y. 430—569. Miller v. King, 166 N. Y. 394—1704. Miller v. Mansfield, 112 Mass. 260— 16, 405, 413. 627, 664. Miller v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 125 Mo. App. 414—1525. Miller v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co., 157 Mo. Api>. 638-534, 910. Miller v. Oeoaii Steamship Co., 118 \. Y. 190— lOSl, 1.504, 1.505. :\!ilh'r V. Pendleton, 8 Gray (Mass.), 574—59. Miller v. Railroad Co., 88 Ga. 563— 627. Miller v. South Carolina R. Co., 33 S. C. 359—775. Miller v. South Covington &, C. St. Rv. Co., 25 Ky. L. Rep. 207—1224. Miller v. Southern Ry. Co., 69 S. C. 116—1707. Miller v. Steam Navigation Co., 10 N. Y. 431—310, 313, 775. Miller v. St. Louis R. Co., 5 Mo. App. 471—1506, 1494, 16.57. Miller v. St. Paul City R. Co., 66 Minn. 102—983. Miller v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 83 Tex. 518—269, 741, 779, 780, 781. Miller v. Truesdale, 56 Minn. 274 — 1520. Miller v. United Rys. Co., 165 Mo. App. 528—1496. Millett V. New York, etc., R. Co., 211 Mass. 486—962, 1007. Milligan v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 17 U. C. C. P. 115—267. Milliman v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 66 N. Y. 642—1140, 1195, 1219, 1220, 1230, 1403, 1.596. Millins V. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 93 Miss. 184—1392. Millon V. Grand Trunk R. Co., 21 Ont. App. Rep. 404—84, 386. Mi Hoy V. Grand Trunk R. Co., 23 Ont. Rep. 454—83, 376. Mills V. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 168 Fed. 900—1928. Mills V. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 45 N. Y. 622—189, 241, 3.54, 379, 384, 406, 747. 775. Mills V. Missouri, etc., R. Co. (Tex.), 50 S. W. 874, 57 S. W. 201—1613. Mills V. National Steamship Co., 5 N. Y. Supp. 258—260. Mills V. Seattle, etc., R. Co., 50 Wash. 20—432, 1435, 1440. Mills V. Southern Ry. Co., 82 S. C. 242—251. Mills V. Weir. 82 App. Div. (N. Y.) 306—721, 765. TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pages.) clxxv Milne v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 15.5 Mo. App. 465 — r72, 185, 190. Milne v. Douglass, 4 McCrary (U. S.) 368—596. 780. Milnor v. New York, etc., R. Co., 53 N. Y. 363—1362. Miltimore v. Cliicago, etc., R. Co., 37 Wis. 190— .551, 561, 804. Milton V. Denver, etc., R. Co., 1 Colo. App. 307—316, 454. Milwaukee Chamber of Commerce v, Chicago, etc., R. Co., 7 Int. Com. Rep. 48—1794. Milwaukee Chamber of Commerce v. Flint, etc., R. Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. .393—1790, 1794, 1798, 1829. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co. v. Arms, 91 U. S. 489—6, 549, 611, 1267, 1460, 1723. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co. v. Fairchild, 6 Wis. 403—386. 407. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co. v. Finney, 10 Wis. 388—1149, 1563, 1725. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co. v. Hunter, 11 Wis. 160—1545. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, 74 111. 197—449, 743. Milwaukee Malt Ext. Co. v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 73 Iowa, 98—129. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Home Ins; Co., 55 Minn, 236—436, 546. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Strain, 81 111. 504—908. Minneapolis St. Rv. Co. v. Odegaard, 182 Fed. 56—1498. Minnesota, etc.. Cattle Co. v. Atchi- son, etc., R. Co., 135 Fed. 135—312. Minock v. Detroit R. Co., 97 Mich. 425—1226. Minor v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 19 Wis. 40—1353, 1531. Minor v. Lcliigh Valley R. Co., 21 App. Div. (N. Y.) 307—1254, 1256. Minter v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 82 Mo. App. 130-836, 896. Minter v. Pacific R. Co., 41 Mo. 508 —185, 187, 1291, 1337. Minter v. Southern Kan.sas R. Co., 50 Mo. App. 282—538. Minturn v. Warren Ins. Co., 84 Mass. (2 Allen) Sf — 653. Mires v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co., 134 .Mo. App. 379—442. 514, 1837. Missimer v. I'liiladelpliia, etc., R. Co., 17 Phila. (Pa.) 172—1106, 1187. Mississippi Cent. R. Co. v. KennedV, 41 Miss. 671, 678—41, 1294, 1297, 1298, 1300, 1302. Mississippi Cent. R. Co. v. Miller, 40 Miss. 45—1553. Mississippi, etc., R. Co. v. Harrison, 66 Miss. 419—1244. Mississippi Val. Transp. Co. v. Fos- dick Mann Unrep. Cas. (La.) 3 — 626. Missouri & N. A. R. Co. v. Pullcn, 90 Ark. 182—815. Missouri Coal & Oil Co. v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 35 Mo. 84-187. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Aycock (Tex. Civ. App.), 135 S. W. 198—868. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Beard, 34 Tex. Civ. App. 188—177. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Belcher, 88 Tex. 549—616. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Belcher (Tex. Civ. App.), 41 S. W. 706—856. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Blalack (Tex. ..Civ. App.), 147 S. W. 559—1052. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Brown (Tex. Civ. App.), 156 S. W. 519—905. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Brown (Tex. Civ. App.), 135 S. W. 1076—994, 1442. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Bvrd (Tex. Civ. App.), 89 S. W. 991—981. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Bvrne, 100 Fed. 359—828. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Bvrne, 3 tieft. T. 740—928. ' '"' Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Cape G., etc., R. Co., 1 Inst. Com. R. 607—1776. Missouri, etc., Ry. Co. v. Capital Compress Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 110 S. W. 1014—073. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Carlisle (Tex. Civ. App.), 145 S. W. 65,3—1418. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Carpenter, 52 lex. Civ. App. 58.5 — 599, 601. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Carpenter (Tex. Civ. App.), 114 S. W. 900— 1924. Misscniri, etc.. R. Co. v. Carter, 9 Tex, Civ. App. 077—438, 446. 898. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Cliittim, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 599—852, 856. Missouri, etc.. Ry. Co. v. Clark, 35 Tex. Civ. App. 189—806. Mis.souri R. Co. v. Cold) (Tex. Civ. App.), 36 S. W. 500—503. clxxvi TAl'.l.K Ol CASKS. (Tlie rt'fori'iicm arc to tlio pii^s.) Missouri, etc., U. Co. v. Diirliu-rton (lex. cMv. Aj-p.). 30 S. W. 2ol— llissomi. etc.. U. Co. v. Davidson. 25 IVx. Civ. App. l;U— 314. Mi.-^souri. ftc. \\. Co. v. Davis, '24 Ok\. «77 SS;!. 001. Missouri, etc., K. Co. v. Dciiu-iit (Tex. Civ. App.), 116 N. W. U:^")— f.0!». Missouri, etc.. K. Co. v. Dcinorc & Coiiiriu (Tox. Civ. App. ), 145 S. \V.^V)J;<— 1!»04. Missouri, etc.. R. Co. v. Dihvorth. 84 'lex. 327— '.lOS. Missouri, etc., K. Co. v. Early-Cloni- ciit iJrain Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 124 S. \V. 1015— :?C(;. Missouri, etc.. K. Co. v. Flood, 35 Tex. Civ. App. 197—1105, 1107. 1450. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Flood (Tex. Civ. App.), 79 S. VV. 1106—1728. Missouri, dc, R. Co. v. Fookcs (Tex. Civ. App.). 40 S. W. 858 — 1858. Missouri, etc.. R. Co. v. Frogley, 75 Kan. 440—883. Missouri, etc.. K. Co. v. Fry, 79 Kan. 21—597. 864. Missouri, etc.. R. Co. v. Fry, 74 Kan. 546—864. 883. Missouri, etc.. l\. Co. v. Gerren (Tex. Civ. App. 3, 121 S. W. 905—1173, 1700. Ifclissouri. etc.. R. Co. v. Gober (Tex. Civ. App.), 125 S. W. 38.3—909. Missouri, etc.. K. Co. v. Golson ('lex. Civ. App.) 133 S. W. 456—868,930. Missouri, etc.. R. Co. v. Graves (Tex. Civ. App.), 16 S. \V. 102—144. 145, 149. 4S4. Missouri, etc.. R. Co. v. Haber, 169 U. S. 613—1752. 1894. Missouri, etc.. R. Co. v. Hancock, 26 Okl. 254—787. 883, 884, 894. :Missouri. etc., R. Co. v. Ilailey (Tex. Civ. App.), 156 S. W. 1119—1386. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Harriman Bros.. 227 U. S. 657—473, 480, 500, 891. 892. 1914. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Harriman Bros. (Tex. Civ.' App.), 128 S. W. •i;;2— 1912. Missouri, etc.. R. Co. v. Hayes, 74 Kan. 880 — 826. Mi»ouri, etc., R. Oo. t. Hebbitt.heIl (Tex. Civ. App.), 79 S. W. 94— 1214. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Morgan (Tex. Civ. App.), 138 S. W. 210 — 1434. TABLE 0¥ CAtJES. clxxvii (The references are to the pages.) Missouri, etc., R. Ck). v. ^lorgan (Tex. Civ. App.), 108 S. W. 724— 1550. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. New Era Milling Co., 79 Kan. 435 — 705, 715. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Olive (Tex. Liv. App.), 23 S. W. 526—363. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Orton, 67 Kan. »4« — 1206. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Overfield, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 440—1005. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Pope (Tex. Civ. App.), 149 S. W. 1185—1179. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Price^ 48 Tex. Civ. App. 210—1005. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Price (Tex. Civ. App.), 106 S. W. 700—960, 1158. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. PuUen, 90 Ark. 182-888. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Quinn (Ti'x. Civ. App.), 29 S. W. 404—600, 601. Missouri, etc.. R. Co. v. Raney (Tex. Civ. App.), 99 S. VV. 589-1160. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Rich (Tex. Oiv. App.), 112 S. W. 114—831, 867. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Richardson (Tex. Civ. App.), 131 S. W. 1139 — 1417. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Rogers (Tex. Civ. App.), 141 S. W. 1011- 79i), 928. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Sanders, 12 Tex. ( ir. App. 5 — 1561. Missouri, etc.. K. Co. v. Selev, 31 Ti'x. Civ. App. 158—206, 234, '277, 282. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Siirinionri (Tex. Civ. App.), 33 S. \V. 1090— 987. Missouri, etc., R. Ck). v. Sinclair, 77 Kan. 228—1981. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Stiiitli. 152 Fed. 6(18—1390, 13'.)9. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Sii cil, 85 Ark. 293—789, 897, 940. Missouri, etc.. R. Co. v. Sprolcs (T.-x. Civ. App.), 92 S. \V. 40— 005. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Stark Grain Co., 103 Tex. 542—360, 1903. Mi.H^^ouri, etc., R. Co. v. Stone (Tex. Civ. App.), 125 S. W. 587—1524. MittRouri, etc.. R. Co. v. Tarsvater (Tox. Civ. App.), 75 S. W. 937— 1712. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Trinity County Lumber Co., 1 Tex. Civ. App. 553—525, 628, 1833. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Tripis (Tex. Civ. App.), 117 S. VV. 199—565. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Truskett, 186 C. S. 479—580, 596, 835, 859. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Truskett, 104- Fed. 728—363. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Turley, 85 Fed. 369—1601. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. United States, 178 Fed. 15—812, 19S4. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Vandiver (Tex. Civ. App.), 122 S. W. 955— 614. I Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Walden (Tex. Civ. App.), 46 S. W. 87—1245. ', Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Walston, 133 Pac. 42—502. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Weaver, 16 Kan. 456—1147. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Webb, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 431—599. [Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Wells, 28 Tex. Civ. App. 304—907. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Wells, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 255—914, 919. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Wells (Tex. Civ. App.), 58 S. W. 842—535. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. West (OkL), 134 Pac. 655—1472, Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Williams, 91 Tex. 255—966, 974. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Wood (Tex. Civ. App.), 81 S. W. 1187—548. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Wood (Tex. Civ. App.), 31 S. W. 237—798. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Woods (Tex. Civ. App.), 117 S. W. 196—369, 842, 868. ^Missouri Furnace Co. v. Abend, 107 111. 44—1542. Missouri K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Clifton (T.?x. Oiv. App.), 80 S. W. .386— 601, 609. Missouri K. & T. R. Co. v. TTarris (Tex. Civ. App.), 138 S. W. 108.5— 593. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Hutch- ings, S.alv & Co., 78 Kan. 758— 536. dxiviii lABLE OF CASES. (Tlic references ::re ta tin- luiges.) Missouri, K. & T. H.'- • ^^«- v. Kv^-r & Sulheilaud, 06 iV\. I iv. -vi'l'- 333 — 3oS. Missouri Pae. R. Co. v. AiUoii, 1 1 Tex. 37;i— 103S, 17 IS. Missouri Tac. K. Lo. v. lUvni'-'s, 2 IV.k. App. Civ. Cas. § 575 — •'1>. •>>'•••• Missouri Pac. R. e\i. v. 13revHhng,_ 4 Tox. App. Civ. Cas. § 134— o» 4, Missouri Pac. U. Co. v. Carpenter, 44 Kan. 237 — 34 1. Mis^.ouri I'ac. K. Co. v. Chicago, etc., U. Co., '25 Fed. 317— 51, 20il, 3.D, 3S7. 3112. Missouri PttL'. R. Co. v. Clulders riVx. Civ. App.), 2\) S. W. 530— Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. C'..ina Mfg. Co.. 79 Tex. 20 — 43S, 571, 577, 579. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. L oilier, 02 Tex. 31s — 1554. Missouri l\ic. R. Co. v. Cornwall. 70 Tex. 011—33, 34, 354, 45U, 480, 819, 890, 1450. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Crratli, 3 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. § 84—741. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Curtis, 3 Tox. App. Civ. Cas. § 311—1201. Mi--ouri Pac. R. Co. v. Divlnncy, 06 Kan. 770—1150, 1109. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Douglass, 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. § 28—190, 568, 573. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Edwards, 78 Tex. 307-516. S33, 920. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Evans, 71 Tex. 301—1197, 1403. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Fagan, 72 Tox. 127—430, 516, 591, 624, 816. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Fugan (Tex.), 9 S. W. 749—33. ifissouri Pac. R. Co. v. Fagan (Tex. Civ. App.), 27 S. W. 887, 29 S. W. 1110—822, 861. iIi«souri Pac. R. Co. v. Fcnnell, 79 Tsouri Pac. R. Co. v. Foreman, 73 Tex. 311—1013, 1476, 1534. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Foreman (Tex. Civ. App.), 46 S. W. 834— 1608. M'i=.«ouri Pac. R. Co. v. German, 84 Tex. 141—585. .Ml^uuri Pac. R. Co. v.^ Graves. 2 I x. .\|ip. civ. Cas. § 075 — 785. M-ssuuri I'ae. R. Co. v. Groesbeck (Tex. Civ. App.), 24 S. VV. 702— Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Hall, 00 lu-d. S08— 119, 341. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Harnionsoii, 4 r.:x. Civ. App. Cas. § 91—149. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Harper J{ros., 201 Fed. 671—502, 1918. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Hams, 67 iVx. 160—33, 483, 459, 485, 486, 890, 1456. .Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Harris, 1 Tex. Civ. App. Cas. § 1257—23. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Haynes, 72 Tex. 175—203, 385, 393, 398. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Heath (Tex.), 18 S. W. 477—833. Alissouri Pac. R. Co. v. Heidenheimer, 82 Tex. 195—224, 231, 271, 279. :\Iissouri Pac. R. Co. v. Hewett, 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. § 273—613. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Holcomb, 44 Kan. 332—1056. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. International Marine Ins. Co., 84 Tex. 149—547. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Ivy, 79 Tex. 444—821, 898. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Ivey. 71 Tex. 409—8, 459, 1037, 1038, 1451, 1467, 1503, 1505. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Jarrard, 65 Tex. 500—1715. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Johnson, 72 Tex. 95—1123. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Kaiser, 82 Tex. 144—1719. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Kingsbury (Tex. Civ. App.), 25 S. W. 323— 908, 920. Fissouri Pac. R. Co. v. Larabee Flour Mills Co., 211 U. S. 612—125, 704, 1893. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Levi, 4 Tex. Civ. App. Cas. § 8—325, 309. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. L. Newburger & Bros., 67 Kan. 846—196. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Livcrigbt, 7 Kan. App. 772—1376. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Long, 81 Tex. 253—1125, 1232, 1242, 1666. Fissouri Pac. R. Co. v. Martino, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 634—1713. TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pages. clxxix Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. McCally, 41 Kan. 639 — 1544. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. McFadden, 154 U. S. 155—175, 191. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. McGrath, 3 Kan. App. 220 — 597. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Mitchell, 75 Tex. 77—1554, 1556. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Mitchell, 72 Tex. 171—1123, 1717, 1723, 1724, ilissouri Pac. R. Co. v. Neiswanger, 41 Kan. 621—1555, 1601. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Xevill, 60 Ark. 375—325, 384. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Nevin, 31 Kan. 385—615. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Northern, 73 Tex. 27—1232. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Paine, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 621 — 485, 486, UOG, 837. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Peru-Van Zandt Impl. Co., 73 Kan. 295 — 276, 602, 608, 657. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Riggs, 10 Kan. App. 578 — 377. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Rushin, 3 Willson CJy. Cas. Ct. App. (Tex.) 318—336, 595. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Russell (Tex.), 18 S. W. 594—599. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Ryan, 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. § 430—517. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Scott, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 76—571, 1475. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Shepard, 72 Tex. 16.5—1723. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Sherwood, 84 Tex. 125 — 44S, 520, 5S5. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Shuford, 72 Tex. 16.5—1724. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Slator, 3 Will- son Civ. Cas. Ct. App, § 7 — 1364. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Smith (Tex.), 16 S. VV. 803—459, 896. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Stults, 31 Kan. 752—541. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Texas, etc., R. Co.. 41 Fed. 913—820, 903, 904, 906. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 36 Fed. 879—1613. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Te.xas, etc., R. Co., 33 Fed. 361—414. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Texa*. etc., R. Co., 31 Fed. 802-140, 1S29. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 30 Fed. 2— 1785. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Twiss, 35 Neb. 267—740, 754, 757, 779. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Union Stock- yards Co., 204 Fed. 757—697. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. United States, 189 U. S. 274—1877. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Watson, 72 Tex. 631—1607. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Weissman, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 86—128, 131, 343, 734. 741, 748. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Wichita Wholesale Grocery Co., 55 Kan. 525 105, 385, 485. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Wortham, 73 Tex. 25—1125. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. York, 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas., § 638—1295, 1296, 1302. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. York (Tex.), 18 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 623—524 Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Young. 25 Neb. 651—728, 774. Missouri R. Co. v. Bines & Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 84 S. W. 1092—611. Missouri Vallev R. Co. v. Caldwell, 8 Kan. 244—455. Mitchel V. Ede, 11 Ad. & El. 888— 214, 244. Mitchell V. Aupfusta & A. R. Co., 87 S. C. 375—979. Mitchell V. Carol na C. R. Co., 124 N. C. 236—579. Mitchell V. Cliicaso, etc., R. Co., 138 Iowa. 283-1497. Mitchell V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 51 Mich. 236—1226, 1477, 1673. Mitchell V. Chicago & A. Ry. Co., 132 Mo. App. 14.3—1527. Mitchell V. Georgia R. Co., 68 Ga. 644 —454, 821. Mitchell \-. Lancashire, off.. T? To, L. R. 10 Q. B. 256—256, 286, 413! Mitchell V. Lancashire, etc., R. Co., 44 L. J. Q. B. 107—404. Mitchell V. Jlarkcr, 62 Fed. 139—102. Mitchell V. Railway Co., 51 Mich. 236 —1224. Mitchell V. Southern Pac. R. Co.. 87 Cal. 62—1500, 1565, 1572, 1581 1638, 1639, 1731, 1789, 1817, 1834', 1888. ci: TAHL1-: OF CASES. (Tho ref rt'iift's nre to tlic paj^s.) Mitihell V. liiitcd Hva. I'o., lliS Mo. A pp. 1 — 1170. Mitiliell V. Initcd States Kxpr. Co., ■«ii li'wa. 214— :)7»>. 579. Mit.hrll V. \\>ir. 19 App. Div. (N. V.) 1S:1— 260. ilitclidl V. WVstorn. etc., R. Co., 30 Cu. 22— 12;{0. 1477. Mittlftiian v. Pliiludolphia Rap. T. I'o.. 221 I'a. 4S.")— IIG.!, I«:U). Moakrr v. Willianiotte Valley R. Co., 18 Or. IS!)— 15U7. Mobile & .M. Kv. Co. v. Steiner, 61 Ala. 5o!»— 726! .Mobile & O. R. Co. V. Brownsville l.iverv. etc., Co., 123 Tenn. 298 — 4 43. 8S3. Mobile & 0. R. Co. y. Reeves. 25 Kt. L. R. 2236—1707, 1708. Mobile & O. R. Co. v. Sessions (C. C), 28 Fed. 592—1857. Mobile, etc.. R. Co. v. Ashcraft, 48 Ala. 15—1556, 1563, 1565. Mobile, etc.. R. Co. t. Copeland, 63 Ala. 219—743. Mobile, etc.. R. Co. v. Dale, 61 Miss. 206—1510. Mobile, etc.. R. Co. y. Desmukes, 94 Ala. 131—1833. Mobile, etc., R. Co. y. Francis (Miss.), 9 So. 508—740, 767. Mobile, etc.. R. Co. v. Franks, 41 Miss. 494—456. Mobile, etc.. R. Co. y. Hopkins, 41 Ala. 486—5, 418, 492, 1306, 1352, H.'JO. 1457, 14G5. Mobile, etc., R. Co. y. Jackson, 92 MisH. 517—1405. Mobile, etc., R. Co. y. Jarboe, 41 Ala. 644—426, 454. Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. Jay, 65 Ala. 113 —1544. Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. Jurey, 111 U S. 584—588, 590. Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. Klein, 43 111. App. 63—1503. Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. McArthur, 43 Mips. 180—1145, 1256, 1709. Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. Mullins, 70 Miss. 730—815. Mobile, etc.. R. Co. v. Prewitt, 46 Ala 6.3—41, 212. 384, 41.3. Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. Reeves, 25 Ky Law Rep. 2236 — 1237. .Mobile, etc.. K. Co. V. T. J. rhillipa Si Co. (.Miss.), GO So. 672 — 322. .Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. Tupelo Mfg. Co., (i7 .Miss. 35—740, 778. .Mobile, etc, R. Co. v. Weinor, 49 .Miss. 72")— 27. 4!). 427, 1452. -Mock v. Los Aii>,'eic.s Tract. Co., 1 St. Ry. Rep. 19 (Cal.) — 1107. Model ( lotliing Co. v. Columbia Transfer Co., 139 S. W. 242 (Mo. App., 1911)— 72. Moebus V. llerrmun, 108 N. Y. 353^ 1588. Moffal V. Long Island R. Co., 123 App. Div. (N. Y.) 719—1388, 135(5. Moffat v. Great Western, etc., R. Co., 15 L. T. N. S. 630—197, 234, 785, 832. MoHatt Commission Co. y. Union Pac. R. Co., 113 Mo. App. 544—311, 321. Moflit V. Connecticut Co. (Conn.), 86 Atl. 10—1624. -lofrili V. Central R. of N. J., 25 Pa. Super. Ct. 164—1330. Mojrul S. S. Co. V. McGregor, Gow & Co., L. R. 21 Q. B. 544, L. R. 23 Q. B. ,548—162. Moliawk, etc.. R. Co. v. Niles, 3 Hill (N. Y.) 162—781. Mohnke v. New Orleans City, etc., R. Co., 104 La. 411—1097. Mohr V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 40 Iowa 579-381. 392, 393. ' Molloy V. New York Cent., etc., R Co., 10 Daly (N. Y.), 453—1155. Mollory v. Tiojra. etc., R. Co., 69 Barb. (N. Y.) 488—51. Mollory v. Tioga R. Co., 32 How. Pr, (N. Y.) 616—9. Monitor Mut. F. Ins. Co. v. Buffum, 115 Mass. 34.3 — 431. Monk v. Town of New Utrecht, 104 N. Y. 552—1590. Monnier v. New York, etc., R. Co 175 X. Y. 281—1721. Monnier v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 70 App. Div. (N. Y.) 405— 1395. Monroe v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 79 App. Div. (N. Y.) 587—1610. Monroe v. United Rys. Co., 154 Mo App. 39-1683. Montana Cent. Ry. Co. y. United States, 164 Fed. 400— 814. TABLE OF CASES. clxxxi (The references are to the pagea.) Montana, etc., R. Co. t. Mosley, 198 Fed. 991—139. Monteith v. Merchants' Despatch, etc., Co., 1 Ont. Rep. 47—599, 605. Montgomery v. Buffalo Ry. Co., 165 N. Y. 139—1273, 1413. Montgomery v. Buffalo Ry. Co., 24 '^ App. Div. 454—1077. Montgomery v. Colorado Springs & T. Ry. Co., 50 Colo. 210—1585, 1698, 1700. Montgomery El. R. Co. t. Mallett, 92 Ala. 209—^1215, 1715. Montgomery, etc., R. Co. v. Boring, 51 Ga. 582—1701. Montgomery, etc., R. Co. v. Culver, 75 Ala. 587—743, 777, 1306, 1361, 1563. Montgomery, etc., R. Co. v. Edmonds, 41 Ala. 667—454, 552, 585. Montgomery, etc., R. Co. v. Kolb, 73 Ala. 396^179, 184, 185, 187, 188. Montgomery, etc., R. Co. v. Mallette, 92 Ala. 209—1500, 1706. Montgomery, etc., R. Co. v. Moore, 51 Ala. 394—543. 574. Montgomery, etc.. R. Co. v. Stewart, 91 Ala. 421—1228, 1230. 1567, 1576, 1613. Montgomery, etc.. R. Co. v. Thompson, 77 Ala. 448—1060. Montgomery Shoshone Mines Co. v. Las Vegas & Tonopah R. Co. (Nev.), 132 Pac. 1157—661. Montgomery St. Ry. Co, y. Shanks, 139" Ala. "489— 1560. Montpclier, etc., R. Co. y. Macchi, 74 Vt. 403—682. Montpclier. etc., R. Co. y. United States, 187 Fed. 271—1817. Moody V. Southern Ry. Co., 79 S. C. 297—251. bloody V. Springfield St. R. Co. (Mass.), 65 N. E. 29—1042. Moon V. IntPrurban St. Ry. Co., 85 N. Y. Supp. 363—1419, 1721. Mooney y. Iludson Riyer R. Co., 1 Sweeny (N. Y.), 325—1717. If' oney v. Seattle, etc.. Ry., 47 Wash. .540—1160. Moore V. American Transp. Co., 24 How. (U. S.) 1—1451. Moore y. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 85 S. C. 19—622. Moore y. Aurora, etc., R. Co., 246 111. 56—1686. Moore y. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 103 Va. 189—797, 836. Moore y. Central of Ga. R. Co., 1 Ga. App. 514—1416. Moore v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 151 Iowa, 353 — 855. Moore y. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 59 Miss. 243—1563. Moore y. Columbia, etc., R. Co., 38 S. C. 1—992, 1391, 1428, 1429. Moore y. Des Moines, etc., R. Co., 69 Iowa, 491—1212, 1501. Moore y. Duncan. 14 Fed. 396—1718. Moore y. Erie R. Co., 7 Lans. (N. Y.) 39—267. Moore y. Evans, 14 Barb. (N. Y.) 524 — 429, 460, 462, 570, 1461. Moore v. Fitchburg R. Corp., 4 Gray (Mass.), 465—1181, 1426. Moore v. Great Northern R. Co.. L. R. 10 Ir. 95—823. Moore v. Great Northern R. Co., L. R. 8 Ir. 95—482. Moore y. Greenville Tr. Co. (S. C), 77 S. E. 928—1485. Moore v. Henry, 18 Mo. App. 35 — 637, 754, 755.' Moore y. Hitchcock, 4 Wend. (N. Y.) 292—16. Moore v. Metropolitan R. Co., L. R. 8 Q. B. 36—1150, 1183, 1184. Moore v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 3 Mich. 23—407, 775. Moore v. Midland R. Co., 8 Ir. R. C. L. 232—465. Moore y. Nashville, etc.. R. Co., 137 Ala. 495—1433. Moore v. New York, etc., R. Co., 173 Mass. 33.=5 — 1368. Moore v. Railroad Co., 119 Mich. 613 —1609. ^loore v. Saginaw, etc., R. Co., 119 Mich. 61.3—1634. Moore v. Shreveport, 3 La. Ann. 645 —1541. Moore y. St. Louis 4; S. F. R. Co., 143 Mo. App. 675—884. Moore y. United States, 91 U. S. 270 —1893. Moore V. Wabash, etc., R. Co , 84 ISfo. 481 — 1126. Monrolnnd Rural Telephone Co. v. Moiich, 48 Ind. .\pp. 521—94. cl xxxii TABLE OF CASES. ^Thc roforonoi^ are U) the i)a;:ros.) Moorman v. Atchison, eto., U. Co. (.Mo. App.), 78 S. W. lOS!)— 120. Moran Bros. v. Nortliorn Tae. R. Co., li) Wasli. -Jtili— 1;52. t!74. Mori'lumso v. Texas Trunk R. Co., 4 Tex. Civ. App. e'as., § 200 — 145. Morel V. Mississip|)i Val. L. I. Co., 4 Hush (Ky.t. 5;i5— 1500. Moreland v. Hoston, etc., R. Co., 141 Mass. ;U — lOSO, 1120. Morey v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 80 Kan. 73—1100. Moriran v. Cauulen, etc., R. Co. (Ta.), ui Atl. ;}5;?— i(Ui5. Mor^'an v. Chesapeake & 0. R. Co., 32 Kv. Law Rep. 330—1100, 1112, 1491. Morgan v. Congdon, 4 N. Y. 552 — 16. Moruan v. Dibble. 29 Tex. 107—258, 270. Morgan v. Ide, 8 Cush. (INIass.) 420— 531. Morgan v. Los Angeles Pac. Co., 13 Cal. App. 12—1088. Morgan v. Saks. 143 Ala. 130—102, 10!)6. Morgan v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 95 Cal. 501—1633, 1702, 1715, 1727, 1729. Morgan v. Woolvorton, 136 App. Div. (X. Y.) 351—1380. Morgan v. Woolverton, 120 N. Y. Supp. 1008-113. Morgan's L. & T. R. & S. S. Co. v. Railroad Commission, 127 La. 636 —657. Moriartv v. Harnden's Express Co., 1 Daiv (N. Y.), 227—11, 453. Moritz V. Interurban St. Ry. Co., 84 N. Y. Supp. 102—1166. Morlev v. Hav. 3 M. & R. 696—642. Morrill v. Minneapolis St. R. Co., 103 Minn. 362—1433. Morris v. Atlantic Ave. R. Co., 116 N. Y. 552—1068. Morris v. Brown, 111 N. Y. 318—958. Morris v. Eighth Ave. R. Co., 68 Hun (N. Y.), .39—1638. Morris v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 127 La. 445—1609. Morris v. New York Cent., etc.. R. Co.. 106 N. Y. 678—1081, 1125, 1219, 1203. 1477. Morris v. Third .Ave. R. Co., 1 Dalv (N. Y.), 202—1531. .Morristhile I'oal Co. v. Pennsylvania U. Co., 183 Fed. 1)2!)— 1SS8. Morri.sdale Coal Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co.. 176 Fed. 748— 1S57. Morris, etc., R. Co. v. Ayres, 29 N. J. L. 393—274, 385, 397, 410, 413, 1070. Morrison v. Broadway, etc., R. Co., l:!0 N. Y. 100—1016. Morrison v. ISroadway, etc., R. Co., 8 N. Y. Supp. 436—1238. Morrison v. Charlotte, etc., R. Co., 123 N. C. 414—1239. Morrison v. Davis, 20 Pa. St. 171— 53, 319, 357, 372, 373, 401, 573, 606. Morrison v. Erie R. Co., 56 N. Y. 305 —1243, 1595, 1598, 1645, 1675, 1077, 1078. Morrison v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 63 N. Y. 643—1516. Morrison v. Pliillips, etc., Constr. Co., 44 Wis. 405—431, 438, 459, 794, 822. Morrow v. Atlantic, etc.. Air Line R. Co. (N. C). 46 S. E. 12—1676. Morrow v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 140 Mo. App. 200—514, 604, 608, 621, 623. Morrow v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 98 ]\lo. App. 351—64. Morse v. Auburn, etc., R. Co., 10 Barb. (N. Y.) 621—1702, 1714. Morse v. Brainerd, 41 Vt. 550 — 46, 755, 756. Morse v. Canadian Pac. R. Co., 97 Me. 77 — 419, 469, 873. Morse v. Duncan, 14 Fed. 396 — 1707, 1708. Morse v. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 30 Minn. 465—564, 15.54, 1556, 1.557. Morse v. Slue, 1 Vent. 238—75, 324, 430. Moseland v. Boston, etc., R. Co, 141 Mass. 31—1214. Morton v. Tibbett, 15 Q. B. 428 — 117. Morville v. Great Northern R. Co., 16 •Jur. 528—464. Moscr V. South Covington & C. St. Ry. Co., 25 Ky. L. R. 154—1042. Mosher v. Southern Express Co., 38 Ga. 37—743. Moseley v. Lord, 2 Conn. 389 — 8, Moses v. Bettis, 4 Heisk (Tenn.) 661 71. TABLE OF CASES. clxxxiii (The references are to the pages.) Moses V. Boston & M. R. Co., 76 N. H. 570—1669. Moses V. Boston, etc.. H. Co., 32 N. H. 523—393, 395, 1452. Moses V. Boston, etc., K. Co., 24 N. H. 71—27, 71, 73, 83, 119, 181, 352, 375, 425, 427, 457, 490, 526, 1213, 1458. Moses V. Hamburg American Packet Co., 88 Fed. 329—2037. Moses V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 39 La. Ann. 649—987, 1232, 1241. Moses V. Norris, 4 N. H. 304—25, 71, 72, 287. Moses V. Port Townsend, etc.. R. Co., 5 Wash. 595—223, 639, 798. Moskowitz V. Brooklyn H. R. Co., 85 N. Y. 960—1645. Moskowitz V. International Xav. Co., 84 N. Y. Supp. 297—1304. Mosle V. The Sintram, 64 Fed. 884— 1995. Moss V. Bettis, 4 Heisk (Tenn.) 661— 23. Moss V. Johnson, 22 111. 633—1063. Moss V. Lancaster, etc., St. R. Co., 218 Pa. 601—1160. Moss V. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 153 Mo. App. 602—834. Mote V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 27 Iowa, 22—199, 411, 13.50, 1453. Mott V. Consumers' Ice Co., 73 N. Y. 543—1156. Mott V. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 120 Mich. 127—1560. Mott V. Hudson River R. Co., 8 Bosw. (N. Y.) 345—1269. Mott V. Long Island R. Co., 123 N. Y. Supp. 49—388. Motteram v. Eastern Counties R. Co., 97 E. C. L. 58—1071. Moulton V. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., 31 Minn. 85-4.56, 494, 896. Mount Pleasant Mfg. Co. v. Cape Fear, etc., R. Co., 106 N. C. 207— 720, 781. Mouton V. Louisville, etc., R. Co. (Ala.), 29 So. 601, 602—439, .569, .570. Mowrey v. Central Citv R. Co., 51 N. Y. 666—1587, 1593. Mowrey v. Central f'ilv R. Co., 06 Barb. (N. Y.) 4.3—1098, 1589. Mowrey v. Western Union Tel. Co., 51 Hun (N. Y.) 126—92. Moyer v. Pennsvlvania R. Co., 31 Pa. Super. Ct. 559—382, 1357. Movland v. Second Ave. R. Co., 128 N. Y. 583—1615, 1618. Moynahan v. Moore, 9 Mich. 9 — 645. Mt. Adams, etc., R. Co. v. Isaacs, 18 Ohio C. C. 177—1506. Mt. Vernon Co. v. Alamaba G. S. R. Co., 92 Ala. 296—774. Mt. Vernon Milling Co. v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 7 I. C. C. Rep. 194— 1867, 1870. Muckle v. Rochester R. Co., 79 Hun (X. Y.) 32—1416, 1418. Muddle V. Stride, 9 Car. & P. 380— 579. Muehlhausen v. St. Louis R. Co., 91 Mo. 332—990, 992, 987, 996, 1016, 1057. Mueller v. St. Louis Tr. Co., 108 Mo. App. 325—1167. Muir v. Missouri, etc., R. Co. (Mn. App.), 154 S. W. 877—839. Mulberrv Hill Coal Co. v. Illinois Cent. 'R. Co., 161 111. App. 272— 143. Mulcairns v. Janesville, 67 Wis. 24 — 1478. Muldoon V. Seattle City R. Co., 10 Wash. 311—1464. Muldoon V. Seattle City R. Co. (Wash.) 22 L. R. A. 794—1054. Muldoon V. Seattle R. Co., 7 Wash. 528—1331, 1451, 1459, 1463, 1639. Mulhado v. Brooklyn City R. Co., 30 N. Y. 370—1236. Mull V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 38 Pa. Super. Ct. 416—652. Mulladv V. Brooklyn H. R. Co., 65 App.'Div. (N. Y.) 549—1727. Mullan V. Wisconsin Cent. Co., 46 Minn. 474-1186. Mullarkey v. Pliiladelphia R. Co., 9 Phila. '(Pa.) 114—740. Muller V. Eno, 14 N. Y. .597—585. Muller V. Manliattan Rv. Co., 48 Misc. (N. Y..) 524 — 1207.' Muller V. Second Ave. R. Co., 16 .T. S. (N. Y.) .546—1409. Mulligan v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 3ft Iowa, 181—431, 444, 455, 744, 766, 760. .MiilliLran v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 89 App. Div. (N. Y.) 207—1614. vixxxiv TAbLK ItF CASES. (The roforonct* are to the papica.) Mullipan v. Met. St. Ky. Co.. 87 App. Div. (N. Y.) 32a — 1620. Mulligan V. Now York, etc.. H. Co., 12;> N. Y. r)0()— nr.«. nt»s. ii82. Mulligan v. Nortbrrn Pm-. U. Co.. 4 Diik. ;n:)— S4. ;{7t'>. 40(i. 542. 1:151. Mull in V. T.onj: Island K. Co.. 1.3(> App. Div. (N. Y.) 7;}:5— 1075. 1422. Mullins V. Chiokoring, 110 N. Y. 514 — 209. o'M). 532. Mullina v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.. 03 Miss. 1S4— 130t). Munks V. Jackson (C. C. App. 0th C.) 13 C. C. A. ()41— 55. Munn V. Paker. 2 Stark, 255—435. Munn V. Illinois. 04 U. S. 113—70, 113. 1753. 1761. Munroe v. Tliird Ave. K. Co., 18 J. A S. (N. Y.) 114—1615. Munsev v. Webb, 37 App. D. C. 185— 102.* Munson S. S. Line v. E. Steiger & Co., 132 Fed. 160—2028. Munster v. South Eastern R. Co., 4 C. B. N. S. 676—128. 1203. Murch V. Concord R. Corp. 29 N. H. n — 43, 045. 1121. Murdock V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 137 Mass. 293—1417. Murdock v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 133 Mass. 15—1183. Murkle v. Rochester R. Co., 79 Hun (N. Y.) 32—1068. Murnahan v. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. (Kv.). 86 S. W. 688-1681. Murphv V. Atlanta, etc., R. Co., 89 Ga. 832—1220, 1487. Murphv V. Citv of Davton, 7 Ohio N. P. 227—1122. Murphv V. Coney Island, etc., R. Co., 36 liun (N. Y.) 199—1487. Murphv V. Emigration Com'rs, 28 N. Y. 154— 135 L Murphv V. Holbrook, 20 Ohio St. 137 — 4.5". 46. Murphv V. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 10 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 194—1239. Murphy v. New York Cent. R. Co., 66 P.arb. (N. Y.) 125—1554, 1560. Murphv v. Ninth Ave. R. Co., 6 Misc. R. (N. Y.) 208—1097. Murphv V. North -Tersov St. R. Co., 81 N. J. Law. 70r>— 1111. Murphy v. Nortli Jersey St. R. Co. (N. J. L.), 58 Atl. 1018—1620. Murphy v. Rome, etc., R. Co., 32 St. Hop.' (N. Y.) 381—1670. Mur|ihy v. Southern Pac. Co., 21 Nev. 120—1495. Murjtliv V. Southern Ry. Co., 77 S. C. 76— "197. Murphy v. Staton, 3 Munf. (Va.), 239—27, 75, 571. Mur[)hy v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 43 Mo. App. 342-990, 989, 1017, 1264, 1487. Murphy v. St. Louis Transit Co., 96 Mo. *App. 272—1178. Murphy v. Union U. Co., 118 Mass. 228—1140, 1401. 1407. Murphy v. Wabash R. Co., 3 Int. Com. R. 725—1780. Murphy v. Wells, Fargo & Co., 99 Minn. 230—513. ISIurphy v. Western, etc., R. Co., 23 Fed.' 637—1143, 1189. Murray v. Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 92 Fed. 868—157, 1785. Murray v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 62 Fed. 24—1876. Murray v. International Stt^amship Co., 170 Mass. 160—171. Murray v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 66 Conn. 512—11,54. Murray v. Metropolitan Dist. R. Co., 27 L. T. N. S. 762—1487. Murray v. Pawtuxet Val. St. R. Co., 25 R. I. 209—1505. Murray v. Postal Telegraph & Cable Co., '210 Mass. 188—93. Murray v. Railroad Co., 62 Fed. 24— 189.5. Murray v. Se;ittl(> Electric Co., 50 Wash. 444— 1 COS. Murray v. Warner, 55 N. H. 546 — • 202." Murr.ll V. Dixev, 14 I^a. Ann. 208— 588, GOO. MurroU v. Pacific Express Co., 54 Ark. 22—596, 6IS. Murrill v. American Express Co., 62 N. IT. 514—1450. Muscliaiup V. Lanca.ster, etc., R. Co., 8 M. & W. 421—744. 753. Muser v. Holland. 17 Blackf. (U. S.) 412—418. 401, 1456, 1457. Muskogee Electric Tr. Co. v. Mcln- tvre (Okl.), 133 Pac. 213—1502. Muskogpf- Tel. Co. v. Hall, 118 Fed. 382—1734. TABLE OF CASES. .Ixxxv (The references are to the pages.) Muth V, St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 87 ^fo. App. 422—965. Mutual Ins. Co. v. Tweed, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 44—616. Mutual Transit Co. v. United States, 178 Fed. 6G4— 1777. Myers v. Baltimore & 0. R. Co., 150 Pa. St. 386-1520. Myers v. Diamond Joe Line, 58 Mo. App. 199—350. Myers v. Long Island R. Co., 10 St. Rep. {N. Y.) 430—1238. Mvers V. Nashville, etc., R. Co. '(Tenn.), 72 S. W. 114—1626. Mvers v. New York Cent. R. Co., 88 Hun (N. Y.), 619—1577. Myers v. Pennsylvania Co., 2 Int. Com. Rt'p. 403—1781. Myers v. VVabash, etc., R. Co., 90 Mo. 98 — 851, 873. Myerson v. Woolverton, 3 Misc. R. (N. Y.) 186—1363. Mykleby v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 39 Minn. 54—1181, 1713. Mylton V. Midland R. Co., 4 H. & N. 615—744. Mynard v. Syracuse, etc., R. Co., 7 Hun (N. Y.), 309—460, 462. Mynning v. Detroit, 59 Mich. 257 — 1476. Mynning v. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 67 Mich. 677—1541. Mynard v. Syracuse, etc., R. Co., 71 N. Y. 180—33, 371, 372, 461, 618, 579. 784, 821, 1463. Myrick v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 9 Biss. (U. S.) 44—732, 798, 848. Myrrick v. Micliigan Cent. R. Co., 107 U. S. 102—32. 390. 450, 738, 742, 755, 702, 821. 837, 1362. Mytton V. Midland R, Co., 28 L. J. Exch. 385-1293. N. Na«rel V. United Rva. of St. Tvouris, 109 Mo. App. 284—1499. Nagle V. Alleghnnv Val. R. Co., 88 Pa. St. 3.5-1588, 1591. Nagle V. California Southern R. Co., 88 Cal. 80—1211. 1598, 1672. Naja« V. Boston, <'tc.. R. Co., 7 Allen fMnss.). 329—1302. Naliy V. Harfford ( arpct Co., 51 Conn. 524 — 564. Nance v. Carolina Cent. R. Co., 94 N. C. 619—1220, 1241, 1677. Nanson v. Jacob, 93 Mo. 331—210, 223, 728. Naneon v. Jacob, 12 Mo. App. 125 — 210, 728. Nash v. Sharp, 19 Hun (N. Y.) 365 —1716, 1728. Nash v. Southern Ry. Co., 136 Ala. 157—1197. Nasnua Lock Co. v. Worcester, etc., R. Co., 48 N. H. 339—744, 764, 778, 1361. Nashvillo, etc., R. Co. v. C«,sey, 1 Ala. 344-1087. Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Crosbv (Ala.), 62 So. 889—1540. Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. David, 6 Heisk (Tenn.), 261—27, 334, 338, 363. Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Dreyfuss- Weil Co., 150 Ky. 333—1905. Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Estes, 10 Lea (Tenn.), 749—324, 3o;J. Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Estis, 7 Heisk (Tenn.), 622—325. Nashvi le, etc., R. Co. v. Erwin (Tenn.), 3 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 465 —1043. Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Haslett (Tenn.), 79 S. W. 1031—445. Nashville, otc, R. Co. v. Hoggie, 86 Gia. 210—816, 820. Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Hinds, 5 Ala. App. 506—824, 889. Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Jackson, 6 Heask (Tenn.), 271—343, 359, 458, 459, 785. Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Johnson, 15 Lea (Tenn.), 677—1082, 1552, 1653, 1554. Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Jones 9 Heisk (Tenn.), 27—1120. Nashville, etc., R. Co v. King, 6 » Heisk (Tenn.), 269—363. Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Lillie (Tenn.), 78 S. W. 105.5—65. Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Mossino, 1 Sneed (Tenn.), 220—43, 944, 990, 986, 991, 1131, 1553. 1564. Nashville, etc., R. v. Moore, 148 Ala. 6;?— 1408. Xiislivillo, etc., R. Co. v. Parker, 123 Ala.. 08.3—818. XaKhvilic, etr-., R. Co. v. Smith (.\Ia.). 31 So. 481—544, c'l\\.\vi TAIU.K t>F CASKS. (VUv ii't't Ti'iu'cs :iro to till' ]v:i;;eM.) Nashville, etc., U. Co. v. Stone & llaslott. 112 Tcim. ;)4S— 571, SiH, !>03, lt07, i)'23. '.••24. Na^livillo, oti'., 1\. Co. v. Tliomas, 5 lloisk (Ti'iin.). 21)2—1511. Na^hvilltN I'tc, 11. Co. v. Troxler, 1 Um (IViin.), 521)— 1270. Nashvilk' St. Ky. v. C.rillin, 104 Tonn. 81— 14:{4. Xajssau Wee. Ry. Co. v. Corliss. 120 Fed. aSa— 1072, 1020. Xateliez, etc.. K. Co. v. McNeil, 61 Miss. 434—1115. Nathan v. (Jiles, 5 Taunt, 558—232. National Uank v. riiiladelphia, etc., R. Co., 103 Pa. St. 407—222, 223. National Bank v. Southern Ry. Co., 135 Mo. App. 74 — 277. National ]?aiik v. Railroad Co., 44 Minn. 224—229, 230. National Connncrcial Bank v. Lacka- wanna Transp. Co., 172 N. Y. 596 —217. National Docks R. Co. v. Central R. Co., 32 N. J. Eq. 755—121. National Line Steamship Co. v. Smart, 107 Pa. St. 492—381, 413. National Pctrok'ura Assn. v. Louis- ville & N. R. Co., 15 Q. C. C. Rep. 470—127. National Petroleum Assoc, v. Ann Arl>or R. Co., 14 I. C. C. Rep. 272 -1873. National Rice Milling Co. v. New Or- leans & N. E. R. Co., 132 La. 615 —317, 424. Naugatuck R. Co. v. Waterbury But- ton Co., 24 Conn. 468—739. Nave V. Flack, 90 Ind. 205—1242. Naylor v. Mangles, 1 F3sp. 109 — 16. Neal V. Snunderson. 2 Smed & M. (Miss.) 572—27, 31, 307. Neal V. Southern Ry. Co., 92 S. C. 197—1696. Neal V. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 8 Jones L. (N. C.) 482—381. 411. Nealand v. Boston & M. R. Co., 161 Mass. 67-380, 1350, 1356. Nebenzahl v. Fargo, 15 Daly (N. Y.), 130—207. Nebraska Teleph. Co. v. State Yeiser, 55 Neb. 627—95. Nebraska Transfer Co. v. Chicago, etc.. R. Co.. 90 Neb. 488—690. N«*^dham v. Boston & M. R. Co., 82 Vt. 518—795. Nwdle.s V. Harvard, 1 K. D. Sni. (N. \.) 54—137."). NcivU V. WcMiTii .Maryland R. Co., 2-i" I'a. Siijier. ( t. 4S9-~!)U5. Neice v. Chicago & A. R. Co., 254 111. 595— !)60. Neil V. .American Kxpn-ss Co., Rap. .lud. Que. liO C. S. 253—768. Noill v. Hogi-rs Bros. Produce Co., 41 \V. Va. 37—224, 227. Neilsen v. Je.ssup, 30 Fed. 138—525. Nellis V. New York Cent. R. Co., 30 N. Y. 505—1394. Nelms V. Mortgage Co., 92 Ala. 157 —1735. Nelson v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 68 Mo. 593-1678. Nelson v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 2 III. App. 180—214. Nelson v. Chicago, etc., R. Co. 78 Neb. 57—833, 841. Nelson v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 60 Wis. 320—1260. Nelson v. Great Northern R. Co., 28 Mont. 297—373, 420, 835, 860, 881, 890, 905. Nelson v. Hudson River R. Co., 48 N. Y. 498—272, 441, 452, 400. Nelson v. Lehigh Vallev R. Co., 25 Ai)p. Div. (N. Y.) 53.5—1124, 1488. Nelson v. Long Island R. Co., 7 Hun (N. Y.), 140—1025, 1027, 1396, 1445. Nelson v. Macintosh, 1 Stark. 237 — 13. Nelson v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 113 Mo. App. 702—998. Nelson v. National Steamship Co., 7 Ben. (U. S.) 340—454, 552. Nelson v. Odiorne, 45 N. Y. 489—350. Nelson v. Soutlurn Pac. R. Co., 18 Utah, 244-1086, 1175. Nelson v. Southern Pac. Co., 15 Utah, .32,5-1662. Nelson v. Stephenson, 12 N. Y. Super. Ct. (5 Duer) 538—559. Neslie v. Second, etc., Stroets Pass R. Co.. 113— Pa. St. 300—1262. Neston Colliery Co. v. London, etc., R. Co., 4 Ry. & C. T. Cas. 257— 386. Nettles v. South Carolina R. Co.. 7 Rich. L. fS. C.) 190—260, 343, .598, 604. 607. Neuer v. MetropolitnTi ^*-. T?v. Co., 143 Mo. Apn. 402—1171. 1-?7^. TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pages.) clxxxvii Neum V. Rochester Ry. Co., 1G5 N. Y. 146—1587. Neville v. Southern Ry. Co. (Tenn. ), 146 S. W. 846—1174. Xtville V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 158 Mo. 293—1662. Neville v. ^^■oolverton, 142 N. Y. Supp. 202—199. Xcvin V. Pullman Palace Car Co., 106 111. 222 — G6, 67, 945. Nevins v. Bank of Lansingburgh, 10 Mich. 547-85. Nevins v. Bav State Steamboat Co., 17 N. Y. Super. Ct. (4 Bosw.) 225 —1292, 129.'], 1294, 1337, 1350. Nevises v. Chicago, etc., R. Co. (Wis.), 102 N. W. 489—906. New Albany, etc.. R. Co. v. Campbell, 12 Ind. 55—202, 392. Newark & So. R. Co. v. McCann, 58 N. J. L. (29 Vroom.) 642—1591. Newark, etc., R. Co. v. ]\lcCann, 58 N. J. L. 642—1248. Newberger Cotton Co. v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 75 Miss. 303—579. Newborn v. Just, 2 C. & P. 76—464. New Brunswnck Steamboat, etc., T. Co. V. Tiers, 24 N. J. L. 697—27, 183, 307, 372. NcAvbury v. Seaboard Air L. Rv., 160 N. C. 156—1378. Newby v. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 19 Mo. App. .391—851, 928. Newcomb v. Boston, etc., R. Corp., 115 Mass. 230—227. Newcomb v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 182 Mo. 687—1232. Newell V. Smith, 49 Vt. 200-46. 589, 599. 740. New England & S. S. S. Co. v. Paig-, 108 Ga. 296—2021. New Englnnd Exj). Co. v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 57 Me. 188—117, 157. New Englnnd Mfg. Co. v. Starin. 60 Conn. 369-118. New ?"ngland News Co. v. 'Nf-'tropnlj- tan S. S. Co., 102 N. E. 423—500. Newhall v. Vargas. 15 Me. 314—640. 641. New TTavcn, etc., R. Co. v. Campbell. 128 Ma«s. 104 — 644. New .Torsov. etc., R. Co. v. P-niisvl- van^a R. Co.. 27 X. J. L. KlO— .52. New .Torsoy Expre<;s Co. v. Nichols, 33 N. .T. r,." 434—1544. 1.14n. New Jersey Fruit Exch. v. Central R. Co., 2 Int. Com. R. 84—1776. New Jersey R. Co. v. Kennard, 21 Pa. St. 203—1106. New Jersey R. Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 27 N. J. L. 100—30, 51, 122, 133. New Jersey R. Co. v. Pollard, 22 Wall. lU. S.) 341—1264, 1475, 1494, 1633. New Jersey Steamboat Co. v, Berger, 121 U. S. 639—949. New Jersey Steamboat Co. v. Brock- e.tt, 121 U. S 637—1147, 1562, 1713. New Jersey Steam Nav. Co. v. Mer- chants' Bank, 6 How. (U. S.) 344 —3, 116, 418, 425, 426, 453, 469, 518, 1451, 1453, 1454, 1455, 1457, 1467. New Jersey Tract. Co. v. Danleek, 57 N. J. L. 463—988. Newman y. Alabama G. S. R. Co., 38 Fed. 819—1083. Newman v. New York, etc., R. Co., 54 Hun (N. Y.), 335—1184. Newman v. Smoker, 25 La. Ann. 303 —1453, 1458. Newmark v. New York Cent., etc.. R. Co., 127 App. Diy. (N. Y.) 58— 1624. X^ew Orleans & N. E. R. Co. v. A. H. George & Co., 82 Miss. 710 — 627, 689, 691, 695, 697, 703. New Orleans Cotton Exch. v. Cincin- nati, etc., R. Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 289—1797, 1828, 1829. New Orleans Cotton Exch. v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 777 —1781. X>w Orleans Cotton Exch. y. Louis- ville, etc., R. Co., 3 Int. Com. R, 52.3—1832. X'ew Orleans, etc.. R. Co. v. Allbrit- ton. 38 Miss. 242—1131, 1494. Xew Orleans, etc.. R. Co. v. Bailey, 40 Miss. 395 — 1723. Xew Orleans, etc.. R. Co. v. Burke, .'■)3 l\riss. 200 — 1069, 1187, 1407* 1713, 1721. Xew Orlenns, etc., R. Co. v. Faler 58 Miss. 911—456, 552. Xew Orlefins. etc.. R. Co. v. Hurst 30 Miss. 600—1250, 1702, 1722. clxxxviii TAIM.K i>K CASES. ('I'lie rofi'ifiK-i's ail" to tlir [la^'os. ) Kew (.hlt'aiis. etc.. Iv. Cd. v. .Inpcs, 142 U. S. 18—1170. New Orleans, etc.. U. Co. v. ^Ul!\v7, 15112. New Orleans, etc., R. Co. v. Toulinie, 5!> Miss. 284—1510. New Orleans, etc., R. Co. v. Tyson, 40 Miss. 720-255, 2(;0. 507. New Orleans Exch. v. Ry. Co.. 2 Int. Com. C. Rep. .•?75— 1775. New Orleans Mut. Ins. Co. v. New Or- leans, etc., R. Co.. 20 La. Ann. ::02 — 127. 455, 4(J0, 576, 578. Newport News, etc.. R. Co. v. Holmes, 14 Ky. L. Rep. 853—579. Newport News, etc., Co. v. ilcCor- mick. 106 Va. 517—1685. Newport News, etc., R. Co. v. Mon- dell (Kv.), 34 S. W. 1081—748, 773. Newport News, etc., R. Co. v. Mercer. 96 Ky. 475—138, 541, 610. 793. Newport News. etc.. R. Co. v. Reed. 10 Ky. Law Rep. 1020—507. Newport News, etc.. R. Co. v. United States. 61 Fed. 488—821. New>tadt v. Adams. 12 N. Y. Super. Ct. (5 Duer.) 4.3— 600. Newton V. Pope. 1 Cow. (N. Y.) 109 —106. New York v. Reardon, 204 U. S. 152 —1735. New York & B. Transp. Line v. Lewis Baer & Co.. 118 Md. 73—295. 297. New York & \Va-:hin2ton Printing Co. v. Dryburir. 35 Pa. St. 208—92. New York Rnard of Trade v. Pennsyl- vania R. Co.. 3 Int. Com. R. 417— 1782. 1786. 1788, 1832. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. v. Shepl"v. 27 N. Y. Supp. 185—1128. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. v. Warren. 31 Misc. R. (N. Y.) 571— 1128. New York Cent., etc.. R. Co. v. Eby (Pa.). 12 Atl. 482—570. 740. New York Cent., etc.. R. Co. v. Inter- state '''ommerce Commission, 168 Fed. 131—1856, 1884. New ^'orU Cent., etc.. K. Co. v. Stand- anl Oil Co.. 87 N. Y. 480—256, 350. New York Cent., etc., R. Co. v. Ihiited States, 212 U. S. 481-1774, 1930, I!l.i2, I'.ltU. 1948, 1962, 1973. New York Cent., etc., R. Co. v. United States, 203 Fed. 953—1983, 1984. New ^'()^k Cent., etc., R. Co. v. United States, 166 Fed. 267—1838, 1942, 1944, 1956. New York Cent., etc., R. Co. v. Weil, 65 Misc. R. (N. Y.) 179—683, 684, 918. New York Central R. Co. v. Loe.kwood, 17 Wall. 357—14, 61, 121, 418, 458, 464, 467, 478, 549, 643, 1033, 1036, 1264, 1449, 1463, 1457, 1467. New York, etc., Print. Tel. Co. v. Dry- burg. 35 Pa. St. 298—88. New York, etc., R. Co. v. Atlantic Refining Co., 129 N. Y. 597—562. New York, etc., R. Co. v. Ball, 53 N. J. L. 28.3—1137, 1572, 1576, 1577, 1627, 1628. New York, etc., R. Co. v. Ball (Tex. Civ. App.), 72 S. W. 885—1573. New York, etc., R. Co. v. Bennett, 50 Fed. 496—1026, 1176. New York, etc., R. Co. v. Blumenthal, KiO 111. 40—1475. New York, etc., R. Co. v. Burns, 51 N. J. L. 340—1064. New York, etc., R. Co. v. Coulbourn, 69 Md. 361—1615, 1677. New York, etc., R. Co. v. Deer Creek Lumber Co., 49 Pa. Super. Ct. 453 —711. New York, etc.. R. Co. v. Doane. 115 Ind. 435—1057, 1234, 1264, 1672. New York, etc., R. Co. v. Dougherty, 11 W. N. C. (Pa.) 437—1107, 1115. 1213. New York, etc., R. Co. v. Enches, 127 Pa. St. 316—1675, 1680. New York, etc., R. Co. v. Estill. 147 U. S. 591—581, 587, 588, 589, 590. 592. 624. 860. New York, etc.. R. Co. v. Fraloff, ]m U. S. 24—1291. 1294, 1301, 1.343. New York, etc., R. Co. v. Fremont, etc., R. Co. (Neb.), 92 N. W. 131 —535, 767. TABLE UF CASES. (The references are to the pages.) clxxxix Kew York, etc., R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Com., 200 U. S. 361 — 1772. 1S65, 180(5, 1931. New York, etc., R. Co. v. Lockvvood, 17 Wall. (U. S.) 357—14, 61, 121, 418, 458, 464. 467. 478, 549, 643. 1033, 1036, 1264. 1449. 1457, 1463, 1467. New York, etc.. R. Co. v. Musluush, 11 Ind. App. 192—1282. New York, etc.. R. Co. v. National Steamship Co!. 137 N. Y. 23—782. New York, etc., R. Co. v. New Jersev Electric R. Co. (N. J.), 37 Atl. 627 —1262. New York, etc., R. Co. v. New York, etc.. R. Co., 50 Fed. 867—1823. 1824, 1826. New York, etc., R. Co. v. New York, etc., R. Co., 4 Int. Com. C. Rep. 702 —1824. New York, etc.. R. Co. v. Piatt, 7 Int. Com. Rep. 323—1762. New York, etc., R. Co. v. Sanders, 134 Mass. 53—644. New York, etc., R. Co. v. Schuvler, 34 N. Y. 30—228. New York, etc., R. Co. v. Scoville, 71 Conn. 136—167. New York, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, 62 Misc. R. (N. Y.) 526—664. New York, etc., R. Co. v. Standard Oil Co.. 87 N. Y. 486—165. New York, etc., R. Co. v. Steinbren- ner. 47 N. J. L. 161—1269. New York, etc.. R. Co. v. Willing. 24 Ohio C. C. 474—1391, 1712. New York, etc., R. Co. v. Winter, 143 U. S. 60—1016, 1416, 1418, 1558. New York, etc.. R. Co. v. York &, Whitney Co. (Mass.), 102 N. E. 366 680, 1882. New York, etc.. Steamship Co. v. Wright (Tex. Civ. App.). 26 S. W. ^ 107—707. New York L. Ins. Co. v. Cravens, 178 U. 8. 389—1735. New York L. Ins. Co. v. Rohrbongh, 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas.. ij 217—541. New York Produce Exch. v. Balti- more * Ohio R. Co., 7 Int. Com. Rep. 612—1795. New York. N. TI. .^- H. R. Co. v. Bork, 23 B. T. 218—1127. New York. N. H. & H. R. Co. v. Sco- vill. 71 Conn. 136—1127. New York Produce Exch. v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co.. 2 Int. Com. Rep. 533—1833. Nevman v. Alabama C S. R. Co.. 172 Ala. 606— 10:?4. Niagara v. Cordes, 21 How. (U. S.) 22—20. Nicholas v. Dubuque, etc., R. Co., 68 Iowa. 732 — 1679. Nicholas v. New York Cent., etc., R. R. Co., 89 N. Y. 370—92, 371, 384, 460, 461, 4(J2, 498, 519. 1463. Nicholas v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 23 Or. 123—1015. 1028. Nicolette Lumber Co. v. People's Coal Co.. 213 Pa. 379 — 626. 702. Nicolette Lumber Co. v. Peoples Coal Co., 26 Pa. Super. Ct. 575—20, 632. Nichols V. Brooklyn City R. Co., 30 Hun (N. Y.), 437—1560. Nichols V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 90 Mich. 20.3—69, 1246. 1257. Nichols V. Eddy (Tex. Civ. App.), 24 S. W. 316—615. Nichols V. Lynn & B. R. Co., 168 Mass. 528—1215. 1239, 1558. Nichols y. Oregon Short Line R. Co.. 24 Utah, 8.3—710. Nichols V. Oregon Short Line R. Co. (Utah), 66 Pac. 768-145. Nichols v. Sixth Ave R. Co., 38 N. Y. 131—1598, 1633, 1645. Nichols y. Smith. 115 Mass. 332 — 46. 80. 83, 181, 185, 376. Nichols v. Union Pac. R. Co., 7 Utah. 510—1429. Nicholson v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., IIS App. Div. (N. Y.) 1.3—1421. Nicholson v. Great W'estern R. Co., 94 E. C. L. .366—161. Nicholson v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co., 141 Mo. App. 199—424. Nicholson v. W^illan, 5 East. 507 — ■ 4.30. 482. Nickels v. Seaboard .Air Line Ry., 74 S. C. 102—1085. Nickey v. St. Louis, etc. R. Co., 35 Mo.' App. 79—330. 1458. Nicola. Stone & Myers Co. v. T^ouis- vilJe & N. R. Co!, 14 I. C. C. Rep. l!ift— 1976. Nicoll v. East Tennepsee. etc., R. Co., S" r.n. 260 — 454. 521. 896. cxc 'lAHI.K UK CASKS. I'llu' lofori'iu'cs uro to the piigea.) >iiiiulorI V. Mniiliattim H. Co., 4 Ajip. Uiv. (N. Y.) 415— 17 in. >;ieto V. Chirk. 1 Cliff (U. S.) Uf)— I1:M, IITC. Nilsoii V. Oaklaiui Tiaotion Co.. 10 Cul. App. 10;J— !)S3. Nines V. St. I.K>uis. vU\. R. Co., 107 Mo. 475 — 7(57. Nirk V. .Jersey Citv. ete.. St. R. Co., 7') N. J. U\\y, «)42— 10!t;{, lf).-)2. Nitro-Clvoerine Case. 15 Wall. (U. S.) 5-24— 1-28, 12!», iJoS. r)(i.;. -XoMe V. Atchison, etc., R. Co. (Okla. ) 46 Pao. 4S:i— 1410. Noble V. St. Joseph, etc., St. R. Co., !18 Mich. 240—1218. Nolan V. Brooklyn Citv, etc., R. Co., 87 N. Y. 6.S— 1G3!), 'lC40, 1644. Nolan V. Metropolitan St. Rv. Co. (Mo.), 157 S. W. 637—977.' Nolan V. New York, etc., R. Co., 41 N. Y. Snper. Ct. 541—1026. Nolton V. Tlu> \Yestern Railroad Corp.. 15 N. Y. 444 — 948, 957, 1030, 1049, 1052. Nonotuck Silk Co. v. Adams Express Co.. 2.56 111. 36—422, 513. Nord-Deutcher Lloyd v. President, etc., of Ins. Co. of North America, 110 Fed. 420—1998. 1999. Xorderaever v. Loescher, 1 Hilt. (N. Y.) 499—637, 1303, 1304, 1344. Norfolk & \V. R. Co. v. Adams, 90 Va. 393—701. Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. Brame, 109 Ya. 422—1438. Norfolk & \V. R. Co. v. Brame (Va.), 63 S. E. lOlS— 1167. Norfolk & \V. R. Co. v. Dixie Tobacco Co., 228 U. S. 59,3—1902, 1903, 1911. Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. Dixie Tobacco Co., Ill Ya. 8i:i — 1910. Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. Hallilier, 89 Va. 639—974, 975, 989, 1136. Norfolk Ik W. R. Co. v. Old Dominion B. T. Co.. 99 Va. 111—1127. Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. Potter. 110 Ya. 427—276, 599. Norfolk 6: \V. R. Co. v. Rliodes, 109 Ya. 176—1502, 1536. Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. Stuart's Draft Millin;^ Co., 109 Ya. 184—382, 763, 1908. 1912. Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. United States, 190 Fed. 953—1843. Norfolk .<; W. K. Co. v. Wilkinson, 100 Ya. 775—605. 617. Norfolk, etc, R. Co. v. Anderson, 90 Na. 6—949. Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Burge, 84 Va. 70—1544. Norfolk, etc, R. Co. v, Ferguson, 7!) Ya. 241—1626. Norfolk, etc, R. Co. v. Galliher, S'.) Va. 63!)— 974, 985, 989, 1136. Norfolk, etc, R. Co. v. Groseclose, 83 Ya. 2(57—985, 1237. Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Ihirman, 91 \'a. (501—742, 832. Norfolk, etc, R. Co. v. Irvine, 85 Va. 217—522. Norfolk, etc.. R. Co. v. Irvine, 84 Ya. 55.3—129, r.i02, 1304, 1330. Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Reed, 87 Ya. 1.S5 — 748. Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Reeves, 97 Va. 2S4— 479. Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Shippers Com- press Co., 83 Va. 272—358. Norfolk, etc, R. Co. v. Shott, 92 Ya. 34—1050. Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Sutherland, 89 Ya. 703—742, 816, 926. Norfolk, etc. R. Co. v. Tanner (Va.), 41 S. E. 721—1459. Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Wvsor, 82 Ya. 250—999, 1071, 1068, 1410. Norfolk, etc, Terminal Co. v. Rotolo, 195 Fed. 231— l(i97. Noifolk, etc. Terminal Co. v. Rotolo, 101 Fed. 4—1697. Norfolk Southern R. Co. v. Barnes, ]04 N. C. 2,5—263, 642. Norman v. Binnington, 25 Q. B. Div. 475 — 465. Norman v. East Carolina Rv. Co., 161 N. C. 330—1072. Norman v. Soutiiern Rv. Co., 65 S. C. 517—1024. Normile v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 36 Wash. 21—258, 558. Normile v. Oregon R. & Nav. Co.. 41 Ore. 177—819, 890, 896. Norris v. Litchfield, 35 N. H. 271 — 1599. Norris v. Savannali, etc., R. Co., 23 Fla. 182—363. 364. Norris v St. Louis, etc., Ry. Co., 239 Mo. 695—1480. North V. Mercliants'. etc., Transp. Co., 146 Mass. 315 — 225, 742, 752. TABLE OF CASES. CXCl (The references are to the pages.) North Baltimore Pass. R. Co. v. Kas- kell (Md.), 28 Atl. 410—1494. North Baltimore Pass. R. Co. v. Kas- kell, 78 Md. 517—1475. North Birmingham Ry. Co. v. Liddi- coat, 99 Ala. 545—1615. North British, etc., Ins. Co. v. Cen- tral Vermont R. Co., 158 N. Y. 726 — 478. North Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Olds, 40 111. App. 421—1012. 1146, 1437. North Chicago St. R. Co. v. Baur, 179 111. 126—1639, 1645. North Chicago St. R. Co. v. Broms, 62 111. App. 127—1717. North Chicago St. R. Co. v. Cook, 145 111. 551—1212. 1231, 1237. North Chicago St. R. Co. v. Cotton, 140 111. 486—1494, 1638. North Chicago St. R. Co. v. Fitzgib- bons, ISO 111. 466—1727. North Chicago St. R. Co. v. Raspers, 186 111. 246—1615. North Chicago St. R. Co. v. Louis (111.), 27 X. E. 451—1507, 1542. North Chicago St. R. Co. v. Polkey, 203 111. 225—1215. North Cliicago St. R. Co. v. Polkey, 106 111. App. 98 — 1097. North Chicago St. R. Co. v. Polkey, 1 St. Ry. Rep. 94—1641. North Chicago St. R. Co. v. Williams, 140 111. 275—946, 975, 1101, 1639, 1641. North Chicago St. R. Co. v. Wiswell, 168 111. 613—1615. North Chicago St. R. Co. v. Wrixon, 51 111. App. 307—1114. Northern Alabama Ry. Co. v. Big- wood, 5 Ala. App. 658 — 889. Northern Cent. R. Co. v. Newman (Md.), 55 Atl. 973—1721. Northern Cent. R. Co. v. O'Connor, 76 Md. 207—1068, 1009, 1707, 1708, 1719. Northern, etc., R. Co. v. O'Brien, 1 Wash. 607—1544. Northern Pac. Express Co. v. Martin, •^0 Can Sup. Ct. 13.5 — 487. Jsurthern Pac. R. Co. v. Adams, 192 U. S. 440—1404. Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Adams, 24 S. Ct. 408 — 1331. Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Adams, 116 Fed. 324—1457, 1663. Northern Pac. R. Co. v. American Trading Co., 195 U. S. 39—737. Nortnern Pac. R. Co. v. Pacific Coast Lumber Mfrs. Ass'n, 165 Fed. 1 — 1880. Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Pauson, 70 Fed. 585—1416. Northern Pac. Terminal Co. v. United States, 184 Fed. 603—1978. Northern R. Co. v. Page, 22 Barb. (N. Y.) 130—1070, 1390. Northern Securities Co. v. United States, 193 U. S. 197—1742. Northern Texas Tract. Co. v. Rove (Tex. Civ. App.), 86 S. W. 621— 1094. Northern Transp. Co. v. McClarv, 66 111. 23.3— 582, 590, 750. Northern Transp. Co. v. SeLck, 52 111. 249—271. North German Lloyd v. Heule, 44 Fed. 100—525. North Hudson Countv R. Co. v. ilav, 48 N. J. L. 401—1564. Northington v. Norfolk Ry. & L. Co., 102 Va. 446—1620. l^iorthland v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 81 Hun (N. Y.) 473 — 1351. North ilissouri R. Co. v. Akers, 4 Kan. 453—583, 595, 775, 927. North Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Com- mercial Bank, 123 Mass. 727 — 225, 227, 233, 821. North Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Kirk, 90 Pa. St. 15—1728. North River Bank v, Aymar, 3 Bill (N. Y.) 202—228. North River Steamboat Co. v. Living- ston, 3 Cow. (N. Y.) 713—1758. Northrop v. City of Richmond, 105 Va. 341—709. Nortlirop v. Syracuse, 3 App. Dee. (N. Y.) 386—198, 393, 398. Northrup v. Raihvav Pass. Assur. Co., 43 N. Y. 516—989. North Side St. Rv. Co. v. Want (Tex.) 15 S. W. 40—1484, 1507. North St. R. Co. v. Schwartz, 82 '11. App. 493— 14P- Nortliwpstern 1" Co. v. Burlinirton, etc., Ry. Co.. L(> Fed. 712— US. Northwestern Iowa Grain, etc., Assoc. CXl'U TABM>: OF CASKS. (The ri'fi'i»'iic('s aro to Uio paj^os.) V. Chiraj^o, ett-., K. I'o., i Int. Com. Hop. 4:n — 17!)l. lS-27. Xoitiiwi'sti'iii 'Iraiisp. (."o. \. Liitci-, 107 I'Vd. ;tri;i— 20-ji. Noithwostorii U. l\ Co. v. I'lough, 22 Wall. [V. S.) r.'iS— !)S7. North Yakima niewiii}: & Maltiii. 1700— !»!l!». 1390. \ 111 ting \. Cdiinecticiit River H. (/O., 1 Gray (.Mass.) 502—739, 757, 704. 0. Oakes v. Northern Pae. R. Co., 20 Or. 392—1291, 1292, 1301, 1306. Oakey v. Gordon, 7 La. Ann. 235 — • 766. Oakey v. Russell. 18 Mar. (La.) 58— 75.' Oakley v. Portsmouth, etc., Steam Packet Co., 11 Exch. 618—15. O'Bannon v. Southern Express Co., 51 Ala. 481—175, 183. Oberndorfer v. Pabst, 100 Wis. 505— 102. Ober V. Crescent City R. Co., 44 La. Ann. 10.-)9— 1615. O'Brien v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 15 Gray (Mass.) 20—1017, 1390,1396, 1445. O'Brien v. Cunard Steamship Co., 154 Mass. 272—1133. O'Brien v. McGlinchy, 68 Me. 557— 373. O'Brien v. New York Central, etc., R, Co., 80 N. Y. 236—1396, 1397. O'Brien v. St. Louis Transit Co., 212 Mo. 59—1170. O'Callaghan v. Dellwood Park Co., 242 ill. 336—1480. O'Callaghan v. Dellwood Park Co., 149 111. App. 34—946. Ocean S. S. Co. v. Savannah Locomo- tive Works & Supply Co., 131 Ga. 831—120. Oceanic Steam Nav. Co. v. Aitken, 196 U. S. 589—1987, 1988. Och V. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 130 Mo. 27—1475. 1487. O'Connell v. St. Louis Cable, etc., R. Co.. 106 Mo. 482—1213, 1215. O'Connor v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 120 Minn. 359—513. O'Connor v. Great Northern Rv. Co., 118 Minn. 223—1883. Oderkirk v. Fargo, 58 Hun (N. Y.) 347—392, 405. 406. Odom V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 45 La. Ann. 1201—1581. TABLE OF CASES. CXClll (The references are to the pages.) O'Donnel v. St. Louis Transit Co. (Mo. App.), SO Mo. App. 315— 1167, 1713. O'Donnell v. Allei?heny Valley R. Co., .59 Pa. St. 23!)— 106.5, 1082. O'Donnell v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., lOG 111. App. 287— J).').5. 972, 986. O'Donnell v. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 197 Mo. 110—10.59. O'Donnell v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 19 Kv. L. Rep. 1005 — 1655. O'Donnell v. St. Louis Tr. Co., 107 Mo. App. 34—1167. O'Doughertv v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 1 Tliomp'. & C. (N. Y.) 477—197, 206, 219, 271. O'FIaherty v. Nassau Elec. R. Co., 34 App. Div. (N. Y.) 75—1116, 1508. O'Gara v. St. Louis Transit Co., 204 Mo. 724—1503. Ogden V. Marshall, 8 N. Y. 340—368. 609. Ogdensburg. etc., R. Co. v. Pratt, 22 Wall (U. S.) 123—418, 539, 753, 756, 758, 765, 804, 1457. Ogdensburg, etc.. R. Co. v. Pratt, 102 Mass. 557—804. Ogdensburg, etc., R. Co. v. Pratt, 49 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 84—754. Ogdensburg Harp v. The Grand Era, 1 Woods (U. S.) 186—738. Ogle V. Atkinson, 5 Taunt. 759 — 210, 530, 532. O'Gonnan v. New York, etc., R. Co., 96 App. Div. (N. Y.) 594—1068, 1077. O'Hanlan v. Great Western R. Co., 6 B. & S. 484 — 5S3, 58.5, 599. Ohio & M. R. Co. V. Burrow. 32 111. App. 161—1446. Ohio Cent. Traction Co. v. Mateer, 31 Ohio Cir. Ct. R. 478-1622. Ohio Coal Co. v. Whitcomb, 123 Fed. 359—709, 714. Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. Allender, 59 111. App. 620—988, 1017. Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. Allender. 47 111. App. 484—1613, 1637. Ohio. etc.. R. Co. v. Applewhite. 52 Ind. .540—1227, 1228, 1255. Oliio. oU:, R. Co. V. Burrows. 32 111. App. 161 — 1710. 1712. Ohio, etc.. R. Co. v. Crosby, 107 ind. 32—1715. Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. Dickerson, 59 Ind. 317—1056, 1714. Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. Dunbar, 20 111. 623—51, 838. Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. Emrich, 24 111. x\pp. 245—342, 766. Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. Hamlin, 42 111. App. 441—452, 742. Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. Hatton, 61) Ind. 12—1228, 1256, 1410. Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. Hecht, 115 Ind. 443—1706, 1727. Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. McCarthy, 96 U. S. 258—753. Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. Muhling, 30 III. 9—990, 1056, 1390, 1461. Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. Nickless. 71 Ind. 271—8, 991, 1031, 1450, 1467. Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. Noe, 77 111. 513— 625, 651. Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. Schiebe, 44 111. 460—1261, 1571, 1672. lOl^O. Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. Shelby, 47 Ind. 471—455, 1031, 1037, 1450, 14G1. Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. Stanberry, 132 Ind. 533—1666. Ohio, etc.. R. Co. v. Stratton, 78 III. 88—1676. Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. Tabor. 98 Ky. 503 —485, 880. Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. Tyndall, 13 Ind. 366—1063. Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. Voight, 122 Ind. 288—1049, 1500, 1505. Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. Wood, 107 Ind. 32 —1716. Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. Yohe, 51 Ind. ISl —328, 329. Ohio Valley R. Co. v. Lander, 20 Ky. Law Rep. 913, 926— lOfiO. Ohio Valley R. Co. v. Wat.son, 93 Ky. 6.54-1085, 1264, 1554. Ohio Valley Trust C( . v. Wernke, 42 Ind. App. 326, 84 N. E. 999-102, 103. Ohliger v. Toledo Traction Co., 23 Ohio Cir. Ct. Rep. 65—1718. Oil Creek, etc., R. Co. v. Clark, 72 Pa. St. 231—1015, 1070. O'Keefe v. Eighth .\ve. R. Co., X\ App. Div. (N. Y.) 324—1560. Oliuita Coal Min. Co. v. l?eech Creek R. Co., 144 Fed. 150—131. Obott V. Fond du Lac Coniitv, 10 WmII. (C. S.) 678—121, 390. ' CXCIV TA15LE OF CASES. (Tlic referoncos are to the piigea.) OK'ovii-h v. Craiul Trunk l\y. Co. tif raniula (Cal. App.). l.i'.> I'ac. '2U0— ItV-'G. Old Colony R. Co. v. Tripp, 147 Mass. 35—1127, 1142. i:U)4, 140!). Old Colony R. Co. v. WiUlir. i:!7 Mass. S.Ui — 2(52. Old Dominion S. S. Co. v. Flanary & Co.. Ill Va. 81G— I'Jli), 1!)24. Oldlicia V. New York, etc., R. Co., 14 N. Y. 310—1545. 1591. O'Leary v. ]Mankato, 21 Minn. G5 — 155G. Olds V. New Y'ork, etc., R. Co., 172 Mass. 73 — 12G5. Olds V. New Y'ork Cent., etc., R. Co., 107 App. Div. (N. Y.) 26—791. Oler V. Indianapolis, etc., R. Co., 13 Mo. App. 81—591. Oliver v. Columbia, etc., R. Co.. 65 S. C. 1—1459, 1719. Oliver v. Ft. Smith L. & T. Co., 89 Ark. 222—1652. Oliver v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 43 La. Ann. 804—1638. Oliver V. New York, etc., R. Co., 1 Edm. Sel. Cas. (N. Y.) 589—1082, 1211. Olscn V. Citizens Ry. Co., 152 Mo. 426 —1269, 1488. Olson V. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 49 Wash. 626—1075, 1418. Olson V. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., 45 Minn. 536—1037, 1243, 1717. Olund V. Worcester Consol. St. Ry. Co., 206 :Mass. 544—965. Olwcll V. Adams Express Co., 1 Cent. L. J. 186—458. Omaha, etc., R. Co. v. Chollette, 41 Neb. 578—1563. Omaha, etc., R. Co. v. Crow, 47 Neb. S4— 1037, 1038. Omaha, etc., St. Ry. Co. v. Interstate Com. Com., 179 Fed. 243—1778. Omaha St. R. Co. v. Emminger, 57 Neb. 210—1561. Omaha St. Rv. Co. v. Martin, 48 Neb. 0.5- L545, 1615. O'Mallev v. Great Northern R. Co., 86 Minn.' 580-419. .521, 889. Oman v. Bedford-Bowling Green Stone Co.. 134 Fed. 64—184. O'^Tara v. Hudson River R. Co., 38 N. Y. 445-1587. O'Mara v. St. Loui=? Tr. Co. (Mo.), 7C S. W. 680—1620. O'.Mara v. St. I.ouis Transit Co., 102 Mo. Ai)p. 202—975, 9S-4. Oiulordoiik v. Central Nat. Bank, 119 N. Y. 263—13. Ondi-rdonk v. New York, etc., R. Co., 74 llun (N. Y.), 42—1125, 1231, ICCit). One lluiulnd and Fifty One Tons of Coal, 4 Blatchf. (U. S.) 364—643, 644. One Hundred and One Live Stock Co. v. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 100 Mo. App. 674-816, 890, 902. One Hundred and Seventy Five Ton.«j of Coal. Fed. Cas. No. 10,522 (9 Ben. 400)— 676. O'Neil V. Dry Dock, etc., R. Co., 129 N. Y. 125—1507. O'Neill V. Great Western R. Co., 7 U. C. C. P. 203—386. O'Neill V. Lvnn & B. R. Co. (Mass.), 29 N. E. 630—1401. O'Neill V. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 3 Thomp. & C. (N. Y.) 399, 60 N. Y. 138—83, l(i9, 171, 375, 376. One Thousand Two Hundred ami Sixty Five Vitrified Pipes, Fed. Cas. No. 10,536 (14 Blatchf. 274)— 676. Ontario Bank v. New Jersey Steam- boat Co., 59 N. Y. 510—206. Oppenheim v. Russell, 3 B. & P. 42 —630, 643. Oppenheimer v. Manhattan R. Co., 18 N. Y. Supp. 411—1181. Oppenheimer v. United States Express Co., 69 111. 62—36, 425, 427, 490, 493, 496, 522, 1452. Opsahl V. Judd, 30 Minn. 129—1033, 1599. Orange County Bank v. Brrnvn, 9 Wend. (N. Y.) 85—36, 62. 490, 523, 526. 1291, 1295, 1302, 1308. Orcutt v. Century Bldg. Co., 214 Mo. 35—1529. Orcutt V. Century Bldg. Co., 201 Mo. 424—959, 1538. Orcutt V. Northern Pac. R. Co., 45 Minn. 368—1038. O'Regan v. Cunard S. S. Co., 160 Mass. 356—451, 951, 1455. Oregon R. & Nav. Co. v. Coolidge, 59 Or. .5—657, 683. Oregon R. & Nav. v. Thislcr (Kan.), 133 Pac. 539—1835. Oregon Short Line, etc., R. Co. v. I!- TABLE OF CASES. CXCV (The references are to the pages.) waco R., etc., Co., 51 Fed. 611— 799. Oregon Short Line, etc., R. Co. v. Jsurthern Pac. R. Co., 61 Fed. 158 —122, 734, 1795, 1823, 1824, 1825. Oregon Short Line, etc., R. Co. v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 51 Fed. 465 —734, 7S2, 1824, 1826. Oregon-Washington R. & Xav. Co. v. United States, 205 Fed. 337—1983. Ormandroyd v. Fitchburg & L. St. R. Co., 193 Mass. 130—1206. Ormsby v. Union Pac. R. Co., 4 Fed. 706 — 345, 426, 488, 581, 873. Ormsby v. Union Pac. R. Co., 2 Mc- Crary (U. S.), 48—881. Orndortf v. Adams Express Co., 3 Bush (Ky.), 194—429, 494, 526, 1458. O'Rorke v. Great Western R. Co., 23 U. C. C. B. 427—431, 445. OTlourke v. Bates, 73 Misc. Rep. 414 —19. O'Rourke v. Bates, 133 X. Y. Supp. 392—1, 11. O'Rourke v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 44 Iowa, 526—36, 559. O'Rourke v. Citizens' St. R. Co., 103 Tenn. 124—1417. Orr V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 21 Mo. App. 33.3—778. Orth V. Saginaw Valley Traction Co., 162 Mich. 353—1622. Ortt V. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 36 Minn. 396—450, 740, 757, 767. Osborn v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 48 Fed. 49—720, 1827. Osborn v. Inion Ferrv Co., 53 Barb. (N. Y.) 029—1130.' Oscanvan v. Winchester Repeating Arms Co.. 103 U. S. 261—454. Osgood V. Bauder, 75 Iowa, 550 — 450. Of^good V. Carver, 43 Conn. 24, 30— 281, .328. Osgood V. Los Angeles Tract. Co., 137 Cal. 280—1218. Oskamp v. Gadsden. 35 Xeb. 7—95. Oskamp v. Southern Kxpre.ss Co. (Ohio). 56 N. E. 13—211. Osterhondt v. Southern Pac. Co., 47 Anp. Div. (N. Y.) 146- 480, 482, 483. Ostervoung v. St. T>ouis Transit Co., 108 Mn. App. 703— 1. •'.92. Ostrandf-r v. P.rnwn, 15 Johns. (N. Y.) 39 — 2.''>S. 200. Cstroot V. Northern Pac. R. Co., Ill Minn. 504 — 513. Oswtgo Bank v. Doyle, 91 N. Y. 32— 23o. Otis Co. V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 112 Mo. 622—190, 191, 448, 576. Otrich V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 164 Mo. App. 444—787, 29, 839, 1904. Ouellette v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 106 Me. 153—1669. Ouimit V. Henshaw, 35 Vt. 605 — 187, 385, 1296, 1297, 1350, 1351, 1353. Outen V. North & S. St. R. Co., 94 Ga. 662—1593. Overby v. McG«e, 15 Ark. 459—531. Overland Mail, etc., Co. v. Carroll, 7 Colo. 43—1457. Oviatt V. Dakota Cent. R. Co., 43 Minn. 300—1213. Owen V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 87 Ky. 626—481, 848, 484, 798, 881, 927. Owen V. Railway Co., 83 Mo. 464— 627. Owens V. Atlantic Coa^^t Line R. Co., 152 N. C. 43:1—1578. Owens V. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 147— X. C. 357-1686. Owens V. Baltimore, etc,, R. Co., 35 Fed. 7 Li— 1705. Owens V. ]\lacon, etc., R. Co., 119 Ga. 230—1142. Owens V. Riclimond, etc., R. Co., 88 N. C. 502—1541. Owens V. Wabash Ry. Co., 84 Mo. App. 143—1162. Owens V. Wilmington & W. R. Co. (N. C), 35 S. E. 259—1192. Owcnsboro & N. R. Co. v. Newhoff, 12 Ky. Law Rep. 467—1356. Oxiade v. North Eastern R. Co., 15 C. B. N. S. 454—117, 126, 127. Oxley V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 65 Mo. 629 — 419, 485, 881, 927. Oysterbank v. Gardner, 49 N. Y. Super. Ot. 263—1533. Ozanne v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 151 Fed. 900—1112, 1113. Pacific Coast Co. v. Yukon Independ- ant Tmnsp. Co., 155 Fed. 29 — 2032. P.icific Coast S. S. Co. V. Board of cxevi TAl'.Ll': Ol' CASKS. (I'lu' rt'lVrnu'is ate (o llio paj:;fs.) Hailrortil Coiu'is (C. V.), IS V\d. 10 — isr>s. riu'ilic Kxpross Co. v. liiaik. S IVx. Uiv. App. 3(53 — IST.lU;. l*;u-i!i<.- Jixprt'ss Co. V. C'rit/AT (Tex. Civ. App.). 4-J S. W. 1017—237. I'ncifie Kxpross Co. v. Darnell, 02 Tex. 031)— 1)04. UltJ. Pacilic Express Co. v. Darnrll (Tex.), (i S. W. 71)5—482. I'lvoific Kxpress Co. v. Darm-il (Tex.), 32 Am. & Kng. K. Cas. .■)43— ()20. r.u-ilic Kxpross Co. v. Foley, 40 Kan. 4r)7— 4H3, 1458. I'.uilic Express Co. v. Gatright (Tex. Civ. App.), 130 S. W. 103.-.— 002. I'aeilic Express Co. v. HcrlzlK?rg, 17 Tex. Civ. App. 100—210. Pacific Express Co. v. Jones, 53 Tex. Civ. App. 307—020. Pacific Express Co. v. Redman (Tex. Civ. App.), 00 S. W. 677-003. Paeific Express Co. v. Ross (Tex. Civ. App.), 154 S. W. 340— 4!)5, 515. Pacific Exjuess Co. v. Seibert, 44 Fed. 310—1777. Pacific Expre-ss Co. v. Shearer, 160 111. 215—211, 235, 276, 285. Pacific Express Co. v. Wallace, 60 Ark. 100—264, 325, 488. Packard v. Getraan, 4 Wend. (N. Y.) 015—233, 270, 277, 285. Packard v. Getman, 6 Cow. (N. Y.) 757—172, 184, 188. Packard v. Tavlor, 35 Ark. 402—26, 739. 774, 775. Packet Co. v. Xagle, 97 Ky. 9—1722. Paddock v. Atchison, etc., R. Co. 37 Fed. 848—08, 1273. Paddock v. :\Iissouri Pac. R. Co., 155 Mo. 524—934. Paddock v. ^^lissouri Pac. R. C<)., 60 Mo. App. 328—440, 851. Paddock v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 1 Mo. App. Rep. 87—440, 438, 592. 795. Paddock v. Toledo, etc., R. Co., 21 Ohio C. C. R. 626—420. Paddock v. Toledo, etc., Ry. Co., 11 O. C. D. 789—197. Padeitt v. Moll, 159 Mo. 143—1643. Padfcv v. Catterlin, 64 Mo. App. 648 — .'>89. P:idiKah, etc.. R. Co. v. Common- wealth, 80 Kv. 147—1082. I'adiieah, etc., R. Co. v. lloelil. 12 Hush (Ivy.), 47—1544. Piulueah St' Ky. lo. v. W a'sh, 22 Ky. I.. I{ep. 532—123!!. I'adueaii Traction Co. v. Baker. 130 Ky. 300—1524. Paganini v. North .)ers«'v St. R. G). (\. .J.), 57 All. 128—1081. Pago V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 7 S. Dak. 297—757. Page V. Croat Northern H. Co., 2 Ir. Rep. (C. 1>.) 288—102. Page V. Jjondon, etc., R. Co., 10 \V. R. 500—541. Page V. Munroe, 1 Holmes (U. S.), 232—163, 590. Paige V. Hubbard, 1 Sprague (U. S.), 338—648. Paigo V. Smith, 115 Mass. 332—46. Paige V. Smitli, 99 Mass. 395—46. Paine v. Geneva, etc., Tr. Co., 115 App. Div. (N. Y.) 729—1091. Paine v. Geneva, etc.. Traction Co., 101 N. Y. Supp. 204—1529. Painkinsky v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 105 111. App. 556—476. Painter v. Chicago B. & Q. R. Co., 93 Neb. 419—1540. Painter v. Chicago, e.tc., R. Co. (Nob.), 140 N. W. 787—1001. Palfrey v. United Rys. Co., 162 Mo. App. 470—983. Palmer v. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 101 Cal. 187—119, 342, 302, 364, 448, 730. Palmer v. Charlotte, etc., R. Co., 3 S. C. 580—1027, 1721, 1726. Palmer v. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 56 Conn. 137—242, 752, 774. Palmer v. Delaware, etc.. Canal Co., 120 N. Y. 170—947, 1107, 1116, 1118, 1120, 1125. 1211. Palmer v. Grand Junction R. Co., 4 M. & W. 749—33, 42, 432. Palmer v. London, etc., R. (3o., L. R. 1 C. P. 588—127, 158. Palmer v. London, etc., R. Co.. L. R. 6 C. P. 194—158. Palmer v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 123 N. Y. Supp. 47—1384. Palmer v. Pennsylvania Co., Ill N. Y. 488-1081, 'll08, 1125. Palmer v. Warmn S^. R. Co., 206 Pa. 574-1487, 1494, 1580. TABLE OF CASES. CXCVl) (The references are to the pages.) Palmer v. Winona Ry. & Light Co., 7S Minn. 138—1218. Palmer v. Winston-Salem PvV. & Elec. Co.. 131 N. C. 250—1168. Palmeri v. Manhattan R. Co., 133 N. Y. 261—948, 1156, 1166, 1175. 1182. Palmer v. Transfer Co. v. Smith, 137 Ky. 319—1289. Pal meter v. Wagner, 11 Alb. L. J. 149—63. Paquin v. St. Louis & S. R. Co., 90 Mo. App. 118—1627. Paradine v. Jane, AUeyn, 27 — 14. Paramore v. Western R. Co., 53 Ga. 833—734. Pardee v. Drew, 25 Wend. (N. Y.) 459—75, 76. 523. 1297, 1300. Pardington v. South Wales R. Co., 1 H. & N. 392—466. Paris & G. N. Ry. Co. v. Robinson (Tex. Civ. App.), 114 S. W. 658— 1140, 1196, 1539. Paris, etc., R. Co. v. Robinson (Tex. Sup.), 140 S. W. 434—1196. Paris, etc., R. Co. v. Robinson (Tex. Civ. App.), 127 S. W. 294—1196. Parish v. Ulster & D. R. Co., 192 N. Y. 353—1416. Park V. O'Brien, 23 Conn. 339—1541. Park V. Pre.ston, 108 N. Y. 434—30, 189, 433 446. 452, 569. Park V. Southern R. Co.. 78 S. C. 302 — 1367, 1373, 1345, 1348, 1381. Parker v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 133 H. C. 335—419, 440, 457. Parker v. Boston M. R. Co., 84 Vt. 329—1504. Parker v. Erie R. Co., 5 Hun (N. Y.), 57—1155. Parker v. Flaj^g, 26 Me. 181—26, 75, 196. Parker v. Ivombard, 100 Mass. 405 — 410. Parker v. Long Island R. Co., 13 ITun (N. Y.), 319—1702, 1719. Parker v. Metrnpnlilan St. R. Co., 69 Mo. App. 54-1215. Parkor v. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co., 30 Wis. 089—386. 395. Parker v. St. Tx>uis Tr. Co., 108 Mo. App. 46.5-1681. Parker v. The Railway Co., 6 El. & B. 77-105. Pitr's-or V. Ignited Rvs. of St. Louis, 154 Mo. App. 126—1683. Parker v. White, 27 New Bruns. 442 —1228. Parkur v. Winslow, 7 El. & Bl. 942— 350. Parker-Bell Lumber Co. v. Great Nor- thern Rv. Co., 69 Wash. 123—1904. Parks V. Alta, etc., Tel. Co., 13 Cal. 422—90. Barks v. Kentucky Cent. R. R. Co., 3 Ky. Law Rep. 691—1284, Parks V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 29 Tex. Civ. App. 551—1107 Parmalee v. Lowitz, 74 111. 116 — 61, 74, 527, 944, 945. Parmalee v. McNulty, 19 111. 556 — 944. Parmalee v. Western Transp. Co., 26 Wis. 439—81, 760. Parmelee v. Fischer, 22 111. 212 — 1291, 1296. Parmelee v. Wilke, 22 Barb. (N. Y.) 539—56, 350. Pai-menter v. American Box Mach. Co., 102 N. Y. 648-285. Parmenter v. American Box Mach. Co., 44 App. Div. (N. Y.) 47—276. Parrent v. Rhode Island Co. (R. I.), 72 Atl. 865—1490. Parrill v. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 23 Ind. App. 638—455. Parsons v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 167 U. S. 447—162, 1772, 1798. Parsons v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 63 Fed. 903—1790, 1828. Parsons v. Empire Transp. Co., Ill Fed. 202-2003. Parsons v. Hardy, 14 Wend. (N. Y.) 215—27, 53, "242, 272, 315, 343, 359. 368. Parsons v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 130 Mo. App. 494—597. Parsons v. Monteath, 13 Barb. (N. Y.) 353—310, 429. 460, 4()7, 1461. Parsons v. New York Cent., eitc. R, Co., 113 N. Y. 355—1013, 1156. Parsons v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co.. 37 Ilun (X. Y.), 128—1690. Parsons v. United States Express Co., 144 Iowa, 74.5—288. Partello V. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 240 Mo. 122—1480. P^utelow V. Newton & B. St. R. Co., 196 Mass. 24—1088. Partridge v. Woodland Steamboat Co.. 06 N. J. L. 290—1187, 1202. Cicvni TABLE OF CASKS. (The rcftTcnci'S are to the pages. Pasooll V. North Jersoy St. Ky. Cp., 75 N. J. L. 83t>— 1484. Paiiseugor Cases, 7 J low. (U. S.) 2S3 —1731, 1732, 1734, 1747. Passenger K. Co. v. Young, 21 Ohio St. ;")1S— 114J), 11G7. Passniore v. WesU'm Union T<1. Co., 78 Pa, St. 2:JS— 88. Pastore v. American Express Co., 138 X. Y. Supp. 3 hi — 504. Patehell v. Irish North Western R. Co.. G Ir. K. C. L. 117—1270. Pat« V. Columbia & P. S. K. Co., 52 Wash. 100— 14!) 1. Pate V. Henry, 5 Stew. & P. (Ala.) 101—249. Paterson v. Philadelphia R, Tr. Co., 218 Pa. 35!1— 1485. Pattee v. Clueago, etc., R. Co., 5 Dak. 267 — 1083, 1554. Patten v. Union Pac. R. Co., 29 Fed, 590—038, 752, 773, 782. Patterson v. Clyde, 67 Pa. St. 505— 576, 577, 578. Patterson v. Kansas City, etc., R. Co,, 56 Mo. App. 657 — 431, 538, 769. Patterson v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 24 Okl. 747-877, 883. Patterson v. North Carolina R. Co., 64 N. C, 147—325. Patterson v. Omaha, etc., R. Co., 90 Iowa, 247—1237. Patterson v. W:ibash, etc., R. Co., 54 Mich. 91—1552, 1563. Patterson's Adm'r v. Ijouisville & N. R. Co., 138 Ky. 648—1629. Patton V. ]\Iagr:!th Dudley L. (S. C.) 159 — 458, 1452. Patton V. Southern R. Co., 82 Fed. 979—548. Patton V. Texas & P. Ry. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 137 S. W. 721—1908. Paturzo V. Campajrnie Francaise, 31 Fed. 611-552, 553. Paul V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 70 N. J. L. 442—419, 814. Paul V. Pennsylvania R. Co. (N. J, Sup.), 57 Atl. 139—457. Paul V. Salt Lake City R, Co., 34 Utah, 1— 14S4. Paulitseh v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 102 N. Y. 280-1240, 1613. Paulson v. Brooklyn Citv R. Co., 13 Misc. Rep. IN. Y.) 387—1017. Pavitt v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 153 Pa. St. 302—481, 483, 522, 551» 8119. Payne v. llalsU-ad, 44 111. App. 97— 1488. Payne v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 155 Fed. 73— lUlU. I'aNne v. Kansas & A. V. R. Co. (U. C. W. D. Ark.), 46 Fed. 546—124, 733. Pavne v. Spokane St. R. Lo., 15 Wash. 522—1215. Payne v. Terra Haute, etc., R. Co., 157 Ind. 616—1465. Pavne v. Trov, etc., K. Co., 9 Hun (N. Y.), 526—1557. Pavntnr v. Bridgeton, etc., Tr. ( o., 07 N. J. L. 619—1470. Pt abody v. Navigation Co. (Or.), 26 Pac. 1053—1415. Peak's Adm'r v. Ixjuisville & N. R. Co., 23 Ky. L. Rep. 2157—1678. Pearce v. Madison, etc., R. Co., 21 How. (U. S.) 441—779. Pearce v. The Thomas Newton, 41 led. 106—338. Pearce v. Wabash R. Co., 89 Mo. App. 437—027, 662. Pearsall v. Western Union Tel. Co., 124 N. Y. 256—92, 434. Pear«on v. Duane, 71 U. S. (4 Wall.) 60.i— 26, 130, 996, 1136, 1144. Pearsons v. Tincker, 36 Me. 384 — 633, Pease v. DeLaware, etc., R, Co., 101 N. Y. 367-1273, 1297. Peat V. Hartford St. Ry. Co., 72 Conn. 362 — 1240. Peavoy v. Georgia R., etc., Co., 81 Ga. 485—1170, 1193, 1407. Peavy & Co. v. Union Pac, R. Co., 176 Fed. 400-1809. Peck v. Chicago Creat Western Rv, Co., 138 Iowa, 187—791, 897, 910, 930. Peck v. Neil, 3 McLean (U. S.) 22 — 1120, 1.-552, 1553. Peek v. New York, etc., R. Co., 70 N Y. 587—1068, 1155, 1*166, 1180, 1409, 1434. Peck v. New York Cent. R. Co., 6 Sup. Ct. (N. Y.) 409—1716. Peck v. North Staffordshire R. Co 10 H. L. Cas. 473—428. Peck v. St. Louia Transit Co., 178 Mo. 617—1680. TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pages.) cxeix Peck V. Weeks, 34 Conn. 145—34, 426, 1451. Pecos & N. T. Rv. Co. v. Cox (Tex. Civ. App.), 150 S. W. 265—1905. Petos & N. T. Rv. Co. v. Crews (Tex. Civ. App.), 139 S. W. 1049-868, 886, 1919, 1924. ^ Pecos & N. T. Rv. Co. v. Porter (Tex. Civ. App.), 15*6 S. W. 267-1843. Pecos, etc., Ry. Co. v. Bivins (Tex. Civ. App.), 130 S. W. 210— o98, 869. Pecos, etc., R. Co. v. Brooks (Tex. Civ. App.), 145 S. \V. 649—874. Pecos, etc., R. Co. v. Crews (Tex. Civ. App.), 139 S. W. 1049—868, 886, 1919, 1924. Pecos, etc., R. Co. v. Dinwiddie (Tex. Civ. App.), 146 S. W. 280—938. Pecos, etc., R. Co. v. Evans-Snider- Buel Co., 100 Tex. 190—841,881. Pecos, etc., R. Co. v. Evans-Snvder- Buel (Tex. Civ. App.), 93 S. W. 1024—803. Pecos, etc., R. Co. v. Francis (Tex. Civ. App.), 138 S. W. 797—930. Pecos, etc., R. Co. v. Hughes (Tex. Civ. App.), 98 S. W. 410—899. Pecos, etc., R. Co. v. Jarman (Tex. Civ. App.), 138 S. \V. 1131—791, 868. Pecos River R. Co. v. Latham, 40 Tex. Civ. App. 78 — 538. Pecos River R. Co. v. Revnolds Cattle Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), i35 S. W. 162 —1836. Pecos Valley & N. E. Rv. Co. v. Har- ria, 14 N. M. 410—1882. Teebles v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 112 Mass. 498—568. Peek V. North StaflFordsliire R. Co., 9 Jur. N. S. 914-463. Peek V. North Staffordshire R. Co., 10 H. L. Cas. 473 — 419, 46.5. Peek V. St. Louis Transit Co., 178 Mo. 617—1477. Peerless Mfg. Co. v. New York, etc., R. Co.. 73 N. H. 328—320. Peet V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 20 Wis. 594—135, 138, 139, 355, 550, 599, 760, 762. Pegler V. Monmouthsliire R. Co., 30 L. J. Exoh. 249—42. Pegram v. Western Union Tel. Co., 97 N. C. 57—92. Peik v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 94 U. S. 164—389, 1753. Peixotti V. :McLaughlin, 1 Strobh. (S. C.) 468—62, 1302. Pelot V. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 60 Fla. 159—1177. Pelton V. Rensselaer, etc., R. Co., 54 N. Y. 214—384, 398. Pemberton Co. v. New York Cent. R. Co., 104 Mass. 144—766, 1450. Pence v. Wabash R. Co., 116 Iowa, 279—1576, 1608. Pendall v. Reuch, 4 McLean (U. S.) 259—26. Pender v. Robbins, 6 Jones L. (N. C.) 207—5, 13. Pendergast v. Adams Express Co., 101 Mass. 120—739, 767. Pendergast v. Union Ry. Co., 10 App. Div. (N. Y.) 207-1089, 1455. Pendleton v. Kinsley, 3 Cliff (U. S.) 416—1147, 1150, 1211. Pendleton St. R. Co. v. Shires, 18 Ohio St. 255—1081. Pendleton St. R. Co. v. Stallman, 22 Ohio St. 1—1081. Penfield v. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 26 App. Div. (N. Y.) 413—1072. Peniston v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 34 La. Ann. 777—1241. Penn v. Buffalo, etc.. R. Co., 49 N. Y. 204—784, 823, 905. Pennifeather v. Baltimore Steam Packett Co., 58 Fed. 481—546. Pennington v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 252 III. 584—1414. Pennington v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 62 Md. 9.5—1025, 1455. Penniwill v. Cullen, 5 Harr. (Del.), 238—11. Pennsylvania Canal Co. v. Bentley, 66 Pa. St. 30—1534. Pennsylvania Canal Co. v. Burd, 90 Pa.' St. 281—79. Pennsylvania Cent. R. v. Schwarzen- burger, 45 Pa. St. 208 — 428, 740, 767. Pennsylvania Co. v. Clark, 2 Ind. App. 146—119, 343, 352, 838. Pennsylvania Co. v. Dean, 92 Ind. 459 —1261. Pennsylvania Co. v. Dickson (Ind. .\pp'.), 67 N. E. 538-730. Pennsylvania Co. v. Faircliild. (5!) [11. 260^49. 00 TABLE Dl-' CASKS. ('riic n-fi'it'iu'i's arc to tlio puj^cs.) Pi'iinsvlvania Co. \. I line. II Oliii) St. •27(!— lO'j:.. 141!). Pemisvlvaiiia I'o. \. liiiaujliiiKl, 7S linl." 20.S— l-i42. 124:{. Itii;!. Peiinsylvania Co. v. Kcaii. 11 111. App". .T17— KillO. PtMiiisvlvaiiia Co. v. Kiiuiani (Jlass & Paiiit Co. (iNeb.). 81 N. W . :{72— 457. Ponnsvlvaiiia Co. v. Kenwood Bridge Co..' 170 111. (Uf)— lit;}. M\-2. Peiinsvlvaiiia Co. v. l^onliart, 120 Fed. 61 — 1301. Pennsylvania Co. v. Liverifj^lit. 14 Tnd. App. r)lS— .")7(). l.SoO, \:\M\. Pennsylvania Co. v. Marion, 12H Ind. 415— l(i7fi. 1()77. Pennsylvania Co. v. Marion. 104 Tnd. 231)— 1120, 1477, 1500, 1555. 1715. Pennsylvania Co. v. McCaffrey. 173 III. "loo— lono. Pennsylvania Co. v. Miller. 35 Ohio St. 541 — 1208. 1.353, 135G. Pennsylvania Co. v. Scofield, 121 Fed. 814—1430, 1711. Pennsylvania Co. v. Woodwortli, 26 Ohio St. 385—1054. Pennsylvania Co. v. Yoder, 25 Ohio C. C. R. 32 — 410, 457. 485, 576. Pennsylvania Nav. Co. v. Dandridge 8 Gill &. J. (Md.) 248-57. Pennsylvaniii. R. Co. v. Allen, 53 Pa. St. 270—1716. 1727. Pennsylvania R. Co. y. American Oil Works. 126 Pa. St. 485 — 499, 630, 642. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Anoka Nat. Bank, 108 Fed. 482—573. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Aspoll, 23 Pa. St. "147— 1234, 1254, 1256. 1571, 1582, 1675, 1680, 1703, 1700. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Baldauf, 16 Pa. "67-1353. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Baltimore, etc.,' R. Co., 60 Md. 263—728. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Berry, 68 Pa. St. 272—339, 755, 058. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Books, 57 Pa. St. ' 339— 058. 1057, 1131, 1553, 1702. 1714. 1728. Pennsylvania Co. y. Bray, 125 Ind, 220—1418, 1712. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Bulah Shaft C>pJ Co.. 42 Pa. Super. Ct. 187— 605. rciiMsx Ivania R. Co. v. Butler, 57 Pa. St. '335—1031. IVnnsvlvania H. Co. v. Clark, 118 Md.' 514—350. Pennsylvania K. Co. v. Connell, 112 111. ■205— 1300. 1705, 1711. 1712. rennsvlvania K. Co. v. Fries, 87 Pa. SI. '234—1450. rennsylvania R. Co. v. Goetchius & Cap'erton. 135 Ga. 176—337. I'ennsvKania 11. Co. v. Henderson, 51 Pa. St. 315—8, 001, 1037, 1451, 1407. 1557. I'ennsylvaiiia R. Co. v. Hensil, 70 111. 560—1510. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Hughes, 191 U. S. 477—000, 1826, 1852. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. International Coal Mining Co., 230 U. S. 184— 1887. PenTisylvania R. Co. v. International i\y.il Mining Co., 173 Fed. 1—1805, 18S7. Peniisyhania R. Co. v. John Anda Co.,' 131 111. App. 426 — 475. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Keally, 232 Pa. "567— 682. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Kilgore, 32 Pa. 'St. 204—1237, 1246, 1557, 1676, 1677, 1679. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Knight, 58 N. J. L. 287—1304, 1331, 1376. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Langdon, 92 Pa.'St. 21—1,572, 1628. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Lyons, 129 Pa. St. '113— 1247, 1477, 1560, 1582, 1675. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Marshall, 147 App. Div. (N. Y.) 806-600. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. McCaffrey, 149 Fed'. 404—1530. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. McCloskey, 23 Pa. St. 532—1243, 1451, 1460. Pennsylvania R. Co. y. McKinney, 124 Pa. St. 402—1477. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Midvale Steel Co.,' 201 Pa. 624—694. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Miller, 87 Pa. St. '3f)5— 570. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Mogi, 128 N. Y. Supp. 64,3—1885. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Moody, 126 Pa.'st. 244—1.520. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Naive, 112 Tenn. 239—203, 348, 388, 572. TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pages.) CCl Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Pennock, 51 Pa. St. 244 — 330, 332. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Peters, 116 Pa. St. 206—1213, 15S2, 1676. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Price, 96 Pa. St. 261—946, 954, 1021. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Purvis, 128 111. App. 367—1467, 1496. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Raiordon, 119 Pa. St. 577 — 457, 571, 516, 578, 906, 1459. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Reed, 60 Fed. 694—1567. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Righter, 42 X. J. L. 180—1520. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Roy, 102 U. S. 451—681, 805, 945, 1106, 1119, 1121, 1155, 1211. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Samuel, 45 Pa. Supp. Ct. 248—694. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Spearen, 47 Pa. St. 300—1533. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Spicker, 105 Pa. St. 142—1024. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Stageneier, 118 Ind. 30.5—1580. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Stern, 119 Pa. St. 24—215, 220, 233. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Titus, 78 Misc. R. (N. Y.) 347—656, 670, 683. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Titus. 142 N. Y. Supp. 43 — 656, 671. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Titusville, etc.. Plank Road Co., 71 Pa. St. 350— 619. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Vandiver, 42 Pa. St. 305—1131, 1149, 1181, 1426. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Webir, 76 Pa. St. 157—1545. Pennsylvania U. Co. v. White, 88 Pa. St. 327—1226, 1229, 1690. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Zebe, 33 Pa. St. 318—1664. Pennsylvania Steel Co. v. Georgia, etc., R. Co., 94 C,a. 636—641. Penny v. Atlantic f'oiist Line R. Co., 153 N. C. 296—1697. I'enny v. Alhuitic Coast Line R. Co., 145 N. C. 296 — 1152. Penny v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 133 X. C. 221—1190. Penny v. Rocliester R. Co., 7 App. Djv. (X. Y.) 595—1114. Prnsacola Td. f'o. v. Western I'n. Tel. Co., 96 U. S. 1—1734, 1736, 1737. People V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 67 111 188 — 10S2. People V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 55 111 95—407. People V. Caryl, 3 Park. Crim. Rep. (X. Y.) 326—1407. People V. Colorado Cent. R. Co., 42 Fed. 638-123. People V. Douglass, 87 Cal. 281—959 1021, 1513. People V. Folsom, 5 Cal. 373—1891. People ex rel. v. Hudson River Tel Co., 19 Abb. N. C. (N. Y ) 478— 1143. People ex rel. v. Hudson River Teleph Co., 10 St. Rep. (X. Y.) 284—1409. People V. Illinois, etc., R. Co., 122 111 506—148. People V. Jillson, 3 Park. Cr Rep (X. Y.) 234—991, 992, 1012. People V. Louisville, etc., R. Co 120 111. 48—1230. People V. Manhattan Gas Light Co 45 Barb. (X. Y.) 136—95. People V. Xew York Cent., etc., R Co 63 How. Pr. (X^ Y.) 291— 1 94 People V. Xew York Cent., etc., R Co 28 Hun (X. Y.), 543—121, 123. I24' 369, 1135, 1136. > , , People V. Xew York, etc., R. Co 46 X. J. L. 7—1099. People V. Xew York, etc., R Co 02 Hun (X. Y.) 533—124, 609 '' " People V. Xew York, etc., R. Co 89 N. Y. 226-1082. ' People V. Xew York, etc.. R. Co 55 Hun (X. Y.), 409—1107. People V. Raymond, 34 Cal 49-^— 1758. People ex rel. Hatch v. Reardon 184 X. Y. 431—17.30, 1731. 1738. ' People V. Union Pac. R. Co., 114 Fed 12.3—549. People's Pa.ss. R. Co. v. Green, 56 Md 84—1066, 1644. People's State Savings Bank v. ]\ris- souri, etc., R. Co., 158 Mo. Ann 519 —910. Penria Bank v. Xorthorn R Co 58 X. ?1. 20.3—220. Peoria, etc., R. Co. v. Chicinxn, etc R Co.. lO't III. 135—51, 104. 116, 122. ecu taiu.l: o\' casks. (The n-foroneos iiro to tlio pages.) Peoria, etc., R. Co. v. Hoerr, 120 HI. App. 65— KV.tO. Peoria, etc., K. Co. v. l.aiie. 83 111. 449—1083, lli28. Peoria, etc., H. Co. v. Reynolds, 88 111. 418— lOS-2, 1083, 1117. loUO. Peoria, etc.. K. Co. v. Inited States Kollinj,' Stoek Co.. 130 111. 043—30, 51. 122. 403. 750. Peoria, etc., R. Lo. v. I'nited States Rolling Stock Co.. 28 111. App. 79— 41, 104. Pepper v. Western I'nion Tel. Co., 87 Tenn. 554—91. Percy v. Railroad Company, 58 Mo. App. 75 — 1415. Perego v. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co., 158 Mich. 225—1688. Pereira v. Central Pac. R. Co., 66 Cal. 92—734. 754, 755, 757. 761. Pere Marquette R. Co. v. Strange, 171 Ind. 100—978. 979. Perishable Freight Transp. Co. v. O'Neill, 41 111. App. 423—551. Perkett v. Manistee & N. E. R. Co. (Mich.), 141 N. W. 607—297. Perkins v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 60 Miss. 726—1056, 1058. Perkins v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 55 Mo. 201—1148. 1181, 1426. Perkins v. New York Cent. R. Co., 24 N. Y. 196. 219—6, 145. 418, 460, 549. 975. 1030, 1084, 1120. 1131, 1331, 1449, 1460, 1461, 1462, 1463, 1405. Perkins v. Portland, etc., R. Co., 47 Me. 573—582. 739. 754, 1361. 1362. Perley v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 65 N. Y. 375—1299, 1300. Perlmutter v. Highland St. Ry. Co., 121 Mass. 497—1559. Perret v. Sanvinet. 2 La. Ann. 559 — 671. Perrine v. North Jersey St. Ry. Co. (N. J.), 55 Atl. 755—1393. Perrv v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 9 Ga. App. 200—1419. Perrv v. Central R. Co., 66 Ga. 740 — 1230. 1240. Perry v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 89 Mo. App. 49—858. Perrv v. Florida Cent., etc.. R. Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 740—1782. 1797. Perry v. Malarin. 107 Cal. 363—1124. Wvvv V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 41 Pa. Super. Ct. 59"l— 1074. Perrv v. Pliihulilpliia, etc., R. Co. (l)el. Super.), 77 Atl. 725—1053, 1470. Perry v. Tlunnpson, 98 Mu-^s. 249 — 447, 1452, 1450. Persliing v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 71 Iowa. 561-1082, 1083, 1115, 1500. Peters v. Elliott, 78 111. 321—226. Peters v. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 16 La. Ann. 222—804, 822. Peters v. New York Cent. R. Co., 34 Barb. (N. Y.) 353—1426. Peters v, Rylands, 20 Pa. St. 497— 75. Peterson v. Case, 21 Fed. 885—590, 773, 775, 776. Peterson v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 80 Iowa, 92— l.S6u. Peterson v. Chicago, etc., R. Co. (S. D.), 102 N. W. 595—906. Peterson v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 119 Wis. 197—1465. Peterson v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 9 Kulp (Pa.), 552—1607, 1617. Peterson v. Elgin, etc., Traction Co., 238 111. 40.3—981. Peterson v. Elgin, etc.. Traction Co., 142 111. App. 34—993. Petrault v. Emporium Department Store Co., 71 Wash. 523—102. Petrie v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 42 N". J. L. 449—1015, 1391, 1415. Pettigrew v. Barnum, 11 Md. 449 — 1297. Petty V. Great Western R. Co., L. R. 5 C. P. 461—1220. Petty V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 149 Mb. App. 360—1415, 1429. Pettviohn V. Oretrnn Coal & Nav. Co., 58 Or. 392—2025. Pfaelzer v. Palace Car Co., 4 W. N. C. (Pa.) 240—65. Pfeffer v. BnfTalo R. Co., 4 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 465—1241, 1616. Pfister V. Central P. R. Co., 70 Cal. 169—116, 125, 1054. 1291, 1296. P. Garvin. Inc. v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 210 Mass. 275—383. Pharr v. Collins, 35 La. Ann. 939 — 629. Phelps V. Bank, 2 McGloin (La.), 19 —233. TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pages.) CCIH Phelps V. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 94 111, 548—130. Phelps V. London, etc., R. Co., 19 C. B. (N. S.) 321—1292, 1293, 1295. Phelps V. London, etc., R. Co., 116 E. C. L. 321—1291. Phelps v. Mankato, 23 Jlinn. 276 — 1556. Phelps V. Williamson, 7 N. Y. Super. Ct. (5 Sandf.) 578—662. Phettiplace v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 84 Wis. 412—1429. Phifer v. Carolina Cent. R. Co., 89 N. C. 311—740, 767, 769. 780, 781. Philadelphia v. Larkin, 47 Md. 155 — 1721. Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co. v. Inter- state Commerce Commission, 147 Fed. 687—1805. Philadelphia & R. Rv. Co. v. Kast, 28 Pa. Super. Ct. 107—1293. Phila. Citv Pass. R. Co. v. Hassard, 75 Pa. St. 367-1589, 1644. Philadelphia City Pass. Rv. Co. v. Henrice, 92 Pa. St. 431—1507. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. Anderson, 94 Pa. St. 351—314, 1083, 1120, 1121, 1212, 1213. 1475, 1501, 1690. Philadelphia, etc.. R. Co. v. Anthonv, 43 Tnd. 183—1180. Philadelpliia, etc., R. Co. v. Barnard, 3 Bpu. (U. S.) 39—525. Philadelphia, etc.. R. Co. v. Crawford, 112 Md. 508—1169. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. Derby. 14 How. (U. S.) 408-7, 948. 9.57. 992. 10.30, 1031, 1033, 1148. 1211, 1264, 14G0, 1644. Philadelphia, etc, R. Co. v. Diffen- dale. 109 Md. 494—3.37. Philadelphia, etc.. R. Co. v. Dows, 15 Phila. (Pa.) 101-644. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. Edelstein, 23 W. N. C. (Pa.) 342—1226. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. Green, 110 Md. 32—979. Philadelpliia, etc., R. Co, v. Harper, 29 Md. 330—324, 1363, Philadelphia, etc.. R. Co. v. TToeflich, 62 Aid. 300—1391, 1702, 1711, 1720. Philadelphia, ptc, R, Co. v, Kerr, 25 Md. 521—1510. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v, Larkin, 47 Md, 15.5—1434, 1713, Philadflphia. etc., R. Co. v. Lehman. 56 Md. 209—247, 618, 788, 838, 1599. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. McCor- mick, 124 Pa. St. 427 — 1226, Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. Ramiey, 89 Pa. St. 474—757. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. Rice, 64 Md, 63—1417, 1418. Philadelphia, etc, R. Co. v. State, 58 Md. 372—778. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. Stebbin". 62 Md, 504—1476, 1510, 1534, Philadelphia, etc, R, Co. v. Walker, 45 Pa, Super. Ct, 524—683, Philadelphia, etc., R. Co, v, Wireman. 88 Pa, St. 264—213, Philadelphia, etc. Steamship Co. v. Pennsylvania, 122 U. S, 326 — 175S!. Philadelphia Tract, Co. v. Orbann, 119 Pa. St. 37—1019, Philleo V. Sanford, 17 Tex. 231 — 27. Phillips V. Atlantic Coast Line R, Co., 90 S, C. 187—1444, Phillips V, De Wald (Ga,), 7 S, E. 151—1267. Phillips V. Duquesne Tract. Co., 8 Pa, Super, Ct. 210-1589, Phillips V, Earle, 8 Pick, (Mass.) 182 — 185, 523. 526, 527. Phillips V. Georgia R,, etc., Co., 93 Ga. 356—1452, 1454, 1458, Phillips V, London, etc., R. Co., 5 C. P. Div. 280—1717. Phillips V. London, etc, R. Co., 5 Q, B. Div, 78—1715, 1727, 1728, Phillips V. Louisville & N. R, Co., 8 Int. Com, Rep, 93 — 1785. Phillips V. North Carolina R. Co., 78 N. C, 294—740, 754. 761, 779. Phillips V, Northern R, Co,, 62 Hun (N. Y,), 23.3—1624, Phillips V, Railroad Co., 93 Ga, 356 —306, Phillips V. Rensselaer, etc, R. Co. 49 N. Y, 177—1598, 1613, 1614, Phillips V, Rensselaer, etc., R, Co., 57 Barb. (N. Y,) 644—1557, Phillips V. Rodie. 15 East, 547 — 629 Phillips V. Southern R. Co., 124 N. C 12.3—978, Phillips Co. V, Pruitt, 26 Kv. Law Rep, 831—1165, Phnenix Clay Pot Works v, Pitts- burirh, etc, R. Co,, 139 Pa, St, 284 —•151. 572, lAKLE OV CASKS. (The rcffrrnooN are to the pages.) .rk.- Sunds. 55 rim riiuiiix (."iav l'i>l \\ Pu. St. 140—571. Pluvuix Ills. I'll. V. Krie, ete.. Traiisn. Co.. 117 I'. S. ;n2— 454, 5U>. I H'.». PluiMii.x III;*. Co. V. Krie, ele.. Transp. Co., 10 Hiss. (C. S.) IS— 54(i. riiiriiix Towder Mfj,'. Co. v. Wal)asli R. Co., 1-20 Mo. AiM). 5liU— 4;}!>. Pieard v. Uidge Ave. P. K. Co., 147 Pa. St. 1!15— Kilo. Piekard v. Crand Junetion R. Co., 12 M. & W. 7(!ti— 1S6. Piekard v. PuUinan Southern Car Co., 117 U. S. :U— 1747. Pickens v. Rieliniond, etc., R. Co., 104 N. c. 312— i:?ii(>, i;?n7. Pickering v. Barklev, Style. 132—324. Pickering v. Weld, 159 Mass. 522— 25S. Pickett V. Central of C>a. Ry. Co., 138 Ca. 177— 15t)S. Piekford v. Grand Junction R. Co., 12 M. & VV. 7Gfi— 127, 131, 351. Piekford v. Grand Junction R. Co., 8 M. & VV. 372—132, 1G5. Picquet v. McKay, 2 Blatchf. (Ind.) 40.5 — 15. Piedmont Mfg. Co. v. Columbia, etc., R. Co., 19 S. C. .35.3—2, 25, 42, 97, 458. 740, 757, 759, 1452, 1455, 1459. Pier V. Finch, 24 Barb. (N". Y.) 514 —1024. Pierce v. Georgia R., etc., Co., 9 Ga. App. 66G— 15.32, 1682. Pierce v. Milwaukee, etc.. R. Co., 23 Wis. 387—9. Pierce v. Randolph, 12 Tex. 290— 10C8. Pierce v. Southern Pac. R. Co.. 120 Cal. 15G— 316. Pierce v. Van Dusen, 78 Fed. 706 — 1562. Pierce v. Winsor, 2 Cliff. (U. S.) 18 —553. Pierson v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 61 Wa^h. 450—883, 894. Pierson v. Xorthem Pac. Ry. Co., 52 Wash 595— P08. Piggott V. Fastern. etc., R. Co., 3 C. B. 229-1478. PiVe V. Nash. 3 Abb. App. Dec. (N. Y.) 610—86. Pike V. Nash, 1 Keyes (N. Y.), 335— 12, 13. Tr. Co., lOS Mo. App. Co., (it; Co., n; Co., 146 St. i-uui^ 713—1681. I'inius V. Atlantic Coast Line K. Co., 140 N. C. 450—980. rindell v. St. I/iuis. etc., K. Co., 41 Mo. App. S4— 3tU, 394. I'iiidell V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 34 Mo. App. 675—203, 398. I'iiider V. l5rooklvn Ileiirlits R. Co.. 65 App. Div. (N. Y.) '521 — 1166. Pine Bluir & A. R. Ry. Co. v. Mc- Ken/ie, 75 Ark. 100—177. Pine Bros. v. Chicago, etc., 11. Co., 153 Iowa, 1—839. Piiiurec V. Detroit, etc., R. .^ii(•h. 143—37. 32S, 633. Pinkerton v. Mis.souri Pac. R. Mo. App. 288—312. Pinneil v. Cleveland, etc., R. 111. App. 150—862. Pinnev v. First Div. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., 19 Minn. 251—385. 398. Pinney v. Wells, 10 Conn. 104, 115— 625; 643, G48. Pinson v. Southern Ry.. 85 S. C. 355 —1197. Piper V. Boston &, M. R. Co., 75 N. H. 228—1054. Piper V. Manny, 21 Wend. (N. Y.) 282—1375. Piper V. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 156 N. Y. 224—68, 1214. Pitard v. New Orleans Ry., etc., Co., 120 La. 925—1623. Pitcher v. Central of Ga. R. Co., 155 Ala. 316—596, 620, 622. Pitcher v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 137 N. Y. 568—1607. Pitcher V. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 61 Hun (N. Y.), 623—1036. Pitcher v. People's St. R. Co., 154 Pa. St. 560—1617. Pitkin V. New York Cent., etc., R. Co, 94 App. Div. (N. Y.) 31 — 1234. Pitlock V. Wells, Fargo & Co., 109 Mass. 452—127, 175. Pittman v. Pacific Express Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 59 S. W. 949—449. Pittshnrgli C. C. & St. L. Rv. Co. v. Wood (Ind. App.), 84 N. E. 1009— 126. Pitt-;])urg Coal Co. v. Bates, 156 U. S. 577—1735. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. American TABLE OF CASES. CL-V (The references are to the pages.) Tobacco Co., 31 Ky. Law Rep. 1013 —170, 177. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Andrews, 39 Md. 329—1506. 1642, 1655, 1717. I*ittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 729— 1792, 1832, 1854. Pittsburgh, etc.. R. Co. v. Barrett, 36 Ohio St. 448—30, 83, 185, 375, 376, 433, 434. Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. v. Bennett (Ind. App.), 35 N. E. 103.3—1543. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Bishop, 13 Ohio C. C. Rep. 380—952. Pittsburg, etc., R.,Co. v. Brigham, 29 Ohio St. 364—1019, 1126. Pittsburgh, etc.. R. Co. v. Brown (Ind.), 97 N. E. 145—1037, 1467, 1473. Pittsburg, etc.. R. Co. v. Caldwell 74 Pa. St. 421—996, 1031, 1057, 1253, 1588. 1595, 1644. Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. v. Chicago, 242 III. 178—123, 292, 317, .326. 533. Pittsburgh, etc.. R. Co. v. Dunn, 56 Pa. St. 280-1082. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Gray, 28 Ind. App. 588—998, 1008, 1011, 1577. Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. v. Gray (Ind. App.), 59 N. E. 1000—1534. 1676. Pittsburg, etc., Rv. Co. v. Grom, 142 Ky. 51—951, 1531. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Hazen, 84 HI. 36—248, 326, 369, 370, 571. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Hennigh, 39 Ind. 509—1414. Pittsluirgh. etc., R. Co. v. Hinds, 53 Pa. St 512—24, 948, 1133, 1140, 1186, 1194. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. H. L. Mooar Lumber Co.. 27 Ohio Cir. Ct. Rep. 588 — 027, 702. Pittsl)urgh, etc., R. Co. v. HoUowell, 65 Ind. 188-36, 146, 248, 326, 370, 571. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Hunt (Ind.). 80 N. E. .■i;iS— 1827. Pitt-burgh, etc.. R. Co. v. Knox, 177 Ind. 344—1904. 1924. PittHl>urg. etc., Ry. Co. v. Kno.v (Ind.), 98 N. E. 295-247. PJttsl)urfr, etc., Co. v. Krousi'. 30 Oliio Sf. '^22— 980, 997, 1012, 1576, 1079, 1080. Pittshurirh. etc., Co. v. Ligliteap, 7 Ind. App. 249—1076, 1255. Pittsburgh, etc.. R. Co. v. Lyon. 1-23 Pa. St. 140—1070, 1303, 1304. 1702, 1720, 1724. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Martin. 3 Ohio Dec. 93—997, 1612. Pittsbursj, etc., R. Co. v. McClurg, 56 Pa. StT 294—1106. 1.506, 1642, 1655. Pittsburgh, etc.. R. Co. v. Mitchell, 175 Ind. 196 — 443, 1802, 1909, 1924, 1926. Pittsburgh, etc., Rv. v. Mooar Lum- ber Co.. 27 Ohio" Cir. Ct. R. 588— 627, 702. Pittsburgh, etc.. R. Co. v. Morton, 01 Ind. 539—119, 739. Pittsburgh, etc.. R. Co. v. Xash, 43 Ind. 423—381, 394. Pittsburgh, etc.. R. Co. v. Nuzuni. 60 Ind. 533—1228. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Nuzum. 50 Ind. 141—1227, 1255, 1410, 1676. Pittsburgh, etc.. R. Co. v. Pillow, 76 Pa. St. 510—1069, 1187, 1140, 1401, 1407, 1486, 1512. Pittsburgh, etc.. R. Co. v. Racer, 5 Ind. App. 209—136. 144, 154, 350, 942. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Redding, 140 Ind. 101—1425. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Russ, 67 Fed. 662—1435. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Russ, 57 Fed. 822—1725. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Shepman, 171 Ind. 71—1108, 1662. Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. v. Sheppard, 55 Ohio St. 68—586. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Slusser, 19 Ohio St. 157—1149, 1167. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Spencer. 98 Ind. 186—1268, 1269, Pittsl)urgh. etc., R. Co. v. Street (Ind. App.) 59 N. E. 404—1414. Pittsl)urgh. etc.. R. Co. v. Throbold. 51 Ind. 247—1148. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Thompson, 50 111.' 138-1082, 1083, 1115. 1118, 1500, 1512, 1728. Pittsburgh, etc.. R. Co. v. Vaiidyne, 57 Ind. 570—1140, 1407. I'itlsburgti, etc., K. Co. v. Van llou- ten, 48 Ind. 90—1265, 1407. WVl TA15LK OV CASKS. (The refiMOia-oj* are to llic piigos.) riltsliurp. etc.. U. Co. v. Viors, IKi Kv. 52G— 921. Pittsl.ui^h. etc.. R. Co. v. Williams, 71 Imi. 402—1082, loOl. rittsburgli. etc., R. Co. v. Wood, 45 Ind. App. 1—298, 300, 70."), 707, 720. Pittsl>iirj,'li. etc., R. Co. v. Wright, 80 Ind. 182—154;-). Place V. Union Express Co., 2 Hilt. (N. Y.) 19, 27—38, 40, 350, 360, 570. Plant Investment Co. v. Cook, 85 Fed. 011—1007. Plantation No. 4 v. Hall, 61 Me. 517 —81, 739. Planz V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 157 Mass. 577—1058. Piatt V. Fortv-Second St., etc., R. Co., 2 Hun '(N. Y.) 124—1013. Piatt V. Fortv-Second St., etc., R. Co., 4 T. & C. *(N. Y.) 406—1003. Piatt V. Hibbard, 7 Cow, (N. Y.) 497 —80, 82, 83, 376. Piatt V. Lecocq, 158 Fed. 723—40, 109, 116, 127, 128. Piatt V. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 108 N. Y. 358—578. Piatt V. Wells, 26 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 442—206. 272. Piatt V. W^ells, 2 Rob. (N. Y.) 101— 212. Platz V. City of Cohoes, 89 N. Y. 219 —1599. Pledgar v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 69 Xeb. 456—992. 1426. Plefka V. Detroit United Ry., 155 Mich. 53—1093. Plopper V, New York Cent. R. Co., 13 Hun (N. Y.) 625—1666. Plott V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 63 Wis. 511_1069, 1227, 1228, 12.^5. Plum V. Metropolitan St. Rv. Co., 91 App. Div. (N. Y.) 420— 1C20. Plummer v. Boston Elev. Ry. Co., 198 Mass. 499—1612. Plummer v. Ossipee, 59 N. H. 55 — 1.552. Plutschow V. Metropolitan W. S. E. R. Co., 155 111. App. 589—1621. Podrat v. Narragansett Pier R., 32 R. I. 25.')— 490.' Poland V. United Traction Co., 107 App. Div. (N. Y.) 561—1003. Polk V. Cliicago, etc.. R. Co., 94 U. S. 179—121. Pollard V. New York, etc., R. Co., 7 Hosw. (N. Y.) 437—1634. Pollard V. Vinton, 105 U. S. 7—218, 219, 229. Pollock V. Brooklyn, etc., R. Co., 15 N. Y. Supp. 189—1500. Pollock V. Cleveland Ship Bldg. Co., 56 Ohio St. 055—1731, 1733. Pollow V. Texarkan & F. S. Ry. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 119 S. W. 128— 1604. Pomaski v. Grant, 119 Mich. 657^ 1048. Pomeroy v. Ainsworth, 22 Bark. (N. Y.) 118—451. Pomeroy v. Donaldson, 5 Mo. 36 — 59. Pompilj v. Manhattan Delivery Co., 84 N. Y. Supp. 230—446. Pontifex v. Hartley, 62 N. J. Q. B. 196—759. Pool V. Cliicago, etc., R. Co., 56 Wis. 227—991, 1044. Pool V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 53 Wis. 657—991, 1065. Poole V. Georgia R., etc., Co., 89 Ga. 320—1227. Poole V. Northern Pac. R. Co., 16 Ore. 261—992. Pope V. Nickerson, Fed Cas. No. 11,274 (3 Story 465)— 451, 1993. Popham V. Barnard, 77 Mo. App. 619 479. Porch er v. North Eastern R. Co., 14 Rich. L. (S. C.) 181—27, 131, 324. Port Blakely Mill Co. v. Sharkey, 102 Fed. 259—603, 609. Poreous v. Adams Express Co., 115 Minn. 281—514. Porteous v. Adams Express Co., 115 Minn. 31—513. Porter V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 20 111. 407—204, 380, 743. Porter v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 41 Iowa, 358—186. Porter v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 20 Iowa, 73—273. Porter v. Cliicago, etc., R. Co., 80 Mich. 156—1233, 1257. Porter v. Erie R. Co., 32 N. J. L. 201 —1723, 1725. Porter v. Hildebrand, 14 Pa. St. 129 — 1297. TABLE OF CASES. CCVU (The references are to the pages.) Porter v. New York Cent. R. Co., 34 Barb. (N. Y.) 353—1394. Porter v. New York, etc., R. Co., 59 Hun (N. Y.) 177—1038. Porter v. Raleigh & G. R. Co. (N. C), 43 S. E. 547—117. Porter v. Southern Express Co., 4 S. C. 135 — 458, 484. Porter v. Steamboat New England, 17 Mo. 200—1255. Porterfield v. Humphreys, 8 Humpli. (Tenn.) 497—76, 927'. Portland Flowring Mills Co. v. Brit- ish, etc., Ins. Co., 130 Fed. 860— 669. Portuchek v. Wabash R. Co. (Mo. App.), 44 S. W. 368—1221. Portur V. Currv, 7 La. 233—590. Posch V. Southern El. R. Co., 76 Mo. App. 601 — 1215. Post V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 14 Neb. 110—1029. Post V. Kock, 30 Fed. 208—327, 1231. Post V. West Shore R. Co., 123 N. Y. 580—1082. Posten V. Denver Consol. Tr. Co., 11 Colo. App. 187—1092. Posten V. Denver Consol. Tr. Co. (Colo. App.), 78 Pac. 1067—1681. Posten V. Denver Consol. Tramwav Co., 3 St. Ry Rep. 37 (Colo. App.") —1676. Potter V. Bunnell, 20 Ohio St. 150— 45. Potter v. Faulkner, 1 B. & S. 800— 1066. Potter V. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 142 Mo. App. 220—1482. Potter Mfg. Co. v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 4 Int. Com. Rep. 514— 1781, 1794. Potts V, Chicago City Ry. Co., 33 Fed. Rep. 610—1081, 1494, 1507. Pottes V. New York, etc., R. Co., 131 Mass. 45.5 — 637, 641, 644. Potts v. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 17 Mo. App. 394 — 430, 456, 879, 908. Poucher v. New York Cent. R. Co., 49 N. Y. 26.3 — 460, 985, 1036, 1449, 1462, 1467. Poughkeepsie Iron Co. v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co.. 3 Int. Com. R. 248—1761, 1790, 1798. Poulin v. Broadway, etc.. Ry. Co., 61 X. Y. 621—1239", 1243, 1645. Poulin v. Canadian Pac. R. Co., 52 Fp(1. 197—1415. Poulson y. Nassau Elec. R. Co., IS App. Div. (N. Y.) 221—118, 1505. Poulson y. Nassau Elect. R. Co., 7 Am. Electl. Cas. 675—1116, 1582. Poulton v. London & S. W. R. Co., L. R. 2 Q. B. 534—1184. Pounder v. North Eastern R. Co., 1 Q. B. 385—1190. Powell v. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. (Miss.), 8 So. 738—1059. Powell y. Hudson Valley R. Co., 8S App. Div. (N. Y.) 1.3.3—1487. Powell V. Hudson Valley R. Co., 2 St. Rv. Rep. 800—1108. Powell V. Mills, 37 Miss. 691 — 60. Powell V. Mills, 30 Miss. 231—27, 59, 62, 84, 110. Powell V. Mvers, 26 Wend. (N. Y.). 591 — 44, 61, 62, 75. 198, 234, 235. 948, 1302, 1338, 1350, 1352. Powell v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 32 Pa. St. 414—458, 794, 820, 822, 851, 897. Powell V. Philadelphia & R. R. Co., 220 Pa. 638—1001. Powell V. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co., 25 Ohio St. 70—1025. Powell V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 229 Mo. 246—956. Powelson v. Union Tract. Co., 204 Pa. St. 474—1615. Powers v. Boston & M. R. Co., 153 Mass. 188—1058. Powers V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 130 Iowa, 615—876. Powers V. Connecticut Co., 82 Conn. 665—1001. Powers V. Davenport, 7 Blackf. (Ind.) 497—71, 72, 134. Powers V. Sixty Tons of Marble, 21 La. Ann. 402 — 641. Powers Mercantile Co. v. Wells, Fargo & Co., 93 Minn. 143 — 473. Powers Mercantile Co. v. Wells, Fargo & Co. (Minn.), 100 N. W. 735— 572. Poythross v. Durham & S. Ry. Co., i48 N. C. .391-385, 391. Praogor v. Bristal, etc., R. Co., 24 L. T. N. S. 105—1233, 1242. t\-vin TAl'.I.K Ol CASKS. 1 lie iflfrnu'i's are to the ini<^3.) PnuruMHi A lias To. V. I'liitcd Stat.'s. I'lirstlv v. Nintlicni Imliaiia, etc., U. 204 FihJ. 7!IS— 70. 1V7!'. r42. IU2— Ga7. I'ratt V. nivaiit. 20 \t. ;{:$:$— 2(57. i'rim-e v. Interimti(.iial, ite.. K. Co., Pratt V. (."•liieaKo, ete.. H. fo.. SS iv. (N. V.) 30:5— P274. I'rentiee v. Deeker. 4!t Harh. (N. Y.) 21—411. 1454. Prescott. ete.. R. Co. v. .\teliison. etc., K. Co.. 73 Fed. 438-182.',. President, ete.. of Porthiml P>ank v. Stiit)I)s. (i Mass. 422— ()71. Presslev v. Mobile, ete., U. Co.. 1") Fed."l9{)— 11S4. Pre.ston v. Fin ley. 72 Fed. 8.")()— 1732. Prcttvman v. Oreiron K.. ete.. 13 Ore. 341—582. Previsieh v. Bntte Electric Ry. Co. (Mont.). 131 Pac. 25— 1540'. Price V. Denver, etc.. R. Co.. 12 Colo. 402— 1;38. 782. Price V. Hartshorn. 44 X. Y. 1)4—23, 164. Price V. Metropolitan St. U\ . Co.. 220 Mo. 43.'')- 14'.t(i. 213—235. Iriiuc V. Hallway Co., 04 Te.\. 14() — lnl7. Prior V. \N ilson, 2 L. T. N. S. 549— tilt). Pritcliard v. Norton. lOG U. S. 124— -15ti. Pidctor V. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 3 Int. Com. Hq>. 131 — 1781. Proetor & (lamble Co. v. United States of America, 225 U. S. 282 — )S!t!t. Proctor A- (Iambic Co. v. United States, 188 Fed. 221—1844. Projieller Niagara v. Cordes, 21 How. (U. S.) 2t)— 1451. Proprietors Trent, etc., Nav. Co. v. Wood. 2tJ E. C. L. 479—307. Pro?-pi:ct V. Rhode Island Suburban i;v. ( (>., 28 R. 1. 307—1157. Prothero v. Citizens' St. R. ('o.. 134 Ind. 431 — 1242. Proud V. Pliiladelphia. etc.. R. Co., ti4. N. .1. Law 7(J2— 1110. Providence Coal Co. v. Providence, etc., R. Co.. 1 Int. Com. R. 363— 1790. l^ruitt v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co.. 02 Mo. .-.27—303, 372. 543, 541, 838, S-IO. '.'rice V. Oswe^ro. etc.. It. Co.. 50 N. piuitt v. San Pedro, etc.. R. Co., 101 f'al. 29—1049. JMiekett V. Sontliern R. Co., 9 Ca. Apj). 589—1410. Y. 213—211. Price V. Pennsvlvania R. Co.. 113 U. S. 219— 1()49. Price V. Powell. 3 N. Y. 322—244, Pu.i.-ct Sound Electric Rv. v. Fell, 181 384. Fed. 938—1084. Price V. St. I.ouis. etc., R. Co., 75 Pulliam v. I3urlin<,'ame, 81 Mo. Ill — ■ Ark. 479-1140, 1195. 5.! I. Price V. St. lx)uis, etc., R. Co., 72 Pullman Co. v. (ireen. 128 Gra. 142 — Mo. 414 — 1508. 1677. 1294. Price V. Tlie Iriel. 10 La. Ann. 413 Pullman 0>. v. Linke. 203 Fed. 1017 —576. 582. —09. Prickett v. New Orleans \n(lior Line. Pullmian Co. v. Vanderlioeven. 48 Te.v. 13 Mo. A])],. 43li— 99S. Civ. App. 414—1294. Piideaux V. .Mini-ral Point. 43 Wis. Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Ailams, 513— 12(i9. 1545. 120 Ala. 581— (i5. Priest V. Hudson River R. Co., 40 Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Adams How. Pr. (N. Y.) 456—1166. (Ala. I, 24 So. 921—64. lAJBLJi Of L'ASE.S. CCIX (The reiViences are to the pages.) V. A rents \\'. 329— Balles. 80 V. Barker, Gardner, . Gaylord, Hall. 10() Tex. Pullman Palace Car Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 06 8 Uo. Pullman Palate Car Co. v Tex. 211—07. I'ullnian's Palac-e Car Co. 4 Colo. 344—9-1.5, 1142, 1703, 1706. Pul:iiiiUi Palace Car Co. v. Bliihm, 10!) HI. 20-1704, 1705. Pullman Palacf Car v. Cain, 15 Tex. Civ. App. y03 — 67. Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Fielding, 62 111. App. .■)77 — 04.'). Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Galvin, 93 Tenn. .")3 — 64, 1377. Pullman Pahict; Car Co. 3 Penny ( Pa.). 78 — 64 Pullman Palace Car Co. 6 Ky. L. Rep. 279—64. Pullman Palace Car Co. i Ga. 765—64. Pullman Palace Car v. Hatch, Civ. App.). 70 .S. W. 771—64. Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Hunter (Ky.), 54 S. W. 84.5—64, 45. Pullman Palace Co. v. Lawrence 74 Miss. 784 — 64. Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Jjowe, 28 Neb. 239—65. 66. I*ullman Palace Car Co. v. Marsh (Ind.), 53 N. E. 782—67. Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Matthews. 74 Tex. 64.5 — 64, 66. Pullman Pala^-e Car Co. v. Missouri Pac. \l. Co., 115 U. S. 587-729. Pullman P:;lace Car Co. v. Nelson. 22 Tex. Civ. App. 223-67. Pullman Palace Car ( o. v. Pollock. 69 Tex. 120—64, 66. Pullman Palao" Car Co. v. Reed, 75 111. 125—1720. Pul'man Palace Car Co. v. Smith, 73 III. 360-64. Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Tavlor, 65 Tnd. 15.3—66. Pullman Sontln-rn Car Co. v. Xolan (f;. ('.), 22 Fed. 76—1857. Purcell v. Richmond, etc.. R. Co., 108 N. C. 414—119, 342. 1143. Purc'll v. Southern Exnross Co., 34 (in. 315—418, 433, 556, 570. Purecll V. St. Paul City R. Co., 48 Minn. 134—1213. Pnrdv V. New York, etc., R. Co., 61 N. V. :»53— 1104. Puring-ton-Kiniball Brick Co. v. Eck- man, 102 111. App. 183 — 1641. Puritan Coal Min. Co. v. Ptnnsvl- vania R. Co.. 237 Pa. 420—711, 720, 1802, 1878. Purple v. Lnion Pac. R. Co., 114 Fed. 123—6, 1017, 1019. 1055, 1460. Purvis V. Bull'alo, etc., R. Co., 219 Pa. 195—1579. Putnam v. Broadway, etc., R. Co., 55 X. Y. 108—1068, 1138, 1140, 1142, 1186, 1194, 1407. Pyle V. Ea&t Tennessee, etc., R. Co., 1 Int. Com. Rep. 767—1786. Pym v. Great Northern R. Co., 2 F. & F. 619—1083, 1120, 1501. Pyne v. Broadwav. etc., R. Co., 19 N. Y. Supp. 217—1553. Quackenbush v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 73 Iowa, 458 — 1262, 1626. Quaife v. Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 4S Wis. 513—1716. Quanah, etc., Ry. Co. v. Drummond (Te.x. Civ. App.). 147 S. W. 728— 690, 713. Quanah, etc., R. Co. v. Gallowav (Tex. Civ. App.), 140 S. W. 308— 869. Quantz v. Southern Ry. Co., 137 N. C. 136—1011. Quarricr v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 20 W. Va. 424—186, 583. CJuigley v. Central Pac. R. Co., 1 1 Nev. 350—1149, 1702, 1716, 1720, 1726. Quigley v. Gulf, etc., R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.). 142 S. W. 03.3—1425. Quimbv v. Bee Bldg. Co., 87 Neb. 193 —1659. Quimby v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 150 .Mass. 36.5— 431, 1331. 13.33, 14.50, 1454, 1455, 1461, 1464. Qniiiihv V. Union Pac. R. Co., 83 Neb. 777—832 Quimbv v. VandeH)ilt, 17 N. Y. 306 —313, 1345, 1302. 15.58. Quin v. Manhattan R. Co., 7 St Rep. (N. Y.) 252—1679. Quincv, etc., R. Co. v. Wellhnr>ner 72 111. *60— 1511. Qiiinlan v. Sixth Ave. R. Co., 4 Tir.'v 'V y.\. 49«-14ni. ccx lAiU.l': OF CAS lis. ("llio ri-firinios :in« to tlio pages.) Quiun V. I.OIK4 l..l:uul U. Co., :n llvin uN. v.), 3;n— 171;'), 171i). Quinu V. AlcliointliUMi St. Ky. Co., U*1S Mo. 540 — lli'J.i. Quiiin V. Phihiilolplua U. T. Co., 2-4 I'll. 1G2— 102-. Quiiin V. Sliam kin & M. C. El. R. Co., 7 Pa. SiijuM. Ct. ID— loS3. Quiiiii V. Soutl\ Caroliiui K. Co., 29 S. C. 381 — 1G5G, 17-!lJ. Quimi Coal Co. v. Hocking Valley Kv., 32 Ohio Cir. Ct. K. 700—704, 7iy. B. Eaben v. Central Iowa R. Co., 74 Iowa, 732—1245, 1598, 1G76, 1679. Rabon v. Central Iowa R. Co., 73 Iowa, 579—1227, 1245, 1246. Riulel & Co. V. Borches, 147 Ky. 506 1101. Radley v. Columhia Southern Ry. Co., 44 Or. 332—1042. Rae V. Grand Trunk R. Co., 14 Fed. 401—122. Ragan v. Aiken, 9 Loa (Tenn.), 609 —162. Rager v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 229 Pa. 335 — 1573. Ragsdale v. Southern Ry Co., 119 Ga. 027—878. Rjihwav Vallev R. Co. v. Delaware, etc.R. Co.,' 14 I. C. C. Rep. 191— 1SC8. Railroad v. Adams (Va.), 18 S. E. 675—627. Railroad v. Aller, 56 Ohio St. 754— 1601, 1602. Railroad v. Bover, 97 Pa. 91—1268. Railroad v. Butler, 57 Pa. 335—1033. Railroad v. ConncU, 112 111. 295— 1415. Railroad v. Cook, 145 111. 551—1646. Railroad v. Crudup, 63 Miss. 291 — 1033. Railroad v. Fuller, 17 Wall. (U. S.) 560-1752. Railroad v. Gants, 38 Kan. 618— 1017, 1415. Railroad v. Griffin, 68 lH, 499—1415. Railroad v. Hurst, 11 Heisk (Tenn.), 025—325. Kailnuul v. lluscn, 96 U. S. 405— 1747. 1748. Kail road v. Akt^indh'Ss, 33 Kan. 30G — 1015. Railroad v. Mouihani, 91 Tonn. 428 —988. Railroad v. Mitchell, 98 Tenn. 31 — 1240. Railroad v. Myers, 87 Fed. 149—1714. Railroad v. Richmond, 19 Wall. (U. S.) 584—1750. Railroad v. Stanley, 89 Tex. 42—881. Railroad v. Stein (Ind.), 31 N. E. 180—1564. Railroad v. Sullivan, 120 Fed. 799— 1033. Railroad v. Trautwein, 52 N. J. L. 169—1033. Railroad v. Walrath, 38 Ohio St. 461 —06. Railroad Commission v. Savannah, etc., R. Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 1784. Railroad Corn'r."? v. Portland, etc., R. Co., 63 Me. 269—121, 123, 1136. Railway Co. v. Atkins, 40 Ark. 423— 1015. Railway Co. v. Gantz, 38 Kan. 608 — 1017,' 1415. Railway Co. v. McCleav« (Ky.), 38 S. W. 1055—1646. Railway Co. v. McGown, 65 Tex. 640 1033. Railway Co. v. Nix, 68 Ga. 572—1397. Railway Co. v. Rude, 62 111. App. 550 —1646. Railway Co. v. Soott, 86 Va. 902— 1646. Railway Co. v. Spaher, 7 Ind. App. 23—1615. Railway Co. v. Stevens, 95 U. S. 655 —1033. Railway Co. v. Valleley, 32 Ohio St. 345—1194, 1258, 1401, 1407. Railway Co. v. Williams, 140 111. 276 —1615. Railway Co. v. Wright, 176 U. S. 498 —470. Rainey v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co. of Canada, 84 Vt. 521—1523. R. A. Lee v. St. I^uis, etc., R. Co., 136 N. C. 53.3—598. Raleigh, etc., R. Co. v. Lowe, 101 Ga. 320—218, 226. Ralli V. New York & T. S. S. Co., 154 Fed. 280—2003. TABLE OF CASES. CCXl (The references are to the pages.) Earning v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Ck)., 157 Mo. 477—1020, 1G40. Ramm v. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 94 Iowa, 296—1042. Ramsav v. Pottstown & A. St. Ry. Co., ^35 Pa, Super. Ct. 598—1653. Ramsden v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 104 .uass. 117—1148. Ranchau v. Rutland R. Co., 71 Vt. 142—1340. Rand v. ilerchants' Dispatch Transp. Co., 59 N. H. 363—1450. Randall v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 109 U. S. 478—1114. Randall v. tirodhead, 60 App. Div. (N. Y.) 567-546. Randall v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 113 Mich. 1151—1145. Randall v. Xew Orleans, etc., R. Co., 45 La. Ann. 778—1026, 1458. Randall v. Riclimond & D. R. Co., 108 N. C. 612—131, 163. Randall v. South Frankford R. Co., 139 Pa. St. 464—1118, 1198. Randall v. Sterling, etc., Ry. Co., 158 111. App. 56—1537. Randell v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 102 Mo. App. 342—1397, 1426, 1434. Randolph v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 18 Mo. App. 609—1150, 1713, 1718, 1725. Randolph v. Quincv, etc., R. Co., 129 Mo. App. 1—1415. Rangenier v. Seattle Elec. Co., 52 Wash. 401—1597. Rankin v. Memphis, etc., Packet Co., 9 Hcisk. (Tenn.), 564—26, 198, 250. 636, 649, 650. Rankin v. Pacific R. Co., 55 Mo. 167— 119, 342, 381, 598, 604. Ransom v. New York, etc., R. Co., 15 N. Y. 41.5—1703, 1715. Ransomc v. Eastern Counties R. Co., 87 E. C. L. 437—162. Papheal Pickford, 5 M. & G. 558— 344. Rappaport v. White's Express Co., 131 N. Y. Supp. 131—422, 511. Ratlibone v. Neal, 4 La. Ann. 653 — 582. Ratlibone v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 140 N. Y. 48—462, 470. 498. Rathbone v. Oregon R. Co. (Or.), 66 Pac. 909 — 1044. Rattibun V. Citizens Steamboat Co., 76 N. Y. 376—264. Ratican v. Terminal R. Ass'n, 114 Fed. 666—160. Ratliff V. Quincv. etc., R. Co., 118 Mo. App. 644—598, 841, 850, 902. Rattan v. Central Electric Ry. Co., 120 Mo. App. 270—1493. Ratterel v. Galveston, etc., R. Co., 36 Tex. Civ. App. 197—997, 1232. Ratzer v. Burlington, etc., R. Co., 64 Minn. 245—221, 223. Raw v. Bosworth, 179 U. S. 443 — 123. Rawitsky v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 40 La. Ann. 47—1025. Rawlings v. Wabash R. Co., 97 Mo. App. 515—996, 1710, 1718. Raworth v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 857—1794, 1798, 1828. Rawson v. Holland, 59 N. Y. 611— 372. 384, 453, 461, 730, 735, 738, 1367. Rawson v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 48 N. Y. 212—428, 447, 1330, 1332, 1454. Rawson v. Pennsvlvania R. Co., 2 Abb. Prac. (N. S.) 220—1375, 1451. Ray v. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co., 147 Mo. App. 332—1526. Ray V. Cortland & Horner Traction Co., 19 App. Div. (N. Y.) 530— 1435. Rav V. Cortland, etc.. Traction Co., 56 N. Y. Supp. 521—1416. Ray V. United Tract. Co., 3 St. Ry. Rep. 715—1168. Raymond v. Burlington, etc., R. Co.. 65 Iowa, 152— 12i2. Ravmond v. Chicaso, etc., R. Co., 1 Int. Com. Rpp. 627—1794. Ravmond v. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co., 120 ill. App. 240—1573. Ravmond v. Tyson, 17 How. (U. S.) 53—648. Rea V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. (Tex.), 73 S. W. 55.5—1122. Read v. Spaulding, 30 N. Y. 630—27, 83, 30S, 372. Read v. Spaulding. 5 Bosw. (N. Y. ) 39.5—38, 40, 4L 53. Read v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 60 Mo. 199—343, 369. 457, 576, 578. Readhead v. Midland R. Co., L. R. 2 p. B. 412—1118. Reading v. Chioafro, etc., R. Co., 165 Mo. App. 123—799. <.H'Ml KiiiiliiijT I itv I'asv. |{. lo (Ta.), 4 Atl. a.iO— ir>l-2. Ivi'iulinjjjton v. rhiladflplua Tract. Co., i;i2 I'u. St. 154 -1(117. Roagiin V. FaiTiirr'^ 1.. & T. Co., 1;)4 U. S. 162—1782. Ui-a! 1-Mati- Trust & liis. Co. v. (Iwyn, ii;j Va. :?;?7— ni'.M). Up Alleu'od Unlawful Katos. 7 Int. Com. Rep. 33— lS(i.'.. Kc Annajxilis, ftc. R. Co., 1 Int. Com. Rpp. .•)1.") — 177r>. Ri-ardi'n v. St. Louis \ S. F. Hy. Co., 215 Mo. 10.')— nil. 1071. Rpary v. Louisvilio. etc.. R. Co.. 40 La". Ann. 32— L>S. !1S8. Kebcr v. Bond. 3S Fed. 822—1211. 12ii4. Re Boston, etc., R. Co.. 3 Int. Cora. C. Rep. 717—1854. Re Charge to Grand Jury. (56 Fed. 140— ISOO. Reddon v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 5 Utah, 355—1544. Redfield v. Oakland Consol. St. R. Co., 110 Cal. 277—1216. Redington v. Harrisburg Tract. Co., 210 Pa. St. 648—1008. Redmon v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 90 Mo. App. 68—288, 770. Redmond v. Liverpool, etc., R. Co., 46 N. Y. 578—259. Redmond v. Liverpool, etc.. S. S. Co., 56 Barb. (N. Y.) 320—257. Redmond v. Rome, etc., R. Co., 16 N. Y. Supp. 330—1675. Redner v. Lehigh, etc.. R. Co.. 73 Hun (N. Y.), 562—1231. Redpath v. Western Union Tel. Co., 112 Mass. 71—92. Red River, etc.. R. Co. v. Easton & Knox, 39 Tex. Cic. App. 579—599, 789. Red Rock Fuel Co. v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 11 Int. Com. Rep. 438— 1870. Rerd V. Axtell, 84 Va. 231— 123o, 1602. Reed v. Duluth. etc.. R. Co., 100 Mich. 507—1233, 1257. Reed v. Fargo, 7 N. Y. Supp. 185— 426. 434. Reed v. Muscogee R. Co.. 48 Ga. 102 —1600. Reed v. Now York Cent. R. Co., 45 N. Y. 574—1554. 1556. r.M'.l.i; Ol' CASKS. ('I'hc rct'cii'iu'cs are to the i)ages.) KcUcrt Kc.d v. New York Cciil. R. Co., 66 Uarb. (N. V.) 19.3—1083. Weed V. New York, etc., U. Co., 110 App. Div. (N. Y.) 709—1171. Reed V. rhihulciphiu. etc.. R. Co., 3 Iloust. (D.l.) 17t>— 132. 140, 192, 555. Reed v. Rome, etc.. 11. Co., 4S llun (N. Y.), 231—59.-!. Reed v. United States K\])ress Co., 48 N. Y. 4(12— 7:58. 765. Reed v. \\'ilmington Steamboat Co., 1 Marv. (Del. Sui)er.) 193—77. Reeder v. Wells, Fargo & Co., 14 Cal, App. 790—384, 506. Reel V. Adams Express Co., 27 Pa. Super. Cti. 77 — 535. Reem v. St. Paul City R. Co., 77 Minn. 503. SO N. W. 638—1217, 1563. Reems v. New Orleans G. N. E. Co., 126 La. 511—1504. Reeves v. Chicago, etc., Co., 24 S. D. 84—1490. Reeves v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 11 Tex. Civ. App. 514—479. Re Export & D. Rates, 8 Int. Com. Rep. 214—1795. Re Express (^ompanies. 1 Int. Com. Rep. 677—1777, 1850. Re Express Companies, 1 I. C. C. Rep. 349—1933. R. E. Funsten Dried Fruit & Nut Co. V. Toledo, etc., R. Co., 163 Mo. App. 426—337. Recan v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 61 N. II. 579—344. 364, 371. Regonshiirg v. Nassau Elec. R. Co., 58 App. Div. (N. Y.) 566—1217, 1218. Regner v. Glens Falls, etc., R. Co., 74 Hun (N. Y.). 202—1273, 1403. 1593. Reichla v. Gruenfelder, 52 Mo. App. 4.3—1517. Reich man v. Second Ave. R. Co., 1 N. Y. Supp. 836—1.553. Reid v. Colorado, 187 U. S. 137— 1894. Reid V. Southern Ry. Co.. 153 N. C. 490—117. 1841. 1910. Reid V. United States Express Co.. 48 N. Y. 470—53. Reid V. Yazoo & M. V. R. Co., 94 Miss. 639—1571, 1700. TABLE OF CASES. CCXlll (The references are to the pages. Reid & Beam v. Southern Ry. Co.. 149 N. C. 423—127. Reidv V. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 27 Mfsc. Rep. (N. Y.) 527 — 1614. Reineman v. Covington, etc., R. Co.. 51 Iowa, 338—642. Re Inmatt's of National Homes. 1 Int. Com. Rop. 75-1854. Reiaenleiter v. United Rys. Co. of St. Louis. 155 :\Io. App. 89—1523. Reiser v. Metropolitan Express Co., 91 N. Y. Supp. 170—569. Reiss V. Texas & P. Rt. Co.. 98 Fed. 533—240. 764. Reiss V. Wilmington City Ry. Co. (Del. Super.). 67 Atl. 153—1536. 1667. Re Joint Water, etc., Lines. 2 Int. Com. R. 486—1776. Relf V. Rapp. 3 W. & S. (Pa.) 21— .523, 526. 527. Rend v. Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 2 Int. Com. R. 313—1790. Renneker v. South Carolina R. Co.. 20 S. C. 219—1214. 1601. Rennie v. Northern R. Co.. 27 U. C. C. P. 15.3—263. 744. Renaud v. Now York. etc.. R. Co.. 210 Mass. 55.3—455. 999. 1000. 1072, 1137. 1574. 1649. Re Order of- Railway Conductors. 1 Int. Com. Rep. 18—1854. 'Re Passenger Traffic. 2 Int. Com. Rep. 445_17S1. I7n2. 1832. Re Passenger Tariffs, etc.. 2 Int. Com. Rep. 340—1792. 1833. Re Relative Tank. etc.. Rates on Oil, 2 Int. Com. R. 24.5—1788. Re fJelisious Teachers. 1 Int. Com. Rep. 21—1854. Re Southern R.. etc.. Assoc.. 1 Int. Com. Rep. 278-1828. 1829. Re Tariff of Columhus. etc.. R. Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 11-18.32. Re Tariff of Transcontinental Lines. 2 Int. Com. Rep. 20.3—1794. 1833. Re Transportation of Immigrants. 10 Int. Com. Rep. 1.3—1851. R'-ubens v. Lndcrate Hill Steamship Co.. 20 N. Y. Snpp. 481-568. Re rndfrliilling. 1 Int. Com. Rep. 813 — 1784. 1791. Rcvnolds V. Boston, do . TT. Co.. 121 Mass. 291—735. 736. 774. P.evnolds V. rJreat NortJicrn Rv. Co., 40 Wash. 163—849. 875. Revnolds v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 58 N. Y. 248-1516, 1587. Reynolds v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 3 N. Y^ Supp. 331—207. Revnolds v. Railroad Co.. 43 N. H. 5S6— 499. Revnolds v. Richmond & M. R. Co.. 92 Va. 400— 9S3, 1215. Revnolds v. Seaboard Air Line Rv., 81 S. C. 38.3—684. Revnolds v. St. Louis S. W. R. Co.. i62 Mo. App. 618—1001. Revnolds v. St. Louis Transit Co., 189 Mo. 408—992. Reynolds v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 37 La Ann. 697—1263. Rhea v. Minneapolis St. Rv. Co., Ill Minn. 271—1482. Rhoads v. Cornwall & L. R. Co., 48 Pa. Super. Ct. 310—974, 978, 1001. R. H. Oliver & Son v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Rv. Co., 89 Ark. 466—135. Rhodes v.' Iowa, 170 U. S. 412—1758. Rhodes v. Louisville, etc.. R. Co., 9 Bush (Ky.), 688 — 419, 793, 823, 896. Rhodes v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 34 Minn. 87—148. Rice V. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 26.3—1829. Rice v. Baxendale, 7 H. & N. 96—599. Rice v. Boston, etc., R. Corp., 98 Mass. 212—206, 380, 407. Rice v. Chicago, etc., Rv. Co., 153 Mo. App. 35, 131 S. W.' 374—1098. 1481, 1498. Rice V. Cincinnati, etc.. R. Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 841 — 1791, 1826. Rice V. Hart, 118 Mas.s. 201—202. 380. 390. Rice V. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 22 111. .\pp. 643—1306. Rice V. Indianapolis, etc.. R. Co., 3 Mo. App. 27—523, 525, 569. 582. 611, 779. Rice V. Kansas Pac. R. Co., 63 Mo. 314 — 457. 481, 483. 880. Rice V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 1 Int Com. R. 722—1790. Rice V. Ontario Steamboat Co., 56 Barb. (N. Y.) 384—581, 586. 590. 1992. Rice v. Wabash R. Co. (Mo. App ) 80 S. W. 976—890. Rice V. Western New York, etc, R. OCXIV TABLE OF CASES. ( 1 lio ii'fortiKtb aro to tlio pages.) ('o., 3 Int. Com. Uep- U>-— 1TH7, 17S8, 17ilO. 1791. Rit'e V. Western New York, ete., R. Co., 2 Int. Com. Kep. li'.tS— 1781. Rich V. Lambert. 12 How. (U. S.) 352 — o.")!, 5r)3. Rieliards v. Fuqua. 28 Miss. 703—59. Rieliarils v. Gilbert, 5 Day (Conn.), Riehards v. London, etc., R. Co., 7 C. B. S3it— 234. 235. Richards v. Umdon. etc., R. Co., 18 L. J. C. P. 251—42, 197. Richards v. London, etc., R. Co., 62 E. C. L. 839—1300. Richards v. Michigan Southern, etc., R. Co.. 20 111. 404—380. Richards v. Pitts Agricultural Works, 37 Hun (N. Y.). 1—276. 285. Richards v. Wcstcott, 2 Bosw. (N. Y.) 589—40, 72, 112. Richardson v. Canadian Pac. R. Co., 19 Ont. Rep. 369-380, 393, 398, 399. 744. Richardson v. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 61 Wis. 596—148, 353, 1400. Richardson v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 1 Mo. App. Rep. 401-484. Richardson v. Goddard. 23 How. (U. S.) 28—219, 249, 257. Richardson v. Goss, 3 B. & P. 119— 256. Richardson v. Great Eastern R. Co., 1 C. P. Div. 342—1106. 1116, 1118. Richardson v. Metropolitan R. Co., 37 L. J. C. P. 300—1632. Richardson v. Nathan, 167 Pa. St. 513—232. Richardson v. North Eastern R. Co., L. R. 7 C. P. 75, 20 W. R. 461— 99, 926. Richardson v. The Charles P. Chou- teau. 37 Fed. 532—745. Richardson v. The Walker, 30 Fed. 261—738. Richardson v. Woolverton, 117 N. Y. Supp. 908—113, 1335. Rickerson Roller Mill Co. v. Grand Rapids, etc., R. Co. 67 Mich. 110— 742. Richer v. Fargo, 77 App. Div. (N. Y.) 550—181. Richev & Gilbert Co. v. Northern Pac. Rv.' Co., 110 Minn. 347—141, 610. Hichmoiid V. Bronson, 5 Den. (N. Y.) r,-,_;-,s4. 585. 587. Kiilimond v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., U;2 Mo. App. 422—1161. Ricliitioiid V. guincy, etc., R. Co., 49 Mo. App. 104—1677. Kicliinoiid V. Railway Co., 87 Mich. 374—1268. Richmond v. Soutlicrn Pac. R. Co. (Or.), 67 Pac. 947— 14.'j8. Richmond & R. R. Co. v. Scott, 88 Va. 958—1655. Richmond Citv R. Co. v. Scott, 86 Va. 902—1098. 1214. Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. Benson, 86 Ga. 203—344, 372, 559, 592. Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. Burnsed, 70 Miss. 437—1038. Kiclimond, etc., R. Co. v. Greenwood, 119 Ala. 501—1723. Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. Jefferson, 89 Ga. 5.54—1189, 1713. Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. Morris, 31 Gratt. (Va.) 20—1678. Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. Payne, 86 Va. 481—430, 494, 496, 1459. Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. Shomo, 90 Ga. 496—766. Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, 92 Ala. 237—1673. Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. Trousdale, 99 Ala. 389—570, 606, 816, 821, 838, 905. Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. Vance, 93 Ala. 144—1554, 1723, 1724. Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. White, 88 Ga. 805—309, 338, 395, 398, 574, 576, 577. Richmond R., etc., R. Co. v. Bowles, 92 Va. 738—945. Riclimond St. & I. Ry. Co. v. Beverly, 43 Ind. App. 10.5—1570, 1654. Riclimond Tract. Co. v. Williams, 102 Va. 253—1214, 1680. Rick V. Wells Fargo Co., 39 Utah, 130—825. Rickerson Roller Mill Co. v. Grand Rapids, etc., R. Co., 67 Mich, 110 —739. Ricketts v. Birmingham St. R. Co^ 85 Ala. 600—1678. Ricketts v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 69 N. Y. 637—768, 770. TABLE OF CASES. CCXV (The references are to the pages.) Ricketta v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 61 Barb. (N. Y.) 18—765. Ricketts v. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 33 W. Va. 433—1150. 1725. Ricks V. Georgia, etc., R. Co., 118 Ga. 259—1613. Riddle v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 1 Int. Com. Rep. 778—1796. Riddle V. New York, etc., R. Co., 1 Ind. Com. Rep. 787—1782. 1799. Riddle, Dean & Co. v. New York, etc., R. Co., 1 Int. Cora. R. 594. 604—15 Ridenhour v. Kansas Citv C. R. Co., 102 Mo. 283—1219, 1249, 1591, 1587. Rider v. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 14 Mo. App. 529—1299, 1301, 1349. Ridlesbarger v. Hartford Ins. Co., 7 Wall. (U. S.) 386—478. Riggins V. Missouri River, etc., R. Co., 73 Mo. 598—146. Riland v. Hirshler, 7 Pa. Super. Ct. 384—102. Riley v. Chicago City Ry. Co., 189 111. 384—1414. Rilev V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 78 Neb. 74*8— 1039. Riley v. Cincinnati Traction Co., 28 Ohio Cir. Ct. Rep. 626—1687. Rilev V. Home, 5 Bing. 217—28, 29, 135, 571. Riley v. Louisville, etc., Ry. Co., 142 Ky. 67—706. Riley v. New York, etc., R. Co., 34 Hun (N. Y.) 97—755. Riley v. Rhode Island Co., 29 R. I. 143 — 1089. 1668. Riley v. Vallejo Ferry Co., 173 Fed. 331—978. Rind V. Stake, 28 Misc. R. (N. Y.) 177—569. Ringgold v. Haven, 1 Cal. 108—573, ,'iS2, 596. Rintoul V. New York Cent., etc., R. Co.. 17 Fed. 90.5 — 454, .547, 572. Rio Grande Western R. Co. v. Ruben- stcin, 5 Colo. App. 121 — 1727. Ripley v. New Jersey R. etc., Co., 31 N. J. L. 388 — 999. Rist V. Pliiladelphia R. T. Co., 236 Pa. 218—1540. RiverH v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 80 N. J. Law, 217—1109. Riverside Miil.i v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 168 Fed. 987, 990— 1908, 1909, 1911, 1912. Rixford v. Smith, 52 N. H. 355—33, 557, 822, 824. Roach V. Canadian Pac. R. Co., 1 Manitoba 158 — 750. Roadbridge v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 105 Pa. St. 460—1122. Roanoke Ry., etc., Co. v. Sterrett, 111 Va. 293—1504, 1537. Roanoke Ry., etc., Co. v. Sterrett, 108 Va. 533—1480. Roark v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 163 Mo. App. 705—1110. Robb V. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co., 14 Pa. Super. Ct. ^282— 1419. Robbins v. Chicago & A. Ry. Co., 132 Mo. App. 306—626, 674. Robbins v. Shelby Countv Taxing Dist., 120 U. S. 489—1742, 1747. Roberson v. Greenleaf .Johnson Lum- ber Co., 154 N. C. 328-1063. Robert v. Chicago & A. R. Co., 148 Mo. App. 96—9.52, 1291, 1352. Robert C. White Live Stock Com. Co. V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 87 Mo. App. 330—174, 215, 284, 749, 907. Roberts v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 1.55 N. C. 79—979, 1568. Roberts v. Chittenden, 88 N. Y. 33— 569. Roberts v. Georgia S. & F. Ry. Co., 10 Ga. App. 100—883, 900. Roberts v. Johnson, 58 N. Y. 613— 1236, 1487. Roberts v. Koehler, 30 Fed. 94r— 1014, 1304, 1343. Roberts v. Rilcv, 15 La. Ann. 103 — 427, 455, 14.54. Roberts v. Sierra Rv. Co., 14 Cal. App. 180—1481, 1631. Roberts v. Soutliern Pac. Co., 166 Mo. App. 639—968. Roberts v. Stuvveaant Safe Dcp. Co., 123 N. Y. 57—328. Roberts v. Turner, 12 Johns (N. Y.) 232—80, 81, 82. Roberts v. Wabash R. Co., 153 Mo. App. 638—1174, 1605. Robertson v. Kennedy, 2 Dana (Ky.) 430—20, 26, 62. 72, 100. Robertson v. National Steamship Co., 1 App. Div. (N. Y.) 61—448. CCXVl TAULL Ul-' CASKS. (Tlip reforoiKM's are to tlie pages.) Robertson v. National Sdamship Co., r.O N. Y. Super. Ct. \:i'2 :V.H\. Kolu'itsoii V. Nntioiiul Stoiun.ship C'o.. 4'2 St. Rop. (N. V.^ (i')4 -r)!»2. rj!)."!. Robertson v. N«'\v ^■o^k. etc.. R. Co.. 22 Barb. (N. Y.) !)1 — 1042. Roltortson v. Old Colony K. Co.. l.'>(i Mass. 52.">— !Mi. 47(1, i047. Rolu'rtson v. West .Icrs^'v & >S. R. Co., 79 N. .1. L. 1S(>— 1002. Robinson v. Baker. 5 Cusli. (Mass.), Ul—li-.VA. Robinsini v. Baltimoio & 0. 1\. Co.. 129 Fed. 7;'):}— 127. Robinson v. Baltinuire & (). R. Co.. 64 VV. Va. 40(i— IS79. Robinson v. Bnrk'ijrh, 5 N. H. 225— 280. Robinson v. Chamberlain, 34 N. Y. 389— 8ri. Robinson v. Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 135 Mich. 254—1107, 1113. Robinson v. Chittenden, 69 N. Y. 533 —272. Robinson v. Cornish, 13 N. Y. Supp. 577—39. Robinson v. Dunmore, 2 Bos. & P. 416—14, 350. Robinson v. Great Western R. Co., 1 H. & R. 97—344. Robinson v. Helena Light & R. Co., 38 Mont. 222—1023. Robinson v. London, etc., R. Co., 19 C. B. N. S. 51 — 465, 466. Robinson v. Manhattan R. Co., 5 Misc. R. (N. Y.) 209—1613. Robinson v. Memphis, etc., R. Co.. 16 Fed. 57—327, 329, 330, 331, 333. Robinson v. Merchants' Despatch Transp. Co., 44 Iowa, 470—52, 449, 453, 582, 588. Robinson v. New York & T. S. S. Co., 74 N. Y. Supp. 384—2019. Robinson v. New York Cent. R. Co., 66 N. Y. 11—1269. Robinson v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co.. 20 Blatchf. (U. S.) 338—1105, 1478, 1505. Robinson v. New York, etc., S. Co., 63 App. Div. (N. Y.) 211—472. Robinson v. Rockland, etc., St. R. Co., 87 Me. 387—1407. Robinson v. Sontliern I'ac. R. Co., 105 Cal. 526—1068. nobiiisoii \. St. Jobnsbury, etc., R. Co., 80 Vt. 129—1469. luibiiisoii V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. (Mo. Ai>p.), 77 S. \V. 493 — 1167. 1494. V. Superior B. '1'. Bv. Co., 34.5—1563. V. Tbreadgill, 13 Irc.l. L. .39—5. lacksoii. 13 Man. B. (Can.) Boitiiison !t4 Wis Bol)inson (X. c: Roblin V. 328—267 Robostclli .33 Fed. Roi)son V. u. c. c. Robson V. B. 13 iv B. C, Co., 10 y. New ^'f)^k. etc 790—1029, 1666. , Buiralo, etc., B. . P. 279—586. Nortlieastern R. Co.. 2 i). 85—1257. etc., R. Co.. 10.") Roche V. Brooklyn, N. Y. 294—1561. Rockford, etc., R. Co. v. Coultas, 67 Til. 398—1368, 1638. Rock Island, etc., B. Co. v. Potter, 36 111. App. .590—730, 848. Rockv Mount Mills v. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 119 N. C. 693—621, 779. Roderick v. Railroad Co., 7 W. Va. 54—36. Rodgcra v. Missouri Pac. Rv. Co. (Kan.), 88 Pac. 885—322. Rodman v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 90 Mo. App. 68—282. Rodrian v. New York, etc., B. Co., 125 N. Y. .526—1519. Roe V. Birkenhead, etc., R. Co., 7 Exch. 3(5—1184. Roedecker v. Metropolitan St. R. Co.^ 87 App. Div. (N. Y.) 227—1644. Rogan V. Wabash R. Co., 51 Mo. App. 665—516, 616. 619. Rogers v. Atlantic City R. Co. (N, J.), 34 Atl. 11-1390. Rogers v. Great Western R. Co., 16 U. C. Q. B. 389—761. Rogers v. Head, Cro. Jac. 262—9. 11. Rogers v. Kenneljic Steamboat Co., 86 Me. 261—987. 1450, 1463, 1465. Rogers v. Long Island R. Co., 38 How. Pr. (N. Y.), 289—1.349. Rogers v. Long Island R. Co., 1 Thomps. & C. (N. Y.) 396—1.375. Rogers v. Long Island R. Co., 2 Lan.s. (N. Y.) 269—187, 1347. TABLE UF CA«ES. (The reforeuccs are to the pages.) cexvu Rogers v. Missouri, etc., R. Co. (Tex. L'iv. App.j, 28 S. W. 1024 — 7(57. Rogers v. jlurray, .3 Bosw. (N. Y.) ao7 — 35. Rogers v. New York & Brooklyn Bridge, 11 App. Div. (X. Y.) l41 —1234. Rogers v. Texas & P. Ry. Co. {Tex. Liv. App.), 94 S. W. 158—841. Rogers v. Weir, 34 N. Y. 463-328, 329. Rogers v. Wendell, 54 Hun (N. Y'.), 543 — 40. Rogers v. Wheeler, 52 N. Y'. 2G2 — 83, 171, 185, 375. Rogers v. Wheeler, 43 N. Y. 598 — 46. Rogers v. Wheeler, 2 Lans. (N. Y.) 48t) — 47. Rogers Locomotive, etc., Works v. Erie R. Co., 20 N. J. Eq. 379—41, 121, 122, 124, 157. Rohl V. Parr, 1 Esp. N. P. 445—33. Rohrback v. Pullman's Palace Car Co., 106 Fed. 797— 117C. Rolette V. Great Northern R. Co. (Minn.), 97 N. W. 431—1500, 1572, 1038. Rolfs V. Atchison, etc., R. Co. (Kan.), 71 Pac. 520—1025. Roll v. RagUL.t, 4 Ohio, 400—1449. Roller V. Sutter St. R. Co., 60 Gal. 230—1080, 1507. Rome R. Co. v. Sloane, 39 Ga. 636— 584. Rome R. Co. V. Sullivan, 32 Ga. 400 — 343. Rome R. Co. v. Sullivan, 25 Ga, 228 —754. Rome R. Co. v. Sullivan, 14 Ga. 277 —271, 280, 343, 380, 399, 413. Rome R. Co. v. Wimberly, 75 Ga. 316 —1363. Romero v. McKernan, 88 N. Y. Supp. 305—1300. Roniine v. Evansville, etc., R. Co. (hid. App.), 50 N. E. 245—1633. Rommel v. Schambaclier, 120 Pa. 519 — 1187. Ronan v. Midland R. Co., L. R. 14 Ir. 157—404, 465, 521. Ro.»t v. Chandler, 10 W. nd. (X. Y.) 110— .531. Root v. DoH Moines Rv. Co. (Iowa), 9S N. W. 291 — 1151". Rof>t v. (irejit Wts'irii R. Co., 54 X. Y. .524 — 41. 43, 735. 738, 7'IS. Root V. Long Inland R. Co., 114 X. Y. 300-100, 720. Root v. L(jng Island R. Co., 1 X. Y. St. Rep. 5U3 — 008. Root V. New York Cent. Sleeping Car Co., 28 Mo. App. 199-64, 60. Root V. New Yoik, etc., R. Co.. 83 Run (X. Y.), 111—851. Root V. Xew York, etc., R. Co., 83 Hun (X. Y.), 111—151, 794. Rooth V. Xorth Eastern R. Co., 36 L. J. Exch. 83—400. Rooth V. W ilson, 1 B. & Aid. 59—11. Rosi: V. Des Moines Valley R. Co., 39 Iowa, 240—990, 1031, 'l033, 1450, 1461, 1405. Rose V. King, 76 App. Div. (N. Y. ) 308—1708. Rose V. Loiiisviilo, etc., R. Co., 70 Miss. 725—1143. Rose V. Xoi-theru Pac. R. Co., 35 Mont. 70—1342. Rose V. Stephens Transp. Co., 11 Fed. 483—1507. Rose V. Step]) ens, etc., Transp. Co., 20 Blackf. (U. S.) 411—1511. Rose V. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 106 X. C. 108—1150, 1176, 1720. Itoseman v. Carolina Cent. R. Co., 112 X. C. 709—1258, 1403. Rosen v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 83 Fed. 300—548. Rosenbaum v. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., 35 Minn. 173—1021, 1040, 1065, 1264. Rosenborg v. Third Ave. R. Co., 47 App. Div. (X. Y.) 323—975. Rosencranz v. Swoflord Bros. D. G. Co.. 175 Mo. 518-640. Rosenfeld v. Central Vermont R. Co., HI App. Div. (X. Y.) 371-285. Rosenfeld v. Peoria, etc.. R. Co., 103 Ind. 121—493, 516, 524, 1450. Rosenfeld v. Express Co., 1 Wood (U. S.), 131—209, 612. Rosenkovitz v. United Rv., etc.,, Co., 108 Md. 300-1020, ll'oo, 1551. Rosenthal v. Weir, 170 X^ Y. 148 — 499. Rosenthal v. Weir, 54 App. Div. (N Y.) 27.5—489. Ross v. Hill, 2 C. B. 877—15. Ross V. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 4 Mo App. 583—1301, 1353, 1357. Hoss V. Xew York Cent., etc., R. Co., 5 Ihin (X'. v.), 488-1003. ccxvm TABLE OF CASES. (The refert'iiocs uru to tlu- paijos.) llosa V. Phihulolphia, etc., K. (. o., I'JD l*a. :{7S — ISK'). Ross V. Kailroiid Co., 15 U. 1. 11'.) — Ross V. Troy, etc., R. Co.. 4'.t \t. aOt —30, 551, 501. Ro'i.-^ior V. \\ iilKiah R. Co., 115 Mo. Apj). 515— 1J!)8. i;{50. lU>sted V. Great Nortlicru R. Co., 76 Minn. 123—1107. Roth V. Rullalo, etc., R. Co., 34 N. Y. 548— 1!)S. 3!»1, 1349, 1350, 1350. Rotli V. Haiiihurj^ Amer. Packet Co., 1-i N. Y. Siipp. 402—572. Roth V. Haiiibiu}! Ain<'rican P. Oo., 5!) N. Y. Siiporior Ct. 49-509. Rollieliild Bros. v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 68 Wash. 527—200, 319, 556. Roth Clothing Co. v. Maine Steam- ship (.o., 44 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 237—258. Rothscliild V. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 09 111. 164— 3S0, 392. Rounds V. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 64 N. Y. 129—1155, 1168, 1181, 1184, 1425. Rouser v. North Park St. R. Co., 97 Mich. 505—1417, 1418. Rouston V. Detroit United Ry., 151 Mich. 237—1091. Rowan v. Wells Fargo & Co., 80 App. Div. (N. Y.) 31—334, 499, 586. Rowdin v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 208 Pa. 623—1037, "l494. Rowe V. Rrooklyn Heights R. Co., 80 App. Div. (N. Y.) 477—1072, 1414. Rowe V. Brooklyn, etc., R. Co., 71 App. Div. (N.'Y.) 474 — 1068. ■Rr-^o V. Pickford, 8 Taunt, 83—386, 392. Rowland v. Miln, 2 Hilt. (N. Y.) 150 —199, 258, 259. Rowland v. New York, etc., R. Co., 61 Conn. 103—628. Rown v. Chris.topher, etc., St. R. Co., 34 Hun (N. Y.), 471—1182, 1183, 1389. Royston v. Illinois C^-nt. R. Co., 07 Miss. 370—1187, 1190. Rozwadosf-kie v. Interna/tional, etc., R. Co., 1 Tex. Civ. App. 487—1012, 1236. Rubens v. Lu;dgate Hill Stfamshiyi Co., 20 N. Y. Supp. 481—189. 441. Kul>iii V. liilrhniougli ILip. Tr. Co., 130 N. Y. Supp. 00—1210. Ruliin v. Wells Fargo Kxpriiss C/O., 85 N. V. Supp. 1U!8— 2S0. Rucii v. Aurora, etc., R. Co., 150 111. App. 329—993. Ruck v. llallield, 5 P.. & Aid. 032— 214. R\icker v. Donovan, 13 Kan. 251 — 041. Ruckw v. Mi.«;souri Pac. R. Co., 01 Tex. 499-1010. Ruddle v. Ba'timore & 0. R. Co., 152 111. App. 218—593. Ruddy V. Midland Creat Western R. Co., L. R. 8 Ir. 224—345. RudcU V. Ogdensburg Transit Co., 117 Mich. 508-540, 543. Rudy V. Rio Grand Western R. Co., 8 Utah, 165—1258, 1428. Ruebsain v. St. Louis Transit Co., 108 Mo. App. 437—1392. Ruliin V. Ruggiero, 10 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 39-208. Ruggles V. Buckner, 1 Paine (U. S.), 303—648. Rumsey v. North Eastern R. Co., 14 C. B. N. S. 641—1304. Runyan v. Central R. Co. of N. J., 05 N. J. I^w 228—1077. Runvon v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 74 N.' J. L. 225—1415. Ruppel V. Alleghany Valley R. Co., 107 Pa. 100—119, 152, 358, 582. Ruschenberg v. Southern El. Ry. Co., 101 Mo. 70—1563. Rush ford v. Hadfield, 6 East, 519— 10, 629, 630. Russ V. Steamboat War Eagle, 14 Iowa, 3G3— 946. Russ V. The War Eagle, 14 Iowa, 363 —990, 991. Russel V. Aumais Rap. Jud., 18 C. S. 472—23. Russell V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 37 Mont. 1—598. Russell V. Hudson River R. Co., 17 N. Y. 134—1003. Russell V. Livingston, 10 N. Y. 510— 518, 212. Russell v. Livingston, 19 Barb. (N. Y.) 340—39, 40, 204. Russell V. Madden, 95 III. 485—390. Ru'^^ell V. N'Mman, 17 Com. B. (N. S.) 163—324. TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pages.) ccxuc Russell V. New Jersey Steamboat Co., 10 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 593 — 564. Russell V. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co., 157 Ind. 305—1464, 1467. Russell V. Quincv, etc., R. Co., 125 Mo. App. 441—1527. Russell V. Seattle, etc., Ry. Co., 47 Wash. 500—1496. Russell Grain Co. v. Wabash R. Co., 114 Mo. App. 488—361, 366. Russell Mfg. Co. v. New Haven Steam- boat Co., 52 N. Y. 657—164. Russell Mfg. Co. v. New Haven Steam- boat Co., 50 N. Y. 121—398. Rutherford v. McGowen, 1 Nott. & M. (S. C.) 19—59. Rutherford v. Shreveport. etc., R. Co.. 41 La. Ann. 793—1714, 1723, 1724. Rutherford v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 67 S. W. 161— 1028. Ruthvan Woolen Mfg. Co. v. Great Western R. Co., 18 U. C. C. P. 316 —019. Rutland v. Southern R. Co., 81 S. C. 448—622. R. W. Williamson & Co. v. Texas & P. Ry. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 138 S. W. 807—191, 242, 276, 385. Rvall V. Kennedv. 40 N. Y. Super. Ct. '(8 Jones & S*) 347—1203, 1252. Rvan V. Cumberland Valley R. Co., 23 ■pa. St. 384—1063. Ryan v. Gilmer, 2 Mont. 517—1213, 1488. Ryan v. Great Northern Ry. Co. (Minn.), 95 N. W. 758—209. Ryan v. Manhattan R. Co., 121 N. Y. 126—1125, 1234. Ryan v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 65 Tex. 1.3 — 431, 448, 452, 453, 577. Rvder v. Burlington, etc., R. Co., 51 "lowa. 460—211. Rvder v. Hathaway, 21 Pick. (Ma.ss. ) '•298—267. Ryder v. Kinsey. 02 Minn. 85—1479. Rvland v. Peters, 5 Pa. Law G. Rep. '126—42. Rvland & Rankin v. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. (W. Va.), 46 S. E. 923— 271, 28L s. Sabine, etc., R. Co. v. Cruse, 83 Tex. 460—270. Sage v. Gittner, 11 Barb. (N. Y.) 120 —80. Sager v. Portsmouth, etc., R. Co., 31 Me. 228—97. 428, 455, 464, 551, 576, 579, 638, 1452, 1453, 1461, 1462. Sahlgaard v. St. Paul City R. Co., 48 Minn. 232—1614. Saleeby v. Central R. Co. of N. J., 99 App. Div. (N. Y.) 163—1298, 1301, 1332. Sales v. Western Stage Co., 4 Iowa, 547—1132. Salinger v. Simmons, 8 Abb. Pr. N. S. (N. Y.) 409—393. Salinger v. Simmons, 57 Barb. (N. Y.) 513—185, 188. Salmon v. City Electric R. Co., 124 Ga. 1056—1102. Salters v. Delaware, etc.. Canal Co., 3 Hun (N. Y.) 340—1114. Saltonstall v. Stockton, 13 Pet. (U. S.) 181, Taney (U. S.), 11—1132, 1136, 1511, 1581. Saltsman v. Brooklyn City R. Co., 73 Hun (N. Y.), 567—1198. Saltsman v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 65 Hun (N. Y.), 448—437. Saltus v. Everett, 20 Wend. (N. Y.) 267—75, 649, 633. Sambric v. Southern Pac. Co. (Cal.), 71 Pac. 174—1268. Samms v. Stewart, 20 Ohio, 69 — 11, 13, 24. Sample v. Consol. L. & Ry. Co., 50 W. Va. 472—1563. Samuel v. Cheney, 135 Mass. 278 — 210. Samuels v. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 3.') S. C. 493—1256, 1722, 1726. San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co. v. Cle- ments. 30 Tex. Civ. App. 498—687. San Antonio & A. P. Rv. Co. v. Winn (Tex. Civ. App.), 1.12 S. W. 972— 385. San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Adams, Tex. Civ. App. 102—1052. San Antonio, etc.. R. Co. v. Avery. 10 Tex. Civ. App. 235—147. San Antonio, etc.. R. Co. v. Bailev. 4 Tex. Civ. App. Caa., § 07—149; ccxx TABLE OF CASES. (The referi'm.t.'s lUf lo the pages.) San Antouio, etc, R. Co. v. Kariult. •J7 Tex. Civ. .Vpp. 4!tS— .">4(), 1»07, 923. San .Vntonio. etc.. R. Co. v. IJarnett (Tex. Civ. App.). 27 S. \V. (i7.">— ;?G2. Siui Antonio, eti\. R. Co. v. R.iiiu'tt. 70 Tex. 151 — 1544. 1546. San .Vntonio, etc.. R. Co. v. Broad- Davis Cattle Co. (Tex. Civ. App.). 140 S. W. 514— 7S8. 807. San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Chittim (Te.x. Civ. App.). 135 S. W. 747— 807. 869. 874, 912. San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Chittim (Tex. Civ. App.), 133 S. W. 390— 833. ^an Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Choate. 22 Tox. Civ. App. 618—1661. San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Dolan (Tex. Civ. App.). 85 S. W. .302— 858. 874. 879. San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Josev (Tex. Civ. App.). 71 S. W. 606— 599. San Antonio, etc.. R. Co. v. Lynch. 8 Tex. Civ. App. 51.3—1058. San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Lvnch (Tex. Civ. App.). 40 S. W. 631— 1056. San Antonio, etc.. R. Co. v. Mavfield (Tex. App.), 15 S. W. 50.3—7.57, 767. San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Moore (Tex. Civ. App.), 39 S. W. 960— 749. San Antonio, etc.. R. Co. v. Pratt. 89 Tex. 310—599. San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Pratt (Tex. Civ. App.). .32 S. W. 70,5— 838, 848. San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Robinson, 73 Tex. 277—1501. 1.563. San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Thompson (Tex. Civ. App.), 66 S. W. 792— .356, 600. 602, 734. San Antonio, etc., R. Ck). v. Tinion. 102 Tex. 222—930. San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Timon (Tex. Civ. App.). 110 S. W. 82— 9.32. San Antonio, etc.. R. Co. v. Timon (Tex. Civ. App.), 99 S. W. 418— 932. San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Turner (Tex. Civ. App.), 94 S. W. 214— 790, 840. San .\ntonio, etc., R. Co. v. Tiiriicv (Tex. Civ. App.), 78 S. W. 256— 172S. San .\iitonio, etc.. R. Co. v. Williams (Tex. Civ. App.), 57 S. W. 883— 541, 542. San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Wriglil. 20 Tex. Civ. App. 136—147, 923. San Antonio Tract. Co. v. Bryant (Tex.), 70 S. W. 1015—1618. San Antonio Tract Co. v. Crawfoid (Tex. Civ. App.), 71 S. W. .30(i— 1175. San Antonio Tract. Co. v. Davis (Tex. Civ. App.). 101 S. W. 5.54—1178. San Antonio Tract. Co. v. Flory (Tex. Civ. App.). 100 S. W. 200—1111. San Antonio Tract. Co. v. Lambkin (Tex. Civ. App.), 99 S. W. 574- 1178. San Antonio Tract. Co. v. Welti m (Tex.), 77 S. W. 414—1681. Sanbern v. Panama R. Co., 205 Fed. 348—2035. Sanbern v. Wrij^ht & Cobb Lighterage Co., 171 Fed. 449—2029. Sanchez v. San Antonio, etc., R. Co.. 3 Tex. Civ. App. 89—1689. Sanden v. Northern Pac. R. Co. (Mont.), 115 Pac. 408-1422. Sanders v. McLean, 11 Q. B. Div. 327 —231. Sanders v. Reister, 1 Dak. 172 — 1544. Sanders v. Southern Elec. R. Co., 147 Mo. 411—1510. Sanders v. Vanzeller, 4 Q. B. 294 — 525. Sanders v. Young, 1 Head (Tenn.i. 219—59. Sanderson v. Lamberton. 6 Bin (Pa.) 129-295. Sanderson v. Nortliern Pac. R. Co 88 Minn. 162—1719. Sanderson v. Panther Lumber Co 50 W. Va. 42—1063. Sandford v. American Dist. Telegraph Co., 13 Mi.sc. R. (N. Y.) 88—21 106, 109. Sandford v. American Dist. Telegrai)h Co., 6 Misc. R. (N. Y.) 534—106 109. Sandford v. Catawissa. etc., R Co 24 Pa. St. 378—41, 121, 157. TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pages.) CCXXl San Diego Flume Co. v. Souther, 112 Fed. 228—111. San Diego Land Co. v. National City, 174 U. S. 754—1762. Sands v. Southern Ry. Co., 108 Tenn. 1—1060. Sandusky Portland Cement Co. v. Baltimore & 0. R. Co., 187 Fed. 5S3 —657. Sanford v. Eighth Ave. R. Co., 20 N. Y. Super. Ct. (7 Bosw.) 122—1435. Sanford v. Eighth Ave. R. Co., 23 N. Y. 343—975, 1155, 1181, 1389, 1434, 1713. Sanford v. Hestonville, etc., R. Co., 136 Pa. St. 84—1639. Sanford v. Housatonic R. Co., 11 Cush. (Mass.) 155—482, 487. Sangamon, etc., R. Co. v. Heniy, 14 111. 156—597, 604. Sanquer v. London, etc., R. Co., 16 C. B. 16.3—272. Sansom v. Southern R. Co.. Ill Fed. 887—1107. Sanson v. Philadelphia Rap. Transit Co., 239 Pa. 505—1525. Santa Fe, etc., R. Co. v. Arizona Smelting Co., 13 Ariz. 95—632. Santa Fe, etc., R. Co. v. Grant Bros. Const. Co., 228 U. S. 177—424, 1811. Santa Fe Pac. R. Co. v. Bossut, 10 N. M. 322—330, 641. Santa Fe, P. & P. Ry. Co. v. Grant Bros. Const. Co. (Ariz.), 108 Pac. 467—13, 22. Santvoord v. St. John, 6 Hill (N. Y.), 157—241. Saratoga, etc., R. Co. v. Row, 24 Wend. (N. Y.) 74—628. Sargent v. B. & L. Rv Corp., 115 Mass. 422—162. Sargent v. Gile, 8 N. H. 325, 331 — 280. Satterlee v. Groat, 1 Wend. (N. Y.) 272—12, 71, 988, 1017. Saunders v. Adams Express Co., 76 X. J. Law, 228—508. Saunders v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 6 S. D. 40—1476. Saunders v. Southern Pac. Ry. Co., 90 S. C. 79—387, 557. Saunders v. Southern Rv. Co., 128 Fed. 115—1037, 1292, 1.302. 1.306. Sauter v. Atchison, etc., R. Co. 78 Kan. 331—307, 317. Sauter v. New York Cent., etc.. R. Co., 66 X. Y. 50—1220, 1243. Sauter v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 6 Hun (N. Y.), 446—1236. Savage v. Corn Exch. F., etc., Co., 4 Bosw. (N. Y.) 1—546. Savage v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 164 III. App. 634—1591, 1649. Savage m- Marlborough St. R. Co., 186 Mass. 203 — 1494. Savagean v. Boston & M. R. Co., 210 Mass. 164—1483, 1606. Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. Bonaud, 58 Ga. 180—1259, 1260. Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. Boyle, 115 Ga. 836—1186. Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. Bundick 94 Ga. 775—628, 656. Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. Collins, 77 Ga. 376—524, 586, 756. Savannah, etc, R. Co. v. Commercial Guano Co., 103 Ga. 590—317. Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. Flaherty^ 110 Ga. 335—1608. Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. Godkin, 104 Ga. 65.5 — 1426. Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. Harris ''6 Fla. 148—570, 739, 747, 777. Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. Holland, 82 Ga. 257—1557. Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. Mcintosh. 7a Ga. 5,32-1369. Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. Pritchard 77 Ga. 412—595, 605, 619, 743. Savannah, etc.. R. Co. v. Sloat, 93 Ga 808—492. Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. Steinineer 84 Ga. 579—568. ' Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. Toibert 123 Ga. 378-633. Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. Wilcox 48 Ga. 432—328, 331. Savannah Bureau of Freight, etc v. Charleston, etc., R. Co., 7 Int. Com Rep. 479—1829. Savannah St. R. Co. v. Bryan, 86 Ga 312—1169. Savery v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 2 Int. Com. R. 210—1776. Savery v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 2 Int. Com. C. Rep. 338— I7n2 Saville v. Campion, 2 B. & Aid. 503— 648. V^-LXXll TABLE OF CASES. (The rcfuniioes are to the pages.) Sawver v. Chicago, etc.. R. W'is. 403— 20S. Sawver v. l\)rst', 17 (irntt —85. Sawver v. 1 133 . Sawver Co.. 22 Viv) 230 Diihuiy. .iO T.\. J7!)— 1132, R. Co.. 37 98 Hannibal, et< Co.. Mo. 240—1123. 1213. lilOl. 1512. Saxton v. Mi>siniri Pao. R. Co., Mix App. 4'.14— 1221. Scaife v. Farrant, L. R. 10 Exoh. 3.'')8 — 15. Scaling v. rnllman Palace Car Co., 24 Mo. App. 20—64. Scamell v. St. T.ouis Tr. Co., 102 Mo. App. IPS— IGSl. Scannard v. Prince. 64 N. Y. 300 — 80. Scarlett v. Great Western R. Co., 41 U. C. C. P. 211—466. Schaefer v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 98 Mo. App. 154—1563. Schaefer v. St. Louis & S. Rv. Co., 128 Mo. 64— <>46. 054. 975. Schaeffer v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 168 Pa. St., 209—578, 904. Sohafer v. Gilmer, 13 Nev. 330—1132. .Seharli? v. Meyer, 133 Mo. 428—232. Sclielffer v. Washington City, etc., R. Co., 105 U. S. 249—1704, ■.Schenberger v. Union Pac. R. Co., 84 ^ ,KauF. 79—1846. * bcherikel V. Pittsburg & B. Tract. Co., 194 Pa. St. 182—1218. Schepers v. Union Depot R. Co., 126 AIo 665—940, 1018, 1019, 1615. Scheu V. Benedict, 116 N. Y. 510, 249, 260, 407. Scheu V. Erie R. Co., 10 Hun (N. Y.) 498—233. Scliieffclin v. Harvey, 6 Johns. (N. Y.) 170—75. Schiff V. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., .52 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 91—770. Schiff V. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 16 Hun (N. Y.) 278—768. Schiffler v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 96 Wis. 141—1255. Srliiller v. Dry Dock, etc., R. Co., 26 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 392—1249, 1591. Schimpf V. Harris, 185 Pa. St. 46 — 1162. Schlesinger v. West Shore R. Co., 88 111. App. 273—206. Schley v- Susquehanna &, N. Y. R. Co., 227 Pa. 494—1009. Schlicliting v. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. (Iowa), 96 N. W. 959—220. Schloss V. Atchison, etc., K. Co., 85 Tex. 601 — 190, 193, ^69. Schloss v. Wood, 11 Colo. 287—20, 23, 41, 44. 74, 81. S<'hlosser v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 20 N. D. 406—290, 895. Schmidt v. Blood, 9 Wend. (N. Y.) 268—16, 570. Sclimidt V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 83 HI. 405—1133. Schmidt v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 90 Wis. 504—83. 376. Schmidt v. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 25 Ky. L. Rep. 11—1419, 1707. Schmidt v. Coney Island, etc., R. Co.. 49 N. Y. Supp. 777—1555. Schmidt V. Humphrey, 48 Iowa, 652 — 1599. Schmidt v. New Orelans Rys. Co., 116 La. 311—1134. Schmidt v. North Jersey St. R. Co. (N. J. L.), 58 Atl. 72— IGIO, 1620. Schmitt v. Dry Dock, etc., R. Co., 3 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 257—1556. Schneidan v. New Orleans & C. R. Co., 48 La. Ann. 866—1002. Schneider v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 125 App. Div. 911—1484. Schneider v. Evans, 25 Wis. 241—637, 639. 781. Schneider v. Market St. Ry. Co. (Cal.), 66 Pac. 734—1693. Schneider v. Second Ave. R. Co., 133 N. Y. 583—1116. Schneider v. Second Ave. R. Co., 15 N. Y. Supp. 556—1118. Schnitzmeyer v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 147 III. App. 101—1356. Schocnfeld v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 49 La. 907—857. Schoenfelt v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 40 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 201— 1589. Schonlinff v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co., 135 Mo. App. 70.5—887. School Dist. V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 102 Mass. 556—1458. Schooner Emma Johnson, 1 Spr. (U. S.) 527—75. Schooner v. Reeside, 2 Summ. (U. S.) 567—75. Sclinpman v. Boston, etc., R. Corp., 9 Cush. (Mass.) 24—976. TABLE OF CASES. CCXXIU (The references are to the pages. Schroeder v. Hudson River R. Co.. 12 N. Y. Super. Ct. (5 Duer.) 55— 252, 270, 271, 754, 755. Schroyer v. Lynch, 8 Watts (Pa.) 453—85. Schubach v. McDonald. 179 Mo. 163 —1029. Schuler v. Third Ave. R. Co., 1 Misc. R. (N. Y.) 351—1201, 1561. Schulze V. Great Eastern R. Co., 19 Q. B. Div. 30—601. 613. Schum v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 107 Pa. St. 8—1518. Schumacher v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 108 111. App. .520—196, 636, 643. Schumaker v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 207 111. 199 — 627, 689, 702. Schureman v. Withers, Anth. N. P. (N. Y.) 230—653. Schurr v. Houston, 10 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 262—958, 985. 989, 1285, 1576, 1679. Schutte V. Weir, 59 Misc. Rep. 438, 111 N. Y. Supp. 240—501, 1917. Schuyler v. Southern Pac. Co., 37 Utah, 612—955, 1050, 1803. Schwab V. Union Line, 13 Mo. App. 159—342, 343, 345, 363. Schwartz v. Atlantic, etc., Tel. Co., 18 Hun (N. Y.) 157—87, 93. Schwartz v. Missouri, etc., Rv. Co., 83 Kan. 30—1469. Schwartzchild A Co. v. Savannah, etc., Co., 76 Mo. App. 623—216. Schwartzman v. Brooklvn Heights R. Co., 84 App. Div. (N. Y.) 608 — 1166. Schwerin v. McKie, 51 N. Y. 180 — 414, 588. Schwerin v. Xorth Pac. C. R. Co., 36 Fed. 710—1144. Schwinger v. Raymond, 83 N. Y. 192 —681. Scioto Valley Tract. Co. v. Cravbill, 29 Ohio C. C. R. .5—1427. Scofield V. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 62—1786. 1700, 1826. Scofield V. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 2 Int. Com. C. Rep. 116—1823. Scofield V. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 43 Ohio St. .571 — 41, 44. Scofield V. May, 62 Misc. Rep. (N. Y ) 243—1.342. Scothorn v. South Staffordshire R. Co., 8 Exch. 341—242, 744. Scott V. Allegheny Valley R. Co., 172 Pa. St. 646—552. Scott V. Baltimore, etc.. Steamboat Co., 19 Fed. 56—119, 357. Scott V. Bergen County Tr. Co.. 63 N. J. L. 407—1215^ 1221, 1224, 1487, 1488, 1639. Scott V. Boston, etc.. Steamship Co., 106 Mass. 468—597. Scott V. Central Park, etc., R. Co., 53 Hun (N. Y.) 414—1169. Scott V. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 144 Ind. 125—1431. Scott V. Great Western R. Co., 23 U. C. C. P. 182—466. Scott V. London Docks Co., 3 H. & C. 596—1478, 1479. Scott V. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 138 Mo. App. 21.5 — 989. Scott V. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 137 Mo. App. 196 — 1625. Scott V. Provinces, 1 Pittsb. R. (Pa.> 19—257. Scott v. Texas Cent. R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 127 S. W. 849—598, 868. Scott v. Third Ave. R. Co., 16 N. Y. Supp. 350—1692. Scott County Milling Co. v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 127 Mo. App. 80—201 310, 443. Scoville v. Griffith, 12 N. Y. 509—136 285, 607, 1298. Scow No. 190 and Four Hundred and Fifty Bales Cotton, 88 Fed. 320 — 685. Scranton v. Bank, 24 N. Y. 424 — 328. Scroggins v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co.^ 138 Mo. App. 21,5—1683. Scruggs V. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 18 Fed. 318—454, 491. Scully V. New York, etc.. R. Co., 80 Hun (N. Y.) 197—1665. Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Atlantic Compress Co., 135 Ga. 413 — 475. Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Friedman 128 Ga. 316—833, 915. Seaboard Air Li;)e Ry. v. Harper Piano Co., 63 Fla. 2*64 — 383. Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Main 132 N. C. 44.5—1458. Seaboard Air Line Ry. v PImIFIds 108 Md. 285—277. " ' Seaboard Air Line Hv. v. Hcuti'. & Little, 60 Fla. 429—346. It.' XXIV TARLE OF CASES. (The refcifuocs are to tlio |)a. kxprcss, 178 N. Y. 620—233, 448. 47S, 479. 483. Security Trust Co. v. Wells Fargo & Co. Express. 81 App. Div. (N. Y.) 426—206, 211, 277. Sedgwick v. Macy, 24 App. Div. 1 — 532. Scdoff V. Chicago City Ry. Co., 124 111. App. 609—1496. Seelig V. Metropolitan St. Rv. Co., 18 Misc. Rep. (i\. Y.) 383—1218. Segal V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 80 S. W. 233—1189. Seibcrt v. Pliiladelphia, etc., R. Co., 15 Pa. Super. Ct. 435—211. Seigel V. Eisen, 41 Cal. 109—1639. Seipp V. Dry Dock, etc., R. Co., 45 App. Div. (N. Y.) 489—1564. Selbv V. Detroit Ry. (Mich.), 81 N, W. 106—1245. Selbv V. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 113 N.' C. 588—520, 794, 880. Self V. Adel Lumber Co., 5 Ga. App. 846—946, 1062. Self V. Dunn. 42 Ga. 528—11, 60. Seller v. Market St. Rv. Co., 139 Cal. 268, 72 Pac. 1006—1590, 1641, 1642. Seller v. Steamship Pacific, 1 Ore. 409 —193, 452, 457, 469, 1452, 1458. Sellers v. Union Tract. Co., 21 Pa. Super. Ct. 5—1610. Selma, etc., R. Co. v. Butts, 43 Ala. 38.5 — 41, 733, 752. Selma, etc., R. Co. v. United States, 139 U. S. 560—579. Selma St., etc., R. Co. v. Owen, 132 Ala. 420, 31 So. 598—1268, 1581. Selwav V. Holloway, 1 Ld. Raym. 46 —182. Senf V. St. Louis & S. R. Co., 112 Mo. App. 74—1681. Serviss v. Ann Arbor R. Co., 169 Mich. 564—960. 1005, 1483. Sessions v. Southern Pac. Co., 159 Cal. 599—1275. Sessions v. Western R. Corp., 16 Gray (Mass.) 1.32—203, 391. Sever v. MiiHieaj)olis & St. L. Ry. Co. (Iowa). 137 X. W. 937—1526. Sevier v. Viekshurg, etc., R. Co., 61 Miss. 8—69, 1257. Sewall V. Allen, 6 Wend. (N. Y.) 335, 337, 349—108, 109, 110, 527. TABLE OF CASES, (ihe references are to the pages.) ccxx^ Sewell V. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 78 Kan. 1—1055. Sewell V. Detroit United Ry., 158 Mich. 407—1497. Sexton V. Graham, 53 Iowa, 181 — 267. Sexton V. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 26 Misc. R. (N. Y.) 432—1615. Sevbolt V. New York, etc.. R. Co., 95 X. Y. 562—1049. 1449. 1454, 14.55. 1456, 1466, 1477, 1494, 1500, 1533. 1534. Seymour v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 3 Biss. (U. S.) 43—1211, 1233, 1715. 1723. Sevmour v. Citizens' R. Co., 114 Mo. 266—1101. Seymour v. Greenwood, 7 H. & X. 355 —1181. Sevmour v. Town of Lake, 66 Wis. 651—1596. Shackt V. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 94 Tenn. 665 — 524. Shailer & Schniglan Co. v. Corcoran, 11 Ohio C. D. 599—1122. Shamberg v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 3 Int. Com. R. 502—1790. Shanahan v. St. Louis Tr. Co., 109 Mo. App. 228—1620. Shankenburv v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 46 Fed. 177—1583. Shannon v. Boi*ton. etc., R. Co.. 78 Me. 52—989, 1598, 1675, 1677, 1678. Shannon v. Union R. Co., 27 R. I. 475 — 1003. Shannon's Admr. v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., 104 Va. 645—1277. Sharer v. Paxson, 171 Pa. St. 26— 999, 1017, 1167. Sharlotskv v. New York Rv. Co., 88 N. Y. Supp. 1014—1251. ' Sharp V. Grey. 9 Bing. 457 — 1117. Shattuck V. Rand, 142 Mass. 83— 101. Shaughnessv v. Consol. Tract. Co., 17 Pa. Super. Ct. 588—1593. Shaw V. Canadian Pac. R. Co., 5 Manitoba L. Rep. 334—1330. Shaw V. Grand Trunk R. Co., 7 U. C. C. P. 493—1300. Shaw V. Merchants' Nat. Bank. 101 U. S. 557—218. Shaw V. Northi-rn Pac. R. Co., 40 Afinn. 144—1306, 1348. Shaw V. Railroad Co., 5 Manitoba, 195—1371. Shaw V. Seaboard Air Line Ry. 143 X. C. 312—1669. Shaw V. South Carolina R. Co., 5 Rich. L. (S. C.) 462—260, 582. Shaw V. York, etc., R. Co., 66 E. C. L. 347—150. Shav V. Camden, etc., R. Co. (X. J.), 49 Atl. 547—1494. Shea V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 66 Minn. 102—742, 748. Shea V. Manhattan R. Co., 25 St. Rep. (X. Y.) 33—1182. Shea V. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 63 Minn. 228—517, 576, 579, 642. Sheble v. Oregon R., etc., Co., 51 Wash. 359—1368. Shedd V. Trov, etc., R. Co., 40 Vt. 88 —1015, 1026. Sheehan v. Xassau Electric R. Co., 128 X\ Y. Supp. 545 — 1622. Sheels v. Davies, 6 Taunt. 65 — 650. Shell' V. Huntington, 16 W. Va. 317 — 1544. Shelby v. Cincinnati, e(tc., R. Co., 85 Ky. 224-958. Shelby V. Guy, 11 Wheat. (U. S.) 367—389. Shelby v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 141 App. 514—1172. Shelby v. Scotsford, Yeber, 23 — 532. Shelby v. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 113 X. C. 588—587. Shelbyville R. Co. v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 82 Ky. 541—728. Sheldon v. Robinson, 7 X. II 11, 20, 62. 527. Sheldon v. Sherman 42 X. Y. 1122. Shellaborger v. Fisher, 143 Fed. 937 —1095. Shellenberg v. Fremont, etc., R. Co., 45 X^eb. 487 — 209, 210. Shellnut v. Central of Ga. Co., 131 Ga. 404 — 116. Shelton v. Canadian Xortliern R. Co.. 189 Fed. 153—509, 953, 1070. Shelton v. Erie R. Co., 73 N. J. L. 58—1415. Shelton v. Tvouisville & X. R. Co., 19 Ky. L. Rep. 215 — 1655. Shelton v. Merchants' Transp. Co., 59 X. Y. 249, 452. 453. 550, 775. Shelton v. Merchants' 157— 48-1 Despatch 258—189, Dcrspatch CO XXVI TABLE OF CASES. (The refer encea are to the pages.). Transp. e'o.. 3G N. V. Supor. Ot. 527—100, 1S8. i^heltou V. Railnvul t'o.. 2'.) Ohio St. •J14— 1415. Slie'.'ton V. SoutluMii Ky. Co., 86 S. C. OS— 14S2. Sheltoii V. St. \jon\» &■ S. F. R. Co., 131 Mo. App. 500—888, 890. Slielton's Adm'r v. Ijouisvillo & N. R. Co., 19 Ky. Law Rep. 215—1203. Shenandoah Val. R. Co. v. Moose, 83 Va. 827-1248. 1592. Shenk v. Philadelphia Steam Pro- pt-ller Co., 00 Pa. St. 10!)— 234, 258, 381, .39!). Shepard v. Buffalo, etc., R. Co., 35 N. Y. 641—1104. Shepard v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 77 Iowa, 54—1719. Shepherd v. Bristol. et«., R. Co., L. R. 3 Exch. 18!)— 386. Sheridan v. Brooklyn, etc., R. Co., 36 X. Y. 39— 11S8.' 118!), 1219, 1271, 1587. 1591. 15!)2, ir)04. 1643. Sheridan v. New Quay Co., 4 C. B. N. S. 618—530, 533. Sheridan v. New Quav Co., 93 E. 0. L. 618—328. Sherlev v. Billings, 8 Bush (Ky.), 147—1212, 1131, 1147, 1187, 1713. Sherlock v. Ailing, 44 Ind. 184—1495. Sherman v. Chicago, eitc., R. Co., 40 Iowa, 45—999. 1027. Sherman v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 72 Mo. 62—988, 990, 1016, 1031, 1057, 1066, 1286. Sherman v. Hudson River R Co., 64 N. Y. 2.54—258, 357, 384. .596, 738. Sherman v. Inman Steamship Co., 26 Hun (N. Y.l, 107—341. 354.^ Sherman v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12769—369. Sherman v. Pullman Co.. 139 N. Y. Supp. 51 — 1305. Sherman v. Southern Pac. Co., 33 Nev. 385 — 1502, 1504. Sherman v. Toronto, etc., R. Co., 34 U. C. Q. B. 451—958. Sherman v. Wells. 28 Barb. (N. Y.) 403—38, 39, 581, 588. Sherman, etc., R. Co. v. Beebe (Tex. Civ. App.), 39 S. W. 1102—781. Sherwood v. Railroad Co. (Mich.), 46 N. W. 776—12.33. Shewalter v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., S4 Mn. Apti. .-.89-627. 751. Shidlovsky v. Miillory S. S. Co., 60 M.isc. Hep. 67—1917. Shieder v. Southi-rn R. Co., 83 S. C. 45.'')— 622. Shiff v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 16 How. (N. Y.) 278—437, 781. Shiukle, etc., R. Co. v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 76 Fed. 1007—1765. Ship Howard v. Wissraan, IS How. U. S.) 231—3.55. Shipton V. Thornton, 9 Ad. & El. 314 —243. Shirley v. Billings, 8 Bush (Ky.), 147—1565. Shive V. Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co., 235 Pa. 256—1635. Shoemaker v. Kingsbury, 12 Wall. (U. S.) 369—43, 839, 1288. Shoptaugh V. St. Louis & S- F. R. Co., 147 Mo. App. 8—136, 299. Short V. Northern Pac. R. Co., 1 N. Dak. 164—1563. Short V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 150 Mo. App. 359—993, 1369, 1429. Shortsleeves v. Capital Traction Co., 20 App. D. C. 365—1421. 8hriver v. Sioux City, etc., R. Co., 24 Minn. 506—456, 555, 566. 572, 576. 778. Shuart v. Consol. Traet. Co., 15 Pa. Super. Ct. 26—1238. Shubrick v. Salmon^, 3 Burr, 1637— 349. Shular v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 92 Mo. 339—1390. Shuler v. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co.. 81 Va. 188—1027. Shiiltz V. Skaneateles R. Co.. 66 Miec. Rep. (N. Y.) 9—190(5. 1926, 1927. ,Shu!'tz V. Third Ave. R. Co., 89 N. Y. 242—1155. Shultz V. Third Ave. R. Co., 46 N. Y. Super. Ct. 211—1155. Shumate v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 158— Fed. 901. 1655. Sias v. Rochester R. Co., 169 N. Y. 118—1097. Sicard v. Buffalo, etc., R. Co.. Fed. Cas. No. 12.831—664. Sickles V. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 13 T"x. Civ. App. 434—1661. Sidekum v. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 93 Mo. 400—1554. Siebrecht v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 21 Misc. R. (N. Y.) 61.5—315. Siegrist v. Arnot. 86 Mo. 200—1582. TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pages. )^ CCXXVU Siegri&t v. Arnot, 10 Mo. App. 197 — 945, 972. Siemonsma v. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co., 137 Iowa, 230, 139 N. W. 1077— 840, 897, 1811. Siemsen v. Oakland, etc., Elec. Ry., 134 Cal. 494—1089. Siggins V. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 153 Wis. 122—295. Sigl V. Green Bay Tr. Co., 149 Wis. 112—1621. Silver v. Hale, 2 Mo. App. 557—367. Silverman v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 51 La. Ann. 1785—286, 334. Silverman v. Weir, 114 N. Y. Supp. 6—1886. Simkins v. Steamboat Co., 11 Gush. (Mass.) 102—134. Simmes v. Marine Ins. Co., Fed. Caa. No. 12,862 (2 Cranch. C. C. 618) — 660. Simmons v. Law, 3 Keyes (N. Y.), 220—272. Simmons v. New Bedford, etc., S. Co., 97 Mass. 361—1131, 1187. Simmons v. Oregon R. & Nav. Co., 41 Or. 151—985, 1065, 1056, 1057, 1066. Simmons v. Seaboard Air Line Ry., 133 Ga. 635 — 142. Simmons Hardware Co. v. St. Louis, etc., Ry. Co., 140 Mo. App. 130— 442. Simms v. South Carolina R. Co., 27 S. C. 268—1245. Simon v. Dunlap's Express Co., 38 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 775 — 498. Simon v. Steamship Fung Shuey, 21 La. Ann. 363—134, 419. Simon v. The Fung Shuey. 21 La. Ann. 363—134. Simonin v. New York, etc.. R. Co., 36 Hun (N. Y.), 214 — 1156, 1166, 1728. Simons v. Great Western R. Co., 2 C. B, N. S. 620— 132, 438, 1855. Simons v. Great We.stem R. Co., 18 C. B. 805—466, 482, 14.55, 1457, 1464. Simons v. Rhode Island Co., 28 R. I. 186—1496. Simpson v. Dufour, 126 Ind. 322— 37, 330. Simpson v. Hand, 6 Whart. (Pa.j 311 —27. Simpson v. London, etc., R. Co., 1 Q. B. Div. 274—624. Simpson v. Wrenn, 50 111. 222 — 531. Sims v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 65 App. Div. (N. Y.) 270—1223, 1645. Siner v. Great Western R. Co., L. R. 4 Exch. 117—1672. Singer Mfg. Co. v. London, etc., R. Co., 1 Q. B. 833—1304. Singleton v. Hilliard, 1 Strobh. (S. C.) 203—1452. Sinsabaugh v. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 149 111. App. 430—369, 596, 940. Sinsheimer v. New York, etc., R. Ck)., 21 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 45—235. Sioux City, etc., R. Co. v. First Nat. Bank of "Fremont, 10 Neb. 556— 218 '^'^8 Sira v."wabash R. Co., 115 Mo. 127 —1189, 1228, 1255. Sirk v. Marion St. R. Co., 39 (Ind.) N. E. 421—1541. Sisson V. Cleveland, eitc., R. Co., 14 Mich. 489—456, 584, 585, 597, 736, 838, 896. Skellie v. Central, etc., R. Co., 81 Ga. 5g 352 Skilling V. Bollman, 73 Mb. 665—231. Skilling V. Bollman, 6 Mo. App. 676 —231. Skinner v. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 39 Fed. 188—1201. Skinner v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 12 Iowa, 191—273. Skinner v. Hall, 60 Me. 477—739. Skinner v. London, etc., R. Co., 5 Exoh. 787—985. Skinner v. Upshaw, 2 Ld. Raym. 752 —626, 642. Skinner v. Wilmington & W. R. Co., 128 X. C. 435—1208. Sk otto we V. Oregon Short Line, etc., R. Co., 22 Or. 430—1556, 1608. Slater v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 243—1792, 1854. Slater v. South Carolina R. Co., 29 S. C. 96—310, 578. Slavdon-Kirkspy Woolen Mill v. TTouHton & f. C. R. Oo. (Tex. CSt. App.), 132 S. W. 77—651. Sleade v. Payne, 14 La. Ann. 467 — 249, 258. CI- W Mil TAHl-K OF CASES. (The roliToiRis are to the pages.) Slmt V. I'agy. ."> 15. A AUl. :MJ If.t, 5-27. t>loi>jHT V. IViinsylvtitua U. Co., 100 Pa. St. -if)'.*— 'JSo. Slim V. Grtiit NortJu'in K. I o., 14 C. 1{. (547 — 104, 543. 847. 14ti4. summer v. Merry, 23 Iowa, 1)0 — .">», i)4o. Sloan V. Little Kock Ky.. etc.. Co., 8!t Ark. 574— lo02. Slojin V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 58 Mo. 220 — 153, 551. Sloaue V. Southern California R. Co., Ill Cal. 068—1446, 1706, 1702. 1716, 1712. Sloman v. Great Wes.tern R. Co., 67 X. Y. 208-1209. 1301, 1375. SkH)p V. Wabash R. Co., 03 Mo. App. 605—598, 858. Sloop V. Wabash R. Co. (I^lc. App.), 84 S. W. 111—890. Slossen v. Burlington, etc., R. Co., 55 Iowa, 394—1541. Slv V. Union Dopot R. Co., 134 Mo. 681—1589. 1618. Smallraan v. Whilter. 87 111. 545 — 1(120, 1142. 1409. Smedlev v. Hestonville, etc., R. Co., 184 Pa. St. 620—1215, 1488. Smeed v. Ford, 1 El. & B. 602—616. Smeltzer v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 168 Fed. 420—1926. Smelt7;er v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 158 Fed. 649—1909, 1910, 1911. 1925. Smith V. Alabama. 124 U. S. 465 — 1230, 1891. Smitli V. American Express Co. 108 Mich. 572, 66 N. W. 479—456, 493, 578, 767. Smith V. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 194 Fed. 79—953, 1471. Smith V. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 5 Ga. App. 219—1531. Smith V. Booth. 122 Fed. 026—2035. Smith V. Boston & M. R. Co., 120 Ma.ss. 490—1600. Smith V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 44 N. H. .325—1300, 1301, 1302. Smith V. Boston, eitc, R. Co., 41 Miss. 671—1302. Smith V. British, eitc.. Steam Packet Co., 86 N. Y. 408—1130. 1262. 1272. Smith V. British, etc.. Packet Co.. 40 N. Y. Super. Ct. 86—1505. Smith V. Britain S. S. (U. S. D. C. V. Y.) 123 Fed. 176—205. >Miiilli V. llrookiyu Heights R. Co., 129 App. l>iv. (N. Y.) 635—1611. Smith V. Canadian Pac. R. Co. (Can.), 34 N. S. 22—69. _ Sinitli V. Chamberlain (S. C.), 17 S. K. 371 — 1143. Smith V. Chiingo City Ry. Co., 169 111. App. 570—1584. Smith V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 55 Iowa, 33—1602. Smith V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 108 Mo. 243—1213. 1220. Smith V. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co., 4 S. D. 80—1544. Smith V. Cincinnati, eftc., R. Co., 3 Ohio Dih;. 192—1297. Smith V. Citv & S. R. Co., 29 Or. 539 —997, 1002. 1013. Smith V. Clevdand, etc.. R. Co., 92 Ga. 539—343. Smith V. Eastern R. Co., 35 N. H. 356—1544. Smith V. Finley, 34 Kan. 316—436. Smith V. Georgia Pac. R. Co., 88 Ala. 538—1220. 1233, 1073. Smith V. Griflith, 3 Hill (N. Y.), 333 —584, 592. Smith V. Gulf, etc., Rv. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 128 S. W. 1177—1604. Smith V. Horn, 8 Taut. 144—430, 464. Smith V. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 23 Pa. Super. Ct. 04.3—296. Smith V. Kingston City R. Co., 55 App. Div. (X. Y.) 143—1092. Smith V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 124 Ind. 394—1058. Smith V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 95 Ky. 11—1425. Smith V. Manhattan R. Co., 138 N. Y. 02.3—1426. Sn ith V. Manhattan R. Co., 18 N. Y. Supp. 759 — 1171. Smith V. Manhattan R. Co., 45 N. Y. St. R. 80.5—1072, 1156. Smith V. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 59 App. Div. (N. Y.) 60—1116. Smith V. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 100 Mich. 148-785. 815. Smith V. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 58 Mo. App. 80—774. Smith V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 74 Mo. App. 48—228. Smith V. Nashua, etc., R. Co., 27 N. H. 84-190, 234. 383. 412. Smith V. New Haven, etc.. R. Co.. 12 Allen (Mass.), 531—31, 597, 793. TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pages.) CCXXIX Smith V. New York Cent. R. Co., 41 N. Y. 620—746, 747, 748, 749, 750. Smith V. New York Cent. R. Co., 24 N. Y. 222—6, 467, 1036, 1052, 1449, 1461, 1467. Smith V. New York Cent. R. Co., 43 Barb. (N. Y.) 225—568, 777. Smith V. New York Cent. R. Co., 29 Barb. (N. Y.) 132—1460, 1461, 1463. Smith V. New York, etc., R. Co., 46 N. J. L. 7—998. Smith V. New York, etc., R. Co., 19 N. Y. 127—1083, 1114. 1121. Smith V. New York, etc., R. Co., 6 Duer. (N. Y.) 231—1106. Smith V. Norfolk & S. R. Co., 114 N. C. 728—1595. Smith V. Norfolk, etc., R. Co., 48 W. Va. 69—1167. Smith V. North Carolina R. Co.. 64 N. C. 235—428, 457, 576, 579, 1452, 1453. Smith V. Northern Pac. R. Co., 1 Int. Com. Rep. 208—1854. Smith V. North German Llovd S. S. Co., 142 Fed. 1032—2039. ' Smith V. Pierce, 1 La. 349—52, 54, 75. Smith V. Pittsburgii, etc., R. Co., 23 Ohio St. 11—1711, 1712. Smith V. Pullman Palace Car Co. (Can.), 60 Alb. L. J. 188—64. Smith V. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 99 N. C. 241—1626. Smith V. Savannah, etc., R. Co., 100 Ga. 96—1425. Smith V. Seaboard Air Line Co., 10 Ga. App. 227—928. 1024. Smith V. Seward, 3 Pa. St. 342—59, 290. Smith V. Southern Express Co., 104 Ala. 387—264, 452. Smitli V. Southern R. Co., 88 S. C. 421—1417. Smith V. Southern R. Co., 80 S. C 1 —1682. Smith V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 69 Mo. ,32—1213. Smith V. St. Louis Transit Co., 120 Mo. App. 328-1088. Smith V. St. Paul City R. Co., 32 Minn. 1—570, 973, 975. 987, 1080. 1098, 1404. Smith V. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., .'^O Minn. 169—1703. Smith V. Western R. Co., 91 Ala. 455 —311. Smith V. Western Union Tel. Co., 83 Ky. 104—88, 91. Smith V. Whitman, 13 Mo. 352—134, 600. Smitha v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 86 Tenn. 198—487, 881. Smithers v. Wilmington City Ry. Co., 6 Pen. (Del.) 422—1492. Smitson v. Southern Pac. R. Co. (Or.). 60 Pac. 910—1226. Smotherman v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co.. 29 Mo. App. 265—1638. Smyrl v. Niolon, 2 Bailey L. (S. C. ) 421—27. Smyth v. Ames, 171 U. S. 361—162. Smyth V. Ames, 169 U. S. 466— 16-:£, 1762, 1794. Snead v. Central of Ga. Ry. Co., 151 Fed. 608—1736. Snediker v. Nassau Elec. R. Co., 41 App. Div. (N. Y.) 628—1124. Snelling v. Yetter. 25 App. Div. (N. Y.) 590—83, 388. Snider v. Adams Express Co., 63 Mo 376—425, 4.30, 431, 457, 754. Snider v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 60 Mo. 413—988. Snipes v. Norfolk, etc., R. Co., 144 N. C. 18—981. Snow V. Carruth, 1 S. P. R. (U. S ) 324—163. 650. Snow v. Caruth, Fed. Cas. No. 13.144 —189. Snow V. Fitchburg R. Co., 136 Mass 552—1204. Snow V. Indiana, etc., R. Co., 109 Ind 422—486, 638, 735, 751. Snowden v. Boston, etc.. R. Co., 151 Mass. 220—1662. Snowdon v. Davis, 1 Taunt. 359 — 165. Snvder v. Natchez, etc., R. Co., 42 La Ann. 302—959. Sodow.sky v. McFarland, 3 Dana (Ky.), 20.5—5. Sohen v. Hume, 1 M'eCord (S. C ) 444—59. Solan v. Chicago, etc., R. Co. (Iowa) 63 N. W. 692—1450. Solarz v. ^lanhattan R. Co., 8 Mi.sc R. (N. Y.) 850—1509. Soloman v. Adams Express Co 47 Pii. SupfT. Ct. 42.3-288. Solnnuui v. Pliiladelphia, etc.. Steam- fCXXX TABLE OF CASES. (The roforenci's are to tho pages.) boat Co.. '2 Dalv (N. Y.), 104— :<84. 394. ;{00. Solomon v. Central Park. etc.. U. Co., ;U N. Y. Super. Ct. 138—1(543.^ Solomon v. Central Turk. etc.. R. Co., 1 Sweeny (N. Y.). 298—1588. St^lomon V. Manhattan R. Co., 103 N. Y. 437—1613. 1C>75. <; Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 90 S. W. 18<* — 479, 680, 688, 808. Southern Kansas R. Co. v. Clark, 52 Kan. 398—1298. Southern Kansas R. Co. v. Cox (Tex. Civ. App.), 103 S. W. 1122—143. Southern Kansas R. Co. v. Crumj) (Tex. Civ. App.), 74 S. W. 335— 858. Southern Kansas R. Co. v. Curtis Bros. (Tex. Civ. App.), 99 S. \V. 566—886. Southern Kansas R. Co. v. Duncan. 40 Kan. 503—729, 751, 782. Southern Kansas R. Co. v. Hinsdale, 38 Kan. 507—1070, 1148, 1181. 1423, 1424, 1719. Southern Kansas R. Co. v. Morris, 100 Tex. 611—929. Southern Kansas R. Co. v. Morris (Tex. Civ. App.), 99 S. W. 433— 842. Southern Kansas R. Co. v. O'Lough- lin Land & C. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 127 S. W. 568—868. Southern Kansas R. Co. v. Pavey. 4? Kan. 452—1673. Southern Kansas R. Co. v. Rice. 38 Kan. ,398—1147. Southern Kansas Ry. Co. v. Samples (Tex. Civ. App.),' 109 S. W. 417— 605, 790. Southern Kansas R. Co. v. Walsh, 45 Kan. 6.53—1083, 1215. 1500. 1715, 1717. Southern Nursery Co. v. Winfield Nursery Co., 89 Kan. 522 — 500. Southern Pac. Co. v. Arnett, 126 Fed 7.5—835. 8.53. Southern Pac. Co. v. Blake (Tex. Civ App.), 128 S. W. 668-1,502. Southern Pac. Co. v. Calvin, 144 Fed 348—1050. Soutliern Pac. Co. v. Crenshaw Bros., 5 Ga. App. 67.5—1925. Southern Pac. Co. v. D'.Arcais (Tex. Civ. App.), 64 R. W. 813 — 495, 583. Southern Pae. R. Co. v. Haas (Supp ) 17 S. W. 600—1857. ' ecxxxii lAHLE OF CASES. (The it'fironcfs ure to tlii' pagos.) Southern Pac. Co. v. lli'j;:iii. l.S Ari/.. 34—1502. Soutlioni Pac. Vo. v. Intoixtatp I'oni- meroe Couunission. 200 I". S. r>3(» — 1840. Southern Pae. Co. v. Interstate Com- meree Commission, ISS Fed. 241 — ■ 1844. Southern Pae. Co. v. Laialiee, S!) Kan. G08— li83. Southern Pae. Co. v. Meailors & Co., 104 Tex. 460—872. Ol.*^. Southern Pac. Co. v. Meadors & Co. (Te.\. Civ. App.). 120 S. W. 170— 913, 1007, 1020. 1024. 1076. Southern Pac. Co. v. Redding. 17 Tox, Civ. App. 440—003, 1847. Southern Pac. Co. v. Schuyler, 227 U. S. 001—1051. Southern Pac. Co. v. United States, 197 Fed. 167—1874. Southern Pac. Co. v. United States, 171 Fed. 360—810. Southern Pac. Co. v. Wcatherford Cotton Mills (Tex. Civ. App.), 134 5. W. 778—1006, 1010, 1024. Southern Pac. R. Co. v. Anderson. 26 Tex. Civ. App. 518. 63 S. W. 1023 — 450, 405, 589, 936. Southern Pac. R. Co. v. Booth (Tex, Civ. App.), 30 S. W. 585—278, 752. Southern Pac. R. Co. v. Colorado Fuel 6. Iron Co.. 101 Fed. 770—1760, 1876. Southern Pac. R. Co. v. Hamilton. 54 Fed. 408—1183. Southern Pac. R. Co. v. Interstate Com. Com., 200 U. S. 536—1772. Southern Pac. R. Co. v. Johnson (Tex. App.), 15 S. W. 121—300. Southern Pac. R. Co. v. Lyon & Co., 99 Miss. 186—1019, 1924. Southern Pac. R. Co. v. Maddox. 75 Tex. 300 — 4.53, 516. 585. Southern Pac. R. Co. v. Rauh, 49 Fed. 606—1716, 1728. Southern Pac. Term. Co. v. Interstate Com. Com., 210 U. S. 498—1810. Southern Rv. & Timber Co. v. Great Northern 'Rv. Co., 58 Wash. 604— 665. Southern Rv. Co. v. Axiams, 115 Ga. 705— 880." Southern Rv. Co. v. Adams (Ind.), 100 X. F.' 77.3—1 .503. Southern Rv. Co. v. Adams Macli. Co., 16.-) Ala.'43(; — 114. Soutliern Ry. Co. v. .Mlisun. ll."> — 1175. Southern Ry. Co. v. WiIoo.x, 99 Va 394—146. 154, 155. Southern Ry. Co. v. Williams. 139 Ga 357—566. Southern Ry. Co. v. Williams (Miss.), 36 So. 394—1608. Southern Towing Co. v. Egan, 184 Ftxi. 275—55. South, etc., Alabama R. Co. v. Hen- bin. 56 Ala. 308 — 681, 1457. Soutl), etc., ,\Iabama R. Co. v. Hen- lein. 52 Abi. 606—33, 418, 492 616 523, 787, 815, 821, 1456. ccxxxiv TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pages.) South, etc.. Alabama R. Co. v. Jones. .^G Ahi. 507— ;'>nO. South, el-e., AlaUaina H. Co. v. Sehau- Hor, 75 Ala. 14-2—1576, 1679. South, et-c.. Alabama K. eo. v. Wil son, 78 Ala. 587 — i59. South, etc.. Alabama K. Co. v. Wood. 72 Ala. 451— '2:W, 582, 584. South, etc.. Alabama R. Co. v. Wood, tiC. Ala. 167—235, 252, 255, 384, 404, 488, 570, 585. South' Florida R. Co. v. Rhodes, 25 Fla. 40—1068. 1429. Southwestern Alabama Ry. Co. v. Maddox & Son. 146 Ala. 539—714. Southwestern R. Co. v. Bently, 51 Ga. 311—1304, 1344. Southwestern R. Co. v. Felder, 46 Ga. 433 — 380. Southwestern R. Co. v. Montgomery, 66 Ga. 252—1040. South Western R. Co. v. Paulk, 24 Ga. 366—1581. Southwestern R. Co. v. Singleton, 67 Ga. 300-1475. Southwestern R. Co. v. Singleton, 66 Ga. 2.52—1021, 1680. Southwestern R. Co. v. Webb, 48 Ala. 585—41, 175, 181. Southwestern Telegraph & Telephone Co. V. Danaher (Ark.), 144 S. W. 925 — 94. Soviero v. Westcott Express Co., 47 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 596—1334,1346, 1367. Spade V. Hudson River R. Co., 16 Barb. (N. Y.) 383—183. Spade V. Lvnn & B. R. R., 172 Mass. 488—1194, 1251. Spaids V. New York, etc.. Steamship Co., 3 Daly (N. Y.) 139—324. Spalding v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 101 Mo. App. 22.5—607, 836, 937. Spangler v. St. Josephs, etc., Ry. Co. (Kan.), 74 Pac. 607—1192. Spann v. Erie Boatman's Transp. Co., 11 Misc. R. (N. Y.) 680—152, 368, 611. Spannagle v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 31 111. App. 460—946, 972, 974, 985, 989, 1613. Spaulding v. Quincy k B. St. Ry. Co., 184 Mass. 470—1680. Spear v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 119 Pa. St. 61—1505. Smears V. Hartley, 3 Eftp. 81—16. Spi^^rs V. Lake Shore, etc., R. Oo., 6i Barb. (N. Y.) 513- -9. Spears v. Spartanburg, etc., R. Co., 11 S. C. 158—385, 397. Speck V. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 108 Mimi. 435, 1688. Speigel V. Pacilic Mail Steamship Co., 26 Misc. R. (N. Y.) 414—328. Spellman v. Lincoln Rap. T. Co., 36 Neb. 890—45, 90, 945, 1213, 1475, 1500, 1646. Spellman v. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 3) S. C. 475-1020, 1726. Spenc<; v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 117 Iowa, 1—1040. Spence v. Chodwick, 69 E. C. L. 517 —145. Spence v. Mi'tchell, 9 Ala. 744—531. Spence v. Norfolk, etc., R. Co., 92 Va. 102—294, 342. Spencer v. Brooklyn City R. Co., 54 N. Y. 230—1628. Spencer v. Daggett, 2 Vt. 92—53. Spencer v. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co., 17 Wis. 487—1656. Spencer v. St. I^ouis Tr. Co., Ill Mo. App. 653—983, 1619. Spencer v. Wabash R. Co., 36 App. Div. (N. Y.), 466—1371, 1376. Spencer v. White, 2.3 N. C. (1 Ired.) 236—672. Sperry v. Consolidated Ry. Co., 79 Conn. 565—1383. Spettigue v. Great Western R. Co., 15 U. C. C. P. 315—466. Speyer v. The Mary Belle Roberts, 2 Sawy. (U. S.) 1—575. Spicer v. Chicago, etc., R. Oo., 29 Wis. 580—1702, 1715, 1716, 1723. Spinetti v. Atlas Steamship Co., 80 N. Y. 71—519. Spinney v. Boston Eleiv. R. Co., 188 Mass. 30—1134. S. P. Moseley v. Lord, 2 Conn. 389 — 265. SpofTord V. Pennsylvania R. Co.. 11 Pa. Super. Ct. 97—339. Spohn V. Missouri Pac. R. Co.. 116 Mo. 617—1718. Spohn V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 101 Mo. 417—1190. Spohn V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 87 Mo. 74—1186, 1190. Spokane Grain Co. v. Great Northern Impress Co., 55 Wash. 545—850. TABLE OF CASES. CCXXXV (The references are to the pages.) Spooner v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 23 .vlo. App. 403—1300. Spooner v. Manchester, 133 Mass. 270 —276, 285. Sprague v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 34 Kan. 347 — 455, 481, 880, 1456. Sprague v. New York C«nt. R. Co., 52 N. Y. 637—384, 732. Sprague v. Smith, 29 Vt. 421—46, 47, 48, 740. Sprague v. Southern R. Co., 63 U. S. App. 711—1264. Spriggs Admr. v. Rutland R. Co., 77 Vt. 347—931, 1037. Spring V. Haskill, 4 Allen (Mass.), 112 589 597 Springer v! Ford, 189 111. 430—103, 945. Springer v. Sohultz, 205 111. 144 — 102, 1475. Springer v. Schultz, 105 111. App. 544 —102. Springer v. Wes-tcott, 166 N. Y. 117 —426, 542, 1365. Springfield Consol. R. Co. v. Flynn, 55 111. App. 600—1166, 1187. Springfield Consol. R. Go. v. Hoefifner, 175 111. 634—1239, 1561. Springfield Consol. R. Co. v. Punten- ney, 101 111. App. 95—1563. Springfield Consol. R. Co. v. Welsh, 135 111. 511—1562. .Springer Transp. Co. v. Smith, 16 Lea (Tenn.), 498—1150, 1167, 1726. Springs v. South Bend R. Co., 46 S. C. 104—390, 451, 458. Sproat V. Donnell, 26 Me. 185 — 553. Sproul V. Hemingway, 14 Pick. (Mass.) 1 — 57. Sproule V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 91 S. W. 657— 1050. Sprowl V. Kellar, 4 Stew. * P. (Ala.) 382—76. Spurlock V. Missouri Pa«. R. (Do., 93 Mo. 530—156. Spurlock V. Missouri, etc., R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 90 S. W. 1124— 652, 703. Spurlock V. Shreveport Traction Co., 118 I^. 1—1493. Spurrier v. Front St. Cable Co. fWa.sh.), 29 Pac. 346-1544. Squiro v. Central Park, etc., R. Co., 36 X. Y. Super. Ct. 436—1543, 1589. Squire v. Michigan C«nt. R. Co., 4 Int. Com. C. Rep. 611—1781. Squire v. Michigan C^nt. R. Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 515—1782. Squire v. New York Cent. R. Co., 98 Mass. 239—452, 453, 493, 805, 822, 894, 1456, 1458. Stadhecker v. Combes, 9 Rich. L. (S. C.) 193—38. Stafskv V. Southern Ry. Co. (Ala.), 39 So. 132—287. Stager v. Ridge Ave. P. R. Co., 119 Pa. St. 70—1224, 1477. 1489, 1615, 1616. Stahl v. The Niagara. 84 Fed. 902— 2001. Staines v. Central R. Co. of N. J., 72 N. J. L. 268—1251. Stalcup v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 16 Ind. App. 584 — 1058. Stanbridge v. Nassau Eleuisvillo, I'to.. R. Co.. 01 TiMin. 510—491. r>17, SDO. SUistnov V. S87. StAte V. AWantie Coast Lino K. Co., .">!) Fla. 0.12. 40 So. 875—125, 054. Stat*" V. Atlantic Coa^t Line R. Co., 51 Fla. 54:!, 41 So. 529—125. 708. State V. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 58 Md. 221—1470. 1477. State V. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 24 Md. 84—1010. 1122. Strtte V. Boston, etc.. R. Co., 58 X. H. 410—6. State V. Cadwallader, 172 Ind. 019 — 94. 95. .State V. Campbell, 32 N. J. L. 309— 999, 1012, 1025, 1396, 1445. State V. Carrigan, 39 N. J. Law (10 Vrooml 35—1857, 1758. Stiite V. Central Vermont R. Co., 81 Vt. 459—705, 721. State V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 30 Minn. 402—135. State ex. inf. Crow v. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co., 176 Mo. 721—687. State V. Chicago & N. W. R. Co.. 83 Neb. 518—139, 706. State V. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 72 Neb. 542—125. 708. State V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 71 Neb. 593—141, 708. Stivte V. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 47 Ohio St. 130—157. 101. 1785. State V. Clark. 109 N. C. 739—985. State V. Concord R. Corp., 62 N. H. 375—778. State V. Creeden, 78 Iowa, 556 — 333, 381. State V. Chovin, 7 Iowa, 204—1068, 1070, 1135, 1394. State V. Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Co., 114 Tenn. 194—94. State V. Davton. etc., R. Co., 56 Ohio St. 436—1082. State ex rel. Atwater v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 48 N. J. L. 55—100. State V. Foreman, 8 Yerg. (Tenn.) 256—1731. 1738. State V. Coold, 53 Me. 279—1394. State V. Ooss, 59 Vt. 266—129. State V. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 58 Me. 176—1013, 1014, 1109, 1230, 1232. State V. Gulf, etc., R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 44 S. W. 542—1852. State V. Harrington. 44 Mo. App. 297 —589. State V. Hartford, etc., R. Co., 29 Conn. 53S— 124. State V. Illinois Cent. R. Co.. 240 HI. 188—658. 085, 707. State V. Indiana, 120 Ind. 575—1734. State V. Indiana, etc., R. Co., 133 Ind. 09— 17;?0, 1731. State V. Intoxicating Liquors, 83 Me. 158—330. State V. Intoxicating Liquors, 73 Me. 278—203. State V. Maine, etc., R. Co., 76 Me. 357—1543. State V. Minneapolis & St. Ry. Co., 115 Minn. 116—603. State ex inf. Attorney General v. Mis- souri Pac. Ry. Co.," 241 Mo. 1—705. State ex inf. Crow v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 176 Mb. 718—687. State V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 29 Neb. 550—135. State V. Nebraska Teleph. Co., 17 Neb. 126—95. State V. New Haven, etc., R. Co., 41 Conn. 134—128. State V. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 115 Minn. 1078—003. State V. Overton, 24 N. J. L. 435— . 1015, 1027. 1070. State V. Parshley, 108 Me. 410—255. State V. Peet, 80' Vt. 449—1736. 1739. State V. Pullman Palace-Car Co. (C. C), 16 Fed. 19.3—1858. State V. Railroad Co., 29 Conn. 538 — 121. State V. Railroad, 63 Md. 43.3—1033. State V. Ry. Co. (Minn.), 41 S. W. 1047—1775. State V. Repuhliean Valley R. Co., 17 Neb. 647—135, 255. State V. Seagraves, 111 Mo. App. 353 —1775, 1858. State ex rel. National Subway Co. v. St. Ivouis, 145 Mo. 551—93. State ex reL Cumberland Teleph. & Teleg. Co. v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 52 La. Ann. 1850—154. TABLE OF CASES. ccxxxvn (The references are to the pages.) State V. Superior Ct., 60 Wash. 193— 70.5. State V. Tom, 8 Or. 177—1571. 1672. State ex rel. Sheets v. Union Depot Co., 71 Ohio St. 379—1127. State V. Union Stockyards Co. of Omaha. 81 Neb. 67, 115 N. W. 627 —22, 24. State V. Washington Irr. Co., 41 Wash. 283—112. State V. Western Maryland R. Co., 63 Md. 433—1031, 1003. State V. White Oak Ey. Co.. 65 W. Va. 15—136. State V. Young ( N. J.), 56 Atl. 471 —1083. State Freight Tax Cases. 82 U. S. (15 Wall.) 232—1747, 1748, 1758. Staten Island Rapid Transit Ry. Co. y. Marshall, 121 N. Y. Supp. 82— 697. Staub V. Kendrick, 121 Ind. 226—73, 1298. St. Clair y. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 80 Iowa, 304—119, 345, 354, 358. 360, 570. St. Clair St. Ry. Co. v. Eadie, 43 Ohio St. 91—1588. 1591. Steamboat Co. y. Atkins, 22 Pa. St. 522—531. Steamboat Co. v. Brockett, 121 U. I*f^ 637—1072, 1190. Steamboat Farmer v. McCraw. 26 Ala. 189—531. Steamboat Keystone v. Moies, 28 Mo. 24.3—259. 400. Steamboat Lynx v. King, 12 Mo. 272 —3.34. Steamboat New World v. King, 16 Ilows (U. S.) 474—6, 258, 549, 957, 1033, 1460. Steamboat Virginia v. Kraft, 25 Mo. 76—437, 620. Steam Ck). v. Liyingston, 3 Cow. 713 —1857. Steamship Welesley Co. v. C. A. Cooper & Co.. 185 Fed. 733—2003. Stearns y. Pullman Car Co., 8 Ont. Rep. 171—66. Stearns v. Raymond, 26 Wis. 74 — 267. St "dman v. Western Transp. Co., 48 Barb. (N. Y.) 97—119. 341. 343, KiO. St< Steen y. Niagara Fire Ins. Co., 89 N. Y. 315—478. Steers y. Cunard Steamship Co., 57 N. Y. 1—1330. Steers y. Liverpool, etc.. Steamship Co., 57 N. Y. 1—432, 497, 569, 575, 1294, 1333, 1455. 1460, 1461. SteJnman v. Wilkins, 7 Watts & S. (Pa.) 466—16. 22, 25, 71, 644. Steinwender y. The Mexican Prince, 82 Fed. 484—2006. Steinweg y. Erie R. Co., 43 N. Y. 123 — 461, 469, 1107. Steiskal y. Marshall Field & Co., 238 111. 92—1530,. Stephens y. Smith. 29 Vt. 160—1138, 1394, 1429. Stephenson y. Hart, 4 Bing. 476 — 198, 211. Stephenson y. Little, 10 Mich. 433— 267. Sterling y. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 38 Tex. Civ. App. 451, 86 S. W. 665— 369. 843. Sterling Amusement Co. v. La Com- pagnie Transatlantique, 113 N. Y. Supp. 1032—2040. Stern v. Westcliester Elec. R. Co., 99 App. Div. (N. Y.) 491—1198. Stcrrctt y. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 225 Mo. 99—1538. Stetler y. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 49 Wis. 609—245. 246. Steyenot y. Eastern R. Co., 61 Minn. 104 — 332. Steyens v. Atchison, etc., R. Co.. 1 .Mo. App. Rep. 247—1410. Stevens v. Bo.ston Kiev. R. Co.. 199 Mass. 471—1671. Stevpns V. Boston Elcv. R. Co., 184 Mass. 4711-1072. CCXXXVlll TABLE OF CASES. (Thi« icforiMici's lire to (ho panics.) Stevens v. Boston, etiv, U. t'o.. S (Jray (Maas.), 202— (52:J. tilJT. Stevens v. Boston, i-to., R. Co.. 1 C.niy (Maa3.). 277 -:?!>(■.. Stfveii3 V. EuroiH'un, etc., R. T^)., fiO Me. 74—1500. \'A\. Stevens v. Great Western K. Co.. fi'l L. T. ;{24— 45<). Stevens v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co.. 20 Ohio C. C. R. 41— 75S. Stevens v. Lake Shore, etc.. R. Co., 11 0. C. D. KiS— 707. Stevens v. Missouri Pac. R. Co.. 07 Mo. App. 356—1545. Stevens v. Saward, 69 Mass. (3 Grav) 108—287, 291. Stevens v. Sayward, 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 474—649. Stevenson v. Joline. Ill N. Y. Supp. 698—1569. Stevenson v. Pullman Car Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), :52 S. W. 3.35—64. Stevenson v. Pullman Palace Car Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 20 S. W. 112— 64. Stevenson v. Second Ave. R. Co., 35 App. Div. (N. Y.) 474—1500. Stevenson v. West Seattle, etc., Co., 22 Wash. 84—1140. Steverman v. Boston Elev. Ry. Co., 205 Mass. 508—1585. Stewart v. Baltimore & 0. R. Co., 88 N. Y. Supp. 377—1708. Stewart v. Baltimore & 0. R. Co., 37 Pa. Super. Ct. 273—898. Stewart v. Boston, etc.. R. Co.. 146 Mass. 605, 16 X. E. 466—1244. 1662. Stewart v. Brooklyn & C. R. Co.. 90 N. Y. 5S8— 948'. 1131, 1147, 1150, 1166, 1168. 1182. Stewart v. C<>ntral of Ga. Ry. Co., 3 Ga. App. 397—201. Stewart v. Comer. 100 C.a. 754—339. Stewart v. Erie. etc.. Transp. Co.. 17 Minn. 372—754, 778. Stewart v. Everts, 76 Wis. 35 — 1554. Stewart v. Gracv, 93 Tenn. 314—180, 411. Stewart v. London, etc., R. Co.. 3 H. & C. 135—464. Stewart v. Merchants Despatch Transp. Co., 47 Iowa, 229—52. Stewart v. Railroad Co., 146 Mass. 605—1224. Stewart v. Terre Haute, etc.. R. Co., 1 McCrary (U. S.), 312—756. Stewart V. Torre Haute, etc., R. Co., :i Fed. 70.S— 738, 757. Stiikney v. Interstate Commerce Com- mission. 164 Fed. 638— 1S45. Stierle v. Union R. Co., 150 N. Y. 70 — 1080, 1116, 1216, 1218. Stiles V. Atlanta, etc., R. Co.. 65 Ga. 370—1001. Stiles v. Davis. 1 Black (U. S.), 101 —281, 327. 329. 331. Stiles v. Louisville &. N. R. Co., 33 Ky. Law Rep. 625 — 827. Stiles V. Western Union Tel. Co. (Ariz.), 15 Pac. 712—91. Stillwell V. Staples, 19 N. Y. 401 — 540. Stimson v. Connecticut River R. C^o.. 98 Mass. 83—1298, 1300, 1304. Stimson v. Jackson, 58 N. IL 138— 405. 559. Stimson v. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co., 7") Wis. 381—1470, 1477. Stiner v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 84 N. Y. Supp. 285—61, 1211. Stinson v. New York Cent. R. Co., 32 N. Y. 33.3—1449. 1454. 1401, 1403. 1407. St. John V. Southern Express Co., 1 Woods (U. S.), 612—523. 765. St. Joseph, etc., R. Co. v. Palmer, 38 Neb. 403—457. St. Joseph, etc., R. Co. v. Wheeler, 35 Kan. 18.5-971, 1039, 1057. St. Joseph Stockyards Co. v. United States, 187 Fed. 104—1983. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Beets, 75 Kan. 29.5—799. 882. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Brosius & Le Compte (Tex. Civ. App.), 105 S. W. 1131—796. St. T-Kiuis & S. F. R. Co. v. Burgin, 83 Ark. 502—478. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Cavender, 170 Ala. 001, 54 So. 54—376, 377, 421, 422. 797. 876, 899. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Copeland, 23 Okl. 837—808. 876, 9.32. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Dean (Tex. Civ. App.), 152 S. W. 1127—361. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Dickerson, 29 Okl. 380—1383. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Dunham (Okl.). 129 Pac. 802—283. St. Ix)uis & S. F. R. Co. v. Dysart (Tex Civ. App. I. 130 S. W. 1047— 903, 952. 1473. TABLE OF CASES. (The references ai'e to the pages.) CCXXXIX St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Farmers' Union Gin Co., 34 OkL 270—347. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. German, 79 Kan. 643—872. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Heyser, 95 Ark. 412—1909. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. James (Okl.), 128 Pac. 279—900. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Kimberlin (Te.x. Civ. App.), Ill S. W. 671— 888. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Knox (Tex. Civ. App.), 151 S. W. 902—867. St. Louis &, S. F. R. Co. v. Ladd, 33 Okl. 160—882, 887, 900. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Lieurance, 80 Kan. 424—864. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Lilly, 1 Ala. App. .320—1383. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. McGivney, 19 Okla. 361—296. St Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Neely (Tex. Civ. App.), 100 S. W. 481—1663. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Pearce, 82 Ark. 339—348. 442, 882, 887. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Phillips, 17 Okl. 264—883. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Piburn, 30 Okl. 262—813, 866. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Posten, 31 Okl. 821—1538. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Puckett, 82 Ark, 60.3—887. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Sanderson, 99 Miss. 148—1169. St. Louis &. S. F. R. Co. v. Savage, 163 Ala. 5.5—1483. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Sharrock, 6 Ind. Ter. 458—894. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. United States, 169 Fed. 69—1983. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Vaughan, 88 Ark. 138—786. 862. St. Ivouis & S. F. R. Co. V. Wilhclm (Tex. Civ. App.), 108 S. W. 1194 —867. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Younjr. 30 Okl. 588—888. St. Ivouis & S. W. Ry. Co. v. l'att<-n (Tex. Civ. App.), 118 S. W. 798— 684. fit. Louis Coal R. Co. v. Moore, 14 Til. App. 510—1083, 1118. St. TvOuIh Dnivafje Co. v. Tyouisvillc & N. R. rv... 'n.-) Fed. .■59— 7-29, 1127, 1824, 1H25, 1826. St. Louis, etc.. Packet Co. v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 35 Moi. App. 272—753. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Adams, 4: Kan. App. 305 — 228. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Adams (Tex. Civ. App.), 118 S. W. 1155—867. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Adcox, 52 Ark. 406—1255. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Atchison, 47 Ark. 74—1227. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Batty, 88 Ark. 282—1416. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Beecher, 65 Ark. 64—997. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Berrv, 42 Tex. Civ. App. 470 — 599. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Berry, 4 Tex, App. Civ. Cas., § 166—1708. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Berrvhill, 3: Tex. App. Civ. Cas., § 319—229. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Bilby, 35 Okl. 589—894. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Bland (Tex. Civ. App.), 34 S. W. 675—363, 736. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Bone, 52. Ark. 26—410, 469. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Boshear, 102" Tex. 76—933. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Branch, 45 Ark. 524—1428. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Brosius & Le Compte (Tex. Civ. App.), 105 S. W. 1131—880, 892. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Brown, 9a Ark. 35—1419. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Brown (Tex. Civ. App.), 69 S. W. 1010—548. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Burns (Tex. Civ. App.), 80 S. W. 104—859 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Burns (Tex.. Civ. App.), 63 S. W. 718—858. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Burrow 4: Co., 89 Ark. 178—170. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Caldwell. 89 Ark. 218—443. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Campbell (Ark.), 158 S. W. 120— 13S6. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Cantrell, 37 Ark. 519—1232, 1243. 1256. 1576, 1677, 1715. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Carlisle, 34 Tex. Civ. App. 268—837, 908. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Carr. 47 III App. 35.3—1197. St. Tvouis, etc., R. Co. v. Carroll 1.3. Til. App. 585—998. .vxl TABLE OF CASES. (Tlie roferonccs are to the pages.) St. Loiii.-*. etc.. R. Co. v. Citizens' Bank <«f Little Book. 87 Ark. 2(5— 375. 377. St. Louis, ete.. R. Co. v. Clark, 48 Kan. 321 — 437. 822. St. Louia. etc.. R. Co. v. Cleary, 77 Mo. 034— 43ti. 407, 880. 822. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Conunereial U. Ins. Co.. 139 U. S. 223—156, 176, 190, 229. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Coolidge (Ark.). 83 S. W. 333—735. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Coulson, 8 Kan. App. 4—1601. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Crawford (Tex. Civ. App.), 35 S. W. 748— 206. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Crowder, 82 Ark. 562—846. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. Cunibie, 101 Ark. 172—294. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. Dalhy. 19 111. 353—1148. 1166, 1394, 1426. St. Ix)uis. etc.. R. Co. v. Dallas, 93 Ark. 209—1405. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Dare. 99 Ark 486—1140. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Davenport, 97 Ark. 82—845. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Dodd, 59 Ark. 317—384. 410, 412. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. Dorman, 72 111. 504—793, 821. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Dowgialo (Ark.), 101 S. W. 412—1166. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. Duck (Tex. Civ. App.), 72 S. W. 445—1107. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. Dunn & Stewart. 94 Ark. 407—922. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Edwards, 78 Fed. 74.3-734. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Elgin Con- densed Milk Co., 175 111. 557—534, .545. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Evans, 99 Ark. 69—1660. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Fairbairn, 48 Ark. 491—1019. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Fairbairn (Mo.), 4 S. W. 50—1126. St. Louis, etc., Ry. Co. v. Fambro, 88 Ark. 12—1524. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Farr, 70 Ark. 264—1672. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Fenley (Tex Civ. App.). 118 S. W. 845—1906. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Finley, 79 Tex. 85—997, 1214, 1219, 1251. l.")91. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Flanagan, 23 111. App. 489—133. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. Franklin (Tex. Civ. App.), 129 S. W. 181— 880. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. Franklin (Tex. Civ. App.), 123 S. W. 1150 822. 831. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Frazer (Tex. Civ. App.), 97 S. W. 325—936. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Furlow, 89 Ark. 404—443. 1902. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Gorman, 79 Kan. 643—894. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. Groce (Ark.) 138 S. \V. 879—1139. St. Louis, etc., Rv. Co. v. Gunter. 44 Tex. Civ. App. 480, 99 S. W. 152— 605, 841. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Hanks, 78 Tex. 300—1297. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Hardway, 17 in. App. 321—1296, 1350. 1352. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. Harmon, 85 Ark. 503—1062, 1636. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Harper, 69 Ark. 186—1428. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. Hawkins, 39 111. App. 406—1345, 1363. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Hays, 13 Tex. Civ. App. 577 — 486. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Heath, 41 Ark. 476—119, 341, 345, 616. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Henderson, 57 Ark. 402—151, 749, 794, 805. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Henrv (Tex. Civ. App.), 71 S. W. 334—602. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Heyser, 95 Ark. 412—1911, 1925. St. Louis, etc., Rv. Co. v. Hicks (Tex. Civ. App.), 158 S. W. 192—200, 400. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. Hindsman, 1 Tex. App. Civ. Cas., § 204—592, 620. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Hindsman, I White & W. Civ. Cas. Ct. App., § 7 —1364. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. Honea (Tex. Civ. App.), 84 S. W. 267—859. TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pages.) ccxli St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Hopkins (Ark.), 15 S. W. 610—313. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Huffman (Tex. Civ. App.), 32 S. W. 30— 1425. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. Humphreys, 25 Tex. Civ. App. 401—960. 1005. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Hurst, 67 Ark. 407 — 479, 480. 482. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Hurst & Riley (Tex. Civ. App.) 135 S. W. .599—841. St. Louis, etc.. Rv. Co. v. Hutchinson, 101 Ark. 424, 142 S. W. 527—1549, 1603. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. .Jacobs, 70 Ark. 401— SSO. 903. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. Johnson, 59 Ark. 122—1690. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Johnson, 53 Ark. 282—269, 270, 286, 287. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. Johnson, 25 Okl. 833—1412, 1417. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. Johnson, 29 Tex. Civ. App. 184—1167. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. .Jones. 93 Ark. 537—443. 795, 840. 875. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. .lones (Tex. Civ. App.), 29 S. W. 69r,— 362. 835. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. Keitt (Tex. Civ. App.), 76 S. W. 211—1107. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Kilpatrick, 67 Ark. 47—985. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Kitchen, 98 Ark. 507—1048. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Knight, 122 U. S. 79—84, 171, 176, 190, 229, 376. .St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. Lamb, 95 Ark. 209—621. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Landa (Tex. Civ. App.), 149 S. W. 292—867, 917. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. Larned, 103 Til. 293—218, 228, 281. 7.54. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Law, 08 Ark. 218—856. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. T>awrence (Ark.), 153 S. W. 799—1073. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. Lear, 54 Ark. .399 — 638, 748, 782. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. Lee, 69 Ark. 584—118, 128, .300. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v, Leigh, 45 Ark. 368—1265. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Leftwich, 117 Fed. 127—1626. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Lesser, 46 Ark. 236 — 452, 492, 517, 771. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Lewis, 69 Ark. 81—1428. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Lloyd (Ark.), 150 S. W. 864—1036. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Mackie, 71 Tex. 491—1026, 1147, 1192, 1417. St. Louis, etc., R. v. Maddry, 57 Ark. 306—1581, 1592. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Marrs (Ark.) 31 S. W. 42—731. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Marshall, 74 Ark. 597—566. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Martin (Tex. Civ. App.), 35 S. W. 28—177, 192, 571, 577. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. McKee, 4 Tex. App. Civ. Cas., § 7 — 268, 269. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. Meyer, 77 Fed. 150—1167, 1189. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. Mitchell, 57 Ark. 418—1080. 1117, 1512. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Montgomery, 39 111. 336—83, 169, 376. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Moss, 75 Ark. 64—142, 298. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. Mudford, 48 Ark. 502—605, 617. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Mudford, 44 Ark. 439—588, 600, 607. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Murphy, 60 Ark. 333—170, 180. St. ].,ouis, etc., R. Co. v. Murphy & Kay (Tex. Civ. App.), 121 S. W. .306—598, 867. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Murray, 55 Ark. 248— J581. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. Mynott, 83 Ark. 6—1441. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. Neel. 56 Ark. 279—119, 156, 188, 189, 3.57, 610 7S0. St. Louis, etc., R. v. Neel. 63 111 '>S3 —569. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. Oliver 02 Ark. 432—1109. 1663. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Osborne !»5 Ark. 310—1497. ccxlii TAHLE OF OASES. (Tlic rofort'luos are to tlie pages.) Bt. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. (Isliorii. (17 Ark. 300—1427. \■^:v^. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. O/.ior. 8(5 Ark. 183— 7S0, SGI. St. Ix)uis. etc., K. Co. v. Tai.t-, 100 Ark. 2(50— .^OO. 1017. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Parks. 07 Tox. 131—1107. St. Louis, etc.. K. Co. V. Parmer (Tex. Civ. App.). 30 S. \V. 1100— r>71. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Person, 49 Ark. 182—1576. 1676. 1670. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Plielps, 4(1 Ark. 486—588, iiOG. St. Louip, etc., R. Co. v. Pliiladelphia Fire Assoc. 55 Ark. 163 — 556. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Piper, 13 Kan. 505—455. 762. 766. S_>2, 007. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Plott (Ark.), 157 S. W. 385—1667. St. Louis, etc.. Ry. Co. v. Pollock. 93 Ark. 240—1663. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Handle, 85 Ark. 127—912, 913. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. Reagan, 52 111. App. 488—1425. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Rexroad. 50 Ark. 180—1252, 1261. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. Robbins, 4 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. § 4.3—516. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Rogers (Tex. Civ. App.), 108 S. W. 1027—802. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Rose, 20 111. App. 670—234, 277. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Rosenberry, 45 Ark. 256—1227, 1243, 1582. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Smith (Tex. Civ. App.), 135 S. W. 597—844. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Smuck, 49 Ind. 302—435, 455, 1333, 1458. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. South. 43 111. 176—1304. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v, Spann. 57 Ark. 127—440. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. State, S4 Aj-k. 150—348. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Stell, 87 Ark. 308—1524. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Stone, 78 Ark. 318—1345. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Sweet, 60 Ark. 5.50—1211. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. Sweet, 67 Ark. 287—1211. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Taylor, 87 Ark. 331—142. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Tcrrill ('l'rry, 60 Ark. 433—1295, 1301, 1337. St. Louis S. W. R. Co. v. Blaek (Tox. Civ. App.), 109 S. W. 410—918. St. Tx)uis S. W. R. Co. v. Bra^s (Tex. Civ. App.), 133 S. W. 107.5-380. St. T»uis S. W. R. Co. V. Burke, 41 Tex. Civ. App. 273—608. St. I>ouis S. W. R. Co. V. lUitler, 82 Ark. 469—875, 882. St. Ix)uis S. W. R. Co. V. Canning- ton (Tf'x. Civ. App.). no S. W. 96.5—933. St. Louis S. W. R. Co. v. Cafces (Tex. Civ. App.), 38 S. W. 648—734. St. Louis S. W. R. Co. v. Doiau (Tex. Civ. App.), 84 S. W. 393—589. St. Louis S. W. R. Co. v. Ferguson (Tex. Civ. App.), 64 S. W. 797— 1249. 1592. St. Louis .S. W. R. Co. v. Foster (Tex. Civ. App.), 112 S. W. 797—962, 1007. St. Louis S. W. R. Co. v. Fowler (Tex. Civ. App.), 93 S. W. 484— 972. St. Louis S. W. R. Co. v. Franklin (Tex. Civ. App.), 44 S. W. 701— 978, 1164. St. Louis S. W. R. Co. v. Fussell (Tex.), 97 S. W. 332—995. St. Louis S. W. R. Co. v. Gr amb- ling, 97 Ark. 353-682. St. Louis S. W. R. Co. v. Gravson & Seitz, 89 Ark. 154—887. 1924. St. Louis S. W. R. Co. v. Gresham (Tex. Civ. App.), 140 S. W. 483— nil. St. I^uJs S. W. R. Co. V. Griffith, 12 Tex. Civ. App. 631, 35 S. W. 741— 862, 1007, 1016. St. Ix>uis S. W. R. Co. V. Hammett, 98 Ark. 418—1076. St. Louis S. W. R. Co. v. Harvey, 144 Fed. 806—1045. St. L7. St. Louis S. W. K. Co. V. Morgan (Tex. Civ. App.), i)S S. \N . 408— 1575. St, Louis S. W. R. Co. v. iMu.>*ick (Tex. Civ. App.), 80 S. W. 073— 860. St. Louis S. W. R. Co. v. Nelson (Tex.), 44 S. W. 179— 10;J7. St. Louis 8. W. R. Co. v. Plioeiiix Cotton Oil Co., 88 Ark. 594— 2<10, 3Gli, 439. St. iMxiis S. W. R. Co. V. Fruitt (Tex.), SO S. VV. 72—988. St. Louis S. \V. R. Ck). v. Pruii-t (Tex. Civ. App.), 79 S. W. 598— 96G. St. Louis S. W. R. Co. v. Ray (Tex. Civ. App.), 127 S. W. 281—1907, 1920. St. Louis S. W. R. Co. V. Smith (Tex. Civ. App.), 86 S. W. 943— 1637. St. Louis S. W. R. Co. v. Spring Riv«r Stone Co., 169 Mo. App. 109 —1772, 1882, St. Louis S. W. R. Co. v. Thompson (Tex, Civ. App.), 103 S. W. 684— 348. St. Louis S. AV. R. Co, v. Tittle (Tex, Civ, App.), 115 S. W. 640—1107, .St. Louis S, W. R, Co. v. Turlow, 81 Ark. 496—1416, St, Louis S. W. R. Co. v. Wallace, 32 Tex. Civ. App. 312—998, 1285. St. Louis S. W. R. Co. v. Williams (Tex. Civ. App,), 32 S, W, 225— 585, 848, St. Louis S. W. R. Co. v. Woldert Grocery Co. (Tex. Civ. App.). 144 S, W. 1194 — 561. St. Louis S. W. R. Co. V. Wright, 33 Tex. Civ, App. 80—1551. Stockard v, Morgan, 185 U. S. 27— 1734. vStockton v, Prev, 4 Gill. (Md.) 406 —1132, 1213, "1488. 1512. Stockton Lumber Co. v. California Nav. & Improvement Co., 10 Cal. App. 197—308, 317. Stockton Milling Co. v. California Nav. & Imp, Co., 165 Fed. 356— 2022. StiK-k Yards Co. v. I>niisville, etc., R. Co., 07 Fed. 35 — 135. Stoddard v. Ivong Island H. Co., 6 Sandf. (N. Y.) 180—460, 1461. Stoddard v. New York, etc., K. Co., 181 Mass. 422—1051, 1199, Stoddard v. St. lx)uis, (itc., R. Co. (Mo. App,), 80 S. W. 33—1237, 1609. Stodder v. New York, e.tc., R. Co., 50 Hun (N. Y,), 221—1083, 1121, Stoher v, St. Ixmis, etc., R. Co., 91 Mo. 509—1554. Stoke-s v. Eastern Counties R. Co., 2 F. & F. 691—1118. Stokes v. Saltonstall, 13 Pet. (U. S,) 181—24, 948, 1132, 1211, 1264, 1488, 1552. StoUenwerch v. Thacher, 115 Mass, 24—218, Stone v. Adams Express 0>. (Ky.), 122 S. W. 200—347, 608, 622, Stone V. Chicago, etc., R, Ck>,, 47 Iowa, 82—1014, 1397, Stone V, Detroit, etc, R. Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 60—1791, 1828. Stt)ne V. Dry Dock, etc., R. Co., 115 N. Y. 104—1588. Stone V. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 116 U. S. 308—1230. Stone V. Rice, 58 Ala. 95—258, Stone V. Waitt, 31 Me. 409—190, 272, 455. Stoneman v, Erie R. Co,, 52 N. Y. 429—1299, 1300, Stoner v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 109 Iowa, 551—351, 540. Stoner v. Pennsylvania Co., 98 Ind. 384—1624. Storer v. Gowen, 18 Me. 177 — 6. Storey v. Hershey, 19 Pa. Super. Ct. 485—215, Storr V, Crowley, 1 McClel, & Y. 129 —251, 264. Storrs V. Los Angeles Tract, Co.. 134 Cal. 91—1714. Storv V. Norfolk, etc., R, Co,, 133 N, C." 59— 1720. Storv Lumber Co. v. Southern R. Co., 151 N. C. 23—621. Stowe V. New York, etc., R. C5o., 113 Mass. 521—380, 392, 411. Strahorn v. Union Stock Yard, etc,, Co.. 43 111. 424—214, 242. Straight Creek Mining Co. v. Straight TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pages.) ccxlv Creek Coal & Coke Co., 135 Ky. 536 — 104, 706, 715. Strain v. Vicksburg, etc., R. Co., 123 La. 407 — 974. Straiton v. New York, etc., R. Co.. 2 E. D. (N. Y.) 184—780. Strand v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 67 Mich. 380—1219, 1596. Strange v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 77 S. C. 182—1382, 1386. Strange v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 61 Mo. App. 586—1256. Stratton v. Central City Horse R. Co., 95 111. 525—1533. Straus V. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 72 Mo. 414—1568. Strauss v. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 86 Mo. 421—1241. Strauss v. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 75 Mo. 18.5—1237, 1241, 1677. Strauss v. St. Louis Tr. Co., 102 Mo. App. 644—1167. Street v. Morrison, 10 Xew Bruns. 296—187. Streets v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 178 N. Y. 553—1064. Strembel v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 110 App. Div. (N. Y.) 23—1094. Strieker v. Leathers, 68 Miss. 803 — 239. Strickland v. Barrett, 20 Pick. (Mass.) 415—284. Stringer v. Alabama, etc., R. Co., 99 Ala. 397—6, 549, 1460. Stringfield v. Louisville R. Co., 32 Ky. L. R. 578—1401, 1405. Stringfield v. Soutiiern Ry. Co., 152 N. C. 125—514. Strohm v. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 23 Wis. 126—27. Strohm v. New York, etc., R. Co.. 96 N. Y. 305—1716, 1718. Strohn v. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 21 Wis. 554 — 430, 437, 446. Strong V. Adams, 30 Vt. 221—531. Strong V. Campbell, 11 Barb. (N. Y.) 13r>— 85. Strong V. Granfl Trunk R. Co., 15 Mich. 20S— 675. Strong V. Long Island R. Co., 91 App. Div. (N. Y.) 442 — 483. Strong V. Natallv, 1 B. & P. N. R. 16—256. Strong*' V. North Chicago St. R. Co., 116 111. .\pp. 246—972, 974, 1274. Stronge v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 18 Idaho, 409—94. Strough v. N. Y. Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 181 N. Y. 533—136, 139, 356. Strough V. N. Y. Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 92 App. Div. (N. Y.) 584— 136, 139, 304, 660, 710, 712, 713, 726. Strouss V. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 17 Fed. 209—1299, 1301. Struble v. Pennsylvania Co., 226 Pa. 118—1603, 1694. Stuart V. Crawley, 2 Stark, 323— 99. 927, Stuber v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 102 Fed. 421—1062. Sturgeon v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 65 Mo. 569—582, 598, 606, 819, 838. Sturges v. Detroit, G. H. & M. Ry. Co., 166 Mich. 231—542, 1909. Sturgess v. Bissell, 46 N. Y. 462— 581. Stutsky V. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 88 N. Y. Siipp. 358—1191. Stutz V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 73 Wis. 147—1710, 1716, 1717, 1719, 1729. Sulakowski v. Flint, 22 La. Ann. 6 — 108. Sullivan v. C-apital Traction Co., 34 App. D. C. 358—1488, 1649. Sullivan v. Charleston & W. C. Ry. Co., 85 S. C. 532—1482. Sullivan v. India Mfg. Co., 113 Mass. 396—1063. Sullivan v. Jefferson Ave. R. Co., 133 Mo. 1—1188. Sullivan v. Kuykendall, 82 Ky. 483 —95. Sullivan v. Metropolitan St. Rv. Co., 54 App. Div. (N. Y.) 632—1729. Sullivan v. Old Colony St. Ry. Co., 200 Mass. 303—1139. Sullivan v. Old Colony R. Co.. 148 Mass. 119—1194. Sullivan v. Oregon R., etc., Co., 12 Or. 392—1131, 1559, 1723. 1725. Sullivan v. Park, 33 Me. 438-049. Sullivan v. Philadelphia, etc.. R. Co., 30 Pa. St. 234—1103, 1131, 1270, 1495, 1512. Sullivan v. Seattle Flee. Co.. 51 Wash. 71—1196, 1271. Sullivan v. Sciittle Elec. Co., 44 Wash. 5.3—1196. 1597. •xlvi TABLE OF CASES. (Tlif ii'ffiiMK'is are to tlie pages. Sullivan v. So\itluMii \'\\ .. 74 S. C. .■?77 — 13-l(i. l;{(iS. Sullivan v. Tluuui'soii, !)",) Mas-s. 2o!) — 2">4, 707. Sullivan v. rnir Co. v. Wat- son (Tex. Civ. App.), 155 S. W. 17!)— 1032, 1471. Suinnicrlin v. Scahoanl Air Line Ry., 5() Fl;u 087—790. 830, 8!)4. Summers v. Crescont City R. Co., 34 La. Ann. l.-?!!— 1241, 1657. Summers v. Wabash R. Co., 114 Mo. App. 452—871, 002. Summitt v. State, S Lea (Tenn.), 413 — 1127. 1409. Sumner v. Charles P. Choteau. 37 Fed. 532—738. Sumner v. Charlotte, etc., R. Co., 78 N. C. 289—367. 543. Sumner v. Southern R. Assoc, 7 Baxt. (Tenn.) 340—039, 744. Sun Co. V. llealy. 163 Fed. 48—2003. Sunday v. Gordon. B. & H. Adra. (U. S.) '509—1254. Sunderland v. Westeott, 40 How. Pr. (X. Y.) 468—272, 1454. Sunderland v. Westeott, 2 Sweeny (N. Y'.). 260-407. Sunderland Bros. Co. v. Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 89 Xeb. 660—309. Susong v. Florida Cent., etc., R. Co., 115 Ga. 301—850, 907. Sutherland v. Peoria Bank, 78 Ky. 250—213, 244, 330. 3.32. Sutro V. Fargo, 41 X. Y. Super. Ct. 231—575, 578. Suttle V. Southern Ry. Co., 150 N. C. 668—1600. Sutton V. Chicago, etc., R. Co. (S. D.), 84 N. W. 396—539. 774. Sutton V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 230 Pa. .523—1492. Sutton V. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co., 159 Mo. App. 685—626, 1843. Sutton V. Wauwatosa, 29 Wi.s. 21 — 1599. Swan v. Ivouisville & N. R. Co.. 106 T.-nn. 229—692. Swan V. Manchester, etc., R. Co., 132 ^fass. 116—1.395. Swartliout V. Xew Jersey Steamboat Co., 48 N. Y. 209—1130. Sweatland v. Illinois, etc., Tel. Co., 27 Iowa, 458—87, 91. Sweatt V. lidstoii, etc., R. Co., 3 Cliff. (C. S.) 339—1733, 1857. Sweeden v. Atkinson Imp. Co., 93 Ark. 397—1165. Sweeney v. Colter, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 885 — 1034. Sweeney v. Kansas City Cable R. Co., 150 Mo. 385—1647. Sweeney v. Railway Co., 150 Mo. 385 —1175. Sweeny v. Railroad Co., 10 Allen (Mass.), 368-1073. Sweet v. Barney, 23 X. Y. 335—39, 205, 207, 219. 244, 253, 272. Swetland v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 102 Mass. 276—139, 355, 550, 748, 778. Swift V. Pacific Mail Steamship Co., 106 X. Y. 206—293, 446, 452, 755. 778. 779. Swift V. Staten Island R. T. Co., 123 X. Y. 045—1587, 1589. Swift V. Tyson, 16 Pet. (U. S.) 1— 450. Swift V. United States, 196 U. S. 375 —1732. Swift & Co. V. Furncss, Withy & Co., 87 Fed. 34,5—2015. Swigert v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 75 Mo. 475—1237, 1614. Swindler v. Hiliard, 2 Rich (S. C), 286—76, 458, 577. Swisher v. Williams Wright (Ohio). 754—1599. Switzerland Marine Ins. Co. v. Louis- ville, etc., R. Co., 131 U. S. 440— 1298. Switzerland Marine Ins. Co. v. The Flamborough, 69 Fed. 470—1996. Sword V. Young, 89 Tenn. 126, 129 — 21 L 232, 234, 235. Sycamore Marsh, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Sturm, 13 Xeb. 211—016. Symonds v. Pain, 6 Hurl. & X. 709 — 57. Syracuse First Xat. Bank v. Xew York Cent. R. Co., 85 Hun (X. Y.), 160—216. Szezepanski v. Chicago R. Co., 147 Wis. 180—1037. TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pages.) ccxlvii T. Taber v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 71 N. Y. 4S9— 1211, 1225, 1226, 1233, 1243, 1673. Tabler v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 93 Mo. 79—1678. Taffe V. Oregon R. & Nav. Co. (Or.), 68 Pac. 7:^2—767. Taffe V. Oregon R. Co. (Or.), 67 Pac. 1015—767. Tan Vale R. Co. v. Giles, 2 El. & Bl. 822—256. Taff Vale R. Co. v. Giles, 25 L. J. Q. B. 43—806. Taillon v. Mears. 29 Mont. 161—63. 1149, 1213. Talbert v. Charleston & N. C. Ry., 75 S. C. 136—1250. Talbott V. Merchants Despatch Transp. Co., 41 Iowa, 247—307. 449. Taleott V. Wabash R. Co., 89 Hun (N. Y.). 492—1302. Taleott V. Wabash R. Co., 66 Hun (N. Y.), 456—1298, 1361. Taleott V. W'abash R. Co., 159 N. Y. 462—1362. Taleott V. Wabash R. Co., 188 is. Y. 608—1367. Taleott V. Wabash R. Co., 159 N. Y. 461—538. 1299, 1362. Tall V. Baltimore Steam P. Co., 90 Md. 248—1190. Tallahassee Falls Mfg. Co. v. Western Ry. of Alabama (Ala.), 29 So. 203 —203, 519. Tamlin v. Great Northern R. Co., 1 H. & N. 408—1704. Tanger v. South West Mo. E. R. Co., 85 Mo. App. 28—1167, 1434. Tannchill v. Birmingham Ry.. etc., Co. (Ala.), 58 So. 198—1682. Tanner v. Buffalo Rv. Co., 72 Hun (N. Y.) 465—1643,"^ 1647. Tanner v. Tx)ui9iana. etc., R. Co., 60 Ala. 621—1133, 1258. Tanner v. New YorI< Cent., etc., R. CV).. 108 \. Y. 02.3—550. Tanner v. Oil f'rc-k R. Co., 53 Pa. St. 411—381. 398, 598. Tarbfll V. Central Pao. R. Co., 34 Cai. 616—991. 1135. Tarhell v. Northern Cent. H. Co.. 24 Jlun (N. Y.), 51 — 1016, 1411, 1410. Tarbell v. Royal Exchange Shipping Co., 110 N. Y. 170—384. 391, 394, 399. Tardos v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 35 La. Ann. 15 — 595, 781. Tardos v. Toulon, 14 La. Ann. 429— 570. Tarr v. Oregon Short Line R. Co. (Idaho), 93 Pac. 957—1390. Tarrant v. St. Louis, eto., R. Co., 237 Mo. 655—1390. Tate V. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 26 Kv. Law Rep. 309—1193. Tate V. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 157 III. App. 105—309, 786. Tate V. Yazoo, etc., R. Co., 78 Mis> 842—176. Tattan v. Great Western R. Co., 2 El, & El. 844—948. Taubman v. Pacific Steam Nav. Co.. 26 L. T. 704—465. Taugher v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 21 N. D. 111—329. Tavlor v. Carew Mfg. Co., 143 Mast^. 470—1541. Tavlor v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 74 ill. 86—755. Taylor v. Collier, 26 Ga. 122—590. Taylor v. Florida East Coast Ry. Co.. 54 Fla. 636—120. Tavlor v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 48 N. H. 304—1083, 1115, 1213, 1722, 1724, 1726. Tavlor v. Great Northern R. Co., L. R. 1 C. P. 385—343, 359, 360. Taylor v. Little Rock, etc.. R. Co., 39 Ark. 148—771, 1456, 1457. Tavlor v. Little Rock, etc., R. Co., 32 Ark. 393—418, 766. Taylor v. Liverpool, etc.. Steam Co.. L. R. 9 Q. B. 546—519. Tavlor v. Maine Central R. Co., 87 Me. 299—757. Tavlor v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 26 Mo. App. 336—1677. Tavlor v. IMoimot. 4 Duer. (N. Y.) i 10—1295. Tavlor v. Pennsvlvania Co., 50 Fed 755— lOSl, 1126. Tavlor v. Pennsvlvania R, Co., 8 N. J L. J. 149— 4r9, 457. Taylor v. Railroad Co.. 4.'> Mich 74 —1104. Tavlor v. Smith, 87 .\pp. Div. (N. Y ) 7-'— (i.-il, 632. OOXlVlll TABLE OK CASKS. (The refor(MUTS are to tho piij^cs. > ruvlor V. Star ('<»al (.'<>. (Iowa). SI N. W. 24!t—l .")!>!>. Taylor v. Weir (C. C, Pa.). K'-i I'lil. 585—510. lavlor V. Wells, 3 Watts (Pa.), f.") —265. Taylor, etc., R. Co. v. MontjToiiK ry. 4 Tex. App. Civ. Cas., § 238— 51t!, 806. Tavior. etc., R. Co. v. Siiblett (Tex. App.), 16 S. W. 182—516. lavlor. etc., R. Co. v. Taylor, 79 Tex. i 04— 1554. league V. Soutliern R. Co., 45 S. C 27—612. Teale v. Southern Pac. Co. (Cal.), 129 Pae. 949—1668. Ft all V. Felton, 1 N. Y. 537—85. Tea 11 V. Sears, 9 Barb. (N. Y.) 317 —SO. 81. Teel V. Coal & Coke Ry. Co., 66 W. Va. 315—1172. Teft V. Southern R. Co., 123 Fed. 789 -1780. Telfer v. Northern R. Co.. 30 N. J. L. 188—1270. Tempfer v. .Topi in & P-. Ry. Co. (Kan.), 131 Pa.c. 592—1595, 1700. Ten p:yck v. Harris. 47 111. 268—235. Tennery v. Pippinger, 1 Phila. (Pa.) 543—1488. Tennessee R. Co. v. Walker, 11 Heisk. (Tenn.) 383—1511. Tennis v. Interstate, etc., R. Co., 45 Kan. 503-1564. Terre Haute, Elec. Co. v. Kiely (Ind. App.), 72 N. E. 658—1107, 1108. Terre Haute Elec. Ry. Co. v. Lauer, 21 Ind. App. 466—1163. Terre Haute, etc., R. Co. v. Buck, 96 Ind. .346—1212. 1232, 1237, 1673. Terre Haute, etc., R. Co. v. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 150 111. 502—51. Terre Haute, eto., R. Co. v. Clem. 123 Ind. 15—564. Terre Haute, etc.. R. Co. v. Crews, 53 111. App. 50—150, 151. T.rre Haute, etc., R. Co. v. Fitzgerald, 47 Ind. 79—992. 1025. Terre Haute, etc.. R. Co. v. Jackson, 81 Ind. 19—1166. 1261. Terre Haute, etc., R. Co. v. Sherwood, 132 Ind. 129—455, 571, 572, 577, 873. 907, 1458. Terre Haute, etc.. R. Co. v. Vanatta, '>1 111. 188—1390. 1714. lene liiuite Traet., etc.., Co. v. Payne, 45 hid. App. 1. •{2-1578. I'cvvv V. Flu^^liing, etc.. R. Co.. 13 llun (N. Y.), 359—1014, 1026, 1070. Terry v. Gulf, etc., R. Co., 14 Tex. Civ. App. 451—594. Terry v. Jewett, 78 N. Y. 338—1690. Terrv v. Soutliern Ry. Co., 81 S. C. 279—489. Te\Yes V. North German Lloyd S. S. Co.. 186 N. Y. 151—505, oil, 1334. Texarkana & Ft. S. Ry. Co. v. Nwkis Iron Works, 57 Tex. Civ. App. 249 —623. Texarkana St. R. Co. v. Hart (Tex. Civ. App.), 26 S. W. 435—1583. Texas & G. R. Co. v. Boron (Tex. Civ. App.). 149 S. W. 295—1163. Texas & New Orleans R. Co. v. Crow- der, 63 Tex. 502—1542. 1543. Texas & N. 0. R. Co. v. E. R. & D. C. Kolp, Jr. (Tex. Civ. App.), 88 S. W. 417—367. Texas & N. 0. R. Co. v. Grav (Tex. Civ. App.), 99 S. W. 1125—921. Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Harrington (Tex. Civ. App.), 98 S. W. 653— 1695. Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Lawrence (Tex. Civ. ApD.), 95 S. \V. 663— 1295. Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Russell (Tex. Civ. App.), 97 S. W. 1090—1386. Texas & N. 0. R. Co. v. Wallace (Tex. Civ. App.). 139 S. W. 1052—1685. Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Abilene Cotton Oil Co., 204 U. S. 426—1773, 1879. Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Allen (Tex. Civ. App.). 98 S. W. 450—143, 148. Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Arnett (Tex. Civ. App.), 101 S. W. S.34— 605. 870. Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. A very (Tex. Civ. App.). 33 S. W. 704—1853. Texas & P. R. Co. v. Barrow (Tex. Civ. App.), 94 S. W. 176—789. Texas & P. R. Co. v. Bigiiam, 90 Tex. 223—928. Texas & P. R. Co. v. Black, 87 Tex. 160—1526. Texas & P. R. Co. v. Bovd (Tex. Civ. App.). 141 S. W. 1076—1282. 1584. Texas & P. R. Co. v. Buckalew, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 272—1214, 1476, 1501. Texas & V. R. Co. v. Byers Bros. TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pages.) ccxli>; (Tex. Civ. App.), 84 S. W. 1087— 871. Texas & P. Rv. Co. v. Bvers Bros. (Tex. Civ. App.), 73 S.'W. 427— 924, 9.34. Texas & P. R. Co. v. Capps, 2 Wilson. Civ. Cas. Ct. App., § 35 — 1356. Texas & P. R. Co. v. Cassidv (Tex. Civ. App. I, 137 S. W. 389—1004. Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Cisco Oil :\Iill, 204 r. S. 449—1839. Texas & P. Rv. Co. v. Clavton, 84 Tex. 305—764. Texas & P. R. Co. v. Cogsjin & Duna- way (Tex. Civ. App.)^ 99 S. W. 1052—820. Texas & P. R. Co. v. Dawson. 34 Tex. Civ. App. 240—832. Texas & P. R. Co. v. Dick, 26 Tex. Civ. App. 256—998. Texas & P. R. Co. v. Diefenbach. 1G7 Fed. 39—1413. 1424. 1431. 1442. Texas & P. R. Co. v. Disliman &. Trib- ble (Tex. Civ. App.). 85 S. W. 319 —905. Texas &. P. R. Co. v. Eastin & Knox, 100 Tex. 556—826. ' Texas & P. R. Co. v. E.iins, 36 Tex. Civ. App. 639—851. 873. Teva.s & P. R. Co. v. Fambrou— 17U4. T^xtts, eU-., K. Lo. V. K.i.-.s. 18;{ U. S. «21— 7G5. Texas, etc.. K. Co. v. Roiss, W K.-il. 1006—240, ;{S7. Texas, eU-., K. Co. v. Uichiunnil (Tex. Civ. App.), «;{ S. W. 610— 44!). 4r)0. Texas, etc.. K. Co. v. Rogers (Tomi. ), 3 S. W. tiJUl — 158. Texaa, e^U'., R. Co. v. Scrivi-ner, 2 Tt'X. App. Civ. Cas. § 328— 5b7, 7G8. Texas, etc.. R. Co. v. Sims (Tex. Civ. App.), 26 S. \V. 634—583. Texjis. etc., R. Co. v. Smith, 67 Fed. 524 — 1065. Texas, eU-., R. Co. v. Smith, 34 Tc\. Civ. App. 571—908. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Strihling (Tex. Civ. App.), 34 S. W. 1102—816. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Suggs, 62 Tex. 323—1116, 1501, 1478. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Talley, 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. § 765 — 617. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Tankersley, 63 Tex. 57—383. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Tarkingtoii, 27 Tex. Civ. App. 353—1175. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Tott, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 335—1150. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Weaver, 3 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. § 60—413. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Wheat. 2 Tex. Civ. App. Cas. § 164—190. Texas, etc.. R. Co. v. White, 101 Fed. 928—1705. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. White, 4 lex. Civ. App. Cas. § 451—986. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. White, 4 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. § 259—1069. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Williams, 62 Fed. 440—1170. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Woods, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 612—12.32. Texas, etc.. R. Co. v. Wright, 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. § 339—587. Texas Express Co. v. Scott, 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. § 72—527. Texas Exp. Lo. v. Sootrt., 16 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 111—23, 27. Texas Mexican R. Co. v. Gallagher (Tex. Civ. App.), 70 S. W. 97— 936. Texas Mexican Ry. Co. v. Gallaghrr vTcx. Civ. App.), 64 S. W. 800- yo7. Texas Mexican Hv. Co. v. Reed ( r<'\. Civ. App.), 121 S. W. 519—605, 684, 920. Texas Mexican R. Co. v. Willis, 3 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. § 71—1330. Texas Midland U. Co. v. Criggs (Ti'X. Oiv. Api>. ), 106 S. W. 411—978. Texas Midland R. Co. v. Dean, 98 Tex. 517—1185. Texas Midland R. Co. v. Edwards & Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 121 S. W. 57 i —176, 477. Texas Midland R. Co. v. Elleson (Tex. Civ. App.), 87 S. W, 213—960, 1014. Texas Midland R. Co. v. Geraidon, 103 Tex. 402, 128 S. W. 661—1439, 1441. Texas Midland R. R. v. Griggs (Tex. Civ. App.), 106 S. W. 411—978. Texas Midland R. Co. v. Jumper, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 671—1206. Texas Midland R. R. v. Monroe (Tex. Civ. App.), 155 S. W. 973—1696. Texas Midland R. Co. v. Ritchi-v (Tex. Civ. App.), 108 S. W. 732-^ 1687. Texas R. Co. v. Ellison, 39 Tex. Civ. App. 172—1005. Texas Trunk R. Co. v. Johnson, 75 Tex. 158—1723, 1725. Thane v. Scranton Tract. Co., 191 Pa. 249—1642. Thatcher v. Delaware, etc., Canal Co., 1 Int. Com. R. 353, 1 Int. Com. C. Rep. 152—1761, 1827. Thatcher v. Fitchburg R. Co., 1 Int. Com. Rep. 356—1761. Thatcher v. Great Western R. Co.. 4 U. C. C. P. 543—1512. Thayer v. Burchard, 99 Mass. 508 — 136, 138, 178. Thayer v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co.. 22 Tnd. 26 — 429, 1212, 1261, 1450, 1460. The Aberfovle. 1 Blatchf. (U. S.) 360 —945. The Acoomac, 15 Prob. Div. 208 — 520. Tlie Abbi, 93 Fed. 484—2002. 'Hie Aggi, 107 Fed. 300—2030. The Alice, 12 Fed. 490 — 601. The .^line, 25 Fed. 562 — 516. TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pages.) ccliii The Alvcna, 79 Fed. 973—2031. The Angelina Corning, 1 Ben. (U. S.) 109—56. The Anthracite, 162 Fed. 384—57. Tlie Arctic Bird, 109 Fed. 167—2013, 2033. Tlie Argentina, L. R. 1 Adm. Eccl. 370—227. The Bark Edwin, 1 Sprague (U. S.), 477—192. The Bark Gentleman, 1 01c. Adm. 110 —35. The Beaconsfield, 158 U. S. 303—531. The Bermuda, 29 Fed. 399—525. The Bernia, 12 Prob. Div. 58—1269. The iiird of Paradise, 5 Wall. (U. S.) 545 — 645, 648. Tlie Bitterne, 35 Fed. 927—552. The Blue Bell, 189 Fed. 824—55. The Bobolink, 6 Sawy. (U. S.) 146— 260. The Boskenna Bay, 40 Fed. 93—399. The Brantford Citv, 29 Fed. 373— 451, 793. The Brig Collenberg, 1 Black (U. S.), 170—34, 164, 355. The Brig May Queen, 1 Newb. Adm. 465—426. The Brilliant, 159 Fed. 1022—2000, 2026. The Brilliant, 138 Federal 743—2030. The Britannia, 148 Fed. 495—58. The British King, 92 Fed. 1018— 2006. The Caledonia, 157 U. S. 124—601. The Caledonia, 50 Fed. 567—837. The Caledonia, 43 Fed. 681 — 151. The Cape Charles, 198 Fed. 346—20. The Car lb Prince, 170 U. S. 655— 1997, 2012, 2029. The Carib Prince, 63 Fed. 266 — 448. The Carlos F. Roses, 177 U. S. 655 —232. The Carron Park, 15 Prob. Div. 203 —520. The Chasca, 23 Fed. 156—553. Tlie Chattahoochee, 74 Fed. 899 — 1994. The City of Clarksville, 94 Fed. 201 —1990. The Citv of Lincoln, 25 Fed. 835— 386. The Claverhiirn. 147 Fed. 850 — 2022. The Col i ma, 82 F<-d. 66.5—2002. The Cmninander in-chief, 1 Wall. (U. S.) 51—76. The Cuba, 3 Ware (U. S.), 260—164. The Dan (D. C. S. D. N. Y.), 40 Fed. Rep. 691—76. The Dana, 190 Fed. 650—2026. The Daniel Ball, 10 Wall. (U. S.) 557—1734. The Daniel Burns (D. C. S. D. N. Y.), 52 Fed. Rep. 159—54. The David & Caroline, 5 Blatchf. (U. S.) 266—131. The Davis, 10 Wall. (U. S.) 15—633. The Delaware, 14 Wall. (U. S.) 579 —75, 553. The Denmark, 27 Fed. 141 — 525. The D. Harvev, 139 Fed. 755—2034, The Drew, 15 Fed. 826—210. The D. R. Martin, 11 Blatohf. (U. S.) 233—1127, 1142, 1409. The Duero, 22 L. T. N. S. 37—464. The Eddv, 5 Wall. (U. S.) 481—257, 336, 635, 642, 645. The Edwin Terry, 162 Fed. 309, 311 — 58. The Egypt, 25 Wend. 320—1990. Tlie El. Rio, 162 Fed. 567—56. The Elvira Harbeck, Fed. Caa. No. 4, 424 (2 Bla«kf.) 336—1343. The Emilinen Marie, 32 L. T. N. S. 435—227. The Emily, 5 Kan. 645—75. The E. M. Wright, 1 Mackey (D. C). 24—677. The Euripides, 63 Fed. 140 — 594. The Euripides, 52 Fed. 161—553. The E. V. McCaulley, 189 Fed. 827 — 55. The Kxmoor, 163 Fed. 642 — 2014. The Farmer & McCraw, 26 Ala. 189 —292. The Ferryboat S. S. Gregory. 3 Ben. (U. S.) 226—1600. The Folmina, 143 Fed. 636—2020. The Fort George, 183 Fed. 731—55 The Freeman, 18 How. (U. S.) 182— 191—229. The Fri, 154 Fed. 333—2011. The Garden City, 26 Fed. 766—1991 The Gazelle, 128 U. S. 474—243. The Gentleman, 1 Blatchf. (U S ) 196—35. The Germanic, 124 Fed. 1 1087 1988. Tlie Germanic, 107 Fed. 294—2004. Tlic Gha/i'e, 171 Fed. .368—2017. The Glamorjranshire, 50 Fed 840— 562. TAHLK OF CASKS. (TIio rt'ti'ii'iioofl are to tlie pn;;o8. ) Ihe (.;..l.i.n Kill.'. IV.I. .-JIM — r.lM?. The iJol.l Hunter. 1 I!. & II. Ailin. ;U>0 — fiSS. Tho C,iHM\ Hope. 107 Fed. 149—2017. 'Hie (Grafton. Oleott (T. S.). 43, 10 Fed. Ca3. No. fj.O.lii — "257. The Grafton. 1 Blatchf. (H. S.) 173 —240. Tlie G. K. r>oi>tli. 171 U. S. 450—2020. 2027. The G. H. Root.h, 01 Fed. 1G4— 2010. The Guaileloui)e, 02 I'ed. 670—2007. The Guiding Star, oS Fed. 036—410, 571. Tlie GuildhiUl. 58 Fed. 796—432, 451, 454. The Harrison, Wall. (U. S.) 161— 350. Tl.e Harry M. Wall, 187 Fed. 278— 55. Tlie Hattie Palmer, 63 Fed. I(il5— 286. The Henrv B. Hyde, 82 Fed. 681- 2012. Tlie Hudson. 172 Fed. 1005—2017. The Hudson. 122— Fed. 96—2025. The Hugo. 61 Fed. 860—591. The Hugo. 57 Fed. 403—451. 459. The Huntress. Fed. Cas. No. 6,014, Davies (U. S.). 82—36, 559. The Idaho. 03 U. S. 575—209, 327, 530, 531, 532. The Indrani. 177 Fed. 914—1003. The Indrapura. 178 Fed. 591—2010. The Indrapura. 171 Fed. 929—1088, 2017. The Invincible, 1 Lowell (U. S.), 225 553. The lonie, 5 Blatchf. (U. S.) 538— 523, 1283. 1294. 1300. The Iowa. 50 Fed. 561—454, 1457. The Isaac Reed, 82 Fed. 506—579. The Island Queen, Fed. Cas No. 7,110 (Brown, Adm.. 279)— 1991. The Jefferson. 31 Fed. 480—575. The J. P. Donaldson, 167 U. S. 603— 55. The Julia. 14 Moore P. C. 210—57. The Kate. 91 Fed. 679—2000. The Kensington, 183 U. S. 263—2038. The Kensington. 94 Fed. 885—2038. The Kensington, 88 Fed. 331—579. The Kimball, 3 Wall. (U. S.) 37— 645, 648. The Ladv Franklin, 8 Wall. (U. S.) 325—191, 229. 'Hie I.ady Piko. 21 Wall. (IT. S.) 14 —7"). 'I'he l.a Kroiua. l:!,S Fed. 036—2015. The Leader, ISl Fed, 743—55. The T.rt>nnox. 00 Fed. 308-2021. The L. P. Oavton, 120 U. S. 337— 56. The Lvdia Monarch. 23 Fed. 208— 516.* The Lvon, 1 Brown's Adm. (U. S.) 59—56. The Maggie Hammond, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 435—75, 338. The Maggie M.. 30 Fed. 692—552. The Maine, 170 Fed. 015—2011. The Maine. 101 Fed. 401—2016. The Majestic. 166 U. S. 375—1340. The Majestic. 60 Fed. 624—1330, 1451, 1453, 1455. The Majestic, 56 Fed. 244—519. The Mangalore, 9 Sawy. (U. S.) 71 —592. The Manitoba, 104 Fed. 145—1988, 2018, 2031. The Manitou. 116 Fed. 60—2001, 2018. The Margaret v. Bliss, 94 U. S. 494 — 56. The Martha, 35 Fed. 313—243. The ]\Iarv Ann Guest, 1 Blatchf. (U. S.) 358—329. The Marv Washington, Chase's Dec. (U. S.) 125-398. The Mary Washington, 1 Abb. (U. S.) —386. The M. C. Currie, 132 Fed. 125—2010. The Merida, 107 Fed. 146—2008. The Merrimac, 2 Sawy. (U. S.) 586 —56. The Mill Boy, 4 McCrary (U. S.) 383 —258. The Minnehaha, 1 Lush, 335 — 57. The Minnetonka, 146 Fed. 509 — 2041. The Mississippi, 120 Fed. 1020—2004, 2023. The M. M. Chase, 37 Fed. 708—327, 329. The Morro Castle, 168 Fed. 555— 2040. The Murrel, 200 Fed. 826—1996. 'ITie Naranja, 104 Fed. 160—2034. The Neaffie, 1 Abb. (U. S.) 465—56. The Neidenfels, 174 Fed. 203—2018. The Nellie Flovd, 116 Fed. 80—2030. The Nettie Quill, 124 Fid. 667—2007: The New England, 110 Fed. 415— 1330. TABLE OF CASES. cclv (The references are to the pages. The New Orleans, 26 Fed. 44—575. The New Philadelphia, 66 U. S. 1 (Black) 62—56. The Newport News, 199 Fed. 968 — 2006, 2025. The New World v. King, 16 How. (U. S.) 469—992, 1030, 1505. The Niagara v. Cordes, 21 How. (U. S.) 7, 26—75. The Nieeto, 134 Fed. 655—2034. The Ninfa, 156 Fed. 512—1998. 2000. The Nith. 36 Fed. 86— 5S6. The Nonpariel, 149 Fed. 521—80. The Normannia (D. C. S. D. N. Y.). 62 Fed. 469—1274. The Nutmeg State, 103 Fed. 797—420. Theobald v. Railway Pass. Assur. Co., 10 Exch. 4.5 — 1011. The Oconto, 5 Biss. (U. S.) 460—56. The Olvmpia, 61 Fed. 120—821. The Oneida, 128 Fed. 687—2002. The Oneida, 108 Fed. 886—2009. The Ontario, 106 Fed. 324—2008, 2032. The Orcadian, 116 Fed. 930—2024. The Oregon, Deady (U. S.), 179— 192 The Oregon, 133 Fed. 609—1037. The OriHamme, 3 Sawy. (U. S.) 397 —1211. 1261, 1715. 1717, 1727. The Pacific, 1 Blatchf. (U. S.) 569— 945. The Pacific, Deady (U. S.), 17—426. The Palmas. 108 Fed. 87—2004. The Pawnee, 205 Fed. 333—76. The Persiana, 185 Fed. 396—1988, 2032. The Portuense, 35 Fed. 670 — 553. The Princeton, 3 Blatchf. (U. S.) 54 —56. The Printer, 1G4 Fed. 314—58. The Priscilla, 106 Fed. 739—1353. The Propeller Burlington, 137 U. S. 38r — 55. The Propeller Commerce, 1 Black (U. S.). 5S2— 75. The Propeller Mohawk, 8 Wall. (U. S.) 15.3—272. The Propeller Niagara v. Cordes, 21 How. (U. S.) 7—24, 35. The Pru.'ssia, 93 Fed. 837-2029. The Prussia. 88 Fed. .'')31— 2013. The Qurf^n, 78 Fed. 155—2033. The Qu"on of the Fa;; lie, ISO U. S. 49—2033. The Quickstep, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 665 —56. The Rappahannock, 173 Fed. 829— 2027. The Reliance, 4 Woods (U. S.), 420— 1505. Thero v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 144 Mo. App. 161—360, 843. The Rover, 161 Fed. 864—77. The Roval Soeptre, 187 Fed. 224— 2016.* The Samuel E. Spring. 29 Fed. 397— 570. The Sandfield, 92 Fed. 663—2006, 2029. The Saratoga, 20 Fed. 869—1457. The Saugerties, 44 Fed. 625—231. The Schooner Anne, 1 Mason (U. S.) , 512—638. The Schooner Volunteer, 1 Sumn. (U. S.) 551—648. The Seaboard, 119 Fed. 375—2018, 2024. The Seneca, 163 Fed. 591—2010. The Seven Brothers No. 1, 203 Fed. 21—2034. The Severn, 113 Fed. 578—1122. The Silvia, 171 U. S. 462—1994, 2005. The Silvia. 68 Fed. 230—1988. The Siren, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 152—633. The St. Cuthbert, 97 Fed. 340—2015. The Steamboat American, 8 Ben (U. S.), 491—35. The Steamboat F. X. Aubury, 28 111. 412—1148. The Steamboat Lynx v. King, 12 Mo. 272—35. The Steamboat New World v. King, 16 How. (U. S.) 469—992, 1030, 1505. The Steamboat Sultana v. Chapman, 5 Wis. 454—207, 459. The Steamer New Philadelphia, 1 Black (U. S.), 62—1269. Tlie Steamer Webb, 14 Wall. (U. S.) 406—56. The St. Hubert, 102 Fed. 362—488. The St. Quentin, 162 Fed. 883—2013, 2022. The Stranger, 1 Brown's Adm. (U. S.) 281—56. The Strathairly, 124 U. S. 558—1144. The Strathdon. 94 Fed. 206—2036. The Stratlidon, 89 Fed. 374—1996, 2007, 2019. VL'lV Ivi TABLE OF CASKS. (Tlif n'foronci's ixio to tlic pn^oa.) riie Slvriii. 101 Fed. T'iS— -2012. 2022. Th.' Sum'ss. 7 Hlutilif. (V. S.) 551— 104. riu' Sue. 22 F»'(l. S43— 1143. Tlu' Sultana v. Cluvpinan, 5 Wis. 4r)4 —207. 451). The Tainpico. l.M Fod. (IS!)— 2011. The Tonodos. 151 Fed. 1022— 1!)0!). Tho Tham.'s. 14 Wall. (U. S.) 98— 210, 227. The Thomas Nowton. 41 Fed. lOtl — :n4. The Titania. KU Fed. 220-272. The Titania. 124 Fed. 975—197. The Tjonio, 115 Fed. 919—2031. The Toront<\ 174 Fed. 632—2017. The Toronto, 108 Fed. 380—2018. The Trignae, 109 Fed. 682—2026. The Valencia. 110 Fed. 221—2042. The Vauphan. 14 Wall. (U. S.) 258 —590. The Warren Adams, 38 U. S. A pp. 356 —1475. The Wa-sco. 53 Fed. 546—986. Th- Washington, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 513 —1717. The Westminster, 127 Fed. 680—2033. The Whitlieburn, 8:- Fed. 526—2004. The Wildcroft, 130 Fed. 521—2005. The Wiidenfels, 161 Fed. 864—77. The William Crane, 50 Fed. 444— 553. The Willis D. Sandhoval, 92 Fed. 286 —174. The Zenobia. 1 Abb. Adm. 48—945, 1707. Thirtei'ntii. etc., Houdrou. 92 1040. 1644. Thixton's Ex'r v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 29 Ky. Law Rep. 910—1195. Thomas v. Boston Elevated Ry., 193 Mass. 438—1493. Thomas v. Boston, etc., R. Corp.. 10 Mete. (Mass.) 472—41, 202. 252, 380. 774, 1449, 1492. Thomas v. Charlotte, etc., R. Co., 38 S. C. 485—1255. Thomas v. Chicago, etc.. R. Co.. 72 Mach. 35.5—1058. 1423, 1424. Thomas v. Citizens Pass. Ry. Co., 132 Pa. St. 504—1507. Thomas v. Frankfort, etc., R. Co., 116 Kv. 879. 25 Kv. Law Rep. 879 — 026. 627. 638. 660, 686. 739. St. Pass. R. Co. V. Pa. St. 475—1567, riiomas V. Croat Wost.Mn R. Co., 14 I . C. Q. B. 389—1293. Thomas v. Lancaster Mills. 71 Fed. 481—119, 319. 357, 412, 454, 518. Thomas v. Northern Pae. Express Co., 73 iMinn. 18.5—210, 2S1. 328. Thomas v. North StafTordsliire R. Co., 3 Hy. & V. T. Cas. 1 — 117, 126. 239. Thomas v. Pacific Express Co., 30 Mo. App. 86—236. Thomas v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co . 148 Pa. St. 180—1475, 1477. Thomas v. Ray, 4 Esp. N. P. 262— 193. Thomas v. Snyder, 39 Pa. St. 317— 672, 674. Thomas v. Southern R. Co., 122 N. C. 1005—1229. Thomas v. United States. 156 Fed 897-1959. Thomas v. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 0.? Fed. 200—119, 137. 341, 412, 441, 448. Thomas v. Winchester, 6 N. Y. 397— 563. Thomas, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Wabash. etc., R. Co., 62 Wis. 642—261, 589, ,594, 619. Thomas Phillips Co. v. Erie Ry., 27 Ohio Cir. Ct. R. 486—700. 702. Thompkins v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co., 201 Mass. 114 — 960. Thompkins v. Saltmarsh, 14 S. & R. (Pa.) 275—5. Thompson v. Belfast, etc., R. Co.. 5 Jr. R. C. L. 517—1246. Thompson v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 27 Iowa, 561—455, 560. Thompson v. Chicago, etc.. R. Co. (Iowa), 139 N. W. ,557—825, 853. Thompson v. Duncan, 76 Ala. 334 — 1,544, 16.32. Thompson v. Fargo, 49 N. Y. 188— 244. Thompson v. Hamilton, 12 Pick. (Mass.), 42.5—76. Thompson v. Manhattan R. Co., 75 Hun (N. Y.) 548—1194. Thompson v. Midland R. Co., 122 Ala. 378—351. Thompson v. Nashville, etc., R. Co., 160 Ala. 590-908. Thompson v. New Orleans, etc., R. Co.. .50 Miss. 315—1233, 1256. TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pages.) cclvii Thompson v. New York Storage Co., 97 Mo. App. 135—114. Thompson v. Quincv, etc., R. Co., 136 Mo. App. 404—361, 840. Thompson v. Small, 1 C. B. 328— 243. Thompson v. Southern Pac. Co., 121 La. 994—916. Thompson v. Trail, 2 C. & P. 334— 214. Thompson v. Western Union Tel. Co., 64 Wis. 531—91. Thompson v. Williams, 30 Kan. 114 — 531. Thompson v. Winslow, 128 Fed. 73 — 2035. Thompson v. Yazoo, etc., R. Co.. 47 La. Ann. 1107-980, 1031, 1033. Thompson v. Yazoo, etc.. R. Co., 72 Miss. 715—1425. Thompson-Houston Electric Co. v. Simon. 20 Ore. 60—24, 43, 49, .50. Thorne v. Deas, 4 Johns (N. Y.) 84 Thorne v. Tilburv, 3 Hurl. & N. 534 —533. Thorogood v. Bryan, 8 C. B. 131— 1269. Thorp V. Concord R. Co., 61 Vt. 378 —10.39. Thorp V. Hammond, 12 Wall. (U. S.) 408-1451. Thorpe v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 76 X. Y. 402—681, 945, 1155, 1156, 1266. I'hree Hundred, etc.. Tons of Coal, 14 Blatchf. (U. S.) 453—118. Thurber v. Harlem Bridge, etc., R. Co., 60 X. Y. 326—1587, 1588, 1633. I'hurber v. Xew York Cent., etc.. R. Co., 2 Int. Com. R. 742—1781. 1789. Thurman v. Wells, 18 Barb. (N. Y.) 500—29. Thurston v. Union Pac. R. Co., 4 Dill. (U. S.) 321—1138, 1141, 1407. Thweatt v. Houston, etc., R. Co. (Te.x. Civ. App.) 71 S. W. 976—1191. Thyll V. Xew York, etc., R. Co., 92 App. Div. (X. Y.) 513 — 461, 569, 773, 775. I lull V. New York, etc., R. Co., 84 X. Y. Supp. 175—765. Tibbits V. Rock Island, etc., R. Co., 49 111. .App. .567—521. Tibbs V. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 20 Ind. App. 192—206. Tibby v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 82 Mo. 292—1033, 1037, 1450. Tickell V. St. Louis, etc., Ry. Co., 149 Mo. App. 648—1526, 1635. Tierney v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 76 N. Y. 305—130, 138, 316, 354, 355, 550. Tierney v. New Y'ork Cent., etc., R. Co., 10 Hun (N. Y.) 569—130, 138, 139. Tietz V. International Ry. Co., 186 N. Y. 34—1158. Tiffany v. St. John, 65 N. Y. 314— 645, 646. Tift V. Southern Ry. Co., 138 Fed. 753—655, 656, 711, 712. Tift V. Southern Ry. Co., 123 Fed 789—156, 716, 1876. Tiles V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 149 Mass. 204—1572. Tiller & Smitli v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 142 Iowa, 309, 112 N. W. 631— 841, 940. Tillery v. Bond. 38 Fed. 825 — 1257. Tilley v. Cook Countv, 103 U. S. 155 —146. Tilley v. Norfolk & W. Rv. Co. (N. C), 77 S. E. 994—179. Tillman v. St. Louis Tr. Co., 102 Mo App. 553—1213. Tilton V. Philadelphia Rap. Trans. Co.. 231 Pa. 63—1521. Timnis v. Old Colony St. Ry. Co. (Mass.), 66 N. E. 797 — 1224. Timpson v. Manliattan R. Co., 52 Hun (N. Y.) 489—997, 1125. Timpson v. IManliattan R. Co., 1 N. Y. Supp. 673—1556. Tindall v. Taylor, 4 El. & Bl. 219 634. Tingley v. Long Island R. Co., 109 App. Div. (N. Y.) 79,3—1018. Tinney v. New Jersey Steambot Co., 5 Lans. (N. Y.) ,'",07-1729. Tippecanoe Loan & Trust Co. v. Jes- ter (Ind. App.), 101 N. E. 915— 103. Tirrell v. Gage, 4 Allen (Mass.) 251 —350. Tishomingo Sav. Inst. v. Johnson Xesbit & Co., 146 Ala. 691—27?' .■■)36. ' c<.'h la TAI5LE OF CASES. (The lofoienecs arc to the pugou. ) Tobin V. Omnibus Cable Co. (Cal.), 34 Pao. l'_M— i:.()S. Todd V. Missouri rue. Ky. Co., 126 Mo. App. (iS4— ir.24. Todd V. Old Colony, etc.. H. Co.. 7 Alloa (Mass.) 207—1032, 1G42, l(5r)5. Todd V. Old Colony, etc., R. Co., 85 Mass. (3 Allon), 18—1031, 1032, 1033. l.")00. 1(542. TolohostiT Bcarh Imp. Co. v. Scliar- na-^l. 10;-) Md. 10!)- llSf). Toledo, etc., R. Co. V. Aml)acli, 10 Ohio C. C. 490—1301, 1375. Toledo, etc.. R. Co. v. Apperson, 49 111. 480—1083, 1116. Toledo, etc.. R. Co. v. Baddoley. 64 111. 19—1237. 1240. 1247, 1716, 1717. Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Beery, 31 Iiid. App. 556 — 836. Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Bejros. 85 111. 80—1016. 1031, 1034, 1106, 1119, 1450, 1463, 1465, 1505, 1512. Toledo, etc.. R. Co. v. Boaz, 130 111. App. 17—872. Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Bowler & B. Co., 63 Ohio St. 274—1365. Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Brooks, 81 111. 245—988, 992, 1016, 1017, 1031, 1059. Toledo, etc.. R. Co. v. Conrov, 68 111. 560—1082. Toldco, etc., R. Co. v. Durkin, 76 111. 395—905. Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Elliott, 76 111. 67—544. Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Gilviii. 81 III. 511—188. Toledo, etc.. R. Co. v. Grablc, 88 111. 441—1588. Toledo, etc.. R. Co. v. Hamilton, 76 111. 393—805, 819. Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Hammond. 33 Ind. 379—1292, 1293, 1295, 1351. Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Kickler, 52 111. 157—585. Toledo, etc.. R. Co. v. Kid, 29 111. App. 353—1711. Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Levy, 127 Ind. 168 — 438. Toledo, etc.. R. Co. v. Lockhart, 71 111. 627—602. 616, 743. Toledo, et''., R. Co. v. Marsh, 17 Ohio Cir. Ct. Rep. 379—1434. Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. McDonough, 53 Md. 289— 1416, 1712. Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Merriman, 62 111. 123—756. Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Patterson, 63 111. 304—1423, 1429, 1713. Toledo, etc.. R. Co. v. Pence, 68 111. .■).{4— 1135. Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Pennsylvania Co., 54 Fed. 730—733, 1960. Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Roberta, 71 HI. 540—146, 610. Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Tapp, 6 Ind. App. 304—1348, 1356. Toledo, etc.. R. Co. v. Thompson, 71 111. 434—805, 819, 823. Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Wingate (Ind.) 37 N. E. 274—1678. Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Wren, 78 Ohio St. 137—590, 704, 719. Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Wright, 68 Ind. 586—1427, 1428, 1258, 1390. Toledo, etc., Traction Co. v. McFall. 28 Ohio Cir. Ct. R. 362—1594. Toledo Produce Exch. v. Lake Shore. etc., R. Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 830— 1794. Tolraan v. Abbott, 78 Wis. 192—744. 768. Tolman v. Syracuse, etc., R. Co., 98 N. Y. 198—1542. Tomlinson v. Wilmington, etc., R. Co.. 107 N. C. 327—1721. Tompkins v. Boston Elev. Ry., 201 Mass. 114—1005, 1074, 1575. Tompkins v. Clay St. R. Co., 66 Cal. 163—1269. Tompkins v. Saltmarsh, 14 S. & R. (Pa.) 275—11. Toohy V. McLean, 199 Mass. 466 — 1096, 1612. Tooker v. Gormer, 2 Hilt (N. Y.) 71 262—264. Toomey v. Deleware, etc., R. Co., 2 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 82—1183. Topeka City R. Co. v. Higgs, 38 Kan. 375 — 49, 1131, 1215, 1220, 1644, 1641, 1646. TopliflF V. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 7 Ohio N. P. 297—630. Topp V. United Rys. & E. Co., 99 Md. 630—1681. Torpey v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 20 U. C. Q. B. 446—958. TABLE OF CASES. cclix (The references are to the pages.) Torpey v. Williams, 3 Daly (N. Y.) 162—1294, 1295, 1350, 1361. Torrey v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 147 Mass. 412—1638, 1642. Tousey v. Roberts, 114 N. Y. 312— 100. Towes V. North German Lloyd S. S. Co., 186 N. Y. 151—2040, 2041. Towles V. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 83 S. C. 501—622. Town of South Ottawa v. Perkins, 94 U. S. 260— 3S9. Townsend v. Binghampton R. Co., 57 App. Div. (N. Y.) 234—1619, 1639. Townsend v. Houston Elec. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 154 S. W. 629—1607, 1699. I'ownsend v. New York Cent., etc., Co., 56 N. Y. 295—1415, 1416. I'ownsend & Wyatt Dry Goods Co. v. United States Express Co., 133 Mo. App. 683—514. Township of Elmwood v. Marcy, 92 U. S. 289—389. Tozer v. United States, 52 Fed. 917— 1797, 1828. Trabing v. California Nav., etc., Co., 121 Cal. 137—1184. Trace v. Pennsylvania, 26 Pa. Super. Ct. 466—793', 895. Tracey v. New York, etc., R. Co., 9 Bosw. (N. Y.) 396—1068. Tracy v. Chicago & A. R. Co., 80 Mo. App. 389—928. Tracy v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 67 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 154—63. 66. 'I'racy v. 'I'rov, etc., R. Co., 38 N. Y. 433—1104." Tracy v. Troy, etc.. R. Co., 55 Barb. (N. Y.) 229—1104. Tracy v. Wood, 3 Mason (U. S.) 132 —5. Trad v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 26 Pa. Super. Ct. 466-896. Tradewell v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 150 Mis. 2r)0— 1905. Trakas v. Charleston & W. C. Ry. Co., 87 S. C. 206—356. Trammell v. Clyde Steamship Co., 5 Int. Com. Rep. 324—1775. Trammell v. Clyde Steamship Co., 4 Int. Com. Rep. 120—1829. Trapli.Tgen v. Erie R. Co., 73 N. J. Tyaw 7.'')0— 1 1 n . Travers v. Kansas Pac. R. Co., 63 Mo. 421—1148, 1426. Travis v. Thompson, 37 Barb. (N. Y.) 236—661. Travis v. Wells, Fargo & Co., 79 N. J. L. 83, 74 Atl. 444—501, 1903, 1915, 1916. Traynick v. Southern R. Co., 71 S. C. g2 g22 Treadwell v. Whittier, 80 Cal. 574— 102, 1094, 1114, 1120, 1211. Trea* v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 131 Mass. 371—1633. Treteven v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 89 Wis. 598—7, 179, 412. Trent v. Casterville Bridge Co., 11 Leigh (Va.), 544—59. Trent Nav. Co. v. Wood, 3 Esp. N. P. 127—53. Treiwell v. Seaboard. Air Line Ry., 5 Ga. App. 532—1275. Trevor v. U. & S. R. Co., 7 Hill (N. Y.), 47—172. Trexler v Baltimore & 0. R. Co., 28 Pa. Super. Ct. 207—894. Trexler v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 28 Pa. Super. Ct. 198—856. Trice v. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 40 W. Va. 271—1418. Trice v. Railroad Co., 49 Mo. 438 — 1104. Trigg V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 74 Mo. 147—1256, 1702, 1704, 1709, 1710, 1718. Trimble v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 162 N. Y. 84—538, 1299, 1336. 1345, 1376. Trimble v. New York Ctent., etc., R. Co., 39 App. Div. (N. Y.) 403— 572, 1341. Trinity & B. V. Ry. Co. v. Smith (Tex. Civ. App.), 155 S. W. 361— 1607. Trinity & S. R. Co. v. O'Brien, 18 Tex. Civ. App. 690—1200. Trinity, etc., R. Co. v. Crawford (Tex. Civ. App.), 146 S. W. 329— 807. Trinity Valley R. Co. v. Stewart (Tex. Oiv. App.). 62 S. W. 1085— 958, 1046. Trolan v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 31 App. Div. (N. Y.) 320— 1466. Trotlinger v. East Tennessee, etc., R. CVIX TA15LE 01- CASES, ('l'\\e roll rciu-cs an- lo tlio paj^os.) 2:5 I'oiin. "jOo R. Co., 24 U. Co.. 11 i.«M ciVmi.t. r.n:]— ossi. 1071. 1230. Trotti«>r v. Heil Uivor Traiisp. Co., T. W ihkI (MiinitoUi), 25.") — G.'JT. i rout & Nt'wUiMiy v. (Iiilf, oti., R. Co. (T.x. Civ. 'App.), Ill S. VV. 220—841. 8517. Trout V. Wiilkins Livery & riuicrt-iik- ing Co., 148 .Mo. App. »i21. i:!0 S. W. 131)— !»4tj, 1271. Tix>wbridgt v. Cliapin. — 172, 185, 1S(). Troy V. Vermont, ett., Sl 487—1507. Troy Board of Trade v. Alabama Mid- land Kv.. 4 Int. Com. Rep. 34S — 1853. Truax v. Piiiladt-lpliia, etc., R. Co., 3 Houst. (DA.) 233—33, 36, 136, 130, 146. 172, 175, 183, 185, 242, 343, 359, 454, 535, 739. True V. International Tel. Co., 60 Me. 9—90. Truex v. Erie R. Co., 4 Lans. (X. Y.) 108—944, 1267. Trumbull v. Erickson, 97 Fed. 891— 1596. 1631. luoker v. Buffalo Ry. Co., 53 App. Lhv. (X. Y.) 571—1657. Tucker v. Hou.'iatonic R. Co., 39 Conn. 447—286. Tucker v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 124 .N. Y. 308—1588. Tucker v. Pacific R. Co., 50 Mo. 385 —838. Tucker v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 1 1 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 366—151, 316. Tucker v. Rhode Island Co. (R. I.), 68 Atl. 850—1091. Tuckennan v Brown, 17 Barb. (X. Y.) 191—75, 76. Tufrgle V. St. I>ouis, etc.. R. Co., 62 Mo. 425—486. Tugman v. National S. S. Co., 76 X. Y. 207—669. Tulev V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 41 Mo. App. 4.32—1506. 1620. TuUer v. Talbot, 23 111. .357—1132. Tunnev v. Midland R. Co.. L. R. 11 C. P. 291—1063. Turlov V. Atlantic, etc., Ry. Co.. 127 Oa." 504—1686. Turner v. London. <"tc., R. Co. L. H. 17 Eq. .561—1228. U'liriH'r V. Xortli Carolina U. Co., 63 X. C. 522— HiOO. Turner v. Soutlu-rn Hv., 75 S. C. 68 — 1386. Turm-r v. Si. Ixjuis, etc.. l\. Co., 2.0 Mo. Ai)p. 632—538. Turney v. WiNou, 7 Veig (Tiiin.), 340—25, 27, 72, 671. Turrentine v. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 100 N. C. 375—381, 410. Tuthill V. Long Island R. Co., 81 Hun (N. Y.), 616—1717. Tutt v. Ide Fed. Cas. No. 14,275 b. (3 Blaklif. 249)— 712. Tuttle V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 48 Iowa, 236—1494. Tuttlo V. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 26 Ky. Law Rep. 152—1405, 1447. Twiss V. Boston Elev. Ry. Co., 208 iMass. 108—1275. 1577, 1650. Twomlev v. Central Park, etc. R. Co., 69 N."^ Y. 158—1565, 1581. ' Tyler v. London, etc., R. Co., 1 C. & E. 285—333. Tyler v. Texas, etc., R. Co. (Tt-x. Civ. App.), 79 S. W. 1075—1214. Tvler V. Western Union Tel. Co., 60 111. 421—87, 91. Tyndale v. Tavlor 4 El. & Bl. 219— 222. Tyrrell v. P:astern R. Co., Ill Mass. 548—1099. u. Uber V. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co., 151 Wis. 431—323, 556, 1905. Udell V. Citizens' St. Ry. Co., 152 Ind. 507—965. Udell V. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 13 Mo. App. 254—151, 550. Uggla V. West End St. R. Co., 160 Mass. 351—1508. Ullman v. Cliicago, etc., R. Co., 112 Wis. 108—421, 439, 44-5, 459, 496. Ulrioh V. X"ew York Cent.. R. Co., 108 X". Y. 80—68, 1449, 1465. Unger v. Forty-Second St., ertc, R. Cio.. 51 N. Y. 497—1081, 1125, 1216. Union Express Co. v. Graham, 26 Ohio St. 59.-)— 128, 457, 559, 577, 570. TABLE OF CASES. cclxi (The references are to the pages.) Union Expi-ess Lo. v. Ohleman, 92 Pa. St. 323—381. Union Express Co. v. Shoop, 85 Pa. St. 325—637. Union Insurance Co. v. Smith, 124 U. S. 424—1562. Union Mut. Ins. Co. v. Indianapolis, etc., R. Co., 1 Disney (Ohio), 480 —427, 577. Union Packet Co. v. Clough, 20 Wall. (U. S.) 528—992. Union Pac. R. Co. v. American Smelt- ing & Refining Co., 202 Fed. 720 — 673. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 163 U. S. 589—1750. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Evans, 52 Neb. 50—1603. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Hall, 91 U. S. 343—123. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Hand, 7 Kan. 380—1082, 1554, 1729. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Harris, 158 U. S. 326—1100. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Harwood, 31 Kan. 388—1107. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Hause, 1 Wyom- ing, 27—1702, 1723. 1724. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Hepner, 3 Colo. App. 313—193, 568. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Johnston, 45 Xeb. 57—215. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Marston, 30 Neb. 241—432. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Mitchell 56 Kan. 324—1425. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Moyer, 40 Kan. 184—396. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Nichols, 8 Kan. 505—986, 1054. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Oregon & Wash- ington Lunrber Mfrs. Assn., 165 Fed. 13—1880. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Rainey, 19 Colo. 225, 34 Pac. 986 — 42, 346, 454 793 804, 821. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Roeser (Neb.), 95 \. W. 68—1655. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Stupwk, 50 Colo. 151— .506. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Sue. 25 N<-b 772—1235. Union Pac. H. Co. v. Thompson, 7r, Neb. 464 — 886. Union Pac. R. Co. v. United States, 117 U. S. 355—1791. Union Pac. R. Co. v. United States, 2 Wy. 170—632. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Updike Grain Co., 222 U. S. 215—1809. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Updike Grain Co., 178 Fed. 223—1779, 1801, 1809, 1893. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Williams, 3 Colo. App. 526 — 584. Union R. Co., etc. v. Traule, 59 Mo. 355—582. Union R.. etc., Co. v. Ghacklett, 19 111. App. 145—1036. Union R., etc., Co. v. Riegel, 73 Pa. St. 72—263, 437. Union tSteamboat Co. v. Knapp, 73 111. 506—257. Union Stock Yards Co. v. Hoven- camp (Tex. Civ. App.), 144 S. W. 704—850. 867. Union Stock Yards Co. v. Westcott, 47 Neb. 300—225. Unionville Produce Co. v. Cliicago, etc., R. Co., 168 Mo. App. 168— 364. Unique Shipping Co. v. J. M. Guffev Petroleum Co., 169 Fed. 905—2025. United Fruit Co. v. Baltimore Transp. Co., 104 Md. 567—196, 394. United Fruit Co. v. New York & B. T. Co., 104 Md. 567—385. United Lead Co. v. Lehigh Vallev R. Co., 141 N. Y. Siipp. 310— 501, '502, 503. United Ry., etc., Co. v. Beidleman (Md.). 52 Atl. 91.3—1487. United Rys., etc., Co. v. Rilev, 109 Ind. .327—1654. United Ry.. etc., Co. v. State (Md.), 49 Atl. 92.5—1194. United Rys. & Elcc. Co. v. Hertel (Md.). 55 Atl. 428—1072. Unit-ed Rys. & Elec. Co. v. W^ood- bridge (Md.), 55 Atl. 444—1151. United Statrs v. As V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 15 Feil. 209—820. United States v. Buncli, 165 Fed. 730 — 1947, 1951. United States v. Burlington, etc., Ferry €o., 21 Fed. 331—1731. United Stsites v. Canidin Iron Works, 150 Fed. 214—1953, 1961, 1903. United Static v. Central Vermont Ry., 157 Fed. 291—1947, 1972. United States v. Chicago & A. R. Co., 148 Fed. 046—1772, 1815, 1816. United States v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 184 Fed. 984—811, 1985. United States v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 103 Fed. 114 — 1834. United States v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 151 Fed. 84 — 1942, 1951, 1962, 1908, 1975, 1976. United States v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 149 Fed. 486—1738. United States v. Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 127 Fed. 785—1793. Unit<.>d States v. Clark, 164 Fed. 75— 1959. United States v. Cobb, 163 Fed. 791 —2014. United States v. Colorado & N. W. R. Co., 157 Fed. 321—1956. United States v. De Coursey, 82 Fed. 302-1949, 1904. Uniti^d Stati-s v. Delaware & H. Co., 213 U. S. 366—1863. United States v. Delaware & H. Co., 164 Fed. 215 — 1860. United States v. D<'laware, etc., R. Co., 206 Fed. 513—1982. United States v. DelaAvare. etc., R. Oo., 152 Fed. 269—1817, 1945. 1968, 1975. UnittMl Static v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 40 Fed. 101 — 1785, 1788, 1790, 1793, 1798, 1823, 1824. United States v. East T<'niiessiH!, etc., R. Co., 13 Fed. 642-820. United States v. Eaton, 144 U. S. 077 —078, 1930. Unitiid States v. Egan, 47 Fetl. 112 — 1784. United States v. Erie R. Co., 191 Fed. 941—1985. United States v. Fowkes, 49 Fed. 50 — 1944. United States v. Great Northern R. Co., 157 Fed. 288—1931, 1940. 1945, 1946, 1955. 1974. United States v. Hall, 98 U. S. 343— 1930. United States v. Halliday, 3 Wall. fU. S.) 407—1731, 1737. United States v. Hanley, 71 Fed. 672 — 1951, 1958, 1964. United States v. Harris. 177 U S 305-1982. United States v. Hocking Valley Ry. Co., 194 Fed. 2,34—1808, 1900, 1970. United States v. Hoke, 187 Fed 99' —1857. United States v. Hopkins. 171 U. S 578—1735. United States v. Howell, 56 Fed. 21— 1832, 1833, 1960. United States v. Hud-.on, 7 Craneh (U. S.), 32—1892. ]9;J0. United States v. Hlinois Terminal R Co., 168 Fed. 546—1956. 1957, 1980. United States v. Joint Traffic Assoc 171 U. S. 505—1758, 1831. United States v. Joint Traffic Ass'n 89 Fed. 1020—1851. I'uited States v. Kane, 19 Fed 42 1430. United States v. Knight Co., 156 U S. 1—1735, 1730. United States v. Lehigh Valley R Co 220 U. S. 257—1860. United States v. Lehigh Valley R Co 204 Fed. 705—1984. ' '' United States v. Lehigli Valley R Co 184 Fed. 071—809, 1984. United States v. Lehigh Valley R. Co 184 Fed. ,546 — 1840, 1977. ' United States v. Louisville & N R Co., 195 Fed. 88—1808. United States v. Louisville, etc R Co., 18 Fed. 480—820. TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pages.) cclxiii Unflted States v. Martin, 176 Fed. 110 1930, 1948. United States v. Mellen, 53 Fed. 229 —1828, 1833, 1949. United States v. Merchants' & Miners' Transp. Co., 187 Fed. 363—1957. Unit-ed States v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 122 Fed. 544—1877. United States v. Michigan C^'nt. R. Co., 43 Fed. 26—1833, 1949. United States v. Miller, 223 U. S. 599 —1836. United States v. Miller, 187 Fed. 375 —1966. limited States v. Milwaukee Refriger- ator Transit Co., 145 Fed. 1007— 1815. 1881. United States v. Missouri Pae. R. Co., 65 Fed. 905—1759, 1771. United States v. Morsman, 42 Fed. 448—1777. United States v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 212 U. S. 509—1931. 1953. United States v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 191 Fed. 198-1985. United States v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 186 Fed. 541-1984. United States v. Nt»w York Cent., etc., R. Co.. 168 Fed. 699-1982. United States v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 157 Fed. 293-1953. United States v. Now York Cent., etc., R. Co., 156 Fed. 249—1875. United States v. New York C«nt., etc., R. Co.. 153 Fed. 630—1774, 1838, 1839. 1942, 1944, 1966. 1974. United States v. New York C-ent., etc., R. Co.. 146 Fed. 298—1774, 1948, 1959, 1902. 1967, 1973, 1974. United States v. Norfolk & W. R. Co., 143 Fed. 266—1812. United States v. Norfolk, etc., R. Co., 109 Fed. 831—1799. Uniited States v. Northern Pac. Term. Co., 186 Fed. 047—809. United States v. Northern Pac. Term. Co., 181 Fed. 879—810, 915, 1984. United States v. Northern Pac. Term- inal Co.. 144 Fed. 801—1779. United Stiites v. Oregon R. & Nav. Co., 159 Fed. 975—127, 1805, 1806, 1822. United States v. Oregon Short Line R. Co.. 160 Fed. 526— 19S5. United States v. Palmer, 3 Wheat. (U. S.) 610—1892. United States v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 153 Fed. 625—181, 1846, 1963, 1964, 1968. United States v. Pere Marquette R. Co. (C. C), 171 Fed. 586—810, 811. United States v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 184 Fed. 543—1840, 1977. United States v. Pomeroy, 152 Fed. 279—1955. United States v. Popper, 98 Fed. 423 —1967. United States v. Power. 6 Mont. 271 —13, 15, 99. United States v. Ramsey, 197 Fed. 144 —20, 47. United States v. Saul, 58 Fed. 763— 1875. United States v. Sioux City Stock Yards Co., 162 Fed. 556—50, 813. United States v. Southern Pac. Co., 171 Fed. 360—1982. United States v. Southern Pac. Co., 162 Fed. 412—810. United States v. Southern Pac. Co., 157 Fed. 459—1875, 1946. United States v. Southern Ry. Co., 135 Fed. 122—1980. United States v. Standard Oil Co. of New York, 192 Fed. 438—1947. United States v. Standard O'il Co. of Indiana, 183 Fed. 223—1972. United States v. Standard Oil Co., 170 Fed. 988—1838, 1940. 1&47, 1970. United States v. Standard Oil Co. of Indiana, 155 Fed. 305—1931, 1940, 1946, 1951, 1971. United States v. Standard Oil Co., 148 Fed. 719—1816, 1948, 1962, 1975, 1976. United States v. Stearns Salt & Lum- ber Co.. 105 Fed. 73.5—1946, 1947. United States v. Sterling Salt Co., 200 Fed. 593—1967. United States v. St. Joseph Stock- yards Co., 181 Fed. 625—50, 813, 915, 1983. United States v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 177 Fed. 205—812. United States v. Stockvards Terminal Ry. Co , 172 Fed. 452—1983. United States v. Sunday Creek Co., 194 Fed. 252— 1 80S. 1965. United States v. Swift, 122 Fed. 529 — 17.32. Unilf'd States v. Texas & P. R. Co., 185 Fed. 820—699, 1837. 1844. celxiv TAULK OF CASKS. (Tlie reforeneos are to tlio pages.) United Stjttes v. The Williiim. JS F.d Cas. No. Ui.700— 1742. I'liitoil State.-* v. To/er, 1 Int. Iniii. R. 507—1798. Inited Stjites v. Tozer. .?!» Fed. l^liO— ^ 17S7. 1790. 17111. 1700. Initod States v. To/er, 37 Fed. <»:{') — 10G4, 10(55. Unit1— 343, 838. Wabasli. etc.. R. Co. v. Pevton, 106 111. 534 — 418. 463. Wabash, etc., R. Co. v. Pratt, 15 111. App. 177—815. Wabash, etc., R. Co. v. Rector, 104 111. 206—973, 985, 1150, 1227, 1237. Wabasli. etc., R. Co. v. Shacklet, 105 111. 364—1269. Wabash R. Co. v. Brown, 152 111. 484 — 483, 896. Wabash R. Co. v. Brown, 51 111. App. 656—413. Wabash R. Co. v. Campbell, 219 111. 312—856. Wabash R. Co. v. Curtis, 134 IlL App. 400—444. Wabash R. Co. v. Harris, 55 111. App. 159—437, 743. 754, 766, 769. Wabash R. Co. v. House, 101 111. App. 397—294. Wabash R. Co. v. Jellison, 124 lU. App. 652—993, 1049, 1051, 1539. Wabash R. Co. v. Johnson, 114 IlL App. 545—903. Wabash R. Co. v. Kingsley, 177 111. 558—1426. Wabash R. Co. v. Mathew, 199 U. S. 605—1140, 1270. Wabash R. Co. v. Pearce, 192 U. S. 179—626. Wabash R. Co. v. Priddv (Ind.), 101 N. E. 724—507, 1835, "l889. Wabash R. Co. v. Savage, 110 Ind. 156—1148. 1181. Wabash R. Co. v. Sharpe, 76 Neb. 424 312. Wabash R. Co. v. Sloop, 200 Mo. 198 —1837. Wabash R. Co. v. Thomas, 222 111, ;i37— 886. Wabash R. Co. v. Thomas, 122 111. App. 569—898. Wabash R. Co. v. United States, 178 Fed. 5—812. Wacher v. Interborough Rap. T. Co., 125 N. Y. Supp. 767—1697. Waddy v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 140 N. Y. Supp. 824—1652. Wade V. Hamilton. 30 Ga. 450 — 213, Wade V. Lerov, 20 How. (U. S.) 34— 1727. TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pages. cclxvii Wade V. Lutcher & Moore Cypress Lumber Co., 74 Fed. 517—86, 87. Wade V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 78 Mo. 362—589. Wade V. Wheeler, 47 X. Y. 658— 17 L Wade V.Wheeler, 3 Lans. (X. Y.) 201 —80, 84. 171, 375. Wadsworth v. Boston El. R. Co., 182 Mass. 572 — 1477. Wagner v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.. 147 X. C. 315—1653, 1675. Wagner v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co.. 174 X\ Y. 520—1034. Wagner v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 95 App. Div. (X. Y.) 219—1081, 1234, 1619. Wagner v. Farmers' & Merchants* Ins. Co., 90 Xeb. 463—1530. Wagner v. Meakin, 92 Fed. 76 — 1737. Wagner v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 97 Mo. 512—1021, 1041, 1145, 1627. Wagoner y. Wabash R. Co., 118 Mo. App. 239—1109. Wahl y. Holt, 26 Wis. 703—756, 760. Wahle y. Great Northern R. Co., 41 Mont. 326—828. Wait V. Albany, etc., R. Co., 5 Lans. (X. Y.) 47.5—755. Wait V. Gilbert. 10 Cush. (Mass.) 177—611. Wait y. Omaha, etc., R. Co., 165 Mo. 612—1221. Waite V. Xew York Cent., etc., R. Co., 110 X. Y. 63.5—119, 341, 344, 736. Wakefield & Moore y. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 31 Ky. Law. Rep. 1108—941. Wakefield y. South Boston R. Co., 117 Mass. 544 — 1027. Wald V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 92 Ky. 645— 385, 410,1350, 1351,1353. Wald V. Pittsburg, etc., R. Co., 162 III. 54.5—311, 1122. Wald y. Pitt9l)urg, etc., R. Co., 60 111. App. 460—448, 951. Waldele v. Xew York Cent., etc., R. Co., 95 X. Y. 274—1559, 1562. Waldron y. Canadian Pac. R. Co., 22 Wash. 253—543. Waldron v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 1 Dak. 330-185, 207, 233, 1135, 1301. 1302, 1352. Walger y. .JcrRev City R. Co., 71 X. J. L. 356—962, 1007. Walker v. Beaumont Land & W. Co., 15 Cal. App. 726 — 1537. Walker v. Cassaway, 4 La. Ann. 19 — 638. Walker y. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 71 Iowa, 658 — 554. Walker v. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 4;) Mich. 446 — 329, 331. Walker v. Eikleberry, 7 Okl. 559 — 409. Walker v. Erie R. Co., 63 Barb. (X. Y.) 260—1261, 1479, 1511, 1714. 1715, 1727, 1728. Walker v. Great Western R. Co., S U. C. C. P. 161—1018. Walker v. International & G. X. R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 117 S. W. 1020—1276. Walker v. Jackson, 10 M. & W. 161 — 59, 525. Walker v. Keenan, 73 Fed. 755 — 799. Walker v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., Ill Ala. 233—530. Walker v. Piatt, 34 Misc. Rep. 799 — 426. Walker v. Price (Kan. App.), 59 Pac. 1102—1024. Walker v. Skipwith, Meigs (Tenn.) 502—62, 72, 427, 1338. Walker v. Southern Ry. Co., 76 S. C 308—888. Walker v. Vicksburg, etc., R. Co., 41 La. Ann. 79.5 — 1676. Walker v. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 15 Mo. App. 333—1015, 1029. Walker v. Walker, 5 Heisk. (Tenn.) 425—264. Walker v. Western Transp. Co., 3 Wall. (U. S.) 150—1451. Walker v. York, etc., R. Co., 2 El. t Bl. 750 — 542. Walker v. York, etc., R. Co., 22 Eng. L. & Eq. 315—1454, 1455. Wall y. Cameron, 6 Colo. 275 — 1702 1715, 1717. Wall v. Helena St. R. Co., 12 Mont 44—1131. Wall v. Livezay, 6 Colo. 46.5 — 1488. ^^■all v. Norfolk, etc., R. Co., 52 W Va. 485—17.52. Wallace v. Baltimore & 0. R. Co 216 Pa. 311—626. Wallace v. Clayton, 42 Ga. 443 311, cclxviii TABLE OF CASES. (The roforoncos arc to tlie pages.) Walhu-e V. Ouhlin. etc.. K. Co.. 8 Ir. R. C. L. 311 — 3.-)n. Walliicc V. Cireiit Soutlieni. etc., R. Co.. 17 W. R. 404— i:?r>. Wallaee v. Jaekson. 10 M. ^; \\ . HiS - •"'■-"• Wallace v. hake Shore & M. S. R. Co.. i:i3 Miih. (i:5:?— 902. !)0;i. WaUaoe v. Matthiws. 3!> Ca. (517— ;52S, 438. Wallace v. Pecos, etc.. R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.). 110 S. VV. 162— 8G8. Walhu-e v. Sanders. 42 Ca. 486—324, 433. Walhu-e v. Third Ave. R. Co.. 36 App. Div. (N. Y.) r)7— !)75. Wallace v. Western, etc., R. Co., 98 N. C. 494—1264. Wallace v. Western North C. R. Co., 101 N. C. 454—1632, 1702. 1715, 1728. Wallace v. Wilniinston. etc., R. Co., S Houst. (Del.)" 529— 1012, 1702, 1706. 1714. Wallace v. Wilmington, etc., R. Co. (Del.). 18 Atl. 818—1114. Wallace v. Woodgate Ry. & N. 193, 21 K. C. L. 414—644. Waller v. llannihal, etc., R. Co., 83 Mo. 608—1213. Waller v. :Midland Great Western R. Co.. L. R. 4 Ir. 376—583, 611. Waller v. Wilmington City Ry. 5 Penn. (Del.) 374—975. Wall-Huske Co. v. Southern R. Co., 147 N. C. 407—388. Walling V. Michigan, 116 U. S. 446— 1747. Walling V. Railway Co.. 12 Phila. (Pa.) 309-1644." WalliniT V. Trinity & Brazos Valley Rv. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 106 S. W. 417—1254, 1550, 1653. Wallingford v. Columbia, etc., R. Co., 26 S. C. 258—152. 446, 458, 577, .582, .599. 740, 749, 772, 804, 805, 905, 1452, 1459. Walpole V. Bridges, 5 Blackf. (Tnd.) 222—307. Walsh V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 42 Wis. 2.3—1141, 1708. 1709. Walsh V. Cullen, 225 111. 91—1007. Walsh V. Pittsburg, etc., R. Co., 10 Ohio St. 75—1463. Walston V. Myers, 5 Jones L. (N. C.) 172—54, 75. Walter v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 39 Iowa, 33—1593. Walters v. Chicago, etc., R. Co. (Wis.) 89 N. \\. 140-1676. Walters v. Seattle, etc., Ry. Co., 48 Wash. 233— 14S5. Walters v. Western, etc., R. Co., 66 Fed. 862—545. Walters v. Western, etc., R. Co.. 63 Fed. 391—226. Walters v. Western, etc., R. Co., 56 Fed. 369—221. Walther v. Southern Pac. Co., 159 Cal. 769—956, 9!)5, 1472. Walthers v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 72 111. App. 3.14— 1608, 1613. Walthour v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 40 Pa. Super. Ct. 2.52—1667. Walton V. Philadelphia Tract. Co., 161 Pa. St. 36—1616. Wamsley v. Atlas Steamship Co., 168 N. Y." 533—275, 276, 285, 1340. Wandell v. Corbin, 17 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 718, 1 N. Y. Su|)p. 79.-) — 1014. Wandell v. Corbin, 40 Hun (N. Y.) 608—960, 1006. Wandell v. Corbin, 38 Hun (N. Y.) 391—1690. Wann v. Western Union Tel. Co., 37 Mo. 472—88. 92. Wan/.er v. Chippewa Val. Elec. R. Co., 108 Wis. 319—1215, 1583. Warburton v. Midland R. Co., 21 L. T. X. S. 83.5—1(132. AVard v. Benson, 31 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 411—1376. Ward V. Central Park, etc., R. Co.. 1 1 Abl. Pr. N. S. (N. Y.) 411—1643. 1646. Ward V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 87 Kan. 824—874. Ward V. Chicago, etc., R. Co. (Wis.), .55 N. W. 771—1596. Ward V. International Ry. Co., 206 N. Y. 83—1648. W^ard V. Maryland, 79 U. S. (12 W^all.) 418—1747. Ward V. IMetropolitan St. Rv. Co., 99 App. Div. (N. Y.) 126—1619. Ward V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 158 Mo. 226—440, 481, 1848. TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pages.) cclxix Ward V. New York Cent. R. Co.. 47 N. Y. 29—357. 596. Ward T. Railroad Co. (111. Sup.). 46 X. E. 36.>— 1226. Ward V. Railway Co., 102 Wis. 215— 1506. Ward V. Vanderbilt, 1 Keyes (X. Y. ) 70 — 1259. Warden v. Creer, 6 Watts (Pa.) 424 34, 76, 355. Warden v. Missouri Pac. R. Co.. 3.") Mo. App. 631—1233, 1246, 1256. Wardlaw v. South Carolina R. Co.. 1 1 Rich. L. (S. C.) 337—571, 579. Wardle v. Citv R. Co., 35 La. Ann. 202—1247. Wardrobe v. California Storage Co.. 7 Cal. 118, 119—1720. 1725. Ward's Cent., etc.. Lake Co. v. El- kins, 34 Mich. 439—597, 610. VVardwell v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 46 Minn. 514—1398, 1410, 1442. Ware v. Gav, 28 Mass. (11 Pick.) 106 —1132, 1505. Ware & Leland v. Mobile County, 209 U. S. 405—1735. Ware River R. Co. v. Vibbard, 114 Mass. 147—644. Wareham Bank v. Burt, 5 Allen (Mass.) 113—350. Warehouse, etc., Supply Co. v. Cal- vin, 96 Wis. 523, 71' X. W. 804— 629. 655. Warfield v. Hepburn, 52 Fla. 409— 1532. Warfield v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 104 Tenn. 74—1391. Wearing v. Indemnity Fire Ins. Co., 45 X. Y. 606—546. Warner v. Baltimore & 0. R. Co., 168 U. S. 339— 97 9, 1690. Warner v. Burlington, etc., R. Co., 22 Ohio. 166—1303, 1355. Warner v. Xpw York Cent. R. Co., 44 N. Y. 465—1516. 1541. Warner v. New York, etc., R. Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 74—1782, 1786. Warner v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co., 156 Mo. App. 523—705. Warner v. The Illinois, 17 Pbila. (Pa.) 549—258. Warner v. WchUtt} Transp. Co., o Roht. (N. Y.) 190—523. Warren v. Fit^-liburg R. C^., 8 Allen (Mass.). 227—973. 980. 989. 1115. Warren v. Southern Kansas R. Co., 37 Kan. 408—1614. Washburn v. Xashville, etc., R. Co., 3 Head (Tenn.), 638. 644—988, 1031, 1576, 1628. Washburn-Crosbv Co. v. Boston, etc., R. Co.. 180 Mass. 252 — 481, 7 ML Washburn-Crosby Co. v. William Johnson & Co'. 125 Fed. 273—518. Washburn, etc., ^Ifg. Co. v. Provi- dence, etc., R. Co., 113 Mass. 490- 739, 757. Washington v. Raleigh, etc., R. Co., 101 X. C. 239—779, 780. Washington & G. R. Co. v. Hickey, 23 Wa^h. L. R. 177—1583. Washington & G. Rv. Co. v. Patter- son, 9 App. D. C'. 423—962, 975, 1007, 1727. Washington & G. R. Co. v. Tobriner, 147 L. S. 571—1239. Washington, etc., Rv. Co. v. Chap- man, 26 App. D. Cl 472 — 1550. Wa.shington, etc., R. Co. v. Gladmon, 82 U. S. (15 Wall.) 401—1543, 1545, 1546. 1591. Washington, etc.. R. Co. v. Harmon, 147 U. S. 571—1236, 1598. 1716. Washington, etc., R. Co. v. McLane, II App. D. C. 220— 1560. Washington, etc., R. Co. v. Vaughan, III Va. 78.5—1688. Washington, etc., R. Co. v. Yarnell, 98 U. S. 479—1211. Washington, etc., Tel. Co. v. Hobson. 15 Gratt. (Va.) 122-88. Wasliington-Virginia Rv. Co. v. Bouk- night. 113 Va. 696—1504. Waterburv v. Chiicago. etc., R. Co., 104 Iowa, 32—1602. Waterburv v. Xew York Cent., etc., R. Co.. HFed. 671—957, 10.30, 10.3.3, 1058. Waterburv v. Xew York. etc.. R. Co., 21 Blatchf. (U. S.) 314—959. 1043. Waterliouse v. Comer, 55 Fed. 149 — 1960. Waterman v. Chicago, etc., R. Oo. (Wis.), 52 N. W. 247—1544. Waters V. Cox. 2 Bradw. (111. App.) 129—390. Waters v. Richmond & D. R. Co.. 110 X. C. 338—155, 5.50. Water Valley Bank v. Soutliem Ex- press Co., 71 Miss. 741 — 343. oolxx TABLE OF CASES. (Tlio rcforoiicos iire to the piigea.) Watkins V. Kl. To. (Ala.), 24 So. 391 — 1(547. Watkins v. M.m.'Ix, 2 Tex. Civ. Ajip. Cas.. § 7'27— r)41. Watkins' v. Now York C<»nt.. etc.. R. Co.. :< N. Y. Supp. n4fi— i:i5i. Watkins v. IVnnsvlvania R. Co. ( D. C). 52 Am. & kng. R. Cas. 159— lOtiS. Watkins v. Raloigh. etc., R. Co.. 11(> N. C. <1G 1 — 124:?. Watkins v. Torre Haute, etc.. R. Co., S Mo. App. 570—780. Watkins v. I'nion Tract. Co., 194 Pa. St. .'itU— 1519. Watkinson v. Langliton, 8 Johns. (N. Y.) 21:]— 5S1. 587. Watson V. Amborjratc. etc.. R. Co., 15 .lur. 44S— 624. 744. Watson V. Anderton, 1 Barn. & Aid. 450—532. Watson V. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 145 X. C. 2;]fi— 250. Watson V. Camden, etc., R. Co., 55 N. J. L. 12.5-1065. Watson V. Georgia Pac. R. Ck>., 81 Ga. 476—1678. Watson V. Mempliis, etc., R. Co., 9 Heisk (Tenn.). 25.5—27. Watson V. North British R. Co.. 3 Rv. and C. T. Cas. 17—06. Watson V. North British R. Co., 3 Sc. Sess. Cas. (4th Soss.) 637—12. Watson V. Oswepo St. Rv. Co.. 7 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 356, 28 N. Y. Supp. 84—1593. Watson V. Oxanna Land Co., 92 Ala. .320—1005. Watson V. Portland & C. E. Ry. Co.. 91 Me. 584-16.39. 1641. Watson V. St. Paul Oity R. Co., 42 Minn. 46—945. Watters v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 239 Pa. 492—1005. Watts V. Boston, etc.. R. Corp.. 10(5 Mass. 466-84. 376. Watts V. Savannah, etc.. Canal Co.. 64 Ga. 88—79. Wattson V. Marls. Fed. Cas. No 17.29r — 1900. 1991. Wau'^h V. Gulf. C. & S. F. Rv. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 131 S. W. 843— 605. 720. Way V. Chicajro. etc.. R. Co.. 73 Town. 463 — 126 J ^^av V. Chiiaj,'o, etc., R. Co., 64 Iowa, 48-1017, 1029. Wayland v. Mosely, 6 Ala. 430—67. Wayne v. St. lx)u is & N. E. Ry. Co., 165 111. App. 353—1540. W. B. Jolinson & Co. v. Central Ver- mont Rv. Co., 84 Vt. 486—226. W. C. Agee & Co. v. Lcmisviile & N. R. Co., 143 Ala. 344—43, 105. Weaver v. Baltimore & O. 1\. Co., 3 App. D. C. 436, 22 Wash. L. R. 393—1049, 1099, 1224, 1506. Weaver v. Southern Ry. Co., 6 Ga. App. 34—874. Weaver v. Southern Ry. Co., 135 Mo. App. 210—321, 557. Webb V. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 76 S. C. 19.3—1385. Webb V. Great Western R. Co., 26 W. R. 111—464. Webber v. Great Western R. Co., 13 W. R. 755—756. Webber v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 22 App. Div. (N. Y.) 628—1090. Webber v. Old Colony St. Ry. Co., 210 Mass. 432—1523. Webber v. St. Paul City R. Co., 67 Minn. 15.5—1559. Weber v. Brooklyn, etc., R. Co., 47 App. Div. (N. Y.) 306—1169, 1170. Weber v. Kansas Citv Cable R. Co., 100 Mo. 194— 1237, "1247, 1666. Weber v. New Orleans, etc.. R. Co., 104 La. 367—1477. Weber v. New York Cent. R. Co., 58 N. Y. 451—1081. Weber v. Rochester, etc., Ry. Co., 145 App. Div. (N. Y.) 84—1072, 1422. Weber Co. v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 113 Iowa. 188—1337. Weber Co. v. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 92 Towa, 364— 1298. 1.301, 13.30. Webster v. Flmira, etc., R. Co., 85 Hun (N. Y.l. 167—1.500. Webster v. Fitchburg R. Co., 161 Mass. 298-972, 1018. Webster v. Hudson R. Co., 38 N. Y. 260—1269. Webster v. Union Pac. R. Co.. 200 Fed. 597-830. 891. 1882. Wedekind v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 20 Nev. 292—1717. Weed V. Barney, 45 N. Y. 344 — 264, 401, 412. Weed V. Panamn P. Co.. 17 N. Y. 362 TABLE OF CASES. cclxxi (The references are to the pages.) —369, 949, 1147, 1156. 1260, 1426, 1703. Weed V. Saratoga, etc.. R. Co . 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 534 — 41, 75, 1295, 1297, 1361, 1370, 1375, 1377. Weeks v. Boston Elev. Ry. Co., 190 Mass. 563—1637. Weeks v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 198 111. 551—974. 1023. Weeks v. Goode, 6 B. N. S. 367—645. Weeks v. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 40 La.. Ann. 800-1689, 1690. Weeks v. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 32 La. Ann. 61.5—1403. Weeks v. New York, etc., R. Co., 72 N. Y. 50—1291, 1296. Wehle V. Haviland. 69 N. Y. 448— 583. Wehle V. Haviland, 42 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 399-587. Wehmann v. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 58 Min. 22^39, 780. Weightman v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 70 Miss. 563—1257. Weiler v. :Manhattan R. Co., 53 Hun (N. Y.), 372—1081, 1242. Weiller v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 234 Pa. St. 310—495. Weinberg v. Albemarle, etc., R. Co., 91 N. C. 31—740, 767. 768, 780. Weinberger v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 146 Fed. 516 — 2040. Weinschenck v. New York, etc., R. Co., 190 Mass. 250—1208, 1209. Weir v. Adams Express Co., 5 Phila. (Pa.) 355—481. Weir V. Rountree, 173 Fed. 776 — 1470. Weisenberg v. Lackawanna, etc., R. Co., 237 Pa. 33—1693. Weiser v. Broadwav, etc., R. Co., 10 Ohio C. C. 14—1.561. Weisinger v. Sf)uthorn Rv. Co. in Ky., 33 Ky. Law V,cp. 1038—802. Weiss V. Metropolitan St. Rv. Co., 29 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 332—1239. Wfisshaar v. Kimball S. S. Co., 128 Fed. 397—2037. Weitner v. Delaware & Hudson Canal Co.. 27 N. Y. Super. Ct. (4 Rob.) 234 — 70. Weitzmnn v. Nas«au FJectrir R. Co., 33 App. Div. (N. Y.) 58.5—1588. Welch V. Boston, etc.. R. Co.. 41 Oonn. 33:j— 418, .521, 896. Welch V. Concord R. Co., 68 N. H. 206—383, 409. Welch V. Jugenheimer, 56 Iowa, 11— 1533. Welch V. Pullman Palace Car Co., 1 Sheld. (N. Y.) 457—945. Welch V. Pullman Palace Co., 16 Abb. Pr. N. S. (N. Y.) 352—63, 66. Welch Lumber Co. v. Norfolk & W. R. Co., 137 App. Div. (N. Y.) 248— 1909, 1912, 1925. Welfare v. London, etc., R. Co., L. R. 4 Q. B. 693—1477. Weiler v. London, etc., R. Co., 9 C. P. 126 — 1226, 1235. Wellington v. Downer Kerosene Oil Co., 104 Mass. 64—563. Wells V. Alabama, etc., R. Co., 67 Miss. 24—1225, 1228, 1229. Wells V. American Express Co., 55 \Yig 2.3 — 209, 210. 264. 329. 530. Wells V. Battle, 5 Tex. Civ. App. 532 —613. Wells V. Great Northern Rv. Co., 59 Or. 165—1297, 1305, 1334, 1339, 1372, 1379. Wells v. Maine Steamship Co., 4 Cliff (U. S.), 228—327, 333. Wells V. New York C«nt. R. Co., 24 N. Y. 181—468, 480, 1331, 1449,. 1462. 1465. Wells V. New York C«n.t., etc., R. Co.,. 25 App. Div. (N. Y.) 365—1147. Wells V. Oregon R., etc., Co., 32 Fed. 51—215, 224, 226. Wells V. Steam Nav. Co., 8 N. Y. 375 — 462, 498. Wells V. Steam Navigation Co., 2 N. Y. 204, 205—14, 56. Wells V. Steinwav R. Co., 18 App. Div. (N. Y.) 180—1125. Wells V. Thomas, 27 Mb. 17—223, 637, 639, 782. Wells V. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 51 N. C. (6 Jonra L.) 47—183. Wells, etc.. Express v. Fuller, 13 Tex. Civ. App. 610—344, 615. Wells, etc., Express Co. v. Fuller. 4 Tex. Civ. App. 213, 35 S. W. 824— 616, 735. Wells, Fargo & Co. v. Cutter. 140 111. App. 324—513. Wells, Fargo & Co. v. Hanson fT.>x. Civ. App.), 73 S. W. .346-608. Wells, Fargo & Co. v. Noiman y\nr- • iis Co.. 227 v. 5?. 469—473. oe-Ixxii T A ISLE OF CASES. (Tlio roforonoos are io tli(> pages.) Wells, Fargo & Co. v. NViman Mar I'lis to. (T<'\. Civ. App. ). 12.") S. W. (ill— 5ir>. NWlls. Farjr.1 A Cd. v. I'alt.T. 188 Fed. SSS — !>'_'!•. \\olls, I'aigo & Co. v. 'llioiiipsoii, 53 Tex. Civ. App. 515 — ti'2'J. Wells. Fargo Ivxpross Co. v. Williams (To.\. Civ. App.), 71 S. W. 314— KiT. 5!>3. liOS. WolLs, Farpo & Co. v. Wiiidham. 1 Tex. e iv. Ai)p. 2U7— 270. Welsh v. Alx.na. 74 Fed. 252—1995. Welsh V. riltsburgh, etc.. R. Co., 10 Ohio St. (J5— 27, 457, 805, 822, 879, 896. Welsli V. West Jersey, etc., R. Co., 62 N. ,T. L. 655—1426. Welton V. Missouri, 91 U. S. 275— 1732, 1736. 1742, 1748, 1758. Weltv V. Indiaiiaj.>olis. etc., R. Co., lOo'lnd. 55-1596. Wente v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 79 Neb. 179-850. Wentz V. Erie R. Co., 3 Hun (N. Y.), 241—1025, 1027. \Vi:nt\vorth v. Easton R. Co., 143 -Mass. 248—1557. Wenzel v. Citv & Elm. Grove R. Co., 64 W. Va. 310—1655. Wenzol V. Great Northern R. Co., 152 Wis. 418—789. 930. Werbowlskv v. Fort Wayne & E. R Co.. 86 Mich. 236—1087. Werle v. Long Island R. Co., 98 N Y. 650—1638, 1644. Wernick v. St. Ix)uis & S. F. R. Co. 131 Mo. App. 37—290. Weniwag v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. 117 Pa. St. 46—234. 238. Wertheimer v. Pennsylvania R. Co. 17 Blatchf. (U. S.)" 421—327, 372 575. Wertheimer. S\vartz Shoe Co. y. Mi.s souri Pac. R. Co., 147 Mo. App 489—311. Wertz V. Western Union Tel. Co., 7 Utah, 446—91. West V. First National Bank, 20 Hun (N. Y.). 411—444. West V. Ivondon. etc., R. Co., L. R. 5 C. P. 622-161. West T. The Berlin, 3 Iowa, 552^ 314. West V. Ward (Iowa), 42 N. W. 309 —1267. Westcliester, etc., K. Co. y. Miles, 55 I'a. St. 209—1(169, 1143, 1408. West Cliicago St. K. Co. v. Buckley, 102 IlL .Vpp. 314—997, 1125. W«'st Cliieugo St. R. Co. y. Carr, 170 111. 47S— 1561. We.st C'hieago St. H. ( o. y. .lames, 69 111. App. 609—982. West Chicago St. R. Co. v. Johnson, 180 111. 285—1214. West Chicago St. R. C5o. v. Kennelly, 170 111. .-)()S— 1561. West Cliicago St. R. Co. y. Kennelly, 66 111. Api). 244—1475. West Chicago St. R. Co. y. Kennelly, 6 Chic. L. J. Wkly. 436—1476. West Chicago St. R. Co. y. Krom- shinskey. 185 111. 92—1215. West C'hicago St. R. Co. v. Lj'ons, 57 III. App. 536—1581. West Chicago St. R. Co. y. Manning, 170 111. 417—1218, 1239, 1607. VN'est Chicago St. R. Co. y. Marks, 82 111. App. 185—1639, 1647. West Chicago St. R. Co. v. Martin, 47 111. App. 610—1212, 1268. West Chicago St. R. Co. v. Meyer, 69 111. App. 625—1647. West Chicago St. R. Co. y. Nash, 64 111. App. 548—1214. West Chicago St. R. Co. v. Shiplett, 85 111. App. 683—975. West Chicago St. R. Co. y. Stephens, 66 111. App. 303—1088. ^Vest Cliioago St. R. Co. y. Stiver, 69 111. App. 625—1240. Went Chicago St. Ry. Co. v. Torpe, 187 111. 610—1619. West Chicago St. R. Co. y. Walsh. 78 111 App. 595—997, 1002, 1013. West Chicago St. R. Co. y. Waniata, 68 111. App. 481—1239. West Cliicago St. R. Co. v. Winters, 107 111. App. 221—1216. Westeott v. Fargo. 61 N. Y. 542 — 461, 484, 485, 487, 497. ,504, 518. Westeott V. Fargo, 63 Barb. (N. Y.) 349—447. 460. 569. Westeott y. Sonttle, etc., R. Co., 41 Wash. 618 — 1200. West End. etc., St. R. Co. y. Mozely, 79 Ga. 463—1676. Westorfield v. Lewis, 43 I^a. Ann. 63 —1588, 1591. Western y. Grand Trunk R. Co., 54 Me. 376—597. TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pages.) cclxxiii Western & A. R. Co. v. Bovle, 98 Ga. 446—984. iVestem & A. E. Co. v. Haig & Pur- year, 136 Ga. 494 — 143. Western & A. K. Co. v. Ohio Valley Bkg. & T. Co., 107 Ga. ,512-^217. Western & A. R. Co. v. Voils, 98 Ga. 446, 1161. Western, etc., R. Co. v. Camp. 53 Ga. 596— :>80, 413. Western, etc., R. Co. v. Exposition Cotton Mills. 81 Ga. 522^48, 550, 551, 728, 1458. Western, etc., R. Co. v. Harwell, 91 Ala. 340—772. Western, etc., Co. v. King, 70 Ga. 261 —1081. Western, etc., R. Co. v. Ledbetter (Ga.), 2.5 S. E. 663—1393. Western, etc., R. Co. v. MeEIwee 6 Heisk. (Tenn.) 208—198. 736, 744. Western, etc., R. Co. v. Ohio Valley Bkg. & T. Co.. 107 Ga. 512—22.5. Western, etc., R. Co. v. State 95 Md. 637—1107. Western, etc., R. Co. v. Trust Co., 107 Ga. 512—281. Western, etc., R. Co. v. Turner, 72 Ga. 292—1056, 1145. Western, etc., R. Co. v. Vaughan. 113 Ga. 354—548. Western, etc.. R. Co. v. Young, 51 Ga. 489—1679. Western, etc.. R. Co. v. Younir 83 IST. Y. 512-1587. Wes.tern y\f^. Co. v. The Guiding Star, 37 Fed. 641—570, 588, 592, 595. Western ^faryiand R. Co. v. Herold, 74 Md. 510—1572, 1581. Western Maryland R. Co. v. Schann, 53 Mich. 118— 1415. Western Marvland R. Co. v. Shivers, 101 :Md. 391-1086. Western Marvland R. Co. v. Stanley, 61 Md. 26r — ]2n9, 1584. Western Maryland R. Co. v. State, 95 Md. 637—1113. Io05. 1561. W(>stem Marvland Co. v. Stocksdale, 83 Md. 245—1415. Western Xe^v York, etc., R. Co., 1 Int. Com. Rep. 685—1787. Western R. Co. v. TTinvell. 97 Ala. 341—431, 491. 769, 771, 747. Western R. Co. v. Harwell, 91 Ala. 340—577, 747, 793, 805, 814, 820, 881, 905, 1456. Western R. Co. v. Harwell (Ala.), 8 So. 649—488. Western R. Co. v. Little, 86 Ala. 159 —384, 488. Western Ry. v. McGraw (Ala.), 62 So. 772—1485, 1539. Western R. Co. v. Thornton, 60 Ga. 300—330, 332. Western R. Co. v. Young, 51 Ga. 489 —1229. Western R. Co. v. Wagner, 65 111. 197—232. Western Sash & Door Co. v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 177 Mo. 641—770. Western Transportation Co. v. Bar- ber, 56 N. Y. 544—209, 210, 328, 530, 532, 636, 645. Western Transp. Co. v. Downer, 11 Wall. (U. S.) 129, 133—575, 578. Western Transp. Co. v. Hoyt, 69 N. Y. 230—530, 639. 782. Western Transp. Co. v. Newhall, 24 111. 466—26. 36, 389. 425, 427, 490, 577, 1450, 1453, 1454. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Adams, 87 Ind. 598—91. Western I'nion Tel. Co. v. Atlanta, etc.. States Tel. Co., 5 Nev. 102— 1731. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Blanchard, 68 Ga. 299-91. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Broesche, 72 Tex. 654—91. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Brown, 84 Tex. 54—478. ^^^:.■^tern Union Tel. Co. v. Call Pub. Co., 181 U. S. 92—1895. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Carew, 15 Mich. 525 — 88. 92, 1361. Western l^nion Tel. Co. v. Crall, 39 Kan. 580 — 624. West<-rn T'nion Tel. Co. v. Edsall, 6? Tex. 668—88. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Evser " Colo. 154—1544. Wo«;tern Union Tel. Co. v. Fenton. 52 Tnd. 1—9]. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Fontaine 58 Ga. 433—90, 91. West-f-m Union Tel. Co. v. Goodbni (Miss.). 7 So. 214 — 93. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Graham 1 (^'olo. 230 — 01. 92. 418. ' cclxiiv TABLE 01'' CASES. (The refficucfs ure to the puj,'os.) WcAlern Union Tel. Co. v. (.iriswold. 37 Ohio St. :Ui;5— 87. 91. Wc-^tern L'niou Tel. Co. v. Hyer, -- Fhi. 037—87. Wo^Umu I'liioii TpI. Co. V. Mwk, 4J iiid. o:j— yo. 91. Wostorn Union Tel. Co. v. Meredith, 95 1ml. !):i-^-91. WesU-rn Union Tel. Co. v. Neill. ../ TV\. 2S;? — 88. 92. WesU^rn Union Tel. Co. v. Pendleton, 122 U. S. 347—1737. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Reynolds, 77 Va. 173—88, 93, 1304. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Short, 53 Ark. 434—91. Western Union T»-l. Co. v. T}ler, /4 111. 168—91. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Woods, 88 111. App. 375—102. Westfield V. Great Western R. Co., 52 L. J. Q. B. Div. 276—630. WeAthall V. C<>ntral R. Co. of N. J., 74 Atl. 397—1336. West .Tersev R. Co. v. Railway Co., .52 X. J. Eq. 31—1268. West Memphis Packet Co. v. White, 99 Tenn. 256—1167. Weston V. Boston & M. R. Co., 190 Mass. 298-621. Weston V. New York El. R. Co., 73 N. Y. ,595—1125. 1601. Westphal.-n v. Atlantic N. & S. R. Co., 152 Iowa, 232—802, 855. West Phila. Pass. R. Co. v. Gallagher, 108 Pa. St. 524—1644. West Vir tlio pivges.) (J rati. 1554—419, 1;U)1. l.iO.S. \:\:\2, i;545. \\ ilson V. riiitu'^'o litv Rv. Co.. Ill 111. App. 604— I5;?r). ■ Wilson V. City of Troy, 135 N. V. <»() — oSS. W ilHon V. Detroit Initeil Ry., 10 Mi7 N. H. 316—266. Wilson V. a rand Trunk R. Co., 57 Me. 138—1303. 1347. Wilson V. Grand Tnnik R. Co., 56 Ale. 60—133. 1137. Wilson V. Lamashirc, etc.. R. Co., 9 C. B. N. S. 632—599. 618. Wilson V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 2 AIo. App. Rep. 1366—598. Wilson V. New Castle, etc., 18 E. B. & E. 557—599. Wilson V. Now Orleans, etc., R. Co., 6S Miss. 9—1257, 1672. Wilson V. New York Cent., etc., R. Co.. 97 N. Y. 87 — 466, 878, 879, 1461. \Vilson V. Northern Pac. R. Co., 26 Minn. 278—1504, 1582. Wilson V. Northern Pac. R. Co., 5 Wash. 621—1711, 1712. Wilson V. Piatt. 84 N. Y. Supp. 143 — 499. Wilson V. Rochester, etc. Ry. Co.. 123 App. Div. 90-1694. Wilson V. Southern Pac. R. Co., 62 Cal. 164 — .578, 580. Wilson V. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co., 129 Mo. App. .347—865. ^^'ilson V. Van Santvoord, 18 Barb. 590—674. Wilson V. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 23 Mo. App. 50—234, 484. Wilson V. York, etc., R. Co., 17 L. T. 22.3—186. Wilsons V. Hamilton, 4 Ohio St. 722 — 60. 75, 558. Wilson Sewing Macliine Co. v. Louis- ville, etc., R. Co., 71 Mo. 20.3—209, 235. Wilton V. Atlantic, etc., Nav. Co., 10 C. B. N. S. 453—464. Wilton V. Middlesex R. Co., 107 Ma.ss. 108—957. 988, 996, 1031, 1057, 1644. Wiltse V. Barnes, 46 Iowa, 210—266. Wiltshire Iron Co. v. Creat W^estern R. Co., L. R. 6 Q. B. 101—630. N\ jnchcdl v. National Express Co., 64 \ t. 15-1)9, 427. W'indniillcr v. Norlln'iii Pac. Ry. Co., 52 Wash. (il3 — JOS. W inlrey v. Missouri, oU.'., U. Co., 194 Fid. 808—111)5. Wing V. New York, etc., R. Co., 1 Hilt. (N. Y.) 235—308, 315, 372, 550, 568, 747. Wingard v. Banning, 39 Cal. 543 — 531, 642, 645. Wingate v. Smith, 20 Me. 287 — 267. Winheim v. Field, 107 111. App. 145 — 1212. Winkficld v. Packington, 2 C. & P. 599—185. Winkler v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 21 Mo. App. 99—1727. Winkler v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 21 Mo. App. 99—1235, 1259, 1710. 1718. Winn V. American Express Co., 149 Iowa, 259, 140 N. W. 427—500, 507, 825, 1814, 1977. Winne v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 31 Iowa, 583—570, 587, 593. Winnegar v. Central Pass. R. Co., 85 Ky. 547—1136, 1147, 1186. Winona & W. Ry. Co. v. Rousseau, 48 Ind. App. 248 — 1669. Winona, etc., R. Co. v. Blake, 94 U. S. 180—41, 121. Winship v. Enfield, 42 N. H 197 — 1546. Winslow V. Vermont, etc., R. Co 42 Vt. 700—211, 234, 235, 385. ' Winslow Bros. & Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 79 S. C. 344—866, 895. Winter v. Pacific R. Co., 41 Mo. 503 —1302. Winter v. Southern Kan. R. Co., 56 AIo. App. 282—767. Winterfield v. Second Ave. R. Co 20 N. Y. Supp. 801—1541. Winters v. Baltimore & 0. R. Co 163 Fed. 106—1549, 1629. Winters v. Central I. R. Co., 74 Iowa 448—1560. Winters v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co Z9 Mo. 468—1656. Wise V. Brooklyn Heights R. Co. 46 App. Div. (N. Y.) 246—1693. Wise V. Covington, etc., St. R. Co.. 91 Ky. 537—1170. TABLE OF CASES. (The references are to the pag'es.) cclxxix Wise V. Great Western R. Co., 1 H. & N. 63—256. Wise V. South Covington, etc., R. Co., 17 Ky. L. Rep. 1359—1170, 1171. Wise V. Wabash R. Co., 135 Mo. App. 230—1611. Wisecarver v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 141 Iowa, 121—597, 826, 861, 876, 916. Wisconsin C«nt. R. Co. v. Ross, 142 111. 9—1121. Wisconsin Cent Ry. Co. v. United States, 169 Fed" 76—1816, 1952, 1973. Wisconsin, etc.. R. Co. v. Jacobson, 179 U. S. 287—1894. Witbeck v. Holland, 45 N. Y. 13— 169, 251. 252. 255. Witbeck v. Holland. 55 Barb. (X. Y.) 443—253. 765. Witbeck v. Schuvler, 44 Barb. (N. Y.) 469—186, 187'. Witherbee v. Meyer, 155 N. Y. 446 — 623. Withers v. North Kent R. Co., 3 H. — 455. Wright V. (Jreat Nortiiern R. Co., L. R. 8 Ir. 257—1080. Wright V. Howe (Tex. Civ. App.), 24 S. W. 314—200. Wright V. London, etc., R. Co., 33 L. T. N. S. 830—1066. Wright V. Maiden, etc., R, Co., 4 Allen (Mass.), 283—1587. Wright V. Northampton, etc., R. Co.. 122 N. C. 852—1063, 1005. Wright V. Northern Cent. R. Co., 8 Phila. (Pa.) 19—208, 559. Wright V. Orange, etc., R. Co., 77 N. J. L. 774—1420. Wright V. Pennsylvania R. Co.. 3 Pitts. R. (Pa.) 116—1103. 1270. Wright V. Pratt, 31 Wis. 99— .532. Wright V. Sioux Falls Tr. System, 28 S. D. 378—1483. Wright V. Snell, 5 B. & Aid. 350— 404, 030. Weight V. United States. 167 U. S. 512—1785. W^riglitman v. Chicago, etc., R. Co,, 73 Wis. 169—1069. Wunsch V. North<»rn Pac. R. Co.. 62 Fed. 878-1294. 1300, 1302. Wvatt V. Citizens' R. Co., 62 Mo. 408 —1077, 1678. Wvatt V. Citizens' R. Co., 55 Mo. 485 —1680. Wvatt V. Larimer & W. Irrig. Co., 1 Colo. App. 480—111. Wvatt V. Pacific Electric Rv. Co., 'l50 Cal. 170—1521. Wvatt V. Railway Co., 55 Mo. 495 — 1015. Wycko/T V. Queens County Ferry Co.. 52 X. Y. 32. 35 — .58. 50. 60. 132. W\\d V. Pickford, 8 :\I. & W. 443—0, 132. Wylde V. Northern R. of X^. .T.. 53 X'. Y. 1.56—778, 779, 1209. 16.33, 1645. Wvlde V. X'orthern P. Co. 14 Abb ■Pr. N. S. (N. Y.) 21.3—1486. Wyler, Ackerland & Co. v. Loui.sville & N. R. Co., 83 Ohio, 293—598. TABLE OF CASES. ccixxxi (Tlie references are to the pages.) Wvman v. Chicago, 'tc, R. Co., 4 'Mo. App. 39—779. W^man v. Lancaster, 32 Fed. 720 — i;26. Wyman v. Xorthern Pac. R. Co., 34 Minn. 210—999, 1015, 1258, 1427, 1429. Wvnantskill Knitting Co. v. Murray, 90 Hun (X. \.), 554—394. Wvnn V. Central Park, etc., R. Co., 133 X. Y. 575—1114. Wvriek v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 74 Mo. App. 4GG— 933. Y. Yancy v. Boston Elev. Ry. Co., 205 Mass. 162—964, 1159, 1278. Yarnell v. Kansas Citv, etc., R. Co., 113 Mo. 570—410. U62, 1245. Yarrington v. D.^hiware & Hudson Co., 143 Fed. 565—1050. Vates V. Xew Y^ork Cent. R. Co., 67 X. Y. 100—1722. Yazoo & M. \ . R. Co. v. Blum Co., 88 Miss. 180, 59 So. 92—199, 366, 409. Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. Bium (Miss.), 42 So. 282—366. Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. Bvrd, 89 Miss. 308—1569, 1650, 1699. Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. Cliristuias, 89 Miss. 386—604. 609. Vazoo V. ^L V. R. Co. v. Fishor Bros. (Miss.), 59 So. 877—143. Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. Hughes. 94 Miss. 242—1358. Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. .McKav, 91 Miss. 138—366. Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. Scarles, 85 Miss. 520—691, 695, 698. Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. Shelby, 95 .Miis. 155 — 1176. Yazoo, etc., R. Co. v. Baldwin. 113 Ttnn. 205—1292. ^ azoo. etc.. P.. Co. v. Faust (Miss.), 32 So. 9—1709. ^'azoo, etc., R. Co. v. Georgia Homo Ins. Co. (Miss.), 37 So. ,500—1293. Yazoo, etc.. R. Co. v. Humphrey, 83 .Miss. 721 — 1476. Yazoo, (tc., R. Co. v. Millsaps, 70 Miss. 85.5—319. 357. Yazoo, etc., R. Co. v. Pope (Miss.), 61 So. 450—825. Yazoo, etc., R. Co. v. Searles, 85 Miss. 520—653. Yeomans \ . Contra Costa Steam Xav. Co., 44 Cal. 71—958, 1020, 1054, 1505. Yerkes v. Keokuk, etc., P. Co., 7 Mo. App. 265—1115, 1118, 1130, 1505. Y'evsack v. Lackawanna, etc., R. Co., 221 Pa. 493 — 1695. Yoakum v. Drvden (Tex. Civ. App.), 26 S. W. 312—183. Yoakum v. Dunn, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 532—614, 615. Yonge V. Kinney, 28 Ga. 111—1500. Y'onge V. Pacific Mail Steamship Co., 1 Cal. 353—1704. York Co. V. Illinois Central R. Co., 3 WaU. (U. S.) 107—441. 453, 577, 634, 1451, 1456. York, etc., R. Co. v. Crisp. 14 C. B. 527—464, 1464. Yorke Furniture Co. v. Southern Ry. Co. (N. C), 78 N. E. 67—1843, 1882. Y'^orton v. Milkaukee, etc., R. Co., 62 Wis. 367—1016, 1418. Youghioghenv & 0. Coal Co. v. Erie Ry. Co., 24 Ohio Civ. Ct. Rep. 289 —710. Youl V. Harl>ottle Peake, N. P. 49— 234. Youmans v. Padden, 1 Mich. X. P. 127—1129. Youmans a\ Wabash R. Co.. 143 Mb. App. .393—970. Young V. Boston & X. St. Rv. Co., 213 Mass. 267—1525. Young V. Bransford, 12 Lea (Tenn.), 232—1507. Young V. Camden, etc., R. Co.. 60 X. J. Law, 19.3—1163. Young V. Canadian Pac. R. Co.. 1 Manitoba L. R. 205—186. Young V. Citizens St. R. Co., 148 Ind. .54 — 1451. Young V. East Alabama Rv. Co., SO Ala. 100—21.5—530. Young V. Fewson, 8 C. & P. 5.")— 1703. Young V. Hannibal, etc., R. Co.. 79 Mo. 336—1270. Young V. Kinney, 28 Ga. 111—1512. Young V. (J!d Colony R. Co., 156 Mass. 178— 1689. Young V. Missouri Dec. R. Co., 93 Mo. App. 267—1033, 1592. CCl.WXll TABLE 01'" CASES. Cnie roloreucos are (<> tlic [lagi^s.) Yi'imj; V. Smith, ;> Dana (Ky.) !H — ■ 2tl>, 2a\K :V.K\. Young V. Ii'xas v^ T. K. (.\>., .">1 l.a. Ami. -Jit.")— ii;n, 14:58. Young V. W t'steni Union Tel. Co., 34 N. Y. Super. Ct. 3!M». 6r> N. Y. Ifif) Y'ounger v. Central K. Co. of New Jersey, (5:! Mise. ivep. (N. V.) 1— 134S». Yount V. Wabash R. Co., 13G Mo. A pp. 697—202. Yuke V. Gronaugli, 2 T^. Rayui. 867 —634. z. Zackry v. Mobile, etc., R. Co., 75 Miss. 746 — 1141. Zaiuore v. Boston Kiev. Rv. Co., 198 Mass. 594—1636. Zeccardi v. Y'onkers R. Co., 190 N. Y. 389-960. 963, 1005, 1088, 1173, 1185. Zeigler Bros. v. Mobile & O. R. Co., 87 Miss. 367—1356. Zeliir V. .Nortli .lersey St. Ky. Co. (N. Y.), 55 Atl. 95— 16.')7. Zeiiip V. \\ iliniiif^ton, ete., R. Co. 9 Rich. L. (S. C.) 84 — 1451. 1475, l.-)62, 1638, 1639, 1640. Zerega v. Toppe, Fed. Cas. No. 18, 213 (Abb. Adin. 397)— 560. Zetterberg v. (heat Northern Ry. Co., 117 Minn. 4!t5— 302. Zinuuer v. New York, etc., R. Co., 137 N. Y. 460—426, 431, 497, 452, 505, 519, 1463. Zinimernian v. Denver Coiisol. Trans- way Co. (Colo.). 72 Pac. 807—1692. Zinn V. New Jersey Steamboat Co., 49 N. Y. 442—257, 258, 264, 357, 384, 401. Zollinger v. Steamer Emma, 3 Cent. L. J. 285—2(15. Zouch V. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 36 W. Va. 524—430, 494, 523. Zurcher v. I'ortland Ry., etc., Co. (Ore.), 129 i'ac. 126—982. Zuniault V. Kansas City, etc., Air Line, 71 Mo. App. 670—1601. Zwack V. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 160 N. Y. 362—1588. THE LAW OF CARRIERS. CHAPTER I. Caekiees Genekaixt. Bectioit 1. Carrier defined. 2. Classes of carriers. 3. Carriage of goods a bailment, 4. Private carriers. 5. Duties and liabilities of private carriers. 6. Private carriers without hire. 7. When transportation is gratuitous, 8. When compensation is implied. 9. Proof of negligence. 10. Private carriers for hire. 11. Liability of private carriers for hire. 12. Special contracts increasing or diminishing liability, 13. Lien of the private carrier. § 1. Carrier defined. A carrier has been defined to be one wbo undertakes to trans- port goods from one place to another.^ But a more accurate and oomprehensive definition, perhaps, would be that a carrier is a person or corporation who undertakes to transport or convey goods, or property, or persons, from one place to another, gratuitously or for hire. § 2. Classes of carriers. Carriers have been divided into two classes: private or special carriers, and common or public carriers.^ Another classification 1. Bouvier's L. Diet. Vol. 1, 242; Supp. 302. 73 Misc. Rep. 414; Var- Parsona, Contr. Vol. 1, 642. ble v. Bigley, 14 Bush. (Ky.) 698, 2P 2. Allen V. Saokridor, 37 N. Y. 341; Am. Rep. 435; Vomer v. Swoitzer, 32 Brown V. New York Cent., etc.. R. Co., Pa. St. 208; Bnuvr. L. Diet. 242; 75 Hun (N. Y.), 355, 27 N. Y. Supp. Story Bailm. § 495; 6 Cyc. 364- 69; O'Rourke t. Bates, 133 N. Y. 2 THE LAW OF CAPvElERS. recognizes throe classes; carriers without hire, carriers for hire but not coniinou carriers, and common carriers; or carriers with- out liire or reward, private carriers for hire, and common or pub- lic carriers for hire.^ As all carriers without hire may be said to bo private carriers, since common carriers when they carry gratu- itously become in fact private carriers as to the particular goods or transaction, the classification of carriers into private carriers without hire, private carriers for hire, and common carriers, seems to best express the differences in character and liability which distinguish them. The classification of carriers is import- ant because it enters largely into the determination of the legal responsibility of the carrier. The class among carriers to which a particular carrier is to be assigTied depends upon the nature of his business, the character in which he holds himself out to the public, the terms of his contract, and his relations generally to the parties with whom he deals and the public. The above classi- fications include carriers by land and by water, as well as carriers of goods, carriers of passengers, and carriers of live stock, and the liability of the carrier is also to a considerable extent determined from or affected by whichever of these latter classes he belongs to. § 3. Carriage of goods a bailment. The carriage of goods or the baggage of a passenger is a bail- ment, the goods or baggage being delivered to the carrier on a condition, express or implied, for the purpose of carriage to their destination and delivery according to the directions of the con- signor or owner. The carriage of goods or baggage, when it is gratuitous or without compensation to the carrier, belongs to that class of bailments known as mandates, a species of bailment where the bailee receives goods, and without reward undertakes to do some act about them, or simply to carry them from place to place.* The carriage of goods or baggage, where the carrier is paid for the service, is of that class of bailments known as a hiring, which is a bailment of goods always for a reward, and among which bail- 3. Amer. & Eng. Ency. of Law, Ist 4. See § 6, post; Edwards, Bailm. ed., Vol. 2, p. 771; Hutch. Carr. § 15. § 3. CARRIERS GENERALLY. 3 ments is tlie hire of carriage.^ Private carriers, wlietlier without liire or for hire, are strictly hailees and assume simply the duties and liabilities of bailees. Their responsibility does not necessarily arise from an undertaking to carry and is determined by the rules governing the responsibility of bailees. The foundation of tlie bailee's liability, except in the case of common carriers of goods and innkeepers, is n^ligence, and negligence in some degree must be shown to make the bailee liable. But the liability of the common carrier of goods, like that of the innkeeper, is extraordi- nary and exceptional, and is based upon reasons of public policy, and not upon the contract of bailment, although the liability cannot exist without the bailment. The common carrier of goods is an insurer of the safety of the goods and the question of negligence, as will be hereafter seen, ordinarily does not enter into the de- termination of his liability.® But the question of negligence does arise when he seeks to avail himself of any of the exceptions which the law allows, or his contract makes, to his general liability as an insurer, and it is charged that but for his negligence the loss would not have occurred. And the liability of a common carrier of passengers for an injury to a passenger generally depends ex- clusively upon the question of negligence.'' The law as to the liability of bailees in general for negligence, adverted to in a sub- sequent section, thus frequently furnishes the rule by which the common carrier as well as other bailees are held responsible for negligence. But while the liability of all those carriers whose lia- bility depends entirely upon negligence is determined by the gen- eral law of bailments, that law, not admitting the responsibility of the bailee when loss cr injury has occurred without negligence, has generally but little application to the liability of common carriers of goods, who are held to be insurers against all accidents not at- tributable directly to the acts of God or of the public enemy. § 4. Private carriers. A private carrier is one who agrees, by special agreement or contract, to transport persons or property from one place to an- 6. See § 10, po8t; Edwards, Bailm. 6. Son Chap. II, § 1. I 3. 7. See Carriers of Passengers. 4 THE LAW OF CARRIERS. Other, cithrr gratuitously or for hire; one who undortalcos for the transportation in a parliouhir instance only, not making it a voca- tion, nor holding himself out to the puhlic ready to act for all who desiro his services.* Common carriers, however, hold them- selves out to carry lor all persons indiscriminately.* Private or special carriers are not subject to the exceptional or extraordinary duties and liabilities of common carriers. They are not bound by virtue of their employment or vocation to receive and carry all pei-sons or the goods of all who apply to them, but they may carry for whom they cliooso and for such compensation and at such times as they may fix or as may be agreed upon. They are not in any sense public servants like common carriers. But they may by special contract assume the duties of common or public carriers and thus make themselves liable as common carriers. § 5. Duties and liabilities of private carriers. Private carriers, wdiether carriers without hire or carriers for hire, as has been stated, are strictly bailees, in no way distinguish- able from ordinary bailees as to their responsibility, and are sub- ject only to the duties and liabilities of bailees, and their liability is determined by the degree of negligence of which they are guilty.^" The principles of the law as to the liabilities of bailees in general for negligence which form a part of the law of bailments, are applicable in determining the liability of private carriers. These principles or rules may be stated as follows: When the bailment is for the sole benefit of the bailor, the law requries only slight diligence on the part of the bailee, and holds him liable only for sross neclisience. When the bailment is for the sole benefit of the bailee, the law requires great diligence on his part, and holds him liable for slight negligence. When the bailment is, or is in- tended to be, reciprocally beneficial to both parties, the law ro quires ordinary diligence on the part of the bailee, and holds hink liable for ordinary negligence.^^ 8. §§ 6, 10, post. 11. Anjrell, Carra. (5th ed.) § 11; 9. See Common Camera. Hutch. Carra. § 8; Amer. & Eng. 10. § 3, ante; Allen v. Sackrider, Ency. of Law (1st ed.), VoL 2, p. 37 N. Y. 341 ; Fish v. Clark, 49 N. Y. 772. 122, 2 Lans. (N. Y.) 178. CxiKRIERS GENERALLY. 5 § 6. Private carriers without hire. Carriers vvho carry goods g-ratuitously, without any compensa- tion directly or indirectly, are liable as gratuitous bailees or man- dataries only.^" It was formerly held that such carriers were only liable for gToss negligence and required to exercise only slight care and diligence. ^^ But all distinctions in the degrees of negli- 12. Citizens' Bank v. Nantucket Steamboat Co., 2 Story (U. S.) 16; Pender v. Robbins, 6 Jones L. (N. C.) 207; Coggs V. Bernard, 2 Ld. Raym. 909, 1 Smith's L. Cas. 199; Hutton V. Osborne, 1 Sel. N. P. 420; Mobile, etc., K. Co. V. Hopkins, 41 Ala. 486, 94 Am. Dec. 607; Robinson v. Thread- gill, 13 Ired. L. (N. C.) 39. 13. Coggs V. Bernard, 2 Ld. Eaym. •J09, 1 Smith's L. Cas. 199; Hutton v. Osborne, 1 Sel. N. P. 420; Colyar v. Taylor, 1 Coldw. (Tenn.) 372, where T. gratuitously undertool: to receive $1,500 for C. at N., and deliver it to him at W., where they both resided, :ind, after drawing the money went CO a public fair, where he met E., a townsman, who was going home be- fore he was, and, stepping a little aside from the crowd, gave E. the money to carry to C, and, on his way home in a crowded car, E. had his pocket picked of the money, T. was held liable for the loss, as he had violated his trust and was guilty of a conversion of the property, and of gross negligence. Kirtland v. Montgomery, 1 S'van (Tenn.), 457, wherein it was said: "As a general rule, a niiwdatary whose engagement is m 'rely gratu- itous, is bound to ordinary diligence and liable only for gross neglect or bre.'icli of good faith. It is. however, a well Bottled rule that if a manda- tary enter ujion the nxecution of busi- ness siiliiiiittod to him, he is bound ti< ••vp a df'gii'e of diligence and at- tention adequate to the performance of his undertaking; if he do not, and damage ensue, he is liable as a man- datary for his misfeasance." In Jenkins v. Motlow, 1 Sneed. (Tenn.) 253, 60 Am. Dec. 154, the court, referring to this extract, said: ■' The word ' ordinary ' in this ex- tract is not technical or correct, but the rule as to the liability of a gra- tuitous bailee is clearly and truly stated." A mere mandatary is liable only for gross negligence. Stanton v. Bell, 2 Hawks (N. C), 145; Sodow- sky V. McFarland, 3 Dana (Ky.), 205; Tracy v. Wood, 3 Mason (U. S.), 132; Tompkins v. Saltmarsh, 14 S. & R. (Pa.) 375; Bland v. Womack, 2 Murph. (N. C.) 373; Beardslee v. Richardson, 11 Wend. (N. Y.) 25; Anderson v. Foresman, Wright (Ohio), 598. Gross negligence, in such case, is the omission of that care wliicli bai- lees without hire, or other manda- taries, of common prudence, are ac- customed to take of property of the like kind. Money requires more care than common articles of property. Tracy v. Wood, 3 Mason ( U. S. ) , 132 ; Anderson v. Foresman, Wriglit (Ohio), 598; Bland v. Womack, 3 Murph. (N. C.) 373. Carrier not liable. Where gold dust was taken on board the steamer New World to bo carried gratui- tously from Sacramento to San Fran- cisco, the clerk of the boat hnving THE LAW OF CARRIERS. gonce are now generally regarded by the courts as unimportant and as impracticable in determining liability for ucgligcuce/* given the owners of the dust actual notice that he would receive gold dust or money only on condition that iio charge should be made and no re- biHtn.-ibiiity ineurreil, and the gold du>t was s-toien from tlie boat with- out any negligence on the part of its oJTiccrs, the owners of the boat were held not liable for the loss. Fay v. bteamer New World, 1 Cal. 348. 14. Perkins v. New York Cent. R. Co., 24 N. Y. 196, 82 Am. Dec. 282, wherein the court said: "The diffi- culty of defining gross negligence and the intrinsic uncertainty pertaining to the question as one of law, and the other impracticability of establish- ing any precise rule on the subject, renders it unsafe to base any legal decision on distinctions of the de- grees of negligence." Smith v. New York Cent. R. Co., 24 N. Y. 222; Nellis' St. Rd. Acct. Law, pp. 22, 23. I Tlie same view has been taken in other states: Ala. — Stringer v. Alabama R. Co., 99 Ala. 397, 13 So. 75. j Colo. — Denver, etc., R. Co. v. Pe- terson (Colo.), 69 Pac. 578. j/e. — Storer v. Gowen, 18 Me. 177. Mass. — Lane v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 112 Mass. 455, 22 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 126, note. Mo. — McPheeters v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 45 Mo. 22. N. H. — State v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 58 N. H. 410. tJ. C. — McAdoo V. Richmond, et«., R. Co., 105 N. C. 140. Tenn. — Mariner v. Smith, 5 Heisk. (Tenn.) 208. yf._Brigg3 v. Taylor, 28 Vt. 180. The doctrine has also been criti- cised in the United States courts and in England. U. 6'.— The Steamboat New World V. King, 16 How. (U. S.) 474; Mil- waukee, etc., R. Co. V. Arms, 91 U. S. 494; New York Cent. R. Co. v. I^ckwood, 17 Wall. (U. S.) 357; HoUaday v. Kennard, 12 Wall. ( U. S.) 254; Purple v. Union Pac. R. Co., 114 Fed. 123, 51 C. C. A. 564, 57 L, R. A. 700, the words " gross " and " reckless," as applied to negli- gence per se, have no legal signinfi- cance which imports other than simple negligence or want of due care, and are not the equivalent of " willful " or " wanton." E7ig. — Hinton v. Dibbin, 2 Ad. & El. N. S. 661, 42 E. C. L .847, 2 Q. B. 646, 2 G. «& D. 36, 6 Jur. 601, " it may well be doubted whether be- tween gross neglignece and negli- gence merely any intelligible distinc- tion exists." Grill v. General Iron Screw Collier Co., L. R. 1 C. P. 612; Beal V. South Devon R. Co., 3 H. & C. 341; Wyld V. Pickford, 2 M. & W. 443; Wilson v. Brett, 11 M. & W. 113; Armistead v. Wilde, 17 Q. B. 261, 71 E. C. L. 261; Austin v. Manchester, etc., R. Co., 10 C. B. 454, 70 E. C. L. 454, 11 Eng. L. & Eq. 512. Any negligence is gross in one who undertakes a duty and fails to per- form it. The term " gross negli- gence " is applied to the case of a gratuitous bailee, who is not liable unless he fails to exercise the degrea of skill which he possesses. Lord v. Midland R. Co., L. R. 2 C. P. 339; Cashill v. Wright, 6 El. & Bl. 891, 88 E. C. L. 891; Giblin v. McMuIlen, L. R. 2 P. C. 317. CAKRIERS GENERALLY. 7 Althougli a person tmdertaking gratuitously to perform an act with respect to the property of another is not bound by his under- taking," yet if the act is performed he will be held responsible for any injury resulting from a want of due care.^® What is gross negligence or slight negligence can only be determined by the cir- cumstances of a given case, and gross negligence is not shown where the evidence is that reasonable and proper care was exer- cised." Negligence is essentially always a question of fact and its determination depends necessarily upon the particular circum- stances in each case. The private carrier without hire is bound to use proper and reasonable care for the safety of the goods com- mitted to his charge, and the test of what is such proper and rea- sonable care seems to be that which a man of ordinary prudence would have used under the particular circumstances. The test must be applied with reference to the article, the nature of the trust, and the circumstances attending its execution, and thus applied what would be reasonable and proper care in the case of a private carrier without hire may not be the same measure of care required of a private carrier for hire.^^ If a person who has undertaken to carry goods gratuitously takes the same care of the goods intrusted to him as of his own, he is not liable, if loss ensues, but he is responsible for a loss resulting from a want of suck 19 care. § 7. When transportation is gratuitous. In order to determine the question of negligence it is frequently 15. Thorne v. Dcas, 4 Johns. (N. was not gratuitous and the goods Y.) 84 ; McGee V. Bast, 6 J. J. Marsh were deposited under such circum- (Ky.), 455. stances as showed the exercise of 16. Melbourne v. Louisville, etc., reasonable care as bailee by the de- R. Co., 88 Ala. 443, 6 So. 762. fendant, after the termination of its 17. Ivouisville. etc., R. Co. v. Ger- liability as a carrier, it was held not son, 102 Ala. 409, 14 So. 873. liable. Adams Exp. Co. v. Darnell, Gross negligence. A carrier, with- 31 Ind. 20, 99 Am. Dec. 582; Howard out compensation, was held liable on Exp. Co. v. Wile, 64 Pa. St. 201. the ground of gross negligence, be- 18. Philadolphia, etc., R Co. v. cause he had deposited the goods in Derby, 14 How. (U. S.) 468- Tre- a place which was peculiarly unsafe leven v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 89 at the time, by reason of an antici- Wis. 598; Coggs v. Bernard, 2 Ld, pated raid of hostile troops. Adams Raym. 909, 1 Smith's L. Cas. 199. Exp. Co. V. Cressop, 6 Bush. (Ky.) 19. Anderson v. Foresman, Wright 672. But, where the transportation (Ohio), 598. o TUE LAW OF CARRIERS. necessary to determine in the first instance whether or not the tiansportation was actually gratnitous. Whore the carrier re- ceives goods, to be carried to a certain place, and there sold in tho nsnal coui-se of business for the ordinary freight,^'' or for a cer- tain freight,-'^'' or goods, in the usual course of business, are shipped on freight, consigned to the carrier for sale and returns/** the carrier is liable as well for the payment of the proceeds or to ac- count for the goods to the shipper as for the safe carriage of the goods. Whether the return cargo is in money or in goods the frei"-ht of the cargo is compensation for the whole. So, a person traveling on a train in charge of cattle which are being shipped, is not a gratuitous passenger, but a passenger for hire; the con- sideration for his passage is the service he renders in taking care of the cattle, or it is foimd in the charges made for shipping the cattle.^^ Proof of the usage of the clerks of steamboats to receive and carry packages from one port to another, without hire, in the expectation that the boat would be preferred by the parties for the shipment of freight, is insufficient to bind the owners, as car- riers, because no certain or fixed standard of remuneration is shown, nor that the consignee of the package would be liable to make any return for the risk and labor incurred ; and because it is not shown that such usage had grown up with the consent of the owners of vessels, or that it was more than a mere accomoda- tion usage.^ A railroad company which contracts for the trans- 20. Kemp v. Coughtry, 11 Johns. owner of the vessel; Emery v. Her- (N. Y.) 107, it appearing that it was sey, 4 Me. 407, 16 Am. Dec. 208. a part of the duty of the carrier, and 21. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Ivey, in the usual course of employment, 71 Tex. 409, 9 S. W. 346, 1 L. R. A. to sell the goods and bring back the 500, 10 Am. St. Rep. 758; Pennsyl- money where no special instructions vania R. Co. v. Henderson, 51 Pa. St. were "iven. 315; Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Cur- 20a. Harrington v. McShane, 2 ran, 19 Ohio St. 1, 2 Am. Rep. 362; Watts (Pa.), 443, 27 Am. Dec. 321, Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. Nicldess, 71 Ind. wherein the owners of a steamboat 271. were held, under the usage of the 22. Cincinnati & L. Mail Line Co. Western waters, to act as common v. Boal, 15 Ind. 345; Whitmore v. carriers, both in the selling of the The Caroline, 20 Mo. 513, the owners produce and in bringing back the of a steamboat are not liable for the money, and therefore liable for the loss of money intrusted to the clerk lo.=s of tlie goods by fire. by a passcnj^er, unless a known and 20b. Moseley v. Lord, 2 Conn. 389, established usage for a steamboat to where the master of a vessel gave a carry money for hire, on account of bill of lading with the assent of the the owners, is shown; Chouteau v. CARRIERS GENERALLY. 9 portation of the tanks of an oil company, and their return, wken emptied, is subject to the liabilities of a common carrier with re- spect to the return of the empty tanks, though no bill of lading is furnished therefor, nor any additional compensation paid, inde- pendently of the freight for the transportation of the oil.^^ Like- wise, where the undertaking of a carrier is that persons sending grain over the route are entitled to have the empty bags returned without charge for freight, this is not to be deemed a gratuitous bailment, so as to exempt the carrier from liability for loss of the bags except that arising from gross negligence. The freight paid on the full bags is a consideration both for the transportation of the full bags and the return of the empty ones.^* § 8. When compensation may be implied. The fact that a carrier did not intend to charge for the trans- portation of a certain chattel, but meant to carry it gratuitously, if not communicated to the owner, does not render the bailment a gratuitous one so as to exempt him from loss, except for gross negligence. Delivery of property to a common carrier, for trans- portation, raises an implied obligation to pay freight, and renders the carrier liable accordingly, unless the contrary is agreed upon. ISTo express agreement having been made as to compensation, the carrier is entitled to it if he choose to demand it.^ It is not nec- The St. Anthony, 16 ]Mo. 216, proof v. Motlow, 1 Sneed. (Tenn.) 248. of a custom by boats to carry money cited under § 6, where the deposit of for customers to gain patronage does money by a passenger, for the ear- not establish a custom to carry it for riage of which no extra charge was hire. See Rogers v. Head, Cro. Jac. made, was held to render the carrier 262, where it was held when plain- liable to plaintiff only as a manda- tiff had undertaken with defendant tary or depository, having failed to " reasonably to content him for the use ordinary diligence under the cir- carriage," the latter was liable as a cumstances. This case would seem private carrier for hire, although to be analogous to those cited in the there was no proof of a specific com- text and the carrier to be liable as a pfn«ation having been paid him. common carrier as to the money as 23. Spears v. Lake Shore, etc., R. he is of the passenger's baggage, the Co., 67 Barb. (N. Y.) 513; Mallory v. price paid for the passage being also Tioga R. Co., 32 TIow. Pr. (N. Y.) the hire for the carriage of whatever 616, afTg. 39 Barb. (N. Y.) 488. the passenger commits to the cu»- 24. Pierce v. Milwaukee, rtc, R. tody of the carrier. Co., 23 Wis. 387; Aldridge v. Groat 25. Gray v. Missouri Riv. Packet Western R. Co., 15 C. B. N. S. 582, Co., 64 Mo. 47; Kirtland v. Montgon*- tOO E. C. L. 582. Compare Jenkins ery, 1 Swan (Tenn.), 452. 10 THE LAW OF CARRIERS. essary to constitute one a common carrier that a stipulation should bo entered into as to the amount of freight to be paiJ. But unless a right to compensation exists, the common law liability of a com- mon carrier is not created, though there may be the responsibility of a mandatary incurred.^* Though there be no stipulated price for the service, yet if the usage in such cases implies an agree- ment to pay the carrier for suc^ service, he will be liable as a common carrier." § 9. Proof of negligence. A private carrier without hire is a mandatary or bailee without reward and is liable in all cases for gross negligence only, and this must be proved against him. If he fails to deliver the goods ac- cording to his undertaking, in order to make him liable for the loss, proof must be made of a demand and refusal, or that the property was lost by the carrier's negligence.^'' It then devolves upon the carrier to account for the loss by showing tbat it occurred under circumstances such as to relieve him from liability.^* The statements made by the carrier at the time of the demand and 26. Knox V. Rives, 14 Ala. 249, 48 Am. Dec. 97. The owner of a private ferry, altliough on a road not opened by public authority, or repaired by public labor, may so use it as to sub- ject himself to the liability of a common carrier, if he undertakes, for Lire, to convey across the river all persons indifferently, with their car- riages and goods; but this is a ques- tion for the jury. Littlejohn v. Jones, 2 McMull. (S. C.) 365, 39 Am. Dec. 132. 27. Kirtland v. Montgomery, 1 Swan (Tenn.), 452. 28. Beardslce v. Richardson, 11 Wend. (N. Y.) 25, 25 Am. DfC. 596; Lampley v. Scott, 24 Miss. 528. If the goods be taken from him by one having paramount title, he is dis- charged. Edson V. Weston, 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 278; Beardslee v. Richard- eon, supra. 29. Beardslee v. Richard«on, supra; Darling v. Younker, 37 Ohio St. 493, 41 Am. Rep. 532. A bailor who entrusts his goods, knowing how and where the bailee will keep them, assents to such keeping, and can maintain no action for their loss. Knowles v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 38 Me. 55, 61 Am. Dec. 234. A person who undertakes, without reward, to sell and dispose of the property of another in the same man- ner as though it was his own, is lia- ble for gross negligence, such as will imply fraud, and is not bound, under such a contract, " to dispose of the same as a prudent man would of his own." McLean v. Rutherford, 8 Mo. 109. A bailee acting gratuitously in car- rying money, which is lost, while other money, which is his own, is not lost, is liable for the loss. Bland v. Womack, 2 Murph. (N. C.) 373. A bailee, without reward, who has CARRIERS GENERALLY. 11 refusal to deliver the property, in which he gives an account of the loss by accident, or theft, with the attendant circumstances, are part of the res gestae, and admissible as evidence in his favor.** § 10. Private carriers for hire. A private carrier for hire is one who, without being engaged in such business as a public employment, undertakes to carry and deliver goods in a particular case, for hire or reward.^^ A private carrier for hire is one who acts in a particular case for hire or reward.^^* One who is the owner of a vessel, and who is especially employed to transport a cargo of grain, is not a common or publio carrier, but only a private carrier for hire.^^ All persons who carry under a special contract, as the driver of a stagecoach, occa- sionally taking packages to carry for compensation, are private used money with which he is in- trusted, and is afterwards robbed of other money, must bear the loss. An- derson V. Foresman, Wright (Ohio), 598. If the bailee " keeps the goods bailed to him, but as he keeps his own, though he keeps his own negli- gently, yet he is not chargeable for them, for the keeping of them as he keeps his own is an argument of hii honesty." Coggs v. Bernard, 2 Ld. Eaym. 909, 1 Smith's L. Cas. 199. Compare Doorman v. Jenkins, 2 Ad. & EI. 256, 29 E. C. L. 80; Rooth V. Wilson, 1 B. & Aid. 59. 30. Lamplcy v. Scott, 24 Miss. 528; Tompkins v. Saltmarsh, 14 S. & R. (Pa.) 275. "That a person robbed instantly states the fact, insti- tutes a search, and prosecutes the ofTender, are circumstances for the jury. It would bo dillicult to estab- lish such facts except by the attend- ing circumstances. Such evidinoe is competent, as it would be for the plaintifT to show that at the time of the alleged robbery the defendant re- mained silent, neither instituting search or prosecution." Anderson v. Foresman, Wright (Ohio), 598. 31. Penniwill v. Cullen, 5 Harr. (Del.) 238; Self v. Dunn, 42 Ga. 528, 5 Am. Rep. 544; Littlejohn v. Jones, 2 McMulI. L. (S. C.) 306, 39 Am. Dec. 132; Sheldon v, Robinson, 7 N. H. 157, 26 Am. Dec. 726; Samms v. Stewart, 20 Ohio 69, 55 Am. Dec. 445; Moriarty v. Harn- den's Express, 1 Daly (N. Y.) 227; Rogers v. Head, Cro. Jac. 262. One who is employed for hire pro hao vice only, and does not make the carriage of goods his constant em- ployment, is not liable as a common carrier. Anon. v. Jackson, 1 Hayw. (N. C.) 14; Satterlee v. Groat, 1 Wond. (N. Y.) 272. 31a. Jackson Architectural Iron Works V. Ilurlbut, 158 N. Y. 34, 53 N. E. 665, 70 Am. St. Rep. 432; Fish V. Clark, 49 N. Y. 122; O'Rourke v. Bates. 133 N. Y. Supp. 303, 73 Misc. Rep. 414. 32. Allen v. Sackrider, 37 N, Y. 341. J3 THE LAW OF CARRIERS. carriers.'' One who is cniplovcd to tour down a houso for another and deliver the hriok and lumber at another place is simply a private carrier for hire.^"^ One who contracts to cut timber, and transport it to the place where it is to be delivered and used, does not incur the responsibility of a common carrier, but is only liable as a private carrier for the want of ordinary prudence, care and skill. ^* If the carrier holds himself out to the public generally as ready and willing to carry any goods that may be shipped, he is liable as a common carrier; ^^ but if he only proposes to carry the goods of particular persons, he cannot be held liable as a common carrier to a third person, with whom his servant or agent, in violation of his instructions, makes a contract for freight. ^^ A purchaser of machinery who contracts to remove it from the rail- road to his building, where it is to be erected by the vendor, does not become a common carrier and liable for breakage of the machinery by mere accident, without his negligence." A railroad acts as a private carrier, instead of as a common carrier, in carry- ing goods for an expretss company under a special agreement with such company,^^ And where a railroad company undertakes to haul along its line wagons belonging to private traders, it is a private carrier as to such wagons.^^ A common carrier may, by special contract, limit its common law liability, and thus become a private carrier or bailee for hire as to the particular goods car- ried under the contract, although it cannot by special contract create an exemption from liability for actual negligence of itself or its servants.^" A common carrier may become a private carrier, when, as a matter of accommodation or special engagement, it undertakes to carry something which it is not its business to carry."*** 33. Beckman v. Shouse, 5 Rawle. 37. AlHs v. Voight, 90 Mich. 125, (Pa.) 179, 28 Am. Dec. 653. 51 N. W. 190. 33a. McBurnie v. Stelsly, 29 Ky. 38. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Law Rep. 1191, 97 S. W. 42. Keefer, 146 Ind. 21, 44 N. E. 796, 38 34. Pike v. Nash, 1 Keyes (N. Y.), L. R. A. 93, 5 Am. & Eng. Cas. N. S. 335, 3 Abh. Dec. (N. Y.) 610. 26. 35. McClure v. Richardson, Rice 39. Watson v. North British R. L. (S. C.) 215, 33 Am. Dec. 105. Co., 3 Sc. SesB. Gas. {4th sess.) C37, 36. Steele v. McTyer, 31 Ala. 667, 3 Ry. & C. T. Cas. 17. 70 Am. Dec. 516; Jenkins v. Pickett, 40. New York Cent. R. Co. y. 9 Yerg. (Tenn.) 481; Satterlee v. Lockwood, 17 Wall. (U. S.) 357. «roat. 1 Wend. (N. Y.) 272. 40a. Santa F«, P. & P. Ry Co. r. CARRIERS GENERALLY. 13 § 11. Liability of private carriers for hire. The private or special carrier for hire is bound to exercise ordi- nary prudence, care, and skill in carrying goods and delivering them to the consignee, and is liable for ordinary negligence result- ing in loss or injury of the goods. He is not an insurer of the safety of the goods intrusted to him for transportation.*^ Ordi- nary care has been defined to be " such care and diligence as a reasonably prudent man would exercise in the conduct of his own business or in the preservation of his property." *^ A carrier for hire, although not a common carrier, is bound to make good losses arising from the negligence of his own servants, although he would not be liable for losses by thieves, or by any taking by force, if not himself guilty of negligence, or if the owner accompanies the goods to take care of them and is liimself guilty of negligence; for it is a rule of law that a party cannot recover if his own negligence was as much the cause of the loss as that of the defendant.^'^ But, in all such cases, whether there has or has not been a due degree of care on the part of the carrier, whether or not in the exercise Grant Bros. Const. Co., — Ariz. — , 108 Pac. 467; Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co.-v. Henry, 170 Ind, 94, 83 N. E. 710. 41. Allen v. Sackrider. 37 N. Y. 341; Fish v. Clark, 49 N. Y. 122, 2 Lans. (N. Y.) 176; Pike v. Nash, 1 Keyes (N. Y.), 335, 3 Abb. Dec. (N. Y.) 610; Beck v. Evans, 16 East, 244; Whalley v. Wray, 3 Esp. 74; Bowman v. Teall, 23 Wend. (N. Y.) 306; Allis v. Voight, 90 Mich. 125, 51 N. W. 190; White v. Bascom, 28 Vt. 268; Nelson v. Mackintosh, 1 Stark. 237, 2 E. C. L. 96. 42. United States v. Power, 6 Mont. 271; Ames v. Belden, 17 Barb. (N. Y.) 515; Samms v. Stewart, 20 Ohio, 73, 55 Am. Dec. 445; Story Bailm. § 399. " It is obvious that a bailee, wliatever the character of the bailment may be, when its purpose has been fully satisfied and per- formed, is bound, upon request, to redeliver the thing bailed to its law- ful owner. This is necessarily im- plied, in all cases, from the nature of the contract of bailment. The au- thorities are uniform to the effect that such redelivery may be excused in the case of a bailment, mutually beneficial to the parties, by proof that the deposit has been lost or de- stroyed without negligence, or want of such care on the part of a bailee as prudent men under similar cir- cumstances, commonly take of their own goods. In the case of gratu- itous bailments, however, the bailee is liable only when chargeable with gross neglect." Ouderkirk v. Central Nat. Bank, 119 N. Y. 263. See Nel- son v. Mackintosh, 1 Stark. 237, 2 E. C. L. 96. Compare Pender v. Rob- bins, 6 Jones L. (N. C.) 207. 43. Brind v. Dale, 8 C. & P. 207, 34 E. C. L. 355: Cailiff v. Danvera, 1 Peake N. P. 114. ^^ THE LAW OF CAKKIERS. of ordinary diligence tlie loss conld have been avoided, mnst bo decided from all the circumstances surrounding the case.** The carrier being liable only for losses resulting from his negligence, the burden of proof is on the owner or consignee of the goods lost to show that the loss resulted from the negligence of the carrier. The question is for the jury to determine where the evidence is contlicting." § 12. Special contracts increasing or diminishing liability. The rule is now well recognized that there is no restriction upon the right of any carrier to limit, by special contract, his common law liability for loss, except such loss as is due to the ne^liirence of himself or servants." Private or special carriers for hire may contract for a larger or more restricted liability than the law would imply against them in the absence of a special con- tract. They may become insurers against all possible hazards and assume liabilities coextensive with those of common carriers, or they may contract to answer for nothing but a loss happening dirough their own fraud or want of good faith. The contracting parties stand on equal terms and can make just such a bargain as ihej think will answer their purposes." They are carriers, com- mon or private, exactly according to their contracts, and their liabilities will be measured by the contract; and in actions against them for loss or damage, they must be declared against on the contracts or for a breach of duty, and not as common or private carriers.** Such contracts are strictly construed and an under- taking to carry " safely and securely " will not be presumed to enlarge the common law liability to carry free from ordinary neg- ligence and to make the carrier an insurer of the goods. To do this there must be an express agreement.*^ 44. story Bailm. § 39. 349; Hand v. Baynes, 4 Whart. 45. Kirtland v. Montgomery, 1 (Ta.) 214; Eobinson v. Dunmore, 2 Swan (Tenn.), 453; see Burden of Bos. & P. 417; Hadley v. Clark, 8 Proof; Carriers of goods. Chap. 14. T. R. 259; Breakneck Canal Nav. Co. 46. New York Cent. R. Co. v. T^ck- v. Pritehard, 6 T. R. 750; Paradine wood, 17 Wall. (U. S.) 357; and v. Jane, Alleyn. 27. other cases cited under Limitation of 48. Kimball v. Rutland Railroad, Liability, Carriers of Goods, chap. 10. 26 Vt. 247; Robinson v. Dunmore, 2 47. Wells V. Steam Nav. Co., 2 N. Bos. & P. 416. Y. 204; Alexander v. Green, 3 ITill 49. Ames v. Belden, 17 Barb. (N. (N. Y.) 9; Fish ▼. Chapman, 2 Ga. Y.) 516; Foster v. Essex Bank, 17 CARRIERS GENERALLY. 15 § 13. Lien of the private carrier. The rule seems to be that the private carrier has no common law lien upon tlie goods carried by him for his charges for trans- portation, and has a lien only when he specially reserves it by agreement, or it has been conferred by statute.^" Most textwriters, reasoning from analogy, find no satisfactory reason why the pri- vate carrier should not have the same lien as tlie warehouseman find wharfinger, who have rendered service in respect to the goods for the owner's benefit, or the tradesman or artisan, who, by his labor and skill and materials furnished, has added to the value of the goods in his charge.^^ This view has been criticised as questionable on the grounds that the artisan is given such a lien on the theory that he has bettered the property; the innkeeper and common carrier are recognized as entitled to it because they are in a measure public servants, and bound to perform services and furnish entertainment for all who apply; the warehouseman deals largely with the public, sei'ving all who apply, although not bound to do so, furnishing facilities at great expense to serve the public whose patronage he seeks; while none of these reasons apply in the case of the private carrier."^ It was said by Lord Kenyon, in speaking of the liens of warehousemen and whar- fingers, that liens were either by common law, usage or agree- ment; that a lien from usage was a matter of evidence; that the usage in the case under discussion had been proved so often it should be considered a settled point; and that liens by common law arose where a party was obliged to receive the goods.^^ The general lien of the wharfinger upon the goods of his customer en- trusted to him and in his possession, for his balance in repect of freight and wharfage, was admitted; but the court refused to Mass. 501, 9 Am. Dec. 168; Oakley is not enjoyed by a private carrier; V. Portsmouth, etc., Steam Packet Jones, Liens, § 276; Fuller v. Brad- Co., 11 Exch. 618; Ross v. Hill, 3 ley, 25 Pa. St. 120; Picquet v. Mc- C. B. 877, 3 Dowl. & L. 788; United Kay, 2 Blackf. (Ind.) 465. States V. Power, 6 Mont. 271; Scaife 61. Angell, Carriers (5th ed.), § V. Farrant, L. R. 10 Exch. 358, 66; Hutchinson, Carriers, § 46; 60. Riddle, Dean & Co. v. New Jones, Liens, § 276. York, etc., R. Co., 1 Int. Cora. R. 62. Van Zile, Bailments and Car- 594, 604, the compensation of a com- riers, § 404. mon carrier is assured to him by a 53. Ilolderness v. Collinson, 1 M. lien upon the goods — a right which k R. 55, 7 B. & C. 712. 10 THE LAW OF CARRIERS. flllow a lion claimed for laboragc (comprising landing, weigliing and delivering), and warehouse rent, because the custom proved was not sutHciently certain and uniform to lay a foundation, upon which an express or implied contract could be found, to act upon it." A warehouseman has a specific lien, unless it is made general by an express or implied contract, upon goods entrusted to him within his line of business, for his reasonable charges. His lien arose out of the usage of business, repeatedly proved and recog- nized until it has become an established right.^* An artisan or other bailee for hire of labor and services has an interest or special property in the chattels upon which his labor or services are per- formed, for which he has a specific lien until he is paid for hia labor, or parts with the possession pursuant to the terms of his airreement.^® The lien of the artisan, therefore, seems to be founded upon his special property in the chattel and his having added something to its value ; the lien of the common carrier and innkeeper is based upon the fact that they are bound to receive the goods and perform the services required ; the lien of the ware- 54. Holdernoss v. CoHinson, supra; Navlor V. Mangles, 1 Esp. 109; Spears v. Hartley, 3 Esp. 81; Rush- ford V. Hadfield, 6 East, 519; Dresser V. Bosanquet, 4 B. & S. 460, 116 E. C. L. R. 55. Holdernoss v. Collinson, supra; Naylor v. I\Iangle3, supra; Spears v. Hartley, supra. As against a con- signee, knowing the regulation and usage of a railroad company to re- quire certain kinds of goods to be un- loaded within twenty-four hours after notice to him of their arrival, the company as warehousemen have a lien on the goods for storage after the twenty-four hours have elapsed. Mil- ler V. Mansfield, 112 Mass. 260. A warehouseman has a specific, not a general lien; but he may de- liver a part, and retain the residue for the price chargeable on all the gr.ods received by him under the same bailment, provided the ownership of the whole is in the same person. Steinman v. Wilkins, 7 Watts & S. (Pa.) 466. Where a quantity of merchandise is stored in a ware- house, and portions of it are from time to time delivered out without receiving the storage thereon, the warehouseman has a lien upon the residue for the storage of the whole ; it being one transaction, the lien covers the whole of the goods deposi- ted, and may rest upon each part of the entire claim. Morgan v. Cong- don, 4 N. Y. 552; Schmidt v. Blood, 9 Wend. (N. Y.) 268; McFarland v. Wheeler, 26 Wend. (N. Y.) 467; Lowe V. Martin 18 111. 286; Sears v. Wills, 4 Allen (Mass.), 212; Blake V, Nicholson, 3 M. & S. 168. 56. Gregory v. Stryker, 2 Denio (N. Y.), 628; Moore v. Hitchcock, 4 Wend. (N. Y.) 292; Wheeler v. Mc- Farland, 10 Wend. (N. Y.) 318, 324. CARRIERS GENERALLY. I7 houseman and wharfinger is founded upon long established and well recognized usage; none of which reasons for a lien exist in the case of the private carrier. But it has been held that a car- rier, bj boat, of freight to a specified place and back, taking in and putting out freight at different places, as the shipper might direct, for a stipulated sum per day, has a lien on the freight remaining on board on the return of the boat, for the whole unpaid freight.^" And, in a recent case, that the owner of a steamboat engaged in the business of towing is not a common carrier, entitled as such to a specific lien upon the goods carried, for his charges ill transporting them, especially where he tows only for a single party, but that he has a common law bailee's lien thereon.^' 57. Fuller v. Bradley, 25 Pa. St 58. Knapp, etc., Co. v. McCaffrey, 120. 178 111. 107, 52 N. E. 898, affg. 74 HL App. 80. CHAPTER II. Common Cauuikrs. Skction 1. What constitutes a common carrier. 2. Tl)e liability of the common carrier. 3. Liability in the carrying of live stock. 4. Liability where tlie loss or injury results from the inherent nature of the goods. 5. Where the loss or injury is the result of the acts of the shipper. 6. Wiiere the loss or injury is the result of delay in the transmission of the goods. 7. Where the loss or Injury is caused by the exercise of public au- thority. 8. Liability of carriers of passengers. 9. Express companies. 10. Railroad companies. 11. Receivers and assignees of railroad company o]terating the road. 12. Trustees of mortgage bonds of railroad cumpauy. 13. Street railroad companies. 14. One railroad transporting the cars of another — terminal railroads. 15. Transportation or dispatch companies. 16. Express freight lines. 17. Owners of canal boats. 18. Owners of tow beats towing water craft on the Mississippi. 19. Owners of boats employed in towing other boats or vessels. 20. Ferrymen. 21. Hackmen. 22. Proprietors of omnibuses. 23. Proprietors of stage coaches. 24. Palace and sleeping car companies. 25. Pipe line for carrying oil. 26. Wagoners. 27. Carriers by river craft. 2S. Truckmen, freijjhtmcn, draymen, cartmen. and porters. 29. Owners and masters of ships and steamboats or vessels. SO. Lightermen and hoymen. 31. Owners of toll bridge. 32. Canal companies. 33. Forwarding merchants. 34. Warehousemen and wharfingers. 35. Postmasters, mail contractors, and mail cnrviorg. 36. Tx)g-carrying, or log-driving, or boom conii^anies. 37. Telegraph companies. 18 COMMON CAEHlERiJ. 19 Section 3S. Telephone companies. 39. Railroad company transporting a circus, menagerie, or show. 40. Railroad companj- in South Laroiina only over its own line. 41. Railroad company carrying a dog for accommodation of passenger. 42. Carrier luider a contract exempting " river risks." 43. Owners of passenger elevators. 44. Car-switching companies. 45. Telegraph messenger companies. 46. Carriers of money and bank bills. 47. An irrigation company. 48. Transfer companies. 49. Owners of grain elevators. 50. Storage and transfer companies — public moving van companies. § 1. What constitutes a common carrier. A common or public carrier is one who, by virtue of his busi- ness or calling, undertakes, for compensation, to transport personal property from one place to another, either by land or water, and deliver the same, for all such as may choose to employ him; and every one, who undertakes to carry and deliver, for compensation, the goods of all persons indifferently, is, as to liability, to be deemed a common carrier.^ One holding out to the public as 1. Jackson Arcliitectural Iron Works V. Hurlbut, 158 N. Y. 34, 38, 52 N. E. 665, 70 Am. St. Rep. 432; afTg. 15 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 93. 71 St. Rop. (N. Y.) 830, 36 X. Y. Supp. 808; Ixjugh V. Outcrbridge, 143 N. Y. 271, 145 N. Y. 601, aflfg. 68 Hun (N. Y.), 486; Allen v. Sackrider, 37 N, Y. 341; Bank of Orange v. Brown, 3 Wend. (N. Y.) 158, 161, 9 Wend. (N. Y.) 85; Alexander v. Green, 7 Hill (N. Y.), 544; Blanchard v. Isaacs, 3 Barb. (N. Y.) 388; O'Rourke v. Bates, 73 Misc. Rep. 414, 133 K. Y. Supp. 392; Schouler B^ilm. &, Car. (2d ed.) 351; Story Bail. §§ 495, 496; 2 Kent's Com. (4th ed.) pp. 598, 599; 2 Pars. Cont. 165. 175; Angell Carr. 870; 1 Smith's Lead. Cas. (8th Am. ed.) 392; Smith's Mercantile Law (Pomnroy's ed.), 5 A common carrier was defined in Gisburn v. Hurst, 1 Salk. 249, to be " any man undertaking, for hire, to carry the goods of all persons indif- ferenthj;" and in Dwight v. Brew- ster, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 50, 11 Am. Dec. 133, to be " one who undertakes, for hire, to transport the goods of such as choose to employ him from place to place." Allen v. Sackrider, 37 N. Y. 341. The former definition hns been ap- proved in Gordon v. Hutchinson, 1 W. & S. (Pa.) 285, 37 Am. Dec. 464; Mershon v. Hobensack, 22 N. J. L. 377; Verner v. Sweitzer, 32 Pa. St. 208; Bank of Orange v. Brown, supra, wherein CJhief Justice Savage said: "Every person who undertakes to carry for a compensation, the goods of all persons indifferently, is as to the liability imposed, to be con- 20 THE LAW OF CARRIERS. ready to undertake for hire tho transportation of goods, and so inviting custom of tho public, is a common carrier/" A common carrier is one who openly professes to carry for hire the goods of all who ciioose to employ him, and whoso duty it is to carry for all who comply with tho terms as to freight, etc. ; while a private carrier is one who, without being engaged in the business gen- erally, uiulortakes to carry goods for hire in a particular case.^"* The employment of a common carrier is a public one and he as- sumes a public duty, and is bound to receive and carry the goods sidered a common carrier. The dis- tinction between a common carrier and a private or special carrier is, that the former holds himself out in common, that is to all persons who employ him, as ready to carry for hire; while the latter agrees in some special case with some private indi- vidual to carry for hire." Story Cont. § 752a. Common carriers undertake gener- ally, and not as a casual occupation, and for all people indifferently, to convey goods and deliver them at a place appointed for hire as a busi- ness, and with or without a special agreement as to price. 2 Kent's Com. 598. The definition given in the text is substantially that approved by the following additional cases: The Pro- peller Niagara v. Cordes, 21 How. (U. S.) 22; Central R., etc., Co. v. Lampley, 76 Ala. 357, 52 Am. Rep. 334, 23 Am. & Eng. R Cas. 720; Babcock v. Herbert, 3 Ala. 392, 37 Am. Dec. 695; Schloss v. Wood, 11 Cole. 287; Bennett v. Filyaw, 1 Fla. 453; Robertson v. Kennedy, 2 Dana (Ky.), 430, 26 Am. Dec. 466; Elkins T. Boston, etc., R. Co., 23 N. H. 275; Sheldon v. Robinson, 7 N. H. 157, 163, 26 Am. Dec. 726; Fuller v. Brad- ley, 25 Pa. St. 120; Littlejohn v. Jones, 2 McMul. (S. C.) 365, 39 Am. Dec. 132; Chevallier v. Straham, 2 Tex. 115, 118, 47 Am. Dec. 639; Doty V. Strong, 1 Pin. (Wis.) 324, Burn. (Wis.) 158, 40 Am. Dec. 773. la. Lloyd v. Haugh & Keenan Storage & Transfer Co., 223 Pa. 148, 73 Atl. 516. A common carrier is one whose business it ia to carry chattels for all persons who may choose to em- ploy and remunerate him; and this applies to carriers by land and water, without regard to distance or mo- tive power. Nicolette Lumber Co. v. People's Coal Co., 26 Pa. Super. Ct. 575 (1904), rev'd 213 Pa. 379, 62 Atl. 1060, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 327, 110 St. Rep. 550. lb. The Cape Charles, 198 Fed. 346. A common carrier is one who un- dertakes for compensation to trans- port property from one place to an- other. United States v. Ramsey, 197 Fed. 144. A company engaged in the livery business does not hold itself out to serve any and all persons, but oper- ates only under a special contract, and deals with such persons only as it chooses, and is in no sense a com- mon carrier. Trout v. Walkins Liv- ery & Undertaking Co., — Mo. App. — , 130 S. W. 136. (X)MMON CARRIERS. 21 of any one wlio offers, provided the goods be of the kind he pro- fesses to carry, and the person so offering agrees to have them carried upon the lawful terms prescribed by the carrier." To 2. Allen v, Sackrider, 37 N. Y. 341; Sanford v. American Dist. Tel. Co., 13 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 88, 34 N. Y. Su[p. 144; Hutchinson Carr. § 47: Bishop Noncont. Law, §§ 1057, 1151, 1185; Carton v. Bristol, etc., R. Co., 1 B. & S. 112, 101 E. C. L. 112. A common carrier is one who plys between certain termini and openly profc'sses to carry for hire tlie goods of all such persons as may choose to employ him. He may profess to carry all descriptions of goods or particu- lar descriptions only. Redman's Law of Railway Carriers (2d ed.), 1. To bring a person within the de- scription of a common carrier, he must exercise it as a public employ- ment, he must undertake to carry •roods for persons generally, and he iiuist hold himself out as ready to engage in the transportation of goods fur hire, as a business, not as a ca-ual occupation pro hac vice. Story Bail. § 495. Tile common carrier is one who, oy the ancient law, held as it were a public office and was bound to the I)iiblic, and who, to become liable as a common carrier, must exercise the business of carrying as a public em- ployment, and must undertake to carry goods for all persons indiscrim- inately and hold himself out as ready to engage in the transportation of goods for hire as a business, and not as a casual occupation. Chitty Carr. A common carrier has also been de- fined to be " one who offers to carry poods for any person between certain termini or on a certain route, and who is bound to carry for all who tender him goods and the price of carriage." The Neaffie, 1 Abb. (U. S.) 467. See also, Parsons on Ship- ping, Vol. 1, p. 245; Nugent V. Smith, 1 C. P. Div. 427. A common carrier is one who un- dertakes and exercises as a public em- ployment the transportation or car- riage of goods, for persons generally, from place to place, whether by land or water, and to deliver them at the place appointed, for hire or reward and with or without a special agree- ment as to price. McHenry v. Phila- delphia, etc., R. Co., 4 Harr, (Del.) 448; Carpenter v. Baltimore & 0. R. Co., 6 Penn. (Del.) 15, 64 Atl. 252. Statutory definitions. — Every rail- road corporation doing business in this State shall be a common car- rier. Any one or two or more cor- porations owning or operating con- necting roads, within this State, or partly within and partly without the State, shall be liable as a common carrier, for the transportation of pas- sengers or delivery of freigiit re- ceived by it to be transported by it to any place on the line of a connect- ing road; and if it shall become lia- ble to pay any sum by reason of neg- lect or misconduct of any other cor- poration, it may collect the same of the corporation h-r reason of whose neglect or misconduct it became lia- ble. The Railroad Law of Niw York, § 48. Every one who offers to the public to carry persons, property, or mes- sagea, except only telegraph messages, ia a common carrier of whatever he THE LAW OF CAKKIHKS. constitute a common carrier, it is not essential tliat the person or .corpuration undertaking such service own the means of transpor- tation, it being sutlicient tliat a contract is made by which the carrier agrees to transport and deliver the goods.^ According to all the autliorities, the essential cliaracteristics of the common carrier are tliat he holds himself out as such to the world; that he undertakes generally, and for all persons indillorently, to carry goods and deliver them, for hire; and that his public profession of his employment be such that, if he refuse, without some just ground, to carry goods for any one, ii; .he course of his employ- ment and for a reasonable and customary price, he will be liable to an action.^ The nature and extent of the employment and busi- ness in which he holds himself out to the public either expressly thus offers to carry. Cal. Civ. Code, 1SS6, § 2168. Any person undertaking to trans- port goods to another place for a compensation is a carrier. One who pursues the business constantly or continuously for any period of time, or any distance of transportation, is a common carrier. 2 Ga. Code, 1895, §§ 2263, 2264. •' Any otlier carrier engaged in the transportation of messages or trans- portation of passengers or freight for hire," as used in Nebraska Laws 1907, p. 320, c. 90, § 4, defining a common carrier to be a corporation, etc., owning, managing, or control- ling a railroad, etc., or any express company, car company, sleeping car company, and freight line company, telegraph and telephone companies, and any other carrier engaged in the transmission of messages or trans- portation of passengers or freight for hire, means only such companies as by their public profession hold themselves out as engaged in trans- mitting messages or transporting passengers or freight for hire, and as •willing to perform such services for any person having occasion to em- ploy them. State v. Union Stock- yards Co. of Omaha, 115 N. W. 627 (Neb. 1908). 2a. Blakiston v. Davies, Turner & Co., 42 Pa. Super. Ct. 390; J. H. Cownie Glove Co. v. Merchants' Dis- patch Transp. Co., 130 Iowa 327, 106 N. W. 749, 114 Am. St. Kep. 419, 4 L. R. A. (iSI. S.) 1060. 3. Fish V. Clark, 2 Lans. (N. Y.) 176, 178, afld. 49 N. Y. 122; Allen v. Sackrider, supra; Santa Fe P. & P. Co. V. Grant Bros. Const. Co., 108 Pac. (Ariz.) 467; 3 Kent's Com. 597; Story Bail. § 495; 2 Parsons Cont. 166, note; Angell Com. Carr. § 46. The liability to an action for a re- fusal to carry is perhaps the safest criterion of the character of the car- rier. Fish V. Chaf)man, 2 Ki Uy (Ga.), 352; 46 Am. Dec. 393. Com- pare Gordon v. Hutcliinson, 1 \V. & S. (Pa.) 285, 37 Am. Dec. 464; Stein- man V. Wilkins, 7 W. & S. (Pa.) ''.66, 24 Am. Dec. 254. See, also, Pied- mont Manufacturing Co. v. Columbia, etc., R., 19 S. C. 352, 16 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 194. COMMON CARRIERS. 23 or impliedly, as engaged, furnish the true limits of the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the common carrier/ The chief distinction between common carriers and all others lies in the fact that, in respect to the extent of their responsibility and the liability they assume in their undertaking, they effectually insure the safe transportation and delivery of the goods they carry, and are made liable, by reason of the public nature of their em- ployment and the responsibility imposed upon them by the law, upon the grounds of public policy, for loss or injury from what- ever cause arising, excepting only acts of God and the public enemy, and in the further fact that, as public or common carriers for hire, they are obliged by law to carry for all persons indiffer- ently.^ A common carrier may be a carrier of either passengers 4. Citizens' Bank v. The Kantuckct Steamboat Co., 2 Story (U. S.). 16, 35. Holding out to the world as a test. For authorities, where this test has been applied, see Kansas Pac. R. Co. V. Nichols, 9 Kan. 253, 12 Am. Rep. 494; Kirby v. Adams Express Co., 2 Mo. App. 369; United States Exp. Co. V. Bachman, 28 Ohio St. 144, 14 Am. Ry. Rep. 82; Missouri Pac. R. Co. V. Harris, 1 Tex. Civ. App. Cas. § 1257; !McCiures v. Hammond, 1 Bay (S. C), 99, 1 Am. Dec. 598; Moss V. Bettis, 4 Heisk. (Tenn.) 661, 13 Am. Rep. 1; Citizens' Bank v. The Nantucket Steamboat Co., supra; Fish V. Clark, supra; Ingate v. Chris- tie, 3 C. & K. 61; Nugent v. Smith, 1 C. P. Div, 27, wherein the court said : " The test is not whether he is carrying on a public employment, or wliether he carries to a fixed place; but whether he holds out, either ex- pressly or by a course of conduct, that he will carry for hire, so long as he has room, the goods of all per- sons indifTerently who send him goids to be carried." Rchloss v. Wood, 11 Colo. 291, wherein the court said: "A •person can hold himself out as a com- mon carrier by engaging in the busi- ness generally, or by announcing or proclaiming it by cards, advertise- ments, or by any other means that would let the public know that he in- tended to be a common or general carrier for the public." Roussel v. Aumais, Rap. Jud. Que. 18, C. S. 474. 5. Price v. Hartshorn, 44 N. Y. 94, afTg. 44 Barb. (N. Y.) 455; South & North Alabama R. v. Wood, 66 Ala, 167, 9 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 419; Varble v. Bigley, 77 Ky. (14 Bush.) 698, 29 Am. Rep. 435, the two dis- tinguishing characteristics of a com- mon carrier are in respect to his duty, he being obliged to transport goods offered, and in respect to bis risk, he being liable as an insurer; Gales V. Hailman, 11 Pa. St. 515; Hart V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 27 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 59; Texas Exp. Co. V. Scott, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. Ill; Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Burke, 55 Texas, 323, 9 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 59; Davis v. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 26 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 315; Tlall V. Railroad Co., 13 Wall. (U. S.) 367; Hart v. Western, etc.. R. Co., 13 Mete. (Mass.) 99; Van Sant- voored v. St. John, 6 Hill (N. Y.), 2i TUE LAW OF CARRIERS. or freight, or hotli ; but tlic natnro of tho responsibility incurred is very ditYcrent in the two oases; in one, his responsibility being that of a carrier of passengers, and negligence being the essential clement of the ca?c, as will be hereafter shown, and in the other, tliat of a common carrier of goods.* Any person or corporation offering its services to all persons similarly situated and perform- ing as its public vocation the services of transporting passengers, freight, or intelligence is a common carrier in the particular spheres of such employment.''* To constitute one a common car- rier it is not necessary that his exclusive business shall be carry- ing.'' It has been held that in order to constitute one a common carrier the business of carrying must be habitual and not casual ; • and, to the contrary, that one who carries goods for hire contracts the responsibility of a common carrier, whether transportation be his principal and direct business, or an occasional and incidental 157; Lane v. Cotton, 1 Salk. 143; Nugent V. Smith, L. R. 1 C. P. Div. 19, 423. 6. Thompson Houston Electric Co. V. Simon, 20 Or. 60, 25 Pac. 147, 10 L. R. A. 251, 43 Alb. L. J. 48; Boyce v. Anderson, 2 Peters (U. S.), 150; Stokes v. Saltonstall, 13 Peters (U. S.), 181; Hollister v. Nowlen, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 234; Camden, etc., R. Co. V. Burke, 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 611; Aston V. Heaven, 2 Esp. 533; Crofts V. Waterhouse, 3 Bing. 319, 11 Moore, 133; Readhead v. Ry. Co., L. R. 2 Q. B. 412, L. R. 4 Q. B. 379; Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. V. Hinds, 53 Pa. St. 512; Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Henry, 170 Ind. 94, 83 N. E. 710, revg. — Ind. — , 80 N. E. C36. Seo also. Carriers of Passengers. Common carriers of passengers are such as undertake to carry all per- sons who may apply for passage, so long as there is room and there is no legal excu=e for refusing. Gilling- ham V. 01. io River R. Co., 35 W. Va. CSS, 29 Am. St. Rep. 827; Bouv. Law Diet. tit. " Common Carriers of Pas- sengers." The only distinction be- tween a common or public carrier of passengers and a private or special carrier of passengers is that it is the duty of the former to receive all per- sons who apply. Angell Carr. § 524. 6a. State v. Union Stockyards Co. of Omaha, 81 Neb. 67, 115 N. W. 627. A corporation is none the less a general carrier, as defined by Minne- sota Gen, St. 1894, § 379, because its articles do not in terms prescribe that one of its powers is to carry freight. In re Minneapolis & St. P. Suburban Ry. Co., 101 Minn. 132, 112 N. W. 13 (1907). 7. Jackson A. Iron Works v. Hurlbut, 158 N. Y. 34, 52 N. E. 665;' The Propeller Niagara v. Cordes, 21 How. (U. S.) 7; Dwight v. Brewster, J Pick. (Mass.) 50. 8. Fish V. Chapman, 2 Ga. 349, 46 Am. Dec. 393; Samms v. Stewart, 20 Ohio, 69, 55 Am. Dec. 445; Nugent V. Smith, 1 C. P. Div. 27; Story BaiU § 495; 2 Kent's Com. 597. CJOMMON CARRIERS. 25 employment.' The rule has heen laid down that one who under- takes, for a reward, to carry produce or goods of any sort from one place to another becomes thereby a common carrier ;^° and that the distinctive characteristic of a common carrier is that ho transports goods for hire for the public generally, and it is imma- terial whether this is his usual or occasional occupation, his prin- cipal or subordinate pursuit." It has been said that the true test of the character of a party is his legal duty and obligation with reference to transportation. If it is his legal duty to carry for all alike who comply with his tenna as to freight, etc., then he is a common carrier, and is subject to all those stringent rules which for wise ends have long since been adopted and uniformly enforced, both in England and in all the States, upon common carriers. If, on the contrary, he may carry or not, as he deems best, he is but a private individual, and is invested, like all other private persons, with the right to make his own contracts, and when made to stand upon them, and he is not bound by the stringent rules applicable to common carriers.^ On the other hand, it has been maintained that the duty to carry is one of the results of the relation of common carrier and in no way one of its causes or distinguishing features. If a carrier is sued for a refusal to carry, the first question presented, and the ontj upon which the case must depend, is whether or not it is a common carrier. The status of the defendant as a common carrier must be first established before the duty to carry can be known to exist.^* In the absence of charter or statutory provisions affecting its right, it is competent for a railroad company to determine for itself within what limits it will act as a common carrier, what business it will engage in, what means and methods of transportation it will employ, what goods it will carry, and between what points 9. Gordon v. Hutchinson, 1 W. & 11. Chevallier v. Straliam, 2 Tex. S. (Pa.) 285, 37 Am. Dec. 464; Hahl 119, 47 Am. Dec. 639; Haynie v. V. Laux, 42 Tex. Civ. App. 182, 93 S. Baylor, 18 Tex. 498. V. 1080. 12. Piedmont Mfg. Co. v. Colura- 10. Craig v. Childress, Peck bia, etc., R. Co., 19 S. C. 353, 16 Am. (Tenn.). 270. 14 Am. Dec. 751; Tur- & Eng. R. Cas. 194. Dey V. \vii-r,n. 7 Yerg. (Tenn.) 340, 13. Steinman v. Wilkina, 7 W. & 27 Am. Dec. 615; Moses v. Norria, 4 S. (Pa.) 466, 42 Am. Dec. 254. N. H. 308. 20 TllK LAW OF CAKHIKRS. ninl niulcr \v1i;it circunistnnccs and conditions it will roccive tlie -•^:iine, subji'ot always to the limitation that it must act in good faith, reasonably, and not arbitrarily or capriciously, and without discrimination; doing for all under like circumstances what it docs lor any." § 2. The liability of the common carrier. The common law liability of the common carrier of goods, in the absence of special contract or proven custom limiting such liability, is that of an insurer against loss or injury of the prop- erty, while in its custody or under its control as a common carrier, or until delivery or what is deemed tantamount to delivery to the consignee or owner, excepting only those losses or injuries caused by the act of God or the public enemy.^ But the strict rule of 14. Harp v. Choctaw, etc., Ry. Co. (U. S. C. C. Ark.), 118 Fed. 169. 15. Common law liability that of an insurer. U. S. — Holladay v. Kcn- iiiird, 12 Wall. (U. S.) 254; Fear- son V. Duane, 71 U. S. (4 Wall.) 605, 18 L. Ed. 447; Diisar v. Murgatroyd, 1 Wash. (U. S.) 17; Pendall v. Pvench, 4 McLean (U. S.), 259; Bur- ritt V. Rench, 4 McLean (U. S.), 325. Ala. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Mc- Guire, 79 Ala. 395; Jones v. Pitcher, 3 ^tew. & P. (Ala.) 135, 24 Am. Dec. 716. Ark. — Packard v. Taylor, 35 Ark. 402. 37 Am. Rep. 37. Cal. — Cohannan v. Hammond, 42 Cal. 227; Hooper v. Wells, 27 Cal. IGl, 85 Am. Dec. 211. Conn. — Williams v. Grant. 1 Ccnn. 4S7. 7 Am. Dec. 235. De/. — Culbreth v. Philadplphia, etc., R. Co., 3 Houst. (Del.) 392. fja. — Clyde Steamer Co. v. Bur- rows, 36 Fla. 121. Ca. — Cooper v. Berry, 21 Ga. 52C, f.8 Am. Dec. 468; Fish v. Chapman, 2 Ga. 349, A^ Am. Dfc. 303. III. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Saw- yer, 69 in. 285, 18 Am. Rep. 613; Chicaga, etc., R. Co. v. Shea, 66 IlL 471; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. McCiel- lan, 54 111. 58, 5 Am. Rep. 83; West- ern Transp. Co. v. Newhall, 24 111. 466, 76 Am. Dec. 760. Ind. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Nicholai, 4 Ind. App. 119, 30 N. E. 424, 45 Alb. L. J. 412; Adams E.k- press Co. v. Darnell, 31 Ind. 20, 99 Am. Dec. 582; Banscmer v. Toledo, etc., R. Co., 25 Ind. 434, 87 Am. Dec. 367. Ky. — Bland v. Adams E.xpress Co., 1 Duv. (Ky.) 232. 85 Am. Dec. 523; Robertson v. Kennedy, 2 Dana (Ky.), 431, 26 Am. Dec. 466; Hall v. Ken- fro. 3 Mete. (Ky.) 51. La. — Berje v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 37 La. Ann. 4C8; Cranwell v. Sliip Fanny Fosdick, 15 La. Ann. 436, 77 Am. Dec. 190; Van Hern v. Taylor, 7 Rob. (La.) 201, 41 Am. Dec. 279. Me. — Fillebrown v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 65 Me. 462, 92 Am. Dec. 606; Parker v. Flagg, 26 Me. 181, 45 Am. Dec. 101. COMMON CARRIERS. 27 the common law is not now lield to apply to carriers of live Md. — Ferguson v. Brent, 12 Md. 9, 71 Am. Dec. 582. Ma/is. — Claflin v. Boston, etc., E. Co., 7 Allen (Mass.), 341. Miss. — Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. Weiner, 49 Miss. 725; Southern Ex- press Co. V. Moon, 39 Miss. 822; Ben- nett V. Byram, 38 Miss. 17, 75 Am. Dec. 90; Powell v. Mills, 30 Miss. 231, 64 Am. Dec. 158; VVhitesides v. Thurlkill, 12 Smed. & M. (Miss.) 599, 51 Am. Dec. 128; Gilmore v. Carman, 1 Smed. & M. (Miss.) 279, 40 Am. Dec. 9G; Neal v. Saunderson, 2 Smed. & M. (Miss.) 572, 41 Am, Dec. 609. i/o.— -Davis V. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 89 Mo 340, 26 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 315, ret^g. 13 Mo. App. 449; Daggett V. Shaw, 3 Mo. 264, 25 Am. Dec. 439. N. H. — Moses v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 24 N. H. 71, 55 Am. Dec. 222. N. J. — ^Xew Brunswick Steamboat, etc., Transp. Co. v. Tiers, 24 N. J. L. 697, 64 Am. Dec. 394. N. Y. — McKinney v. Jewett, 90 N. Y. 267, 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 209, affg. 24 Hun (N. Y.), 19; Read v. Spaulding, 30 N. Y. 630, 86 Am. Dec. 426; Michaels v. New York Cent. R. Co., 30 N. Y. 564, 86 Am. Dec. 415; Merritt v. Earle, 29 N. Y. 115, 86 Am. Dec. 292; Howe v. Oswego, etc., R. Co., 56 Barb. (N. Y.) 121; Heine- man V. Grand Trunk R. Co., 31 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 430; Parsons v. Hardy, 14 Wend. (N. Y.) 215, 28 Am. Dec. 521; De Jfott V. Laraway, 14 Wend. (N. Y.) 225, 28 Am. Dec. 523; Colt V. Mc^fochr.n. 6 Johns. (N. Y.) 160, 5 Am. Dec. 200. V. C. — Boner v. Merchants' Steam- 1-oat Co., 1 Jones L. (N. C.) 211; Harrell v. Owens, 1 Dev. &. B. L. (N. C.) 273. Ohio. — Welsh v. Pittsburg, etc., R. Co., 10 Ohio St. 65, 75 Am. Dec. 490. Pa. — Willock V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 166 Pa. St. 184, 45 Am. St. Rep. 674, 61 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 278; Leonard v. Hendrickson, 18 Pa. St. 40, 55 Am. Dec. 587; Simpson v. Hand, 6 Whart. (Pa.) 311, 36 Am. Dec. 231. 8. C. — Porcher v. Northeastern R. Co., 14 Rich. L. (S. C.) 181; Ewart V. Street, 2 Bailey L. (S. C.) 157, 23 Am. Dec. 131; Smyrl v. Niolon, 2 Bailey L. (S. C.) 421, 23 Am. Dec. 146. Tcnn. — Watson v. Memphis, etc., R. Co., 9 Heisk. (Tenn.) 255; Nashville, etc., R. Co. V. David, 6 Heisk. (Tenn.) 261, 19 Am. Rep. 594; Tur- ney v. Wilson, 7 Yerg. (Tenn.) 340, 27 Am. Dec. 515; Craig v. Childress, Peck (Tenn.), 270, 14 Am. Dec. 751; Lewis V. Ludwick, 6 Coldw. (Tcnii.) 368, 98 Am. Dec. 454. Tea;.— Philleo v, Sanford, 17 Tex. 231, 67 Am. Dec. 654; Texas, etc., R. Co. V. Morse, 1 Tex. Civ. App. Cas. § 411; Texas Express Co. v. Scott, 16 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. Ill; Cheval- lier V. Straham, 2 Tex. 115, 47 Am. Dec. 639. Vt. — Blumenthal v. Brainerd, 33 Vt. 402, 91 Am. Dec. 349; Day v. Ridley, 16 Vt. 48, 42 Am. Dec. 489. Fa.— Parish v. Rciglc, 11 Gratt. (Va.) 697, 62 Am. Dec. 666; Friend V. Woods, 6 Gratt. (Va.) 189. 52 Am. Dec. 119; Murphy v. Staton, 3 Munf. (Va.) 239. Wis. — Strolim v. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 23 Wis. 136, 99 Am. Dec. 114; Wood v. Crocker, 18 Wis. 345, 86 Am. Dec. 773. Enfj. — Coggs V. Bernard, 2 Ld. Raym. 909, 1 Smith's L. Cas. 199; 28 THE LAW OF CAraUEllS. Stock;" nor where the loss or injury n^ultca from the inherent nature of the goods; " nor where the loss or injury was duo to the Dogligenoo of the shipper; " nor where the loss or injury resulted from delay in the transmission of the goods ; " nor where the loss or injury was caused by the exercise of public authority.^" The rule imposing tho severe responsibility of an insurer upon him who undertook the task of carrying goods for the public which prevailed under the common law of England and the civil law of Kome originated in times when transportation, both by land and water, was insecure, and when the risk of collusion between the carrier and pirates or thieves was great. It was thought that in no other way could fidelity bo insured. The liability imposed was thus based largely upon reasons of public policy, and did not rest wholly on contract, express or implied, between the carrier and the shipper.-^ It is upon this obligation to carry and deliver safely Riley v. Home, 5 Bing. 217, 15 E. C. L, 422; Kugent v. Smith, 1 C. P. Div. 19, 423; Forward v. Pittard, 1 T. R. 27, 1 Rev. Rep. 146. 16. See § 3. 17. See § 4, post. 18. See § 5, post. 19. See § 6, post. 20. See § 7, post. 21. Reasons for severe responsi- bility. — In the case of Nugent v. Smith, L. R. 1 C. P. 19, 423, Brett, J., after stating that the real test •whether a man is a common carrier is whether he holds out, either ex- pressly or by a course of conduct, that he will carry for hire, so long as he has room, the goods of all persons indilTercntly who send him goods to be carried, says: "If he does this, his first responsibility naturally la that he is bound by a promise, im- plied by law, to receive and carry for a reasonable price the goods sent to hira upon such an invitation. Tins responsibility is not one adopted from the Roman law on grounds of policy; it arises according to the general principles which govern all implied promises. And his second responsibility, which arises upon rea- sons of policy, is that he carries the goods upon a contract of insurance. Tliis policy has fixed the latter lia- bility upon common carriers by land and water, not because they hold themselves out to carry for all per- sons indifferently; if that were all, there would be no ground for the policy; it would be without reason. Many other persons hold themselves out to act in their trade or business for all persons indifferently who will employ them, and the policy in ques- tion is not applied to such trades; the policy is applied to the trade of common carriers, because when the common law adopted that poller the business of common carriers in Eng- land was exercised in a particular manner and subject to particular conditions, which called for the adop- tion of that policy." In Copgs V. Bernard. 2 Ld. Raym. COMMON CAHRIERS. 2i) imposed by law, and existing independently of any special con- tract, founded upon grounds of public policy to give due security to property, that tbe liability of the common carrier for the loss of property intrusted to it for transportation rests.^ The rule of 909, 1 Smith's L. Cas. 199, Lord Holt said : " The law charges this person, thus intrusted to carry goods, against all events but acts of God and of the enemies of the King. For, though the force be never so great, as if an irresistible multitude of people should rob him, nevertheless he is charge- able. And this is a politic establish- ment, contrived by the policy of the law for the safety of all persons, the necessity of whose affairs obliges them to trust these sorts of persons, tliat they may be safe in their ways of dealing; for else these carriers might have an opportunity of undo- ing all persons that had any dealings with them, by combining with thieves, etc.; and yet doing it in such a clandestine manner as would be impossible to be discovered. And this is th.e reason the law is founded upon in that point." In Riley v. Home, 5 Bing. 217, 15 E. C. L. 422, Best, C. J., said: "When goods are delivered to a car- rier, they are usually no longer under the eye of the owner; he seldom fol- lows or sonds any servants with them to the place of their destination. If they should be lost or injured by the grossest nogligence of the carrier or his servants, or stolen by them, or by thieves in collusion with them, the owner would be unable to prove either of these caines of loss. His witnoBses must be the carrier's serv- ants; and they, knowing that they could not be contradict/'d, would ex- cuse their masters and fhPmselveM. To give due security to property, the law has added to that responsibility of a carrier, which immediately arises out of his contract to carry for a reward, namely, that of taking all reasonable care of it, the responsi- bility of an insurer. From his lia- bility as an insurer, the carrier is only to be relieved by two things, both so well known to all the country when they happen, that no person would be so rash as to attempt to prove that they had happened when they had not, namely, the act of God and the king's enemies." 22. Coggs V. Bernard, supra; Ri- ley V. Home, supra. The liability exists independent of contract when the defendant, being a common car- rier, has in his custody for trans- portation the plaintiff's property, and by his negligence or in violation of duty, it is lost. Merritt v. Earle, 29 N. Y. 115, 86 Am. Dec. 292; Allen V. Sewall, 2 Wend. (N. Y.) 338; Thur- man v. Wells, 18 Barb. (N. Y.) 500; Johnson v. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co., 90 Ga. 810; Delaware, etc., R. Co. V. Trautwein, 52 N. J. L. 169, 19 Am. St. Rep. 442, 41 Am. &, Eng. R, Cas. 187; Arnold v. Jones, 26 Tex. 335, 82 Am. Dec. 617; Wood v. Crocker, 18 Wis. 345, 86 Am. Dec. 773. The liability of a common carrier does not rest in his contract, but is a liability imposed by laio. It exists independently of the contract, hav- ing it« foundation in the policy of the Inw. nnd it is upon this logal oh- 30 THE LAW OF CArvKlERS. liability tLua ostnblislicd by tbo common law, except as modified bv statute and modern adjudications, in the respects already noted liud hcroinaftor referred to, to suit our character and circum- stances applies to common carriers of all kinds, whether by land or water.^ The common law liability of a carrier, or the common law liability as modi lied by statute, is always presumed to be the measure of his liability, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, and the burden of proving the actual contract rests upon the party who claims exemption by reason thereof from the ordinary lia- bility of common carriers in a particular case.^* ligation tlmt he is cliargod as carrier for tlie loss of property intrusted to him. Hoilister v. Nowlen, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 239, 32 Am. Dec. 455; Ansell V. Watcrlioube, 1 Chit. 1; Edwards Bailm. 466. 23. Houston, etc., Nav. Co., v. Dwyer, 29 Tex. 376. See Owners and masters of ships and steamboats or vessels, § 29, post. AngcU Carr. §§ 166, 223; 2 Kent's Com. 216; 9 U. S. Stat, at Large, G35. 24. Jennings v. Grand Trunk K. Co., 127 N. Y. 438, 447; Parli v. Preston, 108 N. Y. 434; Dorr v. New Jersey Steam Nav. Co., 11 N. Y. 485, 62 Am. Dec. 125; Blossom v. Dodd, 43 N. Y. 264, 3 Am. Rep. 701; Madan v. Sherrard, 73 N. Y. 330, 29 Am. Rep. 153; New Jersey R. Co. V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 27 N. J. L. 100; Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Bar- rett, 36 Ohio St. 448, 3 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 257; Graham v. Davis, 4 Ohio St. 376, 62 Am. Dec. 285; Pe- oria, etc., R. Co. V. United States Rolling Stock Co., 136 111. 643, 29 Am. St. Rep. 348, 49 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 81; New Jersey Steam Nav. Co. V. Merchants' Bank, 6 How. (U. B.) 344. Tlie defendants, safe movers, are iK)t relieved from liability as com- mon carriers for the breaking of ma- chinery being moved by them, be- cause plaintiff insisted on having the machine placed after dark, they liav- ing a right to refuse if they chose, and to stipulate from immunity from damages if it increased their risk as insurers. Jackson Architectural Iron Works v. Hurlburt, 15 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 93, 35 N. Y. Supp. 808. Upon the appeal in the case last cited, the court said: " This interfer- ence on the part of the plaintiff's agents is said to constitute contribu- tory negligence. It is quite suffi- cient to say, with respect to that branch of the defense, that the evi- dence was of such a character that required the court to submit it to the jury, and it was submitted with instructions that, if it was shown that the negligence of the plaintifT or its agents contributed in any way to the injury, there could be no re- covery. So the questions of negli- gence and contributory negligence have been removed by the verdict of the jury from the domain of contro- versy in this court. Id, 158 N. Y. 34, 39. Where a common carrier under- takes, by the contract expressed in the bill of lading, to deliver the COMMON CARRIERS. 31 § 3. Liability in the carrying of live stock. The common law liability of a carrier may be limited by tbe intrinsic character of, or defects in, the subject matter of the con- tract. This limitation was applied to contracts for the carriage of slaves, when slavery existed in the United States, the carrier, in such cases, being held not to be an insurer but a carrier of passengers, and liable only for want of care and skill.^^ This rule has found its most frequent illustration in the case of contracts for the transportation of live stock. The carrier who undertakes the carriage of living animals is not answerable for damage caused by the conduct or propensities of the animals themselves. In other respects the common law responsibilities of the carrier will attach.^'* goods at their destination, without stipulating that he sliall not be liable for losses resulting from any cause, his undertaking will not amount to an absolute undertaking, and he will not be liable for losses resulting from an act of God or a public enemy. Neal V. Saunderson, 2 Smed. & M. (Mi=3.) 572, 41 Am. Dec. 609. No presumption as to special con- tract. — The fact that defendant was accustomed to give shippers receipts containing a provision that it would not be liable for loss by fire will not support a presumption that there was a special contract between plain- tiff's assignors and defendant, whereby its liability as a common carrier did not include loss by fire, in the absence of any showing that such a receipt was ever giver to plaintifT's assignors, or came to their knowledge. London, etc., Fire Ins. Co. V. Rome, etc., R. Co., 68 Hun (N. Y.), 598, 23 N. Y. Supp. 231. 25. Williams v. Taylor, 4 Porter (Ala.) 234; Boyce v. Anderson, 2 Peters (U. S.) 150; Clark v. Mc- Donald, 4 McCord (S. C.) 223. 26. " In the transportation of such stock, in the absence of negligence, the carrier is relieved from responsi- bility for such injuries as occur in consequences of the vitality of the freight. He does not absolutely war- rant live freight against the conse- quences of its own vitality. Animals may injure or destroy themselves or each other; they may die from fright or from starvation because they re- fuse to eat, or they may die from heat or cold. In all such cases the carrier is relieved from responsibil- ity if he can show that he has pro- vided all suitable means of transpor- tation and exercised that degree of care which the nature of the property requires." Cragin v. New York Cent. R. Co., 51 N. Y. 61; Clarke v. Roch- ester, etc., R. Co., 14 N. Y. 570; Bis- sell V. New York Cent. R. Co., 25 N. Y. 442; Smith v. New Haven, etc., R. Co., 94 Mass. 531. " According to the established rule as to the liability of a common car- rier, he is understood to guarantee that (with the well known exception of the act of God and of public ene- 32 rilE LAW OF CARRIERS. § 4. Liability where loss or injury results from the inherent na- ture of the goods. The same priiu'iples which rolieve the carrier from its strict liability in carrviiig live stix'k apply with cipial force to coulrucls rail's) the goods intrusted to liiin shall seasonably reach their destina- tion, and that they sluill recoive no injury from the manner in which their transportation is accomplished. But he is not, necessarily and under all circumstances, responsible for the condition in which they may be found uiHHi their arrival. The ordi- nary and natural decay of fruit, veg- etables and other perishable articles, the fermentation, evaporation or un- avoidable leakage of liquids, the spontaneous combustion of some kinds of goods, are matters to which the implied obligation of the car- rier, as an insurer, does not extend. He is liable for all accidents and mis- management incident to the transpor- tation and to the means and appli- ances by which it is efiected; but not for injuries produced by, or re- sulting from, the inherent defects or essential qualities of tiie articles which he undertakes to transport. The extent of his duty in this respect is to take all reasonable care and use all proper precautions to prevent such injuries, or to diminish their effect as far as he can; but his lia- bility, in such cases, is by no means that of an insurer. . . . They would be unconditionally liable for all in- juries occasioned by the improper construction or unsafe condition of the carriage in which the horses were conveyed, or by its improper position in the train, or by the want of reasonable equipment, or by any mismanagement, or want of due care. or by any other accident (not within the well known exception) affecting either the train generally or that particular carriage. But the trans- portation of horses or other domestic animals is not subject to precisely the same rules as that of packages and inanimate chattels. Living ani- mals have excitabilities and voli- tions of their own which greatly in- crease the risks and dilliculties of management. They are carried in a mode entirely opposed to their in- stincts and habits; they may be made uncontrollable by fright, or, notwithstanding every precaution, may destroy themselves in attempt ing to break loose, or may kill eacli other." Evans v. Fitchburg R. Co., Ill Mass. 142; Story Bailm., § 576. " The carrier would not be held responsible," it has been held, " where horses or other animals were be- ing transported by water, and in consequence of a storm broke down the partitions between them, and by kicking each other some of them were killed." Lawrence v. Aberdein, 5 B. & Aid. 107; Angell Carr., § 214a. In Myrrick v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 107 U. S. 102, 107, the court said: "Although a railroad company is not a common carrier of live ani- mals in the same sense that it is a carrier of goods, its responsibilities being in many respects diflTerent, yet, when it undertakes generally to carry such freight, it assumes under simi- lar conditions the same obligations so far as the route is concerned over which the freight is to be carried." In some states, howrver, the rule appears to be difTerent. It is there held that railroads are not bound to COMMON CARRIERS, 33 for the carriage of perishable property. The carrier is not liable for injuries caused by its intrinsic defects, and not from any want of care on the part of the carrier.^' But he is bound to take rea- sonable means to guard against such injuries,^ to use special dill- receive live stock as common carri- ers, and if they carry them at all, they may do so under a different lia- bility from that of other freight. See Carriers of Live Stock. See also in support of the rule stated in the text: South & North Alabama R. Co. v. Henlien, 52 Ala. 606; Agnew v. Steamer Contra Costa, 27 Cal. 425; Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. V. Jurey, 8 Bradw. (111. App.) 160; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Harmon, 12 Bradw. (111. App.) 54; McCoy v. The K. & D. M. R. Co., 44 Iowa, 424; CM- cago, etc., R. Co. v. Abels, 60 Miss. 1017; Mynard v. Syracuse, etc., R. Co., 71 N. Y. 180; Bamberg v. South Carolina R. Co., 9 S. C. 61; Palmer v. Grand Junction R. Co., 4 M. & W. 749; Kimball v. Rutland, etc., R. Co., 26 Vt. 247. Compare Missouri Pac. R. Co. V. Harris, 67 Tex. 166; Mis- souri Pac. R. Co. V. Fagan (Tex.), 9 S. W. 749; Rixford v. Smith, 52 N. H. 355; Maslin v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 14 W. Va. 180. See Carriers of Live Stock. Carriers of animals are common carriers subject to the same responsi- bilities imposed by law on carriers of other property, except as this is modified by the inherent character of such property. Missouri Pac. R. Co. V. Cornwall, 70 Tex. 611, 8 S. W. 312; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Ellison, 70 Tpx. 491, 7 S. W. 785. 27. Evans v. Fitchburp R. Co., Ill Mass. 142 (opinion quoted from in note 26 to § 3, ante) ; Illinois Cent. 3 R. Co. V. McClellan, 54 111. 58, 5 Am. Rep. 83; Vail v. Pacific R. Co., 63 Mo. 230; McGraw v. Baltimore, etc., R. C, 18 W. Va. 361, 41 Am. Rep. 696, 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 188. See also, Nugent v. Smith, 1 C. P. Dlv. 423, 45 L. J. C. P. Div. 697; Kendall V. London, etc., R. Co., L. R. 7 Exch. 373, 41 L. J. Exch. 184; Alston V. Herning, 11 Exch. 822; Brass v. Maitland, 6 El. & Bl. 471, 88 E. C. L. 471; Rohl v. Parr, 1 Esp. N. P. 445; Boyd v. Dubois, 3 Campb. 133; Hunter v. Potts, 4 Campb. 203. The common law rule making car- riers liable for loss or damage to goods, except such as result from the act of God or the public enemy, does not apply to a loss which results from deterioration in quantity or quality, or from any inherent natural infirmity, or tendency to damage, or decay of perishable articles, or ordi- nary wear or tear, or rubbing, in course of transportation, where these things occur without negligence on the part of the carriers; nor are they liable for injuries that arise from bad packing by the shippers. Truax v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 3 Houst. (Del.) 233. 28. Davidson v. Gwynne, 12 East, 381; Notara v. Henderson, L. R. 5 Q. B. 225, where the carrier failed to spread out and dry beans which had become wet by an accident to the vessel; Bird v. Cromwell, 1 Mo. 81, 13 Am. Dec. 470; Chouteaux ▼. I^ech, 18 Pa. St. 224, 57 Am. Dec, 34 THK I.AW OF CARRIERS. oonoo to avoia ilclay in transportation,'"' and givo it a preforcuco in transportation over nonpcrisliable goods, if he is not able to 602. wluTo, in tlic course of trans- portation, certain furs were wet, tlirough an acciiiont to the boat, it was held that it was the carrier's duty to unpack them and allow them to dry immediately, and for a failure to do 90 the carrier was liable for the damage which such attention would have averted. So, where dressed meat was being carried, and, owing to a delay of the vessel, the ice in which it was packed melted away, it was held that the carrier was liable for the damage resulting from its failure to supply ice, it appearing that it was practi- cable to have done so. Sherman v. Inman Steamship Co., 26 Hun (N. Y.), 107; Peck v. Weeks, 34 Conn. 145. Failure to prevent leakage. A car- rier was held liable for failure to wet casks containing oil in order to pre- vent their leakage; and the fact that loss from leakage was one of the spe- cial exceptions in the bill of lading releasing the carrier from liability was held not to affect the case, where the carrier had agreed to keep the casks wet. Hennewell v. Taber, 2 Sprague (U. S.) 1. A carrier was also liable where, after becoming aware that a cask of brandy which was being carried was leaking, he failed to take any steps to prevent further leakage. Beck v. Evans, 16 East, 244; Cox v. London, etc., R. Co., 3 F. & F. 77. See also, The Brig Collenberg, 1 Black (U. S.) 170; Warden v. Greer, 6 Watts (Pa.) 424; Leech v. Baldwin, 5 Watts (Pa.) 446; Gowdy v. Lyon, 9 B. Mon. (Ky.) 112. 29. Kinnick v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 69 Iowa 665, 27 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 55, where a railroad company received for carriage a car over- loaded with hogs without objection, and by reason of delay the hogs " piled up " and were injured, the company was held liable. A carrier was held liable for in- juries done to plants by frost upon a connecting line, it being shown that the injury would have been avoided had the goods been promptly deliv- ered. Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Cur- tis, 80 111. 324. In the transportation of meat it has been held that a. provision in a bill of lading that a carrier should not be liable for decay did not pro- tect him from anything more than the decay due to the intrinsic tend- ency of the meat, and not from bad judgment of the captain in persisting in his voyage after breaking his shaft, when by turning back he might have saved the meat. The jury had found that it was negligence in the captain to persist in continuing his voyage under the circumstances. Sherman v. Inman Steamship (Ik)., 26 Hun (N. Y.), 107. A railroad company receiving cat- tle for transportation must carry them with reasonable dispatch and is liable for an injury resulting from delay. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Ellison, 70 Tex, 491, 7 S. W. 785; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Cornwall, 70 Tex. 611, 8 S. W. 312. COMMON CARRIERS. 35 forward both at once.'" And he is required to take notice of any marks upon the package containing the goods, which indicate the character of its contents.^^ But a carrier by water is not required to suspend a voyage to care for the damaged goods to the probable injury of the remainder of the cargo.^^ § 5. Where the loss or injury is the result of the acts of the shipper. The carrier is not liable for losses which are shown to have resulted from omissions or acts of the shipper which are the proxi- mate cause of the loss, or for losses caused by the wrongful con- duct or fraud of the shipper. Such contributory negligence on the part of the shipper will excuse the carrier from liabilitj,^^ as SO. Marshall v. New York Cent. R. Co., 45 Barb. (N. Y.) 502, where the charge of the judge at Circuit that " where two kinds of property are de- livered at the same time by different owners, one of which kind is perish- able and the other not, preference is to be given to that which is perish- able in transportation, and if either must wait, it must be that which is rot perishable," was sustained on ap- peal. The court said: "The ques- tion how the carrier was employed, and how he used and employed his means of transportation during any given period when property was de- layed, would always be a proper sub- ject of inquiry, and that on this in- quiry proof that his means of trans- portation were employed in trans- porting perishable property, in pref- erence to other property received at the same time, would always be held a sufficiont excuse for delay." Where there is a great press of business, the carrier may discrimin- ate in favor of perishable goods in determining which consignments it will carry first. Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Burrows, 33 Mich. 6. 31. Hastings v. Pepper, 11 Pick. (Mass.) 41, where a box contained. oil of cloves, and the mark held suf- ficient to notify the carrier was = " Glass — with care — this side up," the carrier was held bound to so carry. But an express company, in the trans- portation of brittle goods without notice of their character, was held not liable to the extent of common carriers. Bad faith, and suppression of the truth by the bailor, will re- lieve a common carrier of liability as insurer. American Express Co. v. Perkins, 42 111. 458. 32. Notara v. Henderson, L. R. 5 Q. B. 346; The Steamboat Lynx v. King, 12 Mo. 272, 49 Am. Dec. 135. See also, Rogers v. Murray, 3 Bosw. (N. Y.) 357; The Propeller Niagara v. Cordes, 21 How. (U. S.) 7; Tlie Steamboat America, 8 Ben. (U. S.) 491; The Gentleman, 1 Blatchf. (U. S.) 196: The Bark Gentleman, 1 Oic. Adm. 110; Blocker v. Whittenburg, 12 La. Ann. 410. 33. Wilson v. Hamilton, 4 Ohio St. 722. See generally. Contributory negligence of shipper, chap. 13. THE LAW OF CAKKIKRS. where goods are improperly marked by the consig7K>r/* or im- properly packed or loaded," or where the shipper fails to inform the carrier of the eiiaracter of the goods or of their value,^* or fraudulently conceals tlie contents or value," or where the loss or injury is due to the improper and unwarrantable interference of the shipper with the property.^* § 6. Where the loss or injury is the result of delay in the trans- mission of the goods. The common law liability of the carrier as an insurer may be limited in cases of loss resulting from delay in the transportation and delivery of goods, occasioned by accident or misfortune not inevitable or produced by the act of God, But the carrier must exercise due discretion and reasonable care and diligence to guard against delay, and in forwarding the gooda to their destination.^* 34. Southern Express Co. v. Kauf- man, 59 Tenn. 161; The Huntress, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 61,914; Conger v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 24 Wis. 157. But the rule does not apply where the carrier's agent at the time he re- ceives the goods has knowledge of the error. O'Rourke v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 44 Iowa, 526; Forsythe v. Wal- ker, 9 Pa. St. 148. 35. Ross V. Troy, etc., R. Co., 49 Vt. 364; Loveland v. Burke, 120 Mass. 139, 21 Am. Rep. 507. 36. Oppenheimer v. United States Express Co., 69 111. 62; Magnin v. Dinsmore. 70 N. Y. 410; Orange Co. Bank v. Brown, 9 Wend. (N. Y.) 85; Hollister v. Nowlen, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 234; Hayes v. Wells, Fargo & Co., 23 Cal. 185; Western Transp. Co. V. Newhall, 24 111. 466; Farmers' Bank v. Champlain Trans. Co., 23 Vt. 186. 37. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Shea, 66 111. 471. 38. Roderick v. Railroad Co., 7 W. Va. 54; Hutchinson v. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 37 Minn. 534; Conger v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 24 Wis. 157. 39. Geismer v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 102 N. Y. 563, 55 Am. Rep. 837, 26 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 287; Wi- bert V, New York, etc., R. Co., 12 N. Y. 245; Blackstock v. New York, etc., R. Co., 20 N. Y. 48, 75 Am. Dec. 372; Truax v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 3 Iloust. (Del.) 233; Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. V. Hollowell, 65 Ind. 188, 33 Am. Rep. 63; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Levi, 76 Tex. 337, revg. 12 S. W. 677, 40 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 115. The rea- sons upon which the common law doctrine that a common carrier is an insurer is based do not apply when the thing is actually transported and delivered, although, when delivered, it may be greatly diminished in value by a fall in the market price, or its value partially or entirely de- stroyed by reason of its inherent per- ishable nature, which has worked ita partial or entire destruction while in transit. CX)MMON CARRIERS. 37 If, in the exercise of due care and diligence, it does not appear that a change of route would prevent the loss attendant upon delay, he is not bound to divert the goods to a route over which he has no control. He may sell the goods for the best price he can oV tain, in order to convert what would inevitably be a total loss into one that is partial merely.'*" § 7. Where the loss or injury is caused by the exercise of public authority. Where goods are delivered to a common carrier for shipment, and are levied upon or attached in the hands of the carrier upon a valid writ of attachment or execution or other legal process, by means of which the carrier is deprived of possession of the prop- erty by the ofBcer who serves the writ, the carrier is not liable to the shipper for the non-delivery of the goods, provided the writ upon its face is a valid writ and from a court having com- petent jurisdiction to issue it, and he immediately notifies the shipper." But an attachment of the goods against one not the owner does not excuse the carrier from delivering.*^ It is a good defense to an action against a common carrier for preventing the levy of an attachment upon property in its hands that the prop- erty does not belong to the defendant in the attachment.*^ A car- rier is required to give prompt notice to the consignor or owner of goods, if known, of their seizure, or the institution of legal proceedings against them but is not held to a technical observ- ance of the rule, if the owner has timely notice, and is in a posi- tion by the exercise of ordinary diligence to protect his title. That goods stolen or lost by reason of the negligence of a carrier while in its possession as warehouseman had been attached, and were in the custody of the law, does not relieve the carrier from liabil- 40. American Ex. Co. v. Smith, 33 42. Edwards v. White Line Tran- Ohio St. 511. sit Co., 104 Mass. 159, 6 Am. Rep. 41. Bliven v. Hudson River R. Co., 214; KifT v. Old Colony, etc., R. Co., 36 N. Y. 403; Adams v. Scott, 104 117 Mass. 591, 19 Am. Rep. 429. Mass lf)4. See also, cases cited un- 43. Simpson v. Dufour, 126 Tnd. der Seizure by legal process, chap. 7, 322, 26 N. E. 69; Pinpree v. Detroit, S§ 5, r>, post. etc., R. Co., 66 Mich. 143, 11 Am. St. Rep. 479. 3S TllK LAW OF CARKIKRS. irv." A common carrier is not liable for tlio value of fish shipped over its line which were seized by a game warden on the ground that the tish were illegally caught, where such warden had neither legal nor apparent legal right to seize the same." § 8. Liability of carriers of passengers. Carriers of passengers are coiuiiion carriers in respect to the baggage of their passengers and also in respect to their passiui- gers and those desiring passage on their conveyances, but llioir liability to passengers for personal injuries is limited to t-ases where their negligence in the performance of their duties is the proximate cause of the injury; they are not insurers of the safety of their passengers.''® A carrier of passengers who under- takes to carry goods for hire subjects himself to the liability of a common carrier of goods, in respect to such goods, except where the compensation is so grossly inadequate as to render the appli- cation of such a rule of liability unjust; in such a case he is liable merely as a bailee." § 9. Express companies. The express business is a branch of the carrying trade.'*^* Express companies undertaking to carry or cause to be carried goods for hire for all persons indifferently who choose to employ them, are common carriers.''^ Ordinarily carters and expressmen engaged 44. Frank v. Central R. Co., 9 Pa. (N. Y.) 19, overruling Hersfield v. Super. Ct. 129. Adams, 19 Barb. (N. Y.) 577; Sher- 45. Merriman v. Great Northern man v. Wells, 28 Barb. (N. Y.) 403; Express Co., 63 Minn. 543, 65 N. W. Ilaslam v. Adams Express Co., 6 1080. Bosvv. (N. Y.) 235; Southern Ex- 46. See Carriers of passengers, press Co. v. Ramey, 51 So. 314 (Ala. chap. 22. 1909) ; Brockway v. American Ex- 47. Bean v. Sturtevant, 8 N. H. press Co., 168 Mass. 257, 47 N. E. 87; 146. 28 Am. Dec. 389. Stadhecker v. Combes, 9 Rich. L. (S. 47a. Southern Exp, Co. v. St. C.) 193; Southern Express Co. v. Louis, etc., Ry. Co., 10 Fed. 210, 869. Crook, 44 Ala. 468, 4 Am. Rep. 140; 48. Belger v. Dinsmore, 51 N. Y. Southern Exp. Co. v. Hess, 53 Ala. 166, 10 Am. Rep. 575; Landsberg v. 19; U. S. Exp. Co. v. Bachman, 28 Dinsmore, 4 Daiy (N. Y.). 490; Read Oliio St. 144; Soiitliern Exp. Co. v. ▼. Spaulding, 5 Bosw. (N. Y.) 395, Womack, 1 Heisk. (Tonn.) 256; affd. 30 N. Y. 630, 86 Am. Dec. 426; Southern Exp. Co. v. Glenn, 16 Lea Place V. Union Express Co.. 2 Hilt. (Tenn.), 473; Southern Exp. Co. v. COMMON CARRIERS. 39 in carrying freight to and from a depot or warehouse, or between places in the same locality, or between ditferent localities, are common carriers.*** An express or teaming company which owns horses and wagons and hires teamsters, by means of which merchandise is carried throughout a city for the public generally, is a common carrier within the meaning of an ordinance requiring the licensing of public carts, notwith- standing such express or teaming company exercises a discre- tion as to the persons whom it will serve. *^^ A parcel delivery company is a common carrier. *^° Joint stock companies engaged in the express business and persons whose business it is to re- ceive packages of bullion, coin, bank notes, commercial paper and such other articles of value as persons see fit to trust to tlieir care for the purpose of transporting the same from one place tc another for a compensation, are common carriers, and re- sponsible as such for the safe delivery of property intrusted to them.*' A city express company, engaged in carrying parcels Newby, 36 Ga. 635, 91 Am. Dec. 783; ]5ank of Kentucky v. Adams Exp. Co., 93 U. S. (3 Otto) 174; Southern Exp. Co. V. McVeigh, 20 Gratt. (Va.) 264; Lowell Wire Fence Co. v. Sar- gent, 8 Allen (Mass.) 189; Buckland V. Adams Exp. Co., 97 Mass. 124, 93 Am. Dec. 68; United States Exp. Co. V. Rush, 24 Ind. 403; Baldwin v. American Exprei=s, Co., 23 HI. 197, 74 Am. Dec. 190. 26 111. 504; American Ins. Co. V. Pinckney, 29 111. 392; Gul- liver V. Adams Exp. Co., 38 III. 504; Baker v. Maher, Howell (Mich. N. P.), 39; Christenson v. American Exp. Co., 15 Minn. 270, 2 Am. Rep. 122; Verner v. Sweitzer. 32 Pa. St. 208; Kirby v. Adams Exp. Co., 2 Mo. App. 369. An expressman, who is duly licensed by the mayor of New York City, and who transports for hire the goods of all persons indifTer- rntly, is a common carrier and lia- ble as such for a parcel stolen from one of his wagons without the con- nivance of himself or driver. Rob- inson V. Cornish, 13 N. Y. Supp. 577, 34 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 695. In Indiana express companies are made by statute common carriers. American Exp. Co. v. Hackett, 30 Ind. 250, 95 Am. Dec. 691. 48a. Collier v. Langan & Taylor Storage & Moving Co., — Mo. App. — , 127 S. W. 435. 48b. Hastings Express Co. v. City of Chicago, 135 III. App. 268. 48c. Johnson Express Co. v. City of Chicago, 136 111. App. 368. 49. Sweet v. Barney, 23 N. Y. 335; Russell V. Livingston, 19 Barb. (N. Y. ) 346, revd. on another point, 16 N. Y. 515; Sherman v. Wells, 23 Barb. (N. Y.) 403. Under South Dakota Rev. Civ. Code, 1903, § 1577, providing that every one who offers to carry persons, prop- erty, or messages is a common car- 40 ^'HE LAW OF CARRIERS. botwoeu tlio city of New York and Brooklyn, and in carrying trunks to and from t.ho passenger depots of the various railroads, is a common carrier, and performs its duties under tin; respon- sibility' of connnon carriers.^" Persons carrying on a transporta- tion business, under circumstances which, in law, constitute them common caiTiers, cannot divost themselves of that character, nor secure an exemption from its liabilities, by declaring in their bills of lading, etc., that they are not to be deemed common car- riers. ^Vhat they are is to be determined by the nature of their business.^^ The fact that an express company, in their receipt for goods, style themselves "express forwarders," and agree to "forward" the goods, docs not necessarily give them the char- acter of simple forwarders, nor prevent them from being treated as common carriers.^'. An express company receiving goods gen- erally for transportation for hire, though it has no means for transportation of its own, employing the vehicles of other car- riers for that purpose, is itself a common carrier.''-^ Where an express company uses as its instrumentality of transportation the servants and rolling stock of a railroad company, it is a common carrier; and its status is not changed by an agreement with tlie shipper that it is to be held liable as a fonvarder only, and not as a carrier. § 10. Railroad companies. Eailroad companies, receiving from the State a delegation of a portion of its sovereign power for the public good, being public rier of whatever he thus offers to T5achman, 28 Ohio St. 144. Compare carry, an express company offering Hersfield v. Adams, 19 Barb. (N. Y. ) to carry money for hire is a common 577. carrier thereof. Piatt v. Lecocq, ISO 52. Read v. Spaulding, 18 N. Y. Fed. 391 (C. C. 1906). Super. Ct. 5 (Bosw.) .395, affd. 30 50. Richards v. Westcott, 15 N. Y. N. Y. 630, 86 Am. Dec. 426. Super. Ct. (2 Bosw.) (N. Y.) 589; Nor calling themselves a " trans- Parmalee v. Lowitz, 74 111. 116. portation company." Mercantile 51. Bank of Kentucky v. Adams Mut. Ins. Co. v. Chase, 1 E. D. Smith Exp. Co., 93 U. S. (3 Otto) 174, 23 (N. Y.) 115. L. Ed. 872; Buckland v. Adams Exp. 52a. Christenson v. American Exp. Co., 97 Mass. 124, 93 Am. Dec. 68; Co., 15 Minn. 270 (Gil. 208), 2 Am. Russell V. Livingston, 19 Barb. (N. Rep. 122. Y.) 346; Place v. Union Exp. Co., 2 52b. Gait v. Adams Exp, Co., Mc- Hilt. (N. Y.) 27; U. S. Erp. Co. t. Arthur & M. (D. C.) 124. CX)lirMON CARRIERS. 41 agents, and, in the place and stead of the government, exercis- ing public duties, being authorized by law to make roads as public highways, to lay down tracks, place cars upon them, and carry goods and passengers for hire, are, within all the rules of the common law, eminently common carriers of goods and passen- gers, possessed of all the rights, and subject to the liabilities and duties imposed by law upon common carriers of goods and pas- sengers.^ Whether or not a particular road is a common car- 53. Kirby v. Adams Exp. Co., 2 Mo. App. 369; Bank of Kentucky v. Adams Exp. Co., 93 U. S. 174; Read V. Spaulding, 5 Bosw. (N. Y.) 395; Buckland v. Adams Exp. Co., 97 Mass. 124, 93 Am. Dec. 68. 54. N. r.— Weed v. Saratoga R. Co., 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 534; Root v. Great Western R. Co., 45 N. Y. 524; Camden, etc., R. Co. v. Burke, 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 311, 28 Am. Dec. 488. U. S. — Winona, etc., R. Co. v. Blake, 94 U. S. 180, 24 L. Ed. 99; Atlantic & P. R. Co. v. Laird, 15 U. S. App. 248, 58 Fed. Rep. 760, 7 C. C. A. 489, railroads are quasi public highways, and all railroad corpora- tions axitively engaged in operating passenger trains are subject to the liabilities and duties imposed by law upon common carriers of passengers. Ala. — Southwestern R. Co. v. Webb, 48 Ala. 585; Mobile, etc., R. Co. V. Prewitt, 46 Ala. 63, 7 Am. Rep. 586; Selma, etc., R. Co. v. Butts, 43 Ala. 385, 94 Am. Dec. 604. Ark. — Eureka Springs R. Co. v. Timmona, 51 Ark. 459. Cat.— Dsivis V. Button. 78 Cal. 247; Contra Costa, etc., R. Co. v. Moss, 23 Cal. 323, 533. Colo. — Schloss V. Wood, 11 Colo. 287, 35 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 402, note. Conn. — Fuller v. Naugatuck R. Co., 21 Conn. 570. Fla. — Johnson v. Pensacola, etc., R. Co., 16 Fla. 623, 26 Am. Rep. 731. Ga. — Falvey v. Georgia R. Co., 76 Ga. 597, 2 Am. St. Rep. 58. /«.— Peoria, etc., R. Co. v. U. S. Rolling Stock Co., 28 111. App. 79; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Thompson, 19 111. 578. Mass. — Thomas v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 10 Mete. (Mass.) 472, 43 Am. Dec. 444; Norway Plains Co. v. Bos- ton, etc., R. Co., 1 Gray (Mass.) 263, 61 Am. Dec. 424. Miss. — Southern Exp. Co. v. Thorn- ton, 41 Miss. 216; Southern Exp. Co. V. Moon, 39 Miss. 822; Mississippi Cent. R. Co. v. Kennedy, 41 Miss. 671; Const, of Mississippi, § 184. 2V^. H. — Elkins v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 3 Fost. (N. H.) 275. 2V. J. — Rogers Locomotive, etc.. Works V. Erie R. Co., 5 C. E. Greene (N. J.) 379, 20 N. J. Eq. 379; Mes- senger V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 36 N. J. L. 407, 13 Am. Rep. 457. Ohio. — Scofield v. Lake Shore, etc. R. Co., 43 Ohio St. 571, 23 Am. 4; Eng. R. Cas. 612. Or. — Thompson - Houston Electric Co. V. Simon, 20 Or. 60, 23 Am. St. Rep. 86, 47 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 51. Penn.— Eagle v. White, 6 Whart. (Pa.) 505; Sand ford v. Catawissa, etc., R. Co., 24 Pa. St. 378, 64 Am. Dec. 667. 42 THE LAW OF CAlilUERS. rier in a certain case is a mixed question of law and faot.^ A railroad company, operating a road belonging to the State, is liable as a carrier for negligence of State officers in the per- ■formance of duties comiectcd with tlie road. Thus it will be liable as a common carrier, for an injury sustained by a pas- senger from tlie collision of two of its trains passing in the same dirLVtion, tliough the motive power of tlie road was furnished by the State and under the control of the State's agent, and though the accident happened through the negligence of the agents of the State. ^"^ Railroad companies in the transportation of ani- mals are liable as common carriers. ^^ A common carrier of goods wliicli transports live stock is as to the latter property also a common carrier."^ Under New Hampshire Pub St. 1901 c. 160, §§ 21-23, providing that every railroad corporation which shall contract for the transportation of milk in large quantities shall establish a tariff for its transportation by the can, it seems that a railroad company becomes a common carrier of milk on entering into a contract with a firm to furnish it with special cars for the transportation of milk."'' A railroad, which serves business houses located along a spur track by delivering to them cars of freight and cars to be freighted and shipped, is a com- mon carrier with respect to the use it makes of the track, and 8. C— Piedmont Mfg. Co. v. Colum- D. P. C. 232; Crouch v. London, etc., bia, etc., R. Co., 19 S. C. 353, 16 Am. R. Co., 23 L. J. C. P. 73, 14 C. B. & Eng. R. Cas. 194; Avinger v. South 255, 78 E. C. L. 255; Richards v. C arolina R. Co., 29 S. C. 265, 13 Am. London, etc., R. Co., 18 L. J. C, P. St. Rep. 716, 35 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 251, 7 C. B. 839, 62 E. C. L. 839. 524; Dill v. South Carolina R., 7 55. Elkins v. Boston, etc., R. Co., Rich. Law (S. C), 158, 62 Am. Rep. 23 N. 11. 275; Avinger v. South Caro- 407; Ex parte Benson, 18 S. C. 42. lina R. Co., 29 S. C. 265, 35 Am. & T*nn. — East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. Eng. R. Cas. 519; Piedmont Mfg. Co. V. Nelson, 1 Cold. (Tenn.) 272. v. Columbia, etc., R. Co., 19 S. C. Ff.— Kimball v. Rutland, etc.. R. 353, 16 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 194. Co., 26 Vt. 247, 62 Am. Dec. 567; 56. Ryland v. Peters, 5 Pa. Law Jones V. Western Vermont R. Co., 27 G. Rep. 126. Vt. 399; Noyes v. Railroad, 27 Vt. 57. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Rainey 110. (Colo.), 34 Pac. 986. Eng. — Pegler v. ^Monmouthshire 57a. Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. R. Co., 30 L. J. Exch. 249, 6 H. & N Hall, 124 Ga. 322, 52 S. E. 679. 644; Palmer v. Grand Junction R. 57h. Bak^r v. Boston & M. R. Co., Co., 4 M. & W. 749, 1 H. & H. 489, 7 74 N. H. 100, 65 Atl. 386. CX3MJV10N CARRIERS. 43 is, as such, bound to treat the houses located along the track without discrimination, and cannot discontinue its service as to one and continue it as to others."^ A person transporting passen- gers for hire upon a railroad operated by him is a common car- rier.^ A railroad company operating its trains over another's road at the time of an accident is liable at common law as a common carrier. ^^ A railroad company receiving freight before the road is completed, and when it is only running construction trains, has been held liable as a common carrier therefor.'''^ A railroad company, which charges for the transportation of cattle, but permits the shipper to travel on a free pass upon the cars to take care of the cattle, is a common carrier for hire, both as to pas- senger and cattle." Railroad companies are common carriers under the common law, and, when made so by general statute or by their charters, these provisions are held to be merely decla- tory of the existing law, rather than introducing any new rule of law.^^ Railroad companies are common carriers of passen- gers, but their liability as such is not that of an insurer of the safe transportation of the passenger; they are liable, however, for the exercise of the highest degree of care and diligence prac- ticable to protect passengers from injury.^ Such companies iucur the ordinary responsibility of a common carrier with re- spect to the baggage of passengers, and all property accepted by them as such with knowledge of its character, although not prop- erly baggage; and nothing but inevitable accident or the act of 57c. W. C. Agee & Co. v. Louisville 63. Thompson-Houston Elec. Co. ▼. & N. R. Co. — Ala. — , 37 So. 680. Simon, 20 Or. 60, 47 Am. & Eng. R. 58. Davis v. Button, 78 Cal. 247, Cas. 51; Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. 20 Pae. 545. Messino, 1 Snecd (Tenn.) 220; Slioc- 59. Euroka Springs R. Co. v. Tim- maker v. Kingsbury, 12 Wail. (U. nions, 51 Ark. 459, 11 S. W. 690. See S.) 369; Murch v. Concord R. Corp., One railroad transporting the cars of 29 N. H. 9, 61 Am. Dec. 631, a rail- another, § 14, ante. road company is a carrier of passeng- 60. Little Rock, etc., R. Co. v. ers only as to its passenger trains. Glidewcll, 39 Ark. 487, 18 Am. & Eng. It does not become such a carrier as R. Cas. 539. to its freight trains, although it may 61. Maslin v. Baltimore & 0. R. occiusionally carry passengers on Co.. 14 VV. Va. 130. them as a matter of accomniodntinn, 62. Root v. Great Western R. Co., and although in sucli eases it churgos 45 N. Y. 524; Chicago, etc., R. Co. the usual fare. See also. Carriers of V. Thompson, 19 Til. 578. passengers, chap. 22. 44 '^'lil^ LAW OF CARRIERS. the public enemy, will excuse tlicm for a loss of, or injury to, it.** They are liable for goods received for transportation on passenger trains, knowing it not to be baggage, whether the freight wa^ paid in advance or uot;*^ but not for such goods received with- out authority and carried without compensation by a conductor*' or for goods, not baggage, received as such without knowledge of its character.*^ As to branch lines constructed by a railroad company, their liability as common carriers depends upon the question as to whether such branch lines are actually used for purposes of general transportation, or for private purposes of their o^VIl/* As quas'i public agents, railroad companies are sub- ject to special limitations by law as to their rates and charges for transporting freight and passengers, and as to the manner in which tliey discharge their public duties.^^ The courts will take judicial notice of the fact that a railroad company is a common earner where a statute declares it to be such, and allega- tion and proof of such fact is uunecessaryj'* Railroad com- panies are common carriers engaged in public employment affect- ing the public interest, and are subject to legislative control as to charges like any natural person who is a common carrier.'"* 64. Burnell v. New York Cent. R. stock of jewelry contained in a trunk Co., 45 N. Y. 184; Merrill v. Grin- present<>d to the baggage agent as his nell, 30 N. Y. 594; Camden, etc., R. personal baggage, unless the loss oc- Co. V. Burke, 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 611, curred through gross negligence. 28 Am. Dec. 488; HoUister v. Now- 68. Schloss v. Wood, 11 Colo. 287, len, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 234; Cole v. 35 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 492; Avinger Goodwin, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 251; v. South Carolina R. Co., 29 S. C. Powell V. Myers, 26 Wend. (N. Y.) 265, 13 Am. St. Rep. 716, 35 Am. & 591. See also, Carriers of passen- Eng. R. Cas. 526. gers, chap. 22. 69. Scofield v. Lake Shore, etc., R. 65. Butler v. Hudson River R. Co., Co., 43 Ohio St. 571, 54 Am. Rep. 3 E. D. Smith (N. Y.), 571; Lang- 846, 23 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 612; Nor- worthy v. New York, etc., R. Co., 2 way Plains Co. v. Boston, etc., R. Co., E. D. Smith (N. Y.), 195. 1 Gray (Mass.) 263, 61 Am. Dec. 423. 66. Elkins v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 70. Caldwell v. Richmond, etc., R. 23 N. H. 275. Co., 89 Ga. 550; Denver, etc., R. Co. 67. Humphreys v. Perry, 148 U. S. v. Cahill, 8 Colo. App. 158. 627, 54 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 29, 7 Am. 70a. Laurel Fork, etc., R. Co. v. R. & Corp. Rep. 685, 13 Sup. Ct. West Virginia Transp. Co., 25 W. Va. 711, 37 L. Ed. 587, 47 Alb. L. J. 386, 324; West Virginia Transp. Co. v. wherein it was held that a passenger Sweetzer, 25 W. Va. 434. could not recover for the loss of a CXDMMON CARRIERS. 45 § 11. Receivers and assignees of railroad company operating the road. The receiver and assignee in bankruptcy of a railroad corpora- tion, who operates the road under the order of the court, is not personally liable for an injury caused by the negligence of a ser- vant employed by him, in the absence of evidence that he was negligent in the selection of servants, or that he held himself out as operating the road otherwise than as receiver.^^ Where such an officer displaces the directors or other body who by its charter are authorized to manage its affairs, and, under the direction of the court by which he is appointed, has the sole control of its prop- erty and effects, and, when authorized so to do, the executive power to use its franchises, he is responsible for his conduct in all these things to the court appointing him. In such a case the rem- edy for injuries resulting from his negligence, or the negligence of those operating a railroad under him, would be by application to the same tribunal, which might itself dispose of the matter by administering justice between the parties, or allowing the party aggrieved to bring his suit at law for the alleged injury.''^ Dam- 71. Cardot v. Barney, 63 N. Y. 281, operate the road. In the employment 20 Am. Rep. 533; Murphy v. Hoi- of subordinates, as well as in the brook, 20 Ohio St. 137; Potter v. Bun- other acts connected with the opera- neli, 20 Ohio St. 150; Henderson v. tion of the road, he acted officially Walker, 55 Ga. 481. and as the representative of, and by In Cardot v. Barney, supra, the orders from the court, and was only court says: " The defendant was not held to diligence and good faith in tlie individually the owner, or possessed performance of any act which he was of the property; he had neither a authorized to do. There is no evi- gencral or special property in the road donee that he at any time assumed or its earnings. The property was to act other than as receiver or as- in the court for management and ad- signee, or held himself out as a car- ministration; and the defendant was rier of passengers, save as an officer an officer of the court, obeying its or- of the court. I know of no principle ders and carrying out its directions. upon which a receiver or other of- His relation to the road and its oper- ficer of a court, having no interest ation was entirely official, and he had in the prosecution of the work and no interest in or control over the deriving no profit from it, should be earnings, and was removable at the an3weral>le except for his own acts pleasure of the court. He was ex- and neglects." pres.sly authorized to employ all 72. Kain v. Smith, 80 N. Y. 468; necessary assistants and lalmrers and Metz v. Buffalo, Corry k P. P. Co. 40 THE LAW OF CARRIERS. agos for injury to the person, whether passenger or employe, for loss of goods in the eourse of transportation, or otherwise, would be ehargeable upon, and payable out of the fund in court, the sanio as other expenses of administration." But where a receiver is in possession of and operating a leased road not as an officer of any court or by its authority, but by virtue of a contract simply per- mitted by the court, he is not protected by being a receiver, but is liable like an individual for injuries resulting from his negli- gence, or the negligence of his employes in the operation of the roadJ* And, while a court of equity will protect persons acting under its process or authority, in the execution of a decree or de- cretal order, against suits at law, and will compel parties to apply to that court for relief, this protection is accorded by that court to its officers only on their owti application, and is granted in the exercise of the court's discretion, and it is presumed that it would be granted in any necessary or proper case; waving this right to invoke the aid of the court, they are amenable in the common law courts to actions for negligence as common carriers.^^ And the mere fact that persons are acting as receivers, under the appoint- ment of a court of equity, cannot be recognized as a defense to a suit at law for a breach of any obligation or duty which was fairly and voluntarily assumed by them in matters of business conducted or carried on by them while acting as such receivers.^® Upon 58 N. Y. 61, 17 Am. Rep. 201; Morse enthal v. Braincrd, 38 Vt. 409, 91 V. Brainerd, 41 Vt. 551; Klein v. Am. Dec. 350; Paige v. Smith, 99 Jewett, 26 N. J. Eq. 474; Little v. Mass. 395; Murphy v. Holbrook, 20 Dusenberry, 46 N. J. L. 614, 50 Am. Ohio St. 137. Rep. 445, 31 Alb. L. J. 490. See also, 75. Blumenthal v. Brainerd, 38 Vt. Villa0 U. S. 337; Eastern Transportation Line v. Hope, 95 U. S. (5 Otto) 297; Hinter V. Steamer Napoleon, 3 Wall. (U.S.) 5; The Quickstep, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 665; The Steamer Webb, 14 Wall. (U. S.) 406; The Lyon, 1 Brown's Adm. (U. S.) 59; The Stranger, 1 Brown's Adm. (U. S.) 281; The Oconto, 5 Eiss. (U. S.) 460; The Merrimac, 2 Sawy. (U. S.) 586; The Angelina Corning, 1 Ben. (U. S.) 109; The Princeton, 3 Blatchf. (U. S.) 54; The NeafTie, 1 Abb. (U. S.) 465; Brawley V. The Jim Watson, 2 Bond (U. S.) 356; Tlie Margaret v. Bliss, 94 U. S. 494; The New Pliiladelphia, 66 U. S. (1 Black) 62, 17 L. Ed. 84. 2a. The El Rio, 162 Fed. 567. 3. Wells V. Steam Navigation Co., 2 N. Y. 204, 205, Bronson, J.; s. c. 8 N. Y. 375; Arctic Fire Ins. Co. v. Austin, 54 Barb. (N. Y.) 559; Caton V. Rumney, 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 387; Alexander v. Greene, 3 Hill (N. Y.), 9, revd. 7 Hill (N. Y.), 533; Wooden V. Austin, 51 Barb. (N. Y.) 9; Ab- bey V. The Robert L. Stevens, 22 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 78; Parmalee v. Wilks, 22 Barb. 539; Merrick v. Brainard, 38 Barb. 574; Carpenter v. Eastern Transp. Line, 67 Barb. 570. Worth preserving. — The remarks of Bronson, J., in his opinion above quoted, concerning the reversal of the decision in the case of Alexander V. Greene: "It is true that the judgment in Alexander v. Greene was reversed by the Court of Errors. (7 Hill, 583.) But what particular point or principle of law was decided by the court, or what a majority of the members thought upon any par- ticular question of law, no one can tell. It appears by the reporter's head note, that he could not tell, and from his note at the end of the case, it is apparent that the court itself could not tell. Two merchants and two lawyers thought the defendants were common carriers, while other CX):\DkIOX CARRIERS. 57 boats are not common carriers as to the tow, but incur only the re- sponsibility of ordinary bailees for hire, is maintained by many decisions of the courts of Pennsylvania and other states.* The English courts hold the same doctrine.^ In Kentucky it has been held, contrary to the view taken by the Louisiana courts in refer- ence to tow boats on the Mississippi River, that owners of tow boats on the Ohio River and its tributaries are merely private carriers, and are only liable to exercise ordinary care and skill, considering the nature of their business. Unless he has made a special agreement therefor, a private carrier is not bound to carry or tow for all persons tendering to him anything to be transferred or towed. Otherwise as to a common carrier, or one who has so acted as to justify the belief that he offers to carry for any person be- tween certain termini, or on a certain route.^ The duty rests upon senators expressed a different opin- ion, and went upon other grounds; and it does not appear that more than four of the seventeen senators who voted for the reversal were agreed concerning any one of the questions in the case. Two efforts were made at the time to ascertain " the ground of the judgment," but both proved abortive; and thus the majority virtually said, that al- though the judgment was reversed, no point or principle of law was set- tled by the decision. It happened in that case, as it has happened on other occasions, that a majority of the members of that multitudinous court made up their ininds to reverse a judgment, and they did it; but not being able to agree concerning the ground of their action, they plainly enough admitted that nothing was settled by the decision. The case is not an authority for anything; it could only have been reported for the purpose of preserving the reasons of those who delivered opinions." 4, Hayes v. Miliar, 77 Ta. St. 233, 18 Am. Rep. 445; Bro\^Ti v. Clegg, 63 Pa. St. 51, 3 Am. Rep. 522; Leonard V. Hendrickson, 18 Pa. St. 40; Hays V. Paul, 51 Pa. St. 134, 88 Am. Dec. 569; Sproul v. Hemingway, 14 Pick. (Mass.) 1; Pennsylvania Nav. Co. V. Dandridge, 8 Gill & J. (Md.) 248, 29 Am. Dec. 543. As to whether persons engaged in towing vessels are liable as common carriers, quaere, Ashmore v. Pennsyl- vania, etc., Co., 28 N. J. L. (4 Dutch.) 180. 5. Symonds v. Pain, 6 Hurl. & N. 709; The Julia, 14 Moore P. C. 210; The Minnehaha, 1 Lush. 335. 6. Varble v. Bigley, 77 Ky. (14 Bush) 698; 9 Cent. L. J. 153, 29 Am. Rep. 435. See § 18, ante. In a later case it has been held that tlie ques- tion whether the owner of a tow boat held himself out as a common carrier for the time being was for the jury, and that if the jury found that he had, then he was liable as a common carrier. Bassett & Stone v. Aber- deen Ooal & Mining Co. (Ky.), 88 SI W. 318. rjj Tlll^ LAW OF CARRIERS. i\ towinu: tu'^ (o cxon'iso at loast reasonable skill and caro in every- thing rt. luting to the undertaking, having dne regard to the extent of the voyage and any special hazards incident to the seas to be traversed, inclnding not only proper and safe navigation of the tug on the voyage, hut also to see to the proper make-up of the tow and the furnishing of safe, sound, and suitable appliances and instrumentalities for the service to be performed/* The duty of a tujr to a tow is a continuous one from the time the service com- mences until it is completed, and where it becomes necessary to anchor the tow the tug's obligation of reasonable care continues, at least until she is safely anchored.*'' Where two tugs are acting jointly in towing a vessel, and an accident happens to the tow through their negligence, both tugs are liable, notwithstanding the fact that one is acting as a helper, under orders of the master of the other.**^ § 20. Ferrymen. A ferry is a continuation of the highway from one side of the water over which it passes to the other, and is for the transporta- tion of passengers, or of travelers with their teams and vehicles and such other property as they may carry or have with them.' In a strictly ferry business, property is always transported only with the owner or custodian thereof ; and ferrymen who do nothing but a ferry business, and have nothing but a ferry franchise, are bound to transport no other property ; and in the transportation of persons with their property, they are not imder the obligations of a common carrier, but are bound only to use due care and dili- gence. It is well settled that if the owner retains control of the property himself, and does not surrender the charge of it to the ferryman, he is not a common carrier and liable as such for all losses and injuries except those caused by the act of God or the public enemies, but is only responsible for actual negligence.* 6a. The Britannia, 148 Fed. 495; Co., 52 N. Y. 35, 11 Am. Rep. 650; The Edwin Terry, 162 Fed. 309, 311, Evans v. Rudy, 34 Ark. 385; Harvey 89 C. C. A. 17, 19. V. Rose, 26 Ark. 3, 7 Am. Rep. 695; 6b. The Printer, 164 Fed. 314. Davies v. Mann, 10 Mees. & W. 6c. The Anthracite, 162 Fed. 384. (Eng.) 546; Dudley v. Camden & 7. Broodnoi v. Baker, 94 N. C. Phila. Ferry Co., 13 Vroom. (N. J.) 675. 25; White v. Winnisimmet Co., 7 8. Wyckoff T. Queena County Ferry Cush. (Mass.) 155. CJOMMON CARRIERS. 59 But ferr\Tnen may combine, and usually do comLine, with the ferry business, the business of a common carrier, carrying freight and merchandise without the presence of the owner or custodian, like other carriers engaged in the transportation of such freight ; and as to such freight, they are under the duties and obligation of a common carrier. As ferrymen, they are under a public duty to transport with suitable care and diligence all persons with or without their vehicles and other property; and as common carriers, it is their duty to carry all freight and merchandise delivered to them.* It is maintained by many authorities and seems to be well settled that ferrymen, when they receive property for transporta- tion, and have the exclusive custody of it, are to be held to the strict liability of common carriers.^" It is held that public ferry- men are presumably responsible, as common carriers, for property received by them for transportation; that to relieve themselves, they must show that they had no such control over it as invested them with the character of a common carrier ; that after the prop- erty has been put on board their boats, it is prima facie in their charge, and they are responsible for it ; and it makes no difference that the owner is present, unless he consent to assume the charge thereof.^^ Other cases hold that ferrymen are chargeable as com- 9. Mayor, etc., of New York v. C), 157; White v. Winnisimmet Co., Starin, 106 N. Y. 1. 7 Cush. (Mass.) 155; Joy v. Winni- 10. VVyckoff V. Queens County simmet Co., 114 Mass. 63; Miller t. Ferry Co., 52 N. Y. 35, 11 Am. Rep. Pendleton, 8 Gray (Mass.), 574; 650, the liability of a common carrier Claypool v. McAllister, ao 111. 504; in all its extent only attaches when Garner v. Green, 8 Ala. 96; Trent v. there is an actual bailment and the Cartersville Bridge Co., 11 Leigh party sought to be charged has the (Vfl,.), 544; Walker v. Jackson, 10 exclusive custody and control of M. & W. 161; Rutherford v. Mc- property for carriage; Clark v. Union Gowcn, 1 Nott & M. (S. C.) 19; Wil- Ferry Co., 35 N. Y. 485; Evans v. loughby v. Horridge. 12 C. B. 742. Rudy, 34 Ark. 385; Harvey v. Rose, 11. Ilarvcy v. Rosa, 26 Ark. 3; 26 Ark. 3; Pomeroy v. Donaldson. 5 Powell v. Mills, 37 Miss. 691; Slim- Mo. 36; Babcock v. Herbert, 3 Ala. mer v. Merry, 23 Iowa, 91; Whit- 392; Sanders v. Young, 1 Head more v. Bowman, 4 G. Gr. (Iowa) (Tenn.), 219; May v. Hanson, 5 Cal. 148; I.,eBarron v. East Boston Forrv 360; Smith v. Seward, 3 Pa. St. 342; Co., 11 Allen (Mass.), 312; Richar.U Albright v. Penn, 14 Tex. 290; So- v. Fuqua, 28 Miss. 793; Griffith v. hen T. Hume, 1 McCord (S. C), Cave, 22 Cal. 535. 444; Milea v. James, 1 McCord (S.. go THE LAW OF CARRIERS. inon carriers for the absolute safi'ty of property thus carried, antl that the owner, in taking care of the property during the passage of the boat, may be regarded as the agent of the ferryman ; ^^ but this position is questioned as not based upon any just principle and as not within the reasons of public policy upon which the ex- treme liabilities of common carriers rest.^^ One who keeps a ferry for his own use and for the convenience of customers to his mill, but who charges no ferriage, is not a common carrier, and is only bound to ordinary diligence." But the owner of a private ferry, although not on a road opened by public authority, or repaired by public labor, may so use it as to subject himself to the liability of a common carrier, if he undertakes for hire, to convey across the river all persons indifferently, with their carriage and goods ; but this is a question for a jury.^^ A corporation incorporated under [Mich. Comp. Laws, §§ 6646-GG59, to own and operate ferries on a river, which o^vns and operates an amusement park and steamers for the transportation of persons to and from the park, is not a common carrier while engaged in transporting such persons, and may refuse transportation to any one at its pleasure.^^* § 21. Hackmen. Proprietors of hacks have been held to be common carriers and bound to exercise the utmost care and skill.^* But whether the hackman's business can be justly considered that of a common carrier under all circumstances has been questioned. It is said 12. Fisher v. Clisbce, 12 111. 344; R. Co., 75 Hun (N. Y.), 355, 56 St, Powell V. Mills, 37 Miss. 691; Wilson Rep. (N. Y.) 748, 27 N. Y. Supp. 69. V. Hamilton, 4 Ohio St. 722. The point actually decided in the case 13. W'yckolT v. Queens County last cited was that a hackman is not Ferry Co., supra. a common carrier within the meaning 14. Self V. Dunn, 43 Ga. 528, 5 of N, Y, Laws 1892, chap. 676, pro- Am. Rep. 544. viding that no preference for the 15. Littlejohn t. Jones, 2 McMul. transaction of the business of a com- (S. C.) 366, 39 Am. Dec. 132. mon carrier upon its cars, or in its 15a. Meisner v. Detroit, etc.. Ferry depots or buildings, or upon its Co., 154 Mich. 545, 15 Det. Leg. N, grounds, shall be granted by any rail- 826, 118 N. W. 14. road company to any one of two or 16. Bonce v. Dubuque St. Ry. Co., more persons competing in the same 53 Iowa, 278, 36 Am. Rep, 221. business, or in that of transporting 17. Brown v. N. Y. Cent. &, H. R. for themselves or others. co:mmox carriers. Gl that he transports passengers here and there about the streets of a village or city, having no established route over which his con- veyance runs, nor any specified times for making his trips. He assumes the right to let his rig for a day, or any other specified time, to suit the convenience or wishes of his patrons. He gives the exclusive use of his carriage to a less number of persons than it can conveniently accommodate. He pursues his business if he finds it profitable to do so ; if not, he remains idle. The obliga- tions and duties of a common carrier are very different." "Where a passenger riding in a hired cab was injured in a collision be- tween the cab and a street car by the concurrent negligence of the street car company and the cab driver, the cab driver was a com- mon carrier of passengers for hire, and an instruction that he was bound to exercise a very high degree of care was proper."* The duty of a hack driver requires no greater degree of care than that he keep a prudent and careful lookout ahead of him, and that he use all reasonable care to avoid obstructions and excavations in the street.^^ One who solicits the services of a licensed hackman is a passenger, within the meaning of an ordinance providing that it shall be unlawful for the driver of an omnibus or automobile to refuse to convey a passenger from any one point to any other point in the city."" § 22. Proprietors of omnibuses. The proprietor of a line of omnibuses and baggage wagons, engaged in the business of carrying, for hire, passengers and bag- gage, or either alone, between the hotels and depots of a city, is a common carrier; and is answerable as such for the safe delivery of articles received for transportation.-^^ Omnibus proprietors who carry passengers and baggage for hire incur the ordinary responsi- bility of a common carrier, with respect to their baggage ; nothing will excuse them for a loss of, or injury to it, but inevitable acci- dent, or the act of the public enemy." A carrier of passengers is 17a. Stinor v. Metropolitan St. Ry. 18. Parmelcc v. Lowitz, 74 III. IIG, Ck)., 84 N. Y. Supp. 285. 24 Am. Rep. 276. 17b. Fisher v. Tryon, 15 Ohio Cir. 19. Powell v. Myers, 26 Wend. (N". Ct. Rep. 541, 8 0. C. D. 556. Y.) 591; Camden & Aniboy R. Co. v. 17c. Atlantic City v. Erown, 71 N. Belknap, 21 Wend. (N. Y.) 354; J. Law, 81, 58 Atl. 110. Clark v. Faxton, 26 Wend. (N. Y.) 62 THE LAW OF CAKRIEKS. responsible fur tliclr baggage, if lot;t, thougb no distinct price be paid for its transportation; but ho is not liable for a large sum of money, in a trunk, in excess of an amount ordinarily carried for traveling purposes.^. § 23. Proprietors of stage coaches. iStage coach proprietors are answerable as common carriers for the baggage of passengers, and cannot restrict their liability by a general notice that '' the baggage of passengers is at the risk of the owners." ^^ An established practice of conveying for hire, in a stage coach, parcels not belonging to passengers, constitutes the proprietors of the coach common carriers, and renders them liable for the loss or injury of such parcels.^^ The driver of a stage coach, in the general employ of the proprietors of the coach, and in the habit of transporting small packages of money for a small compensation, which was uniform, whatever might be the amount of the package, is a bailee for hire, answerable for ordinary negli- gence, and not subject to the responsibilities of a common carrier.^ 153; Cole v. Goodwin, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 251; Hollister v. Nowlen, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 234; Camden & Ara- boy R. Co. V. Burke, 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 611; Dibble v. Brown, 12 Ga. 217, 56 Am. Dec. 460; Jones v. Voorhees, 10 Ohio, 145, 20. Orange Co. Bank v. Brown, 9 Wend. (N. Y.) 85; Hawkins v. HofT- man, 6 Hill (N. Y.), 586; Hollister V. Nowlen, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 234; Cole V. Goodwin, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 251; McGill v. Rowand, 3 Barr (Pa.), 451; Bomer v. Maxwell, 9 Humph. (Tenn.) 621; Brooke v. Pickwick. 4 Bing. (Eng.) 218. 21. Hollister v. Nowlen, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 234; Cole v. Goodwin, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 251; Clark v. Faxton, 21 Wend. (N. Y.) 153; Powell v. Myers, 26 Wend. (N. Y.) 591; Cam- den & Amboy R. Co. v. Belknap. 21 W»nd. (N. Y.) 354; Jones v. Voor- lees, 10 Ohio, 145. 22. Dwight V. Brewster, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 53, 11 Am. Dec. 133; Beck- man V. Shouse, 5 Rawie (Pa.), 179, 28 Am. Dec. 653 ; Robertson v. Ken- nedy, 2 Dana (Ky.), 430; Merwin V. Butler, 17 Conn. 138; McHenry v. Philadelphia, etc., Co., 4 Har. (Del.) 448; Jones v. Voorhees, 10 Ohio, 145; Powell V. Mills, 30 Miss. 231, 64 Am. Dec. 158, prima facie., the proprietors of stage coaches, used for carrying the mails, passengers and their bag- gage, are not to be considered com- mon carriers as to articles not strictly within their line of business, in the technical sense of that term. They may, however, make themselves such by special contract, in a par- ticular case, or by their gem^ral course of business. Peizotti v. Mc- Laughlin, 1 Strob. (S. C.) 468, 47 Am. Dec. 563; Walker v. Skipwith, Meigs (Tenn.), 502. 23. Sheldon v. Robinson, 7. N. H. 157. CXDMMON CARRIERS. 65 The owners of the coach in such a case were held answerable for the neglience of the driver in not delivering a parcel of that de- scription, intrusted to him to carry, unless the arrangement was known to the o^vner of the goods, so that he contracted with the driver as principal.^* The responsibility of a carrier does not attach, until there has been a complete delivery for transportation, to him, or to a servant instructed to receive goods for such pur- pose.^ The driver of a stage coach should, before commencing his journey, ascertain that the passengers are seated ; but in his journey over ordinary streets and highways, where frequent or occasional necessary stoppages are made because of crowds, par- ades, or the like, or because of the use of the street or highway by others of the public, he is not bound, before he starts again, to give notice to the passengers that he is about to do so, or to ascer- tain whether the passengers remained seated as before the stoppage was made.^'^ In an action against a stagecoach proprietor for in- juries to one while a passenger, it was error to refuse to instruct that, unless the negligent act complained of was the direct and proximate cause of the runaway which resulted in the injury, plaintiff could not recover.^** § 24. Palace and sleeping car companies. Sleeping car companies are not insurers of the baggage, money, or other personal effects of a passenger, and the courts have almost universally refused to impose upon them the absolute liability attaching to innkeepers and common carriers of goods.^® While 24. Bean v. Sturtevant, 8 N. H. N. Y. Supp. 1111; Carpenter v. New 145; Dwight v. Brewster, 1 Pick. York, etc., R. Co., 124 N. Y. 53, 26 (Mass.) 53; Beckman v. Shouse, 5 N. E. 277, 21 Am. St. Rep. 644, 47 Rawle (Pa.), 179. Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 421; Tracy v. 25. Blanchard v. Isaacs, 3 Barb. Pullman Palace Car Co., 67 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 388. (N. Y.) 154; Welch v. Pullman Pal- 25a. Haile v. Clayton & HolT Co., ace Car Co., 16 Abb. Pr. N. S. (N. 6] N. J. Law, 197, 38 Atl. 805. Y.) 352; Palmeter v. Wagner, 11 25b. Taillon v. Mears, 29 Mont. Alb. L. J. 149. 161, 74 Pac. 421. U. -ST.— Barrett v. Pullman Palace 26. .V. y.— Williams ▼. Webb, 27 Car Co., 51 p'ed. 796; Ivomon v. Pull- Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 508, 58 N. Y. man Palace Car Co., 52 Fod. 262; Supp. 300. 6 Am. Neg. Rep. 129, Blum v. Southern Pullman Palace irmlT. r3 Misf. Rep. (N. Y.) 513, 49 Car Co., 1 Flip. (U. S.) 500. G4 THE LAW OF CARIUERS. the law, liowevor, chios not make a sleeping car company the insurer of the etfeots of the occupants of its berths, it does not absolve it from all liability. IJut the ground of this liability rests simply and solely in negligence. The company is bound to exercise reasonable care and vigilance in looking after the person and prop- erty of a passenger ihiriug the night while the passenger is asleep, or using the necessary conveniences of the car, and it is bound so to manage its car as not unreasonably to expose his property to an unusual risk of loss by thieves or otherwise, and it is liable only for its failure so to do." A contrary doctrine has been enunci- Ala. — rullman Talace Car Ck). v. Adams (Ala.), 24 So. 921. ///.—Pullman Talace Car Co. v. Smith, 73 111. 360, 24 Am. Rep. 258. Ind. — Woodruff Sleeping, etc.. Coach Co. V. Diehl, 84 Ind. 474, 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 294, 43 Am. Rep. 102. Ky. — Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Gaylord, 6 Ky. L. Rep. 279, 23 Am. L. Reg. (N. S.) 788. La.— Williams v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 40 La. Ann. 87, 33 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 407, 8 Am. St. Rep. 512. Mass. — Lewis v. New York Sleep- ing Car Co., 143 Mass. 269, 28 Am. &, Eng. R. Cas. 148, 58 Am. Rep. 145; Dawley v. Wagner Palace Car Co., 169 Mass. 315. 3/iss.— Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Handy, 63 Miss. 609, 56 Am. Rep. 846; Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Law- rence, 74 Miss. 784, 22 So. 53. 3/0. — Morrow v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 98 Mo. App. 351, 73 S. W. 2S1; Bevia v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 26 Mb. App. 19; Scaling v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 24 Mo. App. 29; Root V. New York Cent. Sleeping Car Co., 28 Mo. App. 199; Hampton v. P)illman Palace Car Co., 42 Mo. App. 134. O^iio.— Falls River 4 M. Co. v. Pull- man Palace Car Co., 4 Ohio N. P. 23, 6 Ohio Dec. 85. Pa. — Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Gardner, 3 Penny. (Pa.) 78, 16 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 324. Tenn. — Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Gavin, 93 Tenn. 53, 23 S. W. 70, 21 L. R. A. 298, 42 Am. St. Rep. 902. Tex. — Pullman Palace Car Co. v. INIatthews, 74 Tex. 654, 15 Am. St. Rep. 873; Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Pollock, 69 Tex. 120, 34 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 217, 5 Am. St. Rep. 31; Bel- den V. Pullman Palace Car Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 43 S. W. 22, 3 Am. Neg. Rep. 746. Can. — Smith v. Pullman Palace Car Co. (Can.), 60 Alb. L. J. 188. 27. Williams v. Webb, supra; Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. Hall, 106 Ga. 765, 71 Am. St. Rep. 293, 32 S. E. 923; Voss v. Wagner Palace Car Co., 16 Ind. App. 271, 43 N. E. 80; Stevenson v. Pullman Palace Car Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 26 S. W. 112, 32 S. W. 335; Chamberlain v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 55 Mo. App. 474; Henderson v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 20 Fed. 437; Pullman Palace Car Co. V. Hunter (Ky.), 54 S. W. 845, 47 L. R. A. 286; Pullman Palace Car Co. V. Hatch (Tex. Civ. App.), 70 S. COMMON CARRIERS. 65 ated in one or two cases.^ It has been held that a passenger is entitled to recover from a sleeping car company for the loss or theft, through the negligence of the car employes, of such articles in a valise as are usually carried by hand, which add to the com- fort, pleasure, and enjoyment of the traveler, and they may in- clude an opera glass and compass, but not a pistol ; ^^ for the theft of a diamond ring although placed in a pocket book;^" for rings stolen from her fingers while she slept ; ^^ for such sum of money only as is reasonably necessary to defray the expenses of his trip, taking into consideration his station in life, the length, duration, and purposes of his journey, as well as emergencies that may probably arise.^^ The mere proof of loss of money or personal W. 771; Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Adams, 120 Ala. 581; Pullman Pal- ace Car Co. V. Arents (Tex. Civ. App.), 66 S. W. 329; Dawley v. Wag- ner Palace Car Co., 169 Mass. 315, 47 N. E. 1024; Hughes v. Pullman Pal- ace Car Co., 74 Fed. 499, it is bound to the exercise of ordinary and rea- sonable care over the passengers and their effects, whether the contract in- volved in the ticket sold by it pre- scribes it in terms or not. See also, cases cited in last preceding note. The question of the company's negligence is a question for the jury, Arthur v. Pullman Co., 44 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 229, 88 N. Y. Supp. 981; Hatch V. Pullman Sleeping Car Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 84 S. W. 246. 28. Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Lowe, 28 Neb. 239, 40 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 637, 26 Am. St. Rep. 325, hold- ing the liability of a sleeping car com- pany in the case of articles of wear- ing apparel lost in the car to l>e sim- ilar to the innkeeper's liability; Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Lillie (Tenn.), 78 S. W. 1055, where a pas- senger carried a valise into a sleep- ing car and on retiring placed it un- der his berth, the valise was, in effect, 5 placed in charge of the railroad com- pany, and hence it was liable as an insurer thereof; Voss v. Wagner Pal- ace Car Co., 16 Ind. App. 271, 43 N. E. 20, a sleeping car company be- comes responsible as a common car- rier for the safe delivery of the bag- gage of a passenger intrusted to the porter to be carried to a given place. 29. Cooney v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 121 Ala. 368, 25 So. 713, 6 Am. Neg. Rep. 1. See also, Blum v. Southern Pullman Palace Car Co., 1 Flip. (U. S.) 500; Hampton v. Pull- man Palace Car Co., 42 Mb. App. 134. 30. Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Ad. ams, 120 Ala. 581, 24 So. 921, 45 L. R. A. 7C7, but not where it was not in a condition to be worn for the use, convenience, or ornament of the pas- senger on his trip. 31. Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Hunter (Ky.), 54 S. W. 845, 47 L. R. A. 286. 32. Williams v. Webb, 27 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 508, 58 N. Y. Supp. 300. 6 Am. Nog. Rep. 129; Barroft v. PuU- mnn Palace Car Co., 51 Fed. 796; Hills V. Cliicago, etc., R. Co., 72 Iowa, 228; Pfaelzer v. Palace Car Co., 4 W. N. C. (Pa.) 240. It does not extend 6ij THE LAW OF CARRIERS. ofTocts by ft pnssongpr while occupying a birth in a sleeping car does not make out a pritna facie case against the company, but some eviileuce of negligence on the part of the defendant must be given." Neither the railroad company nor the sleeping car com- pany is liable for a loss of baggage when the passenger himself was negligent.^* A sleeping car company will not be liable for sickness contracted by an occupant of an upper berth from water dripping from an open ventilating window during a heavy rain storm in tho night, where he did not notify those in charge of the train that ho needed special care, or request those in charge of the car to close the ventilator and was in a position to reach and close it himself at any time.^^ A sleeping car company is bound to furnish the required acconnnodations to a passenger if it has them;^® but not to one who by the rules of the company is not entitled to use these accommodations, as, for example, one not holding a through ticket or a second class passenger." The company is liable in damages to an amount which he is carrying for the purpose of depositing in a bunk. Williams y. Webb, 22 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 513, 49 N. Y. Supp. nil. 33. Carpenter v. New York, et«., R, Co., 124 N. Y. 53; Tracy v. Pull- man Palace Car Co., 67 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 154; McMurray v. Pullman'3 Palace Car Co., 86 Mo, App. 619; Hilla V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 72 Towa, 228; Root v. New York Cent. Sleeping Car Co., 28 Mo. App. 199; Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Pollock, 69 Tex. 120; Stearns v. Pullman Car Co., 8 Ont. Rep. 171. Compare Pull- man Palace Car Co. v. Lowe, 28 Neb. 239; Railroad Co. v. Walrath, 38 Ohio St. 461. The company cannot avoid liability for property lost or stolen through its negligence, by post- ing in the car a notice disclaiming re?rponsibility, if it does not appear that the passenger saw the notion. Ijowis V. New York Cent. Sleeping Car Co., 143 Mass. 267. 34. Welch V. Pullman Palace Car Co., 16 Abb. Pr. N. S. (N. Y.) 352; Whicher v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 176 Mass. 275, 57 N. E. 601; Whitney v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 143 Mass. 243; Hills v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 72 Iowa, 228; Barrott v. Pullman's Pal- ace Car Co., 51 Fed. 796; Root v. New York Cent. Sleeping Car Co., 28 Mo. App. 199; Illinois Cent. R. Co. V. Handy, 63 Miss. 609; Pull- man Palace Car Co. v. Matthews, 74 Tex. 654. 35. Edmunson v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 92 Fed. 824, 14 Am, & Eng. R, Cas, N, S. 336. 36. Scarles v. Mann Boudoir Car Co., 45 Fed. 330; Nevin v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 106 111, 222, 11 Am. & Eng. R. Cas, 92, 46 Am. Rep. 683. 37. Lemon v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 52 Fed. 262; Pullman Palace Car Co. V. Taylor, 65 Ind. 153. 32 Am. Rep. 57; Lawrence v. Pullman Pal- ace Car Co., 144 Mass. 1, 28 Am. & Eng. R, Cas. 151, 59 Am. Rep. 53. A COilMON CARRIERS. 67 for breach of contract to reserve a birth for a passenger or for failure to furnish hyn with a birth in accordance with a ticket purchased and paid for by him.^* The company is bound, and it is its right, to preserve order and enforce a proper decorum, as well as to keep a reasonable watch over the persons and property of passengers.^^ The business of running drawing room, or palace or sleeping cars in connection with ordinary passenger cars has become one of the common incidents of passenger traffic on the leading railroads of the country. These cars are mingled with the other cars of the company, and are open to all who desire to enter them, and who are willing to pay a sum in addition to the ordinary fare, for the special accommodation afforded by them. They are sleeping car company is not liable for the refusal of its conductor to per- mit a passenger's son to occupy a sec- tion with his parents without pay- ment therefor, where the son was not named in the pass with them, and a rule of the company required payment from any one not so named. Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Marsh (Ind.), 53 N. E. 782, 1 Repr. 1024. Ejection of passenger. A sleeping car company is not a common carrier of passengers, and its liability to per- sons seeking its accommodations rests solely on breach of its implied obliga- tion to furnish such accommodations as it holds itself out as offering to the public. Calhoun v. Pullman Pal- ace Car Co., 149 Fed. 546 (C. C, Tcnn. 1906). 38. Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Cain, 15 Tox. Civ. App. 503, 40 S. W. 220; Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Nel- son, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 223, 54 S. W. 624, for breach of contract to reserve a berth for a passenger who boarded a sleeping car, suffering from illness, and in consequence, owing to the neg- ligence of the sleeping car company, was compelled to sleep in the waiting room, where her privacy was fe- quently intruded on by the porter and others, and she was kept awake, resulting in great physical pain, men- tal distress and humiliation during" the entire night, a judgment of $900 is not excessive. Plaintiff bought and paid for a sleeping car ticket several hours be- fore the train left. At the time of starting he was received as a guest on the train and assigned to his sec- tion, but was afterwards told by the conductor that he could not have the berth, because it was occupied by someone else, and plaintiff was com- pelled to sit all night in an ordinary day coach. On his application for re- dress, he was told that he could have his money back. Held, that the evi- dence sustained a verdict for plain- tiff. Braun v. Webb, 65 N. Y. Supp. 668, 32 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 243, affg. on rehearing 62 N. Y. Snnp. 1037. 39. Ncvin v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 106 111. 222; Lewis v. New York Sleeping Car Co., 143 Mas-s. 267; Pjiilman Palace Car Co. v. Balles, 80 Tex. 211, 47 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 416. Ob rUE LAW OF CARRIERS. owued in most instauoes, thougli not always, by corporations other than those operating the trains, such corporations making a busi- ness of the ownership and management of such cars. But they form a part of the train and are put on presumably in the interest of the railroad company, and the railroad company, as a rule, cannot relieve itself of its obligations and liabilities as a common carrier of passengers to those who make use of the accommodations afforded by such sleeping and palace or drawing room cars. In all matters relating to the safety of the passengers the conductor, por- ter, and other servants of such cars are the servants of the com- pany of whose train the cars is for the time being a part.''" \ passenger may assume, in the absence of notice to the contrary, that the whole train is under one management." Allowing a valise to stand in the aisle of a dimly-lighted sleeping car, where passengers are apt to stumble over it, is negligence.'*^ But an ex- perienced traveler who opens a vestibule door of a sleeping car by mistake, in the early morning, while the train is passing through a tunnel and the car is dark, and steps off upon the track, Avhen he supposes he is entering the car closet, is guilty of such negligence as will preclude his recovery, even if the carrier is deemed negligent.^^ It is the duty of a carrier toward a passenger 40. Dwinelle v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 120 N. Y. 117, 44 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 384; Thorpe v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 76 N. Y. 402, 33 Am. Rep. 325; Pennsylvania R. Co. V. Roy, 103 U. S. 451, 1 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 225; Evansville, etc., R. Co. V. Athon, 2 Ind. App. 295, 33 N. E. 469; Williams v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 40 La. Ann. 417, 4 So. 85; Kinsley v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 125 Mass. 54, 28 Am. Rep. 200; Wil- son V. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 32 Mo. App. 682; Bevis v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 26 Mo. App. 19; Hillis v. Chi- capo, etc., R. Co., 72 Iowa, 228; Louis- ville & N. R. Co. V. Ray, 101 Tenn. 1, 46 S. W. 554, 11 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. N. S. 174. 41. LTrich v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 198 N. Y. 80, 2 Am. St. Rep. 369, 34 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 350; Thorpe v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 76 N. Y. 402; Cleveland, etc., R. Co. V. Walrath, 38 Ohio St. 461; Williams v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 40 La. Ann. 87, 417. See Paddock v. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 37 Fed. 841. 42. Levien v. Webb, 30 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 196, 61 N. Y. Supp. 1113. See Lycett v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 12 App. Div. (N. Y.) 326, 42 N. Y. Supp. 431. 43. Piper v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 156 N. Y. 224, 41 L. K. A. 744, 50 N. E. 851, 11 Am. & Eng. R, Cas. N. S. 202, revg. 89 Hun (N. Y.), 75. A passenger on a sleeping car ia not, as a matter of law, guilty of neg- ligence in attempting to reverse her COMMON CARRIERS. 69 ■ holding a ticket to one point and a sleeping car ticket to another at which she must change cars in order to reach her destination, to awake her in time to make the necessary preparation for the ciiauge in a suitable and decent manner upon reaching the station, or, failing to do so, to hold the train for a sufficient time to enable her to make such preparation as is necessary to change cars with- out trepidation or the exposure of her person to the gaze of specta- tors, whether or not such duty is stipulated in the contract of car- riage.** As the conductor of a train has control of a car of the Pullman Palace Car Company attached to the train, the railroad company cannot recover over against the other company for dam- ages to a passenger on the palace car from mental suffering caused by the language of drunken persons permitted to enter and remain in the car.*'' A carrier of passengers is not an insurer of the quality of canned goods furnished on its dining cars, and is not liable for injuries to a passenger eating canned goods bought from a reliable dealer and guaranteed under the Pure Food Law, and containing no defect discoverable by the eye, smell, or taste.*^* A sleeping car company is not a common carrier unless so declared by constitutional or statutory provision.*^** Under the Interstate Commerce Act, section 1, as amended by the Hepburn Act June 29, 1906, the term " common carrier " as used in that act includes sleeping car companies.*^ § 25. Pipe line for carrying oil. Under section 1 of the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended by the act June 29, 1906, pipe lines for the transportation of oil or other commodity, except water and except natural and artificial position in her berth while the car is burg, etc., R. Co., 61 Miss. 8, 48 Am. in rapid motion. Smith v. Canadian Rep. 74; Airey v. Pullman Palace Pac. R. Co. (Can.), 34 N. S. 22. Car Co., 50 La. Ann, 648, 23 So. 512. 44. McKeon v. Chicago, etc., R. 45. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Per- Co., 64 Wis. 477, 35 L. R. A. 252, 69 kins, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 508, 52 S. W. N. W. 175, 2 Chic. L. J. Wkly. 175. 124. Duty to awaken passenger in time to 45a. Bigclow v. Maine Central R. leave train: Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Co., — Me. — , 85 Ail. 396. Alexander (Tex. Civ. App.), 30 S. 45b. Pullman Co. v. Linke, 203 W. 1113; Nichols v. Chicago, etc., R. Fed. 1017. Co., 90 Mich. 204; Nunn v. Georgia 45c. Interstate Commerce Act, § 1. P. Co., 71 Ga. 710; Sevier v. Vicks- fQ THE LAW OF CARRIERS. gas, aro made comnum carriers within the meaning and purposes of that act. Statutes recently enacted in Kansas and Texas declare a pipe line to be a coiumon carrier. The power of the State to make every pipe lino a common carrier if it engages in the trans- portation of oil for persons other than the owner may bo ques- tioned. The right of the state to do so will, doubtless, be asserted upon the strength of tlioso authorities which establish tlie power of the State to regulate the business of grain elevators and ware- houses,*^ and hold them subject to statutory legislation requiring them to receive and store grain of other persons oUered at lawful prices, when there is room for it,*'' and authorities sustaining the power of the State to declare a telegraph company a common car- rier," which are in many respects analagous cases. The fact that private pipe lines may be laid across, or in some instances alonjr, public highways, with tlie consent of the local authorities, or along the right of way of interstate railroads, with the con- sent of the railroad companies, does not impress upon them any obligation to become common carriers.*^* That pipe line compan- ies building interstate lines on private rights of way were incor- porated as common carriers under the laws of the states where organized does not make them such in other states, nor prevent them from selling their lines in such states, with the right in the purchaser to use them exclusively in its private business.* 48b § 26. Wagoners. It has been held that a wagoner who, upon his own request, carries goods for hire, is a common carrier, whether the trans- portation be his principal and direct business, or an occasional and incidental employment, even where the principal business of the wagoner is that of a farmer.** But the weight of authority 46. Budd V. New York, 143 U. S. 48, Kirby v. Western Union Tel. 517, 36 L. Ed. 247, 45 Alb. L. J. 354, Co., 7 S. D. 623,155 N. W. 37, 30 L. 36 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 31, 12 Sup. R. A. 621. Ci:. Rep. 468, 5 Am. Ry. & Corp. Rep. 48a. Prairie Oil & Ga3 Co. v. 610, 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 45; Munn v. United States (U. S. Com. Ct.), 204 Illinois, 94 U. S. 113. Fed. 798. 47. Brass v. North Dakota, 153 U. 48b. Prairie Oil & Gas Co. v. B. 891, 38 L. Ed. 757, 14 Sup. Ct. United States, supra. Rep. 857, 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 670. 49. Gordon t. Hutchinson, 1 W« C»MMON CARRIERS. 71 seems to favor the contrary position, that an occasional under- taking to carry goods will not make a person a common carrier, but that the business must be habitual, not casual.^ Where the undertaking to carry is an unauthorized act of the driver or agent of the owner of the wagon, the carrier is not liable.^ § 27. Carriers by river craft. A person who undertakes, though only as a casual employment pro luLC vice, to carry by river, for hire, without special contract, incurs the responsibility of a common carrier.^^ This rule has and S. (Pa.) 2S5, 37 Am. Dec. 464; Moses V. Norris, 4 N. H. 304; Moses V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 24 N. H. 71, 55 Am. Dec. 222; Powers v. Daven- port, 7 Blackf. (Ind.) 497, 43 Am. Dec. 100; Chevalier v. Straham, 2 Tex. 115, 47 Am. Dec. 639, wherein the court said that there were no grounds in reason why the occasional carrier, who periodically, in every re- curring year, abandons his other pur- suits and assumes that of transport- ing goods for the public, should be exempted from any of the risks in- curred by those who make the carry- ing business their constant or prin- cipal occupation. 50. Fish v. Chapman, 2 Ga. 353, 46 Am. Dec. 393, approved in Nugent V. Smith, 1 C. P. Div. 27, the lead- ling authority sustaining this view, was a case where a farmer had never held himself out as a carrier gener- ally, but was employed by the plain- tiflf to carry goods which, in crossing a stream upon the way, were injured by the upsetting of the wagon. The court, referring to the case of Gordon V. Hutchinson, 1 W. & S. (Pa.) 285, 37 Am. Dec. 464, says: "This decision no doubt contemplates an un- dertaking to carry generally without a special contract, and does not deny to the undertaker the right to define his liability. There are cases in Tennessee and New Hampshire which favor the Pennsylvania rule, but there can be little doubt that that case is opposed to the principles of the common law, and its rule wholly inexpedient." In Harrison v. Roy, 39 Miss. 396, while, imder the circum- stances of that case, it was held that the wagoner had made himself liable as a common carrier, the court said that, if the transaction had been a mere isolated undertaking, such as he had not been in the habit of en- gaging in, and which was foreign to his regular and usual business, there would have been force in the position that he could not be so held. In Steinman v. Wilkins, 7 W. & S. (Pa.) 4G6, 42 Am. Dec. 254, it was held that a wagoner was not a common carrier to the extent of rendering him liable for a refusal to carry. 51. Jenkins v. Pickett, 9 Yerg. (Tenn.) 480; Sntterlee v. Groat, 1 Wend. (N. Y.) 272; Haynie v. Bay- lor, 18 Tex. 498. 52. Moses v. Bcttis, 4 Heisk. (Tenn.) 661, 13 Am. Rep. 1; Craig V. Childress, Peck (Tenn.), 270, 14 Am. Dec. 751; Johnson v. Friar, 4 Yerg. (Tenn.) 48; Gordon v. Bu- ^2 TUE LAW OF CARRIERS. been mnintiiinod in Tennessee, New Hampsliire and Soutli Caro- lina as to carriers by river craft, but, as to carriers by land tbo rule bas been held to bo tbo same as at common law." But, in !New York, it bas been held that the owner of a sloop specially eniployed to make a trip, for a specified compensation, is not tlieroby known to be a connnon carrier and that tlie owner of a canal boat, generally used only in transporting freight for him- self, applying to a common carrier, who has knoweldge of the facts, and receiving a load of freight, does not thereby becomo liable as a common carrier." § 23. Truckmen, freightmen, draymen, cartmen, and porters. Wagoners and teamsters, whose business it is to carry on hire goods and chattels from one locality to another, common porters, drivers, truckmen, freightmen, draymen, and cartmen, whether their employment be carried on from town to town, or from one part of a town to another are common carriers.^ It is not neces- chanan, 5 Ycrg. (Tenn.) 71; Turney T. Wilson, 7 Yerg. (Tenn.) 340, 27 Am. Dec. 515; Moses v. K orris, 4 N. ii. 304; Elkins v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 3 Fost. (N. H.) 275; McClure V. Hammond, 1 Bay (S. C), 99; Mc- Clure V. Richardson, Rice (S. C), 215. 53. Walker v. Skipwith, Meigs (Tenn.), 502. See § 26 as to " wagoners." 54. Allen v. Sackrider, 37 N. Y. 341; Fish V. Clark, 49 N. Y. 122, affg. 2 Lans. (N. Y.) 176. 65. Richards v. Westcott, 2 Bosw. (N. Y.) 569 (city expressman); Jackson Architectural Iron Works v. Hurlburt, 158 N. Y. 34, 52 N. E. 665, 70 Am. St. Rep. 432, affg. judg. 15 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 93, 36 N. Y. Supp. 808, 71 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 830; Ben- son V. Oregon Short Line R. Co., 99 Pac. 1072 (Utah, 1909), a dray- man who 18 directed by a shipper to take her goods to the depot and ship them is a common carrier. Story Bailm. § 496; Arkadelphia Milling Co. V. Smoker Mercliaudise Co., 139 S. W. 6S0 (Ark. 1911), a drayage company; Johnson E.xpress Co. v. City of Chicago, 13G 111. App. 368 (1907), a parcel delivery company; Robertson v. Kennedy, 2 Dana (Ky.), 431, 26 Am. Dec. 466, so held of the driver of a slide with an ox team; Powers V. Davenport, 7 Blackf. (Ind.) 497, 43 Am. Dec. 100; Mc- Henry v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 4 Har. (Del.) 448; Model Clothing Co, V, Columbia Transfer Co., 139 S. W. 242 (Mo. App. 1911), a drayage and transfer company; Collier v. Langan & Taylor Storage & Moving Co., 127 S. W. 435 (Mo. App. 1910) ; Campbell v. Morse, Harper (S. C), 468; Gordon v. Hutchinson, 1 W. & S. (Pa.) 285; Lacky v. McDermott, 8 S. & R. (Pa.) 500; 2 Kent's Cora. 598 n. The mode of transporting is immaterial. Where the defendant COMMON CARRIERS. 75 sary that the exclusive business of the party should be carrying. Where one, whose principal pursuit is farming, solicits goods to carry to the market town in his wagon on certain convenient occasions, he makes himgelf a common carrier for those who employ him.^ A company chartered to do a general warehouse and storage business, but engaging as well in moving household goods and advertising that business, in a way to solicit custom from the general public, is a common carrier, notwithstanding it claims the right to select those whom it will serve, and its custom is to dis- criminate, accepting some and rejecting others as it may choose.^®* The transportation must be in pursuance of some carriage voca- tion which the carrier exercises; but one may be a common car- rier, who has no fixed termini, but leaves the course of trans- portation in each case to depend upon his customer's wish." Genei'al truckmen who describe their specialty to be "heavy ma- chinery," which they transport by wagons and trucks adapted to such purpose, and who make no discrimination as to customers, and do not refuse to move anything on request, if reasonably paid, are common carriers and liable as such, although a special price is fixed by agreement in each case.^^ But a person truck- ing goods for particular customers at prices fixed in each case by special contract is not a common carrier so as to be liable as an insurer of the goods/' A person engaged in the business of carrying freight in wagons from depots to other places, and of delivering packages for all persons who choose to employ him, is a common carrier.®^ One who, under a license so to do, hauls goods within the limits of a city for any person desiring his was a lighterman, who carried gooda 870, 871; Staub v. Kendriek, 121 Ind. between wharves and ships for any 226, 6 L. R. A, 619. persons who chose to employ him, he 56a. Lloyd v. Haugh & Keenan was held liable as a common carrier. Storage & Transfer Co., 223 Pa. 148, Ingate v. Christie, 3 C. & K. Gl. 72 Atl. 516. Compare Moses v. Boston, etc., R. 57. Alkali Co. v. Johnson, L. R. 7 Co., 24 N. H. 71; Brind v. Dale, 8 C. Exch. 267, L. R. 9 Exch. 3.38. A P. 207. 58. Jackson Architectural Iron 56. Jackson Architectural Iron Works v. Hurlbut, siipra. Works V. Hurlbut, supra; Chevalier 59. Faucher v. Wilson, 68 N. H. V. Strahan, 2 Tex. 115, 47 Am. Dec. 338, 38 Atl. 1002, 39 L. R. A. 431. 639; Harri^'on v. Roy, 39 Miss. 396; 60. Cayo v. Pool's Assignee, 55 S. Bcbouler, Bailm. 355, 356; An^. Carr. W. (Ky.) 887, 49 L. R. A. 251. 74 THE LAW OF CARRIERS. services, is a coiuinou oiirrier; and, while bo cannot be compelled to go beyond bis territorial liniiU, yd, if bo uudertiikes so Lo do, Lo is liable as a eoninion carrier for tbe whole distance.*' It is eometimes a question of fact for the jury whether, under the circumstances of a c:Lse the person sought to be charged witli liability is a common carrier or uot.^" A truckman, whether or not a common carrier, is liable for failure to use ordinary care in unloading goods moved by bim."^^ One engaged in trucking goods for particular customers, at prices fixed in each case by special contract, is bound only to exercise reasonable care in respect to the goods.^-'' A regular tariff of charges is not essen- tial to create a truckman a common carrier. ''^° § 29. Owners and masters of ships and steamboats or vessels. The master and owner of a general ship, or steam vessel, carry- ing goods for hire in internal, coasting or foreign commerce, is a common carrier with tbe liability of an insurer against losses, except from irresistible causes, as tbe act of God and public 61. Farley v. Lavary, 107 Ky. 523, 21 Ky. Law Rep. 1252, 47 L. R. A. 383, 54 S. W. 840. But a carrier who takes goods from a railroad cilice at the end of its line and transfers them to a connecting line is not a common carrier, but a mere agent of the first Toad, though he is in the habit of advancing its freight charges and col- lecting them, with his own transfer charges, from the connecting carrier. Hooper v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 27 Wis. 81, 9 Am. Rep. 439. Compare Parmalee v. Lowitz, 74 111. 116, 24 Am. Rep. 276. 62. Schloss V. Wood, 11 Colo. 287, 17 Pac. 910, 35 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 492. Furniture mover not a common carrier.— Where defendant corpora- tion engaged in furniture moving, con- tracted to move plaintiffs furniture for a certain price, and its agent stated that defendant had previously safely moved furniture and bric-a- brac for others, was responsible, and would move plaintifi"'s furniture with care and deliver it safely, defendant did not thereby assume the responsi- bility of a common carrier, but was only liable as a bailee for hire for negligence of its servants. Jaminet V. American Storage & Moving Co., 109 Mo. App. 257, 84 S. W. 128. 62a. Jackson Architectural Iron Works V. Hurlbut, 158 N. Y. 34, 52 N. E. 665, 70 Am. St. Rep. 432, aflTg. judg. 15 Misc. Rep. 93, 36 N. Y. Supp. 808. The question as to contributory, negligence, in that plaintiff ordered the machinery to be unloaded at once, on its delivery after dark, is for the jury. Id. e2b. Faucher v. Wilson, 68 N. H. 338, 38 Atl. 1002, 39 L. R. A. 431. 62c. Jackson Architectural Iron Works V. Hurlbut, supra. COMMON CARRIERS. 75 enemies." Wlien engaged in the coasting trade, or upon the lakes, bays and sounds, transporting goods from one port to another for the general public, for hire, steamboats or vessels are common carriers." Likewise, steamboats upon navigable 63. Liverpool & G. W. Steam. Co. V. Phoenix Ins. Co., 129 U. S. 397, 32 L. Ed. 788, 5 R. R. & Corp. L. J. 435, 39 Alb. L. J. 373, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 469; Hall v. Connecticut River Steamboat Co., 13 Conn. 324; Peters V. Rylands, 20 Pa. St. 497; Tucker- man V. Brown, 17 Barb. (N. Y.) 191; Saltus V. Everett, 20 Wend. (N. Y.) 267; Jencks v. Coleman, 2 Sumner (U. S.), 221; Dibble v. Brown, 12 Ga. 217; The Emily, 5 Kan. 645; Wilsons V. Hamilton, 4 Ohio St. 722; Dunseth v. Wade, 2 Scam. (111.) 285; King V. Shepherd, 3 Story (U. S.), 349; Hastings v. Pepper, 28 Mass. (11 Pick.) 41; Gage v, Tirrell, 9 Allen (Mass.), 299; Clark v. Bam- well, 12 How. (U. S.) 272; The Ni- agara V. Cordes, 21 How. (U. S.) 7; The Delaware, 14 Wall (U. S.) 579; The Maggie Hammond, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 435; Garrison v. Memphis Ins. Co., 19 How. (U. S.) 312; The Lady Pike, 21 Wall. (U. S.) 14; Williams V. Grant, 1 Conn. 487, 7 Am. Dec 235; Clark v. Richards, 1 Conn. .54; Richards v. Gilbert, 5 Day (Conn.), 415; Bennet v. Filyaw, 1 Fla. 451; Dwight V. Brewster, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 60, 11 Am. Dec. 133; Gilmore v. Car- man, 1 Smed. & M. (Miss.) 279, 40 Am. Dec. 96; Colt v. McMechen, 6 Johns. (N. Y.) 160, 5 Am. Dec. 200; SchiefTelin v. Harvey, 6 Johns. (N. Y.) 170, 6 Am. Dec. 200; Bowman v. Toall. 23 Wend. (N. Y.) 306, 35 Am. Dec. 502; Bell v. Reed, 4 Binn. (Pa.) 127, 5 Am. Rep. 398; Miles v. James, 1 McCord L. (S. C.) 157; Cohen v. Hume, 1 McCord L. (S, C.) 439; Murphy v. Staton, 3 Munf. (Va.) 239; Steele v. McTyer, 31 Ala. 667, 70 Am. Dec. 516; Nugent v. Smith, 1 C. P. Div. 423; Morse v. Slue, 1 Vent. 190; Boson v. Sanford, 2 Salk. 440; Laveroni v. Drury, 8 Exch. 166, 16 Eng, L. & E. 510; Coggs v. Ber- nard, 2 Ld. Raym. 909. Compare Smith V. Pierce, 1 La. 349; Adams v. New Orleans Tow-boat Co., 11 La. 46; Walston V. Myers, 5 Jones (N. C.) 174; White v. The Mary Ann, 6 Cal. 462; Ashmore v. Penn. Steam Tow Co., 28 N. J. L. 180, and cases cited § 10. 64. Hale v. New Jersey Steam Nav. Co., 15 Conn. 539, 39 Am. Dec. 398; Powell V. Myers, 26 Wend. (N. Y.) 591; Pardee v. Drew, 25 Wend. (N. Y.) 459; Allen v. Sewall, 2 Wend. (N. Y.) 327, 6 Wend. (N. Y.) 335; Elliott v. Rossell, 10 Johns. (N. Y.) 1, 6 Am. Dec. 306; Garrison v. Memphis Ins. Co., 19 How. (N. Y.) 312; Kemp v. Coughtry, 11 Johns. (N. Y.) 107; Gage v. Tirrell, 9 Al- len (Mass.), 299; Crosby v. Fitch, 12 Conn. 410, 31 Am. Dec. 745; Schooner Reeside, 2 Sumn. (U. S.) 567; Gordon v. Little, 8 S. & R. (Pa.) 533, 11 Am. Dec. 632; McClure v. Hammond, 1 Bay (S. C), 99, 1 Am. Dec. 598; Sch'r Emma Johnson, 1 Spr. (U. S.) 527; Hastings v. Pepper, 28 Mass. (11 Pick.) 41; Parker v. Flagg, 26 Me. 181, 45 Am. Dec. 101; Oakey v. Russell, 18 Mar. (La.) 58; The Propeller Commerce, 1 Black (U. S.), 582; The Niagara v. Cordes, 21 76 THE LAW OF CARRIERS. rivers, which carry both passengers and freight, are liable as common carriers, as to such freight and the baggage of their passengers. "" But, an ocean steamship company is not responsi- ble, as a common carrier or an innkeeper, for the baggage of a passenger, which he keeps in his own possession in his state- room, but must answer in such cases, for its negligence, like other bailees for hire." And a vessel chartered to transport a specific cargo is not a common carrier." Where the vessel is chartered by another who is using it for transportation generally, the party chartering and in control of the vessel, and not the owner, is liable; and when the vessel is run by the master on shares, the owner is not liable merely by virtue of his owner- ship, for goods entrusted to tlie master for transportation.^ A vessel under charter^ which was under no obligation to take what- ever goods might be tendered, and not running on any particulai schedule or between particular places, is not a common carrier in the legal sense of the term, but a private carrier only.^^* Where two corporations created by different states exist under the same name, one maintaining a steamboat line as a common carrier and the other merely owning land and wharves, the latter will not be How. (U. S.) 26; Clark v. Barnwell, (Tenn.), 452; Swindler v. Hilliard, 2 12 How. (U. S.) 272; The Com- Rich. (S. C.) 286, 45 Am. Dec. 732; mander-in-chief, 1 Wall. (U. S.) 51. HoUister v. Nowlen, 19 Wend. (N. Compare Aymar v. Astor, 6 Cow. (N. Y.) 234; Cole v. Goodwin, 19 Wend. Y.) 266; Crosby v. Fitch, 12 Conn. {N. Y.) 251; Hale v. N. J. Nav. Co., 410, 31 Am. Dec. 745, and cases cited 15 Conn. 539; Jones v. Pitcher, 3' § 19. Stew. & P. (Ala.) 135, 24 Am. Dec. 65. Citizens' Bank v. The Nan- 716; Sprowl v. Kellar, 4 Stew. & P. tucket S. B. Co., 2 Story (U. S.), 16; (Ala.) 382. McGregor v. Kilgore, 6 Ohio, 358, 66. American Steamship Co. v. 27 Am. Dec. 260; Bowman v. Hilton, Bryan, 83 Pa. St. 446. 11 Ohio, 303; McArthur v. Sears, 21 67. The Dan (D. C. S. D. N. Y.), Wend. (N. Y.) 190; Dunseth v. 40 Fed. Rep. 691. Wade, 2 Scam. (HI.) 285; Hart v. 68. Tuckerman v. Brown, 17 Barb. Allen, 2 Watts (Pa.), 114; Barring- (N. Y.) 191; Thompson v. Hamilton, ton V. McShane, 2 Watts (Pa.), 443, 12 Pick. (Mass.) 425, 23 Am. Dec. 27 Am. Dec. 321; Warden v. Greer, 6 619; Cutler v. Winsor, 6 Pick. Watts (Pa.), 424; Pardee v. Drew, (Ma-ss.) 335, 3 Kent's Com, I'S; 25 Wend. (N. Y.) 459; Porterfield v. Manter v. Holmes, 10 Mete. (Mass.) Humphreys, 8 Humph. (Tenn.) 497; 402. Kirtland v. Montgomery, 1 Swan 68a. The Pawnee, 205 Fed. 333. COMMON CARRIERS. 77 liable as a common carrier for property delivered to the fonner for transportation, unless it held itself out to the general public as a common carrier or permitted the other company to use its corporate name.^*'' § 30. Lightermen and hoymen. A lighterman who carries goods between wharves and ships f»r any persons who choose to employ him is liable as a common carrier. ^° Under the rule of the American courts of admiralty a lighter hired exclusively to convey the goods of one person to a particular place for an agreed compensation is not a common carrier with respect to such goods, but a private carrier, and liable only as a bailee for hire.^*** § 31. Owners of a toll bridge. The owner of a toll bridge is not a common carrier, for, in general he has no possession or control over the goods. He is bound to keep the bridge in proper condition for the safe passage of passengers and goods, and is liable only for negligence in so keeping it.*^ A bridge company owning no freight cars, which solicits freight for railway companies who will fumisii the cars and over whose lines the freight is to go, and merely transfers such cars over its bridge to the railway companies furnishing them, charging for its service its regular bridge toll, but making no charge for transporting the freight contained or carried in the cars, is not a common carrier of such interstate freight.™ 68b. Reed v. Wilmington Steam- of the stage or the car is under the boat Co., 1 Marv. (Del. Super.) 193, driver or the engineer. But in croas- 40 Atl. 955. ing a bridge the acts and conduct of 68c. Ingate v. Cliristie, 3 C. & K. a passenger are regulated by his own 61. See § 28, note 55, supra. will. . . . He is more like the 68d. The Wildenfels, 161 Fed. 864; owner of a turnpike road, and his The Rover, 161 Fed. 864. See, also, liabilities are analogous." Fish V. Chapman, 2 Ga. 353, 46 Am. 70. Kentucky & I. Bridge Co. v. Dec. 393. Louisville & N. R. Co. (C. C. D. Ky.), 69. Grigsby v. Cliappell, 5 Rich. 37 Fed. Rep. 587, 2 L. R. A. 2S9, 2 (8. C.) 443, wherein Evans, J., says: Inters. Com. Rep. 351. " He is not like a stage owner or a The franchises and powers of build- railroad company. In these cases the ing, maintaining, and operating a passenger i« pasHive, the government bridge and approaches, designated as 78 THE LAW OF CARRIEKS. In an notion for injuries sustained by plaintiff wliile passing through a covered, iinlighted toll bridge, by being struck by a bicycle rider from the rear, an instruction imposing on the bridge company tlio duty of exercising ordinary care only, was more favorable to it than the law authorized ; such a corporation being requiretl to exercise a degree of care more nearly akin to that required of a carrier of passengers.^'*^ Where a railway company has built a bridge with a draw, and under a contract with the city had turned over the control and care of a footpath thereon to the city, and the company gave the ordinary signals, and opened the draw in a proper manner, it was not guilty of negli- gence resulting in the death of a boy who walked off the draw into the water and was drowned.^"" A toll bridge company, though not a common carrier, is under the duty to keep its bridge in a reasonably safe condition for travel, and is only liable for negligence in failing to so keep it.''°° While not the insurer of the person or property of their customers, it is the duty of the proprietors of a toll bridge to exercise ordinary care in its con- struction and maintenance, and to make reasonable provision to guard against injuries likely to be sustained in the ordinary use of the bridge, so that, where guard rails are reasonably neces- sary, the owner must construct and maintain them."^ § 32. Canal companies. A company maintaining for their own profit a canal, open to its terminal facilities, do not, in and all freight transported by it over the of themselves constitute the bridge bridge. And as to all such traffic, company a common carrier of prop- it, and not the bridge company, must erty; nor do they, by any clear im- be regarded as the common carrier, plication, confer upon it authority Id. "to equip its road, and to transport 70a. Conowingo Bridge Co. v. Hed- goods and passengers thereon, and rick, 95 Md. 669, 53 .\tl. 430. charge compensation therefor." Id. 70b. Desure v. New York Cent., Where a railroad company, by con- etc., R. Co., 94 App. Div. (N. Y.) tract with a bridge company, acquires 251, 87 N. Y. Supp. 988. the right to use a bridge, with its 70c. Gibler v. Terminal R. Ass'n of approaches, for its engines, cars and St. Louis, 203 Mo. 208, 101 S. W. 37. trains, it is regarded, under the Act 70d. Dardanelle Pontoon Bridge & to Regulate Commerce, § 1, as the Turnpike Co. v. Groom (Ark.), 129 S. owner or operator of the bridge and W. 280. aprproachee, for the time being, as to CX)MMON CARRIERS. 79 the public for navigation upon the payment of tolls, is not a common carrier, and is only bound to take reasonable care that its canal may be navigated without danger; and it is not re- sponsible for accidents which do not arise from the want of such reasonable care. It is not, like a common carrier, subjected to the responsibility of an insurer.^^ The Pennsylvania Canal Com- pany is neither liable as a common carrier nor as an insurer. As owner and operator of a public water highway, it is bound to so maintain and manage the canal that it can be used with reasonable safety and convenience by the public, but it is not liable for an injury r^Bulting from an unknown obstruction, which could not have been guarded against without the exercise of extraordinary and imreasonable care.'^ An incorporated canal company, whose business is to maintain and keep open a water- way for the use of the public, taking tolls for such use, is not liable as a common carrier, in the absence of special contract, for the loss of timber from rafts transported by it and lying in the basins or in the canal itself, by theft, sinking or otherwise." A complaint in an action against a canal company, which alleged that defendant agreed to tow plaintiff's schooner through the canal by defendant's tug, and negligently, wrongfully, and carelessly obstructed its said canal by a large barge which it owned, and negligently, carelessly, and wrongfully caused plaintiff's schooner to be towed by its tug down and upon the said barge, and to run foul of and to strike against said barge, and by reason of the obstruction of the canal and the said defendant's towing said schooner down and upon said barge said schooner was greatly 71. Exchange Fire Ins. Co. v. tion of them or i;heir cargoes, and, Delaware & Hudson Canal Co., 25 N. therefore, there is no reason for put- Y. Super. Ct. (10 Boaw.) 180; Weit- ting them on a footing with common ner v. Delaware & Hudson Canal Co., carriers so as to render them insur- 27 N. Y. Super. Ct. (4 Rob.) 234. ers. No case has been cited which "There is no consideration of public goes to this length." Robertson, J., policy to enlarge the liability of the in case first cited, supra. owners of a canal beyond the em- 72. Pennsylvania Canal Co. v. ployment of reasonable diligence. Burd, 90 Pa. St. 281, 35 Am. Rep. Unless they owned the canal boats, 659. they could reap no real benefit from 73. Watts v. Savannah, etc., Canal either the simulated or real destrue- Co., fi4 Ga. 88, 37 Am. Rep. 53. so THE LAW Ob' CARRiERH. damaged, sufficiontlj cliarges negligence in mooring the barge as the basis of plaiutitl's doniaud.'^ A railroad company, altJiough having the right under state authority to erect an abutment and pier for a bridge over a public canal, if it maintains the same 60 as to create hidden or dangerous obstructions to navigation and to cause injury to crafts rightfully using the canal, is liable for such injury."** "WTiere the undisputed evidence discloses a special injury to a person navigating the Schuylkill canal, from a depletion of the waters therein, that question need not be sub- mitted to the jury."'= § 33. Forwarding merchants. A forwarder of goods, who takes upon himself all the expenses of transportation, for which he receives a compensation from the owner, but who has no concern in the means of transportation, or interest in the freight, is not a common carrier, but is liable as warehouseman.''* He is not an insurer of the safety of the 73a. Gillikin & Gaskell t. Lake Drummond Canal Co., 147 N. C. 39, 60 S. E. 654, holding also that a barge negligently moored to the bank of a canal, which because of such negli- gence floats out into the channel of the canal causing a collision with a passing vessel, is clearly within the meaning of the term " obstruction." 73b. The Nonpariel, 149 Fed. 521. A railroad company, which main- tained a bridge over the Erie canal, with piers resting on submerged cribs extending beyond the piers on the canal side, which were not pro- tected or marked in any way to show their location, is liable for an injury to a canal boat and damage to her cargo resulting from her colli- eion with such crib, which was not apparent to her master, who exer- cised ordinary skill and care in her navigation. Id. 73c. Gallagher v. City of Phila- delphia, 4 Pa. vSuper. Ct. 60. 74. Roberts v. Turner, 12 Joins. (N. Y.) 232, 7 Am. Dec. 311; Platt v. Hibbard, 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 497; Ackley v. Kellogg, 8 Cow. (N. Y.) 233; Sage v. Gittner, 11 Barb. (N. Y.) 120; Cowles v. Pointer, 26 Miss. 253; Maybin v. South Carolina, etc., R. Co., 8 Rich. (S. C.) 240, 64 Am. Dec. 753; Denny v. New York, etc., R. Co., 13 Gray (Mass.), 487, 74 Am. Dec. 645; Nichols v. Smith, 115 Mass. 332; Briggs v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 6 Allen (Mass.), 246; Brown v. Dennison, 2 Wend. (N. Y.) 593; Stannard v. Prince, 64 N. Y. 300; Teall V. Sears, 9 Barb. (N. Y.) 317; Wade V. Wheeler, 3 Lans. (N. Y.j 201; Story, Bailm. § 502. Forwarders. — Plaintiffs were for- warding merchants at T., and were employed by defendant to ship cer- tain marble to him at P. The mar- ble was shipped on a canal boat, which proceeded on the way as far as A. Learning that it was there COMMON CAERIERS. 81 goods delivered to him for transportation, but is liable only for hia own negligence and that of his agents or servantsJ^ When a person or corporation act both as forwarder and carrier, their liabilitj in each capacity is separate and distinct, and whether or not they are liable as carrier, or merely as forwarder, depends upon the circumstances and conditlions of each particular case.^® A custom extending over a great num- delayed, one of the plaintiflFs went to A, and there learned that the only towboat company it was practicable to employ to tow the boat down the H. river declined to take the boat unless the captain would pay an old bill, and would pay in advance the charge for towing. The captain had gone home to procure the money. Plaintiffs thereupon advanced the money, and the boat was put into a tow and, by the negligence or un- skillfulness of the employes of the towboat company, was injured and Bunk. In an action to recover for advances and charges, wherein the loss was set up as a counterclaim, it was held that plaintiffs acted simply as forwarders, not as carriers; that, by the transactions at A. they did not assume the carriage of the prop- erty; that they had a right, and it was their duty, to pay the advance charges, and, although the defendant was not liable for the advance on the account of the captain, it was for his benefit, and he could not complain; and that as the loss did not occur by any negligence on the part of plain- tiffs, and was not a natural or ordi- nary consequence of any act of theirs, they were not liable therefor. Stan- nard v. Prince, 64 N. Y. 300. 75. RobTta v Turner, 12 Johns. (N. Y.) 232, 7 Am. Dec. 311; Chris- 6 tenson v. American Express Co., 15 Minn, 270, 2 Am. Rep. 122; Hooper V. Wells, 27 Cal. 11, 85 Am. Dec. 211. 76. Ladue v. Griffith, 25 N. Y. 364; Blossom v. Griffin, 13 N. Y. 569, 67 Am. Dec. 75; Teall v. Sears, 9 Barb. (N. Y.) 317; Roberts v. Turner, 12 Johns. (N. Y.) 232, 7 Am. Dec. 311; Kreuder v. Woolcott, 1 Hilt. (N. Y.) 223; Clarke v. Needles, 25 Pa. St. 338; Mellier v. St. Louis, etc., Transp. Co., 14 Mo. App. 281; Parmalee v. Western Transp. Co., 26 Wis. 439; Plantation No. 4 v. Hall, 61 Me. 517; Burroughs v. Norwich, etc., R. Co., 100 Mas3. 26, 1 Am. Rep. 78; Mercantile Mut. Ins. Co. v. Chase, 1 E. D. Smith (N. Y.), 115; Maybin v. South Carolina R. Co., 8 Rich. L. (S. C.) 240, 64 Am. Dec. 753. Proofs that persona claiming to be only forwarders, ari'l not common car- riers, are engaged in the business of receiving merchandise from a rail- road company at its terminus, for de- livery by them at a neighboring town, and that they have an office at such town, where they collect freight bills and solicit business, is sufficient ti warrant a submission to the jury of the question whether they are com- mon carriers or not. Schloss v. Wood, 11 Colo. 287, 17 Pac. 910, 35 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 492. tjO THK LAW OF CARRIERS. l)er of ^'cars between parties, showing that ono of the purtiesi had always been a forwarder and not a carrier established a relationship which cannot be changed, in the absence of evidence tliat the parties had entered into a contract different in character from those they had been in the cnstom of entering iiiio in tlie course of their long continued dealings.^''* Forward- ing companies which undertake for hire to transport baggage from it3 starting point to its final destination, such transaction being within the ordinary course of their business, are common car- riers within the meaning of the law."^ An alleged forwarding agent who receives goods for transit, issues bills of lading, and makes contracts in his own name with a railroad company for carriage, is, as to a person with whom it contracts for the delivery of goods, a common carrier, and liable as such."'®" Even il the expressed purpose of a forwarding company's business were material, its designation that it was a "forwarder" and "dis- tributor" would be sufficient to estop it from claiming that it was a mere forwarder and not a common carrier.^*'* A "forward- ing merchant" or "forwarder" is one who ships or sends forward goods for others to their destination by the instrumentality of third persons without himself incurring the liability of a car- rier to deliver them, and neither includes a consignor shipping goods nor a carrier engaged in transporting them.^** § 34. Warehousemen and wharfingers. Warehousemen and wharfingers, acting strictly as such, and confining themselves to the business which their names import, cannot be held liable as common carriers, their business being simply to receive and store goods and merchandise or to ship them to their destination, for hire.'" But when a person or company 76a. Barasch v. Richards, 113 N. 76€. In re Emerson, Marlow & Co., Y. Supp. 1005. 199 Fed. 95, 117 C. C. A. 635; 199 76b. Bare v. American Forwarding Fed. 99, 117 C. C. A. 639. Co., 146 111. App. 338, aflfd. 89 N. E. 77. Piatt v. Hibbard, 7 Cow. (N. 1021. Y.) 497; Knapp v. Curtis, 9 Wend. 76c. Ingram v. American Forward- (N. Y.) 60: Roberts v. Turner, 13 ing Co., 162 111. App. 476. Johns. (N. Y.) 232, 7 Am. Dec. 311; 76d. Lee t. Fidelity Storage * Bouvier's L. Diet. Transfer Co., 51 Wash. 208, 98 Pac. Wharfingers who describe them- 658. selves as such and also as lightermen COMMON CARRIERS. 83 is at the same time a warehouseman or wharfinger and carrier, if the deposit of the goods in the warehouse or on the wharf is a mere accessorj to the carriage, in other words, if they are de- posited for the purpose of being carried without further orders, the responsibility of the carrier, as a common carrier, begins from the time they are received, the duty to transport having actually arisen.'^ Whenever the goods are not to be shipped in the regular course of business, but are to be retained to await the orders of the shipper, the carrier's liability is that of a ware- houseman until the orders are given to forward the goods, when his liability as a common carrier commences.'* So, when any- and carmen, and who carry goods from tlieir wharf for their wharf cus- tomers, but not for strangers unless at arranged prices and unless they consider the business good, are not carriers, or, at least, not common car- riers. Cliattock V. Bellamy, 54 L. J. Qi. B. (N. S.) 250, 15 Rep. 340. Compare Having v. Todd, 1 Stark. 72, 2 E. C. L. 37; Cobban v. Downe, 5 Esp. N. P. 41; Briti-h Columbia, etc., Spar, etc., Co. v. Nettleship, L. R. 3 C. P. 499. 78. Blossom v. Griffin, 13 N. Y. 569; Ladue v. Griffith, 25 N. Y. 364; Read v. Spaulding, 30 N. Y. 630, 34 N. Y. 497, 47 Barb. (N. Y.) 152; Barron v. Eldridge, 100 Mass. 455; Rogers v. Wheeler, 52 N. Y. 262, 6 Lans. (N. Y.) 420; O'Xeil v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 60 N. Y. 138, 10 Am. Ry. Rep. 121. The owner of a warehouse who con- tracts with the owner of goods stored therein, to deliver them at her house at a specified time, three or four hoTirs later, is liable as a common carrier instead of a warehouseman, although the goods remain in the warehouse, where they are d'stroj-ed by fire less than an hour before the time agreed on for delivery. Rnell- ing V. Yetter, 25 App. Div. (N. Y.) 590. 27 Civ. Pro. (N. Y.) 158, 49 N. Y. Supp. 917. 79. O'Xeil V. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 60 N. Y. 138; Piatt v. Hib- bard, 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 499; Michigan Southern, etc., R. Co. v. Shurtz, 7 Mich. 515; Little Rock, etc., R. Co. v. Hunter, 42 Ark. 200, 18 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 527; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Montgomery, 39 111. 335; Moses V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 24 N. H. 71, 55 Am. Dec. 222; Rogers v. Wheeler, 52 N. Y. 262; Fitchburg, etc, R. Co. V, Hanna, 6 Gray (Mass.) 539; Bar- ron V. Eldridge, 100 Mass. 455; Nichols V. Smith 115 Mass. 332; Dickinson v. Winchester, 4 Cush. (Mass.) 114, 50 Am. Dec. 760; Illi- nois Cent. R. Co. v. Tronstine, 64 Miss. 834, 2 So. 255; Basnight v. At- lantic, etc., R. Co., Ill N. C. 592; Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Barrett, 36 Ohio St. 448, 3 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 256; Schmidt v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 90 Wis. 504; Milloy v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 23 Ont. Rep. 454, 55 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 579; Foard v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 8 Jones L. (N. C.) 235, 78 Am. Doc. 277; Goodbar v. Wa- bash R. Co., 53 Mo. App. 434. 34 THE LAW OF CARRIERS. thing roinains to bo dono by tlio sliippcr, after the delivery of the goods for transportation, the liability of tho carrier as an insurer does not connnenre, and he is responsible only as a ware- houseman, until the ('(Mulilions have been performed upon which their transportation was suspended.^'^ § 35. Postmasters, mail contractors, and mail carriers. Tho constitution of tho United States bestows upon Congress power "to establish post-offices and post-roads.'"^ The postal ser- vice is organized and maintained as one of the departments of the General Govcrnment.^^ The regulation and conduct of the post offices and the entire postal service, including the money order system and other branches, is provided for in the statutes under the title "The Postal Service."" The Postmaster-General, local postmasters, mail contractors, and mail carriers act in the cliar- acter of public officers or agents; they enter into no contracts with individuals who derive benefit from their services, and re- ceive no hire from them, like common carriers, in proportion to the value of the letters or merchandise carried by them; but their contracts are with the government, from whom they receive only a general compensation. They are, therefore, not liable, as common carriers for the safety of such things as may be trans- mitted through the mails, or for the malfeasance or embezzlement of clerks and deputies duly employed by them; but they must answer for the use of reasonable diligence in discharging their duties.** A postmaster is liable as a public officer, to the gov- 80. Wade v. Wheeler, 3 Lans. (N. R. Co. (Dak.), 29 N. W. 659, 27 Am. Y.) 201; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. & Eng. R. Caa. 33; Milloy v. Grand Knight, 122 U. S. 79, 7 Sup. Ct. 1132, Trunk R. Co., 21 Ont. App, 404, revg. 30 L. Ed. 1077; Alabama, etc., R. Co. 23 Ont. Rep. 454, 55 Am. & Eng. R. V. Mt. Vernon Co., 84 Ala. 173; Cas. 579; Basnight v. Atlantic, etc., Cairus v. Robins, 8 M. & W. 258; R. Co., Ill N. C. 592. Barron v. Eldridge, 100 Mass. 455, 81. U. S. Const, art. 1, § 8, pur. 7. 1 Am. Rep. 126; Watts v. Boston, 82. R. S. U. S. pp. 65-70. etc., R. Corp., 106 Mass. 467; Illi- 83. R. S. U. S. pp. 750-783. nois Cent. R. Co. v. Ashmead, 58 111. 84. Central R.. etc., Co. v. Lamp- 487; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. McClel- ley, 76 Ala. 357, 52 Am. Rep. 334, 23 Ian, 54 111. 58, 5 Am. Rep. 83; Illi- Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 720; Powell v. Tiois Cent. R. Co. v. Homberger, 77 Mills, 30 Miss. 231, 64 Am. Dec. 158; 111. 457; Mulligan v. Northern Pac- Wiggins v. Hathaway, 6 Barb. {N. COMMON CARRIERS. 85 eminent, for the discharge of the general duties imposed on him by statute;*^ and to individuals, in either a United States or State court, for money or property lost or stolen from his office through his negligence or wrongful act, or that of his assistants or servants, whereby special damage is sustained;^'' and to an action of trover, for unlawfully refusing to deliver mail matter to an individual, to whom it is addressed.^^ A railroad carrying mail for the government owes no duty to the addressee of a Y.) 632; Franklin v. Low and Swart- wout, 1 Johns. (N. Y.) 396; Conwell V. Voorhees, 13 Ohio, 523, 42 Am. Dec. 206; Schroyer v. Lynch, 8 Watts (Pa.), 453; Dunlop v. Munroe, 7 Cranch (U. S.), 242; Bolan v. Wil- liamson, 2 Bay (S. C), 551, 1 Brev. (S. C.) 181; Maxwell v. Mclvrj', 2 Bibb. (Ky.) 211; Foster v. Metts, 55 Miss. 77, 30 Am. Rep. 504; Hutchins V. Brackett, 22 N. H. 252, 53 Am. Dec. 248; Story Bailm. § 463; 2 Kent's Com. 610. Compare Sawyer V. Corse, 17 Gratt. (Va.) 230, 94 Am. Dec. 445; Christy v. Smith, 23 Vt. 663; Ford v. Parker, 4 Ohio St. 576; Fitzgerald v. Burr ill, 106 Mass. 445; Bishop V. Williamson, 11 Me. 495. By the common law and in the days of private posts a liability as common carriers naturally attached to postmasters. Jones Bailm. 109, 110. A mail carrier is not an officer of the Government, but is the private agent of the contractor for carrying the mail, and the contractor is liable to third persons for any injury or lofl<', as of money in a letter, sus- tained through the negligence or de- fault of Buch agent in the perform- ance of his duties. Hall v. Smith, 2 Bing. C. P. 156, 9 E. C. L. 357; Hol- liday v. St. Leonard. 103 E. C. L. 192. The pame principle that gives relief ngainst a contractir with the govern- ment gives the like relief against au officer of government. Robinson v. Chamberlain, 34 N. Y. 389; Hicks^ v. Dorn, 42 N. Y. 47; Hover v. Bark- hoof, 44 N. Y. 113. When the government assumed control of the post office (stat. IZ Car. II) it was held that the post- master was not liable for the loss of a letter with exchequer bills in it, and that postmasters enter into no contracts with individuals, and re- ceive no hire, like common carriers, in proportion to the value of the let- ters under their charge, but only a general compensation from govern- ment, and are, therefore, not liable, as common carriers. Lane v. Cotton, 1 Ld. Raym. 646; Whitfield v. Le Desprurer, Cowp. K. B. 754. 85. Strong v. Campbell, 11 Barb. (N. Y.) 135. 86. Idaho Gold Reduction Co. v. Croghan (Id.), 56 Pac. 164; Bishop V. Williamson, 11 Me. 495; Coleman V. Frazier, 4 Rich, (S. C.) 146, 53 Am. Dec. 727; Bolan v. Williamson, 1 Brev. (S. C.) 181, 2 Bay (S. C), Sawyer v. Corse, 17 Gratt. (Va.) 230, 94 Am. Dec. 445. 87. Tcall V. Felton, 1 N. Y. 537, 3 Barb. (N. Y.) 512, 12 How. (U. S.) 284; Bank of Columbia v. Lawrence, 1 Pet. (U. S.) 578; Nevins v. Bank of Lansingburgh, 10 Mich. 547. gg 'iOK LAW OF CARIUKRS. package rendering tlio railroad liable for tlie loss of the same Lbrough ltd uegligonco; but conceding that it may bo liable to fiuch addressee for the loss of the same in the mail through its negligence, tlie degree of caro required is only the reasonable care exacted of an ordinary bailee for hire/" A contractor to carry the mail between the railroad station and the post office in a towTi is not a common carrier and owes a railroad mail clerk no further duty than the exercise of reasonable cure.'"'"^ § 36. Log-carrying, or log-driving, or boom companies. One who contracts to cut a lot of timber and transport it to a place where it is to be delivered and used, does not act, while transporting the timber, as a common carrier, and incur ro- sponsibility as such; he is only liable for the want of ordinary prudence, care and skill.*' A boom company, engaged in the business of driving and booming logs, for any person having logs to be driven, and charging regular rates therefor, is not a com- mon carrier, nor subject to the common-law liabilities of car- riers.'° A constitutional provision, providing that all railroads are public highways, and all railroad companies common car- riers, does not have the effect of making a business corporation organized to construct and operate a sawmill and a railroad in connection therewith, which constructs a logging railroad on its private grounds, and operates the same for private purposes, a common carrier, charged with the duties and responsibilities im- posed by law on such carriers.^^ The responsibilities of a private carrier, operating a railroad for the purposes of its own business, and permitting persons to travel gratuitously on such road, are different from those of common carriers for hire; and, in an action against such a private carrier for damages caused by its alleged negligence, it is not error to refuse instructions to the 88. German State Bank v. Minne- Booming Co., 46 Mich. 38, 8 N. W. apolia, etc., R. Co, (U. S. C. C 550, 41 Am. St. Rep. 141; Chesley v. Minn.), 113 Fed. 414. Mississippi & R. R. Boom Co., 39 88a. Davis v. Crisham, 213 Mass. Minn. 83, 38 N. W. 769. 151 99 N. E. 959. ^1- Wade v. Lutcher & Moore Cy- 89. Pike v. Nash, 3 Abb. App. Dec press Lumber Co., 74 Fed. 517, 20 C. (N. Y.) 610, 1 Keyes (N. Y.), 335. C. A. 515, 41 U. S. App. 45; Const. 90. Mann v. White River Log 4 of La., art. 244. COMMON CARRIERS. 87 jury based upon the rules as to the liability of common carriers.^^ In an action against a logging company for personal injuries caused by the derailment of a train on its logging road, on which the plaintiff was riding, it appeared that the defend- ant's sole business was logging, and it had never authorized the use of its road for carrying passengere; but there was evidence that the defendant's general superintendent had instructed the plaintiff, who had come to the logging camp in search of work, to get on the train, anl go for his blankets, so as to return and go to work and also evidence that the trains were used, with the knowledge of the defendant, for carrying people up and down the road. It was held that it was not error to refuse to direct a verdict for the defendant.^^'' § 37. Telegraph companies. Telegraph companies are not insurers of the safe and accurate transmission of messages, and, like common carriers, liable for all losses resulting from an incorrect transmission, unless occa- sioned by an act of God or of the public enemy.^^ The reasons 91a. Wade v. Lutcher & Moore Cy- 79, 8 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 102; press Lumber Co., supra. Hart v. Western Union Tel. Co., 91b. Albion Lumber Co. v. De No- 1 Am. Electl. Cas. 734, 66 Cal. bra, 72 Fed. 739, 19 C. C. A. 168, 44, 579, 8 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. U. 6. App. 347. 24, 56 Am. Rep. 119 (rule changed 92. Not liable as insurers.— Breese by Civil Code, §§ 2162, 2168) ; West- V. United States Teleg. Co., 48 N. Y. em Union Tel Co. v. Hyer, 2 132, 141, 8 Am. Rep. 526, afTg. 45 Am. Electl. Cas. 484, 22 Fla. 637, Barb. (N. Y.) 274, 31 How. Pr. 16 Am. Eng. Corp. Cas. 232, 1 Am. (N. Y.) 86; Leonard v. New York, St. Rep. 222; Central Union Teleph. etc., Teleg. Co., 41 N. Y. 544, 571, 1 Co. v. Bradbury, 2 Am. Electl. Cas. Am. Rep. 446; De Rutte v. New 14, 106 Ind. 1; Tyler v. Western York, etc., Tel. Co., 1 Daly (N. Y.), Union Tel. Co., 1 Am. Electl. Cas. 647, 30 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 403; 14, 60 111. 421, 14 Am. Rep. 38; Schwartz v. Atlantic, etc., Tel. Sweatland v. Illinois, etc., Tel Co., Co., 1 Am. Electl. Cas. 284, 18 27 Iowa, 458, 1 Am. Rep. 285; Aken Hun (N. Y.) 157; Ellis v. Ameri- v. Western Union Tel. Co., 2 Am. can Tel Co., 13 Allen (Mass.), 232; Electl. Cas. 566, 69 Iowa, 31, 13 Am. Westorn Union Tel. Co. v. Griswold, & Eng. Corp. Cas. 585, 58 Am. Rep. 37 Ohio St. 310, 41 Am. Rep. 500; 210; Camp v. Western Union Tel. Little Rock, etc., Tel. Co. v. Davis, Co., 1 Mete. (Ky.) 164, 71 Am. Dec. 1 Am. Electl. Cas. 525, 41 Ark. 461; Fowler v. Western Union To!. 88 THE LAW OF CARRIERS. wliicli have impelled the courts to adopt the rule tliat such com- panies should not bo charged with the absolute liability of a Co., 3 Aui. Klectl. Cas. 007. 80 Me. 3S1, 6 Am. St. Rep. 211; Bartlctt v. Western Union Tel. Co., 1 Am. Electl. Cas. 45, 62 Me. 209, 16 Am. Rep. 437; Birney v. New York, etc., Tel. Co., IS Md. 341, 81 Am. Dec. 607; Crinnell v. Western Union Tel. Co., 1 Am. Electl. Cas. 70, 113 Mass. 299, 18 Am. Rep. 485; Western Union Ifel. Co. V. Carew, 15 Mich. 525; Wann v. Western Union Tel. Co., 37 Mo. 472, 90 Am. Dec. 395; New York, etc., Print. Tel. Co. v. Dryburg, 35 Pa. St. 298, 78 Am. Dec. 333; P.isa- more v. Western Union Tel. Co., 1 Am. Electl. Cas. 168, 78 Pac. St. 238; Aiken v. Western Union Tel. Co., 1 Am. Electl. Cas. 121, 5 S. C. 538; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Neill, 1 Am. Electl. Cas. 352, 57 Tex. 283, 44 Am. Rep. 589; Western Union Tel. Co. V. Edsall, 1 Am. Electl. Cas. 715, 63 Tex. 668, 8 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 70; Washington, etc., Tel. Co. V. Hobson, 15 Gratt. (Va.) 122; Hibbard v. Western Union Tel. Co., 1 Am. Electl. Cas. 62, 33 Wis. 565; Candee v. Western Union Tel. Co., 1 Am. Electl. Cas. 99, 34 Wis. 471, 17 Am. Rep. 452; Abraham v. West- ern Union Tel. Co., 1 Am. Electl. Cas. 728, 23 Fed. Rep. 315, 8 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 130, 11 Sawy. (U. S.) 28; Southern Express Co. v. Caldwell, 21 Wall. (U. S.) 269; Bax- ter V. Dominion Tel. Co., 37 U. C. Q. B. 470; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Reynolds, 1 Am. Electl. Cas. 487, 77 Va. 173, 46 Am. Rep. 715, 5 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 182. The transmission of messages is necessarily subject to the risk of mis- take and interruption. The wire is exposed to the interference of strang- ers; a surcliarge of electricity in the atniospliere, or a failure of or an ir- regularity ill the electrical current, may stop cunimunication; and it is continually subject to danger from accident, malice, and climatic influ- ence, when the company has not the actual immediate custody of the mes- sages, as the common carrier has of the merchandise it carries; and it .should not, therefore, like a common carrier, be treated not only as a bailee, but as an insurer. Smith v. Western Union Tel. Qo., 1 Am. Electl. Cas. 743, 83 Ky. 104, 8 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 20, 4 Am. St. Rep. 128. The nature of the business is suggest- ive of many risks and contingencies to which no other business or agency is subject. The electric current may be interrupted and the current broken without fault of the corporation, so as to obstruct telegraphic communi- cation, and words of different signifi- cation may be represented by charac- ters 80 similar that errors in trans- scribing may occur without fault on the part of the person transcribing it, or technical terras may be used not easily expressed by telegraphy, and in which errors may occur without fault. These and risks of the like character are upon the person send- ing the message, unless he elects to comply with the terms of the com- pany, and have the dispatch repeated, by which certain risks are guarded against and errors prevented or in- sured against. But an error in tran- scribing the direction, and a conse- quent misdelivery, are prima facie evidence of neglect and want of care COMMON CAHRIERS. gg common carrier are, in substance, as follows: That liaLility waa founded upon tlie necessities of the case, real or fancied, and has never been applied to any person or any occupation, ex- cept those of carriers of goods and inn-keepers. The carrier had the exclusive possession and control of the goods, often in secret, away from the supervision of any other person, with opportunity for embezzlement and collusion with evil-minded persons, and without means of discovery by the owner, especially in the ruder stages of civilization, and before the present modes of communi- cation, rapid and easy, were in existence. It was, upon this view, early adopted, as a rule of safety to the community, that the carrier should always be prima facie liable, in case of non- delivery of the goods, and that he should not be excused for any causes, except those occurring by the act of God or of the public enemies, and these were to be shown by himself. "Whether ?ts liability is based upon the contract it makes, or upon its public duty, the telegraph company does not come within any of thet.e principles. Its liability for error or failure in the transmission of a dispatch is quite unlike that of a common carrier. A telegraph company is entrusted with nothing but an order or message, which is not to be carried in the form in which it is received, but is to be transmitted or repeated by electricity, and is peculiarly liable to mistake; which cannot be the subject of embezzlement; which is of no intrinsic value; the importance of which cannot be esti- mated except by the sender, nor ordinarily disclosed by him with- out the danger of defeating his own purposes; which may be wholly valueless, if not forwarded immediately; for the trans- mission of which there must be a simple rate of compensation; and the measure of damages for failure to transmit or deliver which has no relation to any value which can be put on the message itself. ^^ On the other hand, the authorities which have in the operator, and cast the burden 93. Leonard v. New York, etc.,, Tel. upon the company of explaining the Co., 41 N. Y. 544, 1 Am. Rep. 446; error and showinfj that it occurred Grinnell v. Western Union Tel. Co., without fault. This is upon the sup- 1 Am. Elect. Gas. 70, 113 Mass. 299, position that the mesanpe is received 18 Am. Rep. 485; see also, cases cited for transmission unconditionally. note 92. Baldwin v. t^nitod States Tel. Co., 45 N. Y. 744, 751, 6 Am. Rep. 165. 90 THE I^\W OF CARRIERS. maiutainod that tele^aph companies are oommon carriers and, therefore, liable as insurers, have ur^ed the following reasons in support of their proposition: Such companies hold themselves out to the public as engaged in a particular branch of business, in which tlie iuterc>?ts of the public arc deeply concerned. They propose to do a certain thing for a given price. There is no difference, in the general nature of the legal obligation of the contract, between carr^'ing a message along a wire and carrying goods or a package along a route. The physical agency may bo different, but the essential nature of the contract is the same. The breach of the contract, in the one case or in the other, is, or may be attended with the same consequences, and the obliga- tion to perform tlie stipulated duty is the same in both cases. The importance of the discharge of it in both cases is the same. In both cases the contract is binding, and the responsibilities of the parties is governed by the same general rules.*^ The rule established by the latter cases has been changed by special statu- tory provisions in California and is not now accorded much weight elsewhere.^ But, although telegraph companies are not liable as insurers, they are bound to transmit all proper messages with the care and diligence adequate to the business which they under- take, to serve the public in good faith, impartially and without discrimination, and, if they fail so to do, they become responsible for any losses occasioned by the neglect and omission of duty, or willful default, of their servants and agents.^® Like common carriers, however, they cannot contract with their employers for exemption from liability for the consequences of their own neg- 94. Parks v. Alta, etc., Tel. Co., Electric Tel. Co. (Eng.), 17 C. B. 3, 13 Cal.. 422, 73 Am. Dec. 589; West- 84 E. C. L. 3; Gray on Telegraphs, em Union Tel. Co. v. Fontaine, 1 Am. §§ 6, 7; Shear. & Red. on Neg. (4th Electl. Cas. 229, 58 Ga. 433; Western ed.), § 554, et seq.; Kirby v. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Meek, 1 Am. Electl. Union Tel. Co., 6 Am. Electl. Cas. Cas. 138, 49 Ind. 53; Bowen v. Lake 824, 7 S. D. 623, 30 L. R. A. 621, 65 Erie Tel. Co. (Ohio), 1 Am. L. Reg. N. W. 37, telegraph companies are 685; True v. International Tel. Co., made common carriers by statute. 60 Me. 9, 11 Am. Rep. 156; Bryant v. 95. Cal. Civ. Code, §§ 2162, 2168; American Tel. Co., 1 Daly (N. Y.), see cases cited note 92. 675; Bell v. Dominion Tel. Co., 25 96. See cases cited note 92 under L. C J. (Can.), 248; MacAndrew v. this section. COMMON CARRIERS. 91 ligence or that of their servants." They are responsible only 97. Southern Express Co. v. Cald- well, 21 Wall. (U. S.) 269; White V. Western Union Tel. Co., 14 Fed. Rep. 710; American Union Tel. Co. V. Daughtery, 3 Am. Electl. Gas. 579, 89 Ala. 191; Stiles v. Western Union Tel. Co., 2 Am. Electl. Cas. 471 (Ariz.), 15 Pac. 712; Western Union Tel. Co, V. Short, 3 Am. Electl. Cas 692, 53 Ark. 434; Western Union TeL Co. V. Graham, 1 Colo. 230, 9 Am. Rep. 136; Western Union Tel. Co. V. Blanchard, 1 Am. Electl. oas. 404, 68 Ga. 299, 45 Am. Rep. 480; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Fontaine, 1 Am. Electl. Cas. 229, 58 Ga. 433; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Meredith, 1 Am. Electl. Cas. 643, 95 Ind. 93, 8 Am. Eng. Corp. Cas. 54; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Adams, 1 Am. Electl. Cas. 442, 87 Ind. 598, 44 Am. Rep. 776; Western Union Tel Co. v. Meek, 1 Am. Electl. Cas. 138, 49 Ind. 63; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Fen- ton, 1 Am. Electl. Cas. 198, 52 Ind. 1; Harkness v. Western Union Tel. Co., 2 Am. Electl. Cas. 571, 73 Iowa 190, 21 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 182, 5 Am. St. Rep. 672; Sweatland v. Illinois, etc., Tel. Co., 27 Iowa 433, 1 Am. Rep. 285; Granville v. Western Union Tel. Co., 37 Iowa 214, 18 Am. Rep. 8; Tyler v. Western Union Tel. Co., 1 Am. Electl. Cas. 14, 60 111. 421, 14 Am. Rep. 38; Western Union Tel. Co. V. Tyler, 74 111. 168, 24 Am. Rep. 279; Smith v. Western Union Tel. Co., 1 Am. Electl. Cas. 743, 83 Ky. 104, 8 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas, 15, 4 Am. St. Rep. 126; Camp v. West- ern Union Tel. Co., 1 Mete. (Ky.) 164, 71 Am. Dec. 461; De La Grange V. Southwrstern Tel. Co., 1 Am. Electl Cas. 59, 25 T>a. Ann. 383; Bartlett v. Western Union Tel. Co., 1 Am. Electl. Cas. 45, 62 Me. 209, 16 Am. Rep. 437; Ayer v. Western Union Tel. Co., 2 Am. Electl. Cas. 601, 79 Me. 493, 21 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 145, 1 Am. St. Rep. 353; West- ern Union Tel. Co. v. Griswold, 37 Ohio St. 303, 41 Am. Rep. 500; Marr V. Western Union Tel. Co., 2 Am. Electl. Cas. 720, 85 Tenn. 529, 16 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 243; Pepper v. Western Union Tel. Co., 2 Am. Electl. Cas. 756, 87 Tenn. 554, 25 Am. & Eng, Corp Cas. 542, 10 Am. St. Rep. 699; Western Union Tel. Co. V. Broesche, 2 Am. Elect. Cas. 815, 72 Tex. 654, 13 Am. St. Rep. 843; Wertz V. Western Union Tel. Co., 3 Am. Electl. Cas. 803, 7 Utah 446; Gillis V. Western Union Tel. Co., 2 Am. Electl. Cas. 841, 61 Vt. 461, 25 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 568, 15 Am. St. Rep. 917; Thompson v. Western Union Tel. Co., 64 Wis. 531, 54 Am. Rep. 644; Candee v. Western Union TeU Co., 1 Am. Electl Cas. 99, 34 Wis. 471, 17 Am. Rep. 452. The reason of the rule.— " Courts and legislatures have been liberal in allowing telegraph companies to pro- vide against such risks as arise out of atmospheric influences and kin- dred causes. At this point they have properly stopped. To permit them to contract against their own negli- gence would be to arm them with a most dangerous power, and indeed that would leave the public almost entirely remediless. It must be born in mind that the public have but little choice in the selection of the company which is to perform the de- sired service. They ire bound to take it as they find it and to commit 92 THE LAW OF CARRIERS. for failure to exercise ordinary care and vigilance in the per- •formuneo of their duties.^** In New York and some of thei othoa- States telegraph companies have the right to make reason- able rules and regulations for tlie conduct of their business, and they can thus limit their liability for mistake, not occasioned by gross negligence or willful misconduct, and this they can do by notice brought home to the sender of the message, or by special contract entered into with him.^' A telegraph company to its agents their messages, how- ever valuable. Such being the case, public policy as well as commercial necessity require that companies en- gaged in telegraphing should be held to a high degree of responsibility." Western Union Tel. Co. v. Graham, 1 Colo. 237, 9 Am. Rep. 136. 98. Baldwin v. United States Tel. Co., 45 N. Y. 744, 6 Am. Rep. 165. 99. Breese v. United States Tel. Co., 48 N. Y. 141, 8 Am. Rep. 526; Mowry v. Western Union Tel. Co., 2 Am. Electl. Caa. 679, 51 Hun (N. Y.), 126, 4 N. Y. Supp. 666; Pearsall v. Western Union Tel. Co., 3 Am. Electl. Caa. 724, 124 N. Y. 256, 21 Am. St. Rep. 662; Nicholas v. New York Cent., etc., R. R. Co., 89 N. Y. 370; Kenney v. New York Cent., etc., R. R. Co., 125 N. Y. 422; Will V Postal Tel. Cable Co., 6 Am. Electl. Cas. 807, 3 App. Div. (N. Y.), 22, 73 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 552, 37 N. Y. Supip. 933, 3 N. Y. Ann. Cas. 123; Bir- ney v. New York and Washington Tel. Co., 18 Md. 341, 81 Am. Dec. 607; New York & Washington Print- ing Tel. Co. V. Dryburg, 35 Pa. St. 298; Ellis v. American Tel. Co., 13 Allen (Mass.), 226; Western Union Tel. Co. V. Carew, 15 Mich. 525; Wann v. Western Union Tel. Co., 37 Mo. 472, 90 Am. Dec. 395; Camp v. We.^tern Union Tel. Co., 1 Mete. (Ky.) 164; McAndrcwv. Electric Tel. Co., 33 Eng. L. & Eq. 180; Lassiter V. Western Union Tel. Co., 89 N. C. 336, 5 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 230; Pi^jram v. Western Union Tel. Co., 97 N. C. 57, 21 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 122; Becker v. Western Union Tel. Co., 1 Am. Electl. Cas. 337, 11 Neb. 87, 37 Am. Rep. 356; Grinnell V. Western Union Tel Co., 1 Am. Electl. Cas. 70, 113 Mass. 299, 18 Am. Rep. 485; Redpath v. Western Union Tel. Co., 1 Am. Electl. Cas. 40, 112 Mass. 71, 17 Am. Rep. 69; United States Tel. Co. v. Gildersleeve, 29 Md. 232, 96 Am. Dec. 519; Hart v. Western Union Tel. Co., 1 Am. Electl. Cas. 734, 66 Cal. 579, 8 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas, 24, 56 Am. Rep. 119; White V. Western Union Tel. Co., 14 Fed. Rep. 710, 5 McCrary (U. S.), 103. See also Kemp v. Western Union Tel. Co., 3 Am. Electl. Cas. 711, 28 Neb. 661, 30 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 607, holding that a statute of that state prohibiting exemption from lia- bility by contract is reasonable, and binding on all companies in that State; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Neill, 1 Am. Electl. Cas. 352, 57 Tex. 283, 44 Am. Rep. 589; Womack v. Western Union Tel. Co., 1 Am. Electl. Caa. 454, 58 Tex. 176, 44 Am. Rep. 614, holding tliat a stipulation COMMON CARRIERS. 93 furnishing messengers for the delivery of packages, does not aa- smne the liability of a common carrier, but only agrees that the messenger furnished shall be a suitable person for the work.®®* As we have already shown the courts have differed as to the legal status of telegraph and telephone companies.®®'' For example, it was held that telegraph companies, in the absence of a statute making them such, are not common carriers.®®" It was held tliat whatever may have been the law heretofore, it is now generally held that telegraph companies are not common carriers; but nevertheless a telegraph company is not a mere private one for pergonal gain only, but the business in which it is engaged is for the benefit of, and used for the benefit of, the general public.®®^ It was held that telegraph companies are not public carriers in the strict sense of the term, yet on account of the public nature of their employment they have in many cases been held to a very- similar responsibility.®®® Later cases hold otherwise. For ex- ample: Telephone and telegraph companies are common carriers against liability will not extend to injuries caused by " the misconduct, fraud, or want of due care on the part of the company, its servants or agents." Western Union Tel. Co. v. Goodbar (.Miss.), 7 So. 214, holding the company liable for gross negli- gence, notwithstanding an exemption clause in the contract. Fraud or bad faith. — Telegraph companies cannot relieve themselves by their regulations from liability for " fraud or any conduct inconsist- ent with good faith." Schwartz v. Atlantic, etc., Tel. Co., 1 Am. Electl. Caa. 284, 18 Hun (N. Y.), 157; Can- dee V. Western Union Tel. Co., 1 Am.. Electl. Cas. 99, 34 Wis. 471, 17 Am. Rep. 452; United States Tel. Co. ▼. Gildersleeve, 29 Md. 232, 96 Am. Dec. 519; Jones v. Western Union Tel. Co., 1 Am. Electl. Cas. 531, 13 Fed. Rep. 717; 3 Suth. on Dam. 296. 99a. Murray v. Postal Telegraph & Cable Co., 210 Mass. 188, 96 N. E. 316. 99b. See cases cited in preceding notes to this section. 99c. Birkett v. Western Union Tel- egraph Co., 103 Mich. 361, 61 N. W. 645, 33 L. R. A. 404, 50 Am. St. Rep. 374. (1894), Under the Oklahoma staute, de- claring a telegraph company to be a common carrier, such companies are to be treated in all respects as in- vested with those privileges and as bound by those obligations and re- strictions placed around carriers. Blackwell Milling & Elevator Co. v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 17 Okl. 376, 89 Pac. 235. (1907). 99d. State ex rel National Subway Co. V. City of St. LouiB, 145 Mo. 551, 46 S. W. 981, 42 L. R. A. 113. (1898). 99('. Western Union Telegraph Co. V. Reynolds, 77 Va. 173, 46 Am. Rep. 715. (1883). y4 TUE LAW OF CARRIERS. of news."' A telephone company is a common carrier of news, and affected with a public interest.'"^ A telephone company is a common carrier of intelligence.^^'^ A telephone company is a common carrier of conmiunications.®^' A telephone company is a common carrier of intelligence and news.'*^ A telephone com- pany is a public service corporation engaged in a public utility, and in receiving, transmitting, and delivering messages should be treated as an independent principal or contracting party, and bo held liable both in contract and tort, the same as other prin- cipals.^"' A telephone company doing a general telephone busi- ness is a common carrier.^" A telegraph company is a public service corporation.®^'" The Interstate Commerce Act, section 1, as amended in 1910, provides that the provisions of that act shall apply to " telegraph, telephone, and cable companies (whether wire or wireless) engaged in sending messages from one State, Territory or District of tlie United States, to any other State, Territory^, or District of the United States, or to any foreign country, who shall be considered and held to be common carriers within the meaning and purpose of this act," but provides that they shall not apply " to the transmission of messages by telephone, telegraph, or cable wholly within one State and not transmitted to or from a foreign country from or to any State or Territory as aforesaid." '''' 99/. S. O.—Gwynn V. Citizens' Tele- 99j. Alt v. State, 88 Neb. S.'sg, 129 phone Co., 69 S. C. 434, 48 S. E. 460. N. W. 432. (1911). (1904). 99k. Strong v. Western Union Tel- Tenn. — State v. Cumberland Tele- egraph Co., 18 Idaho, 409, 109 Pac. phone & Telegraph Co., 114 Tenn. 917 (1910). 194, 86 S. W. 390. (1905). 991. State v. Cadwallader, 172 Ind. 99g. Mooreland Rural Telephone 619, 87 N, E. 644, rehearing denied Co. V. Mouch, 48 Ind. App. 521, 9G 89 N. E. 319. (1909). N. E. 193 (1911). 99ni. Dunn v. Western Union Tele- 99h. Brandon v. Cumberland Tele- graph Co., 2 Ga. App. 845, 59 S. E. phone & Telegraph Co., 146 Ky. 639, 189; Jeffries v. Western Union Tcle- 143 S. W. 11. (1912.) graph Co., 2 Ga. App. 853, 59 S. E. 99i. Southwestern Telegraph & 192. (1907). T<»lephone Co. v. Danaher (Ark.), 99n. Interstate Commerce Act § 1, 144 S. W. 925. (1912). as amended by Act June 18, 1910. COMMON CARRIERS. 95 § 38. Telephone companies. Telephone companies do not offer to transmit messages, but merely furnish to subscribers the means of transmitting their own by word of mouth, and they have been held not to be common carriers.^ But telephone companies, like telegraph companies, are analogous to common carriers in that they are bound to afford equal facilities to all, and may be compelled by mandamus to furnish facilities to one offering to comply with their regulations, even though such party is a rival company, and are responsible only for failure to exercise proper care.^ A private corporation engaged in the business of operating a telephone plant is a common carrier of news and intelligence, within the scope of a statute pro- viding for the regulation of the rates of common carriers.' A telephone company doing a general telephone business is a common carrier of news and must furnish impartial service without dis- crimination to all persons in the same class.'* The later cases hold a telephone company, like a telegraph company, to be a com- mon carrier of news, intelligence, or communications.'^ The in- terstate Commerce Act, as amended by the Act, June 18, 1910, 1. American Rapid Tel. Co. v. Con- 167; State v. Nebraska Teleph. Co., necticut Teleph. Co., 1 Am. Electl. supra; Delaware v. Delaware, etc., Ca3. 390, 49 Conn. 352, 1 Am. & Eng. Tel. Co., 3 Am. Electl. Cas. 533, 47 Corp. Cas. 378, 44 Am. Rep. 237; Fed. Rep. 633, 35 Am. & Eng. Corp. State V. Nebraska Teleph. Co., 1 Am. Cas. 15 ; Central Union Teleph. Co. v. Electl. Cas. 700, 17 Neb. 126, 52 Am. Bradbury, 2 Am. Electl. Cas. 14, 106 Rep. 404, 8 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 1. Ind. 1 ; People v. Manhattan Gas Cases have arisen where the parties, Light Co., 45 Barb. (N. Y.) 136; being unable to communicate directly Central Union Teleph. Co. v. State, with°each other, have done so through 3 Am. Electl. Cas. 529, 2 Am. Electl. the medium of an operator of an in- Cas. 27, 123 Ind. 113, 118 Ind. 194, termediate station, but the liability 10 Am. St. Rep. 113, 25 Am. & Eng. of the company in such cases was Corp. Cas. 481. not adjudicated. Sullivan v. Kuy- 3. Nebraska Teleph. Co. v. State, kendall, 82 Ky. 483, 56 Am. Rep. Yeiser, 7 Am. Elect. Cas. 860, 55 Neb. 001; Oskamp v. Gadsden, 35 Neb. 7, 627, 76 N. W. 171, 45 L. R. A. 113. 52 N. W. 718. 3a. State v. Cadwallader, 172 Ind. 2. Chesapeake, etc., Teleph. Co. v. 619, 87 N. E. ■644, rehearing denied Baltimore, etc.. Tel. Co., 2 Am. 89 N. E. 319 (1909). Electl. Cas. 416, 66 Md. 399, 16 Am. 3b. See cases cited in § 37, notes k Eng. Corp. Cas. 219, 50 Am. Rep. 99f-99k, 8upra. 9(3 THE LAW OF CARRIERS. makes a telephono company doing an interstate telephone business a common carrier within the meaning and purpose of that act/° § 39. Railroad company transporting a circus, menagerie, or show. A railroad company is not a common or public carrier in respect to a special train of cars loaded with wild animals and other property, as well as persons, belonging to or connected with a circus, which is loaded and unloaded by the proprietor of the circus and is run on special time to suit his convenience, under a special contract that he shall assume all the risks of accidents, the only duty of the railroad company being to haul the cars.^ A common carrier's liability does not attach to a railroad company contracting to move a menagerie in the latter's own cars, con- trolled by its own agents, and, though operated by railroad em- ployes, run upon a time schedule to suit the menagerie. And a stipulation that the company shall not be liable for injuries to the menagerie caused by want of care may be upheld.^ A railroad company is not required, as a common carrier, to take a circus train, a part of which is loaded with wild animals, and transport the same over its line, but may refuse to transport such train, ex- 3c. See Interstate Commerce Act, company is transporting a circus for § 1; § 37, supra. a gross sum under a contract by 4. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Wallace, which the proprietors of the circus 66 Fed. 506, 24 U. S. App. 589. The agree to assume all risk of accident court held that the defendant was from any cause and save the com- not chargeable as a common carrier, pany harmless. See also Watson v. since it did not hold itself out as a North British R. Co., 3 Ry. and C. carrier of wild animals, etc., nor as T. Cas. 17. carrying on special schedules or 5. Coup v. Wabash, etc., Ry. Co., trains; that the defendant could only 56 Mich. Ill, 56 Am. Rep. 374, 18 be charged upon the special contract. Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 542. The court, and that being valid, the stipulation in this case, held that the railroad did against liability would preclude a not sustain the relation of common recovery. Robertson v. Old Colony carrier, and was therefore entitled R. Co., 156 Mass. 525, 31 N. E. 650, to stipulate against any liability 32 Am. St. Rep. 482, a railroad com- whatever. At most, it was liable pany is not liable for injury to an only for negligence. It did not pro- employe of a circus, arising from a fess, and was under no obligation, defect in a car truck which inspec- to undertake such transportation. tion would have revealed, when such COMMON CAERIERS. 97 cept Tuider a special contract limiting its liability to that assumed by a private carrier/ A railroad corporation as a common carrier is under no legal duty to haul show cars, that is, cars owned and fitted up by showmen and used exclusively by them to house and transport their employes and show property as a complete outfit from place to place over railroads.^ But where a railroad com- pany, whose ordinary business is the transportation of property for hire, agreed with plaintiff to furnish the motive power to draw his cars, laden with his property, over its railroad, plaintiff being bound to load and unload the cars, and to furnish the brakemen to accompany them on the road, who were to be under the control of the railroad company's conductor, the company is liable as a common carrier for the injury to plaintiff's cars, and his property therein, not caused by inevitable accident, or the public enemies/** § 40. Railroad company in South Carolina liable only over its own line. In South Carolina a railroad company, which is liable as a common carrier within the termini of its own line, is not liable as such beyond its own line and over connecting lines, unless it has assumed such liability by special contract, or become so by usage or the character of its business/ § 41. Railroad company carrying a dog for accommodation of passenger. A railroad company which does not assume the transportation of dogs, but permits its baggage-masters to take charge of them as a matter of accommodation and for a fee retained by the bag- gage-master, is not liable as a common carrier, if the dogs come to harm/ To the contrary, it has been held that, where a railroad 6. Wilson V. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., etc., R. Co., 19 S. C. 353, 16 Am. ft 129 Fed. 774; Sager v. North Pac. Eng. R. R. Cas. 194. Ry. Co., 166 Fed. 636. 8. Honeyman v. Oregon A Cali- 6a. Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. Ry. fornia R. R. Co., 13 Ore. 352, 57 Am. Co. y. Henry, 170 Ind. 94, 83 N. E. Rep. 20, 25 Am. & Eng. R. R. Caa. 710. 380, wherein the court said: "The 8b. Mallory v. Tioga R. R. Co., 89 facts disclose that the defendant did Barb. (N. Y.) 488. not hold itself out as a common car- 7. Piedmont Mfg. Co. v. Columbia, ner of dogs, or assume their trans* 7 9S THE LAW OF CARRIERS. passenger, without special notice of the company's rcgiihition that " live animals are allowed as haggagemeu's perquisites," com- mitted a dog to the baggage-master and paid him for its transporta- tion, the company was liable for the loss of the dog by the baggage- man's delivering it to the wrong person.'* The loss of a dog by negligence of a baggage-master will render the carrier liable, al- though a rule of the company provided that it would not be re- sponsible for dogs, where the owmer was not notified of such rule or of the company's refusal to be responsible, but put the dog in the baggage car under instruction of the conductor.^" In an action for a breach of a contract for the special transportation of a crate containing five dogs, where the carrier receiving the dogs for shipment by a certain train shipped them by an earlier train, and, no one being present to receive them, returned them to the place of shipment, and the shipper, learning of the return, directed them to be reshipped on the next day, without in any way pro- viding for them, the shipper was held not entitled to damages for the death of one of the dogs, resulting from his long confinement, the proximate cause of the death being the neglect of the shipper to have the dogs attended to before reshipment.^^ But the general rules of law respecting the obligations and liability of a carrier of portation in that character, but that tion to a passenger, it permitted the the defendant expressly refused to baggage-master, after the party was accept hire and furnish tickets for notified of the rules, to carry them their transportation. The evidence in his car, and to accept pay for shows that when the party having in them." charge the dogs applied to the ticket 9. Cantling v. Hannibal, etc., R. agent of the defendant for trans- R. Co., 54 Mo. 385, wherein it was portation for himself and dogs, the shown that the company's rules and agent refused tickets for the dogs, regulations were printed and posted and referred him to the baggage- at the various stations, but no spe- master, who told him, 'You know the cial notice of this rule was brought rules about dogs;' but, as an accom- home to the owner of the dog. modation, consented to take the dogs 10. Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. in his car, and promised to look Higdon, 94 Ala. 286, 33 Am. St. Rep. after them, for which he received 119, 52 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 495. two dollars. These circumstances do 11. Harrison v. Weir, 71 App. Div. not show that it was the business of (N. Y.) 248, 75 N. Y. Supp. 909, the defendant to carry dogs, or to revg. 34 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 519, 69 receive pay for their transportation, N. Y. Supp. 957. See also 73 N. Y. but that, as a matter of accommoda- Supp. 1119. COMMON CARRIERS. 99 animals under an ordinary contract of carriage were not the sub- ject of discussion in that case, as such questions did not arise. The rule which obtained at common law that there was no property in a dog, it being held to be ferae naturae, has been changed by statute and judicial construction, and recovery may now be had by the owner for a loss of or injury to a dog delivered to a carrier for transportation, and the rules governing the liability of the carrier are the same as apply to other classes of animals.^^ A conductor is justified in removing from a passenger car on his train a passenger, who, in defiance of a rule of the company against the carrying of dogs in passenger coaches, has a dog there which he refuses to remove on a request to do so by the conductor.^^ § 42. Carrier under a contract exempting " river risks." Where the contract of a carrier for the United States, to trans- port certain goods to points in Montana, contained the clause :. " ISTo river risk on the part of the contractor for imavoidable acci- dents," and, while the goods were being transported up a river, they were burned vnth. the steamer, it was held that the person so contracting was but a private carrier, whose liabilities were limited, and he was only bound to the exercise of ordinary care, and that loss by fire on board the steamer transporting the goods fell within the exemption from liability for loss by " river risks " incorporated in the contract." § 43. Owners of passenger elevators. The courts differ as to the exact status and character of the owners and operators of elevators used in public office buildings for the purpose of carrying the occupants of the buildings and the public from one floor to another as to the relations between them and their passengers, and as to the rule of liability appli- cable. In a recent New York case the court said : " Doubtless 12, Winchell v. National Express E. C. L. 122, 31 L. J. Q. B. 113; Co., 64 Vt. 15, 55 Am. & Eng. R. Caa. Richardson v. Northeastern R. Co., 400, note; Stuart v. Crawley, 2 L. R, 7 C. P. 75, 20 VV. R. 461. Btark. 323, 3 E. C. L. 428; Dickson 13. Gregory v. Chicago, etc., R. V. Great Northern R. Co., 18 Q. B. Co., 100 Towa, 345, 69 N. W. 532. Div. 170, 28 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 92; 14. United States v. Power, Harrison v. I^ondon, etc., R. Co., 110 Mont. 271, 12 Pac. 639. 100 TIIK LAW OF CA1UUER3. no distinction can be drawTi between vertical transportation and horizoutal transportation, or transportation along the surface of tlie earth. If the relationship between the parties and the char- acter of the carrier are the same in both cases, there is no reason why the same measure of diligence should not be exacted in one case as in the other. But the defendant was not a common carrier, and received no compensation, at least directly, for carrying per- sons from one floor to another. The right of any person to be carried in the elevator was based on the implied invitation to enter, which the defendant as owner of the property is deemed to have extended to all who might have business on the premises." To such persons, the court held, the law imposed upon the occupant or owner of the premises the duty of reasonable prudence and care as to the machinery and appliances by which the elevator was moved, and in its maintenance and operation, the same general standard of care imposed upon the owners and occupants of real property. The court further held that an instruction that the same rule that is applicable to a railroad company, as to its road- bed, engine and machinery, that it is bound to exercise the utmost care and diligence and is liable for the slightest neglect against which human prudence and foresight might have guarded, is ap- plicable to the owner of an elevator, was erroneous.^ The courts 16. Griffen v. Manice, 1&6 N. Y. passenger through, the defective 188, 59 N. E. 925, 52 L. R. A. 922, 82 working of an elevator has the bur- Am. St. Rep. 630, revg. 47 App Div. den of showing that the injury re- (N. Y.) 70, 62 N. Y. Supp, 364; Grif- suited from defendant's negligence. fen V. Manice, 36 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) Where an elevator installed by a 364, 73 N. Y. Supp. 559, affd. 74 App. reputable firm has all the appliances Div. 371, 77 N. Y. Supp. 626 affd. known to stop the machinery when 174 N. Y. 505, 66 N. E. 1109. See the car reaches the bottom of the also McGrell v. Buffalo Office Build- shaft, even if the operator is remiss ing Co., 153 N. Y. 265, 47 N. E. 305, in his duties, and the machinery is revg. 90 Hun (N. Y.), 30, 35 N. Y. in perfect order, as shown by various Bupp. 599; Hubener v. Heide, 62 inspections by the person installing App. Div. (N. Y.) 368, 70 N. Y. the elevator, insurance companies, Bupp. 1115; Grifhahn v, Kreiaer, 62 and the city, — one inspection being App. Div. (N. Y.) 414; Tousey v. made only a few hours before an ao- Rnberts, 114 N. Y. 312, 21 N. E, 399, cident occurring by reason of the un- 11 Am. St. Rep. 655. expected failure of the machinery to Burden of proof. — The plaintiff in so stop, though the car is properly an action for injuries received by a operated, — there is no liability for CX)MMON CARRIERS. 101 of Michigan, following this decision, have also held that the owner of a building having an elevator for passengers, in operating such elevator, is not " bound to exercise the highest degree of care and diligence of a cautious person so far as human care and foresight ean go," but is only bound to use the care required of an ordinary prudent person under the circumstances.^^ In Massachusetts it has been held that the owner of a passenger elevator for the use of tenants and others in a building, being under no obligation to carry passengers, is not a common carrier of passengers, within the meaning of a statute relating to the liabilities of common carriers of passengers, and hence is not liable for the death of a passenger caused by the elevator being out of repair." In Rhode Island it has been held that a landlord who maintains an elevator in his the accident, though there has been an occasional bumping of the cars on the springs, which was shown not to be uncommon or to have been the cause of the accident. Griffin v. Manice, 36 Misc. Rep. 364, 73 N. Y. Supp. 559, 74 App. Div. (N. Y.) 371, 77 N. Y. Supp. 626, affd. 174 N. Y. 506, 66 N. E. 1109. 16. Burgess v. Stowe, 134 Mich. 804, 10 Detroit Leg. N. 434, 96 N. W. 29. Citing Michigan Cent. R. Co. v, Coleman, 28 Mich. 440; Grand Rap- ids, etc., R. Co. V. Huntley, 38 Mich. 537, 31 Am. Rep. 321; Hall v. Mur- dock, 114 Mich. 233, 72 N. W. 150. 17. Seaver v. Bradley, 179 Mass. 329, 69 N. E. 795, 88 Am. St. Rep. 384. See Gibson v. International Trust Co., 186 Mass. 454, 72 N. E. 70; Shattuck v. Rand, 142 Mass. 83, 7 N. E. 43. In Seaver v. Bradley, supra, Holmes, C. J., said: "The modern liability of oommon carriers of gooG2, wherein it was also held that the facts that phiintifl" told the man- ager of one of the company's ofticcs that he wanted a hoy, and accepted one who was olTered to him, and de- livered to tlie boy a package, with instructions to deliver it at a cer- tain place, did not show a contract between the plaintifT and the com- pany for the delivery of the pack- age, rendering it liable on failure of the boy to deliver the package. Mur- ray V. Postal Telegraph & Cable Co., 210 Mass. 188, 96 N. E. 316. It had been previously held in New York that a company which fur- nishes messages to any who may de- sire them is a common carrier, and is liable as such for any property which is entrusted to its messeng- ers to deliver. Sandford v. American Dist. Telegraph Co., 6 Misc. (N. Y.) 534, 58 St. Rep, (N. Y.) 16, 27 N, Y. Supp. 142, 31 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 147; 13 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 88, 34 N. Y. Supp. 144, 68 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 191. The court below held that the messenger was the agent of the com- pany for the services required and that the company was bound by this act. Although the judgment was re- versed by the appellate court on the ground of a variance between the pleadings and the proof, the latter court expressed the opinion that, in a proper form of action and under the facts as they were proven, the defendant would have been liable as a common carrier; that the evidence was Buflicient to support an action ex delicto, but not an action cw con- tractu. It had also been previously held that a telegraph messenger com- pany whose business includes the de- livery of parcels by its messengers for those who choose to employ it, is liable for any loss sustained by the employer which resulted from a mes- senger's disregard of the instruc- tions given to him. Feibcr v. Man- hattan Dist. Telegraph Co., 3 N. Y. Supp. 116, 20 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 95, 22 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 121, affg. 21 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 11; reargument denied, 4 N. Y. Supp. 555, 23 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 57. Liable for damages where horse in charge of messenger ran away. — Tlie plaintiffs hired a buggy and horses, and, on returning, stopped at the office of the District Telegraph Company and asked for a boy who could drive the horses back to the livery stable. A boy was sent out who took charge of the horses, but owing to his negligence or incompe- tence, the horses ran away while he was driving them, and injured them- selves and the vehicle. In an action to recover damages therefor, it was held that the company was liable for the damages thus occasioned, and that the plaintiffs, although they were merely bailees for hire as to the horses and buggy, could maintain the action to recover such damages. American Dist. Tel. Co. v. Walker, 72 Md. 454, 20 Am. St. Rep. 479, 35 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 91. See, also, Newton v. Pope, 1 Cow. (N. Y.) 109, holding that one hired COMMON CARRIERS. 107 houses, and was engaged in the carriage of small hand packages bj means of messenger bojs sent in response to calls, for hire, and a package containing money was intrusted to one of its messengers sent in response to a call, without giving notice of the character or contents of the package, the company was not liable as a common carrier for the loss of the package.^^ The knowledge of a messen- ger company that messengers sent out by it were sometimes em- ployed to carry money does not render the company a common carrier, where the company exercises no control over the messenger during his employment by a patron.^®* As to messages sent by companies of this kind, they are under the same liability as tele- graph companies, and are responsible, not as common carriers, but only for such losses as result from their negligence, or the negli- gence of their servants.^^ Although they are in a certain sense and to a certain extent common carriers, must serve impartially all who require their services, are liable on proof of negligence, and under some circumstances, and always by special contract, they may make themselves insurers, if such a carrier does not cus- tomarily transport money, it will not be liable in the absence of notice for the loss of money contained in an envelope delivered t5 a messenger in its employ."* to drive horses, in whose hands they that the package contained money, are injured, is only responsible for and no special contract was made aa negligence, unskillfulness, or willful to its carriage. misconduct; the burden of proving 26a. Haskell v. Boston Dist. Mes- which is on the hirer; Barker v. De- seuger Co., 190 Mass. 189, 76 N. E. ment, 9 Gill (Md.), 13, 52 Am. Dec. 215, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1091, 112 670; Brind v. Dale, 2 M. & Rob. 80, Am. St. Rep. 324 (1906), where a bill 8 C. & P. 207, 34 E. C. L, 355; for rent was intrusted to a messenger Searle v. Laverick, L. R. 9 Q. B. 122. furnished by a messenger company, 26. Oilman v. Postal Telegraph Co., and the amount collected by the mes- 48 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 372, 95 N. Y. senger, the company did not become a Supp. 564, where plaintiff, before common carrier and insurer of the delivering a package of bank bills to bill and the money, a messenger of the defendant com- 27. See Telegraph Companies, § 37, pany, called into his service, so ante. White v. Pustiil Telegraph & wrapped the bills in a newspaper as Cable Co., 25 App. Cas. (D. C. ) 364, to conceal the character of the pack- 33 Wash. L. Rep. 295, 4 A. & E. Ann. age and to create an impression that Cas. 767. it was comparatively valueless, and 27a. Wliite v. Postal Telegraph & no notice was given to the defendant. Cable Co., supra. through Its messenger or otherwise. 108 THE LAW OF CARRIERS. § 46. Carriers of money and bank-bills. A ooiumou ciirrior engaged in transporting goods, wares, and mcreiiandise does not thereby hold hinisolf out as a common car- rier of gold and bank-bills.^'' The weight of authority is in favor of the proposition that there is no presumption that an ordinary carrier, a common carrier engaged in the transportation of goods, wares, and merchandise, assumes to act as a common carrier in respect to the txansportation of money, and that the assumption of such liability must be proven by one who would hold the carrier responsible."" In the absence of evidence, the carriage of money was held not to be, strictly speaking, in the line of duty of a carrier holding itself out only as a carrier of goods, wares, and merchandise, for the reason that money, bank- bills, notes, checks, etc., do not come within the description of goods, wares, and merchandise as applied to carriers. ^^'^ A 27b. Citizens Bank v. Nantucket Steamboat Co., 2 Story (U. S.), 16; Lee V. Burgess, 9 Bush (Ky.), 652. It must be clearly proved that they had held themselves out to the public as common carriers of bank-bills for hire, and that they had authorized the master to contract on their ac- count, and not on his own, for the carriage thereof. Citizens Bank v. Nantucket Steamboat Co., supra. The liability of the carrier for loss of bank-bills will depend upon the fact whether or not he received the bills to carry for compensation. Kirtland T. Montgomery, 1 Swan (Tenn.), 452. 27c. U. 8. — Kuter v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 1 Biss. (U, S.) 35, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,955, 1 Pittsb. Leg. J. (Pa.) 30, 10 West. L. J. 416, a clause in the charter of a railroad company, requiring it to transport " all mer- chandise and property," does not oblige it to become a comon carrier of money. D. C. — White v. Poetal Telegraph A Cable Co., 25 App. Cas. (D. a) 364, 33 Wash. L. Rep. 295, 4 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 767. III. — Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Thomp- son, 19 111. 578. Ky. — Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. Hall, 136 Ky. 379, 124 S. W. 372. La. — Sulakowski v. Flint, 22 La. Ann. 6, the carrier is liable on proof that it received specie as freight to be transported and delivered. N. r.— -Sewall v. Allen, 6 Wend. 335, revg. Allen v. Sewall, 2 Wend. 337; Oilman v. Postal Telegraph Co., 48 Misc. Rep. 372, 95 N. Y. Supp. 564. Eng. — Butler v. Basing, 26 C. & P. 613, 12 E. C. L. 764. 27d. White v. Postal Telegraph & Cable Co., supra; Citizens Bank v. Nantucket Steamboat Co., 2 Story (U. S.), 16; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Thompson, 19 111. 578, carriers are not responsible for loss of bank-bills contained in baggage, unless this is specially disclosed to them; they are never common carriers of bank-bills, for that these are not goods and oha* COMMON CARRIERS. 109 carrier may be a common carrier of money, as well as of other property, but it must be shown that the carrier made the carriage of money a pan of its ordinary or general business,"® or that it ■was its general custom or usage to receive and transport packages of money or bank-bills for hire,"' or that it became such a carrier tels, with regard to them, for which they are responsible; Lee v. Burgess, 9 Bush (Ky.), 652, while money and bank-bills are goods in a certain sense and for certain purposes, they are not ordinarily so considered; Farmers', etc., Bank v. Champlain Transp. Co., 23 Vt. 186, 18 Vt. 131, 16 Vt. 52. 27e. Kemp v. Coughtry, 11 Johns. (N. Y.) 107; Sewall v. Allen, 6 Wend. (N. y.) 335, revg. Allen v. Sewall, 2 Wend. (N. Y.) 327; Oilman v. Pos- tal Telegraph Co., 48 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 372, 95 N. Y. Supp. 564; Sand- ford V. American Dist. Telegraph Co., 13 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 88, 34 N. Y. Supp. 144; 6 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 534, 27 N. Y. Supp. 142. An express company offering to carry money for hire is a common carrier thereof, under South Dakota Rev. Civ. Code 1903, § 1577, provid- ing that every one who ofTers to carry persons, property, or messages is a common carrier of whatever he thus offers to carry. Piatt v. Lecooq, 150 Fed. 391 (U. S. C. C, S. D., 1906). See, also. Express Companies, chap. II, § 9, ante. 27f. Ala. — Carey v. Meagher, 33 Ala. 630, the owners of a steamboat are responsible as common carriers for the loss of a cash letter delivered to the clerk, if the jury find that it Ib the general custom of steamboats to carry such letters, although thoy «r« delivered to the clerk and carried without charge; Hosea v. MoCrary, 12 Ala. 349, a delivery to the clerk is a delivery to the master for the purpose of charging him, if the gen- eral usage of boats to take charge of such letters is shown; Knox v. Rives, 14 Ala. 249, it is proper to leave to the jury the question of fact, whether cash letters belonged to that class or character of goods which the boat un- dertook to carry for hire. Ind. — Cincinnati, etc.. Mail Line Co. V. Boal, 15 Ind. 345, the usage must be such as had grown up with the consent of the carrier; a mere accommodation usage is not suflBcient. Ky. — Robertson v. Kennedy, 2 Dana (Ky.) 430. Mass. — Dwight v. Brewster, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 50, 11 Am. Dec. 133. Mo. — Chouteau v. Steamboat St. Anthony, 16 Mo. 216, it must be its usage to carry bills for hire, or the known usage of the trade that it should carry them; Chouteau v. Steamboat St. Anthony, 20 Mo, 519, affg. 16 Mo. 216, proof of a custom by boats to carry money for customers does not establish a custom for hire; Whitmore v. Steamboat Caroline, 20 Mo. 513, owners not liable for moneys intrusted to a clerk by a passenger, unless a known and established uiAage for a steamboat to carry money for hire, on account of the owners, is shown. N. H. — Elkins v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 23 N. H. (3 Post.) 275, evidence that, twice in two years, a railroad company had carried goods in pas- senger trains, does not tend to prove 110 TIIK LAW OF CARRIERS. by reason of a special oantract.^" In order to make a carrier liable as a conmu)n carrier of money notice should be given that the package contains money, if tlie carrier docs not customarily transport money for hire.^"' ]^ut if the general custom or usage of the carrier be established by the proofs, the carrier will bo liable as an insurer for losses occurring otlierwisc than through the excepted risks."*^' The carrier will not be liable as an insurer, however, if the transportation be not for hire. In such a case the carrier is a mere mandatary or gratuitous bailee, liable for loss only by reason of its gross negligence.^'-' The carrier's duty to inquire as to the value of property offered for transportation, tho shipper's duty to state the character and value of the goods, and the effect of fraudulent concealment or misrepresentation of the character or value of the shipment are discussed in a subsequent chapter.'"" § 47. An irrigation company. An irrigation company which appropriates the water of a public stream, and supplies the same, under contracts, to landowners who that they intended to hold themselves out as common carriers of goods on passenger trains. N. Y.— Sewall v. Allen, 6 Wend. (N. Y.) 337, carrier held not liable where it was the usage of persona sending money to compensate the master of the boat, who had been for- bidden to carry money. Vt. — Farmers', etc., Bank v. Cham- plain Transp. Co., 23 Vt. 186, 56 Am. Dec. 68, the carrier suffering the cap- tain to continue to carry bank-bills ought not to be regarded as fixing its responsibility, although the captain was permitted to take the perqui- sites. 27g. Powell V. Mills, 30 Miss. 231, 64 Am. Dec. 158. 27h. Oilman v. Postal Telegraph Co., 48 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 372, 95 N. Y. Supp. 564; White v. Postal Telegraph & Cable Co., 25 App. Cas. (D. C.) 364, 4 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 767; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Thompson, 19 111. 578; Hayes v. Wells, 23 Cal. 185; American Dist. Telegraph Co. v. Walker, 72 Md. 454, 20 Am. St. Rep. 479, 20 Atl. 1. 271 Dwight V. Brewster, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 50; Harrington, v. McShane, 2 Watts (Pa.), 443; Kirtland v. Montgomery, 1 Swan (Tenn.), 452; Farmers', etc.. Bank v. Champlain Transp. Co., 23 Vt. 186, 18 Vt. 131, 16 Vt. 52. 27j. Haynie v. Waring, 29 Ala. 263; Lee v. Burgess, 9 Bush (Ky.), 652; Mechanics', etc., Bank v. Gordon, 5 La. Ann. 606; Chouteau v. Steam- boat St. Anthony, 20 Mo. 519, affg. 16 Mo. 216. But see Kemp v. Cough- try, 11 Johns. (N. Y.) 107. 27k. See chap. X, §§ 36, 37, 38, pos^ COMMON CARRIERS. Ill had no prior rights in the waters of such stream, is not a common carrier. Such a company, appropriating the water of a natural stream and directing it to a beneficial use, becomes the proprietor of the water, and as such has the right to sell, transfer and deliver it; and such right can only be defeated by a subsequent failure tc apply it to a beneficial use.^ A canal company, contracting to furnish rice farmers a sufficient supply of water to irrigate their lands during the planting season, is not liable for damages result- ing from an insufficient supply, where such insufficiency is attrib- utable to the inadequacy of the fall of rain, from which source the canal is supplied.^ A water company, being a public sen-ice cor- poration, and engaged in supplying for domestic, irrigating, and other purposes water appropriated under the laws of Califoniia, contracted to furnish a certain amount of water, " subject to such reasonable general rules and regulations " as it might adopt. The contract provided that if the company's supply of water was shortened by act of God, drought, etc., the lands to which the water was attached should be entitled " to only such water as can be supplied . . . after the full supply shall have been fur- nished to all cities and towns " dependent on the company for water, and the company " shall not be responsible for any defi- ciency of water occasioned by any of the above causes." It was held that the consumer was subject, in time of drought, to an ap- portionment of water among all consumers, and he was not en- titled to his full quota as soon as cities and towns were supplied.^" Under the Constitution of Idaho, which declares the use of all waters appropriated for sale, rental, or distribution to be a public use, and the right to collect compensation therefor a franchise, •which cannot be exercised except by authority of, and in the man- ner prescribed by law, and which authorizes the legislature to provide, as it has done, for the fixing of maximum rates to be charged for water so sold, an irrigation company appropriating 28. Wyatt v. Larimer & W. Irrig. 715. Compare Canal Co. v. Jenkins, Co., 1 Colo. App. 480, 29 Pac. 906. 1 Colo. App. 425, 20 Pac. 381. 29. Landers v. Garland Canal Co., 30. Souther v. San Diego Flume 52 La. Ann. 1465, 27 So. 727. See, Co., 121 Fed. 347, 57 C. C. A. 561, also, Carr v. Miller-Morris Canal, afTg. San Diego Flume Co. v. Souther, Irrig., etr., Co., 105 La. 239, 29 So. 112 Fed. 228. 112 iTiB I>AW OF CARRIERS. water for sale has no authority to make a distinction between its consumers, and. while supplying some with water under private contracts at low rates, attack the validity of maximum rates fixed by the comity commissioners under the statute, on the ground that, as applied to its other consumers, they will not yield a rea- sonable return on its investment, but will amount to a taking of its property without compensation. In detenniuing the reason- ableness of such rates, they must be considered as applicable to all its consumers.*' A person having a contract with an irrigation company, binding it to furnish water for the irrigation of his lands, has an adequate remedy at law for the company's refusal to comply with the contract, though it be conceded that the com- pany is a common carrier of water, and mandamus does not lie to compel it to comply with the contract, under a statute providing that tlie writ of mandate will issue where there is not an adequate remedy at law.'^^ § 48. Transfer companies. Transfer companies engaged in the business of transferring bag- gage or freight to and from railroad or steamship depots, or be- tween different parts of towns and cities, are common carriers, and responsible for the safe keeping and delivery of such baggage and freight. ^^ A transfer company transferring freight from one connecting line to another, or from the depot of the last of several connecting carriers to the consignee, is not " a connecting carrier,'' but merely the agent of one of the connecting lines, or of the consignee.^ New York Laws, 1907, c. 429, § 38, relating to the 31. Boise City Irrig., etc., Co. v. notice, the onus of proving the quali- Clark, 131 Fed. 415. fication being on the party setting it 31a. State v. Washington Irr. Co., up. Proof of general notice of limi- 41 Wash. 283, 83 Pac. 308, 111 Am. tation of liability must be such as St. Pv.ep. 1019. amounts to actual notice. Emblaz- 32. DaPonte v. New Orleans Trans- oning the general object on a check, fer Co., 42 La. Ann. 696, 7 So. 608; ticket, or notice, in large letters, but Richards v. Westcott, 2 Bosw. (N. stating the restrictions in small Y.) 589; Verner v. Sweitzer, 32 Pa. ones, is insuflScient. But the effect St. 208. The liability as a common of such notice is no more than to carrier may be implied from the cus- render the bailees private carriers tr>m of the carrier, but may be quali- for hire. Verner v. Sweitzer, supra. fied by express oontra«ct or general 33. Nanson v. Jacob, 12 Mo. App. COMMON CARRIERS. 113 liability of common carriers for the loss of baggage, applies only to the liability of a carrier for belongings, which are commonly known as '^ baggage " or " luggage," of a person to whom the carrier has furnished a ticket as an undertaking that it will carry both that person as its passenger and also a certain amount of the passenger^s baggage, and does not apply to a transfer company, undertaking to transport a trunk from a train to the passenger's address.^^ § 49. Owners of grain elevators. The business of elevating grain is a business charged with a public interest, and those who carry it on occupy a relation to the community analogous to that of common carriers, and may be con- trolled by public legislation for the common good.^* The owners of grain elevators are subject to statutory regulation requiring them to receive and store grain offered at lawful prices when there is room for it although the main purpose in maintaining the ele- vator is to store their own grain in carrying on their business of buying and shipping grain, which may be obstructed by accepting the grain offered for storage.^^ Statutes regulating the fees for elevating, storing, and discharging grain by elevators and estab- lishing the maximum charges which may be imposed, are not in- consistent with the Constitution of the United States, either as infringing the power to regulate commerce, or as involving a preference of the ports of one State over another, or as depriving any person of the equal protection of the laws, or of his property without due process of law.^® 125, affd. 93 Mo. 331, 32 Am. & Eng. Ct. Rep. 468, 5 Am. Ry. & Corp. Rep. R. Gas. 553. 610. 33a. Meister v. Woolverton, 121 35. Brass v. North Dakota, 153 U. N. Y. Supp. 606, 67 Misc. Rep. (N. S. 391, 38 L. Ed. 757, 14 Sup. Ct, Y.) 167; Morgan v. Woolverton, 120 Rep. 857. N. Y. Supp. 1008. See Richardson v. 36. Budd v. New York, supra; Woolverton, 117 N. Y. Supp. 908. Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113; Chi- See also § 28, supra, and oases cago, etc., R. Ce. v. Iowa, 94 U. S. there cited. 155. 34. Budd V. New York, 143 U. S. The legislature can fix a maximum 617, 36 L. Ed. 247, 45 Alb. J. L. 354, beyond which any charge would be 36 Am. & Encr. Corp. Cas. 31, 12 Sup. unreasonable for the use of property 114 i'iil^ 1-A\V Oi-' LAKKIKKS. § 50. Storage and transfer companies. — Public moving van com- panies. A slorai::o company, employed to move household eflFects from one house in a city to another, is not a common carrier having a lien on tlie property moved entitling it to retain it until its charges are paid.^' It is liable only as a bailee for hire for the negligence of its servants.^ A transfer and storage company engaged in a business of warehousing goods and forwarding them for a com- pensation in car load lots is a common carrier, so as to make it liable as such for the destruction of the goods while in its waro- house.^ Public moving van companies, draymen, and truckmen engaged in transporting goods and merchandise are common car- riers and subject to reasonable regulation as such.*** in which the public has an interest, 88. Jaminet v. American Storage but cannot compel the doing of ser- & Moving Co., 109 Mo. App. 257, 84 vices without reward. Budd v. New S. W. 128. York, 143 U. S. 517, 36 L. Ed. 247, 39. Kettenhofen v. Globe Transfer 45 Alb. L. J. 354, 36 Am. & Eng. & Storage Co., 70 Wash. 645, 127 Corp. Cas. 31, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 468, Pac. 295. 5 Am. Ry. & Corp. Rep. 610. 40. Lawson v. Connolly, — Mich. 37. Thompson v. New York Storage — , 141 N. W. 633. Co., 97 Mo. App. 135, 70 S. W. 938. CHAPTER III. Carrieks of Goods. — Duties and Liabilities. Bectiox 1. Carriers of goods. 2. Duty of carrier to receive and carry. 3. Must haul cars and freight of other carriers. 4. May be compelled by mandamus. 5. When failure or refusal to carry is legally excusable. 6. May demand prepayment of charges. 7. When earner may select mode of transportation. 8. Duty to furnish shipper facilities for transportation. 9. Failure or refusal to furnish facilities for transportation. 10. Special contracts for means of transportation. 11. Duty to furnish facilities declared by statute. 12. Must furnish suitable and safe cars. 13. Tender of goods by shipper. 14. Illegal purpose of shipper as a defense. 15. Proximate cause of loss or injury. 16. Discrimination in charges or facilities. 17. The rule does not require the same rates and facilities for all. 18. The compensation of the carrier. 19. Excessive charges and actions therefor. 20. Injunctions. § 1. Carriers of goods. Carriers of goods are common carriers* whose rights, duties, obligations, and liabilities in the transportation of property de- livered to them for carriage will be the subject of consideration in this and the following chapters under this general heading or subdivision. As here used, the term, carriers of goods, includes all common carriers, except carriers of passengers and carriers of live stock. The rules and principles applicable to carriers of goods and carriers of live stock being practically the same, in so far as their duties and liabilities are concerned, except that such rules and principles are modified in their application as to car- riers of live stock so as to relieve them from liability for losses resulting from the inherent nature of the property carried, aro 1. See the title Common Carriers. (115) IIG THJi: LAW OF CARIUKIIS. treated without distinction in Uiis connection. The essentials wherein the ditl'eronce in liability consists will be set forth under the heading or subdivision, Carriers of Live Stock.* § 2. Duty of carrier to receive and carry. It is tlie coinuion-law duty of a common carrier, on being tend- ered a reasonable compensation, to receive at reasonable times and carry all goods offered to it for transportation, within the line oi its business or of the kind which it undertakes to transport.^ Hav- ing room or the facilities for transporting the goods, and holding itself out to the public as ready and willing to carry goods for all 2. See the title Carriers of Live Stock. 3. N. Y. — Cole V. Goodwin, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 351; Fish v. Clark, 2 Lans. (N. Y.) 176. V. flf.— Piatt V. Lecocq, 158 Fed. 733, 85 C. C. A. 621, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 558; New Jersey Steam Nav. Co. V. Merchants' Bank, 6 How. (U. S.) 344; Soutliern Express Co. v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 5 Myers Fed. Dec. § 1511; Standard Line & Stone Co. V. Cumberland Valley R. Co., 15 I. C. C. Rep. 622, citing Moore on Carriers, l9t Ed., p. 92. Aid. — Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Rice, 169 Ala. 265, 52 So. 918. Coi.— Pfister V. Central P. R. Co., 70 Cal. 169, 59 Am. Rep. 404. Conn. — ^lerriam v. Hartford, etc., R. Co., 20 Conn. 354, 52 Am. Dec. 344. Co. — Shellnut v. Central of Ga. R. Co., 131 Ga. 404, 62 S. E. 294. 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 494; Southern Express Co. V. R. M. Rose Co., 124 Ga. 581, 53 S. E. 185, upon compliance with such reasonable regulations as it may adopt for its own safety and the bene- fit of the public. Atlanta, etc., R. Co. V. Holcombe, 76 Ga. 590. Under Georgia Civ. Code, 1896, § 2378, providing that a common car- rier is bound to receive all goods of- fered that he is able and accus- tomed to carry on compliance with such reasonable regulations as be may adopt for his own safety and the benefit of the public, a carrier is bound to receive ordinary merchan- dise for transportation with the fu)l measure of liability and at reasonable rates on demand, and in case of its refusal so to do the shipper has a remedy in damages. Inman & Co. v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co., 159 Fed. 960. Ky. — Bedford-Bowling Green Stone Co. v. Oman, 24 Ky. Law Rep. 2274, 73 S. W. 1038; Seasongood v. Ten- nessee & 0. Transp. Co. (Ky.), 54 S. W. 193. Ill.—FeoT\a, etc., R. Co. v. Chi- cago, etc., R. Co., 109 111. 135, 50 Am. Rep. 605, 18 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 506; Galena R. Co. v. Rae, 18 111. 488. Tnd. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Flanagan, 113 Ind. 488, 3 Am. St. Rep. 674, 32 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 532. Idaho. — Mcintosh v. Oregon R. & C3ARRIEKS— DUTIES AND LIABrLITIES. 117 persons indifferently, the law imposes upon it the duty of rec^v- ing and carrying them over its established route, and holds it liable, in an action based on its breach of contract, for a refusal or failure to receive and carry such goods ; and it is not necessary to allege or prove any special contract.* A corporation which Nav. Co., 17 Idaho, 100, 105 Pac. 66, in the absence of special contract. Iowa. — Cobb v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 38 Iowa, 601. Me. — New England Express Co. v. Maine Cent. R. R. Co., 57 Me. 188. Mass. — Jordan v. Fall River R. Co., 5 Cush. (Mass.) 69. Miss. — Southern Express Co. v. Moon, 39 Miss. 822. H. J. — Lanning v. Sussex R. Co., 1 N. J. L. J. 21, a refusal to accept goods tendered for shipment, because of a personal dispute with the ship- per, renders the company liable; Messenger v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 37 N. J. L. 531, 18 Am. Rep. 754. 2vr. C.— Reid v. Southern Ry. Co., 153 N. C. 490, G9 S. E. 618; Porter V. Raleigh & G. R. Co. (N. C), 43 S. E. 547; Harrell v. Owens, 1 Dev. A B. (N. C.) 273; Anon. v. Jackson, 1 Hayw. (N. C.) 14. 8. C. — Avinger v. South Carolina R. Co., 29 S. C. 265, 13 Am. St. Rep. 716, 35 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 519. Tenn. — East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. V. Nelson, 1 Cold. (Tenn.) 272. iris.— Doty V. Strong, 1 Pin. (Wis.) 313, 40 Am. Dec. 773. Can. — Greene v. St. John & M. R. Co., 22 N. B. 252; Thomas v. North BtafTordshire R. Co., 3 Ry. & C. T. Caa. 1. Eng. — Johnson v. Midland R. Co., 4 Exch. 367; 0x1 ade v. North Eastern R, Co., 15 0. B. N. S. 680, 109 E. C. L. 680, 9 Week, Rep. 272; Garton v. Bristol, etc., R. Co., 1 B. & S. 112, 101 K C. L. 112, 7 Jur. N. S. 1234, 9 W. R. 734; Jackson v. Rogers, 2 Show. 327; Crouch v. Great North- em R. Co., 11 Exch. 742, 34 Eng. L. 6 Eq. 573; Morton v. Tibbett, 15 Q. B. 428, 69 E. C. L 438, 15 A. & E. 428; Lane V. Cotton, 12 Mod. 473 ^ Crouch V. London, etc., R. Co., 14 C B. 255, 78 E. C. L. 255, in this re- spect there is no difference between, the liability of a common carrier' whose business is entirely within the country and that of one who trans- ports goods to a point outside the country. Switch connection. — A railroad company cannot discontinue an estab- lished switch connection with a coal mine, merely because the cars of an- other company may be taken upon its line over such switch, thereby endan- gering its property, and the lives of its passengers and employes. Chi- cago & A. R. Co. V. Suffern, 27 111. App. 404, affd. 129 111. 274, 21 N. E. 824. Exemplary damages may be re- covered against a railroad company which refuses to carry goods through ill will or willful disregard of the righlj of the shipper. Avingcr v. South Carolina R. Co., 29 S. C, 265, 7 S. E. 493, 13 Am. St. Rep. 716, 35 Am. & Eng. R. Cas, 519. 4. Lamar v. New York S. Nav. Co., 16 Ga. 558; Galena R. Co, v. Rae, 18 111. 488. See cases cited in pre- ceding note on main proposition. lis THE LAW OF CARRIERS. uiidortakos to operate a railroad franchiso assumes all the duties which spring by law from the cliaracter of its business and from customs incident to it, and it tenders a continuing oiler to the general public that it will perform those duties for the benefit of each of them, when demanded, which obligation is an enforceable contract.^ A common carrier cannot legally refuse to carry the goods of any person, or to accept them for carriage, except for just cause, nor can it lawfully discriminate in favor of any per- son as to facilities or price for transportation.* Its duties in these respects cannot be avoided by the adoption of any rules or regulations; all rules and regulations of the carrier must be rea- sonable and made in good faith to properly protect the interests of the carrier, and unreasonable regulations will be held void and will not be enforced^ A delivery of goods to a common carrier, and acceptance by it, to be conveyed, are a sufficient consideration for tlie contract to safely convey them.^ "When the contract for Tender and refusal must be shown. — A party seeking to cliarge a rail- road company with violation of a con- tract to transport coal for him, must show a tender and refusal. North- western Fuel Co. V. Burlington, etc., Ry. Co., 20 Fed. 712. Evidence of plaintiff's purchase of the goods, and the agreement of the vendor to ship them in a certain manner, is inadmis- sible to show delivery to defendant. New England Mfg. Co. v. Starin. 60 Conn. 369, 22 Atl. 953. It is suffici- ent to show a proper tender. Central, etc., R. Co. V. Morris, 68 Tex. 49. See also, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Lee, 69 Ark. 584, 65 S. W. 99. Special contract need not be shown. — Adams Express Co. v. Nock, 2 Duv. (Ky.) 562, 87 Am. Dec. 510; Doty V. Strong, 1 Pin. (Wis.) 313, 40 Am. Dec. 773; Fleming v. Mills, 5 Mich. 420. A receipt implies an agreement to carry. — A receipt for goods in the or- dinary form implies an agreement to transport them to their destination if it is on the carrier's line. Landes V. Pacific R. Co., 50 Mo. 346, 3 Am. Ry. Rep. 288. 5. Cumberland Teleph. & Teleg. Co. V. Morgan's L. & T. R. Co., 51 La. Ann. 29, 13 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. N. S. 71, 24 So. 803; Standard Line & Stone Co. v. Cumberland Valley R. Co., 15 L C. C. Rep. 620, citing Moore on Carriers, 1st Ed., p. 93. 6. Great Western R. Co. v. Burns, 60 111. 284, 12 Am. Ry. Rep. 309; McDuffee v. Portland, etc., R. Co., 52 N. H. 430, 13 Am. Rep. 72, 2 Am. Ry. Rep. 261. 7. Carton v. Bristol, etc., R. Co., 1 B. & S. 112, 101 E. C. L. 112, 30 L. J. Q. B. 273, 7 Jur. N. S. 1234 ; South- ern Express Co. v. Moon, 39 Miss. 822; Alsop v. Southern Express Co., 104 N. C. 278; Three Hundred, etc., Tons of Coal, 14 Blatchf. (U. S.) 453. 8. McCauley v. Davidson, 10 Minn. 418. CARRIERS— DUTIES AND LIABILITIES. 119 the transportation of the goods is silent as to the time of shipment, the law imports an obligation to ship within a reasonable time after the goods have been delivered for that purpose.* The car- rier is liable as an insurer for whatever damages may be the proxi- mate consequence of any unreasonable delay in shipment.^" The wrongful refusal or failure of the carrier to transport the goods must be shown to have been the proximate cause of the loss or injury sustained, in order to render the carrier liable, although it need not be shown to have been the sole cause. -^ Recovery may be had where other causes contributed in producing the loss or injury, if the refusal orfailure to transport was the proximate cause.^^ The rule of the common law that a person who holds him- self out as a common carrier is obligated to take employment at the current price, which is the rule of the English courts, is not adhered to in the United States, unless the carrier has a particular route between fixed termini.^^ A carrier, not a public institution, may select the character of goods it proposes to carry or discon- 9. Pennsylvania Co. v. Clark, 2 Ind. App. 146. Duty to forward promptly. — Sted- man v. Western Transp. Co., 48 Barb. (N. Y.) 97; Rankin v. Pacific R. Co., 55 Mo. 167; Clarke v. Needles, 25 Pa. St. 338; Moses v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 24 N. H. 71, 55 Am. Dec. 222; Waite V. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 110 N. Y. 635, 35 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 676; Palmer v. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 101 Cal. 187; St. I^uis, etc., R. Co. V. Heath, 41 Ark. 477, 18 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 557; Thomas v. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 63 Fed. Rep. 200; Missouri Pac. R. Co. V. Hall, 66 Fed. Rep. 868, 32 U. S. App. 60; Gates v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 42 Neb. 379, 61 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 218; Purcell v. Rich- mond, etc., R. Co., 108 N. C. 414; International, etc., R. Co. v. Ritchie (Tex. Civ. App.), 26 S. W. 840; Berje v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 37 I-a. Ann. 468; Ix)ui8ville, etc., R. Co. v. Touart, 97 Ala. 514. 10. Lanning v. Sussex R. Co., 1 N. J. L, J. 21. 11. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Mor- ton, 61 Ind. 539; Jones v. New York, etc., R. Co., 29 Barb (N. Y.) 633; St. Louis, etc., R, Co. v. Neel, 56 Ark. 279, 55 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 428; Marine, etc., Ins. Co. v, St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 41 Fed. Rep. 643, 43 Am. & Eng. R, Cas. 79; Scott v, Balti- more, etc., R. Co., 19 Fed. Rep. 56; Thomas v. Lancaster Mills, 19 C. C. A. 88, 71 Fed. Rep. 481. 12. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Mc- Fadden, 89 Tex. 138, 33 S. W. 853; Hernsheim v. Newport News, etc., Co. (Ky.), 35 S. W. 1115; St. Clair V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 80 Iowa, 304; Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Morton, 61 Ind. 539; Ruppel v. Allepfhany Val- ley R. Co., 167 Pa. St. 166. 13. Gordon v. Hutchinson. 1 W. & S. (Pa.) 285, 37 Am. Dec. 464; Pitta- burgh, etc., R. Co. V. Morton, 61 Ind. .'■.39, 28 Am. Rep. 682. 120 THB LAW OF CARRIERS. tiuuo to carrj a particular cln^^s." A railway company owes the same duty to carry goods to au industrial plant connected with its lino by spur tracks that it does to plants situated on the main liuo.*^ A railway company operating a belt line cannot refuse to transport coal between a mine and industrial plants on such line because it has never hauled coal before." A carrier may refuse to accept an interstate shipment for a point on a connecting line which has not complied with the requirements of the Interstate Commerce Act." In the absence of evidence, the carriage of money is strictly speaking not in the line of the duty of a carrier holding himself out only as a carrier of goods, wares, and mer- chandise.^* A common carrier need not receive for transportation goods from any person other than the owner or his duly authorized agent. ^* A carrier, furnishing sufficient facilities of its own for the receipt and delivery of freight, is under no common-law duty to receive or deliver freight on private spur tracks.^" Whether the duty a common carrier owes to the public is materially and inju- riously affected by the contract obligation of the corporation to individuals cannot be arbitrarily determined by the corporation for itself.^ A railroad corporation as a common carrier is under 14. Ocean S. S. Co. of Savannah No length of time or manner of V. Savannah Locomotive Works & treatment or habit of dealing will Supply Co., 131 Ga. 831, 63 S. E. 577, discharge a common carrier when re- 20 L. R. A. (U. S.) «67. quested from the obligation to fur- 15. Crescent Coal Co. v. Louisville nish to the public the service it ia & N. R Co., 143 Ky. 73, 135 S. W. engaged in performing. Id. 768. 19. Drake v. Nashville, etc., R. Co., 16. Crescent Coal Co. v. Louisville 125 Tenn. 627, 148 S. W. 214. & N. R. Co., 143 Ky. 73, 135 S. W. 20. Gulf Compress Co. v. Alabama 768. G. S. R. Co., 100 Miss. 582, 56 So. 17. Crescent Brewing Co. v. Oregon 666. Short Line R. Co., — Idaho, — , 132 Where a carrier received and de- Pac. 975. livered freight on private spur tracks, 18. Chesapeake 4; 0. Ry. Co. v. generally under contracts between the Hall, 136 Ky. 379, 124 S. W. 372. parties, it did not show a custom, im- Where a carrier holds itself out as posing on the carrier a duty to de- engaged only in the carriage of spe- liver or receive freight on private cified articles, it is under no obliga- spur tracks, if such a duty could be tion to carry other things. Louis- created by custom. Id. ville & N. R. Co. v. Higdon, 149 Ky. 21. Taylor v. Florida East Coast 321, 148 S. W. 26. "Rv. Co.. .54 F!a. 636. 45 So. .574. CARRIERS— DUTIES AND LIABILITIES. " 121 no legal duty to haul show cars, that is, cars owned and fitt^ up by showmen and used exclusively by them to house and transport their employees and show property as a complete outfit from place to place over railroads.^^ There is no common-law duty resting "Hpon an express company to act as collection agent of the shipper and require payment of the goods as a condition of their delivery ; but such obligation, if assumed, arises only from an independent contract, express or implied, which the company is at liberty to refuse to make in any particular case, notwithstanding any usage or custom it may have established or followed, which cannot en- large its legal duty as a carrier.^ § 3. Must haul cars and freight of other carriers. Railroad companies, invested with important powers and fran- chises by the State, become to a certain extent public agents, and in the exercise of their calling, they are held to strict perform- ance of the public duties enjoined upon them as a consideration for the rights and powers thus granted.^ They are thus bound to transport or haul upon their roads the cars and freight of any other railroad company, when requested so to do, and hold the same relation as a common carrier to such cars and freight that they do to ordinary freight received by them for transportation; and in case of loss are held to the same measure and character of liability as would attach in respect to any other property.^ In 22. Cleveland, etc., Ry. Co. v, Henry, 170 Ind. 94, 83 N. E. 710 revg. judg. (Ind. App.) 80 N. E. 636 23. Danciger v. Wells, Fargo & Co. 154 Fed. 379; Danciger v. Pacific Ex Pa. St. 378; McDuffee v. Portland & R. R. Co., 52 N. H. 430; Olcott v. Fond du Lac County, 16 Wall. (U. S.) 078; Burlington, etc., R. Co. v. Spear- man, 12 Iowa, 117; Bradley v. New press Co., 154 Fed. 379. York, etc., R. Co., 21 Conn. 294 ; Wor- 24. People v. New York Cent., etc., cester v. Western R. Corp., 4 Mete. R. Co., 28 Hun (N. Y.), 543, 3 Civ. (Mass.) 564; Wier v. St. Paul, etc., Pro. Rep. (N. Y.) 11, 9 Am. & Eng. R. Co., 18 Minn. 155; Rogers Loco- R. Cas. 1; Messenger v. Pennsyl- motive, etc.. Works v. Erie R. Co., 20 vania R. Co., 37 N. J. L. 531, 18 Am. N. J. Eq. 379; National Docks R. Co. Rep. 754; Railroad Com'r v. Port- v. Central R. Co., 32 N. J. Eq. 755; land, etc., R. Co., 63 Me. 269; State Peik v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 94 U. S. V. Railroad Co., 29 Conn. 538; Com'r 179; Winona, etc., R. Co. v. Blake, 94 V. Eastern R. Co., 103 Mass. 258; U. S. 180. Sandford v. C^tawifwa, etc., R. Co., 24 25. Mallory v. Tioga R. Co., 39 122 THE l^W OF CARRIERS. same States, railroad companies are required by statute to re- ceive aud haul the cars and freight of other carriers.^* Such statutes have been lield to be constitutional," and must be com- plied with, except for just cause, as vi'here the cars are so defec- tively constnicted as to endanger the lives or limbs of employes.^ But a railroad company is not bound to transport freight in foreign cars, when its own cars are not in use but are free to be employed in the transportation desired, or where a transfer of the freight will not be injurious to it; and it is no proof of negligence to show that such transfer of the freight was made.^' A carrier is bound to receive cars of other carriers for transportation over its line when requested, and occupies tlie same relation to such Barb. (N, Y.) 488; Peoria, etc., R. Co. V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 109 HI. 135, 50 Am. Rep. 605, 18 Am. & Eng. R. Caa. 506; Peoria, etc., R. Co. v. United States Rolling Stock Co., 136 111. 643, 29 Am. St. Rep. 348; New Jersey R. Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 27 N. J. L. 100; Vermont, etc., R. Co. V. Fitchburg R. Co., 14 Allen (Mass.), 462, 92 Am. Dec. 785; At- chison, etc., R. Co. V. Denver, etc., R. Co., 110 U. S. 667, 16 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 57; Rogers Locomotive, etc., Works V. Erie R. Co., 20 N. J. Eq. 379; Greene v. St. John, etc., R. Co., 22 N. B. (Can.) 252; Beers v. Wa- bash, etc., R. Co., 34 Fed. Rep. 244, 35 Am. & Eng. R. C^. 646; Chicago, etc., R. Co. V. Burlington, etc., R. Co., 34 Fed. Rep. 481, 35 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 650, note; Standard Lime & Stone Co. v. Cumberland Valley R. Co., 15 I. C. C. Rep. 620, citing Moore on Carriers, Ist Ed., p. 95. 26. Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Smithson, 45 Mich. 212, 1 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 101; Texas, etc., R. Co. V. Carlton, 60 Tex. 397, 15 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 350. 27. Rae v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 14 Fed. Rep. 401, 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 470. 28. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Carlton, 60 Tex. 397, 15 Am. A Eng. R. Cas. 350. Not entitled to extra hauling charge. — A railroad company is not entitled to demand payment of a fur- ther charge for hauling the cars, where they are loaded with goods and a charge is made for the transporta- tion of the goods. Harrison v. Mid- land R. Co., 62 L. J. Q. B. 225, 88 L. T. 268, 5 R. 445. 29. Oregon Short Line, etc., R. Co. V. Northern Pac. R. Co., 61 Fed. 160, affg. 51 Fed. 465, 51 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 145, wherein it was also held that a refusal to so transport freight originating east of a certain meri- dian was not an unreasonable discri- mination against another railroad company, or a denial to it of reason- able and proper facilities under the Interstate Commerce Act, although It accepts in such cars freight originat- ing west of such meridian. McAlis- ter V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 74 Mo. 351, 7 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 373. See also, Connecting Carriers, chap. 20. CARRIERS— DUTIES AND LIABILITIES. 123 cars as to ordinary freight, and is liaWe to the owner in the same manner as to any other shipper.^ A railroad company is liable to a connecting carrier for the loss of the latter's cars by fire while in the possession and control of the former company, but standing in the yard of a terminal company, awaiting orders from con- signees for further movement, where the contract with the term- inal company is not for the storage of the cars, but merely for terminal facilities and storage.^^ A railroad company must re- ceive and transport cars of other companies, if not defective, or from construction unreasonably hazardous.^^ § 4. May be compelled by mandamus. A railroad corporation is compellable by mandamus to exercise its duties as a common carrier of freight and passengers ; and the power so to compel it rests equally firmly on the ground that the duty is a public trust which, having been conferred by the State and accepted by the corporation, may be enforced for the public benefit, and upon the contract between the corporation and the State, expressed in its charter or implied by the acceptance of the franchise ; and also upon the ground that the common right of all people to travel and carry upon every public highway of the State has been changed by the legislature, for adequate reasons, into a corporate franchise to be exercised solely by a corporate body for the public benefit, to the exclusion of all other persons, where- by it has become the duty of the State to see to it that the fran- chise so put in trust be faithfully administered by the trustee.^ SO. Pittsburg, etc., R7. Co. v. City 32. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Curtis, of Chicago, 242 111. 178, 89 N. E. .51 Neb. 442, 71 N. W. 42, 66 Am. St. 1022. Rep. 456. 31. Bosworth v. Chicago, etc., R. 33. People v. New York Cent., etc., Co., 87 Fed. 72, 30 C. C. A. 541. On R. Co., 28 Hun (N. Y.), 543, 3 Civ. appeal, see Bosworth v. Carr, Rider Pro. Rep. (N. Y.) 11, 9 Am. & Eng. & Engler Co., 21 Sup. Ct. 194, 179 U. R. Cas. 1, 2 McCarthy (N. Y.) 345; S. 444, 45 L. Ed. 208; Chicago, etc., Abbott v. Johnstown, etc., H. R. Co., R. Co. V. Bosworth, 21 Sup. Ct. 183, 80 N. Y. 31, 36 Am. Rep. 572; Union 179 U. S. 442, 45 L. Ed. 267; Hunt- Pac. R. Co. v. Hall. 91 U. S. 343; ting Elevator Co. v. Bosworth, 21 People v. Colorado Cent. R. Co., 43 Sup. Ct. 183, 179 U. S. 415, 45 L. Fed. Rep. 638, 45 Am. &, Eng. R. Cas. Ed. 256; Raw v. Bosworth, 21 Sup. 599; Railroad Com'rs v. Portland, Ct. 194. 179 U. S. 443. 45 L. Ed. 268. etc., R. Co., 63 Me. 269, 18 Am. Rep. 124 THE LAW OF CARRIERS. A mandatory injunction will issue to compel a railroad company to perform its duty to tlio public o£ hauling the cars of another company.'* If the remedy at law is not so plain, adequate, and complete as ono obtainable in equity, in the case of a continuing trespass, tlio party niay prevent the injury by injunction, rather than wait until it is done and then look for his damages in a ccurt of law." Refusal or failure of a railroad company to perform its duties as a common carrier cannot be excused for the reason that a strike on one road will be extended to the otlior, if it hauls the cars ; ^ nor by the fact that its skilled freight-handlers have refused to work for the wages tiieretofore paid, when no unlawful violence on their part is shown." A proper and usual remedy, in the case of an individual, for a wrongful refusal to receive and ti-ansport properety, is an action at law for damages, the measure of which is the difference between the value thereof at the place where it was tendered to be transported, and its value at the place of destination, less the expenses of carriage.^^ A common carrier 208; State v. Hartford, etc., R. Co., 29 Conn. 538; Ew parte Atty-Gen., 17 N. B. (Can.) 667. Although it has no schedule of prices for certain goods, a railroad company may be compelled to trans- port as a common carrier such goods, for instance, telegraph poles, wires, and cross-arms, leaving it free to charge for its services upon a quan- tum meruit. Cumberland Teleph. & Tcleg. Co. V. Morgan's L. & T. R. Co., 61 La. Ann. 29, 13 Am. & Eng. R. C«s. N. S. 71, 24 So. 803. Although the shipper could recover damages for failure to receive and ship the goods, the company may be compelled to transport the freight offered for shipment, as the shipper is entitled to the transportation of his freight and not the payment of money, and the latter would not fur- nish an adequate remedy. Id. 34. Chicago, ert;c., Ry. Co. v. Bur- lington, etc., Ry. Co., 34 Fed. Rep. 481, 35 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 650; Standard Lime & Stone Co. v. Cum- berland Valley R. Co., 15 L C. C. Rep. 620, citing Moore on Carriers, Ist Ed., p. 96. 35. Payne v. Kansas & A. V. R. Co. (C. C. W. D., Ark.), 46 Fed. Rep. 546, 47 Am. & Eng. R, Cas. 235; Rogers Locomotive, etc., Works v. Erie R. Co., 20 N, J. Eq. 379; Butchers', etc., Stock-Yards Co. v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 67 Fed. Rep. 35; Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Penn- sylvania R. Co., 18 Am. & Eng. R, Cas. 511. 36. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. v. Bur- lington, etc., Ry. Co., 34 Fed. Rep. 481, 35 Am. & Eng. R. Caa. 650. 37. People v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 28 Hun (N. Y.), 543, 3 Civ. Pro, Rep. (N. Y.) 11, 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 1, revg. 63 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 291. 38. People v. New York, etc., R. Co., 22 Hun (N. Y.), 533. CARRIERS— DUTIES AND LIABILITIES. 126 may be compelled bj mandamus or other writ to treat all shippers alike.** Where a railroad company undertakes to render as a com- iDon carrier particular services to one person, it cannot lawfully refuse to render similar services to other persons under like cir- cumstances upon the payment of like compensation, and if it does so refuse it may be compelled by mandamus to render to all, under like circumstances, the same services, in the same manner, and for the same compensation.*^ In mandamus by a coal miner to compel a railroad company to furnish cars, which it refused to do unless he would sell his coal to a company controlled by the president of the railroad company, it is immaterial that other shippers were refused cars for the same reason.*^ § 5. When failure or refusal to carry is legally excusable. A common carrier of goods is not under obligation to accept and carry all personal property that may be offered to it. Its duty is limited to accepting and carrying property of such kinds, to and from such places,^ as it publicly professes and undertakes, or is accustomed, to carry, and has the facilities for so doing.^ If 39. Missouri Pac. Ry. Ck). v. T>ara- vice being performed under a con- bee Flour Mills Co., 211 U. S. 612, 29 tract. State v. Atlantic Coast Line &ip. Ct. 214, 53 L. Ed. — , affg. Lara- R. Co., 51 Fla. 543, 41 So. 529. bee Flour Mills Co. v. Missouri Pac. 41. Loraine v. Pittsburg, etc., R. Ry. Co., 74 Kan. 808, 88 Pac. 72. See Co., 205 Pa. 132, 54 Atl. 580, 61 L. also, State v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., R. A. 502. 72 Neb. 542, 101 N. W. 23, where the 42. Pfister v. Central Pac. R. Co., ervidenoe was held insufficient to show 70 Cal. 1G9, 59 Am. Rep. 404, 27 any discrimination in furnishing cars Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 246, holding needed for this shipment of freight that money to the amount of $90,000 so as to authorize a writ of man- is not " luggage," which a railroad damns against a carrier. company is compelled to carry with 40. State v. Atlantic Coast Line R. or for a passenger, and that the corn- Co., — Fla. — , 40 So. 875. pany may insist that the money Where a railroad company acting shall go via an express company, for aa a common carrier delivers between which, under a special contract, the stations on its line the polps and railroad company furnishes facilities. wires of one telegraph eompany, it The court, in that case, said: "That may be compelled by mandamus to class of carriers known a.s ' transfer perform a similar service for an- companies,' engaged in receiving and other telegraph company, nor is its transferring the baggage of passen- duty affeoted by reason of the ser- gers to and from public conveyances 126 Tin: l-WV Ol- CAURllIUS). it has novcr as^uinod or ofTorod to carry chattels of a certain class, exct'iu i4H)u sinviul terms exempting it from all the important dutii« and liabilities of a common carrier, it cannot be made amenabK> in the characivr of a common carrier as to such prop- rrtv." The carrier may determine by public announcement or pnifcssion the kind of goods it will carry, the conveyances U) be used, and the manner and time for transportation, the conditions bv Und and wntor, arc under no ob- ligation to accept and carry ordinary merchandise. A parcel delivery ex- press ct>mpany need not receive and deliver hny, lumber, or other articles too bulky, heavy, or otherwise incon- venient to handle and transfer by its usual facilities. In otlier words, the duty of the carrier is confined, as is provided by our Code, to accepting and carrying property of a kind that be undertakes or is accustomed to carry." " A person may profess to carry a particular description of goods only, for instance cattle or dry goods, in ■which case he could not be compelled to carry any other kind of goods; or he may limit his obligation to carry- ing from one place to another, as from Manchester to London, and then he ■would not be bound to carry to and from intermediate points. Still, un- til he retracts, every individual (pro- vided he tenders the money at the time and there is room in the convey- ance) has a right to call upon him to receive and carry goods according to his public profession." Johnson v. Midland R. Co., 4 Exch. 367, 6 Railw. Pas. 61, 1 Ry. 4; C. T. Gas. 16. Carrier may restrict or limit its traffic. — If a railroad company does not hold itself out as a common car- rier of coal, it is not obliged to carry coal from station to station or for coal merchants, and may restrict its coal traffic to the carriage of coal for collier owners, from the pit's mouth to 8tation.s where such collier owners have their depots. Oxlade v. North Eastern R. Co., 1 C. B. N. S. 454, 87 E. C. L. 454, 15 C. B. N. S. 680, 109 E C. L. 680, 9 W. R. 272, 3 L. T. N. S. 671. See Thomas v. North Staf- fordshire R. Co., 3 Ry. & C. T. Cas. 1, 21 Sol. Jour. 183. A carrier holding itself out as a through carrier to the seaboard can- not excuse itself for failure to furnish facilities for carrying goods to the seaboard by reason of the fact that its terminus is an inland town, and the fact that its uniform bill of lad- ing expressly limits its liability to its own line, where there is nothing on the bill of lading to indicate the terminus of the line. Pittsburgh, C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co. V. Wood, (Ind. App.) 84 N. E. 1009. 43. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Per- kins, 25 Mich. 329, 12 Am. Rep. 275, so held, in a case for a refusal to carry live stock. See also, Michigan Southern R. Co. v. McDonough, 21 Mich. 165. The general rule, how- ever, as held elsewhere, is that the responsibility of a railroad company which receives live stock for trans- portation, unless limited by special contract, is that of a common carrier. Kansas Pac. R. Co. v. Nichols, 9 Kan. 235. See also cases cited under § 3, chap. 21. CARRIERS— DUTIES AMD LIABILITIES. 127 fixed being siicli as are just and reasonable, and treating all alike.^ It may make reasonable rules and regulations for the reception, carriage, and delivery of freight, including the classification and suitable preparation of articles for shipment.^^ A common carrier may make rules for its conduct, fixing the times, the places, the methods, and the forms in which it will receive commodities it of- fers to transport, and these rules are presumptively reasonable and just/^ It may alter and modify such rules from time to time on reasonable notice to the public.'*^ It may legally refuse to receive goods, if it does not carry to the place to which the shipper wishes to ship the goods ; ^* or, if they are offered at a time unreasonably long before the accustomed or appointed time for departure of its conveyance." The carrier may require that freight be delivered to it at a prescribed time prior to the departure of a train, rea- sonably sufficient to enable it to make up its train and prepare the goods for shipment, and may refuse goods not offered at a reasonable time before the departure of the train.^** The reason- ableness of the time within which a carrier must receive moneys or goods for transportation is measured primarily by its relation to the transportation of the property, to the business of the car- rier, and proper consideration of the business of its customers."^ 44. Oxlade v. North Eastern R. Co., 48. Pitlock v. Wells, Fargo & Co., 1 C. B. N. S. 454, 87 E. C. L. 454, 109 Mass. 452. 15 C. B. N. S. 680, 109 E. C. L. 680, But that the point to which freight 9 W. R. 272; Garton v. Bristol, etc., is to be consigned is not a regular R. Co., 28 L. J. C. P. 158, 5 C. B. N. station, at which an agent of the car- S. 669 ; Bouker v. Long Island R. Co., rier is kept, is not a valid excuse for 89 Hun. (N. Y.), 202, 35 N. Y. Supp. the carrier's refusal to receive the 23, 25. freight for shipment. Reid & Beam 45. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. v. Southern Ry. Co., 149 N. C. 423, Colby (Neb.), 96 N. W. 145; Na- 63 S. E. 112. tional Petroleum Ass'n v. Louisville 49. Pickford v. Grand Junction R. & N. R. Co., 15 I. C. C. Rep. 476, cit- Co., 12 M. & W. 766; Lane v. Cotton, ing >Toore on Carriers, 1st Ed. 1 Ld. Raym. 652; Story, Bailm. § 46. Piatt V. Lecocq, 158 Fed. 723, 508. 85 C. C. A. 621, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 50. Palmer v. London, etc., R. Co., 658. revg. 150 Fed. 391. L. R. 1 C. P. 588; Lane v. Cotton, 47. United States v. Oregon R. & 1 Ld. Raymm. 652; Garten v. Bristol, Nav. Co., 159 Fed. 975; Robinson v. etc., R. Co., 28 L. J. C. P. 306. Baltimore & 0. R. Co., 129 Fed. 753; 51. Piatt v. Lecocq, 158 Fed. 723, Harp V. Choctaw, etc., R. Co., 125 85 C. C. A. 621, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) Fed. 445. 558, revg. 150 Fed. 391. 12S THE LAW OF CARRIERS. It maj refuse to aocy>pt or carry goods not offered at a proper phioo or to a proper person, such as at its established ofiice, or rti^ular station or depot, or to its appointed or authorized agent." jAnay lawfully refuse to i-oceive goods if tliey are improperly or dcfoclivolv packed, insuUicieutly secured or addressed, in a dam- agt\l slAte, or otherwise not properly prepared for shipment, or in an unlit condition for carriage, or in a condition necessarily in- volving extra care and risk in their shipment." It may lawfully refuse to receive or carry goods of an explosive or dangerous char- acter such as dynamite, uitro-glycerine, vitriol, etc;" or goods The rules and pratic* of an cxpresa oompany to refuse to receive money lor transportation from a bank, which baa a burglar-proof vault and ade- quate facilities in the city where the package« were tendered to keep them M.fely over night, on the day preced- ing the departure of the only trains which carried express matter to tue destination of the packages, and which left at various times between 6:29 and 8 o'clock a. m., are not un- reasonable or unlawful. Piatt v. Le- cocq, 158 Fed. 723, 85 C. C. A. 621, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 558, revg. 150 Fed. 391. 52. Cronkite v. Wells, 32 N. Y. 247; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Flan- agan, 113 Ind. 488, 3 Am. St. Rep. G74, 32 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 532; Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. Lilly (Misa.), 8 So. 644, 45 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 379; Kellogg v. SufTolk, etc., R. Co., 100 N. C- 158, 35 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 529; Land v. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 104 N. C. 48, 40 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 18; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Flagg, 43 111. 364, 92 Am. Dec. 133; State V. New Haven, etc., R. Co., 41 Conn. 134; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Lee, 69 Ark. 584, 65 S. W. 99. 63. Elgin, etc, Ry. Co. v. Bates M*cb. Co., 98 ni. App. 311, afld. 200 111. 636, 66 N. E. 326, 93 Am. St. Rep. 218; Union Express Co. v. Graham, 26 Ohio St. 595; Fitzgerald v. Adams Express Co., 24 Ind. 447, 87 Am. Dec. 341; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Weiss- man, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 86; Hart v. Baxemdale, 16 L. T. N. S. 390, 6 Exch. 769, 16 Jur. 126; Munstor v. South Eastern R. Co., 4 C. B. N. S. 676, 93 E. C. L. 676, 27 L. J. C. P. 308. 54. Nitro-glycerine Case, 15 WaU. (U. S.) 524; Boston, etc., R. Co. v. Shanly, 107 Mass. 568, 12 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 500; Farrant v. Barnes, 11 C. B. N. S. 553, 103 E. C. L. 553; Williams v. East India Co., 3 East, 192; Brass v. Maitland, 3 El. & Bl. 471, 88 E. C. L. 471. The carrier has a right of action against a shipper for any damage resulting from the explosion of such articles shipped without notice of their character. Id. A carrier has the right to inspect profTered shipments and to refuse them when not in fit condition for transportation, and, where ordinary observation would discover their un- fitness, it is the duty of the carrier to refuse the shipment in order that the shipper may put it into a fit con- dition for transportation. Atlantic CAEEIERS— DUTIES AND LIABILITIES. 129 which the law prohibits it from carrying, such as intoxicating liquors.^ But it cannot lawfully refuse to transport liquors be- cause of the passage of an invalid ordinance prohibiting the trans- portation and delivery of intoxicating liquors within a city.^® It has the right to demand an examination and to be made acquainted with the contents of packages, where there is reasonable ground for believing that they are of a dangerous character; but, in the absence of reasonable grounds for suspecting them to be of a dan- gerous character, it cannot compel the owner or person offering them for shipment to disclose their nature." A carrier is not required to receive goods tendered for shipment which are inju- rious to the public health, peace, or morals, or likely to destroy the property of others, or which are in such condition that they cannot be safely transported.^ The fact that its route is exposed to extraordinary danger at the time of shipment and the goods would be liable to exposure to the fury of a mob, destruction by Coast Line R. Co. v. Rice, 169 Ala. 265, 52 So. 918. Where a carload of staves was of- fered for shipment on the car of an- other railway, and the car was in a dangerous condition, it was, under the rules of the railroad commission, the duty of the shipper to load such staves on another car, or of the rail- road offering the car for furthtT shipment, and not the duty of the receiving carrier, to have the contents of the damaged car unloaded and loaded into a safe car. Central of G*. Ry. Co. V. Cook & Lockett, 4 Ga. App. 698, 62 S. E. 464. 55. State v. Goss, 59 Vt. 266, 69 Am. Rep. 706, 30 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 118; Milwaukee Malt Ext. Co. v, Chi- cago, etc., R. Co., 73 Iowa, 98. Shipment of deer. — Under the New York Forest, Fish, and Game Law, 9 8, as amended by Laws 1906, p. 1337, c. 478, § 2, prohibiting the ship- ment of deer, whether wild or domes- ticated, a common carrier may refuse fco ship the meat of domesticated deer, 9 which belong to plaintiff and are not kept in close confinement, though the deer was killed to prevent it from injuring others and to preserve the herd. Dietrich v. Fargo, 52 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 200, 102 N. Y. Supp. 720. 56. Southern Express Co. v. R. M. Rose Co., 124 Ga. 581, 53 S. E. 185. A State statute imposing a tax upon persons carrying liquor C. 0. D. has been held sufficient to warrant an express company in refusing to carry liquor in that manner, since it could either pay the license tax or refuse to carry the liquor C. 0. D. L. Crad- dock & Co. V. Wells Fargo Co. Ex- press, — Tex, Civ App. — , 125 S. W. 59. 57. Niaro-glycerine Case, 15 Wall. (U. S.) 524; Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Irvine, 84 Va. 553, 85 Va. 217, 37 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 227. 58. Coweta County v. Central of Ga. Ry. Co., 4 Ga. App. 94, 60 8. E. 1018. 130 i in; LAW (,»F (.AKKIKKS. a popular outbreak, or capture^ h\ hostile military forces, will eutliiMiMitlv ext'usi' a refusal to receive and curry goods. "^^ An im- jvndiug flood of such a eliaraeter as to properly fall wilhiu the detinition of an act of God, aud which threatened with inundation the carrier's railroad tracks, is a sufficient excuse to justify the carrier in refusing to accept a shipuieut of freight.'"^ A road so iindcr military control of the government, transporting troops and munitions of war, as not to be in free exercise of its franchise, is not liable as a common carrier for refusing to receive freights for transportation." But the carrier is liable for delay in for- warding g(X)ds accepted for shipment, although the road was under military control, the probability of delay on account of blockades on the side tracks and other hindrances being known to the officers of the company at the time of accepting the goods.^' While the corporation might have limited its liability, yet as it had not done so plaintiff was entitled to recover.®^ When the goods offered for shipment are perishable, if the carrier has not the means for im- mediate transportation, it may refuse to receive the goods;" but, as to other goods, this rule does not apply, and where the carrier has not the facilities for immediate transportation, owing to un- expected accumulation of business or otherwise, it must receive the goods to be forwarded as soon as its facilities will permit; and it is excusable only for reasonable delay in transportation.^'' The carrier may also require prepayment of its freight charges and may refuse to carry the goods unless they are paid, when de- 59. Edwards v. Sherratt, 1 East, Phelps, 4 111. App. 238. See also, ' '4; Pearson v. Duane, 71 U. S. (4 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Homberger, Wall.) 605, 18 L. Ed. 447, holding 77 111. 457, where the delivery was that the master of a vessel would be held not to have been completed so justified in refusing passage to a pas- as to make the company liable, senger proceeding to a place under a 62. Illinois Cent, R. Co. v. Cobb, 64 revolutionary government, by which III. 128. he has been sentenced to death in 63. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Schwartz, case of his return. Compare Illinois 13 111. App. 490. r>nt. R. Co. v. Schwartz, 13 111. App. 64. Tierncy v. New York Cent., etc., 400. R. Co., 76 N. Y. 305, affg. 10 Hun 60. Gray v. Wabash R. Co., 119 Mo. (N. Y.), 569, 67 Barb. (N. Y.) 538. App. 144. 95 S. W. 983. 65. See Duty to furnish facilities 61. Phelps V. Illinois Cent. R. Co., for transportation, § 8, post. 94 111. 543; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. CAKRIERS— DUTIES AND LIABILITIES. 131 manded.** The rule, however, may be otherwise, where a different usage, long established, has prevailed." Generally, it may be said that if a common carrier has reasonable grounds for not receiving goods offered to it for transportation, it may do so; but if it once receives them, it will be considered as waiving its right to refuse tiem and as accepting them in the usual way, and becomes an insurer and subject to all the liabilities of a common carrier, in the absence of special limitation of its liability in the contract of carriage." § 6. May demand prepayment of charges. A carrier may require prepayment of freight charges from any shipper, at its choice, and may lawfully refuse to receive freight from a receiving carrier without such prepayment, although it does not require it from others ; but notice of such requirement should be given to the shipper or receiving; carrier.^* Whether a 66. See May demand prepayment of charr^'es, § 6, post. Tlie Texas statute, requiring rail- road corporations to take and trans- port property on the due payment of the legal freight, does not contem- plate prepayment, and where a draft •was given the railroad for the freight, on the making out of the bill of lad- ing, and was forwarded with the bill of lading and paid on presentation, it was due payment. Dorrance & Co. V. International & G. N. R. Co. (Tex.), 125 S. W. 561. 67. See May demand prepayment of charges, § 6, post. 68. Porcher v. North Eastern R. Co., 14 Rich. L. (S. C.) 181; The David & aaroline, 5 Blatchf. (U. S.) 206; Hannibal, etc., R. Co. v. Swift, 79 U. S. (12 Wall.) 262, 20 L. Ed. 423; PJckford v. Grand Junction R. Co., 12 M. & W. 766; Groat Northern R. Co. V. Shepherd, 8 Exch. 30, 14 Eng. L. 4 Eq. 367. A railroad company cannot refuse to accept and transport coal tendered by a shipper, because it is inferior in quality to other coal also produced on its line, and that the marketing of such coal will injuriously affect the sale and consequently the shipment of the superior quality. Olanta Coal Min. Co. V. Beech Creek R. Co., 144 Fed. 150. A carrier held liable for refusal to accept for transportation cordwood which a shipper had offered to stack at a point along its track where it had been accustommed to receive sim- ilar shipments. Ethridge v. Central of Ga. Ry. Co., 136 Ga. 677, 71 S. E. 1063. 69. Lehigh Valley Transp, Co. v. Post Sugar Co., 128 111. App. 600, affd. 228 111. 121, 81 N. E. 819; Illi- nois Cent. R. Co. v. Frankenberg, 54 111. 88, 5 Am. Rep. 92; Randall v. Richmond & D. R. Co., 108 N. C. 612, 13 S. E. 137, 49 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 75; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Weiss- man, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 86; Fitch v. Newberry, 1 Doug. (Mich.) 1, 40 Am. r6'2 TUE LAW OF CAIUUERS. railroad company can excuse a refusal to accept and carry freiglit on the ground that Uie cJiar<:;os were not prepaid may depend upon its custom us to ci'llootiiig charges, whicli is ordinarily a question for tho jury." Where a carrier, in an action against it for failure to carry goods delivered to it, claims that its refusal was because the freight had not been paid, plainlitr may show tho value of the goods, for tho purpose of showing that defendant had ample scour- ity, and that there was no reason for stopping them in transit."' In an action against a carrier for a failure or refusal to carry it is not necessary to allege that a compensation was paid, or agreed to bo paid, for carrying the goods; '^ an averment that the plaintill was ready and willing to pay is sulTicient;" but in New York it is held that the complaint must state facts necessary to show a complete cause of action, or it is demurrable,^* and in Texas it is held that plaintill need not aver a tender of freight charges.^" In order to maintain an action against a carrier for refusing to receive and carry, the plaintiff must, however, prove a tender of the customary freight charges, or a readiness and willingness to pay according to the course and usage of the company, whether that required them to be paid in advance or not^^ An excessive demand by the carrier for freight charges relieves the consignee of the necessity of tendering any sum for such charges before bringing suit." A railroad employe does not waive prepayment of freight charges before delivery of the cars by responding " all right " to a statement by the consignee that be would give a dis- posal order for the cars and would send the amount of the freight Dec. 33; A. G. Russell Co. v. Miller 72. Hall v. Cheney, 36 N. H. 26. D8 Miss. 185, 53 So. 495; Batson v. 73. Pickford v. Grand Junction R. Donovan, 4 B. & Aid. 28, 6 E. C. L. Co., 8 M. & W. 372, 5 Jur. 731, 2 376; B-irnes v. Mrashall, 18 Q. B. 785, Ry. Cas. 592. 83 E. C. L. 785; Wyld v. Pickford, 8 74. Bristol v. Rensselaer, etc., R. M. A W. 443; Bastard v. Bastard, 2 Co., 9 Barb. (N. Y.) 158. A W. 443; Bastard v. Bastard, 2 75. Central, etc., R. Co. v. Morris, Show. 81. 68 Tex. 49, 28 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 50. 70. Reed v. Philadelphia, etc., R. 76. Galena, etc., R. Co, v. Rae, 18 Co.. 3 HouBt. (Del.) 176. El. 488, 68 Am. Dec. 574; Pickford 71. Leach v. New York, etc., R. Co., v. Grand Junction R. Co., supra. 89 Hun (N. Y.), 377, 36 N. Y. Supp. 77. Moran Bros. Co. v. Northern P. 305. R. Co., 19 Wash. 266, 53 Pac. 49. CARRIERS— DUTIES AND LIABILITIES. 133 ■whenever he got the expense notices and knew the amount^* Fail- ure to tender or pay freight charges where they are not demanded, ■will not prevent a recovery for failure to provide a car for ship- ment at the time agreed upon.™ If a railroad company receives freight and undertakes to carry it without exacting prepayment of the freight charges, it is bound to exercise the same care in carrying, storing, and holding it as if the charges had been pre- paid/*' And where a carrier has informed the owner that goods would be held until the freight charges are prepaid, but afterwards ships the goods without prepayment, and without notice to the owner, it is liable for any loss that may occur by reason of its manner of shipping.^^ If a carrier does not demand prepayment, it cannot sue for the freight charges until delivery of or an offer to deliver the goods.^ The right of a common carrier to prepay- ment of its charges is waived if it accepts the goods for transpor- tation without exacting such payment in advance, and liability attaches as though the freight were actually prepaid.^^ The carrier need not be paid in advance, unless he specially demands it.'* § 7. When carrier may select mode of transportation. 'A common carrier who takes an article for transportation is liable for the exercise of its judgment as to the manner of carry- ing it, and cannot rely, in avoidance of its liability, on misrepre- sentations, unless they relate to matters not apparent to observa- tion.*^ A railroad company may carry on a platform car a box so large that it cannot be got into a box car, due precaution being taken to keep it from getting wet** In the absence of an express 78. McEachran v. Grand Trunk R. 83. Gratiot Street Warehouse Co. Co., 115 Mich. 318, 73 N. W. 231, 4 v. Missouri, etc., Ry. Co., 124 Mo. Det. L. N. 879. App. 545, 102 S. W. 11. 79. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Peri- 84. Wilson v. Grand Trunk Ry., 55 Bhow, 61 111. App. 179. Me. 60, 96 Am. Dec. 435. 80. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Flan- 85. New Jersey R. Co. v. Pennsyl- naffan, 23 111. App. 489. vania R. Co., 27 N. J. L. (3 Dutch.) 81. Campion v. Canadian Pac. R. 100. Co., 43 Fed. Rep. 775. 86. Burwell v. Ralciph, etc., R. Co., 82. Barnes v. Marshall, 18 Q. B. 94 N. C. 451, 25 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 785, 83 E. C. L. 785, 21 L. J. Q. B. 410. 888. loi TIIK LAW OF CAKRIKIIS. contr:u't. it is tlio duty of tlio carrier to transport goods received for transportation hy\hc usual or customary route; and for any loss caused l.y a departure from such route, it is liable." When there are two cu.stomar}' or usual routes, as, for example, one an iiuside or canal route, the other an outside or ocean route, the car- rier nuiv choose the route, without incurring increased liability.** But the' carrier is liable for a loss of goods proved to have been (.^.vasioned by a want of due care, or by disobedience to instruc- tions, notwithstanding exceptions in the bill of lading or receipt.*' Where the contract gives the carrier an option between two modes of transportation, the option must be exercised with a view to the owner's interest.*'' Ordinarily the contract for transportation is presumed to be by the carrier's usual or customary route.'^ § 8. Duty to furnish shipper facilities for transportation. The rule of the common law was that a carrier, having the room and means of carrying the goods, in the absence of special contract, was obliged to receive them, and not otherwise; and, 87. Merchants' Despatch Transp. Co. V. Kahn, 76 111. 520, where the company was held liable for the loss of goods by fire while being trans- ported by another route than the most usual and direct one; Express Co. V. Kountze, 8 Wall. (U. S.) 342, where the company selected the most hazardous route of two; Crosby v. Fitch, 12 Conn. 410; Smith v. Whit- man, 13 Mo. 352; Powers v. Daven- port, 7 Blackf. (Ind.) 497; Hand v. Bayncs, 4 Whart. (Pa.) 204; Davis V. Garrrtt. 6 Bin?. 71 fi. Not bound to send goods on because of temporarily obstructed route. — A farrier whose established route was by rail to Philadelphia and by water to Boston, was held not bound to send goods on by rail from Philadelphia when there was an obstruction in the water communication temporarily. Empire Transportation Co. v. Wal- lace, 68 Pa. St. 302, 8 Am. Rep. 178, 1 Am. Ry. Rep. 443. In order to constitute constructive delivery of goods sold, they must be forwarded through the usual chan- nels, and channels supposed to be in contemplation of the purchaser. Com- stock V. Affoelter, 50 Mo. 411. 88. White v. Ash ton, 51 N. Y. 280; Hinckley v. New York Cent, etc., R. Co., 56 N. Y. 429; Simkins v. Steam- boat Co., 11 Cush. (Mass.) 102. 89. Express Co. v. Kountze, 8 Wall. (U. S.) 342; Simon v. The Fung Khuey, 21 La. Ann. 363; Lamb v. Camden, etc., R. Co., 2 Daly (N. Y.) 454. 90. Blitz V. Union Steamboat Co., 51 Mich. 558. 91. Hales v. London, etc., R, Co., 4 B. & S. 66, 116 E. C. L. 66, 11 W. R. 856; Empire Transp. Co. v. Wal- lace, 68 Pa. St. 302, 8 Am. Rep. 178. CARRIERS— DUTIES AND LIABILITIES. 135 applying this rule, it lias been held that press of business would excuse failure to carry goods in ordinary time, even when such press had existed for a long time and was known by the carrier when it received the goods, even though the carrier did not notify the shipper.^^ But as regards railway companies and similar com- panies, which perform under their charters and franchises certain public functions, the rule is qualified, and they are held bound to have all reasonable and necessary facilities and appliances for conducting and carrying on in a prompt, skillful and careful man- ner the business in which they are engaged, and for transporting without unreasonable delay the usual and ordinary quantity of freight offered them for transportation, or which might reasonably and ordinarily be expected; and are liable in damages for unrea- sonable delay in carrying due to a want of such facilities.^^ This rule has been held to apply to furnishing refrigerator cars, al- though the company did not own any such cars, but had an ar- rangement with the owners of such cars whereby it could secure them for the use of shippers when needed ; ®* and, under a statute, to granting facilities for the erection of an elevator at one of the stations of a railroad to persons engaged in the business of receiv- ing, handling, and shipping grain over the railroad ; ^^ and to fur- nishing facilities for loading and unloading live stock ;^® to pro- 92. Lovett V. Hobbs, 2 Show. 127; v. Cobb, 64 111. 128; Redman Rya. Riley v. Home, 5 Bing. 217; Johnson (2nd ed.), 14; Wallace v. Great V. Midland R. Co., 4 Exch. 367, 6 Ry. Southern, etc., R. Co., 17 W. R. 464. Cas. 61, 18 L. J. Exch. 366, "a com- 94. International, etc., R. Co. v. mon carrier is not bound to supply Young (Tex. Civ. App.), 28 S. W. more carts than he is in the habit 819; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. of supplying because more goods are Geraty, 166 Fed. 10, 91 C. C. A. 602, tendered than usual;" Peet v. Chi- 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 310. cago., etc., R. Co., 20 Wis. 594. 95. State v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 93. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. 29 Neb. 550, 42 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. State, 84 Ark. 150, 104 S. W. 1106; 261; State V. Republican Valley R. R. H. Oliver & Son v. Chicago, R. I. Co., 17 Neb. 647, 52 Am. Rep. 424, & P. Ry. Co., 89 Ark. 466, 117 S. W. 22 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 500. But 238; E. R. Darlington Lumber Co. v. see State v. Chicago, etc., R, Co., 36 Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 216 Mo. 658, Minn. 402, wherein such a statute 116 S. W. 530; Michigan Cent. R. Co. was held unconstitutional. V. Burrows, 33 Mich. 6; Branch v. 96. Stock Yards Co. v. Louisville, Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 77 N. C. etc., R. Co., 67 Fed, Rep, 35, 31 U. 347; Chicago, etc. R. Co. v. Thrapp, S. App. 232. 6 111. App. 502; Illinois Cent. R. Co, r^ii TUL: law UF CAKRlERb. vidlng additional trncks and warehouses to aeoommodate increased liu>ine.01. wbcther the company h.is done all that is reasonable to accommodate its increased business, by increasing the number of its tracks asd warehouses, is a question for the jury in a piven case. 97a. State White Oak Ry. Co., 65 W. Va. 15, 64 S. E. 630. 98. y. Y.— Strough v. N. Y. Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 92 App. Div. (N. Y.) 5S4, 87 N. Y. Supp. 30. afTd. 181 N. Y. 533, 73 N. E. 1133; Wibert v. New York, ''tc, R. Co., 13 N. Y. 245, alTg. 19 Barb. (N. Y.) 36, 29 Barb. (N. Y.) 635, cited 2 Sweeny (N. Y.), wherein it is held that the rule is true, notwithstanding the general railroad act of 1850, c. 140. § 36, re- quiring such companies to furnish sufficient facilities for the transpor- tation of all freight ofTered; Seoville V. Gnflith, 12 N. Y. 509; Blackstock V. New York, etc., R. Co., 20 N. Y. 50, 1 Bosw. (N. Y.) 77, 75 Am. Dec. 372. Ark.—Mhdl&nA Valley R. Co. ▼. Hoffman Coal Co., 91 Ark. 180, 120 S. W. 380; St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. V. Wynne Hoop &, Cooperage Co., 81 Ark. 373, 99 S. W. 375. Del. — Truax v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co.. 3 Iloust. (Del.) 233. Oa. — Southern Ky. Co. v. Atlantsi Sand & Supply Co., 135 Ga. 35, 68 S- E. 807. 7/7._C'o1>b V. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 88 111. 394; Galena, etc., R. Co. v. Rae, 18 111. 488, 69 Am. Dec. 574. /»!<£.— Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Racer, 5 Ind. App. 209. i/ic/i.— Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Burrows. 33 Mich. 6. Mass. — Thayer v. Burchard, 99 Mass. 508. Miss. — Vicksburg, etc., R. Co. v. Ragsdale, 46 Miss. 458, 1 Am. Ry. Rep. 407. Mo. — Faulkner v. South. Pac. R. Co., 51 Mo. 311, 3 Am. Ry. Rep. 293; Dawson v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 79 Mo. 296, 18 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 521; Ballrntine v. Nortli Missouri R. Co., 40 Mb. 491, 93 Am. Dec. 315; Cronan V. St. Ivouis & S. F. R. Co., 149 Mo. App. 384, 130 S. W. 437; Shoptai'/:rh V. St. Louis & S. F. II. Co., 147 Mo. App. 8, 126 S. W. 752. 8. C. — Mauldin v. Seaboard Air Ldne Ry., 73 S. C. 9, 52 S. E. 677. Tenn. — East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. V. Nelson, 1 Coldw. (Tenn.) 276. Tea. — Houston, etc., R. Co. v. CARRIERS— DUTIES AND LIABILITIES. 137 no defense to an action against a rail"way company, for its breach of an express contract, to furnish cars for transportation of cattle at a given date, that the shipment of cattle over its line at the agreed time was so great that it did not have enough cars to enable it to comply with the contract ; ^® and in the absence of contract, when the property consists of live stock, which are peculiarly liable to suffer injury by being delayed, an unusual pressure of business will not excuse the carrier unless a very strong case is made out, it being its duty to give such property the preference in transportation.'^ That press of business or other similar causes prevent the carrier from furnishing proper facilities is a matter of affirmative defense.^ In the absence of special contract there is no absolute duty resting upon a railroad carrier to deliver the goods intrusted to it within what, under ordinary circumstances, would be a reasonable time. Not only storms and floods and other natural causes may excuse delay, but also the conduct of men may do so. An incendiary may bum down a bridge, a mob may tear up the tracks, or disable the rolling stock, or interpose irresistible force or overpowering intimidation, or the unlawful and violent conduct of strikers, after they have left the employ of the com- pany, may cause delay in the transportation of property, and in such cases the only duty resting upon the carrier, not otherwise in fault, is to use reasonable efforts and due diligence to overcome the obstacles thus interposed, and to forward the goods 1;o their destination.' So, when the road is under military control ; * or Smith, 63 Tex. 322,. 22 Am. Sc "Eng. Cross v. McFadden, 1 Tex. Civ. App. R. Gas. 421. 461; International, etc., R. Co. v. U. 8. — Helliwell v. Grand Trunk R. Anderson, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 8. See Oo., 10 Biss. (U. S.) 170, 7 Fed. Rep. Liability for delay, chap. 8, § 1. 68; Bussey v. Memphis, etc., R. Co., 1. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. McAuley 4 MoCrary (U. S.), 405, 13 Fed. Rep. (Tex, Civ. App.), 26 S. VV. 475; In- 330; Thomas v. Wabash, etc., R. Co., ternational, etc., R. Co. v. Lewis 63 Fed. Rep. 200; Marine Ins. Co. v. (Tex. Civ. App.) 23 S. W. 323. Soe St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 41 Fed. Rep. Liability for delay. Periphable 643, 43 Am. 9c Fnjr. R. Cas. 79. freights, chap. 8, § 7. Compare Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 2. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Wolcott, Touart, 97 Ala. 514, 55 Am. & Eng. 141 Tnd. 267. R. Cas. 600. 3. Geismer v. Lake Shore, etc., R. 99. Gulf City, etc., R. Co. v. ITndge Co., 102 N. Y. 563, .15 Am. Rep. 837, (Tex. Civ. App.), 30 S. W. 820; rovg. 34 Hnn (N. Y.), 50; Txiuis- Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Hume, 6 Tex. Civ. ville, etc., R. Co. v. Queen City Coal App. 6.'-)3. 87 Tex. 211. 27 S. W. 110; Co. (Ky.), 35 S. W. 026. See cases lot) TUE LAW OF CAUKIKES. wboTi the carrier is without fault ;^ or tlicre is a wreck on the trac-k.^ It is the duty of the carrier, when unahle in any case, from any cause, to transport goods otTcrod for carriage, to givo notice to the consignor before accepting the goods, so that the lat- ter may take a ditferent course if he desire to; ^ but whether such an obligation arises, where tlie difficulty or obstacle occurs on a connecting line, instead of on the carrier's own line, has been questioned.^ If its inability to transport goods is known to the carrier or its agents at the time it accepts the goods, it is liable and is not excusable for delay, unless the shipper was notified or consented to the delay;* but the rule is held otherwise in some jurisdictions.^'' A railroad company has no right to discriminate cited Liability for delay, Strikes by employes, chap. 8, § 14. 4. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. McClel- lan. 54 111. 58, 5 Am. Rep. 83; Illi- nois Cent. R. Co. V. Phelps, 4 111. App. 238. See also, Excuses for delay generally, chap. 8, § 10. 5. ^richigan Cent. R. Co. v. Bur- rows, 33 Mich. 6; International, etc., R. Co. V. Hynes. 3 Tex. Civ. App. 20; Taylor v. Great Northern R. Co., L. R. I. C. P. 385. 6. Newport News, etc., R. Co. v. Mercor, 96 Ky. 475. 7. Guinn v. Waba=h. etc., R. Co., 20 ^lo. App. 453 ; Faulkner v. South- ern Pac. R. Co., 51 Mo. 311; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Cobb, 64 111. 140; Great Western R. Co. v. Burns. 60 111. 284; Helliwell v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 10 Biss. (U. S.) 170, 7 Fed. Rep. 68; Bussey v. Memphis, etc., R. Co.. 13 Fed. Rep. 330. A carrier, on having reason to an- ticipate inability to furnish cars after receipt of notice therefor, must advise the shipper in order to ex- cuse itself from liability for failure to furnish cars. Di Giorgio Import- ing & Steamship Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., — Md. — , 65 Atl. 425. 8. Peet V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 20 Wis. 594, 91 Am. Dec. 446; McCar- thy V. Terre Haute, etc., R. Co., 9 Mo. App. 159. See also, cases cited in note 84 following. 9. Dillender v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co., 149 ]\Io. App. 331, 130 S. W. 107; International, etc., R. Co. v. Ander- son, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 8, and other cases cited, supra. Tierney v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 76 N. Y. 305, alTg. 10 Hun (N. Y.), 569, 67 Barb. (N. Y.) 538. See also, Wibert v. New York, etc., R. Co., 12 N. Y. 245, 19 Barb. (N. Y.) 36. 10. Peet V. Chicago, etc, R. Co.. 20 Wis. 594, 91 Am. Dec. 446, "if the shipper has not all the information he desires as to the causes or circum- stances which will expedite or de'ay the delivery of the gmds, it would b« more reasonable that he should make inquiry than to impose on the com- pany or its agents the duty of giving unasked a statement of such circum- stances." Galena, etc., R. Co. v. Rae, 18 111. 488, 68 Am. Dec. 574; Thayer V. Burchard, 99 Mass. 508. CARRIERS— DUTIES AND LIABILITIES. 139 and store freight received for transportation from one person, on the ground that it has not facilities to forward it, and in the meantime forward new and subsequent freight received from an- other ;^^ nor to discriminate in favor of one shipper in providing cars, where the demands exceed its capacity and the anticipated calls upon it;^ but it may discriminate in favor of perishable goods, when there is an unusual press of business." Where there is a general shortage of cars and locomotives, but the carrier has exercised diligence to provide adequate equipment for its business, a shipper is only entitled to a just division of the empty cars that should have been apportioned to the station from which he ships his goods." The obligation of a carrier to furnish cars may either be imposed by law or arise from a special contract between the parties,^" In the absence of statutory provision, a carrier's loca- tion of necessary stations and facilities is somewhat discretionary with it." A carrier is not required to keep a car equipment sufficiently extensive for maximum freight output at any time of the year, but only to meet a demand so adjusted as to utilize the equipment with regularity throughout the year." Under the common law, the Kentucky statute and Interstate Commerce Act, § 1, a common carrier is under the legal duty, subject to certain exceptions, to furnish to shippers, when seasonably requested, sufficient cars and equipment to carry all the freight offered.^* The statute requiring 11. Great Western R. Co. v. Burna, Co., 102 Mass. 276, holding that the 60 111. 284; Truax v. Philadelphia, carrier is not bound to give such pref- etc, R. Co., 3 Houst. (Del.) 233. See erence. See also, Liability for dtlay, also, Discrimination in charges or Perisliahle freights, chap. 8, § 7. facilities, § 16, post. Acheson v. New 14. State v. Chicago & N. W. R. York Cent., etc., R. Co., 61 N. Y. 652, Co., 83 Neb. 518, 120 N. W. 165. where the goods were not sent forth 15. Chattanooga Southern R. Co. v. in their regular order the question Thompson, 133 Ga. 127, 65 S. E. 235. was one of fact for the jury. 16. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Baugh, 12. Strough V. New York Cent. & 175 Ind. 419, 94 N. E. 571. H. R. R. Co., 92 App. Div. 584, 87 N. 17. Montana, etc., R. Co. v. Mor- Y. Supp. 30, afTd. 181 N. Y. 533. ley, 198 Fed. 991. 13. Ticrney v. New York Cent., 18. Illinois ( ent. R. Co. v. River etc., R. Co., 76 N. Y. 305; P.-et v. & Rail Coal k Coke Co., 150 Ky. 4S9, Chicago, etc., R. Co., 20 Wis. 594. 150 S. W. 641, a railroad company. See Swetland v. Boston & .Albany R. engag*^ in the coal carrying trade U 240 'i'i^ ^-^^ <^*' (JLAJtOULfclKb. carriers to furnish, without discrimination or delay, sufficient fa- cilities for the carriage of freight does not make the duty an abso- lute one, and doc\3 not require the carrier to provide in advance for an unprecedented and unexpected rush of business.^* If a carrier agrees to have freight cars ready at a particular time, it is bound to perform such agreement notwithstanding accident or delay by inevitable necessity.^ A contract between a railroad company and a lumber company for a construction of a switch track on the railroad's right of way was held not to give the lumber company an exclusive privilege of the switch track; and the car- rier may not refuse to furnish cars on such track to another ship- per." At common law a common carrier, receiving grain or pro- duce for shipment in bulk, is bound to furnish cars equipped with grain doors or bulkheads rendering the car safe and suitable for the purpose intended.^ A carrier must exercise reasonable dili- gence to furnish cars adequate for the transportation of freight, and not discriminate in favor of one shipper when the demand exceeds the capacity of the carrier and the anticipated and ordi- nary calls on it.^ If one contracted to deliver two cars to another at a certain place, and did not so deliver them by reason of a shortage in the cars at the time, the fact of such shortage would not relieve him from performance of the contract, whether kuowna to the other party or not.^'' A railroad company must furnish required to have a sufficient supply 208 N. Y. 312, 101 N. E. 907, modify- of cars to meet the normal demands ing 147 App, Div. 195, 132 N. Y. of that trade during the fall and Supp. 138. winter months when the normal de- 23. Dobbins v. Syracuse, etc., R. mand ia heaviest. Co., 141 N. Y. Supp. 637. 19. Cumbie v. St. Louis, etc., Ry. Where a shipper honestly at- Co., — Ark. — , 151 S. W. 240. tempted to procure cars for transpor- 20. Dallenbach v. Illinois Cent. R. tation of perishable freight, and the Co., 164 111. App. 310. carrier refused reasonable demands In the absence of an agreement to for cars, and cars were furnished provide cars at a particular time, a competing shippers, the shipper carrier is only obligated to exercise could recover for the refusal to fur- due diligence to furnish freight cars nish cars, and the fact that he held within a reasonable time. the goods for speculative purposes 21. Southern Ry. Co. in Miss. v. was immaterial. Id. Mather-McDowell Lumber Co., — 24. Williams v. Armour Car Lines, Miss. — , 60 So. 42. 7 Penn. (Del.) 275, 79 Atl. 919. 22. Loomis v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., CARRIERS— DUTIES AND LIABELITIES. ^^.^ necessary cars to-transport freight offered it ; but, when the carrier has furnished itself with the appliances necessary for that purpose in the usual course of events, taking into consideration the fact that at certain seasons more cars are needed, it has fufilled its duty, and will not be required to provide for such a rush of grain as may only occur in any given locality temporarily or at long intervals of time,^ § 9. Failure or refusal to furnish facilities for transportation. A common carrier is under a legal duty to supply patrons with cars to promptly move such freight as may be expected, ac<5ording to the usual volume of business offered for shipment, and if timely demands are made for cars, and the carrier fails to furnish them, without lawful excuse, it is answerable for the proximate damage sustained by the shipper.^ Where the usual course of busintssa has been for a railroad to furnish cars at a shiper's warehouse, the shipper may demand cars for its use, giving reasonable notice of its requirements, and may recover in case of a wrongful refusal or neglect to furnish the cars." Where a shipper demands cars at its warehouse for the transportation of goods, the fact, partic- ularly when communicated to the carrier, that the goods to be shipped are prepared for and immediately available for shipment is a sufficient tender to the carrier.^ The mere fact that a com- modity intended to be shipped is not on the platform of the carrier is not an excuse for the carrier's failure to furnish cars, when the commodity is under the control of the shipper, and ready for ship- ment in the usual way.^ Damages for breach of a carrier's ex- 25. State v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 26. Cronan v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Tl Neb. 593, 99 N. W. 309. Co., 149 Mo. App. 384, 130 S. W. 437. During a temporary scarcity of 27. Richey & Gilbert v. Northern cars a railroad company is entiled Pac. Ry. Co., 110 Minn. 347, 125 N. to consider, in apportioning them VV. 897. among grain dealers, their relative 28. Richey d Gilbprt v. Nnrthern volume of business; and, though Pac. Ry. Co., 110 Minn. 347, 125 N. there may be a difference in the W. 897. number furnished to different grain 29. St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co, ▼. dealers at the same station, still, if I^eder Bros., 87 Ark. 298, 112 S. W. no discrimination is shown, no ship- 744. per has a right to complain, though A complaint in an action against he may not obtain all the cars he deems necessary. Id. 142 '^'^^ i-^^^ ^^^ cAiunKiiS. press contract to fiinii«^li cars at a spocificd time arc recoverable in ail action on the contract; but, in tlie abdcnco of an express contract, the proposing shipper has no action save for a breach of tlie carrier's general common law duty to furnish cars within a reasonable tinu\^'' Where tlie capacity of a carrier is not over- taxed, a shipper demanding cars need not, in order to recover for failure to furnish cars, give notice to the carrier of the danger of the gix)ds becoming injured uiiloss shipped without delay.^^ In an action for tlie failure of a carrier to furnish cars, the fact that, after the damages sued for had accrued, tlie shipper and the car- rier entered into a contract for the shipment of the freight, did not atfect the shipper's right to recover the damages sustained.^ AVhere there is no sufficient notice to furnish cars for the trans- portation of perishable freight, the carrier is not liable for loss sus- tained by deterioration of the goods due to the delay in transporta- tion.^^ In an action against a carrier for breach of its common law duty to furnish cars to transport freight without unreason- able delay, a standing order of the shipper for five cars a day was too indefinite to be the basis of an action for damages for failure to furnish them." A common carrier holding itself out to the pub- a railroad for failure to furnish cars The "Reciprocal Demurrage Act" is demurrable where it failed to show of 1905 is applicable only where the a demand on a person authorized to gist of plaintiff's claim is based on furnish cars. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. violation of the carrier's public duty, V. Moss, 75 Ark. 64, 86 S. W. 828. irrespective of contract. Georgia 30. Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Sigma Coast & P. R. Co. v. Durrence & Lumber Co., 170 Ala. 627, 54 So. 205. Sands, 6 Ga. App. 615, 65 S. E. 583. 31. Hoffman Heading & Stave Co. Discontinuance of switching prac- V. St. Louis, etc., K. Co., 119 Mo. App. tice. — That a railroad compiiny had 495, 94 S. W. 597. been accustomed in behalf of a firm 32. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Tay- to switch to its side track, to be un- lor, 87 Ark. 331, 112 S. W. 745. loaded by the consignees, cars of ice 33. Di Giorgio Importing & Steam- brought to destination by another ship Co. V. Pennsylvania R. Co., — railroad company, did not make the Md. — , 65 Atl. 425. former liable in damages for refusal 34. Simmons v. Seaboard Air Line to continue the practice, with or Ry., 133 Ga. 635, 66 S. E. 783. without notice that the practice Petition in such an action held would be discontinued, where it BufBcient as against a general de- did not appear that because of the murrer. Southern Ry. Co. v. Moore, practice, and a belief that it would 133 Ga. 806, 67 S. E. 85. be continued, the firm did something CARRIERS— DUTlEtS AND LlABILlTIEfcs. 14,3 lie as ready to do switching has no right to discontinue switching cars, for a shipper on the ground of his refusal to pay bills for car service, when a detention for which the charges were assessed was occasioned as much by the fault of the carrier as by the fault of the shipper.^^ A common carrier is liable to a shipper, for the failure to furnish cars, for such actual damages as were sustained by reason of any failure or default on its part to deliver the cars as requested.^^ Under the Illinois Railroad Act, § 84, providing that every railroad corporation in the State shall furnish cars for the transportation of such passengers and property as shall within a reasonable time previous thereto be ready or offered for trans- portation at the several stations of the railroad, if the merchandise t<.» be shipped is substantially ready for shipment at the time the order for cars is placed, the statute is complied with, and a failure to furnish the cars confers a right of action upon the shipper." In an action against a carrier for failure to furnish cars after demand, as required by the Texas statute, an answer failing to allege facts showing that the carrier had performed its duty of providing a sufficient number of cars to meet the ordinary needs of its business, which it could reasonably anticipate, or that the scarcity of cars and existing demands for them were the result of circumstances beyond its power reasonably to control and pro- vide against, is demurrable.^* After a railroad company has re- by which it sufTered injury on a dis- nois Cent. R. Co., 161 111. App. 272. continuance of the practice without As to construction and eflect of reasonable notice, and that no such former statutes, see Atchison, etc., R. notice was given. Western & A. R. Co. v. People, 227 111. 270, 81 N. E. Co. V. Haig & Puryear, 136 Ga. 494, 342, revg. judg. 12S 111. App. 38. 71 S. E. 792. 38. Allen v. Texas & P. Ry. Co., 35. Laraboe Flour Mills Co. v. 100 Tex. 525, 101 S. W. 792. r^vg. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., — Kan — , 83 judg.; Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Allen Pac. 72. ' (Civ. App.), 98 S. W. 450. 36. Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. Fisher No recovery can be hail under the Bros., — Miss. — , 59 So. 877. petition of a shipper against a car- The fixing of delaynge charges by rier for delay in furnishing cars for the Railroad rommissinn for failure a shipment as ordered, where the car- of a carrier to furnish cars does not rier furni.' B. N. S. 74, 104 E. C. L. 74. R. Cas. 421 ; Page v. Great Northern 32. Parsons v. Cliicago, etc., R. Co., R. Co., 2 Ir. Rep. (C. L.) 288. 167 U. S. 447, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 887; 36. See Liability for delay, per- ishable freights, § 7, chap. 8. CAERIERS— DUTIES AND LIABILITIES. 163 ward relief for sufferers from fire or flood." Carriers like ex- press companies are not bound to go beyond the limits in a city, established by themselves and other companies, to receive goods for transportation, or to deliver goods beyond such limits, to one having knowledge of them.^* It has been held that a common carrier may require prepayment from one shipper though it may not require it from others, since demanding prepayment is but the exercise of a right to demand of every one that the charges upon all freight shall be paid in advance.^ § 18. The compensation of the carrier. The reward which the carrier receives for the carriage or trans- portation of property is one of the grounds on which the carrier's responsibility is based. It is not necessary that the compensation should be agreed upon at a fixed sum ; the law implies an under- taking or promise on the part of the shipper to pay a reasonable reward for the carriage of goods delivered by him to the carrier for that purpose.*" He may demand prepayment of charges," or,, after he has performed the service, recover the amount agreed upon, or, in the absence of an agreement, a reasonable compensa- tion from the shipper or consignor. The person liable for the freight charges, when action is brought, may offset or counterclaim any damages arising from breach of the carrier's contract, or for loss or damage to the goods,*^ or damage caused by unreasonable delay.'*^ In England a different rule prevails and, if the carrier 37. Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Bur- 42. Gleadell v, Thomson, 56 N. Y. rows, 33 Mich. 6. 194; Hinsdall v. Weed, 5 Denio (N. 38. Bullard v. American Express Y.), 172; Hill v. Lcadbetter, 42 Me. Co., 107 Mich. 695, 65 N. W. 551, 61 572; Kaskaskia Bridge Co. v. Shan- Am. St. Rep. 358, 33 L. R. A. 66, 2 non, 1 Gilman (111.), 15; Leech v. Dct. L. N. 735. Baldwin, 5 Watts (Pa.), 446; Hum- 39. Randall v. Richmond, etc., R. phreys v. Read, 6 Whart. (Pa.) 435; Co., 103 N. C. 612, 49 Am. & Eng. R. Bartram v. McKco, 1 Watts (Pa.), Cas. 75; Allen v. Cape Fear, etc., R. 39; Edwards v. Todd. 1 Scam. (III.) Co., 100 N. C. 397, 35 Am. & Eng. R. 462; Dyer v. Railway Co., 42 Vt. Cas. 532. 441; Ewart v. Kerr. 1 Rice (S. C.) 40. Merritt v. Earle, 29 N. Y. 115; 203; Snow v. Carnitli, 1 S. V. R. (U. Allen V. Sewall, 2 Wend. (N. Y.) S.) 324. 327. 43. Page v. Miinro, 1 Holmes (U. 41. See § 6, ante. 1G4 THE I^iW OF CARRIERS. has carried aud is ready to deliver the goods, he is entitled to re- cover his freight charges in full, and the owner or consignee must resort to a separate action to recover any loss sustained/* As a general rule the carrier can only recover compensation for the carrying of the goods actually delivered to the consignee. Tf the goods have heen lost through leakage or other causes without the negligence of the carrier, or if perishable goods have decayed and been cast away, or if goods have been necessarily jettisoned in a storm, or lost from causes against which the carrier has protected himself by contract, he will still be entitled to recover freight charges upoD the goods which he safely delivers, but not for the freight charges on those which were lost and could not be de- livered.** If part of the property be lost, and the consignee accepts the residue, he is liable for freight pro rata, but may recoup the value of that not delivered.*^ But if the carrier is ready to deliver the goods to the consignee and oflFers to do so, but the latter is not prepared to receive them, and the goods are subsequently lost without fault of the carrier, full freight is nevertheless recover- able.*' Where the carrier is prevented from delivering the freight because of inevitable accident, he can recover freight charges for only that portion which is delivered. As to the freight destroyed, the owner must lose the goods and the carrier the freight.** The obligation of the carrier continues after arrival at the point or place of delivery until a reasonable time after such arrival in order to allow the consignee to take possession of the goods, and freight charges are not earned or recoverable where the goods are lost with- out the fault of the carrier, after the arrival at the place of de- livery and notice thereof, but before a reasonable time for remov- ing the goods has elapsed.*' And when by contract the shipper assumed all risks and loss of its property by fire, when in the S.), 232; The Success, 7 Blatchf. (U. 47. Clendaniel v. Tuckerman, 17 S.) 551. Barb. (N. Y.), 184. 44. Dakin v. Oxley, 15 Ck)m. B. N. 48. Price v. Hartshorn, 44 N. Y. S. 646. 94, 4 Am. Rep. 645, affg. 45 Barb. 45. Sfceelman v. Taylor, 3 Ware (N. Y.) 655, 668; Harris v. Rand, 4 (U. S.), 52; The Brig Collenberg, 1 N. H. 259. Black (U. S.), 170; The Cuba, 3 49. Russell Mfg. Co. t. New Haven Ware (U. S.), 260. Steamboat Co., 52 N. Y. 657, 50 N. 46. Hinsdell v. Weed, 5 Denio (N. Y. 121; McKee t. Hecksher, 10 Daly Y.)), 172. (N. Y.), 393. CARRIERS— DUTIES AND LIABILITIES. 105 charge or custody of the carrier, the carrier was not entitled to recover freight, nor back charges paid by it to a co-coutractor, when the property was destroyed by an accidental fire while in the custody of the carrier." § 19. Excessive charges and actions therefor. The common law puts no restrictions upon the carrier in respect to his demand for compensation except that his charges shall be reasonable. There is no common law requiring the carrier to charge equal rates. The rates must merely not be excessive. The commonness of the duty to carry for all does not involve a com- monness or equality of compensation. The tariff of rates, or what is charged to one party, is but a matter of evidence from which it may be determined whether a charge to another is reasonable." 3Ioneys illegally exacted as a condition of the transportation or delivery of goods, beyond the amount to which the party demand- ing is justly entitled, when paid under protest, in order to secure the transportation or to obtain possession of the goods, are not paid voluntarily but under compulsion, and may be recovered." 50. New York Cent., etc., R. Co. t. Btandard Oil Co., 87 N. Y. 486, alTg. 20 Hun (N. Y.), 39. 51. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Wil- son, 119 Ind. 352, 4 L. R. A. 244, 21 N. E. 341, 6 R. 4 Corp., L. J. 11; Johnson ▼. Pensacola R. Co., IP Fla. 623, 26 Am. Rep. 731; Harris v, Packard, 3 Taunt. 254, " a carrier is bound by law to carry everything which is brought to him for a rea- sonable sum to be paid to him for the same carriage ami not to extort what he will; we cannot say that the carrier is bound to carry anything bpyond articles of such class as he is under a legal obligation to carry, but it is unqupstionably true that his charge be ' rcasonahlo.' " See also Pickford v. Grand Junction R. Co., 8 M. ft W. 378. " It may be in the nature of a quantum meruit," says Mr. Justice Story, speaking of the hire or recom- pense of common carriers, in Citi- zens' Bank v. Nantucket S. Co., 2 fcjtory ( LJ. S.), 35. The same view is announced in Van Bokkelin v. Inger- soll, 5 Wend. (N. Y.) 340, and Bridge V. Johnson, 5 Wend. (N. Y.) 350. See also Fitchburg R. Co. v. Gage 12 Gray (Mass.), 393. 52. Harmony v. Bingham, 12 N. Y. 99, 1 Duer (N. Y.), 209; Parker v. The Railway Co., 6 Exch. 702 6 El. & B. 77; Ashmole v. Wainwright, 2 Q. B. 837; Snowdon v. Davis, 1 Taunt. 359; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Walker, 23 Ky. Law Rep. 453, 63 So. 20; Virginia Coal 4 Iron Co. v. Ix)uisville, etc., R. Co., 98 Va. 776, 37 S. E. 310, 2 Va. Sup. Ct, Rep. 631. Where, by a traffic arrangement between a standard guago railroaJ and a connecting narrow puag<* line, shiprn'^ntH of goods ovor the narrow guage line and then over the stand- ard gunge were cliarged for by the standard guage at the rntf of throe narrow guage cars to two standard IGO THE r.AW OF CARRIERS. Where a eousignee paid an excess of freight charged over the rate speciilod in the bill of lading under protest, such additional pay- ment was not voluntary, so as to preclude him from maintaining an action to rtnover the same.'^ Where a shipper in order to obtains cars to ship his grain, is compelled to pay an additional charge, or suliVr the alternative of paying damages arising from a failure to deliver the grain as agreed, such payment is not volun- tary, and will not preclude an action to recover back the money so paid for cars.^* In an action by the shipper against the re- ceiving carrier to recover the difference between the amount al- leged to have been stated by the agent as the rate over the lines of the connecting carrier, and that actually charged, a general denial by defendant raised an issue as to whether the agent's statements bound the receiving carrier, and the burden of proof to show that the station agent had authority to bind his company was on plain- tiff." A letter from one of the railroad commissioners is not proper evidence to show the commission rates on goods shipped guage ones, and a shipper of cattle over the lines (the carriage com- mencing over the narrow guage road) knew of such agreement, he was not charged in excess of the tariff rates, though, owing to the •taanner in which the cattle \^ere loaded in the narrow guage cars the broad guage railroad found that it could and did place the cattle in a less number of standard guage cars than he had receipted for. Carlisle V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 97 Mo. App. 571, 71 S. W. 475. 53. Southern Ry. Co. v. Anniston Foundry & Mach. Co., 135 Ala. 315, 33 So. 274, and the fact that the rate specified in the bill of lading was fixed by the agent by mistake did not authorize the carrier to exact an in- creased rate. 54. Galesburg, etc., R. Co. v. West, 108 m. App. 504, holding also that after a common carrier has estab- lished a schedule rate for hauling grain between two stations, it cannot charge one shipper an additional sura for switching cars between his eleva- tor and the carrier's tracks. Where in an action against a rail- road company to recover an alleged overcharge of freight, it appeared that defendant had contracted to transport the goods for a certain sum, but that, when the goods ar- rived at their point of destination, the connecting carrier refused to de- liver them, except on the payment of additional freight, but there was no showing that the defendant received any part of the sum so collected, it was held, that a judgment against the defendant for the over charge ex- acted by the connecting carrier was unauthorized. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Henderson (Tex. Civ. App.), 73 S. W. 36. 55. McLagan v. Chicago, etc, R. Co. (Iowa), 89 N. W. 233. CARRIERS— DUTIES AND LIABILITIES. 167 bj a common carrier in an action against the carrier for over- charges'® § 20. Injunctions. A bill bj a carrier for an injunction to restrain hackmen from entering its station grounds to solicit passengers and baggage, after notice not to do so, is not demurrable for failure to allege that plaintiff has been injured by such trespassers, since damage is the necessary result thereof." A complaint for an injunction by a railroad company against one who has violated its rules in coming on its station grounds to solicit business is sufficient where it alleges that the company has been damaged thereby, and that defendant's property is insufficient to respond in damages, without setting out the evidence to show the elements of such damages, if facts are set forth which show that the damage might be great, on account of the obstruction of the company's business.^ 56. Wells, Fargo Express Co. v. 177 Mass. 230, 58 N. E, €89, 83 Am. Williams (Tex. Civ. App.), 71 S. W. St. Rep. 275. 314, holding also that the statute 58. New York, etc., R. Co. v. Sco- does not prohibit a carrier from villa, 71 Conn. 136, 41 Atl. 146, 42 L. charging less than the maximum R. A. 157, 71 Am. St. Rep. 159, a corn- rates fixed by the Commission, where plaint for an injunction is not demur- no discrimination appears; and, rablo if, on any state of proof which where the carrier after agreeing to its allegations justify, the court could carry at a reduced rate, collects the grant the injunction, in the reaaon- full rate, the difference may be re- able exercise of judicial discretion, covered by the shipper. See also, Joyce on Injunctions, Vol. 67. Boston & M. R. R. t. Sullivan, 1, p. 65, § 31. CHAPTER IV. Commencement of Caukier's J-tIability. — Delivery to - Caukikr. SXCTION 1. Commencement of carrier's liability. 2. Effect of delivery and acceptance other than initiating liability of carrier. 3. Acts constituting delivery to and acceptance by carrier. 4. Constructive delivery — Custom and usage. 5. Questions of law and fact — Question for jury. 6. Acceptance may be implied from proper tender. 7. Deposit of goods elsewhere than at regular office or depot. 8. Delivery to agent of carrier — Authority of agent to receive goods. 9. Bill of lading not essential to constitute delivery. 10. Bill of lading as an evidence of delivery. 11. Duty to issue bill of lading. 12. Loading goods on cars. 13. Proof of delivery to the carrier. § 1. Commencement of carrier's liability. The liability of a common carrier for goods received by it be- gins as soon as they are delivered to it, its agents or servants, at the place appointed or provided for their reception, or at the place where the carrier is accustomed or agrees to receive them when they are in fit and proper condition and ready for immediate trans- portation.^ A carrier's liability begins when it receives freight 1. London & L. Fire Ins. Co. v. 284, if the shipper captiously with- Rome, etc., R. Co., 144 N. Y. 200, 39 holds shipping directions, the com- N. E. 79, 43 Am. St. Rep. 752, 61 pany into whose possession the goods Am. & Enw. R. Cas. 225; Central of have come is only liable as a ware- Ga. R. Co. V. Sigma Lumber Co., 170 houseman during the period of the Ala. 627, 54 vSo. 205; Southern Ex- withholding of such directions. press Co. v. Newby, 36 Ga. 635, PI Stock shipments.— Where cattle Am. Dec. 783; Central of Ga. R. Co. have been placed in the carrier's pen T. Butler Marble & Granite Co., 8 for immediate shipment over its raii- Ga. App. 1, 68 S. E. 775; A. P. road, and part of them have actually Loveman & Co. v. Alabama, etc., R. been placed on the cars, the cattle qq Algt ^ 57 So. 817; Fuller are in the cu'^tndy of the carrier, as T. lUinoiB Central R. Co., 164 111 App. a carrier, and not as a warehouse- (168) COMMENCEMENT OF CARRIERS LIABILITY. 16^ for immediate shipment.* The liability of a common carrier at- man. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Trawick, 80 Tex. 270, 15 S. W. 568. A statutory provision that the tranapoitation of goods by a com- mon carrier shall be considered as commenced from the time the bill of lading is signed, does not preclude the liability from commencing be- fore, viz. from the time of the deliv- ery of the goods, so as to make the carrier liable for loss when no bill is issued. East Line, etc., R. Co v. Hall, 64 Tex. 615. When goods marked with the name and address of the conEignee are de- livered to and received by a common carrier, it is equivalent to a direc- tion to tran-^port and deliver the same as marked, and the carrier has the right, and it is his duty, at once to forward them to the consignee at their destination in the usual course of business, and the carrier's liability as insurer at once attaches, and until this is done it is not relieved of its responsibility as a carrier. Shelton v. Merchants' Dispatch Transp. Co., 36 N. Y. Super Ct. 527, rev'd 59 N. Y. 258 on the ground that the cir- cumstances of the case established a special contract; Witbeck v. Holland, 45 N. Y. 13; White v. Goodrich Transp. Co., 46 Wis. 493, 21 Am. Ry. Rep. 398; O'Neill v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 3 Thomp. &c. (N. Y.) 399; Id. 60 N. Y. 138; Gregory T. Wabash R. Co., 46 Mo. App. 574. If goods are detained at the request of the consignor, after delivery to the carrier for transportation, the linbil- ity of the carrier during such deten- tion, is that of a warehousenmn only. 6t. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Montgomery, 89 111. 336. A nonsuit is properly denied where it appears that a shipper delivers a box to the driver of a local transfer company, prepaying the charges thereon and taking a receipt therefor from the express company, which re- ceipt he subsequently gave to the shipper, at which time the box while in the possession of the express com- pany had been burned. Hill v. Adams Express Co., 77 N. J. Law, 19, 71 Atl. 683. Drayage company. — The liability of a drayage company as a common car- rier began when it accepted and re- ceived goods situated in a car on a house track commonly used for un- loading goods, when it took posses- sion of the car and began actual re- moval of the goods. Arkadolphia Milling Co. v. Smoker Mercl.andise Co., 100 Ark. 37, 139 S. W. 680. To make a railroad company liable as a common carrier or warehouse- man for baggage lost, it must have been delivered to and accepted by the carrier, either actually or con- structively. Williams v. Southern R. Co., 155 N. C. 260, 71 S. E. 34G. The liability of a ferryman as a common carrier commences when the custody and control of the goods have been turned over to him; there is no delivery to him until this i» done. Wyckoff v. Queens Co. Ferry Co., 52 N. Y. 32. 11 Am. R4; R. Co. V, United States, 39 Ct. CI. American Lead Pencil Co. v. Nash- THE LAW OF CARRIERS. or prepajment of froif!;lit is necessary, however, in the absence of law or notice to the shipper that it is required by the carrier's rules." Cotton delivered to a compress company, which is the carrier's agent for shipment when compressed, and the bills of lading for which have been presented to the carrier's agent, after the cotton has been checked by the compress company, and signa- ture thereto refused by the carrier's agent because the insurance was insiifiiciont, has been delivered to and accepted by the carrier, although it has not issued the bills of lading therefor." But where cotton is still in the possession of a compress company at its sheds, and the carrier has never assumed possession or control of any cotton until it was placed on cars of the compress company, al- though it issued bills of lading in exchange for the receipts of the compress company, the carrier cannot be considered as having received it and is not liable as a common carrier f* and the rule is true although the carrier may not have issued bills of lading for the cotton.^ So, where cotton was loaded on a car, left on a siding for that purpose by a railroad company, at a place where it had no station or agent, the car being loaded in the evening after the only local freight train for the day had passed, and there would be no other until the evening of the next day f^ and where cotton was placed on a platform near its track which it did not own but constantly used, the cotton not having been received or receipted for by the company or taken under its control,^^ there was no de- livery to and acceptance by the railroad company so as to make it 32. Lord v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 105 Edwards & Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 121 Me. 255, 74 Atl. 117, where a shipper S. W. 570. left gooda for transportation at the 34. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Corn- freight depot of a carrier, delivering mercial Union Ins. Co., 139 U. S. the same to a freight handler appar- 223, 11 Sup. Ct. 554, 34 L. Ed. 154; ently in charge and accustomed to St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Knight, 122 receive freight in the absence of the U. S. 79, 7 Sup. Ct. 1132, 30 L. Ed. receiving clerk, the goods being prop- 1077, 30 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 88. erly packed and tagged with the con- 35. Martin v. St. Louis, etc., R, Big'nee's name and destination, and Co., 55 Ark. 510, 19 S. W. 314, 56 the shipper was not requested to pre- Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 112. pay the freight and supposed noth- 36. Tate v. Yazoo, etc., R. Co., 78 ing further would be required pre- Miss. 842, 29 So. 392, 84 Am. St. lirainary to their transportation. Rep. 649. 33. Texas Midland R. Co. v. H. L. 37. Brown t. Atlanta, etc.. R. Co., (JOMMENUEMEJNJT OF CARRIERS LIABILITY. 177 liable for the value of the cotton destroyed by fire under such cir- cumstances. Where cotton was placed on a platform which had been built by a railroad for cotton for shipment, and, according to custom, the railroad's agent at the nearest station was requested to have a car sent for the cotton, but a train conductor failed to follow his instructions so that no car was sent, there was no re- lation of carrier and shipper.^ Where goods designed for imme- diate shipment are placed in a condition to be carried, in the usual place of loading, in accordance with the custom of dealing between the carrier and the shipper, with the carrier's knowledge of the fact and purpose, or at the place of loading designated by the parties, there is both a sufficient delivery to and acceptance by the carrier.^^ Where a shipper had loaded and sealed cars on a switch track of the carrier for switching cars to and from the transfer tracks of other lines, and notified the carrier's agent and directed him to move the cars out, which the agent agreed to do, the carrier having adopted the custom of receiving loaded cars on its switch- ing tracks, there was a sufficient delivery of the cars/" If goods are delivered to a carrier and received by it for shipment, they may be transmitted without the issuance of a bill of lading, and may be regarded as in the possession of the carrier from the time received, though there was no instruction nor intention that the carrier should immediately make the shipment." A deposit of goods in a carrier's freight depot, with an agreement that they should be shipped, is sufficient to make the carrier liable for their value when destroyed by fire or lost in transportation, although no 19 S. C. 39, 13 Am. & Eng. R. Caa. although it ha.s not yet given a bill 479. of lading therefor. 38. Anderson v. Mobile A. 0. R. 39. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Ara- Co., — Miss. — , 38 80. 661. But see erican Tobacco Co., 31 Ky. Law Rep. St. LouiB, etc., R. Co. v. Martin (Tex. 1013, 104 S. W. 377; Pine Biufl" &, A. Civ. App.), 35 S. W. 28, holding that K. Ry. Co. v. McKcnzie, 75 Ark. 100, cotton placed for shipment on a plat- 86 S. W. 834. form kept by a carrier so that cot- 40. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. ton to be shipped from that point v. Ro8«brook-JoBey Grain Co., (Te.x. may be weigheid and placed thereon Civ. App.) 114 S. W. 436. preparatory to being loaded on its 41. Missouri, etc., R. Co., of cars is in poftse ihe rell V. Wilmington & W. R. Co., 106 actual posarssion of its agent ; Mis- N. C. 258. 110 E. 236; 42 Am. A Eng. souri Coal & Oil Co. v. ITannibal, R. Cos. 417; Montgomory, etc., R. Co. He, R. Co.. 35 ATn. 34: Dwijri.t v. V. Kolb, 73 Ala. 396, 40 Am. Rep. 54, Brewster, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 60, 11 Am. 18 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 513; Mint^r Dec. 133; SoutlnTn Express Co. v. V. Pacific R. Co., 41 Mo. 503, 97 Am. X^-wby, 36 Ga. 635, 91 Am. Dec. 783. 188 THE LAW OF CARRlER^S. gaged in the transportation of freight have a right to consider that those usually employed in the business of receiving and iurwardiug il have ample autliority to deal with them. It is enough to establish a delivery in the first instance, to prove tliat a person thus acting received and accepted the property for the purpose of transportation, and even though it subsequently ap- pears that another employe v^as actually the agent having charge of this department of the business, yet the company who sanction the performance of this duty by other persons in their employ, and thus hold out to the world that they are authorized agents, are not at liberty to relieve themselves from responsibility by repudiating their acts.® § 9. Bill of lading not essential to constitute delivery. Under the common law the obligation to safely carry and de- liver goods received for transportation is implied from the ac- ceptance of the goods by the carrier for that purpose, without any written contract of carriage, and it is not necessary that the carrier shall have made out and delivered to the shipper a receipt or bill of lading for the goods in order to constitute a complete delivery to the carrier; and this rule prevails in the absence of a statutory rule otherwise.^ The obligation of a common carrier is fixed by law, and is as much a part of the contract of shipment 88. Grosvenor v. New York Cent. Rep. 54, 18 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 512, R. Co.. 39 N. Y. 34, 5 Abb. Prac. (N. and the rule prevails even where g.) 345. there is a statute making it compul- 89. Grosvenor v. New York Cent. sory on common carriers to give re- R. Co., 39 N. Y. 34, 5 Abb. Pr. N. S. ceipts and bills of lading for goods; (N. Y.) 345; Salinger v. Simmons, 57 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Smyser, 38 III. Barb. (N. Y.) 513. 8 Abb. Pr. N. S. 354, 87 Am. Dec. 301; Toledo, etc., R. (N. Y.) 409; Packard v. Getman, 6 Co. v. Gilvin, 81 111. 511; Loui.sville, Cow. (N. Y.) 757, 16 Am. Dec. 475; etc., R. Co. v. McGuire, 79 Ala. 395, Bhelton v. Merchant's Despatch and the carrier's receipt of the goods Transp. Co., 36 N. Y. Super. Ct. 527; may be proven without the produc- Lakeman v. Grinnell, 18 N. Y. Super. tion of the bill of lading or account- (5 Bosw.) 625; St. Louis, etc., R. ing for its absence. Gulf, etc., R. Co. Co. V. Neel, 56 Ark. 279. 55 Am. ft v. Compton (Tex. Civ. App.), 38 S. Eng. R. Cas. 423; Montgomery, etc., W. 220; Tx»rd v. Maine Cent. R. Co., R. Co. V. Kolb, 73 Ala. 396, 49 Am. 105 Me. 255, 74 Atl. 117. COMMENCEMENT OF CARRIERS LIABILITY. ^^^9 as though written therein.** And the mere receipt of a bill of lading does not alter or affect a prior contract, under which goods have been actually shipped and are in course of transit, without an actual consent to the change." In the absence of evi- dence to the contrary, it is to be assumed that goods accepted by a carrier for transportation are taken under the responsi- bility cast upon the carrier by the common law, save as modified by the statute, and the carrier's liability, therefore, begins at the time of its acceptance of the complete control and possession of the goods, with no restrictions by the shipper as to the time of transportation, and not at the time of the bill of lading." But the bills of lading will displace the common law relation and control the rights of the parties, when subsequently obtained in the usual or customarv^ course of business and expressing the intentions or engagements of the parties, or when they have otherwise been assented to in fact or law by the shipper or owner of the goods.®^ A statutory provision that the transportation of goods by a common carrier shall be considered as commenced from the time the bill of lading is signed, does not preclude th: liability from commencing from the time of the delivery of the goods.'* 90. Evansville, etc., R. Co. v. 301, 10 Am. & Eng. R. Cos. N. S. Kerekordea (Ind. App.), 69 N. E. 182. 1023. A carrier's liability begins when it 91. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. receives freight for immediate ship- Northern Pac. R. Co., 120 Fed. 873, ment, and is not dependent upon the 57 C. C. A. 533. issuance of the bill of lading. Gar- 92. Park v. Preston. 108 N. Y. ner v. St. I^uis. I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 434, 15 N. E. 705; Cragin v. New 79 Ark. 353, 96 S. W. 187. York Cent. R. Co., 51 N. Y. 63, 10 93, Rhelton v. Merchants' Dis- Am. Rep. 559; Rubens v. Ludgate patch Transp. Co., 59 N. Y. 258; rerg. Hill Steamship Co., 20 N. Y. Supp. 36 N. Y. Super. 527; Mills v. Mich- 481; Aiken t. Chicago, etc., R. Co., igan Cent. R. Co., 45 N. Y. 622, 6 68 Iowa 363, 25 Am. A; Eng. R. Cas. Am. Rep. 152. 377; St. I>oui8, etc., R. Co. v. Neel, 94. East Line, etc., R. Co. r. Ilall, i5« Ark. 279; Brown v. The Water 64 Tex. 620; Gulf, etc., R. Co. y. Witch, Fed. Cas. No. 1971; Snow v. Trawick, 80 Tex. 370; International. Canith, Fed. Cas. No. 13144 (15 Spr. etc., R. Co. v. Dimmit County Pas- 324) 19 8. W. 963, 55 Am. A Eng. ture Co., 5 Tex. Civ. App. 186; TexaJi R. Cas. 428; Meloche v. Chicago, Pac. R. Co. v. Nicholson, 61 Tox. «tc., R. Co., 116 Mich. 69, 74 N. W. 401; Afartin v. Fort Worth, <>tr.. R. 190 THE LAW OF CARKIERS. § 10. Bill of lading as an evidence of delivery. The issuance of a bill of huliiig is prima facie evidence of a delivery to the carrier, when issued by its agent having actual or apparent autJiority Ix) issue it, except where there is an ex- press understanding tliat the carrier shall not be liable until actual delivery is made.*' Ihit the fact that a bill of lading has been issued by the carrier is not conclusive proof that the goods for which it was issued had been delivered to the carrier.^'' A bill of lading is both a receipt and a contract of carriage. As proof of the actual taking of possession by the carrier the bill stands as a mere receipt, subject to rebuttal or explanation, by showing that it was not the intention of the parties to make any change in the actual or legal custody of the goods ;^^ or by show- ing that the goods actually delivered were different from those stated in the bill of lading.*^ When actual delivery has not been made to tho carrier, but the goods remain in the possession of the shipper or his agent, although a bill of lading has been issued Co., 3 Tex. Civ. App. 556. Contra: Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Douglass, 2 Tex. Civ. App. Cas. 27, 2 Willson Civ. Cas. Ct. App. 32, 16 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 98; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Wheat, 2 Tex. Civ. App. (as.. § 164. As to statute compelling carrier to issue bill of lading describing the goods, see Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Cute- man (Tex. App.), 14 S. W. 1009; Schloss V. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 85 Tex. 601. 95. Burwell v. Raleigh, etc., R. Co., 94 N. C. 451, 25 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 410; Milne v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 155 Mo. App. 465, 135 S. W. 85; Capehart v. Granite Mills, 97 Ala. 353, 12 So. 44. A bill of lading is evidence of a ehipment, as between the carrier and shipper. Flower v. Downs, 12 Rob. (La.) 101. 96. Martin v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co.. 55 Ark. 510, 19 S. W. 314, 56 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 112, so hold, al- though the issuing of bills of lading except for goods actually in the pos- session of the carrier was forbidden by statute; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 139 U. S. 223, 11 Sup. Ct. 554, 35 L. Ed. 154, 49 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 137; Califor- nia Ins. Co. V. Union Compress Co., 133 U. S. 387, 10 Sup. Ct. 365, 33 L. Ed. 730; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Knight. 122 U. S. 79, 7 Sup. Ct. 1132, 30 L. Ed. 1077, 30 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 88; Marine Ins. Co. v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 41 Fed. 643, 43 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 79. But see Deming v. Mer- chants' Cotton-Press, etc., Co., 90 Tenn. 306, 17 S. W. 89, 13 L. R. A. 518; Otis Co. v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 112 Mo. 622, 20 S. W. 676, 55 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 636. 97. Cunard S. S. Co. v. Kelley (U. S. C. C. A. Mass.), 115 Fed. 678, 53 C. C. A. 310. 98. Southern Ry. Co. v. Allison, 115 Ga. 63o, 42 S. E. 15. COMMENCEMENT OF CARRIER'S LIABILITY. ^cjj^ and has passed into tlie hands of an innocent purchaser for value, the carrier is not liable for a loss of the goods.*' The general rules as to what constitute a delivery to the carrier are not changed by statutes providing that bills of lading shall not be issued unless the goods have already been actually delivered to the carrier. A delivery at the point of shipment, to a car not under the control or in possession of the carrier issuing the bill of lading, is not such a delivery as to authorize the issuance of the bill, and a bill of lading issued under such circumstances is void and a transfer of it passes no title to the goods.^ § 11. Duty to issue bill of lading. In an early case in Massachusetts it v/as held that there was no law requiring a railroad company to issue bills of lading for goods delivered to be transported.^ It was also held in Alabama that a railroad company could not be compelled to give a bill of lading making it responsible for freight beyond its line.^ And in Georgia a statute, which prescribes a penalty for the refusal of a railroad to receive and transport to any point on its own line cars containing freight offered to it by a connecting road of the same guage, was held not to require a railroad to issue through bills of lading to points on a connecting line, and to deliver its own cars containing freight to such connecting line; and the fact that it has issued such through bills of lading to shippers at a certain point gave no right to shippers at another point to demand that they be likewise issued to them.** But it has been recently held in Texas that a carrier is compelled to issue to the shipper a bill of lading for goods intrusted to it for shipment^ And a recent Georgia case holds that after there 99. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Mc- 55 Ark. 510, 19 S. W. 314, 56 Am. & Fadden, 154 U. S. 155, 14 Sup. Ct. Eng. R. Cas. 112; Aetna Nat. Bank 990, 38 L. Ed. 944, 67 Am. & Eng. v. Water Power Co., 58 Mo. App. 532. R. Cas. 163. Compare Otis Co. v, 2. Johnson v. Stoddard, 100 Mass. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 112 Mo. 622, 306. 20 S. W. 676, 55 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 3. Lotspeich v. Central Railroad, 636. See also. The Lady Franklin, 8 etc., Co., 73 Ala. 306. Wall. (U. S.) 325; Hubbersty v. 4. Coles v. Central Railroad, etc. Ward, 8 Exch. 330; Grant v. Norway, Co., 86 Ga. 251, 12 S. E. 749. 10 C. B. 665, 70 E, C. L. 665. 5. R. W. Williamson ft Co. t. 1. Martin v. St. Tx)ui-*. rtr.. R. Co., 192 THJB LAW OF CARIUERS. tas been a constructive delivery of freight to a common carrier under a local custom prevailing at a station where it has no agent, a shipper making such delivery is entitled to a receipt for the freight, though the carrier previously by mistake issued a receipt therefor to a person not entitled to be recognized as a consignor.' § 12. Loading goods on cars. It is the duty, generally, of a railroad company to load the freight delivered to it for transportation into its cars, and it cannot, generally, devolve this duty by any regulation upon the shipper; it cannot legally, as a condition of transportation gen- erally, exact from the shipper a contract to place the freight into its cars.^ Where, by the contract of carriage, the shipper un- dertakes to load the freight into the cars, or vessel, this does not constitute such an interference by the shipper with the carrier's exclusive possession and control as to postpone the time when the carrier takes on the character of a common carrier, and the carrier's liability attaches at the time the freight is offered for carriage and accepted, although the loading of the freight re^ mains to be done by the shipper.^ The carrier is responsible for Texas & P. Ry. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 1 Sprague (U. S.), 477; The Oregon, 138 S. W. 807. Deady (U. S.), 179; Grant t. Nor- 6. Atlantic & B. Ry. Co. v. Howard way, 2 Eng. L. A Eq. 337, 10 C. B. Supply Co., 125 Ga. 478, 54 S. E. 530. 665, 70 E. C. L. 665, 15 Jur. 296; 7. London, etc., Fire Ins. Co. v. Greenwood v. Cooper, 10 La. Ann. Rome, etc., R. Co., 144 N. Y. 200, 39 796. N. E. 79, 43 Am. St. Rep. 752, 61 The carrier's liability is not necea- Am. k Eng. R. Cas. 225, affg. 68 Hun sarily affected by the fact that the (N. Y.), 598, 23 N. Y. App. 231; shipper loaded his own goods. Han- Doan V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 38 Mo. nibal, etc., R. Co. v. Swift, 79 U. S. App. 408; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. (12 Wall.) 262, 20 L. Ed. 423. Martin (Tex. Civ. App.), 35 S. W. The shipper is not entitled to re- 28. cover of the carrier the cost of em- 8. London, etc., Fire Ins. Co v. ploying hands for the purpose of load- Rome, etc., R. Co., supra; Fitchburg, ing goods for transportation, where etc., R. Co. V. Hanna, 72 Mass. (6 it is the custom for the shipper to Grav) 539, 66 Am. Dec. 427; Merritt furnish the hands for such purpose T. Old Colony, etc., R. Co., 93 Mass. and the custom has been acquiesced (11 Allen) 80; Bulkley v. Naumkeag in. Reed v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., Steam Cotton Co., 24 How. (U. S.) 3 Houst. (Del.) 176. 386, 16 L. Ed. 599; The Bark Edwin, COilMEXCEMEXT OF CARRIER'S LLVBILITY. 193 an injury to tlie goods occurring while they are heing loaded into the cars, where the shipper has not undertaken or contracted, to load them for himself.' A shipper who, to save charges or for his ov\Ti convenience, or any other reason, loads the prop- erty himself is not the agent of the carrier in so doing and the latter is not responsible for his negligence in loading the carV" But the carrier is liable if it undertakes to load the goods and allows them to be injured through a want of care on its part, €ven where it is the shipper's duty to load them/^ § 13. Proof of delivery to the carrier. In an action against a carrier to recover for the loss of goods or an injury to them by delay in transportation or otherwise, the first essential to establish the liability of the carrier is proof of the delivery of the goods to the carrier and the acceptance thereof by the carrier for immediate transportation.^ Such proof is furnished by testimony showing the facts necessary to consti- tute a delivery and acceptance by the carrier, as set forth in preceding sections of this chapter." As has already been shown, the bill of lading is prima facie evidence of a delivery, but is not conclusive evidence." Shipping receipts, bills for freight charges, and other writings evidencing an exercise of possession and control of the goods by the carrier, are 'prima facie evidence of the facts recited therein ; but the carrier may show the true facts by oral testimony.^^ The burden of proof to establish a delivery is on the plaintiff in an action against the carrier for the loss of or injury to the goods.^* Where the delivery of tlie goods for transportation is denied by the carrier, it is sufficient 9. Merritt v. Old Colony, etc., R. 11. Kimball v. Western R. Corp., Co., 93 Mass. (11 Allen) 80; Gilbert 72 Mass. (6 Gray) 542. V. N. Y. Cent., etc., R. Co., 4 Hun 12. See § 1, ante. (N. Y.), 378, 6 Thomp. & C. (N. Y.) 13. Sep §§ 2 to 9, ante. 662; Whitman v. Western Counties 14. See § 10, ante. R. Co., 17 Nova Scotia, 405; Thomas 15. Union Pac. R. Co. v. ITepner, V. Ray, 4 Esp. N. P. 262. 3 Colo. App. 313; Seller v. Steam- 10. Pennsylvania Co. v. Kenwood ship Pacific, 1 Or. 409; Schloss v. Rri(l<,'e Co., 170 111. 645, 49 N. E. 215, Atehison, etc.. W. Co.. 85 Tex. 601; 9 Am. k En{]^. R. Cas. N. S. 550, rovg. Horseman v. Griind Trunk R. Co., .Tl judg. 65 111. App. 145. U. C. Q. R. 535. 16. See Btirdi-n of proof, ciiap. 14. 13 j^C)4. THE LAW OF CARRIERS. for the plaintitY to show tliat the goods were delivered to a pel^ eon and at a place where goods were accustomed to l>e left by the carrier, and whetlier such person was paid any tiling or not is immaterial." 17, Purrc'll V. North, 2 C. * K. 6S1, 61 E. C. L. 681. CHAPTER V. Termination of Liability. — Delivery by Carrier. Section 1. Termination of carrier's liability. 2. Unloading and storing goods. 3. Liability for injury while goods are being unloaded. 4. Delivery must be made to the consignee or his agent. 5. Delivery may always be made to the true owner of the goods. 6. Delivery to fraudulent purchaser. 7. Delivery of goods sent in care of carrier's local agent. 8. Consignor's right to change of consignee. 9. Delivery to holder of bill of lading. 10. Carrier entitled to demand bill of lading. 11. Carrier's liability to innocent purchaser of bill of lading. 12. Laches of holder of bill of lading. 13. Goods received from connecting carrier. 13a. Where stoppage in transitu is provided. 14. Stoppage in transitu as a defense. 15. Holder of bill of lading has priority over creditors. 16. Effect of the word " notify " in a bill of lading. 17. Bill of lading attaclied to draft. 18. Effect of bill of lading as estoppel. 19. Duplicate bills of lading. 20. Necessity of endorsement of bill of lading. 21. Carrier's liability for misdelivery. 22. Delivery to one of two persons of the same name. 23. Place of delivery. 24. Right of owner or consignee to change place of delivery. 25. Statutory requirements as to delivery of grain. 26. When place of destination is not on carrier's line. 27. Time of transportation and delivery in genorai. 28. When personal delivery is required. The conmion law rule. Rule as to express companies. 29. When personal delivery is required. Carriers by rail. 30. Delivery by carriers by water. 31. Delivery where consignoe refuses to receive. 32. Delivery of goods sent C. 0. D. 33. Confusion of goods. 34. Statutory penalties for refusing to deliver promptly. 35. Demand of goods by consignee. 86. Waiver of right of action for wrongful delivery. 37. Right of carrier to d<'mand receipts upon delivery. (105) 196 THE LAW OF CARRIERS. § 1. Termination of carrier's liability. The carrier's undertaking is to deliver the goods transported by it in safety as well as to carry safely, and its responsibility ceases when the delivery of the goods is completed either by an actual, or a constructive or legal, delivery to the owner or consignee, or his agent, or by a deposit in a reasonably safe warehouse, after the consignee has had reasonable time in which to call for and re- move the goods ready to be delivered to the consignee on de- mand. The carrier's liability cannot end until that of the owner, consignee or warehouseman begins.^ The warranty of the car- 1. Ain. — South & North Alabama R. Co. V. Wood, 66 Ala. 167, 9 Am. & Eng. R. Gas. 419; Grei'k-American Produce Co. v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 4 Ala. App. 377, 5« So. 994; C-intral of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Burton, 165 Ala. 425, 51 So. 643. Ga. — Georgia Ry. Co. v. Pound, 111 Ga. 6, 36 S. E. 312. Kan. — ]\Iissouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. L. Xewburger & Bro., 67 Kan. 846, 73 Pac. 67. III. — Schumacher v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 108 111. App. 520, judg. affd. 207 111. 199, 69 N. E. 825, a railroad company, after the expira- tion of a reasonable time given to the shipper to move his goods, may termi- nate its liability as a common carrier by unloading and storing the goods in its warehouse, thereby assuming the liability of a warehouseman only, and may have a lien for a reasonable storage charge; Chicago, etc., R. Co. V. Kendall, 72 111. App. 105, the lia- bility of a railroad company as a common carrier of freight ceases upon the delivery of the car containing the freight on its side track in the usual and customary place for unloading by consignees; Michigan Southern, etc., R. Co. v. Day, 20 111. 375, 71 Am. Dec. 278; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Warren, 16 111. 502, 63 Am. Dec. 317; American Express Co. v. Baldwin, 26 111. 504. N. Y. — DeMott v. Laraway, 14 Wend. (N. Y.) 225, 28 Am. Dec. 523. Me. — Stone v. Waite, 31 Me. 409, 53 Am. Dw. 621; Parker v. Flagg. 26 Me. 181. Ohio.- — 'McGregor v. Kilgore, 6 Ohio, 358, 27 Am. Dec. 260. Miss. — Erskino v. Thames, 6 Miss. 371. Md. — United Fruit Co. v. Balti- more Transp. Co., 104 Md. 567, 65 Atl. 415. iV. H. — Smith v. Nashua, etc., R. Co., 7 Fort. (N. H.) 86. Pa.— Groff v. Bloomer, 9 Pa. St. 114. N. J. — Bobbink v. Erie R. Co., 82 N. J. 547, 82 Atl. 877. 8. C. — Brunson & Boatwright v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 76 S. C. 9, 56 S. E. 538. R. I. — Vaughn v. New York, etc., R. Co., 27 R. L 235, 61 Atl. 695, where a carrier permits the consignee of merchandise to open the ears con- taining the same after they have been placed on a spur track near the con- signee's warehouse, and to remove part of the contents thereof, and ex- ercise and retain dominion over the TERMINATION OF LIABILITY. 197 rier as an insurer is broken by non-delivery, and the question of negligence in the performance of its duty to deliver safely is, therefore, immaterial.^ The carrier's liability as a common car- rier terminates in respect to particular goods when its liability as warehouseman commences.^ When goods are safely conveyed to the place of destination and it is impossible for the carrier to deliver the goods because the consignee is dead, absent, or neglects or refuses^ to receive the goods, or is not known, or cannot after reasonable diligence be found, the carrier may be discharged from further responsibility as a carrier by storing the goods in its freight depot, or placing them in a proper warehouse for or on ac- count of the owner, if it has made all reasonable effort to effect same, and put his own locks on the cars, the carrier's liability, as such, for the merchandise in the cars, is terminated. S. C. — Deschamps v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 82 S. C. 236. 64 S. E. 144; Murphy v. Southern Ry. Co., 77 S. C. 76, 57 S. E. 664. U. 8.— The Titania, 124 Fed. 975, after the delivering of goods on a wharf, notice to the consignee, and a reasonable time thereafter for the consignee to take the goods away, the carrier is not under the strict liability of a carrier, but is charged with liability as a warehouseman or bailee, and with the duty of exercis- ing reasonable care and attention to prevent loss or damage to the goods. Moffat V. Great Western, etc., R. Co., 15 L. T. N. S. 630; Fowler v. Great Western, etc., R. Co., 22 L. J. Exch. 76, 7 Exch. 699; Bodenham v. Bennett, 4 Price, 31; Duff v. Budd, 3 B. & D. 177; Richards v. London, etc., R. Co., 18 L. J. C. P. 251, 7 C. B. 839. A subsequent acquiescence by the consignee in a wrong delivery exempts thp carrier from liability therefor. O'Donghertv v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 1 Sup. Ct. (N. Y.) 477. Tliere is no liability on the part of a railroad company as a common carrier for car- loads of grain delivered by it in pur- suance of a contract, and standing on spur tracks on the premises of an elevator company, laid to store grain until it could be unloaded in the ele- vator, notwithstanding it had the further duty of switching such cars into the elevator when demanded by those in charge, and switching the empty cars away, as such liability terminates on delivering the cars on such tracks. Paddock v. Toledo, etc., Ry. Co., 11 0. C. D. 789, 21 Ohio Cir. Ct. R. 626. 2. Hall V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 12 Allen (Mass.), 439; Forbes v. Bos- ton, etc., R. Co., 133 Mass. 154, 9 Am. 6 Eng. R. Cas. 76; Richards v. Lon- don, etc., R. C, 18 L. J. C. P. 251, 7 C. B. 839. 3. See Carrier's liability as ware- houseman, chap. 9. 4. Levy v. Weir, 38 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 361, 77 N. Y. Supp. 917; Byrne V. Fargo, 36 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 543, 73 N. Y. Supp. 943. See Delivery where consignee refuses to receive, § 31. pof^t. xds THE LAW OF CARRIERS. a delivery and has done all that could reasonably be required of it. If the carrier under such circuuistancos store the goods in its own warehouse, after keeping them for a reasonable time, if the consignee does not call for them, its liability as a common carrier ceases and from that time it becomes liable only as a warehouseman.^ In some instances it has been held that notice to the consignor is necessary, upon the refusal of the consignee to receive the goods, in order to relieve the carrier of its responsi- bility as a carrier.* The degree of care which it is the duty of the carrier to use in delivering the goods entrusted to it depends upon and varies with the nature and condition of the goods and the circumstances under which the delivery takes place. What is proper and reasonable diligence to effect a delivery, and what constitutes a delivery cannot be regulated or prescribed by any fixed standard but must depend upon the varying circumstances of each case.^ In the case of carriers by sea or on inland waters, a delivery on the usual wharf is such a delivery as will discharge 5. N. T. — Fenner v, Buffalo, etc., R. Co., 44 N. Y. 505; Powell v. Myers, 26 Wend. (N. Y.) 591; Fisk v, New- ton, 1 Den. (N. Y.) 45, 43 Am. Dec. 649; Jones v. Norwich, etc., Transp. Co., 50 Barb. (N. Y.) 193, crit'd, 49 N. Y. 303; Roth v. Buffalo, etc., R. Co., 34 N. Y. 548, 90 Am. Dec. 736; Northrop v. Syracuse, etc., R. Co., 2 Trans. App. (N. Y.) 183, 3 Abb. Dec. (N. Y.) 386; Mayell v. Potter, 2 Johns. Cas. (N. Y.) 371; Clendaniel V. Tuckerman, 17 Barb. (N. Y.) 184. Ala. — Kennedy v. Mobile, etc., R. Co., 74 Ala. 430, 21 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 145; Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. Kidd, 35 Ala. 209. Conn. — Hurd v. Hartford, etc., S. Co., 40 Conn. 49. III. — Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Friend, 64 HI. 303; Bartholomew v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 53 111. 227, 6 Am. Rep, 45. Ind. — Adams Express Co. ▼. Dar- nell, 31 Ind. 20, 99 Am. Dec. 582. Ohio. — Hirsch v. Steamboat Quaker City, 2 Disney (Ohio), 144. Pa. — ^Cope V. Cordova, 1 Rawle (Pa.), 203. Tenn. — ^Rankin v. Memphis, etc., Packet Co., 9 Heisk. (Tenn.) 554, 24 Am. Rep. 339; Dean v. Vaccaro, 2 Head (Tenn.) 490, 75 Am. Dec. 744; Southern Express Co. v. Kaufman, 12 Heisk. (Tenn.) 161. Wis. — Marshall v. American Ex- press Co., 7 Wis. 1, 73 Am. Dec. 381. Eng. — White v. Humphrey, 11 Q. B. 43, 63 E. C. L. 43; Cairus v. Rob- ins, 8 M. & W. 258; Heugh v. Lon- don, etc., R. Co., L. R. 5 Exch. 51, 39 L. J. Exch. 48; Stephenson v. Hart, 4 Bing. 476, 15 E. C. L. 47; GarsLde V. Trent Nav. Co., 4 T. R. 581. 6. See Notice to consignor, § 12, chap. 9. 7. Westchester, etc., R. Co. v. Mc- Elwee, 67 Pa. St. 211; Gill v. Man- chester, etc., R. Co., 42 L. J. Q. B. 89, L. R. 8 Q. B. 186; Redman's Law TERMINATION OF LIABILITY. I99 the carrier when due and reasonable notice thereof has been given to tJae consignee; but the carrier cannot leave or abandon the goods upon the wharf, in an unprotected state, even though there be an inability or refusal of the consignee to receive them.* As between the carrier and the vendor of the goods, so long as the goods remain in tlie possession of the carrier the right of stop- page in transitu exists in favor of the vendor;^ but when the goods have come under the actual control of the vendee, the right of stoppage ceases;^" so that an actual change of possession from the carrier to the consignee must have taken place in order to constitute such a delivery as would bar the vendor's right of stoppage. A carrier, agreeing with consignees to deliver cotton to a compress company, must, in the absence of any contract to the contrary, make delivery in the usual manner, and place the cotton in an accessible position, and give notice thereof to the company ; and until this is done, and reasonable time to unload has elapsed, the liability is that of a carrier.^^ Where a transfer company transporting goods consigned to the owner in care of a warehouseman, was given a receipt for the goods in good condition by the warehouseman, and they were found damaged on the sidewalk in front of the warehouse, the warehouseman, and not the transfer company, is liable for the damage.^^ Where the carrier and shipper contract that the carrier's liability as such shall tenninate after 48 hours' notice to the consignee, and the E.y. Carr. (2d Ed.), p. 103; Cope v. notice given to the consignee, but Cordova, 1 Rawle (Pa.), 203. that the duty of the carrier is to 8. McAndrew v. Wliitlock, 52 N. attend to the actual delivery. Hemp- Y. 40, 11 Am. Rep. 657; Rowland v. hill v. Chenie, 6 W. & S. (Pa.) 62. Miln, 2 Hilt. (N. Y.) 150; Gulliver v. And see Blin v. Mayo, 10 Vt. 56; Adams Express Co., 38 111. 502; Galloway v. Hughes, 1 Bailey (S. C.) Bartholomew v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 553. 53 111. 227; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 9. Harris v. Pratt, 17 N. Y. 240; Fairclough, 51 111. 106, See also, Farrell v. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 102 Mote V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 27 Iowa N. C. 390, 37 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 22; Mattison v. New York, etc., R. 704, 11 Am. St. Rep. 760. Co., 57 N. Y. 552; Chickering v. 10. Becker y. Hallgartcn, 86 N. Fowler, 4 Pick. (Mass.) 371. Y. 167. It has been held that the rcsponsi- 11. Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. Blum, bility of a common carrier on the — Miss. — , 59 So. 92. Ohio River does not cease by the de- 12. Neville v. Woolverton, 142 N. livery of the goods on the wharf and Y. Supp. 292. OQQ THE LAW OF CARRIERS. provisions of the contract are not in conflict with the law, thej will govern the relations of the parties, even though they impose a greater burden than the statute upon the carrier." A carrier's- liability for injuries to goods cannot survive a delivery and ac- ceptance prior to the damage." The relation of carrier and ship- per had ceased, though the shipper left goods in the car, by per- mission, under agreement to pay demurrage.^^ Where the con- signee's agent had surrendered the bill of lading, gone to the car which had been spotted on the delivery tracks for delivery, and had broken the seal and entered the car before a fire occurred, there was a delivery and the carrier was not liable.^® The liabil- ity of a common carrier continues until notice of the arrival of goods at their destination is given and a reasonable time allowed to remove them, which notice must be in writing, and may be delivered personally, left at the place of business of the con- signee, or deposited in the post office." In an action for loss of goods by fire after arrival at destination, it is proper to refuse to instruct that payment of freight alone terminated the contract of carriage. ^^ The reasonable time after notice that must be allowed by a railroad company for a consignee to remove its goods from its depot applies to every one alike, regardless of the con- signee's distance from the depot. ^^ A consignee should have a reasonable time to remove goods after they have been placed in a carrier's warehouse at their destination.^" A carrier is not 13. St. Louis, etc., Ry. Co. v. Hicks so that the carrier was not liable for (Tex. Civ. App.), 158 S. W. 192. damage to the goods from rain the 14. Barclay v. Southern Ry. Co., night after he began unloading. a^la. App. , 60 So. 479. Southern Ry. Co. v. Barclay, 1 Ala. 15. Texas & P. R. Co. v. Robert- App. 348, 56 So. 26. son (Tex. Civ. App.), 143 S. W. 708. 17. Citizens' & Marine Bank of 16. Rothchild Bros. V. NorthemPac. Newport News v. Southern Ry. Co., Ry. Co., 68 Wash. 527, 123 Pac. 1011. 153 N. C. 346, 69 S. E. 261. Where the shipper of a car load of 18. Eli Hurley & Son v. Norfolk & household goods took charge of them W. Ry. Co., 68 W. Va. 471, 69 S. E. when they were switched onto a sid- 904. ing at a station which had no depot 19. Gulf, etc., Ry. Co. v. Ferguson- or agent, and commenced unloading McKinney Dry Goods Co., 97 Miss, them, locking the car for the night 266. 52 So. 797. to finish the next day, there was a 20. Lewis v. Louisville & N. R. Co., complete delivery of the car to him, 135 Ky. 361. 122 S. W. 184. TERMINATION OF LIABILITY. 201 liable for damage to oats by fermentation while the cars are at the point of destination, awaiting delivery to the consignee who has received proper notice of their arrival." A carrier's liability as such continues until such time as the consignee has had a reasonable time to inspect the goods and take them away after notice of arrival in the usual course of business.^^ Where a com- mon carrier has transported goods to destination, and the con- signee has paid the freight and given his receipt for the shipment, the contract of carriage is complete; and if, having received a portion of the goods, he leaves the remainder in the depot over night, through the courtesy of the carrier, and it is burned, the carrier, if liable, is responsible only for gross negligence.^^ Where freight does not arrive at its destination on time, for this reason, as well as because the bill of lading provides for notice, notice of its being ready for delivery is necessary to relieve the carrier of liability for its destruction by fire, though there has been a reasonable time for its removal after it was ready therefor.^* Where the consignee is present on the arrival of goods, he is re- quired to receive them without unreasonable delay, or the carrier's liability as such is terminated. If the consignee is absent, but lives in the immediate vicinity of the place of delivery, the carrier must notify him of the arrival of the goods, after which he has a reasonable time to remove them; but if he is absent, unknown, or cannot be found, the carrier may place tlie goods in a warehouse, and after keeping them a reasonable time, if not delivered, the carrier's liability as such eeases.^^ Where a bill of lading provided that property not removed within 24 hours after arrival at destination may be kept in the car, depot, or place of delivery of the carrier at the ownei-'s risk, or may at the car- rier's option be stored at the owner's risk and cost, subject to the carrier's lien, such clause was only applicable to property after it reached its destination and did not apply to hay transported 21. Hardin v. Chicajjo & A. Ry. 23. Stewart v. Central of Ga. Ry. Co., 134 Mo. App. 681, 114 S. W. Co., 3 Ga. App. 397, 60 S. E. 1. J1/7 24. Scott County Milling Co. v. St. 22. North Yakima Brewing & Louis, etc., R. Co., 127 Mo. App. 80, Malting Co. v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 104 S. W. 924. 49 Wash. 375, 95 Pac. 486. 25. McGregor v. Orogon R. Co., 50 Or. 527, 93 Pac. 465. 202 THE LAW OF CARRIERS. under a contract requiring delivery at ship's side within lighter- age limits of tlie port of New York, which had only reached the rail terminal at the time it was stored and destroyed.^'' The liabil- ity of a carrier of a carload of freight continues until the dis- charge of the freight from the car." Even though a consignee had a right to inspect cars of freight placed on its switch before accepting them, a delivery on the switch subject to the right of inspection released the carrier from liability as a common car- rier, unless the consignee on inspection rejected the freight, and notified the carrier thereof.^^ § 2. Unloading and storing goods. In some jurisdictions the rule prevails that the unloading of the goods by the carrier and their safe deposit in a place usually con- venient for being taken away by the consignee, such as the plat- form or warehouse of the company, or a storehouse from which the consignee may obtain them upon demand, although the carrier does not notify the consignee of the arrival of the goods, constitutes a delivery and the carrier's liability as an insurer ceases, in the absence of any special circumstances or agreement effecting the case.^' In other jurisdictions the rule is that the carrier's lia- 26. Bolles V. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 201, 19 Am. Rep. 433. This rule is 159 Fed. 694, 86 C. C. A. 562. maintained in Massachusetts, 27. Yount V. Wabash R. Co., 136 Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Mis- Mo. App. 697, 119 S. W. 1. souri, Pennsylvania North Carolina, 28. Kingman St. Louis Implement and Tennessee. See Carrier's liability Co. V. Southern Ry. Co., 133 Mo. App. as warehouseman as to goods await- 317, 112 S. W. 721. ing delivery, § 3, chap. 9. Where, after delivery of cars of Payment of freight charges by the freight to a consignee, the carrier consignee after notice of arrival, agreed to take them to higher ground without any arrangement as to the to protect them from flood without further custody of the goods by the any charge for switching or other- company, amounts to a delivery so wise, except the actual expense of far as to throw the risk of loss upon handling the cars to keep them out the consignee. New Albany, etc., R. of the water, the carrier took the cars Co. v. Campbell, 12 Ind. 55; Chalk as a bailee, and not as a carrier. Id. v. Charlotte, etc., R. Co., 85 N. C. 423, 29. Thomas v. Boston, etc., R. 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 106. See also, Corp., 10 Mete. (Mass.) 477, 43 Am. Baldwin v. American Express Co., 23 Dec. 444; Rice v. Hart, 118 Mass. III. 197, 74 Am. Dec. 190, as to what constitutes a delivery where con- TERMINATION OF LIABILITY. 20: bilitj as insurer continues after the arrival of the goods at their destination and their deposit there in a warehouse, until the lapse of a reasonable time for the removal of the goods bj the consignee, after notice of their arrival. But when such reasonable time has elapsed, a constructive delivery is effected and the company be- comes liable as warehouseman merely.^" Where it is expressly provided in the contract of shipment, or the consignee accepts such delivery, a complete delivery may be effected before the goods are unloaded.^^ A delivery of part of a consignment of goods ordi- narily establishes a presumptive delivery of the entire consign- ment,^^ but where the evidence is conflicting the question whether the delivery of a part was intended for a delivery of the whole or only of the part taken, is properly one for the jury.^^ What constitutes a sufficient delivery by a carrier is ordinarily a question signee was absent, and the goods were stored. A carrier transporting freight on platform cars to a station where it maintains a freight house, but no agent, is held, in Normile v. Northern P. R. Co., 36 Wash. 21, 77 Pac. 1087, 67 L. R. A. 271, to be obliged to place the freight in the freight house in order to relieve itself from liability for freight lost through th*;ft, unless it shows that it is not able to do so. 30. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Naive, (Tenn.) 79 S. W. 124; Herf & Fre- ricks Chemical Co. v. Lackawanna Line, (Mo. App.) 73 S. W. 346; King V. New Brunswick, etc., Steamboat Co., 36 Misc. Rep. (N, Y.) 555, 73 N. Y. Supp. 999; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. in New Hampshire, New York and many of the other states and is the English rule. See Carrier's liability as warehouseman as to goods await- ing delivery, § 4, chap. 9. E. Cas. 645; Bradshaw v. Irish North Western R. Co., 7 Ir. R. C. L. 252, 3 Ry. & Ct. Cas. XI. This rule is held Havnes. 72 Tex. 175. 37 Am. & Eng. 31. Whitney Mfg. Co. v. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 38 S. C. 365, 37 Am. St. Rep. 767, 55 Am. & Eng; R. Cas, 611; Armistead Lumber Co. v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., Miss.) 11 So. 472, 55 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 600. Compare Pindell v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 34 Mo. App. 675. 32. Stapleton v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., (Mich.) 94 N. W. 739, 10 Det. Leg. N. 133; Tallahassee Falls Mfg. Co. v. Western Ry. of Alabama, (Ala.) 29 So. 203; Whitney Mfg. Co. v. Richmond, etc., R. Co., supra; Cul- breth v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 3 Houst. (Del.) 392. Compare Cox v. Peterson, 30 Ala. 608, 68 Am. Dec. 145, where the acceptance of a por- tion of the goods by the consignee at a different place from that specified in the contract, though held admissi- ble in mitigation of damages, was held not to discharge the carrier from liability as to the remainder. 33. Sessions v. Western R. Corp , 16 Gray (Mass.) 132; Cook v. Erie R. Co., 58 Barb. (N. Y.) 312. 204 THE LAW OF CAKiUERa. of fact to be determined by the jury, but when there is no conflict in the testimony it may be settled by the court.^^ § 3. Liability for injury while goods are being unloaded. Ordinarily it is the carrier's duty to unload goods with due care at the termination of their transit, and it is responsible for in- juries to the goods while being unloaded.^^ In unloading and de- livering goods transported by it, the carrier is liable in all cases for the want of ordinary care on the part of its servants.^* But if the delivery has been completed by the acceptance by the owner or consignee of the goods before they are unloaded and the owner or consignee voluntarily undertakes to unload them or has previ- . ously agreed to unload them, the owner or consignee of the goods becomes responsible for any loss or injury incurred during the 34. Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Eicho- ofer, 100 Ala. 224 Whitney Mfg. Co. V, Richmond, etc., R. Co., supra. 35. Russell v. Livingston, 19 Barb. (N. Y.) 346; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Bensley, 69 111. 630; Porter v. Rail- road, 20 111. 407; Alabama, etc., R. Co. V. Kidd, 35 Ala. 209. Where it was the duty of the de- fendant to transfer a load to a steamer from a lighter and the neg- ligent manner of unloading was the cause of the lighter's listing and a portion of the goods being l-oet, the de- fendant was liable for the damage. McAllister v. Southern Pac. Co., (U. S. D. C. N. Y.) Ill Fed. 938. 36. DeMott v. Laraway, 14 Wend. (N. Y.) 225, 28 Am. Dec. 523, where a hogshead of molasses is allowed to fall while it is being unloaded from the vessel to the wharf, and its con- tents thereby lost, it is no defense that the hoisting tackle belongs to some third person, since the tackle must be regarded as the carrier's pro hoc ince. The rule stated in the text is true, although the consignee, knowing it to be the rule of the company that he must unload, and that if he failed to do so within a certain time the com- pany would, has neglected to unload, Kimball v. Western R. Corp., 6 Gray (Mass.) 542. " The precise degree of care which it is the duty of the carrier to use in delivering the goods intrusted to him must depend upon and vary with the nature and condition of the thing carried, and the ever varying circumstances under which the de livery takes place. Some goods re- quire much more tender handling than others; some animals much more care and management than oth- ers, according to their nature, habits, and conditions; and the line of con- duet which the carrier should pro- pose to himself is that which a prudent owner would adopt if he were in the carrier's place under tha circumstances and subject to the con- ditions in which the carrier is placed and under which he is called on to act." Gill V. Manchester, etc., R. Co^ 42 L. J. Q. B. 89, L. R. 8 Q. B. 186. TERMINATION OF LIABILITY. 205 work of unloading, even though he has the assistance of the car- rier's servants." But where by the provisions of a bill of lading merchandise is to be delivered " from the ship's tackle where the ship's responsibility shall cease," her liability, after the goods are discharged, is that of a bailee, charged with the duty to take ordi- nary care of the property for a reasonable length of time, and not to abandon it, or negligently expose it to injury.^^ An owner or consignee accepting freight in a car and undertaking to unload it is responsible for any injury incurred during the progress of the unloading.^^ § 4. Delivery must be made to the consignee or his agent. No obligation of the carrier is more rigorously enforced than that which requires delivery to the proper person, and the law allows of no excuse to a common carrier for a wrong delivery of goods entrusted to him for transportation, except the fault of the 37. Lewis v. Western R. Corp., 11 Mete. (Mass.) 509. A consignee, or his authorized agent, may receive goods addressed to him in the hands of a earner at any place either before or after their ar- rival at their place of destination, and such acceptance operates as a discharge of the carrier from his lia- bility to the consignor. Sweet v. Barney, 23 N. Y. 337. Where the owner furnished skids for unloading a hogshead of molasses from the carrier's wagon, and, through a latent defect in the skids, the hogshead fell to the ground and its contents were lost, the carrier was not liable. Lovcland v. Burke, 120 Mass. 139, 21 Am. Rep. 507. 38. Smith v. Britain S. S. Co., (U. S. D. C. N. Y.), 123 Fed. 176; Chel- sea Jute Mills V. Britain S. S. Co.,123 Fed. 176, where the owners of a con- signment of jute were notified of the arrival of the ship and the time of discharging, but did not remove a part of the goods because it was more convenient to load it upon lighters after the ship had left her berth, the ship was held not liable for an in- jury by rain to the jute which she was compelled to unload on an un- covered part of the wharf because the sxied under which most of it was placed had been filled, and where she covered it and took all reasonable care to protect it from injury. Unloading goods during a storm on an open platform, and leaving them unprotected from the weather is not a fault of the carrier, where there is no building at that station or any agent of the carrier, and the bill of lading provides that when de- livered on the platform they are at the risk of the owner. Allam v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 183 Pa. 174, 41 W. N. C. 205, 38 At! 709, 39 L. R. A. 535. 39. Beaumont v. Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co., 38 Pa. Super. Ct. 224. 20t) THE LAW OF CAKRIERS. shipper himself. Unless there are special circumstancos which permit a delivery to be made otherwise, the delivery must be made to the cousiguee of the goods, or to his duly authorized ageut, and the carrier is responsible if the goods are delivered to any other party.'"* The carrier is liable in an action for conversion." The consignee is the presumptive owner of the thing consigned, and a carrier, without notice to the contrary, must regard the consignee of the goods as the absolute owner, and a legal delivery to him will discharge the carrier from all liability to the consignor.^ A delivery to the consignee's agent, who has been duly authorized to receive the goods for his principal, is a good delivery,*'' or a 40. Furman v. Union Pac. R. Co., 106 N. Y. 579, 13 N. E. 587; Viner V. New York, etc., Steamship Co., 50 N. Y. 25. Where a carrier delivered certain merchandise directed to M. at a certain casino to a barkeeper at the casino, who was not M.'s agent, or authorized by her to receive the package, there was no delivery to the consignee, and the carrier was there- fore liable. Charles Schlesinger & Sons V. New York, etc., E. Co., 85 N. Y. Supp. 372. The carrier is entitled to pay to the consignee the value of goods lost •while in its charge and for which it is responsible; and the fact that the consignee owned the article by virtue of a conditional sale duly registered •will not render it liable to the vendor for the amount still due him by the consignee. Dyer v. Great Northern R. Co., 51 Minn. 345. 41. Security Trust Co. v. Wells, Fargo & Co. Express, 81 App. Div. (N. Y.) 426, 80 N. Y. Supp, 830; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Seley, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 158, 72 S. W. 89; Cleve- land, etc., Ry. Co. v. Wright, 25 Ind, App. 525, 58 N. E. 559. A demand of the delivery of goods by a mortgagee, by virtue of a chat- tel mortgage after conditions broken, but without legal process, will not make the carrier liable for 'conversion if it refuses to surrender them, where the goods were received from a third person who has a bill of lad- ing therefor. Kohn v. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 37 S. C. 1, 34 Am. St. Rep. 726, 16 S. E. 376, 47 Alb. L. J. 71. 42. O'Dougherty v. Boston, etc., R. C«., 1 Thomp. & C. (N. Y.) 477; Tibbs v. Cleveland, etc., R. C, 20 Ind. App. 192, 50 N. E. 486; Bingham v. Lamping, 26 Pa. St. 340, 67 Am. Dec. 418; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Craw- ford, (Tex. Civ. App.) 35 S. W. 748. Where goods were consigned to K., care of " B's Express," it was proper for the carrier to deliver the goods to K. without production of the bill of lading, since by the consignment and delivery of the goods to the car- rier, to be conveyed to the consignee, the property in the goods became vested in the consignee. Schlesinger V. West Shore R. Co., 88 111. App. 273. 43. Ontario Bank v. New Jersey Steamboat Co., 59 N. Y. 510; Platfc V. Wells, 26 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 442, 2 Robt. (N. Y.) 101; Illinois Cent. TERMINATION OF LIABILITY. 207 delivery to a third partj under instructions from sucli agent.** A delivery of a money package addressed to a bank or to the cashier of a bank has been held good when delivered to a receiving teller or other employe of the bank acting at the time in the dis- charge of his duties and authorized and accustomed to receive money packages for the bank.*^ So, of a delivery of such a pack- age to a wharfinger, in accordance with a uniform usage to deliver such packages of money shown to have been well known to the plaintiff.*® The delivery of a wife's goods to a husband may be made under such circumstances that the carrier will have the right to presume and act upon the presumption that the husband is the duly authorized agent of the wife.*^ It devolves upon the carrier, in an action for misdelivery, to prove the agent's author- ity to receive the goods, where it defends on the ground that it delivered the goods to the consignee's agent, or to show that the person to whom the goods were delivered had such apparent au- thority as to justify the carrier in presuming that such person had authority to receive the goods.*^ Where the consignor is R. Co. V. Simpson, 17 111. App. 325; Lewis V. Western R. Corp., 11 Mete. (Mass.) 509; Southern Express Co. V. Everett, 37 Ga. 688. 44. Gates v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 42 Neb. 379. Delivery to a cartman, drayman, or other person not authorized by the consignee to receive the goods is at the carrier's risk. Dean v. Vaccaro, 2 Head. (Tenn.) 488, 75 Am. Dec. 744. 45. Sweet v. Barney, 23 N. Y. 335; Hotchkiss v. Artisans' Bank, 2 Abb. App. Dec. (N. Y.) 403, aflf'g 42 Barb. (N. Y.) 517. 46. Bank v. Champlain Transp. Co., 16 Vt. 52, 42 Am. Dec. 491. 47. Reynolds v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 3 N. Y. Supp. 331, 21 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 319; Furman v. Chi- cago, etc., R. Co., 57 Iowa, 42, 23 Am. ft Eng. R. Cas, 731, 62 Iowa 395. 48. Williams v. Holland 22 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 137; Nebenzahl v. Fargo, 15 Daly (N. Y.), 130, where delivery to one claiming to be a clerk, but whose authority was denied by the consignee, was held to be unauthor- ized; Angle V. Mississippi, etc., R. Co., 9 Iowa 487, 18 Iowa 555, where a new firm was held not to have au- thority to receive under an authori- zation given to the old firm; Adams v. Blankenstein, 2 Cal. 413, 56 Am. Dec. 350; Hermann v. Goodrich, 21 Wis. 536, 94 Am. Dec. 562; Waldron V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 1 Dakota, 336; The Steamboat Sultana v. Chapman, 5 Wis. 454. No greater proof of authority is required than for any other issue in a civil action. Wilcox v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 24 Minn. 269. The delivery of goods on a forged order purporting to come from the consignee, although the order was presented by a person who had for- 208 THE LAW OF CARRIERS. known to the carrier to be the owner, the carrier must be under- stood to contract with him only, for his interest, upon such terms as he dictates in regard to the delivery, and the consignee is to be regarded simply as an agent selected by him to receive the goods at the place indicated. A delivery by the carrier in such case, without the knowledge of the shipper, to a third person, at the place of shipment, on the order of the consignee, will render the carrier liable to the shipper.*^ Where the consignor has expressly directed a delivery to a third person, or to the consignee only upon his performing certain prescribed conditions, the delivery must be in accordance with such instructions;^" and a delivery in accord- ance with the consignor's orders relieves the carrier from further liability.^^ A carrier who, without authority from the consignor or consignee, delivers to the consignor's general agent at the place of delivery a package directed to the consignee, is liable therefor to the consignee,^^ And where the consignee of goods did not re- side at the point where they were to be delivered and did not ex- pect to be there to receive them, the carrier was held not to be merly been the consignee's clerk, does not relieve the carrier from liability. American Merchants' Union Exp. Co. V. Milk, 73 111. 224. 49. Southern Express Co. v. Dick- son, 94 U. S. 549; Louisville, etc., R. Co. V. Hartwell, 99 Ky. 436, 36 S. W. 183, 18 Ky. L. Rep. 745, 4 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. N. S. 550, 38 S. W. 1041, And where the local agent of the consignor, to whom the goods were consigned has directed the carrier to deliver them only upon his order, a delivery by the carrier to a third per- son was without authority. Wolfe v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 97 Mo. 473, 10 Am. St. Rep. 331, 37 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 715. An agent of the consignor has no implied authority to direct the car- rier as to whom goods shall be de- livered to, and a mere statement by him that the goods are intended for certain parties without further direc- tions from the shippers will not jus- tify a delivery to such parties. Saw- yer V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 22 Wis. 403, 99 Am. Dec. 49. 50. Foggan v. Lake Shore, etc.; R. Co., 16 N. Y. Supp. 25, where the shipper directed a delivery to the con- signee only upon his producing a bill of lading; Wright v. Northern Cent. R. Co., 8 Phila. (Pa.) 19, where goods were sent to " order of A. B. & Co., notifying C," the carrier was held liable for a wrongful delivery to C. without an order from A. B. & Co. See also Delivery to holder of bill of lading, § 9, post. 51. Ruffin V. Ruggiero, 10 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 39; Brasher v. Denver, etc., R. Co., 12 Colo. 384. 52. Ela V. American M. U. Ex- press Co., 29 Wis. 611, 9 Am. Rep. 619. TERMINATION OF LIABILITY. 209 justified in delivering tliem to the resident agent of the consignee there." § 5. Delivery may always be made to the true owner of the goods. When the real owner of goods in the hands of a carrier comes and demands his property he is entitled to its immediate delivery, and it is the duty of the carrier to make it. The law will not adjudge the performance of this duty tortious as against a con- signor or consignee having no title.^* The carrier has the right to interpose, in all cases, as a defense to an action brought by the bailor subsequently for the property, the right of the third person to whom it, as bailee, has yielded by delivering the property.^^ Where the carrier surrenders possession of the goods to the person whom it ascertains, in the course ui the transportation or before final delivery, to be the real owner, it is discharged from further liability. ^^ But to justify a delivery to the true owner contrary to or without the orders of the consignor, the carrier assumes the burden of proving the ownership at the time of such delivery and the immediate right of possession to have been in the person to 53. Wilson Sefwing Machine Ck). V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 71 Mo. 203. 54. Western Transp. Co. v. Barber, 56 N. Y. 544; MuHins v. Chicker- ing, 110 N. Y. 514; The Idaho, 93 U.°S. 575, 23 L. Ed. 978, 11 Blatchf. (U. S.) 218; Wells v. American Ex- press Co., 55 Wis. 23, 42 Am. Rep. fi95, 6 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 300. The true owner of the property in the possession of a common carrier may have the same diverted at a sta- tion on the route betwees the ship- ping point and the place of destina- tion while it is in transit, but may be required to produce the bill of lading or furnish other evidence of owner- ship to entitle him to this right. Ryan v. Great Northern Ry. Co., (Minn.) 95 N. W. 758. 55. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. 14 National Live-iStoek Bank, 178 111. 506, 13 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. N. S. 1, revg. 59 111. App. 451, 53 N. E. 326; Western Transp. Co. v. Barber, supra; Shellenberg v. Fremont, etc., R. Co., 45 Neb. 487; Harker v. De- ment, 9 Gill (Md.) 7, 52 Am. Dec. 670; Biddle v. Bond, 6 B. & S. 224; White v. Bartlett, 9 Bing. 382; Cheesman v. Exall, 6 Exch. 341; Dixon v. Yates, 27 Eng. C. L. 92. 56. Bates v. Stanton, 1 Duer (N. Y.) 79; Rosenfeld v. Express Co., 1 Woods (U. S.) 131; King v. Rich- ards, 6 Whart. (Pa.) 418, 37 Am. Dec. 420; Floyd v. Bovard, 6 W. & S. (Pa.) 75; Hardman v. Will cock, 9 Bing. 382, note. Ompare Kohn v. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 37 S. C. 1, 34 Am. St. Rep. 726; Story Bailm. (9th Ed.) § 582. 220 THE LAW OF CARRIERS. Avhom such delivery was made." The general rule that the agent must account to his principal and cannot set up the jus tertii, nor in any way dispute his title, applies to the common carrier, and the carrier must deliver according to the shipper's orders or the terms of the bill of lading, unless the true owner, whose rights are paramount to the claims of all others, has enforced his right to the possession and the carrier has yielded to it.^ The fact that the true owner of the goods is a stranger to the contract of bailment does not affect his right to recover them.^ § 6. Delivery to fraudulent purchaser. If a carrier delivers goods according to their address he is not responsible for the fact that the person to whom they are addressed fraudulently represented himself in writing or orally to the seller to be another person of the same name, or to be a merchant of good financial credit, and bought the goods in the name of such merchant on credit, and that the seller is swindled out of the goods ; and the seller cannot maintain an action against the carrier who receives the goods and carries and delivers them to the purchaser.®** The 57. Wolfe V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 826; Brasher v. Denver, etc., R. Co., 97 Mo. 473, 10 Am. St. Rep. 331, 37 12 Colo. 384; NanBon v. Jacob, 12 Mb. Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 719. App. 125, 93 Mo. 331; Lake Shore, 58. Thomas v. Northern Pac. Ex?. etc., R. Co. v. Luce, 11 Ohio Cir. Ct. Co., 73 Minn. 85, 75 N. W. 1120, 4 Rep. 543, 1 Ohio Cir. Dec. 145; Am. Neg. Rep. 504, 11 Am. & Eng. Bush v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 3 Mo. R. Cas. N. S. 121; Wells v. Ameri- App. 62; McKean v. Mclvor, L. R. can Express Co., supra; Western 6 Exch. 36; Hardman v. Booth, 32 Transp. Co. v. Barber, supra; Sheri- L. J. Exch. 105; Kingsford v. Merry, dan V. New Quay Co., 4 C. B. N. S. 26 L. J. Exch. 83 ; Pacific Exp. Co. v. 618, 93 E. C. L. 618; Ogle v. Atkin- Hertzberg, 17 Tex. Civ. App. 100, 42 son, 5 Taunt. 759; Browne Carr. 221; S. W. 795; Norwalk Bank v. Adams Hutch. Carr. § 405. Express Co., 4 Blatchf. (U. S.) 455, 59. Shellenberg v. Fremont, etc. Fed. Cas. No. 10,354. R. Co., supra. A common carrier is not charge- GO. Edmunds v. Merchants' Des- able with negligence in the delivery patch Transp. Co., 135 Mass. 283, 16 of goods, where it delivered them to Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 250; Samuel v. the man to whom they were sent, and Cheney, 135 Mass. 278, 46 Am. Rep. who the carrier was induced, by the 467; Dunbar v. Boston, etc., R. Corp., acts of the shipper in dealing with 110 Mass. 26, 14 Am. Rep. 576; Bar- him, to belierve, was the man to whom ker V. Dinsmore, 72 Pa. St. 427, 13 the shipper intended to send, though Am. Rep. 697; The Drew, 15 Fed. he was insolvent and there was a TERMINATION OF LIABILITY. 211 fact that the seller was induced to sell by fraud makes the sale void- able but not void, and the carrier is entitled to regard the consignee as the true owner unless actually or constructively notified to the contrary. Delivery to the consignee in such case discharges the carrier, upon the principle that any delivery, valid as to the con- signee, is a defense for the carrier as to all persons.®^ But where a common carrier, without requiring evidence of identity, delivers to a stranger goods which have been fraudulently ordered by him in the name of a fictitious firm, and shipped directed to the firm, he is liable to the consignor for their value.®^ Where by means of a fictitious order, a firm is induced to consign valuable merchandise to a person whom they know to be responsible, the carrier is liable for loss from a delivery of the goods to another person claiming to be the proper consignee, though the delivery is induced by false representations to the carrier's agent/^ And where a carrier, after notice from the consignee that he had not ordered the goods, delivered them to one who had wrongfully ordered them in the name of the consignee, it was liable to the consignor for their value.^* reputable merchant of the same name in the town. Seibert v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 15 Pa. Super. Ct. 435. 61. See Delivery must be made to the consignee or his agent, § 4, ante. 62. Price v. Oswego, etc., R. Co., 50 N. Y. 213, 10 Am. Rep. 475, 3 Am. Ry. Rep. 325, revg. 58 Barb. (N. Y.) 599; Winslow v. Vermont, etc., R. Co., 42 Vt. 700, 1 Am. Rep. 355; Sword V. Young, 89 Tenn. 126; Wey- and V. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 75 Iowa 573, 9 Am. St. Rep. 504; Pacific Express Co. v. Shearer, 160 111. 215, 43 N. E. 816; Stephenson v. Hart, 4 Bing. 476, 15 E. C. L. 47; Wilson v. Adams Express Co., 27 Mo. App. 360, 43 Mo. App. 659; Ryder v. Burling- ton, etc., R. Co., 51 Iowa 460. Com- pare DufT V. Budd, 3 B. & B. 177, 7 E. C. L. 399; Henjrh v. I^ndon, etc., E. Co., L. R. 5 Exoh. 51. 63. Oskamp v. Southern Express Co., (Ohio) 55 N. E. 13. An express company is not relieved from liability for delivering a pack- age of money to a person other than the consignee by the fact that the consignor might have discovered by the exercise of due care that the or- der and check for the money were forgeries. Security Trust Co. v. Wells Fargo and Co. Express, 81 App. Div. (N. Y.) 426, 80 N. Y. Supp. 830. 64. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Ft. Wayne Electric Co., (Ky.) 55 S. W. 918; Bruhl v. Coleman, 113 Ga. 1102, 39 S. E. 481. The omission of the word " order " after the name of the consignee in a bill of lading containing a provision that, in the absence of such word, the carrier might deliver without re- 212 TEIE LAW OF CARRIERS. § 7. Delivery of goods sent in care of carrier's local agent. The rule in New York and some other jurisdictions, where goods are delivered to a carrier directed to a consignee in care of the carrier's local agent at the termination of the route along which the carrier is to transport the package, is that a delivery to the carrier's agent does not relieve the carrier from liability in case of loss, since such agent does not receive the package as agent of the consignee.^^ In other jurisdictions it is held that a delivery to such agent terminates the carrier's responsibility and the agent holds the goods as the agent of either the consignor or the con- signee, whoever may be the owner of the goods.^^ quiring the production of the bill of lading, did not exempt the carrier from liability for a misdelivery of the goods to a complete stranger. Marrus v. New Haven Steamboat Co., 30 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 431, 62 N. Y. Supp. 474. 65. Russell v. Livingston, 16 N. Y. 516, 518, revg. 19 Barb. (N. Y.) 346, wherein the court said: "Ordinarily the address of a package to the care of any one is an authority to the carrier to deliver it to such person; but when the person to whom it is thus addressed is the agent and principal representative of the car- rier himself, at the point where the carriage is to terminate, it may be regarded as a mere expansion of the ordinary direction to have it stopped at the place on the route where that agent is in charge of the business. It should be so regarded; for there is no probable reason why a person sending a package should be supposed to choose to terminate the carrier's responsibility and substitute that of the eairrier's agent when by such change no new duty would be cre- ated, and the package would be dealt with in either case by the same per- son and in the same way. The only object in giving such a direction, which could be supposed would be to change the i-esponsibility from the carrier to the agent appointed by the carrier; and as such a change would usually impair the security of the owner, as he must be taken generally to know more of the carrier whom he employs than of the carrier's agent, of whom he will commonly know only the name, it would be act- ing against the natural presumptions which arise from the situation of the parties to attribute to the owner such intention." Compare Bristol v. Rensselaer, etc., R. Co., 9 Barb. (N. Y.) 158, holding that a common carrier is discharged from liability, by a delivery to a person to whose care the goods are directed, though such person be the carrier's agent. And see Piatt v. Wells, 2 Rob. (N. Y.) 101, 26 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 442. That the package is addressed to himself or his agent does not lessen the liability and duty to deliver of the carrier who receives the package for delivery, there being no under- standing that he shall hold the package for the carrier's convpnience. Bennett v. Northern Pac. Exp. Co., 12 Or. 49. See also United States Ex- press Co. v. Rush, 24 Ind. 403. 66. Mobile, etc., R. Co., v. Prewitt, TERMINATION OF LIABILITY. 213 § 8. Consignor's right to change of consignee. Where a common carrier receives goods for transportation and delivery to the consignee without any qualification or restriction, the consignor parts with the goods and all control over them and the delivery to the carrier is a delivery to the consignee's agent and the consignor cannot, by a subsequent direction to the carrier, prevent their delivery to the consignee, unless such facts are sho^vn as will justify the stoppage of the goods in transitu; and where, by subsequent direction of the consignor, the carrier delivers the goods to another person, it is liable for conversion." But where the delivery to the carrier is qualified, restricted, or conditional, as, for example, where the carrier is notified by the shipper, after delivery to it of the goods, not to deliver them to the consignee until he presents the bill of lading and a draft drawn upon him, the delivery to the carrier is not a delivery to the consignee, and the consig-nee, on refusal to comply with the condition, acquires no right, or title to the property, and a delivery by the carrier to the consignee under such circumstances renders the carrier liable to the consignor.^ The consignor under such circumstances may change the consignee while the goods are in transit,*^^ and has the same right to change their destination, after the goods have passed into the hands of a connecting carrier by taking a new bill of lad ing.^* The carrier also has the right under such circumstances to change the destination of the property before it has been de- 46 Ala. 63, 7 Am. Eep. 586; Houston, this will not avail in a suit by the etc., R. Co. V. Hogg, 2 Tex. Unrep. carrier against the consignee. Phila- Cas. 544; Edwards v. Cheraw, etc., delphia, etc., R. Co. v. Wireman, 88 R. Co., 32 S. C. 117; Taylor v. Grand Pa. St. 264. Trunk R. Co., 24 U. C. C. P. 582. 68. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Hart- 67. Bailey v. Hudson River R. Co., well, 99 Ky. 436, 18 Ky. L. Rep. 745, 49 N. Y. 70; Philadelphia, etc., R. 36 S. W. 183, 4 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. Co. V. Wireman, 88 Pa. St. 264. See N. S. 550, 38 S. W. 1041; Cayuga also Wade v. Hamilton, 30 Ga. 450. County Nat. Bank v. Daniels, 47 N. Where, having given such subsequent Y. 631; Bank of Rochester v. Jones, direction, the carrier notwithstand- 4 N. Y. 501, 55 Am. Dec. 290. ing, delivered the goods to the con- 69. See cases cited under last pre- signee, and in consequence thereof the ceding note. consignor sues and obtains a judg- 70. Sutherland v. Pooria Second ment a!?i'"nst the carrier in another Nat. Bank, 78 Ky. 250, 6 Am. & Eng. state for a misdelivery of the goods, R. Cas. 368. 214 THE LAW OF CARRIERS. livered, after a bill of lading has been issued therefor, provided the bill has not been sent to the consignee or some one for him;^ and even whore the first consignee has accepted bills on tho strength of the cousigumentJ^ Where a bill of lading has been issued by the carrier and forwarded to the consignee, if the carrier issue another it will subject itself to liability on both." Where goods are shipped to a factor to sell the same and account to the consignor at a certain price, the goods to remain the property of the consignor until paid for, the consignee is entitled, on present- ing the bill of lading, to receive the goods, from the carrier, so long as the contract remains in force, though the consignor notified the carrier not to deliver the goods, and therefore the consignor cannot maintain an action against the carrier for conversion of the goods so delivered to the consignee.^* Where a factor has made advances or incurred liability on the strength of a consignment, the consignor has no right by any subsequent order to suspend or control the sale, except as to such surplus as is not necessary for the reimbursement of the advances ; so that where the destina- tion of such a consignment was changed to another person, who knew of the factor's claim, the latter was in no better attitude to dispute the factor's right than the consignor himself.^^ But it has been held, to the contrary, that a debtor who ships goods to his factor and creditor for sale, the proceeds to be applied to the satisfaction of his debt, and sends the bill of lading to such factor, may afterwards change the shipment to another person without making the carrier liable to the first consignee^® 71. Jones v. Earl, 37 Cal, 630, 99 40 111. 281. See, also Delivery to Am. Dec. 338, and notice to the agent holder of bill of lading, § 9, post. of the carrier, in possession of the 73. Hubbersty v. Ward, 8 Exch. goods, of the change binds the car- 330. See, Delivery to holder of bill rier; Blanchard v. Page, 8 Gray of lading, § 9, post. (Mass.) 285; Strahom v. Union 74. Lester v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., Stock Yard, etc., Co., 43 111. 424, 92 73 Hun (N. Y.) 398, 26 N. Y. Supp Am. Dec. 142; Thompson v. Trail, 2 206. C. &. P. 334, 12 E. C. L. 155 ; Mitchel 75. Nelson v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., V. Ede, 11 Ad. & El. 888, 39 E. C. L. 2 111. App. 180. 260; Ruck v. Hatfield, 5 B, A Aid. 76. Chaffe v. Mississippi, etc., R. 632, 7 E. C. L. 260. See Duplicate Co., 59 Miss. 182, 9 Am. & Eng. R. bills of lading, 19, post. Cas. 426. Even where the bill of 72. Lewis v. Galena, etc., R. Co., lading had been made out in the TERMINATION OF LIABILITY. 215 § 9. Delivery to holder of the bill of lading. A bill of lading is the representative or symbol of the property mentioned therein, and its transfer and delivery without indorse- ment or when properly indorsed and delivered, when indorsement is necessary, operates as a constructive transfer and delivery of the property itself, and the consignor loses the control of the goods by such transfer.^ Therefore, when a bill of lading has been issued, it being the duty of the carrier to deliver to the owner of the goods or the person entitled to receive them, delivery must be made to the holder of the bill of lading, and the carrier is liable for a delivery otherwise than in accordance with the bill of lading, or to a person who was not authorized to receive the goods, al- though he may be the consigneeJ^ A common carrier delivers at its peril goods to the consignee without a bill of lading either made or indorsed to himJ* It is the duty of the carrier to ascertain name of the factor and forwarded to him, and the object was to pay a debt of the consignor to the consignee, it was held that a delivery to the carrier was not a delivery to the consignee, and that the property was liable in the hands of the carrier, to attachment by the consignor's credi- tors. Bonner v. Marsh, 10 Smed. & M. (Miss.) 376, 48 Am. Dec. 754; Dickman v. Williams, 50 Miss. 500. 77. First Nat. Bank v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 85 Hun (N. Y.) 160, 32 N. Y. Supp. 604; Robert C. White Live Stock, etc., Co. v. Chi- cago, etc., R. Co., 87 Mo. App. 330; Storey v. Hershey, 19 Pa. Super. Ct. 485, but when the parties to a trans- fer of a bill of lading know that the property has been taken, prior to the transfer, by legal process, from the possession of the carrier, the indorse- ment and delivery of the bill of lad- ing cannot operate as a transfer of the possession of the property. See also Dickson v. Merchants' Elevator Co., 44 Mo. App. 498. 78. First National Bank v. North- ern Pac. Ry. Co., 28 Wash. 439, 68 Pac. 965; Merchants' Despatch, etc., Co. V. Merriam, 111 Ind. 5; Pennsyl- vania R. Co. V. Stern, 119 Pa. St. 24, 4 Am. St. Rep. 626; Illinois Cent. R. Co. V. Miller, 32 111. App. 259; Young V. East Alabama Ry. Co., 80 Ala. 100; Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. National Live Stock Bank, 59 111. App. 451; Forbes v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 133 Mass. 154, 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 76; Union Pac. R. Co. v. John- ston, 45 Neb. 57, 63 N. W. 144. Where the bill of lading is attached to a draft, which is accepted and in- dorsed by the consignee and paid with money advanced by a third party on the security of the bill of lading, the carrier is liable to the holder of the bill of lading, where the shipper procured a delivery to himself while the goods were in transit. Wells v. Oregon, etc., R. Co., 32 Fed. 51. 79. Gates v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 42 Neb. 379, 61 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 216 THE LAW OF CARRIERS. whether a bill of lading has been issued, and, if it has, to deliver only to the party producing such bill properly indorsed, where in- dorsement is necessary.^** The delivery of goods to a carrier will not be held to be a delivery to the consignee, where by taking the bill of lading to his own order the shipper reserves to himself the power of disposing of the property; and, though a bill of lading is fraudulently used, a bank cashing a draft with the bill attached acquires a good title to the property in question, and is entitled to receive the goods, and the carrier cannot defend by showing de- livery to another.^ Under the New York statute it is an offense for a carrier to deliver any property carried by it without a pro- duction and surrender of the bill of lading, or unless it bears on its face the words " not negotiable." Under this statute it has been held that the carrier is liable where it delivers the goods without requiring a surrender of the bill of lading where the bill has not the words mentioned written across its face, although they are written across the back.^^ But where a carrier issues a bill of lading which requires it to take up such bill on the delivery of the goods, but delivers the goods, on the order of the consignee, with- out taking up the bill, which is afterwards assigned to a third person for a valuable consideration, such third person cannot re- cover from the carrier for a conversion of the goods, since the bill 218 60 N. W. 583, holding, also, tliat rebates being improperly allowed to a common carrier which delivers the shipper does not affect the right goods to a purchaser from the con- of the holder of the bill of lading as signee, who is the agent of the owner, against the carrier, at the direction of the consignee, is 81. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. South- not liable to the owner upon the pur- ern Bank, 41 111. App, 287. But a chaser's failure to pay therefor, carrier is not liable to the transferee although the bill of lading is not sur- of a bill of lading on account of the Tendered to the carrier before de- delivery of the goods called for to the livery, where it is not assigned to consignee by agents of the transferee, any one by the owner. See also who were ignorant of the transfer, Schwartzchild & Co. v. Savannah, while it was at a compress operated etc. R. Co., 76 Mo. App. 623, 1 Mo. by the transferee. Missouri, etc., R. A Repr. 588. Co. v. McFadden, 89 Tex. 138, 33 S. 80. Merchants' Cotton Press, etc., W. 853. Co. v. Insurance Co. of North Amer- 82. Syracuse First Nat. Bank v. ica, 151 U. S. 368, and the fact that New York Cent, etc., R. Co., 85 Hun the' contract between the carrier and (N. Y.) 160, 3S N. Y. Supp, 604; N. the shipper is illegal on account of Y". Penal Code, § 633. TERMINATION OF LIABILITY. 217 when received by him was a spent bill, and did not operate to pass title to the goods.^^ And the fact that a common carrier negligently omitted to take up the bill of lading upon which an endorsement " non-negotiable " did not appear, when it delivered the goods represented thereby, although it was in fact non-negoti- able, and therefore, the carrier may have become technically guilty of a violation of the statute, does not entitle a subsequent bona fide transferee of the bill of lading, which has been fraudulently altered so as to make it negotiable, to maintain an action against the carrier to recover damages for his neglect, for the reason that the forgery was not the proximate result of such neglect, but was the independent and felonious aot of another person.^* It is no defense to a carrier for failure to deliver goods to the bona fide holder of a bill of lading therefor, that the same were attached and seized for a debt of the consignor, where such attachment and seizure were made possible by a change of destination of the goods under an arrangement between the consignor, the carrier, and a third person, which was not binding upon the holder of such bill." Where a shipper takes a bill of lading for the delivery of goods to himself, the carrier is liable for delivery to another person on his mere presentation of the bill of lading unindorsed.^® But if 83. National Oonmiercial Bank v. tiff has wrongfully delivered up the Lackawanna Transp. Co., 172 N. Y. cargo of peaa to defendant in viola- 596, 64 N. E. 1123, affg. 59 App. Div. tion of N. Y. Penal Code, § 633, (N. Y.) 270, 6 N. Y. Supp. 396; Col- forbidding the warehouseman from gate V. Pennsylvania Co., 102 N. Y. delivering to another than the holder 120, affg. 31 Hun (N. Y.) 300. of a warehouse receipt issued by him 84. MaJrs v. Baltimore, ete., R. Co., the property covered by it, is un- 175 N. Y. 409, 67 N. E. 901. A ware- available. Burnham v. Cape Vincent houseman who pays a bank which Seed Co., 142 N. Y. 169. deposits a draft secured by a ware- 85. Western & A. R. Co. v. Ohio houee receipt of a cargo of peas. Valley Bkg. & T. Co., 107 Ga. 512, 15 which has been accepted by the con- Am. & Eng. R. Cas. N. S. 839, 33 S. signee, upon the claim that the con- E. 821. signee after accepting the draft has 86. Weyand v. Atchison, etc., R. without authority taken possession Co., 75 Iowa 573, 9 Am. St. Rep. 504, of the peas and obtains a transfer 1 L. R. A. 650; Douglass v. People' from the bank, together with the Bank, 86 Ky. 176, 5 S. W. 420, 9 Am. warehouse receipt, may bring an St. Rep. 276, 32 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. action on the draft against the con- 511. signee; and the defense that plain- 218 THE LAW OF CARRIERS. the bill of lading is produced, properly indorsed, the carrier is protected by it from liability for delivery to the holder, although the party producing it may have no right to it and may have wrongfully obtained possession of it." So, if the carrier delivers uopn the production of one of two bills of lading indorsed to differ- ent persons.^ The rule is based upon the familiar principle of law that where one of two innocent parties must suffer, the loss should fall upon him who enabled the third person to commit the wrong.^^ But the rule does not apply where the carrier has issued two bills of lading, and delivery is made to one presenting an un- indorsed bill, which does not vest the holder with any apparent ownership.^* And where a bill of lading has been issued for prop- erty not actually delivered, by an agent having no authority to issue bills except on receipt of property for transportation, and has been transferred by the shipper to one who has, in good faith, discounted a draft drawn upon the consignee, the carrier is liable to the holder of the bill of lading.®^ A bill of lading, while not negotiable in the sense that a bill of exchange or promissory note is negotiable, where the purchaser need not look beyond the instru- ment itself,*^ is negotiable in the sense that it may be transferred by indorsement and delivery, but the transferee, however innocent, 87. Douglas v. Peoples Bank, Rep. 440, 7 Cent. Repr. 822; Sioux supra. Compare Cleveland, etc., R. City, etc., R. Co. v. First Nat. Bank r'o. V. Moline Plow Co., 13 Ind. App. of Fremont, 10 Neb. 556, 35 Am. Rep. 225. 488; Armour v. Michigan Cent. R, 88. Fearon v. Bowers, 1 Smith's Co., 65 N. Y. Ill; St. Louis, etc., R. L. C. 792. Co. V. Larned, 103 111. 293; Brooke v. 89. Brooks v. New York, etc., R. New York, etc., R. Co., 108 Pa. St. Co., 108 Pa. St. 529, 56 Am. Rep. 529. To the contrary see note 106 235; American Nat. Bank v. Greorgia N. Y. 195. R. Co., 96 Ga. 665, 2 Am. & Eng. R. 92. Friedlander v. Texas, etc., R. Cas. N. S. 618, 23 S. E. 898; Wil- Co., 130 U. S. 424, 32 L. Ed. 994; mington, etc., R. Co. v. Kitchin, 91 Pollard v. Vinton, 105 U. S. 8, 26 L. N. C. 39. Ed. 998; Shaw v. Merchants' Nat. 90. Weyand & Atohison, etc., R. Bank, 101 U. S. 557, 25 L. Ed. 892; Co., 75 Iowa 573, 9 Am. St. Rep. 504, Stollenwerck v. Thacher, 115 Mass. revg. 30 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 102, 33 24; Raleigh, etc., R. Co. v. Lowe, 101 N. W. 133; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Ga. 320, 28 S. E, 867, 10 Am. & Eng. Lamed, 103 111. 293. R. Cas, N. S. 398; Gumey v. Beihr- 91. Bank of Batavia v. New York, etnd, 3 EL t BI. 622, 633. etc, R. Co., 106 N. Y. 195, 60 Am. TERMINATION OF LIABILITY. 0^9 takes only the rights which the transferee had.®^ If, however, a custom or usage exists for a carrier at the point of destination to deliver to a consignee goods consigned to him by a bill of lading, not containing the words " or order," without requiring the pro- duction of the bill of lading, such a delivery is good as against a person to whom the consignee has previously delivered the bill of lading as security for an advance made by him to the con- signee.*^ It is no excuse for a delivery to the wrong person that the indorsee of the bill of lading was unknown to the carrier and notice of the arrival could not be given, or that he delayed too long before calling for his goods; diligent inquiry for the consignee, or indorsee of a bill of lading for delivery to order, is required of the carrier, and if either cannot be found, the duty of the carrier is to retain the goods until they are claimed, or to store them in a reasonably safe place for and on accoimt of their owner. It has no right, under any circumstances, to deliver to a stranger.^ § 10. Carrier entitled to demand bill of lading. The consignee is presumptively the owner of the goods, and a de- livery to him, without notice to the contrary, will discharge the carrier.*^ If the party who claims the goods is not the consignee, and even where he is the consignee, the carrier is entitled to de- mand the production of the bill of lading in order to obtain posses- sion of the goods, and for its own security, because of the assigna- bility of bills of lading whereby all rights in the goods may be transferred to a stranger, should require it to be presented before making delivery either to the consignee or the holder of the bill.** 93. Merchants' Bank v. Union R., 95. The Thames, 14 Wall. (U. S.) etc., Co., 69 N. Y. 374; Pollard v. 98; Galloway v. Hughes, 1 Conk- Vinton, 105 U. S. 7; Lallande v. His Adm. 96. See Laches of Holder of Creditors, 42 La. Ann. 705, 45 Am. & bill of lading, § 13 post. Eng. R. Cas. 301; Douglass v. Peo- 96. Sweet v. Barney, 23 N. Y. pies Bank, 86 Ky. 176, 5 S. W. 420; 335; Lawrence v. Minturn, 17 How. Empire Transp. Co. v. Steele, 70 Pa. (N. Y.), 100; O'Dougherty v. Bos- et. 188. ton, etc., R. Co., 1 Thomp. & C. (N. 94. Forbes v. Boston, etc., R. Co. Y.) 477. See also § 4, ante. 133 Mass. 154. See § 20, post. See 97. Bass v. Glover, 63 Ga. 745, 1 also Richardson v. Goddard, 23 How. Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 277; Finn v. (U. S.) 28. Western R. Corp., 102 Mass. 283. 220 THE LAW OF CARRIERS. This is a reasonable regulation necessary to protect the carrier from any loss, although the carrier may only be entitled to a receipt after being shown the bill of lading and may not require the holder to surrender the bill.^^ For the carrier will be liable to a ho7ia fide holder of the bill of lading if it delivers the goods to the consignee after he has assigned the bill of lading.^' The statute in New York makes it the duty of a carrier not to deliver goods except upon production and cancellation of the bills of lading, and for a delivery to a consignee without the production of the bill of lading, which provided for a delivery to him, but Avhich he had in the meantime indorsed and negotiated, the carrier is liable to the holder of the bill as for a conversion of the prop- erty.'- And it is liable to the shipper for the loss sustained by him, Avhere it delivers goods to the consignee, in violation of instruc- tions of the shipper not to deliver without a bill of lading.^ § 11. Carrier's liability to innocent purchaser of bill of lading. A carrier, in delivering goods to a party claiming them, with- out requiring him to produce the bill of lading, always assumes the risk, of the bill's having been previously transferred to an in- nocent purchaser.' Where a common carrier delivers goods en- trusted to him for carriage, without production of the bill of lad- ing describing the goods, it is liable in trover for their value to a bona fide holder of such bill, taken for value, before the delivery of the goods at destination;* even where it delivered the goods Compare Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Mc- 500; Colgate v. Pennsylvania Co., Cown (Tex. Civ. App.), 25 S. W. 102 N. Y. 130; Bank of Commerce v. 435_ Bissell, 72 N. Y. 615. Where no bills of lading are is- 2. Foggan v. Lake Shore, etc., R. sued, the carrier is justified in de- Co., 16 N. Y. Supp. 25. livering the goods to the consignee 3. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Stern, without the production of receipts or 119 Pa. St. 24, 4 Am. St. Rep. 626; other evidences of ownership issued Gates v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 43 to the consignor. Schlichting v. Chi- Neb. 379, 61 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 218; cac^o, etc., Ry. Co. (Iowa), 96 N. W. Midland Nat. Bank v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 1 Mo. App. Rep. 417. 959. 98. Dvvyer v. Gulf, etc., R. Co., 69 4. Peoria Bank v. Northern R. Co., Tex. 707. 32 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 461. 58 N. H. 203; Houston, etc., R. Co. 99. See § 11. ^- Adams, 49 Tex. 748, 30 Am. Rep. 1. Furman v. Union Pac. R. Co., 116. 106 N. Y. 579, 32 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. TERMINATION OF LIABILITY. 221 to the shipper at an intermediate point.^ But it is not liable where the transfer of the bill takes place after the delivery to the consignee, since the innocent purchaser takes only such title as his transferee had, and the latter's title had been extinguished by delivery.® A railroad company which makes one of a firm which is almost the only consignee of goods delivered at a station its agent at such station, charged with the responsibility of the busi- ness as between the company and the firm, is liable to an innocent purchaser of a bill of lading for goods consigned to such firm, which have been delivered to it without surrender of the bill of lading.'^ § 12. Laches of holder of bill of lading. Laches on the part of the holder of a bill of lading cannot be assumed from delay by the holder in presenting it and demanding delivery of the goods, unless by reason of the delay the carrier may have lost a remedy or could not protect itself.* And a carrier cannot avoid its obligation under a bill calling for de- livery to the shipper's order, to deliver the shipment to an indorsee for value of the bill upon presentation thereof, by a custom of such carrier to deliver the property to the consignee after six days, if the indorsee was without notice that the carrier had acted under such custom, although he may have been 'aware of the custom.® But the holder of a bill of lading may lose his rights by negligence, as where a bank, to which is delivered for collection a draft, together with a bill of lading (requiring notice to the drawer) for a carload of feed issued by a transportation com- pany, which permits the drawee to pay the draft by discounting 5. Ratzer v. Burlington, etc., R. 112, 32 N. Y. Supp. 604; Barber v. Co., 64 Minn. 245, 66 N. W. 988, 4 Meyerstein, L. R. 4 H. L. 317, L. R. Am. & Eng. R. Caa. N. S. 55. 2 C. P. 38, holding that notice is not 6. Alabama Nat. Bank v. Mobile, necessary, and that only a failure of etc., R. Co., 42 Mo. App. 284. ordinary prudence In completing his 7. Walters v. Western, etc., R. Ck>., security would amount to laches. 56 Fed. 369, 61 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 9. Midland Nat. Bank v. Miasouri 162. Pac. R. Co., 132 Mo. 492, 2 Am. & 8. First Nat. Bank of Syracuse v. Eng. Corp. Cas. N. S. 586, 33 S. W. New York Cent, etc., R. Co., 85 Hun 521. (N. Y.), 160, 66 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 222 THE LAW OF CARRIERS. liis draft on a third person attached to the bill of lading, gave na notice to the railroad company that it held the bill of lading and the feed was delivered by the carrier to one to whom the drawer con- signed it. The bank in such case cannot recover from the rail- road company.^" While the assignee or indorsee of a bill of lading may, by his laches, lose his right to claim the goods from an in- nocent purchaser, by permitting the property to remain under tlio control and apparent ownership of his assignor or endorser, the transfer of the bill of lading passes the complete title to the assignee or endorsee, and he is not required to take possession of the property immediately upon its arrival, or to give notice to the carrier or warehouseman in charge of it.^^ § 13. Goods received from connecting carrier. It is the duty of a carrier to ascertain whether a bill of lading "was delivered to the shipper, and if so, to detain the property until demanded by one claiming under that title; if delivery is made without it, he runs the risk of showing a delivery in accordance with its instructions. If the owner or consignor has placed a direction upon the property, showing where it is to be trans- ported, and obtained a bill of lading for it, he has a right to assume Uiat delivery will only be made in accordance with the terms of the bill, and the duty of the carrier is only thereby dis- charged.^ The contract contained in and evidenced by the re- ceipt or bill of lading binds each and every one of the connecting carriers who accept the goods and transport them over its line," and they are charged with knowledge of the contents of the bill of lading." A carrier receiving goods from another carrier is, therefore, liable for a delivery to the wrong person without a 10. National Bank v. Philadelphia, 13. Babcock v. Lake Shore, etc., R. etc., R. Co., 163 Pa. St. 467, 61 Am. Co., 49 N. Y. 497; Maghee v, Cam- £ Eng. R. Cas. 162, 30 Atl. 223. den, etc., R. Co., 45 N. Y. 514; Halli- 11. Farmers', etc., Nat. Bank v. day v. St. Louis, etc. R. Co., 74 Mo. Logan, 74 N. Y. 568; Forbes v. Bos- 159. ton, etc., R. Co., 133 Mass. 154, 9 14. City Bank v. Rome, etc., R. Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 78. Co., 44 N. Y. 136; Howard v. Shep- 12. Furman v. Union Pac. R. Co., ard, 9 M. Gr. & S. 296; Tyndale V. 106 N. Y. 579, 32 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. Taylor, 4 El. & Bl. 219; Colgate T. 500. Pennsylvania Co., 102 N. Y. 120. TERMINATION OF LIABILITY. 225 production bj him of the bill of lading, where one has been issued, and is not excused by the fact that such delivery was made in ac- cordance with papers received from the preceding carrier in which a different consignee from the one in the bill of lading is named/* The contrary, however, has been held where the carrier which made the delivery had no notice of the bill of lading, or the fact that it had been issued, and was ignorant of the true ownership of the goods." The initial carrier is the agent of the consignor in forwarding goods and delivering them to a connecting line," but such agency does not relieve the connecting carrier from lia- bility for failure to demand the production and surrender of the bill of lading before delivery of the goods, when it knows, or ought to have known, that a bill of lading had been issued and was outstanding.^^ § 13a. Where stoppage in transitu is provided, "Where a carload of lumber was shipped under a waybill pro- viding for stoppage en route at a planing mill, and delivery to the planing mill company, that the lumber might be planed and then reshipped to destination, and the lumber was destroyed by fire while at the planing mill, it was then in the possession of the plaintiff or his agent, the planing mill company, so that de- fendant's liability was terminated for the time being, and it was not liable for the destruction of the lumber without its fault" § 14. Stoppage in transitu as a defense. The right of stoppage in transitu is defeated by the transfer of a bill of lading to a bona fide indorsee before the right of stop- 15. Funnan v. Union Pac. R. Co., Townsend, etc., R. Co., 5 Wash. 595, 106 N. Y. 579, 32 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 55 Am. & Eng. R. Gas. 419; Wells v. 500; Alderman v. Eastern R. Co., 115 Thomas, 27 Mo. 17, 72 Am. Dec. 228; Mass. 233; Ratzer v. Burlington, etc., Briggs v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 6 Allen R. Co., 64 Minn. 245, 66 N. W. 988, (Mass.), 246, 83 Am. Dec. 626; Bird 4 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. N. S. 55. v. Georgia R. Co., 72 Ga. 655, 27 Am. 16. National Bank v. Philadelphia, & Eng. R. Cas. 39. etc., R. Co., 163 Pa. St. 467; Nanson 18. See delivery to holder of bill of V. Jacob, 93 Mo. 331, 3 Am. St. Rep. laxling, § 9, ante. 531, 19. Barron v. Mobile * 0. R. Co., 17. Mallory v. Burritt, 1 E. D. 2 Ala. App. 555, 56 So. 862. Smith (N. Y.), 234; Moses v. Port 224 THE LAW OF CARRIERS. page is exercised, tlie assignment of the bill of lading transfer- ring the title to the property, upon the principle that when- ever one of two innocent persons must suffer by the act of a third, he who has enabled the third person to do or occasion the injury must suffer the loss.^" The carrier cannot, therefore, re- lieve itself from liability for failure to deliver the property to the holder of the bill of lading by showing that it had deliv- ered -t upon a stoppage in transitu to the consignor. If the transfer of a bill of lading by way of a pledge or mortgage, or as collateral security for a loan, does not absolutely defeat the right of stoppage in transitu, the seller cannot exert that right until he has discharged the debt secured by the transfer, as his right is subject to that of the mortgagee or pledgee.^^ § 15. Holder of bill of lading has priority over creditors, delivery, passes to the transferee whatever title the transferee ^had to the property at the time. Goods covered by a bill of lading pledged for the acceptance and payment of a draft are not, there- fore, subject in the hands of a carrier to the levy of an attachment by creditors as the property of the consignor.^^ A consignee of goods is not entitled to a preference for a balance of advances made by him to the consignor, over the claims of a holder of a draft to secure which bills of lading for the goods have been transferred by the consignor, when the goods were not shipped in payment of such advances, since a bill of lading, by the com- mercial law as well as by the statute, when legally transferred, gives title to the property which it represents.^^ 20. Dows V. Greene, 24 N. Y. 641; 861, 49 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 73 note; Dows V. Perrin, 16 N. Y. 325; Dows Chandler v. Fulton, 10 Tex. 24, 60 V. Rush, 28 Barb. (N. Y.) 157; Wells Am. Dec. 188. V. Oregon R., etc., Co., 32 Fed. 51. 12 22. Dickson v. Merchants' Elevator Sawy. (U. S.) 519; Lickbarrow v. Co., 44 Mo. App. 498 ; Neil] v. Rogers Mason, 2 T. R. 63, 6 East, 21, 1 Bros. Produce Co., 41 W. Va. 37, 23 Smith's L. Cas. 753; Gurney v. Beh- S. E. 702. rend, 3 El. & Bl. 623, 77 E. C. L. 622. 23. Starksville First Nat. Bank v. 21. ^rissouri Pac. R. Co. v. Heiden- Meyer, 43 La. Ann. 1, 8 So. 433. heimer, 82 Tex. 195, 27 Am. St. Rep. TERMINATION OF LIABILITY. 225 § 16. Effect of the word " notify " in bill of lading. The direction in a bill of lading to ^'notify" a given party shows that such party is not intended as the consignee. If he is, the word is wholly unnecessary. It is the duty of the carrier to notify the consignee of the arrival of the goods. If no one is named as consignee in the bill, no delivery should be made to any one who does not produce it.^^ Directions in a bill of lading to notify a person other than the consignee of the arrival of the shipment does not authorize the carrier to deliver the shipment to such person without the production of a bill of lading. ^^ For such a delivery the carrier is liable to a bank which has dis- counted drafts drawn against the consignment on the security of receipts endorsed over to it by the shipper and consignee.^® The holder of the bill of lading, properly indorsed to him and which is attached to a draft which he has paid, is not obliged to notify the carrier not to deliver to the party to whom notification is to be given, nor to do anything to prevent such a delivery, except to present the bill of lading and demand delivery within a reaon- able time.^^ A bona fide holder for value without notice of a bill of lading which stipulates for the delivery of the goods to the shipper's order at a designated point, with direction to notify a third person, is not affected by a prior agreement or custom among the consignor, the carrier, and such third person, to the effect that the latter may, without production of tlie bill, change the destination of the goods.^^ A carrier of freight under a bill of 24. Furman v. Union Pac. R. Co., 27. Chester Nat. Bank v. Atlanta, 106 N. Y. 579, 32 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. etc., Air Line R. Co., 25 S. C. 216. 500, revg. 35 Hun (N. Y.), 669. See 28. Western, etc., R. Co. v. Ohio else Colgate v. Pennsylvania Co., 102 Valley Bkg. & T. Co., 107 Ga. 512, 33 N. Y. 120. 'S. E. 21, 15 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. N. 25. Union Stock Yards Co. v. West- S. 839. A bank may, after reimbiirs- cott, 47 Neb. 300, 3 Am. & Eng. R, ing the owner of the goods, maintain Cas. N. S. 375, 66 N. W. 419. an action against a common carrier 26. North Pennsylvania R. Co. v. for an unauthorized delivery of tliem Commercial Bank, 123 U. S. 727, 35 when it turned them over to parties Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 556; Libby v. for whom it had reason to believe Ingalls, 124 Mass. 503. See also they were ultimately intended, taking North V. Merchants, etc., Transp. Co., an indemnifying check for security, 146 Mass. 315, 32 Am. & Eng. R. which it later surrenderd, when the Cas. 509, note. goods were delivered to one whom the 15 226 THE LAW OF CARRIERS. lading requiring notice to the purchaser from the consignee is liable as carrier until it has placed the car in a proper place for examination by the purchaser.^ § 17. Bill of lading attached to draft. Where the shipper or owner of property consigns the property shipped to the purchaser upon payment of draft attached to the bill of lading for the purchase price of the goods, the title to the property does not pass to the purchaser, and the purchaser, though named as consigTiee, is not entitled to a delivery of the property, until he has accepted and paid the draft accompanying the bill of lading and received the bill of lading; and a delivery to him before the draft is paid and the bill of lading delivered to him, or without requiring the production of the bill of lading properly indorsed, will render the carrier liable to the shipper or owner of the property for the amount of the draft if the purchaser fails to pay for the property.^* Where the consignor of prop- erty, upon its shipment and before delivery, draws a bill of ex- change upon the consignee and procures the same to be discounted at a bank upon the security of a bill of lading which is trans- ferred and delivered with it, the bank acquires title to the prop- erty described in the bill of lading, conditional upon the accept- ance of the draft by th* consignee; upon such acceptance, the title passes to the acceptor; but upon refusal to accept, the title continues unimpaired in the bank, and upon the receipt by the consignee of the property and its conversion, he is liable to the bank for the money advanced upon-it.^^ And upon delivery of bill of lading directed to be notified, v. Western, etc., R. Co., 63 Fed. 391; who had possession of such bill, Wells v. Oregon, etc., R. Co., 32 Fed. which he had purloined from the 51, 12 Sawy. (U. S.) 519, but the bank. Raleigh, etc., R. Co. v. Lowe, carrier cannot deliver the goods to 101 Ga. 320, 28 S. E. 867, 10 Am. & the shipper while in transit; Hous- Eng. R. Cas. N. S. 398. ton, etc., R. Co. v. Adams, 49 Tex. 29. W. B. Johnson & Co. v. Central 748, 30 Am. Rep. 116. Vermont Ry. Co., 84 Vt. 486, 79 Atl. 31. Commercial Bank v. PfeiflFer, 1095. 108 N. Y. 242; Marine Bank v. 30. Commercial Bank v. Chicago, Wright, 48 N. Y. 1; Peters v. Elliott, etc., R. Co., 160 111. 401; Libby v. 78 111. 321; Michigan Cent. Ry. Co. Ingalls, 124 Mass. 503; Finn v. West- v. Phillips, 60 111. 190; Illinois Cent, ern R. Corp., 102 Mass. 283; Walters R. Co. v. Southern Bank, etc., 41 III. TERMINATION OF LIABILITY. 227 the goods to tlie consignee in such a case without requiring him to produce the bill of lading, the carrier is guilty of a conversion, of the goods and liable accordingly.*^ Where a bill of lading is in- dorsed by the consignor and negotiated for value as security for a draft drawn on a third person by the consignor, the carrier cannot deliver the goods to such third person without the production of the bill of lading, or authority from the holder thereof, and if it makes such a delivery it will be liable to the holder of such bill.** But since indorsement of the bill of lading transfers only such title as the consignor had, evidence is admissible to prove ownership in such third person.** § 18. Effect of bill of lading as estoppel. A carrier is liable upon a bill of lading issued in its name by an agent having no authority to issue bills except on receipt of App. 2S7; Chicago Fifth Nat. Bank V. Bayley, 115 Mass. 228; Hathaway V. Havnes, 124 Mass. 311. 32. JeflFersonville, etc., R. Ck). v. Irvin, 46 Ind. 180; McEwen. v. Jef- fersonville, etc., R. Co., 33 Ind. 368 5 Am. Rep. 216, 32 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 508, note; Joslyn v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 51 Vt. 92 ; Alderman v. Eastern R. Co., 115 Mass. 233; Allen V. Williams, 12 Pick. (Mass.) 297. The fact that the delivery of the goods to the party whom the carrier was directed to notify was in accord- ance with the custom and course of business at the station where deliv- ery was made will not relieve the carrier from liability to the holder of the draft with the bill of lading at- tached, unless it was known and as- sented to by the shipper. North Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Commercial Bank,' 123 U. S. 727, 35 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 556. Acceptance of time draft. — A bank to which a bill of lading is forwarded with a time draft attached for col- lection, without special instructions, must surrender the bill of lading to the drawee upon his acceptance of the draft, and is not bound to re- tain it, as the inference is that the transaction is a sale on credit, and that the bill of lading is security for an acceptance, and not for payment of the draft. Commercial Bank v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 160 III. 401, 43 N. E. 756, aflFg. 58 111. App. 438. 33. Newcomb v. Boston, etc., R. Corp., 115 Mass. 230; Alderman v. Eastern R. Co., 115 Mass. 233; The Thames, 14 Wall. (U. S.) 98; Wichita Savings Bank v. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 20 Kan. 519; Boatmen's Savings Bank v. Western, etc., R. Co., 81 Ga. 221; Chester Nat. Bank v. At- lanta, etc.. Air Line R. Co., 25 S. C. 216; Neill v. Rogers Bros. Produce Co., 41 W. Va. 37; Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. V. National Live Stock Bank, 59 111. App. 451; The Argentina. L. R. 1 Adm. Eccl. 370; Tlie Emilinea Marie, 32 L. T. N. S. 435. 34. Empire Transp. Co. v. Steele, 70 Pa. St. 188. 228 THE LAW OF CARRIERS. property for transportation to one who, upon transfer by the i-hippor upon the faith of the bill, has, in good faith discounted a draft drawn upon the consignee, although there was no actual delivery of the property; the carrier is bound by its agent's act3 and is estopped from denying the receipt of the goods. ^^ This rule is maintained in New York and certain other states, and the reasons upon which the rule is based are, substantially, that the question does not depend upon the negotiability of bills of lading but upon the settled doctrine of the law of agency that where a principal has clothed his agent with power to do an act upon the existence of some extrinsic fact, necessarily and peculiarly within the knowledge of the agent, and of the existence of which the act of executing the power is itself a representation, the principal is estopped from denying the existence of the fact, to the prejudice of a third person, who has dealt with the agent or acted on his representation, in good faith, in the ordinary course of business, pursuant to his apparent power. Force is added to this reasoning by the facts that, while bills of lading are not negotiable in the sense applicable to commercial paper, they are commonly trans- ferred as security for loans and discounts, carry with them the ownership, either general or special, of the property which they describe, and are viewed and dealt with by the commercial world as quasi negotiable, and consequently it is desirable that they 35. Bank of Batavia v. New York, Kan. App. 305, 45 Pac. 920; Adams etc., R. Co., 106 N. Y. 195, 60 Am. Express Co. v. Schlessinger, 75 Pa. Rep. 440, 19 Abb. N. C. ( (N. Y.) St. 216; Louisville, etc., Packet C. v. 131; Brooke v. New York, etc., R. Rogers, 20 Ind. App. 594, 49 N. E. Co., 108 Pa. St. 529, 2 East Repr. 970. 125, 56 Am. Rep. 235; Armour v. In an action by parties who had Michigan Cent. R. Co., 65 N. Y. Ill, paid drafts accompanying a bill of 22 Am. Rep. 603; Griswold v. Haven, lading against a carrier for the value 25 N. Y. 595, 601; New York, etc., R. of goods which the carrier never re- Co. V. Schuyler, 34 N. Y. 30; North ceived, based on the proposition that River Bank V. Aymar, 3 Hill (N. Y.), the carrier, having issued a bill of 362; Sioux City, etc., R. Co. v. First lading, was estopped to deny their Nat. Bank of Fremont, 10 Neb. 553; receipt, the plaintiff must prove that St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Larned, 103 the bill of lading was actually issued 111. 293; Wichita Bank v. Atchison, by defendant or by its authority. etc., R, Co., 20 Kan. 519; Smith v. Droste v. Wabash R. Co., 138 N. Y. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 74 Mo. App. 48; Supp. 203, 153 App. Div. 160. St. Louis, etc., R. Co; v. Adams, 4 TERMINATION OF LIABILITY. 229 should be viewed with confidence and not distrust and should pass free from one to another and advances be made upon their faith; and that because of these considerations it is better to cast the risk of the goods not having been shipped upon the carrier, who has placed it in the power of agents of his own choosing to make these representations, rather than upon the innocent consignee or endorsee, who, as a rule, has no means of ascertaining the fact other than the representations of the carrier's own agent.^® On the contrary, it is held by the Federal courts, the courts of many of the states, and the authorities in England that a bill of lading issued by a station or shipping agent of a railroad company or other common carrier, without receiving the goods named in it for transportation, imposes no liability upon the carrier, even to an innocent consignee or indorsee for value, and that the carrier is not estopped by the statements in the bill from showing that no goods were in fact received for transportation, and that the rule is the same whether the act of the agent was fraudulent and collu- sive, or merely the result of a mistake.^^ Of course this is predi- cated upon the assumption that the authority of the agent is limited to issuing bills of lading for freight received before, or concurrent with, the issuing of the bills, which would be the pre- sumption in the absence of evidence to the contrary. A carrier 36. See cases cited under note 35, R. Co. v. Wilkens, 44 Md. 11 ; Fellows supra. V. The R. W. Powell, 16 La. Ann. 37. Friedlander v. Texas, etc., Ry. 316; Hunt v. Mississippi Cent. R. Co., 130 U. S. 416, 28 Cent. L. J. 503, Co., 29 La. Ann. 446; Louisiana Nat note; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Com- Bank v. Laveille, 52 Mo. 380; Wil- mercial U. Ins. Co., 139 U. S. 223, lianls v. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 93 35 L. Ed. 154, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 554; N. C. 42; Dean v. King, 22 Ohio St. Pollard V. Vinton, 105 U. S. 7; Rob- 118; Chandler v. Sprague, 38 Am. inson v. Memphis, THE LAW OF CARRIERS. ing an action against the carrier for a wrongful delivery by the fact that he himself clothed the consignee with apparent authority to receive." § 20. Necessity of indorsement of bill of lading. Under the law merchant bills of lading were transferable by delivery merely.^^ Where a bill of lading directs a delivery to bearer, or to a named consignee or bearer, the delivery of the bill passes the title to the property, and the carrier is entitled to de- liver to any one holding the bill without any indorsement.*® The delivery of a bill of lading, with intent to pass the title, has that eifect, though drawn to order, and not indorsed.''^ But, except where the bill of lading directs a delivery to bearer, the carrier is responsible for delivering to any one but the original holder of the bill of lading, unless it is properly indorsed by him ; a delivery to a third person on an unindorsed bill of lading is always at the risk of the carrier.** Where the goods are consigned to a party named but, by the bill of lading, the consignor retains the right of disposition over the goods, the delivery of the bill of lading for value, without indorsement, transfers tbe title to the property covered by the bill and justifies a delivery by the carrier to the 44. Weyand v. Atchison, etc., R. Irvin, 46 Ind. 180; Becker v. Hall- Co., 75 Iowa, 573, 9 Am. St. Rep. 504. garten, 86 N. Y. 167; Bank of Roch- 45. Scharff v. Meyer, 133 Mo. 428, ester v. Jones, 4 N. Y. 497; 55 Am. 42 Cent. L. J. 367; Crowell v. Van Dec. 390; Richardson v. Nathan, 167 Bibber, IS La. Ann. 637; Par. Mcr. Pa. St. 513; American Zinc, etc., Co. Law, 346; 2 Kent's Com. v. Markle Lead Works, 102 Mo. App. 46. Allen v. Williams, 12 Pick. 158, 76 S. W. 668; The Carlos F. (Mass.) 297; Nathan v. Giles, 5 Roses, 177 U. S. 655, 40 L. Ed. 929. Taunt. 558; Low v. DeWolf, 8 Pick. 48. Capehart v. Granite Mills, 97 (Mass.) 101. Ala. 353, 12 So. 44; Jordan v. Pcnn- 47. City Bank v. Rome, etc., R. sylvania Co., 18 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. Co., 44 N. Y. 136; Merchants' Bank 647, 31 Alb. L. J. 250; Sword v. V. Union R. & Transp. Co., 69 N. Y. Young, 89 Tenn. 126, 45 Am. & Eng. 376; Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Phil- R. Cas. 384; Weyand v. Atchison^ lips, 60 111. 190; Western Ry. Co. v. etc., R. Co., 75 Iowa, 573, 9 Am. St. Wagner, 65 111. 197; Green Bay First Rep. 504, 33 N. W. 133, revg. 30 Am. Nat. Bank v. Dearborn, 115 Mass. & Eng. R. Cas. 102; Cavallaro v» 219; Jeffersonville, etc., R. Co. v, Texas, etc., R. Co., 110 Cal. 348. TERMINATION OF LIABILITY. 23S holder of the bill."* The rule is the same, in the case of a sale of the goods, if the right to dispose of the property is, by the bill of lading, retained by the consignor.^" Proof of a custom to deliver without indorsement, unless it be shown that the party injured thereby knew and acted with knowledge of the custom, will not excuse a delivery by the carrier upon the presentation of an unin- dorsed bill of lading.^^ Where an invoice of goods shows that the delivery is to be made only to the party producing the bill of lading, delivery to the holder of the invoice without requiring pro- duction of the bill of lading will render the carrier liable.^^ § 21. Carrier's liability for misdelivery. Common carriers deliver property at their peril and must take care that it is' delivered to the right party. The obligation to de- liver to the proper person is absolute and is rigorously enforced by the courts, and the law allows no excuse for a wrong delivery, except the fault of the shipper himself. When there is any doubt as to who is the proper person to make delivery to and it can be determined by the bill of lading or other documentary evidence, its production should be required by the carrier, and the property detained until demanded by one claiming under such a title.^^ If 49. Marine Bank v. Wright, 48 N. 53. A^ Y. — Security Trust Co. v. Y. 1; Bank of Rochester v. Jones, 4 Wells Fargo Express, 178 N. Y. 620, N. Y. 497, 55 Am. Dec. 290; Holmes 70 N. E. 1109, affg. 81 App. Div. (N. V. German Security Bank, 87 Pa. St. Y.) 426, 80 N. Y. Supp. 830; Fur- 525; Phelps v. Bank, 2 McGloin man v. Union Pac. R. Co., 106 N. Y. (La.), 19; Green Bay First Nat. 579, 32 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 500; Mc- Bank v. Dearborn, 115 Mass. 219; Entee v. New Jersey Steamboat Co., Cairo First Nat. Bank v. Crocker, 11 45 N. Y. 34, 6 Am. Rep. 28; City Mass. 163; Davenport Nat. Bank v. Bank v. Rome, etc., R. Co., 44 N. Y. Homeyer, 45 Mo. 145, 100 Am. Dec. 136; Scheu v. Erie R. Co., 10 Hun 363; Valle v. Cerre, 36 Mo. 576, 88 (N. Y.), 498; Oswego Bank v. Doyle, Am. Dec. 161. 91 N. Y. 32, 43 Am. Rep. 634; Pack- 50. Weyand v, Atchison, etc., R. ard v. Getman, 4 Wend. (N. Y.) 613, Co., 75 Iowa, 573, 9 Am. St. Rep. 504. 21 Am. Dec. 166; Sonn v. Smith, 57 51. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Bark- App. Div. (N. Y.) 372, 68 N. Y. house, 100 Ala. 543; Weyand v. At- Supp. 217. chison, etc., R. Co., supra. Ark. — Little Rock, etc., R. Co. v. 52. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Stern, Glidewell, 39 Ark. 487, 18 Am. & 119 Pa. St. 24, 4 Am. St. Rep. 626; Eng. R. Cas. 539. North Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Com- Dak. — Waldron v. Chicago, etc., R. mercial Bank, 123 U. S. 727. Co., 1 Dak. 336. 234 THE LAW OF CARRIERS. delivery be made to the wrong person, either by an innocent mis- take, or through the fraud, imposition, or deceit of a third person, as upon a forged order, the carrier will be responsible, and the wrongful delivery will be treated as a conversion.^^ That the III — St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Rose, 20 111. App. 670; Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. V. Vanduzen, 81 111. 143; American Express Co. v. Baldwin, 26 111. 504, 79 Am. Dec. 101. Mass. — Forbes v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 133 Mass. 154; Mahon v. Blake, 125 Mass. 477; Hall v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 14 Allen (Mass.), 439, 92 Am. Dec. 783; Claflin v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 7 Allen (Mass.), 341. Mich. — Gibbons v. Farwell, 63 Mich. 344, 6 Am. St. Rep. 301, 29 N. W. 855. Minn.— Jellett v. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., 30 Minn. 265, 15 N. W. 237. Mo. — Cole V. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 31 Mo. App. 443; Erskine v. Steam- boat Thames, 6 Mo. 371. N. E. — Smith v, Nashua, etc., R. Co., 27 N. H. 86, 59 Am. Dec. 354. Pa. — Wernwag v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 117 Pa. St. 46, 20 W. N. C. (Pa.) 150, 32 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 515; Graff v. Bloomer, 9 Pa. St. 114. Tenn. — Sword v. Young, 89 Tenn. 126; Bloomingdale v. Memphis, etc., R. Co., 6 Lea (Tenn.), 618, 6 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 371; Erie Despatch v. Johnson, 87 Tenn. 490, 11 S. W. 441. Tex. — Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Ad- ams, 49 Tex. 748, 30 Am. Rep. 116; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Seley, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 158, 72 S. W. 89. yt. — Winslow V. Vermont, etc., R. Co., 42 Vt. 700, 1 Am. Rep. 365. Eng. — Fowles v. Great Western R. Co., 7 Exch. 699, 22 L. J. Exch. 76; Richards v. London, etc., R. Co., 7 C. B. 839, 62 E. C. L. 839; Moffatt v. Great Western R. Co., 15 L. T. N. S. 630; Hoare v. Great Western R. Co., 25 W. R. 63; Youl v. Harbottle, Peake N. P. 49. Delivery to one who had been con- signor's agent. — In an action against a carrier for the conversion of goods by delivering them to the person to wliom they were consigned and who had been plaintiff's agent, after ter- mination of the agency and notice by plaintiff not to do so, it is no de- fense that such person had a lien on the goods for freight paid, where it appears that he at the time owed plaintiff a larger sum. Lester v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 92 Hun (N. Y.), 342, 36 N. Y. Supp. 907. 54. McEntee v. New Jersey Steam- boat Co., 45 N. Y. 34, 6 Am. Rep. 28 ; Guillame v. Hamburgh & Am. Packet Co., 42 N. Y. 212; Powell v. Myers, 26 Wend. (N. Y.) 590; Hawkins v. Hoffman, 6 Hill (N. Y.), 586 Shenk V. Philadelphia Steam Propeller Co., 60 Pa. St. 109, 100 Am. Dec. 541. Misdelivery through mistake. — Cliicago, etc., R. Co. v. Ames, 40 111. 249, mistake in marking the number of a car; Wilson v. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 23 Mo. App. 50, mistake in mak* ing out shipping bills; Arlington v. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 6 Jones L. (N. C.) 68, 72 Am. Dec. 559, mistake in the waybill of the carrier; Clement V. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 9 N. Y. Supp. 601, goods delivered to third party by mistake. Fraud and misrepresentation.— Viner v. New York, etc.. Steamship TERMINATION OF LIABILITY. 235 delivery was made in accordance with the usual course of business and the carrier's usual custom at the destination of the goods, will not relieve the carrier from liability for misdelivery, except under special circumstances where it clearly appears that the party in- jured was aware of the custom and acted with knowledge of it.^* No amount of care or caution will relieve the carrier, since it is not a question of want of care or negligence ; the carrier's under- taking as an insurer is to deliver safely as well as to carry safely ; its liability as an insurer extends to a delivery to the proper party, and its warranty as an insurer is broken by a misdelivery.^® It is the duty of the carrier in all cases to be diligent in its efforts to secure a delivery of the property to the person entitled, and where delivery is to be made to the consignee or any other particularly specified person, the carrier is bound to require evidence of iden- tity of the party claiming delivery as the real party entitled, and it cannot properly, or without incurring liability to the true owner, deliver goods to any person who calls for them other than the rightful owner, and cannot plead imposition practiced by others as a defense to an action for misdelivery." A carrier wil] Co., 50 N. Y. 23 ; Wilson Sewing Ma- 56. Forbes v. Boston, etc., R. Co., chine Co. v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 133 Mass. 154, 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 71 Mo. 203; Houston, etc., R. Co, v. 76; Hall v. Boston, etc., R. Corp., 14 Adams, 49 Tex. 748, 30 Am. Rep. 116; Allen (Mass.), 439, 92 Am. Dec. 783; Winslow V. Vermont, etc., R. Co., 42 South, etc., Alabama R. Co. v. Wood, Vt. 700, 1 Am. Rep. 365; South, etc., 66 Ala. 107, 41 Am. Rep. 749, 9 Am Alabama R. Co. V. Wood, 66 Ala. 167, & Eng. R. Cas. 419; Bodenham v. 41 Am. Rep. 749, 9 Am. & Eng. R. Bennett, 4 Price 31; Richards v. Lon- Cas. 419; American Sugar Refining don, etc., R. Co., 7 C. B. 839, 62 E, Co. V. McGhee, 96 Ga. 27; Price v. C. L. 839, 18 L. J. C. P. 25L Oswego, etc., R. Co., 50 N. Y. 213, 10 57. Price v. Oswego, etc., R, Co., Am. Rep. 475. Compare Dunbar v. 50 N. Y. 213, 10 Am. Rep. 475, 3 Am. Boston, etc., R. Corp., 110 Mass. 26, Ry. Rep. 325, revg. 58 Barb. (N. Y.) 14 Am. Rep. 576. 599; McEntee v. New Jersey Steam- 55. Sinsheimer v. New York, etc., boat Co., 45 N. Y. 34, 6 Am. Rep. 28; R. Co., 21 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 45, 46 Powell v. Myers, 26 Wend. (N. Y.) N, Y. Supp. 887 ; Hall v. Boston, etc., 591 ; Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Pumph- R. Corp., 14 Allen (Mass.), 439, 92 rey, 59 Md. 390, 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. Am. Dec. 783; Winslow v. Vermont, 331; Pacific Express Co. v. Shearer, etc., R. Co., 42 Vt. 700, 1 Am. Rep. 160 111. 215; Ten Eyck v. Harris, 47 365. Compare Bush v. St. Louis, 111. 268; Sword v. Young, 89 Tenn, etc., R, Co., 3 Mo. App. 62. See also, 126, 129, 14 S. W. 481, 604. See also, S 20, note 30. § 6, Delivery to fraudulent purchaser. 236 THE LAW OF CAKRIERS. be protected in refusing delivery until reasonable evidence is fur- nished it that the party claiming is the party entitled, so long as it acts in good faith and with a sole view to a proper delivery,^* and it may refuse to deliver to a consignee who is not identified, although he may offer security, and an action cannot be main- tained by such person against the carrier based upon such re- fusal.''^ Where, however, the relation of the parties is not that of carrier and owner or consignee, or where the responsibility of the carrier has terminated and that of a warehouseman has com- menced or exists, the strict rule of responsibility as insurer does not prevail, and the carrier is responsible for proper diligence and care only in the preservation of the property and its delivery to the true owner, and liable only for losses resulting from its own reg- ligence.^'' The delivery of goods by a carrier at destination, with- out requiring the surrender of a bill of lading, as required by a stipulation therein, does not involve any breach of duty to the consignor, if the delivery is made to the consignee, or upon his order, or by his authority." § 22. Delivery to one of two persons of the same name. A shipper may recover for goods delivered to the wrong con- signee, through the carrier's failure to exercise ordinary and 58. McEntee v. New Jersey Steam- Savannah, etc., R. Co., 103 Ga. 140, boat Co., 45 N. Y. 34, 6 Am. Rep. 28. 29 S. E. 698, 40 L. R. A. 367, 10 Am. 59. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Adams, & Eng. R. Cas. N. S. 391. 49 Tex. 761, 30 Am. Rep. 116; Gulf, A consignor waives his right of ao- etc, R. Co. V. Freeman, 4 Tex. App. tion for conversion against the car- Civ. Cas. 245. Compare Thomas v. rier for the delivery of the goods to Pacific Express Co., 30 Mo. App. 86, the consignee without the production wherein it is held that a consignor of the bill of lading, as required by of o-oods sent by express, which are the terms thereof, by taking the con- not delivered at their destination but signee's acceptance of a draft drawn brought back to the place of ship- against the shipment, after he knew ment, cannot be refused the return of that the goods had been delivered the goods to him because of a rule of without a production of the bill of the express company requiring identi- lading, and that his intention to pre- fication of consignees. vent a delivery of the goods until 60. Burnell v. New York Cent. R. payment of the purchase price had Co. 45 N. Y. 184, 6 Am. Rep. 61; been thereby defeated. Southern R. Carroll v. Southern ExpresB Co., 37 Co. v. Kinchen, 103 Ga. 186, 29 S. E, B. C. 452. 816. 61. Chicago Packing & P. Co. v. TERMINATION OF LIABILITY. 23T proper care, as where the carrier delivers goods to an imposter or swindler who ordered them in the name of a responsible person; and the right to recover is not dependent upon the shipper's dis- covering the fraud and stopping the goods in transitu.^' But the carrier is not liable for a misdelivery, where there are two persons of the same name in the same place, in delivering goods to one of the two when the other was intended as the consignee, where there is nothing in the marking on the shipment or in the bill of lading to indicate which of the two is intended as consignee, and delivery is made to the person who produces the bill of lading and demands the goods. The loss must be borne by the consignor because of his negligence in not marking the shipment more specifically.^^ A carrier is not liable for misdelivery in delivering to that one of two men of the same name in the same towoi who orders the goods shipped, although the shipper believed the order was from and intended the goods to go to the other, notwithstanding the purchaser fraudulently assumed such name in buying, provided he was known by it at the place of destination.^^ But a mere similarity of names is no defense to an action for misdelivery in delivering goods to the wrong party.®^ Delivery by an express company of goods received by it under a contract for their deliv- ery to a specified consignee at a point beyond its terminal office, to an agent of such consignee duly authorized to receive them, completes the contract of carriage, although the goods were not 62. Wilson v. Adams Express Co., men, were liable for due diligence 43 Mo. App. 659, 27 Mo. App. 360; only; that they were not chargeable, Pacific Express Co. v. Critzer (Tex. under the circumstances, with negli- Civ. App.), 42 S. W. 1017. See also, gence; and there had not been a mis- § 6, ante. delivery. 62a. Bush v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., The rule that the owner must bear 3 Mo. App. 62. In the case cited the the loss in case of a misdeliverj' aris- carrier had tendered the goods to the ing from his improperly marking the consignee intended, who said he had package — applied where the package not ordered them and refused them, was carried to the wrong place, and and the company then stored them as there destroyed by fire, without fault warehousemen and subsequently de- of the carrier. Southern Express Co. livered them on demand and produc- v, T'.,„fmnn, 12 Hcisk. (Tenn.) 161. tion of the bill of lading to the other 63. Southern Express Co. v. Os- person of the same name. It was kanip, 14 Ohio C. C. 176, 7 OJiio Dec, held that the company, as warehouse- 417. 238 THE LAW OF CARRIERS. ordered by the consignee to whom the shipper really intended to send them, but by another person bearing, or pretending to bear, the same name, to whom the goods were finally delivered after passing through the hands of the real consignee's agent.^^ § 23. Place of delivery. In the absence of special contract or a statute fixing the place of delivery, a carrier's contract of carriage is not completed, but its obligation continues, until delivery at its depot or warehouse where goods are customarily unloaded and delivered at the place of destination of the goods ; and an offer by the carrier to deliver at such place, except where personal delivery is requisite, is suffi- cient, without regard to where the consignee may actually be.^^ A consignee of goods is entitled to receive them at the place where the carrier undertook to deliver them, and is under no obligation to receive them elsewhere.*"^ An attempt by the carrier to deliver at a new and unusual place will render it liable for all losses or injuries which might have been avoided by delivery at the proper place ;®^ and a refusal to deliver at the place agreed upon and subsequent delivery elsewhere will render the carrier liable for actual damages sustained, as well as punitive damages for a wilful failure to deliver.^^ On a consignment of goods to a place where 64. Wernwag v. Philadelphia, etc., tain place cannot be made to bind R. Co., 117 Pa. St. 46, 32 Am. & Eng. the carrier to deliver them at another R. Cas. 515; Houston, etc., R. Co. v. station, either for the reason that the Adams, 49 Tex. 748, 30 Am. Rep. 116, goods were addressed to the consignee 32 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 508. at snch other station or because the 65. Southern Express Co. v. Wil- consignee was described as being at Jiams, 99 Ga. 482, 27 S. E. 743. such other station. Wheeler v. St. 66. D. Klass Commission Co. v. Louis, etc., R. Co., 3 Mo. App. 358, Wabash R. Co., 80 Mo. App. 164, 2 nor is such a contract complied with Mo. App. Repr. 545; Loeb. v. Wabash by delivering the freight at a point -^ Qo_^ — Mo. App. — , 85 S- W. short of such destination. Loomis 118, and delivery is not completed v. Wabash R. Co., 17 Mo. App. 340. by the carrier sidetracking cars at 67. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Clark, 3 its yards; see 209, 254; Cox v. Peter- Willson, Civ. Cas. Ct. App. (Tex.) son, 30 Ala. 608, 68 Am. Dec. 145, and 513. the acceptance of a part of such goods 68. Benbow v. North Carolina R. will not bar a suit for non-delivery Co., 61 N. C. (Phil. L.) 421, 98 Am. o-f the remainder; 194, 367. Dec. 76. A contract to carry goods to a cer- As to special damage not proxi- TERMINATION OF LIABILITY. 239 there is no depot, warehouse, agent, or even side track, it is the duty of the carrier, in case the consignee is not present to receive the goods, to unload them and leave them there on the ground, if not goods susceptible to injury; and the carrier has no right be- cause the consignee is not present, to carry them on to the next station and leave them on a side track, and is liable for the value of the goods if it does so.^" But where there are two stations in a town for the reception and delivery of freight by a railroad com- pany, the usage of the place may be shown to aid the jury in de- termining at which one freight addressed to the town generally ought to have been delivered. ^^ In the absence of a custom author- mate result. — Where, in an action against a carrier for failure to de- liver cotton at the destination named in the bill of lading, the consignor claimed damages suffered by reason of the consignee's refusal to accept after having procured samples, which he would not have done if the cotton had been delivered at the proper place, plaintiff could not re- cover, in the absence of proof that the carrier was instrumental in per- miitting the consignee to procure the samples, or that it had any knowledge of the contract between plaintiff and the consignee, since such damages were special, and not the proximate result of the carrier's breach of con- tract. Gulf, etc., Ry. Co. v. Pickens (Tex. Civ. App.), 58 S. W. 156. 69. Strieker v. Leathers, 68 Miss. 803, 9 So. 821, 13 L. R. A. 600. 70. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Gil- mer, 89 Ala. 534, 42 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 450, 7 So. 654. See also, South, etc., Alabama R. Co. v. Wood, 72 Ala. 451, 18 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 634. As to goods susceptible to injury a consignee has been held not to be entitled to have them delivered at a certain station where the accommo- dations were insufRcient to receive all classes of goods, and the carrier was accustomed to deliver minerals there, but other goods at its general goods station, some distance away. Thomas V. North Staffordshire R. Co., 3 Ry. & C. T. Cas. 1. Freight destined to switches or side tracks. — Defendant, as a connect- ing carrier, received a car load of freight, consigned to H., for trans- portation to a point on its road where it had neither freight agent nor depot building. The bill of lading issued by the initial carrier showed that the freight charges were paid, and pro- vided that delivery of freight destined to switches or side tracks having no agent should be complete upon switch- ing the car at such side track. De- fendant carried the car to the point indicated, and side-tracked it on a switch in front of the office of a lum- ber company, for whom the freight was really intended, though con- signed to H. The manager of the lumber company, without consent of either defendant or the consignors, broke open the car, which was sealed and locked, unloaded its contents, and carried the same away, and failed to pay a draft made upon him for its value. In an action it was held that 240 THE LAW OF CARRIERS. i'/Ang tlio agont of a carrier, at tlio request of the consignee, after the car has reached its destination, to undertake to deliver it to another phice, or to another person than the consignee, such an undertaking- is nothing more than a personal accommodation on the part of the agent, and cannot render his principal liableJ^ jSTone of the carriers in transit has a right to require the owner to receive goods elsewhere than at the destination named in the contract of shipment. He is not obliged to receive them at a trans- shipping point, where a connecting carrier refused to receive them because they w^ere damaged.^* The duty of a carrier, in the ab- sence of orders from the shipper, to exercise reasonable care to protect his interest in a sudden emergency like a strike preventing the forwarding of perishable goods to their destination, is violated by shipping the goods over another line of its system to another place and selling them there at a less price than could have been obtained at the place of destination, to which the goods might have been forwarded by another available route.^* So, the carrier is liable for loss resulting from deviation from the selected route, when the freight was not of such perishable nature as to necessi- tate its immediate transshipment, without notice to the shipper.'^*'^ Delivery must be made by the carrier at a reasonabl^^ safe and convenient place for the consignee to receive the goods, and if the delivery was complete, and that receive cotton from Texas for trans- defendant was not liable to the con- portation to European ports. Reiss signer for the loss of the contents of v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 98 Fed. 533, 39 the car. Hill v. St. Louis, etc., Ry. C. C. A. 149; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Co., 67 Ark. 402, 55 S. W. 216. Reiss, 99 Fed. 1006, 39 C. C. A. 6S0, 71. Homesly v. Elias, 66 N. C. 330. affd. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Reiss, 183 The delivery of cotton by defendant U. S. 621, 22 Sup. Ct. 253, 46 L. Ed. at its wharf at West Wego, which is 358; Marande v. Texas, etc., R. Co., on the opposite side of the river from 102 Fed. 246. 42 C. C. A. 317. New Orleans, was a compliance with 72. Melbourne v. Louisville, etc., the bill of lading requiring its de- R. Co., 88 Ala. 443, 6 So. 762. livery at the port of New Orleans, al- 73. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. A. B. Frank though West Wego was not at that Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 48 S. W. 210. time within the boundaries of the 74. Alabama & V. R. Co. v. Bri- port of New Orleans, as defined in the chetti, 72 Miss. 891, 18 So. 421, 530. statute, it being, in a well under- 74a. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Odil, stood commercial and business sen^e, 96 Tenn. (12 Pickle) 61, 33 S. W. the part of that port where steam- 611. See also. Liability for delay, ship companies rightfully expected to chap. 8. TERAii:;ATION OF LIABILITY. 241 made at an unusual and unfit place the carrier will be liable.^^ If the consignee accepts a delivery of the goods at a place or in a manner different from what a common carrier is liable by law to deliver them, the business of removing them becomes from that time his business, and the carrier cannot be held liable for the acts or omissions of those employed to do the work.''^ But a shipper of goods billed for a designated place does not relieve the initial carrier from liability as an insurer of their safe delivery at various intermediate points according to an agreement between him and the carrier to whom he directed them to be delivered, incurred by such initial carrier's wrongful delivery of them to another carrier, by paying the latter the freight for the entire route to induce it to deliver goods at one of the intermediate points, and an agreement by it to carry the remaining portion to their destina- tion at its own cost." An option given a carrier by contract as to the place of delivery to the owner is waived by its refusal to de- liver at all.^^ A carrier, by placing a car of goods on a side track at a point designated as most convenient for unloading by the person to whom the consignee has sold the goods and directed the carrier to deliver them without presentation of bill of lading, and by notifying such person thereof, makes a sufficient delivery to him of the goods as against one to whom the consignee thereafter transfers the bill of lading.''^ A deposit of goods with notice, express or implied, by an initial carrier, at any place where the second carrier has control of them, conformably with usage created by the course of business between the two carriers, is a sufficient delivery to discharge the initial carrier.*'^ Where a railroad places 75. Benbow v. North Carolina R. 15 Ohio Civ. Ct. R. 637, 8 0. C. D. 727. Co., 61 N. C. (PhiL L.) 421, 98 Am. .y. Anchor Mill Co. v. Burlington, Dec. 76. Delivery must be made at etc., R. Co., 102 Iowa, 262, 71 N. W. the place of business of the consignee 255. and not at that of another party. 80. Texas, etc., R. Co. v, Clayton, Mahon v. Blake, 125 Mass. 477. 51 U. S. App. 676, 84 Fed. 305, 9 Am. 76. Jewell v. Grand Trunk R. Co., & Eng. R. Cas. N. S. 821, 28 C. C. A. 55 N. H. 84, 11 Am. Ry. Rep. 596. 142; Aetna Ins. Co. v. Wheeler, 5 77. Brown & Haywood Co. v. Lans. (N. Y.) 480, affd. 49 N. Y. Pennsylvania Co., 63 Minn. 546, 65 616; Mills v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., N. W. D61. 2 Am. Sc Eng. R. Cas. N. 45 N. Y. 622, 6 Am. Rep. 152; Van S. 640. Pee also. Waiver, § 36, post. Santvoord v. St. John, 6 Hill (N. Y.), 78. Buckeye Pipe Line Co. v. Fee, 157; Converse v. Norwich Transp. 10 242 THE LAW OF CARRIERS. bulky freight to be unloaded by the consignee at the point desig- nated by him, and possession is turned over to him, its liability as a carrier terminates, and it is liable for subsequent danuiges only ■when they result from its negligence.*^ Under a statute, requiring a common carrier to deliver property to the consignee at the place to which it is addressed in the manner usual at that place, a rail- road company is liable for freight, as an insurer, until delivery to the consignee as provided/^ The extraordinary liability of a carrier as insurer of the goods continues until the proper delivery at the destination.*^ When goods are received by a carrier for shipment, the common-law liability of the carrier as an insurer attaches, until the goods reach the point of destination and the consignee has been notified.''* § 24. Right of owner or consignee to change place of delivery. The instructions of the owner or freighter, as to the delivery of goods, must be obeyed, and he may change their destination while in transitu and direct delivery at an intermediate point without changing the contract with the carrier. No responsibility for loss is incurred by the carrier where it obeys such instructions, but it is liable if the directions given are not obeyed.*^ Where delivery Co., 33 Conn. 166; Hewitt v. Chicago, pleted the carriage by the actual de- etc. R. Co., 63 Iowa, 611, 19 N. W. livery of the goods to the consignees 790; Truax v. Philadelphia, etc., R. at their place of business. Id. Co., 3 Houst. (Del.) 233; Pratt v. 84. R. W. Williamson & Co. v. Grand Trunl-: R. Co., 95 U. S. 43, 24 Texas & P. Ry. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), L. Ed. 336; Palmer v. Chicago, etc., 138 S. W. 807. R. Co., 56 Cflnn. 137, 13 Atl. 818; 85. Michigan Southern, etc., R. Co. Kentucky, etc., Ins. Co. v. Western v. Day, 20 111. (10 Peck) 275, 71 Am. & A. R. Co., 67 Tenn. (8 Baxt.) 268. Dec. 278; Strahorn v. Union Stock 81. Chicao-o, etc., Ry. Co. v. Kelm, Yards, etc., Co., 43 111. 424, 92 Am. 121 Minn. 343. 141 N. W. 295. Dec. 142; Hartmann v. Louisville, 82. Jolly V. Atchison & S. F. Ry. etc., R. Co., 39 Mo. App. 88; Scot- Qfy Cal. App. — , 131 Pac. 1057. horn v. South Staffordshire R. Co., 8 83. Arkadelphia Milling Co. v. Exch. 341; London, etc., R. Co. v. Smoker Merchandise Co., 100 Ark. Bartlett. 7 H. & N. 400, 8 Jur. N. S. 37, 139 S. W. 680. 58, 10 W. R. 109: Cork Distilleries The liability of a drayage company Co. v. Great Southern, etc., R. Co., L. as a common carrier of goods, receiv- R. 7 H. L. C^as. 269, 8 Ir. R. C. L. inocls upon tlie wharf or pi(^r; and if the consignee "wa'? present, it was his duty at once to take charge of the goods. If he was not present, it was the duty of the carrier to give him notice of the arrival of the goods. If he was absent, dead, or could not be found, the carrier discharged his duty by depositing the goods in a warehouse, subject to the order of the consignee."" The com- mon law rule as to carriers by land was maintained in the early days of transportation by rail and applied to railroads.^^ But it was soon perceived that substantially the same rules, and for the same reasons, should be applied to railroad carriers as were ap- plied to carriers by water. The railroad carrier is obliged to stop at the depot, as the water carrier is at the wharf, and unless the consignee is present on the arrival of the goods to take them from the cars, it must, as is the well-knowm and uniform custom, place them in its freight house. Universal custom, therefore, soon re- lieved carriers by rail from the duty of personal delivery to the consignee, and carriers by railways, as well as carriers by vessels and boats, were exempted from the duty of personal delivery, as maintained in respect to other carriers by land.^^ But this ex- emption does not extend to express companies, although availing themselves of carriage by rail. Such companies were established for the purpose of extending to the public the advantages of per- sonal delivery enjoyed in all cases of land carriage prior to the introduction of transportation by rail.^^ According to the com- mon law, it is the intendment of the general undertaking of an express company that it will make personal delivery of the goods consigned, as distinguished from a warehouse delivery.^* The 20. Fenner v. Buffalo, etc., R. Co., R. Oo. v. Wood, 66 Ala. 167, 41 Am. 44 N. Y. 505, 4 Am. Rep. 709. See Rep. 749. See § 29, infra. § 29, infra. 23. Witbeck v. Holland, 45 N. Y. 21. Schroeder v. Hudson River R. 13, 6 Am. Rep. 23; Baum v. Long Co., 12 N. Y. Super. Ct. (5 Duer) 55; Island R. Co., 58 Misc. (N. Y.) 34, Eagle V. White, 6 Whart. (Pa.) 505, 108 N. Y. Supp. 1113, until personal 37 Am. Dec. 434; Graff v. Bloomer, delivery is made they are liable as 9 Pa. St. (9 Barr) 114. carriers, imless a reasonable excuse 22. Witbeck v. Holland, 45 N. Y. for non-delivery exists. 13, 6 Am. Rep. 23; Thomas v. Boston 24. State v. Adams Express Co., & P. R. Co., 10 Mete. (Mass.) 472, 43 171 Ind. 138, 85 N. E. 337, 966, 19 Am. Dec. 444; South, etc., Alabama L. R. A. (N. S.) 93. TERMINATION OF LIABILITY. 253 ordinary undertaking of an express company is to transport the goods to the place of destination, and there deliver them to the consignee at his residence or place of business, if he can be found by reasonable diligence, at the place where they are addressed, or to some person authorized to receive them, and it is liable as a common carrier and insurer thereof until it has carried out this undertaking.^^ Its duty is not performed, nor is its liability changed from that of carrier to warehouseman, by giving notice to the consignee that a package addressed to him has arrived and awaits his order. In this respect the obligation of an express company differs from that of a railroad company or steamboat owner; these being allowed to deposit the parcel in their ware- house, and notify the consignee to call for it. A consignee of a package sent by express is not bound to call for it, but the express agent must make reasonable inquiry to find him, and must deliver the package to him."^ Where an express company, after diligent inquiry, cannot find the place of residence of the consignee, its liability as a carrier is then at an end.^^ It is the duty of an 25. III. — American Merchants' Union Exp. Co. v. Wolf, 79 111. 430; American Exp. Co. v. Haggard, 37 111. 465, 87 Am. Dec. 257; American Exp. Co. V. Baldwin, 26 111. (16 Peck) 504, 79 Am. Dec. 389; Baldwin V. American Exp. Co., 23 111. (13 Peck) 197, 74 Am. Dec. 190. 2^, Y. — Witbeck v. Holland, 55 Barb. (N. Y.) 443, 38 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 273; affd. 45 N. Y. 13, 6 Am. Rep. 23. It seems that a delivery by an express company, at its office, to the authorized agent of the consignee is sufficient. Sweet v. Barney, 33 N. Y. 335, affg. 24 Barb. (N. Y.) 533. Pa. — American Union Exp. Co. v. Robinson, 72 Pa. St. (22 P. F. Smith) 274. W. Va. — ^Hutchinson v. United States Exp. Co., 63 W. Va. 128, 59 fi. E. 944, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 393. Time of delivery. — It is the duty of an express company, as a common car- rier, to deliver goods or packages as soon as practicable after arrival at the place of consignment, within the usual hours of transacting general business in such place. Marshall v. American Exp. Co., 7 Wis. 1, 73 Am. Dec. 381. Upper floor delivery. — Where the consignee's place of business is on the upper floor of a building, delivery cannot properly be made to him by the carrier by leaving the goods on the ground floor and notifying the of- fice boy of the consignee, who was not authorized to receive packages, of the fact. Haslam v. Adams Express Co., 19 N. Y. Super Ct. (5 Bosw.) 235. 26. Witbeck v. Holland, supra. 27. American Exp. Co. v. Hockett, 30 Ind. 250, 95 Am. Dec. 691. 254 THE LAW OF CAERIERS. express company to make personal delivery of packages, except where the place is so small as not to justify the employment of messengers, or the consignee does not reside within a reasonable distance of the office, and then prompt notice must be sent.^^ While courts have treated carriers by express as analogous to carriers by wagon, and held that, except at small stations, it is the implica- tion of their undertaking that they will make personal delivery, express companies have the common law right to fix their tolls with reasonable reference to the service rendered, and may fix reasonable delivery limits in towns and cities.^' The rule as to place and mode of delivery of express packages may be modified by special agreement or usage under which delivery may be made at the express office or in the offices of other business places, and the duty of the carrier is then measured by the usage or the terms of the special agreement.^** An express carrier's duty to deliver to the consignee in person, and the consignee's duty to receive are reciprocal. The consignee cannot, by design, or to promote his convenience, deprive the carrier of the right to terminate by de- livery the liability as insurer within a reasonable time. Where the consignee has notice of the arrival, and the carrier is ready to deliver, but is prevented by the consignee's absence, the liability as carrier ends, and thenceforward the liability is for reasonable care.^^ An express company's liability as a carrier continues until delivery of the shipment to the consignee, personally or at his 28. American Standard Jewelry Co. van v. Thompson, 99 Mass. 259; V. Witherington, 81 Ark. 134, 98 S. Southern Exp. Co. v. Holland, 109 W. 695. Ala. 362, 19 So. 66. 29. State v. Adams Express Co., Depositing goods on the platform 171 Ind. 138, 85 N. E. 337, 966, 19 L. of the railroad depot at the place of E,. A. (N. S.) 93; Bullard v. Ameri- destination, without delivering them can Exp. Co., 107 Mich. 695, 65 N. W. to the consignee, or placing them in 551, 61 Am. St. Rep. 358, 33 L. R. A. the custody of any person, is not a 66, and they are not liable for refus- "^sufficient delivery, although the ex- ing to call for or deliver packages press company had no agent at the outside of such established limits to place of destination. Southern Exp, persons knowing of such limits. Co. v. Armstead, 50 Ala. 350. 30. — ^Hutchinson v. United States 31. Adams Exp. Co. v. Darnell, 31 Express Co., 63 W. Va. 128, 59 S. E. Ind. 20, 99 Am. Dec. 582. 949, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 393; SuUi- TERMINATION OF LIABILITY. 255 residence or place of business.^^ Liability as a carrier for a pack- age carried to a point at which the established practice is to make delivery at the express office on application for the goods pursuant to notice by mail does not terminate until a reasonable time al- lowed for removal after notice has elapsed.^ § 29. Same subject. — Carriers by rail. The common law rule that in the absence of a special contract or usage to the contrary, common carriers by land are bound to deliver or tender goods to the consignee at his residence or place of business, has been applied only in exceptional cases to railroads, which are, as general rule, exempt from the duty of personal de- livery, and are bound only to carry the goods to the depot or station to which they are destined, and there hold or place them in a warehouse ready for delivery on demand of the consignee or owner whenever called for, after notifying him of their readiness to deliver.^* If a railway company, receiving goods for trans- portation over its road, exacts the payment of cartage in advance 32. State v. Parshley, 108 Me. 410, 81 Atl. 484. 33. Hutchinson v. United States Express Co., 63 W. Va. 128, 59 S. E. 949. Leaving an express package in the freight room of a railway station at which the express office is maintained instead of in the room in which such packages are usually placed, neither continues "the liability of the express company as carrier nor amounts to negligence as warehouseman. Id. 34. Ala. — South, etc., Alabama R. Co. V. Wood, 66 Ala. 167, 41 Am. Rep. 749, 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 419. III. — Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Friend, 64 in. 303. Ind. — Bansemer, Toledo, etc., R. Co., 25 Ind. 434, 87 Am. Dec. 367. Iowa. — Francis v. Dubuque, etc., R. Co., 25 Iowa 60, 95 Am. Dec. 769. Mich. — Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Ward, 2 Mich. 538. Miss. — New Orleans, etc., R. Co. v. Tyson, 46 Miss. 729, 1 Am. Ry. Rep. 474. Mo. — Buddy v. Wabash, etc., R. Co.., 20 Mo. App. 206. Neb. — State v. Republican Valley R. Co., 17 Neb. 647, 52 Am. Rep. 424, 22 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 500. N. r.— Witbeck v. Holland, 45 N. Y. 13, 6 Am. Rep. 23 ; Fenner v. Buf- falo, etc., R. Co., 44 N. Y. 505, 4 Am. Rep. 709; Baum v. Long Island R. Co., 58 Misc. (N. Y.) 34, 108 N. Y. Supp. 1113. N. C— Chalk v. Charlotte, etc., R. Co., 85 N. C. 423, 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 108. U. 8. — Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. In- terstate Commerce Commission, 18S Fed. 229. Eng. — Evershed v. London, etc., R. Co., 2 Q. B. Div. 254, 26 W. R. 102, 46 L. J. Q. B. Div. 289. Where a part of goods shipped were 256 THE LAW OF CARRIERS, of shipping, from its freight house to the consignee's place of business, in addition to the usual freight for transportation, this will constitute an express contract to deliver at the consignee's place of business.^^ The rule of railroad's liability, relaxed from the common law, and substituting a delivery at a safe depot for personal delivery, is applicable to a corporation of freighters own- ing a line of freight cars and known as a transportation company.^® In all cases where a special contract or usage is shown to exist which relieves the carrier from personal delivery, unless the pro- visions of the contract are unreasonable, the carrier is not liable if delivery be made in accordance with such special contract or usage. destroyed, and the remainder arrived uninjured, the carrier, in order to avoid liability for the entire ajnount of the goods shipped, is not bound to make, nor offer to make, a personal delivery of the property to the con- signee. Michigan S., etc., R. Co. v. Bivens, 13 Ind. 263. Delivery of goods by merely plac- ing them upon the banks of a river, in the absence of the consignee, and not under the care of the agents of the carrier, it having agents at the point for the purpose of receiving and delivering goods, is negligence in a common carrier, in the absence of any special contract. Dresbach v. California Pac. R. Co., 57 Cal. 462. 35. III. — Cahn v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 71 111. 96. Md. — Baltimore, Green, 25 Md. 72. Mo. — ^Loomis v. etc., R. Co. V. Wabasih, etc., R. Co., 17 Mo. App. 340. See also New York Cent., etc., R. Co. v. Standard Oil Co., 87 N. Y. 486, 6 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 353, aff'g 20 Hun (N. Y.) 39, where the contract was held to require the railroad company to un- load oil from the barges at the oil company's warehouse. So where it is the usual custom of a carrier, or the usual and known course of business of the carrier to deliver goods, or particular classes of goods, at the residence or place of business of the consignee, the carrier is bound to make actual delivery at such place. Taff Vale R. Co. v. Giles, 2 El. & Bl. 823, 88 E. C. L. 822; Golden v. Manning, 2 W. Bl. 916; Mitchell V. Lancashire, etc., R. Co., L. R. 10 Q. B. 256, 44 L. J. Q. B. 107; Wise V. Great Western R. Co., 1 H. & N. 63, 25 L. J. Exch. 258; Bourne V. Gatliff, 11 CI. & F. 45, 33 E. C. L. 364. 36. Merchants' Dispatch Transp. Co. V. Hallock, 64 111. 284. A stipulation that goods should be forwarded to " Louisville depot only," contained in a bill of lading, is suffi- cient to relieve the common carrier from making a personal delivery to the consignee at his residence or place of business. Merchants' Dis- patch Transp. Co., Ill Ind. 5, 11 N. W. 954. 37. Matter of Webb, 8 Taunt. 443, 4 E. C. L. 159; Richardson v. Goes, 3 B. & P. 119; Strong v. Natally, 1 B. 4 P. N. R. 16. TERMINATION OF LIABILITY. 257 § 30. Delivery by carriers by water. Carriers bj water are not held to a personal delivery of the goods to the consignee or to a delivery at any other place than at the veharf or usual place of unloading of the vessel, and notice to the consignee of the arrival of the goods, and of a readiness to de- liver, takes the place of a personal delivery, so far as to release the carrier from the extraordinary and stringent liabilities inci- dent to that class of bailees. By the general usages of commercial or maritime law, as established by judicial decisions, it is well settled that the carrier by water shall carry from port to port or from wharf to wharf, and that it is the duty of the carrier to de- liver, and of the consignee to receive the goods, out of the ship or on the wharf.^ The landing of goods upon a wharf is not a delivery. To constitute a valid delivery on the wharf, the carrier is bound to give due and reasonable notice to the consignee of such landing, so as to afford him a fair opportunity of providing suit- able means to remove the goods or put them under proper care and custody, and it remains liable as an insurer of the safety of the goods until after the lapse of a reasonable time from the giving of such notice, and is bound to store the goods in a safe and suit- 38. /nd.— Bansemer v. Toledo, etc., Pa.— Ck>pe v. Cordova, 1 Eawie R. Co., 25 Ind. 434, 87 Am. Dec. 367. (Pa.) 203; Scott v. Province, 1 III. — Union Steamboat Co. v. Pittsb. R. (Pa.) 19. Knapp, 73 111. 506. F^.— Farmers', etc., Bank v. I^a- — Kohn v. Packard, 3 La. 224, Champlain Transp. Ck>., 16 Vt. 53, 23 Am. Dec. 453. 42 Am. Dec. 491, 23 Vt. 188, 56 Am. Mass. — 'Ohickering v. Fowler, 21 Dec. 68. Mass. (4 Pick.) 371. V. fif.— The Grafton, Olcott (U. S.) A^. y. — Kilroy v. Delaware, etc., 43, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,656; Richard- Canal Co., 121 N. Y. 22, 24 N. E. 122; son V. Goddard, 23 How. (U. S.) McAndrewv. Whitlock, 52N. Y. 40„ 11 ..8; The Eddy, 5 Wall. (U. S.) Am. Rep. 657; Zinn v. New Jersey 481. Steamboat Co., 49 N. Y. 442, 10 Am. Eng. — Hyde v. Trent. Nav. Co., 5 Rep. 402, 3 Am. Ry. Rep. 340; Red- T. R. 68. mond V. Liverpool, etc., S. S. Co., 56 The responsibility of a carrier upon Barb. (N. Y.) 320; Van Santvoord v. the Ohio River does not cease upon St. John, 6 Hill (N. Y.) 157; Davis the delivering of the goods on the V. Chautauqua Lake, etc., Assembly, wharf, and notice given to the oon- 41 Hun (N. Y.) 638, 2 N. Y. St'. Rep. signee, but it is its duty to attend •365. to the actual delivery. Hemphill v. 17 Ohenie, 6 Watts & S. (Pa. 1843) 63. 258 iHE LAW OF CARRIERS. able warehouse to await the consignee or his agent.'* If the car- rier fail to give such notice, or if a reasonable and diligent effort is not made to find and notify the consignee, the carrier is liable for the consequences of such neglect and for any depreciation in the value of the goods from their value at the time and place they ought to have been delivered and their value at the time of their actual delivery.*" 39. Ostrander v. Brown, 15 Johns. (N. Y.) 39, 8 Am. Dec. 211; Row- land V. Miln, 2 Hilt. (N. Y.) 150; Pickering v. Weld, 159 Mass. 532; Blin. V. Mayo, 10 Vt. 56, 33 Am. Dec. 175; Sleade v. Payne, 14 La. Ann. 457; Hemphill v. Chenie, 6 W. & S. (Pa.) 62; Warner v. The Illinois, 17 Phila. (Pa.) 549; Galloway v. Hughes, 1 Bayley L. (S. C.) 553; Morgan v. Dibble, 29 Tex. 107, 94 Am. Dec. 264; Shenk v. Philadelphia Steam, etc., Co., 60 Pa. St. 109, 100 Am. Dec. 541. The rule of the text may be varied by contract, or affected by well es- tablished, reasonable, and generally known local custom and usage of such uniformity, certainty, and no- toriety as to warrant the jury in finding that it was known to the party sought to be affected. Huston V. Peters, 1 Mete. (Ky.) 558; Gash- weiler v. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 83 Mo. 112, 53 Am. Rep. 558, 25 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 403. A delivery of goods consigned to certain warehousemen, at the pier instead of the warehouse to which they were consigned, is not delivery according to the carrier's contract. Steamboat Sultan v. Chapman, 5 Wis. 454. A delivery of goods consigned to a party at a particular landing, where there had been a warehousekeeper, at the usual place on the river bank, ■without any protection or guard, when the landing had been broken up by an inundation, and the washing away of the buildings, and the re- moval of the persons in charge, is not a good delivery. Stone v. Rice, 58 Ala. 95. Where it is in accordance with the local custom recognized by merchants and others, a carrier may notify a consignee of the arrival of the goods by postal card deposited in the mails. Roth Clothing Co. v. Maine Steamship Co., 44 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 237, 88 N. Y. Supp. 987; Friedman v. Metropolitan S. S. Co., 45 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 383, 90 N. Y. Supp. 401; Normile v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 36 Wash. 21, 77 Pac. 1087, 67 L. R. A, 271. 40. Sherman v. Hudson River R. Co., 64 N. Y, 254; Zinn v. New Jer- sey Steamboat Co., 49 N. Y. 442, 3 Am. Ry. Rep. 340, 10 Am. Rep. 403. The carrier is not responsible for injury to the goods due to the fault of the consignee. Goodwin v. Balti- more, etc., R. Co., 50 N. Y. 154, 10 Am. Rep. 457; The Mill Boy, 4 Mc- Crary (U. S.) 383. Personal notice may be excused where there are certain provisions in the bill of lading. Constable v. Na- tional Steamship Co., 154 U. S. 51, 14 Supp. Ct. 1062, 38 L. Ed. 903. What is a sufficient delivery, by carrier to consignee, of unusually bulky articles, such as a raft of logs. Hungerford v. Winnebago Tug Boat, etc., Co., 33 Wis. 303. TERMINATION OF LIABILITY. 259 § 31. Delivery where consignee refuses to receive. When goods are safely conveyed to the place of destination, and the consignee does not accept or refuses to receive the goods, the carrier may discharge itself from further responsibility, except as warehouseman, by storing the goods in its warehouse, or in that of some responsible third party, and the goods are then subject to its lien for storage as well as transportation charges.'*^ After notice sent to the consignor or owner and the goods being held in storage for a reasonable length of time, if the consignee still refuses to receive the goods, the lien may be enforced as provided by law, and the carrier will be discharged from further liability upon ac- counting for the proceeds.*^ ( If the goods are of a perishable nature and it becomes a matter of necessity to sell to prevent a total loss, the carrier may sell them, after giving reasonable notice, of the time and place of sale, and retain its freight and charges from the proceeds. The sale in such case is not in virtue of its lien, but in the interest of the owner.^ Iln order to relieve itself from liability, the carrier must deliver the goods in good condi- tion, and is not justified in abandoning them or negligently ex- 41. McAndrew v. Whitlock, 52 N. Great Western R. Co., 2 H. & N. Y. 40, 11 Am. Rep. 657; Redmond v. 491, 3 Jur N. S. 796; Great Western Liverpool, etc., R. Co., 46 N. Y. 578, R. Co. v. Crouch, 3 H. & N. 183, 4 7 Am. Rep. 390; Cook v. Erie R. Co., Jur. N. S. 457; Great Northern R. 58 Barb. (N. Y.) 312; Rowland v. Co. v. Swaffield, L. R. 9 Exch. 132, 43 Miln, 2 Hilt. (N. Y.) 150; Williams L. J. Exch. 89. V. Holland, 22 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 137; 42. Cassily v. Young, 4 B. Mon. Fisk V. Newton, 1 Den. (N. Y.) 47, (Ky.) 265; 39 Am. Dec. 505; Ran- 43 Am. Dec. 649; American Sugar, kin v. Memphis, etc.. Packet Co., 9 etc., Co. v. McGhee, 96 Ga. 27; II- Hdsk. (Tenn.) 569, 24 Am. Rep. 339. linois Cent. R. Co. v. Cobb, 64 111. Proof of demand and tender of 128; Gulliver v. Adams Express Co., charges are not necessary to sustain 38 111. 502; Bartholomew V. St. Louis, an action by a shipper against an etc., R. Co., 53 111. 227, 5 Am. Rep. express company for failure to re- 45; Cassilay v. Young, 4 B. Mon. turn goods as directed, upon refusal (Ky.) 265 39 Am. Dec. 505; Young of the consignee to accept them. V. Smith, 3 Dana (Ky.) 91, 28 Am. Hirsch v. Piatt, 89 N. Y. Supp. 362. Dec. 57; Wood v. Crocker, 18 Wis. 43. Rankin v. Memphis, etc., Pack- 345, 80 Am. Dec. 773; Steamboat Key- et Co., 9 Heisk. (Tenn.) 568, 24 Am. Rtone v. Moies, 28 Mo. 243, 75 Am. Rep. 339; Arthur v. The Schooner Dec. 123; I^sinsky v. Groat Western Cassius, 2 Story (U, S.) 97. See En- Dispatch, 13 Mo. App. 575; Crouch v. forcement of lien, § 12, chap. 16. 2G0 THE LAW OF CARRIERS. posing them to injury, even if the consignee neglects or refuses to accept or receive them after notice of their arrival." A failure by the carrier to deliver goods within reasonable time constitutes a conversion and entitles the consignee to recover their full value, when the delay destroys the value of the goods entirely or renders them valueless to the consignee/" But otherwise such delay in delivery is merely a breach of contract, and not conversion, and the consignee cannot refuse to accept the goods and recover their full value/® The consignee is not warranted in refusing to re- ceive goods on account of damage or depreciation in value result- ing from delay in delivery, but, upon notice of their arrival, should receive the goods and dispose of them to the best advantage, and the measure of damages he is entitled to recover will be the difference between the amount he would have realized if prompt delivery had been made and the amount actually realized. He is entitled to recover only to the extent of the actual injury.^^ The 44. Scheu v. Benedict, 116 N. Y. 510, 15 Am. St. Rep. 426. Where the carrier was in no way at fault, and notice was given to the consignor of the consignee's refusal to receive the goods because they were not such as he ordered, the carrier is not liable to the consignor. Adams Express Oo. V. MoConnell, 27 Kan. 238, 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 240. As to goods offered for delivery in a damaged and perishing condition from causes for which the carrier was not responsible, and which are refused by the consignee, after reasonable no- tice and opportunity to remove given to the consignee, the carrier becomes a compulsory bailee bound only to the reasonable care of an involuntary custodian. The Bobolink, 6 Sawy. (U. S.) 146. As to the cars of a connecting line in which goods are tendered for de- livery the carrier, upon refusal of the consignee to receive, becomes liable only as warehouseman, no negligence being shown. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 25 Fed. 317, 23 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 718. 45. Mitchell v. Weir, 19 App. Div. (N. Y.) 183, 45 N. Y. Supp. 10S5. 46. Ostrander v. Brown, 15 Johns. (N. Y.) 39, 8 Am. Dec. 211; Shaw v. South Carolina R. Co., 5 Rich. L. (S. C.) 462, 57 Am. Dec. 768; Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Watson, 1 Tex. Civ. App. Cas., § 813; Baumbach v. Gulf, etc., R. Co., 4 Tex. Civ. App. 650. 47. Mills V. National Steamship Co., 5 N. Y. Supp. 258; Adams Ex. press Co. v. McDonough, 6 Ohio Cir. Ct. Rep. 539; New Orleans, etc., R. Co. V. Tyson, 46 Miss. 729, 1 Am. Ry. Rep. 474; Howe v. Oswego, etc., R. Co., 56 Barb. (N. Y.) 121; Nettles v. South Carolina R. Co., 7 Rich. L. (S. C.) 190, 62 Am. Dec. 409. The receipt of goods damaged, but yet of some value, will not be re- garded as a wr.iver of claim for dam- ages, and failure to receive such goods within a reasonable time will entitle TERMINATION OF LIABILITY. 261 consignee is not bound to accept goods when they are so damaged as to amount to practically a total loss."^ If they are so damaged as to be unsafe for removal from the station, and the carrier fail to repair, if they are capable of repair, acceptance cannot be re- quired of the consignee/* And in either case, full value of the goods may bo recovered.^" Where goods are tendered for delivery at an unreasonable time or place, or under unreasonable condi- tions, the consignee may refuse to accept under such circumstances, and his right to insist upon a subsequent delivery and the carrier's duty to care for the goods meanwhile will not be affected by his refusal." So, he may demand the delivery of goods, after once refusing to receive them when duly tendered, where his refusal was due to mistake, and no other rights have intervened.^^ § 32. Delivery of goods sent C. O. D. Where goods are sent with instructions not to deliver them until they are paid for, the carrier, who accepts the goods with such in- structions, undertakes not to deliver them unless the condition of payment is complied with. In addition to its obligations as a carrier, it becomes the agent of the consignor to collect and receive the price of the goods and return the money to the consignor. the carrier to offset a claim for stor- shipment. Michigan Southern, etc., age against the consignee's claim for R. Go. v. Bivens, 13 Ind. 263. damage. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Boston, 48. Thomas, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Wa- 4 Tex. Civ. App. Caa., § 66; Galres- bash, etc., R. Co., 62 Wis. 642, 51 Am. ton, etc., R. Co. v. Van Winkle, Rep. 725; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Lo- 3 Tex. Civ. App. Cas., § 442. gan, 3 Tex. Giv. App. Gas., § 185; A shortage of goods does not jus- Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Maetz, 2 Tex. tify a refusal to accept, and if they Civ. App. Gas., § 630, 18 Am. & Eng. are sold for freight and storage R. Cas. 613. charges, the consignee has no right of 49. Breed v. Mitchell, 48 Ga. 533. action. Id. 50. See notes 48 and 49. The consignee is not bound to ac- 51. Eagle v. White, 6 Whart. (Pa.) cspt where only a third of the goods 505, 37 Am. Dec. 434; Hill v. Humph- are tendered and there is no evidence reys, 5 W. & S. (Pa.) 123, 39 Am. that they are the original goods Dec. 117; Texa.s, etc., R. Co. v. Mar- shipped. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. tin, 2 Tex. Civ. App. Cas, § 341. Warren, 16 Til. 502, 63 Am. Deo. 317. 52. Bacharach v. Chester Freight W' ere only a part of the goods are Line, 133 Pa. St. 414, 42 Am. & Eng. d.^magcd, the consi,':!iee cannot refuse R. Cas. 362; EdAvards v. Cheraw, to receive the pnrtif>n uninjured, and etc., R. Co., 32 S. C. 117, 42 Am. & hold the carrier liable for the entire Eng. R. Cas. 453. 2G2 THE LAW OF CARRIERS. This obligation or duty is not one arising or implied from the nature of its business, but is based upon contract, express or im- plied.^^ If the carrier accepts goods with such instructions, or if goods are so clearly marked as to show the intention of the con- signor to make payment a condition of delivery, a contract is im- plied, and delivery under such circumstances without requiring payment, though to the consignee or to the right person, is a con- version, and the carrier is liable therefor to the consignor.^" The 53. Danciger v. Wells, Fargo Co., 154 Fed. 379 (U. S. C. C, Mo.), and the carrier may refuse to make sucli contract in any particular case, not- witlistanaing any custom or usage it may liave established or followed, which cannot enlarge its legal duty as a carrier; American Express Co. V. Lesem, 39 111. 312; Cox v Colum- bus, etc., R. Co., 91 Ala. 392, 8 So. 824, 49 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 112 ; Am- erican IMerchants', etc., Co. v. Wolfe, 97 111. 430. Undertaking to collect chnrges.— When a bill of lading, by fair con- struction, requires the carri r to col- lect charges upon the goods on de- livery, if the carrier delivers the goods without collecting tlie sum due, he becomes liable therefor. Meyer V. Lemcke, 31 Ind. 20S. By simply marking package C. 0. D., a consignor cannot charge a com- mon carrier with any duty of collect- ing from the consignee the price or other charge against goods trans- mitted by the carrier. There nuist be some undertaking by the carrier to collect; either directly proved, or inferable from a usage. Chicago, etc., R. Co. V. Merrill, 4S 111. 425. Agent acting without autl-onty.— To an action against a carrier for delivery, without payment of the price, of gnods alleged to have been deliverable, by the bills of lading to the order of the plaintiff, who in- dorsed and delivered the bills to the carrier, with the agreement that upon payment of the price they were to be delivered to a third person, it is a good defense that the agreement was made with the carrier's agent, and that he acted beyond his authority, and as plaintiff's agent in delivering the goods, and not as the carrier's agent. Cox v, Columbus, etc., R. Co., 91 Ala. 392, 49 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 112, 8 So. 824. 54. Tooker v. Gormer, 2 Hilt. (N. Y.) 71; Feiber v. Manhattan Diat. Tel. Co., 3 N. Y. Supp. 116, 4 N. Y. Supp. 555; Murray v. Warner, 55 N. H. 546, 20 Am. Rep. 227; Hutob- ings V. Ladd, 16 Mich. 493; Jellett v. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., 30 Minn. 265, 16 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 246; Ameri- can Express Co. v, Lesem, 39 111. 312; American, etc.. Express Co. v. Schier, 55 HI. 140; Cox V. Columbus, etc., R. Co., 91 Ala. 392, 8 So. 824, 49 Am. & E!)g. R. Cas. 112; Lane v Chadwick, 146 Mass. 68, a consignee cannot maintain replevin against the carrier before payment and delivery. See also Old Colony R. Co. v. Wilder, 137 Mass. 536, 21 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 41. Where a carrier by whom goods sold are shipped to be delivered to the vendee upon the payment of the TERMINATION OF LIABILITY. 263 letters " C. O. D.," followed by an amount in dollars, marked upon the goods consigned for shipment, are well understood bj the public to mean that the carrier accepting the goods for trans- portation shall collect the amount stated as a condition precedent to delivery j""* but their meaning may not be considered as judi- cially settled; or so well understood that judicial notice can be taken of the purpose for which they are used in all cases, or of the contract to be implied from them, although it is competent to explain them, and thus remove all ambiguity, by parol evidence.^® In some jurisdictions, however, it has been held that these letters have acquired a fixed and determinate meaning, which courts and juries will recognize from their general information, and that they import the carrier's liability to return to the consignor either the goods or the charges." Sending a bill of goods for collection, purchase money negligently delivers the goods before such payment, neither the carrier nor the vendor can recover the goods from a bona fide purchaser from the vendee. Nor- folk Southern R. Co. v. Barnes, 104 N. C. 25, 10 S. E. 83, 40 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 121, 5 L. R. A. 611. Where there is a verbal agreement as to delivery in addition to the ship- per's receipt the contract of bailment must be ascertained by the jury from both the receipt and the verbal agree- ment. Union R. etc., Co. v. Riegel, 73 Pa. St. 72. Where goods are sent over several connecting lines, the obligation as to the collection of the price, imposed by the acceptance of goods marked C. 0. D., rests on the last carrier, and the other carrier cannot be made re- sponsible for its default. Rennie v. Northern R. Co., 27 U. C. C. P. 153. 55. Collender v. Dinsmore, 55 N. Y. 205, 14 Am. Rep. 224. The letters C. 0. D. placed upon a package shipped by express, means that the value or price of the package will be collected on delivery and trans- mitted to the consignor. Those let- ters have nothing to do with the transportation charges. American, etc., Exp. Co. V. Schier, 55 111. 140; American Exp. Co. v. Lesem, 39 111. 312. 56. Collender v. Dinsmore, 55 N. Y. 205, 14 Am. Rep. 224. The court will not take judicial notice of the mean- ing of '"C. O. D." Its meaning is a question for the jury. McNichol v. Pacific Express Co., 12 Mo. App. 401. Cee also, American Merchants, etc., Co. V. Wolfe, 79 111. 430; American Express Co. v. Lesem, 39 111. 312. 57. United States Express Co, v. Refer, 59 Ind. 263, the rule applied where the goods had been destroyed by the burning of the depot; State v. Intoxicating Liquors, 73 Me. 278, courts and juries, from their general information, may take the initials, "C. 0. D.," when affixed to packages sent by common carriers from seller to buyer, to mean that delivery is to be made upon payment of the charges due the seller for the price, and the carrier for the carriage, of the goods. i^Ol '^'ii^ ^'^W OF CARRIEKS. or with a request to collect, docs not create an undertaking on the part of the carrier not to deliver until the goods are paid for/^ An express company is not liable for failure to collect on delivery of a package sent to it for carriage with instructions so to collect, where the receipt given therefor was, to the knowledge of the sender, that used for ordinary packages, upon M^hich only express charges are collected.^^ After the carrier has tendered a package scut C. O. D. to the consignee and demanded the money, and after the consignee has had a reasonable time to call for and receive it, the carrier holds the package as warehouseman and not as a common carrier, and is thereafter responsible for the care of a warehouseman merely.®* If the consignee refuses to receive and pay for the goods, or is unknown or cannot be found, the liability of the carrier becomes that of a warehouseman, but it should notify the consignor and hold the goods for further instructions, or subject to the consignor's order." The acceptance by the car- rier of the consignee's check, payable to the order of the consignor, for the amount to be collected, which the consignor accepts with- out objection, relieves the carrier from liability, even though the drawer had no funds in the bank when the check was drawn."^ So, the taking of the consignee's acceptance of a draft drawn 58. Tooker v. Gormer, 2 Hilt. (N. 61. Hasse v. American Express Co., Y.) 71; Wells v. American Express 94 Mich. 153, 53 N. W. 918, 47 Alb. Co., 44 Wis. 342. L. J. 25; American Express €o. v. 59. Smith y. Southern Express Greenhalge, 80 111. 68; American Co., 104 Ala. 387, 61 Am. & Eng. R. etc.. Express Co. v. Wolfe, 79 111. 430. Cas. 168. 62. Rathbun v. Citizens Steamboat 60. Weed v. Barney, 45 N. Y. 344, Co., 76 N. Y. 376, 32 Am. Rep. 321, 6 Am. Rep. 96; Zinn v. New Jersey 57 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 191. Compare Steamboat Co., 49 N. Y. 442; Gibson Walker v. Walker, 5 Heisk. (Tenn.) V. American, etc., Express Co., 1 425. Hun (N. Y.) 387; Marshall v. Amf^r- The power of a factor to waive col- ican Express Co., 7 Wis. 1, 73 Am. lection. — Where a commercial agent Dec. 381; Adams Express Co. v. Dar- has sold goods on credit, which are nell, 31 Ind. 20; Storr v. Crowley, forwarded by his principal by ex- 1 McClel. & Y. 129. So where the press, and marked "C. 0. D,," the ex- carrier has limited his liability to pressman having no notice of any that of a warehous-eman for goods limitation of the agent's authority, while they are waiting to be called may, upon the order of the agent, de- fer. Pacific Express Co. v. Wallace, liver the goods without payment of 60 Ark. 100, 61 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. the price. Daylight Burner Co, v. 170, 29 S. W. 32. Odlin, 51 N. H. 56, 12 Am. Rep. 45. TERMINATION OF LIABILITY. 205^ against the shipment, after the consignor knew that the goods had been delivered without production of the bill of lading, and that his intention to prevent a delivery of the goods until payment of the purchase price had been thereby defeated, will operate as a waiver of the consignor's right of action against the carrier for conversion for such delivery.^ Where goods, in the usual course of business, are shipped on freight, to be sold by the owner of the vessel for a certain freight, or are consigned to the master for sale and returns, the owner of the vessel is liable, as well for the pay- ment of the proceeds to the shipper, as for the safe carriage of the goods.®* This is held to be the rule, although no special compensa- tion beyond the freight, is allowed for the sale of the goods and the return of the money.®^ The carrier is not liable where the con- signee retains a part of the goods and returns the others, paying for those retained, which amount and the goods not accepted are returned to the consignor,®^ and where the carrier collects only part of the amount due, but remits all that is collected, such pay- ment must be applied by the consignor to that particular shipment so as to relieve the carrier." The consignee is entitled to a reason- able time in which to call for the goods and pay the amount due, and the carrier is liable in damages for returning the goods to the consignor without allowing a reasonable time for payment to the consignee.^ The consignee has the right to a reasonable oppor- tunity to examine the goods before accepting them, and a delivery to the consignee for the purpose of inspection, even though he pay the price conditioned upon its return to him if the goods on 63. Southern R. Co. v. Kinchen, authority to the captain to act as a 10.3 Ga. 186', 29 S. E. 816. factor, or that he had implied au 64. Emery v. Hersey, 4 Greenl. thority by the usage of trade; Zol (Me.) 407, 16 Am. Dec. 268; S. P. linger v. Steamer Emma, 3 Cent. L Moseley v. Lord, 2 Conn. 389; Har- J. 285. rington v. McShane, 2 Watts (Pa.) 65. Kemp v. Coughtry, 11 Johns 443, 27 Am. Dec. 321, where the boat (N. Y.) 107. was accidentally burned on her re- 66. Feiber v. Manhattan Dist. Tel turn, with the money received on the Co., 3 N. Y. Supp. 116, 4 N. Y. Supp sale of goods; Taylor v. Wells, 3 555. Watts (Pa.) 65, where the captain 67. American Express Co. failed to account for the proceeds the Lesem, 39 111. 312. owner was held not answerable with- 68. Great Westf^rn R. Co. out proof that he had given express Crouch. 3 H. & N. 183. 2(J6 THE LAW OF CARRIERS. examination prove unsatisfactory, is not such a delivery as will render the carrier liable to the shipper for the amount directed to be collected on delivery/* If a carrier deliver a package marked " C. O. D." to the consignee, and receive payment, and the trans- action turns out to be a fraud, and the package worthless, the con- signee may reclaim his money, at any time before the carrier has paid it over to the fraudulent consignor^" The consignee may likewise recover the price paid to the carrier for damaged goods received C. O. D., provided he has notified the carrier within a reasonable time that the goods were worthless and has offered to return the goods to it.''^ § 33. Confusion of goods. As a rule the consignee is entitled to the delivery of the identical goods shipped to him, and the carrier is liable for any damages caused by a delivery of other goods, by reason of an admixture or confusion of goods through mistake or otherwise.^^ The rule is not applied in the case of grain consigned to elevators, and where a warehouseman, without special agreement, but according to cus- 69. Aaron v. Adams Express Co.. 71. Hardy v. American Express 37 Ohio L. J. 183; Lyons v. Hill, 46 Co., 182 Mass. 328, 65 N. E. 375, 59 N. H. 49, 88 Am. Dec. 189; Wilson v. L. R. A. 731. Elliott, 57 N. H. 316; Avery v. Stew- 72. The Augusta, 29 Fed. 334, art, 2 Conn. 74, 7 Am. Dec. 240; Ish- where bales of corkwood shipped in erwood v. Whitmore, 11 M. & W. 347. good order were opened for storage, When carrier may refuse inspec- and in rebailiug, different sizes and lion. — The agent of an express com- qualities were so mixed as to reduce pany may, without rendering the the market value, and the consignee company liable to any action in behalf refused to receipt for them as in food of the consignee, refuse to permit order, and they were sold by the ship- him to examine the goods until he owner, it was held that the consignee has paid express charges and accept- could receive their sound value lesa ed delivery; and on his refusal, re- freight; Rice v. Boston, etc., R. Corp., turn the goods to the consignor, if 98 Mass. 212, wherein it was held the consignor has specially instructed that the consignee was entitled to re- them to do so, or if the company cover damages for coal being unload- took charge of the goods subject to a ed by the side of the railroad track general regulation, known to the con- without preparing the ground to re- signor, prescribing this course. Wiltsc ceive the coal by laying down boards T. Barnes, 46 Iowa, 210. or otherwise, so that the different 70. Herrick v Grallagher, 60 Barb, sorts and sizes of ooal were mixed and (N. Y.) 566. soil mingl'ed with it. TERMINATION OF LIABILITY. 267 torn, mixes the grain of several depositors in a common mass, they become tenants in common of the entire amount of like quality, and the carrier may, in accordance with accepted usage, discharge his obligation by delivery of grain of the same grade and kind as was shipped, and for the negligent destruction of the same each depositor can recover the value of his grain.^^ Where the con- Default or negligence of carrier must be shown. — Consignees of iron wiiose agents assisted in selecting what was delivered, and accepted it as what they were entitled to by their bill of lading, and caused it to be sent away, must show satisfac- torily that what was thus accepted was less than should have been de- livered, and that their failure to re- ceive all they should have received is attributable to some default on the part of the ship, in order to hold the latter liable for a deficiency, under a bill of lading stating that the vessel is not accountable for the number of j)iece3 or weight. Eaton v. Neu- mark, 37 Pel. 375, affg. 33 Fed. 891. See also, Milligan v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 17 U. C. C. P. 115. 73. Arthur v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 61 Iowa, 648, 16 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 285; Sexton v. Graham, 53 Iowa 181, where grain is delivered to a ware- houseman and a receipt taken which provides that the grain may be stored with other grain of the same quality, the transaction constitutes a bail- ment and not a sale, even though the warehouseman is continually adding grain on his own account to the com- mon mass, and shipping away there- from; Pratt v. Bryant, 20 Vt. 333, if the owner of goods intentionally in- termingle them with gooda of the same kind belonging to another per- son, but through neglig the boat, could not be held liable t^'i a conversion thereof, although the i boat was not delivered to such owner at the place called for by the con- tract. 6. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. O'Don- nell, supra. 7. Foggan v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 16 N. Y. Supp. 25, 40 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 713. 8. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Bark- house, 10 Ala. 543, 13 So. 534. A carrier is not liable to a consignor as for a conversion of goods con- signed to the lattcr's order, because it deilivered the same to the pur- chaser of the goods whom it was di- rected to notify, without the sur- render of the bill of lading contrary to the provisions thereof, where the purchaaier subsequently paid tha CONVERSION BY CARRIER. 279 the goods to the person entitled to them under the bill of lading and its endorsements; and where the bill directs delivery to the vendor's order, or his assigns, the carrier is notified that he must not deliver to the consignee without the bill properly endorsed by the consignor, and if he delivers otherwise he will be liable.^ A carrier which delivers to a shipper goods of which the bill of lading has been transferred to a bona fide holder by the consignee, to whom it was delivered by the shipper, is liable to the holder for a conversion of the goods.^" A failure to deliver to the next con- necting carrier entitled to receive the consignment constitutes a conversion." The negligence of the consignee of goods to call for the same and pay freight, within a reasonable time after they reach their destination, wall not justify the carrier in delivering the same to an unauthorized person, or to a person in violation of the written instructions of the owner.^^ A failure or refusal to leliver goods to the party entitled to delivery, or to return them to the shipper, constitutes a conversion and renders the carrier liable." But unless there is an absolute denial by the carrier of draft to which the bill of lading was attached to the bank which held it tor oolleotion, although the bank failed to remit the proceeds, and ?ubsequently became iusolvent. Witt V. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co., 99 Tenn. 442, 41 S. W. 1064, 8 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. N. S. 380. 9. Grayson County Nat. Bank v. Nashville, etc., R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 79 S. W. 1094. Where bills of lading were pledged to secure advances made to the pur- chaser of the goods, and on bank- ruptcy of the purchaser a part of the property covered by the bills of lad- ing was in possession of a carrier, its refusal to deliver th^e property to the pledgee of the bills of lading, except on surrender thereof, was a conver- «ion of the property. First Nat. Bank r. San Antonio, etc, R. Co.