The mode of citing the American and English Railroad Cases is as follows:
16 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas.
It is not necessary that the acknowledgment of articles of incorporation
should show that the persons acknowledging were personally known to the
acknowledging officer to be the persons who executed the articles. People ex
rel. v. Cheeseman et al., xvi. 400.
When railroad company is sued, it may be designated by name without aver-
ment of corporate capacity. If this is disputed, objection should be taken by
answer and not by demurrer. Stanly v. Richmond & D. R. Co., xvi. 545.
ADMINISTRATORS AND EXECUTORS.
Cause of action for death arises where death occurred and not at place of
appointment of administrator. Lung Chung, Adm'r, v. Northern Pac. R. Co.,
xvi. 548.
Party may recover from warehouseman value of grain belonging to him, with
interest, when same has been mixed with other grain of like quality and is
destroyed by fire occasioned by negligence. No such conversion is worked by
admixture as to deprive owner of his property. Arthur v. Chicago, R. I. & P.
R. Co., xvi. 283.
A station agent who ships his own goods at a higher rate than allowed by
law cannot recover the excess paid by him to the company. Steever v. Illinois
Central R. Co., xvi. 53.
AGENTS AND AGENCY-Continued.
When baggage agent accepts tent and fittings as baggage, company is liable
for it as baggage. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Conklin, xvi. 116.
Company is liable for salesman's samples as_baggage when baggage agent
knowingly receives them as such. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Capps, xvi. 118.
When such baggage arrives and station master, not knowing its nature, agrées
to hold it, company is liable as warehouseman only. Texas, etc., R. Co. v.
Capps, xvi. 118.
Company is bound by act of baggage master in checking baggage by wrong
system of connecting lines. Isaacson v. N. Y. Central & H. R. R. Co., xvi. 188.
Declarations of superintendent as to acceptance or non-acceptance of wood
furnished by him to the company are admissible. Sacalaris v. Eureka & P. R.
Co., xvi. 580.
Station agent is officer examinable under Rev. Stat. of Ontario, ch. 50, sect.
156, as to matters in question in action brought against company. Ramsay .
Midland Ry. Co., xvi. 594.
Declarations of agent made after conclusion of contract are inadmissible as to
alleged misrepresentations in negotiations. Phelps & Co. v. George's Creek &
C. R. Co., xvi. 600.
Where case is remanded on appeal to United States circuit court, power of
latter to amend pleadings is not affected. Supreme Court cannot prescribe
amendments to be allowed or mode of conducting subsequent proceedings.
Branson v. Oregonian Ry. Co., xvi. 517.
Complaint alleging negligence in running train on straight part of track with.
out obstructions to hide cattle from engineer's view and striking same when
proper care and vigilance would have prevented accident is sufficient. Stanly
v. Richmond & D. R. Co., xvi. 545.
Expert evidence is not admissible to effect that cattle-guard was necessary at
certain point. Amstein v. Gardner, xvi. 585.
When horse escapes through negligence of
then gets upon track at unfenced point and is
question of contributory negligence is for jury.
owner and runs a long way and
killed at a point still further on,
Amstein v. Gardner, xvi. 585.
Decree ordering railroad company to carry for express company at reasonable
rates, and fixing for time being maximum of what is reasonable, is appealable.
St. Louis, I. Mt. & S Ry. Co. v. Southern Express Co., xvi. 95.
Judgment which appears to be right will not be reversed for an error without
prejudice. Mobile & M. R. Co. v. Jurey, xvi. 132.
Where charge contains two propositions, of which one only is correct, judg
ment will not be reversed upon general exception.
Mobile & M. R. Co. v.
Jurey, xvi. 132.
Assignment of error that appellant was not allowed to prove certain facts is
insufficient unless it is also alleged that witness would have stated those facts.
Louisville, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Sullivan, xvi. 390.
Order as to change of venue is reviewable by appellate court. Pittsburgh,
W. & K. R. R. Co. v. Applegate & Son, xvi. 440.
When United States Supreme Court remands case to circuit court, it cannot
prescribe amendments to pleadings which can be allowed. Circuit court has full
power as to such amendments. Branson v. Oregonian Ry. Co., xvi. 517.
Refusal of court to grant new trial is not reviewable on error.
& I. R. Co. v. Struble, xvi. 597.
Upon payment of total loss by insurer, an equitable assignment of claim
against carrier is worked. Suit lies in name of original insurer, and real plain-
tiff need only establish original cause of action. Such real plaintiff is dominus
litis, and a plea not averring payment to him or his assignor before he ac-
quired title is bad. Mobile & M. R. Co. v. Jurey, xvi. 132.
Contract to build railroad passes to assignees for benefit of creditors. New
England Iron Co. v. Gilbert Elevated R. Co., xvi. 609.
Directors may employ solicitor at fixed salary. Shareholders cannot undo
arrangement in respect of past services. Falkiner v. Grand Junction R. Co., xvi.
591.
Where agent of company receives tent and fittings as baggage, company is
liable for it as baggage. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Conklin, xvi. 116.
Company is liable for salesman's samples as baggage where baggage agent
knowingly receives them as such. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Capps, xvi. 118.
When such baggage arrives and the station master, being ignorant of its nature,
agrees to hold it, company is liable as warehouseman only. Texas, etc., R. Co.
. Capps, xvi. 118.
Carriers of passengers bound to carry baggage in reasonable amount with-
out extra compensation. Isaacson v. N. Y. Central & H. R. R. Co., xvi. 188.
Court will take judicial notice of system of checking baggage over con-
necting lines. Isaacson v. N. Y. Central & H. R. R. Co., xvi. 188.
Usual baggage check is mere voucher or token and not a contract of car-
riage. Isaacson v. N. Y. Central & H. R. R. Co., xvi. 188.
When baggage master checked trunks over wrong system of connecting lines,
and loss occurred beyond the company's line, it was held liable. Whether
plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence in failing to detect error from
check in his possession was for jury. Isaacson v. N. Y. Central & H. R. R. Co.,
Carrier giving through check without limiting its liability, is responsible
for safe carriage of baggage beyond its own line to destination. Compromise
with other lines does not alter its liability. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Weaver,
xvi. 218.
In action against assignee in bankruptcy for fraud of assignor, statute of limi
tations only runs from time fraud is discovered. Assignee is chargeable with
notice of the concealment and when facts are such as to conceal themselves, no
proof of actual concealment by assignee is necessary. Cook et al. v. Sherman
et al., xvi. 561.
See CARRIERS; CONNECTING LINES.
Until bill of lading is signed railroad company is liable as warehouseman
only, and not as carrier. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Douglass & Sons, xvi. 98.
In suit against express company for loss of goods, clerk of defendant may
be asked whether plaintiff usually put weight on receipts, in order to contra-
dict a statement to that effect made by plaintiff's clerk. Adams Express Co. v.
Boskowitz, xvi. 102.
Where form used was that of another company, it is error to charge that
BILLS OF LADING—Continued.
clauses limiting liability do not enure to benefit of company to whom goods
are committed. Whether this is so or not is to be determined from the cir-
cumstances. Adams Express Co. v. Boskowitz, xvi. 102.
Omission to state value of package is not a fraud, notwithstanding clause
in bill of lading limiting liability of carrier. Adams Express Co. v. Boskowitz,
xvi. 102.
Where goods are carried at a reduced rate at an agreed valuation, repre-
sented by shipper to be true one, he cannot in case of loss recover more than
valuation. Graves v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co., xvi. 108.
Written contract as to carriage of live-stock containing conditions limiting
liability is, in absence of mistake or fraud, sole evidence of agreement,
though signed in a hurry by shipper and with a previous verbal understanding
as to terms of shipment. St. L., K. C. & N. R. Co. v. Cleary, xvi. 122.
Where carrier verbally agreed to give rebates and afterwards gave a bill of
lading containing no such provision, held that rebates were not recoverable.
Hopkins v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co., xvi. 126.
Evidence is competent to show that a bill of lading does not embody the
contract of transportation, and that the same lies partly in parol. Mobile & M.
R. Co. v. Jurey, xvi. 132.
Court in construing bill of lading will consider subject-matter and surround-
ing circumstances. Mobile & M. R. Co. v. Jurey, xvi. 132.
In view of the parol evidence in this case, the clauses in the bill of lading
limiting liability were not held to be applicable. Mobile & M. R. Co. v. Jurey,
xvi. 132.
When party insures goods in transit under policy securing to insurer right
of subrogation to claim against carrier in case of loss, and subsequently ships
said goods under bill of lading securing to carrier in case of loss benefit of
insurance, latter clause is valid, and shipper cannot upon loss recover from
insurer, having deprived him of his right of subrogation. Carstairs v. Mechanics'
& Traders' Ins. Co., xvi. 142.
Carrier cannot stipulate for exemption from responsibility for negligence of
himself or his servants. When accident occasioning loss is such as does not
happen in ordinary course of things, presumption of negligence arises. Rintoul
v. N. Y. Central & H. R. R. Co., xvi. 144.
Carrier losing goods through negligence may avail himself of clause in bill of
lading securing to him benefit of insurance effected by shipper. Rintoul . N.
Y. Central & H. R. R. Co., xvi. 144.
Carrier is liable for negligent loss of goods, though same were to be trans-
ported at owners' risk.' Failure to deliver goods presents prima facie pre-
sumption of negligence, which is for jury. When facts are shown amounting
to negligence which might have occasioned loss, whether or not they did so
occasion loss, is for jury. Canfield et al. v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., xvi. 152.
Clause in bill of lading limiting the amount of carrier's liability does not apply
where loss is occasioned through negligence of carrier. Kansas City, St. J. &
C. B. R. Co. v. Simpson, xvi. 158.
When complaint avers breach of duty as common carrier, and evidence dis-
closes special written contract of carriage not declared on, the variance is fatal.
Hall v. Pennsylvania Co., xvi. 165.
Terms of contract for transportation of live-stock construed to require owner
to feed them in certain specified emergencies, but not to require carrier to feed
them in all other cases. Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Trent., xvi. 170.
Contract of railroad company to carry fish at one fifth under ordinary rates in
consideration of release of all liability, even for negligence of its servants, held
reasonable and binding. Manchester, S. & L. R. Co. v. Brown, xvi. 174.
A railroad company is not a common carrier beyond its own line. It may
therefore in South Carolina limit its liability in regard to such transportation as
it pleases by provisions in the bill of lading. Piedmont M'f'g Co. v. Columbia
& G. R. Co., xvi. 194.
Signature of shipper is not necessary to establish assent to bill of lading.
Piedmont M'f'g Co. v. Columbia & G. R. Co., xvi. 194.
BILLS OF LADING—Continued.
Construction is for court; but where there is dispute as to which of two agree-
ments the parties acted under, the question is for jury. Piedmont M'f'g Co. v.
Columbia & G. R. Co., xvi. 194.
Company may contract not to be liable beyond its own line. Contract in this
case held to have clearly that effect. Berg et al. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R.
Co., xvi. 229.
When clause in bill of lading exempted company from liability for loss by
fire when goods stored and fire occurred after delivery by railroad at steamship
wharf, held, company was not liable. Deming v. Norfolk & W. R. Co., xvi.
Stipulation requiring notice of claim for injury to live stock by shipper before
stock is moved from destination or mixed with other stock, is binding. Texas
Central R. Co. v. Morris, xvi. 259.
Terms of bill of lading held to require delivery of specific grain shipped,
and not to be satisfied by tender to consignee of other grain of exactly similar
quality. Leader v. Northern R. R. Co. et al., xvi. 287.
Where railroad company issued two delivery orders for same grain but so
different that they might reasonably be supposed to refer to different consign-
ments, and a party made advances on both orders, held, company was
estopped as to him to show real state of case, and must respond in damages.
Coventry & Co. v. Great Eastern R. Co., xvi. 292.
Company held bound by improper issue of scrip convertible into bonds as
dividend on preferred stock, when it had recognized validity of most of scrip
and issued bonds to take it up. Chaffee v. Rutland R. R. Co., xvi. 408.
Holder of bonds convertible into stock cannot by consolidation be deprived of
right to convert them, unless after notice and fair opportunity he elects not to do
so. Rosenkrans v. Lafayette, B. & M. R. R. Co., xvi. 483.
When lessee of road undertakes to pay by way of rent the coupons or bonds of
lessor as they mature, it may be compelled by lessee to do so. Woodruff v. Erie
From lessor to lessee held by its terms to cover any claim of lessee against
lessor for money paid to take up coupons on lessor's bonds in pursuance of
terms of lease. Stewart et al. v. Hoyt's Exr's, xvi. 513.
When station agent is at time of signing of his official bond in default and
indebted on pre-existing agency, it is no fraud for the company to fail to notify
the sureties of the fact, but it is a fraud for them to hold him out to the sureties
expressly or implicitly as trustworthy, and in such case liability of sureties is
discharged. Wilmington, etc., R. Co. v. Ling, xvi. 539.
Where company retains station agent after default, without notifying sureties,
latter are relieved from all further liability. Wilmington, etc., R. Co. v. Ling,
xvi. 539.
Bonds issued on account of construction contract held valid to extent of bene-
fit received by construction, though contract is fraudulent in its nature. Thomas
v. Brownville, etc., R. Co., xvi. 557.
Crown is not liable for injury to passenger on railway owned and operated by
the Dominion of Canada. Queen v. McLeod, xvi. 301.
See BAGGAGE; BILL OF LADING; CONNECTING LINES; DISCRIMINATION;
EXPRESS COMPANIES; WAREHOUSEMAN.
In suit against carrier to recover value of goods lost, in order to recover owner
must prove that railroad company was common carrier, that it received goods as
|