CARRIERS-Contin

freight and that it failed to deliver them. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Douglass & Sons,
xvi. 98.

Company is not liable as carrier for goods delivered upon its platform for
transportation until it gives a bill of lading. Custom does not alter this rule.
Until then company is liable as warehouseman only. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. v.
Douglass & Sons, xvi. 98.

Is liable for loss of goods unless occasioned by act of God or public enemy.
Texas Express Co. v. Scott, xvi. 111.

Railroads are not in the carriage of live-stock bound as common carriers.
They are only bound to use due and proper care and deliver in reasonable time.
Baker et al. v. Louisville & N. R. Co., xvi. 149.

Carriers of passengers are bound to carry baggage in reasonable amount with-
out extra compensation. Isaacson v. N. Y. Central & H. R. R. Co., xvi. 188.
The test of a common carrier is whether or not it is bound to carry for all
alike. Piedmont M'f'g Co. v. Columbia & G. R. Co., xvi. 194.

EXCESSIVE FREIGHT CHARGES AND DISCRIMINATIONS.

Charge of excessive freights may be prevented by appropriate penalties as to
railroads wholly within the State. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Railroad Comm.,
xvi. 1.

Tennessee law providing for railroad commission to prevent unjust discrimi-
nations and overcharges on freight held invalid, as too vague, as discriminat-
ing unfairly against railroads, and as a regulation of inter-State commerce.
Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Railroad Comm., xvi. 1.

State act fixing maximum rates for transportation of freight and passengers
is unconstitutional as regulation of inter-State commerce, so far as it relates to
shipments over inter-State lines. Kaeiser v. Illinois Central R. Co., xvi., 40.

Law making agent guilty of misdemeanor in exacting excessive freight charges
does not take away common-law right to recover back money paid in excess of
reasonable compensation. Protest prior to payment need not be shown. Heiser-
man v. Burlington, C. R. & N. R. Co., xvi. 46.

Action may be brought to recover excess in charge for freight within five
years, though prosecution for offence in exacting it must be brought within two
years. Heiserman v. Burlington, C. R. & N. R. Co., xvi. 46.

Where by terms of contract of affreightment liability of company is limited
to its own line within State, statute prohibiting freight charges beyond a sum
certain is constitutionally applicable. Heiserman v. Burlington, C. R. & N. R.
Co., xvi. 46.

Where maximum freight is fixed by statute, larger sum cannot be demanded,
and evidence that higher rates are chargeable is not admissible. Heiserman v.
Burlington, C. R. & N. R. Co., xvi. 46.

Bill against several defendants for discovery, account, and repayment of un-
lawful overcharges in freight will not lie because one defendant is lessee of
several lines and lessors, the other defendants, are also liable, and plaintiff must
at law sue each for proportional part of the overcharge. Scott v. Erie R. Co.,
xvi. 53.

A station agent who ships his own goods at a higher rate than allowed by law
cannot recover excess paid by him to company. Steever v. Illinois Central R.
Co., xvi. 53.

Constitutional provision prohibiting discrimination in charges or transporta-
tion facilities not construed to require a company which has made a business
connection with another line at a certain point to extend same facilities to an-
other rival line connecting with it at another point. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co.
v. Denver & N. O. R. Co., xvi. 57.

Constitutional provision that every railroad shall have right to intersect, con-
nect with, or cross another, confers merely right to mechanical connection and
not to connect business with business. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Denver
& N. O. R. Co., xvi. 57.

Constitutional prohibition against discriminating in rates is not violated by

CARRIERS-Continued.

refusing to give to one connecting road the same arrangements as to through
rates given to another, unless the conditions of service are substantially alike.
Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Denver & N. O. R. Co., xvi. 57.

RUNNING TRAINS TO STATIONS.

Kansas City, St. J. & C. B. Co. is bound by its charter to run a through trair
daily between St. Joseph and Savannah, but it need not make latter place
station on main track, nor need it run all trains to old depot. It may make
switch to old depot, and need run but one train a day over it. State ex rel. v.
Kansas City, St. J. & C. B. R. Co., xvi. 297.

Failure of company to run trains to original terminus held under circum-
stances not to warrant court in declaring franchises forfeited, the public at large
not being injured. Att'y-Gen'l v. Erie & Kalamazoo R. Co., xvi. 652.

EXPRESS FACILITIES.

Railroad companies are bound to furnish to express companies all usual ex-
press facilities. Wells, Fargo & Co. v. Oregon R. & N. Co., xvi. 71.

Court in ordering provisionally railroad company to furnish express facili-
ties at reasonable rates will assume that rates paid in the past were reasonable.
Wells, Fargo & Co. v. Oregon R. & N. Co., xvi. 71.

Railroad must afford same facilities to one express company as to another, at
same rates, and must use reasonable diligence to see that one company is not
obtaining rates lower than the other. Wells, Fargo & Co. v. Oregon R. & N.
Co., xvi. 87.

Ferriage on railway ferry if furnished to one express company must also be
furnished to another. Wells, Fargo & Co. v. Oregon R. & N. Co., xvi. 87.

CONNECTING LINES.

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 the error from
the check in his possession was for jury. Isaacson v. N. Y. Central & H. R.
R. Co., xvi. 188.

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.

Carrier giving through check without limiting its liability is responsible for
safe carriage of baggage beyond its own line to point of destination. Com-
promise with other lines does not alter its liability. Louisville & N. R. Co. v.
Weaver, xvi. 218.

May contract not to be liable beyond its own line. Contract in this case held
to be unambiguous and clearly to that effect. Berg et al. v. Atchison, T. & S.
F. R. Co., xvi. 229.

By terms of bill of lading company was exempted from liability for loss by
fire or for loss beyond its own line. Cotton was delivered in good time at
steamboat wharf, and while in storage awaiting transportation was burned:
Held, that company was not liable. Deming v. Norfolk & W. R. Co., xvi. 232.
Agreement in this case between connecting lines as to through freights not
construed to render companies partners and liable for each other's acts and
omissions. Deming v. Norfolk & W. R. Co., xvi. 232.

BAGGAGE.

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 at destination and station master, being ignorant

CARRIERS-Continued.

as to its nature, agrees to hold it, company is liable as warehouseman only.
Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Capps, xvi. 118.

Court will take judicial notice of system of checking baggage over connecting
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 carriage.
Isaacson v. N. Y. Central & H. R. R. Co., xvi. 188.

Company is liable for loss of baggage beyond its own lines when checked by
mistake of its agent over wrong system of connecting roads. Isaacson v. N. Y.
Central & H. R. R. Co., xvi. 188.

SPECIAL CONTRACTS OF TRANSPORTATION AND HEREIN OF CONTRACTS
LIMITING LIABILITY.

Declarations made in private by shipper of goods to his clerk as to agreement
by him with express company as to carriage, are inadmissible in suit against
company for loss of goods. Adams Express Co. v. Boskowitz, xvi. 102.

In suit against express company for loss of goods, clerk of defendant may be
asked whether plaintiff usually put weight on receipts to contradict a state-
ment to that effect by plaintiff's clerk. Adams Express Co. v. Boskowitz,
xvi. 102.

Where form used for bill of lading was that of another company, it is error
to charge that clauses limiting liability do not enure to benefit of company to
whom goods are entrusted. Whether or not this is so is to be determined from
the circumstances. 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 represented
by shipper to be the true one, he cannot in case of loss recover more than said
valuation. Graves v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co., xvi. 108.

Fraudulent misrepresentation by shipper as to value of goods will discharge
the carrier. But shipper is not bound to disclose contents of trunk when not
asked. Texas Express Co. v. Scott, xvi. 111.

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 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
contract of transportation and that same lies partly in parol.
Co. v. Jurey, xvi. 132.

embody the true
Mobile & M. R.

In view of the parol evidence in this case the clauses in the bill of lading
limiting liability were held inapplicable. Mobile & M. R. Co. v. Jurey,
xvi. 132.

Carrier cannot contract for exemption from liability for negligence of himself
and his servants. When accident occasioning loss is such as does not happen in
ordinary course of things, presumption of negligence arises. Rintoul ». N. Y.
Central & H. R. R. Co., xvi. 144.

Carrier is liable for loss of goods occasioned by his negligence, though same
were to be transported “at owner's risk." Failure to deliver goods presents
prima facie presumption 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 amount of carrier's liability does not apply
when loss is occasioned by carrier's negligence. Kansas City, St. J. & C. B.
R. Co. v. Simpson, xvi. 158.

Terms of contract for transportation of live-stock construed to require owner

CARRIERS-Continued.

to feed them in certain specified emergencies, but not to require carrier to feed
them in all other cases. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Trent, xvi. 170.

Contract of railroad company to carry fish at one fifth less than ordinary rates
in consideration of release of all liability, even for negligence of servants, held
reasonable and binding. Manchester, S. & L. R. Co. v. Brown, xvi. 174.

A common carrier cannot in South Carolina limit his liability. One not a
common carrier may do so. 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.

Construction of bill of lading is for court; but where there is doubt as to
which of two agreements the parties acted under, the question is for jury. Pied-
mont M'f'g Co. v. Columbia & G. R. Co., xvi. 194.

Stipulation in bill of lading 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.

INSURANCE.

Upon payment of total loss by insurer, an equitable assignment of the claim
against the carrier is brought about. Suit lies in the name of the original in-
surer, and real plaintiff need only establish original cause of action. Such real
plaintiff is dominus litis, and a plea which does not aver payment to him or to
his assignor before he acquired his right is bad. 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 the benefit of in-
surance, he cannot upon loss recover from insurer, having deprived him of his
right of subrogation. Carstairs v. Mechanics & Traders' Ins. Co., xvi. 142.
Carrier losing goods negligently may avail himself of clause in bill of lading
securing to him benefit of insurance effected by shipper. Rintoul v. N. Y.
Central & H. R. R. Co., xvi. 144.

DELIVERY.

Delivery of wheat to consignee without payment by him of whole price
amounted under the circumstances to conversion. In mitigation of damages it
could, however, be shown that consignee subsequently settled for the wheat.
Jelletts v. St. Paul, M. & M. R. Co., xvi. 246.

When A representing himself to be B, orders goods shipped to B, carrier is
not responsible if he delivers them to A. Edmunds v. Merchants' Despatch
Trans. Co., xvi. 250.

When A represents himself to be agent of B and orders goods shipped to B,
carrier is not warranted in delivering to A. Edmunds v. Merchants' Despatch
Trans. Co., xvi. 250.

Complaint not sufficient to entitle party to recover from company for delivery
of wrong casks into which without examination he poured ketchup which was
spoiled by contact with remains of former contents. Cunningham v. Great
Northern R. Co., xvi. 254.

When car arrived at destination and was put on side-track for consignee, and
after lapse of several days goods therein were found missing, held, that there
had been a delivery and that burden was on plaintiff to show that loss had
occurred before car was put on side-track. South & North Ala. R. Co. v. Wood,
xvi. 267.

Where goods arrived at station but consignee was repeatedly informed they
had not arrived and then same were destroyed by fire, company was held liable
as a common carrier. Burlington & M. R. Co. v. Arms, xvi. 272.

Carrier notified purchaser that he claimed lien on second part of consignment
of coal for freight of whole lot. Purchaser took the said part: Held, that this
did not imply as matter of law a promise by him to pay the carrier the whole
freight. New York & N. E. R. R. Co. v. Sanders, xvi. 280.

CARRIERS-Continued.

The peculiar terms of this contract held to require delivery of the specific
grain shipped and not to be satisfied by a tender to the consignee of other grain
of the same grade. 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, that company was
estopped as to said party to show that orders both related to same consignment,
and that it was bound to compensate him for advances made. Coventry & Co.
v. Great Eastern R. Co., xvi. 292.

DAMAGES.

Where horses are injured in transit, damages may be measured by proof of
their value in market of neighboring State. Evidence of their depreciation in
value at point of destination is not indispensable. Louisville & N. R. Co. v.
Mason, xvi. 241.

Where seed corn on the ear was injured in transportation by shelling, plaintiff
may prove that he warned the company on shipment that it was seed corn,
though there is no averment to that effect in complaint. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v.
Nevin, xvi. 252.

PLEADING.

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.

The complaint in this case for delay in delivering cattle held defective in that
it did not state what part of the delay was caused by failure to furnish cars and
what part by stoppages en route. Ayres et al. v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., xvi.

171.

Where cause of action was failure to furnish cars to transport stock and fail-
ure to transport them expeditiously, the allegations of complaint were held suffi
ciently definite except that the damages caused by each separate negligent act
complained of were not stated. Richardson v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., xvi. 172.

OTHER MATTERS.

Party who transmits money to owner may recover for loss thereof. Snider o.
Adams Express Co., xvi. 261.

In an action for delay in transporting goods, part of which occurred more than
six years before suit brought and part within that time, plaintiff may recover
for latter part of delay. Jones v. Grand Trunk R. Co., xvi. 265.

Agent of common carrier is bound to use reasonable diligence in examining
unclaimed parcels so as to discover their contents, but he cannot break them
open. In advertising them for sale he must give full description. Sale in this
case held void for failure to observe above rules. Nathan Bros. v. Shivers, xvi.
276.

When it gives to railroad company a right to collect reasonable tolls amounts
to a contract which State cannot break. Wells, Fargo & Co. v. Oregon R. &
N. Co., xvi. 71.