'2Hi i iPfl ^MM0- aim 'IPI: nn ■isiii (Sorn^U ICam ^rljool ICihtarg Cornell University Library KF 1091.M82 A treatise on the law of carriers :as ad 3 1924 018 924 088 The original of tiiis book is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924018924088 STREET RAILWAY REPORTS ANNOTATED Report the decisions of the Federal and State Courts, with efxhaugtive annotations, from April, 1903, to 1906, in 3 voliimes, price $15.00. Continuations, 2 volumes a year. Price $5.00 per volume. A. TPlEi^TISE OH THE LAW OF CARRIERS AS ADMINISTERED BY THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES, CAN- ADA AND ENGLAND, COVERING THE PRINCIPLES AND RULES APPLICABLE TO CARRIERS OF GOODS, PASSENGERS, LIVE STOCK, COMMON CARRIERS, CONNECTING CARRIERS, AND INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION, AND THE METHODS AND PROCEDURE FOR THEIR EN- FORCEMENT, FURNISHING A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO LITIGANTS IN THE JURIS- DICTIONS NAMED, AND CON- TAINING THE TEXT OF THE RAILROAD RATE ACT OF 1906 BY DEWITT C. MOORE of the Johnstown, New York, Bar. ALBANY, IT. Y. MATTHEW BEaSTDEE & 00., 190fl. COPTEIGHT, 1906, BY MATTHEW BENDER & CO. PREFA-CE. The autlior of this volume performed tihe greater portion of the work necessary to the preparation of ISTellis' " 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 wbioh that publication was received by the profession led him to undertake the more laborious task of preparing this volume covering the broader field of " The Law of Carriers." Tbe 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 bas 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 considerable extent the probable construction that will be given by the courts to many of the provisions of the recent Act of Congress, known as the Railroad Rate Act. The full text of the new law is iv Peefaob. given, witli its many important and in many respects radical changes. The principal purposes and objects of that law are set forth, but only when the law is in actual operation can it be de- termined whether it will prove as effective and beneficial as those who are responsible for the 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 the 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 Mooee. Johnstown, N. Y., June 2, 1906. ' TAJBLiE OF CONTENTS. CHAPTER I. Caeeieks Geneeaxlt. Page. 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 4 7. When transportation is gratuitous 7 8. When compensation is implied 9 9. Proof of negligence 9 10. Private carriers for hire 10 11. Liability of private carriers for hire 12 12. Special contracts increasing or diminishing liability 13 13. Lien of the private carrier 14 CHAPTKR II. Common Careiees. Secttox 1. What constitutes a common carrier 18 2. The liability of the common carrier 23 3. Liability in the carrying of live stock 28 4. Liability where the loss or injury results from the inherent nature of the goods 29 5. Where the loss or injury is the result of the acts of the shipper 32 6. Where the loss or injury is the result of delay in the trans- mission of the goods 33 7. Where the loss or injury is caused by the exercise of public authority 34 8. Liability of carriers of passengers 35 9. Express companies 35 10. Railroad Companies 37 11. Receivers and assignees of railroad company operating the road 40 12. Trustees of mortgage bonds of railroad company 42 13. Street railroad companies 44 (V) vi Table of Contents. Page. Section 14. One railroad transporting the ears of another 45 15. Transportation or dispatch companies 47 16. Express freight lines 47 17. Owners of canal boats ■ 48 18. Owners of tow boats towing water craft on the Mississippi ... 48 19. Owners of boats employed in towing other boats or vessels ... 49 20. Ferrymen 51 21. Hackmen 53 22. Proprietors of omnibuses 54 23. Proprietors of stage coaches 55 24. Palace and sleeping car companies 55 25. Pipe line for carrying oil 61 26. Wagoners 61 27. Carriers by river craft 62 28. Truckmen, Freightmen, Draymen, Cartmen, and Porters ...... 63 29. Owners and' masters of ships and steamboats or vessels 65 30. Ownars of toll bridge 66 31. Canal companies 67 32. Forwarding merchants 68 33. Warehousemen and wharfingers 69 34. Postmasters, mail contractors, and mail carriers 71 35. Log-carrying, or log-driving, or boom companies 72 36. Telegraph companies 73 37. Telephone companies 78 38. Railroad company transporting a circus or menagerie 79 39. Railroad company in South Carolina only over its own line. . 80 40. Railroad company carrying a dog for accommodation of pas- senger 80 41. Carrier under a, contract exempting "river risks" 82 42. Owners of passenger elevators 82 43. Car-switching companies 86 44. TelegrapK messenger companies 86 45. An irrigation company 88 46. Transfer companies 89 47. Owners of. grain elevators 90 CHAPTEE III. Caeeieks of Goods. — ^Duties and LiABiLiTrES. Section 1. Carriers of goods 91 2. Duty of carrier to receive and carry 92 3. Must haul cars and freight of other carriers 95 4. May be compelled by mandamus 96 5. When failure or refusal to carry is legally excusable 98 6. May demand prepayment of charges lOi 7. When carrier may select mode of transportation 103 8. Facilities for transportation 1q4 Table op Contents. vii Page. Sectioit 9. Special contracts for means of transportation 108 10. Duty to furnish facilities declared by statute Ill 11. Must furnish suitable and safe cars 114 12. Tender of goods by shipper 116 13. Illegal purpose of shipper as a defense 117 14. Proximate cause of loss or injury 118 15. Discrimination in charges or facilities 119 16. The rule does not require the same rates and facilities for all 122 17. The compensation of the carrier 125 18. Excessive charges and actions therefor 127 CHAPTER IV. Commencement op Caeeiee's Liability — ^Dsliveey to Caeeiee. Section l. Commencement of carrier's liability 130 2. Acts constituting delivery to and acceptance by carrier 133 3. Acceptance may be implied from proper tender 135 4. Deposit of goods elsewhere than at regular office or depot .... 137 5. Delivery to agent of carrier 139 6. Bill of lading not essential to constitute delivery 141 7. Bill of lading as evidence of delivery .- . 142 8. Loading goods on cars 143 9. Proof of delivery to the carrier 144 CHAPTER V. Teemination of Liabilitt — Delivery by Caeeiee. Sbciion' 1. Termination of carrier's liability 146 2. Unloading and storing goods 149 3. Liability for injury while goods are being unloaded 151 4. Delivery must be made to the consignee or his agent 152 6. Delivery may always be made to the true owner of the goods. . 155 6. Delivery to fraudulent purchaser 157 7. Delivery of goods sent in care of carrier's local agent 158 8. Consignor's right to change of consignee 159 9. Delivery to holder of bill of lading 161 10. Carrier entitled to demand bill of lading 166 11. Carrier's liability to innocent purchaser of bill of lading. . . . 167 12. Laches of holder of bill of lading 167 13. Goods received from connecting carrier 168 14. Stoppage in transitu as a defense 169 15. Holder of bill of lading has priority over creditors 170 16. Effect of the word "notify" in a bill of lading 170 17. Bill of lading attached to draft 171 yiu Table of CoiiTTEWTB. Page. Section 18. Effect of bill of lading as estoppel •. 173 19. Duplicate bills of lading 176 20. Necessity of endorsement of bill of lading 177 21. Carrier's liability for misdelivery 178 22. Delivery to one of two persons of the same name 181 23. Place of delivery 183 24. Eight of owner or consignee to change place of delivery 186 25. Statutory requirements as to delivery of grain 189 26. When place of destination is not on carrier's line 190 27. Time of delivery 191 28. When personal delivery is required 192 29. Delivery by carriers by water 194 30. Delivery where consignee refuses to receive 196 31. Delivery of goods sent C. O. D 199 32. Confusion of goods 203 33. Statutory penalties for refusing to deliver promptly 205 34. Demand of goods by consignee ' 207 35. Waiver of right of action' for wrongful delivery 208 36. Eight of carrier to demand receipts upon delivery 209 CHAPTER VI. CONVEESION BY CaEEIEE. BsxynoK 1. Conversion by carrier 211 2. Receiving goods from one in possession not conversion 216 3. Carrier not liable in conversion for mere nonfeasance 216 OHAPTER VII. Liability foe Loss oe Damage. SECDJOir 1. Liability of carrier for loss or damage 219 2. Loss or damage by act of God, vis major, or inevitable accident 220 3. Proximate cause of loss or injury 224 4. Loss or injury by the public enemy 225 5. Seizure under legal process. — Attachment 229 6. Seizure under legal process. — Garnishment 232 7. Seizure under police regulations 233 8. Duty of carrier after disaster 234 9. Loss or injury from inherent nature of goods 235 10. Care required of carrier in general 235 CHAPTEE VIII. Liability foe Delay. Seotioit 1. Liability for delay in transportation 238 2. Liability where there is a special contract 242 3. Liability where there are special instructions by the shipper 245 Table of Contents. ix Page. Section 4. Liability under statutes requiring prompt forwarding of freight 245 5. Delay in delivering perishable freight 246 6. Delay must have been the proximate cause of injury 248 7. Waiver of right of action for delay 249 8. Excuses for delay generally 249 9. Unusual floods and storms 251 10. Accumulation of cars and freight 252 11. Low water or freezing of water-way 253 12. Strikes by employes 254 13. Limitation of liability for delay 255 14. Carrier's duty during delay 256 15. Delay concurring with inevitable accident 256 CHAPTER IX. Liability as Warehouseman. SEcnoif 1. Carrier's liability as warehouseman before transportation... 258 2. Carrier's liability as warehouseman during transportation . . . 260 3. Carrier's liability as warehouseman as to goods awaiting de- livery. — ^Massachusetts rule 261 4. The New Hampshire rule. — English rule. — Origin of different rules 263 5. Conflict of laws 260 6. What is reasonable time for removal of goods generally 267 7. Time extended by failure or refusal to deliver 271 8. Notice to consignee held not essential 272 9. Necessity of notice maintained 273 10. Sufficiency of notice 275 11. Notice to consignor 275 12. Liability of connecting carriers 277 13. The burden of proof 277 14. Effect of special contract or usage on rule 278 15. Duty of carrier as warehouseman to store safely 280 16. Carrier's liability as warehouseman for negligence 281 17. Statute making railroad company liable for losses by fire .... 285 CHAPTEK X. Limitation of Liability. Section 1. Limitation of carrier's liability generally 287 2. Operation and effect of limitation in general 288 3. Limitation by public notice 290 4. Limitation by special contract 294 5. Special contract must be express and will not be presumed . . 298 6. Contract need not be signed by shipper unless required by statute 299 X Table of Contents. Page. Section 7. Where there are two contracts limiting liability 299 8. Conflict of oral and written agreements 300 9. Contract must have been fairly entered into 302 10. Necessity of consideration 302 11. Contract signed by shipper without examination 305 12. Contract must have been made at time of shipment 306 13. Contract must be legible and intelligible 307 14. By what law validity of contract is determined 308 15. Who may make special contract 312 16. Carrier may not limit its liability for negligence 313 17. The New York rule 319 18. Rule in Illinois and Wisconsin 322 19. The English and Canadian rule 323 20. Reasons upon which the different rules are based 325 21. Liabilities subject to limitation 327 22. Mode or form of limitation. — Bill of lading or shipping. receipt 329 23. Limitation of time in which to bring suit 331 24. Requirement of notice of loss or presentation of claim within fixed time 333 25. To what damages stipulation does not apply 336 26. Limitation of liability as ground of defense. — Pleading 338 27. Limitation of liability as ground of defense. — Presumptions ' and burden of proof 338 28. Stipulation requiring claim to be made before removal of goods 339 29. Limitation of liability to forwarder or warehouseman 340 30. Limitation of amount of liability 341 31. Stipulations that measure of damages shall be invoice value or market price at place of shipment 349 32. Construction of special contracts 351 33. When stipulations of contract inoperative 355 34. Fraudulent concealment or misrepresentation of value by shipper 355 35. Carrier's duty to inquire as to value of property 358 36. Shipper's duty to state value and character of goods 359 CHAPTER XI. Cakeiee's Eelation to Goods and Authohity of Agents. Section 1. Carrier's relation to goods 362 2. Power and authority of carrier's general freight agents 364 3. Powers and authority of local agents 367 4. Authority of other agents and employes 372 6. Carrier and insurance company 373 Table of Contents. XI CHAPTEK XII. ITegliqence oe Cakeieb. Page. SeCxioit 1. General rule of liability as to negligence of carrier 374 2. Negligence must have been proximate cause of injury 377 3. Negligence in stowage of goods 378 CHAPTEE XIII. COITTEIBUTOET NEGLIGENCE. OF ShIPPEE. SECT!OT!t 1. Contributory negligence of shipper generally 380 2. Defective packing or marking 381 3. Goods improperly loaded 382 4. Liability of shipper or consignee to carrier for negligence in unloading 383 6. Liability of shipper for injury caused by goods of dangerous character 383 CHAPTER XIV. Peesumptions and Btteden of Peoof. SECnaw 1. Presumptions and burden of proof generally 386 2. Presumption as to state of goods when received 391 3. Defense of loss by the act of God 391 4. Where goods lost consist of several kinds 392 5. Where liability is limited by special contract 392 6. Proof of loss by fire under contract limiting liability 395 7. Where carrier is merely a warehouseman 396 CHAPTER XV. Damages. SxcnoK 1. Measure of damages in case of loss of goods 393 2. Interest as part of damages 403 3. Freight charges, advances, and attorney's fees 406 4. Damages where goods are only injured 408 5. Measure of damages in case of delay 410 6. Damages for refusal or failure to carry 417 7. Damages for refusal to deliver 419 8. Damages for misdelivery 419 9. Damages where goods have no market value 420 10. Damages for mental suffering 421 11. Remote and speculative damages 422 12. Contract of sale as measure of damages 423 13. Damages for loss or delay in delivery of goods intended for a specific purpose 424 14. Prospective, contingent, or possible consequences 426 xii Table of CoiraENTS. CHAPTER XVI. CAERrEE^s Lien. Page. Sbcxior 1. Carrier's lien for charges 428 2. Carrier's lien for general balance due 431 3. What carriers are entitled to lien 432 4. What property lien applies to 433 5. When lien attaches 435 6. Delivery of goods and payment of freight 435 7. Lien of carrier where consignee fails or refuses to receive. . . 436 8. Lien of the last of connecting carriers 437 9. Priority over other liens 439 10. How lien is lost, satisfied, or discharged 441 11. Lien waived by express agreement or stipulation inconsistent with it 445 12. How lien is enforced. 445 CHAPTER XVII. Connecting OAKBiEiES. Section 1. Who are connecting carriers 448 2. Relation of connecting carriers to shipper and to each other. 440 3. Carrier not bound to carry beyond its own line 450 4. Delivery to succeeding carrier 450 5. Notice of arrival of goods 453 6. Duty to receive goods from connecting carrier 453 7. Liability for delay 454 8. Liability of initial carrier for loss or injury limited to its own line 457 9. Liability of initial carrier for loss or injury extends over whole route 462 10. Liability of intermediate carriers 464 11. Liability of terminal carrier 468 12. Liability for miscarriage or diversion of goods 469 13. Special contracts for through transportation 471 14. What is sufiicient to establish a through contract 473 15. Charging and collecting entire freight in advance 475 16. Collection of entire charges by terminal carrier 476 17. Accepting goods to be transported to or delivered at a cer- tain point 477 18. Carrier as forwarder or warehouseman 478 19. Limitation of carrier's liability to its own line 479 20. When connecting carriers entitled to benefit of limitations . . 484 21. What constitutes delivery to a connecting carrier 487 22. Notice to connecting carrier of arrival of goods 488 23. Presumptions and burden of proof 490 24. Connecting lines as partners 491 25. Rights of connecting carriers as to charges 494 Table of CowTEiTTS. xiii CHAPTER XVIII. • Caeeiees of Live Stock, Page. Section 1. Carriers of live sioek are eonmion carriers 496 2. Duty to receive and carry 497 3. Duty in respect to facilities and means of transportation. . . . 498 4. Stock pens and yards 500 5. Shipper's knowledge of defects in ears 502 6. Duty to provide food, vrater, and rest for stock 504 7. When shipper assumes duty of caring for stock 505 8. Other duties in respect to transportation 507 9. Statutes limiting the confinement of cattle 508 10. Liability for loss or injury 509 11. Commencement and termination of liability 512 12. Liability for delay in transportation or delivery 512 13. Delivery to carrier 516 14. Delivery by carrier 516 15. .Contributory negligence of owner 518 16. Measure of damages 520 17. Limitation of liability 522 18. Stipulations that shipper will accompany stock, load, and unload 523 19. Injuries caused by viciousneas of animals, or defects in cars. 524 20. Stipulations as to claim for damages 525 21. Limitation of liability to a specified amount 527 22. Loss or injury due to carrier's negligence 529 23. Stipulation requiring shipper to report condition of stock ... 530 24. Limitations rendered inoperative 531 25. Presumptions and burden of proof 531 26. Liability of connecting carriers 534 27. Liability for improper loading or unloading 536 28. Liability for animals escaping 537 CHAPTEE, XIX. Caeeibbs of Passewgees. Section 1. Definition and nature of carriers of passengers 539 2. Relation between carrier and passenger 541 3. Who are passengers 543 4. Commencement of relation 545 5. Purchase of ticket 548 6. Entry in vehicle of carrier 549 7. Payment of fare 552 8. Termination of relation 554 9. Leaving the vehicle of carrier 556 10. After leaving vehicle of carrier 556 11. Stop-overs on continuous passage tickets 558 xiv Table of Contents. Page. Section 12. Who are not passengers 560 13. Limited and unlimited tickets 583 14. Non-transferable tickets • 567 15. Persons riding gratuitously 568 16. Persons riding on passes 570 17. Persons riding on drover's pass 571 18. Persons riding on trains not generally used for passengers . . 574 19. Persons riding on engine 575 20. Persons riding on hand cars 577 21. Employes of others carried under contract. — ^Mail clerks 577 22. Employes of others carried under contract. — Express Messen- gers 579 23. Persons riding on freight trains 581 24. Persons accompanying passengers 584 25. Employes of carrier as passengers 586 26. Bules and regulations of the carrier 583 OHAPTER XX. Duties and Liabilities of Cabbiees of Passbngees. Beoxion 1. Care required' of carrier in general 594 2. Obstructions on or near tracks 598 3. Duty of railroad company to fence tracks 599 4. Locomtives, ears, and appliances 600 5. Improved appliances ftnd methods 603 6. Duty of inspection 605 7. Liability for latent defects 606 8. Negligence of persons engaged in construction or manufacture. 60S 9. Liability of carrier employing leased lines, or using cars of another company 609 10. Liability for injuries caused by inevitable accident 610 11. Means and appliances for receiving and discharging passen- gers 612 12. Passenger carriers by stage coaches 615 13. Carriers of passengers by water 615 14. Carrier's liability as to employment of servants 616 15. Duty to receive and transport passengers •. 619 16. Persons who may be refused transportation 621 17. When refusal to transport must be made 624 18. Duty to carry passengers on freight and special trains 624 19. Duty of carrier to protect passenger 625 20. Acts or omissions of carrier's employes 627 21. The New York rule 630 22. Carrier's liability for assaults by servants 631 23. Liability for insult and abuse by servants 636 24. Liability for expulsion by servants 637 25. Liability for false arrest of passenger 638 Table of Contents. xv Page. Section 26. Liability for acts of fellow passengers or other third persons . 641 27. Liability for assaults by passengers or other third persons . . 644 28. Indecent language and conduct of fellow passengers or in- truders 647 29. Duty to protect from acts of drunken passengers 647 30. Duty of carrier to sick passengers 649 31. Protection from accidental injuries 650 32. Care of carrier in the carriage of passengers 651 33. Management of conveyance. — Sudden jerks and jolts 660 34. Duty of carrier to announce stations 664 35. Duty of carrier to stop at statiojis 666 36. Warning of departure of trains 669 37. Duty to provide safe means of ingress and egress 670 38. Reasonable time for ingress and egress 674 39. Duty to warn, instruct, or inform passengers 679 40. Duty to assist aged, infirm, or helpless passengers 682 41. Duty to carry to point of destination 685 42. Carrying passengers beyond destination 687 43. Duty to carry promptly 690 44. Safety of passengers 692 45. Safety of passengers on freight and other trains 694 46. Duty of carrier to provide passengers with seats 695 47. Liability for injuries caused by collision 696 48. Duty of carrier for safety of sick passengers 700 49. Articles constituting personal baggage 700 50. Duty to carry baggage 709 51. Liability of carrier for loss or injury 712 52. Limitation of liability 716 53. Baggage checks mere receipts or vouchers 721 54. Commencement and termination of liability 722 55. Carrier's liability as warehouseman 726 56. Connecting carriers 727 CHAPTER XXI. Ejection of Passengees. Section 1. Ejection of passengers for failure or refusal to procure ticket or pay fare 731 2. Passenger entitled to reasonable time to pay fare or produce ticket 733 3. Extra fare when paid on train 733 4. Tender or payment of fare to avoid ejection ^ 735 5. Ejection of intoxicated passengers 738 6. Ejection of disorderly passengers 739 7. Ejection for violation of reasonable rules of the carrier 740 8. Defective or invalid tickets 742 9. Ejection of persons riding on freight trains 746 10. Manner of ejection 747 11. Place of ejection 749 XVI Table of Contents. CHAPTEK XXIL Limitation of Caeeiee's Liability. Section 1. Limitation of carrier's liability generally 752 2. Essentials of contract limiting liabilify for negligence 756 3. Limitation of liability for negligence 759 4. The New York rule 763 5. The English rule 765 6. Limitation of liability for negligence as to particular classes of passengers 765 CHAPTEE XXIII. Peesumptions and Bueden of Peoof. Sectioth 1. Presumptions as to negligence from mere proof of injury. . . 769 2. Acts of servants or defects in instrumentalities of transpor- tation 774 3. Presumption arising from collisions 777 4. Presumptions arising from derailment of train or car 778 5. Presumption arising from defects in means of transportation. 780 6. Presumption of negligence as to injuries to persons other than passengers 782 7. Reasons for presumption of negligence 786 8. Rebutting presumption 787 9. Other presumptions 788 10. Presumptions as to contributory negligence 789 11. Presumption arising from instinct of self preservation 791 12. The burden of proving negligence 793 13. The burden of proof as to contributory negligence 795 CHAPTER XXIV. Evidence. Seotioit 1. Authority, competency, and negligence of servants 801 2. Condition of means of transportation 802 3. Evidence of other and similar accidents 804 4. Subsequent repairs and precautions 805 5. Custom or habit of carrier or passenger 805 6. Tickets as evidence of contract for transportation 806 7. Declarations and admissions of injured passengers 807 8. Declarations and admissions of employes 810 9. Declarations and conduct of other persons 812 Table of Contents. xvii CHAPTEE XXV. CONTBIBUTOEY NEGLIGENCE. Page. Sectioit 1. Contributory negligence must be proximate cause of injury. 814 2. Acts in disregard of warning or disobedience of carrier's rules. 815 3. Acts by permission or direction of carrier's employes 817 4. Sudden peril. — ^Acts in emergencies 818 5. Contributory negligence of children 822 6. Contributory negligence of aged or infirm persons 82.5 7. Contributory negligence of parents, guardians, or custodians. . 828 8. Intoxication as evidence of contributory negligence 828 9. Contributory negligence as a question of law or fact 829 10. Traveling in violation of statute not contributory negligence. 830 11. Entering conveyance 832 12. Boarding train or car in motion 836 13. Place of entering cars or trains 843 14. Leaving conveyance 843 15. Alighting at improper place or in improper manner 845 16. Alighting from train or cars in motion 847 17. Riding in dangerous position 853 18. Riding on platform, steps, or running board 856 19. Standing up in ear 860 20. Passing from one car to another 868 21. Riding with part of person projecting from window 870 22. Awaiting and seeking transportation 872 23. Standing near or between tracks and crossing intervening tracks 874 CHAPTER XXVI. Damages. Section 1. Compensation is the general rule as to measure of damages. . 879 2. Injury aggravated by passenger's negligence or imprudence.. . 882 3. Injury aggravated by existing disease or injury 883 4. Damages for failure to carry 884 5. Damages for setting down passengers at place other than des- tination 886 6. Damages for ejection or assault of passenger 887 7. Damages for personal injuries 891 8. Mental suffering as distinct cause of action or element of damage 894 9. Exemplary damages. — Malice or wilfulness 895 10. Exemplary damages. — Gross negligence 898 11. Exemplary damages for carrier's acts 899 12. Exemplary damages for acts of servants 900 13. Elements affecting the amount of damages 902 14. Excessive or inadequate damages 904 XVlll Table of Contents. CHAPTER XXVIL Interstate Teanspoktation. Page. SEOTloir 1. Hegulation of interstate transportation 905 2. .The interstate commerce act 906 3. Carriers subject to the act 90i> 4. Charges must be just and reasonable 911 5. Unjust discrimination 914 6. Unjust discrimination in specific cases 918 7. Undue or unreasonable preference or advantage 922 8. Undue preference in particular cases 926 9. Bqual facilities for interchange of traffic 928 10. Charges for long and short hauls 93is 11. Schedules of rates, fares, and charges 935 12. Pooling or dividing freights or earnings 93(5 13. Interruption of continuous carriage 937 14. Mileage, excursion, or commutation tickets 938 15. Enforcement of the act 938 16. Railroad late legislation 940 TABILE OF CASES. (The reterences are to the pa^es.) A. Aaron v. Adams Express Co.i 27 Ohio L. J. 183-202. Aaronson v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 23 Misc. Rep. (N. T.) 666—282. Abhe V. Baton, Bl N. T. 410—209. Abbey v. Str. Stephens, 22 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 78—50. Abbett V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 30 Minn. "(82—799. Abbott V. Bradstreet, B5 Me. 630—713, 715. Abbott V. Johnstown, etc.. Horse R. Co., 80 N. T. 31—97, 916. Abbott V. ToUver, 71 Wis. 64—902, 903. Abell V. Western Maryland R. Co., 63 Md. 433—586. Abraham v. 'Western Union Tel. Co., 23 Fed. Rep. 315—74. Abrams v. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co., 87 Wis. 485-322, 346, 504, 616, 761. A Cargo of Hard Coal, 55 U. S. App. 181— 444. Acheson v. New Tork Cent. R. Co., 61 N. Y. 653—108, 125. Ackerson v. Erie R. Co., 32 N. J. L. 254 —899, 900. Aokley V. Kellogg, 8 Cow. (N. Y.) 223— 68. Adams V. Blankenstein, 2 Cal. 413—154. Adams v. Clark, 9 Cush. (Mass.) 215, 447. Adams V. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 74 Mo. 663—812, 819. Adams v. Lancashire, etc., R. Co., L. R. 4 C. P. 739—822. Adams v. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co., 87 Wis. 485—769. Adams v. Missouri Pao. R. Co., 100 Mo. 665-671. Adams V. New Jersey Steamboat Co., 151 N. Y. 163—715. Adams V. Nashville, 95 U. S. 19—266. Adams V. New Orleans Tow-boat Co., 11 La. 46—65. Adams V, O'Connor, 100 Mass. 515—437. Adams v. Scott, 104 Mass. 164—34, 229, 232, 233 Adams v. Union Ry. Co., 80 N. Y. Supp. 264—774. Adams v. Washington, etc., R. Co., 9 App. D. C. 26—633, 770, 777, 858. Adams Express Co. v. Bratton, 106 111. App. 663—292, 633. Adams Express Co. v. Cressop, 6 Bush (Ky.), 672—7. Adams Express Co, v. Carnahan (Ind. App.), 63 N. E. 246—296, 303, 330, 343, 354. Adams Express Co. v. Darnell, 31 Ind. 20 —7, 24, 148, 201. .^dams E;kpress Co. v. Fendrick, 38 Ind. 150-315, 760. (lis) Adams Express Co. v. Guthrie, 9 Bush (Ky.), 78-316. Adams Express Co. v. Haynes, 42 111. 89 —297, 765, 759, 762. Adams Express Co. v. Harris, 120 Ind. 73 —316, 343, 444, 447, 486. Adams Express Co. v. Holmes (Pa.), 8 Cent. Rep. 166—761. Adams Express Co. v. Holmes (Pa.), 9 Atl. 166—346, 388. Adams Express Co. v. Hoeing, 88 Ky. 373 —345. Adams Express Co. v. Jackson, 92 Tenn. 326—252, 516. Adams Express Co. v. McConnell, 27 Kan. 238—197. Adams Express Co. v. McDonough, 6 Ohio Clr. Ct. Rep. 639—198. Adams Express Co. V. Nock, 2 Duv. (Ky.) 662—93, 293, 296, 302, 755. Adams Express Co. v. Keagan, 29 Ind. 21 —315, 334, 336, 753. Adams Express Co. v. Schlesslnger, 75 Pa. St. 246—173. Adams Express Co. v. Sharpless, 77 Pa. St. 516—317, 761. Adams Express Co. v. Stettaners, 61 111. 184—290, 297, 315, 322, 343, 717, 762. Adams Express Co. v. Walker, 26 Ky. Law. Rep. 1025—513, 529. Adams Express Co. v. Wilson, 81 111. 339 —462. Addyston Pipe, etc., Co. v. United States, 175 U. S. 211—906. Aetna Nat. Bank v. Water Power Co., 58 Mo. App. 532—143. Aetna Ins. Co. v. Wheeler, 49 N. Y. 616— 186, 246, 331, 476, 478, 479, 486, 487. Agnew v. Steamer Contra Costa, 27 Cal. 426—30, 392, 610. Ahlbeck v. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., 39 Minn. 424—722. Algen v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 132 Mass. 423—469, 464, 467, 492, 494. Aiken V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 68 Iowa, 363—142, 498. Alkin V. Frankford, etc., R. Co., 142 Pa. St. 47—863. Aiken V. Southern Pac. Co., 104 La. 162 —606. Aiken v. Western Union Tel. Co., 5 S. C. 358—74. Aiken v. Western Union Tel. Co., 69 Iowa, 31—73. Alrey v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 50 La. Ann. 648—61. Alalr V. Northern Pac. R. Co., 53 Minn. 160-346, 527. Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. Arnold, 80 Ala. 600—881, 898. Alabama, etc., R. Co. V. Arnold, 84 Ala. 169-«74. Table of Cases. (The references are to the pages.) Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. Beardsley, 79 Miss. 417— «97. Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. Brlchetto, 72 Miss. 891—185, 252, 255. Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. Elchofer, 100 Ala. 224—151. Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. Grabf elder, 83 Ala. 200—264. Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. Hawk, 72 Ala- 112—56, 816. Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. Kldd, 35 Ala. 209 —148, 151, 264, 279. Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. Little, 71 Ala. 611—314, 342, 388, 390, 393, 754. Alabama, etc., Co. v. Mt. Vernon Co., 84 Ala. 173—70, 259, 462, 488. Alabama, etc., R. Co. v, Moorer, 116 Ala. 642—375. Alabama, etc., R. Co. <. Purnell, 69 Miss. Alabama R. Co. v. Schaufler, 75 Ala. 142 —851. Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. Searles, 71 Miss. 744—114, 401. Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. Sparks, 71 Miss. 767—508, 615. Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. Stacy, 68 Miss. 463—613. Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. Thomas, 89 Ala. 294—314, 449, 451, 462, 470, 536. Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. Thomas, 83 Ala. 343—314, 474, 480, 630. Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. Tarbrough, 83 Ala. 238-560, 683. A-labama G. S. R. Co. v. Cogglns, 88 Fed. 455—876. Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Frazler, 93 Ala. 45—810. Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Hill, 93 Ala. 514 —656, 780, 803, 898, 899. Alabama G. S. R. v. Jones, 71 Ala. 487- 602. Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Sellers, 93 Ala. 9—687, 886, 887, 896, 898. Alabama Midland R. Co. v. Darby, 119 Ala. 531—214. Alabama Midland R. Co. v. Guilford, 119 Ga. 523—600, 604, 652. Alabama Nat. Bank v. Mobile, etc., R. Co., 42 Mo. App. 284—167. Albion V. Hetrick, 90 Ind. 545—698. Albion Lumber Co. v. De Nobra, 72 Fed. 739—540, 687, 779. Albright V. Penn, 14 Tex. 290—62. Alcorn v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 108 Mo. 81—282. Alden V. Carver, 13 Iowa, 263 — 428, 436. Alden V. New York Cent. R. Co., 26 N. T. 102—601, 603, 606, 781. Alden V. Pearson, 3 Gray (Mass.), 34a— 388. Alderman v. Eastern R. Co., 116 Mass. 233—169, 172, 173, Aldrlch V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 100 Mass. 31—282, 283. Aldrlch V. St. Louis Trans. Co. (Mo. App.), 74 S. W. 141—596. Aldridge v. Great Western R. Co., 15 C. B. N. S. 682—8, 324, 483, 765. Alexander v. Green, 3 Hill (N, T.), »— 13, 50. Alexander v. Green, 7 Hill (N. T.), 633— IS. 320, 321, 351. Alexander v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 83 Ky, 689—617. Alexander v. Toronto, etc., R, (3o., 35 U, C. CJ. B. 463—767, 768. Alexandria, etc., R. Co. v. Brown, IT Wall. (U. S.) 445—623. Alexandria, etc., R. Co. v. Hemdon, 87 Va. 193—612, 806. Alford v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 771—930. - Alfred v. Home, 3 Stark. 136—323. Alkali Co. V. Johnson, L. R. 7 Exch. ?fi7 —64. Allam V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 183 Pa. 104—152, 262, 275, 770. Allan V. State Steamship Co., 132 N. T. 91—618. Allday V. Great Western R. Co., 6 B. & S. 903—604. Al'en & Lewis v. Oregon R. & Nay. Co., 98 Fed. 16—916, 933. Allen v. Camden, etc.. Ferry Co., 46 N. J. L. 198—888. Allen v. Cape Pear, etc., R. Co., 100 N. C. 397—125. Allen V. Coltart, 11 Q. B. Dlv. 782—358. Allen V. Galveston City R. Co., 79 Tex. 631—676. Allen V. London & S. W. R. Co., L. R. 6 W. B. 65—640. Allen V. Northern Pac. B. Co., 35 Wash. 221 ^773. Allen V. Sackrlder, 37 N. T. 341—4, 11, 12, 18, 63. Allen V. Sewall, 2 Wend. (N. T.) 338—27, 66 544 669. Allen V.' Willard, 67 Pa. St. 374—793. Allen V. Williams, 12 Pick. (Mass.) 297— 172, 177. Allegeyer v. Louisiana, 166 U. S. 578—909. Allender v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 37 Iowa, 264—646, 648, 561. Allender v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 43 Iowa. 276—670, 683, 833. Alierton v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 146 Mass. 241—656. Ailing v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 126 Mass. 121—706, 707, 708, 709. Allis V. Voight, 90 Mich. 125—11, 12. Allison V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 42 Iowa, 274—803. AUyn V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 106 Mass. 77 —793. Almand v. Georgia R., etc., Co., 96 Ga. 775—261, 285, 466. Aimer v. Delaware, etc., Canal Co., 120 N. Y. 170—694. Alsager v. St. Katharine's Dock, 14 M. & W. 794—442, 446. Alsop V. Southern Express Co., 104 N, C. 278—94. Alston V. Kerning, 11 Exch. 822—30. Altemeier v. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 4 Ohio N. P. 224—643. Althorf V. Wolfe, 22 N. Y. 356—903. Arobach v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 30 Ohio L. J. U— 346. American Contract Co. v. Cross, 8 Bush (Ky.), 472—703. American District Tel. Co, v. Walker, 72 Md, 464—87, American, etc., R. Co. v, Baldwin, 26 111. 604—147, 179. American Express Co. v. Greenbalge, 80 111. 68—201. American Express Co. v. Hockett, 30 Ind. 250—193. American Express Co. v. Lesen, 39 111. 312 —199, 200, 202, American Express Co, v. Ogles (Tex. Civ. App.), 81 S. W. 1023— 67S. Table of Cases. (The references are to the pages.) XXI American Express Co. v. Perkins, 42 111. 458—32. American Express Co. v. Robinson, 72 Pa. St. 274—194, 360. American Express Co. v. Sands, 55 Pa. St. 140—317, 346, 388. American Express Co. v. Second Nat. Bank, 69 Fa. St. 394—295. American Express Co. v. Smith, 33 Ohio St. 511—34, 222, 235, 240, 247, 248, 250, 251, 367, 362, 380, 610. American Express Co. v. Spellman, 90 111. 195, 455—307, 315. American Express Co. v. Titusville Second Nat. Bank, 69 Pa. St. 394—460, 482, American Hay Co. v. Bath, etc., R. Co., 86 N. Y. Supp. 341—330. American Ins. Co. v. Bryan, 1 Hill (N. T.), 25, 26 Wend. (N. T.) 563—352. American Insurance Co. v. Plnokney, 29 111. 392—35. American M. U. Express Co. v. Milk, 73 111. 224—154. American M. U. Express Co. v. Phillips, 29 Mich. 515—497. American M. U. Express Co. v. Schier, 55 111. 140—194, 199, 200, 296. American M. U. Express Co. v. Wolfe, 79 111. 430—194, 199, 200, 201, 277. American Nat. Bank v. Georgia R. Co., 96 Ga. 665—164, 439. American Rapid Tel. Co. v. Connecticut Teleph. Co., 49 Conn. 352—78. American Steamship Co. v. Bryan, 83 Pa. St. 446—66, 713, 715. American Steamship Co. v. Landreth. 102 Pa. St. 131—616. American Sugar Refining Co. v. McGheem, 96 Ga. 27—180, 196, 269, 277. American Transp. Co. v. Moore, 5 Mich. 368—292, 715, 757, 768. American Union Tel. Co. v. Doughtery, 89 Ala. 191—76. American Zinc, etc., Co. v. Markle Lead "Works, 102 Mo. App. 168—177. Ames V. Belden, 17 Barb. (N. T.) 515—12. Ames V. McCamber, 124 Mass. 85—267. Ames V. Palmer, 42 Me. 197—434. Ames V. Southern Pac. R. Co., 141 Cal. 728 —746. Ames V. Waterloo, etc., R. T. Co. (Iowa), 67 N. E. 1044—792, 877. Amcry v. McGregor, 15 Johns. (N. Y.) 24 —398, 404. Anacosta, etc., R. Co. v. Klein, S App. D. C. 76—676. Anchor Line v. Dater, 68 111. 369—297, 463, 467. Anchor Line v. Knowles, 66 111. 350—297. Anchor Mill Co. v. Burlington, etc., R. Co., 102 Iowa, 262—186, Anderson v. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 9 Mo. App. 677—531. Anderson v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 32 App. Dlv. (N. Y.) 266—778. Anderson v. Canadian Pac. R, Co., 17 Ont. Rep. 747—718, 757. Anderson v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 52 N. W. (Neb.) 840—798. Anderson v. Foresman, Wright (Ohio), 698 —5, 7, 10. Anderson v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 24 Ont. App. 672—872. Anderson v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. (Ind. App.), 69 N. E. 396—530. Anderson v. Louisville, etc., K. Co. (Miss.), 15 So. 795-418. Anderson v. Northeastern R. Co., 9 W. R. 619—400. Anderson v. Rome, etc., R. Co., 64 N. Y. 334—812. Anderson v. Scholey, 114 Ind. 553—776. Anderson v. Toledo, etc., R. Co., 32 Iowa, 86— 71S. Anderson v. Union Terminal R. Co., 161 Mo. 411—374. Andrews v. Capital City, etc., R. Co., t Mackay (D. C), 137—863. Andrews v. Dieterich, 14 Wend. (N. Y.) 31—438. Andrews v. Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 26 S. W. 1040-706. Andrews Soap Co. v. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 77—917. Andrist v. Union Pac. R. Co., 30 Fed. 34S —669. Angle V. Mississippi, etc., R. Co., 18 Iowa, 655—284, 388. Angle V. Mississippi, etc., R. Co., 9 Iowa, 487—154, 280, 463. Annas v. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co., 67 Wis. 46—569, 754, 762, 764, 766. Anniston, etc., R. Co. v. Ledbetter, 02 Ala. 326—264, 271. Anniston Transfer Co. v. Gurley (Ala.), 18 So. 209—723. Anon V. Jackson, 2 Peake N. P. 185—294. Anon V. Jackson, 1 Hayw. (N. C.) 14—11, 92. Ansell V. Waterhouse, 2 Chit. Rep. 1, 18 B. C. L. 227—27, 642. Anthony Salt Co. v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 4 Int. Com. C. Rep. 33—916. Appleby V. South Carolina, etc., R. Co., 60 S. C. 48-896. Appleby v. St. Paul City R. Co., 64 Minn. 169—744. Arctic, etc., Ins. Co, v. Austin, 64 Barb. (N. Y.) 659—68. Archer v. New York, etc., R. Co., 106 N. Y. 689—796. Archer v. Fort Wayne, etc., R. Co., 87 Mich. 101—868, 861. Arimstead v. Wilde, 17 Q. B. 261—6. Arkansas M. R. Co. v. Canman, 52 Ark. 617—689, 601, 662. Arlington v. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 6 Jones L. (N. C.) 68—179. Armentrout v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 1 Mo. App. 168—257. Armistead Lumber Co. v, Louisville, etc., R. Co. (Miss.), 11 So. 472—160. Armistead v. Shreveport, etc., R. Co., 108 La. 171—417. Armour v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 65 N. Y. 111—166, 173, 309. Armsby v. Union Pac. R. Co., 4 Fed. 70tt —427. Armstrong v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 62 Mo. App. 639—336, 387, 437, 601. Armstrong v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 45 Minn. 85—265, 282, 334. Armstrong v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 18 New Bruns. 445—478. Armstrong V. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 23 App. Div. (N. Y.) 137—775, 779. Armstrong v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 17 Mo. App. 403—412, 416, 422. Armstrong v. New York, etc., R. Co., 66 Barb. (N. Y.) 437—830. Armstrong v. United States Express Co., 169 Pa. St. 640—242, 317, 600. Arnold v. Halenbake, 5 Wend. (N. T,) 33—48. XXll Table of Cases. (The references are to the pages.) Arnold v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 83 111. 273 —624, 746, 753, 758. Arnold v. Jones, 26 Tex. 335—27, 318. Arnold v, Pennsylvania R. Co., 115 Pa. St. 136—511, 665. Arnold V. Shade, 3 Phlla. (Pa.) 82—457, 473. Arrlngton v. ■Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 6 Jones L. (N. C.) 68—420. Arrlngton v. Texas, etc., R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 70 S. W. 551—602. Arrowsmlth v. Nashville, etc., R. Co., 57 Fed. 166—678. Arthur v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 61 Iowa, 643—204. Arthur v. Pullman Co., 44 Misc. Rep. (N. T.) 229—57. Arthur v. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., 38 Minn. 95-189, 264, 270, 271. Arthur v. The Schooner Cassius, 2 Story (U, S,), 97—197, 445, 446. Ash V. Putnam, 1 Hill (N. T.), 302—443. Ashbrook v. Frederick Ave. R. Co., 18 Mo. App. 290—864, 868, 861. Ashenden v. London, etc., R. Co., 28 W. R. 611—325. Ashmore v. Pennsylvania, etc., Co., 28 N. J. L. 180—49, 61, 65, 288, 719, 764. Ashmole v. Walnwright, 2 Q. B. 837—127. Askew V. Gulf, etc., R. Co. (Tex. Civ. ' App.), 73 S. W. 486—482. Associated Wholesale Grocers v. Missouri Pao. R. Co., 1 Int. Com. Rep. 393—921, 938. Aston V. Heaven, 2 Esp. 533—22. Aston V. St, Louis Transit Co. (Mo. App.), 79 S. W. 999—603, 775. Atchison V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 80 Mo. 213—500. Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Brewer, 20 Kan. 669—710, 721. Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Bryan (Tex. Civ. App.), 28 S. W. 98—240, 328, 338. Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Crittenden, 4 Kan. App. 512—339. Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Davis, 34 Kan. 199—463, 493. Atchison, etc:, R. Co. v. Denver, etc., R. Co., 110 U. S. 667—95, 449, 450, 917, 929, 933. Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Dickenson, 4 Kan. App. 345—734, 736. Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Dill, 48 Kan. 210 —295, 297, 344, 526. Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Ditmars, 3 Kan. App. 459—338, 508, 616. Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Dunn, 19 Ohio St. 162—627. Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Elder, 67 Kan. 312—770, 779. Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Fletcher, 35 Kan. 236—472. Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Flynn, 24 Kan. 627—611. Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Gants, 38 Kan. 608—561, 656, 689, 691, 666, 667. Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Grant, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 674—242, 318, 336, 492. Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Headland, 18 Colo. 477—645, 563, 583. Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Henry, 66 Kan. 716—627, 632, 638. Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Holloway (Kan)., 80 Pao. 31—546. Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Hughes, 66 Kan. 491—680. Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Johnson, 3 Okla. 41—684. Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Johns, 36 Kan. 769—584. Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Lawler, 40 Neb. 356—242, 317, 399. Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Mason, 4 Kan. App. 391—524. Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Miller, 16 Neb. 661—292, 402. Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Morris, 65 Kan. 532—334. Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Moore, 29 Kan. 632—310. Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Reesman, 60 Fed. 370—600. Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Richardson, 53 Kan. 157—481. Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Roach, 35 Kan. 740—463, 472, 727, 728, 730. Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Roberts, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 370—205. Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Shean, 18 Colo. 368—657, 662, 875. Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Temple, 47 Kan. 7—337. 339, 526. Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Thomas (Kan.), 78 Pao. 861—422, 426. Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Washburn, 5 Neb. 117—288, 760, 762. Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Weber, 33 Kan. 643—649, 684, 689, 700, 738, 826. Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Wood (Tex. Civ. App.), 77 S. W. 966—739. Atkinson v. Ritchie, 10 East, 530—109. 233. Atkisson V. Steamboat Castle Garden, 28 Mo. 124—208. Atlanta, etc., R. Co. v. Bickerson, 89 Ga. 455—847. Atlanta, etc., R. Co. v. Puller, 92 Ga. 482 —560. Atlanta, etc., R. Co. v. Holcombe, 88 Ga. 9—670. Atlanta, etc. R. Co. v. Holcombe, 76 Ga. 690—92. Atlanta, etc., R. Co. v. Tanner, 68 Ga. 384—267, 310. Atlanta, etc., R. Co. v. Texas Grate Co., 81 Ga. 602—242, 411, 476. Atlanta, etc., R. Co. v. Wyly, 65 Ga. 120 —786. Atlantic City R. Co. v. Goodin, 62 N. J. L. 394—834, 875. Atlantic, etc., R. Co. v. Anderson, 118 Ga. 288—833. Atlantic, etc., R. Co. v. Condor, 76 Ga. 61—897, 904. Atlantic, etc., R. Co. v. Dunn, 19 Ohio St. 518, 162—902. Atlantic & P. R. Co. v. Laird, 15 U. S. App. 248—37. Atlantic Ins. Co. v. Storrow, 5 Paige (N. T.), 286—352. Atlas S. S. Co. V. Columbus Land Co., 102 Fed. 368—431. Atwater v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 48 N. J. L. 65—655. Atwood V. Mohler, 108 111. App. 416—701. Atwood V. Reliance Transp. Co., 9 Watts (Pa,), 87-318, 361, 755, 762. Auerbach v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 89 N. T. 281—559, 567, 742. Augusta R. Co. V, Giover, 92 Ga. 132—601. Augusta, etc., R. Co. v. McBlmurry, 24 Ga. 76—786. Augusta, etc., R. Co. v. Randall, 85 Ga. 297—802, Augusta, etc., R. Co. v. Randall, 79 Ga. 804—807, 883, 898, Table of Cases. xxm (The references are to the pages.) Augusta, etc., B. Co. y. Renz, 55 Ga. 726— 806, 853. Augusta Ry. & Eleo. Co. v. Smith, 121 Ga. Augusta Southern R. Co. v. Snider, 118 Ga. 146—869. Augusta Southern R. Co. v. WrightsviUe, etc., R. Co., 74 Fed. 632—929. Ault V. Cowan, 20 Pa. Super. Ct. 616—774. Austin V. Great Western R. Co., L, R. 2 Q. B. 442—569, 620. Austin V. Manchester, etc., R. Co., 10 C. B. 464—6. Austin V. St. Louis, etc.. Packet Co., 15 Mo. App. 197—45. Austin, etc., R. Co. v, Slator, 7 Tex. Civ. App. 344—112. Avery V. Galveston, etc., R. Co., ,81 Tex. 243—826. Avery v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 121 N. T. 31—688, 690. Avery v. Stewart, 2 Conn. 74—203. Avinger v. South Carolina R. Co., 29 S. C. 265—38, 40, 92, 93, 124, 418. Ayres v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 71 Wis. S72, 76 Wis. 215—108, 112, 416, 499, 515, 617. Ayers v. Rochester R. Co., 156 N. T. 104— 612, 782. Ayers v. Western R. Corp., 14 Blatchf. (U. S.) 9—292, 352, 489. ' Ayers v. Western Union Tel. Co., 79 Me. 493—77. Aylward v. Smith, 2 Lowell (tJ. S.), 192— 243. Aymar v. Astor, 6 Cow. (N. T.) 266—66. B. Baboock v. Herbert, 3 Ala. 392—19, 52. Babcock v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 49 N. T. 491—169, 458, 471, 479, 485, 486, 728. Bacharach v, Chester Freight Line, 133 Pa. St. 414—198, 431. Backhaus v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 92 Wis. 393—265, 270. Bacon v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 143 Pa. St. 14—836. Bagg V. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 109 N. C. 279-246. Bailey v. Citizen's R. Co., 162 Mo. 449—785. Bally V. De Crespigney, L. R. 4 Q. B. 185 —109. Baily V. Damon, 3 Gray (Mass.), 92—435. Bailey v. Quint, 22 Vt. 474—441. Bailey v. Hudson River R. Co., 49 N. T. 70—159. Bailey v. Shaw, 24 N. H. 297—362, 412. Bailey v. Tacoma Tract. Co., 16 Wash. 48 —858. Bainbridge v. Union Tract. Co,, 206 Pa. St. 71—863. Baird v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 41 Fed. 592—205, 207. Bairley v. Gladstone, 3 M. & S. 206—431. Bajus V. Syracuse, etc., R. Co., 103 N, T. 312-mO. Baker v. Brimson, 9 Rich. L. (S. C.) 201 —394. Baker v. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 91 Mo. 152—110, 365. Baker v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 10 Lea (Tenn.) 308—118, 497. Baker v. Manhattan R. Co., 118 N. T, 533 —867. Baker v. Missouri Fac. R. Co., 34 Mo. App. 98—760. Baker & Penniston v. Chicago, etc.,' R. Co. (Minn,), 97 N. W. 650—366. Baldraft v. Camden, etc., R. Co., 2 Fed. Cas. 607—718. Baldwin v. Collins, 9 Rob. (La.) 468—292, 360. Baldwin V. Barney, 12 R. I. 392—831. Baldwin v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 64 N. H, 696—751. Baldwin V. Liverpool, etc.. Steamship Co., 74 N. T. 125—355, 358, 360. Baldwin v. London, etc., R. Co., 9 Q. B. Dlv. 582—410, 416. Baldwin v. United States Tel. Co., 45 N. Y. 744—74, 77. Baldwin v, American Express Co., 23 Hi. 197—35, 150, 194, 463. Ballentlne v. North Missouri B. Co., 40 Mo. 491—106, 247, 253, 498, 515. Ballou V. Farnum, 9 Allen (Mass.), 47 — 42, 43. Ballou V. Earle, 17 R. I. 441—295, 297, 344. 761. Ball V. Wabash, etc., B. Co., 83 Mo. 674— 317, 614, 530, 532, 760. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Griffith, 169 U. S. 603—790. Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Kane (Md.), 13 Atl. 387—838. Baltimore City Pass. Ry. Co. v. Baer, 90 Md. 97—676. Baltimore City Pass. R. Co. v. Kemp, 61 Md. 74— «84, 894. Baltimore City P. R. Co. y. McDonnell, 43 Md. 534—822, 824. Baltimore City Pass. R. Co. v. Wilkinson, 30 Md. 224-591. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Bambrey (Pa.), 16 Atl. 67—744, 745. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Barger, 80 Md. 31, 23—543, 636, 636. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Brady, 32 Md. 333—292, 297, 316, 394, 753, 756, 758, 760, 762. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Blocher, 27 Md. 277—592, 627, 637, 901. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. y. Breinig, 26 Md. 378—641, 596, 663. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Cason, 72 Md. 377—777. Baltimore, etc., B. Co. \. Carr, 71 Md. 135—690, 692, 880, 884, 886, 895, 902. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Campbell, 36 Ohio St. 647—463, 717, 720, 728, 765, 761. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Cox, 66 Ohio St. 276—374. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Davis (Pa.), 12 Atl. 336—229. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Diamond Coal Co., 61 Ohio St. 242—122. Baltimore, etc., R, Co. v. Pox, 113 111. App. 180—497, 523, 532. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Green, 25 Md. 72—194, 264, 473. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Hubbard, 25 Ohio Cir. Ct. Rep. 477—403, 527, 530. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Kane (Md.), 17 Atl. 1032—668. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Kane, 69 Md. 11 —680, 801, 837. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. y. Keedy, 75 Md. 320—236. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v, Leapley, 65 Md. 571—680, 846. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. McCarney, 12 Ohio C. C. 643—580. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. McDonald, 68 Ind. 316-729. Baltimore, etc., B. Co. v. McLaughlin, 73 Fed. 519—759. XXIV Table of Oases. (The retercnces are to the pages.) Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Morahead, 5 W. Va. 293—236. Baltimore, etc, R. Co. y. Noell, 32 Gratt. (Va.) 394—597, 780, 781. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Norris, 17 Ind. App. W9— 748. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Nugent, 86 Md. 349—374, 655. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. O'Donnell, 49 Ohio St. 489—211, 212, 227, 230, 233, 234, 239, 240, 218, 415, 419. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 18 Am. & Eng. B. Cas. 511—97. Baltimore, etc., R. Co, v. Pixley, 61 Ind. 22—687. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Pumphrey, 59 Md. 390—180, 241, 399, 422, 423. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Ragsdale, 14 Ind. App. 406—315, 334, 343. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Rainbo, 16 U. S. App. 277—540. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Rathbone, 1 W. Va. 87—294, 318. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Ross, 105 111. App. 64—322, 626. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Schumacher, 29 Md. 168, 176—282, 469. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Skeels, 3 W. Va. 556—319, 762. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. State, 60 Md. 449—560. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. State, 29 Md. 262— «04. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. State, 72 Md. 36—578. Baltimore, etc., B. Co. v. State, 63 Md. 136—661. 662, 653, 772, 780. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Swann, 81 Md. 400—770. Baltimore, etc., B. Co. v. Volght, 176 U. S. 498—580, 766. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Wightman, 29 ' Gratt. (Va.) 431—780, 781, 788. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Whittington, 30 Gratt. (Va.) 809—798. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Whitacre, 35 Ohio St. 627—798, 799, 800. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. "Wilkens, 44 Md. 11—174, 494. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Worthington, 21 Md. 275—697, 780. Baltimore, etc.. Express Co. v. Cooper, 66 Miss. 658—337. Baltimore, etc.. Steamboat Co. v. Brown, 54 Pa. St. 77—460, 472. Baltimore, etc.. Turnpike Road v. Boone, 45 Md. 344—888. Baltimore, etc.. Turnpike Road v. Cason, 72 Md. 377—771. Baltimore, etc.. Turnpike Road Co. v. Leonhardt, 66 Md. 72—70, 816, 830. Baltimore Steam Packet Co. v. Smith, 23 Md. 402—703, 730. Baltimore Tract. Co. v. State, Ringgold, 78 Md. 409—561, 686, 827, 840. Bamberg v. South Carolina R. Co., 9 S. C. 61—30, 407, 510. Bank V. Brown, 9 Wend. (N. T ) 234— 33, 341. Bank V. Champlain Transp, Co., 16 Vt 52—164. Bank of Batavla v. New York, etc. R Co., 106 N. T. 196—166, 173. Bank of Columbia v. Lawrence, 1 P%t (tl S.) 578-72. ■ ^ Bank of Commerce v. Blssell, 72 N. Y. 615 Bank of Kentucky v. Adams Express Co., 93 U. S. 174—36, 36, 287. Bank of Orange v. Brown, 3 Wend. (N. Y.) 158—18, 569. Bank of Oswego v. Doyle, 91 N. Y. 42—285. Bank of Rochester v. Jones, 4 N. Y. 501 — 160, 177, 178. Bancroft v. Boston, etc., B. Corp., 97 Mass. 275—833, 874. Bancroft v. Merchants Despatch Transp. Co., 47 Iowa, 262—47, 486, 489. Bankard v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 34 Md. 197—316, 393, 534. Bansemer v. Toledo, etc., R. Co., 25 Ind. 434—129, 193, 262, 285. Barber v. Broadway, etc., R. Co., V> Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 109—562. Barber v. Broadway, etc., R. Co., 9- Misc. Rep. (N. T.) 2(>-808. Barber v. Meyersteln, L. R. 4 H. L. 317 -167. Barber v. South Eastern R. Co., 34 L. T. N. S. 67—380. Barclay v. Cuculla of Gana, 3 Doug. 389 —226. Bard V. Pennsylvania Tract. Co., 76 Pa. St. 97—854. Barden v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 151 Mass. 426—866, 867. Bardwell v. Mobile, etc., R. Co., 63 Miss. 574—818. Barker v. Coflin, 31 Barb. (N. Y.) 656— 558. 564. Barker v. Central Park, etc., R. Co., 151 N. Y. 237—700. Barker v. Dinsmore, 72 Pa. St. 427—157. Barker v. Havens, 17 Johns. (N. Y.) 234 — 428. Barker v. New York Cent. R. Co., 24 N. Y. 599—680. Barker v. Ohio River R. Co., 51 W. Va. 423—873. Barksdull V. New Orleans & C. R. Co., 2J La. Ann. 180—825. Barnard v. Kobbe, 54 N. Y. 516—229. Barnard v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 60 Md. 555—771. Barnes v. Marshall, 18 Q. B. 785—102, 103. Barnett v. London, etc., R. Co., 5 H. & N. 604—313. Barney v. Burnstelnbinder, 64 Barb. (N. Y.) 212—383, 384. Barney v. Oyster Bay, etc.. Steamship Co., 67 N. Y. 301—614, 619, 622, 740. Barney v. Prentiss, 4 Har. & J. (Md.> 317—291, 756. Barre v. Railway Co., 166 Pa. 170-S25. Barron v. Eldridge, 100 Mass. 456—70, 132, 269, 261. Barron v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 1 Biss. (U. S.) 453—693. Barrett v. Great Northern R. Co.. 87 E. C. L. 423—113. Barrett v. Third Ave. R. Co., 45 N. Y. 628—652, 698. Barrett v. Indianapolis, etc., R. Co., 9 Mo. App. 226—492. Barrett v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 61 Fed, 796—56, 68. Barry v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 172 Mass. 109—846. Barry v. Third Ave. R. Co., 61 App. Dlv. (N. Y.) 385—641. Barry v. Union Tract. Co., 194 Pa. St. BJ« —661. Barry v. Union Ry. Co., 94 N. Y. Sudd. 4«-6eo. Table of Cases. (The references are to the pages.) XXV Barter v. Wheeler, 49 N. H. 9—41, 42, 360, 312, 317, 465, 492, 493, 727, 753. Barth v. Kansas City Elev. R. Co., 142 Mo. 635—647, 676. Barth V. Houghton Co. St. R. Co. (Mich.), 93 N. W. 620—777. Bartholomew v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 53 III. 227—196, 727. Bartholomew v. New Tork Cent., etc., R. Co., 102 N. T. 716—148, 867. Bartlett V. New York, etc.. Perry, etc., Co., 57 N. T. Super. Ct. 348—652, 618, 864. Bartlett V. Western Union Tel. .Co., 62 Me. 209—73, 77. Bartlett v. Pittshurgh, etc., R. Co., 94 Ind. 281—227, 255, 287, 343. Bartlett V. Steamboat Philadelphia, 32 Mo. 256—193. Bartlett v. Carnley, 6 Duer (N. T.), 194— 435. Bartley v. Georgia R. Co., 60 Ga. 182—604. Bartley v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 148 Mo. 124—661, 663, 777. Bartram v. McKee, 1 Watts (Pa.), 39— 126, 447. Bass V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 36 Wis. 460, 468—690, 591, 628, 696, 740. Bass V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 42 Wis. 664 —810, 900. Bass V. Cleveland, etc., Ry. (Mich.), 105 N. W. 151—554. Bass V. Concord St. R. Co. (N. H.), 46 Atl. 1056—613. Bass V. Glover, 63 Ga. 745—166, 210. Bassett V. Connecticut River R. Co., 146 Mass. 129—260, 261, 285. Bassett v. Los Angeles Tract. Co., 133 Cal. 1—776, 777. Bassett & Stone v. Aberdeen Coal & Min- ing Co. (Ky.), 88 S. W. 318—51. Basnight v.. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., Ill N. C. 692-70, 71, 259, 274, 283. Bastard v. Bastard, 2 Show. 81—102. Bates V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 60 Wis. 298—232, 233. Bates V. Old Colony R. Co., 147 Mass. 255 —753, 766. Bates V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 716—166, 916, 923. Bates V. Stanton, 1 Duer (N. T.), 79—229. Battle V. Columbia, etc., R. Co., 70 S. C. 329—703, 704, 723. Batton V. South, etc., Alabama R. Co., 77 Ala. 691—647. Batson v. Donovan, 4 B. & Aid. 21—102, 341, 366, 360. Baugh V. McDaniel, 42 Ga. 641—473. Baughman v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 94 Ky. 160—345. Baumbach v. Gulf, etc., R. Co., 4 Tex. Civ. App. 660—197. Baumann v. New Tork, etc., R. Co., 35 Misc. Rep. (N. T.) 223—413. Baxendale v. Bristol, etc., R. Co., 11 C. B. N. S. 787—121. Baxendale v. Eastern Counties R. Co., 4 C. B. N. S. 78—124. Baxendale v. Great Eastern R. Co., 10 B. & S. 212—299, 326. Baxendale v. London, etc., R. Co., L. R. 10 Bxch. 35—464. Baxley v. Tallahassee, etc., R. Co. (Ala.), 29 So. 451-110. Baxter v. Dominion Tel. Co., 37 U. C. Q. B. 470—74. Bayles v. Diamond St. Omnibus Co., 173 Pa. St. 378-810. Bayles v. Kansas, etc., R. Co., 13 Colo. 181-123. Bayley v. Manchester, etc., R. Co., L. R. 8 C. P. 148—629, 639. Bain V. Steamship Co., 3 Wall. Jr. (C. C.) 229—405. Beach V. Parmeter, 23 Pa. St. 197—611. Beach V. Baritan, etc., R. Co., 37 N. T. 468—48. Beacham v. Portsmouth Bridge (N. H.), 40 Atl. 1066—832. Beal V. South Devon R. Co., 3 H. & C. 341 —6, 323, 324. Bean v. Sturtevant, 8 N. H. 146—35, 55. Beath v. Rapids R. Co., 119 Mich. 612—808. Beaumont v. Canadian Pac. R. Co., 5 Montreal L. R. Super. Ct. 255—43. Beaver v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 20 Ont. App. 476—655. Beaver v. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 664—917. Beard v. Conn. & Pass. R. R. Co., 48 Vt. 101—613. Beard v. Illinois C. R, Co., 79 Iowa, 518— 115, 467, 491. Beard v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 79 Iowa, 527—115, 463. Beardslee v. Richardson, 11 Wend. (N. T.) 26—5, 9. Beardsley v. Minneapolis St. R. Co., 54 Minn. 504—810. Beatty v. Central Iowa R. Co., 68 Iowa, Beauchamp v. International, etc., R. Co., 66 Tex. 239—666. Beck v. Evans, 16 Bast, 244—12, 31, 323. Becker v. Hallgartin, 86 N. T. 167—149, 177. Becker v. Great Eastern R. Co., L. R. 5 Q. B. 241—706. Becker v. Lincoln Real Estate, etc., Co., 174 Mo. 246—86. Becker v. Western Union Tel. Co., 11 Neb. 87—78. Beokford v. Crutwell, 5 C. & P. 242—823. Beckman v. Shouse, 5 Bawle (Pa.), 17&— 11, 66, 291, 293, 318, 763, 765, 762. Beokwith v. Cheshire R. Co., 143 Mass. 68 —732. Beckwith v. Frisbie, 32 Vt. 669—48, 254, 257. Beddle v. City Blec. R. Co., 112 Mich. 547 —808. Bedell v. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 94 Ga. 22—244. Bedford-Bowling Green Stone Co. v. Oman, 24 Ky. Law Rep. 2274—92. Bedford, etc., B. Co. v. Rainbolt, 99 Ind. 661-597, 772, 780. Beebe v. Ayres, 28 Barb. (N. T.) 275—558, 669, 691, 741. Beebe v. Johnson, U Wend. (N. T.) 500— 243. Beecher v. Long Island R. Co., 161 N. T. Beekman v. Saratoga, etc., R. Co., 3 Paige (N. T.), 45—619. Beers v. Boston, etc., R. Co. (Conn.), 34 Atl. 646—710. Beers v. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 34 Fed. 244—95, 453. Beeson v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 62 Iowa, 173—620. Behrens v. The Furnessia, 35 Fed. 798— «92. Beldler v. Banshaw, 200 111. 425—864. Beisiegel V. New Tork Cent. R. Co., 40 N. Y. 9—903. Belden v. Pullman Palace Car Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 48 S. W. 22-66. 3XVI Table of Cases. (The references are to the pages.) Belfast, etc., R. Co. v. Keys, 9 H. L,. Cas. 656—256, 371, 708. Belger v. Dlnsmore, 51 N. T. 166—35, 295, 347, 357, 361. Bell V. Dominion Tel. Co., 25 L. C. J. (Can.) 248—76. Bell V. Drew, 4 E. D. Sm. (N. T.) 59—708. Bell V. Incorporated Town of Clarion, 113 Iowa, 126—702. Bell V. Reed, 4 Blnn. (Fa.) 127—65, 392. Bell V. St. Louis, etc., B. Co., C Mo. App. 363—267. Bell V. Windsor, etc., R. Co., 24 Nova Sco- tia, 521—241. Bellefontaine R. Co. v. Schneider, 24 Ohio St. 670—793. Bellman v. New York Cent. R. Co., 42 Hun (N. T.), 130—556, 846. Belt Ry. Co. V. Banicki, 102 111. App. 642— 376, 761. Benbow v. North, Carolina R. Co., Phil. L. (N. C.) 421—183, 185. Benedict v. Minneapolis & St. P. R. Co., 90 N. W. 360—860. Bennett v. American Express Co., 83 Me. 236—231, 234, 288, 906. Bennett v. Byram, 38 Miss. 17—24, 187, 253. Bennett v. Dutton, 10 N. H. 481—292, 540, 642, 619, 620, 654. Bennett v. Drew, 3 Bosw. (N. T.) 365—421. Bennet v. Fllyaw, 1 Fla. 451—19, 65. Bennett v. Lycoming, etc., Ins. Co., 67 N. T. 278—268. Bennett v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 6 Am. & Bng. R. Cas. 391—192. Bennett v. Manhattan, etc., R. Co., 95 E. C. L. 707—113. Bennett v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 46 Mo. App. 656—487, 489. Bennett v. New Jersey R., etc., Co., 36 N. J. L. 225—699. Bennett v. New York, etc., R. Co., 57 Conn. 422—873. Bennett v. Northern Pac. Express Co., 12 Or. 49—159, 336. Bennett v. Peninsular, etc.. Steamboat Co., 6 C. B. 785—540. Bennett v. Railroad Co., 7 Phiia. (Pa.) 11 555. Benson v. Baltimore Traction Co., 77 Md. 636—544. Benson v. Gray, 154 Mass. 391—577. Benson v. New Jersey R., etc., Co., 9 Bosw. (N. Y.) 412—690, 882. Berg V. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 30 Kan. 561—463, 481. Bergeman v. Indiana, etc., Ry., 104 Mo 86—810. Bergen County Tract. Co. v. Demarest, 62 N. J. L. 765—779. Bergner v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 13 Mo. App. 499—262. Berje v. Texas, etc., B. Co., 37 La. Ann. 468—24, 94, 238. Bermel v. New York, etc., R. Co., 172 N Y. 639—348, 361, 352. Bernstein v. Weir, 40 Misc. Rep. (N Y ) 635—349, 372. Berry v. Cooper, 28 Ga. 648—393, 760. Berry v. Utica Belt Line St. R. Co., 76 App. Dlv. (N. Y.) 490—838. Berry v. Utica, etc., St. Ry. Co., 181 N Y. 98—699. Berry v. West Virginia, etc., R. Co , 44 W Va. 538—265, 267, 268. Bethea v. Northeastern R. Co., 26 S C 9J— S03. Bethman t. Old Colony R. Co., 156 Mas*. 352—845. Betts V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 92 Iowa, 343—499. Betts V. Farmers Loan, etc., Co., 21 Wis. 80—319, 603, 623, 538. Bevis V. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 26 Mo. App. 19—56, 60. Bickford V. Metropolitan Steamship Co., 109 Mass. 151—280. Biddle v. Bond, 6 B. & S. 224—156, 363. Bigelow V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 104 Wis. 109-110, 117, 368. Bigelow V. Heaton, 4 Den. (N. Y.) 496— 441, 443. BIgnold V. Waterhouse, 1 M. & S. 255—323. Bills V. New York Cent. R. Co., 84 N. Y. 5—506. Bingham v. Lamping, 26 Pa. St. 340—153. Bingham v. Rogers, 6 W. & S. (Pa.) 495— 293, 294, 317, 717, 755, 762. Binns V. PIgot, 9'C. & P. 208—446. Bird V. Cromwell, 1 Mo. 81—31. Bird V. Georgia R. Co., 72 Ga. 655—169, 207, 438, 439, 447, 471. Bird V. Great Northern R. Co., 28 L. J. Exch. 3—780. BIrkett v. Wlllan, 2 B. & Aid. 366—193, 323. Bimey v. New York, etc., Tel. Co., 18 Md. 341—73, 78. BIrney v. Wabash, etc., B. Co., 20 Mo. App. 470-402. Birmingham v. Rochester, etc., R. Co., 137 N. Y. 13—696, 607, 608, 609, "610. Birmingham Ry., etc., Co. v. "Baird, 130 Ala. 334, 350—628, 636. Birmingham Ry., etc., Co. v. Bynum, 139 Ala. 389—547, 652. Birmingham Ry., etc., Co. v. James, 121 Ala. 120—661, 858. Birmingham Ry., etc., Co. v. Mason, 1 St. Ry. Rep. 1—628, 639. Birmingham Ry., etc., Co. v. Mullen, 138 Ala. 614—635, 636, 733. Birmingham Ry., etc., Co. v. Nolan (Ala.), 32 So. 715—897. Birmingham, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, 90 Ala. 60-<74. Birmingham B. & E. Co. v. Weldman, 119 Ala. 547—677. Birmingham Union Ry. Co. v. Hale, 90 Ala. 9—808. Bischotf V. Schultz, 6 N. Y. Super. Ct. 757 —794. Bishop V. St. Paul City R. Co., 48 Minn. 25—604. Bischell V. Huntingdon, 2 N. H. 142—364. Bishop V. Williamson, U Me. 495—71, 72. Bissel V. Campbell, 64 N. Y. 353—209. BIssell V. Michigan Southern R. Co., 22 N. Y. 269, 307—492, 546. Bissell V. New York Cent. R. Co., 29 Barb. (N. Y.) 602—762. Bissell V. New York Cent. R. Co., 26 N. Y. 442—29, 320, 327, 669, 608, 719, 752, 764, 768, 763. 764, 768. Bissell V. Price, 16 III. 408—438, 495. Black V. Ashley, 80 Mich. 90—264, 353, 381. Black V. Brooklyn City R. Co., 108 N. Y. 640—676. Black V. Camden, etc., R. Co., 45 Barb. (N. Y.) 40—404, 408. Black V. Carrollton R. Co., 10 La. Ann. 33—700. Black V. Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 30 Neb. 197—221, 606. 510. 515. Table of Cases. (The references are to the pages.) XXVll Black V. Fltohburg R. Co., 139 Mass. 308— 481. Black V. Goodrich Transp. Co., 55 Wis. 319—322, 346, 389, 762. Black V. Third Ave. R. Co., 2 App. Dlv. (N. T.) 629—777. Black V. Wabash, etc., R. Co., Ul 111. 361—287, 297, 333, 625. Blackman v. West Jersey & S. R. Co. (N. J.), 52 Atl. 370—811. Blackmore v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 162 Mo. 456—726. Blackmore v. Toronto St. R. Co., 38 U. C. Q. B. 172—544, 562. Blackstock v. New York, etc., R. Co., 20 N. T. 48—33, 106, 228, 253, 256. Blackwell v, O'Gorman Co., 22 R. I. 638— 85, 836. Blain V. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. (Can.), 5 Ont. Law Rep. 334—649. Blair V. Brie R. Co., 66 N. T. 313—321, 679, 761, 752, 763, 765, 767. Blair v. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co., 20 Wis. 264—600. Blaisdell v. Connecticut River R. Co., 145 Mass. 132—260, 261, 285. Blake V. Burlington, etc., R. Co., 78 Iowa, 67—816. Blake v. Nicholson, 3 M. & S. 168—15. Blakely v. L,e Due, 19 Minn. 187-131, 640. Blakemore v. Lancashire, etc., R. Co., 1 F. & F. 76—242. Bianchard v. Isaacs, 3 Barb, (N. T. 388— 18, 55, 132, 139. Bianchard v. Page, 8 Gray (Mass.), 285 —160. Bianchard v. Windsor, etc., R. Co., 10 Nova Scotia, 8—902. Blanchett v. Holyoke St. Ry. Co., 175 Mass. 61—697. Bland v. Adams Express Co., 1 Duv. (Ky.) 232—24, 226. Bland v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 55 Cal. 570 -736. Bland V. Womack, 2 Murph. (N. C.) 373— 6, 10. Blank v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 182 111. 332 —766, 767. Blln V. Mayo, 10 Vt. 56—149, 195. Blltch V. Central R. Co., 76 Ga. 333—665, 856. Blitz V. Union Steamboat Co., 51 Mich. 568—104, 236. Bliven v. Hudson River R. Co., 36 N. T. 403—34, 229, 230, 233, 237. Block V. Bannerman, 10 La. Ann. 1 — 627, 632, 637, 690. Block V. Fltohburg R. Co.,, 139 Mass. 308— 492. Block V. Harlem, etc., R. Co., 28 St. Rep. (N. T.) 495—822. Block V. Milwaukee St. R. Co., 89 Wis. 371—808. Blocker v. Whittenburg, 12 La. Ann. 410— 32. Blodgett V. Abbott, 72 Wis. 516—247, 463. Blodgett V. Bartlett, 50 Ga. 353—681. Bloomingdale v. Memphis, etc., R. Co., 6 Lea (Tenn.), 618—179. Blossom V. Dodd, 43 N. T. 264—27, 291, 298, 308, 720, 754. Blossom V. Griffin, 13 N. T. 569, 573—69, 70, 131, 478. Blower v. Great Western R. Co., L. R. 7 C. P. 655—499. Blum V. Monahan, 36 Misc. Hep. (N. T.) 179—348, 387. Blum V. Southern Pullman Palace Car Co., 1 Flip. (U. S.) 600—56, 67, 711. Blumantle v. FItchburg R. Co., 127 Mass. 322—708, 709. Blumenthal v. Brainerd, 38 Vt. 402—25, 41, 42, 265, 269, 271, 293, 295, 318, 400, 405, ' 412. Blumenthal v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 79 Me. 55(H-708, 709, 715. Boards of Trade Union v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 1 Int. Com. Rep. 608—922. Board of Trade v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 233—916. Boatmen's Savings Bank v. Western, etc., R. Co., 81 Ga. 221—173. Boaz v. Central R. Co., 87 Ga. 463—417, 505. Bodenham v. Bennett, 4 Price, 31—147, 180, 323. Boehncke v. Brooklyn City R. Co., 3 Misc. Rep. (N. T.) 49—604. Boehl V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 44 Minn. 191 —316, 345, 388, 510, 533, 760. Boehm v. Duluth, etc., R. Co., 91 Wis. 592 —582, 747. Boering v. Chesapeake Beach Ry. Co., 193 U. S. 442—766. Boering V. Chesapeake Beach Ry. Co., 20 App. D. C. 600—570. Boggess V. Chesapeake, etc., R, Co., 37 W. Va. 297—551, 582, 820. Boggs V. Martin, 13 B. Mon. (Ky.) 239— 442, 447. Bohannan v. Hammond, 42 Cal. 227—23. , Boice V. Hudson River Co., 61 Barb. (N. . T.) 611—564, 666. Boies V. Hartford, etc., R. Co., 37 Conn, i 272—388, 397. Boise City Irrig., etc., Co. v. Clark, 131 Fed. 416—89. Bolan V. Williamson, 2 Bay (S. C), 651— 71, 72. Boland v. Missouri R. Co., 36 Mo. 984—696. Bolton V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 172 Mo. 92—768. Bomar v. Maxwell, 9 Hump. (Tenn.) 620, . 621—64, 701, 702, 704, 710. Bonce V. Dubuque St. R. Co., 53 Iowa, 278—53, 653, 795. Bonner v. Blum (Tex. Civ. App.), 25 S. W. 60—703, 705. Bonner v. De Mendoza, 4 Tex. App. Civ, Cas. sec. 234—714. Bonner v. Grumbach, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 482—713, 770, 779, 787. Bonner v. Marsh, 10 Smed. & M. (Miss.) 376—161, 231. Boner v. Merchants* Steamboat Co., i Jones L. (N. C.) 211—24, 240. Bonner v. Mayfleld, 82 Tex. 234—597. Bonsteel v. Vanderbllt, 21 Barb. (N. T.) Book V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 84 Mo. App. 76—750. Booker v. Reilly, 82 N. T. Supp. 1008-^33. Boon V. Steamboat Belfast, 40 Ala. 184— 353. Boone v. Oakland Trans. Co. (Cal.), 73 Pac. 243—811, 813, 853. Boorman v. American Express Co., 21 Wis. 162—291, 295, 319, 346. Booth V. Missouri, etc., R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 37 S. W. 168—470. Booth V. Terrell, 16 Ga. 20—364. Bordeaux v. Erie R. Co., 8 Hun (N. T.), 579—734. Bork V. Norton, 2 McLean (U. S.), 422-i 222. XXVlll Table of Cases. (The references are to the pages.) ?oscowitz V. Adams Express Co., 93 111. 523 —297, 359, 360, 762. Bosley v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. (W. Va.), 46 S. B. 613—530, 531. Boson V. Sanford, 2 Salk. 440—65. Bosqul V. Sutro Ey. Co., 131 Cal. 390— 655, 657. Bosqul V. Sutro R. Co., 63 Pac. 682—774. Boss V. Providence, etc., R. Co., 15 R. I. 149—654, 800, 845. Boster V. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 36 W. Va. 318—689. Boston V. Pennsylvania Co., 116 Fed. 235 —451. Boston & A. R. Co. v. Brown, 177 Mass. 65 —615. Bostoii & M. R. Co. V. Sullivan, 177 Mass. 230—615. Boston Chamber of Commerce v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 1 Int. Com. Rep. 754—923, 924. Boston, etc., R. Co. v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 1 Int. Com. Rep. 671. Boston, etc., R. Co. v. Chlpman, 146 Mass. 107—555. Boston, etc., R. Co. v. Ordway, 140 Mass. 610—370. Boston, etc., R. Co. v. Proctor, 1 Allen (Mass.) 267—565. Boston, etc., R. Co. v. Shanly, 107 Mass. 568—100, 383, 384. Boston Fruit, etc., Exch. v. New York, etc., R. Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 493—910, 913, 936. Bostwick v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 46 N. T. 712—266, 306, 313, 327. Boswell v. Hudson River R. Co., 6 Bosw. (N. T.) 699—752, 758, 762, 763. Bosworth V. Union R. Co., 1 St. Ry. Rep. 757—643, 667. Botts V. Wabash R. Co. (Mo. App.), 80 S. W. 976—630. Bouker v. Long Island R. Co., 89 Hun (N. If.) 202—99. Bourne v. Gatlift, 33 E. C. L. 364—194, 275. Bowden v. Fargo, 2 Misc. Rep. (N. T.) 651—387. Bowden v. San Antonio, etc., R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 25 S. W. 987—424. Bowen v. Lake Erie Tel. Co. (Ohio), 1 Am. L. Reg. 686—76. Bowen V. New York Cent. R. Co., 18 N. Y. 408—642, 694, 604, 607, 612, 652, 697. 699, 774, 778, 787, 796. Bowie V. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 1 Mc- Arthur (D. C), 94—136, 636, 616. Bowie V. Buffalo, etc., R. (ilo., 7 TJ. C. C. P. 191-265, 272. Bowler V. Toledo, etc., R. Co., 10 Ohio C. C. 272—709. Bowler, etc., Co. v. Toledo, etc., B. Co., 3 Ohio Dec. 41—703, 708. Bowles V. Rome, etc., R. Co., 46 Hun (N Y.), 324—777. Bowman v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 125 U S. 479—906. Bowman v. Hilton, 11 Ohio, 303—66, 437. 438, 447, 477. Bowman v. Teall, 23 Wend. (N. Y.) 306—12 48, 65, £22. Bowrlng v. Wabash R. Co., 90 Mo. App. 324—528. Boyce v. Anderson, 2 Peters (U. S.), 150 —28, 540. Boyce V. California Stage Co., 25 Cal. 460 —776, 893. Boyce v. Manhatan Ry. Co., 118 N. T. 314, 319—666, 671, 672. Boyd V. Dubois, 3 Campb. 133—30. Boyd V. Spencer, 103 Ga. 828— 2U, 564. Boyden v. Fitchburg R. Co.. 70 Vt. 125— 832. Boylan v. Hot Springs R. Co., 132 U. S. 146—555. "Boyle v. Case, 18 Fed. 880—903. Boyles v. Texas, etc., R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 86 S. W. 938-601. Brackett v. Edgerton, 14 Minn. 174—401. Brackett v. McNair, 14 Johns. (N. Y.) 170— 417. Bradbum v. Great Western R. Co., L. R. 10 Exch. 1—904. Bradford v. South Carolina R. Co., 7 Rich. L. (S. C.) 201—460, 492. Bradford v. South Carolina R. Co., 10 Rich. L. (S. C.) 221—494. Brady v. Manhattan R. Co., 127 N. Y. 48 —672. Brady v. Pennsylvania R. Co.. 2 Int. Com. Rep. 78—912. Bradley v. Chicago, etc.. R. Co. (Wis.). 68 N. W. 410—422. Bradley v. Lehigh Val. R. Co., N. Y. Law J. March 10, 1906—373. Bradley v. New York, etc., R. Co.. 21 Conn. 294—95. Bradley v. Ohio River, etc.. R. Co.. 124 N. C. 735—374. Branley v. South Eastern R. Co., 12 C. B. N. S. 74—124. Bradley v. Second Ave. R. Co., 8 Daly- (N. .Y), 289—829. Bradley v. Second Ave. R. Co., 90 Hun (N. Y.), 419—860, 861. Bradley v. Waterhouse, M. & M. IS*— 356. Bradshaw v. Irish Northwestern R. Co.. 7 Ir. R. C. L. 252—150, 265, 274. Bradshaw v. Railroad Co., 135 Mass. 407 —743. Bradwell v. Mobile, etc., R. Co., 63 Miss. 574—862. Bradwell v. Pittsburgh By. Co., 139 Pa. St. 404—798. Bralnard v. Nassau Electric R. Co., 4* App. Div. (N. Y.) 613—857. 868. Braithwaite v. Aikln, 1 N. D. 455—187. Branch v. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 88 N. C. 573—239, 246, 256, 317, 370, 761. Branch v. Wilmington, etc.. R. Co., 77 N. C. 347—105, 245. Brand v. New Jersey Steamboat Co., 10 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 128—275, 282. Brand v. Schenectady, etc., R. Co.. 36 N. Y. 44—616. Brandenstein v. Douglass, 105 Ga. 845—366. Brandt v. Bowlby. 2 B. & Ad. 932—400. Brandt v. Northern Pac. R. Co.. 22 Ont. Rep. 645—464. Brass v. Maltland. 6 El. & Bl. 471—30. 100. 383. Brass v. North Dakota, 153 U. S. 391— 61, 90. Brasher v. Denver, etc.. R. Co.. 12 Colo. 384—155, 157. Brassell v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co.. 84 N. Y. 241—668, 875. Brauer v. Oceanic Steam Nav. Co.. S* Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 127—422. 426. Braun v. Webb, 65 N. Y. Supp. 66S-69. Brawley v. Watson. 2 Bond (U. S.). 36« *-60. Table of Cases. (The references are to the pages.) XXIX Braymer v. Seattle R., etc., Co., 35 Wash. 346—732. Brazie v. St. Louis Transit Co. (Mo.), 76 S. "W. 708—853. Breakneclt Canal Nav. Co. v. Pritchard, 6 T. R. 750—13. Breed v. Mitchell, 48 Ga. 533—198, 386. Breen v. St. Louis Transit Co., 102 Mo. App. 479, 108 Mo. App. 443—732, 749, 889. Breen v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 109 N. T. 297—773, 787, 871. Breen v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 50 Tex. 43 —559, 666, 732. Breese v. United States Tel. Co., 48 N. Y. 132, 141—73, 79. Brehme v. Dinsmore, 25 Md. 328—290. Brehme v. Adams Express Co., 25 Md. 328-294, 316. Brehm v. Great Western R. Co., 34 Barb. (N. Y.) 256—780, 787. Brennan v. Fair Haven, etc., R. Co., 45 Conn. 284—862. Brennen v. St. Louis, 92 Mo. 488—282. Bremer v. Fleiss, 121 Wis. 61—835. Bretherton v. Wood, 3 Brod. & B. 54, 7 E. C. L. 345—542, 644, 619. Brewer v. New York, etc., R. Co., 124 N. Y. 59—348, 579, 752, 757, 765, 767. Brewer v. Central of Ga. R. Co., 84 Fed. 268—124. Brevig v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 64 Minn. 168—560, 684. Brlcker v. Campbell, 132 Pa. 1—645. Briddon v. Great Northern B. Co., 28 L. J. Exch. 61—240, 251, 515. Bridge v. Johnson, 6 Wend. (N. Y.) 350— 127. Bridge v. Oshkosh, 71 Wis. 363—808. Bridges v. AsheviUe, etc., R. Co., 27 S. C. 462—310, 312. Bridges v. North London R. Co., L. R. 7 H. L. 213—665, 673, 828, 847. Brldgman v. The Steamboat Emily, 18 Iowa, 509^11. Brien v. Bennet, 8 C. & P. 724 — 547, 549. Briggs V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 6 Allen (Mass.), 246—68, 169, 313, 437, 438, 439, 446. Briggs V. Grand Trunk R. Co., 24 U. C Q. B. 610—559, 665. Briggs V. Minneapolis, 52 Minn. 36—738, 827. Briggs V. New York, etc., R. Co., 28 Barb. (N. Y.) 616—216, 254, 413, 416. Briggs V. New York Cent. R. Co., 72 N. Y. 26—786. Briggs V. Taylor, 28 Vt. 180—6, 375, 762. Briggs V. Vanderbilt, 19 Barb. (N. Y.) 346—884. Brignoli v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 4 Daly (N. Y.), 182—697, 780, 891, 902. Brightman v. Union St. R. Co., 167 Mass. 113—824. Brill V. Grand Trunk R. Co.. 20 U. C. C. P. 440—363. Brimmer v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 101 111. App. 198—774, 794. Brind v. Dale, 2 M. & Rob. 80, 8 C. & P. 207—13, 63, 87. Brinegar v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 24 Ky. L. Rep. 1973—867. Brintnall v. Saratoga, etc., R. Co., 32 Vt. 665—160, 466, 489, 491. Bristol, etc., R. Co. v. Collins, 6 H. & N. 969—463. Bristol V. Rensselaer, etc., R. Co. 9 Barb. (N. Y.) 158—102, 159. Bristol V. Wilsmore, 1 B. & S. 614—43. British Columbia, etc., Co. v. Nettleship, L. R. 3 C. P. 499—70, 406, 412. British, etc., Ins. Co. v. Gulf, etc., R. Co., 63 Tex. 475—373. Brlttan v. Barnaby, 21 How. (U. S.) 627 —436,, 436, 442, 443. Britton v. Atlanta, etc.. Air Line Co., li N. C. 636—589, 690, 591, 592, 619, 623, 64i. Broadwell v. Butler & Co., 6 McLean (U. S.), 296—253, 268. Brock v. Gale, 14 Fla. 523—314, 706. Brockway v. American Express Co., 168 Mass. 257—36. Brockway v. Lascala, 1 Ed. Sel. Cas. (N. Y.) 135—652, 679, 846. Brodie v. Northern R. Co., 6 Ont. Rep. 180-483. Brokaw v. New Jersey R., etc., Co., 32 N. J. L. 328—637, 640. Bromley v. Birmingham M. R. Co. (Ala.), 11 So. 341—790. Broodnox v. Baker, 94 N. C. 676—62. Brooke v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 15 Mich. 332 —664. Brooke v. New York, etc., R. Co., 108 Pa. St. 529—164, 166, 173, 310. Brooke v. Pickwick, 4 Bing. 218—64, 360. Brooks V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 136 Mass. 21—676, 848, 849. Brooks V. Dinsmore, 3 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 687—386. Brookstone v. Westcott Express Co., 29 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 634—214. Brown v. Adams Express Co., 16 W. Va. 812—288, 290, 293, 297, 394, 756. Brown v. Adams, 3 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. sec. 390—421. Brown V. Atlanta, etc., R. Co., 19 S. C. 39—134, 137, 282, 285. Brown v. Canadian Pac. R. Co., 3 Mani- toba L. Rep. 496—724. Brown V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 80 Wis. 162—848. Brown V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 54 Wis. 342—879, 883, 886. Brown v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 51 Iowa. 235—689, 749, 750. Brown V. Congress, etc.. St. R, Co.. 49 Mich. 163—771. 776. 793. Brown v. Camden, etc.. R. Co.. S3 Pa. St. 316—310. 312. 355. 360. 711. 712. Brown v. Clayton. 12 Ga. 580. 564—247, 428. Brown v. Ciegg, 63 Pa. St. 51—49, 61. Brown v. Collins, 63 N. H. 442—610. Brown v. Cunard S. S. Co., 16 N. E. 717 —350. Brown v. Dennison, 2 Wend. (N. Y.) 693 —68. Brown v. Eastern R. Co., U Cush. (Mass.) 97—718, 720, 766, 766. Brown v. European, etc., R. Co., 58 Me. .384-825. Brown v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 64 N. H. 635—284, 285. Brown v. Great Western R. Co., 52 L. T. N. S. 622—875. Brown v. Georgia, etc., R. Co., 119 Ga. RroWn v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 66 Mo. 689, 588—627, 637, 808, 883, 889. Brown v. Hodgson. 4 Taunt. 189—363. Brown v. Houston. 114 U. S. 622—906. Brown v.' Kansas City. etc.. R, Co., 38 Kan. 634—592. Brown v. Kendall, 6 Cush. (Mass.) 296—610. XXX Table op Cases, (The references are \o the pages.) Brown V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 36 111. App. 140—305, 313, 789. Brown v. Memphis, etc., R, Co., 7 Fed. Bl— 620, 739, 740. Brown V. Memphis, etc., R. Co., 4 Fed. 37, 61—690, 731, 903. Brown v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 64 Mo. 536—560, 573. Brown V. Mott, 22 Ohio St. 149—193, 463. Brown V. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 75 Hun (N. T.), 355—64. Brown V. New Tork Cent. R. Co., 34 N. Y. 404—604, 607, 608, 652, 699. Brown V. New Tork Cent. R. Co., 32 N. Y. 597—698, 809. Brown, etc., Co. v. Pennsylvania Co., 63 Minn. 546—186, 277, 470. Brown v. Piper, 91 U. S. 37—493. Brown v. Pontiac, etc., R. Co. (Mich.), 94 N. W. 1050—517. Brown V. Powell D. S. Coal Co., L. R. 10 C. P. 662—175. Brown V. Rapid Ry. Co. (Mich.), 90 N. W. 290—556, 732, 897. Brown V. Scarbora, 97 Ala. 316—649, 588, 855. Brown V. Washington & 6. R. Co., 25 Wash. L. Rep. 404—838. Brown V. Weir, 95 App. Div. (N. T.) 78— 413. Browne v. Johnson, 29 Tex. 43—397. Browne v. Raleigh, etc., R. Co., 108 N. C. 34—689, 836. Brownell v. Columbus, etc., R. Co., 4 Int. Com. Hep. 286—916, 917, 919. Brownell v. Pacific R. Co., 47 Mo. 239— 809. Browning v. Belford, 83 App. Div. (N. T.) 144—432. Browning v. Goodrich Transp. Co., 78 Wis. 391—389. 402, 487. Browning v. Long Island R. Co., 2 Daly (N. Y.), 117—335. Biyan v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 63 Iowa, 464—635, 636. Bryan v. Memphis, etc., R. Co., 11 Bush. (Ky.) 597—742. Bryan v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 32 Mo. App. 228—753, 762, 766. Bryant v. American Tel. Co., 1 Daly (N. T.), 575—76. Bryant v. Chicago, etc., B. Co., 63 Fed. 997— 54E, 687, 788. Bryant v. Clifford, 13 Mete. (Mass.) 138 —204, 364. Bryant v. Rich, 106 Mass. 180—617, 618, 626, 632. Bryant v. Southwestern R. Co., 68 Ga. 805—314, 464, 606, 530. Bruno v. Brooklyn City K. Co., 6 Mlso. Rep. (N. T.) 327—866, 859. Bruhl V. Coleman, 113 Ga. 1102—158. Brulard v. The Alvin, 46 Fed. 766—687. Brunswick, etc., R. Co. v. Gall, 66 Ga. 322—663. Brunswick, etc., R. Co. v. Ponder, 117 Ga. 63—646. Brusch V. St. Paul City R. Co., 62 Minn. 612—809, 868, 661. Brush V. Sabula, etc., R. Co., 43 Iowa, 554 —315. Bruty V. Grand Trunk R. Co., 32 U. C. Q. B. 66—701. Buchanan v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 665—911. Bucher v. Cheshire R. Co., 125 T7. S. 565 —311, 833. Bucher v. Fitohburg R. Co., 131 Mass. 156-831. Bucher v. Long Island R. Co., 161 N. T. 222—875. Bucher v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 98 N. Y. 128—666, 674, 680, 686, 687, 848, 849, 851. Buck V. Manhattan R. Co., 15 Daly (N. Y.), 550—660, 770. Buck V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 150 Pa. St. 170—317, 376, 388, 389, 393, 395. Buck V. Peoples St. R., etc., Co., 46 Mo. App. 655—569. Buck V. Peoples St. R., etc., Co., 108 Mo. 179—547, 582. Buckbee v. Third Ave. R. Co., 64 App. Div. (N. Y.) 360-603, 821. Bucker v. Fitchburg R. Co., 131 Mass. 156—555. Buckeye Pipe Line Co. v. Pee, 15 Ohio C. C. 637—186. Buckland v. Adams Express Co., 97 Mass. 124—35, 36, 287, 292, 756. Buckland v. New York, etc., R. Co. (Mass.) 62 N. F. 955—607. Buckley v. Great Western R. Co., U Mich. 121—264. Buckley v. Old Colony R. Co., 161 Mass. 26—557. Buckman v. Levi, 3 Campb. 414—136, 138. Buckmaster v. Great Fastem R. Co., 2$ L. T. N. S. 471—691. Budd V. New York, 143 U. S. 517—61, 90. Budd V. United Carriage Co., 26 Or. 314— 776. Budgett V. Blnnlngton, 1 Q. B. 35—256. Buddy V. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 20 Mo. App. 206—262. 388. Buel V. New York Cent. R. Co., 31 N. Y. 314—819. Buesching v. Gaslight Co., 73 Mo. 229— 799. Buesching v. St. Louis Gaslight Co., « Mo. App. 85—771. Buffalo, etc., R. Co. v. O'Hara (Pa.), » Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 317—763. Buffalo, etc., R. Co. v. O'Hara (Pa.), 11 Am. L. R. 564—571, 573. Buffet V. Troy, etc., R. Co.. 40 N. Y. 16S —646, 547, 549, 552. Bulkley V. Naumkeag Steam Cotton Co., 24 How. (U. S.) 386—144. Bullard V. American Express Co., 107 Mich. 695—126. Bullard V. Boston, etc.. R. Co., 64 N. H. 27—804. Bullard V. Delaware, etc.. R. Co.. 21 Pa. Super. Ct. 583-703, 712. Bullard V. Northern Pac. R. Co., 10 Hont. 168—906, 920. Bullock V. Delaware, etc.. R. Co., 60 N. J. L. 24—818. Bullock V. White Star S. S. Co., 30 Wash. 448—611, 886. Bumbear v. United Tract. Co., 198 Pa. 198-860. Bunting V. Hogsett. 139 Pa. St. 363— 697. Burbrldge v. Kansas City Cable R. Co., 36 Mo. App. 669—876. Burckle v. Eckhart, 3 N. Y. 132—310. Burgess v. Stowe, 10 Detroit Leg. N. 434— 84. Burgevln v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., £9 Barb, (N. T.) 479—724. Table of Cases. XXXI (The references are to the pages.) Burke v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 108 111. App. 56B-654, 663. Burke V. Concord R. Corp., 61 N. H. 160 —492. Burke v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 51 Mo. App. 491—681, 591, 625, 747. Burke V. Seventh Ave., etc., R. Co., 49 Barb. (N. T.) 529—823. Burke V. South Eastern R. Co., 5 C. P. Div. 1—296. Burke V. United States Express Co., 87 111. App. 606—236. Burke V. Wltherbee, 98 N. T. 562-606. Burlington, etc., R. Co. v. Arms, 16 Neb. 69—265, 272. Burlington, etc., R. Co. v. Northwestern Fuel Co., 31 Fed. 662—918. Burlington, etc., R. Co. T. Rose, 11 Neb. U7— 624, 746, 747. Burlington, etc., R. Co. v. Spearman, 12 Iowa, 117—95. Burnell v. New York Cent. R. Co., 45 N. Y. 184-39, 181, 387, 719, 724, 726, 727, 728. Burnell v. Raleigh, etc., R. Co., 94 N. C. 451—103, 142, 377, 387. Burnham v. Cape Vincent Seed Co., 142 N. Y. 169—164. Burnham v. Grand Trunk, etc., R. Co., 63 Me. 298. Burnham v. Wabash Western R. Co., 91 Mich. 523—556. Burns v. Cork, etc., R. Co., 13 Ir. C. L. R. 543—609. Bums V. Belief ontaine, etc., R. Co., 50 Mo. 139—858, 859. Burnett V. Great North, etc., R. Co., L. R. 10 App. 147—667. Burnett v. Lynch, 5 B. & C. 689—880. Burr V. Pennsylvania R. Co. (N. J.), 44 Atl. 845—869. Burrell v. North, 2 C. & K. 681—145 Burrit v. Rench, 4 McLean (U. S.), 325 —23, 407. Burroughs v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 67 Mich. 361—285, 486. Burroughs v. Norwich, etc, R. Co., 100 Mass. 26—69, 367, 459, 481, 493. Burrows v, Erie R. Co., 63 N. Y. 660, 656—830, 847, 852. Burt V. Douglass Co. St. B. Co., 83 Wis. 229—603, 775. Burtis V. Buffalo, etc., R. Co., 24 N. Y. 274, 269—364, 458, 471. Burton V. Davis, 16 La. Ann. 448—610. Burton V. Ringrose, 63 Hun (N. Y.), 163 —414. Burton v. Wilkinson, 18 Vt. 186—229. Burton Stock Car Co. v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 1 Int. Com. Rep. 329—917, 931. Bush V. Barnett, 96 Oal, 202—769, 776, 787. Bush V. Northern Pac. R. Co., 3 Dak. 444 —402. Bush V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 3 Mo. App. 62—157, 180, 182. Business Men's Assoc, v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 41—912, 932. Bussey v. Memphis, etc., R. Co., 4 McCrary (U. S.), 406—106, 107, 263, 450, 473. Bussey V. Mississippi Val. Transp. Co., 24 La. Ann. 166 — 49. Buston V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 119 Fed. 808—479, 490. Butfhpr V. London, etc., R. Co., Ifi C. B. 13-704. Butcher's, etc.. Stock Yards Co. v. Louis- ville, etc., R. Co., 67 Fed. 36—97, 123. Butler V. Basing, 2 C. & P. 613—140. Butler V. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co., 8- Lea (Tenn.), 32—263, 273, 274. Butler V. Hudson River R. Co., 3 E. D. Sm. (N. T.) 671—39, 139, 707, 708. Butler V. Manhattan B. Co., 4 Misc. Rep.. (N. Y.) 401—810. Butler V. Pittsburgh, etc., K. Co., 139 Pa. St. 196—861. Butler V. Steinway R. Co., 87 Hun (N. Y.), 10—829. Butler V. Woolcott, 2 B. & P. N. R. 64 —431. Butt V. Great Western H. Co., 11 C. B. 140—323. Button V. Frlnk, 51 Conn. 342—793. Button V. Hudson Kiver R. Co., 18 N. Y. 248—783, 790, 796, 797, 899. Buxton V. Northwestern R. Co., L. R. 5- Q. B. 649-600. Byrne v. Brooklyn City, etc., R. Co., ft Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 260—803. Byrne v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 83 N. Y. 620-822. Byrne v. Fargo, 36 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 543— 14S, 264. Byron v. Lynn & B. R. Co., 177 Mass. 303-601, 662. Buzby V. Philadelphia Traction Co., 12ft Pa. St. 569—876. Cable V. Southern R. Co., 122 N. C. 892— 688. Cadwallader v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 9 L. C. Rep. 169—701, 703, 705. Cahill V. London, etc., R. Co., 100 E. C. L. 154—708, 709. Cahn V. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 71 III. iB —193, 194, 262, 281. CailifE V. Danvers, 1 Peake N. P. 114- 13, 283. Cain V. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 37 Minn. 297—627, 638. Cairo First Nat. Bank v. Crocker, UJ Mass. 163—178. Cairus V. Robins, 8 M. & W. 258—70, 148, 284. Caldwell v. Erie Transfer Co., 13 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 37—730. Caldwell V. New Jersey Steamboat Co., 47 N. Y. 282—396, 542, 594, 603, 607, 608, 781, 787 793 899 Caldwell v. Murphy, 11 N. Y. 416—809. Caldwell v. Murphy, 1 Duer (N. Y.), 231 —642, 652. Caldwell V. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 89 Ga. 660—40, 640, 669, 687. Caldwell v. Southern Express Co., 1 Flipp. (U. S.) 86—226, 227. California Ins. Co. v. Union Compress- Co., 133 U. S. 387—143. California Powder Works v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 113 Cal. 329—329. Callaway v. Mellett (Ind. App.), 44 N. B. -.98—664. Calumet Elect. St. By. Co. v. Jennings, 83 111. App. 612—776. Calvin V. Jones, 3 Dana (Ky.), 376—408. Camden, etc., R. Co. v. Burke, 13 Wend> (N. Y.) 611, 628-22, 37. 39, 64, 642, 698, 712, 717. Camden, etc., R. Co. v. Bausch (Pa.), T Atl. 731—753, 766. XXXll Table of Cases. (The references are to the pages.) Camden, etc., R. Co. v. Belknap, 21 Wend. (N. T.) 354—54, 55, 291, 754. Camden, etc., R. Co. v. Baldaut, 16 Pa. St. 67—293, 317, 360, 717, 718, 755. Camden, etc., R. Co. v. Forsyth, 61 Pa. St. 81—460, 476, 482, 485, 486. Camden, etc., R. Co. v. Hoosey, 99 Pa. St. 492—696, 782, 857. Camp V. Hartford, etc.. Steamboat Co., 43 Conn. 333—287, 294, 760. Camp V. Western Union Tel. Co.,* 1 Mete. (Ky.) 164—73, 77, 78. Campe v. Weir, 28 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 243—387, 389. Campbell v. Connor, 70 N. T. 424—440. Campbell v. Consol. Tract. Co., 201 Pa. 167—783. Campbell v. Iowa Cent. Ry. Co. (Iowa), 99 N. W. 1061—403. Campbell v. Los Angeles R. Co., 135 Cal. 137—815. Campbell v. Morse, Harper (S. C), 468— 63. Campion v. Canadian Pac. R. Co., 43 Fed. 776—103, 272. Campion v. Colvin, 3 Bing. N. Cas. 17— 445. Canada Southern R. Co. v. International Bridge Co., L. R. 8 App. 723—124, 909. Canadian Pac. R. Co. v. Charbonneau, 6 Montreal L,. R. Q. B. 284-^83. Canadian Pac. R. Co. v. Johnson, 6 Mont- real Q. B. 213—661. Canal Co. v. Jenkins, 1 Colo. App. 425 — 88. Candee v. New York, etc., R. Co., 73 Conn. 667—519, 524. Candee v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 21 Wis. 584—463, 729. Candee v. Western Union Tel. Co., 34 Wis. 471—74, 77, 78. Candlff V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 42 La. Ann. 477—584. Canfleld v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 46 N. Y. Super. Ct. 238—386. Canfleld v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 93 N. Y. 632—321, 387, 392. Canfleld v. Northern R. Co., 18 Barb. (N. Y.) 686—495. Cantling v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 54 Mo. 386—81, 705. Cantu v. Bennett, 39 Tex. 303—118, 220, 309. Cantwell v. Pacific Express Co., 58 Ark. 487—241, 246. Capehart v. Granite Mills, 97 Ala. 353— 142, 177, 406. Capehart v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 278—449, 930. Capehart v. Seaboard, etc., R, Co., 77 N. C. 355—334, 339. Caples V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 17 Mo. App. 14—350, 401. Car. Co. V. Reed, 75 III. 125—742. Card V. New York, etc., R. Co., 60 Barb. (N. Y.) 39—699. Cardot v. Barney, 63 N. Y. 281—40. Carleton v. Lombard Ayres & Co., 19 Ann Div. (N. Y.) 297—897. Carli V. Interstate Consol. St. R. Co (R I.), 51 Atl. 306—656. Carlisle v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 97 Mo App. 671—128. Carlson v. Ocean Steam Nav. Co., 109 N Y. 369—703. Carmanty v. Mexican Gulf R. Co., 6 La Ann. 703-617. Carney v. Cincinnati St. R. Co., 8 Ohio S. & C. P. Dec. 587—547. Carpenter v. Boston, etc., R. Co.t 97 N, Y. 500, 494—551, .631, 641. Carpenter v. Eastern R. Co. (Minn.), CO N. W. 720—625. Carpenter v. New York, etc., R. Co., 124 N. Y. 53—56, 58, 706, 713, 714. Carpue v. London, etc., R. Co., 5 Q. B. 747 —773, 780. Carr v. Eel River, etc., R. Co., 98 Cal. 366—674, 748, 849. Carr v. Lancashire, etc., R. Co., 7 Exch, 707—324. Carr v. Miller-Morris, Irrlg., etc., Co., 105 La. 239—88. Carr v. Schafer, 15 Colo. 48—243. Carrico v. West Virginia Cent., etc., R. Co.,. 39 W. Va. 86—779. Carrico v. West Virginia, etc., R. Co., 35 W. Va. 389—599, 870, 871. Carroll v. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co., 82 Ga. 452—811. Carroll v. Interstate Rap. T. Co., 107 Mo. 663—837, 854. Carroll V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 88 Mo. App. 239—672, 763, 769. Carroll v. New York, etc., R. Co., 1 Duer (N. Y.), 584—817, 855. Carroll v. Staten Island R. Co., 58 N. Y. 126—644, 662, 665, 569, 670, 694, 607, 608. 620, 652, 660, 831. Carroll v. Staten Island R. Co., 8 Ohio S. & C. P. Dec. 587. Carroll v. Southern Express Co., 37 S. C. 462—181. Carruth v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 45 La. Ann. 1228—820. Carson V. Harris, 4 Green (Iowa), 516— 467. Carsten v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 44 Minn. 454—567. Carstens v. Burleigh, 20 Wash. 283—371. Carswell v. Macon, etc., R. Co., 118 Ga. 826—587. Carter v. Columbia, etc., R. Co., 19 S. C. 20—771, 799. Carter v. Howe Machine Co., 51 Md. 290 —640. Carter v. Kansas City Cable R. Co., 42 Fed. 37—769, 770. Carter v. Peck, 4 Sneed. (Tenn.) 203— 463. Carter v. Towne. 98 Mass. 567—384. Carton v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 59 Iowa, 148—310. Cartwright v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 58 Mich. 606— «72, 845. Cartwright v. Rome, etc., R. Co., 85 Hun (N. Y.), 517—246, 455, 466, 467. Cary V, Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 29 Barb. (N. Y.) 35—724, 725, 728. Case v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 64 Iowa. 762—770. Case V. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., U Ind. App. 617— 3S4. Casey v. St. Louis, S. W. Ry. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 83 S. W. 20—501. Casey v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 78 N. Y. 518—822. Cash v. Wabash R. Co., 81 Mo. App. 109 -497, 633. Cashill v. Wright, 6 El. & Bl. 891—6. Casper v. Dry Dock, etc., R. Co., 23 App. Div. (N. Y.) 461—781. Caspers v. Dry Dock, etc., R. Co., 22 App. Div. (N. Y.) 156—865. Table of Cases. (The references are to the paees.) XXXlll •Cass V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 14 Allen (Mass.) 448—283. •Cassady v. Old Colony St. R. Co. (Mass.), 68 N. E. 10—772, 877. ■Cassidy v. Angel, 12 R. I. 449—798. Cassilay v. Youngr, 4 B. Men. (Ky.) 265— 196. Cassio V. Brooklyn H. R. Co., 59 App. Dlv. CN. T.) 617—841. Caswell V. Boston, etc., R. Corp., 98 Mass. 194—697, 873. 'Caterham R. Co. v. London, etc., R. Co., 26 L. J. C. P. 161—113. Caton V. Rumney, 13 Wend. (N. T.) 387 —46, 60. Cau V. Texas, etc., R. Co., 194 U. S. 427, 113 Fed. 91—304, 327. Cavallaro v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 110 Cal. 348—178, 264, 275. Caveny v. Neely, 43 S. C. 70—604, 617. dawfleld V. Ashevllle St. R. Co., HI N. C. 597—682. Cayo V. Pool's Assignee, 55 S. W. (Ky.) 887—64, 432, 444. Cayuga Co. Nat. Bank v. Daniels, 47 N. T. 631—160. Central Coal & Coke Co. v. Hartman, ill Fed. 96—426. Central, etc., R. Co. v. Avant, 80 Ga. 195 -247, 481. Central, etc., R. Co. v. Brown, 78 Md. 394—639. j Central, etc., R. Co. v. Bryant, 73 Ga. 722—314, 605. Central, etc., R. Co. v. Chicago Portrait Co., 122 Ga. 11—446. Central, etc., K. Co. v. Miles, 88 Ala. 266, 256, 261—674, 819, 830, 848, 849, 850. Central, etc., R. Co. V. Morris, 68 Tex. 49—93, 102, 117. Central, etc., B. Co. v. Motes, 117 Ga. 923 —630, 635. Central, etc., R. Co. v. Price, 106 Ga. 170 —637. Central, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, 80 Ga. 628 —804. Central Iron Works v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 2 Dauph. Co. Rep. 308—119. Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Brown, 113 Ga. 414—628, 632. Central of Georgia R. Co. v. Felton, 110 Ga. 697—370. Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Glascock & Warfleld, 117 Ga. 938—623. Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. James, 117 Ga. 832—519. Central of Ga. R. Co. v. Lippman, 110 Ga. 666—219, 292, 655, 661, 760. Central of Ga. R. Co. v. MoKinney, 118 Ga. 535—816. Central of Ga. R. Co. r. Murphey, 113 Ga. 511-343. Central of Ga. R. Co. v. Ricks, 109 6a. 339—219. Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Rogers, HI Ga. 865—519. Central Pass. R. Co. v. Kuhm, 86 Ky. 678 —770, 778, 787. Central Pass. R. Co. v. Rose, 16 Ky. L. Rep. 209—838. Central B. Co. v. Brlnson, 64 Ga. 475— 786. Central R. Co. v. Combs, 70 Ga. 533—754, 885. Central B. Co. v. Cooper, 95 Ga. 406—211. Central B. Co. v. DwlgUt Mfg. Co., VS Ga. 609—462. Central R. Co. v. Freeman, 75 Ga. 331 — 595, 652, 779. Central R. Co. v. Glass, 60 Ga. 441—689. Central R. Co. v. Green, 86 Pa. St. ^21 —623. Central R. Co. v. Henderson, 69 Ga. 71S —657. Central R. Co. v. Hasselkus, 91 6a. 382 —388, 392. Central R. Co. v. Latcher, 69 Ala. 106— 851. Central R. Co. v. Logan, 77 Ga. 804 — 417. Central Ry. Co. v. Peacock, 69 Md. 257— 634. Central R. Co. v. Pickett, 87 Ga. 734—337, 497. Central R. Co. v. Rogers, 66 Ga. 251— 402, 491. Central R. Co. v. Sanders, 73 Ga. 513— 779. Central R. Co. v. Smith, 74 Md. 212—815, 666, 675. Central R. Co. v. Strickland, 90 Ga. 502 , —589, 692, 889. Central R. Co. v. Thompson, 76 Ga. 770 -652, 674. Central K. Co. v. Van Horn, 38 N. J. L. 133—665, 814, 847. Central R. Co. v. Whitehead, 74 Ga. 441 —654, 682. Central R. Co. v. Wolff, 74 Ga. 664-807. Central R., etc., Co. v. Anderson, 58 Ga. 393—261, 362, 377. Central R., etc., Co. v. Bayer, 91 Ga. 116 —466, 491. Central R., etc., Co. v. Bridger, 94 Ga. 471—475. Central R., etc., Co. v, Georgia Fruit, etc., Exch., 91 Ga. 389—23, 265, 454, 474, 476. Central K., etc., Co. v. Lampley, 76 Ala. 357—19, 71. Central R., etc., Co. v. Perry, 68 Ga. 461 —545, 551, 662, 660, 678, 832, 843. Central B., etc., Co. v. Sawyer, 78 Ga. 784— 447. Central R., etc., Co. v. Skellie, 86 Ga. 686—400, 423, 474. Central R., etc., Co. v. Smitha, 85 Ala. 47—314, 524. Central Stock Yards Co. v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 118 Fed. 113—518, 929. Central Texas, etc., Ry. Co. v. Holloway (Tex.), 64 S. W. 419—684. Central Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Smith (Tex. Civ. App.), 73 S. W. 537—697. Central Trust Co. v. Savannah, etc., R. Co., 69 Fed. 683—422. Central Trust Co. v. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co., 70 Fed. 764—272. Central Trust Co. v. Wabash, etc., R. Co , 39 Fed. 417—703, 707, 708. Central Trust Co. v. Wabash, etc., R. Co. (Mo.), 31 Am. & Bng. R. Cas. 103 — 458. Central Trust Co. v. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 31 Fed. 247—474, 727. Central Union Teleph. Co. v. Bradbury, 106 Ind. 1—73. Central Union Teleph. Co. v. State, 128 Ind. 113—79. Central Vermont R. Co. v. Bateman, 26 U. S. App. 584—604. Central Vermont R. Co. v. Soper, 59 Fed. 879—331, 335. Certain Logs of Mahogany, 2 Sumn. (U. S.) 589—445. xxxir Table of Cases. (The references are to the pages.) Chaffee v. Boston, etc., R. Corp., 104 Mass. 108, 115—679, 830, 876. Chaffee v. Mississippi, etc., E. Co., 5S Miss. 182—161. Chaffee v. Old Colony K. Co., 17 R. I. 658 —836. Challi V. Charlotte, etc., R. Co., 85 N. C. 423—150, 193, 269, 270. Chamberlain v. Chandler, 3 Mason (U. S.) 242-637. Chamberlain v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. (Mich.), 68 N. W. 423— 73B. Chamberlain v. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co., 7 Wis. 426—771. Chamberlain v. Pierson, 87 Fed. 420—580. Chamberlain v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 55 Mo. App. 474—57. Chamberlain v. Western Transp. Co., 45 Barb. (N. T.) 218-712. Chamber of Commerce v. Great Northern R. Co., 5 Int. Com. C. Rep. 71—923. Champane v. la, Cross City Ry. Co. (Wla.J, BS N. W. 334—853. Chandler v. Belden, 18 Johns. obbin V. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 56 Mioh. 522—209. Dob'eoki v. Sharp, 88 N. T. 203—872, 873. Dobson V. New Orleans, etc., R. Co.„ 52 La. Ann. 1127—686. T>odge V. Boston, etc., S. Co. (Mass.), 19 N. C. 373—673. Dodge V. Boston, etc.. Steamship Co., 14S Mass. 207—557, 595, 653, 815, 844. Dodson V. Grand Trunk R. Co., 7 Canada L. J. N. S. 263—324. Dole V. N. E. Insurance Co., 88 Mass. 373 —226. Donnegan v. Erhardt, 119 N. Y. 468-599. Donohue v. Brooklyn, etc., R. Co., 53 App. Div. (N. T.) 348-809. Donovan v. Hartford St. R. Co., 65 Conn. 201—546, 547, 785. Donohoe v. London, etc., R. Co., 15 W. R. 792—240. Donoho V. Metropolitan St. Ry Co., 30 Misc. Rep. (N. T.) 433—829. Donovan v. Pennsylvania Co., 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. (U. S.) 91—614. Doolan V. Midland R. Co., L. R. 2 App. 792—293, 326. Dooley V. United States, 183 U. S. 168. Doolittle V. Southern Ry. Co., 62 S. C. 130—867. Doorman v. Jenkins, 2 Ad. & El. 256—10. Doran v. East River Perry Co., 3 Lans. (N. Y.) 106—562. Dorff V. Brooklyn H. R. Co., 95 App. Div. (N. Y.) 82—650. Dorr V. New Jersey Steam Nav. Co., 11 N. Y. 485—127, 290, 294, 298, 319, 325, 317, 754, 763. Dorrah v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 66 Miss. 14—664, 675, 880, 887, 895. Doss V. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 69 Mo 27 — 684, 669, 860. Dotson V. Brie R. Co. (N. J.), 54 Atl. 827 —872. Doty V. Strong, 1 Pin. (Wis.) 313, 324— 19, 92, 93. 116, 390. Dougan v. Champlain Transp. Co., 56 N. Y. 1—604, 805. Dougherty v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 86 111. 467—848. -Dougherty v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 9 Mo. App. 484—786. Dougherty v. Missouri R. Co., 81 Mo. 325 —675, 694, 772, 776. Dougherty v. Yazoo, etc., R. Co. (Miss.^, 36 So. 699—869. .Douglass V. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 53 Mo. App. 473—416, 515. Douglass V. Peoples Bank, 86 Ky. 176—164, 166. Dow V. Portland Steam Packet Co., 84 Me. 490—388, 610, 633. Dow V. Syracuse, etc., R. Co., 81 App. Div. (N. Y.) 362—570, 758, 767. Dowd V. Alabama Ry., 47 App. Div. (N. Y.) 202—688. Dowd V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 84 Wis. 106—684. Dowd V. New York, etc., R. Co., 170 N. Y. 459—795. Dowling V. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 90 N. Y. 671—823. Downey v. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 28 W. Va. 732-692, 816, 865. Downey v. Hendricks, 46 Mich. 498—853, 861. Downey v. Inman Steamship Co., 2 N. Y. Supp. 669—713. Downs v. Fromont, 4 Campb. 40—323. Dows V. Green, 24 N. Y. 641—169. Downs V. New York, etc., R. Co., 36 Conn. 287—665, 742. Downs V. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 47 N. Y. 83—807. Dows V. Perrln, 16 N. Y. 325—169. Dows V. Rush, 28 Barb. (N. Y.) 167—169. Doyle V. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 126 Fed. 841—341. Doyle V. Fltchburg R. Co., 162 Mass. 66— 587, 767. Doyle V. Kiser, 6 Ind. 242—701. 704, 70S. Doyle V. Lynn & B. R. Co., 118 Mass. 195—831. Drake v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 137 Pa. St. 362—591, 806, 843. Draper v. Delaware, etc.. Canal Co.. 118 N. Y. 118—263, 270, 272, 278, 395. Dresbach v. CalKornia Pac. R. Co., 67 Cal. 462—474, 488. Dresser v. Bosanquet, 4 B. & S. 460—15. Dresser v. West Virginia Transp. Co., 8 W. Va. 653-423. Dresslar v. Citizens St. R. Co., 19 Ind. App. 383-770. Drew V. Central Pac. R. Co.. 51 Cal. 425 —558, 591. Drew V. Red Line Transit Co., 3 Mo. App. 496—316. Drew V. Sixth Ave. R. Co., 26 N. Y. 49— 647, 682, 684. Drinkwater v. The Brig Spartan, 1 Ware, CU. S.), 149—445. Driscoll V. Market St. R. Co.. 97 Cal. 353 —877. Drohan v. Lumber Co.. 75 Minn. 261— .366. Drummond v. Southern Pac. Co.. 7 Utah, 118—668. Dube v. Reg, 3 Can. Exch. 147—608. Dubuque, etc., R. Co. v. Richmond, 39 Wall (U. S.), 584—669. Duchemin v. Boston El. Ry. Co., 1S6 Mass. 353—547. Dudley v. Camden, etc.. Ferry Co.. 13 Vroom. (N. J.) 25—52. Dudley v. Front St. Cable R. Co.. 73 Fed. 128—678. Duff v. Budd, 3 B. & D. 177—147, 158, 188. Duff V. Alleghany Valley R. Co., 91 Pa. St. 458—684. Duffy V. St. Louis Transit Co. (Mo.), 73 S. W. 831—863. Duffy V. Thompson, 4 E. D. Sm. (N. Y.) 178—702, 703, 704, 705. Dufoit V. Gorman, 1 Minn. 301—433. Dulur V. Boston & M. R. Co. (Vt.), 53 Atl. 1068—646. Duggan V. Baltimore, etc.. R. Co., 159 Pa. St. 248-640. Dulney V. Wheeling, etc., R. Co., 28 Win. 32—819. Dunbar v. Charleston, etc.. R. Co. (S. C), 40 S. C. 884—482. Du Laurens v. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., 15 Minn. 49—734, 736. Duling V. Philadelphia, etc., R. 'Co., 66 Md. 120—591, 666. Dun V, Seaboard, etc., R. Co., 78 Va. 645 —860. Dunbar v. Boston, etc., R. Corp., 110 Mass. 26—167, 180. Dunbar v. Port Royal, etc., R. Co.. 36 S. C. 110—460, 476, 483. Dunlay v. Traction Co., 18 Pa. Super. C3t. 206—820. xlvi Table of Cases. (The references are to the pages.) Duncan v. Maine Cent. B. Co., 113 Fed. 608—766. Bunham v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 46 Hun (N. T.), 246—271. Dunham v, Boston, etc., R. Co., 70 Me. 164—248, 266, 411, 466. Dunlap V. International Steamboat Co., 98 Mass. 371—367, 701, 704, 706, 708, 709. Dunlap V. Northern Pac. R. Co., 36 Minn. Dunlap V. Steamboat Reliance, 2 Fed. 249 —781. Dunlop V. Edinburgh, etc., R. Co., 16 Jur. Pt. 2, 407-<91. Dunlop V. Munroe, 7 Cranch. (U. S.) 242. Dunn V. Grand Trunk R. Co., 68 Me. 187— 683, 625, 696, 746, 817. Dunn V. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 68 Mo. 268—339, 405, 406, 463, 604. Dunn V. New Haven Steamboat Co., 58 Hun (N. T.), 461—715. Dunn V. New Tork, etc., R. Co., 99 App. Dlv. (N. T.) 571—684, 685. Dunn V. Pennsylvania R. Co. (N. J.), B8 Atl. 164—697, 846. Dunn V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 20 Phlla. (Pa.) 268—670, 675, 867. Dunn V. Seaboard, etc., R. Co., 78 Va. 645 —870. Dunphy v. Erie B. Co., 42 N. T. Super. Ct. 128—558, 591. Dunseth v. Wade, 2 Scam. (111.) 285—66, 66. Dunson v. New Tork Cent. B. Co., 3 Lans. (N. T.) 265—220, 266. Dunspeth v. Wade, 3 111. 285—393. Duntley v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 53 Mo. App. 473—344. Duntley v. Boston, etc., B. Co., 66 N. H. 263—627. Dunton v. Allen Line S. S. Co., 115 Fed. 260—610. Dupont De Nemours v. Vance, 19 How. (U S.) 171-^41. Durgln V. American Express Co., 66 N. H. 277—344, 361. Dusar v. Murgatroyd, 1 Wash. (U. S.) 17, 13—23, 401. Duvenick v. Missouri Pac. B. Co., 67 Mo. App. 660—303, 605. Dwlght V. Brewster, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 50 — 18, 22, 65, 66, 140, 369, 550. Dwindle v. New Tork Cent. B. Co., 120 N. T. 117—60, 641, 543, 559, 626, 631, 633. Dwyer v. Gulf, etc., R. Co., 69 Tex. 707, 76 Tex. 672—166, 205, 206, 210. Bye V. Virginia Midland R. Co., 20 B. C. 63—680, 789. Dyer v. Brie R. Co., 71 N. T. 228, 236-698, 819. Dyer v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 42 Vt. 441— 126, 429, 447. Dyer v. Great Northern R. Co., 51 Minn. 345—163. Dyke v. Brie B. Co., 45 N. T. 113—309, 312. Dysart v. Missouri, etc., E. Co., 122 Fed. 228—581. E. Bads V. Metropolitan R. Co., 43 Mo. App. 636—626, 635. Eagan v. Magulre, 21 R. I. 189—831. Eagle Packet Co. v, Betries, 94 111. 698— 616, 782. Eagle V. White, 6 Whart. (Pa.) 605—337, 192, 193, 198, 240, 263. Earle v. Cadmus, 2 Baly (N. T.), 237— 720. Earnest v. Southern Express Co., 1 Woods (U. S.), 573—342, 356, 769. East Indian Bailway v. Kalidas Mukerjee, 70 L. J. P. C. 396—44. East Line, etc., R. Co., v. Hall, 64 Tex. 615, 620—131, 132, 142. Bast Line, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, 65 Tex. 167—601. East Line, etc., R. Co. v. Rushing, t» Tex. 306—669, 679, 684, 692, 826. Eastman v. Association, 65 N. H. 176—214. East Omaha St, R. Co. v. GodoTa, 50 Neo. 906—44, 46, 666, 865. Bast Saginaw City B. Co, v. Bohn, 77 Mich. 503—828, 862. East St. Louis, etc., B. Co. v. Wabash, etc, R. Co., 123 111. 694—45, 266, 463, 467. Bast Tennessee, etc, B, Co, v, Bayllss, 75 Ala, 466—699, East Tennessee, etc, B, Co. v. Brumley, S Lea (Tenn.), 401—295, 318, 463, 482, 484. Bast Tennessee, etc., B. Co. v. Connor, 15 Lea (Tenn.), 254—847. East Tennessee, etc., B, Co. v. Beaver, 79 Ala. 216—699, 700. East Tennessee, etc., R, Co, v, Fleetwood, 90 Ga, 23—635, East Tennessee, etc, R, Co, v. Hale, 85 Tenn. 69—401, 412, 516, East Tennessee, etc, R, Co. v, Herrman, 92 Ga, 384—601, 637, East Tennessee, etc, R, Co, v. Holmes, 97 Ala, 332—847, 850, 861, East Tennessee, etc, R, Co. v. Hughes, 92 6a, 388—818, 862, Bast Tennessee, etc, R, Co, v. Hunt, 15 Lea (Tenn,), 261—429. East Tennessee, etc, R, Co, v. Hyde, 89 Ga. 721—890. East Tennessee, etc, B, Co. v. Interstate Commerce Com,, 99 Fed, 62—940, East Tennessee, etc, R, Co, v. Interstate Commerce Com,, 181 U. S. 1—934. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. Johnson, 85 Ga. 497—400, 4U, 413, 424, 466, 462,' 500. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. Johnston, 75 Ala. 596—314, 393, 399, 510, 534. East Tennessee, etc, R, Co. v, Kelly, 91 Tenn, 699—263, 272, 399, East Tennessee, etc, R, Co, v, Lockhart, 79 Ala. 315—687, 880, 883, 886, 887, 896, East Tennessee, etc., R, Co, v. Maloy, 77 Ga, 237—809, East Tennessee, etc, R, Co, v, Massengill, 16 Lea (Tenn,), 328—668, East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. Mitchell, U Heisk. (Tenn.) 400—642, 664, 771. East Tennessee, etc., B. Co. v. Nelson, 1 Cold. (Tenn.) 272, 276—38, 92, 106, 240. 318, 463, East Tennessee, etc, E. Co. v. Bodgers, 6 Heisk. (Tenn.) 143—463. East Tennessee, etc., E. Co. v. Stewart, IS Lea (Tenn.), 432—389, 771. East Tennessee, etc., E. Co. v. Whittle, 27 Ga. 535—46, 499. East Tennessee, etc., E. Co. v. Winters. 86 Tenn. 240—700, 738. East Tennessee, etc., B. Co. v. Wright, 76 Ga. 632—466. Eastern Counties B. Co. v. Brown, 6 Exch. 314—640. Eastern R. Co. v. Belief F. Ins. Co., 9> Mass. 420—373. Table of Cases. xlvii (The references are to the pages.) Bastor V. Dudley, 78 Tex. 239—109, 112, 369. Eaton V. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 57 N. Y. 382— S45, 563, 681, 684, 624, 746, 816. Eaton V. Neumark (C. C. S. D. N. T.), 37 Fed. 376—203. Eaton V. St. Louis, etc., K. Co., 12 Mo. App. 386—262. Eau Claire Board of Trade v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 4 Int. Com. Eep. 65—923. 926. Eberhardt v. Metropolitan St. By. Co., 69 App. Div. (N. Y.) 560—663. Echols V. Louisville, etc., B. Co., 90 Ala. 366—401, 398. Eckerd v. Chicago, etc., B. Co., 70 Iowa, 353—845. EclifE V. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 64 Mich. 196—550. Eddie V. Rider, 79 Tex. 63—589. Eddy V. Syracuse, etc., R. Co., 60 App. Dlv. (N. Y.) 109—743, 897. Eddy V. Wallace, 49 Fed. 801—671. Edgar V. Northern R. Co., 11 Ont. App. 462—849, 852. Edgerton v. New York, etc., R. Co., 39 N. Y. 227—643, 648, 683, 625, 779, 786. Edgerton v. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 116 N. C. 645—177. Edgerly v. Union St. R. Co., 67 N. H. 312—737, 739. Edminson v. Baxter, 4 Hayw. (Tenn.) 112 —399. Edmunds v. Merchants* Despatch Transp. Co., 135 Mass. 283—167. Edmunson V. Pullman Palace Car Co., 92 Fed. 824—58. Edsall V. Camden, etc., R. Co., 60 N. Y. 661—330, 351, 720. Edson V. Weston, 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 278— 10, 229. Edwards v. Cheraw, etc., R. Co., 32 S. C. 117—169, 198. Edwards v. Foote (Mich.), 88 N. W. 404— 807. Edwards v. London & N. W. R. Co., L. R. 6 C. P. 446—640. Edwards v. Manufacturing Building Com* pany (R. I.), 61 Atl. 646—656. Edwards v. Sherratt, 1 East, 604—100, 132, 356. Edwards v. Todd, 1 Scam. (111.) 462, 2 111. 462—126, 447. Edwards v. White Line Transit Co., 104 Mass. 169—34, 229, 230, 234. Eells V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 62 Fed. 903—311, 314, 342, 350, 769. Egan V. A Cargo of Spruce Lath, 43 Fed. 480—441. Eickhof V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 77 111. App. 196—775, 863. 885 Bags of Linseed, 1 Black (U. S.), 108— 443. Eikenberry v. St. Louis Transit Co., 103 Mo. App. 442—842. Ela V. American M. U. Express Co., 29 Wis. 611—155. Eldridge v. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 32 Minn. 253—788. Electric Car Co. v. Carson, 98 Ga. 652— 769, 779. Elgin, etc., Ry. Co. v. Bates Mach. Co., 98 111. App. 311—100, 475, 481. Elgin City R. Co. v. Wilson, 56 111. App. 364—770, 774, 779. Elkins V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 23 N. H. 276—19, 37, 38, 39, 63, 139, 366, 370. Elkins V. Empire Transp. Co., 81 Pa. St. 316—346. Ellet V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 76 Mo. 518—611, 788. Bllinger v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 163 Pa. St. 213—660. Elliott V. Newport, etc., R. Co., 18 R. I. 707—771, 790, 864. Elliott V. New York Cent., etc., B. Co., 33 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 861—762, 767, 766. Elliott V. Russell, 10 Johns. (N. Y.) 1— 66, 225. Elliott V. Van Buren, 33 Mich. 49—794, Elliot V. Western, etc., B. Co., 58 Ga. 464—571. Ellis V. American Tel. Co., 13 Allen (Mass.), 232—73, 78. Ellis V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 120 Wis. 645, 82 Wis. 246—666, 670. Blwell V. Skiddy, 77 N. Y. 282—358. Ellsworth V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 95 Iowa, 98—744, 563, 648. Ellsworth V. Tartt, 26 Ala. 733—493, 727. Elmore v. Naugatuck B. Co., 23 Conn. 457, 472—468, 476. Elmore v. Sands, 64 N. Y. 612, 516—564, 691, 806. Elvey V. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 804—921. Blwood V. Chicago City Ry. Co., 90 III. App. 397—795. Blwood V. Connecticut By., etc., Co., 47 Conn. 146—674. Ely V. Ehle, 3 N. Y. 606—362. Ely V. New Haven Steamboat Co., 63 Barb. (N. Y.) ?07— 274. Ely V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 77 Mo. 34— 805. Emerson v. Burnett, H Colo. App. F8 — 810. Emerson v. St. Louis, etc., B. Co., Ill Mo. 161-500. Emery v. Hersey. 4 Me. 407—8, 202. Empire Transp. Co. v. Steele, 70 Pa. St. 188—165, 173. Empire Transp. Co. v. Wallace, 68 Pa. St. 302—104. Empire Transp. Co. v. Wamsutta Oil Re- fining, etc., Co., 63 Pa. St. 14—317, 388. Enches V. New York, etc., R. Co., 135 Pa. St. 194—830. Engberman v. North German Lloyd S. S. Co., 84 N. Y. Supp. 201—720. Engesether v. Great Northern B. Co., 65 Minn. 168-338, 525. England v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 153 Mass. 490—850, 851, 852. England v. International, etc., R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 73, S. W. 24—746. Englehaupt v. Erie R. Co., 209 Pa. 182— 666. English V. Delaware, etc., Canal Co., 66 N. Y. 464—638, 747, 749. Ensiey v. Detroit United Ry. Co. (Mich.), 96 N. W. 34—810. E. O. Stannard Milling Co. v. White Line Cent. Transit Co., 122 Mo. 258—262, 282, 285, 264, 389. Eppendorf v. Brooklyn City, etc., R. Co., 67 N. Y. 62, 69 N. Y. 196—678. 838. Erie City, etc., R. Co. v. Schuester, 113 Pa. St. 413—822, 824. Brie Despatch v. Johnson, 87 Tenn. 499 — 179, 211. Erie, etc., Dispatch v. Stanley, 22 111. App, 459—402. xlviii Table of Cases. (The references are to the pages.} Brie, etc. Transp. Co. v. Dater, 91 III. jgg 297 315. Erie R. ' Co. V. Llttell, 128 Fed. 546—745, 749. Brie R. Co. v. Lockwood, 28 Ohio St. 35S— 288, 394, 396, 399, 405, 464, 487, 488, 489. Erie R. Co. v. Wilcox, 84 111. 239—291, 294, 297, 322, 381, 462, 481, 754, 762. BrsWne v. Thomas, 6 Miss. 371—147. Brwin V. Kansas, etc., R. Co. (Mo. App.), 68 S. W. 88—661. Bstes V. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., 7 N. T. Supp. 868—730. Bstlll V. New York, etc., R. Co., 147 U. S. 591—407, 532. Btherington v. Prospect Park, etc., R. Co., 88 N. T. 461—695. Etson 1. Fort Wayne, etc., R. Co., 110 Mich. 494—771. Eureka Springs R. Co. v. Timmons, El Ark. 459—37, 38, 695, 609, 779. Evans v. Bristol, etc., R. Co., 10 W. R. 659—193. Evans V. Chicago & A. R. Co., 76 Mo. App. 472—437. Evans V. Fltchburg R. Co., HI Mass. 142— 29, 30, 247, 510, 511, 533. Evans V. Gale, 17 N. H. 573—363. Evans v. Memphis, etc., B. Co., 56 Atl. 246—747. Bvans v. Rudy, 34 Ark. 385—52. Bvans v. St. Louis, etc.; R. Co., 11 Mo. App. 463—567, 880, 887, 889. 898. EvansvlUe, etc., R. Co. v. Androscoggin Mills, 22 Wall. (U. S.) 594—471, 475, 480, 485, 486. EvansvlUe, etc.. R. Co. v. Athon, 6 Ind. App. 295—60, 678. Evansville, etc., R. Co. v. Barnes, 137 Ind. 306—550. Evansville, etc., R. Co. v. Baum, 26 Ind. 70—617. Evansville, etc., R. Co. v. Cates, 14 Ind. App. 172—744. Evansville, etc., R. Co. v. Darting, 6 Ind. App. 375—632, 644. Evansville, etc., R. Co. v. Duncan, 28 Ind. 442—673. Evansville, etc., R. Co. v. Keith, 8 Ind. App. 57—4, 136. Evansville, etc., R. Co. v. Kevekordes (Ind. App.), 69 N. B. 1022—141, 343, 354. 528, 633. Evansville, etc., R. Co. v. Kyte, 6 Ind. App. 62—687. Evansville, etc., R. Co. v. Marsh, 57 Ind. 605—437. Evansville, etc., R. Co. v. Montgomery, 8B Ind. 494-^01. Evansville, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, 65 Ind. 92—493. Evansville, etc., R. Co. v. Wilson, 20 Ind. App. 6—667. Evansville, etc., R. Co. v. Young, 28 Ind. 516—292, 606, 755. Everett v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 69 Iowa, 15—749. Everett v. Oregon, etc., R. Co. 9 Utah, 340 -682. Everett v. Saltus, 16 Wend. (N. T.) 474— 446, 446. Everett v. Southern Express Co.. 46 Ga. 303—356. Everhart v. Terre Haute, etc., R. Co., 78 Ind. 292—688. Bvershed v. London, etc., R. Co., L. R. 3 Q. B. 186-124, 193. Bwald V. Chicago, etc.. B. Co., 70 Wis. 420—586. Bwart V. Kerr, 1 Rice (S. C), 203—126, 428, 447. Ewart V. Street, 2 Bailey L. (S. C.) 157— 25, 388. Exchange Fire Ins. Co. v. Delaware & Hudson Canal Co., 10 Bosw. (N. T.) ISO —167. Ex parte Atty. Gen., 17 N. B. (Can.) i;67 Ex parte Benson, 18 S. C. 42—38. Ex parte Koehler, 30 Fed. 867, 31 Fed. 315 —910, 921, 933, 938. Ex parte Great Western R. Co., 22 Ch. Dlv. 470-432. Express Co. v. Kountze, 8 Wall. (U. S.) 342—103, 104. Exton V. Central R. Co., 62 N. J. L. 7— 642, 874. F. Fahr v. Manhattan R. Co., 9 Misc. Rep. (N. T.) 57—836. Fairbank v. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 66 Fed. 471—354, 485. Fairchild v. California Stage Co., 13 Cal. 599—615, 776, 787. Fairchild v. Philadelphia, etc., Co., 148 Pa. 527—220, 309, 485, 776. Fairfax v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 67 N. Y. 11—387, 724. Fairfax v. New York Cent. R. Co., 73 N. Y. 167—704, 722, 727, 730. Fairmount, etc.. Pass. B. Co. v. Stutler, 64 Pa. St. 375—675. Falson v. Alabama, etc., B. Ck)., 69 Miss. 569—491. Faith v. East India Co., 4 B. & Aid. C30 —441. Falk V. New York, etc., B. Co., 56 N. J. L. 380—612, 670, 747. Falkner v. Ohio, etc., B. Co.. 56 Ind. 369. Falke v. Second Ave. R. Co. 38 App. Dlv. (N. Y.) 49—778. Fallon V. Central Park, etc.. R. Co., 64 N. Y. 13—822. Falls V. San Francisco, etc., R. Co.. 67 Cal. 114—683. Falls River & M. Co. v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 4 Ohio N. P. 26—66. Falvey v. Georgia R. Co., 76 Ga. 597— 37, 462. Falvey v. Northern Transp. Co., 15 Wis. 129—319, 395. Farber v. Missouri Pac. B. Co., 116 Mo. 81—560, 626. Farber v. Missouri Pac. E. Co., 139 Mo. 272—748. Farewell v. Grand Trunk B. Co., 15 U. C. C. p. 427—565. Fargo V. Michigan, 121 U. S. 230—906. Farls V. Brooklyn City & N. E. Co.. « App. Dlv. (N. Y.) 231—658, 864. Farlsh v. Eelgle. 11 Gratt. (Va.) 697—25, 601, 615, 618. 655, 776, 788, 893, 904. Farley v. Chicago, etc.. B. Co., 42 Iowa, 234—696. Farley v. Cincinnati, etc.. R. Co., 108 Fed. 14—541. Farley v. Lavary. 54 S. W. (Ky.) 840-61, 64. 219. Farley v. Philadelphia Traction Co., 132 Pa. St. 58—771, 772. Farlow V. Kelly, 108 U. S. 288—696, 871. Table of Cases. (The references are to the pages.) xlix' Farlow -v. San Francisco, etc., R. Co., 97 Cal. 114. -Farmers', etc.. Bank v, Champlain Transp. Co., 16 Vt. 52—196, 279, 290. Farmers', etc.. Bank v. Champlain Transp. Co., 23 Vt. 18&-33, 291, 293, 318, 341, 460, 482. Farmers', etc., Nat. Bank v. Logan, 74 N. Y. 368-168. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 120 Fed. 873, 83 Fed. 249—111, 141, 364, 467, 907. JFarmers' L. & T. Co. v. Oregon R., etc., Co., 73 Fed. 1003—282. Farmington Mercantile Co. v. Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 116 Mass. 154—491. Farnham v, Camden, etc., R. Co., 65 Pa. St. 83—288, 293, 295, 346, 393, 396. Farnon v. Boston & A. R. Co., 108 Mass. 212—868. .Farnsworth v. New York Cent,, etc., R. Co., 84 N. Y. Supp. 668—480. Farr v. Great Western R. Co., 36 U. C. Q. B. 634—326, 529. Farrant v. Barnes, 11 C. B. N. S. 563— 100, 383. ■ Farrar v. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 62 La. Ann. 417—828, 932. Farreli V. Houston, etc., R. Co., 4 N. Y. Hupp. 697—597. Farrell v. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 102 N. C. 390—149, 441. -Farris v. Cass Ave., etc., R. Co., 80 Mo. Farwell v. Boston R. Co.. 4 Mete. (Mass.) 49—544. Farwell v. Davis, 66 Barb, (N. Y.) 73— 264. Fassett V. Ruerk, 3 La. Ann. 694—360. Fasy V. International Nav. Co., 177 N. Y. 591—321, 390. Fatman v. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 2 Dis- ney (Ohio), 248—394, 484. Fauoett v. Nichols, 64 N. Y. 377—284. Jaucher v. Wilson, 68 N. H. 338—64, 236. Faulkner v. Chicago, etc., R. Co. (Mo. App.), 73 S. W. 927—368, 472. Faulkner v. Hart, 44 N. Y. Super. Ct. 471, 82 N. Y. 413—42, 263, 267, 271. Faulkner v. South Pac. Co., 61 Mo. Sli- me, 107, 412. Faust V. South Carolina R. Co., 8 S. C. 118—231. Fay V. Davidson, 13 Minn. 523—781. Fay V. Parker, 63 N. H. 342—896. Fay V. Steamer New World, 1 Cal. 348—5. .Fayerweather v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 118 N. Y. 324—373. Fearon v. Bowers, 1 Smith's L. C. 792— 164. Fearn v. West Jersey Ferry Co., 143 Pa. St. 122—692. Feary v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 162 Mo. 76—604, 612, 657. Federal St., etc., R. Co. v. Gibson, 96 Pa. St. 83—771, 772. Feiber v. Manhattan Dist. Tel. Co., 3 N. Y. Supp. 116, 4 N. Y. Supp. 655-87, 199, 202. Feige V. Michigan Cent. R. Co.. 62 Mich. 1—264, 294, 316, 340. Feinberg v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 62 N. J. L. 461—501, 606, 508. Feital V. Middlesex R. Co., 109 Mass. 398— 773, 779, 787, 831. Felder v. Columbia, etc., B. Co., 21 S. C. 35—466, 492, 727, 728. Felderschneider v. Chicago, etc., R. Co. (Wis.), 99 N. W. 1034—768, 776. Fell V. Northern Pac. R. Co., 44 Fed. 248, 249—883, 896, 900, 904. Fellows V. The R. W. Powell, 16 La. Ann. 316—175. Felton V. Chicago, G. W. R. Co., 86 ^o. App. 332—645, 726. : Felton V. McCreary, etc.; Live Stock Co., 22 Ky. L. Rep. 1068—635. ' Fenig V. New Jersey St. Ry. Co. (N. J.), 46 Atl. 602—677. ! Fenner v. Buffalo, etc., R. Co., 44 N. Y. 606—148, 193, 264, 269, 272, 274, 278, 280, 487, 489. Fenton v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 28 U. C. Q. B. 367—726. Ferguson v, Brent, 12 Md. 9—24. Ferrin v. Myrick, 41 N. Y. 315—43. Ferry v. Manhattan R. Co., 118 N. Y. 497—774. Fewings v. Mendenhall, 83 Minn. 237—612. Fibel V. Livingston, 64 Barb. (N. Y.) 179 —290, 291, 294. Fick V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 68 Wis. 469 —628, 633. Field V, Chicago, etc., R. Co., 71 111. 468 —297, 462, 481, 764. Field V. Newport, etc., R. Co., 3 H. & N. 409—447. Fillebrown v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 56 Me. 462—24, 290, 293, 394, 766, 760. Files v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 149 Mass. 204—676, 816, 818, 866. Filer v. New York Cent. R. Co., 49 N. Y. 47. 666, 671, 674, 680, 830, 849, 861, 852. Fink V. Albany, etc., R. Co., 4 Lans. (N. T.) 147—741, 897. Fink V. Ash, 99 Ga. 106—748. Fink V. Coe, 4 Green (Iowa), 665—617. Finkeldey v. Omnibus Cable Co., 114 Cal. 28—546, 838, 840. Finn v. Valley City St., etc., R, Co., 88 Mich. 74—675. Finn v. Western R. Corp., 102 Mass. 283 —166. 172, 381. Finnegan v. Chicago, etc., R." Co., 48 Minn. 378—657. Finucane v. Small, 1 Bsp. N. P. 315—283. First Nat. Bank v. Marietta, etc., R. Co., 20 Ohio St. 259—704. First National Bank v. North, 6 Dak. 141 —810. First Nat. Bank v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 28 Wash. 439—161. First Nat. Bank v. New York Cent., etc.. R. Co., 85 Hun (N. Y.), 160—167. First Nat. Bank v. San Antonio, etc., R. Co. (Tex.), 77 S. W. 410—212. Fish v. Chapman, 2 Ga. 349—13, 20, 22, 24, 62, 323, 762, 734. Fish V. Clark, 49 N. Y. 122—4, 12, 20, 48. 63, 92. Fish V. Newton, 1 Den. (N. Y.) 47—196. Fisher v. Boston & M. R. Co., 99 Me. 338 —490. Fisher v. Clisbee, 12 111. 344—53. Fisher v. Geddes, 15 La. Ann. 14—139, 723. Fisher v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. 17 Ohio C. C. 491—134. Fisher v. Metropolitan El. R. Co., 34 Hun . (N. Y.), 433—632, 890, 898, 900. Fisher v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 89 CH 399—662. Fisher v. West Virginia, etc., R. Co 42 W. Va. 1S3— -ffiS, 7S2. Table of Cases. Trhe references are to the pages.) FlBher v. West Virginia, etc., R. Co., 59 W. Va. 366— 6B5, 659, 828, 856. Flshman v. Piatt, 90 N. T. Supp. 354— aS. Flsk V. Newton, 1 Den. (N. T.) 45—118, 193, 196, 276, 279, 436. Fltoh V. Mason City, etc.. Tract. Co. (Iowa), 100 N. W. 618—653, 773. Fitch V. Mason City, etc.. Tract. Co., 116 Iowa, 716—803. Fitch V. Newberry, 1 Doug. (Mich.) 1— 102, 433, 438, 447. Fitohburg R. Co. v. Gage, 12 Gray (Mass.), 393—124, 127. Fltchburg, etc., R. Co. V. Hanna, 6 Gray (Mass.), 539—70, 144, 259. Fitchburg R. Co. v. Nichols, 85 Fed. 954 —798, 833. Fitzgerald v. Adams Express Co., 24 Ind. 447—100. Fitzgerald v. Burrill, 106 Mass. 446—71. Fitzgerald v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 4 Ont. App. 601—293, 294. Fitzgerald v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 63 Vt. 169—119, 123, 301, 915. Fitzgerald v. Midland R. Co., 34 L. T. N. S. 771—667, 690. Pltzgibbon V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 108 Iowa, 614—563. Fitzpatrick V. Bloomington City R. Co., 73 111. App. 516-802. Fitzpatrick v. Cusack, 12 L,. C. R. 306— 432 Flagg \. Manhattan R. Co., 49 N. Y. Super. Ct. 261—613. Flaherty v. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., ?9 Minn. 326—699. Flanagan v. Met. St. R. Co., 31 Misc. Rep. (N. ¥.) 820— Flanagan v. New York, etc., R. Co., 56 Hun (N. Y.), 611—671, 674, 678. Flannery v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 4 Mackey (D. C.) 111—644. Flaunery v. Waterford, etc., R. Co., Ir. R. C. L. 30—787. Flautt V. Lashley, 36 La. Ann. 106 — 18. Fleck V. Union R. Co., 134 Mass. 481—863. Fleming v. Brooklyn City R. Co., 74 N. Y. 618—562. Fleming v. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 89 Mo. App. 129—697. Fleming v. Mills, 5 Mich. 420—93. Fleming v. Pittsburg, etc., R. Co., 158 Pa. St. 130—771, 772, 780. Fletcher v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 1 Allen (Mass.)i 9—693. Fletcher v. Fletcher, 7 N. H. 452—214. Flick V. Union R. Co., 134 Mass. 481—859. Flinn v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 1 Houst. (Del.) 469—314, 572, 763, 754, 760, 768. Flint V. Boston, etc., R. Co. (N. H.), 59 ,UI. 938—501. Flint V. Norwich, etc., Transp. Co., 34 Conn. 664—621, 626, 641, 648. Flint, etc., R. Co. V. Stark, 38 Mich. 714 —670, 676. Flint, etc., R. Co. V. Weir, 37 Mich. Ill —669, 712. Flood V. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 25 Ky. Ju. Rep. 2135—732. Florida R., etc., Co. v. Webster, 25 Pla. 394—597, 673. Florida Southern R. Co. v, Hirst, 30 Fla. 1—562, 580, 589, 692, 662, 865, 816. Flourno V. Shreveport Belt Ry. Co., 60 La. Ami. 491—698. Floutroup V. Boston & M. R. Co., IBS Mass. 152—819. Flower V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 69 Pa. St.. 210—676. Floyd V. Bovard, 6 W. & S. (Pa.) 75—156. Fluker V. Georgia R. & Bkg. Co., 81 (^ 461—162, 614, 623, 740. Flynn v. Central Park,, etc., R. (3o., 49- N. Y. Super. Ct. 81—630, 632. Flynn v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 43 Mo. App. 424—491. Foard V. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 8 Jones L.. (N. C.) 235—70, 269, 382, 426. Foggan V. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 16 N. Y. Supp. 25-155, 166. Fonseca v. Cunard Steamship Co., 152 Mass. 553—309, 311, 721, 758. Forbes v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 76 N. C. 454—601. Forbes v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 133 Mass. 164—147, 161, 165, 168, 179, ISO, 204, 211, 406. Ford V. Kansas City, 181 Mo. 137—374. Ford V. London, etc., R. Co., 2 F. & F. 73(1—604. Ford V. Mitchell, 21 Ind. 54—138. Ford V. Parker, 4 Ohio St. 576—71. Fordyce v. Beecher, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 29- —637. Fordyce v. Chancey, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 24 -SOS. Fordyce v. Dillingham (Tex. Civ. App.), 23 S. W. 650—688. Fordyce v. Jackson, 56 Ark. 594—580, 600, 699, 778. Fordyce \. Johnson, 66 Ark. 430—206, 438, 439. Fordyce v. McCants, 51 Ark. 509—807. Fordyce v. McFlynn, 56 Ark. 424—494, 536, r?7. Forfiy"e v. Withers, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 54ft 779, 805. Forepaugh v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 128 Pa. St. 217—310. Forrester v. Georgia R., etc.. Co., 92 Ga. 699—491. Forsee v. Alabama 6. S. R. Co., 63 Hiss. 66—811. Forsyth v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 103 Mass. 510^873 Forsythe v. Walker, 9 Pa. St. 148—33, 382. Fortier v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 18 111. App. 260—475, 483. Forth V. Simpson, 13 Q. B. 68(>— 441. Fort V. Southern Ry. Co. (S. C), 42 S. E. 196—898. Port Wayne Tract. Co. v. Hardendorf (Ind.), 72 N. E. 593—872. Port Wayne Tract. Co. v. MorviUus (Ind.), 68 N. E. 304—852. Port Worth, etc., R. Co. V. Alexander (Tex. Civ. App.), 81 S. W. 1016—619. Port Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Byers (Tex. Civ. App.), 35 S. W. 1082—455. Fort Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Daggett, 87 Tex. 322—505, 606. Fort Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Greathouse, 82 Tex. 104—338, 350, 402, 405, 406, 424, 626, 534, 759, 761. Fort Worth, etc., R. Co. v. I. B. Rosen- thal Milling Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 29 S. W. 196—709. Port Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Johnson, S Tex. Civ. App. 24—493. Fort Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Ullard (Tex. App), 16 S. W. 654—205. Table of Cases. (The references are to the pages.) li Fort Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Martin (Tex. Civ. App.), 35 S. W. 21—138. Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Masterson (Tex.), 66 S. W. 883-636. Fort Worth, etc., R. Co. ». MoAnuIty, 7 Tex. Civ. App. 321—476. Fort Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Riley (Tex. App.), 1 S. W. 446—133, 137, 501, 516. Fort Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Rogers, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 606—761. Fort Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Thompson, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 170—804. Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Whitehead, ( Tex. Civ. App. 695—910. Fort Worth St. R. Co. v. Witten, 74 Tex. 202—696. Fort Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Waggoner Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ. App.), 81 S. W. 1050— 512. Fort Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Williams, 77 Tex. 121—468, 476, 482, 494. Fort Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Wood (Tex. Civ. App.), 32 S. W. 14—536. Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Wright (Tex. Civ. App.), 68 S. W. 846—482. Forward v. Fittard, 1 T. R. 27—25, 226, 267. Forwood V. Toronto, 22 Ont. Rep. 351—786. Foes v. Boston & M. R. Co., 66 N. H. 266— 672, 683, 684, 688, 826. Foster v. Atlanta Rap. Trans. Co., 119 Ga. 676—813. Foster v. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 66 Fed. 434—421, 921, 928. Foster V. Colby, 3 H. & N. 706—442. Foster v. Essex Bank, 17 Mass. 501 — 14. Foster v. Frampton, 6 B. & C. 107—188. Foster V. Metts, 65 Miss. 77—71. Foster v. Seattle Flectrlc Co., 35 Wash. 177—562, 665, 675, 836. Foulkes V. Metropolitan Dlst. R. Co., 28 W. R. 626—468. Four Thousand, etc.. Bags of Linseed, 1 Black (U. S.), 108—441. Fowler v. Davenport, 21 Tex. 635, 626—399 404. Fowler v. Liverpool, etc.. Steam Co., 87 N. Y. 190—244, 296, 321. Fowle V. Pitt Scott, 183 Mass. 351—478. Fowler V. Western Union Tel. Co., 80 Me. 381—73. Fowles V. Great Western, etc., R. Co., 22 L. J. Bxeh. 76—147, 149, 483. Fox V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 148 Mass. 220—223, 240, 411, 455, 461. Fox V. Holt, 36 Conn. 668—442. Fox V. Mayor, etc., of N. T., 5 App. Div. (N. Y.) 349—672. Fox 1'. McGregor, 11 Barb. (N. T.) 41— 445. I Foy V. London, etc., R. Co., 18 C. B. N. S. 228—672, 673. Foy V. Troy, etc., R. Co., 24 Barb. (N. Y.) 382—458, 477. Francis v. Cockrell, S. R. 6 Q. B. 184—609. Francis v. Dubuque, etc., R. Co., 26 Iowa, 60—193, 262. Francis v. New York Steam Co., 114 N. Y. 386—870. Francis v. St. Louis Trans. Co., 5 Mo. App. 7—881, 884, 885, 886. Frank v. Central R. Co., 9 Pa. Super. Ct. 129—34, 230. Frank v. Memphis, etc., R. Co., 52 Miss. 570—467, 469, 473. Frank v. Metropolitan St. Co., 91 App. Dlv. (N. Y.) 483-629. Prank v. Grand Tower, etc., R. Co., 57 Mo. App. 181-268, 276. Frankford, etc.. Turnpike Co. v. Philadel- phia, etc., R. Co., 54 Pa. St. 379—604. Franklin v. Low & Swartwout, 1 JohnB. (N. Y.) 396—71. Franklin v. So. California, etc., Co., 85 Cal. 63—562, 687, 876. Franklin v. Third Ave. R. Co., 62 App. Dlv. (N. T.) 612-632. Franklin \. Twogood, 25 Iowa, 520—267. Frazer v. Telegraph Co. (Ala.), 4 S App.), 33 S. W. 1028—744. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Holden, 10 Tex. Civ. App. 223—387. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Holt (Tex. Civ. App.), 70 S. W. 619—697. Gull, etc., R. Co. V. Houghton (Tex. Civ. App.), 63 S. W. 718—520. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Hume, 87 Tex. 211, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 663—106, 109, 246, 333, 416, 417, 499. Gull, etc., R. Co. V. Insurance Co. ol N. A. (Tex. Civ. App.), 28 S. W. 237—460, 472, 488. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Ions, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 619—710. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Irvine & Woods (Tex. Civ. App.), 73 S. W. 640—368, 499. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Jackson (Tex. App.), 15 S. "W. 128—724, 729. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Jacobs, 3 Tex. Civ. App. Cas. 486—372. Gull, etc., R. Co. V. Jones, 1 Ind. Ter. 364—461, 468. Gull, etc., R. Co. V. Kemp (Tex. Clv. App.), 30 S. W. 714—407, 608. Gull, etc., R. Co. V. Key, 4 Tex. App. Civ. Cas., sec. 257—350. Gull, etc., R. Co. V. Kiliebrew (Tex.), 20' S. W. 182—696, 87-1. Gull, etc., R. Co. V. Leatherwood (Tex. Civ. App.), 69 S. W. 119—484, 619. Gulf, etc., Ry. Co. v. Lee (Tex. Civ. App.), 65 S. W. 64—622. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Levi. 76 Tex. 337 — 33, 227, 255. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Lewine (Tex. Civ. App.), 29 B. W. 835—469. Gull, etc., R. Co. v. Looney, 86 Tex. 158— 666, 667. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Loonie, 84 Tex. 289— 207, 416, 425. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Maetze, 2 Tex. Civ. App. Cas., sec. 630—198, 318, 382, 426. Gull, etc., R. Co. v. Malone (Tex. Civ. App.), 25 S. W. 1077—482. Gull, etc., R. Co. V. Martin (Tex. Civ. App.), 28 S. W. 576—369, 418, 424. Gull, etc., R. Co. v. McAuley (Tex. Civ. App.), 26 S. W. 475—106, 412. Gull, etc., R. Co. V. McCarty, 82 Tex. 608—304, 332, 406. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. McCorquodale, 71 Tex. 41- 109, 243, 251, 613. Gull, etc., R. Co. V. McGown, 66 Tex. 640 —569, 764, 761, 764, 766. Gull, etc., R. Co. V. McCown (Tex. Civ. App.), 25 S. W. 436—166, 206. Gull, etc., R. Co. V. Miami Steamship Co., 86 Fed. 407-909, 917, 930, 931. Gull, etc., R. Co. V. Moody (Tex. Civ. App.), 30 S. W. 574—689, 691, 725. Gull, etc., B. Co. V. Moore (Tex. Civ. App.), 83 S. W. 362—880. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. North Texas Grain Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 74 S. W. 567— 446. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Pettit, 3 Tex. Clv. App. 588—424, 426. Gull, etc., R. Co. V, Pickens (Tex. Civ. App.), 68 S. W. 156—183. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Pierce, 7 Tex. Civ. App. 597—810. Iviii Table of Cases. (The relerenoes are to the pases.> Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Pomeroy, 6T Tex. 498 <3ulf, etc., R. Co. V. Porter (Tex. Civ. App.), 61 S. W. 34S-612, 513. Oulf, etc., R. Co. V. Rather, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 7^—744. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Roberts (Tex. Civ. App.), 85 S. W. 479-399. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Rowland, 82 Tex. 166—802, 804. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Ryan, 4 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. sec. 305—667. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Shelton (Tex. Clv. App.), 69 S. W. 653, 70 S. W. 359—630, 818. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Sparger (Tex. Clv. App.), 39 S. W. 1051—734. Gulf, etc.. R. Co. v. Stanley (Tex. Clv. App.), 29 S. W. 806—407. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Stanley (Tex.), 33 S. W. 110—333, 626. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Simmons (Tex. Clv. App.), 28 S. W. 825—409. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Tennant (Tex. Clv. App.), 22 S. W. 761—482. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Thompson (Tex. Clv. App.), 21 S. W. 186—482. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Trawlck, 68 Tex. 314 —318, 331, 333, 334, 337. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Trawlck, 80 Tex. 270—131, 142, 260, 501, 516. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Ware & Walker (Tex. Civ. App.), 78 S. W. 961—620. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. White (Tex. Civ. App.), 32 S. W. 323—332. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. WUbanks, 7 Tex. Civ. App. 489—482. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Wllhelm, 3 Tex. App. Clv. Cas., sec. 458—318, 503, 504. Gulf, etc., H. Co. V. Williams 70 Tex. 159— 670. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Wilson, 79 Tex. 371 —540, 652, 570, 578, 892. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Wilson, 7 Tex. Civ. App. 123—482, 492. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Wood (Tex. Clv. App.), 30 S. W. 715—307, 501. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Wood (Tex. Civ. App.), 63 S. W. 164—610. Gulf, etc, R. Co. V. Wright, 1 Tex. Clv. App. 402—304, 335, 369, 402. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Wright, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 463—667. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Yates (Tex. Clv. App.), 32 S. W. 335—525. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. York, 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas., sec. 812—502, 526. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Zimmerman, 81 Tex. 606—396. Gulliver V. Adams Express Co., 38 111. 503—35, 149, 196. Gulzonl V. Tyler, 64 Cal. 334—810. Gumb V. Twenty-Third St. Ry. Co., 58 N, Y. Super. Ct. 1—783. Gumby v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 171 N. Y. 636—823. Gurley v. Armstead, 148 Mass. 267—216. Gurney v. Behrend, 3 Bl. & Bl. 622—165, 170. Gurney v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 14 N. Y. Supp. 321—706. G. S. Roth Clothing Co. v. Maine S. S. Co., 44 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 237—411. Guthrie v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 11 Lea (Tcnn.), 372—609. Guy V. New York, etc., R. Co., 30 Hun (N. Y.), 899—737, 739. Gwyn Harper Mfg. Co. v. Garollna Cent R. Co., 128 N. C. 280—334. H. Haas V. Kansas City, etc., E. Co.. 228, 255. Haase v. Oregon R., etc., Co., 19 Or. 354 —561, 564, 583, 843. Hackett V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 35 N H 390—399, 408, 410. Hadd V. United States, etc., Express Co 66 Vt. 335—460, 472. Hadley v. Baxendale, 9 Exch. 341—422, 425. Hadley v. Clark, 8 T. R. 259—13, 243, 250 Hadley v. Cross, 34 Vt. 586—607. Hagan v. Providence, etc., R. Co., 3 R I 88—899, 900. Hagenlocher v. Coney Island, etc., R. (3o., 99 N. Y. 136—808. Haines v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 29 Minn. 160—708, 709. Halden v. Great Western R. Co., 30 U. C. C. P. 89—837. Hale V. Barrett, 26 111. 195—442, 443. Hale V. Bonner, 82 Tex. 33—421. Hale V. Grand Trunk R. Co., 60 Vt. 605— 578. Hale V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 35 Neb. 266 —509. Hale V. New Jersey Steam Nav. Co., 15 Conn. 639—65, 66, 220, 287, 309, 310, 754, 929. Hales V. London, etc., R. Co., 4 B. & S. 66—104, 240, 241, 242, 416. Haley v. Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 21 Iowa, 15—732. Hallahan v. New York, etc., R. Co., 102 N. Y. 194—812, 871. Halliday v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 74 Mo. 169—169, 338, 466, 484. HalUhan v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 71 Mo. 113—611. Hall V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 14 Allen (Mass.), 4b9— 147, 179, ISO. Hall V. Cedar Rapids, etc., R. Co., 115 Iowa, 8—807. Hall V. Cheney, 36 N. H. 26—102, 288, 388. Hall V. Connecticut River Steamboat Co.. 13 Conn. 324, 319—65, 616, 652. Hall V. Dimond. 63 N. H. 565—428, 443. Hall V. Grand Trunk R. Co., 34 U. C. li. B. 517—266. Hall V. McFadden, 19 New Bruns. 340— 669, 675. Hall V. Murdock, 119 Mich. 392, 114 Mich. 233—84, 810. Hall V. Northeastern R. Co., L. R. 10 Q. B. 437, 443—485, 754, 758. Hall V. Ogden City St. R. Co.. 13 Utah 243—696. Hail V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 1 Fed. 226, 13 Wall. (U. S.) 367—21, 228, 254. Hall V. Renfro, 3 Mete. (Ky.) 61—24. Hall V. Smith, 2 Blng. C. P. 156—72. Hall V. South Carolina R. Co., 28 S. C. 261—689, 898. Hall V. Wabash R. Co., 80 Mo. App. 463- Ham V. Delaware, etc.. Canal Co., 165 Pa. 648, 142 Pa. St. 617—689, 736. Haman v. Omaha Ry. Co., 36 Neb. 74-63B. Hamburg American Packet Co. v. Gatt- man, 127 111. 598—706, 707, 708. Hamel v, Brooklyn, etc., Ferry Co., M Hun (N. Y.), 634-039. ^ „ ,n Hamll v. New York, etc., Exp. Co., ITl Mass. 474—372. Table or Cases. lix (The references are to the pages.) Hamilton v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 103 Iowa, 325—215. Ramllton v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 23 U. C. Q. B. eOO— 325. Hamilton v. Great Falls St. R. Co 17 Mont. 334—657, 770, 778. Hamilton v. MoPheraon, 28 N. T. 72—410 422. Hamilton v. New York Cent. R. Co.. 51 N. T. 100—558, 741. Hamilton v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 64 Tex. 251—584, 585. Hamilton v. Third Ave. R. Co., 53 N T 25—543, 631, 748, 881, 896, 898. Hamilton v. Western North Carolina R. Co., 96 N. C. 398—109, 111, 255, 301, 422, 515. Hamilton v. West End St. R. Co., 163 Mass. 199—612. Hamlin v. Great Northern R. Co., 1 H. & N. 408—691, 881, 884. Hammond v. North Eastern R. Co., 6 S. C. 130—678, 680. Hampton v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 42 Mo. App. 134—56, 57. Hance v. Pacifio Express Co., 48 Mo. App. 179—388, 393, 510. Hance v. Wabash Western R. Co., 56 Mo App. 476—302, 303, 305, 475, 483. Hancock v. Leggett, 115 Ind. 544—808. Hand V. Baynes, 4 Whart. (Pa.) 204, 214 —13, 104, 243, 399, 412. Hanley v. Kansas City S. Ry, Co., 187 TJ. S. 617—908. Hanley v. North Jersey St. R. Co. (N. J. Sup.), 47 Atl. 445—904. Hanlon v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 109 Iowa, 136—565. Hanlon v. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co. (Wis.), 95 N. W. 100—374. Hanlon v. South Boston, etc., R. Co., 129 Mass. 31—786. Hanley v. Harlem R. Co., 1 Edm. Sel. Cas. (N. T.) 395, 225—597, 601, 606. Hanley v. Houston, etc., R. Co., 2 Tex. Unrep. Cas. 282—571. Hanna v. Nassau El. R. Co., 18 App. Div. (N. T.) 137—647. Hannibal, etc., R. Co. v. Husen, 95 TJ. S. 469—905. Hannibal, etc., R. Co. v. Martin, HI III. 219—645, 549, 692, 817, 869, 882, 892. Hannibal, etc., R. Co. v. Swift, 12 Wail. (U. S.) 262—45, 101, 619, 624, 701, 706, 708, 709, 711, 712. Hannon v. St. Louis Transit Co. (Mo.), 77 S. W. 168—852. Hanrahan v. Manhattan R. Co., 53 Hun (N. T.), 420—613, 804. Hansberger v. Sedalla El., etc., Co., 82 Mo. App. 566—657, 838. Hansen v. Flint, etc., R. Co., 73 Wis. 346 —367, 451, 477. Hansley v. Jamesville, etc., R. Co., 115 N. C. 602—546, 554. Hansen v. North Jersey St. Ry. Co., 64 N. J. L. 686—655, 657. Hanson v. European, etc., R. Co., 62 Me. 84—626, 636, 901. Hanson v. Urbana, etc., R. Co., 75 111. App. 474-628. Hanson v. Lancashire, etc., R. Co., 20 W. R. 297—773. Hanson v. Mansfleld R., etc., Co., 38 La. Ann. 111-814, 854, 855. Hanson v. Mayfield R., etc., Co., 38 La. Ann, 111-816, 817. Hanson v. Third Ave. R. Co., 27 Misc. Rep. (N. T.) 524—840. Hapgood Plow Co. V. Wabash R. Co., 61 Mo. App. 372—284. Harbison v. Metropolitan R. Co., 24 Wash. L. . Rep. 438—599, 857. Hardenbergh v. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., 39 Minn. 3—553, 695, 751. Harding v. International Nay. Co., 12 Fed. 168-^58. Harding v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 36 Hun (N. Y.), 72—892, 895. Harding v. Townshend, 43 Vt. 536—904. Hardin v. Fort Worth, etc., R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 77 S. W. 431—554, 654. Hardy v. American Express Co., 182 Mass. 328—203. Hardy v. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 56 Fed. 657—903. Hardy v. North Carolina Cent. K. Co., 74 N. C. 734—606. Harrell v. Owens, 1 Dev. & B. (N. C.) 273—24, 92, 240. Harrell v. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 106 N. C. 258—139, 140, 369. Hardman v. Brett, 37 Fed. 803 — 416. Hardman v. Montana U. R. Co., 48 U. S. App. 570—263, 265, Hardman v. Wilicock, 9 Bing. 382—166. Harker v. Dement, 9 Glii (Md.), 13—87, 156, 234. Harkness v. Western Union Tel. Co., "3 Iowa, 190—76. Harmony v. Bingham, 12 N. Y. 99—127, 243, 244. Harmon v. New York, etc., R. Co., 28 Barb. (N. Y.) 323—358. Harned v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 51 Mo. App, 482—335, 337, 339. Harp V. Choctaw, etc., Ry. Co. (U. S. C. C. Ark.), 118 Fed. 169—23. Harp V. Southern Ry. Co., 119 Ga. 927— 556, 731. Harp V. The Grand Era, 1 Woods (U. S.), 186, 184-468, 728. Harper v. Railroad Co., 37 Conn. 272—393. Harris V. Cheshire R. Co, (R. I.). 16 Atl. 512-476, 492. Harris v, Delaware, etc., R. Co., 61 N. Y. 656—398. Harris v. Detroit City R. Co.. 76 Mich. 227—808. Harris v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 15 R. I. 371—460. Harris .v Great Western R. Co., 1 Q. B. DIv. 515—278, 296, Harris v, Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 89 Mo. 233—866. Harris v. Howe, 74 Tex. 534—754. Harris v. Jex, 66 N. Y. 421—267. Harris v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 35 Fed. 116—640. Harris v. Midland R. Co., 25 W. R. 63—325. Harris V. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 36 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 181—457. Harris v. Northern Indiana R. Co., 20 N. Y. 232—502, 504. Harris v. Pratt, 17 N. Y. 249—149. Harris v, Packard, 3 Taunt. 264—127, 341, 393, 396, 297. Harris v. Panama R. Co., 5 Bosw. (N. Y.) 312—398. Harris v. Pittsburg, etc., R. Co., 32 Ind. App. 600-670. Harris v. Rand, 4 N. H. 269—126, 222. Harris v, Sjtevens, 31 Vt. 79—662. Harrison v. Fink, 42 Fed. 787—653, 557, 635, 890. Harrison v. London, etc., R. Co., 110 E. C. L. 122—82, 325, 523, 781. Harrison v. Midland R. Co., 62 L. J. Q. B. 226—96, 433, 534. Harrison v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 74 Mo. 364—243, 250, 301, 369, 371, 499, 607. Harrison v. Roy, 39 Miss. 396—62, 64. Ix Table of Cases, (The references are to the pages.) Harrison v. Stewart, Taney's Deo. (U. S.) 485—427. Harrison v. Weir, 71 App. Div. (N. T.) 248—81. Harrington v. McShane, 2 Watts (Pa.), 443—7, 66, 202. Hart V. Allen, 2 Watts (Pa.), 114—66. Hart V. Baxendale, 16 L. T. N. S. 390, 6 Bxch., 769—100, 139. Hart V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 69 Iowa, 485, 66 Iowa, 166—21, 316, 380, 511, 518, 753. Hart V. Hudson R. Bridge Co., 80 N. T. 622—738. Hart V. Hudson River R. Co., 84 N. T. 56—796. Hart V. Hyde, 5 Vt. 328—364. Hart V. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 34 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 631—592, 631, 748. Hart V. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 65 App. Div. (N. T.) 493—633. Hart V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 112 U. S. 331, 18 Am. & Bng. R. Cas. 604—341, 366, 359, 528, 758, 759. Hart V. Rensselaer, etc., R. Co., 8 N. T. 37—471, 727. Hart V. Spalding, 1 Cal. 21S-411. Hart V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 94 Mo. 255 —678. Hart V. Western Union Tel. Co., 66 Cal. 679—73, 78. - Hart V. Western, etc., R. Co., 13 Mete. (Mass.) 99—21, 373. Hartan v. Eastern R. Co., 114 Mass. 44 — 728. Hartley v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. (Iowa), 89 N. W. 88—481, 53S. Hartman v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 39 Mo. App. 88—187, 262, 269, 309. Hartshorn v. Johnson, 7 N. J. L. 108—431. Hartwell V. Northern Pac. Express Co., 5 Dak. 463—299, 314, 333, 337, 754, 757. I Hartwlg V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 49 Wis. 358—672, 873. Harty v. New York, etc., R. Co., 95 App. Div. (N. Y.) 119—663. Hartzig v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 165 Pa. ' St. 364—817, 844. Harvard Co. v. Pennsylvania Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 257—912. I Harvey v. Connecticut, etc.. River R. Co., 124 Mass. 421—417, 424. , Harvey v. Dunlop, Hill & D. Supp. (N. , Y.) 193—610. j Harvey v. Eastern R. Co., 116 Maes. 269— 836. Harvey v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 793-920. Harvey v. Rose, 26 Ark. 3—52, 53. Harvey v. Terre Haute, etc., R. Co., 74 Mo. 641, 538—317, 344, 356, 393, 408. Haselton v. Portsmouth, etc., St. Ry., 71 N. H. 589—545. 595. Hassen v. Nassau Blec. Ry. Co., 34 App, Div, (N. Y.) 71—868. I Haslam v. Adams Express Co., 6 Bosw. (N. Y.) 235—35, 193, 209. Hasse V. American Express Co., 94 Mich. 133—201, 264. Hastings V. Boland (Mich.), 98 N. W. 1017 —853. Hastings V. Central Crosstown R. Co., 7 App. Div. (N. Y.) 812—774, 858. Hastings v. New York, etc., R. Co., 53 Hun (N. Y.), 638—363, 616. Hastings V. Northern Pao. R. Co., 53 Ped. 224—819, 830. Hastings v. Pepper, 11 Pick. (Mass.) 41— 32, 65, 66, 376. Hatch V. Pullman Sleeping Car Co. (Tex. I Clv, App.), 84 S. W. 246—57. Hattan v. Railroad Co., 39 Ohio St. 375— 658. Hathaway v. Hayes, 124 Mass. 311—172. Hathorn v. Ely, 28 N. Y. 78—269. Haug v. Great Northern R. Co., 8 N. Dak. 23—684, 689. Havemeyer v. Iowa County, 3 Wall. (U. S.) 294—267. Haver v. Central R. Co., 62 N. J. L. 286- 543, 637. Haverly v. State Line, etc., R. Co., 136- Pa. St. 50—267. Hawcroft v. Great Northern R. Co., 8 Eng. L. Eg. 362—666. Hawcroft v. Great Northern R. Co., 16 Jur. 196—243. Hawes v. Burlington, etc., Ry. Co., 64 Iowa, 315—798. Hawes v. Southeastern R, Co., 54 L. J. Q. B. Div. 174—241. Hawkins v. Front St. Cable R. Co., 3 Wash. 592—771, 865. Hawkins v. Great Western R. Co., 17 Mich. 67—316, 361, 352, 760. Hawkins v. Hoftman, 6 Hill (N. Y.), 686, 588—64, 179, 216, 368, 701, 706, 708, 712. Hawley v. Sorevens, 62 Ga. 347—468, 728. Haycroft v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 2- Hun (N. Y.), 491—822. Hayden v. Davis, 9 Cal. 573—229. Haygood v. 1,310 Tons of Coal, 21 Fed. 681 —429. Hayman v. Canadian Pac. R. Co., 43 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 74—209. Hayman v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 118 Pa. St. 608—772. Hayman v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 8- St. Rep. (N. Y.) 86—634. Haynes v. Great Western R, Co., 41 L. T. N. S. 436—325. Haynes v. Wabash R. Co., 64 Mo. App. 682 —500, 503. Haynie v. Baylor, 18 Tex. 498—22, 62. Haywood v. Daves, 81 N. C. 8—267. Hayward v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 32 U. C. Q. B. 392—437, 443. Hayes v. Campbell, 63 Cal. 143—313, 434. Hayes v. Forty-second St., etc., R. Co., 97 N. Y. 259—663, 777, 782, 794, 866. Hayes v. Gainsville St. Tl. Co., 70 Tex. 602—617. Hayes v. Kennedy, 2 Pittsb. (Pa.) 262-353. Hayes v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 34 Hun (N. Y.), 627—733. Hayes v. Paul, 61 Pa. St. 134—61. Hayes v. Railroad Co., Ill U. S. 228-600. Hayes v. St. Louis R. Co., 15 Mo. App. 583—802. Hayes v. Wells, Fargo & Co., 23 Cal. 185— 33, 356, 358, 360. Hays v. Houston, etc., R. Co., 46 Tex. 272 —899, 900. Hays V. Michigan Cent. R. Co., HI V. S. 228—786, 794. Hays V. Miller, 77 Pa. St. 238—61. Hays V. MoniUe, 14 Pa. St. 48—440. Hays V. Pennsylvania Co., 12 Fed. 309— 123 918. Hays V, Riddle, 1 Sandf. (N. Y.) 248—443. Hays V. Wabash R. Co., 51 Mo. App. 43S —672. Hazard v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 1 Biss. (U. S.) 503— oS2, 625, 662. Hazel V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 82 Iowa, 477—299, 309, 314. Hazelton v. Portsmouth, etc., R. Co., 71 N. H. 589-645. Hazman v. Hoboken Land, etc., Co., 2 Daly (N. Y.), 130—670, 864. H. C. Judd & Root V. New York, etc., B. Co., ISO Fed. 991-283. Table of Cases. Ixi (The references are to the pages.) Head v. Georgia, etc., R. Co., 79 Ga. 673 —744. Heazle v. Indianapolis, etc., R. Co., 76- 111. iOl— 780, 787. Heath v. Glens Falls, etc., St. Ry. Co., 90 Hun (N. T.), 660—818. Heaton v. Morgan's La., etc., S. Co., 1 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. sec. 774—318. Heath v. South Bound R. Co., 46 S. C. 104—267. Heckle v. Southern Pac. Co., 123 Cal. 441 —809. Heck V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 51 Mo. App. 632—388. Heck V. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co., 1 Int. Com. Rep. 775—915. Heddles v. Railroad Co., 77 Wis. 228— «93. Hedges V. Hudson River R. Co., 49 N. T. 223—264, 268, 270. Hedges v. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 73 N. C. 658—803. Heddlng v. Gallagher, 72 N. H. 377—615. Heenrlck v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 20 Fed. 100—627. Heffron V. Detroit City R. Co., 92 Mich. 406—665. Hegeman v. Boyd, 65 Ind. 526—601. Hegeman v. Western R. Corp., 13 N. T. 22, 9, 16 Barb. (N. T.) 352—542, 595, 698. 603, 607, 608, 609, 616, 769, 781, 893. Hell V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 16 Mo. App. 363—393, 408. Heineman v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 31 How. Pr. (N. T.) 430—24, 320, 605, 629. Heinlien v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 147 Mass. 136—662. Heirn v. McCaughan, 32 Miss. 17—691, 881, 885, 897. Heller v. Chicago, etc., R. Co. (Mich.), 66 N. W. 667—507, 510. " Helllwell V. Grand Trunk R. Co, 10 Hiss. (U. S.) 170—106, 107. Hellman v. Holladay, I Wollw. (U. S.) 365 —708. Helm V. Missouri Pac. R. Co. (Mo. App.), 72 S. W. 148—520. Hemingway v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 72 Wis. 668—671, 672, 812, 822, 848, 849. Hemphill v. Chenle, 6. W. & S. (Pa.) 62— 149, 193, 195. Hemstead v. New York Cent. R. Co., 28 Barb. (N. T.) 486—465, 4SS. Hendrlck v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 170 Mass. 44—409. Hendricks v. Sixth Ave. R. Co., 44 N. T. Super. Ct. 8—644, 811, 898. Hendrix v. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 45 Kan. 377—560, 683. Hendrix v. Wabash R. Co. (Mo. App.), 80 S. W. 970—304, 522. Henderson v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., .20 Fed. 430—713. Henderson v. Maid of Orleans, 12 La. Ann. 362-^08. Henderson v. Nassau Electric R. Co., 46 App. Div. (N. T.) 280—868. Henderson v. New York, 92 U. S. 269—905. Henderson v. Three Hundred Tons of Iron Ore, 38 Fed. 36—218. Henderson v. Walker, 55 Ga. 481 — 40. Hennessy v. St, Louis, etc., R. Co., 173 Mo. 86—697. Hennewell v. Taber, 2 Sprague (U. S.), 1 —31. Henning v. Louisville Ry. Co., 24 Ky. L. Rep. 2419—863. Henry v. Canadian Pac. R. Co., 1 Mani- toba, 210—325, 389. Henry v. Central R., etc., Co., 89 Ga. 815 —410, 416. Henry v. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 67 Fed. 426—379. Henry v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 76 Mo. 288—887. Henry Sonneborn & Co. v. Southern Ry. Co., 65 S. C. 600—611. Hepworth v. Union Ferry Co., 62 Hun (N, Y.), 257—631. Herblch v. North Jersey St. Ry. Co., 67 N. J. L. 574—663. Herbrlck v. Carr, 29 Fed. 298—656. Herdt v. Rochester City, etc., R. Co., 65 Hun (N. Y.), 626—599. Herf Frerlchs Chemical Co. v. Lackawana Line (Mo. App.), 73 S. W. 346—160. Herring v. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. (Va.), 45 S. B. 322—222, 472. Hermann v. Goodrich, 21 Wis. 636—164, 275, 277, 488, 489. Heme v. Garton, 12 El. & El. 66—383. Hernsheim v. New Port News, etc., R. Co. (Ky.), 35 S. W. 1115—94, 248. Herrick v. Gallagher, 60 Barb, (N. Y.) 666—203. Herschberger v. Lynch, 11 Atl. Rep. (Pa.) 642—793. Hersfleld v. Adams, 19 Barb. (N. Y.) 577 —35, 36. Hestine v. Lehigh "Valley R. Co., 151 Pa. St. 241, 244—771, 776, 793. Hess v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 40 Mo. App. 202—336, 403. Hestonvllle, etc., R. Co. v. Kelly, 102 Pa. St. 116—611. Hestonvllle Pass. Ry. Co. v. Connell, 88 Pa. St. 52l>-826. Hett V. Boston, etc., R. Co. (N. H.), 44 Atl. 910—214. Heugh V. London, etc., R. Co., L. R. 5 Bxch. 51—148, 168. Hewett V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 63 Iowa, 611—186, 223, 247, 257, 459, 463, 487. Hewes v. Philadelphia, etc., R. " Co., 76 Md. 164—793. Hewson v. Interurban St. Ry. Co., 95 App. Div. (N. Y.) 112—631. Heyde v. St. Louis Transit Co., 102 Mo. App. 637—654, 779. Heyl V. Inman Steamship Co., 14 Hun (N. Y.), 664—266. Heyman v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 54 N. Y. Super. Ct. 168—609, 534. Hezel Milling Co. v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 701—920. Hibbard v. New York, etc., R. Co., 15 N. Y. 465—565, 589, 630, 700, 731, 735. Hibbard v. Western Union Tel. Co., 33 Wis. 565—74. Hlbernia Ins. Co. v. St. Louis Transp. Co., 120 U. S. 166—363. Hick V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 51 Mo. App. 532—316. Hickox V. Naugatuck R. Co., 31 Conn. 281 —704, 721, 722. Hickenbottom v. DeJlaware, etc., R. Co., 122 N. Y. 91—883, 892. Hlckey v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 14 Allen (Mass.), 429—846, 854, 856, 860. Hicks v. Dorn, 42 N. Y. 47—72. Hicks V. Georgia, etc., R. Co., 108 Ga. 304—866. Hicks V. New York, etc., R. Co., 164 Mass. 424—773. Hlgby V. GUmore, 3 Mont. 97—798. Highland Ave. R. Co. v. Burt, 92 Ala. 291—678. Highland Ave., etc., R. Co. v. Winn, 93 Ala. 309—817, 820, 861. Higginbotham v. Great Northern R. Co.» 10 W. R. 358—381. Ixii Table of Cases. (The references are to the pages.) Higginson V. Weld, 14 Gray (Mass.), 165 243. Hlggins V. Bretherton, 5 C. & P. 2—429. Higgins V. Cherokee R. Co.-, 73 Ga. 149— 660, 854. Higgins V. Hannibal, etc., K. Co., 36 Mo. 418—586. Higgins V. Louisville, etc., B. Co., 64 Miss. 80—897. Higgins V. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 28 La. Ann. 133—753, 760, 764, 766. Higgins V. New York, etc., B. Co., 2 Bosw. (N. T.) 139^856. Higgins V. Watervliet Turnpike, etc., Co., 46 N. Y. 23—630, 632, 638, 731, 747. Higley v. Gilmer, 3 Mont. 90—541, 643, 546, 649, 653, 660, 776. Hill V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 144 Mass. 284 —296, 312, 344. Hill V. Burlington, etc., R. Co., 60 Iowa, 196-467. Hill V. Georgia, etc., R. Co., 43 S. C. 461 —482. Hill V. Humphreys, 5 W. & S. (Pa.) 123— 192, 198, 209, 240. Hill V. Leadbetter, 42 Me. 572—126, 447. Hill V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 46 Mo. App. 517—481. Hill V. New Orleans, etc., B. Co. 11 La. Ann. 292—880, 891, 902. Hill V. Ninth Ave. R. Co., 109 N. Y. 239— 776, 778. Hill V. Northern Pad B. Co., 33 Wash. 697—329. Hill V. New Haven, 37 Vt. 501—799. Hill V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 67 Ark. 402—184. Hill V. Syracuse, etc., B. Co., 73 N. Y. 351, 63 N. Y. 101—296, 306, 664, 566, 736. Hill V. Union Ry. Co., 25 R. I. 666—902. Hill V. Western Union Tel. Co., 85 6a. 425—332. Hill V. Windsor, 118 Mass. 251—814. Hilliard v. Goold, 34 N. H. 230—734. Hllliard v. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 6 Jones L. (N. C.) 343—262, 263. Hillis V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 72 Iowa, 228—58, 60. Hill Mfg. Co. V. Boston, etc., B. Corp., 104 Mass. 122—275, 459, 472. Hinckley v. Cape Cod, etc., R. Co., 120 Mass. 257—796. Hinckley v. New York Cent. B. Co., 56 N. Y. 429, 3 T. & C. 281—104, 471, 479, 486. Hinsdell v. Weed, 5 Denio (N. T.), 172— 126. Hinshaw v. Ealeigh, etc., B. Co., 118 N. C. 1047—680. Hinton V. Eastern B. Co. (Minn.), 75 N. W.) 373—390, 396. Hinter v. Steamer I^apoleon, 3 Wall. (U. S.) 6-«0. Hinton v. Dibbln, 42 B. C. L. 487—6, 376. Hinton V. Eastern R. Co., 72 Minn. 339— 224. Hlort V. London, etc., B. Co., 4 Exch. Div. 188—214. Hlpsley V. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 88 Mo. 348—779, 804, 805. Hipp V. Southern R. Co., 60 S. C. 129— 26S. Hlrsch V. New York Dispatch & Delivery Co., 86 N. Y. Bupp, 198—348. Hlrsch V. Piatt, 89 N. Y. Supp. 362—197. Hirsch V. Steaipboat Quaker City, 2 Disney (Ohio), 144—148, 266. Hirschberg v. Dlnsmore, 12 Daly (N. Y.), Hirachsohn v. Hamburg American Packet Co., 2 J. & Sp, (N. Y.) 521—705. Hlrshfleld v. Central Pac. R. Co., 66 Cal. 484—264, 278. Hitchcock V. Brooklyn City K. Co., it Hun (N. Y.), 627—780. Hoadley v. International Paper Co., 72 Vt.. 79—832. Hoadley v. Northern Transp. Co., 118. Mass. 304—240, 259, 306, 311. Hoar V. Maine Cent. R. Co., 70 Me. 65— 641, 546, 577. Hoare v. Great Western R. Co., 25 W. R. 63—179, 324. Hobbs V. Texas, etc, R. Co., 49 Ark. 357 —660, 747, 761. Hobbs V. London, etc., R. Co., L. R. 10 Q. B. 111—688, 886. Hobson V. New Mexico & A. R. Co., 11 Pac. (Art.) 645—798, 799, 802. Hocum V. Wetherick, 22 Minn. 162—798. Hodgdon v. New York, etc., R. Co., 46. Conn. 277—243. Hodges V. New Hanover Transit Co., lOH N. C. 676—834. Hodges' V. Percival, 132 111. 63—86. Hodgman v. West Maryland R, Co., 5 B. & S. 173—497. Hoeger v. Chicago, etc., B. Co., 63 Wis. 100—707, 709, 725, 726. Hoelljes v. InteruTban St. By. Co., 43 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 350—555, 731. HofiFbauer v. Delhi, etc., B. Co., 62 Iowa, 342—732, 735. Hoftberg v. Bumford, 88 N. T. Supp. 940 —386. Hoffman v. Cumberland Valley R. Co., 85 Md. 391—367. HofCman v. Lake Shore, etc., Ry. Co. (Mich.), 7 Det. Leg. N. 503—434. Hoffman v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 87 N. Y. 26—638, 776, 801. Hoffman v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 46 Minn. 53—567, 881, 888, 896. Hoffman v. Third Ave. R, Co., 45 App, Div. (N. Y.) 686—662. Hofnagle v. New York Cent. B. Co., 55 N. Y. 608—378, 814. Hogan V. Central Park, etc., B. (te., 124 N. Y. 647-S23. Hogan V. Manhattan B- Co., 149 N. T. 23—784. Holbrook V. Utica, etc., R. Co., 12 N. Y. 236—770, 772, 774, 780, 782, 787, 793, 870. Holcomb V. Town of Danby, 61 Vt. 428— 832. Holden v. New York Cent. B. Co., 54 N. Y. 662-411. Holderness v. Collinson, 1 M. & R. 56, I B. & C. 212—16, 431. Holdrldge v. Uttca, etc., R. Co., 56 Barb. (N. Y.) 191—724, 7S6. Holland v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 103 Mo. App. 117— «02, 866. Holland v. West End St. B. Co., 165 Mass. 387—663, 777, 829. Holladay v. Kennard, 12 Wall. (U. S.) 264 —6, 23, 236, 618. HoUahan v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 73 App. Div. (N. Y.) 164—796. HoUins V. Fowler, L. B. 7 H. L. 767—214. Holliday V. St. Louis, etc., B. Co., 74 Mo. 169—486, 486. Holliday V. St. Leonards, 103 E. C. L. 192 —71. Holllster V. Nowlen, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 234, 239—22, 27, 88, 39, 64, 66, 66, 290, 291, 294, 323, 341, 360, 642, 712, 717, 754. Holloway V. Passadona, etc., R. Co., 130- Cal. 177—696. Holmes V. Ashtabula R. T. Co., 10 O. C. D.. 638—656. Holmes V. Alleghany Tract. Co., 163 Pa. 152—840. Table op Cases. ' (The references are to the pases.) Ixiii Holmes V. Carolina Cent. R. Co., 94 N. C. 318—890, 896. Holmes V. German Security Bank, 87 Pa. St. 626—178. Holmes V. North German Lloyd S. S. Co., 100 App. Biv. (N. Y.) 36— 720. Holmes V. Oregon, etc., R. Co., 6 Sawy. (U. S.) 262—829. Holsapple V. Home, etc., R. Co., 86 N. T. 276—320, 362, 608, 509, 629, 765. Holtzelaw V. Duff, 27 Mo. 396—262. Holt V. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 174 Mo. 524, 87 Mo. App. 203—543, 670, 748. Holt V. Southwestern Mo. Elec. R. Co., 84 Mo. App. 443—612. Holly V. Atlanta St. R. Co., 61 Ga. 215— 44, 539, 540, 642, 666. Holly V. Southern Ry. Co., 119 Ga. 767—719. Holzab V. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 58 La. Ann. 185—819. Home Ins. Co. ^. Western Transp. Co., 61 N. Y. 93—209. Homesley v. Ellas, 66. N. C. 330—184. Honegsberger v. Second Ave. R. Co., 2 Abb. Ct. App. 378—823. Honeyman v. Oregon, etc., B. Co., 13 Or. 362—80, 605. Hood V. Grand Trunk R. Co., 20 U. C. C. P. 361-325, 629. Hood V. New York, etc., R. Co., 22 Conn. 602—472. Hood V. North Eastern R. Co., 19 W. R. 523—667. Hood V. New York, etc., R. Co., 22 Conn. 1—458. Hooper v. California, 156 U. S. 648—906. Hooper V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 27 Wis. 81-64, 277, 449, 461, 489. Hooper v. London, etc., R. Co., 29 W. B. 241—730. Hooper V. Rathbone, Taney's Dec. (U. S.) 619—394. Hooper V. Wells, 27 Cal. 11, 161—23, 69, 314, 351. Hoosier Stone Co. v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 131 Ind. 576—114. Hopkins V. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 36 N. H. 9—892, 898, 902. Hopkins V. United States, 171 U. S. 578.^ 906. Hopkins V. Utah N. By. Co., 2 Idaho, 2S0 Ygg_ Hopkins V. Westcott, 6 Blatchf. (U. S.) 64 —290, 342, 701, 720, 754, 756. Hope V. Delaware, etc., Canal Co. (Mich.), 69 N. W. 487—459, 481. Hoppe V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 61 Wis. 357—786. Horn V. Kermlt, 4 E. D. Sm. (N. Y.) 433 —715. Home V. Midland B. Co., L. B. 8 C. P. 131—370, 424. Hornesby v. Georgia B., etc., Co., 120 Ga. 913—731. Hornthall v. Roanoke, etc.. Steamboat Co., 107 N. C. 76—254. Horowitz V. Hamburg American Packet Co., 18 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 24—769, 776. Horseman v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 31 U. C. Q. B. 636—146. Hoskins V. Missouri Fac. R. Co., 19 Mo. App. 315—301. Hosmer v. Old Colony K. Co., 166 Mass. 606—763, 766. Hostetter v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. (Pa.), 32 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 649—300, 460, 469. Hotchkiss V. Artisans' Bank, 2 Abb. App. Deo. (N. Y.) 403—154, 209. Hotel Co. V. Camp, 97 Ky. 424—86. Hot Springs R. Co. v. Deloney, 65 Ark. 177-743. Hot Springs R. Co. T. Hudgins, 42 Ark. 485—387. Hot Springs R. Co. v. Trlppe, 42 Ark. 466—492, 493. Houck V. Southern Pao. R. Co., 38 Fed. 226—590, 623. Hough V. Railway Co., 100 U. S. 226—797. Houghton V. Louisville Ry. Co., 26 Ky. L. Rep. 393—853. Houseman v. Merchants Despatch Transp. Co., 104 Mich. 300—411. Houston Electric R. Co. v. Nelson (Tex- Civ. App.), 77 S. W. 978—664. Houston v. Peters, 1 Mete. (Ky.) 558—195. Houston V. Vicksburg, etc., R. Co., 39 La. Ann. 796—700. Houston, etc., R. Co., v. Adams, 49 Tex. 748—167, 172, 179, 180, 181, 182, 265, 273. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Eatchler (Tex. Civ. App.), 73 S. W. 981—564, 890. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Bath, 17 Tex. Civ. App. 697—396. Houston, etc., R. Co. v, Boehm, 57 Tex. 152—893, 903. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Boiling, 59 Ark. 396—577. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Buchanan (Tex. Civ. App.), 84 S. W. 1037—536. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Burke, 55 Tex. 323—21, 318, 359, 421. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Bryant (Tex. Civ. App.), 72 S. W. 885—592, 817. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Clemmons, 65 Pa. St. 88—816, 856. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Davis, 11 Tex. Civ. App. 24, 31 S. W. 308—318, 338, 350. Houston, etc., Nav. Co. v. Dwyer, 29 Tex. 376—27. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Pord, 63 Tex. 364—655. Houston, etc., B. Co. v. Goodyear (Tex. Civ. App.), 66 S. W. 862—665. Houston, etc., B. Co. v. Gorbett, 49 Tex. 573-675. Houston, etc., B. Co. V. Hampton, 64 Tex. 427—578. Houston, etc., R. Co, v. Harry, 63 Tex. 266—205. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Ham, 44 Tex. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Hester (Tex.), 1 S. W. 776-537. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Hodde, 42 Tex. 467—136, 136, 137. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Hogg, 2 Tex. Unrep. Cas. 544—159. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Iseo (Tex. Civ. App.), 60 S. W. 313-655. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Jackson, 62 Tex. 209—405. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Kohm, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 11—664. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Leslie, 57 Tex. 83—850, 894. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Loefler (Tex.), 61 S. W. 636—808. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. McCuUough, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 208—578. Houston, etc., B. Co. v. McGlosson, 1 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. sec. 224—392. Houston, etc., B. Co. v. McNeel (Tex. Civ. App.), 76 S. W. 206—889. Houston, etc., B. Co. v. Moore, 49 Tex. 31—661, 584, 589, 624, 816. Houston, etc., B. Co. v. Ney (Tex. Civ. App.), 58 S. W. 43—420, 461. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Norris (Tex. Civ. App.), 41 S. W. 708—582. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Park, 1 Tpx. Appi. Civ. Cas. sec. 332— 4G3, 47:. Ixiv! Table of Cases. (The references are to the pagres.y Houston, etc., R. Co. T. Perkins, 21 Tez. Civ. App. 608— «I, 645. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Phillo (Tex.), 69 S. W. 994—649. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Schmidt, 61 Tez. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Stewart, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 703-836, 837. Houston, etc., R. Ci^ v. Smith, 63 Tex. 322—106, lU, 120, 125, 245, 418, 688. Houston, etc., Ry. Co. v. Trammell (Tex. Civ. App.), 68 S. W. 716—617. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Washington (Tex. Civ. App.), 30 S. W. 719—548, 629. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Williams (Tex. Ctv. App.), 31 S. W. 559, 566—318, 360, 401, 408, 410. Hover v. Barkhoof, 44 N. T. 113—72. Howard v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 61 Miss. 194—665, 758. Howard v. Macondray, 7 Gray (Mass.), 516 —441, 445. Howard v. Shepard, 9 M. Gr. & S. 296— 169. Howe V. Oswego, etc., R. Co., 56 Barb. (N. Y.) 121—24, 198. HowcU V. Grand Trunk R. Co., 36 N. T. Supp. 544—716. Sowell V. Lansing City Blec. R. Co., 11 Det. Leg. N. (Mich.)' 82—600. Howell V. New York, etc., R. Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 162—912, 919. Howland v. Milwaukee R. Co., 54 Wis. 226—586. Howland v. Oakland Consol. St. R. Co., 110 Cal. 513—893. Howser v. Cumberland, etc., R. Co., 80 Md. 146—773. Hoyt V. Chicago, etc., H. Co., 93 111. 601— 190. Hoyt V. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 112 Mich. !i3g-667. Hoyt V. Hudson, 41 Wis. 106—799. Hrebrik v. Carr, 29 Fed. 298—556. Huba V. Schenectady Ry. Co., 86 App. Div. (N. T.) 199—733. Hubbard v. Harnden Express Co., 10 R. I. 244—226, 318. Hubbard v. Town of Mason City, 60 Iowa, 400—738. Hubbell V. Tonkers, 104 N. T. 434—374. Hubbersty v. Ward, 8 Bxch. 330—143, 160, 176. Hubener v. Heide, 62 App. Div. (N. T.) 368—83. Huber v. Cedar Rapids, etc., R. Co., 124 Iowa, 566—872. Hudson V. Baxendale, 2 H. & N. 575—276, 283. Hudson V. Kansas Pac. R. Co., 3 McCrary (U. S.), 249—667. Hudson V. Lynn & Boston R. Co., 185 Mass. 510—553, 737, 750. Hudson V. Northern Pac. R. Co., 92 Iowa, 231—336, 411. Hudston V. Midland, etc., R. Co., 10 B & S. 504—702. Hudson V. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 2 Add Cas. (D. C.) 98—644. Hudson River Lighterage Co. v. Wheeler Condenser & E. Co., 93 Fed. 374—390 Huelsenkamp v. Citizens' R. Co., 34 Mo 46, 37 Mo. 637—654, 869. Hurt v. Austin, 46 Ohio St. 386, 21 N E 864—783. Huftard v. Grand Rapids, etc.. R Co 64 Mich. 631—591. 744. "•, v HuHord v. Railway Co., 63 Mich. 118—743. Hughes V. Great Western R. Co . 14 C B 637-240, 323. ' ' ^■ Hughes V. New York, etc., R. Co., 36 N Y. Super. Ct. 222—638, 748, 801. Hughes V. Pennsylvania Co., 202 Pa 222 —636. Hughes v. Pullman Palace Car (3o 74 Fed. 499—57. Hughes V. Western R. Co., 61 (Ja. 131—880. Hughson V. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 2 App. Cas. (D. C.) 98—563. Hull V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 41 Minn. 610—388, 390, 394, 396. Hull V. Bast Line, etc., R. Co., 66 Tex. 619—668. Hull V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 60 Mo. App 593—276. Huleban v. Green Bay, etc., R. Co., 68 Wis. 527-798. Hulbert v. New York Cent. R. Co., 40 N. Y. 145—670, 846. Humphries v. Illinois Cent. JR. Co., 70 Miss. 453-668, 686. Humphreys v. Perry, 148 U. S. 627—39, 703, 707, 709, 717, 718. Humphreys v. Read, 6 Whart. (Pa.) 435 -126, 447. Hungerford v. Winnebago Tug Boat, etc., Co., 33 W^ls. 303—196. Hunt V. Haskell, 24 Me. 339—446. Hunt V. New York, efc, R. Co., 1 Hilt (N. Y.) 228—458, 467. Hunt V. Nutt (Tex. Civ. App.), 27 S. W. 1031—114, 461. Hunt Bros. v. Missouri, etc., R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 74 S. W. 69—225. Hunt V. Mississippi Cent. R. Co., 29 La. Ann. 446—175. Hunt V. Morris, 12 N. J. L. 175-388. Hunter v. Borst, 13 U. C. Q. B. 141—241. Hunter v. Cooperstown, etc., R. Co., 112 N. Y. 371—681, 818. Hunter v, Cooperstown, etc., R. <3o., 126 N. Y. 23—836. Hunter v. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 85 Fed. 379—374. Hunter v. Potts, 4 Campb. 203—30. Hunter v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 76 Tex. 195—460, 475, 482. Huntington v. Dinsmore, 4 Hun (N. Y.), 66—294. Hunterson v. Union Tract. Co., 206 Pa. 668—835, 838, 843. Huntley v. Dows. 56 Barb. (N. Y.) 310- 429. Hurd v. Hartford, etc., R. Co., 40 Conn. 49-148, 284. Hurlburt v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., i Int. Com. Rep. 81—911. Hurst v. Great Western R. Co., 19 C. a N. S. 310—690. Hurt v. Southern R. Co., 40 Miss. 391-650, 662, 656. Hurt V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 94 Mo. 266—683. Hurwitz V. Hamburg American Packet Co.. 27 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 814—701. Hussey v. Saragossa. 3 Wood (U. S.), 380 —534. Huston v. Peters. 1 Mete. (Ky.) 658—340, 402. Hutoheson v. Louisville, etc., R. (3o. (Ky.), 57 S. W. 251-122. Hutchlngs V. Ladd, 16 Mich. 493—199. Hutchlngs V. Western R. Co., 25 Ga. 61- 701, 704. Hutchlns V. Braekett, 22 N. H. 252—71. Hutchinson v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 37 Minn. 624—33, 316, 382, 618, 538. Hutchison V. New York, etc., R. (3o., 6 Eng. Ry. & C. Cas. 580—680. Table of Cases. (The references are to the pages.) Ixv HutkofC V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 29 Mlac. Rep. (N. T.) 770-321, 389. Hutton V. Osborne, 1 Sel. N. P. 420-^, 6. Hyde V. New York, etc.. Steamship Co., 17 La. Ann. 29—356. Hyde v. Trent Nav. Co., 6 T. B. 389—192, 193, 195. Hyman v. Centrai Vermont R. Co., 66 Hun (N. Y.), 202—721, 730. Byman v. Nye, 6 Q. B. Div. 685—615. Idaho Gold Reduction Co. v. Croghan (Id.), 66 Pao. 164—72. Ihi V. Forty-Second St., etc., R. Co., 47 N. Y. 317—822. Ilges V. St. Louis Transit Co., 102 Mo. App. 529—660. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Able, 59 HI. 131 —848. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Adams, 42 lU. 474— S04, 507, 511, 762. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Alexander, 20 111. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Alien (Ky.), 89 S. W. 150—621. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Anderson, 148 III. 294—761, 768. IHinols Cent. R. Co. v. Ashmead, 68 111. 487—71, 227, 259. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Axley, 47 111. App. 307—694. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Beebe, 174 111. 13, 69 111. App. 363—672, 770. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Bogard (Miss.), 27 So. 879—316. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Breisford, 12 111. App. 54—510. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Brookhaven Mach. Co., 71 Miss. 663—419. Illinois Cent. R. Co. y. Brown, 77 Miss. 338—855. Illinois Cent. B. Co. v. Bundy, 97 111. App. 202—499. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Carter, 166 111. 670 —274, 462, 483. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Cobb, 64 111. 128, 72 111. 148—101, 104, 107, 196, 242, 406, 411, 423, 427. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Cobb, 48 III. 402 —231, 232, 233. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Cheek, 152 Ind. 376, 663—680, 833. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Copeland, 24 111. 332, 362—463, 704, 705, 728. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Cunningham, 102 111. App. 206, 67 111. 316—734, 848, 899. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Cowles, 32 111. 117 —462. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Davenport, 177 HI. 110—582, 748. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Davidson, 76 Fed. 617—656. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Dick, 91 Ky. 434 —665. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Eblen, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 1609—606. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Foley, 53 Fed. 459 —572. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Frankenberg, 64 Hi. 88—290, 292, 297, 462, 475, 481. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Friend, 64 111. 303— 148, 262. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Green, 81 HI. 19— 846. Illinois Cent. B. Co. v. Hail, 58 111. 409- 401. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Hobbs, 68 HI. App. 130—770, 771. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Homberger, 77 III. 457—71, 101, 259. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Handy, 63 Miss. 609, 615—56, 58, 705, 714. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Harris (Miss.), 32 So. 309—666. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Harper (Miss.), 35 So. 764—744. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Haynes, 64 Miss. 604, 63 Miss. 486—240, 241. 406, 427, 499. 615. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Illinois, 163 U. S. 142—669. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Jackson, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 2087—744. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Jennings (111.), 75 N. E. 467—576. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Johnson, 67 III. 312—625, 734, 747. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Johnson, 34 111. 389—462, 475, 899. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Jolly, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 1736—867. lUinois Cent. R. Co. v. Jonte, 13 Brad. (111. App.) 424—295, 322, 463, 762, Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Keegan. 210 Hi. 150—670. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Kerr, 68 Miss. 14 -469, 476, Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Kuhn, 107 Tenn. 106—696, 596. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Lancashire Ins. Co. (Miss.), 30 So. 43—304. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Langdon, 71 Miss. 146—401. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Latimer, 128 Hi. 163; 28 HI. App. 662—760, 896. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Lutz, 84 111. 598— 848. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. McClellan, 54 111, 58—24, 30, 71, 107, 242, 259, 364, 375, 380, 411, 423. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Meacham, 91 Tenn. 428—776. Illinois Cent. R, Co. v. Miller, 32 111. App. 259—162, 475, 481. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Minor, 69 Miss. 710, 16 L. R. A. 627—632, 642. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Mitchell, 68 III. 471—260, 489. IlUnois Cent. R. Co. v. Morrison, 19 HI, 136—312, 313, 510, 616, 524, 757, 758, 762, Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Nelson, 59 Hi. 112, 110—624, 694, 747, 880. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Nowicki, 148 HI. 29—791. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. O'Keefe, 168 111 115—541. IlUnois Cent. R. Co. v. Pearson (Miss.), 31 So. 435—897, Illinois, etc., R. Co. v. People, 19 111. App. 141—112. Illinois Cent, R, Co, v. People, 143 111 434, 19 111. App. 141—112, 668. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Peterson, 68 Mass. 454—508, 609, 524. Illinois Cent. R. Co. y. Phelps, 4 HI. App. 238—101, 107. Illinois Cent, R. Co. v. Phillips, 49 HI. 234—607. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Radford, 23 Ky. Law Rep. 886—527, 628. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Read, 37 HI. 484— 753, 764, 766. Illinois Cent, R. Co. v. Robinson, 58 111. App. 181—892, 893. Illinois Cent, R. Co. V. Sauper, 38 111. 354 —315. Illinois Central R, Co. v. Scruggs, 89 Miss. 418-316, 328, 510. Ixvi Table of Cases. (The references are to the pages.) Illinois Cent. R. Co. ■». Schwartz, 13 111. App. 490—101, 294, 363. Illinois C. R. Co. V. Sheehan, 29 111. App. 90-^36 738 Illinois 'cent. H. Co. v. Simmons, 49 111. App. 443—243. 417. Illinois Cent. K. Co. v. Simpson, 17 111. App. 325—153. Illinois Cent. R. Co. .. Slatton, 64 111. 135 —848. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Smiesnl, 104 111. App. 194—611. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Smyser, 38 111. 364—133, 136, 138, 141, 322. Illinois Cent. B. Co. v. Southern Bank, 41 III. App. 287—163, 172. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Southern Seating, etc., Co., 104 Tenn. 568—412, 413. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Stewart, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 637-375, 762. Illincis Cent. R. Co. v. Strauss, 75 Miss. 367—874. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Sutton, 42 III. 438 —760, 807. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Taylor, 46 111. App. 141—674. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Team (Miss.), 20 So. 706—634. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Treat, 179 111. 576 —648. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Troustlne, 64 Miss. 834—70, 259, 423, 712. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Vinson, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 38—660. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Waters, 41 111. 73 —239, 402, 417, 515. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Whlttemore, 43 III. 420— S89, 731, 7S1. Illinois Southern R. Co. v. Hubbarb, 106 III. App. 462—663. Ilwaco R., etc., Co. v. Oregon Short Line, etc., R. Co., 57 Fed. 673—927. Imhoff V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 20 Wis. 344, 22 Wis. 681—634, 664, 675. Imperial Coal Co. v. Pittsburg, etc., R. Co,. 2 Int. Com. Rep. 436-669, 919, 926. Independence Mills Co. v. Burlington, etc., B. Co., 72 Iowa, 635—262. Indianapolis & G. R. T. Co. v. Derry, 3 St. By. Rep. 231—685. Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Adams, 36 111. App. 629—630. Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Allen, 31 Ind. 394—315, 529, 538. Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Anthony, 43 Ind. 183—627. Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. V. Beaver, 41 Ind. 493, 497—572, 573, 625. Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Birney, 71 111. 391—666, 881, 882, 884. Indianapolis St. Ry. Co. v. Brown, 32 Ind. App. 130—663. Indianapolis Union R. Co. v. Cooper, 6 Ind. App. 202—628. Indianapolis, etc., B. Co. v. Cox. 29 Ind. 360—292, 717, 718. Indianapolis St. Ry. Co. v. Darnell, 2 St. By. Rep. 237 (Ind. App.), 68 N. B. 609 —375. Indianapolis St. Ry. Co. v. Dawson, 31 Ind. App. 605—645. Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Forsythe, 4 Ind. App. 326—315, 393. Indianapolis, etc., B. Co. v. Hall, 106 III. 371—700. Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. V. Herndon, 81 111. 143—213, 446. Indianapolis St. Ry. Co. v. Hockett (Ind.), 67 N. B. 106—562, 733, 748. Indianapolis, etc., B. Co. v. Horst, 93 U. S. 291—44, 672, 662, 694, 797. Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. v, Juntgen, 1% III. App. 295—228, 233, 255. Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Jurey, 8 III. App. 160—30, 297. Indianapolis, etc., B. Co, v, Kennedy, 77 Ind. 507—746. Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Murray, TS- UI. 128—470. Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. T. Pitzer, 109 Ind 179—684, 689, 826. Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Remmy, 13 Ind. 518—762. Indianapolis, etc., R. Co, v, Rlnard, 46 Ind. 293-«19, 732, 734. Indianapolis, etc., Ry. Co. v. Robinson, 157 Ind. 414—695, 799. , Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Rutherford, 29 Ind. 82—601, 782, 860, 870. Indianapolis St. Ry. Co. v. Schmidt (Ind.), 71 N. E. 201—599, 770. Indianapolis, etc., B. Co. v. Strain, 81 111. 504—401, 499, 535. Indianapolis St. Ry. Co. v. Taylor (Ina,)^ 72 N. E. 1045—812. Indianapolis St. Ry. Co. v. Tenner, 1 St. Ry. Rep. 178—554, 877. Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Vanduzen, 81 111. 143—179. Indianapolis St. Ry. Co. v. Wilson (Ind.)> 66 N. B. 950—744. Indiana, etc., R. Co. v. Ditto, 158 Ind. 699-748. Indiana, etc., R. Co. v. Doremeyer, 20 Ind. App. 605—229. Indiana, etc., R. Co. v. Green, 106 Ind. 279—797. Indiana Cent. R. Co. v. Hudleson, 13 Ind. 325—652, 661. Indiana, etc., B. Co. v. James, 18 IlL App. Indiana By. Co. T. Maurer (Ind.), 66 N. E. 156—820. Indiana Cent. B. Co. v. Mundy, 21 Ind. 48—753, 762. Independence Mills Co. v. Burlington, etc., R. Co., 72 Iowa, 535—270, 271, 492. Independent Refiners' Assoc, v. Westeni New York, etc., R. Co., 4 Int. Com. Rep. 162—916, 919, 937. Ingalls V. Bills, 9 Mete. (Mass.) 1— 695, 607, 616, 665, 820. Ingalls V. Brooks, 1 Bdm. Sel. Cas. (N. T.) 104—438. Ingate v. Christie, 3 C. & K. 61—21, 63. Ingledew v. Northern B. Co., 7 Gray (Mass.), 86—387, 411, 416. IngersoU V. Van Bokkeltn, 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 670—364. Inland & S. Coasting Co. v. Tolson, 13S (U. S.) 561—696. Inman v. ButCalo, etc., R. Co., 7 U. C. C. P. 326—265. Inman v. South Carolina R. Co., 129 U. S. 128—311, 314, 373. Inman v. St. Louis, S. W. R. Co. (Tex Civ. App.), 37 S. W. 37—465. In re Charge to Grand Jury, 66 Fed. 146 —921. In re Missouri Steamship Co., L. B. ** Ch. Dlv. 321—220, 311. In re Pooling Freights, 115 Fed. 588-937. Ins. Co. of North America v. Delaware Mut. Safety Ins. Co., 91 Tenn. 637- 118. Insurance Co. of N. A. v. Baston, 73 Tex. 167—373. Insurance Co. of N. A. v. Lake Erie, etc, B. Co., 162 Ind. 333-237, 395. Insurance Co. of N. A. v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., U Fed. 380-877. Table of Cases. (The references are to the pages.) Ixvii Investment Co. v. Ohio, etc., R. Co., 41 Fed, 378—492. lonnone v. New York, etc., R. Co. (R. I.), 44 Atl. 692— S86. Irish V. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co., 19 Minn. 376—461, 469, 488, 489. Irish V. Northern Pao. R. Co., 4 Wash. 48—833. Iron R. Co. V. Mowery, 36 Ohio St. 418 —541, 778, 820. Irvine v. Nashville, etc., R. Co., 92 111. 103—493, 494. Irvine v.. Midland Great Western R. Co., L. R. 6 Ir. 55—418, 422. Irvine v. New Tork Cent. R. Co., 59 N. T. 653—468, 493. Isaacs V. Third Ave. R. Co., 47 N. T. 122—630. Isaacson v. New Tork Cent., etc., R. Co., 94 N. Y. 278—308, 367, 710, 712, 721, 722, 728, 729. Isbell V. New Tork, etc., R. Co., 27 Conn, 393—689. Isham V. Greenham, Handy (Ohio), 357 —447. Isherwood v. Whitmore, 11 M. & W- 347 —203. Israel V. Clark, 4 Bsp. N. P. 269-781. International, etc., R. Co. v. Anchonda (Tex. Civ. App.), 68 S. W. 743—886. International, etc., R. Co. v. Anderson, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 8—106, 107, 350, 412, 461, 482, 483, 493. International, etc., R. Co. v. Anthony (Tex. Civ. App.), 67 S. W. 897—601. International, etc., R. Co. v, Aten (Tex. Civ. App.), 81 S. W. 346—461. International, etc., R. Co. v. Bergman (Tex. Civ. App.), 64 S. W. 999—222, 224. International, etc., R. Co. v. Brazzil, 78 Tex. 314—893, 900, 904. International, etc., R. Co, v. Campbell, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 609—482, 672, 754. International, etc., R. Co. v. Cock, 68 Tex. 713—677. International, etc., R. Co. v. Copeland, 60 Tex. 325—868. International, etc., R. Co. v. Dummit County Pasture Co., 5 Tex. Civ. App. 186—142. International, etc., R. Co. v. Earnest & Bost (Tex. Civ, App.), 77 S. W. 29—619, 535. International, etc., R, Co. v. Foliiard, 66 Tex, 603—723, 846, International, etc, R. Co. v. Foltz, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 644—717, 727. International, etc., R. Co. v, Garrett, 5 Tex. Civ. App. 640—336. International, etc., R'. Co. v. Giesen (Tex. Civ. App.), 69 S. W. 653—890. International, etc., R. Co. v. Gilbert, 64 Tex. 536—661, 689, 889, International, etc, R. Co. v. Goldstein, 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. sec. 274—689. International, etc., R. Co. v. Gray, 65 Tex. 32—663, 577, 697. International, etc., R. Co. v. Halloren, 53 Tex. 46—697, 604, 606, 611, 617, 664, International, etc, R. Co, v. Harden (Tex. Civ. App.), 81 S. W. 356— «79, International, etc., R. Co. v. Hassell, 62 Tex. 256—741, 820. International, etc., R. Co. v. Hynes, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 20—107, 250, 615. International, etc., R. Co. v. Ing, (Tex, Civ. App.), 68 S, W, 722—567. International, etc., R. Co. v. Irvine, 64 Tex. 629—583, 891. International, etc., R. Co. v. Kentle (Tex.), 16 Am. & Bng. R. Cas. 337—629, 892. International, etc., R. Co. V. Lewis (Tex. Civ. App.), 23 S. W. 32S-106, 616. International, etc., R. Co. v. Mahula, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 182-482, 485. International, etc., R. Co. v. McCoun, 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. sec. 712—704. International, etc., R. Co. v. McRae, 82 Tex. 614—501, 608. International, etc., R. Co. v. Miller, 9 Tex. Civ. App. 104-642, 644. International, etc., R. Co. v. Moody, 71 Tex. 614—309, 338. International, etc., R. Co. v. Nicholson, 61 Tex. 660—420. International, etc., R. Co. v. Philips, 63 Tex. 590—412, 716. International etc., R. Co. v. Pool (Tex. Civ. App.), 59 S. W. 911—600. International, etc., R. Co. v. Prince, 77 Tex. 660-577. International, etc., R. Co. v. Ritchie (Tex. Civ. App.), 26 S. W. 840—94, 239, 241. International, etc., R. Co. v. Satterwhlte, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 102—849. International, etc. R. Co. v. Schuford, (Tex. Civ, App.), 81 S. W. 1189—664. International, etc., R. Co. v. Server, 3 Tex. Civ. App. Cas., sec. 440—241, 265, 328. International, etc, R. Co. v. Smith (Tex.), 14 S. W. 642—634, 681, 808. International, etc., R. Co, v. Startz (Tex.) 77 S. Vf. 1—535. Internaiionai, etc, R. Co. v. Startz (Tex. Civ. App.), 33 S. W. 576—418, 424. International, etc., R. Co. v, Terry, 62 Tex. 380—688, 887. International, etc. R, Co. v. Thornton, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 197—482, International, etc, R. Co. v. Tisdale, 74 Tex. 8—228, 265, 465, 493, International, etc, R. Co. v. True (Tex. Civ. App.), 67 S. W. 977-369. International, etc., R. Co. v. Underwood, 62 Tex. 21—333, 336, 361. International etc., R. Co. v. Watt, 2 Tex. App. Civ, Cas, sec. 781—296, 297. International, etc, R. Co. v. Welch, 86 Tex. 203—651. International, etc., R. Co. v. Wentworth, 87 Tex. 311—244, 475. Iniernational, etc, R. Co. v. Wilkes, 68 Tex. 617—733. International, etc, R. Co. v. Wolf, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 383—491. International, etc. R. Co. v. Toung (Tex. Civ. App.), 28 S. W. 819—105. International, etc., R. Co. v, Toung (Tex. Civ. App.), 72 S. W. 68—612, 620. Interstate CJommerce Com. v. Alabama M. R. Co., 168 U. S. 144, 165—169, 913, 915, 917, 918, 920, 921, 924, 926, 928, 933, 934, Interstate R. Co., ( Interstate R. Co., 923. Interstate etc, R. Interstate etc., R. 922, 924. Interstate etc., R. Commerce Com. v. Alabama M. 19 Fed. 227—907, 912. Commerce Com, v, Alabama M. 74 Fed. 175, 168 U. S. 170—911, Commerce Com. v. Atchison, Co., 60 Fed. 296—933. Commerce Com. v. Baltimore, Co., 145 U. S. 281, 284—916, 91t. Commerce Com. v. Baltimore, Co., 43 Fed. 37—924, 935. Ixviii Table of Cases. (The references are to the pages.) Interstate Commerce Com. v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 146 U. S. 283, 263—906, 915, 921, 928, 933, 938. Interstate Commerce Com. v. Brimson, 154 U. S. 448, 457—906, 910, 911, 915, 922, 928, 932, 937. Interstate Commerce Com. v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., 128 Fed. 59—916. Interstate Commerce Com. v. Chesapeake & C. Ry. Co., et ano., U. S. Sup. Ct. Oct. Term, 1905, decided Feb. 19, 1906. Interstate Commerce Com. v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 94 Fed. 272-907. Interstate Commerce Com. v. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 124 Fed. 624—923. Interstate Commerce Com. v. Cincinnati, etc. R. Co., 167 U. S. 610—906, 911, 912, 933. Interstate Commerce Com. v. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 56 Fed. 925—908, 910, 927. Interstate Commerce Com. v. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 76 Fed. 183—907. Interstate Commerce Com. v. Clyde S. S. Co., 181 U. S. 29—934. Interstate Commerce Com. v. East Ten- nessee, etc., R. Co., 85 Fed. 107—907, 908, 914, 917, 927, 932. Interstate Commerce Com. v. Lehigh Val- ley R. Co., 74 Fed. 784^-907, 913. Interstate Commerce Com. v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 118 Fed. 613—914, 940. Interstate Commerce Com. v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 73 Fed. 409—907, 913, 914, 917, 924, 925, 939. Interstate Commerce Com. v. Louisville & M. R. Co., 190 U. S. 273—934. Interstate Commerce Com. v. Nashville, etc., R. Co., 120 Fed. 934—914, 934. Interstate Commerce Com. v. Northeast- ern R. Co., 83 Fed. 611—907. Interstate Commerce Com. v. Southern R. Co., 122 Fed. 800—934, 940. Interstate Commerce Com. v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 132 Fed. 829—936, 939. Interstate Commerce Com. v. Southern R. Co., 105 Fed. 703—913. Interstate Commerce Com. v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 62 Fed. 187, 189-915, 916, 917. 918, 919, 924. Interstate Commerce Com. v. Western, etc., R. Co., 88 Fed. 186—914, 915, 927, 933, 934. Interstate Commerce Com. v. Western, etc., R. Co., 93 Fed. 83—908, 913, 915, 927, 930. Ives V. smith, 3 N. T. Supp. 645, 8 N. T. Supp. 46—937. J. Jackson Architectural Iron Works v. Hurl- but, 158 N. T. 34—18, 22 27, 63, 64. Jackson v. Crllly, 16 Colo. 103—830, 854. Jackson v. Grand Ave. R. Co., 118 Mo. 199—827. Jackson v. Kansas City R. Co., 31 Kan. 761—770. Jackson v. Metropolitan R. Co., 26 W. R. 175-692. Jackson v. NIchol, 7 Scott, 577 — 441. Jackson v. Rogers, 2 Show. 327—92. Jackson v. Sacramento Valley R. Co., 23 Cal. 270—264, 285, 392. Jackson v. Second Ave. R. Co., 47 N. T 247—630, 748. Jackson v. Tollett, 2 Stark, 37—655. Jacksonville St. Ry. Co. v. Cappell 21 Fla. 175—683, 828. Jacksonville, etc., R. Co. v. Southworth 135 111. 260-803. Jacobs V. Central R. Co. of N. J., 208 Pa. 536—718, 719. Jacobs V. Hooker, 1 Edm. Sel. Caa. (N. T.) 472—474. Jacobs V. Third Ave. R. Co., 71 App. DIv. (N. T.) 199—881. Jacobs V. Tutt, 33 Fed. 412—706, 707, 724. Jacobs V. West End. St. Ry. Co. (Mass.), 69 N. B. 639—682. Jacobson v. Adams Express Co., 1 O. C. D. 212—220, 330. Jacobus V. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., 20 Minn. 125—287, 569, 670, 763, 761, 762, 766, 817. Jacques v. Sioux City Tract. Co., 124 Iowa, 267—842. Jagger v. Peoples Pass. Ry. Co., 180 Pa. St. 436—836. James, etc.. Buggy Co. v. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 682—933. James v. Canadian Pac, R. Co., 5 Int Com. C. Rep. 612—923. James v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 80 App. Div. (N. T.) 364—635. James S. Davis Clothing Co. v. Merchants Despatch Transp. Co., 160 Mo. App. 487 —487. Jaminet v. American Storage, etc., Co., 109 Mo. App. 257—65. Jamison v. San Jose, etc., R. Co., 55 Cal. 593—596, 662. Jammison v. Chesapeake, etc., R. C!o., 92 Va. 327—689. Janny v. Great Northern R. Co., 63 Mino. 380—584. Jardlne v. Cornell, 60 N. J. L. 485-637, 732, 889. Jarrett v. Atlanta, etc., R. Co., 83 Ga 347—850. Jarrett v. (jreat JNortnern K. Co., 74 Minn. 477—207. Jeffersonville, etc., R. Co. v. Cleveland, 2 Bush. (N. T.) 473—264, 267, 273. JefEersonvIlle, etc., R. Co. v. Cotton, 29 Ind. 498—272. Jeffersonvilie R. Co. v. Hendricks, 26 Ind. 228—653, 673, 675, 847. Jeffersonvilie, etc., R. Co. v. Irvin, 46 Ind. 180—122, 177. Jeffersonvilie, etc., R. Co. y. Parmalee, 51 Ind. 44—554, 675. Jeffersonvilie, etc., R. Co. v. Riley, 39 Ind. 668—667, 634. Jeffersonvilie R. Co. v. Rogers, 28 Ind. 1 —749, 750. Jeffersonvilie R. Co. v. Swift, 26 Ind. 459—673, 818, 862. Jeffersonvilie R. Co. v. Rogers, 38 Ind. 116 —627, 637, 734, 898, 900. Jeffersonvilie R. Co. v. White, 6 Bush (Ky.), 251—363. Jeffrey v. Bigelow, 13 W^end. (N. T.) 518 —384. Jeffrls V. Fitchburg R. Co., 93 Wis. 250- 442. Jeilett V. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., 30 Minn. 265—179, 199. 211, 399. Jemlson v. McDanlel, 25 Miss. 83—109, 243. Jemison v. Southwestern R. Co., 75 Ga. 444—705. Jencks y. Coleman, 2 Sumn. (U. S.) 221 —66, 540, 590, 614, 620, 739. Jenkins v. Brooklyn, etc., R. Co., 51 N. T. Supp. 216—743. Jenkins v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 41 Wis. 112—684. Jenkins v, Motlow, 1 Sneed. (Tenn.) 24S, 253—5, S. Jenkins v. Pickett, 9 Yerg. (Tenn.) 480- II, 62. Table of Cases. (The references are to the pages.) Ixix Jennings v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 15 Ont. App. 477—580. Jennings v. Grand Trunlc R. Co., 127 N. T. 438—27, 305, 312, 330, 333, 335, 348, 455, 458, 471, 473, 476. Jennings v. Great Nortliern R. Co., 35 L,. J. Q: B. 15—592. Jennings v. SmitK, 99 Fed. 189—331. Jennings v. Smitli, 106 Fed. 139—342, 627. Jessel V. Batll, L. R. 2 Excll. 267—175. Jessup V. Carnegie, 80 N. T. 441—266. Jewell V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 54 Wis. 610—816, 862. Jewell V. Grand Trunk R. Co., 55 N. H. 84—186, 209, 263, 279. Jewett V. Klein, 27 N. J. Bq. 560—875. Jewett V. Olsen. 18 Or. 419—229. J. J. Douglass Co. V. Minnesota Trans- fer H. Co., 62 Minn. 288—345, 365, 360. John V. Bacon, Xi. R. 5 C. P. 437— *09. Johnson v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 25 Hun (N. T.), 251—794. Johnson v. Alabama, etc., R. Co., 69 Miss. 191—316, 395, 507, 760. Johnson v. Alabama Great Southern R. Co. (Ala.), 37 So. 226—522. Johnson v. Boston, etc., R, Co., 125 Mass. 75—568. Johnson v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 58 Iowa, 348—689. Johnson v. Concord R. Corp., 46 N. H. 213 —558, 666, 666, 590, 691, 807. Johnson v. Detroit, etc., R. Co. (Mich.), 90 N. W. 274—633. Johnson v. Dominion Exp. Co., 28 Ont. Rep. 203—124. Johnson v. East Tennessee, etc., K. Co., 90 Ga. 810—27, 239, 260, 456, 464, 467. Johnson v. Fort Worth, etc., R. Co., 9 Tex. Civ. App. 619—207. Johnson v. Friar, 4 Terg. (Tenn.) 48—63. Johnson v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 44 N. H. 626—232. Johnson v. Hudson River R. Co., 20 N. T. 66—797, 799. Johnson v. Interurban St. R. Co., 88 N. T. Supp. 866—772. Johnson v. Lightsey. 34 Ala. 169—249. Johnson v, Louisville, etc., R. Co., 104 Ala. 241—737. Johnson v. Manhattan R. Co., 52 Hun (N. T.), 111—804. Johnson v. Midland R. Co., 4 Bxoh. 367— .92, 98, 104, 242. Johnson v. New York Cent. R. Co., 33 N. y. 610—376, 438, 470. Johnson V. New Tork Cent. R. Co., 39 How. Pr. (N. T.) 127—471, 490. Johnson v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 47 Minn. 430—892. Johnson v. Pensacola, etc., B. Co., 16 Fla. 623—37, 124, 127. Johnson v. Philadelphia, etc., B. Co., 63 Md. 106—665, 658, 665, 767. Johnson v. Seattle Electric Co., 35 Wash. 382—665, 701. Johnson v. Stone, 11 Humph. (Tenn.) 419 —705. Johnson v. Toledo, etc., R. Co. (Mich.), 96 N. W. 724—472. Johnson V. Town of Irasburg, 47 Vt. 28 -«32. Johnson V. Wells, 6 Nev. 224—880, 896. Johnson v. West Chester, etc., R. Co., 70 Pa. St. 357—836. Johnson v. Winona, etc., B. Co., 11 Minn. 296—844. Johnson V. Tonkers R. Co., Ml App. Div. (N. r.) 65-853. Johnston v. Chicago, etc., R. Co. (Neb.). 97 N. W. 479—216, 614, 516. Johnston v. Davis, 60 Mich. 56 — 435. Johnstone v. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 39 S. C. 55—246, 296, 306, 318, 344, 388, 394, 627, 530, 761. Joint Water, etc.. Lines, 2 Int. Com. Rep. 486-911. Joliet St. R. Co. v. Call, 42 111. App. 41— 804. Joliet St. Ry. Co. v. Duggan, 45 111. App. 450—821. Jones V. Alabama Mineral R. Co., 107 Ala. 400—785. Jones V. Anderson, 82 Ala. 302—363. Jones V. Bond, 40 Fed. 281—705. Jones V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 63 Me. 188 —439. Jones V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 163 Mass. 246—548, 662. Jones V. Brooklyn, etc., R. Co., 21 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 169—830. Jones V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 20 Minn. 125—855. Jones V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 42 Minn. 183, 279—681, 817, 862. Jones V. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 89 Ala. 376—480, 486. Jones V. Earl, 37 Cal. 630—160, 349. Jonas V. Long Island R. Co., 47 N. Y. Supp. 149—774. Jones V. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co. (Minn.), 97 N. W. 893—220, 392. Jones V. New Tork, etc., R. Co., 29 Barb. (N. Y.) 633—94, 249. Jones V. New Tork Cent. R. Co., 46 App. Div. (N. Y.) 470—834. Jones V. Norwich, etc., Transp. Co., 59 Barb. (N. Y.) 193—148, 724, 726. Jones V. Pearl, 1 Stra. 666—446. Jones V. Pitcher, 3 Stew. & P. (Ala.) 136 —23, 66. Jones V. Priester, 1 Tex. App. Clv. Cas. sec. 613—705, 706. Jones V. Seligman, 81 N. T. 191—600. Jones V. St. Louis Southwestern R. Co., 125 Mo. 666—544, 563, 753. Jones V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 89 Mo. App. 653—484, 617. Jones V. Union Ry. Co., 18 App. Div. (N. T.) 267—773, 784. Jones V. Voorhees, 10 Ohio, 145, 180—54, 293, 317, 703, 704, 762, 765, 766. Jones V. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 17 Mo. App. 158—581, 747. Jones V. Western Union Tel. Co., 18 Fed. Rep, 717-78. Jones V. Western Vermont R. Co., 27 Vt. 399—38. Jordan v. Fall River R. Co., 5 Cush. (Mass.) 69—92, 701, 704, 722, 723. Jordan v. New Tork, etc., R. Co., 166 Mass. 346—832. Jordan v. Pennsylvania Co., 18 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 647—177. Jorden v. American Express Co., 86 Me. 225—389, Joseph V. Georgia R., etc., Co., 88 Ga. 426—466. Joslin V. Grd.nd Rapids, etc., R. Co., 53 Mich. 322-810. Josiyn V. Grand Trunk R. Co., 51 Vt. 92— 172. Joy V. Winnissimmet Co., 114 Mass. 63 — 62. J. Russell Mfg. Co. v. New Haven Steam- ship Co., 50 N. Y. 121—192. Judd V. New York, etc., S. Co., 117 Fed. 206—284. Iv-g Table of Cases. (The references are to the pages.) Judson V. Giant Powder Co., 107 Cal. 549 —773, 783. Judson V. Western R. Corp., 4 Allen (Mass.), 486, 490, 520—132, 259, 290, 292, 488. Judson V. Western R. Corp., 6 Allen (Mass.), 486—290, 344, 360, 765. JuUen V. Steamer Wade Hampton, 27 La. Ann. 377—692, 788. Junction Railway Co. v. Bank of Ash- land, 12 Wall. (U. S.) 226—310. June V. Boston, etc., B. Co., 153 Mass. 79 Junod V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 47 Fed. 290—933. Kaelser v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 18 Fed. 151—906. Kahn v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., U5 N. C. 638—726. Kaln V. Smith, 80 N. T. 468—41. Kaiser v. Hoey, 1 N. T. Supp. 429—332, 333 Kaiser v. Latimer, 40 App. Div. (N. T.) 149—773. Kaiser v. St. Louis Transit Co., 108 Mo. App. 708—842. Kalina & Cizek v. Union Pao. B. Co. (Kan.), 76 Pac. 438-«34. Kallman v. United States Bxpress Co., 3 Kan. 205—290, 344, 393, 395. Kallmerten v. Cowen, Ul Fed. 297—793. Kane v. Cicero, etc., R. Co., 100 111. 181 —543, 655. Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. Bamett, 69 Ark. 150—622. Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. Dalton, 66 Kan. 661— 8C7. Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. Fites, 67 Miss. 373—898. Kansas City, etc., R. Co. y. Flynn, 78 Mo. 195—799. Kansas City, etc., B. Co. v. Higdon, 94 Ala. 286—81, 705. Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. Holden, 66 Ark. 602—750. Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. Holland, 68 Miss. 361—115, 361, 503. Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. Kelly, 36 Kan. 655—638. Kansas City, etc., B. Co. v. Kirksey, 48 Ark. 366—562. Kansas City, etc., B. Co. v. Lilly (Miss.), 8 So. 644—99, 119, 137. Kansas City, etc., B. Co. v. Little, 66 Kan. 378—888, 895. Kansas City, etc., R. Co. V. Morrison, 34 Kan. 502— 2V2, 706. Kansas City, etc., B. Co. v. Patten, 3 Kan. App. 338—264, 724. Kansas City, etc., E. Co. v. Phillibert, 26 Kan. 686—798. Kansas City, etc., B. Co. v. Beynolds, 8 Kan. 623—393. Kansas City, etc., B. Co. v. Riley, 68 Miss. 765—566, 744. Kansas City, etc., B. Co. v. Bodebaugh, 38 Kan. 45—717, 765, 756, 757. Kansas City, etc., B. Co. v. Sanders, 98 Ala. 293—616, 694.. 901. Kansas City, etc., B. Co. v. Simpson, 30 Kan. 645—302, 344. 753. Kansas City, etc.. R. Co. v. Stoner, 51 Fed. 649. 49 Fed. 209—698, 777. Kansas City, etc, R. Co. v. Washington (Ark.), 85 S. W. 406—728. Kansas, etc.. R. Co. v. Ayers (Ark.), 33 S. W. 616—525. Kansas, etc., R. Co. v. Bayle^, 19 Colo. 348—123. Kansas, etc., R. Co. v. Dorough, 72 Tex. 108—818. Kansas City Transfer Co. v. Neiswanger, 18 Mo. App. 103—262, 432. Kansas Pac. R. Co. v. Kessler, 13 Kan. 623—625, 747, 898. Kansas Pac. B. Co. v. Ludin, 3 Colo. 9i —697. Kansas Pac. R. Co. v. Miller, 2 Colo. 442—6%, 660, 780, 805. Kansas Pac. R. Co. v. Montelle, 10 Kan. 119—722. Kansas Pac. R. Co. v. Nichols, 9 Kan. Kansas Pac. R. Co. v. Peavey, 29 Kan. 169-316. Kansas Pac. R. Co. v, Reynolds. 8 Kan. 623—396, 411. Kansas Pac. R. Co. v. Reynolds, 17 Kan. 261—304, 307, 755, 758. Kansas Pac. R. Co. v. Salmon, 11 Kan. 83 —686. Kapland v. Midland R. Terminal Co., 8! - N. T. Supp. 945—509. Karle V. Kansas City, etc., B. Co., 55 Mo. 476—786. Kaskaskia Bridge Co. v. Shannon, 1 Gil- man (111.), 15—126. Kates V. Alabama Baggage & Cab Co., 107 Ga. 636-^lS. Katz V. Cleveland, etc., B. Co., 46 Misc. Rep. (N. T.) 269—730. Katzenstein v. Raleigh, etc., R. Co., 84 N. C. 688—246. Kaufman Milling Co. v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 400—917. Kay V. Metropolitan St. R, Co., 29 App. Div. (N. T.) 46S— 778. Kean v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 61 Md. 154—829. Kearney v. London, etc., R. Co., L. R. 5 Q. B. 411-772, 773. Keating v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 97 Mich. 154—664, 675. Keating v. New York Cent. R. Co., 3 Lans. (N. T.) 469—669. 843. Keating v. New York Cent., etc., B. Co., 49 N. Y. 673—674, 676, 678. 680. Keator v. Scranton Tract. Co.. 191 Pa. 102—781. Keefe v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 142 Mass. 251—666. Keegan v. Third Ave. R. Co., 34 App. Div. (N. Y.) 297—655, 658. Keegan v. Western R. Co., 8 N. Y. 115- 796. Keeler v. Goodwin. Ill Mass. 490—204. Keene v. Llzardi. 5 La. 431—637. Keeney v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 47 N. T. 526—120, 322. Keeter v. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 86 K. C. 346—246. Kefauver v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 122 Fed. 966—781. Keith V. Pinkham, 43 Me. 501-854. Kelham v. Steamship Kensington. 24 La. Ann. 100—393. Keller v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 174 Pa. St. 62—482. Keller v. Hestonville, etc.. Pass. R. Co.. 149 Pa. St. 65—832. Keller v. New York Cent. B. Co.. 2 Abb. App. Dec. (N. Y.) 480—664, 680. Keller v. Sioux City, etc., R. Co., 27 Minn. 178—676, 677, 812. Kellerman v. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., (Kan.), 34 S. W. 41—296. Kelley v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 70 Mo. 604—830. 850. Table of Cases. (The references are to the pages.) Ixxi Kelley v. Manhattan R. Co., 112 N. T. 443-695, 602, 613. Kelley v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 89 App. Dlv. (N. T.) 169—662. Kelley v. New York, etc., R. Co., 109 N. Y. 41-602, 776. Kelly V. Southern Minnesota R. Co., 28 Minn. 98—806. Kellogg V. Suffolk, etc., R. Co., 100 N. C. 168—99. Kellogg V. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 79 N. T. 72—903. Kellor V. Sioux City R. Co., 27 Minn. 178 —810. Kellow V. Central Iowa R. Co., 68 Iowa, 470—663, 693, 698. Kelton V. Taylor, 11 Lea (Tenn.), 264—377. Kemp V. Coughtry, 11 Johns. (N. Y.) 107 —7, 65, 202. Kemp V. Western Union Tel. Co., 28 Neb. 661—78. Kent V. Hudson River R. Co., 22 Barb. (N. Y.) 278—249, 411. Kent V. Midland R. Co., L. R. 10 Q. B. 1—168, 183. Kendall v. London, etc., R. Co., L. Ji. 7 Exch. 373—30, 510, 611. Kennard v. Burton, 25 Me. 39—796. Kennedy v. Birmingham Ry., etc., Co., (Ala.), 35 So. 108—734. Kennedy v. Mobile, etc., R. Co., 71 Ala. 430—118, 261. Kennedy v. North Jersey St. R. Co. (N. J. Sup.), 60 Atl. 10—617. Kennedy v. Rochester, etc., R. Co., 130 N. Y. 661—809. Kennon v. Railroad Co., 51 La. Ann. 1599 —661. Kenney v. New York Cent. R. Co., 126 N. Y. 122—78, 321, 318, 362, 762, 757, 766, 767. Kentucky Bank v. Adams Express Co., 93 U. S. 171—529, 769. Kentucky, etc.. Bridge Co. v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 37 Fed. 667—67, 86, 160, 907, 908, 911, 920, 929, 930, 937. Kentucky, etc.. Bridge Co. v. Quinkert, 2 Ind. App. 221—660, 686, 866. Kentucky Cent. R. Co. v. Dills, 1 Bush. (Ky.) 693—816, 899. Kentucky Cent. R Co. v. Thomas, 79 Ky. 160—601, 798, 864, 855. Kentucky Wagon Mfg. Co. v. Ohio & M. R. Co., 98 Ky. 152—429. Kentucky, etc., Ins. Co. v. Western, etc., R. Co., 8 Baxt. (Tenn.) 268—186, 188. Keokuk Northern Line Packet Co. v. True, 88 111. 608—667, 634. Keokuk Packet Co. v. Henry, 50 111. 261—516, 813. Kepner v. Harrisburg Tract. Co., 183 Pa. 21—781. Keppel V. Petersburg R. Co., 11 Rich. L. (S. C.) 181, Chase's Dec. (U. S.) 167—226. Kerr v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 100 111. App. 148-861. Kerr v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 21 U. C. C. P. 209—723. Kerr v. Liverpool, etc., R. Co., 12 Wkly. Dig. (N. Y.) 266-308. Kerwhacker v. Cleveland, etc., R. Ca, 3 Ohio St. 172—689. Kessler v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 61 N. Y. 538—728. Ketchum v. American Merchants Union Exp. Co., 62 Mo. 390—317, 390. Keyser v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 66 Mich. 390—290, 811. Keyes Marshall Bros. Livery Co. v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. (Mo. App.), 80 S. W. 63—632. Kiff V. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 32 Kan. 263 —319, 185. Kiff V. Old Colony, etc., R. Co., 117 Mass. 591-31, 231, 231. KIght V. Metropolitan R. Co., 21 App. D. C. 191—650, 652. Kilpatrlok V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 104 Pa. St. 602—852. Kilroy V. Delaware, etc.. Canal Co., 121 N. Y. 22—194. Kimball v. Rutland, etc., R. Co.,, 26 Vt. 247—13, 30, 38, 46, 288, 293, 497, 610, 765, 758. Kimball v. Western R. Corp., 6 Gray (Mass.), 612—111, 151, 278. Kimble V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 141 Mass. 463—666. Kimes v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 86 Mo. 611—405. King V. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 69 Miss. 215 —640. King V. Interstate Consol. St. R. Co. (R. I.), 61 Atl. 301—656. King V. Macon, etc., R. Co., 62 Barb. (N. Y.) 160, 161—458, 177. King V. New Brunswick, etc.. Steamboat Co., 36 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 665—160, 263, 270. King V. New York, etc., R. Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 272—926. King V. Ohio, etc., R. Co., 22 Fed. 413— 612. King V. Richards, 6 Whart. (Pa.) 418—166. King V. Shepherd, 3 Story (U. S.), 349— 65, 224, 405. King V. Woodbridge, 34 Vt. 565—301, 412, 423. KingBford V. Merry, 26 L. J. Bxch. 83-157. Kinkade v. Atlantic Ave. R. Co., 9 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 273—669, 676. Kinnear v. Midland R. Co., 19 L. T. N. S. 387-433. Klnner v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 69 Ohio St. 339—568. Kinney v. Central R. Co., 32 N. J. L. 407 —719, 763, 761, 766. Kinney v. Central R. Co., 31 N. J. L. 613 —670. Kinsley v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 125 Mass. 64—60, 541, 696, 713, 714. Kinney v. London, etc., R. Co., L. R. 5 Q. B. lU— 773. Kinney v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 99 Ky. 69—632, 648. Kinnick v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 69 Iowa, 666—31, 260, 507, 611, 615, 637. Kirby v. Adams Express Co., 2 Mo. App. 369—21, 36, 316. Kirby V. Delaware, etc.. Canal Co., 20 App. Dlv. (N. Y.) 473-875. Kirby v. Western Union Tel. Co., 7 S. D. 623—61, 76. Kird V. New Orleans & N. W. R. Co., 105 La. Ann. 226—667. Kirk V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 59 Minn. 161 —264. Kirk V. Folaom, 23 La. Ann. 584—393. Kirkland v. Dlnsmore, 62 N. Y. 171—296, 296, 298, 306. Kirkland v. Leary, 2 Sw. (N. Y.) 677— 249, 411. Kirtand v. Montgomery, 1 Swan (Tenn.), 462-5, -9, 13, 66. Kirkman v. Shawcross, 6 T. R. 14-^31, 132. Kirst V. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co., 46 Wis. 189—3, 173, 389. Klalr V. Wilmington Steamboat Co. (Dei. Super.), 64 Atl. 694—343. Klauber v. American Express Co., 21 Wis. 21-380. Ixxii Table of Cases. (The references are to the pages.) Klass Commission Co. v. Wabash B. Co., 80 Mo. App. 164—262. Kleiber v. Peoples R. Co., 107 Mo. 240— 812 822 Klein V. Dunlap, 16 Misc. Hep. (N. T.) 34—458. Klein v. Hamburg American Packet Co., 3 Daly (N. T.), 390—724, 725. Klein V. Jewett, 26 N. J. Bq. 474—41, 42, 654. Kline V. Central Pao. R. Co., 37 Cal. 400 —689, 748, 820. Klinger v. United Tract. Co., 92 App. Div. Leonard v. Southern Fac. R. Co., 21 Or. 556-803. Leonard v. Tidd, 3 Mete. (Mass.) 6—216. Lepford V. Charlotte, etc., R. Co., 7 Rich. L. (S. C.) 409—224. Le Sage v. Great Western R. Co., 1 Daly (N. Y.), 306—458, 470. Lesan v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 77 Me. 86— 796. Lesinaky v. Great Western Dispatch, 13 Mo. App. 675, 10 Mo. App. 134—196, 276, 412, 463. Leslie v. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 88 Mo. 50 —664, 692, 850: Lester v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 92 Hub (N. Y.), 342—179, 207, 209, 216. Lester v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 73 Hun (N. Y.), 398—161. Leuckhart v. Cooper, 3 Bing. N. Cas. 99—441. Leu v. St. Louis Transit Co. (Mo. App.), 80 S. W. 273-834, 842. Levering v. Union Transp., etc., Co., 42 Mo. 88, 86 S. W. 137—282, 296, 317. Leveret v. Shreveport Belt Line Co. (La.), 1 St. Ry. Rep. 263—596, 606, 613, 843, 846, 877. Levi V. Lynn R. Co., U Allen (Mass.), 300 —46. Levin v. Second Ave. Tract. Co., 201 Pa. 68—825. Levien v. Webb, 30 Mlsc Rep. (N. Y.) 196—60. Levins v. New York, etc.. R. Co., 183 Mass. 176—704. Levels V. Gale, 17 La. Ann. 302-360. Levy V. Campbell (Tex.), 19 S. W. 438- 655, 657, 812. Levy V. Pontchartrain R. Co., 23 La. Ann. 477—328. Levy V. Southern Express Co., 4 S. C. 234 —288, 293, 486. Levy V. Weir, 38 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 361 —148, 218. Lewark v. Norfolk, etc., R. Co. (N. C). 49 S. E. 882—426. Lewis v. Delaware, etc.. Canal Co., 145 N. Y. 508—679. Lewis v. Flint, etc., R. Co., 64 Mich. 65 —887. Table of Cases. Ixxv (The references are to the pages.) Lewis V. Galena, etc., R. Co., 40 IH. 281 —160. Lewis V. Great Western R. Co., 5 H. & N. 867—219, 312, 325, 334, 766. Lewis V. Houston Eleo. R. Co. (Tex.), 88 S. W. 48»— 646. Lewis V. London, etc., R. Co,, 9 Q. B. 66 —671, 673. Lewis V. Ludwlck, 6 Coldw. (Tenn.) 368 —26, 226. Lewis V. New York Sleeping Car Co., 143 Mass. 267—66, 68, 69, 714, 766. Lewis V. New York Cent. R. Co., 49 Barb. (N. Y.) 330—553. Lewis V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 70 N. J. L. 132—505, 514, 632. Lewis V. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 25 S. C. .249—496. Lewis V. Western R. Corp., 11 Mete. (Mass.) 509—152, 153, 188. Lewlsohn v. National Steamship Co., 56 Fed. 602—311. Lewke v. Dry Dock, etc., R. Co., 46 Hun (N. Y.), 283—808. Lexington Ry. Co. v. Cozlne, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 1137—897. Lexington, etc., R. Co. v. Lyons, 104 Ky. 28—744. Lezinsky v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 88 Fed. 437—640. Libby V. Ingalls, 124 Mass, 503—171, 172. Llbby V. Maine Cent. R. Co., 86 Me. 34— 221, . 678, 606, 611, 612, 642, 663. Llckbarrow v. Mason, 6 East, 21—170, 446. Llefert v. Galveston, etc., R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 57 S. W. 899—211. Llgon V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 3 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. sec. 1 — 426. Llllard V. Mitchell, 3 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. sec. 457—369. Lillis V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 64 Mo. 464—663, 566, 732, 751. Llllstrom V. Northern Pac. R. Co. (Minn.), 20 L. R. A. 687—790. Llmburger v. Westcott, 49 Barb. (N. Y.) 283—720, 754, 756. Lin V. Terre Haute, etc., R. Co., 10 Mo. App. 125—724. Llndsey v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 64 Iowa, 407, 477-801, 866. Llndsley v. Chicago, etc., R. Co,, 36 Minn. 639—396, 610, 633, 534. Llndsey v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 34 Wash. L. Rep. (Feb., 1906), 66—579. Lindley v. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 88 N. C. 547—412, 424, 472, 491. Lincoln Board of Trade v. Burlington, etc., R. Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 96—912, 925. Lincoln Board of Trade v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 98—933. Lincoln St. R. Co. v. Cox, 48 Neb. 807— 786. Lincoln Tract. Co. v. Heller (Neb.), 100 N. W. 197—770. Lincoln St. R. Co. v. McClellan, 54 Neb. 672—44, 655, 770. Lincoln v. New York, etc., S. S. Co., 30 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 753—715. Lincoln V. Walker, 18 Neb. 247—798, 799, 800. Llppman v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 2 Int. Com, Rep. 414—920, 932. Llscomb V. New Jersey, etc., R. Co., 6 Lans, (N. Y.) 75—670. Lister V. Lancashire & Y. Ry., 72 L. J. K. B. 385—236. Lltt V. Cowley, 7 Taunt. 169, 23 Eng. R. Cas. 411—349. Lltt V. Wabash R, Co., 60 App. Div. (N. T.) 650—409. Llttman v. Dry Dock, etc., R. Co., 6 Misc. Rep. (N, Y.) 34—866. Little V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 66 Me. 239 —293, 356, 360, 3^, 399. Little V. Dusenberry, 46 N. J. L. 614—41. Little V. Fargo, 43 Hun (N. Y.), 233—228, 238, 239, 264, 484. Little V. Hackett, 116 U. S. 366—698. Little V. Riley, 43 N. H. 109—312. Llttlejohn V. Jones, 2 McMul. (S. C) 365, 366—9, 10, 19, 53. Little Miami R. Co. v. Wetmore, 19 Ohio St. 110—629, 635. Little Miami, etc., R. Co. v. Washburn, 22 Ohio St. 324—470. Little Rock Tract. & E. Co. v. Nelson, 66 Ark. 494—684, 812, 824. Little Rock, etc., R. Co. v. Atkins, 46 Ark. 423—849. Little Rock, etc., R. Co. v. Bruce, 55 Ark. 66—205. Little Rock, etc., R. Co. v. Cavenesse, 48 Ark. 106—832, 874. Little Rock, etc., R. Co. v. Conatser, 61 Ark. 660—117, 427. Little Rock, etc., R. Co. v. Corcoran, 40 Ark. 355—393. Little Rock, etc., R. Co. v. Cravens, 57 Ark. 112—303, 327. Little Rock, etc., Tel. Co. v. Davis, 41 Ark. 79—73. Little Rock, etc., R. Co. y. Dean, 43 Ark. 529—559, 667. Little Rock, etc., R. Co. v. East Tennes- see, etc, R. Co., 3 I. C. C. 1—450, 927, 929, 930. Little Rock, etc., R. Co. v. Eubanks, 48 Ark, 460—303. Little Rock, etc., R. Co. v. Glidewell, 39 Ark. 487—38, 179. Little Rock, etc., R. Co. v. Hanniford, 49 Ark. 291—205, 206. Little Book, etc., R, Co. v. Harper, 44 Ark. 208—393. Little Rock, etc., R. Co. v. Hunter, 42 Ark, 200—70, 131, 259, 714, 723, 725, 726. Little Rock, etc, R. Co. v. Lawton, 65 Ark. 428—586, 686, Little Rook, etc, R. Co. v. Miles, 40 Ark. 298—672, 652, 666, 779, 817, 864. Little Rock, etc., R. Co. v. Odom, 63 Ark. 326—214, 480, 494. Little Bock, etc., R. Co. v. Record (Ark.), 86 S. W, 421—718, 728. Little Rock, etc., B. Co. v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 59 Fed. 402—454, 924, 928, 929. 930. Little Rock, etc., R. Co. v. St. Louis, etc, R. Co., 41 Fed. 559—431, 450. Little Rock, etc, R, Co. v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 63 Fed. 775—460, 907, 924, 929, 930, 931. Little Rook, etc., R. Co. v, Talbot, 39 Ark. 623—287, 393, 396, 760. Little Rock, etc, R. Co. v. Walker, 64 Ark. 144—640. Livingston v. Miller, 48 Hun (N, Y.), 232 —229. Livingston v. New York Cent., etc, R. Co., 76 N, Y, 631, 5 Hun (N. Y.), 562— 246, 250, 411, 468, 488. ■Liverpool, etc, Steam Co. v. Ins, Co. of N. A,, 129 U. S. 464—373. Liverpool, etc. Steam Co. v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 129 U. S. 397—66, 220, 308, 311, 314, 373, 486, 752, 764. Lloyd v, Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 63 Mo. 609—850, 867. Lobsenz v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Ci., 72 App. Div, (N, Y.) 181—664. Lochner v. New York, 26 S. Ct. 539—909. Ixxvi Table of Cases. (The references are to the pages.) Lockhart v. Llchtenthaler, 46 Pa. St. 151 —699. Locke V. Sioux City, etc., R. Co., 46 Iowa, 109—696. Lockwood V. Manhattan, etc.. Warehouse- man Co., 28 App. Dlv. (N. T.) 68—387. Loeser v. Chicago, etc., R. Co. (Wis), 69 N. W. 372—624, 627, 630. Loeffler V. Keokuk, etc.. Packet Co., 7 Mo. App. 185—213, 419. Loewenberg v. Arkansas, etc., R. Co., 56 Ark. 439—206, 437. Loftus V. Union Ferry Co., 84 N. T. 455, 461—374, 604, 612, 670, 692. Logan V. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 77 Mo. 663—666, 741. Logan V. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 183 Mo. 582—280. Logan V. Mobile Trade Co., 46 Ala. 514— 296. Logan V. Ponchartraln R. Co., 11 Rob. (La.) 24—292, 716, 717, 720. Logwood V. Memphis, etc., R. Co., 23 Fed. 318—623. London, etc., R. Co. v. Bartlett, 7 H. & N. 400—187, 188, 313. London, etc.. Fire Ins. Co. v. Rome, etc., R. Co., 68 Hun (N. T.), 698, 144 N. T. 200—28, 131. 133, 144, 298. Long V. Lehigh Valley R. Co. (U. S. C. C. A. N. T.), 130 Fed. 870—580, 767. Long V. Mobile, etc., R. Co., 51 Ala. 512— 428, 447. Long V. New York Cent. R. Co., 50 N. T. 76—294. Long V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 147 Pa. St. 343—713. Losee v. Watervliet Tump., etc., R. -Co., 63 Hun (N. T.), 404—862. Lord V. Midland R. Co., L. R. 2 C. P. 3S9— 6, 325. Lord V. Steamship Co., 102 TJ. S. 541—910. Loomis V. Jewett, 35 Hun' (N. T.), 313— 750. Loomis V. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 17 Mo. App. 340—183, 194, 367. Lorickio V. Brooklyn H. R. Co., 44 App. Div. (N. T.) 628—797. Lorimer v. St. Paul City R. Co., 120 N. C. 557—604. Loring v. Mulcahey, 3 Allen (Mass.), 675 —216. Lothrop V. Adams, 133 Mass. 471 — 641. Lott V. New Orleans City, etc., R. Co., 37 La. Ann. 337—644. Lotspelch V. Central R., etc., Co., 73 Ala. 306, 306—450, 462. Loud V. South Carolina, etc., R. Co., 4 Int. Com. Rep. 206—911, 913, 914. Loudoun V. Eighth Ave. R. Co., 162 N. T. 380—769, 778. Lough V. Outerbridge, 143 N. T. 271—18 123. Louisiana Nat. Bank v. Lavielle, 62 Mo 380—176. Louisville v. Berg, 17 Ky. L. Rep. 1106— 869. Louisville, etc.. Ferry Co. v. Nolan. 185 Ind. 60—642, 770, 780. Louisville, etc., Mall Co. v. Barnes Admr 26 Ky. L. Rep. 2036—646. Louisville, etc.. Packet Co. v. Bottorff, 26 Ky. L. Rep. 1324—416. Louisville, etc.. Packet Co. v. Rogers 20 Ind. App. 694—173. Louisville & N. R. Co. V. Hall, 19 Ky Law Rep. 1661—684. Louisville Southern R. Co. v. Minogue. 90 Ky. 369-663, 697, 898. s «. m Louisville & N. R, Co. «. Ray, 101 Tenn. 1 — 60, Louisville City R. Co. V. Weams, 80 Ky. 420—653. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Allen, 78 Ala. 494—770. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Ballard, 88 Ky. 159-«6 Ky. 307—637, 897, 901. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Barkhouse, 100 Ala. 643—178, 212. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Behlmer, 175 U. S. 648—917, 933, 934. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Bell, 100 Ky. 203—672, 760. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Bennett & Mor- gan, 26 Ky. L. Rep. 834—614. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Bemhelm, lis Ala. 489—191. Louisville, etc., K. Co. v. Berry, 88 Kj'. 222—805. Louisville, etc., R. Co. T. Bigger, 66 Miss. 319—634. Louisville, etc., R. Co. V. Blsch, 120 Ind. 649—680, 696, T82, 817, 856. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Bourne (Ky.), 29 S. W. 975—488. Louisville, etc., B. Co. v. Buck, 116 Ind. 566—808. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Burke, 6 Coldw. (Tenn.) 45—697. Louisville, etc., B. Co. v. Breckinridge (Ky.), 34 S. W. 702—736. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Brlnley (Ky.), 29 S. W. 305—241, 515. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Brownlee, 14 Bush (Ky.), 690—296, 765, 760. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Bowlds, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 1212—827. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Campbell, 7 Heisk. (Tenn.) 258, 253—272, 453, 463, 488. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Champion, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 87—898. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Case, 9 Bush (Ky.), 728—698. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. S. D. CHiest- nut & Bro., 24 Ky. L. Rep. 1846—481. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Commonwealth (Ky.), 57 S. W. 608-^122. Louisville, etc.. R. Co. v. Conrad, 4 Ind. App. 83—744. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Cowherd, 120 Ala. 51—396. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Craycraft, 12 Ind. App. 203—302, 307, 406. Louisville, etc., B. Co. v. Crayton, 69 Miss. 162—623. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Crumpler, 122 Fed. 425—695. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Crunk, 119 Ind. 542—584, 847, 849, 860. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Cunningham, 88 111. App. 289—338. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Daney, 97 Ala. 338—671, 688. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Dies, 91 Tenn. 177—116, 604. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Du Bose, 120 Qa. 339—625. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Duncan & Orr, 137 Ala. 446—536. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Echols, 97 Ala. 666—137, 386. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. ElUs, 97 Ky. 830—811. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Espenscheld, 17 Ind. App. 668—686. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Falvey, 104 Ind. 409—894. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Faylor, 126 Ind. 126—570, 571, 697, T?8. Louisville, etc.. R. Co. v. Flanagan, 111 Ind, 4SS-92, 69, i;(l, H6, 137. Table of Cases. (The references are to the pages.) Ixxvii Xiouisvllle, etc., R. Co. v. Fleming, 14 Lea. (Tenn.) 128—589, 659, 684, 731, 826, 880, 889, 896. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. FUnn, 16 Ky. L. Rep. 57—632. Xioulsville, etc., R. Co. v. Frazee, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 1273—528. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Ft. "Wayne Electric Co. (Ky.), 55 S. W. SI8— 158. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Gains (Ky.), 36 S. "W. 174—744. Louisville, etc., R. Co. V. Garret, 8 Lea. (Tenn.) 438—736. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Gerson, 102 Ala. 409—6. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Gilbert, 88 Tenn. 430—304, 344, 354, 758. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Gilmer, 89 Ala. 534^184, 399. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Godman, 104 Ind. 490—498, 515, 516. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Grant, 99 Ala. 325—314, 342. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Hailey, 94 Tenn. 383—584. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Harned, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 1661—607, 533. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Harris, 9 Lea. (Tenn.) 180—655. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Hartwell, 99 Ky. 436—155, 160, 420. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Hedger, 9 Bush (Ky.), 645—610, 534. Louisiana, etc., R. Co. v. Hendricks, 128 Ind. 462—600, 778. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Heilprin, 95 111. App. 402—213, 249, 411. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Hull, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 375-^13, 421. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Jackson, 18 Ky. L. Rep. 296—687. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Johnson, 108 Ala. 62, 92 Ala. 204—563, 556, 689, 737, 750. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Johnson, 44 111. App. 56—668, 848. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Johnston, 79 Ala. 436-668. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Jones, 108 111. 551-779. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Jones, 83 Ala, 376, 100 Ala. 263—491, 605, 616, 673, 769, 779, 8S3. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Katzenberger, 16 Lea (Tenn.), 380-712. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Keefer, 146 Ind. 21-11. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Keller, 20 Ky. L. Rep. 957—691. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Kelly, 92 Ind. 371—627, 681, 692, 696, 817, 839. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Kelsey, 89 Ala. 287—342, 3SS. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Kice, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 1462—403. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Kelly, 92 Ind. 371—680. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Kingman, 18 Ky. Law Rep. 82 578. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Klyman (Tenn.), 67 S. W. 472—564. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Landers (Ala.), 33 So. 482—328. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Lee, 97 Ala. 325—850. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Lewis, 14 Ky. L. Rep. 770—687. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Long, 94 Ky. 410—697, 843. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Logan, 88 Ky. 232-«48, 737, 739. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Logsdon, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 1566 ^374. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Lucas, 119 Ind. 583—613, 670, 673, 674. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Mahan, 8 Bush. (Ky.), 184—724, 726. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Manchester Mills, 88 Tenn. 653—285, 347, 377, 393, 395, 761. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Martin, 8 Ky. L. Rep. 432—505. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Mask, 64 Miss. 738—664, 688. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Mason, 11 Lea (Tenn.), 116—399, 401, 402, 412. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. McClain, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 1878-897. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. McCoy, 81 Ky. . 403—898. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. McGuire, 79 Ala. 395—23, 141, 264, 271, 444. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. McEwan (Ky.), 31 S. W. 465—632, 642. lK)UisviIl6, etc., R. Co. v. Meyer, 78 Ala. 697—208, 296. 307, 351, 462, 483, 769. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Miles, 100 Ky. 84—667. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Miller, 141 Ind. 633-883, 893, 902, 903. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Mlnogue, 90 Ky. 369-892, 904. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Natchez, etc., R. Co., 67 Miss. 399—377. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Nicholai, 4 Ind. App. 119—24, 712, 717, 721, 753, 756, 757, 758. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. O'Dlll, 96 Tenn. 61—186, 490. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Oden, 80 Ala. , 38—271, 280, 340, 350, 759. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Orr, 84 Ind. 50 —796. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Owen, 93 Ky. 201—346, 529. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Patterson, 69 Miss. 421—637, 696. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Parke, ■ 96 Ky. 680—666. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Pedigo, 108 Ind. 481—653, 780. Louisville R. Co. v. Phillips, 22 Ky. Law Rep. 842—822. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Queen City Coal Co. (Ky.), 35 S. W. 626—107, 266. Louisville R. Co. v. Rammacher, 21 Ky. ■ L. Rep. 260—677. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Richmond, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 2394—697. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Ricketts, 93 Ky. 116—844. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Ritter, s5 Ky. 368—599, 673, 778, 787, 788. | Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Robblns, 4 Tex. ' App. Civ. Cas. sec. 43—346. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Robinson (Ky.), 36 S. W. 6—615. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Scott's Admr., 22 Ky. Law Rep. 30—587. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Sherrod, 84 Ala. 178—314, 343. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, 2 Duv. (Ky.) 566—779. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Snyder, 117 Ind. 435—596, 663, 770, 883, 894. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Sowell, 90 Tenn. 17—303, 318, 344, 526, 761. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Stacker, 86 Tenn. 343—574, 668, 852. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Steele, 6 Ind. App. 183—626. Ixxviii Table of Cases. (The references are to the pages.) Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Stewart, 56 Fed. 808—811. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Sullivan, 81 Ky. 624—689, 737, 739. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Tarter (Ky.), 33 S. W. 698—459, 475, 481. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Taylor, 126 Ind. 126—753, 761. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Tennessee Brew- ing Co., 96 Tenn. 677—468, 491. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Thompson, 107 Ind. 442—222, 546, 563, 568, 571, 696, 780. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Thompson, 64 Miss. 584—893. Louisville, etc., E. Co. v. Touart, 97 Ala. 614—94, 106, 238, 351, 393. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Trent, 16 Lea (Tenn.). 420, 11 Lea, 82—408, 416, 505. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Turner, 100 Tenn. 213—666, 624. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Walker, 23 Ky. Law Rep. 453—122, 128. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Weaver, 9 Lea (Tenn.), 38—463, 475, 722, 729, 730. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Wilson, 119 Ind. 352, 132 Ind. 517—119, 127, 430, 915. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Wilsey (Ky.), 12 S. W. 276—880, 888. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Witman, 79 Ala. 328—627, 638, 895. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Wolfe, 128 Ind. 347—883, 889, 896. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Wood, 113 Ind. 644—676, 678, 883, 892. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Wurl, 62 III. App. 381--896. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Wynn, 88 Tenn. 320, 230—318, 344, 346, 388, 510, 525, 533. Lowe v. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co., 90 Ga. 86—242, 250. Love V. Rose, 89 Iowa, 400—427. Lovejoy V. Murray, 3 Wall. (U. S.) 1—364. Loveland v. Burke, 210 Mass. 139—33, 152. Lovett V. Hobbs, 2 Show, 127—104, 136, 540. Low V. DeWolf, 8 Pick. (Mass.) 101—177. Lowe V. Martin, 18 111. 286—15. Lowell Wire Fence Co. v. Sargent, 8 Al- . len (Mass.), 189—35, 469. Lowenstein v. Lombard, Ayres & Co., 164 N. T. 324—366, 367. Lowenstien v. Wabash R. Co., 63 Mo. App. 68—506. Lowery v. Manhattan R. Co., 99 N. T. 168—378, 603, 772. Lowery v. Western Union Tel. Co., 60 N. T. 198—814. Lowry V. Mt. Adams, etc., R. Co., 68 Fed. 827—893. Luby V. Hudson R. R. Co., 17 N. T. 131 —812. Lucas V. Burlington, etc., R. Co. (Iowa), 84 N. W. 673—346. Lucas V. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co., 33 Wis. 41—682, 625. Lucas. V. New Bedford, etc., R. Co., 6 Gray (Mass.), 64—830, 848. Lucas V. Nockells, 4 Bing. 729 — 445. Lucas V. Railway Co., 122 Ala. 529—415. Lucas V. Taunton, etc., R. Co., 6 (jray (Mass.), 64—686, 683. Luoesco Oil Co. V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 2 Plttsb. (Pa.) 477—399. Luckel V. Century BIdg. Co., 177 Mo. 608 —664. Lucy V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 64 Minn. 1 —632, 648. Ludwlg V. Meyre, 6 W. & S. (Pa.) 435— 207, 240. Luke V. Lyde, 2 Burr. 887—187. Lundqulst v. Grand Trunk Western Ry. Co., 121 Fed. 916—918. Lundy v. Central Pac. R. C!o., 66 Cal. 191—567. Lycett V. Manhattan Ry. Co., 12 App, Dlv. (N. T.) 326—60. Lygo V. Newbold, 9 Exch. 302—644, 550. Lyle V. Barker, 5 Bin. (Pa.) 457—364. Lynch V. New York Cent., etc., R, Co., S App. Dlv. (N. T.) 458—599. Lynch v. Metropolitan Blev. H. Co., 90 N. T. 77—555, 639. Lyng V. Michigan, 135 U. S. 161—205. Lynn v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 103 CaL 7—661. Lyon V. Erie R. Co., 67 N. Y. 489-312. Lyon V. Mells, 5 Bast, 428—114. Lyon V. Western New York, etc., R. Co., 88 Hun (N. Y.), 27—471. Lyons V. Broadway, etc., R. Co., 32 St Rep. (N. Y.) 232—631, 632. Lyons V. Hill, 46 N. H. 4»-2(l2. M. Mabry v. City Electric R. Co., 116 (3a. 624—889. Mac Andrew v. Electric Tel. Co., 17 C. B. 3—76, 78, 324. MacDonald v. St. Louis Transit Co., 108 Mo. App. 374—853. Machu V. London, etc., R. Co., 2 Exch. 416—139. Mack V. Great Western Despatch, 2 O. C. D. 22-292. Mack V. Los Angeles Tract. Co. (Cal.), t St. Ry. Rep. 19-877. Mackay v. Western Union TeL Co., 16 Neb. 226—422. Mackenzie v. Cox, 9 C. & P. 632—283, 396. Macklin v. New Jersey Steamboat Co., 7 Abb. Pr. N. S. (N. Y.) 229—715, 717. Macklin V. Waterhouse, 5 Bing. 212—360. Mackoy v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 5 Me- Crary (U. S.), 538, 18 Fed. 236-662, 880, 891, 902. Maclennan v. Long Island R. Co., 62 N. Y. Super. Ct. 22—873. Macloon V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 3 Int Com. Rep. 711—922. Macon Consol. St. R, Co. v. Barnes, lli Ga. 212—695, 596, 657. Macon, etc., R. Co. v. Johnson, 38 6a. 409—589, 591, 789, 812, 902, 903. Macon, etc., R. Co. v. Moore, 108 Ga. 84 —661, 867. Macon Ry. & L. Co. v. Vinlng, 120 Ga. 511—686, 853. Macrow v. Great Western R. Co., L. R. 6 Q. B. 612—701, 705. MacVeagh v. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 3 N. M. 205—229, 230, 231, 257. Madan v. Covert, 81 N. Y. 629—281. Madan v. Sherrard, 73 N. Y. 330—27, 291, 1:98, 308, 720. Mad River R. Co. v. Fulton, 20 Ohio, 318 —704. Madden v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 50 Mo. App. 664, 666—675, 770, 780, 849. Madison, etc., R. Co. v. Whltesel, 11 Ind. 65—188. Magar v. Hammond, 54 App. Dlv. (N. Y.) 632-634. Magdeburg General Ins. Co. v. Paulson, 29 Fed. 530—403. Maggioll V. St, Louis Transit Co., 108 Mo. App. 416—842. Maghee v. Camden, etc., R. Co., 45 N. i- 514—169. 468, 477, .oo. Magnin v. Dinsmore, 66 N. Y. 168, 62 N. Y. 36—265, 321, 360, 887, 423, 766. Table of Cases. Ixxix (The references are to the pages.) Magnin v. Dinsmore, 70 N. Y. 410—33, 217, 347, 349, 365, 357, 360. Magoffin V. Missouri Pao. K. Co., 102 Mo. App. 540—578, 778. Magorlc V. Little, 26 Fed. 627—616. Magran v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 183 Mo. 119— 37u, 664, 778. Maguire v. Middlesex R. Co., 116 Mass. 239—802, 829, 861, 868. Maguire V. St. Louis Transit Co. (Mo.), 78 S. W. 838—842. Mahar v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 64 Mo. 267 —700. Mahar v. New Tork Cent., etc., R. Co., 5 App. Div. (N. T.) 22—664, 680. Maher v. Central Park, etc., R. Co., 39 N. T. Super. Ct. 166— «68. Mahon V. Blake, 125 Mass. 477—179, 183, 282. Mahoning Valley R. Co. v. De Pascale, 70 Ohio St. 179—635, 890. Maignan v. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 24 La. Ann. 233—264. Malsels V. Dry Dock, etc., R. Co., 16 App. Div. (N. Y.) 391—812. Malcom v. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 106 N. C. 63-866. Malecek v. Tower Grove, etc., R. Co., 57 Mo. 17— «36. Malhado v. Brooklyn City R. Co., 30 N- Y. 372—680. Mali V. Lord, 39 N. Y. 381—640. Mallard v. Ninth Ave. R. Co., 27 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 801—822. Malone v. Boston, etc., R, Co. Corp., 12 Gray (Mass.), 388—717, 720, 755. Malone v. Metropolitan Express Co., 86 N. Y. Supp. 1039—720. Maloney v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 95 App. Div. (N. Y.)) 393—863. Mallory v. Burritt, 1 B. D. Smith (N. Y.) 234—169, 434, 439, 474. Mallory v. Tioga R. Co., 39 Barb. (N. Y.) 488, affd. 32 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 616— 45, 46, 96. Malott V. Woods, 109 111. App. 612—888. Malpass v. Hestonville, etc., R. Co., 129 Pa. St. 699—866. Maltby v. Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 62 Mich. 108-596. Manahan v. Steinway, etc., R. Co., 125 N. Y. 760—823. Manchester, etc., R. Co. v. Brown, L. R. 8 H. L. 703—324. Manhattan Oil Co. v. Camden, etc., Transp. Co., 64 N. Y. 197—485. Mangam v. Brooklyn R. Co., 38 N. Y. 456—374, 823. Mann V. Birchard, 40 Vt. 326—240, 242, 261, 293, 318, 389, 476, 766, 761. Mann Boudoir Car Co. v. Dupre, 57 Fed. 646—807. Mann v. Pere Marquette R. Co. (Mich.), 97 N. W. 721—316. Mann v. Philadelphia Tract. Co., 175 Pa. St. 122—860. Mann v. White River Log, etc., Co., 46 Mich. 38—73. Manning v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 132 Mass. 116—736. Manning v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 95 Ala. 392—566. Manning v. West End. St. R. Co., 166 Mass. 230—783. Mannon v. Camden Interstate Ry. Co., 3 St, Ry. Rep.' 928—820. Manser v. Eastern Counties R. Co., 3 L. T. N. S. 686—600, 606. Manter v. Holmes, 10 Mete. (Mass.) 402 — 66. Manufacturers', etc., Union v, Minneapo- lis, etc., R. Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 115 —912, 922, 926. Maples V. New York, etc., R. Co., 38 Conn. 667—665, 733, 749. Marande v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 102 Fed. 246—185. Marine Bank v. Wright, 48 N. Y. 1—172, 178. Marine Ins. Co. v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 41 Fed. 643—94, 106, 118, 143, 248. Mariner v. Smith, 6 Helsk. (Tenn.) 208—6. Marion v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 64 Iowa, 568—810. Marion St. Ry. Co. v. Shaffer, 4 Am. Electl. Cas. 458—858. Maris v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 175 N. Y. 409—163. Marmonstein v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 13 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 32—367, 479, 721, 729. Maroney v. Old Colony, etc., R. Co., 106 Mass. 163—766. Marquette v. Kirkwood, 45 Mich. 61—369, 386, 469, 491. Marquette, etc., R. Co. v. Langton, 32 Mich. 261—408. Marquis v. Wood, 29 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 690—322. Marr v. Western Union Tel. Co., 85 Tenn. 642—77, 759. Marriott v. London, etc., R. Co., 1 C. B. N. S. 499—121. Mars V. Delaware, etc.. Canal Co., 64 Hun (N. Y.), 626—375, 697. Marrus v. New Haven Steamboat Co., 30 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 421—158, 332, 336. Marsden Co. v. Bullitt, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 1697—407. Marsh v. Union Pao. R. Co., 3 McCrary (U. S.) 236—401, 439. Marshall v. American Express Co., 7 Wis. 1—148, 192, 194, 201. Marshall v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 48 111. 475—809. Marshall v. York, etc., R. Co., Ill C. B. 655—663. Marshall v. New York Cent. R. Co., 45 Barb. (N. Y.) 602, 48 N. Y. 660—32, 247, 400, 468. Marshall v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 78 Mo. 610, 616—667, 747. Marshall, etc.. Grain Co. v. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 176 Mo. 480—469, 484. Martin v. American Express Co., 19 Wis. 336—482, 486. Martin v, Chicago, etc., R. Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 32—924, 925. Martin v. Fort Worth, etc., R. Co., 3 Tex. Civ. App. 656—142. Martin v. Great Indian Peninsular R. Co., 3 Exch. 9—713. Martin v. McLaughlin, 9 Colo. 153—446. Martin v. New York, etc., R. Co., 103 N. Y. 626—807. Martin v. Second Avenue R. Co., 3 App. Div. (N. Y.) 448—774, 839, 861, 844. Martin v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 65 Ark. 510—118, 134, 142, 143, 378. Martin v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 1—911, 916, 932, 933. Martin v. Southern Ry., 51 S. C. 150—546. Martindale v. Smith, 1 Q. B. 389—444. Martindale v. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 60 Mo. 608—666. Marx V. Louisiana Western R. Co., 112 La. 1085—746. Maslin V. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 14 W. Va. ISO— 30, 38, 344, 510, 515, 673, 764, 75», 761, 762. Ixxx Table of Oases. (The references are to the pages.) Maaon v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 87 U. C. Q. B. 163—260, 4S3, 490. Mason V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 25 Mo. App. 473—601, 616. Mason V. Richmond, etc., R. Co., HI N. C. 482—317. Massachusetts L,. & T. Co. V. Fltchburg R. Co., 143 Mass. 138—406. Massoth V. Delaware & Hudson Canal Co., 64 N. T. 624—790. Masterson v. Macon City, etc., R. Co., 83 Ga. 436—852. Masterson v. Railway Co., 102 Wis. 571— 629. Matter of Application of Clark, 2 Int. Com. Rep. 797—931. Matter of Boston, etc., R. Co., 5 Int. Com. C. Rep. 69—920. Matter of Chicago, etc., R. Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 137—908. Matter of Grand Trunk R. Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 496—637, 920, 935. Matter of Indian Supplies, 1 Int. Com. Rep. 22—938. Matter of Louisville, etc., B. Co., 5 Int. Com. C. Hep. 466—919, 920. Matter of Strauss, 197 U. S. 330—944. Matter of U. S. Commissions of Fish, etc., I Int. Com. Rep. 605—938. Matter of Webb, 8 Taunt. 443—194, 265, 269. Mathieson v. Burlington, etc., R. Co. (Iowa), 100 N. W. 61—873. Matteson v. New York Cent. R. Co., 76 N. T. 381—726, 726. Matteson v. New York Cent. R. Co., 35 N. Y. 487—809, 810, 892. Matthews v. American Cent. Ins. Co., 154 N. Y. 449—336. Mathews v. Charleston, etc., R. Co., 38 S. C. 429—668. Mathews v. Wabash R. Co. (Mo. App.), 78 S. W. 271—621. Mathison v. Staten Island M. R. Co., 72 N. Y. Supp. 954—738. Mathis V. Thomas, 101 Ind. 119—445. Mattingly v. Pennsylvania Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 806—910, 915, 922. Mattison v. New York, etc., R. Co., 67 N. Y. 552—149, 726. Matz V. St. Paul City R. Co. (Minn.), 53 N. W. 1071—868. Maurltz V. New York, etc., R. Co., 23 Fed. 767—701, 702, 703, 706, 717, 718, 720, 728, 729. Maury v. Talmadge, 2 McLean (U. S.), 157—616, 652. Maverick v. Eighth Ave. R. Co., 36 N. T. 378—542, 694, 662, 658. Maying v. Todd, 1 Stark. 72—70, 323, 341. Maximum Rate Case, 167 U. S. 479—907, 908, Maxwell V. Mclvry, 2 Bibb. (Ky.), 211—71. May V. Hanson, 5 Cal. 360 — 52. May V. Ontario, etc., R. Co., 10 Ont. Rep. 70—586. Maybin v. South Carolina, etc., R. Co., 8 Rich. (S. C.) 420—68, 69. Mayell v. Potter, 2 Johns. Cas. (N. Y.) 371—148, 276, 279. Mayer v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 31 U. C. C. P. 248—269. Mayhew v. Eames, 3 B. & C. 601—323. Mayo v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 104 Mass. 137, 142—679, 830, 876. Mayor, etc., of New York v. Starln, 106 N. Y. 1—52. Mayor v. Oregon Short Line Co., 21 Utah, 141—655. MaysvUIe, etc., R. Co. v. Herrlck, 13 Bush. (Ky.) 122—893, 898. McAdoo v. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 105 N C. 140-6. McAbsher v. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 108 N. C. 344—111, 118, 515. McAlan v. Trustees New York, etc., Bridge, 4i App. Dlv. (N. Y.) 374-846, 849. McAlister v. Chicago, etc., B. Co., 74 Mo. 351—96, 231, 233, 378, 422, 454, 504. McAllister V. People's By. Co. (Del.), 54 Atl. 743—598, 617, 657, 697. McAlister v. Southern Pac. Co. (U. S. D. C. N. Y.), Ill Fed. 938—151. McAndrew v. Whitlock, 62 N. Y. 40—196, 209, 246, 264, 274. McArthur v. Sears, 21 Wend. (N. Y.) 190 -«6. McBeath v. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 20 Mo. App. 445—534. McBride v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 19 Oreg. 64—791. McCaffrey v. Twenty-Third St. R. Co., 47 Hun (N. Y.), 404—321. McCaig V. Brie R. Co., 8 Hun (N. Y.), 599—793, 794. McCall V. Forsyth, 4 W. & S. (Pa.) 179- 776. McCann v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 20 Md. 202—488. MoCann v. Eddy, 133 Mo. 69—481. McCann v. Newark, etc., R. Co., 68 N. J. L. 642—684, 826. McCann v. Sixth Ave. R. Co., 117 N. Y. 605—633. McCance v. London, etc., R. Co., 7 H. & N. 477—355. McCarn v. International, etc., R. Ck)., 84 Tex. 352-^82. McCarragher v. Rogers, 120 N. Y. 635— 822. McCarten v. North Eastern R. Co., 64 L. J. Q. B. Div. 44—691. McCarthy v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 102 La. Ann. 193—219, 224, 257, 381, 382, 393, 467. McCarthy v. Terre Haute, etc., R. Co., 9 Mo. App. 169—107, 459, 474, 476, 476. McCarty v. Gulf, etc., R. Co., 79 Tex. 33—109, 112, 332, 337. Mccarty v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. (Mo. App.), 80 S. W. 7—781. Mccarty V. New York, etc., R. Co., 30 Pa. St. 247—262, 282. McCaslin v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 93 Mich. 563—817, 851. McCaslin v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 69 Miss. 136—680. McCauley v. Davidson, 10 Minn. 418—94. McCauley v. Tennessee, etc.. Coal Co., 93 Ala. 356—644. McCawley v. Furnace R. Co., L. R. 8 Q. B. 57—764. McClary v. Sioux City, etc., R. Co., S Neb. 44—257, 772, 788, 881. McClelland v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 94 Ind. 276—688, 73S. McCleneghan v. Brock, 6 Rich. L. (S. C.) 17—540, 542. McCiure v. Hammond, 1 Bay (S. C), 99 —21, 63, 66. MoClure v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 34 Md. 632—669, 664, 566, 732, 743, 749. MoClure V. Richardson, Rice (S. C), 215 —11, 63. McCollom V. Indianapolis, etc., R. Co., 94 111. 534—510. McCombs V. North Carolina, etc., R. Co., 67 N. C. 193—284. McConnell v. Norfolk, etc., R. Co., 86 Va. 248—460. MoCook V. Northup. 65 Ark. 226-624. Table of Cases. (The references are to the pEiges.) Ixxxi HcCormlck v. Hudson Hiver R. Co., 4 E. D. Sm. (N. T.) 181—703, 730. UcCormlck v. Pennsylvania Cent. It. Co., 49 N. T. 303—404. :McCormick v. Pennsylvania Cent. R. Co., 80 N. T. 353-712. mcCormiclc v. Pennsylvania Cent. R. Co., 99 N. T. 65—706, 716, 723. McCosson V. Grand Trunk R. Co., 23 U. C. C. P. 107—269. MoCord V. Atlanta, etc., R. Co. (N. C), 46 S. B. 1031—775, 870. McCoun V. New Tork Cent., etc., R. Co., 66 Barb. (N. T.) 338—801. -McCourt V. London, etc., R. Co., 3 Ir. H. C. L. 107—139. McCoy V. Elrie, etc., Transp. Co., 42 Md. 498—316. JSicCoy V. Keokuk, etc., R. Co., 44 Iowa, 424—287, 510, 633. McCoy V. The K. & D. M. R. Co., 44 Iowa, 424—30. McCranie v. Wood, 24 La. Ann. 406—227. McCrary v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 109 Mo. App. 667—531. McCrary v. Missouri, etc., Ry. Co., 99 Mo. App. 518—607. McCullough V. Hellweg, 66 Md. 269—435. McCullough V. Wabaeh Western R. Co., 34 Mo. App. 23—307. McCune v. Burlington, etc., R. Co., 52 Iowa, 600—316, 344, 360, 622. MoCurrie v. Southern Pac. Co., 122 Cal. 661 —666, 776. McDanlels v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 24 Iowa, 412—220, 308, 499. McBaniel v. Highland Ave. R. Co., 90 Ala. 64—687, 869. JidoDermott v. Boston Blev. Ry. Co., 1 St. Ry. Rep. 325—823. McDermott v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 82 Wis. 246—845. JUcDonald v. Central R. Co. (N. J.), 62 Atl. 405—686. McDonald v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 26 Iowa, 124, 29 Iowa, 170—672, 806, 816, 843. McDonald v. Hospital, 120 Mass. 432—618. McDonald V. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 88 Iowa, 345—665, 679, 845. McDonald v. Long Island R. Co., 116 N. T. 546—666, 674, 678, 680, 683, 844. McDonald v. Montgomery St. R. Co., 11 Ala. 161—770, 799. McDonald v. Western R. Corp., 34 N. T. 497—260, 488, 489. McDonough v. Third Ave. R. Co., 95 App. Div. (N. Y.) 311—660, 853. McDonough v. Metropolitan R. Co., 137 Mass. 210—547, 649, 8S2, 838. McDougal v. Central R. Co., 63 Cal. 431 —798, 799. McDuffee v. Portland, etc., R. Co., 62 N. H. 430, 451-93, 96, 120, -620. McEachran v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 116 Mich. 318—103, 444. McEacheran v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 101 Mich. 264^78. McElroy v. Nashua, etc., ,R. Corp., 4 Cush. (Mass.) 400—697, 653. McElroy V. Railroad Co., 7 Phila. (Pa.) 206—666. McBlveen v. Railway Co., 109 Ga. 249- 461. McEntee v. New Jersey Steamboat Co., 45 N. Y. 34—178, 179, 180, 181, 217. McBwen v. Jeffersonville, etc., R. Co., 33 Ind. 368—172, 176. McPadden v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 92 Mo. 343—300, 303, 316, 344, 608. McFarland v. Wheeler, 26 Wend. (N. T.) 467—15, 431, 441. McGarrahan v. New York, etc., R. Co., 171 Mass. 211—894. McGarry v. Holyoke St. R. Co., 182 Mass. 123—732, 748. McGaw V. Adams, 14 How. Pr. (N. T.) 461—362. MoGee v. Bast, 6 J. J. Marsh (Ky.) 455 —6. McGee V. Consol. St. R. Co., 102 Mich. 107—792. McGee V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 92 Mo. 208, 218—582, 591, 625, 665, 695, 747, 847. McGee v. Railway Co., 71 Mo. App. 314— 429. McGeehan v. Lehigh aViley R. Co., 149 Pa. St. 188—874. MoGill V. Grand Trunk R. Co., 19 Ont. App. 245 — 474. McGill V. Monette, 37 Ala. 49—208. McGill V. Rowland, 3 Pa. St. 451—64, 703. MoGiivray v. West End. St. R. Co. (Mass.), 41 N. E. 116—634. McGinney v. Canadian Pac. R. Co., 7 Manitoba L. Rep. 151—826. McGinnis v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 21 Mo. App. 399—627, 636, 637, 888, 889. McGowen v. Morgan's L., etc., Co., 41 La. Ann. 732—734. McGovern v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 67 N. Y. 417—822. McGowan v. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 96 N. C. 417—245. McGrath v. New Tork, etc., R. Co., 63 N. Y. 522—786. McGrath v. Brooklyn, etc., R. Co., 6 Am. Elect. Cas. 422—858. McGr'.w V. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., IS W. Va. 361—30, 191, 223, 241, 247, 257. McGraw V. Southern Ry. Co., 135 N. C. 264—732. McGreil v. Buttalo Office Building Co.. 153 N. Y. 265—83. McGrew v. Missouri Pac. R. Co.. 109 Mo. 682, 92 Mo. 208—109. McGregor v. Kilgore, 6 Ohio, 358—66, 147, 399. McGregory v. Gill (Tenn.), 86 S. W. 318— 667. McGuinn v. Forbes, 37 Fed. 639—590. McGuire v. Steamship Golden Gate, 1 Mc- All. (U. S.) 104—627. McHenry v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 4 Har. (Del.) 448—65, 63, 264, 270, 411. Mclntire St. R. Co. v. Bolton, 43 Ohio St. 224—688. Mclntyre v. New York Cent. R. Co., 37 N. Y. 287-681, 869, 903. McKay v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 50 Hun (N. Y.), 563—376, 454. McKay v. Ohio River Co., 34 W. Va. 65 YgQ 743 McKee v. Hecksher, 10 Daly (N. T.), 393 —127. MoKee v. Owen, 15 Mich. 115—715. McKee v. St. Louis Transit Co., 108 Mo. App. 470—842. McKean \. Mclvor, L. R. 6 Exoh. 36— 157. McKenzie v. Michigan Cent. R. Co. (Mich.), 100 N. Y. 260—507, 612. McKeon v. Citizens R. Co., 42 Mo. 79— 896. McKeon v. Chicago, etc., R. Co,, 64 Wis. 477—61. McKernan v. Manhattan R. Co., 65 Conn, 201-546. Ixxxii Table of Cases. (The references are to the pages.) McKimble V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 139 Mass. 542—556. McKlnney v. Jewett, 90 N. T. K7— 24, 264, 271, 272, 321. McKlnney v. Neal, 1 McLean (U. S.) 540—615, 776, 801. McKinley v. Chicago, etc., K. Co., 44 Iowa, 314—627, 637, 740. MoKlnstry v. St. Louis Transit Co., 108 Mo. App. 12—853. McKone v. Michigan Cent. B. Co., 51 Mich. 601—584, 613. McKonkey v. Chicago, etc., K. Co., 40 Iowa, 205—700. McLagan v. Chicago, etc., . H. Co. (Iowa), 89 N. W. 233—129, 372. McLarin v. Atlanta, etc., R. Co., 85 Ga. 504—850. McLaren v. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 23 Wis. 138—240, 253. McLean v. Burbank, 11 Minn. 277—781, 864. McLean v. Fleming, L. R. 2 Sc. App. Cas. 128—175. I.icLean v. Rutherford, 8 Mo. 109—10. MoLane v. Sharp, 2 Harr. (Del.), 481— 615. I.IcLeod V Glnther, 80 Ky. 399—810. McLeod V. New York, etc., R. Co., 72 App. Dlv. (N. Y.) 116—626, 638. McMahon v. Macy, 51 N. Y. 155—295. McMahon v. Northern Cent. R. Co., 39 Md. 438—826. ' McMahon V. New York El. R. Co., 50 N. T. Super. Ct. 507—613. McMahon V. Third Ave. R. Co., 15 J. & S. (N. Y.) 282—566. McManus v. Lancashire, etc., R. Co., 4 H. & N. 327—324. McMaster v. Illinois Cent. R. ^Co., 65 Miss. 271—310, McMillan v. American Express Co. (Iowa), 98 N. W. 629—628. McMillan v. Michigan Southern, etc., R. Co., 16 Mich. 79—264, 290, 292, 297, 313, 316, 395, 459. McMorrln v. Canadian Pac. R. Co. (Can.), 1 Ont. Law Rep. 661—325, 328. McMorran v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 604—916, 917, 925. McMurrary v. Pullman's Palace Car Co., 86 Mo. App. 619—58. McMurtry v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 67 Miss. 601—837. McNamara v. Great Northern R. Co., 61 Minn. 296—652. McNamara v. St, Louis Transit Co., 106 Mo. App. 349-842. McNeill V. Durham, etc., R. Co., 135 N. C. 682—542, 670. McNlchol V, Pacific Express Co., 12 Mo. App. 401—200. McNulta V. Ensch, 134 111. 46—665, 847. McNulty V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 182 Pa. St. 479—687. McPadden v. New York Cent. R. Co., 44 N. Y. 478—222, 601, 607, 612. McPherson v. Cox, 86 N. Y. 479—243. McPherson v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 97 Mo. 253— Oil. McPheeters v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 45 Mo. 22—6. McQuade v. Manhattan R. Co., 53 Super. Ct. (N. Y.) 91—669, 676. McQueen v. Central, etc., Pac. R. Co., 30 Kan. 689-586. McQuilken v. Central Pac. R. Co., 64 Cal. 403—814, 830. McQuillen v. Central Pac. R. Co., 50 Cal. 7—800. McRae v. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 88 N. C. 526—566, 589, 691 McSwegan v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 7 App^ Dlv. (N. Y.) 301—208. McVeety v. St. Paiil. etc.. R. Co., 4t Minn. 268—551, 561. Meade v. Boston Elev. Ry. Co. (Mass.), 70 N. E. 197—852. Mearns v. Central R. Co., 163 N. Y. 108 —664. Mears v. New York, etc., R. Co. (Conn.), 52 Alt. 610—210, 303, 330, 388, 481, 485. Medbury v. New York, etc., R. Co., 26 Barb. (N. Y.) 564—249, 4U, 422, 423, 427. Meesel v. Lynn, etc., R. Co., 8 Allen (Mass.), 234—858, 859. Meier v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 4 U. C. C. P. 543—781. Meier v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 64 Pa. St. 225—44. 601. 603, 607, 655, 788. Melbourne v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 88. Ala. 443—6, 185. 187. 451. Melendy v. Barbour. 78 Va. 644—522, 627. Mellier v. St. Louis, etc., Transp. (3o., 14 Mo. App. 281—69, 376, Meloche v, Chicago, etc., R. Co., 116 Mich. 69—132, 134, 142. Mellor V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 103 Mo. 455—678. Meloy V. Chicago, etc., R. Co. (Iowa), 37 N. W. 335—804. Memphis, etc., R. Co. v. Benson, 85 Tenn. 627—590, 695, 807. Memphis, etc.. R. Co. v. HoUoway, 9 Bait. (Tenn.) 1S8— 336, 340. Memphis, etc., R. Co. v. Green. 52 Miss. 779—897, 899. Memphis, etc., R. Co. v. Reeves, 10 Wall. (U. S.) 176—236. 257. Memphis, etc.. R. Co. v. Salinger. 46 Ark. 528—856. Memphis, etc.. R. Co. v. Stringfellow, 44 Ark. 322—665, 847. Memphis, etc., B. Co. v. Whitfield, 44 Miss. 481—613, 670, 672, 673, 682, 880, 891, 896, 899. Memphis, etc.. Packet Co. v. Abell (Ky.), 30 S. W. 668—410. Memphis, etc.. Packet Co. v. McCool, St Ind. 392—775, 776. Memphis St. Ry. Co. v. Graves (Tenn.), 75 S. W. 729—733, 746. Memphis St. R. Co. v. Shaw (Tenn.)> 75 S. W. 713—682, 683, Menaugh v. Bedford Belt. Ry. Co., ,157 Ind. 20—573. Mendenhall v. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 66 Kan. 438—660. Menslng v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., UT Mich. 606—679. Menzell v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 1 DIU. (U. S.) 631—351, 354. Mercantile Mut., etc., Ins. Co. v. Chase. 1 E. D. Smith (N. Y.), 115— S6, 47, 69, 294. Merchant v. South Chicago City Ry. Co., 104 111, App, 122—656, Merchants' Bank v. Union R., etc., Co., 69 N. Y. 374—165, 177. Merchants' Cotton Press, etc., Co, v. In- surance Co. of North America, 151 U- S. 368—162. Merchants' Union v. Northern Pac, R, Co,. 4 Int, Com, Rep, 183—932. Merchants* Wharf Boat Assoc, v. Wood, 64 Miss. 611, 061—313. 457, 489. Merchants Dispatch Trans. Co. v. Bloch, 86 Tenn. 392—47, 318. 388. 463. 482. 759. Merchants Despatch Transp. Co. v. Bolles» 80 111. 473—47, 369, 360, 486. Merchants Dispatch, etc.. Co. v. Com- forth, 3 Colo. 280—47, 287, 760. Table of Cases. (The references are to the pases.) Ixxxiii Merchants' Despatch Transp. Co. v. Furthmann, 149 111. 66—297, 306, 310. Merchants' Despatch Transp. Co. v. Hallook, 64 111. 284—190, 262. Merchants' Despatch Transp. Co. v. Hately, 14 Can. Sup. Ct. 672—464, 487. Merchants' Despatch Transp. Co. v. Joesting, 89 111. 163—291 315. Merchants' Despatch Transp. Co. v. Kahn, 76 111. 520—103. Merchants' Despatch Transp. Co. v. Leysor, 89 111. 43—297, 316. Merchants' Despatch, etc., Co. v. Mer- riam. 111 Ind. 5— 162i_ 281. Merchants' Despatch,' etc., Co. v. Moore, 88 111. 136—260, 262, 322, 478. Merchants' Despatch Transp. Co. v. Theilbar, 86 111. 71—697, 316, 322. Merdock v. Dumner, 22 Pick. (Mass.) 166 —402. Meriwether v. Kansas City Cable E. Co., 46 Mo. App. 628—676. Merriam v. Hartford, etc., R. Co., 20 Conn. 354—92, 131, 133, 138. Merriman v. Great Northern Express Co., 63 Minn. 643—34, 234. Merritt v. Barle, 29 N. T. 116—24, 27, 126, 256, 376. Merritt v. Old Colony, etc., E. Co., 11 Allen (Mass.), 82—144. Merrick v. Gordon, 20 N. T. 96—493. Merrick V. Brainard, 38 Barb. (N. T.) 574—362. Merrill v. American Express Co., 62 N. H. 614—296, 317, 336, 763. Merrill v. Eastern R. Co., 139 Mass. 238 —661. Merrill v. Grinnell, 30 N. T. 694—39, 702, 703, 704, 712. Merrill v. Metropolitan St. Ey. Co. (N. Y.), 73 App. Div. 401—657, 662. Mershon v. Hobensaok, 22 N. J. L. 372— 18, 619. Merwin v. Butler, 17 Conn. 138—66, 192. Merwin v, Manhattan E. Co.. 48 Hun (N. T.), 608—857. Meserole v. Brooklyn City E. Co., 57 Hun (N. Y.), 691—878. Messenger v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 37 N. J. 1,. 631, 36 N. J. L. 407—37, 92, 95, 120. 123. Messerno v. Nashville R. Co., 1 Sneed. (Tenn.) 220—699. Metcalt V. Baker, 2 J. & S. (N. T.) 10— 698. Metcalf V. McLaughlin, 122 Mass. 84—216. Mettlestadt v. Ninth Ave. R. Co., 4 Robt. (N. T.) 377—837. Metropolitan R. Co. v. Collins, 1 App. Cas. (D. C.) 383—811, 812. Metropolitan R. Co. v. Falvey (D. C. App.), 23 Wash. L. Rep. 63—604. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co. v. Hanson, 1 St. Ry. Rep. 234—696, 666. Metropolitan St. Ry Co. v. Ryan, 3 St. Ry. Rep. 269—877. Metropolitan Trust Co. v. Toledo, etc., B. Co., 107 Fed. 628—626, 527. Metropolitan R. Co. v. Snashall, 3 App. D. C. 420—770, 771, 777, 790, 864. Metz v. Buffalo, etc., R. Co., 58 N. Y. 61 —41. Metz v. California Southern R. Co., 86 Cal. 229—703. , „„ Metz V. St. Paul City B. Co. (Ulnn.), 92 N. W. 602— ■;92. Meuer v. Chicago, etc., K. Co., 6 S. Dak, 568—753, 766, 757, 762. Mexican Cent. E. Co. V. Lauricella, 87 Tex. 277—778. Mexican Nat. R. Co. v. Ware (Tex. Clv. App.), 60 S. W. 343—703. Meyer v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 24 Wis. 566—272, 382. Meyer ^. Dresser. 16 C. B. (N. S.) 646— 176. Meyer v. Harnden's Express Co., 24 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 290-313. Meyer v. Lemcke, 31 Ind. 208—199. Meyer v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 2 Neb. 320 — 61L Meyer v. Second Ave. R. Co., 21 N. T. Super. Ct. 306—647. Meyer v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 64 Fed. 116—622, 642, 662, 683. Meyer v. Vicksbburg, etc., R. Co., 41 La. Ann. 639—138, 260. Meyerstein v. Barber, L. R. 44 L. 317—176. Miami Power Co. v. Port Royal, etc., R. Co., 38 S. C. 78—213, 406, 407. Michaels v. New York Cent. R. Co., 30 N. T. 664—24, 47, 220, 266, 392, 456, 464, 516. Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Boyd, 91 111. 268. —307, 310. Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Burrows, 33 Mich. 6—32, 106, 106, 107, 125, 233, 247, 267, 456. Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Carrow, 73 111. 348—703, 706, 708, 712, 809. Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 1 111. App. 399—232. Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Coleman, 2S Mich. 440—84, 664, 667, 690, 833. Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Curtis, 80 111. 324—31, 239, 240, 242, 456. Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Hale, 6 Mich. 243—268, 280, 294, 316, 489. Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. L,antz, 32 Mich. 502—280, 489. Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Mineral Springs Mtg. Co., 16 Wall. (U. S.) 318—259, 277, 280, 292, 295, 461, 4SS, 483, 489, 729. Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Phillips, 60 III. 190—172, 177. Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Smithson, 45 Mich. 212—96. Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Ward, 2 Mich. 538—280, 316. Michigan Southern, etc., R. Co. v. Bivens, 13 Ind. 263—198, 201. Michigan, etc., R. Co. v. Caster, 13 Ind. ■ 164—406, 411. 459. Michigan Southern, etc., R. Co. v. Day, 20 III. 376—147, 186, 239, 242, 470, 473. Michigan Southern, etc., R. Co. v. Heaton, 37 Ind. 448—315, 343. Michigan Southern R. Co. v. McDonough, 21 Mich. 166—99, 497, 611, 616. Michigan Southern R. Co. v. Oehm, 55 111/ 293—702, 708. Michigan Southern, etc., R. Co. v. Shurtz, 7 Mich. 616—70, 131, 259, 284. Midland Nat. Bank v. Missouri Pac. R, Co.. 132 Mo. 492—167, 168, 176. Mierson v. Hope, 2 Sweeny (N. Y.), 561 —193, 229, 274. Miles v. James, 1 McCord (S. C), 157—52, 66, 131. Millard v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 86 N, T. 441—708. Miller v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 89 App. Div. (N. Y.) 457—882, 885. Miller V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 1 Mo. App. Rep. 474—243, 368, 369. Miller V. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 90 N. Y. 430—387. Miller V. King, 166 N. Y. 394—882. Miller V. Mansfield, 112 Mass. 260—15, 280, 284, 429. Ixxxiv Table of Cases. (The references are to the pages.) Miller v. Ocean Steamship Co., 118 N. Y. 211, 199—695, . 780, 782. Miller v. Pendleton, S Gray (Mass.), 674— 62. Miller V. Eailroad Co., 88 Ga. 563-429. Miller V. South Carolina R. Co., 33 S. C. 369^88. Miller V. South Covington & C. St. Ry. Co., 1 St. Ry. Rep. 246—664. Miller V. Southern Ry. Co., 69 S. C. 116 Miller V. Steam Nav. Co., 10 N. T. 431 —489. Miller V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 5 Mo. App. 471—778, 782, 872. Miller V. Texas, etc., R. Co., 83 Tex. 518 —206, 460, 492, 493, 494. Miller V. Truesdale, 56 Minn. 274—793. MlUigan V. Grand Trunk R. Co., 17 XJ. C. C. P. 115—204. Milliman v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 66 N. T. 643—660, 738, 829. Milliman v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 4 Hun (N. T.), 409—621, 669, 669, 829. Mills v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 45 N. T. 622—142, 186, 246, 260, 263, 280, 312, 313, 466, 489. Mills V. Misssourl, etc., R. Co. (Tex.), 59 S. W. 574—837. Mills V. National Steamship Co., 5 N. T. Supp. 258—198. Mills V. Weir, 82 App. Div. (N. T.) 396— 462, 480. Milne v. Douglass, 4 McCrary (U. S.), 368^93. Milnor v. New York, etc., R. Co., 53 N. Y. 363—729. Milloy V. Grand Trunk R. Co., 23 Ont. Rep. 464, 21 Ont. App. 404—70, 71, 259, 265. Miltimore v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 37 Wis. 190—377, 503. Milton V. Denver, etc., R. Co., 1 Colo. App. 307—223, 314. Milwaukee Chamber of Commerce v. Chi- cago, etc., R. Co., 7 Int. Com. Rep. 48 —922. Milwaukee Chamber of Commerce v. Flint, etc., R. Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 393—919, 923, 933. Milwaukee Malt Ext. Co. v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 73 Iowa, 98—100. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co. v. Arms, 91 TJ. S. 494—6, 375, 419, 697, 762, 898. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co. v. Falrchild, 6 Wis. 403—265, 281. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co. v. Finnney, 10 Wis. 388—628, 811, 901. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co. v. Hunter, 11 Wis. 160—799. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, 74 III. 197—310, 462. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Home In- surance Co., 56 Minn. 236—300, 373. Minor v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 19 Wis. 40 —725, 726. Minor v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 21 App. Div. (N. Y.) 307—686, 687. Minock v. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 97 Mich. 426—666. Mlnter v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 82 Mo. App. 130—614, 630. Mlnter v. Paoiflo R. Co., 41 Mo. 508—139, 140, 701. Minter v. Southern Kansas R, Co., 66 Mo. 282-367. Missouri, etc., Co. v. Cape Girardeau, etc., R. Co., 1 Int. Com. Rep. 607—910. Misssourl Coal, etc., Co. v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 36 Mo. 84—140. Missouri Furnace Co. v. 'Abend, 107 111, 44 —797. Missimer v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 17 Phila. (Pa.) 172—601, 643. Mississippi Val. Transp. Co. v. Fosdick Mann. Unrep. Cas. (La.) 3 — 428. Mississippi, etc., R. Co. v. Harrison, 66 Miss. 419—681. Mississippi Cent, R. Co. v. Kennedy, 41 Miss. 671—37, 703, 705, 706, 708, 710. Mississippi Cent. R. Co. v. Miller, 40 Mis^ 46—802. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Beard (Tex. Civ. App.), 78 S. W. 253—134. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Belcher, 88 Tex. 549—422. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Chittin (Tex. Civ. App.), 60 S. W. 284—519. Misssourl, etc., Ry. Co. v. Clark (Tex. Civ. App.), 79 S. W. 827—504. Misssourl, etc., R. Co. v. Clifton (Tex. Civ. App.), 80 S. W^. 386—414. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Cobb (Tex. Civ. App.), 36 S. W. 600—409. ^ Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Darlington (Tex. Civ. App.), 30 S. W. 251—412. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Davidson (Tex. Civ. App.), 60 S. W. 278-222. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Dilworth (Tex.), 67 S. W. 88—536. Missouri R. R. Co. v. Evans, 71 Tex. 361—738. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Flood (Tex. Civ, App.), 70 S. W. 1106—600, 602, 761, 903. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Graves (Tex. App.), 16 S. W. 102—108, 109, U2, 337, 497. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Hewett, 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. sec. 273—420. Misssourl, etc., K. Co. v. Huff (Tex. Civ. App.), 78 S. W. 249, 81 S. W. 525 —581, 788. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Kirkham (Kan.), 65 Pac. 261—525. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Mazzie (Tex. Civ. App.), 68 S. W^. 56—452, 468. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. McFadden, 89 Tex. 138—94, 133, 163, 248. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Miller, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 241—586. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Olive (Tex. Civ. App.), 23 S. W. 626—261. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Quinn (Tex. Civ. App.), 29 S. W. 404—413. Missouri, etc., R. Co. V. Rines & Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 84 S. W. 1092-419. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Sanders, 12 Tex. Civ. App. 5—809. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Seley, 31 Tex Civ. App. 168—163, 179. 211. 215. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Simmons (Tex. Civ. App.), 33 S. W. 1096—550. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Tarwater (Tex , Civ. App.), 75 S. W. 937—889. Missouri, etc.. R. Co. v. Truskett, 186 U. S. 479—405, 613, 621. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Truskett (lad. T.), 53 S. W. 444—251. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Trinity County Lumber Co., 1 Tex. Civ. App. 553—367, 430, 936. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v Turley, 86 Fed. 3g9 873, Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Wells (Tex. Civ. App.), 68 S. W. 842—364, 636. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Williams, 91 Tex. 255—646. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Wood (Tex. Civ. App.), 31 S. W. 237, 81 S. W. 1187- 374, 601. Table of Cases. Ixxxv (The references are to the pages.) Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Aiken, 71 Tex. 373—673, 894. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Barnes, 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. sec. 674—224, 399, 406. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Breeding, 4 Tex. .\pp. Civ. Cas. sec. 164—391, 426. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Carter, 9 Tex. Civ. App. 677—302, 631, 907. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Carpenter, 44 Kan. 257—369. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 25 Fed. 317—45, 197, 260, 266, 269. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Childers (Tex. Civ. App.), 29 S. W. 569—338. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. China Mfg. Co., 79 Tex. 26—318, 389, 394, 396. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Coiiier, 62 Tex. 318—803. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Cornwall, 70 Tex. 611—30, 32, 247, 318, 339, 607, 630, 759. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Creath, 3 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. sec. 84—460. MLssouri Pac. R. Cj. '.■, Curtis, 3 Tex. Civ. App. Cas. sec. 311—692. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Divinney, 66 Kan. 770—628, 634. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Douglass, 2 Tex. App. Civ, Cas. sec. 28—142, 386, 390. Missouri Pao. R. Co. v. Edwards, 78 Tex. 307—360, 612, 636. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Fagan, 72 Tex. 127—30, 300, 360, 406, 427, 606, 610, 522. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Fenneii, 79 Tex. 448-531. Missouri Pac. R. Co. V. Foreman, 73 Tex. 311—657, 771, 794, 833. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. German, 84 Tex. 141—401. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Groesbeclc (Tex. Civ. App.), 24 S. W. 702—460. Missouri Pac. K. Co. v. Hall, 66 Fed. 868-94. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Harris, 67 Tex. 166—18, 30, 318, 336, 337, 338, 630, 759. Missouri Pac. R. Co. V. Haynes, 72 Tex. 175—150, 266, 270, 273. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Harmonson, 4 Tex. Civ. App. Cas. sec. 91—112. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Heath (Tex.), IS S. W. 477—512. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Heidenheimer, 82 Tex. 196—170, 177, 208. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Holcomb, 44 Kan. 332—582. Missouri Pac. R. Co. V. International Ma- rine Ins. Co., 84 Tex. 149—373. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Ivey, 71 Tex. 409—8, 318, 572, 673, 764, 768, 811, 812. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Ivy, 79 Tex. 444 —609, 631. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Jarrard, 66 Tex. 560-892. Missouri Pac. R. Co. V. Johnson, 72 Tex. 96—611, 612. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Kaiser, 82 Tex. 144-895. Missouri Pac. R. Co. V. Kingsbury (Tex. Civ. App.), 25 S. W. -323—636, 537. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Levi, 4 Tex, App. Civ. Cas. see. 8—227, 266. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Long, 81 Tex. 253—613, 670, 679, 845. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Martino, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 634—744, 890. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. McCally, 41 Kan. 639—798. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. McFadden, 154 U. S. 156—143. Missouri Pac. R. Co. .. McGrath, 3 Kan. App. 220—411. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Mitchell, 76 Tex. 77, 72 Tex. 171—612, 664, 802, 804, 894, 899, 900. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Neiswanger, 41 Kan. 621—804, 873. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. L. Newberger & Bro. (Kan.), 73 Pac. 57—147. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Nevlll, 60 Arlc. 375—229, 264. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Nevln, 31 Kan. 385—422. Missouri Pac. R, Co. v. Northern, 73 Tex. 27—670. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Paine, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 621—337, 338, 416, 614. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Riggs (Kan. App.), 62 Pac. 712—260. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Rushing, 3 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. sec. 317—410. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Russeil (Tex.), 18 S. W. 594-^12. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Ryan, 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. sec. 430—350. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Scott, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 77—389, 770. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v, Sherwood, 84 Tex, 125—309, 353, 402. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Shuford, 72 Tex. 165—899. Missouri Pao. R. Co. v. Smith (Tex.), 16 S. W, 803—319, 630, Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Stuits, 31 Kan. 752—369. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v, Texas, etc., R. Co., 36 Fed. 879, 30 Fed. 2—836. 915. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 41 Fed. 913—286, 506, 608, 631, 632. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 31 Fed. 862—110, 933. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Twiss, 36 Neb. 267 —469, 472, 476, 482. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. United States, 189 U. S. 274—939. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Watson, 72 Tex. 631—833. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Weaver, 16 Kan. 456—626. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Weissman, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 86—100, 102, 240, 464, 460, 467. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v, Wichita, etc.. Grocery Co., 65 Kans, 226, 525—86, 264, 883. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Wortham, 73 Tex. 25—613. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Torlc, 2 Tex. Civ. App. Cas. sec. 638—367, 704, 705, 709. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Toung, 25 Neb. 651—449, 488. Mitchell V. Carolina C. R. Co., 124 N. C. 236—396. Mitchell V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 61 Mich. 236—663, 666, 771, 847. Mitchei V. Ede, 11 Aid. & El. 888—160, 188. Mitchell V. Georgia R. Co., 68 Ga. 644— 315, 510. Mitchell V. Lancashire, etc., R. Co., L. R. 10 Q. B. 256—194, 266, 278, 284. Mitchell V. Marker, 62 Fed. 139—85. Mitchell V. Southern Pac. R. Co., 87 Cal. 62—779, 812, 816, 820, 856, 857. Mitchell V. United States Express Co., 46 Iowa, 214—303, 395. Mitchell V. Weir, 19 App. Div. (N. T.) 183—197. Mitchell v. Western, etc., R. Co., 30 Ga. 22—669, 771. Moakler V. Willamette Valley R. Co., 18 Or, 189—815. Mobile, etc., R. Co, v, Ashcraft, 48 Ala. 15—804, 811, 812. Mobile, etc., R. Co, v. Copeland, 63 Ala. 210—462. Ixxxvi Table of Cases. (The references are to the pages.) Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. Dale, 61 Miss. 206 —785. Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. Sismukes, 94 Ala. 131—936. Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. Francis (Miss.), 9 So. 608—459, 481. Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. Franks, 41 Miss. 494—316. Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. Hopkins, 41 Ala. 486-4, 242, 287, 712, 717, 725, 753, 759, 766. Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. Jay, 65 Ala. 113— 798. Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. Jarboe, 41 Ala^ 644—292, 314. Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. Jurey, HI U. S. 684, 147 U. S. 391—398, 405, 406. Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. Klein, 43 III. App. 63—811. Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. McArthur, 43 Miss. 180—626, 687, 887. Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. Mullins, 70 Miss. 730—506. Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. Prewltt, 46 Ala. 63—37, 169, 264, 384. Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. Reeves, 25 Ky. Rep. 2236—675, 885. Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. Tupelo Furniture Mtg. Co., 67 Miss. 36—459, 491. Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. Welner, 49 Miss. 726—24, 288, 292, 755. Mock V. Lios Angeles Tract. Co., 1 St. Ry. Rep. 19 (Cal.) 73 Pao. 466—601. Moebus V. Herrman, 108 N. T. 353—823. MofCatt V. Great Western, etc., R. Co., 15 L. T. N. S. 630—14, 179, 260, 497, 512. Moglll V. Central R. of N. J., 25 Pa. Super. Ct. 164—718. Mogul S. S. Co. V. McGregor, Gow & Co., L. R. 21 Q. B. 644—124. Mohawk, etc., R. Co. v. Nlles, 3 Hill (N. T.), 162—494. Mohr V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 40 Iowa, 579 —262, 269, 270. Mohnke v. New Orleans City, etc., R. Co., 104 La. 411—599. Molloy V. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 10 Daly (N. T.), 453—630. Montgomery v. Buffalo Ry. Co., 165 N. Y. 139—700. Montgomery, etc., R. Co. v. Boring, 51 Ga. 682—879. Montgomery, etc., R. Co. v. Culver, 75 Ala. 587—462, 491, 712, 728, 730. Montgomery, etc., R. Co. v. Edmonds, 41 Ala. 667—314, 377, 402. Montgomery, etc., R. Co. v. Kolb, 73 Ala. 396—138, 140, 141. Montgomery, etc., R. Co. v. Moore, 61 Ala. 394—391, 392, 462. Montgomery, etc., R. Co. v. Stewart, 91 Ala. 421—667, 674, 816, 817, 836. Montgomery, etc., R. Co. v. Thompson, 77 Ala. 448—584. Montgomery El. R. Co. v. Mallette, 92 Ala. 209—656, 779, 883, 892. Montgomery St. Ry. Co. v. Shanks, 139 Ala. 489—808. Monitor Mut. F. Ins. Co. v. Buffum, 115 Mass. 343—296. Monk V. Town of New York, 104 N. Y. 552—829. Monnler v. New York, etc., R. Co., 175 N. Y. 281, 70 App. Dlv. 405—736, 897. Monroe v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 79 App. Dlv. (N. Y.) 687—836. Montelth v. Merchants Despatch, etc., Co., 1 Ont. Rep. 47—416. Moore v, American Transp. Co., 24 How. (II. S.) 1—754. Moore v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 103 Va. 189—514. Moore v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 69 Miss. 243—811. Moore v. Columbia, etc., R. Co., 38 S. C. 1—563, 732, 749, 751. Moore v. Des Moines, etc., R. Co., 69 Iowa, 491—663, 780. Moore V. Evans, 14 Barb. (N. Y.) 524— 294, 319, 687, 763. Moore v. Erie R. Co., 7 Lans. (N. Y.) 39 —204. Moore v. Fitchburg R. Corp., 4 Gray (Mass.), 465—637, 748. Moore V. Great Northern R, Co., L. R. 10 Ir. 95—611. Moore V. Great Western R. Co., L. R. 8 Ir. 95—335. Moore V. Henry, 18 Mo. App. 35—437, 472, 473. Moore V. Hitchcock, 4 Wend. (N. Y.) 292 —16. Moore v. Metropolitan R. Co., L. R. 8 Q. B. 36—629, 630, 640. Moore V. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 3 Mich. 23-181, 489. Moore V. Midland R. Co., 25 W. R. 63— 325. Moore v. Saginaw, etc., R. Co., 119 Mich. 613—834, 868. Moore V. Shreveport, 3 La. Ann. 645—796. Moore V. Wabash, etc., R, Co.. 84 Mo. 481 —614. Moody V. Springfield St. Ry. Co. (Mass.), 65 N. E. 29—860. Moon V. Interurban St. Ry. Co., 86 N. T. Supp. 363—746. 897. Moorman v. Atchison, etc., R. Co. (Mo. App.), 78 S. W. 1098—660. Mooney v. Hudson River R. Co., 1 Sweeny (N. Y.), 325—893. Moran Bros. -Co. v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 19 Wash. 266 102. Morehouse v. Texas Trunk R. Co., 4 Tex. Civ. App. Cas. sec. 266—109. Morel v. Mississippi Valley L. Ins. Co., 4 Bush. (Ky.) 535—782. Moreland v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 141 Mass. 31—695, 613. Morgan v. Camden, etc., R. Co. (Pa.), 16 Atl. 353—844. Morgan v. Dibble. 29 Tex. 107—195, 207. Morgan v. Ide, 8 Cush. (Mass.) 420—364. Morgan v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 95 Cal. 601—867, 880, 892, 902, 904. Money v. Hay, 3 M. & R. 696—441. Morlarty v. Harnden's Express, 1 Daly (N. Y.), 227-11, 313. Morltz V. Interurban St. Ry. Co., 84 N. Y. Supp. 162—632. Morris v. Atlantic Ave. R. Co., 116 N. Y. 687—588. Morris, etc., R. Co. v. Ayres, 29 N. J. L- 393—210, 260, 273, 282, 285, 590. Morris v. Brown, 111 N. Y. 318—544. Morris V. Eighth Ave. R. Co., 68 Hun (H Y.), 39—866. Morris V. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 106 N. Y. 678—596, 613, 660, 693. 772. Morris v. Third Ave. R. Co., 1 Daly (N. Y.), 202—714, 716, 725. Morrison v. Broadway, etc., R. Co., 130 N. Y. 166, 8 N. Y. Supp. 436—676, 8o». Morrison v. Charlotte, etc., R. Co., 123 N. C. 414—677. Morrison v. Davis, 20 Pa. St. 171-48, 225, 248, 257, 276, 416. Morrison v. Erie Ry. Co., 56 N. Y. 310-863. Morrison v. Erie R. Co., 56 N. Y. 305-680, 828, 830, 847, 849, 850, 851, 86S. Morrison v. N. Y. Cent., etc., R. Co., K N. Y. 643—790. Table of Oases. Ixxxvii (THe references are to the pages.) Vorrlson v. Phillips, etc., Constr. Co., 44 Wis. 406—295, 296, 319, 499, 610. Morrow v. Atlanta, etc., Air Line R. Co. (N. C), 46 S. B. 12—848. Morrow V. Pullman Palace Car Co., 98 Mo. App. 361—56. Morrvllle v. Great Northern K. Co., t.. Jur. 628—324. Morse V. Auburn, etc., R. Co., 10 Barb. as. T.) 625, 621—880, 891. Morse v. Brainerd, 41 Vt. 551. 550—41, 472, 474. Morse V. Canadian Pac. R. Co., 97 Me. 77—287, 328, 524. Morse V. Duncan, 14 Fed. 396—884, 885, 894. Morse v. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co.. 30 Minn. 465—384, 803, 804, 80S. Morse V. Slue, 1 Vent. 190, 238—65, 226, 294. Mortland v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 81 Hun (N. T.), 473—725. Morton v. Tlbbett, 15 Q. B. 428—92. Moseland v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 141 Mass. 31—665. Moseley v. Lord, 2 Conn. 389— 8, 202. Moser v. South Covington & C. St. Ry. Co., 1 St. Ry. Kep. 240—860. Moses V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 24 N. H. 71 -24, 60, 63, 70, 94, 135, 245, 268, 290, 292, 341, 369. 664, 761. Moses V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 32 M, H. 623—263, 269, 271, 765. Moses V. Port Townsend Southern R. Co., 5 Wash. 595—169, 439, 502. Moses V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 39 La. Ann. 649—660, 670, 679. Moses V. Norris, 4 N. H. 304—22, 61, 63. Moskowitz V. Brooklyn H. R. Co., 86 N". T. Supp. 960—863. Moskowitz V. Interna tio;rial Nav. Co., 84 N. T. Supp. 297—711, 712. Moss v. Bettis, 4 Heisk. (Tenn.) 661—21, 62. Moss v. Johnson, 22 III. 633—686. Mosher v. Southern Express Co., 3S Ga. 37—462. Mote V. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 27 Iowa, 22 149, 283, 724, 727. Mott V. Consumers' Ice Co., 73 N. T. 543 —631. Mctt V. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 120 Mich. 127—808. Mott V. Hudson River R. Co., 8 Bosw. (N. T.) 345—698. Motteram v. Eastern Counties R. Co., 7 C. B. N. S. 58—591. Moulton V. St. Paul, etc., R. Co.. 31 Minn. 85—316, 345, 630. Mouton V. Louisville, etc., R. Co. (Ala.), 29 So. 602—303. 387, 388. Mullarkey v. Philadelphia R. Co.. 9 Phila. (Pa.) 114—460. Mowrey v. Central City R. Co., 66 Barb. (N. T.) 43—599, 824. Mowrey v. Central City R. Co., 61 N. T. 666—822, 827. Mowrey v. Western Union Tel. Co., 51 Hun (N. T.), 126—77. Moyland v. Second Ave. R. Co., 128 N. T. 583-838, 841. Moynahan v. Moore, 9 Mich. 9 — 444. Morgan v. Congdon. 4 N. T. 552 — 15. Mt. Adams, etc., R. Co. v. Isaacs, 18 Ohio C. C. 177—782. Mt. Pleasant Mfg. Co. v. Cape Fear, etc., R. Co., 106 N. C. 207-^94. Mt. Vernon Co. v. Alabama G. S. R. Co., 92 Ala. 296-488. Muckle v. Rochester R. Co., 79 Hun (N. Y.), 32—688, 743, 745. Muddle V. Stride, 9 Car. & P. 380—396. Mudgett V. Bay State Steamboat Co.. 1 Daly (N. T.), 151—715. Muehlhausen v. St. Louis R. Co., 91 Mo. 332—550. 662, 563, 560, 582. Mueller v. St. Louis Transit Co., 3 St. Ry. Rep. 567—632. Mulcalrns v. Jamesvllle, 67 Wis. 24—772. Muldoon V. Seattle City R. Co., 7 Wash. 528, 10 Wash. 311—580, 719, 754, 761, 764, 766, 858. Mulhado v. Brooklyn City R. Co., 30 N. T. 370—674. Mullady v. Brooklyn H. R. Co., 65 App. Dlv. (N. T.) 549-904. Muller v. Second Ave. R. Co., 16 J. & B. (N. T.) 64S— 777. Muller V. Bno, 14 N. T. 597—402. Mullan V. Wisconsin Cent. Co., 46 Minn. 474-641. Mulligan v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 36 Iowa, 181—295, 296, 306, 463. 481, 483. Mulligan V. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 87 App. Dlv. (N. T.) 320. 89 App. Div. 207— 838, 842. Mulligan V. Northern Pac. R. Co., 4 Dak. 315—71, 269, 280, 370, 725. Mulligan V. New York, etc., R. Co., 129 N. Y. 512, 606—631, 634, 638. Mullins V. Chickering, 110 N. Y. 514—156, 363. Munks V. Jackson, 66 Fed. Rep. 571—50. Munster v. South Eastern R. Co., 4 C. B. N. S. 676—100, 703. Munn V. Baker, 2 Stark. 255—299. Munn V. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113—61, 908. Munroe v. Third Ave. R. Co., 18 J. & S. (N. Y.) 114—838. Murch v. Concord R. Corp., 29 N. H. 9, 28—39, 640, 609. Murdock v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 133 Massr 16, 137 Mass. 293—639. 744. Murnahan v. Cincinnati, etc.. R. Co. (Kyc L. Rep.), 86 S. W. 688—853. Murphy v. Atlanta, etc., R. Co., 89 Ua. 832—660, 776. Murphy v. City of Dayton, 7 Ohio, N. P. 227—610. Murphy v. Coney Island, etc., R. Co., -^6 Hun (N. Y.), 199—776. Murphy v. Emigration Comrs.. 28 N. Y. 164—726. Murphy v. Holbrook, 20 Ohio St. 137—40, 41. Murphy v. Rome, etc., R. Co., 32 St. Rep. (N. T.) 381-861. Murphy v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 19 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 194—676. Murphy v. Ninth Ave. R. Co., 6 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 298—599. Murphy v. Nevf York Cent. R. Co., 6B Barb. (N. Y.) 125—803, SOS. Murphy v. North Jersey St. Ry. Co. ifN. J. L.), 58 Atl. 1018—842. Murphy v. Staton, 3 Munf. (Va.) 239—25, 66, 389. Murphy v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co.. 43 Mo. App. 342—551, 552, 561, 694, 776. Murphy v. Union R. Co., 118 Mass. 228— 621, 737, 739. Murphy v. Wabash R. Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 726—919. Murphy v. Western, etc., R. Co., 23 Fed. 637—623, 644. Murray v. Warner, 56 N. H. 546-199. Murray v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 92 Fed. 868, 62 Fed. 24—119, 916, 939. Murray v. Pawtuxet Val. Sf. R. Cd., 25 T?. I. £C9— T81. MnriHy v. Metropolitan Dist. R. (^., 27 L. T N. a. 762—776. Murr^n V. Pacific Express Co., 64 Ark. 22 - ai. 424. Murrcl! v. Dixi'y, 14 La. Ann. 298—405, 413. Lsxxviii Table of Cases. (The references are to the pages.) Muschamp v. Lancaster, etc., R. Co., S M. & W. 421—463, 471. Muser V. Holland, 17 Blatcht. (U. S.) 412 —287, 342, 768, 759. Mutual Ins. Co. v. Tweed, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 44—423. Myers v. Baltimore & O. B. Co., 150 Pa. St. 386—793. Myers v. Long Island R. Co., 10 St. Rep. (N. T.) 430—676. Myers v. Nashville, etc., R. Co. (Tenn.), 72 S. W. 114—864. Myers v. New York Cent. R. Co., 88 Hun (N. Y.), 619-«]8. Myers v. Pennsylvania Co., 2 Int. Coih. Rep. 403—912. Myers v. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 90 Mo. 98 —618, 524. Myerson v. Woolverton, 9 Misc. Rep. (N. T.) 186—730. Mykleby v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 39 Minn. 54—638, 889. Mylton V. Midland R. Co., 4 H. & N. 615 —463, 702. Mynning v. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 69 Mich. 257, 67 Mich. 677—771, 793, 795. Mynard v. Syracuse^ etc., R. Co., 71 N. Y. 180—30, 266, 266, 320, 321, 361, 362, 497, 609, 766. Myres V. Diamond Joe Line, 68 Mo. App. 199—243. Myrrick v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 107 U. S. 102—37, 267, 301, 453, 468, 461, 473, 479, 497, 602, 509, 615, 517, 729. N. Nasle V. Alleghany Val. R. Co., 88 Pa. St. 35—823, 826. Nagle V. California Southern R. Co., 88 Cal. 86—662, 830, 846. Najac V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 7 Allen (Mass.), 329—729. Nalley v. Hartford Carpet Co., 51 Conn. 624—384. Nance v. California Cent. K. Co., 94 N. C. 619—660, 678, 830. Nanson v. Jacobs, 93 Mo. 331, 12 Mo. App. 125—90, 167, 169. 449. Nash v. Sharp, 19 Hun (N. Y.), 365—892. 903. Nashua Lock Co. v-. Worcester, etc., R. Co., 48 N. H. 339^63, 472, 492, 729. Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. David, 6 Helsk. (Tenn.) 261—26, 235, 251. Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Erwin (Tenn.), 3 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 465—576. Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Estes, 10 Lea (Tenn.), 749—226, 233. Nashville, etc., B. Co. v. Estis, 7 Heisk. (Tenn.) 622—226. Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Haslett (Tenn.), 79 S. W. 1031—306. Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Heggie, 86 Ga. 210—606, 608. (Tenn.) 271—240, 250, 318, 497. Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Jones, 9 Heisk. Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. King, 6 Heisk. (Tenn.) 27—609. Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Johnson, 16 Lea (Tenn.), 677—319, 696, 801, 802, 803. Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. King, 6 Heisk. (Tenn.) 269—251. Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. LllUe (Tenn.) 78 S. W. 1055—67, 713. Nashville, etc., »..Co. v. Messino, 1 Sneed (Tenn.) 220-39, 639, 640, 649, 562, 617. 802 8U. - . . Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Smith (Ala.), 31 So. 481—371. Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Stone & Haslett (Tenn.), 79 S. W. 1931—388, 629, 631, 534. Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Thomas, 5 Heisk (Tenn.) 262—786. Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Troxler, 1 Lea (Tenn.), 520—699. Nassau Elec. Ry. Co. v. Corliss, 126 Ted 355—692, 843. Natchez, etc., B. Co. v. McNeil, 61 Miss 434—604. Nathan v. Giles, 5 Taunt. 558—177. National Docks R. Co. v. Central R. Co 32 N. J. Eq. 755—95. National Commercial Bank v. Lackawana Transp. Co., 172 N. Y. 596—163. National Bank v. Philadelphia, etc., R Co., 163 Pa. St. 467—168, 169. National Bank v. Railroad Co., 44 Minn 224—174, 176. National Line Steamship Co. v. Smart, 107 Pa. St. 492—262, 285. Naugatuck B. Co. v. Waterbury Button Co., 24 Conn. 468—468. Nave V. Flack, 90 Ind. 205—680. Naylor v. Mangles, 1 Esp. 109 — ^15. Neal V. Saunderson, 2 Smed. & M. (Miss.) 572—24, 28. Neal V. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 8 Jones L. (N. C.) 482—262, 283. Nealand v. Bostdn, etc., R. Co., 161 Mass. 67—261, 724. Nebenzahl v. Fargo, 15 Daly (N. Y.), 130 —154. Nebraska Teleph. Co. y. State, Yeiser, 65 Neb. 627—79. Needy v. Western Maryland R. Co., 22 Pa. Super. Ct. 489—533. Neil V. American Express Co., Rap. Que. 20 C. S. 253—483. Neill V. Rogers Bros. Produce Co., 41 W. Va. 37—170, 173. Neilson v. Jessup, 30 Fed. 138—358. Nellis V. New York Cent. B. Co., 30 N. T. 506—734. Nelson V. Atlantic, etc., E. Co., 68 Mo. 593—860. Nelson v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 60 Wis. 320—691. Nelson v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 2 111. App. 180—161. Nelson v. Great Northern R. Co., 28 Mont. 297—288, 613, 521, 526, 628, 533. Nelson V. Hudson River R. Co., 48 N. T. 498—209, 306, 312, 320. Nelson v. Lehigh Valley B. Co., 25 App. Dlv. (N. Y.) 535—612, 777. Nelson v. Long Island R. Co., 7 Hun (N. Y.), 140—564, 566, 735. Nelson V. Mackintosh, 1 Stark. 237—12. Nelson v. National Steamship Co., 7 Ben. (U. S.) 340—314, sn. Nelson V. Odiorne, 45 N. Y. 489—243. Nelson V. Southern Pac. Co., 18 Utah. 244, 325—637, 869. Nelson v. Stephenson, 6 Duer (N. Y.), 538 —381. Neslie V. Second, etc.. Streets Pass. R. Co., 113 Pa. St. S0(h-692. Neston Colliery Co. v. London, etc., R- Co., 4 By. & C. T. Cas. 257—266. Nettles V. South Carolina R. Co., 7 Rich. L. (S. C.) 190—198, 240, 412, 415. Neun V. Rochester By. Co., 165 N. Y. 148 —822. Neville V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 168 Mo. Nevin V. Pullman Palace Car Co., lOt III. 222—68, 59, 640. Table of Cases. Ixxxix (The references are to the pages.) Nevins v. Bay State Steamboat Co., 4 Bosw. (N. T.) 225—702, 703, 724. Nevins v. Bank of Lansingburgh, 10 Mich. 547—78. Nevises v. Chicago, etc., R. Co. (Wis.), 102 N. W. 489— 5S4. Newberger Cotton Co. v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 75 Miss. 303—396. Newborn v. Just, 2 C. & P. 7ft-323. Newby V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 19 Mo. App. 391—519, 638. Newcomb v. Boston, etc., R. Corp., 115 Mass. 230—173. Newcomb v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 189 Mo. 687—670. Newell V. Smith, 49 Vt. 260, 255—42, 405, 412, 460. Newport News, etc., R. Co. v. Mendell (Ky.), 34 S. "W. 1081—487. Newhall v. Vargas, 15 Me. 314—440, 447. Newport News, etc., R. Co. v. Mercer, 96 Ky. 475-498. Newton v. Pope. 1 Cow. (N. T.) 109—87. Newman v. Alabama G. S. R. Co., 38 Fed. 819—697. Newman v. New York, etc., R. Co., 54 Hun (N. Y.), 335—640. Newman v. Smoker, 26 La. Ann. 303—756, 760 New Albany, etc., R. Co. v. Campbell, 12 Ind. 55—150, 268. New Brunswick Steamboat, etc., Transp. Co. V. Tiers, 24 N. J. L. 697—24, 137, 267. New England Exp. Co. v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 57 Me. 188—92. New England Mfg. Co. v. Starin, 60 Conn. 369—93. New Haven v. Campbell, 128 Mass. 104—442. New Jersey Express Co. v. Nichols, 33 N. J. L. 434—798, 800. New Jersey Fruit Bxch. v. Central R. Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 84—910. New Jersey R. Co. v. Kennard, 21 Pa. St. 203—601. New Jersey R., etc., Co. v. Pollard, 22 Wall. (U. S.) 341—695, 769, 777, 867. New Jersey R. Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 27 N. J. L. 100—27, 46, 95, 103. New Jersey Steamboat Co. v. Brochett, 121 U. S. 637—626, 810, 890. New Jersey Steam Nav. Co. v. Merchants' Bank, 6 How. (U. S.) 344—27, 92, 287, 290, 291, 313, 328, 362, 384, 394, 764, 766, 768, 759, 768. New Orleans, etc., R. Co. v. A. H. George & Co., 82 Miss. 710—429. New Orleans, etc., R. Co. v. Allbritton, 38 Miss. 242—617, 778. New Orleans, etc., R. Co. v. Bailey, 40 Miss. 396—899. New Orleans, etc., R. Co. v. Burke, 53 Miss. 200—689, 642, 739, 890, 897. New Orleans Cotton Exch. v. Cincinnati, etc., B. Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 289—932, 933. New Orleans Cotton Exch. v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 777—912. New Orleans Cotton Exch. v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 523—935. New Orleans Exch. v. Ry. Co., 2 Int. Com. C. Rep. 375—910. New Orleans, etc., R. Co. v. Faler, 68 Miss. 911—316, 377. New Orleans, etc., H. Co. v. Hurst, 36 Miss. 660, 661-687, 88", 898. New Orleans, etc., B. Co. v. Jopes, 142 U. S. 18—635. New Orleans, etc., R. Co. v. McEwen & Murray, 49 La. Ann. 1384—375. New Orleans, etc., R. Co. v. Moore, 40 Miss. 39—408, 701. New Orleans Mut. Ins, Co. v. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 20 La. Ann. 302— 292, 328, 393, 396. New Orleans, etc., R. Co. v. Statham, 42 Miss. 607—621, 676, 682, 683, 688, 826. New Orleans, etc., R. Co. v. Toulme, 69 Miss. 284—786. New Orleans, etc., R. Co. v. Tyson, 46 Miss. 729—183, 198, 411. New Port News, etc., R. Co. v. Holmes, 14 Ky. L. Rep. 863—396. New Port News, etc., R. Co. v. Mendell (Ky.), 34 S. W. 1081—466. New Port News, etc., R. Co. v. Mercer, 96 Ky. 475—107, 369, 417. New Port News, etc., R. Co. v. United States, 61 Fed. 488—509. New York Board of Trade v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 417—912, 916, 918, 936. New York Cent., etc., R. Co. v. Davis, 86 Hun (N. Y.), 86—441, 442. New York Cent., etc., R. Co. v. Eby (Pa.), 12 Atl. 482—388, 460. New York Cent. R. Co. v. Fraloft, 100 U. S. 24—701, 703, 709, 717. New York Cent. R. Co. v. Lockwood, IT Wall. (U. S.) 367—6, 12, 13, 287, 326, 329, 376, 670, 672, 694, 752, 769, 764, 768. New York Cent., etc., R. Co. v. Standard Oil Co., 87 N. Y. 486—127, 194, 243. New York, etc., R. Co. v. Ball, 63 N. J. L. 283—620, 816, 817, 818, 854, 856. New York, etc., R. Co. v. Bennett, 50 Fed. 496—566, 637. New York, etc., R. Co. v. Blumenthal, 160 111. 40—770. New York, etc., R. Co. v. Burns, 61 N. J. L. 340—587. New York, etc., R. Co. v. Coulbourn, 69 Md. 361—838, 850. New York, etc., R. Co. v. Doanf, 116 Ind. 435-683, 672, 673, 694, 846. New York, etc., R. Co. v. Dougherty, 11 W. N. C. (Pa.) 437—601, 604, 654. New York, etc., R. Co. v. Enches, 127 Pa. St. 316—848, 852. New York, etc., R. Co. v. Estill, 147 U. S. 691—398, 403, 406, 406, 408, 427, 522. New York, etc., R. Co. v. Fremont, etc., R. Co. (Neb.), 92 N. W. 131—364, 481. New York, etc., R. Co. v. Lockwood, 17 Wall. (U. S.) 367-318, 323. New York, etc., R. Co. v. National Steam- ship Co., 137 N. Y. 23—495. New York, etc., R. Co. v. New Jersey Electric R. Co. (N. Y.), 37 Atl. 627—692. New York, etc., R. Co. v. New York, etc., R. Co., 60 Fed. 867—928, 929, 931. New York, etc., R. Co. v. Piatt, 7 Int. Com. Rep. 323—909. New York, etc., Print Tel. Co. v. Dryburg, 36 Pa. St. 298—23, 78. New York, etc., R. Co. v. Sanders, 134 Mass. 63—442. New York, etc., R. Co. v. Schuyler, 34 N. Y. 30—173. New York, etc.. Steamship Co. v. Wright (Tex. Civ. App.), 26 S. W. 106—482. New York, etc., R. Co. v. Steinbrenner, 47 N. J. L. 161—699. New York, etc., ft. Co. v. Willing, 24 Ohio C. C. 474—732. 889. New York, etc., R. Co. v. Winter, 143 U. S. 60—559, 743, 746, 806.- New York L. Ins. Co. v. Rohrbough, 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. sec. 217—369. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. v. Bork, 23 R. I. 218—615. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. v. ScovlU.. 71 Conn. 136—614. xo Table of Cases. (The references are to the pages.) JNew York Produce Exch. v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 7 Int. Com. Rep. 612—923, 924. New York Produce Exch. v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. Nichols V. Brooklyn City R. Co., 30 Hun (N. Y.), 437—808. Nichols V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 90 Mich. 203—61, 682, 688. Jllchols V. Dubuque, etc., R. Co., 68 Iowa, 732-851. Jllchols V. Lynn & B. R. Co., 168 Mass. 528—666, 677, 806. Jlicholas V. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 89 N. Y. 370—78, 256, 263, 320, 321, 348, 352, 766. Nichols V. Oregon Short Line R. Co. (Utah), 66 Pac. 768—110. Nichols V. Sixth Ave. R. Co., 38 N. Y. 131—830, 862, 867. Nichols V. Smith, 116 Mass. 332—42, 68, 70, 135, 139, 259. JJlchols V. Southern Pac. R. Co., 23 Or. 123—559, 567. Nichols V. Union Pac. R. Co., 7 Utah, 510—751. J^lcholson V. Great Western R. Co., 5 C. B. N. S. 366—123. l^icholson V. William. 5 Bast, 507—294, 335. Nicolette Lumber Co. v. Peoples' Coal Co., 26 Pa. Super. Ct. 575—133. Nickey V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 35 Mo. App. 79—231, 760. Nicoll V. Bast Tennessee, etc., R. Co., 89 6a. 260—314, 354, 629. Nlendort v. Manhattan R. Co., 4 App. Dlv. (N. Y.) 46-890. Nieto V. Clark, 1 Cliff. (U. S.) 145—616, 637. Nines v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 107 Mo. 475—481. Uitro-glycerine Case, 16 Wall. (U. S.) 524, 17 Wall. (U. S.) 524—100, 379, 383, 384. Noble V. Atchison, etc., R. Co. (Okla.), 46 Pac. 483—741. Noble V. St. Joseph, etc., St. R. Co., 98 Mich. 249—639. Nolan V. Brooklyn City, etc., R. Co., 87 N. Y. 63—775, 868, 862. Nolan V. New York, etc., R. Co., 41 N. Y. Super. Ct. 641—665. Nolton V. Western B. Corp., 16 N. Y. 444 —642, 644, 646, 569, 578, 579. Nordemeyer v. Loescher, 1 Hilt. (N. Y.) 49^-438, 710, 711. Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Anderson, 90 Va. 6—643. Norfolk Southern R. Co. v. Barnes, 104 N. C. 26—200, 441. Norfolk R. Co. V. Burge, 84 Va. 70—798. Norfolk, etc., R. Co. V. Ferguson, 79 Va. 241—854. Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. GalUher, 89 Vt. 639—646, 648, 661, 619. Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Groseclose, 88 Va. 267—648, 675. Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Harman, 91 Va. 601—461, 612. Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Irvine, 84 Va. 653, 86 Va. 217—100, 366, 710, 711, 718. Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Reed, 87 Va. 186 —467. Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Reeves, 97 Va. 284 —332. Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Shippers Com- press Co., 83 Va. 272—249. Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Shott, 92 Va. 34 —678. Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Sutherland, 89 Va. 703—401, 606, 637. Norfolk, etc., R. Co. y. Tanner (Va.), 41 S. E. 721—761. Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. Old Dominion Baggage Transfer Co., 99 Va. Ill— 6n. Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Wysor, 82 Va. 250 —565, 589, 591, 740. Norman v. Southern Ry. Co., 65 S. C. 517 664. Normlle v. Northern Pac. R. Co. (Wash.) 67 L. R. A. 271—150, 195. Normile v. Oregon R. & Nav. Co., 41 Or 177—508, 628, 630. Norrls V. Litchfield, 36 N. H. 271—831. Norris v. Savannah, etc., R. Co., 23 Pla. 182—252, 257. North V. Merchants, etc., Transp. Cki., 146 Mass. 316—171, 462, 470. North Baltimore Pass. R. Co. v. Kaskell, 78 Md. 517—770, 778. North Birmingham Ry. Co. v. Liddicoat, 97 Ala. 645—838. North Chicago St. By. Co. v. Baur, 179 111. 126—867, 863. North Chicago St. R. Co. v. Broms, 62 III. App. 127—893. North Chicago St. B. Co. v. Cook, 145 III. 651— «63, 670, 674. North Chicago St. R. Co. f. Cotton, 104 HI. 486—778, 866. North Chicago St. R. Co. v. Pitzgibbons, 180 111. 466—902. North Chicago St. B. Co. v. Kaspers, 186 111. 246—838. North Chicago City By. Co. v. Louis (111.), 27 N. E. 451—783, 796. North Chicago St. R. Co. v. Olds, 40 III. App. 421—657, 626. North Chicago St. R. Co. v. Polkey, 1 St Ry. Rep. 94—699, 665, 859. North Chicago St. R. Co. v. SchwarU, 82 111. App. 493—776. " North Chicago St. R. Co. v. Williams, 140 111. 275—541, 547, 867, 859. North Chicago St. R. Co. v. Wiswell, 1S8 HI. 613—838. North Chicago. St. R. Co. v. Wrixon, 51 111. App. 307—604. North German Lloyd v. Heule, 44 Fed. 100—358. North Hudson County R. Co. v. May. 48 N. J. L. 401—811. North Missouri R. Co. v. Akers, 4 Kan. 453—400, 410, 489, 638. North Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Commercial Bank, 123 U. S. 727—171. 172, 178, 509. North Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Kirk, 90 Pa St. 15-903. North River Bank v. Aymer. 3 Hill (N. Y.), 262-173. North River Steamboat Co. v. Livingston, 3 Cow. (N. Y.) 713—906. North Side St. R. Co. v. Want (Tex. App.), 16 S. W. 40—778, 783. Northern Central R. Co. v. Newman (Md.), 66 Atl. 973—896. Northern Cent. R. Co. v. O' Conner, 76 Md. 207—689, 690, 884, 885, 895. Northern, etc., R. Co. v. O'Brien, 1 Wash. 607—798. Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Adams, 192 U. S. 440—719, 769, 766. Northern Pac. R. Co. v. American Trad- ing Co., 195 U. S. 39—467. Northern Pac. Express Co. v. Martin, 26 Can. Sup. Ct. 1?5— 339. Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Pauson, 70 Fed. 6S5-713. Northern R. Co. v. Fitchburg B. Co., 6 Allen (Mass.), 254—469. Northern R. Co. v. Page, 22 Barb. (N. Y.) 130— r.91. 7=1. Northern Transp. Co. v. McClary, 66 lU. 233—399, 468. Table of Cases. (The references are to tEe pages.)' XCl ■Northern Transp. Co. v. SelUck, 62 III. 249— 20S. Northern Securities Co. v. United States, IBS tr. S. 343—943. Northlngton v. Norfolk Ry. & L. Co., 102 Va. 446-843. Northland v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 81 Hun (N. T,), 473—726. See Mortland. Northrup v. Railway Pass. Assur. Co., 43 N. Y. 516—651. Northrop v. Syracuse, etc., R. Co., 2 Trans. App. (N. T.) 183—148, 269, 274. Northwestern Fuel Co. v. Burlington, etc., K. Co., 20 Fed. 712—93. Northwestern Iowa Grain, etc., Assoc, v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 481—920, 932. Northwestern U. P. Co. v. Clough, 22 Wall. (U. S.) 528-649. Norton v. North Carolina R. Co., 122 N. C. S 10—790. "Norwalk Bank v. Adams Express Co., 4 Blatchf. (U. S.) 465—167. Norway Plains Co. v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 1 Gray (Mass.), 263—37, 40, 261, 263, 284. Norwich Co. v. Wright, 13 Wall. (U. S.) 104-754. Nowaok V. Metropolitan St. Ey. Co., 166 N. T. 433—633, 634. Nowlen v. Colt, 6 Hill (N. T.), 461—204. Notara v. Henderson, L. R. 6 Q. B. 225— 31, 32. Noyes v. Rutland, etc., K. Co., 27 Vt. 110—38, 460, 472. Nudd V. Wells, 11 Wis. 407—240, 249, 412. Hugent V. Fair Haven & W. St. Ry. Co., 73 Conn. 139—865. Nugent V. Smith, L. E. 1 C. P. Div. 19, 27, 423—19, 21, 22, 25, 30, 62, 65, 611. Nugent V. Tract. Co., 181 Pa. St. 160—792. JJunn V. Georgia E. Co., 71 Ga. 710—687, 688. Nutter V, Southern Ry., 26 Ky. Law Rep. 1700—566, 732. Nutting V. Connecticut River R. Co., 1 Gray (Mass.), 502, 504—469, 474. o. Oakes v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 20 Or. 392 —701, 702, 709, 712. Oakey v. Gordon, 7 La. Ann. 235—481. Oakey v. Russell, 18 Mar. (La.) 68—66. Oakley v. Portsmouth, etc.. Steam Packet Co., 11 Exch. 618—14. O'Baunon v. Southern Express Co., 51 Ala. 481—136, 137. Ober V. Crescent City R. Co., 44 La. Ann. 1059—838. Ober V. Indianapolis, etc., R. Co., 13 Mo. App. 81—407. Oberndorfer v. Pabst, 100 Wis. 505—85. O'Brien v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 15 Gray (Mass.), 20—561, 732, 735. O'Brien v. Cunard Steamship Co., 154 Mass. 272—618. O'Brien v. MoGlinchy, 68 Me. 657—257. O'Brien v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 80 N. T. 236—735. Ooh V. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 130 Mo. 27 —770, 776. O'Connell v. St. Louis Cable, etc., R. Co., 106 Mo. 482—654, 656. Oderkirk v. Fargo, 58 Hun (N. T.), 347— 269, 280. Odom v. St. Louis, etc., E. Co., 45 La. Ann. 1201—820. O'Donnell v. Allegheny Valley R. Co., 59 ' Pa. St. 239—587, 696. O'Donnell v. Chicago, etc., K. Co., 106 III. App. 287—645, 549. O'Donnell v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 19 Ky. L. Rep. 1005—870. O'Donnell v. St. Louis Transit Co. (Mo. App.), 80 S. W. 315—632, 633, 890. O'Dougherty v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 1 Sup. Ct. (N. Y.) 477—147. 163, 166, 208. O'Plaherty v. Nassau Elec. R. Co., 34 App. Div. (N. Y.) 76—605, 784. Ogden V. Marshall, 8 N. Y. 340—264, 417. Ogdensburg, etc., R. Co. v. Pratt, 22 Wall. (U. S.) 123, 133—287, 367, 458, 471, 474, 475, 480, 603, 759. Ogdensburg, etc., R. Co. v. Pratt, 49 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 84—471. Ogle V. Atkinson, 5 Taunt. 759—167, 363, O'Gorman v. New York, etc., R. Co., 99 App. Div. (N. Y.) 694—588. O'Hanlan v. Great Western R. Co., 6 B. & S. 484-4C0, 402. Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. Allender, 47 111. App. 484, 69 111. App. 620-550, 661, 836, 856. Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. Applewhite, 52 Ind. 640—666, 6C7, 686. Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. Burrows, 32 '111. App. 101—887, 889. Ohio, etc., R. Co. y. Crosby, 107 Ind. 32— Ohio, etc., E. Co. —682, 891, 892. Ohio, etc., R. Co. 46, 515. Ohio, etc., R. Co. 245-239, 481. Ohio, etc., H. Co. 441—313, 462. Ohio, etc., R. Co. 667, 741. Ohio, etc., E. Co. —883, 903. Ohio, etc., R. Co. 258—471. Ohio, etc.. R. Co. 652, 682, 731, 762. Ohio, etc., R. Co. —8, 653, 669, 763, Ohio, etc., R. Co. 447. Ohio, etc., R. Co. 561—690. Ohio, etc., R. Co. 692, 8ti;, SJ6, 852. Ohio, etc., R. Co. 316, 569, 672, 763, Ohio, etc., R. Co. 533— T, 625. Ohio, etc., R. Co. —586. Ohio, etc., E. Co. —678, 779, 781. Ohio, etc., R. Co. V. DIckerson, 69 Ind. 317 V. Dunbar, 20 111. 623— v. Emrich, 24 111. App. V. Hamlin, 42 111. App. V. Hatton, 60 Ind. 12— . r. Hecht, 115 Ind. 443 V. McCarthy, 96 U. S. . V. Muhllng, 30 111. 9— V. Nickless, 71 Ind. 271 768. V. Noe, 77 111. 513—423, V. People, 29 III. App. V. Schlebe, 44 III. 460— V. Selby, 47 Ind. 471— 762. V. Stransberry, 132 Ind. V. Stratton, 78 III. 88— V. Tabor, 98 Ky. 503— V. Tyndall, 13 Ind. 366 V. Voight, 122 Ind. 288 V. Wood, 107 Ind. 32— Ohio, etc., R. Co. V. Yohe, 51 Ind. 181— 2211, 23(1. Ohio Valley R. Co. v. Lander, 20 Ky. L. Rep. 913—590. Ohio Valley R. Co. v. Watson, 93 Ky. 654 —694, 803. Ohlinger v. Toledo Traction Co., 23 Ohio Cir. Ct. Eep. 65—895. Oil Creek, etc., R. Co. v. Clark, 72 Pa. St. 231—691, 955. O'Keete v. Eighth Ave. R. Co., 33 App. Div. (N. Y.) 324—808. Olcott v. Fond dil lac County, 16 Wall. (U. S.) 1,78—96, 267. XCll Table of Cases. (The references are to the pages,) Old Colony R. Co. v. Tripp, 147 Mass. 35 —614, 622, 711, 740. Old Colony K. Co. v. Wilder, 137 Mass, 626 -I'M. Oldfleld \. New York, etc., B. Co., 14 N. T. 310—799, S2B. Olds V. New Tork, etc., B. Co., 172 Mass. 72—695. O'Leary v. Mankato, 21 Minn. 6E— 805. Oliver V. Columbia, etc., R. Co., 61 S. C. 1—761, 896. Oliver V. Louisville, etc., B. Co., 43 La. Ann. 804—857. Oliver V. New York, etc., B. Co., 1 Bdm. Sel. Cas. (N. Y.) 589—596, 652. Olson V. Citizens By. Co., 152 Mo. 426— C99 776 Olson V. St. Paul, etc., B. Co., 45 Minn. 626—572, 680, 894. Olwell V. A'lams Express Co., 1 Cent. L. .1. 1S6— 318. Omaha, etc., B. Co. v. ChoUette, 41 Neb. 57&-810. Omaha, etc., B. Co. v. Crow, 47 NSb. 84— 672, 673. Omaha St. B. Co. v. Bmminger, 67 Neb. 240—809. Omaha St. B. Co. v. Martin, 48 Neb. 65— 799, 838. O'Malley v. Great Northern B. Co., 86 Minn. 580—287, 354, 528. O'Mara v. Hudson River B. Co., 38 N. Y. 445—822. O'Mara v. St. Louis Transit Co., 102 Mo. App. 202—647, 842. Onderdonk v. New York, etc., B. Co., 74 Hun (N. Y.), 42—013, 670, 845. One Hundred, etc., Tons of Coal, 4 Blatchf. (U. S.) 366-442, 443. 101 Live Stock Co. v. Klansas City, etc., E. Co., 100 Mo. App. 674—506, 526, 628. 636. O'Neill V. Dry Dock, etc., B. Co., 129 N. Y. 125—783. O'Neill V. Great Western B. Co., 7 U. C. C. P. 203—265. O'Neill V. Lynn & B. B. Co., 29 N. B. (Mass.) 630—737. ONeil V. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 60 N. Y. 138—70, 132, 208, 259. Ontario Bank v. New Jersey Steamboat Co., 59 N. Y. 510—163. Oppcnheim v. Russell, 3 B. & P. 42—432, 441. Oppenfaeimer v. Manhattan R. Co., 18 N. Y. Supp. 411-638. Oppenheimer v. United States Express Co., 69 111. 62—33, 290, 291, 292, 341, 343, 347, 355, 754. Opsahl v. Judd, 30 Minn. 129, 126—571, 831. Orange County Bank v. Brown, 9 Wend. (N. Y.) 86—33, 54, 341, 366, 368, 701, 704, 710, 712. Orcutt v. Northern Pao. R. Co., 46 Minn. 368—573. O'Regan v. Cunard Steamship Co., 160 Mass. 266—311, 758. Oregon Short Line, etc., R. Co. v. Nor- thern Pao. R. Co., 61 Fed. 465, 61 Fed. 160-96, 464, 924, 929, 930, 931. Oregon Short Line, etc., R. Co. v. Ilwaco B., etc., Co., 51 Fed. 611-602. Ormond v. Hayes, 60 Tex. 180—666. Ormsby v. Union Pac. R. Co., 4 Fed. 706— 242, 292, 340, 393, 523, 526. Orndorff v. Adams Express Co., 3 Bush. (Ky.) 194—293, 345, 359, 760. O'Rorke v. Great Western R. Co., 23 U. C. Q. B. 427—296, 306. O'Rourke v. Chicago, etc., B. Co., 44 Iowa, 526—33, 382. O'Bourke v. Citizens St. E. Co., 103 Tenn- 124—744. Orr V. Chicago, etc., B. Co., 21 Mo. App 333—491. Ortt V. Minneapolis, etc., B. Co., 36 Minn. 396—316, 459, 475, 481. Osborne v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 48 Fed. 49—932. Osborn V. Union Ferry Co., ^3 Barb. (N. Y.) 629—616. Oscanyan v. Winchester Bepeating Arms Co., 103 U. S. 261—314. Osgood V. Bander, 75 Iowa, 550—310. Osgood V. Carver, 43 Conn. 24—214. Osgood V. Los Angeles Tract. Co., 137 CaL 280—658. Oskamp V. Gadsden, 35 Neb. 7—79. Oskamp v. Southern Express Co. (Ohio), 66 N. B, 13-168. Osterhoudt v. Southern Pac. Co., 47 App. Div. (N. Y.) 146—333, 335. Osteryoung v. St. LkjuIs Transit Co., 108- Mo. App. 708—732. Ostrander v. Brown, 15 Johns. (N. Y.) 39— 195 197. Oswego Bank v. Doyle, 91 N. Y. 32—179. Otis Co. V. Missouri Pao. R. Co., 112 Mo. 622—132, 143, 309, 393. Ouderkirk v. Central Nat. Bank, 119 N. T. 263—12. Ouimit V. Henshaw, 35 Vt. 605—140, 865, 705,. 724, 725, 726. Outen V. North & S. St. E. Co., 94 Ga. 662—827. Overby v. McGee, 15 Ark. 459—364. Overland Mail, etc., Co. v. (Carroll, 7' Colo. 43—760. Oviatt V. Dakota Cent. R. Co., 43 Uiim. 300—654. Owen V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 87 Ky. 626—334, 517. Owen V. Macon, etc., R. Co., 119 Ga. 230 —622. Owen V. Railway Co., 83 Mo. 464—429. Owens V. Baltimore, etc., E. Co., 35 Fed. 715—882. Owen V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 87 Ky. 626—337, 501, 625, 537. Owens V. Eichmond, etc., B. Co., 88 N. (!. 502—795. Owens V. W^ilmington & W. B. Co. (N. C), 35 S. B. 259—647. Oxlade v. North Eastern E. Co., 15 C. B. N. S. 680—92, 98, 99. Oxley v. St. Louis, etc., B. Co., 65 Mo. 629—288. 338, 526, 638. Oysterbank v. Gardner, 49 N. Y. Super. Ct. 263—793. Pacific Express Co. v. Black. 8 Tex. Civ. App. 363—139. Pacifle Express Co. v. Critzer (Tex. ClT. App.) 42 S. W. 1017—182. Paciflo Express Co. v. Darnell (Tex.), 3J Am. & Eng. B. Cas. 543—335, 422, 426. Pacific Express Co. v. Foley, 46 Kan. 45T —344, 760. Pacific Express Co. v. Hertzberg, 17 Tex. Civ. App. 100—167. Pacific Express Co. v. Bedman (Tex. ClT. App.), 60 S. W. 677—414. Pacific Express Co. v. Seibert, 44 Fed. 319 —911. Paciflo Express Co. v. Shearer, 160 111. 2)5. —168, 180, 216. Pacific Express Co. v. Wallace, 60 Ark. 100—201, 22r, 340. Table of Cases. (The references are to the pages.) XOlll Packard f. Getman, 6 Cow. (N. T.) 757— 132, 138, 141. 179, 211, 216. Packard v. Taylor, 35 Ark. 402—23, 458, 488, 489. Packet Co. y. Nagle, 97 Ky. 9—897. Paddock V. Atchison, etc., K. Co., 37 Fed. 841— «0, 649. Paddock v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 1 Mo. App. Rep. 87—302, 304, 600. Padley v. Catterlain, 64 Mo. App. 648—405. Paducah, etc.,, R. Co. v. Commonwealth, 80 Ky. 147—696. Paducah, etc., R. Co. v. Heehl, 12 Bush. (Ky.) 47—798. Paducah St. Ry. Co. v. Walsh, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 632-676. Paddock v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 60 Mo. App. 328—408, 619. Paddock v. Toledo, etc., R. Co., 11 O. C. D. 789—147, 289. Padgitt V. Moll, 159 Mo. 143—860. Paganini v. North Jersey St. Ry. Co. (N. J.), 67 Atl. 128—853. Page V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 7 S. Dak. 297^74. Page V. Great Northern ll. Co., 2 Ir. Rep. (C. L,.) 288—126. Page V. London, etc., R. Co., 16 W. R. 566 —370. Page V. Munro, 1 Holmes (tJ. S.) 232—126. Paige V. Hubbard, 1 Sprague (U. S.), 338 —445. Paige V. Smith, 99 Mass. 396—41, 42. Palmer v. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 101 Cal. 187—94, 238, 251, 252, 309, 45i. Palmer v. Charlotte, etc., R. Co., 3 S. C. 580—567, 897, 902. Palmer v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 56 Conn. 137—186, 470, 488. Palmer v. Delaware, etc.. Canal Co., 120 N. T. 177, 170—642, 602, 605, 606, 607, 608. 613, 662. Palmer v. Grand Junction R. Co., 4 M. & W. 749—30, 38, 297. Palmer v. London, etc., R. Co., L. R. 1 C. P. 588, L,. R. 6 C. P. 194—121. Palmer v. Pennsylvania Co., Ill N. T. 488 —695, 602, 613. Palmer v. Warren St. R. Co., 206 Pa. 574— 775, 778, 819. Palmer v. Winona Ry. & Light Co., 80 N. W. 869—668. Palmer v. Winston-Salem Ry. & Elec. Co., 131 N, C. 250—634. Palmeri v. Manhattan R. Co., 133 N. T. 261—643, 631, 632, 633, 636, 638. Palmeter v. Wagner, U Alb. L. J. 149 —56. Paquin V. St. Louis & S. Ry. Co., 90 Mo. App. 118—854. Paradine v. Jane, AHeyn, 27 — 13. Paramore v. Western R. Co., 53 Ga. 833 —454. Pardee v. Drew, 25 Wend. (N. T.) 459— 65, 66, 366, 706, 707. Pardlngton v. South Wales R. Co., 1 H. & N. 392—325. Parlll V. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 23 Ind. App. 678—315. Parke v. Alta, etc., Tel. Co., 13 Cal. 422 —76. Park V. O'Brien, 23 Conn. 339—795. Park V. Preston, 108 N. T. 434—27, 142, 298, 307, 313, 378. Parker v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 133 N. C. 335—288, 304, 317. Parker v. Erie R. Co., 5 Hun (N. T.), 57—630. Parker v. Plagg, 26 Me. 181—24, 66, 147. Parker v. Lombard, 100 Mass. 405—282. Parker v. Long Island K. Co., 13 Hun (N. T.), 319—880, 895. Parker v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 69 Mo. App. 54—656. Parker v. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co., 30 Wis. 689—265, 271. Parker v. North German Lloyd S. S. Co., 74 App. Div. (N. T.) 16—716. Parker v. St. Louis Transit Co., 108 Mo. App. 465—853. Parker v. The Railway Co., 6 Bxch. 702 —127. Parker v. White, 27 New Burns. 442—667. Parker v. Winslow, 7 El, & Bl. 942—243. Parmelee v. Fischer, 22 HI. 212—701, 705. Parmelee v. Lowitz, 74 111. 116—36, 54, .64, 360, 540. Parmelee v. MoNulty, 19 111. 556—540. Parmalee v. Western Transp. Co., 26 Wis. 439—69, 478. Parmalee v. Wilks, 22 Barb. (N. T.) 639 —243. Parmenter v. American Box Machine Co., 162 N. T. 648—216. Parsons v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 63 Fed. 903, 167 U. S. 447—124, 919, 933. Parsons v. Hardy, 14 Wend. (N. T.) 215 —24, 48, 2Q9, 222. 239, 260, 254. Parsons v. Monteath, 13 Barb. (N. T.) 353— 294, 319, 326, 763. Parsons v. New Xork Cent., etc., B. Co., 113 N. T. 665—657, 631, 876. Partridge v. Woodland S. Co. (N. J.), 49 Atl. 726—642. Passmore v. Western Union Tel. Co., 78 Pa. St. 238—74. Passenger R. Co. v. Toung, 21 Ohio St. 618—627, 633. Patchell V. Irish North Western R. Co., 6 Ir. R. C. L. 117—699. Pate V. Henry, 5 Stew. & P. (Ala.) 101— 192. Patten v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 5 Dak. 267—697, 803. Patten v. Magrath, Dudley L. (S. C.) 169—318, 755. Patton V. Southern R. Co., 82 Fed. 979— 374. Patten v. Union Pac. R. Co., 29 Fed. 590 —438, 470, 487, 495. Patterson v. Clyde, 67 Pa. St. 505, 506— 393, 394, 396. Patterson v. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 47 Mo. App. 670—56 Mo. App. 657—296, 367, 483. Patterson v. North Carolina R. Co., 64 N. C. 147—227. Patterson v. Omaha, etc., R. Co., 90 Iowa, 247—676. Patterson v. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 54 Mich. 91—801, 811. Paturzo V. Campagnie Francaise, 31 Fed. 611—378, 379. Paulitsch V. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 102 N. T. 280—678, 836. Paul V. Pennsylvania R. Co. (N. J. Sup.) 57 Atl. 139—288, 317, 505. Paulson V. Brooklyn City R. Co., 13 Misc. Rep. (N. T.) 387—840. Pavitt V. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 153 Pa. St. 302—334, 336, 355, 376, 631. Payne v. Halstead, 44 111. App. 97—776. Payne v. Kansas, etc., R. Co., 46 Fed. 646—97, 463. Payne v. Spokane St. R. Co., 15 Wash. 622—666. Payne v. Terre Haute, etc., R. Co., 157 Ind. 616—766. Payne v. Troy, etc., R. Co., 9 Hun (N. T.), 626—805. XCIV Table of Oases. (The references are to the paees.) Paynter v. Brighton, etc., Tract. Co., 67 N. J. L. 619—771. Peabody v. Navigation Co. (Or.), 28 Pac. 1053—743. Peak's Admtr. v. Louisville & M. R. Co., 23 Ky. L.. Rep. 2167—860. Pearsall v. Western Union Tel. Co., 124 N. T. 256—77, 298. Pearce v. Madison, etc., R. Co., 21 How. (U. S.) 441—492. Pearce v. Wabash R. Co., 89 Mo. App. 437—430. Pearce v. The Thomas Newton, 41 Fed. 106—236. Pearson v. Duane, 4 Wall. (U. S.) 605— 23, 100, 664, 619, 624. Pearsons v. Tlncker, 36 Me. 384—434. Pease v. Delaware, etc., K. Co., 101 N. T. 367—700, 736. Peat v. Hartford St. Ry. Co., 72 Conn. 362—678. i'eavey v. Georgia R., etc., Co., sr Ga, 485-635, 647, 739. 7eck V. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 70 N. Y. 687—688, 631, 632, 637, 740, 895. reck V. Neil, 3 McLean (U. S.), 22—615, SOI, 802. Ptck V. North Staffordshire R. Co., 10 H. L. Cas. 473—288, 293, 523. I'eck V. St. Louis Transit Co., 178 Mo. 617—771, 862. Peck V. Weeks, 34 Conn. 145, 149—31, 292, 764. Peebles v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 112 Mass. 498—386. Peet v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 20 Wis. 694, 19 Wis. 118—104, 107, 108, 247, 375, 412, 478, 479. Pegler v. Monmouthshire R. Co., 30 L. J. Bxch. 249—38. Pegram v. Western Union Tel. Co., 97 N. C. 57—78. Peik V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 94 U. S. 179—95, 266. Peizotti V. McLaughlin, 1 Strob. (S. C.) 468—65. I'elland v. Canadian Pac. R. Co., 7 Montreal Super. Ct. 131—712. Pelton V. Rensselaer, etc., R. Co., 54 N. T. 214—263, 274. Pemberton Co. v. New York Cent. R. Co., 104 Mass. 144—481, 753. Pence v. Wabash R. Co., 116 Iowa, 279^ 817, 833. Pendall v. Rench, 4 McLean (U. 5.), 259 —23. Pender v, Robblns, 6 Jones L. (N, C.) 207—4, 12. Fendergast v. Adams Express Co., 101 Mass. 120—469, 481. Pendergast v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 58 N. T. 662—822. Pendergast v. Union Ry. Co., 10 App. Dlv. CN. Y.) 207—768. I'endleton at. K. Co. v. Stallman, 22 Ohio St. 1—696. Pendleston v. Klngsley, 3 Cliff. (U. S.) 416, 420—626, 629, 662. Pendleton St. R. Co. v. Shires, 18 Ohio St. 255—696. Penfleld v. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 25 App. Dlv. (N. Y.) 413—692. Fenlston v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 34 La. Ann. 777—679. Penn v. Buffalo, etc., R. Co., 49 N. Y. 204—497, 611, 53.S. Pennewill v. Cullen, 6 Harr. (Del.) 238-^10. Pennifeather v. Baltimore Steam Packet Co.. 68 Fed. 481—373. Pennington v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co . 62 Md. 95—664, 767. Penny v. Atlantic Coast Line E. Co., m N. C. 221—645. Penny v. Rochester R. Co., 7 App. Dlv (N. Y.) 595—604. Pennsylvania Canal Co. v. Bently, 66 Pa St. 30—794. Pennsylvania Canal Co. v, Burd, 90 Pa. St. 281—68. Pennsylvania Nav. Co. v. Daudrldge 8 Gill & J. (Md.) 248—51. Pennsylvania Steel Co. v. Georgia R., etc Co., 94 Ga. 636—440. Pennsylvania Cent. R. Co. v. Schwarzen* berger, 46 Pa. St. 208—293, 460, 482. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Allen, 53 Pa. St 276—892, 902. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. American Oil Works, 126 Pa. St. 485—349, 431, 441. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Anoka Nat. Bank 108 Fed. 482—391. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Aspell, 23 Pa. St. 147—673, 686, 688, 816, 820, 848, 852, 881. 886. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Baldauf, 16 Pa. 67—727. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 60 Md. 263—449, 935. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Berry, 68 Pa. St. 272—236, 473. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Books, 57 Pa. St. 339—617, 545, 582. 802, 880, 891, 903. Pennsylvania Co. v. Bray, 126 Ind, 229 —745, 888. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Butler, 67 Pa. St Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Clark, 2 Ind. App. 146—94, 240, 245, 615. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Connell, 127 in. 419, 112 111. 296—727, 883, 888, 889. Pennsylvania Co. v. Dean, 92 Ind. 459— 692. Pennsylvania Co. v. Dickson (Ind. App.), 67 N. B. 538—461. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Fries, 87 Pa. St 234—761. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Greso, 102 IlL App. 252—572. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Henderson, 61 Pa. St. 315—8, 553, 572, 753, 768, 806. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Hensil, 70 Inl 669—786. Pennsylvania Co. V. Eine, 41 Ohio St 276-565, 746. Pennsylvania Co. v. Hoagland, 78 Ind, 203—680, 847. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Hughes, 191 U. S. 477—931, 937. Pennsylvania Co. v. Kean, 41 111. App. 317—875. Pennsylvania Co. 7. Kennard Glass A Paint Co. (Neb.), 81 S. W. S7»-317. Pennsylvania Co. v. Kenwood Bridge C!o.i 170 111. 645—144. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Kilgore, 32 Pa. St. 294, 292—676, 683, 688, 849, 858. Pennsylvania R. Co. V. Knight, 68 N. J. L. 287—719. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Langdon, 92 Pa. St. 21—816, 856. Pennsylvania Co. v. Lenhart, 120 Fed. 61 —732. Pennsylvania Co. v. Llverlght, 14 Ind. App. 618—388, 724. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Lyons, 129 Pa. St. 113—683, 771, 808, 848. Pennsylvania Co. v, Marion, 104 Ind. 239, 123 Ind. 415—613, 772, 782, 803. 849. 891. Pennsylvania Co. v. McCaffrey. 173 111. 169-875. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. McCloskey, a Pa- st. 632—680, 753, 762 Table of Cases. XCT (The references are to the pages.) Pennsylvania R. Co. v. McKinney, 124 Pa. St. 462—772. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Miller, 36 Ohio St. 541—706, 727. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Miller, 87 Pa. St. 395-388. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Moody, 126 Pa. St. 244—793. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Naive (Tenn.), 79 S. W. 124—150, 389. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Pennock. 51 Pa. St. 244—231, 233. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Peters, 116 Pa. St. 20S— 654, 820, 849. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Price, 96 Pa. St. 267—541, 643, 663. Pennsylvania R. Co. ■/. Raiordon, 119 Pa. St. 677—317, 389, 393, 395, 534, 761. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Heed, 60 Fed. 694-815. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Righter, 42 N. J. L. 180—793. Pennsylvania Co. v. Roy, 102 U. S. 451 — 60, 604, 641, 601, 607, 610, 662. Pennsylvania Co. v. Scofleld, 121 Fed. 814 —888. Pennsylvania, etc., R. Co. v. Spearen, 47 Pa. St. 300—793. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Splcker, 105 Pa. St. 142—564. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Stageneier, 118 Ind. 305—819. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Stern, 119 Pa. St. 24—162, 167, 178. Pennsylvania v. The Wheeling Brldgt Co., 18 How. (U. S.) 421—844. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. TItusville, etc.. Plank Road Co., 71 Pa. St. 360—425. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Vandlver, 42 Pa. St. 365—617, 628, 637, 749. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Weber, 76 Pa. St. 157—799. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. White. 88 Pa. St. 327—665, 668, 875. Pennsylvania Co. v. Woodworth, 26 Ohio St. 585—680. Pennsylvania Co. v. Toder, 25 Ohio C. C. R. 32—288, 317, 338, 394. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Zebe. 33 Pa. St. 318—843. People V. Caryl, 3 Park Crim. Rep. CN. T.) 326—739. People V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 65 111. 96, 67 111. 188—281, 696. People V. Colorado Cent. R. Co., 42 Fed. 638—97. People V. Douglass, 87 Cal. 281—545, 563, 788. Peoples Pass. R. Co. v. Green, 65 Md. 84 —688, 862. People V. Hudson River Tel. Co., 10 St. Rep. (N. y.) 284—622, 740. People V. Illinois, etc., R. Co., 122 111. 606-112. People V. JiUson, 3 Park Cr. Rep. (N. T.) 234—653, 557. People V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 120 111. 48-668. People V. Manhattan Gas Light Co., 45 Barb. (N. T.) 136—79. People V. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 28 Hun (N. T.J, 643—96, 97, 266, 619. People V. New York, etc., R. Co.. 22 Hun (N. Y.), 633—98, 417. People V. New York, etc.. R. Co., 55 Hun (N. Y.), 409—602. People V. New York, etc., R. Co., 89 N. Y. 266—696. People V. Raymond, 34 Cal. 492—906. Peoria Bank v. Northern R. Co.. 68 N. H. 203—167. Peoria, etc., R. Co. v. Chicago, etc., K. Co., 109 111. 135—46, 86, 92, 95. Peoria, etc., R. Co. v. Lane, 83 111. 448 —697, 856. Peoria, etc., R. Co. v. Reynolds, 88 III. 418—696, 597, 606, 779. Peoria, etc., R. Co. v. U. S. Rolling Stock Co., 136 111. 643—27, 37, 45, 86, 95, 278, 468. Pepper v. Western Union Tel. Co., 87. Tenn. 664—77. Percy v. Railroad Co., 68 Mo. App. 76 —743. Perelra v. Central Pac. R. Co., 66 Cal. 92- —464, 472, 473, 474, 478. Perishable Freight Transp. Co. v. O'Neill,. 41 111. App. 423—376. Perrine v. North Jersey St. Ry. Co. (N. J.), 65 Atl. 799—733. Perkins v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 60 Miss. 726—682, 583. Perkins v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 55 Mo. 201—627, 637, 749. Perkins v. New York Cent. R. Co., 24 N. Y. 186—6, 320, 327, 375, 547, 598, 608, 616,. 719, 752, 754, 762, 763, 766, 766. Perkins v. Portland, etc., R. Co., 47 Me 573—399, 459, 47?, 728, 729. Perley v. New York Cent. R. Co., 65 N. Y. 376—707, 708. Permutter v. Highland St. Ry Co., 121. Mass. 497—807. Perry v. Central R. Co., 66 Ga. 746—678. Perry v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 89 Mo. App. 49—520. Perry v. Florida Cent., etc., R. Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 740—912, 926. Perry v. Malarin, 107 Cal. 363—612. Perry v. Thompson, 98 Mass. 249—308, 755, 768. Pershing v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 71 Iowa, 661—596, 597, 606, 779. Peters v. Elliott, 78 111. 321-172. Peters v. N. Y. Cent. R. Co., 34 Barb. (N. T.) 353—748. Peters v. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 16- La. Ann. 222—603, 610. Peters v. Rylands, 20 Pa. St. 497—65. Peterson v. Case, 21 Fed. 886—487, 489, 490. Peterson v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 80 Iowa. 92—727. Peterson v. Chicago, etc., R. Co.. UA- Wis. 197—766. Peterson v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 9 Kulp. (Pa.) 662—833, 840. Pettigrew V. Barnum, 11 Md. 449—705. Petrie v. Pennsylvania R. Co.. 42 N. J. L. 449—669, 732. Petty v. Great Western R. Co., L. R. S^ C. P. 461—665. Pfaelzer v. Palace Car Co., 4 W. N. C. (Pa.) 240—58. Pfefler v. Buffalo Ry. Co., 4 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 466—678, 839. Pflster V. Central Pac. R. Co., 70 Cal. 169. —92, 98, 680, 701, 704. Pharr v. Collins, 36 La. Ann. 939—431. Phelps V. Bank, 2 McQloin (La.), 19-178. Phelps v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.. 94 111. 648 —100. Phelps v. London, etc., R. Co., 19 C. B. (N. S.) 321—701, 702. 704. Phelps V. Mankato, 23 Minn. 276—805. Phettiplace v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 84 Wis. 412—751. Phifer v. Carolina Cent. R. Co., 89 N. C. 311—469, 481, 483, 493. Philleo v. Sanford, 17 Tex. 231—25. Philadelphia City Pass. Ry. Co. v. Hen- rice, 92 Pa. St. 431—783. XCVl Table of Cases. (The references are to the pages.) Philadelphia Tract. Co. v. Orbann, 119 Pa. St. 37—562. Philadelphia, etc., H. Co. v. Anderson, 94 Pa. St. 351—222, 697, 609, 664, 780. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. Anderson. 72 Md. 619—653, 770, 875. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. Anthony, 43 Ind. 183—637. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. Barnard. 3 Ben. (U. S.) 39—368. Philadelphia, etc., R, Co. v. Derby, 14 How. (U. S.) 468—642, 544, 564, 669, 571, 627, 662, 694, 762, 862. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. Dows, 15 Phila. (Pa.) 101—442. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. Edelstein, 23 W. N. C. (Pa.) 342—665. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. Harper, 29 Md. 330—226, 730. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. Hassard, 75 Pa. St. 367—822, 824, 862. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. Hoeflich, 62 Md. 300—732, 880, 888, 896. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. Kerr, 25 Md. 521—786. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. Larkin, 47 Md. 166—889, 890, 897. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. Lehman, 56 Md. 209—191, 424, 498, 615, 831. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. McCormick, 124 Pa. St. 427—665. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. Ramsey, 89 Pa. St. 474—474. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. Rice, 64 Md. 63—744, 745. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. State, 58 Md. 372—492. Philadelphia, etc.. Steamship Co. v. Penn- sylvania, 122 U. S. 326—906. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. Stebbing, 62 Md. 604—771, 786, 794. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. Wireman, 88 Pa. St. 264—169, 160. Phillips V. De Wade (Ga.), 7 S. E. 161 —697. Phillips V. Duquesne Tract. Co., 8 Pa. Super. Ct. 42 W. N. C. 628—823. Phillips V. Barle. 8 Pick. (Mass.) 180—139, 356, 369, 360. Phillips V. Georgia R., etc., R. Co., 93 Ga. 366, 366—764, 757, 760. Phillips V. London, etc.. R. Co., 5 Q. B. Dlv. 78—891, 893, 902, 903. Phillips V. Louisville & N. R. Co., 8 Int. Com. Rep. 93—916. Phillips V. Northern R. Co., 62 Hun (N. T.), 233—843. Phillips V. North Carolina R. Co., 78 N. C. 294—469, 472, 478, 492. Phillips V. Railroad Co., 93 Ga. 356—219. Phillips V. Rensselaer, etc., R. Co., 49 N. T. 177—806, 830, 836, 837. Phillips V. Rodie, 15 East. 547—431. Phoenix Clay Pot Works v. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co., 139 Pa. St. 284—377. 388, 390, 394. Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Brie, etc., Transp. Co.. 117 U. S. 312—314, 350, 373, 752. Phoenix Powder Mfg. Co. v. Wabash R. Co. (Mo. App,), 74 S. W. 492—303. Picard V, Ridge Ave. Pass. R. Co., 147 Pa. St. 196—838. Pickens v. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 104 N C. 312—736, 736. Pickering v. Weld, 169 Mass. 622-195. Pickering v. Barkley, Style, 132—226. Plcktord v. Grand Junction R. Co., 12 M. & W. 766, 8 M. & W. 372—99, 101, 102, 127, 139, 244. PIcquet V. McKay, 2 Blackt. and.) 466— 14. Pier V. Finch, 24 Barb. (N. T.) 514-564, Piedmont Mfg. Co. v. Columbia, etc., R Co., 19 S/ C. 353—20, 23, 37, 38, 80, Slg' 460, 475, 476, 765, 767, 76L ' Pierce v. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co 23 Wis. 387—8. Pierce v. Randolph, 12 Tex. 290—589. Pierce v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 120 Cal 166—224. Pierce V. Van Dusen, 78 Fed. 706—810. Pierce v. Winsor, 2 CliCC. (U. S.) 18-^8. PIggott v. Eastern, etc., R. Co., 3 C B 229—772. Pike v. Nash, 3 Abb. App. Dec. (N. Y) 610—11, 12, 72. Pirn v. St. Louis Transit Co., 108 Mo. App 713—863. Pindeli v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 34 Mo. App. 676, 41 Mo. App. 84—150, 262, 270, 274. Pinder v. Brooklyn Heights R. Cto., 65 App. Div. (N. T.) 621—632. Pingree v. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 66 Mich. 143—33, 229, 434. Plnney v. First Div. St. Paul, etc., H. Co., 19 Minn. 251—264, 274. Plnney v. Wells, 10 Conn. 104—428, 445. Piper v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 156 N. Y. 224—60, 665. Pitcher V. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 61 Hun (N. Y.), 623—572, 833. Pitcher V. Peoples St. R. Co., 154 Pa. St. 660—840. Pitkin V. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 94 App. Div. (N. Y.) 31—672. Pitlock V. Wells Fargo & Co., 109 Mass. 452—99. Pittman v. Pacific Express Co., (Tex. Civ. App), 69 S. W. 949—309. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Andrews, 39 Md. 329—782, 860, 870, 893. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 729—921, 938. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Barrett, 3C Ohio St. 448—27, 70, 138, 269, 297, 298. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Bennett (Ind. App.), 36 N. E. 1033—797. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Bingham, 29 Ohio St. 364—562, 613. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Caldwell, 74 Pa. St. 421—669, 682, 323, 828, 862. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Dimn, 56 Pa. St. 280—696. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Gray, 28 Ind. App. 588, 59 N. E. 1000—654. 656, 794, 818, 849. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Hazen, 84 lU. 36—192, 228, 265, 389. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Hennigh, 39 Ind. 509—744. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Hinds, 63 Pa. St. 512—22, 542, 619, 621, 641, 648. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Hollowell, 65 Ind. 188—33, 110, 192, 227, 389. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Krouse, 30 Ohio St. 222—649, 664, 557, 317, 852. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co., v. Lightcap, 7 Ind. App. 249—686. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Lyon, 123 Pa. St. 140—690, 711, 880, 896, 899. PlttsDurgn, etc., K. Co. v. Martin, 3 Ohio Dec. 23—564, 556. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. MoClurg, 5S Pa. St. 294—601, 782, 860, 870. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Morton, 61 Ind. 539-94, 95, 458. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Nash, 43 Ind. 423—262, 270, Pittsburgh, etc.. R. Co. v. Nuzum, » Ind. 141—660, 667. 686, Ml. Table of Cases. (TEe references are to the pages.) xovu FlttsburEh, etc., R. Co. v. Pillow, 76 Pa. St. 610-689, 621, 642, 737, 739, 776, 788. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Racer, 5 Ind. ■ App. 209—106, 108, 117, 243. Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. v. Redding, 140 Ind. 101—748. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Russ, 67 Fed. 822—900. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Sheppard, 55 Ohio St. 68—403. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Slusser, 19 Ohio St. 157—627, 633. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Spencer, 98 Ind. 186—698. Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. v. Street (Ind. App.), 69 N. B. 404—744. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Theobald, 61 Ind. 247—627. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Thompson, 66 111. 138—507, 696, 697, 605, 779, 787, 903. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Vandyne. 57 Ind. 676—621, 739. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Van Houston, 48 Ind. 90—696, 739. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Williams, 74 Ind. 4G2— 596, 780. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Wright, 80 Ind. 182—799. Place V. Union Express Co., 2 HUt. (N. T.) 19—35, 36, 243, 250, 387. Plant Investment Co. v. Cook, 85 Fed. 611—833. Plantation No. 4 v. Hall. 61 Me. 617—69. 459. Planz V. Boston, etc.. R, Co.. 157 Mass. 577—683. Platz V. City of Cohoes, 89 N. T. 219— 831 Piatt V. Hlbbard, 7 Cow. (N. T.) 497— 68, 69, 70, 259. Piatt V. Richmond, etc.. R. Co., 108 N. T. 368—396. Piatt V. Forty-Second St., etc., R. Co., 2 Hun (N. T.), 124—567. Piatt V. Wells, 26 How. Pr. (N. T.) 442— 153, 169, 209. Pledger v. Chicago, etc., R. Co. (Neb.). 95 N. W. 1057—748. Plopper V. New Tork Cent. R. Co.. 13 Hun (N. T.), 626—846. Plott V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 63 Wis. 511—689, 666, 667, 686. Plum V. Metropolitan St. Ry Co., 91 App. Div. (N. T.) 420—843. Plummer v. Ossipee, 69 N. H. 65 — 801. Pollock V. BrooKlyn, etc., R. Co., 15 N. T. Supp. 189—779. Pollard V. New Tork. etc., R. Co., 7 Bosw. (N. T.) 437—868. Pollard V. Vinton, 105 U. S. 7—165, 174. Pomaskl v. Grant, 119 Mich. 657—865. Pomeroy v. Ainsworth, 22 Barb. (N. T.) 118—312. Pomeroy v. Donaldson, 6 Mo. 36 — 52. Pompilj V. Manhattan Delivery Co., 84 N. T. Supp. 210—307. Pontlfex V. Hartley, 62 L,. J. Q. B. 196 —476. Pool V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 53 Wis. 657—66 Wis. 227—553, 577, 687. Poole V. Northern Pac. R. Co.. 16 Or. 261—563. Poole V. Georgia R., etc., Co., 89 Ga. 320-666. Pope V. Nickerson, 3 Story (U. S.), 485 —312. Popham V. Barnard, 77 Mo. App. 619—532. Porcher v. Northeastern R. Co., 14 Rich. L. Tex. 120—56, 58, 713. Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. Reed, 75 111. 125—896. Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Smith, 73 111. 360—66. Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Taylor, 65 Ind. 153—59. Purple V. Union Pac. R. Co., 114 Fed. 123 —6, 375, 560, 662, 681, 762. Putman v. Broadway, etc., R. Co., 65 N. T. 108—588, 620, 621, 622, 641, 648, 737, 739. Pyle V. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co., 1 Int. Com. Rep. 767-916. Pym V. Great Northern R. Co., 2 F. & F. 619—597. 609, 780. Pyne v. Broadway, etc., R. Co., 19 N. T. Supp. 217—802. Q- Quackenbush v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., Ti Iowa, 458—692, 854. Quaite v. Chicago, etc., B. Co., 48 Wis. 513-«93. Quarrier v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 20 W. Va. 424—139, 400. Quigley V. Central Pao. R. Co., 11 Nev. 360—627, 880, 892, 896, 901. Quimby V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 150 Mass. 365—296, 719, 721, 753, 757, 762, 764, 766. Quimby v. Vanderbllt, 17 N. T. 306. 313- 721, 729, 806. Qulncy, etc., R. Co. v. Wellhoener, 72 111. 60—786. Qulnlan v. Sixth Ave. K. Co., 4 Daly (N. T.), 488-778. Qulnn V. Long Island R. Co., 34 Hun (N. Y.), 331-«92, 896. Qulnn V, Manhattan R. Co., 7 St. Rep- (N. Y.) 262—851. Qulnn V. Shamokln & M. C. Elec. R. Co.. 7 Pa. Super. Ct. 19—821. Qulnn V. South Carolina R. Co., 29 S. o. 381-870, 901. Table of Cases. xcix (The references are to the pages.) B. Raben v. Central Iowa R. Co., 73 Iowa, 579, 74 Iowa, 732—666, 682, 683, 830, 849, 851. Radley v. Columbia Southern Ry. Co. (Or.), 75 Pao. 212—676, 854. Rae V. Grand Trunk R. Co., 14 Fed, 401 —96. Ragan V. Aiken, 9 Lea (Tenn.), 609—124. Ragsdale, Harper & Weathers v. South- ern Ry. Co., 119 Ga. 627—524. Railroad Co. v. Adams (Va.), 18 S. E. 676—429. Railroad Co. v. AUer, 56 Ohio St. 754— 873. Railroad Co. V. Atkins, 46 Ark. 423—838. Railroad Co. v. Boyer, 97 Pa. 91—698. Railroad v. Butler, 67 Pa. 336—570. Railroad Com'r v, Portland, etc., R. Co., 63 Me. 269—95, 97, 619. Railroad Commission v. Savannah, etc., R. Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 414—914. Railroad Co. v. Connell, 112 111. 295—742. Railroad Co. v. Cook, 146 111. 651—864. Railroad v. Crudup, 63 Miss. 291—571. Railroad Co. v. Davis, 17 Tex. Civ. App. 340—678. Railroad Co. v. Gants, 38 Kan. 618—742. Railroad Co. v. Griffin, 68 111. 499—742. Railroad v. Hurst, 11 Helsk. (Tenn.) 625 —227. Railroad Co. v. Meacham, 91 Tenn. 428 —561. Railroad Co. v. McCandless, 33 Kan. 366 —838. Railroad Co. v. Mitchell, 98 Tenn. 31—682. Railroad v. Myers, 87 Fed: 149—891. Railroad Co. v. O'Hara, 12 W. N. C. (Pa.) 473—569. Railroad Co. v. Stanley, 89 Tex. 42—525. Railroad Co. v. Stein (Ind.), 31 N. B. 180—812. Railroad v. Sullivan, 120 Fed. 799—571. Railroad v. Trautwein, 52 N. J. L. 169— 570. Railroad Co. v. Walrath, 38 Ohio St. 461 —58. Railroad Co. v. Williams, 140 111. 275—838. Railway Co. v. Bennett, 50 Fed. 496—742. Railway Co. v. Gants, 38 Kan. 608—561. Railway Co. v. McCleave (Ky.), 38 S. W. 1066—864. Railway Co. v. McGown, 65 Tex. 640—671. Railway v. Nix, 68 Ga. 572—736. Railway Co. v. Rude, 62 111. App. 550— 864. Railway Co. v. Scott, 86 Va. 902—864. Railway Co. v. Spaher, 7 Ind. App. 23— 838. Railway Co. v. Stevens, 96 U. S. 665—671. Railway Co. v. Valleley, 32 Ohio St. 345— 648, 689, 737, 739. Railway Co. v. Wright, 176 U. S. 498—329. Raleigh, etc., R. Co. v. Lowe, 101 Ga. 320—165, 171. Ramlng v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 157 Mo. 477—663, 868. Ramm v. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 94 Iowa, 296—676. Ramsden v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 104 Mass. 117—627. Rand v. Merchants Dispatch Transp. Co., 59 N. I-I. 363—763. Randall v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 109 U. S. 478—604. Randall v. Chicago, etc., ,R. Co., 113 Mich. 115—624. Randall v. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 45 La. Ann. 778—566, 760. Randall v. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 108 N. C. 612—102, 125. Randall v. South Frankford, etc., R. Co., 139 Pa. St. 464—643, 650. Randall v. Brodhead, 60 App. Div. (N. T.) 567—373. Randall v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 102 Mo. App. 342—736, 748. Randolph v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., IS Mo. App. 609—629, 890, 896, 901. Rankin v. Memphis, etc.. Packet Co., 9 Helsk. (Tenn.) 564—148, 196, 197, 428, 436, 446. Rankin v. Pacific R. Co., 65 Mo. 167—94, 238, 262, 412, 416. Ransome v. Eastern Counties R. Co., 1 C. B. N. S. 437—124. Ransome v. New York, etc., R. Co., 15 N. ■y 4jg ogi gD2 Raphael v. 'pickford, 5 M. & G. 668—240. Rathbone v. Neal, 4 La. Ann. 663—399. Rathbone v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 140 N. T. 48—321, 328, 348. Rathbone v. Ol-egon R. Co. (Or.), 66 Pao. 909—577. Rathbun v. Citizens' Steamboat Co., 76 N. Y. 376—201. Ratican v. Terminal R. Ass'n of St. Louis, 114 Fed. 666—122. Ratterel v. Galveston, etc., R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 81 S. W. 566—554, 671. Ratzer v. Burlington, etc., R. Co., 64 Minn. 245—167, 169. Rawitsky v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 40 La. Ann. 47—564. Rawlings v. Wabash R. Co., 97 Mo. App. 515—887, 894. Raworth v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 857—922, 932. Rawson v. Holland, 59 N. T. 611—256, 264. 313, 320, 451, 455, 458. Rawson v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 48 N. Y. 212—291, 308, 717, 718, 720, 754, 766. Ray V. Cortland, etc., Traction Co., 46 N. Y. Supp. 621—743, 881. Ray V. United Tract. Co., 96 App. Div. (N. Y.) 48—634. Raymond v. Burlington, etc., R. Co., 65 Iowa, 152—653. Raymond v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 1 Int. Com. Rep. 627-923. Raymond v. Tyson, 17 How. (U. S.) 53— 446. Rea V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. (Tex.), 73 S. W. 665—611. Read v. Spauldlng, 30 N. Y. 630, 5 Bosw. 395—24, 35, 36, 47, 70, 220, 256. Read v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 60 Mo. 199— 24U, 317, 393, 396. Readhead v. Midland R. Co., L. R. 2 Q. B. 412—22, 607. Reading City Pass. R. Co. v. Eckert (Pa.), 4 Atl. 630—779, 788. Readington v. Philadelphia Tract. Co., 132 Pa. St. 154—840. Reagan v. Farmers L. & T. Co., 154 U. S. 162—913. Re Annapolis, etc., R. Co., 1 Int. Com. Rep. 315—910. Reary v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 40 La. Ann. 32—560, 820. Reber v. Board, 38 Fed. 822—662, 694. Re Boston, etc., R. Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 717—938. Re Charge to Grand Jury, 66 Fed. 146—928. Reddon v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 6 Utah, 366-798. Redfleld v. Oakland Consol. St. R. Co., 110 Cal. 277—667. Redington v. Harrisburg Tract. Co., 210 Pa. St. 648—833. Redmon v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 90 Mo. App. 68—215, 484. Table of Cases. (The references are to the pages.) Sedmond v. Liverpool, etc., K. Co., 46 N. T. 578—196. Redmond v. Rome, etc., R. Co., 16 N. T. Supp. 330—847. Hedner v. Lehigh, etc., R. Co., 73 Hun (N. T.), 662—670. Redpath v. Western Union Tel. Co., llS Mass. 71—78. Reed v. Axtell, 84 Va. 231—674, 873. Reed v. Duluth, etc., R. Co., 100 Mich. S07— «71, 688. Reed v. Fargo, 7 N. T. Supp. 185-291, 298. Heed v. Muscogee R. Co., 48 Ga. loa— 832. Reed v. New York Cent. R. Co., 45 N. Y. 674, 56 Barb. 493—697, 802, 805. Reed v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 3 Houst. (Del.) 176—102. 110. 132, 144, 380. Reed v. Rome, etc., R. Co., 48 Hun (N. Y.), 231—409. Keed V. United States Express Co., 48 N. Y. 462, 470—47, 468, 479. Reem v. St. Paul City Ry. Co., 77 Minn. 603—668, 811. Reeves v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 11 Tex. Civ. App. 614—333. Re Express Co., 1 Int. Com. Rep. 677—911. Re Export Rates, 8 Int. Com. Rep. 185. 214—923. Regan v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 61 N. H. 679—241, 262, 266. Regensburg v. Nassau Elec. R. Co., 58 App. Div. (N. Y.) 566—667, 658. Regner v. Glens Falls, etc., R. Co., 74 Hun (N. Y.), 202—700, 738, 827. Reichla v. Gruenfelder, 62 Mo. App. 43 —790. Reichman v. Second Ave. R. Co., 1 N. Y. Supp. 836—802. Reidy v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 27 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 627—837. Re Inmates of National Homes, 1 Inc. Com. Rep. 75—938. Reineman v. Covington, etc., R. Co., 51 Iowa, 338—441. Reiser v. Metropolitan Express Co., 91 N. Y. Supp. 170—387. Reiss V. Texas, etc., R. Co., 98 Fed. 533 —185. Re Joint Water, etc.. Lines, 2 Int. Com. C. Rep. 646—911 Eelf V. Rapp, 3 W. & S. (Pa.) 21—356, 359, 360. Rend V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 2 Int, Com. Rep. 313—919. Renneker v. South Carolina R. Co., 20 S. C. 219—654, 873. Rennle v. Northern R. Co., 27 U. C. C. P. 153—200, 464. Re Order of Railway Conductors, 1 Int. Com. Rep. 18—938. Re Passenger Tariffs, etc., Wars, 2 Int. Com. Rep. 340, 445—912, 921, 936, 936. Re Relative Tank, etc.. Rates on Oil, 2 Int. Com. Rep. 246—918. Re Religious Teachers, 1 Int. Com. Rep. 21-938. Re Southern R., etc., Assoc, 1 Int. Com. Kep. 278—932, 933. Re Tariffs of Columbus, etc., R. Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 11—935. Re Tariff of Transcontinental Lines, 2 Int. Com. C. Hep. 203—922, 936. Re UnderbilUng, 1 Int. Com. Rep. 813- 915, 920. Reynolds v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 121 Mass. 291—456, 466, 488. Reynolds v. Richmond & M. R. Co., 92 Va. 400—666. Reynolds v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 3 N. T. Supp. 331—164. Reynolds v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co.. 58 N. Y. 252—790, 822. Reynolds v. Railroad Co., 43 N. H. 580— 349. Reynolds v. Texas, etc., R, Co., 37 La. Ann. 697-674. Reynolds v. Western New York, etc., R. Co., 1 Int. Com. Rep. 686—917. Rhodes V. Iowa, 170 U. S. 412—906. Rhodes V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 9 Bush (Ky.), 688—499, 611, 629. Rhodes v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 34 Minn. 87—112. Rice V. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 263—933. Rice V. Baxendale, 7 H. & N. 96—412. Rice V. Boston, etc., R. Corp., 98 Mass. 212—203, 261, 281. Rice V. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 841—920, 931. Rice V. Hart, 118 Mass. 201—150, 261, 257 Rice V. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 22 111. App. 643—712, 713. Rice V. Indianapolis, etc., R. Co., 3 Mo. App. 27—356, 357, 386, 399, 419, 492. Rico V. Kansas Pac. R. Co., 63 Mo. 314— 317, 334, 336, 525, 526. Rice V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 1 Int Com. Rep. 722—919. Rice V. Ontario Steamboat Co., 56 Barb. (N. Y.) 384—402. Rice V. Wabash R. Co. (Mo. App.), 80 S. W. 976—628. Rice V. Western New York, etc., R. Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 298— 9U. Rice V. Western New York, etc., R. Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 162—917, 918, 919, 920. Rich V. Lambert, 12 How. (U. S.) 352-377, 378. Richards v. Fuqua, 28 Miss. 793—53. Richards v. Gilbert, 6 Day (Conn.), 415 —66. Richards v. London, etc., R. Co., 18 L. J. C. P. 251, 62 B. C. L. 839—38, 147, 179, 180, 708. Richards v. Michigan Southern, etc., R. Co., 20 III. 404—262. Richards v. Pitts Agricultural Worlis, 37 Hun (N. Y.), 1—216. Richards v. Westcott, 2 Bosw. (N. T.) 589 —36, 63, 89. Richardson v. Canadian Pac. R. Co., 19 Ont. Rep. 369—265, 269, 274, 275, 464. Richardson v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 61 Wis. 596—112, 245, 762. Richardson v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 1 Mo App. Rep. 401—337. Richardson v. Goddard, 23 How. (U. S.) 28—165, 192, 195. Richardson v. Goss, 3 B. & P. 119—194. Richardson v. Great Eastern R. Co., 1 C. P. Div. 342—601, 605. 607. Richardson v. Metropolitan R. Co., 37 L. J. C. P. 300—866. Richardson v. Nathan. 167 Pa. St. 513—177. Richardson v. Northeastern R. Co., L. R. 7 C. B. 75—82, 537. Richardson v. The Charles P. Choteau, 37 Fed. 632—468, 464. Richer v. Fargo, 77 App. Div. (N. T.) 550—135. Richmond & D. R. Co. v. Scott, 88 Va. 958—870. Richmond City R. Co. v. Scott, 86 Va. 902—599, 665, Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. Benson, 86 Ga. 203—241, 267, 282, 408. Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. Greenwood, 99 Ala. 501—898. Table of Cases. ei (The references are to the pagres.) Bichmond, etc., R. Co. v. Jefferson, 89 Ga. 654—644, 890. Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. Morris, 31 Gratt. (Va.) 200—851. Richmond, etc., K. Co. v. Payne, 86 Va. 481—294, 344, 347, 761. Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. Shomo, 90 Ga. 496-H[81. Bichmond, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, 92 Ala. 237—847. Bichmond, etc., B. Co. v. Trousdale, 99 Ala. 389—388, 506, 510, 515, 633. Bichmond, etc., R. Co. v. Vance, 93 Ala. 144—803, 898, 900. Bichmond, etc., R. Co. v. White, 88 Ga. 806—220, 235, 271, 274, 392, 393, 394. Richmond R., etc., Co. v. Bowles, 92 Va. 738—640. Bichmond B., etc., Co. v. Burnsed, 70 Miss. 437—673. Richmond Ry. & Elec. Co. v. Hudgins (Va.), 41 S. B. 736—784. Bichmond Tract. Co. v. 'Williams, 102 Va. 253—655, 862. Bichmond v. Bronson, 5 Den (N. T.), 65— 400, 402, 404. Richmond v. Quincy, etc., R. Co., 49 Mo. App. 104—860. Bichmond v. Railway Co., 87 Mich. 374— 698. Richmond v. Southern Pac. R. Co. (Or.), 67 Pac. 947—761. Eicketts v. Baltimore, etc., B. Co., 59 N. T. 637, 61 Barb. 18—479, 483, 485. Blcketts V. Birmingham St. B. Co., 85 Ala. 600—850, 861. Blcketts V. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 33 W. Va. 433—629, 901. Ricks V. Georgia, etc., R. Co., 118 Ga. 259-836. Rlckerson Roller Mill Co. ' v. Grand Rapids, etc., B. Co., 67 Mich. 110—459, 462. Ridenhour v. Kansas City Cable R. Co., 102 Mo. 270—659, 685, 822, 826. Rider v. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 14 Mo. App. 629—707, 709, 723. Riddle V. Baltimore, etc., E. Co., 1 Int. Com. Rep. 778—924. Riddle, Dean & Co. v. New York, etc., R. Co., 1 Int. Com. R. 594—14. Riddle v. New York, etc., R. Co., 1 Int. Com. Rep. 787—913, 927. Biddlesbarger v. Hartford Ins. Co., 7 Wall. (U. S.) 386—332. Biggins V. Missouri River, etc., R. Co., 73 Mo. 598-110. Biland v. Hirshler, 7 Pa. Super. Ct. 384 -86. Riley v. Chicago City Ry. Co., 189 111. 384—742. Riley v. Home, 5 Bing. 217—26, 26, 104, 389. Riley V. New York, etc., R. Co., 34 Hun (N. Y.), 97—473. Rind V. Stake, 28 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 177— Ringgold V. Haven, 1 Cal. 108—390, 399, 411. Bintoul V. New York, etc., R. Co., 17 Fed. 906—314, 373, 390. Rio Grand .Western R. Co. v. Bubenstein, 5 folo. App. 121—903. Bipley v. New Jersey B., etc., Co., 31 N. J. L. 388—656. Rixford v. Smith, 62 N. H. 355—30, 610, 511. Roach V. Canadian Pac, B. Co., 1 Mani- toba, 168—449, 468. Boadbridge v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 105 Pa. St. 460—611. RObb V. Pittsburgh, etc., B. Co., 14 Pa. Super. Ct. 282-746. Roberts v. Chittenden, 88 N. Y. 33—387. Robert C. White Live Stock, etc., Co. v. Chicago, etc.; R. Co., 87 Mo. App. 330— 161, 216, 468, 624, 636. Roberts v. Johnson, 68 N. Y. 613—674, 775. Roberts v, Koehler, 30 Fed. 94—658, 711. Roberts v. Riley, 16 La. Ann. 103—292, 757. Roberts V. Stuyvesant Safe Deposit Co., 123 N. Y. 67—229. Roberts v. Turner, 12 Johns. (N. Y.) 232 —68, 69. Robertson v. Kennedy, 2 Dana (Ky.), 430 —24, 66, 63. Robertson v. National Steamship Co., 1 App. Dlv. (N. Y.) 61—308. Robertson v. National Steamship Co., 42 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 649—408, 410, 411. Robertson v. New York, etc., R. Co., 22. Barb. (N. Y.) 91—675. Robertson v. Old Colony B. Co., 156 Mass. 525—80, 229. Robinson v. Baker, 5 Cash. (Mass.) 137' —434. Robinson v. Burleigh, 5 N. H. 226—214. Robinson v. Chamberlain, 34 N. Y. 389—72- Robinson v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 10 Det- Leg. N. 727—602. Robinson v. Chittenden, 69 N. Y, 533—209. Robison v. Cornish, 13 N. Y. Supp. 677—36. Robinson v. Dunmore, 2 Bos. & P. 417, 416—13, 243. Bobinson v. Great Western B. Co., 1 H. & B. 97—240. Bobinson v. London, etc., R. Co., 19 C. B. N. S. 61—325. Bobinson v. Manhattan B. Co., 5 Misc. Bep. (N. Y.) 209—836. Bobinson v. Memphis, etc., B. Co., 9 Fed. 129—174. Robinson v. Memphis, etc., R. Co., 16 Fed. 67—229, 230, 231, 234. Bobinson v. Merchant Dispatch Transp. Co., 46 Iowa, 470—47, 309, 313, 399, 405. Bobinson v. New Yo'rk Cent., etc., R. Co., 20 Blatohf. (U. S.) 338—600, 772, 781. Bobinson v. New York, etc., S. Co., 63 App. Div. (N. Y.) 2U— 331. Bobinson v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 66 N. Y. 11—698. Robinson v. Rockland, etc., St. R. Co., 87 Me. 387—739. Robinson v. Southern Pac. B. Co., 105 Cal. 626—689. Bobinson v. St. Louis, etc., B. Co. (Mo. App.), 77 S. W. 493—632, 778. Bobinson v. Superior B. T. By. Co., 94 Wis. 345—810. Robinson v. Threadgill, 13 Ired. L. (N. C.) 39—4. Boblin V. Jackson, 13 Man. B. (Can.) 32S —204. Bobostelli v. New York, etc., R. Co., 3S Fed. 796—668, 846. Bobson V. Buffalo, etc., B. Co., 10 U. C. C. P. 279—402. Bobson v. North Eastern B. Co., 2 Q. B. Div. 86—688. Boche V. Brooklyn, etc., R. Co., 106 N. Y. 294—809. Rockford, etc., R. Co. v. Coultas, 67 III. 398— 8t>6. Bock Island, etc., R. Co. v. Potter, 36 III. App. 690—461, 518. Rocky Mount. Mills v. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 119 N. C. 693^92. Rodrian v. New York, etc., R. Co., 125 N. Y. 626—792. Roe v. Birkenhead, etc., R. Co., 7 Ezch. 36—640. Roedecker v. Metropolitan St, B. Co., 87 App. Div. (N. Y.) 227-«62. Cll Table of Cases. (The references are to the pag^e.) Rogan V. Wabash R. Co., 61 Mo. App. 665 —350, 422, 425. Rogers v. Atlantic City R. Co. (N. J.), 34 Atl. 11—731. Rogers v. Great Western R. Co., 16 U. C. O R 28&— 478 Rogers V. Head, Cro. Jac. 262—8, U. Rogers V. Kennebec Steamboat Co., S6 Me. 261—649, 763, 764, 766. Rogers Locomotive, etc.. Works v. Brie R. Co., 20 N. J. Bq. 379—39, 95, 97, 120. Rogers V. Long Island R. Co., 2 Lans. (N. T.) 269—140, 722, 723. Rogers V. Missouri, etc., R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 28 S. W. 1024—482. Rogers V. Murray, 3 Bosw. (N. T.) 357—32. Rogers V. New York Brooklyn Bridge, 11 App. Dlv. (N. T.) 141—672. Rogers V. Wheeler, 43 N. T. 698—41, 42. Rogers V. Wheeler, 62 N. T. 262—70, 133, 139 258. Rogers V. Weir, 34 N. T. 463—229, 230. Rogers V. Wendell, 64 Hun (N. T.), 643 ^1. Rohl V. Parr, 1 Bsp. N. P. 445—30. Rolfs V. Atchison, etc., R. Co. (Kan.), 71 Pac. 626—564. Roll V. Raguet, 4 Ohio, 400—762. Roller V. Sutter St. R. Co., 66 Cal. 230— 696, 783. EoUette v. Great Northern R. Co. (Minn.), 97 N. W. 431—782, 816, 857. Rome R. Co. v. Sloan, 39 Ga. 636—401. Rome R. Co. V. Sullivan, 14 Ga. 279—207, 239, 261, 275, 284, 317. Rome R. Co. V. Sullivan, 25 Ga. 228—472. Rome R. Co. v. Wlnberly, 75 Ga. 316—730. Romero v. McKeman, 88 N. T. Supp. 365 —728. Romine v. Evansville, etc., R. Co. (Ind. App.), 66 N. B. 245—867. Rommel v. Sohambacher, 120 Pa. 619—642. Ronan v. Midland R. Co., L. R. 14 Ir. 167—325. Root V. Chandler, 10 Wend. (N. T.) 110— 364. Root V. Des Moines Ry. Co. (Iowa), 99 N. W. 291—629. Boot V. Great Western R. Co., 46 N. T. 524—37, 39, 456, 468, 467. Root V. Long Island R. Co., 114 N. T. 300 -1^3. Root V. New York C. Sleeping Car Co., 28 Mo. App. 199—66, 68. Root V. New York, etc., R. Co., 83 Hun (N. Y.), 111—114, 500. 518. Rooth V. North Bastern R. Co., 36 L. 3. Exch. 83—326. Rooth V. Wilson, 1 B. & Aid. 69—10. Rose V. Des Moines Valley R. Co., 39 Iowa, 246—652, 669, 571, 763, 762, 766. Rose V. King, 76 App. Dtv. (N. Y.) 308- 885. Rose v. Louisville, etc., R. Co. (Miss.), 12 So. 825—623. Rose v. Stephens Transp. Co., 11 Fed. 483, 20 Blatcht. (U. S.) 411—783, 787. Rose V. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 106 N. C, 170, 168—629, 637, 896. Roseman v. Carolina Cent. R. Co., 112 N. C. 709—689, 738. Rosen V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 83 Fed. 800—374. Rosenbaum v. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., 38 Minn. 173—663, 674, 687, 694. Rosenberg v. Third Ave. R. Co., 47 App. Dlv. (N. Y.) 323—647. Bosencranz v. Swofford Bros. Dry Goods Co., 176 Mo. 618—444. r,osenfleld v. Express Co., 1 Woods (U. S.), 131—166, 419. Rosenfield v. reoria, etc., R. Co., 103 Ind. 121—343, 360, 357 753. Rosenthal v. W*tlr, 54 App. Div. (N. T) 275-341, 349. Ross v. Hill, 2 P. B. 877—14. Ross V. Missouri, eve. R. Co., 4 Mo. App. 583—709, 725, 726. Ross V. New Yori* Cent., etc., R. Co., 74 N. Y. 617—686 Ross V Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 199 Pa. 378. 49 Atl. 344— 34« Ross V. Railroad Co. 15 R. I. 149-«6S. Ross V. Troy, etc., J^. Co., 49 Vt. 364-33, 282, 376. Rested V. Railway Co., 76 Minn. 123-632. Rested V. St. Louis, otn., R. Co. (Mo. App.), 77 S. W. 493—632. Roth V. Buffalo, etc., Iv Co.. 34 N. T. 648—148, 268, 724. Roth Clothing Co. v. Ma'ie Steamship Co., 44 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 23'- 195- Roth v. Hamburg Am. Packet Co., 12 N. Y Supp. 462—387, 389. Rothschild V. Michigan Cent. R. '=:o., 69 111. 164—262. 269. ■■ Rounds V. Delaware, etc., R. Co., B4 N. Y. 129—630, 633, 638, 641. 748. Rouser v. North Park St. R. Co.. 97 M'ch. 566—744, 745. Roussel V. Anmais, Rap. Jud. Que. 18 C. S. 474—21. Rowan V. Wells, Fargo & Co., 80 App- Div. (N. Y.) 31—234, 348, 403. Rowdin V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 20S Pa. 623—572, 778. Rowe V. Brooklyn, etc., R. Co., 71 Xpp. Div. (N. Y.) 474—588, 592. Rowe V. Pickford, 8 Taunt. 83—265, 269. Rowland v. Miln, 2 Hilt. (N. Y.) 150-119, 195, 196. Rowland v. New York, etc., R. Co., 61 Conn. 103—430. Rown V. Christopher, etc., R. Co., 34 Hun (N. Y.). 471—639. 731. Royston V. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 67 Mls3. 376—642, 645. Rozwadosfskie v. International, etc., R. Co., 1 Tex. Civ. App. 487—666, 674. Rubens v. Ludgate Hill Steamship Co., 20 N. Y. Supp. 481—142, 305, 386. Rubin V. Wells, Fargo Express Co., 85 N. Y. Supp. 1108—213. Rudy V. Rio Grande Western B. Co., I Utah, 165—689, 749. Ruck V. Hatfield, 6 B. & Aid. 6S2— 160. Rucker v. Donovan, 13 Kan. 251— WO. Rucker v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 61 Tel. 499—560. Rudell v. Ogdensburg Transit Co., HI Mich. 568—368. 371. Ruddy V. Midland Great Western R. Co., L. R. 8 Ir. 224—242. Ruebsam v. St. Louis Transit Co., 108 Mo. App. 437—733. Ruffln V. Rugglero, 10 Misc. Rep. (N. T.) 739—156. Ruggle v. Buchner, 1 Paine (U. S.), S6S —446. Rumsey v. North Eastern R, Co., 14 C. B. N. S. 641-711. Ruppel V. Alleghany Val. R. Co., 167 P». St. 166—96, 116, 249, 399. Ruschenberg v. Southern El. Ry. Co., Wl Mo. 70-811. Rushford v. Hadfleld, 8 East, 519-15, 431. RusB V. Steamboat War Eagle, 14 Iowa, 363—541, 662. Russell V. Hudson River R. Co., 17 N. Y 134—686. Russell V. Livingston, 16 N. Y. 616, 19 Barb. 346—36, 161. 168. Table of Cases. (The references are to the pages.) cm SUBsell V. Madden, 95 III. 435—266. Russell Mfg. Co. V. New Haven Steam- boat Co., 62 N. T. 657—127, 274. Bussell V. Nelman, 17 Com. B. (N. S.) 163—226. Bussell V. New Jersey Steamboat Co., 10 Mlso. Hep. (N. Y.) B93— 385. Russell V. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co., 167 Ind. 305—766, 768. Rutherford v. McGowen, 1 Nott & M. (S. C.) 19-53. Rutherford v. Shreveport, etc., R. Co., 41 La. Ann. 893, 793— «91, 899, 900. Rutherford v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 67 S. W. 161—567. Ruthvan Woollen Mfg. Co. v. Great Western R. Co., 18 U. C. C. P. 316—425. Ryan v. Cumberland Valley R. Co., 23 Pa. St. 384—586. Ryan v. Gilmer, 2 Mont. 618—654. Ryan v. Great Northern R. Co. (Minn.), 95 N. W. 768-156. /Ryan v. Manhattan R. Co., 121 ,N. T. 126 —613, 672. -Ryan v. Missouri,* etc., R. Co., 65 Tex. 13 —296, 309, 312, 313, 389, 394, 396. Ryder v. Burlington, etc., R. Co., 61 Iowa, 460—158. Ryder v. Hathaway, 21 Pick. (Mass.) 298 —204. Ryder v. Kinsey, 62 Minn. 85—773. Ryland v. Peters, 5 Pa. Law J. Rep. 126 —38. Uyland & Rankin v. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. (W. Va.), 46 S. E. 923—208, 214. s. ■Sabine, etc., R. Co. v. Cruse, 83 Tex. 460 —207. Sage V. Gittner, 11 Barb. (N. T.) 120—68. Sager v. Portsmouth, etc., R. Co., 31 Me. 228—293, 323, 376, 393, 395, 438, 717, 755, 766, 762. Sahlgaard v. St. Paul City R. Co., 48 Minn. 232—837. Saleeby v. Central R. Co. of N. J., 99 App. Div. (N. Y.) 163—706, 709, 719. Sales V. Western Stage Co., 4 Iowa, 547 —617. Salinger v. Simmons, 57 Barb. (N. T.) 613 —138, 141, 269. Salters v. Delaware, etc.. Canal Co., 3 Hun (N. T.), 3'40— 604. £altonstall v. Stockton, Taney (U. S.), 11 617, 619, 787, 819. Saltsman v. Brooklyn City R. Co., 73 Hun (N. Y.), 567—650. Saltsman v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 65 Hun (N. Y.), 448—301. Saltus V. Everett, 20 Wend. (N. Y.) 267— 65, 434, 446. Sambuck v. Southern Pae. Co. (Cal.), 71 Pac. 174—697. Samms v. Stewart, 20 Ohio, 69—11, 12, 22. Sample v, Consol. L. & Ry. Co., 50 W. ■Va. 472—810. Samuel v. Cheney, 135 Mass. 278—157. Samuels v. Richmond R. Co., 35 S. C. 493, 495—688, 897, 901. San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Avery, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 235—111. Fan Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Bailey, 4 Tex. Civ. App. Cas. sec. 67—112. San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Barnett (Tex. Civ. App.), 66 S. W. 474, 27 S. V/. 676— 261, 373, 535. San Antonio, etc., Ry. Co. v. Bennett, TS Tex. 151— 798. 799. San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Choate, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 618—868. San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Dolan (Tex. Civ. App.), 85 S. W. 302—520, 524, 526. San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Josey (Tex. Civ. App.), 71 S. W. ffll6— 412. San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Lynch, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 613, 40 S. W. 631—681, 583. San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Mayfleid (Tex. App.), 15 S. W. 503—475, 482. San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Moore (Tex. Civ. App.), 39 S. W. 960—467. San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Pratt (Tex.), 34 S. W. 445—412, 515, 518. San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Robinson, 73 Tex. 277—779, 811. San Antonio, etc., K. Co. v. Thompson (Tex. Civ. App.), 66 S. W. 792—413, 414. 465. San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Turney (Tex. Civ. App.), 78 S. W. 266—903. San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Williams (Tex. Civ. App.), 57 S. W. 883—370. San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Wright, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 136—111. San Antonio Tract. Co. v. Bryant (Tex.). 70 S. W. 1015—841. San Antonio Tract. Co. v. Crawford (Tex. Civ. App.), 71 S. W. 306—636. San Antonio Tract. Co. v. Welter (Tex.), 2 St. Ry. Rep. 900—863. Sanchez v. San Antonio, etc., R. Co., 3 Tex. Civ. App. 89—876. Sanders v. McLean, 11 Q. B. Div. 327—176. Sanders v. Relster, 1 Dak. 172—798. Sanders v. Southern Elec. R. Co., 147 Mo. 411—786. Sanders v. 'Vanzeller, 4 Q, B. 294—358. Sanders v. Young, 1 Head (Tenn.), 219—52. Sanderson v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 88 Minn. 162—896. Sandford v. Catawissa, etc., R. Co., 24 Pa. St. 378—37, 95, 120. San Diego Land Co. v. National City, 174 U. S. 754—909. San Diego Flume Co. v. Souther, 112 Fed. 228—89. Sanford V. American District Tel. Co., 6 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 634, 13 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 88—19, 86. Sanford V. Eighth Ave. R. Co., 23 N. T. 343—647, 630, 638, 731, 890. Sanford v. Hestonville, etc., R. Co., 138 Pa. St. 84—867. Sanford v. Housatonic R. Co., 11 Cush. (Mass.) 155—335, 339. Sangamon, etc., R. Co. v. Henry, 14 111. 166-4U, 415. Sanquer v. London, etc., R. Co., 16 C. B. 163-208. Sansom v. Southern R. Co., lU Fed. 887 —602. Santa Fe Pac. R. Co. v. Bossut (N. M.), 62 Pac. 977—231. 440. Sargent v. B. & L. R. Corp., 116 Mass. 422—124. Sargent v. Gile, 8 N. H. 325—214. Saratoga, etc., R. Co. v. Row, 24 Wend. (N. Y.) 74-430. Satterlee v. Groat, 1 Wend. (N. Y.) 272— 11, 62, 550, 661. Saunders v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 6 S. Dak, 40—771. Saunders v. Southern Ry. Co., 128 Fed. 116—702, 710, 712, 717. Saunders v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 13 Utah, 275—573. Sauter v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 66 N. Y. 50, 6 Hun, 446—660, 674, 681. Savage v. Corn Exch. F., etc., Co., S Bosw. (N. Y.) 1—373. CIV Table of Cases. {The references are to the paeee.) Savannah, etc., R, Co., v. Bonand, 58 Ga. 180—690, 691. Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. Boyle, 115 Ga. 836—642. Savannah St. R. Co. v. Bryan, 86 Ga. 312 —634. Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. Bundlck, 94 Ga. 775—430. Savannah Bureau of Freight, etc., v. Charleston, etc., R. Co., 7 Int. Com. Rep. 479—933. Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. Collins, 77 Ga. 376—356, 402, 474. Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. Flaherty, 110 Ga. 336—833. Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. Godkin, 104 Ga. 655—748. Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. Harris, 26 Fla. 148. 152—388, 468, 466, 491. Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. Holland, 82 Ga. 257—807. Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. Pritchard, 77 ija. 412-410, 416, 426, 462, 478. Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. Sloat, 93 Ga. 803-211, 343, 419. Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. Steininger, 84 <3a. 679—386. tavannah, etc., R. Co. v. Wilcox, 48 Ga. 432—229, 231, 232. Savage v. Marlborough St. R. Co., 18S Mass. 203—778. Eavery v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 210, 338—910, 921. Saville v. Campion, 2 B. & Aid. 503—445. Sawyer v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 22 Wis. 403—155. Sawyer v. Corse, 17 Gratt. (Va.) 230—71, 72. Sawyer v. Dulany, 30 Tex. 479—617, 61S. Sawyer v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., '37 Mo. 240-611, 654, 780, 788. Saxton V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 98 Mo. App. 494—660. Scaife V. Farrant, L. R. 10 Exch. 358—14. Scaling v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 24 Mo. App. 29—66. Scannell v. St. Louis Transit Co. (Mo.), 76 S. W. 660-853. Scarlett v. Great Western B. Co., 41 U. C. C. P. 211—325. SchaefEer v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 168 Pa. St. 209—396, 532. Schaefer v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 128 Mo. 64—541, 547. Schafer v. Gilmer, 13 Nev. 330—617. Scharft v. Meyer, 133 Mo. 428—177. Scheifer v. Washington City, etc., R. Co., 106 U. S. 249—881. Schenkel v. Pittsburgh & B. Tract. Co., 194 Pa. St. 182—658. Schepers v. Union Depot R. Co., 126 Mo. 665—641, 561, 562, 838. Soheu V. Benedict. 116 N. T. 610—192, 197, 281. Scheu V. Erie R. Co., 10 Hun (N. T.), 498 —179. Schiff V. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 16 Hun (N. Y.), 278-483, 485. Schieffelin v. Harvey, 6 Johns. (N. T.) 170—65. Schiffler v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 96 Wis. 141—686. Schiller v. Dry Dock, etc., R. Co., 26 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 392—686, 826. Schlesinger & Son v. New York, etc., R. Co., 85 N. Y. Supp. 372—163. Schlesinger v. West Shore R. Co., 88 III. App. 273—168. Schlichting V. Chicago, etc., R. Co. (Iowa), 96 N. W. 959—166. Schloss V. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 8S Tei. 601—142, 145, 206. Schloss V. Wood, 11 Colo. 287—19, 21, 37. 40 64, 69. Schmidt V. Blood, 9 Wend. (N. Y.) 268— 15, 387. Schmidt V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 90 "Wis 604—70, 259. Schmidt V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 83 ni 405—618. Schmidt v. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 25 Ky L. Rep. 11—746, 884. Schmidt v. Coney Island, etc., R, Co 49 N. Y. Supp. 777—803. Schmidt v. Dry Dock, etc., R. Co., 3 St Rep. (N. Y.) 257—805. Schmidt V. Humphrey, 48 Iowa, 652—831. Schmidt V. North Jersey St. R. Co. (N J.), 58 Atl. 72—835, 842. Schneider v. Evans, 25 Wis. 241—437, 439 494. Schneider v. Market St. Ry. Co. (Cal ) 66 Pac. 734—878. Schneider v. Second Ave. R. Co., 15 N. Y. 556—607. Schneider v. Second Ave. R. Co., 133 N. Y. 583—605. Scnoenfelt v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 40- Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 201—824. School Dist. V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 102 Mass. 566—760. Schopman v. Boston, etc., R. Corp., 9 Cush. (Mass.) 24—548. Schroeder v. Hudson River R, Co., 5 Due? (N. Y.), 65—193, 207, 471, 473. Schroyer v. Lynch, 8 Watts (Pa.), 453—71. Schuback v. McDonald, 179 Mo. 163—668. Schuler v. Third Ave. R. Co., 1 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 36—809. Schulze V. Great Eastern R. Co., 19 Q. B. Div. 30—414, 421. Schultz V. Third Ave. R. Co., 46 N. Y. Super. Ct. 211—630. Schum V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 107 Pa. St. 8-791. Schumacher v. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co., 108 111. App. 520, 207 111. 199—147, 429, 436. Scnurr v. Houston, 10 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 262 —544, 648, 651, 817, 851. Schwab V. Union Line, 13 Mo. App. 159— 238, 240, 242, 252. Schwartz v. Atlantic, etc., Tel. Co., 18 Hun (N. Y.), 157—73, 78. Schwartzman v. Brooklyn H. R. Co., 84 App. Div. (N. Y.) 608—632. Schwartzschild & S. Co. v. Savannah, etc., R. Co., 76 Mo. App. 623—161. Schwerin v. McKle, 51 N. Y. 180-485, 404. Schwerin v. North Pac. C. R. C!o., 36 Fed. 710—624. Scott V. Allegheny Valley R. Co., 172 Pa. St. 646—387. Scott V. Baltimore, etc., R. C3o., 19 Fed. 56—94, 248. Scott V. Bergen Co. Tract. Co., 63 N. J. L. 407—661, 776, 776, 857. Scott V. Bergen Co. Tract. Co., 64 N. J. L. 362—665, 663. Scott V. Boston, etc.. Steamship Co., M* Mass. 468—411. Scott V. Central Park, etc., R. Co., B Hun (N. Y.), 414—635. , Scott V. London, etc.. Docks Co., 3 Hurt & Colt. 696—772, 773. „ Scott V. Great Western R. Co., 23 V. C. C. P. 182—326. ,. ,„ Scott V. Province, 1 Plttsb. (Pa.) 189-195, Scott V. Third Ave. R. Co., 16 N. Y. Supjk 360-«77. Table of Cases. (The references are to the pages.) cv Scofleld V. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 43 Ohio St. 571—37, 40. Scofleld V. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 2 Int. Com. Hep. 67, 116—916, 919, 92S, 931. Scothorn v. South Staffordshire R. Co., 8 Exch. 341—187, 463. ScovlUe V. Griffith, 12 N. T. 509—106, 217, 706. Soranton v. Bank, 24 N. T. 424—229. Scruggs V. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 18 Fed. 318—314, 343. ScuIIey V. New York, etc., R. Co., 80 Hun CN. T.), 197-844. Seaboard, etc., R. Co. v. Cauthen, 115 Ga. 422— 50B. Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Main, 132 N. C. 445—761. Seaboard, etc., R. Co. v. Spencer, HI Ga. 868—610. Seaman v. Koehler, 122 N. T. 646—789. Searle v. Kanawha, etc., R. Co., 32 W. Va. 370—595, 655, 673. Searle v. Laverick, L. R. 9 Q. B. 122— 87, 282. Searlea v. Alabama, etc., R. Co., 69 Miss. 186-461, 491. Searles v. Manhattan R. Co., 101 N. T. 661—793. Searles v. Mann Boudoir Car. Co., 45 Fed, 330—58. Sears v. Eastern R. Co., 14 Allen (Mass.), 433—666, 691. Sears v. Seattle Consol. St. R. Co., 6 Wash. 227—893. Sears v. Wills, 4 Allen (Mass.), 212— IS, 443. Sears v. Wlngate, 3 Allen (Mass.), 103— 174. Seasongood v. Tennessee, etc., Transp. Co. (Ky.), 54 S. W. 193—92. Seaver v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 14 Gray (Mass.), 466—586. Seaver v. Bradley (Mass.), 69 N. B. 795 —84. Seoord v. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., 5 Mc- Crary (U. S.), 515, IS Fed. 221—548, 582, 618, 662, 882, 883, 891. Secor V. Toledo, etc., R. Co., 10 Fed. 15 —848. Security Trust Co. v. Wells, Fargo & ,Co. Express, 178 N. T. 620—153, 158, 178, 211, 332, 333, 336, 340. Seelig V. Metropolitan St. By. Co., 38 Misc. Rep. (N. T.) 383—668. Segal V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. (Tex. Cfv. App.), 80 S. W. 233—644. Seibert V. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 15 Pa. Super. Ct. 435—157. Selgel V. Eisen, 47 Cal. 109—558. Seipp V. Dry Dock, etc., R. Co., 45 App. Div. (N. T.) 489—812. Selby V. Detroit Ry. (Mich.), 81 N. W. 106 —682. Selby V. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 113 N. C. 588—339, 353, 499, 625. Self V. Dunn, 42 Ga. 528—10, 53. Seller v. Market St. Ry. Co., 1 St. Ry. Rep. 8—825, 869, 860. Seller V. Steamship Pacific, 1 Or. 409—145, 313, 317, 328, 756, 761. Sellers v. Union Tract. Co., 21 Pa. Super. Selnia, etc.', R. Co. ». Butts, 43 Ala. 385 —37, 463, 470. Selma, etc., R. Co. v. United States, 139 r. S. 560—396. Selma St., etc., R. Co. v. Owen, 132 Ala. 420—698, 819. Selway v. Holloway, 1 Ld. Raym. 46—136. Sent V. St. Louis & Sub. By. Co., 112 Mo. Add. 74—853. Sessions v. Western R. Corp., 16 Gray (Mass.), 132—151, 268. Sevier v. Vicksburg, etc., R. Co., 61 Miss. 8—61, 688. Sewall V, Allen, 6 Wend. (N. T.) 349— 360, 713. Sexton V. Graham, 53 Iowa, 181—204. Sexton V. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 67 N. T. Supp. 677—838. Seybolt v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 95 N. Y. 662—578, 752, 767, 768, 767, 772, 777, 779, 793, 794. Seymore v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 3 Blss. (U. S.) 43—652, 670, 891, 899. Seymour v. Greenwood, 7 H. & H. 355—637. Seymour v. Town of Lake, 66 Wis. 651 — 829. Shackt v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 94 Tenn. 665—357. Shaefer v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 98 Mo. App. 154—810. Shailer-Schniglan Co. v. Corcoran, 11 O. C. D. 599—610. Shamberg v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 502—919. Shankenburg v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 46 Fed. 177—821. Shannon v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 78 Me. 52, 60—551, 830, 847, 850. Shanahan v. St. Louis Transit Co., 109 Mo. App. 228—842. Sharp V. Grey, 9 Bing. 457—606. Sharer v. Paxson, 171 Pa. St. 26—556, 561, 633. Shaughnessy v. Consol. Tract. Co., 17 Pa. Super. Ct. 588— 827. Shaw V. Canadian Pac. R. Co., 5 Mani- toba L. Rep. 334—718. Shaw V. Grand Trunk R. Co., 7 U. C. C- P. 493—708. Shaw V. Merchant's Nat. Bank, 101 U. S. 557—165. Shaw V. Northern Pac. R. Co., 40 Minn. 144—712, 722, 723. Shaw V. South Carolina R. Co., 5 Rich. L. (S. C.) 462—197, 399. Shaw V. York, etc., R. Co., 13 Q. B. 347 —114. Shay V. Camden, etc., R. Co. (N. J.), 49 Atl. 547—778. Shea V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 66 Minn. 102—461, 467. Shea V. Manhattan R. Co., 27 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 33—638. Shea V. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 63 Minn. 228—350, 393, 396, 441. Sheels v. Davies, 6 Taunt. 65—447. Shedd V. Troy, etc., R. Co., 40 Vt. 88— 559 565. She« V. Huntington, 16 W. Va? 317—798. Shelby v. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 85 Ky. 224—544. Shelby v. Guy, 11 Wheat. (U. S.) 67, 367 —266. ShelbyviUe R. Co. v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 82 Ky. 541—449. Sheldon v. Robinson, 7 N. H. 157, 163—11, 19, 55, 360. Sheldon v. Sherman, 42 N. Y. 484—610. Shellenberg v. Fremont, etc., R. Co., 45 Neb. 487—166, 157. Shelton v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 19 Ky. L. Rep. 215—870. Shelton v. Merchants' Despatch Transp. Co., 59 N. Y. 258—131, 141, 162, 192, 312, 313 376 489. Shelton v. Railroad Co., 29 Ohio St. 211 —743. Shenandoah Val. R. Co. v. Moose, 83 V*.. 827— «S4, 826. CVl Table of Cases. (The references are to the pages.) Shenk v. Philadelphia Steam Propeller Co., 60 Pa. St. 109—179, 195, 262, 275. Shepherd v. Bristol, etc., K. Co., L. R. 3 Exch. 189—265. Shepherd v. Buffalo, etc., R. Co., 35 N. T. 641—600. Shepard v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 77 Iowa, 54—895. Sherman, etc., R. Co. v. Beebe (Tex. Civ. App.), 39 S. W. 1102—494. Sherman v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 40 Iowa, 45—555, 566. Sherman v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 72 Mo. 62—550, 552, 560, 569, 582, 588. Sherman v. Hudson River R. Co., 64 N. T. 254—196, 248, 263, 411, 458. Sherman v. Inman Steamship Co., 26 Hun (N. T.), 107—31, 249. Sherman v. Toronto, etc., R. Co., 34 U. C. Q. B. 451—544. Sherman v. Wells, 28 Barb. (N. T.) 403 —36, 398, 404. Sheridan v. Brooklyn, etc., R. Co., 36 N. Y. 39—643, 644, 659, 822, 826, 828, 861. Sheridan v. New Quay Co., 4 C. B. N. S. 618-167, 229, 363. Sherley v. Billings, 8 Bush (Ky.), 147— 617, 626, 642, 653, SIS^ 890. Sherlock v. Ailing, 44 Ind. 184—778. Sherwood V. Railroad Co. (Mich.), 46 N. W. 776—671. Siiewalter v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 84 Mo. App. 589—430, 469. Shiff v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 16 Hun (N. Y.), 278—301, 494. Shinkle, etc., R. Co. v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 76 Fed. 1007—907. Ship Howard v. Wiseman, 18 How. (U. S.) 231—247. Shipton V. Thornton, 9 Ad. & El. 314—187. Shoemaker v. Kingsbury, 12 Wall. (U. S.) 369—39, 236. Short v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 1 N. Dak. 164—810. Shriver v. Sioux City, etc., R. Co., 24 Mlnu. 606—316, 380, 382, 390, 394, 491. Shuart v Consol. Tract. Co., 15 Pa. Super. Ct. 26—676. Shubrick v. Salmond, 3 Buir. 1637—243. Shuler V. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 81 Va. 188—856. Shuler v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 92 Mo. 339—732. Sias v. Rochester R. Co., 169 N. Y. US —698. Sickles V. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 13 Tex. Civ. App. 4S4— 868. Sfdekum v. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 93 Mo. 400— 8U3. Siebrecht v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 21 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 616—223. Siegrist V. Arnot, 86 Mo. 200—540, 820. Silver V. Hale, 2 Mo. App. 557—253. Silverman v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 51 La. Ann. 1785—217, 235. Slmkins v. Steamboat Co., 11 Cush. (Mass.) 102—104. Simms V. Great Western R. Co., 18 C. B. 806—767. Simms V. South Carolina R. Co., 27 S. C. 268-682. Simmons v. Law, 3 Keyes (N. T.) 220—209. Simmons v. Oregon R. & Nav. Co., 41 Or. 161—682, 587.' Simmons v. New Bedford, etc.. Steamboat Co., 97 Mass. 361—617, 642. Simons V. Great Western R. Co., 2 C. B. N. S. 620—297, 302. Simons V. Great Western R. Co., 18 C. , B. 806—326, SS6, 769, 765. Simon V. Dunlap's Express Co., 38 Miac Rep. (N. T.) 775—348. Simon V. The Fung Shuey, 21 La. Ann 363—104. Simonin v. New York, etc., R. Co., 36 Hun (N. Y.) 214-631, 632, 903. Simpson v. Dufour, 126 Ind. 322—34, 230. Simpson V. Hand, 6 Whart. (Pa.) 311—24. Simpson V. London, etc., R. Co., 1 Q B. Div. 274—427. Sims V. Metropolitfin St. Ry. Co., 65 App Dlv. (N. Y.) 270—662, 863. Singer Mfg. Co. v. London, etc., R. Co 1 Q. B. 833—711. Singleton v. Hiiiiard, 1 Strobh. L. (S. C.) 203—755. Sinshelmer v. New York, etc., R. Co., 21 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 45—180. Sioux City, etc., R. Co. v. First Nat Bank of Fremont, 10 Neb. 566—165, 173. Sirk v. Marion St. R. Co., 39 N. E. (Ind.) 421—795. Sira V. Wabash R. Co., 115 Mo. 127-644, 667, 686. Slsson V. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 14 Mich. 489—316, 400, 401, 411, 456, 515, 529. Siner v. Great Western R. Co., L. H. 4 Exch. 117—846. Skellie V. Central, etc., B. Co., 81 Ga. 56—245. Skllling V. Bollman, 73 Mo. 665, 6 Mo. App. 676—176. Skinner v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 12 Iowa, jQj 209. Skinner 'v. Hall, 60 Me. 477-^59. Skinner v. London, etc., R. Co., 5 Exch. 787—548. Skinner v. Upshaw, 2 Ld. Raym. 752—429, 441. Skottowe v. Oregon Short Line, etc., R. Co., 22 Or. 430—805, 834. Slater v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 2 Int Com. Rep. 243-920, 938. Slater V. South Carolina R. Co., 29 S. C. 96—395. Sleade v. Payne, 14 La. Ann. 457—192, 195. Sleeper v, Pennsylvania R. Co., 100 Pa. St. 259—649. Sleat V. Fagg, 6 B. & Aid. 342—360. Slim V. Great Northern R. Co., 14 C. B. 647—324, 371, 616, 765. Slimmer v. Merry, 23 Iowa, 91—53, 540. Sloan V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 58 Mo. 220—377. Sloane v. Southern California R. Co., Ill Cal. 668—744, 880, 884, 889. Sloman v. Great Western R. Co., 67 N. Y. 208—707, 709, 717. Sloop V. Wabash R. Co., 93 Mo. App 6C5 —620, 628. Slossen v. Burlington, etc., R. Co., 55 Iowa, 294—796. Sly V. Union Depot R. Co., 134 Mo. 681-834, 841. Smallman v. Whilter, 87 111. 645—563, 62!, 740. Smedley v. HestonviUe, etc., R. Co., 184 Pa. St. 620—655, 776. Smeed v. Ford, 1 El. & Bl. 602—422. Smitson V. Southern Pac. R. Co. (Or.), 60 Pac. 910—665. Smith V. Alabama, 124 V. S. 465—669. Smith V. American Kxpress Co., 108 Mich. 572—316, 3M, a»a. 481. Smith V. ijuoLun, etc., R. Co., 41 Miss. 671-710. Smith V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 44 N. H. 326—708, 709. Smith V. Boston & M. R. Co., 120 Mass. 940— 83L Table of Cases. (The references are to the pages.) evil Smith V. British, etc., Steam Packet Co., 86 N. T. 408—616, 693, 700, 782. Smith V. Britain S. S. Co. (U. S. D. C. N. Y.), 123 Fed. 176— 1S2. Smith V. Canadian Fac. R. Co. (Can.), 34 N. S. 22—60. Smith V. Chamberlain (S. C), 17 S. E. 371—623. Smith V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 108 Mo. 243—664, 660. Smith V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 4 S. Dak. 80—798. Smith V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., S5 Iowa, 33—873. Smith V. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 3 Ohio Dec. 192—705. Smith V. City, etc.. R. Co., 29 Or. 539— 554, 557. Smith V. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 92 Ga. 539—239. Smith V. Eastern R. Co., 35 N. H. 356— Smith V. Plndley, 34 Kan. 316—300. Smith V. Georgia, etc., R. Co., 88 Ala. 638—665, 671, 847. Smith V. Griffith, 3 Hill (N. T.), 333— 400, 407. Smith V, Home, 8 Taunt, 144—294, 323. Smith V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 95 Ky. 11—748. Smitha V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 86 Tenn. 198, 124 Ind. 394—339, 526, 684. Smith V. Manhattan Ry. Co., 45 St. Rep. (N. T.) 866—592, 631, 630. Smith V. Manhattan B. Co., 138 N. T. 623—718. Smith V. Metropolitan St. R. Co», 69 App. Dlv. (N. Y.) 60—605. Smith V. Michigan Cent. R. C3., 100 Mich. 148—497, 506. Smith V. Mlsssourl Pac. R. Co., 74 Mo. App. 48—173, 488. Smith V. Nashua, etc., R. Co., 27 N. H. 86-147, 179, 263, 284. Smith V. New Haven, etc., R. Co., 94 Mass. 531—29, 408, 411, 499. Smith V. New York, etc., R. Co. 19 N. T. 127—597, 604, 609. Smith V. New York, etc., R. Co., 6 Duer (N. Y.), 231—601. Smith V. New York Cent. R. Co., 24 N. Y. 222—6, 272, 326, 579, ffi2, 762, 763, 765, 768. Smith V. New York Cent. R. Co., 43 Barb. (N. Y.) 226, 41 N. Y. 620—386, 465, .466, 467, 468, 491. Smith V. New York, etc., R. Co., 46 N. J. L. 7—555. Smith V. Pierce,' 1 La. 349—45, 49, 65. Smith V. Pullman Palace Car Co. (Can.), 60 Alb. L. J. 188—66. Smith V. Seward, 3 Pa. St. 342—52. Smlin V. Southern Express Co., 104 'Ala. 387r-201, 312. Smith V. Western Union Tel. Co., 83 Ky. 104—74, 77. Smith V. Whitman, 13 Mo. 352—104, 413. Smith V. Norfolk, etc., R. Co. (W^. Va.), 35 S. B. 834—633. Smith V. Norfolk & S. R. Co., 114 N. C. 728—828. Smith V. North Carolina R. Co., 64 N. C 235—293, 317, 393, 395, 717, 755, 756. Smith V. Northern Pac. R. Co., 1 Int. Com. Rep. 611—938. Smith V. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co., 23 Ohio St. 11-888, 889. Smith V. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 99 N. C. 241—864. Smith V. Savannah, etc., R. Co., 100 Ga. 96—748. Smith V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 69 Mo. 32—654. Smith V. St. Paul City R. Co., 32 Minn. 1-388, 646, 647, 649, 595, 599, 778. Smith V. St. Paul, etc., B. Co., 30 Minn. 169—881. Smith V. Western R. Co., 91 Ala. 455—221. Smotherman v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 29 Mo. App. 266—856. Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466—124, 908, 909, 923, 908. Smyrl v. Nlolon, 2 Bailey L. (S. C.) 421 —25. Snedlker v. Nassau Elec. R. Co., 41 App. Dlv. (N. Y.) 628—612. SnelUng v. Yetter, 25 App. Dlv. (N. Y.) 590—70. Snider v. Adams Express Co., 63 Mo. 376—290, 294, 295, 317, 472. Snow v. Carruth, 1 Spr. (U. S.) 324— 126, 447. Snow V. Indiana, etc., R. Co., 109 Ind. 422, 425—338, 438, 455, 469. Snowden v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 161 Mass. 220—869. Snowden v. Davis, 1 Taunt. 369—128. Snyder v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 60 Mo. 413-550. Snyder v. Natchez, etc., R. Co., 42 La. Ann. 302—545. Sodov/sky v. McFarland, 3 Dana (Ky.), 205—5. Solan V. Chicago, etc., R, Co. (Iowa), 63 N. W. 692—753. Solarz V. Manhattan R. Co., 29 N. T, Supp. 1123—784. Solomon v. Central Park, etc., R. Co., 1 Sweeny (N. Y.) 298—823, 861. Solomon V. Manhattan R. Co., 103 N. T. 437—836, 847. Solomon v. Philadelphia, etc.. Steamboat Co., 2 Daly (N. Y.), 104—264, 271, 275. Somes V. British Empire Shipping Co., 8 H. L. Cas. 338—443. Sommerfield v. St. Louis Transit Co., 108 Mo. App. 718-732. Sonla Cotton OH Co. y. The Red River, 106 La. 42—237. Sonler v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 141 Mass. 10—679. Sonn V. Smith, 67 App. Dlv. (N. Y.) 37E —179. Somes V. British Empire Shipping Co., 8 H. L. Cas. 338—431. Southcotes Case, 4 Coke 84—294. South Carolina R. Co. v. Bradford, 10 Rich. L. (S. C.) 307—466, 467. South Covington, etc., Ry. Co. v. Smith (Ky.), 86 S. W. 970—603. South Covington, etc., Ry. Co. v. Ware, 84 Ky. 267—819. South Chicago City R. Co. v. Dufresne, 102 111. App. 493—838. South, etc., Alabama R. Co. v. Schauller, 75 Ala. 142—817, 861. South, etc., Alabama R. Co. v. Henlein, 56 Ala. 368-342, 350, 356, 498, 510, 759. South, etc., Alabama R. Co. v. Jones, 56 Ala. 607—406. South, etc., Alabama R. Co. v. Wilson, 78 Ala. 687—319. South, etc., Alabama R. Co. v. Wood, 66 Ala. 167. 72 Ala. 451—21, 147, 180, 193, 264, 279, 340, 388, 401. South, etc., Alabama R. Co. v. Wood, 72 Ala. 451—184, 399, 401. South, etc., R. Co. v. Henlein, 52 Ala. 606—30, 287, 605, 769. South Eastern R. Co. v. Railway Com'rs, 41 L. T. N. S. 760, 5 Q. B. Dlv. 217— 113, 121. CVlll Table of Cases. (The references are to the pages.) Southeastern R. Co. v. Southworth, 135 111. 250—803. South Florida E. Co. v. Rhodes, 25 Fla. 40—589, 760. Southard v. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 60 Minn. 382—303, 306, 396, 439. Souther v. San Diego Flume Co., 121 Fed. 347—89. Southern, etc., Ass'n v. Lawson, 97 Tenn. 367—85. Southern Express Co. v. Armstead, 50 Ala. 350—194, 292. Southern Express Co. v. Ashford, 126 Ala. 591—210. Southern Express Co. v. Barnes, 36 Ga. 532—287, 298. Southern Express Co. v. Caldwell, 21 Wall (U. S.) 264—33, 74, 76, 334, 759. Southern Express Co. v. Caperton, 44 Ala. 101—292, 332, 759. Southern Express Co. v. Crook, 44 Ala. 468—35, 287, 292, 359, 36u, 754, 756, 769. Southern Express Co. v. Dickson, 94 U. S. 649—166, 189. Southern Express Co. v. Everett, 37 Ga. 688—163. Soutnern Express Co. v. Glenn, 16 Lea. (Tenn.) 472—36, 227, 334. Southern Express Co. v. Holland, 109 Ala. 382—264, 269. Southern Express Co. v. Hunnicutt, 64 Miss. 566—334. Southern Pacific R. Co. v. Johnson (Tex. App.), 15 S. W. 121—255. Southern Express Co. v. Kaufman, 59 Tenn. 161, 12 Heisk. (Tenn.) 166—33, 148, 182, 263, 381. Southern Express Co. v. McVeigh, 20 Gratt. (Va.) 264—36, 36, 133. Southern Express Co. v. Moon, 39 Miss. 822—24, 37, 92, 94, 495, 316, 345, 753. Southern Express Co. v. Newby, 36 Ga. 635—36, 140, 290, 298, 764. Southern Express Co. v. Oskamp, 14 Ohio C. C. 176—182. Southern Express Co. v. Palmer, 48 Ga. 85—485. Southern Express Co. v. Seide, 67 Miss. 613—345, 394. Southern Express Co. v. Shea, 38 Ga. 619—462. Southern Express Co. v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 5 Myers Fed. Dec. sec. 1611— 92. Southern Express Co. v. Thornton, 41 Miss. 216—37. Southern Express Co. v. Tupelo Bank, 108 Ala. 617—336. Southern Express Co. v. Williams, 99 Ga. 482—183. Southern Express Co. v. Womack, 1 Heisk. (Tenn.) 266—35, 227, 318. Southern Indiana Express Co. v. United States Express Co., 88 Fed. 659—931. Southern Indiana Express Co. v. United States Express Co., 92 Fed. 1022—911. Southern Kansas R. Co. v. Clark, 52 Kan. 398—706. Southern Kansas R. Co. v. Crump (Tex. Civ. App.), 74 S. W. 336—620. Southern Kansas R. Co. v. Duncan, 40 Kan. 603-^60, 469, 495. Southern Kansas R. Co. v. Hinsdale, 3S Kan. 507—591, 627, 637, 747, 896. Southern Kansas R. Co. v. Pavey, 48 Kan. •152—847. Southern Kansas R. Co. v. Rice, 38 Kan. 398-626, 642. Southern Kansas R. Co. v. Walsh, 46 Kan. 663—697, 666, 779, 891, 893. Southern Pac. R. Co. v. Anderson (Tex. Civ. App.), 63 S. W. 1023—311, 346, 405. Southern Pac. R. Co. v. Booth (Tex. Civ App.), 39 S. W. 686—212, 470. Southern Pac. R. Co. v. Colorado Fuel & Iron Co., 101 Fed. 779—907, 939. Southern Pac. R. Co. v. Hamilton, 64 Fed 468—639. Southern Pac. R. Co. v. Arnett (Utah) 126 Fed. 76—513, 520. Southern Pac. Co. v. D'Arcais (Tex. Civ App.), 64 S. W. 813—346, 399. Southern Pac. R. Co. v. Maddoz, 75 Tex. 300—313, 350, 402. Southern Pac. R. Co. v. Rauh, 49 Fed. 696—893, 903. Southern R. Co. v. Felder, 46 Ga. 433- 261. Southern R. Co. v. Hunter, 74 Miss. 444 —748. Southern R. Co. v. Kendrick, 40 Mfcs. 374—664, 676, 687, 789, 862, 899, 902. Southern R. Co. v. Kinchen, 103 Ga. 186 —181, 202. Southern R. Co. v. Lanning (Miss.), 35 So. 417-886. Southern R. Co. V. McElveen, 109 Ga. 249 —461. Southern R. Co. v. O' Bryan, 115 (3a. 6S9 —664. Southern R. Co. V. Roebuck (Ala.), 31 So. 611—817. Southern R. Co. v. VandergrifE (Tenn.), 64 S. W. 481—661. Southern R. Co. v. Watson, UO Ga. 681 —564, 760. Southern R. Co. v. White (Miss.), 33 So. 970—886. Southern R. Co. v. Williams (Miss.), SS So. 394—833. Southern Ry. Co. v. Adams, 115 Ga. 705 —625. Southern Ry. Co. v. Allison, 115 Ga. 636- 143. Southern Ry. Co. v. Anniston Foundry Mach. Co., 135 Ala. 315—128. Southern Ry. Co. v. Bandy, 120 Ga. 463— 818. Southern Ry, Co. v. Barlow, 104 Ga. 213 —219. Southern Ry. Co. v. Bunnell, 138 Ala. 247—731. Souinern Ry. Co. v. Deakins, 107 Tenn. Southern Ry. Co. v. De Saussure, 116 Ga. 53—731. Soutnern Ry. Co. v. Jones (Ala.), 31 So. 601—629. Southern Ry. Co. v. Lockwood Mfg. Co. (Ala.), 37 So. 667—442. Southern Railway Co. v. Marshall, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 813—886. Southern Ry. Co. v. Railey Bros., 86 Ky. 63—513. Southern Ry. Co. v. Smith, 86 Fed. 292 —662. Southern Ry. Co. v. Wideman, 119 Ala. B66— «37. Southern Ry Co. v. Wilcox, 99 Va. 394 —no, 117, 118. Southwestern R. Co. v. Eently, 51 Ga. 311—712. Southwestern R. Co. v. Paulk, 24 Ga. Southwestern R. Co. v. Singleton, 66 Ga. 262, 67 Ga. 306—563, 676, 769, 862. Southwestern R. Co. v. Webb. 48 Ala. 686—37. Spade V. Hudson River R. Co., 13 Barb. (N. Ti.) S8S— 137. Table of Oases. cue (The references are to the pages.) .Spade V. Lynn, etc., R. Co., 172 488-648. .Spaids V. New York, etc., Steamship Co., 3 Daly (N. Y.), 139—226. .Spann v. Efle Boatman's Transp. Co., 11 Misc. Bep. (N. Y.) 680—115, 254, 418. Spangrler v. St. Josephs, etc., Ry. Co. (Kan.). 74 Pac. 607—646. Spannagle v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 31 111. App. 460—541, 545, 546, 548, 651, 836. Spalding V. Chicago, etc., R. Co. (Mo. App.), 73 S. W. 274—513. Spaulding V. Quincy & B. St. Ky. Co., 148 Mass. 470—852. Spears v. Hartley, 3 Bsp. 81—16. Spears V. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 67 Barb. (N. T.) 513—8. .Spear v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 119 Fa. St. 61—781. Spears v. Spartanburg, etc., R. Co., 11 S. C. 158—265, 273. Speigel V. Pacific Mail Steamship Co., 26 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 414—229, 230. ^pellman v. Lincoln Transit Co., 36 Neb. 890—44, 46, 540, 654, 770, 779, 864. Spellman v. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 35 S. C. 475—566, 901. .Spense v. Chicago, etc., R. Co. (Iowa), 90 N. W. 346—574. Spence v. Chodwick, 10 Q. B. 517—109. Spence v. Mitchell, 9 Ala. 744—364. Spence v. Norfolk, etc., R. Co., 92 Va. 102—239. Spencer v. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co., 17 Wis. 487—870. Spencer v. St. Louis Transit Co., Ill Mo. App. 653—842. -Spettigue v. Great Western R. Co., 15 U. C. C. P. 315—325. Speyer v. The Nary Bell Roberts, 2 Sawy. (U. S.) 1—393. Spicer V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 29 Wis. 580—880, 891, 892, 899. Spinnetti v. Atlas Steamship Co., 80 N. T. 71-352. .S. P. Moseley v. Lord, 2 Conn. 389—8, 202. Spofford V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 11 Pa. Super. Ct. 97—132, 236. Spohn V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 101 Mo. 417—644. Spohn V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 87 Mo. 74, 116 Mo. 617—641, 895. •Spooner v. Brooklyn City R. Co., 54 N. Y. 230—855. Spooner v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 23 Mo. App. 403—708. Spooner v. Manchester, 133 Mass. 270— 216. Sprague v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 34 Ran. 347—334, 626, 759. -Sprague v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 52 N. Y. 637—263, 463. Sprague v. Smith, 29 Vt. 421, 426—41, 42, 43, 460. Sprague v. Southern R. Co., 63 U. S. App. 711-695. Spring V. Haskill, 4 Allen (Mass.), 112 —406, 4U. .Springs V. South Bound B. Co., 46 S. C. 104—267, 312, 318. Springfield Corisol. R. Co. v. Flynn, 55 ♦ III. App. 600—632, 642. Springfield Consol. R. Co. v. Hoeffner, 175 111. 634—677, 809. Springfield Consol. Ry. Co. v. Puntenney, 101 111. App. 95—811. Springfield Consol. R. Co. v. Welsh, 155 111. 511—810. Springer v. Ford, 189 111. 430—85, 641. ,Bpringer v. Schultz. 205 111. 144—85, 770. Springer Transp. Co. v. Smith, 16 Lea. (Tenn.) 498—629, 633, 901. ' Springer v. Westoott, 166 N. Y. 117—291, 370. Sproat V. Donnell, 26 Me. 1S5— 378. Sproul V. Hemingway, 14 Pick. (Mass.) 1—61. Sprowl V. Kellar, 4 Stew. & P. (Ala.5 Spurrier v. Front St. Cable Co., 29 Pac. (Wash.) 346—798. Spurlock V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 93 Mo. 630—119. Squire v. Central Park, etc., R. Co., 36 N. Y. Super Ct. 432—797, 823. Squire V. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 4 Int. Com. C. Rep. 611-912, 913. Souire V. New York Cent. R. Co., 98 Mass. 248, 239—312, 313, 344, 603, 510, 717, 768, 760. Stadhecker v. Combes, 9 Rich. L. (S. C.) 193—35. Stager v. Ridge Ave. Pass. R. Co., 119 Pa. St. 70—663, 771, 777, 838, 839. Stalcup V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 16 Ind. App. 584—583. Standard Oil Co. v. Tierney, 92 Ky. 367— 383, 384. Stancish v. Narragansett Steamship Co., Ill Mass. 512—639, 789. Stanley v. Steele (Conn.), 69 L. B. A. 661 —657. Stannard v. Prince, 64 N. Y. 300—68, 69. Stanton v. Bell, 2 Hawks (K. C), 145—5. Stapleton v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co. (Mich.), 94 N. W. 739—130, 132. Starkey v. Kelly, 50 N. Y. 676—400. Starksville First Nat. Bank v. Meyer, 43 La. Ann. 1—170. Starnes v. Louisville, etc., R. Ce., 91 Tenn. 516—344, 350, 528. Stastney v. Second Ave. R. Co., 61 N. Y. Super. Ct. 104—588. State V. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 24 Md. 84 —560, 611. State V. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 68 Md, 221—771. State V. Boston, etc., B. Co., 58 N. H. 410, 221—6. State V. Campbell, 32 N. J. L. 309—555, 557, 565, 735. State V. Carrigan, 39 N. J. L. 35—906. State V. Chovin, 7 Iowa, 204—589, 590, 619, 734. State V. Chicago, etc., B. Co., 36 Minn. 403—105. State V. Cincinnati, etc., B. Co., 47 Ohio St. 130— U9, 124, 915. State V. Clarke, 109 N. C. 739—549. State V. Concord B. Corp., 62 N. H. 375—492. State V. Creeden, 78 Iowa, 556—233, 262. State V, Dayton, etc., B. Co., 56 Ohio St. 436—596. State Freight Tax Case, 15 Wall. (U. S.) 232—905. State V. Goold, 53 Me. 279—734. State V. Goss, 59 Vt. 266—100. State V. Grand Trunk B. Co., 58 Mo. 176 —657, 668, 634, 669, 670. State V. Harrington, 44 Mo. App. 297—405. State V. Hartford, etc., B. Co., 29 Conn. 538—95, 97. State V. Intoxicating Liquors, 73 Me. 278, 83 Me. 168—200, 230. State V. Maine, etc., B. Co., 76 Me. 357 —797. State V. Missouri Pac. B. Co., 29 Neb. 550—105. ex Table of Cases. (The references are to the pages.) State V. Nebraska Teleph. Co., 17 Neb. 126—79. State V. New Haven, etc., H. Co., 41 Conn. 134—99. State V. Overton, 24 N. . J. L. 435—559, 566, 590, 591. State V. Hay, 109 N. C. 736—549. State V. Republican Valley R. Co., 17 Neb. 647—105, 193. State ex rel. Cumberland Teleph. & Tel. Co. V. Tesas, etc., R. Co., 52 L,a. Ann. 1850—117. State V. Seagraves (Mo.), 85 S. W. 925— 910. State V. Tom, 8 Or. 177—846. State V. Young (N. J.), 56 Atl. 471—698. State V. Western Maryland Ry. Co., 63 Md. 433— S69, 570. State ex rel. Atwater v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 48 N. J. 1^. 55—123. State ex rel. Sheets v. Union Depot Co., 71 Ohio St. 379—96, 614. Staub V. Kendrlck, 121 Ind. 226—64, 706. Steamboat Co. v. Atkins, 22 Pa. St. 522 Steamboat Co. v. Brockett, 121 U. S. 637, 645—543, 692. Steamboat Keystone v. Moies, 28 Mo. 243 —196, 276. Steamboat Lynx v. King, 12 Mo. 272-234. Steamboat New World v. King, 16 How. (U. S.) 474—375, 544, 571, 762. Steamboat Virginia v. Kraft, 25 Mo. 76— 431, 437. Steamboat Farmer v. MoCraw, 26 Ala. 189—364. Steamboat Sultana f. Chapman, 5 Wis. 454—154, 196. Steamboat Crystal Palace v. Vanderpool, 16 B. Mon. (Ky.) 302-713, 716. Stearns v. Raymond, 26 Wis. 74—204. Steams v. Pullman Car Co., 8 Ont. Rep. 171—58. Stedman v. Western Transp. Co., 48 Barb. (N. T.) 97—94, 238, 239, 328. Steel V. Townsend, 37 Ala. 247—292, 314, 351, 377, 393, 753. Steele v. Consolidated Tract. Co., .10 Pittsb. (Pa.) L. J. N. S. 290—776. Steele v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 31 U. C. C. P. 260-337. Steele v. McTyer, 31 Ala. 667—11, 65, 363. Steele v. Southern R. Co., 55 S. C. 389 —695. Steelman v. Taylor, 3 Ware (U S.), 62 —126. Steen v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co., 89 N. T. 316—332. Steers v. Cunard Steamship Co., 57 N. Y. 1—718. Steers V. Liverpool, etc.. Steamship Co., 57 N. Y. 1—297, 347, 387, 392, 703, 721, 768. Steeg V. St. Paul City R. Co. (Minn.), 52 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 650—676. Stelnman v. Wilklns, 7 W. & S. (Pa.) 466 —16, 20, 23, 62, 442. Stelnweg v. Erie R. Co., 43 N. Y. 123—320, 327. 602, 603. Stephenson v. Hart, 4 Blng. 476—148. 158. Stephenson v. Little, 10 Mich. 433—204. Stephens v. Smith, 29 Vt. 160—620, 784, 751. Stern v. Westchester Elec. R. Co., 99 App. Dlv. (N. Y.) 491—650. Stetler v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 49 Wis. 609—188, 190. Stevenot v. Eastern R. Co., 61 Minn. 104 —232. Stevens v. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 1 Mo App. Rep. 247—741. Stevens v. Boston Blev. Ry. Co., 184 Mass. 476—692. Stevens v. Boston, etc., R. Corp. 8 Gray (Mass.), 262, 1 Gray, 277—272, 434, 437. Stevens v. European, etc., R. Co., 66 Me 74, 64—779, 787. Stevens v. Great Western R. Co., 52 h T. 324—319. Stevens v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 67 Mo. App. 356—799. Stevens v. Sayward, 3 Gray (Mass.), 108- —446. Stevens v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 20 Ohio C. C. 41, U O. C. D. 168-476, 481. Stewart v. Terre Haute, etc., R. Co., 3. Fed. 768-468, 474. Stevenson v. Pullman Palace Car Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 26 S. W. 112-69. Stevenson v. Second Ave. R. Co., 35 App. Dlv. (N. Y.) 474—779. Stevenson v. West Seattle, etc., Co.r (Wash.), 60 Pac. 51—621. Stewart V. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 88 N. Y. Supp. 377—885. Stewart v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 146 Mass. 605—663, 681, 869. Stewart v. Brooklyn, etc., R. Co., 90 N. Y. 688—543, 610, 616, 626, 631, 632. 633, 638. Stewart v. Comer, 100 Ga. 754—236. Stewart v. Erie, etc., Transp. Co., 17 Minn. 372—472, 492. Stewart v. Everts, 76 Wis. 35—803. Stewart v. Gracy, 93 Tenn. 314—135, 283. Stewart v. London, etc., R. Co., 3 H. t C. 135—324. Stewart v. Merchants Despatch Transp. Co., 47 Iowa, 229—47. Stierle v. Union Ry. Co., 156 N. Y. in, 74—594, 605, 657, iM. Stiles V. Atlanta, etc., R. Co., 65 Ga. 370 —585. Stiles V. Davis, 1 Black (U. S.), 101-214, 229, 230, 232. Stiles V. Western Union Tel Co. (Ariz.), 15 Pac. 712—76. Stlllwell V. Staples, 19 N. Y. 401—373. Stimson v. Connecticut River Co., » Mass. 83—706, 708. Stimson v. Jackson, 58 N. H. 138-27S, 381. Stimson v. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co., 75' Wis. 381—771, 772. Stiner v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 84 N. Y. Supp. 286—652. Stinson V. New Ybrk Cent. R. Co., 32 N. Y. 333—752, 757, 763, 765, 768. St. Clair V. Chicago, etc., B. Co., 8fr Iowa, 304—94, 241, 247, 249, 250, 388. St. Clair St. Ry. Co. v. Eadle, 43 Ohio. St. 91-823, 825. . St. John V. Southern Express Co., 1 WooflB (U. S.), 612, 616—356, 480. St. Joseph, etc., R. Co. v. Palmer, 3» Neb. 463—317. „ St. Joseph, etc., R. Co. v. Wheeler, !i Kan. 185—574, 582. St. Louis Drayage Co. v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 65 Fed. 39—150, 930, 931. St. Louis Drayage Co. v. Louisville «; N. R. Co., 5 Inters, Com. Rep. "i- "6. ,, ,„ St. Louis Coal R. Co. V. Moore, 14 "'• App. 610—597, 607. _ St. Louis Ins. Co. v. St. Louis, etc., K. Co., 104 V. S. 146—458, 477. 492, 493. Table of Cases. CXI (The references are to the pages.) St. Louis S. W. R. Co. V. Berger, 64 Ark. 613—636. St. Louis S. W. K. Co. V. Berry, 60 Ark. 433—704, 708, 709. St. Louis S. R. Co. V. Gates (Tex. Civ. App.), 38 S. W. 648—454. St. Louis S. R. Co. V. Dolan (Tex. Civ. App.), 84 S. W. 393—405. St. Louis S. W. Co. V. Ferguson (Tex.), 64 S. W. 797—685. St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co. V. Hunt (Tex. Civ. App.), 81 S. W. 322—521. St. Louis S. W. R. Co. V. Griffith (Tex. Civ. App.), 36 S. W. . 741—560. St. Louis S. W. R. Co. V. Musiok (Tex. Civ. App.), 80 S. W. 673—521. St. Louis S. W. R. Co. V. Pruitt (Tex.), 80 S. W. 72—561. St. Louis S. W. R. Co. V. Ray (Tex.), 35 S. W. 951-716. St. Louis S. W. R. Co. V. Williams (Tex. Civ. App.), 32 S. W. 225—401. St. Louis, etc.. Packet Co. v. iVIissourl Pac. R. Co., 35 Mo. App. 272—471. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Adams, 4 Kan. App. 306—173. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Adcox, 52 Ark. 406—687. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Atchison, 47 Ark. 74—666. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Berry, 4 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. sec. 16S— 886. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Berryhill, 3 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. sec. 319—667. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Bland (Tex. Civ. App.), 34 S. W. 675—251, 466. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Bone, 52 Ark. 26—282, 328. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Brown (Tex. Civ. App.), 69 S. ^V. 1010—374. St. Louis, etc., B. Co. v. Branch, 45 Ark. 524—750. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Burns (Tex. Civ. App.), 80 S. W. 104—620, 521. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Cantrell, 37 Ark. 519—671, 680, 687, 817, 891, 849. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Carlisle (Tex. Civ. App.), 78 S. W. 563—535, 574. St. Louis, etc., B. Co. v. Carroll, 13 111. App. 585—556. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Clark, 48 Kan. 321—301, 510. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Cleary, 77 Mo. 634—300, 316, 510, 525. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Commercial U. Ins. Co., 139 U. S. 223—118, 134, 142, 174. St. Louis etc., R. Co. v. Coolldge (Ark.), 83 S. W. 333—456. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Coulson, 8 Kan. App. 4—873. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Crawford (Tex. Civ. App.), 35 S. W. 748—163. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Dalby, 19 111. 363, 36S— 627, 632, 734, 748. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Dodd, 69 Ark. 317—264, 282, 283. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Dorman, 72 III. 504—499, 510. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Duck (Tex. Civ. App.), 72 S. W. 445—602. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. if. Edwards, 78 Fed. 745-464. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Elgin Con- densed Milk Co., 175 111. 657—365, 372. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Fairbairn (Mo.), 4 S. W. 50—613. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Fairbairn, 48 Ark. 491—562, 613. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Farr, 70 Ark. 264—846. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Finley, 79 Tex. 85—554, 665, 659, 825. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Flannagan, 23 III. App. 489—103. St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co. V. FurguBon (Tex. Civ. App.), 64 S. W. 797—826. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Hanks, 78 Tex. 300—705. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Hardway, 17 111. App. 321—705, 724, 726. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Harper, 69 Ark. 186—760. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Hawkins, 39 III- App. 406—722, 730. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Hays, 13 Tex. Civ. App. 577—338. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Heath, 41 Ark. 477, 476—94, 238, 241, 423. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Henderson, 57 Ark. 402—114, 467, 499, 504. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Henry (Tex. Civ. App.), 81 S. W. 334—414. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Hlndsman, 1 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. sec. 204—407, 426. St. Louis, etc., Ry. Co. v. Honea (Tex. Civ. App.), 84 S. W. 267—521. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Hopkins (Ark.), 15 S. W. 610—221. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Huffman (Tex. Civ. App.), 32 S. W. 30-748. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Hurst, 67 Ark. 407—332, 333, 335. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Jacobs, 70 Ark. 401—625. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Johnson, 69- Ark. 122—23.7, 875. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Johnson (Tex.), 68 S. W. 68—633. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Johnson, 53 Ark. 282—206. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Jones (Tex. Civ. App.), 29 S. W. 696—251, 513. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Keitt (Tex. Civ. App,), 76 S. W. 311—602. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Knight, 122 U. S. 79—70, 131, 134, 143, 174, 269. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Larned, 103 111. 293—164, 165, 173, 214, 472. St. Louis, etc.,. R. Co. v. Lear, 64 Ark. 399—467, 495. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Lee, 69 Ark. 584—93, 99. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Leftwich, 111 Fed. 127—864. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Leigh, 45 Ark. 368—696. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Lesser, 46 Ark. 236—314, 342, 351, 485. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Mackie, 71 Tex. 491—666, 626, 647, 744. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Maddry, 57 Ark. 306—819, 826. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. McKee, 4 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. sec. 7—205, 206. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Marrs (Ark.), 31 S. W. 42—451. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Martin (Tex. Civ. App.), 37 S. W. 234, 35 S. W. 28— 133, 144, 388, 394. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Meyer, 40 U. S. App. 654, 77 Fed. 150—633, 644. St. Louis, etc., B. Co. v. Mitchell, 57 Ark. 418—595, 606, 787. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Montgomery 39 111. 335—70, 131, 259. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Mudford, 44 Ark. 439, 48 Ark. 502—405, 413, 416, 424. asa.1 Table of Cases. (Tbe references are to tbo cages.) St. Louis, etc., K. Co. v. Murphy, 60 Ark. 333—131. St. Louis, etc., K. Co. V. Murray, 55 Ark. 248 8i9_ St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Neel, 56 Ark. 279—94, 119, 141, 142, 248, 387, 417, OS, 493. St. Louis, etc., K. Co. V. Osborn, 67 Ark. 399^749. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Parks (Tex.), 76 S. W. 740—602. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Parmer (Tex. Civ. App.), 30 S. W. 1109—388. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Person, 49 Ark. 182—817, 849, 851. St. Louis, etc., K. Co. V. Phelps, 4« Ark. 485—405, 411. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Philadelpjhla Fire Assoc, 55 Ark. 163—381. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Piper, 13 Kan. 505, 510—479, 481, 510, 634. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Reagan, 52 111. App. 488—748. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Rexroad, 59 Ark. 180—692. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Robbins, 4 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. sec. 43—350. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Rose, 20 111. App. 670—179, 211. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Rosenberry, 45 Ark. 256-«66, 680, 820. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Smuck, 49 Ind. 302—299, 315. 721, 760. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Spann, 57 Ark. 127—304. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. South, 43 111. 176—734. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Sweet, 57 Ark. 287— «52. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Trimble, 64 Ark. 354—888, 890. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Turner, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 625-337, 339, 531. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Turner (Tex. Civ. App.), 77 S. W. 255—675. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Tyler Coffin Co. (Tex. Clv. App.), 81 S. W. 826—208, 215. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Vallrlus, 5i Ind. 511—604. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Waggoner, 90 111. App. 556—657. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Weakly, 60 Ark. 397—296, 342, 458, 464, 485, 623, 532, 536, 754, 758, 760. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. White (Tex. Clv. App.), 34 S. W. 1049—583. St. Louis, etc., B. Co. v. Williams (Tex. Civ. App.), 32 S. W. 225, 37 S. W. 992— 333, 518, 737. Sto6k Yards Co. v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 67 Fed. Rep. 35—105. Stockton V. Frey, 4 Gill (Md.), 406—617, 653, 776, 788. Stoddard V. Long Island R. Co., 5 Sandf. (N. Y.) 180-319, 763. Stoddard v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. (Mo. App.), 80 S. W. 33—676, 834. Stoddard v. New York, etc., R. Co., 181 Mass. 422—651. Stoddard v. New York, etc., R. Co., 60 Hun (N. Y.), 221—597, 609. Stoher v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 91 Mo. 509—803. Stokes V. Eastern Counties R. Co., 2 F. & F. 691—607. Stokes V. Saltonstall, 13 Peters (U. S.) 191—21, 643, 617, 652, 696, 776, 801. Stollenwerok v. Thacher, U5 Mass, 24— 165. Stone v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 47 Iowa. 82—558, 735, 736. Stone V. Dry Dock, etc., R. Co., 115 N Y. 104—823. Stone V. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 3 Int Com. Rep. 60—920, 932. Stone V. Farmers L. & T. Co., 116 U. S. Stone V. Rice, 58 Ala. 96—195. Stone V. Waltt, 31 Me. 409—147, 208. Stoner v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 109 Iowa, 551-244, 369. Stoner v. Pennsylvania Co., 98 Ind. 384-. 843. Stoneman v. Brie R. Co., 52 N. Y. 429- 707, 708. Storer v. Gowen, 18 Me. 177—6. Storey v. Hersbey, 19 Pa. Super. Ct. 485 —161. Story v. Norfolk, etc., R. Co., 133 N. C. 69—896. Storr v. Crowley, 1 McClel. & Y. 129- 193, 201. Store's V. Los Angeles Tract. Co., 134 Cal. 91—891. Stowe V. New York, etc., R. Co., 113 Mass. 521—261, 269, 283. Strahorn v. Union Stock Yard, etc., (^., 43 111. 424—160, 187. Strand V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 67 Mich. 380—669, 829. Strange v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 61 Mo. App. 586—687. Stratton v. Central City Horse R. Co., 95 111. 525—794. Straiton v. New York, etc., R. Co., 2 E. D. Sm. (N. Y.) 184—493. Straus V. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 75 Mo. 185, 86 Mo. 421—675, 678, 850. Straus V. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 72 Mo. 414—815. Strauss v. St. Louis Transit Co., 102 Mo. App. 644—632. Street V. Grand Trunk R. Co., 178 N. Y. 553—586. Street v. Morrison, 10 New Bruns. 29fi- 140. Strieker v. Leathers, 68 Miss. 803—184. Strickland v. Barrett, 20 Pick. (Mass.), 415—46. Stringer v. Alabama R. Co., 99 Ala. 397 —6, 375, 762. Strohn v. Detroit, etc., B. Co., 21 Wis. 554, 23 Wis. 126—25, 296, 302, 307. Strohm v. New York, etc., R. Co., 98 N. Y. 305—893, 894. Strong V. Adams, 30 Vt. 221—364. Strong V. Campbell, 11 Barb. (N. Y.) 135 —72. Strong V. Long Island R. Co., 91 App. Dlv. (N. Y.) 442-336. Strong V. Natally, I B. & P. N. R. 16- 194. Strouss V. Wabash, etc., B. Co., 17 Fed. 209—707, 708, 713. Stuart V. Crawley, 2 Stark, 323-.82, 537. Sturgeon v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., (i Mo. 569—317, 399, 412, 416, 507, 515. Sturgess V. Bissell, 46 N. Y. 462-398. Stutsky V. Brooklyn Height R. Co., 88 N. Y. Supp. 358—645. Stutz V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 73 Wis. 147—887, 892, 893, 895, 904. Sunderland v. Westoott, 40 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 468—209, 281, 756. Sullivan V. Bark, 33 Me. 438—446. Sullivan V. India Mfg. Co., 113 Mass. 398 —586. Sullivan V. JstEerson Ave. R. Co., 133 Mo. 1-64S. Table of Cases. (The references are to the pages.) CXllI Sullivan V. Kuykendall, 82 Ky. 483—79. SulUvan V. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 54 App. Dlv. {N. T.) 633—904. Sullivan V. Old Colony R. Co., 148 Mass. 488—648. Sullivan v. Oregon R., etc., Co., 12 Or. 392—617, 807, 899, 900. Sullivan v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 30 Pa. St. 234—600, 617, 699, 778, 788. Sullivan V. Thompson, 99 Mass. 259—194, 481. Sullivan V. Union By. Co., 81 App. Dlv. (N. Y.) 696—823. SulUvan v. Vicksburg, etc., K. Co., 39 La. Ann. 800—679. Sumner v. Charlotte, etc., R. Co., 78 N. C. 289—253, 371. Summers v. Crescent City R. Co., 34 La. Ann. 139—679, 8'(i. Sumner v. Southern R. Assoc, 7 Baxt. (Tenn.) 346—439, 463. Sumner v. Walker, 30 Fed. 261—458. Summers v. Wabash K. Co. (Mo. App.), 79 S. W. 481—523. Summlti V. State, 8 Lea (Tenn.), 413—614, 622, 740. Susong V. Florlca Cent. R. Co., 115 Ga. 361—535. Sutherland v. Peoria Second Nat. Bank, 78 Ky. 250—160, 187, 188, 231, 233. Sutro V. Fargo, 41 N. T. Super. Ct. 231— 393, 395. Sutton V. Chicago, etc., R. Co. (S. D.), 84 N. W. .396—368, 488. Sutton V. Wauwatosa, 29 Wis. 21—831. Swan V. Manchester, etc., R. Co., 132 Mass. 116—734. Swarthout v. New Jersey Steamboat Co., 48 N. T. 209—615. Swetland v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 102 Mass. 276—108, 223, 247, 376, 467, 491. Sweatland v. Illinois, etc., Tel. Co., 27 Iowa, 468—73, 76. Sweet V. Barney, 23 N. T. 335, 337—36, 152, 164, 166, 188, 209. Sweeney v. Colter, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 886— 671. Sweeney v. Kansas City Cable B. Co., 150 Mo. 385-637, 864. Sweeney v. Railroad Co., 10 Allen (Mass.), 368—846. Swift V. Pacific Mail Steamship Co., 106 N. T. 206—307, 313, 473, 491, 492. Swift V. Staten Island R. T. Co., 123 N. T. 646—822, 823, 824. Swift V. Tyson, 16 Pet. (U, S.) 1—311. Swlgert V. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 75 Mo. 475—675, 837. Swindler v. Hilliard, 2 Rich. (S. C.) 286 —66, 318, 394, 717. Sword V. Young, 89 Tenn. 126—168, 178, 179, 180. Swisher v. Williams, Wright (Ohio), 754 —831. Switzerland and Marine Ins. Co. v. Louis- ville, etc., R. Co., 131 U. S. 440—706. Sycamore Marsh, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Sturm, 13 Neb. 211—422. Symonds v. Pain, 6 Hurl. & N. 709—51. Syracuse First Nat. Bank v. New York Cent., etc., B. Co., 85 Hun (N. Y.), 160, 163. T. Taber v. Delaware, etc., B. Co., 71 N. T. 489, 493—652, 665, 671, 681, 847. Tabler v. Hannibal, etc., B. Co.. 93 Mo. 79 —850. Talle v. Oregon R. Co. (Dr.), 67 Pao. 1015, 68 Pao. 732—481. Taff Vale B. Co. v. Giles, 2 El. & Bl. 822 —194, 604. TalUon V. Mears, 29 Mont. 161—627, 654. Talbott V. Merchants Despatch Co., 41 Iowa, 247—220, 309. Taloott V. Wabash E. Co., 159 N. Y. 161— 367, 707, 709, 717, 729. Talcott V. Wabash R. Co., 66 Hun (N. Y.), 456—706, 728. Tallassee Palls Mfg. Co. v. Western Ry. of Ala. (Ala,), 29 So. 203—150, 352. Talley v. Great Western R. Co., L. R. 6 C. P. 44—714. Tanner v. Oil Creek R. Co., 53 Pa. St. 411—263, 274, 412. Tanner v. Buffalo Ry. Co., 72 Hun (N. Y.), 465—861, 865. Tanner v. Louisiana, etc., R. Co., 60 Ala. 621-618, 689. Tanner v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 108 N. Y. 623—376. Tanger v. South West Mo. Bl. Ry. Co., 85 Mo. App. 28—632. Tarbell v. Central Pac. R. Co., 34 Cai. 616—563, 619. Tarbell V. Northern Cent. R. Co., 24 Hun (N. Y.), 51—559, 741, 743. Tarbell v. Royal Exchange Shipping Co., 110 N. Y. 170—263, 268, 270, 274. Tardos v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 36 La. Ann. 15—410, 464. Tardos v. Toulon, 14 La. Ann. 429—388. Tate v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 26 Ky. Law Rep. 309—647. Tate V. Yazoo, etc., R. Co., 78 Miss. 842 —134. Tattan v. Great Western R. Co., 2 EI. & Bl. 844—642. Taylor, etc., R. Co. v. Montgomery, 4 Tex. App. Civ. Cas, sec. 238—350, 504. Taylor, etc., R. Co. v. Sublett (Tex. App.), 16 S. W. 182-360. Taylor, etc., R. Co. v. Taylor, 79 Tex. 104—803. Taylor v. Great Northern R. Co., L. R. 1 C. P. 385—107, 240, 250. Taylor v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 24 U. C. C. P. 582—159. Taylor v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 48 N. H. 304—597, 604, 605, 664, 898, 900, 901. Taylor v. Little Rock, etc., B. Co., 32 Ark. 393—287, 481. Taylor v. Carew Mfg. Co., 143 Mass. 470 —795. Taylor V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 74 111. 86-^73. Taylor v. Little Rock, etc., B. Co., 32 Ark. 398, 39 Ark. 148—485, 758, 760. Taylor v. Llverpoel, etc., Steam Co., L. R. 9 Q. B. 646—362. Taylor v. Maine Central R. Co., 87 Me. 299—476. Taylor v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 26 Mo. App. 336—860. Taylor v. Monnot, 4 Duer (N. Y.), 116 — 704. Taylor v. Pennsylvania B. Co., 8 N. J. L. J. 149—288, 317. Taylor v. Pennsylvania Co., 50 Fed. 755 —595. 614. Taylor v. Eailroad Co., 45 Mich. 74—600. Taylor v. Smith, 87 App. Dlv. (N. Y.) 78 —432. 433. Taylor v. Star Coal Co. (Iowa), 81 N. W. 249—831. Taylor v. Wells, 3 Watts. (Pa.) 65—202. Teague v. Southern R. Co., 45 S. C. 27 —419. Teall V. Felton, 1 N. Y. 537—72. Teall V. Sears, 9 Barb. (N. Y.) 317—60, M. JXIV Table of Cases. (The references are to the pages.) Telfer v. Northern E. Co., 30 N. J. I* 188—700. Ten Eyck v. Harris, 47 111. 268—180. Tennery v. Pipplnger, 1 Phlla. (Pa.) 643 —776. Tennessee R. Co. v. Walker, 11 Helsk. (Tenn.) 383—786. Tennis v. Interstate, etc., B. Co., 45 Kan. 603—312. Terre Haute, etc., H. Co. v. Buck, 96 Ind. 346—653, 670, 675, 847. Terre Haute, etc., R. Co. v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 150 111. 602-46. Terre Haute, etc. R. Co. v. Clem, 123 Ind. 16—384. Terre Haute, etc., R.' Co. v. Crews, 53 111. App. 50—114. Terre Haute, etc., B. Co. v. Fitzgerald, 47 Ind. 79—563, 664. Terra Haute Elec. R. Co. v. Kiely (Ind. App.), 72 N. E. 65»-601, 603. Terre Haute, etc., B. Co. v. Jackson, 81 Ind. 19—632, 692. Terre Haute, etc., B. Co. v. Sherwood, 132 Ind. 129—315, 389, 390, 394, 524, 534, 760. Terre Haute, etc., R. Co. v. Vanatta, 21 111. 188—732, 890. Terry v. Flushing, etc., B. Co., 13 Hun (N. T.), 369—658, 665, 591. Terry v. Gulf, etc., R. Co., 14 Tex. Civ. App. 451—409. Terry v. Jewett, 78 N. T. 338—875. Tewes v. North German Lloyd S. S. Co., 42 Misc. Rep. (N. T.) 148—721. Texarkana St. R. Co. v. Hart (Tex. Civ. App.). 26 S. W. 436-821. Texas & New Orleans Ry. Co. v. Crow- der, 63 Tex. 502-797. Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Byers Bros. (Tex. Civ. App.), 84 S. W. 1087—523. Texas & P. R. Co. V. Gentry, 160 U. S. 363—790. Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Edlns fTex. Civ. App.), 83 S. 'W. 253—519, 524. Texas & P. R. Co. v. Gardner (Tex.), 114 Fed. 186—776. Texas & P. R. Co. V. Hassell (Tex. Civ. App.), 68 S. W. 54—416, 466. Texas & P. B. Co. V. Beid (Tex. Civ. App.), 74 S. W. 99—826. Texas & P. By. Co. v. Smith & White (Tex. Civ. App.), 79 S. W. 614—498. Texas Cent. R. Co. v. Morris, 1 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. sec. 135—389, 526. Texas Cent. R. Co. v. O'Laughlin (Tex. Civ. App.), 72 S. W. 610. 84 S. W. 1104— 500, 585. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Adams, 78 Tex. 372—336, 482, 491. Texas, etc., B. Co. v. Alexander (Tex. Civ. App.), 30 S. W. 113, 1113—61, 688. Texas, etc.. R. Co. v. Anderson (Tex. Civ. App.), 61 S. W. 424— 6U. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Andrews (Tex. Civ. App.), 80 S. W. 390—536. Texas, etc., B. Co. v. Avery, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 236, 33 S. W. 704—117, 409. 906. Texas, etc., B. Co. v. Barber (Tex. Civ. App.), 30 S. W. 600—335. Texas, etc., B. Co. v. Barnhart, 5 Tex. Civ. App. 601—491. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Barron, 78 Tex. 421—808. Texas, etc., E. Co. v. Berry (Tex. Civ. App.), 71 S. W. 326—728. Texas, etc., B. Co. v. Best, 66 Tex. 116— 684. Texas, etc., E. Co. v. Bingham, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 278—666, 681. Texas, etc., B. Co. v. Birchlleld (Tex. Civ. App.), 33 S. W. 1022—409. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Black, 87 Texas 160—563, 583. Texas, etc., E. Co. v. Boggs (Tex. Civ App.). 30 S. W. 1089-242. Texas, etc., E. Co. v. Bond, 62 Tex 442 —733, 735. Texas, etc., E. Co. v. Brown, 78 Tex. 401 —469. 873. Texas, etc., B. Co. v. Byers Bros. (Tex Civ. App.), 73 S. W. 427—506, 535. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Callender, 183 V. S 632, 98 Fed. 538—353, 462, 480. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Capps, 2 Tex. App Civ. Cas. sec. 33—706, 707. Texas, etc., E. Co. v. Carlton, 60 Tex 397—96. Texas, etc., B. Co. v. Cau, 120 Fed. is' 645— 3C4. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Cauble (Tex. Civ App.), 81 S. W. 1022—535. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Clayton, 173 U. S 348, 51 U. S. App. 676—133, 186, 266. Texas, etc., B. Co. v. Cole, 66 Tex. 562— 887. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Cook, 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. sec. 659—725. Texas, etc., B. Co. v. Cushny (Tex. Civ. App.), 64 S. W. 796—535. Texas, etc., B. Co. v. Cuteman (Tex- App.), 14 S. W. 1069—142. Texas, etc., B. Co. v. Davis, 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. sec. 191—318, 355, 404, 524, 631. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Davidson, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 542 — 655. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Dennis, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 90—744. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Dick (Tex. Civ. App.). 63 S. W. 895—554. Texas, etc., E. Co. v. Dishman & Tribble (Tex. Civ. App.), 85 S. W. 319—408, 532. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Edmond (Tex. Civ. App.), 29 S. W. 618-633, 636, 737. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Ferguson, 1 Tex App. Civ. Cas. sec. 1263—404, 701, 705. Texas, etc., E. Co. v. Fort, 1 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. sec. ]2r2— 460, 727. Texas, etc., E. Co. v. Garcia, 62 Tex. 285 —572, 573, 582. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Hamilton, 66 Tex 92—601, 604, 606. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Hamm, 2 Tex. Civ. App. Cas. sec. 490—112. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Hardin, 62 Tex. 367—597. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Hawkins (Tex. Civ. App.), 30 S. W. 1113-332, 482. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Hayden, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 745—550. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Humphries, 20 Tex Civ. App. 28—637. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Interstate Com- merce Co., 162 D. S. 197-906, 910, 911, 912, 915, 918, 920. 921, 922, 923, 924, 925. Texas, etc. App. Civ. Texas, etc.. —688. Texas, etc. App.), 74 Texas, etc. App.), 24 Texas, etc. —804. Texas, etc. —410. Texas, etc., App. Cas. Texas, etc. 481— «6S. , E. Co. V. Jackson, 3 Tei. Cas. sec. 41—339. R. Co. V. James. 82 Tex SOS , E. Co. V. Kelly (Tex. Civ. S. W. 343—453. , R. Co. V. Klepper (Tex. Civ. S. W. En-332, 408, 6S6. , R. Co. V. Lester. 75 Tex. SO ., B. Co. V. Levle. 59 Tex 674 B. Co. V. Logan, 3 Tex. Civ, . sees. 185, 186-198, 409, 484. B. Co.' V. Ludlam, 67, FM. Table of Cases. cxv (The references are to the pages.) Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Lynch (Tex. Civ. App.). 73 S. W. 65—472. 732, S83. Texas, etc., R. .Co. v. Lyons (Tex. Civ. App ), 50 S. W. 161—749. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Mansell (Tex. Civ. App.), 23 S. W. E49— 688. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Mayes (Tex. App.), 15 S. W. 43—881. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Martin, 2 Tex. Civ. App. Cas. sec. 341—198, 404. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. McCarty (Tex. Civ. App.), 69 S. W. 229-526. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. McDonald, 2 Tex. Civ. App. Cas. sec. X63— 565, 689. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. McLean (Tex.), 32 S. W. 776—599. Texas, etc., R. Co. ». Miller, 79 Tex. 78 —554, 670, 683. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Morse, 1 Tex. Civ. App. Cas. sec. 411—26. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Murtlshaw (Tex. Civ. App.), 78 S. W. 953—405, 520. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Orr, 46 Ark. 194— 656, 798. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Overalls, 82 Tex. 247—782, 866. Texas, etc., R. Co v. Payne, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 58—396, 419. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Pollard, 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. sec. 481—672, 880, 891, 893. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Powell (Tex. Civ. App.), 79 S. W. 86—622. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Handle. 18 Tex. Civ. App. 351—635. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Rea (Tex. Civ. App.) 66 S. W. 1116—882. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Rciss, 183 U. S. 621, 99 Fed. 1006-186, 266, 480. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Richmond (Tex. Civ. App.), 63 S. TV. 619—310. Texas, etc., R. Cd v. Rogers (Tenn.), 3 S. W. 660—318. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Scrivener, 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. sec. 328—403, 482. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Sims (Tex. Civ. App.), 26 S. W. 6i4— 400. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Smissen (Tex. Civ. App.), 73 S. W. 42—406. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, 67 Fed. 524 —687. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Smith & White (Tex. Civ. App.), 79 S. W. 614—635. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Stribllng (Tex. Civ. App.), 34 S. W. 1002—506. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Suggs, 62 Tex. 323 —605, 772, 779. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Talley, 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. sec. 765 — 424. Texas, etc., R; Co. v. Tankersley, 63 Tex. 57-399. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Tarklngton (Tex. Civ. App.), 66 S. W. 137—636. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Tott, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 335—629. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Wever, 3 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. sec. 60—286. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Wheat, 2 Tex. Cix. App. Cas. sec. 64—142. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. White, 4 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. sec. 259, 451—649, 689. Texas Exp. Co. v. Scott, 16 Am. & Bng. R. Cas. 111—21, 26, 360. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. White. 101 Fed. 928 —882. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Williams, 62 Fed. 440—035, 636. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Woods, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 612—670. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Wright, 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. sec. 339—404. Texas Mexican R. Co. v. Willis, 3 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. sec. 71—718. Texas Mexican Ry, Co. v, Gallagher (Tex. Civ. App.), 64 S. W. 809—536. Texas Pao. R. Co. v. Euckelew, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 272—656, 771, 780. Tex. Pac. R. Co. v. Nicholson, 61 Tex. 491—112, 116, 142, 243, 399. Texas Trunk R. Co. v. Johnson, 75 Tex. 168— J99, 900. Thane v. Scranton Tract. Co., 191 Pa. 249—860. Thatcher v. Dela-nare, etc.. Canal Co., 1 Int. Com. C. Rep. 162—908, 932. Thatcher v. Fltchburg R. Co., 1 Int. Com. Rep. 356—908. Thatcher v. Great Western R. Co., 4 U. C. C P. 543—787. Thayer v. Burchard, 99 Mass. 508—106, 108. Thaye" v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 22 Ind- 26—294, 6B3, 692, 763, 762. The Aterfoyle, 1 Blatchf. (U. S.) 360—540. The Accomac, 15 Prob. Dlv. 208—354. The Alme, 25 Fed. 562— 3S0. The Argentina, L. R. 1 Adm. & Eccl. 370 —173. The Augusta, 29 Fed. 334— !!03. The Bark Edwin, 1 Sprague (U. S.), 477— 144. The Bark Gentleman, 1 Olc. Adm. 110—32. The BeaconsHeld, 158 U. S. 303—363. The Bermuda, 29 Fed. 399—368. The Bcrnla, 12 Prob. Div. 68—699. The Bird ol Paradise, 6 Wall. (U. S.) 645 —443, 445. The Bltteme, 35 Fed, 927—378. The Bobolink, 6 Sawy. (U. S.) 146—197. The Boskenna Bay, 40 Fed. 93—274. The Brantford City, 29 Fed. 373—31, 311, 363, 499. The Brig Collenberg, 1 Black (U. S.), 170 —126, 247. The Brig May Queen, 1 Newb. Adm. 46i -292. The Caledonia, 43 Fed. Rep. 681—114. The Caledonia, 157 U. S. 124, 50 Fed. 667 —413, 615. The Carib Prince, 63 Fed. 266—309. The Carlos F. Roses, 177 U. S. 655—177. The Carron Park, 15 Prob. Div. 203—354. The Chasca, 23 Fed. 156—379. The City of Lincoln 25 Fed. 835—266. The Commander-in-Chief, 1 Wall. (U. S.) 61—66. The Cuba, 3 Ware (U. S.), 260—126. The Dan (D. C. S. D. N. Y.), 40 Fed. 691—66. The Daniel Burns, 62 Fed. 159—48. The David & Caroline, 6 Blatchf. (U. S.) 266—101. The Davis, 10 Wall. (U. S.) 15-^33. The Delaware, 14 Wall. (U. S.) 579—378. The Denmark, 27 Fed. 141—358. The Drew, 15 Fed. 826—157. The D, R. Martn, 11 Blatchf. 233—614, 622, 740. The Duero, 22 L. T. N. S. 37—324. The Eddy, 5 Wall. (U. S.) 481—195, 435, 436, 441, 443. The Emlllnen Marie, 32 L. T. N. S. 435— 173. The Euripides, 62 Fed. 161—379. The Ferryboat S. S. Gregory, 2 Ben. (U. S.) 226-409, 831. . The Freeman, 18 How. (U. S.) 182—174. The Gazelle, 128 U. S.' 474—187. The G'fntleman, 1 jblatchf. (U. S.) 196—32. The Glamorganshire, 60 Fed. 840—378. The Gold Hunter, 1 B. & H. Adm. 300— 405. CXVl Table of Cases. (The references are to the pages.) The Grafton, 1 Blatchf. (U. S.) 173—192. The Guiding Star, a3 Fed. 936—389. The Guildhall, 58 Fed. 79b— 282, 296, 311, 314. The Harrlman, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 161—243. The Hattle Palmer, 63 Fed. 1015—217. The Hugo, 57 Fed. 403, 61 Fed. 860—311, 319, 407. The Humboldt, 97 Fed. 656—713. The Huntress, 12 Fed. Gas. No. 6, 914—38. The Huntress, Davles (TJ. S.), 82—381. The Idaho, 93 U. S. 575—156, 229 363. The Invincible, 1 Lowell (U. S.), 225—379. The Ionic, 5 Blatchf. (U. S.) 538—356, 702, 703, 708. The Isaac Reed, 82 Fed. 566—396. The Iowa, 50 Fed. 561—314, 759. The Jefferson, 31 Fed. 489—393. The J. P. Donaldson, 167 U. S. 603—50. The Julia, 14 Moore P. C. 210—51. The Kensington, 88 Fed. 331—396. The Klmbal, 3 Wall. CU. S.) 37—443, 445. The Lady Franklin, 8 Wall. (U. S.) 325— 143, 174. The Lady Pike, 21 Wall. (U. S.) 14-65. The L. P. Dayton, 120 U. S. 337—50. The Lydia Monarch, 23 Fed. 298—350. The Lyon, 1 Brown's Adm. tU. S.) 69—60. The Maggie Hammond, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 436—65, 236. The Maggie M., 30 Fed. 692—378. The Majestic, 56 Fed. 244—352, 717. The Majestic, 60 Fed. 624—718, 754, 756, 758. The Mangalore, Sawy. (U. S.) 71-408. The Margaret, 94 U. S. 494—60. The Martha, 35 Fed. 313—187. The Mary Ann Guest, 1 Blatchf. (U. S.) 358—230. The MBry Washington, 1 Abb. (U. S.) 125 —265, 274. The Merrimac, 2 Sawy. (IT. S.) 686—50. The Minnehaha, 1 Lush. 335—61. The Mill Boy, 4 McCrary (U. S.), 383— 196. The M. M. Chase, 37 Fed. 708—229, 230. The NeafHe, 1 Abb. U. S. Rep. 466—18, 60. The New England. 110 Fed. 416—718. The New Orleans. 26 Fed. 44—393. The New World v. King, 18 How. (U. S.) 469—564. The TNiagara v. Cordes, 21 How. (U. S.) 7—66, 66. The Nith, 36 Fed. 86—406. The Normannla (D. C. S. D. N. T.), 62 Fed. 469—650. The Nutmeg State, 103 Fed. 797—289. Theobald v. Railway Pass. Assur. Co., 10 Exch. 46—566, The Oconto, 5 Blss. (U. S.) 460-50. The Olympia, 61 Fed. 120—509. The Oregon, Deady (U. S.), 179—144. The Orlflamme, 3 Sawy. (U. S.) 397—662, 692, 891, 893, 902. The Paolflc, Deady (U. S.), 17—292, 540. The Fortuence, 35 Fed. 670—379. The Princeton, 3 Elatchf. (U. S.) 54—60. The Priscllla, 106 Fed. 739—727. The Propeller Burlington, 137 U. S. 386— 50. The Propeller Commerce, 1 Black (U. S.), 582— ti6 The Propeller Mohawk, 8 Wall. (U. S.) 163—209. The Propeller Niagara v. Cordes, 21 How. (U. S.) 7, 22—19, 22, 32. The Quickstep, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 665—50. The R. B. Lee, 2 Abb. (TI. S.) 60—715. The Rpllance, 4 Woods (U. S.), 420—781. The Samuel E. Sprmg, 29 Fed. 397—388. The Saratoga, 20 Fed. 869—769. The Saugertles, 44 Fed. 626— ns The Schooner Anne, 1 Mason (U. S.). 512 -^38. The Schooner Volunteer, 1 Sumn. (U. S ) 651-445. The Severne, 113 Fed. 678—610. The Siren, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 152—433. The St. Hubert, 102 Fed. 362—340. The Steamboat Angelina Corning, 1 Ben (U. S.) 109—50. The Steamboat F. X. Aubury, 28 111. 412 —627. The Steamboat Lynx v. King, 12 Mo. 278 —32. The Steamboat New World \. King, 16 How. (U. S.) 474, 469—6, 569, 781. The Steamboat Sultana v. Chapman, 5 Wis. 454—164, 319. The Steamer New Philadelphia, 1 Black, (U. S.), 62—50. 695. The Steamer Webb, 14 Wall. (D. S.) 406 —50. The Steamship American, 8 Ben. CU. S.) 491—32. The stranger, 1 Brown's Adm. (U. S.) 281—50. ' The Strathairly, 124 U. S. 658—624. The Success, 7 Blatchf. (U. S.) 551—125. The Sue, 22 Fed. 843—623. The Thames, 14 Wall. (U. S.) 98-163, 187. The Thomas Newton, 41 Fed. 106—222. The Titania, 124 Fed. 975, 131 Fed. 229- 147, 209. The Vaughan, 14 Wall. (U. S.) 258— m. The Warren Adams, 38 U. S. App. 3:6—769. The Wasco, 63 Fed. 646—548, 649, 552, 553. The Washington, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 513-893. The William Cran.j, 50 Fed. 444—378. The Zenobia, 1 Abb. Adm. 48—640, 884. Thirteenth, etc., St. Pass. E Co. y. Boudrou, 92 Pa. St. 475—814, 858, 861. Thomap, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Wabash, etc., B. Co., 62 Wis. 642—198, 406, 409, 425. Thomas v. Boston, etc., R. Corp., 10 Mete. (Mass.) 478—37, 149, 261, 48S, 752. Thomas v. Charlotte, etc., R. Co., 38 S. C. 485—686. Thomas v. Chlcaj-o, etc., R. Co., 72 Mich. 366—583, 746, 747. Thomas v. Citizens Pass. Ry. Co., 132 Pa. St. 604—783. Thomas v. Day, 4 Esp. N. P. 262—144. Thomas v. Frankfort, etc., B. Co., 25 Ky. L. Rep. 1061—428 ^29, 438, 459. Thomas v. Great Western R. Co., 14 U. C. Q. B. 389—702. Thomas v. Lanca-^ter Mills, 19 C. C. A. 88, 71 Fed. 481— !lt. 225. 248, 283, 314, 351 Thomas v. Northern Pao. Exp. Co., 73 Minn. 186—166, 21<-. Thomas v. North Staffordshire R. Co., 3 Ry. & C. T. Cas. 1—92, 99, 184. Thomas v. Pacific Express Co., 30 Mo. App. 86—181. Thomas v. Philadelphia, etc.. R. Co., m Pa. 180—770. 772. Thomas v. South':rn R. Co., 122 N. C. 1006—668. Thomao V. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 63 Fed. Rep. 200—94. 106, i83, S06. 309. Thomas v. Wlnch»ster, 6 N T. 397-384. Thompson v. Belfast, etc., R. Co., 6 Ir. R. C. L. 517—083. Thompson v. Dun"An. 76 Ala. 334-798, 86S. Thompson f. Fargo. 49 N. T. 188-188. Thompson v. Hamilton, 12 Pick. (Mass.) 425—66. Thompson-Houston Elec. Co. v. Simon, 80 Or. 60—21, 37, 39. H. 46. Thompson v. Manhattan R. Co., 75 Hun i,N Y.), 548—648. Table of Cases. cxvn (The references are to the pages.) Thompson v. Midland R. Co.. 122 Ala. 378 —244, 415. Thompson v. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., SO Miss. 315—672, Ctl. Thompson v. SmaU, 1 C. B. 328—187. Thompson v. Trail, 2 C. & P. 334—160. ThompF-on v. Western Union Tel. Co., 64 Wis. 531—77. Thompson v. Yazoo, etc., R. Co., 47 La. Ann. 1107—650, 570. Thompson v. Yazoo, 'etc., R. Co., 72 Miss. 715—748. Thome V. Deas, 4 Johns. (N. Y.) 84—6. Thorogood v. Brya;i, 8 C. B. 131—499. Thorpe v. Concqrd R. Co., 61 Vt. 378—574. Thorpe V. Hammond, 12 Wall. (U. S.) 408 —754. Thorpe v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 76 N. Y. 402—60, 641, 631, 696. Three Hundred, etc.. Tons of Coal, 14 Blatchl. (U. S.) <63— 94. Thurber v. Harlem Bridge, etc., R. Co., 60 N. Y. 326— 82i, 823, 867. Thurber v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 2 In*. Com. Rep. 742—912, 919. Thurman v. WellT, U Barb. (N. T.) 600 —27. Thurston v. Union Pac. R. Co., 4 Dill. (U. S.) 321—620, 621. 739. Thweatt V. Houston, etc., R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 71 S. W. 976-646. Thyll V. New York, etc., R. Co , 92 App. Div. (N. Y.) 513—321, 386, 480, 487, 489. Tibbitts V. Rock Island, etc., R. Co., 49 111. App. 567—354. Tibbs V. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 20 Ind. App. 192—163. Tibby v. Missouri Pac. R Co., 82 Mo. 292—671, 672, 753. Tierney v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 76 N. Y. 305—101, 107, 108, 223, 246, 247, 275. TiBanv v. St. John 66 N. T. 314—444. Tift V. Southern R. Co., 123 Fed. 789— 119, 911, 939. Tillery v. Bond, 38 Fed. 826—688. Tilley v. Cook County, 103 U. S. 156—110. Tillman v. St. Louis Transit Co., 102 Mo. App. 553—664.' Timpson v. Manhattan R. Co., 52 Hun (N. Y.), 489-554, 613, 805. Timms v. Old CoTony St. Ry. Co. (Mass.), 1 St. Ry. Rep. 81,1-663. Tindall v. Taylor, 4 El. & Bl. 219—436. Tinney v. New Jersey Steamboat Co., 5 Lans. (N. Y.) 507—904. Tirreii v. Gage, f Allen (Mass.), 251—243. Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Ambach, 10 Ohio C. C. 490—709, 713. Toledo, etc., R. Co v. Apperson, 49 111. 480— b97, 605. Toledo, etc., R, Co. v. Baddeley, 64 111. 19—676, 677, 683, 892, 893. Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Berry, 31 Ind. App. 566—513. Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Beggs, 85 111. 80— 568, f70, 571, 601, 607. 753. 764. 766, 781, 787. Toledo, etc., R, Co. v. ' Brooks, 81 111. 245 —661, 560, 561, 670, 684. Toledo etc., R. Co. v. Conroy, 68 HI. 560 -696. Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Durkin, 76 111. 395—633. Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Blliot't, 76 111. 67— 371. Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Gilvin, 81 111. 511 —141. Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Grable, 88 111. 441 —822. Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Hamilton, 76 111. 393—504, 607. Toledo, etc., R. Cc. v. Hammond, 33 Ind. 379—701, 702, 704, 725. Toledo, etc.. R. Co. v. Kid, 29 111. App. 353-4188. Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Kickler, 51 111. 167 —402. Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Levy, 127 Ind. 168 —302. Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Lockhart, 71 111. 627—123, 463. Toledo, etc., Co. v. McDonough, 63 Md, 289—744, 889. Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Merriman, 52 111. 123-^74. Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Patterson, 63 111. 304—747, 750, 890. Toledo, etc., R. Ca. v. Pennsylvania Co., 64 Fed. 730—463. Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Roberts, 71 111. 540—110, 417. Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Tapp, 6 Ind. APP. 304—713, 722. Toledo, etc., R. Co., v. Thompson, 71 111. 434—504, 607, 611. Toledo, etc., R. Co.. v, Wingate (Ind.), 37 N. B. 274—850, 851. Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Wright, 68 Ind. 686— 6S9, 732, 749, 750. Toledo Produce Bxch. v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. 3 Int. Ci m. Rep. 830—922. Tobin v. ■ Omnibuj Cable Co., (Cal.). 34 Pac. 124—815. Todd V. Old Colony etc., R. Co., 3 Allen (Mass.), 18, 21—669, 670, 671, 782, 860. Todd V. Old Colony, etc., R. Co., 7 Allen (Mass.), 207—669, 870. Toiano v. National Steam Nav. Co., 5 Robt. (N. Y.) 3JS— 713. Tolman v. Abbot, 78 Wis. 192—463, 482. Toima^i V. SyracU'ic-, etc., R. Co.i 98 N. Y. 198—796. Tomlinson v. Wi.-mington, etc., R. Co., 107 N. C. 327— Sa7. Tompkins v. Clay St. R. Co., 66 Cal. 163 -698. TomplLins v. Saltmarsh, 14 S. & R. (Pa.) 275—5, 10. Tooker v. Gormaii, i Hilt. (N. Y.) 71—88, 199, 2C1. Toomey v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 2 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 82-e3j. Topek.1 City R. Co. v. Higgs, 38 Kan. 376, 389—44, 617, Pd6, 660, 869, 862, 864. ToplifE v. Lake Shoie, etc., R. Co., 7 Ohio N. P 297—431. Topp v. United Rys. & Elec. Co., 99 Md. 630— S53. Torpey v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 20 U. C. Q. 8. 446—644. Torpey v. William'--, 3 Daly (N. Y.), 162— 703, 704, 724, 728. Torrev v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 147 Mass. 412—866, 860. Tousev V. Roberts, 114 N. Y. 312—83. Tower v. Utica, etc., R. Co., 7 Hill (N. Y.), 47—714. Town of South Ottowa v. Perkins, 94 U. S. JSO— 266. Townsend v. Binghamton R. Co., 67 App. Div. (N. Y.) 234-842, 868. Townsend v. New York Cent., etc., Co., 66 N. Y. 296— 741. Township of Elmwood v. Marcy, 92 U. S. 289— Sf6. Tozer V. United States, 62 Fed. 917—925. CXVIXI Table of Cases. (The references are to the pages.) Trabing v. California Nav., etc., Co., 121 Cal. 137-641. Trace v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 26 Pa. Super. Ct. 466—491!. 63'. Tracy v. New York, etc., K. Co., 9 Bosw. (N. T.) 396-B89. Tracy v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 67 How. Pr. (N. T.) ]51— B6, 68. Tracy v. Troy, etc. R. Co.. 38 N. Y. 433 —600. Tracy v. Wood, 3 Mason (U. S.), 132—5. Trammell v. Clyde Steamship Co., 4 Int. Com. Rep. 120, 5 Int. Com. C. Rep. 324 —910, 933. Transportation Lire v. Hope, 95 U. S. 297 —50. Travery v. Kansas Pac. R. Co., 63 Mo. 421-327, 749.- Treadwell v. Whittier, 80 Cal. 574—85, 603, 609, 652. Treat v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 131 Mass. 371—867. Trelevan v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 89 Wis. 598—384. Trent v. Cartersvi'.le" Bridge Co., 11 Leigh (Va.), 644—63. Trevor v. U. & S R. Co., 7 Hill (N. T.), 47—132. Trice V. Chesapeake etc., R. Co.. 40 W. Va. 271—746. Trice V. Railroad Co., 49 Mo. 438—600. Trigg V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 74 Mo. 147—1)88, 880, 881, S86, 887, 895. Trimole v. New Ycxk Cent., etc., R. Co., 162 N. Y. 84—367, 389, 707, 716, 722. Trinity Val. R. Co. v. Stewart (Tex. Civ. App.), 62 S. W. 1065—641. Trolan v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 31 App. Div. (N. Y.) 320—767. Trotlinger v. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co., 11 Lea (Tenn.), 6S3— 351, 591. 669. Trottler v. Red River Transp. Co.. T. Wood (Manitoba), 255—437. Trowbridge v. Chapin, 23 Conn. 595—138, 139. Troy V. Vermont, ftc, R. Co., 24 U. S. 487—834. Truax v. Erie R. Cj. 4 Lans. (N. Y.) 198 —539, 697. Truax V. Philade i Ilia, etc., R. Co., 3 Houst. (Del.) 233—31, 33, 106, 108, 110, 133, 137, 139, 186, 2<1<1, 250, 314, 380, 458. True V. International Tel. Co., 60 Me. 9— 76. Trumbull v. Erickson, 97 Fed. (Colo.) 891 —829, 866. Tucker v. Buffalo Ry. Co., 53 App. Div. (N. Y.) 571—871. Tucker v. Housatonlc R. Co., 39 Conn. 447—217. Tucker v. New Yo.-k Cent., etc., R. Co.. 124 N. Y. 308—823. Tucker v. Pacific R. Co., 60 Mo. 385—515. Tuck.ir V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 11 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 366-115, 223. Tuokerman v. Brown, 17 Barb. (N. Y.) 191—66, 66. Tuggle V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co.. 62 Mo. 425—338. Tuley V. Chicago etc., R. Co.. 41 Mo. App. 432—782, 854. Tunny v. Midland R. Co.. L. R. 1 C P. 291—586. Tuller V. Talbot, 23 111. 357—617. Turner v. London, etc., R. Co.. L, R. 17 Eq. 661—667. Turner v. North Carolina R, Co.. 63 N. C. 622—832. Turner v. St. Loula, etc., R. Co., 20 Mo. App. 632—367. Turney v. Wilson, 7 Terg. (Tenn.) 340- 22, 25. 63, 383. Turnpike Co. v. Philadelphia, etc. R Co., 54 Pa. St. 34s>— Turrentlne v. Wiln?lngton, etc., R. Co 100 N. C. 376—262, 382. Tuthill v. Long Island R. Co., 81 Hun (N. Y.), 616—893. Tuttle v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 48 Iowa 236—778. Twomley v. Central Park, etc., R. Co 69 N. Y. 158—812, 819. Tyler v. Western Union Tei. Co., 60 111 421—73, 77. Tyler v. Texas, etc., R. Co. (Tex. Civ App.), 79 S. W. 91—654. Tynddie v. Taylor 4 El. & Bl. 219—169. U. Udell V. Illinois Cert. R. Co., 13 Mo. App. 264—115, 376. Uggla V. West End St. R. Co., 160 Mass. 351-784. Uliman v. Chicago, eic, R. Co., 112 Wis. 168—289, 303, 306, 3U. 346. Ulrich V. New Yo.-k Cent., etc., R. Co., 108 N. Y. 80—60, 7i"Z, 766. Unger v. Forty-second St. R. Co., 51 N. Y. 497—595, 613, 656. Union Express Co. v. Graham, 26 Ohio St. 695—100, 317, 381. 394, 396. Union Express Co. v. Ohleman, 92 Fa. St. 323—262. Union Express C.j v. Shoop, 85 Pa. St 325—437. Union Ins. Co. v. Smith, 124 U. S. 424-810. Union Mut. int. Co. v. Indianapolis, etg., R. Co., 1 Disney iCMo), 480—293, 394. Union Packet Co. v. Clough, 20 Wall. (U. S.) 528—553. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Evans, 62 Neb. 50 —874. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Hall, 91 U. S. 343 —97. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Hand, 7 Kan. 380- 597, &03, 904. Union Pac. R. Ci->. v. Hirwood, 31 Kan. 388—601. Union Pac. R. Co. >. Hause, 1 Wy. H- 880, S99, 900. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Hepner, 3 Colo. App. 313—145, 386 Union Pac. R. Co. v. Johnston, 45 Neb. 67— 1C2. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Marston, 30 Neb. 241—297. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Mitchell, 56 Kan. 324—748. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Moyer, 40 Kan. 184 —272. Union Pac. R. Co. v. NicVoIs, 8 Kans. 505 —549, 580. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Rainey (Colo.), U Col. 225—38, 242, 314, 499, 603, 510. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Roeser (Neb.), 95 N. W. 68—870. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Sue, 25 Neb. 772- 674. Union Pac. R. Co. v. United States, ! Wy. 170—433. Union Pac. R. Co. v. United States, lli U. S 365—920. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Williams, 3 Colo. App. 62^01. Union R., etc., Co. v. Riegel. 73 Pa. St. 72—200, 301. Union R., etc., Co. t. Shaoklett, 19 lU- App. 145—672 Table of Cases. (The references are to the pages.) CXIX tJnion R., etc., Co. v. Traube, 59 Mo. 36S— 399. Umon Steamboat Co. v. Knapp, 73 HI. 606—195. XTnlon Stock YarJs Co. v. Westoott, 47 Neb. 300—171. ■United By., ptc, Co. v. State (Md.), 49 Atl. 925— 64S. United Rys., etc., R. Co. v. Beidelman (Md.) 62 Atl. 913 -:7S United Rys. & Bleo. Co v. Hertel (Md.), 65 Atl. 428—592. United Rys. & Electric Co. v. Woodbrldge (Md.), 56 Atl. 444—629. United Stateij v. At^Cyston Pipe & Steel Co., 85 Fed. 271—935. Unite J State) v. Boblon, etc., R. Co., 15 Fed. 209—508. United States v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 127 Fed. 785—922. United States v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 40 Fed. Ml- 615, BIV, 9i2, 927, 929. United States v. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co., 13 Fed. 642—509. United States v. tjtan, 47 Fed. 112—915. United States Express Co. v. Backman, 28 Ohio St. 144—21, bfi, !«e. 394, 396, 396, 759, 761. United States Exp. Co. v. Burke, 94 HI. App. 29—323. United States} Expr^pi Co. v. Council, 84 111. App. 49-315. United States Express Co. v. Haines, 67 111. 137—297, 462, 481. United States Express Co. v. Harris, 61 Ind. 129, 127—334. 486. United States Express Co. v. Joyce (Ind. App.), 69 N. B. 396, la N. B. United State? Exp'-ea- Co. v. Keefer, 59 Ind. 263—200. United Stat.is Exu. Co. v. Koerner, 65 Minn. 640— 3f6, 357, 4E0. United States Express Co. v. Kouhtze, 8 Wall. (U. S.) 342—455. United Stated Expreps Co. v. Bush, 24 Ind. 403—159 481. United States Mail line Co. v. Mfg. Co., 101 Ky. 668 -461. United Statci Tel. Co. v. Oildersleeve, 29 Md. 232—78. United States v. Hrwell, 56 Fed. 21—935, 936. United States v. Joint Traffic Assoc, 171 tJ. S. 505—905, 335. United States v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 18 Fed. 480—509. United States v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 43 Fed. 26-936. United States v. Mirhigau Cent. R. Co., 122 Fed. 544—939. United States v. Melien, 63 Fed. 229—933, 936. United States v. Missouri Pac. B. Co., 65 Fed. 905—906. United States v. Mcrsman, 42 Fed. 448— 909, 911. United States v. Norfolk, etc., R. Co., 109 Fed. 831—927. United States v. Power, C Mont. 271—12, 14, 82. United States v. Tozer, 2 Int. Com. Bep. 597—919. United States v. Tozer, 39 Fed. 369—917, 920, 924. United States v. Trans- Missouri Freight Assoc. 166 U. S. 290—935. United States v. West Virginia Northern R. Co., 125 Fed. 252—927. United States v. Wilder, 3 Sumn. (U. S.) 308—433. Upham V. Detroit Citizens R. Co., 85 Mich. 12—857. Uptegrove v. Central B. Co., 16 Misc. Bep. (N. T.) 14—140, 470. Uransky v. Dry Dock, etc., R, Co., 44 Hun (N. T.), U9— 808. VaiJ V. Broadway B. Co., 147 N. T. 377 —865. Vail V. Pacific R. Co., 63 Mo. 230—30, 222. Valentine v. Middlesex R Co., 137 Mass. 28—599. Valle V. Cerre, 36 Mo. 576—178. Van Akin v. Erie R. Co., 92 App. Dlv. (N. T.) 23—395. Vanatta v. Central R, Co., 154 Pa. St. 262—489. Van Bokkelln v. Ingersoll, 6 Wend. (N. T.) 315—127, 441. Van Busklrk v. Purington, 2 Hall. (N. Y.) 661—434. Van Busklrk v. Roberts, 31 N. T. 661, 663-243, 690, 806. Vandegrlft v. West Jersey & S. B. Co. (71 N. J. L,.), 60 Atl. 184—549. Vanderbilt v. Eichmond Turnp. Co., 2 N. T. 479—640. Vanderbilt v. Schreyer, 91 N. T. 392—767. Van Dusan v. Bailway Co., 97 Mich. 439 —743. Van Gilder v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 44 Iowa 648—723. Van Horn v. Kermit, 4 E. D. Sm. (N. T.) 463—703, 705, 712, 725. Van Horn v. Taylor, 2 La. Ann. 587—24, 381, 382. Van Kirk v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 76 Pa. St. 66—559. Van Natta v. Mutual Security Ins. Co., Z Sandf. (N. T.) 490—373. Van Ostran v. New Tork Cent., etc., R. Co., 35 Hun (N. T.), 590—613, 670, 814, 815. Van Santvoord v. St. John, 6 Hill (N. Y.), 157—21, 186, 194, 468, 474, 488, 729. Van Schaack v. Northern Transp. Co., 3 Blss. (U. S.) S94— 312, 393. Van Toll v. South Eastern R. Co., 12 C. B. N. S. 75—278. Van Winkle v. Adams Express Co., 3 Rob. (N. Y.) 69—281, 359. Van Winkle v. South Carolina R. Co., 38 Ga. 32—392. Van Winido v. U. S. Mail Steamship Co., 37 Barb. (N. Y.) 122—229. Varble v. Bigley, 14 Bush. (Ky.) 698—51. Vaughan v. Providence, etc., R. Co., 13 B. I. 578—434, 437, 438, 459. Vaughan v. Watt, 6 M. & W. 492—214. Vaughn V. New York, etc., R. Co. (B. I.), 61 Atl. 696—147. Vaughn V. Wabash B. Co., 62 Mo. App. 461—316. Vedder v. Fellows, 20 N. Y. 126—588, 711. Vermont, etc., B. Co. v. Fitchburg R. Co., 14 Alien (Mass.), 462—46, 95. Verner v. Sweitzer, 32 Pa. St. 208-18, 35, 89, 293, 539, 756. Verrall v. Robinson, 5 Tyr. 1069—229. Vick v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 95 N. Y. 267—586. Vickers V. Atlanta, etc., R. Co., 64 Ga. 306—786. Vioksburg, etc., B. Co. v. O'Brien, 119 U. S. 99—810, 811. Vioksburg, etc., R. Co. v. Patton, 31 Miss. 156—801. CX£ Table of Cases. (The references are to the pages.) Vickiburg, etc., R. Co. v. Phillips, 64 Miss. 693—770, 786. Vicksburg, etc., R. Co. v. Putnam, 118 U. S. 545—697, 803, 804. Vicksburg, etc., R. Co. v. Ragsdale, 46 Miss. 458—106, 240, 251, 253, 399, 412, 422, 423, 425, 426, 477. Vicksburg, etc., R. Co. v. Scanlan, 63 Miss. 413—896, 898. Village of Cartervillo v. Cook, 129 111. 169 —41. Vimont v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 71 Iowa, 68—852. Vincent V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 49 111. 33—189. 190, 262, 281. Vineberg v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 13 Ont. App. 93—724, 725. Viner v. New York, etc.. Steamship Co., 50 N. T. 25—153, 180, 382. Vinton V. Baldwin, 95 Ind. 433—446. Vinton v. Middlesex R. Co., 11 Allen (Mass.), 304^621, 648, 737, 739. Violett V. Stettinius, 5 Cranch. (C. C.) 659 —187. Virginia Cent. R. Co. v. Sanger, 16 Gratt. (Va.) 260, 230-696, 599. Virginia Coal & Iron Co. v, Louisville, etc., R. Co., 98 Va. 776—128. Virginia, etc., R. Co. v. Sayers, 26 Gratt. (Va.) 328—318, 328, 510, 630, 764. Virginia Midland, etc., R. Co. v. Roach, 83 Va. 375—576, 816, 855. Voak V. Northern Cent. R. Co., 75 N. T. 320—818. Volkmar v. Manhattan R. Co., 134 N. T. 418—605, 773. Voorhees v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 71 Iowa, 734—369, 402. Voorhees v. Kings County El. R. Co., 3 Misc. Rep. (N. T.) 18—871. Vormus v. Tennessee, etc., R. Co., 97 Ala. 326—648. Voss V. Wagner Palace Car Co., 16 Ind. App. 271—67. Vrooman v. Houston, etc., R. Co., 7 Misc. Rep. (N. T.) 234—865. W. Wabash, etc., R. Co. v. Black, 11 111. App. 466—498. Wabash R. Co. v. Brown, 61 111. App. 856. —529. Wabash, etc., R. Co. v. Brown, 162 111. 484-322, 335. Wabash R. Co. v. Harris, 55 111. App. 159 —302, 462, 472, 481, 483. Wabash, etc., R. Co. v. Jaggerman, 115 111. 407—462, 481, 762, Wabash R. Co. v. Klngsley, 177 111. 558— 748. Wabash, etc., R. Co. v. Lynch, 12 111. App. 365—401, 410, 422, 424. Wabash, etc., R. Co. v. McCasland, 11 111. App. 491—239, 515. Wabash R. Co. v, Pearce, 192 U. S. 179 —429. Wabash, etc, R. Co. v. Peyton, 106 111. 354, 634—287, 322. Wabash, etc., R. Co. v. Pratt, 15 111. App. 177—606. Wabash, etc., R. Co. v. Rector, 104 111. 296—545, 548, 628, 666, 675. Wabash R. Co. v. Savage, 110 Ind. 166— 627, 638. Wabash, etc., R. Co. y. Shaoklet, 105 111. 364—698. Wade V. Hamilton, 30 Ga. 450—169. Wade V. Leroy, 20 How. (U. S.) 34—903. Wade V. Lutcher, etc., Cypress Lumber Co., 74 Fed. 517—73. Wade V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 78 Mo 362 —405. Wade V. Wheeler, 3 Lans. (N. T.) 201 47 N. T. 658—68, 70, 131, 259. Wadsworth v. Boston El. R. Co., 60 N B 421—772. Wagner v. Brooklyn H. R. Co., 95 App Dlv. (N. T.) 219—695, 672, 842. Wagner v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 174 N. Y. 520—571. Wagner v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 97 Mo 512—563, 575, 626. Wahl v. Holt, 26 Wis. 703—474, 478. Walt v. Gilbert, 10 Cush. (Mass.) 177— 419. Wait V. Omaha, etc., R. Co., 166 Mo. 611 —661. ' Waite V. Albany, etc., R. Co., 6 Lans. (N. Y.) 475—473. Waite V. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 110 N. Y. 635—94, 238, 241, 456. Wakefield v. South Boston R. Co., tlT Mass. 544—566. Wald V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 92 Ky. 645—264, 282, 724, 725, 726. Wald V. Pittsburg, etc., R. Co., 60 111. App. 460, 162 111. 646—309, 6U. Waldele v. New York Cent, etc., R. Co., 95 N. Y. 274—807, 809. Waldron v. Canadian Pac. R. Co., 2J- W^ash. 253—371. Waldron v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 1 Dak. 336—139, 154, 179, 619, 708, 709, 726. Walker v. Cassaway, 4 La. Ann. 19— 43S. Walker v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 71 Iowa,. 658, 30 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 173—379. Walker v. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 49 Mich. 446—230, 232. Walker v. Brie R. Co., 63 Barb. (N. T.) 260, 360—692, 774, 786, 892, 893, 902, 903. Walker v. Great Western R. Co., 8 U. C. C. P. 161—662. Walker v. Jackson, 10 M. & W. 161— 53, 368. Walker v. Keenan, 73 Fed. 755-502. Walker v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., Ill Ala. 233—363. Walker v. Piatt, 34 Misc. Rep. 799-291. Walker V. Price (K.an. App.), 59 Pac. UOa— 564. Walker v. Sklpwlth, Meigs (Tenn.), 502. —55, 63. 293. Walker v. Vicksburg, etc., R. Co., 41 La. Ann. 795—848. Walker v. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 15 Mo. App. 333- -568, 568. Walker v. Walker, 6 Heisk. (Tenn.) 42» —201. Walker v. Western Transp. Co., 3 Wall. (U. S.) 104—754. Walker v. York, etc., R. Co., 2 Bl. & Bl. 750—370, 757, 758. Wall V. Cameron, 6 Colo. 275—880, 891, 893 Wall" V. Helena St. R. Co., 12 Mont. 44 —617. Wall V. Livezay, 6 Colo. 466—776. Wallace v. Dublin, etc., R. Co., 8 Ir. K. C. L. 341-250. Wallace v. Great Southern, etc., R. Co., 17 W. R. 464—105. Wallace v. Jackson, 10 M. & W. 168-3S0. Wallace v. Lake Shore, etc., Ry. Co., 10 Detroit Leg. N. 331—627, 681. ^ Wallace v. Matthews, 89 Ga. 617-229, 302. „„ Wallace v. Sanders, 42 Ga. 486-!z6^ Table of Cases. (The references are to the pages.) CXXl Wallace v. Third Ave. R. Co., 36 App. Div. (N. T.) 67—547. Wallace \. Western North Carolina R. Co., 104 N. C. 442, MX N. C. 454—866, 880, 891, 903. Wallace v. Western, etc., R. Co., 98 N. C. 494—694. Wallace v. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 8 Houst. (Del.) 529—556, 604, 880, 884, 891. Wallace v. Woodgate Ry. & N. 193—443. Waller v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 83 Mo. 608-«54. Waller V. Midland Great Western R, Co., L. R. 4 Jr. 376—400, 418. Wallingford v. Columbia, etc., R. Co., 26 S. C. 258—307, 318, 394, 396, 460, 467, 487, 503, 604, 633, 755, 781. Wallingtord v. Columbia, etc., R. Co., 28 S. C. 258—115, 318, 399. Walling V. Railway Co., 12 Phila. (Pa.) 309—862. Walsh V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 42 Wis. 23—620, 621, 886. Walsh V. Pittsburg, etc., R. Co., 10 Ohio St. 75—764. Walston V. Myers, 5 Jones L. (N. C.) 172 —655. Walter v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 39 Iowa, 33—628. Waiters v. Chicago, etc., R. Co. (Wis.), 89 N. W. 140—848. Walters v. Western, etc., R. Co., 63 Fed. 391, 66 Fed. 862—167, 172, 373. Waithers v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 78 III. 354—833, 836. Walton V. Philadelphia Tract. Co., 161 Pa. St. 36—839. Wamsley v. Atlas Steamship Co., 168 N. T. 533—216, 217. Wandell v. Corbin, 38 Hun (N. T.), 391 —568, 876. Wann v. Western Union Tel Co., 37 Mo. 472—73, 78. Wanzer v. Chippewa Val. Elec. R. Co., 108 Wis. 319, 329—656, 821. Warburton v. Midland R. Co., 21 L. T. N. S. 836-866. Ward V. Central Park, etc., R. Co., 11 Abb. Pr. N. S. (N. T.) 411—861, 863. Ward V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 55 N. W. (Wis.) 771—829. Ward V. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 99 App. Div. (N. T.) 126—842. Ward V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 158 Mo. 226—304, 334. Ward V. New York Cent. R. Co., 47 N. T. 29—248, 411. Ward V. Railroad Co. (111. App.), 46 N. '* E. 365—605. Ward V. Railway Co., 102 Wis. 215—782. Ward V. Vanderbiit, 1 Keyes (N. T.), 70 -«90. Warden v. City R. Co., 35 La. Ann. 202 —683. Warden v. Greer, Watts (Pa.), 424— 31, 66, 247. Warden v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 35 Mo. App. 631—672, 682, 688. Wardlaw v. South Carolina R. Co., 11 Rich. L. (S. C.) 337—388, 396. Wardrobe v. California Stage Co., 7 Cal. 119, 118—896, 900. Wards' Cent. Lake Co. v. Elkins, 34 Mich. 439—411, 418, Wardwell v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 46 Minn. 514—736, 741. Ware v. Gray, 11 Pick, (Mass.) 106—617, 781, 788. Wareham Bank v. Burt, 5 Allen (Mass.), 113—243. Warehouse & B. Supply Co. v. Galvln (Wis.), 71 N. W. 804—430. Ware River R. Co. v. Vlbbard, 114 Mass. 447—442. Warfleld v. Louisville, etc., R. Co. (Tenn.), 55 S. W. 304—732. Waring v. Indemnity Fire Ins. Co., 45 N. T. 606—373. Warner v. Baltimore & C. R. Co., 168 U. S. 339—876. Warner v. Burlington, etc., R, Co., 22 Iowa, 166—710, 716. Warner v. New York, etc., R. Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 74—912, 916. Warner v. New York Cent. R. Co., 44 N. Y. 465—789, 795. Warner v. Western Transp. Co., 5 Robt. (N. Y.) 490—356. Warren v. Fitchburg R. Co., 8 Allen (Mass.). 227—546, 649, 662, 604. Warren v. Southern Kansas R. Co., 37 Kan. 408—837. Washburn-Crosby Co. v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 180 Mass. 262—462. Washburn-Crosby Co. v. William John- ston & Co., 126 Fed. 273—362. Washburn, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Providence, etc., R. Co., U3 Mass. 490—459, 476. Washburn v. Nashville, etc., R. Co., 3 Head. (Tenn.) 638—651, 569, 817, 855. Washington «& G. Ry. Co. v. Gladmon, 15 Wall. (U. S.) 401—797, 799, 800, 826. Washington & Q. R. Co. v. Hickey (D. C), 23 Wash. L. Rep. 177—822. Washington & G. R. Co. v. Patterson, 9 App. D. C. 423—902. Washington & G. R. Co. v. Tobriner, 147 U. S. 671—677. Washington, etc., R. Co. v. Harmon, 147 U. S. 671—674, 830, 892. Washington, etc., Tel. Co. v. Hobson, 15 Gratt. (Va.) 122—74. Washington, etc., R. Co. v. McLane, 11 App. D. C. 220—808. Washington v. Raleigh, etc., R. Co., 101 N. C. 239—492, 493. Washington, etc., R. Co. v. Yarnell, 98 U. S. 479—652. Water Valley Bank v. Southern Express Co., 71 Miss. 741—240. Waters v. Cox. 2 Bradwell (111. App.) 129 —267. Waters v. Richmond & D. R. Co., 110 N. C. 338—118, 376. Waterbury v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 104 Iowa, 32—874. Waterbury v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 17 Fed. 671—644, 646, 669, 676, 571, 684. Waterman v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 52 N. W. (Wis.) 247—798. Watkins v. El. Co. (Ala.), 24 So. 392— 864. Watkins v. Morley, 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. sec. 727—369. Watkins v. New York Cent., etc.. R. Co., 3 N. Y. Supp. 946—726. Watkins v. Pennsylvania R. Co. (D. C), 62 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 159—689. Watkins v. Raleigh, etc., R. Co., 116 N. C. 961—680. Watkins v. Terre Haute, etc., R. Co., 8 Mo, App. 670—493. Watkins v. Union Tract. Co., 194 Pa. St. 564-792. Watklnson v. Laughton, 8 Johns. (N. Y.) 213—398, 404. Watts V. Boston, etc., R. Corp. 106 Mass. 467—71, 259. ■CXXll Table of Cases. (The references are to the pages.) Watts V. Savannah, etc., Canal Co., 64 Ga. 88-68. Watson V. Ambergate, etc., R. Co., 15 Jur. 448-427, 463. Watson V. Camden, etc., R. Co., 55 M. J. L. 125-S44. . „ Watson V. Georgia Pac. R. Co., 81 Ga. 476—850. Watson V. Memphis, etc., R. Co., 9 Helsk. (Tenn.) 255—25. Watson V. North British R. Co., 3 Ry. & C. T. Cas. 17—11, 80. Watson V. Oswego St. Ry. Co., 7 Misc. Rep. (N. T.) 366—738, 827. Watson V. Portland, etc., R. Co., 91 Me. 584—857, 859. Watson V. St. Paul City R. Co., 42 Minn. 46-540. Way V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 64 Iowa, 48, 73 Iowa, 463—561, 568, 694. „ _ „. Weaver v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 22 Wash. L. Rep. (D. 0.) 393—578, 782. Weaver v. Washington & G. R. Co., 3 App. B. C. 436—663. Webb v. Great Western R. Co., 26 W. R. 111—323. Webber v. Great Western R. Co., 3 H. & C. 771—474. Webber v. St. Paul City R. Co., 67 Minn. 155—807. Weber v. Brooklyn, etc., R. Co., 45 App. DlV. (N. T.) 306—634, 635. Weber Co. v. Chicago, etc., R. Co. (Iowa), 60 N. W. 637—608, 706, 718. Weber v. Kansas City Cable R. Co., 100 Mo. 194—675, 683, 844. Weber v. New York Cent. R. Co., 58 N. T. 451—595. Weber v. New Orleans, ate, R. Co., 104 La. 367—772. Webster v. Elmlra, etc., R. Co., 85 Hun (N. T.), 167—779. Webster v. Fltohburg R. Co., 161 Mass. 298—645, 562. Webster v. Hudson River R. Co., 38 N. T. 260—698. "Webster v. Rome, etc., R. Co., 115 N. T. 112—855. Wedeklnd v. Southern River R. Co., 38 N. T. 260—893. Weed V. Barney, 45 N. T. 344—201, 276, 383. Weed V. Panama R. Co., 17 N, T. 362— 255, 643, 626, 631, 690, 748, 881. Weed V. Saratoga R. Co., 19 Wend. (N. T.) 534—37, 704, 706. T28, 471. Weeks V. Goods, 6 C. B. N. S. 367—444. Weeks v. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 32 La. Ann. 615—738. 875. Weeks v. New York, etc., R. Co., 72 N. Y. 60—701, 704, 714. Wehle v. Haviland, 69 N. Y. 448, 42 How. Pr, (N. Y.) 399-400, 404. Wehmann v. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 68 Minn. 22—303, 493. Welghtman v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 70 Miss. 563—688. Weiler v. Manhattan R. Co., 53 Hun (N. Y.), 372—595, 680. Weiller v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 134 Pa. St. 310—317, 345. Weinberg v. Albermarle, etc., R. Co., 91 N. C. 31—469, 481, 483, 493. Weir V. Adams Express Co., 5 Phlla. (Pa.) 355—334. Weiss V. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 29 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 332—676. Welser v. Broadway, etc., R. Co., 10 Ohio C. C. 14—809. Weltner v. Delaware & Hudson Canal Co., 4 Rob. (N. Y.) 234—67. Weltzman v. Nassau Electric R. Co., 33 App. Div. (N. Y.) 585—823. Welch V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 41 Conn. 333-287, 354, 529. Welch V. Concord R. Co., 68 N. H. 206 —263. Welch V. Jugenhelmer, 66 Iowa, 11—794. Welch V. Pullman Palace Car Co., 1 Sheid. (N. Y.) 457—66, 58, 540. Weltare v. London, etc., R. Co., L. B. 4 Q. B. 693—772. Weiler v. London, etc., n. Co., 9 C. P. 126—665, 673. Wellington v. Downer Kerosene Oil Co., 104 Mass. 64—384. Wells, etc.. Express Co. v. Puller, 13 Tex. Civ. App. 610—241, 413, 421, 422, 455. Welis, Fargo Express Co. v. wiUlams " (Tex. Civ. App.), 71 S. W. 314-129, 408. Wells, Fargo & Co. v. Windham, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 267—207. Wells V. Alabama, etc., R. Co., 67 Miss. 24—667, 668, 687. Wells V. American Express Co., 55 Wis, 23, 44 Wis. 342-156, 201, 230, 363. Wells V. Battle, 5 Tex. Civ. App. 522 —421. Wells V. Maine S. S. Co., 1 Cliff. (U. S.) Wells V. New York Cent. R. (30., 24 N. Y. 181—320, 327, 7U, 752. 763, 766. Wells V. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 26 App. DlV. (N. Y.) 366—626. Wells V. Oregon, etc., R. Co., 32 Fed. 51 —162, 170, 172, 420. Wells V. Steam Navigation Co., 2 N. T. 204—13, 50. Wells V. Steam Navigation Co., 8 N. T. 380—321, 848. Wells V. Steinway R. Co., 18 App. Dlv. (N. T.) 180—613. Weils V. Thomas, 27 Mo. 17—169, 437, 439, 494. Wells V. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 6 Jones L. (N. C.) 47—137. Welsh V. Pittsburg, etc., R. Co., 10 Ohio St. 65—24, 317, 603, 510, 625. Welsh V. West Jersey, etc., R. Co., 62 N. J. L. 655—748. Welton V. Mlss'ouri, 91 TI. S. 280—905. Welty V. Indianapolis, etc., R. Co., 105 Ind. 55—829. Wentworth v. Eastern R. Co., 143 Mass. 248—806. Wentz V. Brie R. Co., 3 Hun (N. Y.), 241-^64, 566. Werle v. Long Island R. Co., 98 N. T. 660—856, 867, 861. Wernwag v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 117 Pa. St. 46-179, 182. Wertheimer v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 17 Blatchf. (U. S.) 421—228, 893. Wertz V. Western Union Tel. Co., 7 Utah. 446—77. West V. The Berlin, 3 Iowa, 552-222. West V. First Nat. Bank, 20 Hun (N. Y.), 411—305. West V. London, etc., R. Co., L. R. 5 C. P. 622—123. West Philadelphia Pass, R. Co. v. Gallagher, 108 Pa. St. 524—861, West V. Ward (Iowa), 42 N. W. 309-697. West Jersey R, Co. v. Railway Co., 6! N. J, Eq. 31—698. West Memphis Packet Co. v. White, 9» Tenn. 256—633. „ Westchester, etc., R. Co. v. MoBlwee, 67 Pa. St. 211—149. Table of Cases. (The reterences are to the pages.) CXXlll "West Chester, etc., R. Co. v. Miles, 55 Fa. St. 209—589, 690, 623, 739. West Chicago St. R. Co. v. Buckley, 102 III. App. 314—613. "West Chicago St. R. Co. v. Carr, 170 111. 478—809. "West Chicago St. R. Co. v. Johnson, 108 111. 285—665. "West Chicago St. R. Co. v. Kennelly, 170 III. 608, 66 Hi. App. 244—770, 809. West Chicago St. R. Co. v. Kromskln- skey, 186 111. 92—055. "West Chicago St. R. Co. v. Lyons, 57 III. App. 636—820. "West Chicago St. R. Co. v. Manning, 170 111. 417—658, 677, 832. West Chicago St. R. Co. v. Marks, 82 111. App. 185—857, 864. West Chicago St. R. Co. V. Martin, 47 111. App. 610—653, 698. West Chicago St. R. Co. v. Nash, 64 111. App. 648—655. West Chicago St. R. Co. v. Shiplett, 86 111. App. 683—547. W^est Chicago St. R. Co. v. Stiver, 69 111. App. 625-^77, 864. West Chicago St. Ry, Co. v. Torpe, 187 111. 610—842. West Chicago St. R. Co. v. Walsh, 78 HI. App. 595—554, 557. West Chicago St. R. Co. v. Waniata, 68 HI. App. 481—676. West Chicago St. R. Co. v. Winters, 107 111. App. 221—656. Westoott V. Fargo, 63 Barb. (N. T.) 354, 61 N. T. 643—308, 320, 321, 336, 338, 339, 347, 351, 387. Westfteia V. Great Western R. Co., 62 L. J. Q. B. Div. 276—131, 432. Weston V. Grand Trunk R. Co., 64 Me. 376—411. Weston V. New York Ei. R. Co., 73 N. . T. 596-613, 876. Western & O. R. Co. v. Ohio Valley Big. & T. Co., 107 Ga. 612—164, 171. West End., etc., St. R. Co. 'v. Mozely, 79 Ga. 463—849. Western, etc., R. Co. v. Camp, 63 Ga. 696—261, 384. Western, etc., R. Co. v. Exposition Cot- ton Mills, 81 Ga. 622—309, 376, 377, 449, 760. Western, etc., R. Co. v. Harwell, 91 Ala. 349—343, 394, 533. Western, etc., R. Co. v. King, 70 Ga. 261—595. Western, etc., R. Co. v. Ledbetter (Ga.), 25 S. B. 663—733. Western, etc., R. Co. v. McBIwee, 6 Heisk. (Tenn.), 208, 253—300, 463. Western, etc., R. Co. v. State, 95 Md. 637—601. Western, etc., R. Co. v. Turner, 72 Ga. 292—582, 624, Western, etc., R. Co. V. Trust Co., 107 Ga. 612—214. "Western, etc., R. Co. v. Vaughan, 113 Ga. 354—374. Western, etc., R. Co. v. Young, 51 Ga. 489—668, 862. Western, etc., R. Co. v. Young, 83 N. Y. 512—822. Westcrnfleld v. Lewis, 43 La. Ann. 63— 823, 825. ^ Western Maryland R. Co. v. Herold, 74 Md. 610—816, 820. Western Maryland R. Co. v. Sohann (Md.), 55 Atl. 701—743. Western Maryland R. Co. v. Stanley, 61 Md. 266-J22. Western Maryland R. C!o. v. State, 95 Md. 637—781, 820. Western Maryland R. Co. v. Stocksdale, 83 Md. 245—743. Western Mfg. Co. v. The Guiding Star, 37 Fed. 641—388, 406, 408, 410. Western R. Co. v. Harwell, 91 Ala. 340, 341—466, 486, 499, 603, 605, 510. Western R. Co. v. Little, 86 Ala. 159—26, 240. Western R. Co. v. Harwell, 97 Ala. 341»- 240, 296, 482, 485, 526, 758. Western R. Co. v. Thornton, 60 Ga. 300— 231. Western Ry. Co. v. Wagner, 65 III. 197 —177. 1 Western Sash & Door Co. v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 177 Mo. 641—484. Western Transp. Co. v. Barber, 56 N. Y. 544—156, 229, 363, 436, 443. Western Transp. Co. v. Downer, 11 Wall. (U. S.) 129—393, 396. Western Transp. Co. v. Hoyt, 69 N. Y. 230—363, 438, 495. Western Transp. Co. v. Newhall, 24 III. 466—24, 33, 290, 292, 341, 394, 763, 766, 757. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Adams, 87 Ind. 598—76. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Blanchard, 68 Ga. 299—76. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Broesche, 72 Tex. 654—77. Western Union Tel Co. v. Brown, 84 Tex. 64r-332. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Carew, 15 Mich. 625—73, 78, 728. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Crali, 39 Kan. 580—427. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Edsall, 63 Tex. 668—74. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Eyser, 2 Colo. 154—798. Western Union Tel Co. v. Fenton, 52 Ind. 1—76. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Fontaine, 58 Ga. 433—76. Western Union Tel Co. v. Qoodbar (Miss.), 7 So. 214—78. Western Union Tel Co. v. Graham, 1 Colo. 230—76, 77, 287. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Griswold, 37 Ohio St. 310—73, 77. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Hyer, 22 Pla. 637—73. Western Union Tel Co. v. Meek, 49 Ind. 53—76. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Meredith, 95 Ind. 93—76. Western Union Tel Co. v. Neill, 67 Tex. 283—74, 78. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Reynolds, 77 Va. 173, 178—74, 711. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Short, 53 Ark. 434—76. Western Union Tel Co. v. Tyler, 74 111. 168—77. Western Union Tel Co. v. Woods, 88 III. App. 375—85. Weyand v. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 76 Iowa, 573—158, 164, 177, 178. Weymlre v. Wolfe, 62 Iowa, 633—689. Whelan v. Georgia, etc., R. Co,, 184 Ga. 506—847. Whalen v. Consoi. Tract. Co., 61 N, J. L. 606—781. Whalen v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 60 Mo. 323—815, 829, 891, 893, 902. Whalley v. Wray, 3 Bsp. 74—12. Whalon v. Aldrioh, 8 Minn. 346— 4U. CXXIV Table of Cases. (The references are to the pages.) "Wheat V. Platte City, etc., R. Co., 4 Kan. 370—231, 233. Wheaton v. North Beach, etc., R. Co., 36 Cal. 590—662. Wheeler v. McFarland, ID Wend. (N. T.) 318—15. Wheeler v. Oceanic Steam Nav. Co., 12o N. y. 156—347, 720. Wheeler v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 3 Mo. App. 358-183. Wheeler v. San Francisco, etc., K. Co., 31 Cal. 46—119, 619. Wheelwright v. Beers, 2 Hall (N. T.), 391—401. Whitbeck y. Holland, 45 N. T. 13—131, 193, 479. Whitbeck v. Schuyler, 31 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 97—723. Whicher v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 176 Mass. 278—68. White V. Atlantic Consol. R. Co., 92 Ga. 494—646, 840. White V. Ashton, 51 N. T. 280—104. White V. Bartlett, 9 Bing. 382—166. White V. Bascom, 28 Vt. 268-12, 363. White V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 144 404—773, 776. White V. Canadian Pac. R. Co., 6 Man. L. R. 169—218, 234. White V. Cincinnati, etc., B. Co., 89 Ky. 478-114. White V. Colorado Cent. R. Co., 3 Mc- Crary (U. S.), 659—282, 283, 379. White V. Conly, 14 Lea (Tenn.), 51—257. White V. Fitchburg R. Co., 136 Mass. 321 —663. White V. Goodrich Transp. Co., 46 Wis. 493—131, 259, 313. White V. Great Western R. Co., 2 C. B. N. S. 7—266, 325. White V. Humphrey, 11 Q. B. 43—148, 284. White V. Miller, 78 N. T. 393—404. White V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 19 Mo. App. 400—110, 227, 255, 367, 498. White V. Norfolk, etc., R. Co., 116 N. C. 631—626. White V. Postal Telegraph & Cable Co., 33 Wash. L. Rep. 295—88. Whiteside v. ThurlklU, 12 Smed. & M. (Miss.) 699—24. White V. The Mary Ann, 6 Cal. 462— 49, 66. White V. Twenty-third St. R. Co., 42 Hun (N. Y.) 687—639. White V. Vann, 6 Humph. (Tenn.) 70— 437. White V. Western Union Tel. Co., 14 Fed. Rep. 710—76. White V. Winnislmmet Co., 7 Cush. (Mass.) 155—52, 131. White Water R. Co. v. Butler, 112 Ind. 598—687. Whitehead v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 99 Mo. 263—650, 683, 625. 816. Whitehead v. Vaughan, 6 Bast. 623—431. Whitehead v. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 87 N. C. 266—245. Whitfield V. LeDesprurer, Camp. K. B. 754—72. Whiting V. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 97 App. Dlv. (N. Y.) 11—693. Whltlock V. Comer, 57 Fed. 666—818, 852. Whitman v. Western Counties R. Co., 17 Nova Scotia, 406—144. Whitmore v. Bowman, 4 G. Gr. (Iowa), 148—53, 540. Whitmore v. Steamer Caroline, 20 Mo. 613—8, 701, 704. Whitney v. Beokford, 105 Mass. 267—438. Whitney v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 27 Wis 327—282, 400. Whitney v. Clifford, 67 Wis. 156—794. Whitney Mfg. Co. v. Richmond, etc E Co., 38 S. C. 365—150, 151. Whitney v. New York, etc., R. Co io» Fed. 850—687. Whitney v. Pullman Palace Car Co., UJ Mass. 243 — 58. Whlttaker v. Eight Ave. R. Co., 51 N T. 295-811. Whittaker v. Manchester, etc., R. Co L R. C. P. 464—665, 671. Whittler V. Smith, 11 Mass. 210—363. Whitwam V. Wisconsin, etc., R. Co 58 Wis. 408—602. Whitworth v. Erie R. Co., 87 N. Y. 413— 47, 250, 320, 392, 396, 484, 728. Wibert v. New York, etc.. R. Co., 12 N Y. 245—33, 105, 108, 228, 239, 249, 252, 41L Wichita, etc., R. Co. v. Koch, 47 Kan 763—336, 625. Wichita Savings Bank v. Atchison, etc R. Co., 20 Kan, 619—173. Wichita Valley R. Co. v. Swenson (Tex. Civ. App.), 26 S. W^. 47—460. Wiedmer v. New York Elec. R. Co., 41 Hun (N. Y.), 284—772. Wiegand v. Central R. Co., 75 Fed. 370— 718, 726. Wier V. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., 18 Minn. 155—95. Wiggin V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 120 Mass. 201—207. Wiggins Ferry Co. v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 73 Mo. 3891-472, 473. Wiggins V. Hathaway, 6 Barb. (N. Y.) 632—71. Wiggins V. King, 91 Hun (N. Y.), 340— 745. Wight V. United States, 167 U. S. 512- 918, 920, 935, 936. Wightman v. Chicago, ■ etc., R. Co., 73- Wis. 190—666. Wilburn v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 48 Mo. App. 224, 36 Mo. App. 203—681, 6S2. Wilby V. Midland R. Co., 35 L. T. N. S. 244—562. Wilby v. West Cornwall R. Co., 2 H. & N. 703—463, 471. Wilcox V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 24 Minn. 269—164. Wilcox V. Parmalee, 3 Sandf. (N. T.) 610—468. » Willock V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 166 Pa. St. 184—24, 317. ,' Wilde v. Lynn & B. R. Co., 163 Mass. 533—859. ■"■'Wilde V. Merchants Despatch Transp. Co., 47 Iowa, 247, 272—47, 307, 376, 483. Wilder v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 10- ■" App. Div. (N. Y.) 364—771. Wilder V. St. Johnsbury, etc., R. Co., 66. Vt. 636-117. Wilds V. Hudson River R. Co., 24 N. Y. 230—799. Wilkerson v. Corrigan Consol. St. R. Co.. 26 Mo. App. 144—778. Wilklc V. Bolster, 3 B. D. Sm. (N. T.) 327-781, 787. Wilkinson v. First Nat. Fire Ins. Co., 72 N. Y. 499—332. Will V. Postal Tel. Cable Co., 3 App. Div. (N. Y.) 22-78. „, ,„ Wlllard v. Dorr, 3 Mason (U. S.), 171 —447. Table of Cases. cxxv (The references are to the pages,) Willetts V. Buffalo, etc., R. Co., 14 Barb. (N. T.) 585—659, 826. "Wm. H. Blessing & Co. v. Houston, etc., B. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 80 S. W. 639 —372. Williams V. Carr, SO N. C. 294—267. Williams v. Central R. Co. of N. J., 93 App. Dlv. (N. T.) 682— 711, 719, 726. Williams V. Central of Ga. R, Co., 117 Ga. 830—534. Williams v. Citizens Elec. St. Ry. Co., 184 Mass. 473—602. Williams V. Cranston, 2 Stark. 82—140. Williams v. Delaware, etc.. Canal Co., 53 Hun (N. Y.), 635—272. Williams V. East India Co., 3 East. 192 —100, Williams V. Electric Co., 43 La. Ann. 300—606. Williams v. Grant, 1 Conn. 487—24, 65, 257. Williams v. Great Northern R. Co., 68 Minn. 55—809. Williams v. Great Western R. Co., 10 Exch. 15—712. Williams v. Holland, 22 How. Pr. (N. T.) 137—154, 196, 276, 283. Williams v. Keokuk, etc.. Packet Co., 3 Cent. L. J. (Mo.) 400—713. Williams v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 109 Mo. 475-802. Williams v. Morgan, 32 La. Ann. 168—376. Williams v. New York, etc., R. Co., 97 App. Div. (N. Y.) 133—650. Williams V. Pullman Palace Car Co., 40 La. Ann. 417—66, 60, 627, 632. Williams v. Railroad Co., 18 Utah, 210— 761. Williams V. Taylor, 4 Porter (Ala.), 234 -28. Williams v. Vanderbilt, 28 N. Y. 211, 217 —690, 881, 885, 891. Williams v. Webb, 27 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 608, 22 Misc. 613-66, 57, 58. Williams v. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 93 N. C. 42—175. Williamson v. Cambridge R. Co., 144 Mass. 148—811, 812. Williamson v. New York, etc., R. Co., 56 N. Y. Super. Ct. 608—285. Willis V. Atlantic, etc., B. Co., 122 N. C. 905—577. Willis V. Grand Trunk R. Co., 62 Me. 488 —287. Willis V. Long Island R. Co., 34 N. T. 670—696, 782, 856, 861, 867. Willis V. Lynn, etc., R. Co., 129 Mass. 351—861. Willis V. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 63 App. Div. (N. Y.) 332, 76 App. Dlv. (N. Y.) 340—632, 633, 664. Willis V. Second Ave. Tract. Co., 189 Pa. St. 430—603. Willmott V. Corrlgan Consol. St. R. Co., 106 Mo. 535, 534—653, 858. Willock V. Pennsylvania B. Co., 166 Pa. St. 184—373. Wilioughby v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 37 lo-va, 432—793. Wilioughby v, Chicago Junction R,, etc., Co.. 50 N. J, Bq, 656—920. Wilioughby v. Horridge, 12 C. B. 742—53, 380, 537. Wilman v. People Ry. Co. (Del.), 55 Atl, 332—596. Wilmington, etc, B. Co. v. Greenville, etc., B. Co., 9 S. C. 325—451. Wilmington, etc., R. Co. v. Kitchin, 91 N. C. 39—164. Wise v. Brooklyn Heiirhts B. Co., 46 App. Div. (N. Y.) 246— S7S. WilBey v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 83 Ky. 511—559. Wilson V. Adams Express Co.. 27 Mo. App. - 360, 43 Mo. App. 659-158, 181. Wilson V. Anderton, 1 B. & Ad. 450—229. Wilson V, Atlanta, etc.. R. Co., 82 Ga. 386—133, 137. Wilson V. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 129 Fed. 774—80, 329. Wilson V. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 32 Mo. App. 682—60. Wilson V. Brett, 11 M. & W. 113—6. Wilson V. California Cent. R. Co., 94 Cal. 166—264, 269, 273, 388. Wilson V. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co,, 21 Graft. (Va.) 654—288, 710, 715, 717, 720, 721, 729. Wilson V. City of Troy, 135 N. Y. 96—404. Wilson V. Elliott, 57 N. H. 316—203. Wilson V. Grand Trunk R. Co., 56 Me. 60, 57 Me. 138—620, 710, 722, 723. Wilson V. Hamilton, 4 Ohio St. 722—32, 63, 65. Wilson V. Lancashire, etc., R. Co., 9 C. B. N. S. 632-412, 424. Wilson V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 2 Mo. App. Rep. 1366—412. Wilson V. New Castle, etc., R. Co., 18 B. B. & B. 557—412. Wilson V. Northern Pac. R. Co., 26 Minn. 278—780, 820. Wilson V. Northern Pac. R. Co., 5 Wash. 621—888. Wilson V. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 97 N. Y. 87—320, 524, 525, 763. Wilson V. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 68 Miss. 9—688, 846. Wilson V. Piatt, 84 N. Y. Supp. 143—349. Wilson Sewing Machine Co. v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 71 Mo. 203—147, 166, 180. Wilson V. Southern Pac. R. Co., 62 Cal. Jg4 gg5 297, Wilson V. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 23 Mo. App. 60—179, 336. Wilson V. York, etc.. B. Co.. 17 L. T. 223 139 Wilton V. Atlantic, etc., Nav. Co., 10 C. B. N. S.— 324. Wiltse V. Barnes, 46 Iowa, 210—208. Wiltshire Iron Co. v. Great Western B. Co., L. B. 6 Q. B. 101-^31. Wilton V. Middlesex B. Co., 107 Mass. 108—544, 650, 569, 582, 862. Winchell v. National Express Co., 64 Vt. 15—82, 293. Winheim v. Field, 107 111. App. 145—653. Winkfield v. Packington, 2 C. & P. 699 ]^39 Wing V. New York, etc., B. Co., 1 Hilt. (U. S.) 236—220, 223, 266, 376, 386, 466. Wingard v. Banning. 39 Cal. 543—364, 441. 443. Wingate v. Smith, 20 Me. 287—204. Winkler v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 21 Mo. App. 99—902. Winkler v. St. Louis, etc., B. Co., 21 Mo. App. 99—673, 690, 887, 895. Winne v. Illinois Cent. B. Co., 31 Iowa, 683—388, 403, 410. Winnegar v. Central Pass. R. Co., 86 Ky. 547—019, 626, 641. Winona, etc., R. Co. v. Blake, 94 U. S. 180—37, 95. Winship v. Enfield, 42 N. H. 197-800. Wlnslow V. Vermont, etc., R. Co., 42 Vt. 700—158, 179, ISO, 265. Winter v. Central I. R. Co.. 74 Iowa, 448—808. Winter v. Paciflo R. Co., 41 Mo. 503—709. Winter v. Southern Kan. R. Co., 56 Mo. App. ZS2— 481. CXXVl Table of Cases. (The references are to the pa^es.) AVlnterfleia v. Second Ave. E. Co., 20 N. Y. Supp. 801—796. Winters v. Hannlba.1, etc., B. Co., 39 Mo. 468—871. Wisconsin Cent. R. Co. v. Robs, 142 111. 9—609. Wise V. Covington, etc., St. R. Co., 91 Ky. 537—635. Wise V. Great Western R. Co., 1 H. & N. 63—194. Wise V. Soutli Covington, etc., B. Co., 17 Ky. L. Rep. 1369—636. Witbeck V. Holland, 55 Barb. (N. T.) 443 —479. Witbeclc V. Schuyler, 44 Barb. (N. T.) 469—139, 140. Withers v. North Kent R. Co., 3 H. fi N. 969—222, 597, 611. Wltsell V. West Asheville, etc., B. Co., 120 N. C. 557—604. Witt V. Bast Tennessee, etc., R. Co., 99 Tenn. 442—212. Witting V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 101 Mo. 631, 28 Mo. App. 103—316, 376, 393. '\ViwlrowslcI V. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 124 N. T. 424—678. Wolf V. American Express Co., 43 Mo. 421—223, 257, 317, 395. Wolf V. Hough, 22 Kan. 659—439. Wolf V. Summers, 2 Campb. 631—711. Wolf V. Western Union Tel. Co., 62 Pa. g^ gg goo Wolfe V. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 9 Kulp. (Pa.) 401—367. Wolfe V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 97 Mo. 473—155, 156. Wolft V. Central R. Co., 68 Ga. 663—468, 727, 728. Wolverhampton, etc., R. Co. v. London, etc., E. Co., L. R. 16 Bq. 433—454. Womack v. Western Union Tel. Co., 58 Tex. 176—78. Woo Dan v. Seattle El. R. & P. Co., 5 Wash. 466—839. Wood V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 68 Iowa, 491—243, 247, 369, 371. Wood V Crocker, 18 Wis. 346—25, 27, 196, 266, 268, 271, 490. Wood V. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 49 Mich. 370—660, 676, 815. Wood V. Maine Cent. B. Co., 98 Me. 98— 716. Wood V. Metropolitan St. By. Co., 181 Mo. 433—695. Wood V. Milwaukee, etc., B. Co., 27 Wis. 641—265, 268, 276, 489. Wood V. New York Cent., etc., B. Co., 83 App. Dlv. (N. Y.) 604—894. Wood V. Bailroad Company, 101 Ky. 703 —646. Wood V. Southern Express Co., 95 Ga. 412—343. Wood V. Southern Pac. B. Co., 9 Utah, 146—857. Wood V. Southern E. Co., 118 N. C. 1056— 334, 335. Woodburn v. Cincinnati, etc., B. Co., 40 Fed. 731—300, 314. Wooden v. Austin, 61 Barb. (N. Y.) 9—50. Woodger v. Great Western R. Co., L. E. 2 C. P. 318—416. Woodman v. Nottingham, 49 N. H. 387 —364. Woodrofte v. Boxborough, etc.. By. Co., 201 Pa. 621—860. Woodruff V. Sherrard, 9 Hun (N. Y.), 822 —720. Woodruff Sleeping, etc.. Coach Co. v. Dlehl, 84 Ind. 474—66. Woods V. Devin, 13 III. 746—701. Woods V. Bailway Co., 48 Mo. App. 12J Woodward v. Illinois Cent. R. Co 1 Biss. (U. S.) 403, 447—236, 314, 388, "m 405, 413, 471, 485. ' Woodward v. Illinois CEnf. E. Co.. 33 ni App. 433—270, 271. Woolery v. Louisville, etc., E. Co 101 Ind. 381—860. Woolsey v. Chicago, etc., B. Co., 39 Neb 798—650, 676. Worcester v. Western R. Corp., 4 Mete (Mass.) 664—96. Worcester Excursion Car Co. v. Pennsyl- vania B. Co., 2 Int. Com. Eep. 792-931. Worden v. Canadian Pac. E. Co., 13 Ont Eep. 662—187, 207, 400. Wormsdorf v. Detroit City E. Co., 75 Mich. 472—804, 811. Worth V. Chicago, etc., B. Co., 51 Pea 171—788. Worth, etc., B. Co. v. I. B. EosenthaT Millinery Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 29 S W. 196—707. Worthington v. Central Vfermont R. Co., 64 Vt. 107—782, 818, 866, 867. Wren v. Eastern Counties E. Co., 1 L. T. N. S. 6—241. Wright V. Boughton, 22 Barb. (N. Y.) 561 —474, 477, 478. Wright V. Caldwell, 3 Mich. 51—138, 723. Wright V. California Cent. E. Co., 78 Cai. 360—691, 883. Wright V. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 4 Colo. App. 102—618, 632, 644. Wright V. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 77 Mich. Wright V. GatE, 6 Ind. 416-815. Wright V. Great Northern B. Co., L. B. 8 Ir. 257—875. Wright V. Howe (Tex. Clv. App.), 24 S. W. 314—206. Wright V. London R. Co., 33 L. T. N. S. 830—688. Wright V. Maiden, etc., R. Co., 4 Alien (Mass.), 283—822. Wright V. Northern Cent. K. Co., 8 Phila. (Pa.) 19—155, 382. Wright V. Northampton, etc., R. Co., 12 N. C. 852—686, 587. Wright V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 3 Pittsb. (Pa.) 116—600, 699. Wright V. Snell, B B. & Aid. 350-323, 431, 432. Wrightman v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., IS Wis. 169—590. Wunsch y. Northern Pac. B. Co., 62 Fed. 878—703, 708, 709. Wyatt V. Citizens B. Co., 55 Mo. 485, 62 Mo. 408-838, 849. 860, 852. Wyatt V. Larimer & W. Irrig. Co., X Colo. App. 480—88. Wyckoft V. Queens County Ferry Co., H N. Y. 35—52, 63, 131. Wyld V. Pickford, 8 M. & W. 44S-6. KB- Wylde V. Northern B. Co., 63 N. Y. 165 —492, 698, 776, 867. Wyman v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 4 Mo- App. 36, 39—492, 493. Wyman v. Lancaster, 32 Fed. 720-129. Wyman v. Northern R. Co., 84 Minn. 210- 555, 668, 689, 749, 751. „ Wynantskill Knitting Co. v. Murray, SD Hun (N. Y.), 664—270. Wynn v. Central Park, etc., R. Co., 1» N. Y. 676—604. Table of Cases. cxxvii (The references are to the pages.) y. Tamell v. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 113 Mo. 570—282, 686, 682. Tates V. New York Cent, K. Co., 67 N. T. 100—898. Yazoo, etc., R. Co. v. Baldwin (Tenn.), 81. S W. B99— 701. Yazoo, etc., R. Co. v. Faust (Miss.), 32 So. 9—886. Yazoo, etc., R. Co. v. Georgia Home Ins. Co. (Miss.), 37 So. 500—702. Yazoo, etc., R. Co. v. Humphrey, 83 Miss. 721—771. Yazoo, etc., R. Co. v. Mlllsaps, 76 Miss. 865—225, 248. Yeomans v. Contra Costa Steam Nav. Co., 44 Cal. 71—544, 663, 580, 781. Yerkes v. Keokuk, etc., Packet Co., 7 Mo. App. 265—604, 607, 615, 782. Toakum v. Dunn, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 632, 524—421, 422. Yoakum v. Dryden (Tex. Civ. App.), 26 S. W. 312—137. Yonge V. Kinney, 28 Ga. 111—779. 787. Yonge V. Pacific Mall Steamship Co., 1 Cal. 353—881. Yorke v Grenaugh, 2 Ld. Raym. 867—434. York Co. V. Central Railroad, 3 Wall (U. S.) 107—394, 764. York Co. V. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 3 Wall. (II. S.) 107—305, 313, 434, 768. York, etc., R. Co. v. Crisp, 14 C. B. 527 —324. Yorton v. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co., 63 Wis. 367-559, 745. Youl V. Harbottle, Peake N. P. 49—179. Young V. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 93 Mo. App. 267-826. Young V. Bradsford, 12 Lea (Tex.), 232— 783. Young V. Canadian Pac, R. Co., 1 Mani- toba L. Rep. 205—139. Young V. Citizens St. R. Co., 148 Ind. 54- —795. Young V. East Alabama Ry. Co., 80 Ala. 100—162, 363, Young V. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 79 Mo. 336—700. Young V. Old Colony R. Co., 166 Mass. 178—875. Young V. Smith, 3 Dana (Ky.), 92—192,. 196, 269. Young V. Western Union Tel. Co., 34 N. Y. Super Ct. 390—332. Zackry v. Mobile, etc., R. Co., 7B Miss.. 746—621. Zelift V. North Jersey St. By. Co. (N. J.), 55 Atl. 95—872. Zemp V. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 9 Rich. L. (S. C.) 84—753, 770, 810, 856, 857, 868. Zimmer v. New YorK, etc., R. Co., 137" N. Y. 460—291, 296, 312, 347, 362, 766. Zimmerman v. Denver Consol. Tramway Co. (Colo.), 1 St. Ry. Rep. 21—877. Zinn v. New Jersey Steamboat Co., 49^ N. Y. 442—194, 196, 201, 248, 263. 276. Zollinger v. Steamer Emma, 3 Cent. L. J. 285-r202. Zouch V. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 36 W. Va. 524—294, 344, 366. Zumault V. Kansas City, etc., Air Line, 71 Mo. App. 670—872. Zunz V. South Eastern R. Co., L. R. 4- Q. B. 539—114. Zwack V. New York Cent., etc., R. Co.,, 160 N. Y. 362—820. THE LAW OF CARRIERS. CHAPTER I. Oaeeiees Gbneeally. SEX3TI0N 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 earrieir has been defined to be one who undertakes to transport goods from one place to another.^ But a more accurate and comprehensive definition, perhaps, would be that a carrier is a person or corporation who undertakes to trans- port or convey goods, or property, or persons, from one place to another, gratuitous.ly 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 recognizes, three classes! ; carriers without hire, carriers for hire but not common carriers, and common car- riers ; or carriers without hire or reward, private carriers for hire, and common or public carriers for hire.^ Aa all carriers without 1. Bouvier's L. Diet. Vol. 1, 242; 2. Bouvr. L. Diet. 242; Story; Parsons, Contr., Vol. 1, 642. Bailm. § 495. 3. Hutch. Carr. § 15. 2 The Law of Oakeibes. hire may be said to be private carriers, since common carriers ■when they carry gratuitously 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 important 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 assigned 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 bailment, the goods or baggage lae-- ing 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 consignor or owner. The carriage of goods or bagggage, 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 cany them from place to place.* The carriage of goods or baggage, where the carrier is paid for the service, is of that class of bail- ments known as a hiring, which is a bailment of goods always for a reward, and among which bailments is the hire of carriage." Private carriers, whether without hire or for hire, are strictly bailees and assume simply the duties and liabilities of bailees Their responsibility does not necessarily arise from an undertak- ing to carry and is determined by the rules governing the re- sponsibility of bailees. The foundation of the bailee's liability, except in the case of common carriers of goods and innkeepers, is negligence, and negligence in some degree must be shown to make 4. See § 6, post; Edwards, Bailm. 5. See § 10, post; EdwardJ, § 3. Bailm. S 3. Caebiees Geneiully. 3 the bailee liablei. But the liability of the common carrier of goods, like that of the innkeeper, is extraordinary 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 here- after seen, ordinarily does not enter into the determination' 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 pas- sengers for an injury to a passenger generally depends exclusively upon the question of negligence.^ The law as to the liability of bailees in general for negligence, adverted to in a subsequent sec- tion, 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 liability depends entirely upon negligence is determined by the general law of bail- ments, that law, not admitting the responsibility of the bailee when loss or 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 attributable 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 another, either gratuitously or for hire ; one who undertakes for the transportation in a particular instance only, not making it a vocation, nor holding himself out to the public ready to act for all who desire his services.* Common carriers, how- ever, hold themselves out to carry for 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 persons or the goods of all who apply to them, but 6. See Chap. II, § 1. 9- See Common Carriers. 7. See Carriers of Passengers. 8. §§ 6, 10, post. 4 The Law of Caeeiees. they may_ carry for whom they choose and for such compensation and at such times as they may fix or as may be agreed upon. Thej 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 car- riers, whether carriers without hire or carriers for hire, as has been stated, are strictly bailees, in no way distinguishable from ordin- ary bailees as to their responsibility, and are subject only to the duties and liabilities of bailees, and their liability is determined by the degree of negligence of which they are guilty." The prin- ciples of the law as to the liabilitiesi of bailees in general for negligence which form a part of the law of bailments, are applica- ble in determining the liability of private carriers. Theseprinciples or rules may be stated as follows : When the bailment is for the sole benefit of the bailor, the law requires only slight diligence on the part of the bailee, and holds him liable only for gross negli- gence. 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 intenjded to be, reciprocally beneficial to both parties, the law requires ordinary diligence on the part of the baileei, and holds him liable for ordinary neglig^ce.^' § 6. Private carriers without hire. — Carriers who carry goods gratuitously, without any compensation directly or indirectly, are liable as gratuitous bailees or mandataries only.^^ It was formerly held that such carriers were only liable for gross negligence and required to exercise only slight care and diligence.^' But all 10. § 3, ante; Allen v. Sackrider, C.) 207; Coggs v. Bernard, 2 Ld. 37 N. Y. 341; Fish v. Clark, 49 N. Raym. 909, 1 Smith's L. Cas. 199; Y. 122, 2 Lans. (N. Y.) 176. Button v. Osborne, 1 Sel. N. P. 420; 11. Angell, Carrs. (5th ed.) } Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. Hopkins, 41 11; Hutch. Carrs. § 8. Ala. 486, 94 Am. Dec. 607; Eobin- 12. Citizens' Bank v. Nantucket son v. Threadgill, 13 Ired. L. (N. Steamboat Co., 2 Story (U. S.) 16; C.) 39. Pender v. Bobbins, 6 Jones L. (N. 13. Coggs v. Bernard, 2 Ld. Kaym. C^EEIEES GeNEEALLY. distinctions in the degrees of negligence are now generally re- garded by the courts as; unimportant and asi impracticable in determining liability for negligence." Although a person under- 909, 1 Smith's L. Cas. 199; Hutton v. Osborne, 1 Sel. N. P. 420; Colyar v. Taylor, 1 Coldw. (Tenn.) 372, where T. gratuitously undertook to re- ceive $1,500 for C. at N., and deliver it to him at W., where they both re- sided, and, after drawing the money went to a public fair, where he met E., a townsman, who was going home before 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 ear, 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 Swan (Tenn.), 457, wherein it was said: "As a general rule, a mandatary whose engagement is merely gratu- itous, is bound to ordinary diligence and liable only for gross neglect or breach of good faith. It is, however, a well settled rule that if a manda- tary enter upon the execution of business submitted to him, he is bound to use a degree of diligence and attention adequate to the per- formance of his undertaking; if he do not, and damage ensue, he is liable as a mandatary for his misfeasance." In Jenkins v. Motlow, 1 Sneed. (Tenn.) 253, 60 Am. Dee. 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 masdatary is liable only for gross negligence. Stan- ton V. Bell, 2 Hawks (N. C), 145; Sodowsky v. McFarland, 3 Dana (Ky.), 205; Tracy v. Wood, 3 Mason (U. S.), 132; Tompkins v. Salt- marsh, 14 S. & R. (Pa.) 275; 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 which bailees without hire, or other man- dataries, of common prudence, are accustomed to take of property of the like kind. Money requires more care than common articles of prop- erty. Tracy v. Wood, 3 Mason (U. 8.), 132; Anderson v. Foresman, Wright (Ohio), 598; Bland v. Wo- maek, 2 Murph. (N. C.) 373. Carrier not liable. Where gold dust was taken on board the steamer New World to be carried gratui- tously from Sacramento to San Fran- cisco, the clerk of the boat having given the owners of the dust actual notice that he would receive gold dust or money only on condition that no charge should be made and no re- sponsibility incurred, and the gold dust was stolen from the boat with- out any negligence on the part of its officers, the owners of the boat were held not liable for the loss. Fay v. Steamer 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. 6 The Law of Oaeeibes. taking gratuitously to perform an act with respect to tlie property of another is not bound by his undertaking,^ 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 circumstances of a given case, and gross negligence is not shown where the evidence is that reasonable and proper care was exercised." l!^egligence is essen- 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. Ed. Acet. Law, pp. 22, 23. The same view has been taken in other states: Ala. — Stringer v. Alabama R. Co., 99 Ala. 397, 13 So. 75. Colo. — ^Denver, etc., R. Co. v. Pe- terson (Colo.), 69 Pac. 578. Me. — 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., E. Co., 45 Mo. 22. If. H. — State V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 58 N. H. 410. N. C. — McAdoo V. Richmond, etc., E. Co., 105 N. C. 140. Term. — Mariner v. Smith, 5 Heisk. (Tenn.) 208. F<.— Briggs V. Taylor, 28 Vt. 180. The doctrine has also been criti- cised in the United States courts and in England. U. jS.— The Steamboat New World V. King, 16 How. (U. S.) 474; Mil waukee, etc., E. Co. v. Arms, 91 U, S. 494; New York Cent. E. Co. v, Lockwood, 17 Wall. (U. S.) 357 Holladay v. Kennard, 12 Wall. (U S.) 254; Purple v. Union Pac. E, Co., 114 Fed. 123, 51 C. C. A. 564, 57 L. E. A. 700, the words " gross " and " reckless," as applied to neg- ligence per se, have no legal signifi- cance which imports other than simple negligence or want of due care, and are not the equivalent of "willful" or "wanton." Eng. — 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 bfe doubted whether be- tween gross negligence and negli- gence merely any intelligible distinc- tion exists." Grill v. General Iron Screw Collier Co., L. E. 1 C. P. 612; Beal V. South Devon R. Co., 3 H. & C. 341; Wyld V. Pickford, 8 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. i 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 ease of a gratuitous bailee, who is not liable unless he fails to exercise the degree of skill which he possesses. Lord v. Midland E. Co., L. R. 2 C. P. 339; Cashill V. Wright, 6 El. & Bl. 891, 88 E. C. L. 891 ; Giblin v. McMuUen, L. E. 2 P. C. 317. 15. Thome v. Deas, 4 Johns. (I», Y.) 84; McGee v. Bast, 6 J. J. Marsh (Ky.), 455. 16. Melbourne v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 88 Ala. 443, 6 So. 762. 17. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Ger- son, 102 Ala. 409, 14 So. 873. Caitriees GeJ!TERALJ.Y. 7 tially always a question of fact and its determination depends necessarily upon the particular circumstances in each case. The private carrier without hire is bound to use proper and reasonable care for the safety of the goods committed to his charge, ajid the test of what is such proper and reasonable 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 re- sulting from a want of such care." § 7. When transportation is gratuitous. — In order to deter- mine the question of negligence it is frequently necessary to determine in the first instance whether or not the transportation was actually gratuitous. Where the carrier received goods for shipment and sale at their place of destination, the proceeds to be returned to the shipper by the carrier, it has been frequently held that the carrier was not acting gratuitously in carrying such pro- ceeds to the shipper, but as a carrier for hire, although he received only the usual or ordinary freight for transportation of the goods, the freight being a consideration for both carriage of the goods and iihe return of the proceeds.^" So, a person traveling on a train in Gross negligence. A carrier, liability as a carrier, it was held not without compensation, was held lia- liable. Adams Exp. Co. v. Darnell, We on the ground of gross negligence, 31 Ind. 20, 99 Am. Dec. 582; Howard because he had deposited the goods Exp. Co. v. Wile, 64 Pa. St. 201. in a place which was peculiarly un- 18. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. safe at the time, by reason of an an- Derby, 14 How. (U. S. ) 468; Tre- ticipated raid of hostile troops. Ad- leven v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 89 ams Exp. Co. v. Cressop, 6 Bush. Wis. 598; Coggs v. Bernard, 2 Ld. (Ky.) 572. But, where the trans- Raym. 909, 1 Smith's L. Gas. 199. portation was not gratuitous and the 19. Anderson v. Foresman, Wright goods were deposited under such cir- (Ohio), 598. cumstances as showed the exercise of 20. Kemp v. Coughtry, 11 Johns, reasonable care as bailee by the de- (N. Y.) 107; Harrington v. McShane, fendant, after the termination of its 2 Watts (Pa.) 443, 27 Am. Dec. 8 The Law of Oaeeiees. charge of cattle which are being shipped, is not a gratuitous passenger, but a passieuger for hire; the consideration for his passage is the service he renders in taking care of the cattle, or it is found in the charges made for shipping the cattle.^ Where of&eers of steamboats cari-ied packages of money, without com- pensation other than the probability that the boat would he preferred for the shipment of freight, in case the package was accompanied by an order for goods, the owners of the boats have been held not liable as common carriers for the loss of sucfi pack- ages because there was no certain or fixed standard of remuner^ ation, nor could any pay be recovered for the service, and the custom was not shown to have grown up with the knowledge of the owner, or to be other than a mere accommodation usage.^ A railroad company which contracts for the transportation of the tanks of an oil company, and their return, when emptied, is sub- ject to the liabilities of a common carrier with respect to the return of the empty tanks, though no bill of lading is furnished therefor, nor any additional compensation paid, independently of the freight for the transportation of the oil.^' Likewise, a carrier which, by contract or usage, carries without extra charge the empty sacks returned to a shipper of grain or other commodity, is held to be a carrier for hire as to such sacks, his compensation lying in the freight charges received for transportation of the grain or other commodity.^* 321; Emery v. Hersey, 4 Me. 407, 16 with defendant "reasonably to can- Am. Dec. 268 ; Moseley v. Lord, 2 tent him for the carriage," the latter Conn. 389. was lia,ble as a private carrier for 21. Missouri Pae. E. Co. v. Ivey, hire, although there was no proof of 71 Tex. 409, 9 S. W. 346, 1 L. R. A a specific compensation having been 600, 10 Am. St. Eep. 758; Pennsyl- paid him. vania R. Co. v. Henderson, 51 Pa. St. 23. Spears v. Lake Shore, etc., R. 315; Cleveland, etc., R. Cto. v. Our- Co., 67 Barb. (N. Y.) 513; Mallory v. ran, 19 Ohio St. 1, 2 Am. Rep. 362; Tioga R. Co., 32 How. Pr. (N. Y.) Ohio, etc., E. Co. v. Nickless, 71 Ind. 616, afiFg. 39 Barb. (N. Y.) 488. 271. 24. Pierce v. Milwaukee, etc., R. 22. Cincinnati, etc., Mail Co. v. Co., 23 Wis. 387; Aldridge v. Great Boal, 15 Ind. 345; Whitemore v. Western R. Co., 15 C. B. N. S. 582, The Steamboat Caroline, 20 Mo. 109 E. C. L. 582. Compare Jenkins 613; Chouteau v. Steamboat St. An- v. Motlow, 1 Sneed. (Tenn.) 248, thony, 16 Mo. 216. See Rogers v. cited under § 6, where the deposit Head, Cro. Jac. 262, where it was of money by a passenger, for the ear- held when plaintiff had undertaken riage of which no extra charge was Caeeiebs Genzeally. 9 § 8. When compensation may be implied The fact tliat a carrier did not intend to charge for the transportation 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 transportation, raises an im- plied obligation to pay freight, and- renders the carrier liable ac- cordingly, unless the contrary is agreed upon. No express agree- ment having been made as to compensation, the carrier is entitled to it if he choose to demand it-^^ It is not necessary to constitute one a common carrier that a stipulation should be entered into as to the amount of freight to be paid. But unless a right to compensa- tion exists, the common law liability of a common 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 agreement to pay the car- - rier for such 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 according 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 negli- gence.^* It then devolves upon the carrier to account for the loss made, was held to render the carrier ferry, although on a road not opened liable to plaintiff only as a manda- by public authority, or repaired by tary or depository, having failed to public labor, may so use it as to sub- use ordinary diligence under the cir- ject himself to the liability of a cumstancea. This case would seem common carrier, if he undertakes, for to be analogous to those cited in the hire, to convey across the river all text and the carrier to be liable as a persons indifferently, with their car- common carrier as to the money as riages and goods; but this is a ques- he is of the passenger's baggage, the tion for the jury. Littlejohn v. price paid for the passage being also Jones, 2 McMuU. (S. C.) 365, 39 Am. the hire for the carriage of whatever Dec. 132. the passenger commits to the cus- 27. Kirtland v. Montgomery, 1 tody of the carrier. Swan (Tenn.), 452. 25. Gray v. Missouri Eiv. Packet 28. Beardslee v. Richardson, 11 Co., 64 Mo. 47; Kirtland v. Montgom- Wend. (N. Y.) 25, 25 Am. Dec. 596; ery, 1 Swan (Tenn.), 452. Lampley v. Scott, 24 Miss. 528. If 26. Knox v. Rives, 14 Ala. 249, 48 the goods be taken from him by one Am. Dec. 97. The owner of a private having paramount title, he is dis- 10 The Law of Oaeribrs, by showing tliat it occurred under circumstances such as to relieve him from liability.^' The statements made by tbe carrier at the time of the demand and refusal to deliver the property, in which lie 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, and making no public profession to carry for all who apply, undertakes to carry and deliver the goods of others upon particular occasions, for hire or reward, upon such terms as may be a^eed upon.'^ One wbo is the owner of a vessel, and who charged. Edson v. Weston, 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 278; Beardslee v. Richard- son, supra. 29. Beardslee v. Richardson, 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 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 his honesty." Coggs v. Bernard, 2 Ld. Raym. 909, 1 Smith's L. Oas. 199. Compare Doorman v. Jenkins, 2 Ad. & El. 256, 29 E. C. L. 80; Rooth v. Wilson, 1 B. & Aid. 59. 30. Lampley 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 offender, are circumstances for the jury. It would be difficult to estab- lish such facts except by the attend- ing circumstances. Such evidence is competent, as it would be for the plaintiff 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. CuUen, 5 Han. (Del.) 238; Self. v. Dunn, 42 Ga. 828, 5 Am. Rep. 544; Littlejohn v. CaREIEES GeNEiEALLY. 11 is especially employed to traaaport a cargo of grain, is not a common or public carrier, but only a private carrier for bire.'^ All persons wbo carry under a special contract, as the driver of a stagecoach, occasionally taking packages to carry for compensation, are private carriers. ^^ One who contracts to cut timber, and trans.port it to the place where it ia 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 aa a common carrier f^ 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 insitructions, 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 carrying goods for an express 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 Jones, 2 McMuU. L. (S. C.) 366, 39 34. Pike v. Nash, 1 Keyes (N. Am. Dec. 132; Sheldon v. Eohinaon, Y.), 335, 3 Abb. App. Dee. ( N. Y.) 7 N. H. 157, 26 Am. Dec. 726; 610. Samms v. Stewart, 20 Ohio 69, 55 35. MeClure v. Richardson, Rice Am. Dee. 445; Moriarty v. Harn- L. (S. C.) 215, 33 Am. Dee. 105. den's Express, 1 Daly (N. Y.) 227; 36. Steele v. MeTyer, 31 Ala. 667, Rogers v. Head, Cro. Jac. 262. One 70 Am. Dec. 516; Jenkins v. Pickett, who is employed for hire pro hao 9 Yerg. (Tenn.). 481; Satterlee v. vice only, and does not make the Groat, 1 Wend. (N. Y.) 272. carriage of goods his constant em- 37. Allis v. Voight, 90 Mich. 125, ploymeut, is not liable as a common 51 N. W. 190. •carrier. Anon. v. Jackson, 1 Hayw. 38. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. (N. C.) 14; Satterlee v. Groat, 1 Keefer, 146 Ind. 21, 44 N. E. 796, 38 Wend. (N. Y.) 272. L. R. A. 93, 5 Am. &. Eng. Cas. N. S. 32. Allen v. Saekrider, 37 N. Y. 26. 341. 39. Watson v. North British R. 33. Beckman v. Shouse, 5 Rawle. Co., 3 Sc. Sess. Cas. (4th sess.) 637, (Pa.) 179, 28 Am. Dec. 653. 3 Ry. & C. T. Cas. 17. 12 The Law of Caeeiees. a private carrier or bailee for hire as to the particular goods carried under the contract, although it cannot by special contract create an exemption from liability for actual negligence of itself or its servants.^" § 11, Liability of private carriers for hire — The private or special carrier for hire is bound to exercise ordinary pnidencei care, and skill in carrying goods and delivering them to the con- signee, and is liable for ordinary negligence resulting in, losu or injury of the goods. He is. not an insurer of the safety of the goods intrusted to him for transportation/^ Ordinary care has been defined to be "such care and diligence as a reasonably prudent man would exercise in the conduct of his own businees 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 himself guilty of negligence ; for it is a rule of law that a party cannot recover if his own negligence was as much 40. New York Cent. R. Co. v. redeliver the thing bailed to its law- Loekwood, 17 Wall. (U. S.) 357. ful owner. This is necessarily im- 41. Allen v. Sackrider, 37 N. Y. plied, in all eases, from the nature 341 ; Fish v. Clark, 49 N. Y. 122, 2 of the contract of bailment. The au- Lans. (N. Y.) 176; Pike v. Nash, thorities are uniform to the effect 1 Keyes (N. Y.), 335, 3 Abb. Dec. that such redelivery may be excused (N. Y.) 610; Beck v. Evans, 16 in the case of a bailment, mutuallyi East, 244; Whalley v. Wray, 3 Esp. beneficial to the parties, by prorf 74; Bowman v. Teall, 23 Wend. (N. that the deposit has been lost or de- Y.) 306; Allis v. Voight, 90 Mich. stroyed without negligence, or want 125, 51 N. W. 190; White v. Bas- of such care on the part of a bailee com, 28 Vt. 268; Nelson v. Mackin- as prudent men under similar cir- tosh, 1 Stark. 237, 2 E. C. L. 96. eumstances, commonly take of their 42. United States v. Power, 6 own goods. In the case of gratu- Mont. 271; Ames v. Belden, 17 Barb. itous bailments, however, the bailee (N. Y.) 515; Samms v. Stewart, 20 is liable only when chargeable with Ohio, 73, 55 Am. Dec. 445; Story gross neglect." Ouderkirk v. Central Bailm. § 399. "It is obvious that a Nat. Bank, 119 N. Y. 263. See Nel- bailee, whatever the character of the son v. Mackintosh, 1 Stark. 237, 2 bailment may be, when its purpose E. C. L. 96. Compare Pender v. Bob- has been fully satisfied and per- bins, 6 Jones L. (N. C.) 207. formed, is bound, upon request, to Careiees Generally. 13 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 of ordinary diligence the loss could have been avoided, must be 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. Tlie question is for the jury to determine where the evidence is conflicting.*^ § 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 negligence 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 contract. 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 through their own fraud or want of good faith. The contracting parties stand on equal terms and can make just such a bargain as they think will answer their purposes.*^ They are carriers, common 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 undertaking to carry "safely and securely" will not be presumed to enlarge the common 43. Brind v. Dale, 8 C. & P. 207, 47. Wells v. Steam Nav. Co., 2 N. 34 "E. C. L. 355; CailiflF y. Danvers, 1 Y. 204; Alexander v. Green, 3 Hill Peaks N. P. 114. (N. Y.) 9; Fish v. Chapman, 2 Ga. 44. Story Bailm. § 39. 349; Hand v. Baynes, 4 Whart. 45. Kirtland v. Montgomery, 1 (Pa.) 214; Bobinson 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. K. Co. v. v. Pritchard, 6 T. R. 750; Paradine Loekwood, 17 Wall. (U. S.) 357; v. Jane, AUeyn. 27. and other cases cited under Limita- 48. Kimball v. Rutland Railroad, tion of Liability, Carriers of Goods, 26 Vt. 247; Robinson v. Dunmore, 2 chap. 10. Bos. & P. 416. 14 The Law of Cakeieks. law liability to carry* free from ordinary negligence and to make the carrier an insurer of the goods. To do this there must be an express agreement.^ § 13. Lien of the private carrier. — The rule seems to be that the private carrier has no common law lien upon the goods carried by him for his charges for transportation, and has a lien only when he specially reserves it by agreement, or it hasi been con- ferred by statute.^" Most text vsriters, reasoning from analogy, find no satisfactory reason why the private carrier should not have the same lien as the warehouseman and wharfinger, who have rendered service in resp^t 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, serving 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 wa^ said by Lord Kenyon, in speaking of the liens of warehouse- men and wharfingers, that liens were either by conmion law, usage or agreement; that a lien from usage was a matter of evidence; that the usage in the case under dis- cussion had been proved so often it should be considered a settled point; and that liens by common law arose where a party was 49. Ames v. Belden, 17 Barb. (N. mon carrier is assured to him by » Y.) 516; Foster v. Essex Bank, 17 lien upon the goods — a right which 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, 2 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 51. Angell, Carriers (5th ed.), I V. Farrant, L. E. 10 Exch. 358. 66; Hutchinson, Carriers, § 46; 50. Riddle, Dean & Co. v. New Jones, Liens, § 276. York, etc., R. Co., 1 Int. Com. R. 52. Van Zile, Bailments and Ca^ 594, 604, the compensation of a com- riers, § 404. Careiees Genebally, 15. obliged to receive the goods," The general lien of the -wharfinger upon the goods of his customer entrusted to him and in his possession, for his balance in respect of freight and wharfage, was. admitted ; but the court refused to allow a lien claimed for labor- age, (comprising landing, weighing and delivering) and ware- house rent, because the custom proved was not sufficiently 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 recognized 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 performed, for which he has, a specific lien until he is paid for his labor, or parts with the possession pursuant to the terms of his agreement.^* The lien of the artisan, therefore, seems to be founded upon his special prop- 53. Holderness v. Colllnson, 1 M. & R. 55, 7 B. & C. 712. 54. Holderness v. Collioson, supra; Naylor 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. E. 55. Holderness v. Collinson, supra; Nayler v. Mangles, 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 Dvarehouseman bas a spe- cific, not a general lien; but he may deliver a part, and retain the residue for the price ehargeaole on all the goods received by him unaer the same bailment, provided the own- ership 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. warehouse, and portions of it aret from time to time delivered out with- out 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 de- posited, and may rest upon each part, of the entire claini. 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.), 6a8; Moore v. Hitchcock, 4 Wend. (N. Y.) 2»2; Wheeler v. Mc- Farland, 10 Vvend. (N. Y.) 318, 324.. 16 The Law of Cakeihes. €rty 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 warehouseman 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 hasi been held that a carrier, by 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 in transporting them, especially where he tows only for a single party, but that he haa 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. 74 111. App. 80. CHAPTER II. Common Cabeiees. Section 1. What constitutes a common carrier. 2. The liability of the common carrier. 3. Liability in the carrying of live stock. 4. Liability where the 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. Where 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. Kailroad companies. 11. Receivers and assignees of railroad company operating the road. 12. Trustees of mortgage bonds of railroad company. 13. Street railroad companies. 14. One railroad transporting the cars of another. 15. Transportation or dispatch companies. 16. Express freight lines. 17. Owners of canal boats. 18. Owners of tow boats 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. 28. Truckmen, Freightmen, Draymen, Cartmen, and Porters. 29. Owners and masters of ships and steamboats or vessels. 30. Owners of toll bridge. 31. Canal companies. 32. Forwarding merchants. 33. Warehousemen and wharfingers. 34. Postmasters, mail contractors, and mail carriers. 35. Log-carrying, or log-drivir.g, or boom companies. 36. Telegraph companies. 37. Telephone companies. (17) 18 Tse Law, of OAKarEES. Section 38. Railroad company transporting a circus or menagerie. 39. Railroad company in South Carolina only over its own line. 40. Railroad company carrying a dog for accommodation of passenger. 41. Carrier under a contract exempting "river risks." 42. Owners of passenger elevators. 43. Car-switching companies. 44. Telegraph messenger companies. 45. An irrigation company. 46. Transfer companies. 47. Owners of grain elevators. § 1. What constitutes a common carrier,— -A oommon or pub- lic carrier is one who, by virtue of his business or calling, under- takes, for compensation, to transport personal property from one place to anotber, either by land or water, and deliver the same, for all such as may choose to employ him ; and every one who under- takes to carry and deliver, for compensation, the goods of all persona indifferently, is, as to liability, to be deemed a common: The employment of a common carrier is a public one carrier. 1. Jackson Architectural Iron Works V. Hurlbut, 158 N. Y. 34, 38, 52 N. E. 665, 70 Am. St. Rep. 432; aff'g 15 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 93, 71 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 830, 36 N. Y. Supp. 808; Lough V. Outerbridge, 143 N. Y. 271, 145 N. Y. 601, aflf'g 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; Blanohard v. Isaacs, 3 Barb. (N. Y.) 388; Schouler Bailm. & Car. (2nd 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 (Pomeroy's ed.), § 356. 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- ferently;" 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 sucft as choose to employ him from place to place." The former definition was held in Gordon v. Hutchinson, 1 W. & S. (Pa.) 285, 37 Am. Dec. 464, to be " the best definition of a common car- rier in its application to the business of this country;" and it has been ap- proved in Jeremy on Carriers, 4; Mershon v. Hobensack, 22 N. J. L. 377; Verner v. Sweitzer, 32 Pa. St. 208; Bank of Orange v. Brown, supra, wherein Chief 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- sidered a. common carrier. The dis- tinction between a common carrier and a private or special carrier is, that the former holds himself out m common, that is to all persons who employ him, as ready to carry for hire; while the latter agrees in some CbMMOisr C'aueiees. 19 and lie assumes a public duty, and is bound to receive and carry the good® of any one who offers, provided the goods be of the kind he professes to carry, and the person so offering agrees to have them carried upon the lawful terms prescribed by the carrier.^ special case with some private indi- vidual to carry for hire." Story Cont. § 752a. Common carriers undertake generally, and not as a casual occu- pation, and for all people indifferent- ly, to convey goods and deliver them ata place appointed for hire as a busi- ness, and with or without a special agreement as to price. 2 Kent's Com. 698. 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. K. Cas. 720; Baboock v. Herbert, 3 Ala. 392, 37 Am. Dec. 695; Schloss v. Wood, 11 Colo. 287; Bennett v. Mlyaw, 1 Fla. 453; Bobertson v. Kennedy, 2 Dana (Ky.), 430, 26 Am. Dec. 466; Elkins V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 23 N. H. 275; Sheldeu 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. Dee. 773. 2. Allen v. Sackrider, 37 N. Y. 341 ; Sanford v. American Dist. Tel. Co., 13 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 88, 34 N. Y. Supp. 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 .professes to carry for hire the goods of all such persons as may choose to employ him. He may profess to carry all descriptions of goods or particular 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 goods for persons generally, and he must hold himself out as ready to engage the transportation of goods for hire, as a business, not as a casual occupation pro hao vice. Story Bail. § 495. The common carrier is one who, by the ancient law, held as it were a public office and was bound to the public, 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 ofifers to carry goods 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 laud 20 The Law of Caeeiees. According to all the authorities, tlie essential charaoteristics of the common carrier are that he holds himself out as aoich to the world; that he undertakes generally, and for all persons indif- ferently, 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, in the course of his employment and for a reasonable and customary price he will be liable to an action.' The nature and extent of lie employ- ment and business in which he holds himself out to the pubUc either expressly 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 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., K. Co., 4 Harr. (Del.) 448. Statutory definitions. Every railroad 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 freight 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 by reason of whose neglect or misconduct it became lia- ble. The Railroad Law of New York, § 48. Every one who offers to the public to carry persons, property, or mes- sages, except only telegraph messages, is a common carrier of whatever he thus offers to carry. Cal. Civ. Code, 1886, § 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. Cbde, 1895, §§ 2263, 2264. 3. Fish V. Clark, 2 Lans. (N. Y.) J76, 178, aff'd 49 N. Y. 122; Allen V. Saekrider, supra; 3 Kent's Cbm. 597; Story Bail. § 495; 2 Parsons Cont. 166, note J Angell Com. Carr. i 46. The liability to an action for a re- fusal to carry ia perhaps the safest criterion of the character of the car- rier. Pish V. Chapman, 2 Kelly (Ga.), 352; 46 Am. Dec. 393. Com- pare Grordon v. Hutchinson, 1 W. & S. (Pa.) 285, 37 Am. Dec. 464; Stein- man V. Wilkins, 7 W. & S. (Pa.) 466, 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. 4. Citizens' Bank v. The Nan- tucket Steamboat Co., 2 Story (U. S.), 16, 35. Holding ont to the world as a test. For authorities, where this test has been applied, see Kansas Pac. Common Caeeiebs. 21 oliers 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 employment and the responsibility imposed upon them by tbe law, upon grounds of public policy, for loss or injury from whatever cause arising, excepting only acts of Grod 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 indifferently.^ A common carrier may be a carrier of either passengers or freight, or both ; but the nature of the responsibility incurred is very different in the two cases ; in one, his responsibil- ity being that of a carrier of passengers, and negligence being the essential element of the ease, as will be hereafter shown, and in the other, that of a common carrier of goods.* To constitute one a E. Co. V. Nichols, 9 Kan. 253, 12 Am. Eep. 494; Kirby v. Adams Express Co., 2 Mo. App. 369; United States Exp. Co. V. Bachman, 28 Ohio St. 144, 14 Am. Ky. Rep. 82; Missouri Pac. R. Co. V. Harris, 1 Tex. Civ. App. Cas. § 1257; MeClures v. Ham- mond, 1 Bay (S. C), 99, 1 Am. Dec. 598; Moss v. Bettis, 4 Heisk. (Tenn.) 661, 13 Am. Rep. 1; Citizens' Bank T. The Nantucket Steamboat Co., supra; Fish v. Clark, supra; Ingate V. Christie, 3 C. & K. 61; Nugent \. Smith, 1 C. P. Div. 27, wherein the court said: "The teat is not whether he is carrying on a public employ- ment, or whether he carries to a fixed place; but whether he holds out, cither expressly or by a course of con- duct, that he will carry for hire, so long as he has room, the goods of all persons indiflFerently who send him goods to be carried." Schloss v. Wood, 11 Colo. 291, wherein the court said : " A person can hold himself out at a common carrier by engaging in the business generally, or by an- nouncing or proclaiming it by cards, advertisements, or by any other means that would let the public know that he intended to be a common or general carrier for the public." Rous- sel V. Aumais, Rap. Jud. Que. 18, C. S. 474. 5. Price v. Hartshorn, 44 N. Y. 94, aflf'g 44 Barb. (N. Y.) 455; South & North Alabama R. v. Wood, 66 Ala. 167, 9 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 419; 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, 16 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; Hall V. Railroad Co., 13 Wall. (U. S.) 367; Hart v. Western, etc., R. Co., 13 Mete. (Mass.) 99; Van Sant- voord V. St. John, 6 Hill (N. Y.), 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 22 The Law of Caeeiees. common carrier it is not necessary that his exclusive business shall be carrying.^ 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 trans- portation be his principal and direct business, or an occasional and incidental employment.' The rule has been laid down that one who undertakes, 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 he transports goods for hire for the public generally, and it is immaterial whether this is his usual or occasional occupation, his principal 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 terms 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 (U. S.), 181; Hollister v. Nowlen, duty of the former to receive all per- 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 234; Camden, etc., sons who apply. Angell Carr. § 524. R. Co. V. Burke, 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 7. Jackson A. Iron Works v. 611; Aston V. Heaven, 2 Esp. 533; Hurlbut, 158 N. Y. 34, 52 N. E. 665; Crofts V. Waterhouse, 3 Bing. 319, The Propeller Niagara v. Cordes, 21 11 Moore, 133; Readhead v. Ry. Co., How. (U. S.) 7; Dwight v. Brew- L. R. 2 Q. B. 412, L. R. 4 Q. B. 379; ster, 1 Pick. (Mass.), 50. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Hinds, 53 8. Fish v. Chapman, 2 Ga. 349, Pa. St. 512. See, also, Carriers of 46 Am. Dee. 393; Samms v. Stewart, Passengers. 20 Ohio, 69, 55 Am. Dee. 445; Nu- Common carriers of passengers gent v. Smith, 1 C. P. Div. 27 ; Story are such as undertake to carry all Bail. § 495; 2 Kent's Com. 597. persons who may apply for passage, 9. Gordon v. Hutchinson, 1 W. & so long as there is room and there is S. (Pa.) 285, 37 Am. Dec. 464. no legal excuse for refusing. Gilling- 10. Craig v. Childress, Peck ham v. Ohio River R. Co., 35 W. Va. (Tenn.), 270, 14 Am. Dec. .751; Tur- 588, 29 Am. St. Rep. 827; Bouv. Law ney v. Wilson, 7 Yerg. (Tenn.) 340, Diet. tit. "Common Carriers of Pas- 27 Am. Dec. 515; Moses v. Norris, 4 sengers." The only distinction be- N. H. 306. tween a common or public carrier of 11. Chevallier v. Straham, 2 Tex. passengers and a private or special 119, 47 Am. Dec. 639; Haynie v. carrier of passengers is that it is the Baylor, 18 Tex. 498. Common Oakeibes. 23 invested, like all other private persons, witb; the right to make his own contracts, and -wheii madei to s.tand 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 one 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 and under what circumstances and conditions it will receive the same, subject 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 does for 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 property, while in its cus- tody or under its control as a common carrier, or until delivery or what ia 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 the common 12. Piedmont Mfg. Co. v. Colum- S.) 17; Pendall v. Rench, 4 McLean bia, etc., E. Co., 19 S. C. 353, 16 Am. (U. S.), 259; Burritt v. Rench, 4 & Eng. R. Cas. 194. McLean (U. S.), 325. 13. Steinman v. Wilkins, 7 W. & A to.— Louisville, etc., E. Co. v. Me- S. (Pa.) 466, 42 Am. Dec. 254. Guire, 79 Ala. 395; Jones v. Pitcher, 14. Harp v. Choctaw, etc., Ry. Co. 3 Stew. & P. (Ala.) 135, 24 Am. Dec. (U. S. C. C. Ark.), 118 Fed. 169. 716. 15. Conunon law liability that Ark. — Packard v. Taylor, 35 Ark. of an insurer. U. 8. — Holladay v. 402, 37 Am. Rep. 37. Kennard, 12 Wall. (U. S.) 254; Pear- Coi.— Bohannan v. Hammond, 42 son V. Duane, 4 Wall. (U. S.) 605; Cal. 227; Hooper v. Wells, 27 Cal. Dusar v. Murgatroyd, 1 Wash. (U. 161, 85 Am. Dec. 211. 24 The Law of Caeeiees. law is not now held to apply to carriers of live stock ;" nor where Conn. — Williams v. Grant, 1 Conn. 487, 7 Am. Dee. 235. i)e?.— Culbreth v. Philadelphia, etc., E. Co., 3 Houst. (Del.) 392. Fla.—Clyie Steamer Co. v. Bur- rows, 36 Fla. 121. Go.— Cooper v. Berry, 21 Ga. 526, 68 Am. Dee. 468; Fish v. Chapman, 2 6a. 349, 46 Am. Dec. 393. III. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Saw- yer, 69 111. 285, 18 Am. Rep. 613; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Shea, 66 111. 471; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. McClel- lan, 54 111. 58, 5 Am. Rep. 83; West- ern Transp. Co. v. Newhall, 24 111. 466, 76 Am. Dee. 760. Ind. — ^Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Nicholai, 4 Ind. App. 119, 30 N. E. 424, 45 Alb. L. J. 412; Adams Ex- press Co. V. Darnell, 31 Ind. 20, 99 Am. Dec. 582; Bansemer v. Toledo, etc., R. Co., 25 Ind. 434, 87 Am. Dec. 367. £y. — Bland v. Adams Express Co., 1 Duv. (Ky.) 232, 85 Am. Dec. 623; Robertson v. Kennedy, 2 Dana (Ky.), 431, 26 Am. Dec. 466; Hall v. Ren- fro, 3 Mete. (Ky.) 51. La. — Berje v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 37 La. Ann. 468; Cranwell v. Ship 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., 55 Me. 462, 92 Am. Dec. 606; Parker v. Flagg, 26 Me. 181, 45 Am. Dee. 101. Md. — Ferguson v. Brent, 12 Md. 9, 71 Am. Dec. 582. Mass. — Claflin v. Boston, etc., R. 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 ; Whitesides v. Thurlkill, 12 Smed. & M. (Miss.) 599, 51 Am. Dec. 128; Gilmore 7. Carman, 1 Smed. & M. (Miss.) 279, 40 Am. Dec. 96; Neal v. Saunderson, 2 Smed. & M. (Miss.) 572, 41 Am. Dec. 609. Mo. — Davis v. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 89 Mo. 340, 26 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 315, revg. 13 Mo. App. 449; Daggett V. Shaw, 3 Mo. 264, 25 Am. Dec. 439. N. H. — Moses v. Boston, etc., E. Co., 24 N. H. 71, 55 Am. Dec. 222. N. J. — New 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, aflg. 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 Mott v. Laraway, 14 Wend. (N. Y.) 225, 28 Am. Dec. 523; Colt V. McMeehen, 6 Johns. (N. Y.) 160, 5 Am. Dee. 200. N. C. — Boner v. Merchants' Steam- boat 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. Bep. 674, 61 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 278; Leonard v. Hendrickson, 18 Pa. St 40, 55 Am. Dec. 587; Simpson ». Hand, 6 Whart. (Pa.) 311, 36 Am. Dec. 231. S. C. — Porcher v. Northeastern R. Common C'abeiues. 25 the loss or injury resulted from the inherent nature of the goods ;" nor where the loss or injury was due to the negligence 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 hy the exercise of public authority.^" The rule imposing the 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 Rome 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 waa thought that in no other way could fidelity be 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 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. Deo. 146. Term. — Watson v. Memphis, etc., R. Co., 9 Heiak. (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. Dee. 751; Lewis V. Ludwick, 6 Coldw. (Tenn.) 368, 98 Am. Dec. 454. Tea;.— Philleo v. Sanford, 17 Tex. 231, 67 Am. Dee. 654; Texas, etc., R. Co. V. Morse, 1 Tex. Civ. App. Cas. S 411; Texas Express Co. v. Scott, 16 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. Ill; Cheval- lier V. Straham, 2 Tex. 115, 47 Am. Dec. 639. yt. — Blumenthal v. Brainerd, 38 Vt. 402, 91 Am. Dec. 349; Day v. Ridley, 16 Vt. 48, 42 Am. Dec. 489. Va.— Farish v. Reigle, 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. — Strohn v. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 23 Wis. 126, 99 Am. Deo. 114; Wood V. Crocker, 18 Wis. 345, 86 Am. Deo. 773. Eng. — Coggs v. Bernard, 2 Ld. Raym. 909, 1 Smith's L. Cas. 199; Riley v. Home, 5 Bing. 217, 15 E. C. L. 422; Nugent 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 respon- sibility. — 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 indifferently who send him goods to be carried, says : " If he does this, his first responsibility naturally is that he is bound by a. promise, im- plied by law, to receive and carry for a reasonable price the goods sent to him upon such an invitation. This 26 The Law of Caebiebs. ia upon this obligation to carry and deliver safely imposed by law, and existing independently of any special contract, founded upon grounds of public policy to give due security to property, tliat the liability of the oommon carrier for the loss of property 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. This 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 themsdves 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 policy 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 Coggs V. Bernard, 2 Ld. Eaym. 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. that 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 sueli a clandestine manner as would be possible to be discovered. And this is the reason the law is founded upon in that point." In Riley v. Honje, 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 sends any servants with them to the place of their destination. If they should be lost or injured by the grossest negligence 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 causes of loss. Els witnesses must be the Carrier's serv- ants; and they, knowing that they could not be contradicted, would ex- cuse their masters and themselves. To give due security to properly, the law has added to that responsibiUty 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 enemiep." Common Gareiejes. 27 intrusted to it for transportation rests.^^ The rule of liability thus established by the common law, except as modified by statute and modern adjudications, in the respects already noted and herein- after referred to, to suit our character and circumstances applies to common carriers of all kinds whether by land or water. ^' The com- mon law liability of a carrier, or the common law liability as modi- fied by statute, is always presumed to be the measure of his lia- bility, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, and the burden of proving the actual contract rests upon the party who claims ex- emption by reason thereof from the ordinary liability of common carriers in a particular case.^* 22. Coggs V. Bernard, supra; Ei- ley V. Home, supra. The UabiUty 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., E. 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 law. It exists independently of the contract, hav- ing its foundation in the policy of the law, and it is upon this legal ob- ligation that he is charged as carrier for the loss of property intrusted to him. Hollister v. Nowlen, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 239, 32 Am. Dec. 455; Ansell v. Waterhouse, 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. Angell Carr. §§ 166, 223; 2 Kent's Com. 216; 9 U. S. Stat, at Large, 635. 24. Jennings v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 127 N. Y. 438, 447; Park 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 E. Co., 27 N. J. L. 100; Pittsburgh, etc., E. Co. v. Bar- rett, 36 Ohio St. 448, 3 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 257; Graham v. Davia, 4 Ohio St. 376, 62 Am. Dec. 285; Pe- oria, etc., E. Co. V. United States Eolling Stock Co., 136 HI. 643, 29 Am. St. Eep. 348, 49 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 81; New Jersey Steam Nav. Co. V. Merchants' Bank, 6 How. (U. S.) 344. The defendants, safe movers, are not 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 hay- 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. Eep. (N. Y.) 93, 36 N. Y. Supp. 808. 28 The Law of Caeeikes. § 3, Liability in the carrying of live stock — The comman hw liability of a carrier may be liraited by the intrinsia character of, or defects in, the subject matter of the contract. 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 Sikill.^^ 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 pro- pensities of the animals themselves. In other respects the common law responsibilities of the carrier will attach.^' 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 breach 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 plaintiff 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 goods at their destination, without stipulating that he shall 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 ene- my. Neal V. Saunderson, 2 Smed. & M. (Miss.) 572, 41 Am. Dec. 609. No presniuption as to ipedai contract. — ^The fact that defendant was accustomed to give shippers re- ceipts containing a provision that it would not be liable for loss by Are will not support a presumption that there was a special contract between plaintiff'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 given to plaintiff'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 anch stock, in the absence of negli- gence, the carrier is relieved from responsibility for such injuries as occur in consequence of the vitality of the freight. He does not abso- lutely warrant live freight against the consequences of its own vitality. Animals may injure or destroy them- selves or each other; they may die from fright or from starvation be- cause they refuse to eat, or they may Common Oabeiers. 29- § 4. Liability where loss or injury results from the inherent nature of the goods. — The same principles which relieve the carrier from its strict liability in carrying live stock apply with equal force to contracts for the carriage of perishable property. die from heat or cold. In all such cases the carrier is relieved from re- sponsibility if he can show that he has provided all suitable means of transportation and exercised that degree of care which the nature of the property requires." Cragin v. New York Cent. E. Co., 51 N. Y. 61; Clarke V. Rochester, etc., R. Co., 14 N. Y. 570; Bissell v. New York Cent. R. Co., 25 N. Y. 442; Smith v. New Haven, etc., R. Co., 94 Mass. 531. "Acoordlng to the established rnle as to the liability of a common carrier, he is understood to guarantee that (with the well known exception of the act of God and of public ene- mies) the goods intrusted to him shall seasonably reach their destina- tion, and that they shall receive 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 upon 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 effected; but not for injuries produced by, or re- sulting from, the inherent defects or essential qualities or of the 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 difficulties 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 each other." Evans v. Fitchburg R. Co., Ill Mass. 142; Story Bailm., § 576. " The carrier ipoald not be held responsible," it has been held, "where horses or other animals were being transported by water, and in consequence of a storm broke down the partitions between them, and bj 30 The Law of Caeeiees. TKe carrier is not liable for injuries caused by its intrinsic defects, and not from any want of care on tlie part of the carrier." But he is bound to take reasonable means to guard against such kicking each other some of them wera' 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 different, 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, however, the rule appears to be different. It is there held that railroads are not boimd to 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., E. Co. V. Jurey, 8 Bradw. (111. App.) 160; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Harmon, 12 Bradw. (III. App.) 64; McCoy v. The K. & D. M. R. Co., 44 Iowa, 424; Chicago, etc., R. Co. V. Abels, 60 Miss. 1017; My- nard 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; Missouri Pac. E. 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 modied 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 Tex. 491, 7 S. W. 785. 27. Evans v. Fitehburg R. Co., Ill Mass. 142, (opinion quoted from in note 26 to § 3, ante) ; Illinois Cent. R. Co. V. McClellan, 54 HI. 58, 5 Am. Rep. 83; Vail v. Pacific E. Co., 63 Mo. 230; McGraw v. Baltimore, etc., R. C, 18 W. Va. 361, 41 Am. Eep. 696, 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 188. See also Nugent v. Smith, 1 C. P. Dly. 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. Heming, 11 Exch. 822; Brass v. Maitland, 6 El. & Bl. 471, 88 E. C. L. 471; Eohl 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, docs 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 Common CAeeiees. 31 injuries,^' to use special diligence to avoid delay in transporta- tion/' and give it a preference in transportation over non- 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. E. .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. Deo. 470; Chouteaux v. Leech, 18 Pa. St. 224, 57 Am. Dec. 602, where, in the course of trans- portation, certain furs were wet, through an accident 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 so 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. Inmau Steamship Co., 26 Hun (N. Y.), 107; Peek v. Weeks, 34 Conn. 145. Failnre to prevent leakage. A carrier was held liable for failure to wet casks containing oil in order to prevent their leakage; and the fact that loss from leakage was one of the special 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 car- rier was also held liable where, after becoming aware that a cask of brandy which was being carried was leaking, he failed to take any stepa to prevent further leakage. Beck v. Evans, 16 East, 244; Cox v. London, etc., R. Co., 3 F. & F. 77. Sec also, The Brig Collenberg, 1 Black (U. S.) 170; Warden v. Greer, 6 Watta (Pa.) 424; Leech v. Baldwin, 3 Watts (Pa.) 446; Gowdy v. Lyon, 9 B. Mon. (Ky.) 112. 29. Kinnick v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 69 Iowa 665, 27 Am. & Eng. E 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 com- pany 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. E. 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 Co., 26 Hun (N. Y.), 107. A railroad company receiving cat- tle for transportation must carry them with reasonable despatch, and 33 The Law of Caemees. perishable goods, if he is not able to forward both at once.'" And he is required to take notice of any marks upon the package containing the goodsi, which indicate the character of its contents^ But a carrier by water isi 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 proximate cause of the loss, or for losses caused by the wrongful conduct or fraud of the shipper. Such contributory negligence on the part of the shipper will excuse the carrier from liabiHty,^ is liable for an injury resulting from delay. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Ellison, 70 Tex. 491, 7 S. W. 785; Missouri Pac. E. Co. V. Cornwall, 70 Tex. 611, 8 S. W. 312. 30. Marshall v. New York Cent. R. Co., 45 Barb. (N". Y.) 502, wherein the charge of the judge at Circuit that "where two kinds of property are delivered at the- same time by different owners, one of which kind is perishable and the other not, pref- erence is to be given to that which is perishable in transportation, and if either must wait, it must be that which is not perishable,'' was sus- tained on appeal. The court said: "The question how the carrier was employed, and how he used and em- ployed his means of transportation during any given period when prop- erty was delayed, would always be a proper subject of inquiry, and that on this inquiry proof that his means of transportation were employed in transporting perishable property, in preference to other property received at the same time, would always be held a sufficient excuse for delay." Wbere there is a great presa of business, the carrier may dis- criminate in favor of perishable goods in determining which consign- ments 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. t. Perkins, 42 Dl. 458. 32. Notara v. Henderson, L. B. 5 Q. B. 346; The Steamboat Lynx v. King, 12 Mo. 272, 49 Am. Dec. 135. See also Rogers v. Murray, 3 Boaw. (N. Y.) 357; The Propeller Niagara V. Cordes, 21 How. (U. S.) 7; The Steamship America, 8 Ben. (U. S.) 491; The Gentleman, 1 Blatchf. (U- S.) 196; The Bark Gentleman, 1 01c. Adm. 110; Blocker v. Whittenburg, 12 La. Ann. 410. 33. Wilson v. Hamilton, 4 Ohio St. Common Careiees. 33 as where goods are improperly marked by the consignor/'' or im- properly packed or loaded,^^ or where the shipper fails to inform the carrier of the character of the goods or of their value/* or fraudulently conceals the contents or value/' or where the lossi or i injury is due to the improper and unwarrantable interference of I the shipper with the property.^* §' 6. Where the loss or injury is the result of delay in the transmission of the goods. — The common law liability of the car- rier 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 i God. But the carrier must exercise due discretion and reasonable : care and diligence to guard against delay, and in forwarding the I goods to their destination.^' If, in the exercise of due care and diligence, it does not appear that a change of route would prevent 722. See generally, Contributory neg- ligence of shipper, chap. 13. 34. Southern Express Co. v. Kauf- man, 59 Tenn. 161; The Huntress, 12 Fed. Gas. 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'Eourke v. Chicago, etc., K. Co., 44 Iowa, 526; Forsythe v. Wal- ker, 9 Pa. St. 148. 35. Eoss V. Troy, etc., E. Co., 49 Vt. 364; Loveland v. Burke, 120 Mass. 139, 21 Am. Eep. 507. 36. Oppenheimer v. United States Express Co., 69 111. 62; Magnin v. Binsmore, 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., E. Co. v. Shea, ■66 111. 471. 38. Eoderick v. Eailroad Co., 7 W. 3 Va. 54; Hutchinson v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 37 Minn. 524; Conger v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 24 Wis. 157. 39. Geismer v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 102 N. Y. 563, 55 Am. Eep. 837, 26 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 287 ; Wi- bert V. New York, etc., E. Co., 12 N. Y. 245; Blackstock v. New York, etc., E. Co., 20 N. Y. 48, 75 Am. Dee. 372; Truax v. Philadelphia, etc., E. Co., 3 Houst. (Del.) 233; Pittsburgh, etc., E. Co. V. Hollowell, 65 Ind. 188, 32 Am. Eep. 63; Gulf, etc., E. Co. v. Levi, 76 Tex. 337, revg. 12 S. W. 677, 40 Am. & Eng. E. 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 its partial or entire destruction while in transit. 34 The Law of CAsaimts. 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 gooda for the best price he can obtain, in order to convert what would in- evitably 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 goodsi are delivered to a common car- rier 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 pos- session of the property by the officer who serves the writ, the car- rier 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 competent jurisdiction to issue it, and he immediately noti- fies 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 hand, 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 pro- ceedings against them, but is not held to a technical observance of the rule, if the owner has timely notice, and is in a position 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 ita possession as warehouseman had been attached, and were in the custody of the law, does not relieve the carrier from liability.** A common carrier is liable for the value of fish shipped over its line which were seized by a game warden on the ground that the fisk were illegally caught, where such warden had neither legal nor apparent legal right to seize the same.*^ 40. American Ex. Co. v. Smith, 33 214; Kiff v. Old Colony, etc., R. Co., Ohio St. 511. 117 Mass. 591, 19 Am. Rep. 429. 41. Bliven v. Hudson River R. Co., 43. Simpson v. Dufour, 126 Ind. 36 N. y. 403; Adams v. Scott, 104 322, 26 N. E. 69; Pingree v. Detroit, 164. See also cases cited un- etc., R. Co., 66 Mich. 143, 11 Am. St. der Seizure by legal process, chap. 7, Rep. 479. §§ 5, 6, post. 44. Frank v. Central R. Co. 9 Pa. 42. Edwards v. White Line Tran- Super. Ct. 129. sit Oo., 104 Mass. 159, 6 Am. Rep. 45. Merriman t. Great Northern Common C'aerieiES. 85 § 8- Liability of carriers of passengers. — Carriers, of passen- gens are common carriers in respect to tlie baggage of their pas- sengers and also in respect to their passengers and those desiring passage on their conveyances, but their liability to passengers for personal injuries is limited to cases 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 car- rier of passengers who undertakes 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 inade^ quate as to render the application of such a rule of liability un- just ; in such a case he is liable merely as a bailee.*^ § 9. Express companies. — Express companies undertaking to carry or cause to be carried goods for hire for all persons indiffer- ently who choose to employ them, are common carriers.*^ Joint stock companies engaged in the express business and persons whose business it is to receive packages of bullion, coin, bank notes, com- mercial paper and such other articles of value as persons see fit to trust to their care for the purpose of transporting the same from one place to another for a compensation, are common carriers, and responsible as such for the safe delivery of property entrusted to Express Co., 63 Minn. 543, 65 N. W. 140; U. S. Exp. Co. v. Bachman, 28 1080. Ohio St. 144; Southern Exp. Co. v. 46. See Carriers of passengers, Womaek, 1 Heisk. (Tenn.) 256; chap. 19. Southern Exp. Co. v. Olenn, 16 Lea 47. Bean v. Sturtevant, 8 N. H. (Tenn.), 472; Southern Exp. Co. v. 146, 28 Am. Dee. 389. Newhy, 36 Ga. 635, 91 Am. Dee. 783; 48. Belger v. Dinamore, 51 N. Y. Bank of Kentucky v. Adams Exp. Co., 166, 10 Am. Rep. 575; Read v. 93 U. S. (3 Otto) 174; Southern Spaulding, 5 Bosw. (N. Y.) 395, affd. Exp. Co. v. McVeigh, 20 Gratt. (Va.) 30 N. Y. 630, 86 Am. Dec. 426; Place 264; Lowell Wire Fence Co. v. Sar- V. Union Express Co., 2 Hilt. (N. gent, 8 Allen (Mass.) 189; Buckland Y.) 19, overruling Hersfield v. Ad- v. Adams Exp. Co., 97 Mass. 124, 93 ams, 19 Barb. (N. Y.) 577; Sherman Am. Dec. 68; Baldwin v. Ameri- V. Wells, 28 Barb. (N. Y.) 403; can Express Co., 23 111. 197, 74 Am. Haslam v. Adams Express Co., 6 Dec. 190, 26 111. 504; American Ins. Bosw. (N.Y.) 235; Broekway v. Amer- Co. v. Pinckney, 29 111. 392; Gulliver ican Express Co., 168 Mass. 257, 47 N. v. Adams Exp. Co., 38 111. 503 ; E. 87 ; Stadhecker v. Combes, 9 Rich. Christensen v. American Exp. Co., 15 L. (S. C.) 193; Southern Express Minn. 270, 2 Am. Rep. 122; Verner Co. V. Ctook, 44 Ala. 468, 4 Am. Rep. v. Sweitzer, 32 Pa. St. 208; Kirby v. 36 The Law of Carbikes. them." A city express company, engaged in carrying parcels be- tween the city of New York and Brooklyn, and in carrying trunks to and from the passenger depotsi of the various railroads, is a common carrier, and performs its duties under the responsibility of common carriers.^" Persons carrying on a transportation busi- ness, under circumstances which, in law, constitute them common carriers, cannot divest themselves of that character, nor secure an exemption from its liabilities, by declaring in their bills of lad- ing, etc., that they are not to be deemed common carriers. What 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, does not necessarily give them the character of simple forwarders, nor prevent them from being treated as common eai^ riers.^^ An express company is a common carrier and may limit its liability as such by special contract, which may be established by showing consignor's acceptance of a receipt stating a limita- tion ; but this limitation cannot extend to losses attributable to the negligence of the company, or its servants, and the presumption from the fact of loss is that it was caused by neglect of duty.^ Adams Exp. Co., 2 Mo. App. 369. An v. Livingston, 19 Barb. (N. Y.) 346; expressman, who is duly licensed by Place v. Union Exp. Co., 2 Hilt. (N, the mayor of New York City, and Y.) 27; U. S. Exp. Co. v. Bachman, who transports for hire the goods of 28 Ohio St. 144. Compare Hersfield all persons indifferently, is a com- v. Adams, 19 Barb. (N. Y.) 577. mon carrier and liable as such for a 52. Christensen v. American Exp. parcel stolen from one of his wagons Co., 15 Minn. 270, 2 Am. Eep. 122; without the connivance of himself or Bead v. Spaulding, 5 Bosw. (N. Y.) driver. Robinson v. Cornish, 13 N. 395, affd. 30 N. Y. 630, 86 Am. Dec Y. Supp. 577, 34 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 426; Southern Exp. Co. v. 695. 20 Gratt. (Va.) 264; Bank of Ken- 49. Sweet v. Barney, 23 N. Y. 335; tucky v. Adams Exp. Co., 93 U. S. (3 Russell V. Livingston, 19 Barb. (N. Otto) 174. y. ) 346, revd. on another point, 16 Nor calling themselves a "trans- N. Y. 515; Sherman v. Wells, 28 portation company." Mercantile Mut. Barb. (N. Y.) 403. Ins. Co. v. Chase, 1 E. D. Smith (N. 50. Richards v. Westcott, 2 Bosw. Y.) 115. (N. Y.) 589; Parmalee v. Lowitz, 74 53. Kirby v. Adams Exp. Co., 2 111. 116. Mo. App. 369; Bank of Kentucky v. 51. Bank of Kentucky v. Adams Adams Exp. Co., 93 U. S. 174; Read Exp. Co., 93 U. S. (3 Otto) 174; v. Spaulding, 5 Bosw. (N. Y.) 395; Buckland v. Adams Exp. Co., 97 Buckland v. Adams Exp. Co., 97 Mass. 124, 93 Am. Dec. 68; Russell Mass. 124, 93 Am. Dec. 68. Common C'AEJUEiES. 37 § 10. Railroad companies. — Railroad companies, receiving from the State a delegation of a portion of its sovereigri power for iJie public good, being public agents, and, in the place and stead of the government, exercising 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 carriersi of goods and passengers, possessed of all the rights, and subject to the liahilitiesi and dutiesi imposed by law upon common carriers of goods and passengers.^* "Whether or not a particular road is a 54. W. Y.— 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.) 611, 28 Am. Dee. 488. V. 8. — Winona, etc., R. Co. v. Blake, 94 U. S. 180, 24 L. Ed. 99; AUantie & P. R. Co. v. Laird (C. C. App. 9th C.) 15 U. S. App. 248, 58 Fed. Rep. 760, 7 0. C. A. 489, railroads are quasi public highways, and all railroad corpora- tions actively engaged in operating passenger trains are subject to the liabilities and duties imposed by law upon common carriers of passengers. AJo.— 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. 694. Ark. — .Eureka Springs R. Co. v. Timmons, 51 Ark. 459. (?oi.— Davis V. Button, 78 Cal. 247 ; Contra Costa, etc., R. Co. v. Moss, 23 Cal. 323, 533. Coto.— Schloss V. Wood, 11 Colo. 287; 35 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 492, note. CowM.— Fuller v. Naugatuck R. Co., 21 Conn. 570. Fla. — Johnson v. Pensacola, etc., R. Co., 16 Fla. 623, 26 Am.tRep. 731. Go: — Falvey v. Georgia R. Co., 76 Ga. 597, 2 Am. St. Rep. 58. 72Z.— 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. tl. H. — Elkins v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 3 Fost. (N. H.) 275. 3?. J. — Rogers Locomotive, etc.. Works V. Erie R. Co., 5 C. E. Greene (N. J.) 379, 20 N. J. Eq. 379; Mes- senger V. Pennsylvajiia 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. & 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. Penra.— Eagle v. White, 6 Whart. (Pa.) 505; Sandford v. Catawissa, etc., R. Co., 24 Pa. St. 378, 64 Am. Dec. 667. 8. C— -Piedmont Mfg. Co. v. Colum- bia, etc., R. Co., 19 S. C. 353, 16 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 194; Avinger v. South 38 T;he Law of Caeeiees. common carrier in a certain case is a mixed question of law and fact.^^ A railroad company, operating a road belonging to the State, is liable as a carrier for negligence of State officers in the performance of duties connected with the road. Thus it will he liable as a common carrier, for an injury sustained by a passen- ger from the collision of two of its trains passing in the same direction, though the motive power of the 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. ^° Eailroad companies in the transportation of animals are liable as common carriers-^' A person transporting passengers for hire upon a railroad operated by him is a common carrier.^ A railroad company operating its trains over another's, road at the time of an accident ia 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 passenger and cattle." Eail- road companies are common carriers under the common law, and, Carolina R. Co., 29 S. C. 265, 13 Am. 55. Elkins v. Boston, etc., R. Co., St. Rep. 716, 35 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 23 N. H. 275; Avinger v. South Caro- 524; Dill V. South Carolina R., 7 Una R. Co., 29 S. C. 265, 35 Am. & Rich. (S. C.) 158; Ex parte Benson, Eng. R. Cas. 519; Piedmont Mfg. Co. 18 S. C. 42. V. Columbia, etc., E. Co., 19 S. C. Tenn. — .East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. 353, 16 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 194. V. Nelson, 1 Cold. (Tenn.) 272. 56. Ryland v. Peters, 5 Pa. Law Ft.— Kimball v. Rutland, etc., E. G. Rep. 126. Co., 26 Vt. 247, 62 Am. Dec. 567; 57. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Eainey, Jones V. Western Vermont R. Co., 27 (Colo.) 34 Pac. 986. Vt. 399; Noyes v. Railroad, 27 Vt. 58. Davis v. Button, 78 Cal. 247, 110. 20 Pac. 545. Eng. — Pegler v. Monmouthshire 59. Eureka Springs R. Co. v. Tim- E. Co., 30 L. J. Exeh. 249, 6 H. mons, 51 Ark. 459, 11 S. W. 690. See & N. 644; Palmer v. Grand June- One railroad transporting the cars of tion E. Co., 4 M. & W. 749, 1 H. another, § 14, ante. & H. 489, 7 D. P. C. 232; Crouch v. 60. Little Rock, etc., R. Co. ?. London, etc., R. Co., 23 L. J. C. P. Glidewell, 39 Ark. 487, 18 Am. & Eng. 73, 14 C. B. 255, 78 E. C. L. 255; E. Cas. 539. Richards v. London, etc., R. Co., 18 L. 61. Maslin v. Baltimore & 0. R. J. C. P. 251, 7 C. B. 839, 62 E. C. L. Co., 14 W. Va. 180. 839. Common Oaeeiees. 39 when made so by general statute or by their charters, these provi- sions are held to be merely declaratory of the existing law, rather 4ian introducing, any new rule of law.^^ Railroad companies are common carriers of passengers, but their liability as such is not that of aq. insurer of the safe transportation of the passenger ; they are liable, however, for the exercise of the highest degree of care and diligence practicable to protect passengers from injury.^^ Such companicsi incur the ordinary responsibility of a common carrier with respect to the baggage of passengers, and all property accepted by them as such with knowledge of its character, although not properly baggage ; and nothing but inevitable accident or the act of the public enemy, will excuse them 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 was paid in advance or notf^ but not for such goods received without authority and carried without compensation by a eon- ductor,^" or for goods, not baggage, received as such without knowl- edge of its character.*'' As to branch lines constructed by a rail- road company, their liability as common carriers depends upon the question as to whether such branch lines are actually used for 62. Root v. Great Western R. Co., 28 Am. Dec. 488; HoUister v. Now- 45 N. Y. 524; Chicago etc., R. Co. len, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 234; Cole v. V. Thompson, 19 111. 578. Goodwin, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 251; 63. Thompson-Houston Elec, Co. v. Powell v. Myers, 26 Wend. (N. Y.) Simon, 20 Or. 60, 47 Am. & Eng. E, 591. See also Carriers of passengers, Caa. 51; Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. chap. 19. Messino, 1 Sneed (Tenn.) 220; Shoe- 65. Butler v. Hudson River R. Co., maker v. Kingsbury, 12 Wall. (U. 3 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 571; Lang- S.) 369; Murch v. Concord R. Corp., worthy v. New York, etc., R. Co., 2 29 N. H. 9, 61 Am. Dec. 631, a rail- E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 195. road company is a carrier of pas- 66. Elkins v. Boston, etc., R. Co. sengers only as to its passenger 23 N. H. 275. trains. It does not become such a 67. Humphreys v. Perry, 148 U. S. carrier as to its freight trains, al- 627, 54 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 29, 7 Am. though it may occasionally carry R. & Corp. Rep. 686, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. passengers on them as a, matter of 711, 37 L. Ed. 587, 47 Alb. L. J. 386, accommodation, and although in such wherein it was held that a passenger casies it charges the usual fare. See could not recover for the loss of a also Carriers of passengers, chap. 19. stock of jewelry contained in a trunk 64. Burnell v. New York Cent. R. presented to the baggage agent as his Co., 45 N. Y. 184; Merrill v. Grm- personal baggage, unless the loss oc- nell, 30 N. Y. 594; Camden, etc., R. curred through gross negligence. Co. V. Burke, 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 611, 40 The Law of Caekiees. purposes of general transportation, or for private purposes of their own.^ As quasi public agents, railroad companies are subject to special limitations by law as to their rates and diarges for trans- porting freight and passengers, and as to the manner in which they discharge their public duties.*' The courts will take judicial no- tic© of the fact that a railroad company is a common carrier where a statute declares it to be such, and allegation and proof of such fact is unnecessary." § 11. Receivers and assignees of railroad company operating the road. — The receiver and assignee in bankruptcy of a railroad corporation, who operates the road under the order of the court is not personally liable for an injury caused by the negligence of a servant 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 68. Sehloss v. Wood, 11 Colo. 287, 35 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 492; Avinger V. South Carolina R. Co., 29 S. C. 265, 13 Am. St. Rep. 716, 35 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 526. 69. Scofield v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 43 Ohio St. 571, 54 Am. Rep. 846, 23 Am. & Eng.R. Cas. 612; Nor- way Plains Co. v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 1 Gray (Mass.) 263, 61 Am. Dec. 423. 70. Caldwell v. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 89 Ga. 550; Denver, etc., R. Co. V. Cahill, 8 Colo. App. 158. 71. Cardot v. Barney, 63 N. Y. 281, 20 Am. Rep. 533; Murphy v. Hol- brook, 20 Ohio St. 137; Potter v. Bunnell, 20 Ohio St. 150; Henderson V. Walker, 55 Ga. 481. In Cardot v. Barney, supra, the court says: "The defendant was not individually the owner, or possessed of the property; he had neither a general or special property in the road or its earnings. The property was in the court for management and ad- ministration ; and the defendant was an officer of the court, obeying its orders and carrying out its direc- tions. His relation to the road and its operation was entirely official, and he had no interest in or control over the earnings, and was removable at the pleasure of the court. He was expressly authorized to employ all necessary assistants and laborers and operate the road. In the employment of subordinates, as well as in the other acts connected with the oper- ation of the road, he acted officially and as the representative of, and by orders from the court, and was only held to diligence and good faith in the performance of any act which he was authorized to do. There is no evi- dence that he at any time assumed to act other than as receiver or as- signee, or held himself out as a carrier of passengers, save as an officer of the court. I know of no principle upon which a receiver or other officer of a court, having no interest in the prosecution of the work and deriving no profit from it, should be answerable except for his own acts and neglects." Common Cakejeeis. 41 an oflBcer 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 ease 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- ages for injury to the person, whether passenger or employe, for loss of goods in the course of transportation, or otherwise, would be chargeable upon, and payable out of the fund in court, the same as other expenses of administration.'^ But where a receivei* is in possession of and operating a leased road not as an oiEcer 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 road.'* 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 own application, aAd 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 ; waiving 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 72. Kain v. Smith, 80 N. Y. 468; drey v. G. H. & H. E. Co., 93 U. S. Metz V. Buffalo, Corry & P. R. Co., 352. 58 N. Y. 61, 17 Am. Eep. 201; Morse 74. Kain v. Smith, 80 N. Y. 468, V. Brainerd, 41 Vt. 551; Klein v. citing Rogers v. Wheeler, 43 N. Y. Jewett, 26 N. J. Eq. 474; Little v. 598; Sprague v. Smith, 29 Vt. 421, Dusenberry, 46 N. J. L. 614, 50 Am. 70 Am. Deo. 424; Barter v. Wheeler, Eep. 445, 31 Alb. L. J. 490. See also 49 N. H. 9, 6 Am. Rep. 434; Blum- Village of Oarterville v. Cook, 129 111. enthal v. Brainerd, 38 Vt. 409, 91 152, 16 Am. St. Rep. 248, 4 L. R. A. Am. Dee. 350; Paige v. Smith, 99 721; Rogers v. Wendell, 54 Hun (N. Mass. 395; Murphy v. Holbrook, 20 Y.) 543. Ohio St. 137. 73. Klein v. Jewett, supra; Cow- 75. Blumenthal v. Brainerd, 38 Vt. 43 The Law of Oaeeibes. 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 tbem in matters of busaness conducted or carried on by them while acting as such reoeivera™ Upon principle and authority, it has been held, a receiver, operating a railroad under the order of a court of equity, stands in respect to duty and liability, juat where the corporation would, were it oper- ating the road, and the qtiestiooi whether or not the receiver is liable for negligence must be tested by the same rules that would be applied if the corporation was the actual party defendant be- fore the court." § 12. Trustees of mortgage bonds of railroad company. — The trustees of a mortgage, given to secure the bonds of a railroad com- pany, who have possession and control of and actually operate the road for the benefit of their bondholders, are personally liable as common carriers of goods for the loss of goods transported over the road under their management.'^ The trustees of an insolvent railroad company who operate the road are liable for loss of goods as common carriers." The cases cited proceeded upon the groimd 402, 91 Am. Dec. 350; Newell v. were common carriers over that line Smith, 49 Vt. 260; Paige v. Smith, of railroad, we think that it is no 99 Mass. 395; Nichols v. Smith, 115 defence to an action at law for a Mass. 332 ; Ballou v. Farnum, 9 Allen breach of a duty or obligation aria- (Mass.) 47; Barter v. Wheeler, 49 ing out of business intrusted to them N. H. 9, 6 Am. Kep. 434; Lamphear in that relation, that they were run- V. Buckingham, 33 Conn. 237. ning and managing the line of rail- 76. Blumenthal v. Brainerd, 38 Vt. road as receivers under an appoint- 402, 91 Am. Dec. 350, in which the ment of the Court of Chancery." See court says: "The assumption by the also cases cited under last preceding defendants of the peculiar duties and note. extraordinary responsibilities arising 77. Klein v. Jewett, 26 N. J. Eq. from the relation of common carriers 474. is not to be considered as necessarily, 78. Rogers v. Wheeler, 2 Lans. (N. if at all, incompatible with any duty Y.) 486, aff'd 43 N. Y. 598; Sprague or responsibility imposed upon them v. Smith, 29 Vt. 421, 70 Am. Dec. as receiyers. The plaintiff's evidence 424; Barter v. Wheeler, 49 N. H. 9, tended to show that the defendants 6 Am. Rep. 434. were managing and controlling a long 79. Faulkner v. Hart, 44 N. Y. line of railroad, and conducted and Super. Ot. 471, revd. 82 N. Y. 413, on held themselves out as common car- other grounds. Tiers over that line. If in fact they Common Oaeeibks. 43 that the defendants were the owners of the roads, and were bound personally by th.eir contracts ; and that the fact was unimportant that they were trustees and acted in a representative capacity. The actions were upon contracts made by the defendants, and, as in the case of executors and administrators,*" they were held liable to answer for them. The legal title to the road was in the defend- ants, and they operated them' as proprietors, and their liability legitimately resulted' from their proprietorship, although the title was in trust for others. They were in no sense receivers or offi- cers of the court- They had assumed to operate the roads, and, had made contracts with the public in the course of that business, and there was no principle or policy that would shield them from liability if they failed to perform their engagements.*^ Likewise such trustees and mortgagees in trust for the bondholders, in pos- session of and operating, the roads as such trustees and mortga- gees, are liable for injuries sustained by reason of the negligence of persons employed by them. They are regarded as the owners of the roads, and the real principals, receiving the earnings, and having the benefit of the services of the employes. The employes are the servants of the defendants operating the roads in virtue of the title and possession acquired under their mortgages; and whether a road is operated by mortgagees in possession, trustees, lessees or intruders, is not material, so long as they assume to oper- ate the road and take the earnings either for themselves or those they represent.*^ Where certain railroad companies carried on tihe business of common carriers of goods for hire, under the name of an association, and thereby acquired great gains and profits, it was held that they were liable as trustees to one who had obtained 80. Ferrin v. Myrick, 41 N. Y. 315. passengers for the benefit of the 81. See eases cited note 78. cestuis que trust, and the court held 82. Ballou V. Farnum, 9 Allen that it could "see no reason why the (Mass.) 47; Lamphear v. Bucking- defendants were not liable to the ham, 33 Conn. 237; Sprague v. same extent as the company would Smith, 29 Vt. 421, 70 Am. Dec. 424, have been, and upon similar grounds wherein the question was, whether the to those upon which lessees, or any defendants were personally liable others exercising the franchises of upon the contracts made by the op- the company, for the time, must be; eratives on the road, or for their that is, that they are the ostensible negligence or misconduct, while they parties, who appear to the public to continued to operate the road, and re- be exercising the franchise of the ceived freight and pay for carrying company." 44 The Law op Caeriees. a judgment against the association for breach of duty in trans- porting hisi goods.*' § 13. Street railroad companies. — Street railroad companies are common carriers, and liable, like other common carriers, upon common law principles. They are always common carriers of passengers for hire, with rights, duties, and liabilitiesi similar to those of general railroad companies. As such, they are required to exercise the highest degree of care, skill, diligence, and fore- sight consistent with their business for the safety of their patrons, and are liable for the slightest negligence causing injury or loss of life to their passengers." They may be common carriers of goods, also, when expressly authorized by statute, or when organ- ized under general laws not limiting their powers, or, under spe- 83. Clarkson v. Erie & North Shore Dispatch, 6 111. App. 284. 84. Spellmaa v. Lincoln Rap. Trans. Co., 36 Neb. 890, 55 N. W. 270, 20 L. R. A. 316; Lincoln St. R. Co. v. McClellan, 54 Neb. 672, 74 N. W. 1074; Topeka City R. Co. v. Higgs, 38 Kan. 375; Meier v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 64 Pa. St. 225 ; Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. V. Horst, 93 U. S. 291, 23 L. Ed. 898, 3 Am. Rep. 581; Dean v. Chicago G. R. Co., 64 111. App. 165, 1 Chic. L. J. Wkly. 213, 28 Chic. Leg. N. 289; Citizens St. R. Co. v. Merl. 134 Ind. 609, 33 N. E. 1014; East Omaha St. R. Co. v. Godola, 6 Am. Electl. Cas. 424, 50 Neb. 906, 70 N. W. 491, 7 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. N. S. 300; Thompson-Houston Elec. Co. V. Simon, 20 Oreg. 60, 47 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 51; Citizens St. R. Co. V. Twiname, 111 Ind. 587; Holly V. Atlanta St. R. Co., 61 Ga. 215, 7 Rep. 360. See Nellis' St. Rd. Acet. Law, pp. 1, 12, 13 and notes. Railway companies are bound to use reasonable care and diligence in the conveyance of passengers; but they are not common carriers of passengers, and are not under obligation to carry safely. East Indian Railway v. Kalidas Mukerjee, 70 L. J. P. C. 396, 63 App. Cas. 396, 84 L. T. 210. Tbe highest degree of core and diligence is due to a passenger who has paid for a continuous pass, age, while he remains in or within the sphere of a transfer car supplied by the company for making transfers from one line to another. Citizens St. E. Co. V. Merl, 134 Ind, 609, 33 N. E. 1014. The fact that a itreet rail- tvay is being operated by a con- stmction company, under its con- tract to operate the road satisfactor- ily for ten days before delivery to the street railway company, is not a de- fense in an action against the latter for personal injury, received by a pas- senger upon a car in use for the pur- poses of traffic. Cogswell v. West St. & N. E. Elec. R. Co., 5 Wash. 46. 52 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 500, 7 Am. R. 4 Corp. Rep. 48, 31 Pac. 411. A street railway company assumes the relation of a common carrier by undertaking the transportation of passengers for hire, although its road may be constructed over private prop- CoMMosr Oaesiejes. 45 cial circumstancee, -when organized only for the purpose of carry- ing passengers.*^ § 14. One railroad transporting the cars of another. — A rail- road company that contracts to furnish the motive power to draw the passenger and freight cars of another with their contents over its road, assumes the liabilities of a common carrier in respect thereto, and is liable as a common carrier for loss or injury to certain cars and their contents, even though destroyed by fire or caused by a defect in the track of the transporting company, aris- ing frofii a cause beyond its control.*' So, where a railroad com- erty. East Omaha St. R. Co. v. Godo- la, 6 Am. Electl. Cas. 424, 50 Neb. 906, 70 N. W. 491, 7 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. N. S. 300. 85. Thompson-Houston Elec. Co. V. Simon, 20 Oreg. 60, 47 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 51, 25 Pac. 147 ; Levi v. Lynn, etc., R .Co., 11 Allen (Mass.) 300, 87 Am. Dec. 713. In the case last cited, in an action to recover damages against a street railway company for the loss of merchandise delivered to one of its conductors for transporta- tion on the platform of a car, for which money was paid by the owner to the conductor, the testimony of two other persons that they had paid money at other times to the defend- ant's conductors for the like trans- portation of merchandise, with the knowledge of the superintendent of the road, was held competent evidence to show, and, in the absence of any- thing to control or contradict it, suf- ficient evidence to warrant a jury in finding, that the defendants had as- sumed the business of common carri- ers of merchandise on their cars. See Nellis' St. Rd. Acct. Law, pp. 1, 12, 13 and notes. See also Spellman v. Lincoln Rap. Trans. Co., supra; Citi- zens St. R. Co. V. Twiname, supra. 86. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Chi- cago, etc., E. Co., 25 Fed. 317, 23 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 718; Hannibal, etc., R. Co. V. 5Swift, 12 Wall. (U. S.) 262; East St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 123 111. 594, 32 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 522, revg. 24 111. App. 279; Peoria, etc., R. Co. v. United States Rolling Stock Co., 136 111. 643, 29 Am. St. Rep. 348, 49 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 81, revg. 28 111. App. 79; Austin v. St. Louis, etc.. Packet Co., 15 Mo. App. 197. But if de- stroyed by fire after delivery to the consignee, or after they have been tendered to him, the company is not liable if not in fault. In the latter case its duties are only those of ware- housemen. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Chicago, etc., R. Co. supra. Mallory V. Tioga, etc., R. Co., 39 Barb. (N. Y.) 488, aff'd. 32 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 616; Vermont, etc., R. Co. v. Fitch- burg R. Co., 14 Allen (Mass.) 460, 92 Am. Dee. 785; but where the con- tract provided that the company own- ing the cars agreed to save the trans- porting company harmless from all claims and expenses arising from any injury to passengers, or loss or dam- age of baggage, goods, and freight, while in transit over their road un- less occasioned by the negligence or default of the transporting company. 46 The Law op Caeeiebs. pany is bound by statute to haul the cars of another company, and, having received a car to be hauled to a certain point, it, with- out authority, hauls it to another point, where it is destroyed by fire, it incurs the liability of a common carrier." If a railroad company take a car for transportation over their road, and, though it remains on its own tracks, take sole possession and care of it, they are responsible as common carriers.*' It has been held that when the railroad company merely furnishes the motive power and the roadbed, and contracts to haul the cars of the shipper, it is not liable as a common carrier of the goods in such cars, but that it is liable only for losses resulting from its negligence." But it is held that this rule should prevail only when it appears that all control over the goods was taken from the carrier and con- fided to agents of the shipper.^" in which case the loss or damage should be borne by the latter, it was held that the latter, although liable as common carriers, were not liable on the contract. Hauling Engines. — ^A railroad company whicli agrees for a stipu- lated compensation to draw another company's engines over its line, and furnishes an employe to act as pilot, he having the exclusive control of the movement of the engines, is liable for their destruction in a collision caused by his negligence in moving them, al- though the company owning them furnishes an engineer and fireman io operate them under the pilot's di- rection. Terre Haute, etc., R. Co. v, Chicago, etc., R. Co., 150 111. 502, 37 N. E. 915. 87. Peoria, etc., R. Co. v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 109 111. 135, 50 Am. Rep. 605, 18 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 506. 88. New Jersey R. Co. v. Pennsyl- vania R. Co., 27 N. J. L. (3 Dutch.) 100. 80. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. Whittle, 27 Ga. 535, 73 Am. Dec. 741; Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. Dunbar, 20 111. 623. See also Kimball v. Rut- land, etc., R. Co., 26 Vt. 247, 62 Am. Dec. 567. 90. Mallory v. Tioga R. Co., 39 Barb. (N. Y.) 488; New Jersey, etc, R. Co. V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 27 N. J. L. 100, wherein it was said: "The point was incidentally made . . . that this was not a case of carrying at all, but was analogous to that of tow- ing a boat upon a water navigation, where the party supplying the motive power does not receive the boat into his custody or exercise any control over it other than such as results from the act of towing; in which case it has been held that the com- mon law liability of a carrier does not attach. Caton v. Rumney, 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 387. This doctrine has been denied or doubted in Smith V. Pierce, 1 La. 349. But however the rule may be in the cases of tow- ing boats under these circumstances, the analogy does not hold good in the present case. Here the defend- ants received the car to take over their road and had exclusive charge of it, though they took it on its own tracks." COMMOIT ClAEBIEiES. 4T § 15. Transportation or dispatch companies. — A transporta- tion company not owning or controlling any means of conveyance itself, but engaging on its own behalf in the business of trans- porting goods through the agency and over the lines of other car- riers of its own selection and employment, is a common carrier, and subject to all the responsibilities attaching to that character.'^ The duties which it undertakes and which it holds itself out to the public as vsdlling to undertake and perform give it that char- acter. In many cases it has been expressly adjudged to be a common carrier, and in others such has been assumed to be itS' character without a discussion of the question.'^ Such a company cannot stipulate for exemption from liability for damages to goods caused by the default of its agents, the suVcarriers.'^ § 16. Express freight lines. — An express freight company which received goods for transportation but unreasonably delayed shipping them, and meanwhile they were injured by an extraordi- nary flood, was held liable as a common carrier for the loss occa- sioned. A common carrier, in order to claim exemption from liability for damage done to goods in his hands in course of trans- portation, though injured by what is deemed the act of God, must be without fault himself ; his act or neglect must not concur and contribute to the injury. If he departs from the line of duty and violates his contract, and while thus in fault, and in consequence of the fault, the goods are injured by the act of God, which would not otherwise have caused the injury, he is not protected.'* 91. Merchants Dispatch Transp. Rep. 476; Wilde v. Merchants Des- Co. V. Bloch, 86 Tenn. 392, 6 Am. St. patch Transp. Co., 47 Iowa, 247, 29 Rep. 847, 6 S. W. 881; Merchants Am. Rep. 479; Bancroft v. Mer- Dispatch, etc., Co. v. Cornforth, 3 chants Despatch Transp. Co. 47 Iowa, Colo. 280, 25 Am. Rep. 757; 262, 29 Am. Rep. 482; Merchants Mercantile Mut. Marine Ins. Co. v. Despatch Transp. Co. v. Bolles, 80 Chase, 1 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 115, a, 111. 473. company doing business under the 93. Merchants Dispatch Transj). name of a " transportation company " Co. v. Bloch, 86 Tenn. 392, 6 Am. St. is to be held liable as a common car- Rep. 847, 6 S. W. 881. rier, if it in fact transacts business 94. Read v. Spaulding, 5 Bosw. as such. (N. Y.) 395, aflfd. 30 N. Y. 630. See 98. Robinson v. Merchants Des- also Michaels v. New York Gent. R. patch Transp. Co., 45 Iowa 470; Co., 30 N. Y. 564; Whitworth v. Stewart v. Merchants Despatch Erie Ry. Co., 87 N. Y. 419; Reed v. Transp. Co., 47 Iowa 229, 29 Am. United States Express Co., 48 N. Y. 48 The Law of Caeeiees. § 17. Owners of canal boats. — Owners of canal boats, em- ployed in the transportation of merchandise, are common carriers when they hold themselves out as willing to carry for all persons indifferently.'^ But the owner of a canal boat, generally used only in transporting his own merchandise, applying to a common carrier, who has knowledge of the facts, and receiving a load of freight which he enters into a contract to transport for an agreed price, does not thereby become liable for it as a common carrier. It is the business of carrying goods for others, not a single act, known to the consignor to be outside of the usual employment, which fixes the liability of a common carrier.'* A canal boat hired at a daily rate for use in storing grain about the harbor, to be subject wholly to the control of the hirer in respect to loading, imloading, navigation, and delivery of cargo, is not a, carrier or a warehouse, and is not liable for a shortage in cargo by a sale thereof by a man whose services in taking care of the boat were included in its hire, but who, though called "captain," had nothing to do with the cargo or navigation.'' § 18. Owners of tow boats towing water craft on the Missis- sippi. — The courts of Louisiana have held that a towboat used in towing barges or other water craft, which are loaded with freight, from one point to another on the Mississippi River, is a common 470; Beach v. Earitan, etc., R. Co., son, 1 Murph. (N. C.) 417, 4 Am. 37 N. Y. 468. Compare Morrison y. Dec. 562. Davis, 20 Pa. St. 171, 57 Am. Dec. 96. Fish v. CSark, 49 N. T. 122, 2 695; Denny v. New York Cent. R. Lans. (N". Y.) 176; Flautt v. Lash- Co., 13 Gray (Mass.) 481, 74 Am. ley, 36 La. Ann. 106, wherein it was I>ec. 645. held that a boat used by its owners 95. Arnold v. Hallenbake, 5 Wend, for their own purposes and those of (N. Y.) 33; Parsons v. Hardy, 14 others who agree to pay certain rates Wend. (N. Y.) 215, 28 Am. Dec. 521; for the transportation of their goods DeMott V. Laraway, 14 Wend. (N. from one point to another, and which Y. ) 225, 28 Am. Dec. 523 ; Bowman is not shown to have been held out as V. Teall, 23 Wend. (N. Y.) 306; Ful- a common carrier, cannot be declared ler V. Bradley, 25 Pa. St. 120; Hum- to be such at the instance of one of phrey v. Read, 6 Whart. (Pa.) 435; the agreeing parties. See also Beck- Spencer V. Daggett, 2 Vt. 92; Har- with v. Frisbie, 32 Vt. 559. rington v. Lyles, 2 Nott & M. (S. 97. The Daniel Burns (D. 0. S. D. C.) 88; Hyde v. Trent Nav. Co., 5 N. Y.), 52 Fed. Rep. 159, affd. 66 T. R. 389; Trent Nav. Co. v. Wood, Fed. Rep. 605. 3 Esp. N. P. 127; Williams v. Bran- Common QA.RaiiiES. 49 carrier. Persons owning such a tow boat, wko undertake to tow a barge, loaded with freight or merchandise, from one given point to another, first giving a bill of lading for the transportation of the cargo on board of the barge, are liable for the delivery of the cargo at the port of destination, the same as if it had been placed on board the tow boat herself.'* Ownersi of tow boats; have also been held to be common carriers in certain other jurisdictions.*' This ruling is contrary to the general rule maintained in the TJnited States courts, the courts of other states, and the English courts.^ § 19. Owners of boats employed in towing other boats or ves- sels. — The United States courts have held that an engagement to tow does not impose an obligation to insure or the liability of a common carrier, and that ownersi of a tug engaged in towing are 98. Bussey v. Mississippi Val. Transp. Co., 24 La. Ann. 165, 13 Am. Eep. 120; Clapp v. Stanton, 20 La. Ann. 495 ; Smith v. Pierce, 1 La. 350. 99. White v. Tug Mary Ann, 6 Cal. 462, 65 Am. Dec. 523; Walston v. Myers, 5 Jones L. (N. C.) 172; Ash- more V. Pennsylvania, etc., Co., 28 N. J. L. 180. 1. See § 19, post. In explanation of this conflict of authority, it was ■said hy Howe, J., in Bussey v. Miss- issippi Val. Transp. Co., supra: ■" Such conflict of authority might be very distressing to the student but for the fact that when these writers and cases cited by them are examined, the discrepancy, except in the decis- ions in Brown v. Clegg, 63 Pa. St. 51, 3 Am. Rep. 522, is more imaginary than real. There are two very differ- ent ways in which a steam towboat may be employed, and it is likely that Mr. Story (Story on Bailments, § 496) was contemplating one method, and Mr. Kent (2 Kent's Com. 599) the other. In the first place it may be employed as a mere means of loco- motion under the entire control of 4 the towed vessel; or the owner of the towed vessel and goods therein may remain in possession and control of the property thus transported to the exclusion of the bailee; or the tow- ing may be casual merely, and not as a, regular business between fixed ter- mini. . . . And it might well be said that under such circumstances the towboat or tug is not a common carrier. But a second and quite dif- ferent method of employing a, tow- boat is where she plies regularly be- tween fixed termini, towing for hire and for all persons barges laden with goods, and taking into her full pos- session and control and out of the control of the bailor the property thus transported. Such is the case at bar. It seems to satisfy every re- quirement in the definition of a com- mon carrier. . . . We must think that in all reason the liability of the defendants under such circumstances should be precisely the same as if, the barge being much smaller, it had been carried, cargo and all, on the deck of their tug." 50 The Law of Caeeiees. not liable as carriers, but for reasonable care. Tbe contract re- quires no more than that he who undertakes to tow shall carry out his undertaking with that degree of caution and skill which pru- dent navigators usually employ in similar services.^ Such is main- tained to be the law in 'New York, where, in the leading case, the court said : "It is a great misnomer to call the defendants com- mon carriers, or carriers of any kind in relation to the business of towing boats. Nor are they bailees of any description; for the property towed is not delivered to them, nor placed within their exclusive custody or control. It remains in the possession and for most purposes in the exclusive care of the owners or their servants. There is no bailment within any definition of that term to be found in the books- But whether a bailment or not, it is clear that those who tow boats and vessels are not common car- riers of the things towed."^ 2. The J. P. Donaldson, 167 U. S, 603; The Propeller Burlington, 137 U. S. 386; Munks v. Jackson (C. C. App. 9th C), 13 C. C. A. 641, 66 Fed. Eep. 571; The L. P. Dayton, 120 U. S. 337; Transportation Line v. Hope, 95 r. 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 Biss. (U. S.) 460; The Merrimac, 2 Sawy. (U. S.) 586; The Steamboat Angelina Corning, 1 Ben. (U. S.) 109; The Princeton, 3 Blatchf. (U. S.) 54; The Neaffie, 1 Abb. U. S. Eep. 465 ; Brawley v. Watson, 2 Bond (U. S.) 356; The Margaret, 94 U. S. 494; The Steamer New Philadelphia, 1 Black (U. S.), 62. 3. Wells T. Steam Navigation Co., 2 N. Y. 204, 205, Bronson, J.; s. c. 8 N. y. 375; Arctic, etc., Ins. 06. v. Austin, 54 Barb. (N. Y.) 559; Caton V. Rumney, 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 387; Alexander v. Green, 3 Hill (N. Y.), 9, revd. 7 Hill (N. Y.), 533; Wooden V. Austin, 51 Barb. (N. Y.) 9; Ab- bey V. Str. Stephens, 22 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 78. Worth preserTing. — The re- marks of Bronson, J., in his^ opinion above quoted, concerning the reversal of the decision in the case of Alex- ander V. Green : " It is true that the judgment in Alexander v. Green 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 defendante were common carriers, while other senators expressed a different opin- ion, and went upon other grounds; and it does not appear that more than four of the seventeen senator* who voted for the reversal were agreed concerning any one of the questions in the case. Two efforts ■were mpde at the time to ascertain " the gi ouaij of the judsu'en'/' '"''■ Common C'aeeibes. 51 That towing vessels or boats are not common carriers as to the* tow, but incur only the responsibility 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 reference to tow boats on the Mississippi Eiver, that owners of tow boats on the Ohio Eiver and its tribu- taries 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 car- rier 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 between certain termini, or on a certain route.' § 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 transportation of passengers, or of travelers with their 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 majoHty of the members of that multitudinous court made up their minds 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. Hays v. Millar, 77 Pa. St. 238, 18 Am. Eep. 445; Brown v. Clegg, 63 Pa. St. 51, 3 Am. Eep. 522; Leonard V. Hendrickson, 18 Pa. St. 40; Hayes v. Paul, 51 Pa. St. 134; 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, 14 Bush (Ky.) 698; 9 Cent. L. J. 153, 29 Am. Kep. 435. See § 18, ante. In a later case it has been held that the question 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 car- rier. Bassett & Stone v. Aberdeen Coal & Mining Co. (Ky.), 88 S. W. 318. See, also, Farley v. Lavary, 107 Ky. 523, 54 S. W. 840, 47 L. B. A. 383. 52 The Law of Caeeiees. 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 ferry- men 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 under the obligations of a common carrier, but are bound only to use due care and diligence. It is well settled that if the owner retains control of the property himself, and does not surrendea- the diarge of it to the ferryman, he is not a common carrier and liable as such for all losses and injuriesi except those caused by the act of God or the public enemies, but is only responsible for actual negligence.' But ferrymen may combine, and usually do combine, with the ferry business, the business of a common car- rier, carrying freight and merchandise without the presence of the owner or custodian, like other carriers engaged in the transpor- tation of such freight ; and as to such freight, they are under the duties and obligation of a common carrier. As ferrymen, liey are under a public duty to transport with suitable care and dih- gence all persons with or without their vehicles and other prop- erty ; 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 Itey receive property for transportation, and have the exclusive cus- tody of it, are to be held to the strict liability of common carri- ers.^" It is held that public ferrymen are presumably responsible, 7. Broodnox v. Baker, 94 N. C. there is an actual bailment and the 675. party sought to be charged has the 8. Wyckoff V. Queens County exclusive custody and control of Ferry Co., 52 N. Y. 35, 11 Am. Rep. property for carriage; Clark v. UnioR 650; Evans v. Rudy, 34 Ark. 385; Ferry Co., 35 N. Y. 485; Evans v. Harvey v. Rose, 26 Ark. 3, 7 Am. Rudy, 34 Ark. 385; Harvey v. Rose, Rep. 595; Davies v. Mann, 10 Mees. 26 Ark. 3; Pomeroy v. Donaldson, f & W. (Eng.) 546; Dudley v. Cam- Mo. 36; Babcock v. Herbert, 3 Ala. den & Phila. Ferry Co., 13 Vroom. 392; Sanders v. Young, 1 Head (N. J.) 25; White v. Winniaimmet (Tenn.), 219; May v. Hanson, 5 W- Co., 7 Cush. (Mass.) 155. 360; Smith v. Seward, 3 Pa. St. 342; 9. Mayor, etc., of New York v. Albright v. Penn, 14 Tex. 290; So- Starin, 106 N. Y. 1. hen v. Hume, 1 McCord (S. C), 10. Wyckoff v. Queens County 444; Miles v. James, 1 McCord {S. Ferry Co., 52 N. Y. 35, 11 Am. Rep. C), 157; White v. Winnisimmet Co., 650, the liability of a common carrier 7 Cush. (Mass.) 155; Joy v. Winni- in all its extent only attaches when simmet Co., 114 Mass. 63; Miller t. Common Caeeihbs. 53 as common carriers, for property received by them for transpor- tation; 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 property has been put on board their boats, it is primd facie in their charge, and they are respon- sible for it ; and it makes no difEerence that the owner is present, unless he consent to assume the charge thereof." Other cases hold that ferrymen are chargeable as common carriers for the abso- lute safety of property thus carried, and that the owner, in tak- ing care of the property during the passage of the boat, may be regarded as the agent of the ferryman ;^ but this position is ques- tioned as not based upon any just principle and as not within the reasons of public policy upon which the extreme 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 ordi- nary 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 carriages and goods; but this is a question for a jury.^^ § 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 that he transports passengers here and there about the Pendleton, 8 Gray (Mass.), 574; v. Fuqua, 28 Miss. 793; Griffith v. aaypool V. McAllister, 20 111. 504; Cave, 22 Cal. 535. Garner v. Green, 8 Ala. 96; Trent v. 18. Fisher v. Clisbee, 12 111. 344; Cartersville Bridge Co., II Leigh Powell v. Mills, 37 Miss. 691; Wilson (Va.), 544; Walker v. Jackson, 10 v. Hamilton, 4 Ohio St. 722. M. & W. 161; Rutherford v. Mc- 13. Wyckoff v. Queens County Gowen, I Nott & M. (S. C.) 19; Wil- Ferry Co., supra. loughby V. Horridge, 12 C. B. 742. 14. Self v. Dunn, 42 Ga. 528, 5 11. Harvey v. Rose, 26 Ark. 3; Am. Rep. 544. Powell V. Mills, 37 Miss. 691; Slim- 15. Littlejohn v. Jones, 2 McMul. mer v. Merry, 23 Iowa, 91; Whit- (S. C.) 366, 39 Am. Dee. 132. more v. Bowman, 4 G. Gr. (Iowa) 16. Bonce v. Dubuque St. Ry. Co., 148; LeBarron v. East Boston Ferry 53 Iowa, 278, 36 Am. Rep. 221. Co., 11 Allen (Mass.), 312; Richards 64 The Law of Caeeikes. streets of a village or city, having no established route over which his conveyance 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." § 22. Proprietors of omnibuses. — The proprietor of a line of omnibuses and baggage wagons, engaged in the business of carry- ing, for hire, passengers and baggage, or either alone, between the hotels and depots of a city, is a common carrier; and is an- swerable as such for the safe delivery of articles received for transportation.''* Omnibus proprietors who carry passengers and baggage for hire incur the ordinary responsibility of a common carrier, with respect to their baggage; nothing will excuse them for a loss of, or injury to it, but inevitable accident, or the act of the public enemy." A carrier of passengers is responsible for their baggage, if lost, though no distinct price be paid for its trans- portation; but he is not liable for a large sum of money, in a trunk, in excess of an amount ordinarily carried for travelling purposes.^" 17. Brown v. N. Y. Cent. & H. R. Y.) 591; Camden & Amboy R. Co. v. R. Co., 75 Hun (N. Y.), 355, 56 St. Belknap, 21 Wend. (N. Y.) 354; Rep. (N. Y.) 748, 27 N. Y. Supp. 69. CTark v. Faxton, 26 Wcad. (N. Y.) The point actually decided in the case 153; Cole v. Goodwin, 19 Wend. (N. last cited was that a hackman is not Y.) 251; HolMster v. Nowlen, 19 a common carrier within the meaning Wend. (N. Y.) 234; Camden & Am- of N. Y. Laws 1892, chap. 676, pro- boy R. Co. v. Burke, 13 Wend. (N. Tiding that no preference for the Y.) 611; Dibble v. Brown, 12 6a. transaction of the business of a com- 217, 56 Am. Dec. 460; Jones v. mon carrier upon its cars, or in its Voorhees, 10 Ohio, 145. depots or buildings, or upon its 20. Orange Co. Bank v. Brown, 9 grounds, shall be granted by any rail- Wend. ( N. Y. ) 85 ; Hawkins v. Ho£f- road company to any one of two or man, 6 Hill (N. Y.), 586; HoUister more persons competing in the same v. Nowlen, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 234; business, or in that of transporting Cole v. Goodwin, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) for themselves or others. 251; McGill v. Rowand, 3 Barr 18. Parmelee v. Lowitz, 74 111. (Pa.), 451; Bomer v. Maxwell, 9 116, 24 Am. Rep. 276. Humph. (Tenn.) 621; Brooke v. 19. Powell V. Myers, 26 Wend. (N. Pickwick, 4 Bing. (Eng.) ^18, Common OABEiEiRS. 55 § 23. Proprietors of stage coaches. — Stage 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 estab- lished 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 parcelsi.^ The driver of a stage coach, in the general em- ploy of the proprietors of the coach, and in the habit of transport- ing small packages of money for a small compensation, which wasi uniform, whatever might be the amount of the package, is a bailee for hire, answerable for ordinary negligence, and not subject to the responsibilities of a common carrier.^' The owners of the coach in such a case were held answerable for the negligence of the driver in not delivering a parcel of that description, intrusted to him to carry, unless the arrangement was known to the owner 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 purpose.^^ § 24. Palace and sleeping car companies. — Sleeping car com- panies are not insurers of the baggage, money, or other personal 21. Holliater v. Nowlen, 19 Wend, gage, are not to be considered com- (N. Y.) 234; Cole v. Goodwin, 19 mon carriers as to articles not Wend. (N. Y.) 251; Clark v. Faxton, strictly within their line of business, 21 Wend. (N. Y. ) 153; Powell v. in the technical sense of that term. Myers, 26 Wend. (N. Y.) 591; Cam- They may, however, make themselves den & Amboy R. Co, v. Belknap, 21 such by special contract, in a par- Wend. (N. Y.) 354; Jones v. Voor- ticular case, or by their general hees, 10 Ohio, 145. course of business. Peizotti v. Mc- 28. Dwight V. Brewster, 1 Pick. Laughlin, 1 Strob. (S. C.) 468, 47 (Mass.) 53, 11 Am. Dec. 133; Beck- Am. Dec. 563; Walker v. Skipwith, man v. Shouse, 5 Rawle (Pa.), 179, Meigs (Tenn.), 502. 28 Am. Dec. 653; Robertson v. Ken- 23. Sheldeu v. Robinson, 7 N. H. nedy, 2 Dana (Ky.), 430; Merwin 157. V. Butler, 17 Conn. 138; McHenry v. 24. Bean v. Sturtevant, 8 N". H. Philadelphia, etc., Co., 4 Har. (Del.) 146; Dwight v. Brewster, 1 Pick. 448; Jones V. Voorhees, 10 Ohio, 145;' (Mass.) 53; Beekman v. Shouse, 5 Powell V. Mills, 30 Miss. 231, 64 Am. Rawle (Pa.), 179. Dec. 158, prima fade, the proprietors 25. Blanchard v. Isaacs, 3 Barb, of stage coaches, used for carrying (N. Y.) 388. the mails, passengers and their bag- 56 The Law of Caeieiees. effects of a passenger, and the courts have almost universally re- fused to impose upon them the absolute liability attaching to inn- keepers and common carriers of goods.^ While the law, however, does not make a sleeping car company the insurer of the effeots of the occupants of its berths, it does not absolve it from all liabiUty. But the ground of this liability rests simply and solely in negli- gence. The company is bound to exercise reasonable care and vigilance in looking after the per&on and property of a passenger during the night while the passenger is asleep, or using the neces- sary 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 26. N. :?.— Williams v. Webb, 27 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 508, 58 N. Y. Supp. 300, 6 Am. Neg. Eep. 129, modg. 22 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 513, 49 N. Y. Supp. 1111; Carpenter v. New York, etc., R. Co., 124 N. Y. 53, 26 N. E. 277; 21 Am. St. Rep. 644, 47 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 421; Tracy v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 67 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 154; Welch v. Pullman Pal- ace Car Co., 16 Abb. Pr. N. S. (N. Y.) 352; Palmeter v. Wagner, 11 Alb. L. J. 149. V. 8. — Barrett v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 51 Fed. 796; Lemon v. Pull- man Palace Car Co., 52 Fed. 262 j Blum V. Southern Pullman Palace Car Co., 1 Flip. (U. S.) 500. Ala. — Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Adams (Ala.), 24 So. 921. III. — Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Smith, 73 111. 360, 24 Am. Rep. 258. Ind. — Woodruff Sleeping, etc.. Coach Co. \. Diehl, 84 Ind. 474, 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 294, 43 Am. Rep. 102. -K:^/.— .Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Gaylord, 6 Ky. L. Rep., 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. Miss. — Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Handy, 63 Miss. 609, 56 Am. Eep. 846 ; Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Law- rence, 74 Miss. 784, 22 So. 53. Mo. — ^Morrow v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 98 Mo. App. 351, 73 S. W. 281; Bevis v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 26 Mo. App. 19; Scaling v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 24 Mo. App. 29) Root V. New York C. Sleeping Gar. Co., 28 Mo. App. 199; Hampton v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 42 Mo. App. 134. Ohio. — ^Falls River & M. Co. v. Pull- man Palace Car Co., 4 Ohio N. P. 26, 6 Ohio Dec. 85. Pa. — ^Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Gardner, 3 Penny. (Pa.) 78, 16 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 324. Term. — Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Gavin (Tenn.), 23 S. W. 70, 21 L E. A. 298. Tex. — Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Matthews, 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. Neft Rep. 746. Can. — Smith v. Pullman Palace Car Co. (Can.), 60 Alb. L. J. 188. COMMOH^ CaBJUEES. 57 loss by thieves or other-wise, and it is liable only for its failure so to do.^' A contrary doctrine has been enunciated in one or two cases. ^* It has been held that a passenger is entitled to recover from & sleeping car company for the loss or theft, through the neg- ligence of the car employes, of such articles in a valise as are usu- ally carried by hand, which add to the comfort, pleasure, and en- joyment of the traveler, and they may include an opera glass and compass, but not a pistol;^' for the theft of a diamond ring al- though placed in a pocket book f 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 considera- 2T. Williams v. Webb, supra; Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. Hall, 106 Ga. 765, 71 Am. St. Kep. 293, 32 S. E. 923; Voss v. Wagner Palace Car Co., 16 Ind. App. 271, 43 N. E. 20; 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. E. 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. 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 Sleep- ing Car Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 84 S. W. 246. 28. Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Lowe, 28 Neb. 239, 40 Am. & Eng. E. 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 be 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 eilect, 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 » 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 Mo. App. 134. 30. Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Ad- ams, 120 Ala. 581, 24 So. 921, 45 K R. A. 767, 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. 58 The Law of Cabkiees. tion his station in life, the length, duration, and purpose* of his journey, as well as emergencies that may probably arise-'^ The mere proof of loss of money or personal effects by a passenger while occupying a berth in a sleeping car does not make out a prima facie case against the company, but some evidence of negli- gence on the part of the defendant must be given.'' Neither the railroad company nor the sleeping car company is liable for a loss of baggage when the passenger himself was negligent.'* A sleep- ing 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 the night, where he did not notify those in charge of the train that he needed spe- cial care, or request those in charge of the car to close the venti- lator and was in a position to reach and close it himself at any time.'^ A sleeping car company is bound to furnish the required accommodationsi to a passenger if it has them;'° but not to one who by the rules of the company is not entitled to use these accom- modations, as, for example, one not holding a through ticket or a 32. Williams v. Webb, 27 Mise. Hep. (N. Y.) 508, 58 N. Y. Supp, 300, 6 Am. Neg. Rep. 129; Barrott v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 51 Fed. 796; Hills v. Chicago, etc., K. Co., 72 Iowa, 228 ; Pfaelzer v. Palace Car Co., 4 W. N. C. (Pa.) 240. It does not extend to an amount which he is car- rying for the purpose of depositing in a bank. Williams v. Webb, 22 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 513, 49 N. Y. Supp. 1111. 33. Carpenter v. New York, etc., R. Co., 124 N. Y. 53; Tracy v. Pull- man Palace Car Co., 67 How. Pr. (N. Y. ) 154; McMurray v. Pullman's Palace Car Co., 86 Mo. App. 619; Hills V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 72 Iowa, 228; Root v. New York C. 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 responsibility, if it does not appear that the passenger saw the notice. Lewis V. New York 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 Sleeping Car Co., 28 Mo. App. 199; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Handy, 63 Miss. 609; Pullman Pal- ace Car Co. V. Matthews, 74 Tex. 634. 35. Edmunson v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 92 Fed. 824, 14 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. N. S. 336. 36. Searles v. Mann Boudoir Cat Co., 45 Fed. 330; Nevin v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 106 111. 222, 11 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 92, 46 Am. Rep. 688. CoMMOsr Caeeiees. 59 second clasa passenger." The company is liable in damages for breach of contract to reserve a berth for a passenger or for failure to furnish him with a berth 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 trafEc on the leading railroads of the country. Thesei 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 owned in most instances, though not always, by corporations other than those operating the trains, such corporations making a business of the ownership and management of such cars. But they form 37. Lemon v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 52 Fed. 262; Pullman Palace Car Co. V. Taylor, 65 Ind. 153, 32 Am. Eep. 57 j Lawrence v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 144 Mass. 1, 28 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 151, 59 Am. Rep. 58. A sleeping car company is not liable for the refusal of its conductor to permit a passenger's son to occupy a, section 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 pay- ment from any one not so named. Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Marsh ec. 206; Schroycr v. Lynch, 8 Watts (Pa.), 453; Dunlop v. Mun- roe, 7 Cranch (U. S.), 242; Bolan v. Williamson, 2 Bay (S. C), 551, 1 Brev. (S. C.) 181; Maxwell v. Mc- Ivry, 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. Burrill, 106 Mass. 446; Bishop v. Williamson, 11 Me. 495. By the commoii lair 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 loss, as of money in a letter, sus- 72 The Law of Caeeieks. liable as a public officer, to the goveminent, for the discharge of the general duties imposed on him by statute f^ 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 f" 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 package rendering the railroad liable for the lose of the same through its negligence ; but conceding that it may be liable to such addressee for the loss of the same in the mail through its negligence, the degree of care required is only the reasonable care exacted of an ordinary bailee for hire.** § 35. 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 b© delivered and used, does not act, while transport- ing the timber, as a common carrier, and incur responsibility as such; he is only liable for the want of ordinary prudence, care and skill.*' A common carrier's liability does not attach to a log- tained through the negligence or de- as common carriers. Lane v. Cotton, fault of such agent in the perform- 1 Ld. Raym. 646; Whitfield v. Le anee of his duties. Hall v. Smith, 2 Desprurer, Cowp. K. B. 754. Bing. C. P. 156, 9 E. C. L. 357 ; Hoi- 85. Strong v. Campbell, 11 Barb, liday v. St. Leonard, 103 E. C. L. 192. (N. Y.) 135. The same principle that gives relief 86. Idaho Gfold Reduction Co. v. against a contractor with the govern- Croghan (Id.), 56 Pac. 164; Bishop ment gives the like relief against an v. Williamson, 11 Me. 495; Coleman officer of government. Robinson v. v. Frazier, 4 Rich. (S. C.) 146, 53 Chamberlain, 34 N. Y. 389; Hicks Am. Deo. 727; Bolan v. Williamson, V. Dorn, 42 N. Y. 47; Hover v. Bark- 1 Brev. (S. C.) 181, 2 Bay (S. C), hoof, 44 N. Y. 113. 551; Christy v. Smith, 23 Vt. 663; Wben the government as- Sawyer v. Corse, 17 Gratt. (Va.), ■nmed control of the post office 230, 94 Am. Dec. 445. (stat. 12 Car. II.) it was held that 87. Teall v. Felton, 1 N. Y. 537, 3 the postmaster was not liable for the Barb. (N. Y.) 512, 12 How. (U. S.) loss of a letter with exchequer bills 284; Bank of Columbia v. Lawrence, in it, and that postmasters enter into 1 Pet. (U. S.) 578; Nevins v. Bank no contracts with individuals, and re- of Lansingburgh, 10 Mich. 547. ceive no hire, like common carriers, 88. German State Bank v. Minne- in proportion to the value of the let- apolis, etc., R. Co., (U. S. C. C, / ters under their charge, but only a Minn.), 113 Fed. 414. general compensation from govern- 89. Pike v. Nash, 3 Abb. App. DM' ment, and are, therefore, not liable, (N. Y.) 010, 1 Keyes (N. Y.), 335. Common Caeeieoes. 73 driving company for failure to deliver logs received by it to be driven to tbeir destination.'" A lumber company owning a logging railroad appurtenant to a saw-mill, wholly upon private ground and operated for private purposes, is not made a common carrier by a constitutional provision, declaring all railroads, public high- ways and railroad companies common carriers, although such lumber company is authorized by its charter to construct such road. The owners of a logging railway operated by independent contractors are not chargeable as common carriers towards a person permitted to ride thereon gratuitously.'^ § 36. 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 incor- rect transmission, unless occasioned by an act of God or of the public enemy. '^ The reasons which have impelled the courts to 90. Mann v. White River Log, etc., Co., 46 Mich. 38, 41 Am. Rep. 141. 91. Wade v. Lutcher, etc.. Cypress Lumber Co., 74 Fed. 517; Const, of La. art. 244. 92. Not liable as Insurers. — Breese v. United States Teleg. Co., 48 N. Y. 132, 141, 8 Am. Rep. 526, affg. 45 Barb. (N. Y.) 274, 31 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 86; Leonard v. New York, etc., Teleg. Co., 41 N. Y. 544, 571, 1 Am. Rep. 446; De Rutte v. New York, etc., Tel. Co., 1 Daly (N. Y.), 547, 30 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 403; Schwartz v. Atlantic, etc., Tel. Co., 1 Am. Electl. Cas. 284, 18 Hun (N. Y.), 157; Ellis v. Ameri- can Tel. Co., 13 Allen (Mass.), 232; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Griswold, 37 Ohio St. 310, 41 Am. Rep. 500; Little Rock, etc., Tel. Co. v. Davis, 1 Am. Electl. Cas. 526, 41 Ark. 79, 8 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 102 ; Hart V. Western Union Tel. Co., 1 Am. Electl. Cas. 734, 66 Cal. 579, 8 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 24, 56 Am. Rep. 119 (rule changed by Civil Code, §§ 2162, 2168) ; West- ern Union Tel. Co. v. Hyer, 2 Am. Electl. Cas. 484, 22 Fla. 637, 16 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 232,, 1 Am. St. Rep. 222; Central Union Teleph. Co. v. Bradbury, 2 Am. Electl. Cas. 14, 106 Ind. 1; Ty- ler V. Western Union Tel. Co., 1 Am. Electl. Cas. 14, 60 111. 421, 14 Am. Rep. 38; Sweatland v. Illinois, etc., Tel. Co., 27 Iowa, 458, 1 Am. Rep. 285; Aken v. Western Union Tel. Co., 2 Am. Electl. Cas. 566, 69 Iowa, 31, 13 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 585, 58 Am. Rep., 210; Camp v. Western Union Tel. Co., 1 Mete. (Ky.) 164, 71 Am. Dec. 461; Fowler v. Western Union Tel. Co., 2 Am. Electl. Cas. 607, 80 Me. 381, 6 Am. St. Rep. 211; Bartlett v. West- ern Union Tel. Co., 1 Am. Electl. Cas.. 45, 62 Me. 209, 16 Am. Rep. 437; Bir- ney v. New York, etc., Tel. Co., 18 Md. 341, 81 Am. Dec. 607; Grinnell v. Western Union Tel. Co., 1 Am. Electl. Cas. 70, 113 Mass. 299, 18 Am. Rep. 485; Western Union Tel. Co. V. Carew, 15 Mich. 525; Wann v. Western Union Tel. Co., 37 Mo. 472, 90 Am. Dec. 395; New York, etc.. Print Co. v. Dryburg, 35 u The Law of Caeeiees. adopt the rule that such companies should not be charged wiiii- the absolute liability of a common carrier are, in substance, as follows: That liability was founded upon the necessities of the case real or fancied, and has never been applied to any person or to any occupation, except those of carriers of goods and inn- keepers. The carrier had the exclusive possession and control of Pa. St. 298, 78 Am. Dec. 338; Pass- more V. Western Union Tel. Co., 1 Am. Electl. Cas. 168, 78 Pa. St. 238; Aiken v. Western Union Tel. Co., 1 Am. Electl. Cas. 121, 5 S. C. 358; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Neill, 1 Am. Electl. Cas. 352, 57 Tex. 283, 44 Am. Kep. 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. Western Union Tel. Co., 1 Am. Electl. Cas. 728, 23 Fed. Kep. 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 stran- gers; a surcharge of electricity in the atmosphere, or a failure of or an ir- regularity in the electrical current, may stop communication; 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. Co., 1 Am. Electl. Cas. 743, 83 Ky. 104, 8 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 20, 4 Am. St. Eep. 126. The nature of the business is suggestive of many risks and con- tingencies 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 communication, and words of different signification may be represented by charac- ters so similar that errors in transcribing may occur without fault on the part of the person transcribing it, or technical terms 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 in the operator, and cast the burden upon the company of explaining the error and showing that it occurred without fault. This is upon the sup- position that the message is received for transmission unconditionally. Baldwin v. United States Tel. Co., 45 N. Y. 744, 751, 6 Am. Rep. 165. Common Oaeeibes. 75 iixe 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 communication, rapid and easy, were in exist- ence. 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 qf non-deliveiy 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 its liability is based upon the contract it makes, or upon its public duty, the telegraph company does not come within any of these principles. Its liability for error or failure in the trans- mission of a dispatch is quite unlike that of a common carrier. A telegraph company is intrusted with nothing- but an order or message, which is not to be carried in the form in which it is re- ceived, but is to be transmitted or repeated by electricity, and is peculiarly liable to mistake; which cannot be the subject of em- bezzlement; which is of no intrinsic value; the importance of which cannot be estimated except by the sender, nor ordinarily disclosed by him without the danger of defeating his own pur- poses; which may be wholly valueless, if not forwarded imme- diately ; for the transmission 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 maintained that telegraph companies are common carriers and, therefore, liable as insurers, have urged the follow- ing reasons in support of their proposition : Such companies hold themselves out to the public as engaged in a particular branch of business, in which the interests of the public are deeply con- cerned. They propose to do a certain thing for a given price. There is no difference, in the general nature of the legal obliga- tion of the contract, between carrying a message along a wire and carrying goods or a package along a route. The physical agency may be different, but the essential nature of the contract is the same. The breach of the contract, in the one case or in the other, 93. Leonard v. New York, etc., Co., 1 Am. Eleetl. Cas. 70, 113 Mass. Tel. Co., 41 N. Y. 544, 1 Am. Rep. 299, 18 Am. Rep. 485; see, also, cases 446; Grinnell v. Western Union Tel. cited note 92. 76 The Law of Caeeiees. is, or may be, attended with the same consequences, and the. obli- gation to perform the 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 undertake, to serve the public in good faith, impartially andj without discrimination, and, if they fail so to do, they become re- sponsible 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 negligence or that of their servants.'' They are re- 94. Parks v. Alta, etc., Tel. Co., 13 Cal. 422, 73 Am. Dec. 589; West- ern Union Tel. Co. v. Fontaine, 1 Am. Electl. Cas. 229, 58 Ga. 433 ; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Meek, 1 Am. Electl. Cas. 138, 49 Ind. 53; Bowen v. Lake Erie Tel. Co. (Ohio), 1 Am. L. Reg. 685; True v. International Tel. Co., 60 Me. 9, 11 Am. K6p. 156; Bryant v. American Tel. Co., 1 Daly (N. Y.), 575; Bell v. Dominion Tel. Co., 25 L. C. J. (Can.), 248; MacAndrew v. Electric Tel. Co. (Eng.), 17 C. B. 3, 84 E. C. L. 3; Gray on Telegraphs, §§ 6, 7; Shear. & Red. on Neg. (4th ed.), § 554, et seq.; Kirby v. Western Union Tel. Co., 6 Am. Electl. Cas. 824, 7 S. D. 623, 30 L. R. A. 621, 65 N. W. 37, telegraph companies are made common carriers by statute. 95. Cal. Civ. Code, §§ 2162, 2168; see cases cited note 92. 96. See cases cited note 92 under this section. 97. Southern Express Co. v. Cald- well, 21 Wall. (U. S.) 269; White V. Wsstern Union Tel. Co., 14 Fed. Rep. 710; American Union Tel. Co. V. Daughtery, 3 Am. Electl. Cas. 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. 592, 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. Cas. 404, 68 Ga. 299, 45 Am. Eep. 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, t. Meek, 1 Am. Electl. Cas. 138, 49 Ind. 53; 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. Kep. Common Caeeiees. 77 sponsible only for failure to exercise ordinary care and vigilance in the performance of their duties.^* In 'Sew York and some of the other States telegraph companies have the right to make reas- onable rules and regulations for the 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.^' 285; Granville v. Western Union Tel. Co., 37 Iowa 214, 18 Am. Rep. 8; Tyler v. Western Union Tel. Co., 1 Am. Eleetl. Cas. 14, 60 111. 421, 14 Am. Hep. 38 ; Western Union Tel. Co. V. Tyler, 74 111. 168, 24 Am. Rep. 279; Smith v. Western Union Tel. Co., 1 Am. Eleetl. Cas. 743, 83 Ky. 104, 8 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 15, 4 Am. St. Rep. 126; Camp v. Western Union Tel. Co., 1 Meto. (Ky.) 164, 71 Am. Dec. 461; De La Grange v. Southwestern Tel. Co., 1 Am. Elect. Cas. 59, 25 La. Ann. 383; Bartlett v. Western Union Tel. Co., 1 Am. Eleetl. Cas. 45, 62 Me. 209, 16 Am. Rep. 437; Ayer v. Western Union Tel. Co., 2 Am. Eleetl. Cas. 601, 79 Me. 493, 21 Am. &. Eng. Corp. Cas. 145, 1 Am. St. Rep. 353; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Griswold, 37 Ohio St. 303, 41 Am. Rep. 500; Jaarr v. Western Union Tel. Co., 2 Am. Eleetl. Cas. 720, 85 Tenn. 529, 16 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 243; Pepper V. Western Union Tel. Co., 2 Am. Eleetl. Cas. 756, 87 Tenn. 554, 25 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 542, 10 Am. St. Rep. 699; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Broesehe, 2 Am. Eleetl. Cas. 815, 72 Tex. 654, 13 Am. St. Rep. 843 ; Wertz V. Western Union Tel. Co., 3 Am. Eleetl. Cas. 808, 7 Utah 446; Gillis ■V. Western Union Tel. Co., 2 Am. Eleetl. Cas. 841, 61 Vt. 461, 25 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 568, 15 Am. St. Eep. 917; Thompson v. Western Union Tel. Co., 64 Wis. 531, 54 Am. Rep. 644; Candee v. Western Union Tel. Co., 1 Am. Eleetl. Cas. 99, 34 Wis. 471, 17 Am. Rep. 452. The reason of the rule. — " Courts and legislatures have been liberal in allowing telegraph compa- nies to provide against such risks as arise out of atmospheric influences and kindred causes. At this point they have properly stopped. To per- mit them to contract against their own negligence would be to arm them with a most dangerous power, and in- deed that would leave the public al- most entirely remediless. It must be borne in mind that the public have but little choice in the selection of the company which is to perform the desired service. They are bound to take it as they find it, and to commit to its agents their messages, however valuable. Such being the case, pub- lie policy as well as commercial ne- cessity 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 ISf. Y. 141, 8 Am. Rep. 526; Mowry v. Western Union Tel. Co., 2 Am. Eleetl. Cas. 679, 51 Hun (N. Y.), 126, 4 N. Y. Supp. 666; Pearsall v. Western Union Tel. Co., 3 Am. Eleetl. Cas. 724, 124 N. Y. 256, 21 Am. St. Rep. 78 The Law of Caheiees. § 37. Telephone companies. — Telephone companies do not ofFeof 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 com- panies, like telegraph companies, are analogous to common car- riers in that they are bound to afford equal fadlitiesi to all, and 662; Nicholas v. New York Cent., etc., R. R. Co., 89 N. Y. 370; Kenney V. New York Cent., etc., E. R. Co., 124 N. Y. 256; 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. Supp. 933, 3 N. Y. An. Cas. 123; Birney v. New York & 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. Western Union Tel. Co., 1 Mete. (Ky.) 164; McAndrew v. Electric Tel. Co., 33 Eng. L. & Eq. 180; Las- siter V. Western Union Tel. Co., 89 N. C. 336, 5 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 230; Pegram 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, 38 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., I 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 MeCrary (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 liability by contract is reason- able, and binding on all companies in that State; Western Union Tel. Co. V. Neill, 1 Am. Electl. Cas. 352, 57 Tex. 283, 44 Am. Hep. 589; Womack v. Western Union Tel. Co., 1 Am. Electl. Cas. 454, 58 Tex. 176, 44 Am. Rep. 614, holding that a stipulation 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 com- pany liable for gross negligence, not- withstanding 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 inconsistent with good faith." Schwartz v. At- lantic, etc., Tel. Co., 1 Am. Electl. Cas. 284, 18 Hun (N. Y.), 157; Candee v. Western Union Tel. Co., 1 Am. Electl. Cas. 99, 34 Wis. 471, 17 Am. Rep. 452; United States Tel. Co. V. Gildersleeve, 29 Md. 232, 96 Am. Dec. 519; Jones v. Western Union Tel. Co., 1 Am. Electl. Cas. 561, 18 Fed. Rep. 717; 3 Suth. on Dam. 296. 1. American Rapid Tel. Co. v. Con- necticut Teleph. Co., 1 Am. Electl. Cas. 390,49 Conn. 352, 1 Am. & Eng- Common- Oaeeiees. 79 may be compelled by mandamus to furnish facilities to one offer- ing 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 in- telligence, within the scope of a statute providing for the regula- tion of the rates of common carriers.' § 38. Railroad company transporting a circus or menagerie. — 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 Corp. Cas. 378, 44 Am. Eep. 237 ; State Am. &. Eng. Corp. Cas. 15 ; Cen- V. Nebraska Teleph. Co., 1 Am. Eleetl. tral Union Teleph. Co. v. Brad- Oaa. 700, 17 Neb. 126, 52 Am. Eep. bury, 2 Am. Eleetl. Cas. 14, lOo 404, 8 Am. & Eng. Corp. Caa. 1. Cases Ind. 1 ; People v. Manhattan Gas have arisen where the parties, being Light Co., 45 Barb. (N. Y.) 136; nnable to communicate directly with Central Union Teleph. Co. v. State, each other, have done so through the 3 Am. Eleetl. Cas. 529, 2 Am. Eleetl. medium of an operator of an interme- Cas. 27, 123 Ind. 113, 118 Ind. 194, 10 diate station, but the liability of the Am. St. Rep. 113, 25 Am. & Eng. Corp. company in such cases was not ad- Cas. 481. judieated. Sullivan v. Kuykendall, 3. Nebraska Teleph. Co. v. State, 82 Ky. 483, 56 Am. Rep. 901; Os- Yeiser, 7 Am. Elect. Cas. 860, 55 ; kamp V. Gadsden, 35 Neb. 7, 52 N. Neb. 627, 76 N. W. 171, 45 L. R. A. W. 718. 113. 2. Chesapeake, etc., Teleph. Co. v. 4. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Wallace, Baltimore, etc., Tel. Co., 2 Am. 66 Fed. 506, 24 U. S. App. 589. The, Eleetl. Cas. 416, 66 Md. 399, court held that the defendant was 16 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 219, 59 Am. not chargeable as a common carrier, Eep. 167; State v. Nebraska Teleph. since it did not hold itself out as a Co., supra; Delaware v. Delaware, carrier of wild animals, etc., nor as etc., Tel. Co., 3 Am. Eleetl. carrying on special schedules or Cas. 533, 47 Fed. Rep. 633, 35 trains; that the defendant could only' 80 The Law of Oaebiees. 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- cept under a special contract limiting its liability to that assumed by a private carrier.' § 39. 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.'' § 40. Railroad company carrying a dog for accommodation of passenger. — ^A railroad company which does not assume the trans- portation of dogs, but permits its baggage-masters to take charge of them as a matter of accommodation and for a fee retained by the baggage-master, is not liable as a common carrier, if the dogs come to harm.^ To the contrary, it has been held that, where a be charged upon the special contract, bility whatever. At most, it was lia- and that being valid, the stipulation ble only for negligence. It did not against liability would preclude a re- profess, and was under no obligation, covery. Robertson v. Old Colony R. to undertake such transportation. Co., 156 Mass. 525, 31 N. E. 650, a 6. Wilson v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., railroad company is not liable for in- 129 Fed. 774. jury to an employe of a circus, aris- 7. Piedmont Mfg. Co. v. Columbia, ing from a, defect in a car truck etc., R. Co., 19 S. C. 353, 16 Am. & which inspection would have re- Eng. R. R. Cas. 194. vealed, when such company is trans- 8. Honeyman v. Oregon & Cali- porting a circus for a gross sum un- fornia R. R. Co., 13 Ore. 352, 57 Am. der a contract by which the proprie- Rep. 20, 25 Am, & Eng. R. R. Caa. tors of the circus agree to assume all 380, wherein the court said: "The risk of accident from any cause and facts disclose that the defendant did save the company harmless^ See not hold itself out as a common ear- also Watson V. North British R. Co., rier of dogs, or assume their trans- 3 Ry. and C. T. Cas. 17. portation in that character, but that 5. Coup V. Wabash, etc., Ry. Co., the defendant expressly refused to ae- 66 Mich. Ill, 56 Am. Rep. 374, 18 cept hire and furnish tickets for their Am. & Eng. R. Cas.' 542. The court, transportation. The evidence show3 in this case, held that the railroad that, when the party having in charge did not sustain the relation of com- the dogs applied to the ticket agent mon carrier, and was therefore en- of the defendant for transportation titled to stipulate against any lia- for himself and dogs, the agent re- Common Caeeihks. 81 railroad passenger, ■without special notice of the. company's regu- lation that " live animals are allowed as baggagemen's perquis- ites," committed a dog to the baggage-master and paid him for its transportation, the company was liable- for the loss of the dog by the baggageman's delivering it to the wrong person.' The' loss of a dog by negligence of a baggage-master will render the carrier liable, although a rule of the company provided that it would not be responsible for dogs, where the owner 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 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 wasi no property in a dog, it being held to be /erae naturae^ has been changed by fused tickets for the dogs, and re- 9. Cantling v. Hannibal, etc., R. R. ferred him to the baggage-master, Co., 54 Mo. 385, wherein it was who told him, 'You know the rules shown that the company's rules and about dogs;' but, as an accommoda- regulations were printed and posted tion, consented to take the dogs in his at the various stations, but no special car, and promised to look after them, notice of this rule was brought home for which he received two dollars, to the owner of the dog. These circumstances do not show that 10. Kansas City, etc., E. Co. v. it was the business of the defendant Higdon, 94 Ala. 286, 33 Am. St. Rep. to carry dogs, or to receive pay for 119, 52 Am. & Eng. R. Gas. 495. their transportation, but that, as a 11. Harrison v. Weir, 71 App. matter of accommodation to a passen- Div. ( N. Y. ) 248, 75 N. Y. Supp. 909, ger, it permitted the baggage-master, revg. 34 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 519, 69 after the party was notified of the N. Y. Supp. 957. See also 73 N. Y. rules, to carry them in his car, and Supp. 1119. to accept pay for them." 6 82 The Law of Caeeiees. statute and judicial construction, and recovery may no-w 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 con- ductor.^' § 41. Carrier under a contract exempting "river risks." — Where the contract of a carrier for the United States, to transport certain goods to points in Montana, contained the clause: "No river risk on the part of the contractor for unavoidable accidents," and, while the goods were being transported up a river, they were burned with 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." § 42. Owners of passenger elevators. — The courts differ as to the exact status and character of the owners and operators of ele- vators used in public office buildings for the purpose of carrying the occupants of the buildings and the public from one floor to an- other as to the relations between them« and their passengers, and as to the rule of liability applicable. In a recent New York case the court said : " Doubtless no distinction can be drawn between vertical transportation and horizontal transportation, or transpor- tation along the surface of the earth. If the relationship between ihe parties and the character 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 18. Winchejl v. National Express E. C. L. 122, 31 L. J. Q. B. 113; Co., 64 Vt. 15, 55 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. Richardson v. Northeastern E. Co., L. 40O, note; Stuart v. Crawley, 2 R. 7 C. P. 75, 20 W. R. 461. Stark. 323, 3 E. C. L. 428; Dickson 13. Gregory v. Chicago, etc., R. V. Great Northern R. Co., 18 Q. B. Co., 100 Iowa, 345, 69 N. W. 532. Div. 176, 28 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 92; 14. United States v. Power, 6 Harrison v. London, etc., R. Co., 110 Mont. 271, 12 Pac. 639. Common C^eriees, 83 not a common carrier, and received no compensation, at least directly, for carrying persons 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 busi- ness 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 appliance by which the elevator was moved, and in it's 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 rail- road company, as to its roadbed, engine and machinery, that it is bound to exercise the utmost care and diligence and is liable for the slightest neglect against whiob, human prudence and foresight might have guarded, is applicable to the owner of an elevator, was erroneous.^' The courts 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 can go," but is only bound to use the 15. Griffin v. Manice, 166 N. Y. den of showing that the injury re- 188, 59 N. E. 925, 52 L. K. A. 922, 82 suited from defendant's negligence. Am. St. Eep. 630, revg. 47 App. Dlv. Where an elevator installed by a rep- (N. Y.) 70, 62 N. Y. Supp. 364; Grif- utable firm has all the appliances fin V. Manice, 36 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) known to stop the machinery when the 364, 73 N. Y. Supp. 559, affd. 74 App. ear reaches the bottom of the shaft, Div. 371, 77 N. Y. Supp. 626, affd. even if the operator is remiss in his 174 N. Y. 505, 66 N. E. 1109. See duties, and the machinery is in per- also McGrell v. Buffalo Office Build- feet order, as shown by various in- ing Co., 153 N. Y. 265, 47 N. E. 305, speetions by the person installing the revg. 90 Hun (N. Y.), 30, 35 N. Y. elevator, insurance companies, and Supp. 599; Hubener v. Heide, 62 the city, — lone inspection being made App. Div. (N. Y.) 368, 70 N. Y. only a few hours before an accident Supp. 1115; Grifhahn v. Kreizer, 62 occurring by reason of the unex- App. Div. (N. Y.) 414; Tousey v. plained failure of the machinery to so Roberts, 114 N. Y. 312, 21 N. E. 399, stop, though the car is properly op- 11 Am. St. Rep. 055. erated, — there is no liability for the Bnrden of proof. — ^The plaintiff accident, though there has been an oc- in an action for injuries received by casional bumping of the cars on the a passenger through the defective springs, which was shown not to be working of an elevator has the bur- uncommon or to have been the cause 84 The Law of Caeeiebs. care required of an ordinarily prudent person under tlie circum- stances." 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 Hie 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 the Federal Courts and the courts of some of the other states it has been held that persons operating elevators are carriers of passengers, the relation between them and their passengers being similar to that between an ordinary common car- rier and those carried by it, and that they are subject to the same rules as to the degree of care required and the onus of proof in case of injury from defects in or the giving away of machinery as are applicable to common carriers of passengers. The degree of care required is variously stated to be the utmost human care and fore- sight, the highest degree of care, extraordinary care, and the high- est degree of care and diligence practically consistent with the of the accident. GriflFen v. Manioe, 74 App. Div. (N. Y.) 371, 77 N. Y. Supp. 626, affd. 174 N. Y. 505, 66 N. E. 1109. 16. Burgeaa v. Stowe, 10 Detroit Leg. N. 434 (Mich.), 96 N. W. 29. Citing Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Cole- man, 28 Mich. 440; Grand Rapids, etc., R. Co. V. Huntley, 38 Mich. 537, 31 Am. Rep. 321; Hall v. Murdock, 114 Mich. 233, 72 N. W. 150. 17. Seaver v. Bradley, (Mass.) 69 N. E. 795. See Gibson v. Interna- tional Trust Co., 186 Mass. 454, 72 N. E. 70. In Seaver v. Bradley, sitprd, Holmes, C. J., said: "The modem liability of common carriers of goods is a resultant of the two long accepted doctrines that bailees were answerable for the loss of goods in their charge, although happening without their fault, unless it was due to the public enemy, and that those exercising a common calling were bound to exercise it on demand and to show skill in their calling. Bath doctrines have disappeared, although they have left this hybrid descendant. The law of common carriers of pas- sengers, so far as peculiar to them, is a brother of the half blood. It also goes back to the old principles con- cerning common callings. Carriers not exercising a common calling as such are not common carriers, what- ever their liabilities may be. But the defendant did not exercise the common calling of a carrier, as suf- ficiently appears from the fact that he might have shut the elevator door in the plaintiff's face and arbitrarily have refused to carry him without incurring any liability to him. Apart from that consideration, manifestly it would be contrary to the ordinary usages of English speech to describe by such words the maintaining of an- elevator as an inducement to tenants to occupy rcoras which the defendant wished to let." Common Caeeiees. &5 efficient use and operation of such modes of transportation.*^ In Missouri it has been held that a company operating an elevator in its office building for the use of tenants and their visitors is a common carrier of passengers for hire, and, though not an insurer of the safety of a passenger, must use such care, prudence, and caution to prevent injury to a passenger as a very careful andi prudent person would us© and exercise in a like business and under similar circumstances." And in Illinois the rule has been carried to the extesnt of holding that the owner of a building in which a freight elevator is operated, who permits an employe of his tenant to ride thereon in the discharge of his duties, occupies the relation of a common carrier of passengers for hire towards such employe, the hire received being the rent of the building, and is held to the highest degree of care to prevent injury to such em- ploye.^" Some of the cases maintain that this st'rict liability is more expedient and conforms better with the present needs of society. For although an elevator operator is not technically a common carrier, yet the considerations of public policy which re- quire extraordinary diligence of the latter, would seem to require a similar degree of diligence of the former. In each case the pas^ senger's safety depends wholly upon the operator's vigilance; in eadi case the probability of a serious accident, unless extraordi- nary vigilance is exercised, is imminent. The objection that an elevator operator receives no compensation for the carriage is met 18. U. S.— Mitchell v. Marker, 62 Minn. 207, 42 N. W. 873, 4 L. E. A. Fed. 139, 22 U. S. App. 325, 10 C. C. 673, 16 Am. St. Eep. 700. A. 306, 25 L. R. A. 133. Po.— Riland v. Hirshler, 7 Pa. (7aZ.— Treadwell v. Whittier, 80 Super. Ct. 384. Cal. 574, 22 Pac. 266, 5 L. R. A. 498, B. I. — Elackwell v. O'Gorman, 22 13 Am. St. Rep. 175. R. I. 638, 49 Atl. 28. /ff.^-Chicago Exchange Bldg. Co. reraw.— Southern, etc., Ass'n v. V. Nelson, 197 111. 334, 64 N. E. 369, Lawson, 97 Tenn. 367, 37 S. W. 86, affg. 98 111. App. 189; Springer v. 56 Am. St. Rep. 804. Schultz, 205 111. 144, 68 N. E. 753, Wis.— Oberndorfer v. Pabst, 100 affg. 105 111. App. 544; Deposit Co. Wis. 505, 76 N. W. 338. V. Sollitt, 172 111. 222, 50 N. E. 178; 19. Mo.^Ooldsmith v. Holland Hodges T. Percival, 132 111. 53, 23 Bldg. Co., 182 Mo. 597, 81 S. W. N. E. 23; Western Union Telegraph 1112; Becker v. Lincoln Real Estate, Co. V. Woods, 88 111. App. 375. etc., Co., 174 Mo. 246, 73 S. W. 581; Ey.~Rotel Co. v. Camp, 97 Ky. Lee v. Knapp, 155 Mo. 610, 58 S. W. 424, 30 S. W. 1010. 458. Minn. — Goodsell v. Taylor, 41 20. Springer v. Ford, 189 111. 430, 59 N. E. 953, 52 L. R. A. 930. 86 The Law of Caeeiees. by the fact that he receives adequate compensation, indirectly at least, from the rent paid by the tenants. § 43. Car-switching companies. — .A railroad company in the general business of switching cars for all railroads which will fur- nish it business is a common carrier.^' A company whose prin- cipal business is switching cars for other railroad companies, its tracks being connected with those of the other railroads by a trans- fer switch, and with mills, elevators, and manufactories near where its business is transacted, will be held liable, as a common carrier, for the loss of a car taken, without orders of the owner, to a manufactory, to be loaded and then switched to the transfer track for shipment.^^ So, a railroad company which takes loaded cars from its connection with another railroad, and transfers them by a switch engine over a portion of its own track to a spur of its own, receiving its compensation from the connecting road, is liable as a common carrier for the safety of the goods transported, re- gardless of the distance from the place of receipt to that of deliv- ery.^' But a corporation which, being under no legal obligation to do so, voluntarily contracts to switch cars over its tracks, be- tween two or more railways, for which service it collects a certain switching charge for switching the cars, loaded or empty, but charges no traffic rates on the freight transported or transferred in the cars in the performance of such service, assumes none of the responsibilities of a common carrier, but only those of a switch- masn.*^ § 44. Telegraph messenger companies. — A company which furnishes messengers to any who may desire them is a common carrier, and is liable as such for any property which is intrusted to its messengers to deliver.^' A telegraph messenger company, 21. Peoria, etc., R. Co. v. United Louisville & N. R. Co., 37 Fed. 567, States Rolling-stock Co., 28 111. App. 2 L. R. A. 289, 2 Inters. Com. R. 351. 79. 25. Sandford v. American District 22. Peoria, etc., R. Co. v. Chicago, Tel. Co., 6 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 534, etc., R. Co., 109 111. 135, 18 Am. & 58 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 16, 27 N. t. Eng. R. Cas. 506, 50 Am. Rep. 605. Supp. 142, 31 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) See also § 14 ante. 147; 13 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 88, 34 23. Missouri Pao. R. Co. v. Wich- N. Y. Supp. 144. ita, etc.. Grocery Co., 55 Kans. 225, Where a messenger of such a com- 40 Pac. 899. pany was called by a customer of a 24. Kentucky & 1. Bridge Co. v. bank by means of a call-box fur- Common Caeeiebs. 8T whose business includes tlie delivery 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 messenger's disregard of the instructions given to him.^^ As to messages sent by companies nished by the company to the bank (but not under such circumstances as would indicate that the box was for the exclusive use of the bank), and a messenger answered such summons and undertook to perform the duty required of him by the caller in ac- cordance with the company's instruc- tions, without first returning to the company's office, it was held that such messenger was the agent of the com- pany, and that it was bound by his acts. It was also held that in such a case, the fact that the company had a contract with the bank limiting the amount of its liability does not afifect the rights of a, third person using the bank's call-box, where his dealings with the company were not had with reference to such contract. Id. Liable for damages irhere horse in charge of messenger Tan airay. — ^The 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 cut who took charge of the horses, but owing to his negligence or in- ■competence, the horses ran away while he was driving them, and in» jured themselves and the vehicle. In an action to recover damages there- for, it was held that the company was liable for the damages thus oc- casioned, and that the plaintiffs, al- though 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. Eep. 479, 35 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 91. See also Newton v. Pope, 1 Cow. (N. Y.) 109, holding that one hired to drive horses, in whose Hands they are injured, is only responsible for negligence, unskillfulness, or willful misconduct; the burden of proving which is on the hirer; Barker v. De- ment, 9 Gill (Md.), 13, 52 Am. Dec. 670; Brind v. Dale, 2 M. & Rob. 80, 8 C. & P. 207, 34 E. C. L. 355; Searle v. Laverick, L. E. 9 Q. B. 122. 26. Feiber v. Manhattan Dist. Tel. Co., 3 2Sr. Y. Supp. 116, 20 St. Eep. (N. Y.) 95, 22 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 121, affg. 21 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 11. But see Haskell v. Boston Dis- trict Messenger Co. (Mass.), 76 N. E. 215. Where, however, a messenger was directed by one summoning him to deliver a parcel of clothes to one D., and get a certain sum, or bring back the clothing, and the messenger brought back a part of the clothing and a letter stating that the part re- turned did not fit, together with a check to pay for the part that was kept, all of which the employer re- fused to accept, it was held that the company could not be held as for a conversion of the whole parcel in- trusted to its messenger's care; and in the absence of evidence that the employer sustained any loss from the disregard of his instructions, the company could not be held for any loss. Id. In this case the trial jus- tice stated that in his view the con- trolling question in the case was. Is or is not the defendant a common carrier, and held that the defendant iiSii..,; 88 The La.w of Caeeiees. of this kind, they are under the same liability as telegraph com- panies, and are responsible, not as common carriers, but only for such losses as result from their negligence, or the negligence of their servants." § 45. An irrigation company — An irrigation company which appropriates the water of a public stream, and supplies the same, under contracts, to landowners who 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 suck has the right to sell, transfer and deliver it; and such right can only be defeated by a subsequent failure to 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 plant- ing season, is not liable for damages resulting from an insufficient supply, where such insuflSciency is attributable to the inadequacy of the fall of rain, from which source the canal is supplied. ^^ A water company, being a public service corporation, and engaged in supplying for domestic, irrigating, and other purposes water appropriated under the laws of California, 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 was not responsible as a common car- tiff, confident of success on the point rier for the messenger's disregard of of law, failed to offer proof of the the sender's instructions, unless it damages sustained, and the case was knew of them before he went on the decided against him, it was held that business. The appellate court, on a new trial was properly refused, and the authority of Tooker v. Gormer, 2 the motion for a reargument was de- Hilt. (N. Y.) 71, affirmed the judg- nied. 4 N. Y. Supp. 555, 23 St. Eep. ment for the defendant on the ground (N. Y.) 57. that it matters not whether the de- 27. See Telegraph Companies, § fendant be a common carrier or not, 36, tmte. White v. Postal Telegraph it is bound to obey the instructions & Cable Co., 33 Wash. L. Rep. 295. of its employer respecting the deliv- 28. Wyatt v. Larimer & W. Irrig. ery of the packages that it under- Co., 1 Colo. App. 480, 29 Pao. 906. takes to carry. 29. Landers v. Garland Canal Co., Upon an application for reargu- 52 La. Ann. 1465, 27 So. 727. Ses ment on the ground that the trial also Carr v. Miller-Morris Canal, justice having stated that the ques- Irrig., etc., Co., 105 La. 239, 29 So. tion of law above referred to wa'i 715. Compare Can?.! Co. v. Jenkins, controlling in the cti-f, and, [ilaii.- 1 Colo. Ayi-p. ■■ii:-. lO Tac. :jSl. Common Caeeiees. 89 should be entitled "to only such, water as can be supplied . . . after the full supply shall have been, furnished to all cities and towns" dependent on the company for water, and the company "shall not be responsible for any deficiency of water occasioned by any of the above causes." It was held that the consumer was subject, in time of drought, to an apportionment of water among, all consumers, and he was not entitled 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 ex- cept by authority of, and in the manner 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 irri- gation company appropriating 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 county commissioners; under the statute, on the ground that, as applied to its other con- sumers, they will not yield a reasonable return on its investment, but will amount to a taking of its property without compensation. In determining the reasonableness of such rates, they must be considered as applicable to all its consumers.'^ § 46. Transfer companies. — Transfer companies engaged in the business of transferring baggage or freight to and from rail- road or steamship depots, or between 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 30. Souther v. San Diego Flume qualified by express contract or gen- Co., 121 Fed. 347, 57 C. C. A. 561, era! notice, the onus of proving th^ affg. San Diego Flume Co. v. S-outher, qualification being on the party set- 112 Fed. 228. ting it up. Proof of general notice 31. Boise City Irrig., etc., Co. f. of limitation of liability must be such Clark, 131 Fed. 415. as amounts to actual notice. Em- 32. DaPonte v. New Orleans blazoning the general object on a Transfer Co., 42 La. Ann. 696, 7 So. check, ticket, or notice, in large let- 608; Richards v. Westcott, 2 Bosw. ters, but stating the restrictions in (N. Y.) 589; Vemer v. Sweitzer, 32 small ones, is insufficient. But the Pa. St. 208. The liability as a com- effect of such notice is no more than mon carrier may be implied by the to render the bailees private carriers euatom of the carrier, but may be for hire. Verner v. Sweitzer, supra. 90 The Law of Caeeibes. transferring freight from one connecting line to another, or from the depot of the last of several connecting carriers to the con- signee, is not "a connecting carrier," but merely the agent of one of the connecting lines, or of the consignee.'^ § 47. 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 controlled 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 elevator 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 stor- age.^' Statutes regulating the fees for elevating, storing, and discharging grain by elevators and establishing the maximum charges which may be imposed, are not inconsistent with the con- stitution 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.'" 33. Nanson v. Jacob, 12 Mo. App. cago, etc., K. Oo. v. Iowa, 94 U. S. 125, affd. 93 Mo. 331, 32 Am. & Eng. 155. R. Cas. 553. Tbe leglslatnre cam flx a 34. Budd V. New York, 143 U. S. maximnm beyond which any charge 517, 36 L. Ed. 247, 45 Alb. J. L. 354, would be unreasonable for the use of 36 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 31, 12 property in which the public has an Sup. Ct. Kep. 468, 5 Am. Ry. & Corp. interest, but cannot compel the doing Rep. 610. of services without reward. Budd v. 35. Brass v. North Dakota, 153 U. New York, 143 U. S. 517, 36 L. Ed. S. 391, 38 L. Ed. 757, 14 Sup. Ct. 247, 45 Alb. L. J. 354, 36 Am. & Eng. Rep. 857. Corp. Cas. 31, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 468, 36. Budd V. New York, supra; 5 Am. Ry. St, Corp. Rep. 610. Munn V. Ulinois, 94 U. S. 113; Chi- - CHAPTER III. Caeeiees of Goods. — Duties and Liabilities. Section 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 carrier may select mode of transportation. 8. Facilities for transportation. 9. Special contracts for means of transportation. 10. Duty to furnish facilities declared by statute. 11. Must furnish suitable and safe cars. 12. Tender of goods by shipper. ' 13. Illegal purpose of shipper as a defense. 14. Proximate cause of loss or injury. 15. Discrimination in charges or facilities. 16. The rule does not require the same rates and facilities for all. 17. The compensation of the carrier. 18. Excessive charges and actions therefor. § 1. Carriers of goods. — Carriers of goods are common car- riers* whose rights, duties, obligations, and liabilities in l!he trans- portation of property delivered to them for carriage will be the subject of consideration in this and the foUowirtg chapters under this general heading or subdivision. As here used, the term, car- riers of goods, includes all common carriers, except carriers of passengers and carriers of live stock. The rules and principles applicable to carriers of goods anid 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 carriers of live stock so as to relieve them from liability for losses resulting from the inherent nature of the property carried, are treated without distinction in this connec- tion. The essentials wherein the difference in liability consists will be set forth under the heading or subdivision. Carriers of Live Stock.^ 1. See the title Common Carriers. 2. See the title Carriers of Live Stock. (91) 92 The Law of Caeeiees. § 2. Duty of carrier to receive and carry. — ^It is the duty of a common, carrier, on being tendered a reasonable compensation to receive and carry all goods offered to it for transportation •within the line of its business.' Having room or the facilities for 3. N. r.— Cole V. Goodwin, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 251; Fish v. Clark, 2 Lans. (N. Y.) 176. U. 8. — ^New Jersey Steam Nav. Co. V. Merchants' Bank, 6 How. (U. S.) 344; Southern Express Co. v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 5 Myers Fed. Dec. § 1511. CoJ.— Pfister V. Ct«tr«l P. E. Co., 70 Cal. 169, 59 Am. Eep. 404. Conn. — Merriam v. Hartford, etc., R. Co., 20 Conn. 354, 52 Am. Dec. 344. Ga. — Atlanta, etc., R. Co. v. Hol- combe, 76 Ga. 590. Ey. — 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. III. — iPeoria, etc., R. Co. v. Chi- cago, etc., R. Co., 109 111. 135, 50 Am. Eep. 605, 18 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 506; Galena E. Co. v. Eae, 18 Hi'. 488. Ind. — ^Louisville, etc., E. Co., v. Flanagan, 113 Ind. 488, 3 Am. St. Eep. 674, 32 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 532. Iowa. — Cobb v. Illinois Cent. E. Co., 38 Iowa, 601. Me. — New England Express Co. v. Maine Cent. E. E. Co., 57 Me. 188. Mec. 510; Doty V. Strong, 1 Pin. (Wis.) 313, 40 Am. Dec. 773; Fleming v. Mills, 5 Mich. 420. A receipt implies an agree- ment to carry. — A receipt for goods in the grdinary form implies an agreement to transport them to their destination if it is on the car- rier's line. Landes v. Pacific E. Co., 50 Mo. 346, 3 Am. Ey. Eep. 288. 5. Cumberland Teleph. &Teleg. Co. V. Morgan's L. & T. E. Co., 51 La. Ann. 29, 13 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. N. S. 71, 24 So. 803. 6. Great Western E. Co. v. Burns, 60 111. 284, 12 Am. Ey. Eep. 309; MoDuffee v. Portland, etc., E. Co., 52 N. H. 430, 13 Am. Eep. 72, 2 Am. Ey. Eep. 261. 94 The Law of Caebiees. adoption of any rules or regulations ; all rules and regulations of the carrier must be reasonable 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 the contract to safely convey them.' When the contract for 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 carrier is liable as an insurer for whatever damages may be the proximate consequence of any unreasonable delay in shipment.^" The wrongful refusal or failure of the car- rier to transport the goods must be shown to have been tiie proxi- mate 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 ■" Kecovery may be had where other causes contributed cause. in producing the loss or injury, if the refusal or failure to trans^ port was lihe proximate cause." The rule of the common law that 7. Garton 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; Southern Express Co. v. Moon, 39 Miss. 822; Alsop v. Southern Ex- press Co., 104 N. C. 278 ; Three Hun- dred, etc.. Tons of Coal, 14 Blatchf. (U. S.) 453. 8. McCaulejr v. Davidson, 10 Minn. 418. 9. Pennsylvania Co. v. Clark, 2 Ind. App. 146. Dnty to forward promptly. — Stedman 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. 576; Palmer v. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 101 Cal. 187; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Heath, 41 Ark. 477, 18 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 557; Thomas v. Wa- bash, etc., R. Co., 63 Fed. Rep. 200; Missouri Fac. 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. Ri'chmond, etc., R. Co., 108 N. C. 414; International, etc., R. Co. t. Ritchie (Tex. Civ. App.), 26 S. W. 840; Berje v. Texas, etc., E. Co., 37 La. Ann. 468; Louisville, etc., R. C!o. 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. Ned, 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. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 19 Fed. Hep. 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; Eernsheim v. Newport News, etc., Co. (Ky.), 36 S. W. 1115; St. Clair Caeeiees — Duties and Liabilities. 95 a person who holds himself 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.^' § 3. Must haul cars and freight of other carriers ^Railroad companies, invested with important powers and franchises by the State, become to a certain extent public agents, and in the exer- cise of their calling, they are held to strict performance of the public duties enjoined upon them as a consideration for the rights and powers thus granted." Th^ are thus bound to transport or haul upon their roads the cars and freight of any other railroad company, when requested so to d;o, and hold the same relation as a common carrier to such cars and freight that they do to ordi- nary 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 some states, railroad companies are required by statute to receive and haul the V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 80 Iowa, 304; Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Morton, 61 Ind. 539; Ruppel v. Alleghany Val- ley R. Co., 167 Pa. St. 166. 13. Gordon v. Hutchinson, 1 W. & S. (Pa.) 285, 37 Am. Dec. 464; Pitts- burgh, etc. R. Co. V. Morton, 61 Ind. 639, 28 Am. Rep. 682. 14. 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; Messenger v. Pennsyl- vania R. Co., 37 N. J. L. 531, 18 Am. Rep. 754; Railroad Com'r v. Port- land, etc., R. Co., 63 Me. 269; State V. Railroad Co., 29 Conn. 538; Com'r V. Eastern R. Co., 103 Mass. 258; Sandford v. Catawissa, etc., R. Co., 24 Pa. St. 378; MeDuffee v. Portland & R. R. Co., 52 N. H. 430; Olcott v. Fond du Lac County, 16 Wall. (U.S.) 678; Burlington, etc., R. Co. v. Spear- man, 12 Iowa, 117; Bradley v. New York, etc., R. Co., 21 Conn. 294; Wor- cester V. Western .R. Corp., 4 Mete. (Mass.) 564; Wier v. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., 18 Minn. 155; Rogers lioco- motive, etc.. Works v. Erie R. Co., 20 N. J. Eq. 379; National Docks R. Co. V. Central R. Co., 32 N. J. Eq. 755; Peik V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 94 U. S. "179; Winona, etc., R. Co. v. Blake, 94 U. S. 180. 15. Mallory v. Tioga R. Co., 39 Barb. (N. Y.) 488; Peoria, etc. R. Co. V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 109 111. 135, 50 Am. Rep. 605, 18 Am. & Eng. R, Cas. 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., H. Co. V. Fitehburg 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. Cas. 646; Chicago, ^6 The Law of Caeeiebs. cars and freight of other carriers." Such statutes have been held to be constitutional," and must be complied with, except for just cause, as where the cars are so defectively constructed as to en- danger 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 transpor-tation 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.^' § 4. May be compelled by mandamus. — A railroad corpora- tion is compellable by mandamus to exercise its duties as a com- mon carrier of freight and passengers; and the power so to com- pel 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, whereby it has be- etc., R. Co. V. Burlington, etc., R. Co., tion of the goods. Harrison v. Mid- 34 Fed. Rep. 481, 35 Am. & Eng. R. land R. Co., 62 L. J. Q. B. 225, 68 L. Cas. 650, note. T. 268, 5 R. 445. 16. Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. 19. Oregon Short Line, etc., R. Co. Smithson, 45 Mich. 212, 1 Am. & v. Northern Pao. R. Co., 61 Fed. 160, Eng. R. Cas. 101; Texas, etc., R. Co. affg. 51 Fed. 465, 51 Am. & Eng. E. V. Carlton, 60 Tex. 397, 15 Am. & Cas. 145, wherein it was also held that Eng. R. Cas. 350. a refusal to so transport freight orig- 17. Rae v. Grand Trunk R. Co., inating east of a certain meridian was 14 Fed. Rep. 401, 9 Am. & Eng. R. not an unreasonable discrimination Cas. 470. against another railroad company, or 18. Texas etc., R. Co. v. Carlton, a denial to it of reasonable and 60 Tex. 3»7, 15 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. proper facilities under the Interstate 350. Commerce Act, although it accepts in Not entitled to extra hanllng such cars freight originating west of charge. — A railroad company is not such meridian. McAliater v. Chicago, entitled to demand payment of a etc., R. Co., 74 Mo. 351, 7 Am. & Eng. further charge for hauling the cars, R. Cas. 373. See also Connecting where they are loaded with goods and Carriers, chap. 17. a charge is made for the transporta- Cakeieks — Duties and Liabilities. 9T come the duty of the State to see to it that the franchise so put in trust be faithfully administered by the trustee.^" A mandatory injunction will issue to compel a railroad company to perform its duty to the public of hauling the cars of another company.^' If the remedy at law is not so plain, adequate, and complete as one obtainable in equity, in the case of a continuing trespass, the party may prevent the injury by injunction, rather than wait until it is done and then look for his damages in a court of law.^^ Eefusal 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 other, if it hauls the cars;*' nor by the fact that its skilled freight-handlers have refused to work for the wages theretofore 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 transport property, is an action at law for damages, the measure of which 20. People v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 28 Him (K. Y.) 543, 3 Civ. Pro. Rep. (N. Y.) 11, 9 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 1, 2 McCarthy (N. Y.) 345; Abbott V. Johnstown, etc., H. R. Co., 80 N. Y. 31, 36 Am. Eep. 572; Union Pac. R. Co. V. Hall, 91 U. S. 343; People V. Colorado Cent. R. Co., 42 Fed. Rep. 638, 45 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 599; Railroad Com'ra v. Portland, etc., E. Co., 63 Me. 269, 18 Am. Rep. 208; State v. Hartford, etc., R. Co., 29 Conn. 538; Ex parte Atty-Gen., 17 N. B. (Can.) 667. Although it has no schedule of prices for certain goods, a rail- road company may be compelled to transport as a common carrier such goods, for instance, telegraph poles, wires, and cross-arms, leaving it free to charge for its services upon a quantum meruit. 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. Although the shipper could recover damages for failure to re- ceive and ship the goods, the com- 7 pany may be compelled to transport the freight offered for shipment, as the shipper is entitled to the trans- portation of his freight and not the payment of money, and the latter would not furnish an adequate rem- edy. Id. 21. Chicago, etc., Ry Co. v. Bur- lington, etc., Ry. Co., 34 Fed. Rep. 481, 35 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 650. 22. 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. Eep. 35; Baltimore, etc., E. Co. v. Pemi- sylvania E. Co,, 18 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 511. 23. Chicago, etc., Ey. Co. v. Bur- lington, etc., Ey. Co., 34 Fed. Eep. 481, 35 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 650. 24. People v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 28 Hun (N. Y.), 543, 3 Civ. Pro. Rep. (N. Y.) 11, 9 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 1, rev'g 63 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 291. 98 The Law of Cakeiers. is the difference between the value thereof at the place where it was tendered to be transported, and its value at the place of des- tination, less the expenses of carriage.^' § 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 sudi 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 it has never assumed or offered to carry chattels of a certain class, except upon special terms exempting it from all the important duties and liabilities of a common carrier, it cannot be made amenable in the character of a common carrier as to such prop- 25. People v. New York, etc., R. Co., 22 Hun (N. Y.), 533. 26. Pfister v. Central Pae. R. Co., 70 Cal. 169, 59 Am. Rep. 404, 27 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 246, holding that money to the amount of $90,000 is not "luggage," which a railroad company is compelled to carry with or for a passenger, and that the com- pany may insist that the money shall go via an express company, for which, under a special contract, the railroad company furnishes facilities. The court, in that ease, said: "That class of carriers known as 'transfer companies,' engaged in receiving and transferring the baggage of passen- gers to and from public conveyances by land and water, are under no ob- ligation to accept and carry ordi- nary merchandise. A parcel delivery express company need not receive and deliver hay, lumber, or other articles too bulky, heavy, or otherwise incon- venient to handle and transfer by its usual facilities. In other words, the duty of the carrier is confined, as is provided by our Code, to accepting and carrying property of a kind that he 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 obliga- tion to carrying from one place to another, as from Manchester to Lon- don, and then he would not be bound to carry to and from intermediate points. Still, until he retracts, every individual (provided he tenders the money at the time and there is room in the conveyance) 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. Cas. 61, 1 Ry & C. T. Cas. 16. Carrier may restrict or limit its traffic. — If a railroad company does not hold itself out as a common carrier of coal, it is not obliged to carry coal from station to station or for coal merchants, and may restrict its coal trafSc to the carriage of coal for collier owners, from the pit's mouth to stations 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, Cabeiess — Duties and Liabilities. 99 erty.^' The carrier may determine by public announcement or profession tbe kind of goods it will carry, the conveyances to be used, and the manner and time for transportation, the conditions fixed being such 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.^' 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 depar- ture of a train, reasonably 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.'* It may refuse to accept or carry goods not offered at a proper place or to a proper person, such as at its established office, or reg- ular station or depot, or to its appointed or authorized agent." It 680, 109 E. C. L. 680, 9 W. R. 272, 3 L. T. N. S. 671. See Thomas \. North Staffordshire R. Co., 3 Ry. & C. T. Cas. 1, 21 Sol. Jour. 183. 27. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Per- kins, 25 Mich. 3z\), 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 re- sponsibility of a railroad company which receives live stock for trans- portation, unless limited by special contract, is that of a, common car- rier. Kansas Pae. R. Co. v. Nichols, 9 Kan. 235. See also cases cited under § 2, chap. 18. 28. Oxlade v. North Eastern R. Co., 1 C. B. N. S. 454, 87 E. 0. L. 454, 15 C. B. N. S. 680, 109 E. C. L. 680, 9 W. R. 272; Garton v. Bristol, etc., R. Co., 28 h. J. C. P. 158, 5 C. B. N. S. 669; Bouker v. Long Island R. Co., 89 Hun (N. Y.), 202, 35 N. Y. Supp. 23, 25. 29. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Colby (Neb.), 96 N. W. 145. 30. Pitlock V. Wells, Fargo & Co., 109 Mass. 452. 31. Pickford v. Grand Junction R. Co., 12 M. & W. 766 ; Lane v. Cotton, 1 Ld. Raym. 652; Story, Bail. § 508. 32. Palmer v. London, etc., R. Co., L. R. 1, C. P. 588; Lane v. Cotton, 1 Ld. Raym. 652; Garten v. Bristol, etc., R. Co., 28 L. J. C. P. 306. 33. Cronkite v. Wells, 32 N. Y. 247; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Flan- agan, 113 Ind. 488, 3 Am. St. Kep. 674, 32 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 532; Kansas City etc., R. Co. v. Lilly (Miss.), 8 So. 644, 45 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 379; Kellogg v. Suffolk, 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. loo The Law of Caeriees. may lawfully refuse to receive goods if they are improperly or defectively packed, insufficiently secured or addressed, in a dam- aged state, or otherwise not properly prepared for shipment, or in an unfit 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, nitro-glycerine, vitriol, etc. f^ or goods which the law prohibits it from carrying, such as intoxicating liquors.'^ It has a 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 cEar- act'er; but, in the absence of reasonable grounds for suspecting them to be of a dangerous character, it cannot compel the owner or person offering them for shipment to disclose their nature.^ ' 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 a popular outbreak, or capture by hostile military forces, will sufficiently excuse a refusal to receive and carry goods. ^* A road so under military control of the gov- ernment, 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 car- 34. Elgin, etc., Ey. Co. v. Bates explosion of such articles shipped Mach. Co., 98 111. App. 311; Union without notice of their character. Id. Express Co. v. Graham, 26 Ohio St. 36. State v. Goss, 59 Vt. 266, 59 695 ; Fitzgerald v. Adams Express Am. Rep. 706, 30 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. Co., 24 Ind. 447, 87 Am. Dec. 341; 118; Milwaukee' Malt Ext. Co. v. Missouri Pac. E. Co. v. Weissman, 2 Chicago, etc., K. Co., 73 Iowa, 98. Tex. Civ. App. 86; Hart v. Baxem- 37. Nitro-glycerine Case, 15 Wall, dale, 16 L. T. N. S. 390, 6 Exch. 769, (U. S.) 524; Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. 16 Jur. 126; Munster v. South East- Irvine, 84 Va. 553, 85 Va. 217, 37 em E. Co., 4 C. B. N. S. 676, 93 E. Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 227. C. L. 676, 27 L. J. C. P. 308. 38. Edwards v. Sherratt, 1 East 35. Nitro-glycerine Case, 15 Wall. 604; Pearson v. Duane, 4 Wall. (U. , (U. S.) 524; Boston, etc., E. Co. v. S.) 605, holding that the master of Shanly, 107 Mass. 568, 12 Am. L. a. vessel would be justified in refusing Eeg. N. S. 500; Farrant v. Barnes, passage to a passenger proceeding to 11 C. B. N. S. 553, 103 E. C. L. 553; a place under a revolutionary gov- Williams V. East India Co., 3 East, ernment, by which Re has been sen- 192; Brass v. Maitland, 6 El. & Bl. tenced to death in ease of his return. 471, 88 E. C. L. 471. The carrier has Compare Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. a right of action against a shipper Schwartz, 13 III. App. 490. for any damage resulting from the 39. Phelps v. Illinois Cent. E. Co., Caebiees — Duties and Liabilities. 101 rier is liable for delay in forwarding goods accepted for shipment, although the road was under military control, the probability of delay on account of blockades on the side traoka and other hin- drances being known to the oflBcers 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 offeired for shipment are perishable, if the carrier has not the means for immediate transportation, ho 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 im- mediate transportation, owing to unexpected accumulation of busi- ness or otherwise, it must receive the goods to be forwarded as soon as its facilities will permit ; and it is excusable only for rea- sonable 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 demanded." The rule, how- ever, may be otherwise, where a different usage, long established, has prevailed.*^ Generally, it may be said that if a common car- rier 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 them and as ac- cepting them in the usual way, and becomes an insurer and sub- ject 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 re- quire prepayment of freight charges from any shipper, at its 94 111. 548; IllinoiB Cent. E. Co. v. 43. See Faeilitiea for transporta- Phelps, 4 111. App. 238. See also tion, § 8, post. Illinois Cent. E. Co. v. Homberger, 77 44. See May demand prepayment 111. 457, where the delivery was held of charges, § 6, post. not to have been completed so as to 45. See May demand prepayment make the company liable. of charges, § 6, post. 40. Illinois Cent. E. Co. v. Cobb, 46. Porcher v. North Eastern E. 64 111. 128. Co., 14 Eich. L. (S. C.) 181; The 41. Illinois Cent. E. Co. v. David & Caroline, 5 Blatchf. (U. S.) Schwartz, 13 111. App. 490. 266; Hannibal, etc., E. Co. v. Swift, 42. Tierney v. New York Cent., 12 Wall. (U. S.) 262; Pickford v. etc., E. Co., 76 N. Y. 305, affg. 10 Grand Junction E. Co., 12 M. & W. Hun (N. Y.), 569, 67 Barb. (N. Y.) 766; Great Northern E. Co. v. Shep- 538. herd, 8 Exch. 30, 14 Eng. L. & Eq. 367. 102 The Law of Careiees. choice, and may lawfully refuse to receive freight from a receiv- ing carrier without such prepayment, although it does not require it from others ; but notice of such requirement should he given to the shipper or receiving carrier.*' Whether a railroad company can excuse a refusal to accept and carry freight on the ground that the charges were not prepaid may depend upon its custom as to collecting charges, which is ordinarily a question for the 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, plaintiff may show the value of the goods, for the purpose of showing that defendant had ample security, 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 neces- s.ary to allege that a compensation was paid, or agreed to be paid, for carrying the goods f an averment that the plaintiff was ready and willing to pay is sufficient ;^^ 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 plain- tiff need not aver a tender of freight charges.^' In order to main- tain 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 car- rier for freight charges relieves the consignee of the necesssity of tendering any sum for such charges before bringing suit'^ A railroad employe does not waive prepayment of freight charges 47. Randall v. Richmond & D. R. Co., 89 Hun (N. Y.), 377, 35 N. Y. Co., 108 N. C. 612, 13 S. E. 137, 49 Supp. 305. Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 75; Missouri 50. Hall v. Cheney, 36 N. H. 26. Pac. R. Co. V. Weissman, 2 Tex. Civ. 51. Pickford v. Grand Junction R. App. 86; Fitch v. Newberry, 1 Doug. Co., 8 M. & W. 372, 5 Jur. 731, 2 (Mich.) 1, 40 Am. Dec. 33; Batson Ey. Cas. 592. V. Donovan, 4 B. & Aid. 28, 6 E. C. L. 52. Bristol v. Rensselaer, etc., R. 376; Barnes v. Marshall, 18 Q. B. Co., 9 Barb. (N. Y.) 158. 785, 83 E. C. L. 785; Wyld v. Pick- 53. Central, etc., R. Co. v. Morris, ford, 8 M. & W. 443 ; Bastard v. 68 Tex. 49, 28 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 50. Bastard, 2 Show. 81. 54. Galena, etc., R. Co. v. Rae, IS 48. Reed v. Philadelphia, etc., E. 111. 488, 68 Am. Dec. 574; Pickford Co., 3 Houst. fDel.) 176. v. Grand Junction R. Co., supra. 49. Leach v. New York, etc., R. 55. Moran Bros. Co. v. Northern P. R. Co., 19 Wash. 266, 53 Pac. 49. Cakriees — Duties and Liabilities. 103 before delivery of the cars by responding "all right" to a state- ment by the consignee that he would give a disposal order for the cars and would send the amount of the freight whenever he got the expense notices and knew the amount. ^^ Failure to tender or pay freight charges, where they are not demanded, will not pre- vent a recovery for failure to provide a car for shipment 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 prepaid.^ And where a carrier has informed the owner that good's 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.'" § 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 carrying it, and cannot rely, in avoidance of its liability, on misrepresenta- tions, unless they relate to matters not apparent to observation." A railroad company may carry on a platform car a box so large that it caimot be got into a box ear, due precaution being taken to keep it from getting wet.'^ In the absence of an express contract, it is the duty of the carrier to transport goods received for trans- portation by the usual or customary routei; and for any loss caused by a departure from such route, it is liable.*' When there are two customary or usual routes, as, for example, one an inside 56. McEaehran v. Grand Trunk vania E. Co., 27 N. J. L. (3 Dutch.) E. Co., 115 Mich. 318, 73 N. W. 231, 100. 4 Det. L. N. 879. 62. Burwell v. Ealeigh, etc., R. 57. Cleveland, etc., E. Co. v. Peri- Co., 94 N. C. 451, 25 Am. & Eng. R. show, 61 111. App. 179. Cas. 410. 58. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Flan- 63. Merchants' Despatch Transp. nagan, 23 111. App. 489. Co. v. Kahn, 76 111. 520, where the 59. Campion v. Canadian I'ac. E. company was held liable for the loss Co., 43 Fed. Rep. 775. of goods by fire while being trans- 60. Barnes v. Marshall, 18 Q. B. ported by another route than the 785, 83 E. C. L. 785, 21 L. J. Q. B. most usual and direct one; Express 388. Co. V. Kountze, 8 Wall. (U. S.) 342, 61. New Jersey E. Co. v. Pennsyl- where the company selected the most 104 The Law of Caeeiees. or canal route, the other an outside or ocean route, the carrier may choose the route, without incurring increased liability." But the carrier is liable for a loss of goods proved to have been occasioned by a want of due care, or by disobedience to instructions, notwith- standing exceptions in the bill of lading or receipt*' Where the contract gives the carrier an option between two modes of trans- portation, 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. 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, applying this rule, it has been held that press of business would excuse failure to carry goods in ordi- nary 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 companies, which perform under their hazardous route of two; Crosby v. Fitch, 12 Conn. 410; Smith v. Whit- man, 13 Mo. 352; Powers v. Daven- port, 7 Blaekf. (Ind.) 497; Hand nn. 166; Green v. Milwaukee, etc., Transp. Co., 33 Conn. 166 (the etc., R. Co., 38 Iowa 100, 41 Iowa last two cases involved delivery as 410; Evansville, etc., R. Co. v. between connecting carriers). Keith, 8 Ind. App. 57. 33. Pittsburgh, etc., E. Co. v. Bar- Si. Galena, etc., R. Co. v. Rae, 18 rett, 36 Ohio St. 448, 3 Am. & Eng. in. 488, 68 Am. Dec. 574. But usage R. Cas. 259; Grosvenor v. New York or custom may be limited, and a cus- Cent. R. Co., 39 N. Y. 34; Gleason tom as to the delivery of a trunk as v. Goodrich Transp. Co., 32 Wis. 83, baggage will not extend to its deliv- 14 Am. Rep. 716; Ford v. Mitchell, ery as freight. Wright v. Caldwell, 21 Ind. 54; Trowbridge v. Chapin, 23 3 Mich. 51. Conn. 595. 32. Grosvenor v. New York Cent. Commencement of Caejube's Liability. 139 § 5. Delivery to agent of carrier. — A delivery of goods for shipment to an agent of the carrier or a person duly authorized to act in its behalf,'* or who is clothed with apparent authority and has been accustomed to receive goods tendered for transpQrtation/' is a sufficient delivery to bind the carrier and render it liable as a common carrier. A delivery may also be sufficient when made to an employe in pursuance of some special contract or usage.'' But a delivery to a person working around the freight house of a railroad company f to the driver of a stage coach who promised to deliver it to the next stage agent '^ to the ticket master of a pas^ senger train who had no authority to receive freight ;'' to a wag- oner to carry for his own gain, and not for the profit of his mas- 34. Grosvenor v. New York Cent. E. Co., 39 N. Y. 3~4; Rogers v. Wheel- er, 52 N. Y. 262, 4 Am. Ey. Eep. 411; Nkhols V. Smith, 115 Mass. 332; Cobb V. Illinois Cent. E. Co., 38 Iowa 601; Harrell v. Wilmington, etc., E. Co., 16a N. C. 258, 42 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 421; Truax v. Philadelphia, etc., E. Co., 3 Houst. (Del.) 233; Minter v. Pacific E. Co., 41 Mo. 508, 97 Am. Dee. 288; Waldron v. Chi- cago, etc., E. Co., 1 Dak. 336; Glea- son V. Goodrich Transp. Co., 32 Wis. 85, 14 Am. Eep. 716; Winkfield v. Packington, 2 C. & P. 599, 12 E. C. L. 281; Giles v. Taff Vale E. Co., 2 El. & Bl. 823, 75 E. C. L. 823. 35. Quarrier v. Baltimore, etc., E. Co., 20 W. Va. 424, 18 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 536 (a porter at a railway station) ; Pickford v. Grand Junction E. Co., 12 M. & W. 766; Wilson v. York, etc., E. Co., 17 L. T. 223 (of- ficials of a railroad company at its station) ; Cobban v. Downe, 5 Esp. N. P. 41 (the mate of a ship) ; Mc- Court V. London, etc., E. Co., 3 Ir. R. C. L. 107; Machu v. London, etc., R. Co., 2 Exch. 415, 17 L. J. Exch. 271 (person accustomed to book for the company) ; Davey v. Mason, 41 E. C. L. 30; Hart v. Baxendale, 6 Exch. 76* (draymen of » railroad company collecting goods and packages at the houses of consignors ) ; Witbeek v. Schuyler, 44 Barb. (N. Y.) 469 (the captain of a steamboat, although there may have been a freight agent of the boat in the same town, where it appears that the consignor did not know of the agent) ; Phillips v. Earle, 8 Pick. (Mass.) 182 (the agent of a, stage company, although the delivery is made to him at a place other than the company's ofiice) ; Pacific Ex- press Co. V. Black, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 363 (a person in charge of the depot of a railroad company, for the ex- press company) ; Coyle v. Western E. Corp., 47 Barb. (N. Y.) 152 (em- ployes of a railroad company, when the receiving clerk is present and directs disposition of the goods ) . 36. Trowbridge v. CHapin, 23 Conn. 595. 37. Young V. Canadian Pac. R. Co., 1 Manitoba L. Rep. 205. See also Butler V. Hudson River E. Co., 3 E. D. Sm. (N. Y.) 571. 38. Blanchard v. Isaacs, 3 Barb. (N. Y.) 388; See also Fisher v. Geddes, 15 La. Ann. 14. 39. Elkins v. Boston, etc., E. Co., 23 N. H. 275. See also Porter t. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 41 Iowa 358. 140 The Law of Caeeiees. ter ;" is not a sufiScient delivery to render tbe carrier liable as a common carrier for the loss of the goods. A carrier is liable for the negligence of his servants or agents in taking goods on board his vessel in his absence, although he may have specifically directed them not to receive goods, it appearing that the shipper had no notice of such directions." Where the carrier sends an agent to receive the goods, instructions given to him by the shipper form a part of the contract of affreightment.*^ The carrier is respon- sible for the acts of its agent, where authority is vested in him to act for the carrier, or where the acts are performed within the scope of an apparent authority which the carrier allo\ra him to assume, and it will be bound by a delivery made to him under such circumstances, and notice to such agent is notice to the prin- cipal.*^ The station agent of a railroad company, or the agent of an express company, is presumed to have authority to receive goods offered for transportation when the goods are tendered at the station or office of the company, or regular place for the re- ception of goods for shipment; but where the tender of freaght for shipment is not made at the station or office but at a point re- mote therefrom the authority of the agent must be clearly proved.** So persons dealing with railroad corporations and parties engaged in the transportation of freight have a right to consider that those usually employed in the business of receiving and forwarding it have ample authority to deal with them. It is enough to establish a delivery in the first instance, to prove that a person thus acting 40. Butler v. Basing, 2 C. & P. 508, 97 Am. Dec. 288; Ouimit v. 613, 12 E. C. L. 287. See also Will- Henshaw, 35 Vt. 605, 84 Am. Dec. iams V. Cranston, 2 Stark, 82, 3 E. 646; Gelvin v. Kansas CSty, etc., E. C. L. 326. Co., 21 Mo. App. 273. 41. Street v. Morrison, 10 New 44. Cronkite v. Wells, 32 N. Y. Bruns. 296. 247, a delivery to the clerk of an 42. Uptegrove v. Central E. Co., 16 express company's agent for trans- Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 14, 37 N. Y. Supp. portation, outside the agent's office, 659. -Hrill not render the company liable for 43. Bogers v. Long Island R. Co., loss of the goods before they come 2 Lans. (N. Y.) 269, aflFd. 56 N. Y. into the actual possession of its d20; Witbeck v. Schuyler, 44 Barb, agent; Missouri Coal, etc., Co. v. (N. Y.) 469; Harrell v. Wilmington, Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 35 Mo. 84; etc., R. Co., 160 N. C. 258, 42 Am. Dwight v. Brewster, 1 Pick. (Mass.) & Bng. R. Caa. 417; Montgomery, 50, 11 Am. Dee. 133; Southern Ex- etc., R. Co. V. Kolb, 73 Ala. 396, 40 press Co. v. Newby, 36 Ga. 635, 91 Am. Rep. 54, 18 Am. & Eng. R. Caa. Am. Dec. 783. 518; Minter v. Pacific R. Co., 41 Mo. Commencement of Caeeieb's Liability. 141 received and accepted the property for the purpose of transporta- tion, and even though it subsequently appears that another em- ploye was actually the agent having charge of thia 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.*' § 6. Bill of lading not essential to constitute delivery. — Under the common law the obligation to safely carry and deliver goods received for transportation is implied from the acceptance of the goods by the carrier for that purpose, without any written con- tract 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 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 evidence to the con- trary, it is to be assumed that goods accepted by a carrier for transportation are taken under the responsibility 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 accept- 45. Grosvenor v. New York Cent, carriers to give receipts and bills of E. Co., 39 N. Y. 34. lading for goods; Illinois Cent. R. Co. 46. Grosvenor v. New York Cent. v. Smyser, 38 111. 354, 87 Am. Deo. R. Co., 39 N. Y. 34, 5 Abb. Pr. N. 301; Toledo, etc., E. Co. v. Gilvin, S. (N. Y.) 345; Salinger V. Simmons, 81 111. Slf; Louisville, etc., R. Co., 57 Barb. (N. Y.) 513, 8 Abb. Pr. N. v. MeGuire, 79 Ala. 395, and the car- S. (N. Y.) 409; Packard v. Getman, rier's receipt of the goods may be 6 Cow. (N. Y.) 757, 16 Am. Dec. 475; proven without the production of the SHelton v. Merchant's Despatch bill of lading or accounting for its Transp. Co., 36 N. Y. Super. Ct. absence; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Comp- 527; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Neel, 56 ton, (Tex. Civ. App.) 38 S. W. 220. Ark. 279, 55 Am. & Eng. R. Gas. 47. Evansville, etc., R. Co. v. 428 ; Montgomery, etc., R. Co. v. Kolb, Kevekordes, ( Ind. App. ) 69 N. ^. 73 Ala. 396, 49 Am. Rep. 54, 18 Am. 1022. & Eng. E. Cas. 512, and the rule pre- 48. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. vails even where there is a statute Northern Pac. R. Co., 120 Fed. 873 making it compulsory on common 57 C. C. A. 533. 142 The Law of Caeeiees. ance 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 customary course of business and expressing the intentions or engagementa of the parties, or whem 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 the liability from commencing from the time of the delivery of the goods.^^ § 7. Bill of lading as an evidence of delivery. — The issuance of a bill of lading is prima facie evidence of a delivery to the carrier, when issued by its agent having actual or apparent au- thority to issue it, except where there is an express understanding that the carrier shall not be liable until actual delivery is made.''' But 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 49. Park v. Preston, 108 N. Y. 491; Martin v. Fort Worth, etc., R. 434, 15 N. E. 705; Cragin v. New Co., 3 Tex. Civ. App. 556. Contra: York Cent. R. Co., 51 N. Y. 63, 10 Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Douglass, 2 Am. Rep. 559; Rubens v. Ludgat« Tex. Civ. App. Cas., 27, 16 Am. & Hill Steamship Co., 20 N. Y. Supp. Eng. R. Cas. 98 ; Texas, etc., R. Co. f. 481; Aiken v. Chicago, etc., R. Co.. Wheat, 2 Tex. Civ. App. Cas., § 164. 68 Iowa 363, 25 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. As to statute compelling carrier to 377; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Neel, issue bill of lading describing the 56 Ark. 279, 55 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. goods, see Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Cute- 428; Meloche v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., man, (Tex. App.) 14 S. W. 1069; 116 Mich. 69, 74 N. W. 301, 10 Am. Schloss v. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 85 &. Eng. R. Cas. N. S. 182. Tex. 601. 50. Shelton v. Merchants' Dis- 52. Burwell v. Raleigh, etc., R. Co., patch Transp. Co., 59 N. Y. 258, revg. 94 N. C. 451, 25 Am. & Eng. K. 36 N. Y. Super. 527; Mills v. Mich- Cas. 4 10; Capehart v. Granite Mills, igan Cent. R. Co., 45 N. Y. 622, 6 Am. 97 Ala. 353. ^^P- 152. 53. Martin v. St. Louis, etc, R. 51. East Line, etc., R. Co. v. Hall, Co., 65 Ark. 510, 56 Am. & Eng. E. 64 Tex. 620; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Cas. 112, so held, although the isau- Trawiek, 80 Tex. 270; International, ing of bills of lading except for good* etc., R. Co. V. Dimmit County Pas- actually in the possession of the car- ture Co., 5 Tex. Civ. App. 186; Texas rier was forbidden by statute; St. Pac. R. Co. v. Nicholson, 61 Tex. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Commercial Commencement op O'aeeieb's Liability. 143 and a contract of carriage. As proof of the actual taking of pos- session 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 showing that the goods actually delivered were different from those stated in the bill of lading.^' When actual delivery has not been made to the carrier, but the goods remain in the possession of the shipper or his agent, although a bill of lading has been issued and has passed into the 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 actu- ally delivered to the carrier. A delivery at the point of shipment, to a car not under the control or in possession of the carrier issu- ing 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 circum- stances is void and a transfer of it passes no title to the goods." § 8. Loading goods on cars. — It is the duty, generally, of a railroad company to load the freight delivered to it for transporta- tion into its cars, and it cannot, generally, devolve this duty by any regulation upon the shipper ; it cannot legally, as a condition of transportation generally, exact from the shipper a contract to place the freight into its cars.^^ Where, by the contract of carri- age, the shipper undertakes tO' load the freight into the cars, or vessel, this does not constitute such an interference by the shipper Union Ins. Co. 139 U. S. 223, 49 55. Southern Ey. Co. v. Allison, Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 137; California 115 Ga. 635, 42 S. E. 13. Ins. Co. V. Union Compress Co., 133 56. Missouri Pac. E. Co. v. Mo- U. S. 387; St. Louis, etc., E. Co. v. Fadden, 154 U. S. 155, 61 Am. & Knight, 122 U. S. 79, 30 Am. & Eng. Eng. R. Cas. 163. Compare Otis Co. E. Cas. 88; Marine Ins. Co. v. St. v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 112 Mo. 622, Louis, etc., R. Co., 41 Fed. 643, 43, Am. 55 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 636. See & Eng. E. Cas, 79. But see Deming v. also The Lady Franklin, 8 Wall. (U. Merchants' Cotton-Press, etc., Co., 90 S.) 325; Hubbersty v. Ward, 8 Exch. Tenn. 306; Otis Co. v. Missouri Pac. 330; Grant v. Norway, 10 C. B. 665, R. Co., 112 Mo. 622, 55 Am. & Eng. 70 E. C. L. 665. E. Cas. 636. 57. Martin v. St. Louis, etc., E. 54. Cunard S. S. Co. v. Kelley, (U. Co., 65 Ark. 510, 56 Am. & Eng. E. S. C. C. A. Mass.) 115 Fed. 678. Cas. 112; Aetna Nat. Bank v. Water Power Co., 58 Mo. App. 532. 144 The Law of Caeeiees. ■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 remains to be done by the sbipper.^' The carrier is re- sponsible for an injury to the goods occurring while they are being loaded into the cars, where the shipper has not undertaken or con- tracted to load them for himself.*' A shipper who, to save charges or for his own convenience, or any other reason, loads the property himself is not the agent of the carrier in so doing and the latter it not responsible for his negligence in loading the car." 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, even where it is the shipper's duty to load them.'^ § 9. 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 estab- lish the liability of the carrier is proof of the delivery of the goods to the carrier and the acceptance thereof by the carrier for 58. Iiondon, etc., Fire Ins. Co. v. Rome, etc., R. Co., 144 N. Y. 200, 61 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 225, afifg. 68 Hun. (N. Y.) 598; Doan v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 38 Mo. App. 408; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Martin, (Tex. Civ. App.) 35 S. W. 28. 59. London, etc.. Fire Ins. Co. v. Rome, etc., R. Co., supra; Fitchburg, etc., R. Co. V. Hanna, 6 Gray (Mass.) 541, 66 Am. Dee. 427 ; Merritt v. Old Colony, etc., R. Co., 11 Allen (Mass.) 82 ; Bulkley v. Naumkeag Steam Cot- ton Co., 24 How. (U. S.) 386; The Bark Edwin, 1 Sprague (U. S.) 477; The Oregon, Deady (U. S.) 179; Grant v. Norway, 2 Eng. L. & Eq. 337, 10 C. B. 665, 70 E. C. L. 665, 15 Jur. 296; Greenwood v. Cooper, 10 La. Ann. 796. THe carrier's liability is not neces- sarily affected by the fact that the shipper loaded his own goods. Han- nibal, etc., R. Co. v. Swift, 12 Wall. (U. S.) 262. The shipper is not entitled to re- cover of the carrier the cost of em- ploying hands for the purpose of load- ing goods for transportation, where it is the custom for the shipper to furnish the hands for such purpose and the custom has been acquiesced in. Reed v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 3 Houst. (Del.) 176. 60. Merritt v. Old Colony, etc., R. Co., 11 Allen (Mass.) Si; Gilbert v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 4 Hun. (N. Y.) 378, 6 Thomp. & C. (N. Y.) 662; Whitman v. Western Counties R. Co., 17 Nova Scotia 405; Thomas V. Day, 4 Esp. N. P. 262. 61. Pennsylvania Co. v. Kenwood Bridge Co., 170 111. 645, 49 N. E. 216, 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. N. S. 556, affg. 65 111. App. 145. 62. Kimball v. Western R. Corp., 6 Gray (Mass.) 542. Commencement of Caeeiee's Liability. 145 immediate transportation/^ Such proof is furnished by testi- mony showing the facts necessary to constitute a delivery and ac- ceptance by the carrier, as set forth in preceding sections of this chapter.** As has already been shown, the bill of lading is prinui 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 the goods for transportation is denied by the ■carrier, it is sufficient for the plaintiff to show that the goods were delivered to a person and at a place where goods were accustomed to be left by the carrier, and whether such person was paid any- thing or not is immaterial.'* 63. See § 1, ante. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 85 Tex. 601 ; 64. See §§ 2 to 6, ante. Horseman v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 31 65. See § 7, ante. V. C. Q. B. 535. 66. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Hepner, 67. See Burden of proof, chap. 14. 3 Colo. App. 313; Seller v. Steam- 68. Burrell v. North, 2 C. & K. ship Pacific, 1 Or. 409; Schloss v. 681, 61 E. C. L. 681. 10 CHAPTER V. Tebmination of Liability. — Delivery by CaeeieEt 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. 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 attached 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 delivery. 28. When personal delivery is required. 29. Delivery by carriers by water. 30. Delivery where consignee refuses to receive. 31. Delivery of goods sent 0. O. D. 32. Confusion of goods. 33. Statutory penalties for refusing to deliver promptly. 34. Demand of goods by consignee. 35. Waiver of right of action for wrongful delivery. 36. Eight of carrier to demand receipts upon delivery. % 1. Termination of carrier's liability. — The carrier's under taking is to deliver the goods transported by it in safety aa well (146) Termination of Liability. 147 as to carry safely, and its responsibility cease& 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 de- posit in a reasonably safe warehouse, after the consignee has had reasonable time in which to call for and remove the goods. The carrier's liability cannot end until that of the owner, consignee or warehouseman begins.-' The warranty of the carrier as an insurer is broken by non-delivery, and the question of negligence in th& performance of its duty to deliver safely is, therefore, immaterial.* The carrier's liability as a common carrier 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 con- 1. Vaughn v. New York, etc., R. Co., (R. I.) 61 Atl. 695; Schu- macher V. CThicago, etc., Ry. Co., 108 111. App. 520, aifd. 207 111. 199, 69 N. E. 825; DeMott v. Laraway, 14 Wend. (N. Y.) 225, 28 Am. Dec. 523; Georgia Ry. Co. v. Pound, 111 Ga. 6, 36 S. E. 312; Michigan South- ern, etc., R. Co. V. Day, 20 III. 375, 71 Am. Dec. 278; Chicago, etc., R. Co. V. Warren, 16 111. 502, 63 Am. Dec. 317; Stone v. Waitt, 31 Me. 409, 52 Am. Dec. 621; McGregor v. Kilgorc, 6 Ohio 358, 27 Am. Dec. 260; Erskine V. Thames, 6 Miss. 371; Smith v. Nashua, etc., R. Co., 7 Fost. (N. H.) 86; Parker v. Flagg, 26 Me. 181; GrofF V. Bloomer, 9 Pa. St. 114; American Express Co. v. Baldwin, 26 111. 504; South & North Alabama R. V. Wood, 66 Ala. 167, 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 419; 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 ; Wilson Sew. ing M. Co. V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 71 Mo. 203; Bodenham v. Bennett, 4 Price, 31; Duff v. Budd, 3 B. & D. 177 ; Richards T. London, etc., R. Co., 18 L. J. C. P. 251, 7 C. B. 839; The Titania, 124 Fed. 975; Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. V. L. Newburger & Bro., (Kan.) 73 Pac. 57. A subsequent acquiescence by the consignee in a wrong delivery exempts the carrier from liability therefor. O'Dougherty v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 1 Sup. Ct. (N. Y.) 477. There 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. 8. Hall v. BoitoD, etc., E. Co., 12 Allen (Mass.) 439; Forbes y. Bos- ton, etc, R. Co., 131 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. 148 The Law of Oaeeiees. signee 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 account of the owner, if it has made all reasonable effort to effect a delivery and has done all that could be reasonably required of it. If the carrier under such circum- stances store the goods in ita 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 responsibility 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 4. Levy v. Weir, 38 Misc. Eep. ( N. y.) 361, 77 N. Y. Supp. 917; Byrne v. Fargo, 36 Misc. Eep. (N. Y.) 543, 73 N. Y. Supp. 943. See Delivery where consignee refuses to receive, § 30, post. 5. N. T. — ^Fenner v. Buffalo, etc., E. 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, 64 111 303 ; Bartholomew v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 53 111. 227, 5 Am. Eep. 45. Ind. — ^Adams Express Co. t. Dar- nell, 31 Ind. 20, 99 Am. Dec 582. Ohio. — ^Hirsch v. Steamboat Quaker City, 2 Disney (Ohio) 144. Pa. — Cope V. Cordova, 1 Kawle (Pa.) 203. Term. — ^Rankin v. Memphis, etc., Packet Co., 9 Heisk. (Tenn.) 564, 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. Dee. 381. Bnff. — 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. E. 5 Exch. 51, 39 L. J. Exch. 48; Stephenson v. Hart, 4 Bing. 476, 15 E. C. L. 47; Garside v. Trent Nav. Co., 4 T. R. 581. 6. See Notice to consignor, § 11, chap. 9. Teeminatiojst of Liability. 149 ■what constitutes a delivery cannot be regulated or prescribed by any fixed standard but must depend upon the varying circum- stances of each ease.^ In the case of carriers by sea or on inland waters, a delivery on the usual wharf is such a delivery as will discharge the carrier when due and reasonable notice thereof has been given to the consignee ; but the carrier cannot leave or aban- don 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 the possession of the carrier the right of stoppage 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. § 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 convenient for being taken away by the consignee, such as the platform or warehouse of the company, or a storehouse from which the consignee may obtain them upon demand, although the carrier does not notify the con- signee of the arrival of the goods, constitutes a delivery and the carrier's liability as an insurer ceases, in the absence of any spe- cial circumstances or agreement affecting the case." In other 7. Westchester, etc., R. Co. v. Mo- bility of a common carrier on the Elwee, 67 Pa. St. 211; Gill v. Man- Ohio River does not cease by the de- chestcr, etc., R. Co., 42 L. J. Q. B. livery of the goods on the wharf and 89, L. R. 8 Q. B. 186; Redman's Law notice given to the consignee, but Ry. Carr. (2nd Ed.) p. 103; Cope v. that the duty of the carrier is to Cordova, 1 Rawle ( Pa. ) 203. attend to the actual delivery. Hemp- 8. McAndrew v. Whitloek, 52 N. hill v. Chenie, 6 W. & S. (Pa.) 62. y. 40, 11 Am. Rep. 657; Rowland v. And see Blin v. Mayo, 10 Vt. 56; Miln, 2 Hilt. (N. Y.) 150; Gulliver v. Galloway v. Hughes, 1 Bailey (S. C.) Adams Express Co., 38 111. 502; 553. Bartholomew v. St. Iiouis, etc., R. Co., 9. Harris v. Pratt, 17 N. Y. 249 • 53 111. 227; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Earrell v. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 102 Fairclough, 51 111. 106. See also N. C. 390, 37 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. Mote V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 27 Iowa. 704, 11 Am. St. Rep. 760. 22; Mattison v. New York, etc., R. 10. Becker v. Hallgartcn, 86 N Co., 57 N. Y. 552; Chickering v. Y. 167. Fowler, 4 Pick. (Mass.) 371. 11. Thomas v. Boston, etc., R. It has been held that the responsi- Corp., 10 Mete. (Mass.) 477, 43 Am. 150 The Law of Caeeiees. jurisdictions the rule is that the carrier's liability as insurer con- tinues 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 by the consignee, after notice of their arrival. But when such reasonable time has elapsed, a construc- tive delivery is effected and the company becomes liable as ware- houseman merely." Where it is expressly provided in the con- tract of shipment, or the consignee accepts such delivery, a com- plete delivery may be effected before the goods are unloaded.'' A delivery of part of a consignment of goods ordinarily establishes a presumptive delivery of the entire consignment," but where the Dec. 444; Rice v. Hart, 118 Mass. 201, 19 Am. Eep. 433. This rule is maintained in Massachusetts, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Tennessee. See Carrier's liability as warehouseman as to goods awaiting delivery, § 3, chap. 9. Payment of freight cbarges by tlie consignee after notice of ar- rival, without any arrangement as to the further custody of the goods by the company, amounts to a, deliv- ery so far as to throw the risk of loss upon the consignee. New Albany, etc., R. Co. V. Campbell, 12 Ind. 55; Chalk V. Charlotte, etc., E. Co., 85 N. C. 423, 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas, 106 .See also Baldwin v. American Ex- press Co., 23 111. 197, 74 Am. Dec. 190, as to what constitutes a deliv- ery where consignee 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., (Wash.) 67 L. R. A. 271, to be obliged to place the freight in the house in order to relieve itself from liability for freight lost through theft, unless it shows that it is not able to do so. 12. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Naive, (Tenn.) 79 S. W. 124; Herf & Fre- ricka Chemical Co. v. Lackawanna Line, (Mo. App.) 73 S. W. 346; King v. New Brunswick, etc., Steamboat Co., 36 Misc. Kep. ,(N. Y.) 555, 73 N. Y. Supp. 999; Missouri Pac. K. Co. v. Haynes, 72 Tex. 175, 37 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 645 ; Bradshaw v. Irish North Western R. Co., 7 Ir. R. C. L. 252, 3 Ry. & C. T. Cas. XI. This rule is held 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. 13. Whitney Mfg. Co. v. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 38 S. C. 365, 37 Am. St. Rep. 767, 55 Am. & Eng. K. 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., E. Co., 34 Mo. App. 675. 14. 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- Termination of Liability. 151 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 de- livery by a carrier is ordinarily a question 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 w^hile 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 He in mitigation of damages, was held not to discharge the carrier from li- ability as to the remainder. 15. Sessions v. Western R. Corp., 18 Oray (Mass.) 132; Cook v. Erie E. Co., 58 Barb. (N. Y.) 312. 16. Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Eicho- ofer, 100 Ala. 224; Whitney Mfg. Co. V. Richmond, etc., R. Co., supra. 17. 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. Kldd, 35 Ala. 209. Where it was the duty of the defend- ant to transfer a load to a steamer from a lighter and the negligent manner of unloading was the cause of the lighter's listing and a portion of the goods being lost, the defend- ant was liable for the damage. Mc- Allister V. Southern Pac. Co., (U. S. D. C. N. Y.) Ill Fed. 938. 18. 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 vice. 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 eon- duct 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 the 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. 152 The Law of Caeeiees. the delivery has been completed by tbe 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 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 tackles 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.^" § 4. Delivery must be made to the consignee or his agent IsTo 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 shipper himself. Unless there are special circumstances which 19. Lewis V. Western K. Corp., 11 Mete. (Mass.) 509. A consignee, or his authorized agent, may receive goods addressed to him in the hands of a carrier 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. Loveland v. Burke, 120 Mass. 139, 21 Am. Rep. 507. 20. 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 u, 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 shed 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 faull 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 delivered on the platform they are at the risk of the owner. Allara v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 183 Pa. 104, 41 W. N. C. 205, 38 All. 709, 39 L. R. A. 535. Teeminatioit of Liability. 153 permit a delivery to be made otherwise, the delivery must be made to the consignee of the goods, or to his duly authorized agent, 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 delivery to a third party under instructions from such agent. ^* 21. 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., R. 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 vir- tue of a conditional sale duly regis- tered 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. 22. 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; Ckve- 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 condition broken, but witnout legal process, will rot -make the carrier linh'e frr rr."^-" ■'■■':■; i 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. 23. O'Dougherty v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 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. Dee. 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 carrier, 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. 24. Ontario Bank v. New Jersey Steamboat Co., 59 N. Y. 510; Piatt V. Wells, 26 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 442, 2 Robt. (N. Y.) 101; Illinois Cent. R. Co. V. Simpson, 17 111. App. 325; Lewis V. Western R. Corp., 11 Mete. (Mass.) 509; Southern Express Co. V. Everett, 37 Ga. 088. 25. Gales v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 42 Neb. 379. Delivery to a cartmau, cl7-nv)v.a7i. ,.,■ r*'-py yinr=i7i nrt authn'--- t^. 'y '/is 154 The La.w of Cabbiees. 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 goodsi 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 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 Tegarded simply as an agent selected by him to receive the goods consigneee to receive the goods is at 9 Iowa 487, 18 Iowa, 555, where a new the carrier's risk. Dean v. Vacearo, firm was held not to have authority 2 Head. (Tenn.) 488, 75 Am. Deo. to receive under an authorization giv- J44_ en to the old firm; Adams v. Blank- 26. Sweet v. Barney, 23 N. Y. 335; enstcin, 2 Cal. 413, 56 Am. Dec. 350; Hotchkiss V. Artisans' Bank, 2 Abb. Hermann v. Goodrich, 21 Wis. 536, App. Dec. (N. Y.) 403, affg. 42 Barb. 94 Am. Dec. 562; Waldron v. Chi- (N. Y.) 517. cago, etc., E. Co., 1 Dakota, 336; The 27. Bank v. Champlain Transp. Steamboat Sultana v. Chapman, 5 Co., 16 Vt. 52, 42 Am. Dec. 491. Wis. 454. 28. Reynolds v. New York Cent., No greater proof of authority «tc., R. Co., 3 N. Y. Supp. 331, 21 St. is required than for any other is- Rep. (N. Y.) 319; Furman v. Chi- sue in a civil action. Wilcox v. Chi- cago, etc., R. Co., 57 Iowa, 42, 23 Am. cago, etc., R. Co., 24 Minn. 269. & Eng. R. Cas. 731, 62 Iowa, 395. The delivery of goods on a 29. Williams v. Holland, 22 How. forged order purporting to come Pr. (N. Y.) 137; Nebanzahl v. Fargo, from the consignee, although the or- 15 Daly (N. Y.) 130, where delivs/y dcr was presented by a person who to one claiming to be a clerk, but had formerly been the consignee's whose authority was denied by the clerk, does not relieve the carrier from consignee, was held to be unauthor- liability. American Merchants' ized ; Angle v. Mississippi, etc., R. Co., Union Exp. Oo. v. Milk, 73 III. 224. Teemination of Liability. 155 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 f^ and a delivery in accord- ance with the consignor'a orders relieves the carrier from further liability.'^ A carrier who, without authority from the consignor or consignee, delivers to flie consignor's general agent at the place of delivery a package directed to the consignee, is liable therefor ix) 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 justified in delivering them 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 30. Southern Express Co. v. Dick- son, 94 U. S. 549; Louisville, etc., E. Co. V. Hartwell, 99 Ky. 436, 36 S. W. 183, 18 Ky. L. E«p. 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. E. 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 justi- fy a delivery to such parties. Saw- yer V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 22 Wis. 403, 99 Am. Dec. 49. 31. Foggan v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 16 N. Y. Supp. 25, where the ship- per directed a, delivery to the con- signee only upon his producing a bill of lading; Wright v. Northern Cent. E. 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. 32. Ruffin V. Ruggiero, 10 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 39; Brasher v. Denver, etc., R. Co., 12 Colo. 384. 33. Ela V. American M. U. Ex- press Co., 29 Wis. 611, 9 Am. Rep. 619. 34. Wilson Sewing Machine Co. V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 71 Mo. 203. 156 The Law of Caeriees. -will not adjudge the performance of this duty tortious as against a consignor 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 tlie property, the right of the third person to whom it, as bailee, has yielded by delivering the prop- erty.^' Where the carrier surrenders possession of the goods to the person whom it ascertains, in the course of 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 as- sumes 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 whom 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 com- mon carrier, and the carrier must deliver according to the ship- per'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 35. Western Transp. Co. v. Bar- R. Co., 45 Neb. 487; Harker v. De- ber, 56 N. Y. 544; Mullins v. Chick- ment, 9 Gill (Md.) 7, 52 Am. Dee. ering, 110 N. Y. 514; The Idaho, 93 670; Biddle v. Bond, 6 B. & S. 224; U. S. 575, 23 L. Ed. 978, 11 Blatchf. White v. Bartlett, 9 Bing. 382; Cheea- (U. S.) 218; Wells v. American Ex- man v. Exall, 6 Exch. 341; Dixon v. press Co., 55 Wis. 23, 42 Am. Eep. Yates, 27 Eng. C. L. 92. 695, 6 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 300. 37. Bates v. Stanton, 1 Duer (N. The true owner of the property in Y.) 79; Rosenfield v. Express Co., 1 the possession of a, common carrier Woods (U. S.) 131; King v. Rich- may have the same diverted at a sta- ards, 6 Whart. (Pa.) 418, 37 Am. tion on the route between the ship- Dee. 420 ; Floyd v. Bovard, 6 W. & S. ping point and the place of destination (Pa.) 75; Hardman v. Willcoek, 9 while it is in transit, but may be re- Bing. 382, note. Compare Kohn v. quired to produce the bill of lading Richmond, etc., R. Co., 37 S. C. 1, 34 or furnish other evidence of owner- Am. St. Rep. 726; Story Bailm. (9th ship to entitle him to this right. Ryan Ed. ) § 582. V. Great Northern Ry. Co., (Minn.) 38. Wolfe v. Missouri Pac. E. Co., 95 N. W. 758. 97 Mo. 473, 10 Am. St. Rep. 331, 37 36. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 719. National Live-Stock Bank, 178 111. 39. Thomas v. Northern Pac. Exp. 506, 13 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. N. S. 1, Co., 73 Minn. 185, 75 N. W. 1120, 4 revg. 59 111. App. 451, 53 N. E. 326; Am. Neg. Rep. 504, 11 Am. & Eng. Western Transp. Co. v. Barber, R. Cas. N. S. 121; Wells v. Ameri- supra; Shellenberg v. Fremont, etc., can Express Co., supra; Western Teemination of Liabilitt. 157 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 repre- sented himself in writing or orally to the seller to be another per- son 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 fact that the seller was induced to sell by fraud makes the sale voidable 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 consignee, isi a de- fense 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 Transp. Co. v. Barber, supra; Sheri- dan V. New Quay Co., 4 C. B. N. S. 618, 93 E. C. L. 618; Ogle v. Atkin- son, 5 Taunt. 759; Browne Carr. 221; Hutch. Carr. § 405. 40. Shellenberg V. Fremont, etc., E. Co., supra. 41. Edmunds v. Merchants' Des- patch Transp. Co., 135 Mass. 283, 16 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 250; Samuel v. Cheney, 135 Mass. 278, 46 Am. Eep. 467; Dunbar v. Boston, etc., E. Corp., 110 Mass. 26, 14 Am. Eep. 576; Bar- ker V. Dinsmore, 72 Pa. St. 427, 13 Am. Eep. 697 ; The Drew, 15 Fed. 826 ; Brasher v. Denver, etc., E. Co., 12 Colo. 384; Nanson v. Jacob, 12 Mo. App. 125, 93 Mo. 331; Lake Shore, etc., E. Co. v. Luce, 11 Ohio Cir. Ct. Eep. 543, 1 Ohio Cir. Dec. 145; Bush V. St. Louis, etc., E. Co., 3 Mo. App. 62; McKean v. Mclvor, L. E. 6 Exch. 36; Hardman v. Booth, 32 L. J. Exch. 105; Kingsford v. Merry, 26 L. J. Exch. 83; Pacific Exp. Co. v. Hertzberg, 17 Tex. Civ. App. 100, 42 S. W. 795; Norwalk Bank v. Adams Express Co., 4 Blatchf. (U. S.) 455, Fed. Cas, No. 10,354. A common carrier is not charge- able with negligence in the delivery of goods, where it delivered them to the man to whom they were sent, and who the carrier was induced, by the acts of the shipper in dealing with him, to believe, was the man to whom the shipper intended to send, though 'he was insolvent and there was a reputable merchant of the same name in the town. Seibert v. Philadelphia, etc., E. Co., 15 Pa. Super. Ct. 435. 42. See Delivery must be made to the consignee or his agent, § 4, ante. 43. Price v. Oswego, etc., E. Co., 158 The La.w of Caeeieks. 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 representational 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.*^ § 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 50 N. y. 213, 10 Am. Eep. 475, 3 Am. Ry. Rep. 325, revg. 58 Barb. iN. Y.) 599; Winslow v. Vermont, etc., R. Co., 42 Vt. TOO, 1 Am. Rep. 365; Sword V. Young, 89 T^Bnn. 126; Wey- and T. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 75 Iowa 573, 9 Am. St. Eep. 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 Duff V. Budd, 3 B. & B. 177, 7 E. C. L. 399; Heugh v. London, etc., R. Co., L. R. 5 Exch. 51. 44. Oskamp v. Southern Express Co., (Ohio) 56 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 & Co. Express, 81 App. Div. (N. Y.) 426, 80 N. Y. Supp. 830. 45. 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 provis- ion that, in the absence of such word, the carrier might deliver without re- 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.) 421, 62 N. Y. Supp. 474. 46. 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 i» Tekmlnation of Liability. 159f such agent terminates the carrier's responsibility and the agent holds the good's as the agent of either the consignor or the con- signee^ whoever may be the owner of the goods." § 8. Consignor's right to change of consignee. — Where a com- mon 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 conaigaee's agent and the con- signor cannot, by a subsequent direction to the carrier, prevent their delivery to the consignee, unless suoh facts are shown as will justify the stoppage of the goods in trnTisiiu; and where, by sub- sequent direction of the consignor, the carrier delivers the goods to another person, it is liable for conversion.^* But where the 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 n8 probable reason why a, person sending a package should be supposed to choose to terminate the carrier's responsibility and substitute that of the carrier'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 responsibility 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 commoa carrier is discharged from liability, by a delivery to the person to whose- care the goods are directed, though such, person be the carrier's agent. And see Piatt v. Wells, 2 Kob. (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 de- liver of the carrier who receives the package for delivery, there being no- understanding that he shall hold the package for the carrier's convenience, Bennett v. Northern Pac. Exp. Co., 12. Or. 49. See also United States Ex- press Co. V. Rush, 24 Ind. 403. 47. Mobile, etc., R. Co., v. Prewitt, 46 Ala. 63, 7 Am. Rep. 586; Houston, etc., R. Co. V. Hogg, 2 Tex. Unrep. Cas. 544; Edwards v. Cheraw, etc.,. R. Co., 32 S. C. 117; Taylor v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 24 U. C. C. P. 582. 48. Bailey v. Hudson River R. Co.,. 49 N. Y. 70; Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. V. Wireman, 88 Pa. St. 264. See also Wade v. Hamilton, 30 Ga. 450> . Where, having given such subsec^uent 160 The Law of Oaeeiees. 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 consignee, 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 tke same right to change their destination, after the goods have passed into the hands of a connecting carrier by talcing a new bill of lad- ing. ^^ The carrier also has the right under snch circumstances to change the destination of the property before it has been de- 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 where the. first consignee has accepted bills on the strength of the consignment." Where a bill of lading has been issued by the carrier and forwarded to the consignee, if the car- rier 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 prop- direction, the carrier notwithstanding, Nat. Bank, 78 Ky. 250, 6 Am. & Eng. delivered the goods to the consignee, R. Cas. 368. and in consequence thereof the con- 52. Jones v. Earl, 37 Cal. 630, 99 signpr sues and obtains a judgment Am. Dec. 338, and notice to the agent against the carrier in another state of the carrier, in possession of the for a misdelivery of the goods, this goods, of the change binds the car- will not avail in a suit by the car- tier; Blanchard v. Psuge, 8 Gray Tier against the consignee. Philadel- (Mass.) 285; Strahom v. Union phia, etc., E. Co. v. Wireman, 88 Pa. Stock Yard, etc., Co., 43 111. 424, 92 St. 264. Am. Dec. 142; Thompson v. Trail, 2 49. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Hart- C. & P. 334, 12 E. C. L. 155; Mitchel well, 99 Ky. 436, 18 Ky. L. Rep. 745, v. Ede, 11 Ad. & El. 888, 39 E. C. 1. 36 S. W. 183, 4 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 260; Ruck v. Hatfield, 5 B. & Aid. N. S. 550, 38 S. W. 1041; Cayuga 632, 7 E. C. L. 260. See Duplicate County Nat. Bank v. Daniels, 47 N. bills of lading, § 19, post. Y. 631; Bank of Rochester v. Jones, 53. Lewis v. Galena, etc., E. Co., 4 N. Y. 501, 55 Am. Dec. 290. 40 111. 281. See, also. Delivery to 50. See cases cited under last pre- holder of bill of lading, § 9, post. ceding note. 54. Hubbersty v. Ward, 8 Excb. 51. Sutherland v. Peoria Second 330. See, Delivery to holder of bill of lading, § 9, post. TBBMINATIOSr OV LtABILITT. 161 ©rty of the consignor until paid for, the consignee isi entitled, on presenting the bill of lading, to receive the goods, from the car- rier, 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 con- version 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 destination of such a consignment was. changed to an- other 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 hia 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 con- signee." § 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 vsithout indorsement or when prop- erly indorsed and delivered, when indorsement is necessary, oper- ates as a constructive transfer and delivery of the property itself, and the consignor loses the control of the goods by such transfer.^' 55. Lester v. Delaware, etc., E. Co., the hands of the carrier, to attaoh- 73 Hun. (N. Y.) 398, 26 N. Y. Supp. ment by the consignor's creditors. 206. Bonner v. Marsh, 10 Smed. & M. 56. Nelson v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., (Miss.) 376, 48 Am. Dec. 754; Diek- •2 111. App. 180. man v. Williams, 50 Miss. 500. 57. Chaffe v. Mississippi, etc., R. 58. First Nat. Bank v. New York •Co., 59 Miss. 182, 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cent., etc, R. Co., 85 Hun (N. Y.) •Cas. 426. Even where the bill of lad- 160, 32 N. Y. Supp. 604; Robert C. ing had been made out in the name White Live Stock, etc., Co. v. Chi- ef the factor and forwarded to him, cago, etc., R. Co., 87 Mo. App. 330; and the object was to pay a debt of Storey v. Hershey, 19 Pa. Super. Ct. the consignor to the consignee, it was 485, but when the parties to a trans- held that a delivery to the carrier fer of a bill of lading know that the was not a delivery to the consignee, property has been takan, prior to the «nd that the property was liable in transfer, by legal process, from the 11 162 The La.w of Caeeiees. 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 other- wise than in aeeordancje with the bill of lading, or to a person who was not authorized to receive the goods, although he may be th& consignee.^' A eommon carrier delivers at its peril goods to th& consignee without a bill of lading either made or indorsed t* him.*" It is the duty of the carrier to ascertain whether a bill of lading has been issued, and, if it has, to deliver only to the party producing such bill properly indorsed, where indorsement is nec- essary.^^ 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 dispos- ing 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 possession of the carrier, the indorse- ment and delivery of the bill of lading cannot operate as a. transfer of the possession of the property. See also Dickson v. Merchants' Elevator Co., 44 Mo. App. 498. 59. First National Bank v. North- ern Pae. 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 pro- cured a delivery to himself while the goods were in transit. Wells v. Ore- gon, etc., R. Co., 32 Fed. 51. GO. Gates v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 42 Neb. 379, 61 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 218, 60 N. W. 583, holding, also, that a common carrier which delivers goods, to a purchaser from the consignee, who is the agent of the owner, at the direction of the consignee, is not lia- ble to the owner upon the purchaser's, failure to pay therefor, although the bill of lading is not surrendered to the carrier before delivery, where it is not assigned to any one by the owner. See also Schwartzschild & Co. V. Savannah, etc., R. Co., 76 Mo. App. 623, 1 Mo. A. Repr. 588. 61. Merchants' Cotton Press, etc.,. Co. V. Insurance Co. of North Amer- ica, 151 U. S. 368, and the fact that. the contract between the carrier and the shipper is illegal on account of rebates being improperly allowed to- the shipper does not affect the right of the holder of the bill of lading a» against the carrier. Termination of Liability. 163 goods, and the carrier cannot defend by showing delivery to an- other.*^ Under the N"ew York Statute it is an offense for a car- rier to deliver any property carried by it without a production 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 re- quiring 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, hut 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 rer cover from the carrier for a conversion of the goods, since the bill when received by him was a spent bill, and did not operate to pass title to ihe 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 fraudu- lently 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 act of another person.^' It is no defense to a carrier for failure to deliver goods 62. Illinois Cent. E,. Co. v. South- 64. National Commercial Bank v, em Bank, 41 111. App. 287. But a. Lackawanna Transp. Co., 172 N. Y. carrier is not liable to the transferee 596, 64 N. E. 1123, affg. 59 App. Div of a bill of lading on account of the (N. Y.) 270, 6 N. Y. Supp. 396; Col delivery of the goods called for to the gate v. Pennsylvania Co., 102 N. Y consignee by agents of the transferee, 120, affg. 31 Hun (N. Y.) 300. ■who were ignorant of the transfer, 65. Mairs v. Baltimore, etc., R. while it was at a, eonpress operated Co., 175 N. Y. 409, 67 N. E. 901. A by the transferee. Missouri, etc., E. warehouseman who pays a bank Co. V. McFadden, 89 Tex. 138, 33 S. which deposits a draft secured by a W. 853. warehouse receipt of a cargo of peas, 63. Syracuse First Nat. Bank v. which has been accepted by the con- New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 85 Hun. signee, upon the claim that the con- (N. Y.) 160, 32 N. Y. Supp. 604; N. signee after accepting the draft has Y. Penal Code, § 633. without authority taken possession of 164 The Law of Caeeiees. 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 desti- nation 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 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 upon the production of one of two bills of lading indorsed to different persons.*' The rule is based upon the familiar principle of law that where one of two innocent par- tias 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 unindorsed bill, which does not vest the holder with any apparent ownership.'* And where a bill of lad- ing has been issued for property not actually delivered, by an agent having no authority to issue bills except on receipt of prop- the peas, and obtains a transfer froiti St. Rep. 276, 32 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. the bank, together with the ware- 511. house receipt, may bring an action on 68. Douglass v. Peoples Bank, the draft aganist the consignee; and supra. Compare Cleveland, etc., K. the defense that plaintiff has wrong- Co. v. Moline Plow Co., 13 Ind. App. fully delivered up the cargo of peas to 225. defendant in violation of N. Y. Penal 69. Fearon v. Bowers, 1 Smith's Code, § 633, forbidding the warehouse- L. C. 792. man from delivering to another than 70. Brooks v. New York, etc., E. the holder of a warehouse receipt is- Co., 108 Pa. St. 529, 56 Am. Eep. 235; sued by him the property covered by American Nat. Bank v. Georgia R. it, is unavailable. Burnham v. Cape Co., 96 Ga. 665, 2 Am. & Eng. R. Vincent Seed Co., 142 N. Y. 169. Cas. N. S. 618, 23 S. E. 898; Wilming- 66. Western & A. E. Co. v. Ohio ton, etc., R. Co. v. Kitchin, 91 N. C. Valley Bkg. & T. Co., 107 Ga. 512, 15 39. Am. & Eng. R. Cas. N. S. 839, 33 S. 71. Weyand v. Atchison, etc., E. E. 821. Co., 75 Iowa 573, 9 Am. St. Kep. 504, 67. Weyand v. Atchison, etc,. R. revg. 30 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 102, 33 Co., 75 Iowa 573, 9 Am. St. Rep. 504, N. W. 133; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 1 L. R. A. 650; Douglass v. Peoples Larned, 103 111. 293. Bank, 86 Ky. 176, 5 S. W. 420, 9 Am. Teemination or Liability. 165 erty 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 instrument itself,'^ is negotiable in the sense that it may be transferred by indorsement and delivery, but the transferee, however innocent, takes only the rights which the transferor 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 production 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 ad- vance made by him to the consignee. '^^ It is no excuse for a de- livery 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 can- not 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 account of their owner. It has no right, under any cir- cumstances, to deliver to a stranger. '* 72. Bank of Batavia v. New York, 24; Raleigh, etc., R. Co. v. Lowe, 101 etc., R. Co., 106 N. Y. 195, 60 Am. Ga. 320, 28 S. E. 867, 10 Am. & Eng. Rep. 440, 7 Cent. Repr. 822; Sioux R. Caa. N. s. 398 ; Gu'mey v. Behrend, City, etc., R. Co. v. First Nat. Bank 3 El. & Bl. 622, 633. of Fremont, 10 Neb. 556, 35 Am. Rep. 74. Merchants' Bank v. Union R., 488; Armour v. Michigan Cent. R. etc., Co., 69 N. Y. 374; Pollard v. Co., 65 N. Y. Ill; St. Louis, etc., R. Vinton, 105 U. S. 7; Lallande v. His Co. V. Lamed, 103 111. 293; Brooke v. Creditors, 42 La. Ann. 705, 45 Am. & New York, etc., R. Co., 108 Pa. St. Eng. R. Cas. 301; Douglass v. Peo- 529. To the contrary see note to 106 pies Bank, 86 Ky. 176, 5 S. W. 420; N. Y. 195. Empire Transp. Co. v. Steele, 70 Pa. 73. Friedlander v. Texas, etc., R. St. 188. Co., 130 U. S. 424, 32 L. Ed. 994; 75. Forbes v. Boston, etc., R, Co. Pollard V. Vinton, 105 U. S. 8, 26 L. 133 Mass. 154. See § 20, post. See Ed. 998; Shaw v. Merchants' Nat. also Richardson v. Goddard, 23 How. Bank, 101 U. S. 557, 25 L. Ed. 892; (U. S.) 28. StoUenwerck v. Thacher, 115 Mass. 76. The Thames, 14 Wall. (U. S.) 166 The Law op Caebiees. § 10. Carrier entitled to demand bill of lading The con- signee is presumptively the owner of the goods, and a delivery 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 demand the production of the bill of lading in order to obtain possession of the goods, and for its own security, because of the assignability of bills of lading whereby all rights in the goods may be trans- ferred to a stranger, should require it to be presented before mak- ing delivery either to the consignee or the holder of the bill." 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 shovsTi the bill of lading and may not require the holder to snirrender the bill." For the carrier will be liable to a hona, 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 de- liver goods except upon production and cancellation of the bills of lading, and for a delivery to a consignee without the produc- tion of the bill of lading, which providtd for a delivery to him, but which he had in the meantime indorsed and negotiated, the carrier is liable to the holder of the bill as for a conversion of the property.*^ And it is liable to the shipper for the loss sustained by him, where it delivers goods to the consignee, in violation of instructions of the shipper not to deliver without a bill of lading.*' 98; Galloway v. Hughes, 1 Conk, livering the goods to the consignee Adm. 96. See Laches of Holder of without the production of receipts or bill of lading, § 12, post. other evidences of ownership issued to 77. Sweet v. Barney, 23 N. Y. the consignor. Schlichting v. Chi- 335; Lawrence v. Minturn, 17 How. cago, etc., Ey. Co. (Iowa), 96 N. W. (N. Y.), 100; O'Dougherty v. Bos- 959. ton, etc., R. Co., 1 Thomp. & C. (N. 79. Dwyer v. Gulf, etc., E. C!o., 69 Y.) 477. See also § 4, ante. Tex. 707, 32 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 461. 78. Bass V. Glovet, 63 Ga. 745, 1 80. See § 11. Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 277; Finn v. 81. Furman v. Union Pac. E. Co., Western R. Corp., 102 Mass. 283. 106 N. Y. 579, 32 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. Compare Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Mo- 500; Colgate v. Pennsylvania Co., Cown (Tex. Civ. App.), 25 S. W. 102 N. Y. 120; Bank of Commerce v. 435. Bissell, 72 N. Y. 615. Where no bills of lading are is- 82. Foggan v. Lake Shore, etc., K. sued, the carrier is justified in de- Co., 16 N. Y. Supp. 25. Teemiitation of Liability. 167 § 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 tiie 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 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 transferor 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 business as between the company and the firm, is liable to an in- nocent purchaser of a bill of lading for goods consigned to such fi.rm, 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 delivery to the shipper's 83. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Stern, 87. Walters v. Western, etc., R. 119 Pa. St. 24, 4 Am. St. Rep. 626; Co., 56 Fed. 369, 61 Am. & Eng. R. Gates V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 42 Cas. 162. Neb. 379, 61 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 218; 88. First Nat. Bank of Syracuse Midland Nat. Bank v. Missouri, etc., v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 85 R. Co., 1 Mo. App. Rep. 417. Hun (N. Y.), 160, 66 St. Rep. (N. 84. Peoria Bank v. Northern R. Y.) 112, 32 N. Y. Supp. 604; Barber Co., 58 N. H. 203; Houston, etc., R. v. Meyerstein, L. R. 4 H. L. 317, L. Co. V. Adams, 49 Tex. 748, 30 Am. R. 2 C. P. 38, holding that notice is Rep. 116. not necessary, and that only a fail- 85. Ratzer v. Burlington, etc., R. ure of ordinary prudence in complet- Co., 64 Minn. 245, 66 N. W. 988, 4 ing his security would amount to Am. & Eng. R. Cas. N. S. 55. laches. 86. Alabama Nat. Bank v. Mobile, etc., R. Co., 42 Mo. App. 284. 168 The Law of Caebiees. order, to deliver the shipment to an indorsee for value of tiie bill upon presentation thereof, by a custom of such carriers to deliver the property to the consignee after six days, if the indorsee was without notice that the carrier had acted under such custom, al- though 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 company, which permits the drawee to pay the draft by discounting his: draft on a third per- son attached to the bill of lading,, gave no 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 consigned it. The bank in such case cannot recover from the railroad company.'" While the assignee or indorsee of a bill of lading may, by his laches, lose his right to claim the goods from an innocent purchaser, by permitting the property to remain under the 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 in- structions. If the owner or consignor has placed a direction upon the property, showing where it is to be transported, and obtained a bill of lading for it, he has a right to assume that de- livery will only be made in accordance with the terms of the bill, and the duty of the carrier is only thereby discharged.'^ The contract contained in and evidenced by the receipt or bill of lad- 89. Midland Nat. Bank v. Mis- 91. Farmers', etc., Nat. Bank v. souri Pac. R. Co., 132 Mo. 492, 2 Am. Logan, 74 N. Y. 568; Forbes v. Bos- & Eng. Corp. Cas. N. S. 586, 33 S. ton, etc., E. Co., 133 Mass. 154, 9 W. 521. Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 78. 90. National Bank v. Philadelphia, 92. Furman v. Union Pac. E. Co., etc., E. Co., 163 Pa. St. 467, 61 Am. 106 N. Y. 579, 32 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. & Eng. E. Cas. 162, 30 Atl. 228. 500. Termination of Liability. 169' ing binds each and every one of the connecting carriers who ac- cept 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 production by him of the bill of lading, where one has been issued, and is not excused by the fact that such delivery was made in accordance with papers- received from the preceding carrier in which a different consignee from the one in the bill of lading is named.^^ The contrary, how- ever, 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 liability for failure- to demand the production and surrender of the bill of lading be- fore delivery of the goods, when it knows, or ought to have known, that a bill of lading had been issued and was outstanding.'* § 14. Stoppage in transitu as a defense The right of stop- page in transitu is defeated by the transfer of a bill of lading to a borw, fide indorsee before the right of stoppage is exercised, the assignment of the bill of lading transferring the title to the prop- erty, upon the principle that whenever one of two innocent per- sons 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." 93. Babcoek v. Lake Shore, etc., R. etc., E. Co., 163 Pa. St. 467; Nanson. Co., 49 N. Y. 497 ; Maghee v. Camden, v. Jacob, 93 Mo. 331, 3 Am. St. Eep. etc., R. Co., 45 N. Y. 514; Halliday 531. V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 74 Mo. 159. 97. Mallory v. Burritt, 1 E. D. 94. City Bank v. Rome, etc., E. Smith (N. Y.), 234; Moses v. Port. Co., 44 N. Y. 136; Howard v. Townsend, etc., R. Co., 5 Wash. 595, Shepard, 9 M. Gr. & S. 296; Tyndale 55 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 419; Wells »! V. Taylor, 4 El. & Bl. 219; Colgate v. Thomas, 27 Mo. 17, 72 Am. Dec. 228; Pennsylvania Co., 102 N. Y. 120. Briggs v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 6 Allen 95. Furman v. Union Pac. R. Co., (Mass.), 246, 83 Am. Dec. 626; Bird 106 N. Y. 579, 32 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. v. Georgia R. Co., 72 Ga. 655, 27 Am. 500; Alderman v. Eastern R. Co., 115 & Eng. R. Cas. 39. Mass. 233; Ratzer v. Burlington, etc., 98. See Delivery to holder of bill R. Co., 64 Minn. 245, 66 N. W. 988, of lading, § 9, ante. 4 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. N. S. 55. 99. Dows v. Greene, 24 N. Y. 641 j 96. National Bank v. Philadelphia, Dows v. Perrin, 16 N. Y. 325 • Dows. 170 The Law of Caeeiees. The carrier cannot, therefore, relieve itself from liability for failure to deliver the property to the holder of the bill of lading by showing that it had delivered it upon a stoppage in transitu to the consignor. If the transfer of a bill of lading by way of pledge or mortgage, or as collateral security for a loan, does not absolutely defeat the right of stoppage in transitu, the seller can- not 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. — The transfer of a bill of lading, for value, by indorsement and delivery, passes to the transferee whatever title the transferer 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 attach- ment 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.' § 16. Effect of the word "notify" in bill of lading. — The direc- tion in a bill of lading to "notify" a given party ghows 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 con- signee 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 V.Rush, 28 Barb. (N. Y.) 157; Wells Chandler v. Fulton, 10 Tex. 24, 60 V. Oregon E., etc., Co., 32 Fed. 51, 12 Am. Dec. 188. Sawy. (U. S.) 519; Lickbarrow v. 2. Dickson v. Merchants' Elevator Mason, 2 T. R. 63, 6 East, 21, 1 Co., 44 Mo. App. 498; Neill v. Rogers Smith's L. Cas. 753 ; Gurney v. Beh- Bros. Produce Co., 41 W. Va. 37, 23 rend, 3 El. & Bl. 622, 77 E. C. L. 622. S. E. 702. 1. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Heiden- 3. Starksville First Nat. Bank v. heimer, 82 Tex. 195, 27 Am. St. Rep. Meyer, 43 La. Ann. 1, 8 So. 433. 861, 49 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 73 note; 4. Furman v. Union Pac. E. Co., Tbemination of Liability. 171 other than the consfignee of the arrival of the shipment does not authorize the carrier to deliver the shipment to such person with- out the production of a bill of lading.^ For such a delivery the carrier is liable to a bank which has discounted drafts drawn against the consignment on the security of receipts indorsed over to it by the shipper and consignee.^ The holder of the bill of lad- ing, properly indorsed to him and which is attached to a draft which he haa paid, is not obliged to notify the carrier not to de^ liver 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 reasonable time.' A bona fide holder for value without notice of a bill of lading which stip- ulates 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 the bill, change the destination of the goods!.' § 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 pur- chase price of the goods, the title tO' the property does not pass to the purchaser, and the purchaser, though named as consignee, is not entitled to a delivery of the property, until he has accepted 106 N. Y. 579, 32 Am. & Eng. R. Gas. E. 21, 15 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. N. S. 500, revg. 35 Hun (N. Y.), 669. See 839. A bank may, after reimbursing also Colgate v. Pennsylvania Co., 102 the owner of the goods, maintain an N. Y. 120. action against a common carrier for 5. Union Stock Yards Co. v. West- an unauthorized delivery of them, cott, 47 Neb. 300, 3 Am. & Eng. E. when it turned them over to parties Cas. N. S. 375, 66 N. W. 419. for whom it had rea'son to believe 6. North Pennsylvania E. Co. v. they were ultimately intended, taking Commercial Bank, 123 U. S. 727, 35 an indemnifying check for security. Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 556; Libby v. which it later surrendered, when the Ingalls, 124 Mass. 503. See also goods were delivered to one whom the North V. Merchants, etc., Transp. Co., bill of lading directed to be notified, 146 Mass 315, 32 Am. & Eng. E. who had possession of such bill, Cas. 509, note. which he had purloined from the 7. Chester Nat. Bank v. Atlanta, bank. Ealeigh, etc., E. Co. v. Lowe etc.. Air Line E. Co., 25 S. C. 216. 101 Ga. 320, 28 S. E. 867, 10 Am. & 8. Western, etc., E. Co. v. Ohio Val- Eng. R. Cas. N. S. 398. ley Bkg. & T. Co., 107 Ga. 512, 33 S. 172 The Law op Caemees. 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 prop- erty.' Where the consignor of property, upon its shipment and before delivery, draws a bill of exchange upon the consignee and procures the same to be discounted at a bank upon the security of a bill of lading which is transferred and delivered with it, the bank acquires- title to the property described in the bill of lading, conditional upon tiie acceptance of the draft by the consignee j upon s'uch 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 conver- sion, he is liable to the bank for the money advanced upon it'"' And upon delivery of the goods to the 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." 9. Commercial Bank v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 160 111. 401; Libby v. Ingalls, 124 Mass. 503 ; Finn v. West- ern R. Corp., 102 Mass. 283; Walters V. Western, etc., R. Co., 63 Fed. 391; Wells V. Oregon, etc., R. Co., 32 Fed. 51, 12 Sawy. (U. S.) 519, but the carrier cannot deliver the goods to the shipper while in transit; Hous- ton, etc., R. Co. V. Adams, 49 Tex. 748, 30 Am. Rep. 116. 10. Commercial Bank V. Pfeiffer, 108 N. Y. 242; Marine Bank v. Wright, 48 N. Y. 1 ; Peters v. Elliott, 78 111. 321; Michigan Cent. Ry. Co. V. Phillips, 60 111. 190; Illinois Cent. R. Co. V. Southern Bank, etc., 41 111. App. 287; Chicago Fifth Nat. Bank V. Bayley, 115 Mass. 228; Hathaway V. Haynes, 124 Mass. 311. 11. Jeffersonville, etc., R. Co. v. Irvin, 46 Ind. 180; McEwen v. Jef- fersonville, etc., R. Co., 33 Ind. 368, 6 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 Penn- sylvania R. Co. V. Commercial Bank^ 123 U. S. 727, 35 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 556. Acceptance of time dratt.<— A bank to which a bill of lading is for- warded with a time draft attached. for collection, without special instruc- tions, must surrender the bill of lad- ing 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, ani TEEMHifATION OF LIABILITY. 173 Where a bill of lading is indorsed by the consigaor and negotiated for value as security for a draft drawn on a third person by the consignor, the carrier cannot deliver the goodsi to such third per- son without the production of the bill of lading, or authority from the holder thereof, and if it makesi 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, evi- dence is admissible to prove ownersihip in such third person. ^^ § 18. Effect of bill of lading as estoppel. — A carrier is liable npon a bill of lading issued in its name by an agent having no authority to issue bills except on receipt of property for transpor- tation to one who, upon transfer by the shipper 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 acts and is estopped from de- nying the receipt of the goods." This rule is maintained in l^ew 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 doc- trine of the law of agency that where a principal has clothed his that the bill of lading Is security for etc., R. C!o., 106 N. Y. 195, 60 Am. an acceptance, and not for payment Eep. 440, 19 Abb. N". C. (N. Y.) 131; of the draft. Commercial Bank v. Brooke v. New York, etc., R. Co., 108 Chicago, etc., E. Co., 160 III. 401, 43 Pa. St. 529, 2 East Repr. 125, 56 N. E. 756, affg. 58 111. App. 438. Am. Rep. 235; Armour v. Michigan 12. Newcomb v. Boston, etc., R. Cent. R. Co., 65 N. Y. Ill, 22 Am. Corp., 115 Mass. 230; Alderman v. Eep. 603; Griswold v. Haven, 25 N. Eastern R. Co., 115 Mass. 233; The Y. 595, 601; New York, etc., R. Co. Thames, 14 Wall. (U. S.) 98; v. Schuyler, 34 N. Y. 30; North Wichita Savings Bank v. Atchison, River Bank v. Aymar, 3 Hill (N. Y.), etc., E. Co., 20 Kan. 519; Boatmen's 262; Sioux City, etc., E. Co. v. First Savings Bank v. Western, etc., E. Co., Nat. Bank of Fremont, 10 Neb. 556 ; 81 Ga. 221; Chester Nat. Bank v. At- St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Lamed, 103 lanta, etc.. Air Line E. Co., 25 S. C. 111. 293; Wichita Bank v. Atchison, 216; Neill v. Rogers Bros. Produce etc., R. Co., 20 Kan. 519; Smith v. Co., 41 W. Va. 37; Lake Shore, etc., R. Missouri Pac. E. Co., 74 Mo. App. 48 ; Co. V. National Live Stock Bank, 59 St. Louis, etc., E. Co. v. Adams, 4 111. App. 451; The Argentina, L. E. Kan. App. 305, 45 Pac. 920; Adams 1 Adm. & Ecel. 370; The Emilinen Express Co. v. Schlessinger, 75 Pa. Marie, 32 L. T. N. S. 435. St. 246; Louisville, etc.. Packet Co. v. 13. Empire Transp. Co. v. Steele, Eogers, 20 Ind. App. 594, 49 N E ■70 Pa. St. 188. 970. 14. Bank of Batavia v. New York, 174 The Law of Caeeiees. 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 tte 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 com- mercial paper, they are commonly transferred as security for loans and discounts, carry with them the ownership, either gen- eral or special, of the property which they describe, and are viewed and dealt with by the commercial world as quasi negoti- able, and consequently it is desirable that they 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 be- cause 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 repre- sentations, 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'si 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 transporta- tion, imposes no liability upon the carrier, even to an innocent consignee or indorsee for value, and that the carrier is not es- topped 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 collusive, or merely the result of a mistake.^* ' Of course this is predicated 15. See cases cited under note 14, 129; The Freeman, 18 How. (U. S.) supra. 182, 191, 59 U. S. 182; The Lady 16. Frledlander v. Texas, etc., Ey. Franklin, 8 Wall. (U. S.) 325; St. Co., 130 U. S. 416, 28 Cent. L. J. 503, Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Knight, 122 U. note; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Com- S. 79, 87, 7 Sup. Ct. Repr. 1132; Na- mercial U. Ins. Co., 139 U. S. 223, tional Bank v. Railroad Co., 44 Minn. 35 L. Ed. 154, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 554; 224, 20 Am. St. Rep. 566, 9 L. R. A. Pollard V. Vinton, 105 U. S. 7; Rob- 263; Sears v. Wingate, 3 Allen inson v. Memphis, etc., R. Co., 9 Fed. (Mass.), 103; Baltimore & 0. K- Tebminatiom' of Liabimtt. 175 upon the assumption that the authority of the agent is limited to issuing bills of lading for freight received before, or concur- rent with, the issuing of the bills, which would be the presump- tion in the absence of evidence to the contrary. A carrier may adopt a different mode of doing business by giving his agents auth-ority to issue bills of lading for goods not received, so as to render him liable in such casesi to third parties." The reasoning by which the latter doctrine is usually supported is that a bill of lading is not negotiable in the sense in which a bill of exchange or promissory note is negotiable, where the purchaser need not look beyond the instrument itself; that so far as it is a receipt for the goodsi it is susceptible of explanation or contradiction, the same as any other receipt ; that the whole question is one of the law of agency ; that it is not within the scope of the authority of the shipping agent of the carrier to issue bills of lading where no property is in fact received for transportation; that the extent of his authority, either real or apparent, is to issue bills of lading for freight actually received ; that this real and apparent author- ity, i. e., the power with which his principal has clothed him in the character in which he is held out to the world, is the same, viz., to give bills of lading for goods received for transportation, and that this limitation upon his authority is known to the com- mercial world; and, therefore, any person purchasing a bill of lading issued by the agent of a carrier acts at his own risk as re- spects the existence of the fact (the receipt of the goods) upon which alone the agent has authority to issue the bill, the rule being that if the authority of an agent is known to be open for exercise only in a certain event, or upon the happening of a cer- tain contingency, or the performance of a certain condition, the occurrence of the event or the happening of the contingency, or the Co. V. Wilkens, 44 Md. 11; Fellows 330; Brown v. Powell D. S. Coal V. The R. W. Powell, 16 La. Ann. Co., L. E. 10 C. P. 562; McLean v. 316; Hunt v. Mississippi Cent. R. Fleming, L. R. 2 So. App. Cas. 128; Co., 29 La. Ann. 446; Ijouislana Nat. Cox v. Bruce, L. R. 18 Q. B. Div. 147- Bank v. Laveille, 52 Mo. 380; Will- Meyer v. Dresser, 15 C. B. (N. S.) iams V. Wilmington, etc., E. Co., 93 646; Jessel v. Bath, L. R. 2 Exch. N. C. 42; Dean v. King, 22 Ohio St. 267. 118; Chandler v. Sprague, 38 Am. 17. National Bank v. Railroad Co., Dec. 410, note; Grant v. Norway, 10 44 Minn. 224, 20 Am. St. Rep. 566, C. B. 665; Coleman v. Riches, 16 C. 9 L. R. A. 263. B. 104; Hubbersty v. Ward, 8 Exch. 176 The Law of Caeeiees. performance of the condition, must be ascertained by him who -would avail himself of the resrults ensuing from the exercise of the authority.^* § 19. Duplic,ate bills of lading. — "Where bills are issued in sets of two or more, and the several parts of the bill are trans- ferred to different parties who respectively make advances upon the faith of the bill, the property in the goods passes to the first transferee, unless a subsequent transferee has a superior equity to that of being, like the first, a bon fide transferee for value." Where the several bills issued provided that when delivery is made on one the others are to be void, a delivery by the carrier upon presentation of a duplicate bill of lading properly indorsed is a discharge of the carrier from further liability.^ Where tlie original bill of lading contains no such provision the carrier is liable to a bona fide holder thereof for failure to deliver to him, and proof of the delivery to a holder of a properly indorsed dupli- cate will be no defense. ^^ Where the consignor received from the carrier a bill of lading containing a provision that the goods g'hould be delivered to the consignee upon the presentation of a duplicate of such bill of lading, the carrier was held" liable for delivering the goods without requiring the production of the duplicate. ^^ But where the consignor, upon receiving two bills 18. See eases cited note 16, supra. R. 44 L. 317; Sanders v. McLean, 11 Carrier's liability to assignor Q. B. Div. 327. of bill of lading. — ^A. bought a 20. Glyn v. East, etc., India Dock certain quantity of iron, as called for Co., L. R. 7 App. 591; Skilling v. by a bill of lading, and sold the same Bollman, 73 Mo. 665, 39 Am. Eep. to an iron company, who paid for it, 537. and to whom it was delivered. The 21. Midland Nat. Bank v. Mis- iron company recovered a judgment souri Pac. R. Co., 132 Mo. 492. against A. for a shortage. Held, Wbere a railroad company ii- that this judgment did not conclude sues two delivery orders for the the carrier issuing, the bill of lading, same grain, both orders being in the although the carrier was notified by same form and containing nothing A. to defend, as the defences avail- to show that they related to the same able to the carrier would not have consignment, such company is liable exonerated A. from liability to tha to third persons making advances on iron company. Garrison v. Baggage both orders. Coventry v. Great East- Transp. Co., 94 Mo. 130, 32 Am. & ern R. Co., 11 Q. B. Div. 776. Bng. R. Cas. 525. 22. McEwen v. Jeflfersonville, etc., 19. Skilling v. Bollman, 6 Mo. R. Co., 33 Ind. 368, 5 Am. Eep. 216; ^pp. 076; Meyerstein v. Barber, L. The Saugerties, 44 Fed. 625. Teeminatioit of Liability. 177 ■of lading, sends one of them with a draft attached, to a bank far collection of the draft, and sends the other to the consignee, who presents it and receives the goods, he is estopped from maintain- ing an action againrt 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 deliver to any one holding the bill without any indorsement.^' The deliv- •ery of a bill of lading, with intent to pass the title, has that effect, though drawn to order, and not indorsed. ^° But, except where the bill of lading directs' a delivery to bearer, the carrier is respon- sible 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 dispo- Dnplicate Mils of lading copied (Mass.) 297; Ifathan v. Giles, 5 irom the stub books from whieh the Taunt. 558; Low v. DeWolf, 8 Pick, original bills were issued, by the local (Mass.) 101. xigent some time after such iasu- 26. City Bank v. Rome, etc., R. ance, are inadmissible in evidence as Co., 44 N. Y. 136; Merchants' Bank against the carrier. They are with- v. Union R. & Transp. Co., 69 N. Y. in the rule that the declarations of an 376 ; Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Phil- agent as to a past transaction are not lips, 60 111. 190; Western Ry. Co. v. admissible to bind hia principal. Ed- Wagner, 65 111. 197 ; Green Bay First gerton v. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., Nat. Bank v. Dearborn, 115 Mass. 115 N. 0. 645, 20 S. E. 184, 61 Am. 219; Jeffersonville, etc., R. Co. v. & Eng. R. Gas. 253 ; Missouri Pac. R. Irvin, 46 Ind. 180 ; Becker v. Hall- Co. V. Heidenheimer, 82 Tex. 195, 27 garten, 86 N. Y. 167; Bank of Eoch- Am. St. Rep. 861. ester v. Jones, 4 N. Y. 497; 55 Am. 23. Weyand v. Atchison, etc., R. Dec. 290; Richardson v. Nathan, 167 Co., 75 Iowa, 573, 9 Am. St. Rep. 504. Pa. St. 513 ; American Zinc, etc., Co. 24. Scharff v. Meyer, 133 Mo. 428, v. Markle Lead Works, 102 Mo. App. 42 Cent. L. J. 367; Crowell v. Van 158, 76 S. W. 668; The Carlos F. Bibber, 18 La. Ann. 637; Par. Mer. Roses, 177 U. S. 655, 40 L. Ed. 929. Law, 346; 2 Kent's Com. 27. Capehart v. Granite Mills, 97 25. Allen v. Williams, 12 Pick. Ala. 353, 12 So. 44; Jordan v. Penn- 12 178 The Law of Cabeiees. sition over the goods, tlie delivery of the bill of lading for value,, ■without indorsement, transfers the title to the property covered by the bill and justifies a delivery by the carrier to the 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, re- tained by the consignor.^' Proof of a custom to deliver with- out indors'ement, 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 unindorsed bill of lading.^" Where an invoice of goods shows that the deliv- ery is to be made only to the party producing the bill of lading, delivery to the holder of the invoice without requiring production 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 de- livered to the right party. The obligation to deliver 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 produc- tion should be required by the carrier, and the property detained until demanded by one claiming under such a title.'^ If dehvery be made to the wrong person, either by an innocent mistake, or sylvania Co., 18 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 363; 'Valle v. Cerre, 36 Mo. 576, 88 647, 31 Alb. L. J. 250; Sword v. Am. Dec. 161. .Young, 89 Tenn. 126, 45 Am. & Eng. 29. Weyand v. Atchison, etc., E. E. Cas. 384 ; Weyand v. Atchison, Co., 76 Iowa, 573, 9 Am. St. Eep. 504. etc., R. Co., 75 Iowa, 573, 9 Am. St. 30. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Bark- Rep. 504, 33 N. W. 133, revg. 30 Am. house, 100 Ala. 543; Weyand v. At- & Eng. R. Cas. 102; Cavallaro v. chison, etc., E. Co., supra. Texas, etc., R. Co., 110 Cal. 348. 31. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Stern, 28. Marine Bank v. Wright, 48 N. 119 Pa. St. 24, 4 Am. St. Eep. 626; Y. 1; Bank of Rochester v. Jones, 4 North Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Com- N. Y. 497, 55 Am. Dec. 290; Holmes mercial Bank, 123 U. S. 727. v. German Security Bank, 87 Pa. St. 32. N. F.— (Security Trust Co. v. 525 ; Phelps v. Bank, 2 McGloin Wells Fargo Express, 178 N. Y. 620, (La.), 19; Green Bay First Nat. 70 N. E. 1109, affg. 81 App. Div. (N. Bank v. Dearborn, 115 Mass. 219; Y.) 426, 80 N. Y. Supp. 830; Fur- Cairo First Nat. Bank v. Crocker, U man v. Union Pac. R. Co., 106 N. Y- Mass. 163; Davenport Nat. Bank v. 579, 32 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 500; Mc- Homeyer, 45 Mo. 145, 100 Am. Dec. Entee v. New Jersey Steamboat Co., Teemination of Liability. 179 through the fraud, impositioii, or deceit of a third person, as upon a forged order, the carrier will be responsible, and tbe wrongful delivery will be treated as a conversion.'^ That the delivery was 45 N. Y. 34, 6 Am. Eep. 28; City Bank v. Eome, etc., E. Co., 44 N. Y. 136; Seheu v. Erie E. Co., 10 Hun (N. Y.), 498; Oswego Bank v. Doyle, 91 N. Y. 32, 43 Am. Eep. 634; Pack- ard V. Getman, 4 Wend. (N. Y.) 613, 21 Am. Dec. 166; Sonn v. Smith, 57 App. Div. (N. Y.) 372, 68 N. Y. Supp. 217. Ark. — Little Eock, etc., E. Co. v. Glidewell, 39 Ark. 487, 18 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 539. Dak. — 'Waldron v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 1 Dak. 336. III. — iSt. Louis, etc., E. Co. v. Rose, 20 111. App. 670; Indianapolis, etc., E. Co. V. Vanduzen, 81 111. 143; American Express Co. v. Baldwin, 26 111. 504, 79 Am. Dec. 101. Mi> Mitchell V. Lancashire, etc., R. Co., Y.) 157; Davis v. Chautauqua Uke, L. R. 10 Q. B. 256, 44 L. J. Q. B. 107; etc.. Assembly, 2 N. Y. St. Eep. 365; Termination of Liability. 195 delivery. To constitute a valid delivery on the vcharf, 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- able warehouse to await the consignee or hisi 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 Union Steamboat Co. v. Knapp, 73 111. 506; Richardson, v. God'dard, 23 How. (U. S.) 28; Chiekering v. Fowler, 4 Pick. (Mass.) 371; Cope v. Cordova, 1 Eawle (Pa.) 203; Kohn V. Packard, 3 La. 224, 23 Am. Deo. 453; Scott v. Province, 1 Pittsb. (Pa.) 189; Farmers', etc.. Bank v. Champlain Transp. Co., 16 Vt. 52, 42 Am. Dec. 491, 23 Vt. 186, 56 Am. Eep. 68; Hyde v. Trent Nav. Co., 5 T. R. 68; The Eddy, 5 Wall. (U. S.) 481. 89. 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. 522; 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. Steamship Il- linois, 17 Phila. (Pa.) 549; Gallo- way V. Hughes, 1 Bailey L. (S. C.) 553; Morgan v. Dibble, 29 Tex. 107, 94 Am. Dee. 264; Shenk v. Philadel- phia Steam, etc., Co., 60 Pa. St. 109, 100 Am. Dec. 541. Tbe mle of the text may be varied by contract, or affected by well established, reasonable, and gen- erally known local custom and usage of such uniformity, certainty, and notoriety as to warrant the jury in finding that it was known to the party sought to be affeej;ed. 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 tt) certain warehousemen, at the pier in- stead of the warehouse to which they were consigned, is not delivery ac- cording, 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. Eep. (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. E. A. 271. 196 The Law of Oaeeiees. 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.'" § 30. Delivery where consignee refuses to receive. — ^Whea goods are safely conveyed to the place of destination, and the con- signee does not accept or refuses to receive the goods, the carrier may discharge itself from further responsibility, except as ware- houseman, by storing the goods in its warehouse, or in that of some responsible third party, and the goods are then subject to ita 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 lossi, the carrier may sell them, after giving reasonable notice 90. Sherman v. Hudson Eiver E. Co., 64 N. Y. 254; Zinn v. New Jer- sey Steamboat Co., 49 N. Y. 442, 3 Am. Ky. Rep. 340, 10 Am. Eep. 402. 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. Eep. 457; The Mill Boy, 4 Mc- Crary (U. S.) 383. Personal notice may be escnsed where there are certain provisions in the bill of lading. Constable v. Na- tional Steamship Co., 1S4 U. S. 51. Wbat is u sufficient delivery, by carrier to consignee, of unusually bulky articles, such as a raft of logs. Himgerford v. Winnebago Tug Boat, etc., Co., 33 Wis. 303. 91. McAndrew v. Whitlock, 52 N. Y. 40, 11 Am. Eep. 657; Eedmond v. Liverpool, etc., E. Co., 46 N. Y. 578, 7 Am. Eep. 390; Cook v. Erie E. Co., 68 Barb. (N. Y.) 312; Eowland v. Miln, 2 Hilt. (N. Y.) 150; Williams V. Holland, 22 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 137; Fisk V. Newton, 1 Den. (N. Y.) 47, 43 Am. Dec. 649; American Sugar, etc., Co. V. McGhee, 96 Ga. 27; Il- linois Cent. R. Co. v. Cobb, 64 111. 128; Gulliver v. Adams Express Co., 38 111. 502; Bartholomew v. St. Louis, etc., E. Co., 53 111. 227, 5 Am. Kep. 45; Cassilay v. Young, 4 B. Mon. (Ky.) 265, 39 Am. Dec. 505; Young V. Smith, 3 Dana (Ky.) 91, 28 Am. Dec. 57; Wood v. Crocker, 18 Wis, 345, 80 Am. Dec. 773; Steamboat Keystone v. Moies, 28 Mo. 243, 75 Am, Dec. 123; Lesinsky v. Great Western Dispatch, 13 Mo. App. 575; Crouch v. Great Western E. Co., 2 H. & N. 491, 3 Jur. N. S. 796; Great Western E. Co. V. Crouch, 3 H. & N. 183, 4 Jur. N. S. 457; Great Northern E. Co. V. Swaffield, L. E. 9 Exch. 132, 43 L. J. Exch. 89. 92. Cassily v. Young, 4 B. Moa (Ky.) 265; 39 Am. Dec. 506; Ean- kin V. Memphis, etc., Packet Co., 8 Heisk. (Tenn.) 569, 24 Am. Eep. 339, Proof of demand and tender oi Teemination of Liability. 197 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.'* In 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- 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 goodsi -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 tbe 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 vsrill be the difference between the amount he would have realized if prompt charges are not necessary to sustain an action by a shipper against an express company for failure to re- turn goods as directed, upon refusal of the consignee to accept them. Hirseh v. Piatt, 89 N. Y. Supp. 362. 93. Eankin v. Memphis, etc.. Pack- et Co., 9 Heisk. (Tenn.) 568, 24 Am. Eep. 339; Arthur v. The Schooner Cassius, 2 Story (U. S.) 97. See En- forcement of lien, § 12, chap. 16. 94. Seheu v. Benedict, 116 N. Y. 610, 15 Am. St. Eep. 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 Co. V. McCoimell, 27 Kan. 238, 9 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 240. As to goods oifered 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 becomea 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 Pae. E. Co. v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 25 Fed. 317, 23 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 718. 95. Mitchell v. Weir, 19 App. Div. (N. Y.) 183, 45 N. Y. Supp. 1085. 96. Ostrander v. Brown, 15 Johns. (K. Y.) 39, 8 Am. Dec. 211; Shaw v. South Carolina E. Co., 5 Eich. L. (S. C.) 462, 57 Am. Dec. 768; Galveston, etc., E. Co. V. Watson, 1 Tex. Civ. App. Cas., § 813; Baumbach v. GuU, etc., E. Co., 4 Xex. Civ. App. 650. 198 The Law of Caeeiees. delivery had been made and the amount actually realized. He is entitled to recover only to the extent of the actual injury." The consignee is not bound to accept goods v^hen 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 be 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 Ms 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.' 97. 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, bnt yet of some value, will not be regarded as a waiver of claim for damages, and failure to receive such goods within a, reasonable time will entitle the carrier to offset a claim for stora;ge against the consignee's claim for damage. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Boston, 4 Tex. Civ. App. Cas., § 66 ; Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Van Winkle, 3 Tex. Civ. App. Cas., § 442. A shortage of goods does not justify a refusal to accept, and if they are sold for freight and storage charges, the consignee has no right of action. Id. The consignee is not bound to accept where only a third of the goods are tendered and there is no evidence that they are the original goods shipped. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Warren, 16 III. 502, 63 Am. Dec. 317. Where only a part of the goods are damaged, the consignee cannot refuse to receive the portion unin- jured, and hold the carrier liable for the entire shipment. Michigan South- ern, etc., R. Co. V. Bivens, 13 Ind. 263. 98. Thomas, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Wa- bash, etc., R. Co., 62 Wis. 642, 61 Am. Rep. 725; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Lo- gan, 3 Tex. Civ. App. Cas., § 185; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Maetz, 2 Tex. Civ. App. Cas., § 630, 18 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 613. 99. Breed v. Mitchell, 48 Ga. 533. 1. See notes 98 and 99. 2. Eagle v. White, 6 Whart. (Pa.) 505, 37 Am. Dec. 434; Hill v. Humph- reys, 5 W. & S. (Pa.) 123, 39 Am. Dec. 117; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Mar- tin, 2 Tex. Civ. App. Cas., § 341. 3. Bacharach v. Chester Freight Line, 133 Pa. St. 414, 42 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 362; Edwards v. Cheraw, etc., R. Co., 32 S. C. 117, 42 Am. 4 Eng. R. Cas. 453. Teeminattoit of Liability. 199 § 31. Delivery of goods sent C. O. D. — ^Where goods are sent -with instructions not to deliver tliein until they are paid for, the carrier, who accepts the goods with such instructions, 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. This obligation or duty is not one arising or implied from the nature of its business, but is based upon contract, express or implied.* If the carrier accepts ^oods with such instructions, or if goods are so clearly marked as to show the intention of the consignor to make payment a con- dition of delivery, a contract is implied, and delivery under such circumstances without requiring payment, though to the consignee or to the right person, is a conversion, and the carrier is liable therefor to the consignor.^ 4. American Express Co. v. Lesem, 39 111. 312; Cox V. Columbus, etc., E. Co., 91 Ala. 392, 8 So. 824, 49 Am. & Eng. B. Cas. 112; American Mer- chants', etc., Co. V. Wolfe, 97 111. 430. Undertaking to collect charges. — iWhen a bill of lading, by fair con- fitruction, requires the carrier to col- lect charges upon the goods on de- livery, if the carrier delivers the goods ■without collecting the sum due, he be- comes liable therefor. Meyer v. Lemeke, 31 Ind. 208. By simply marking package C. ■O. D., a consignor cannot charge a 622. Liability foe Loss oe D-AMAoa 227 ground that they were taken by the public enemy. '^ An order issued by a regularly constituted military authority protected the citizen or corporation obeying it, as where a railroad company was commanded by a Confederate general to transport cotton, which was lost.^' It hag been held that delay in the transportation of goods which is caused solely by a mob, or the interference of strik- ers and their confederates with the operation of the road, will not render the carrier liable at common law to make good losses aris- ing from a decline in the market price, or from deterioration in their quality on account of their perishable nature, during time of transit." In Arkansas it has been held that a mob of rioters is not a public enemy within the exception to the rule that makes a common carrier an insurer of goods carried.^* In Indiana it has been held that rioters are not public enemies, that to make a public enemy the government of a foreign country must be at war with the United States, but the strict liability of common carriers, where they are without fault or negligence, does not seem to ex- tend to losses from delay in transporting live stock and perishable property, though such delays are not caused by the act of God or the public enemies.^* In New York the rule has been laid down, 35. Southern Express Co. v. Wo- mack, 1 Heisk. (Tenn.) 267; Me- Cranie v. Wood, 24 La. Ann. 406; Patterson v. North Carolina E. Co., 64 N. C. 147. See also Caldwell v. Southern Express Co., 1 Flipp. (U. S.) 85. 36. Railroad v. Hurst, 11 Heisk. (Tenn.) 625. But even where a rail- road company is not in the free ex- ercise of its franchises, and receives property for transportation, and gives the ordinary shipping receipt, with- out limiting its liability or undertak- ing, it is still liable as a common car- rier, notwithstanding military or oth- er control. Illinois Cent. E. Co. v. Ashmead, 58 111. 487. 37. Missouri Pac. E. Co. v. Levi, 4 Tex. App. Civ. Cas., § 8, 14 S. W. 1062; Gulf, etc., E. Co. v. Levi, 76 Tex. 337, 18 Am. St. Eep. 45, 42 Am. 4 Eng. E. Cas. 439, revg. (Tex.)' 12 S. W. 677, 40 Am. & En^. E. Cas. 115. See also Southern Express Co. v. Glenn, 16 Lea (Tenn.) 472; Balti- more, etc., R. Co. V. O'Donnell, 49 Ohio St. 489, 55 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 667. 38. Missouri Pac. E. Co. v. Nevill, 60 Ark. 375, 30 S. W. 425, 28 L. E. A. 80. See also Pacific Express Co. v. Wallace, 60 Ark. 100, 61 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 170, holding that a common carrier of goods, who has limited his liability to that of a warehouseman for goods while they are waiting to be called for, is not liable for the loss of liquors taken from its storeroom by a mob. 39. Bartlett v. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co., 94 Ind. 281, 18 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 549; Pittsburgh, etc., E. Co. v. Hollowell, 65 Ind. 193. See also Lake Shore, etc., E. Co. v. Bennett, 89 Ind. 457; White v. Missouri Pac. E. Co., 19 Mo. App. 400. 228 The Law of Caeeiees. in respect to the liability of a railroad company for delay in the tranaportation and delivery of goods, that the carrier is not liable for a delay in the delivery of freight caused by the unlawful and violent conduct of strikers, after they have abandoned the service of the carrier. There is no absolute duty resting upon ike carrier to deliver goods within what is, under ordinary circumstances, a reasonable time. The actual circumstances must all be consid- ered, and all that can be required of it is the exercise of due care to forward and deliver promptly.*" In Illinois it has been held that where the employes of a carrier suddenly refuse to work, and are discharged, and delay results from the failure of the carrier to promptly supply their places, the carrier is responsible for any damage caused by such delay; but where the places of the recu- sant employes are promptly supplied by other competent men, and the "strikers" then prevent the new employes from doing duty by lawless and irresistible violence, the carrier is not responsible for delay caused solely by such, lawless violence.*^ It has been held in the Federal courts that where goods were shipped under a biU of lading exempting the carrier from loss or damage by fire and they were destroyed by a mob, in the absence of proof of neg- ligence of the carrier or its agents, the carrier was not liable.® Later cases have held that where a carrier received freight for shipment, it is not liable for delay in its delivery which is caused by a strike of its employes, accompanied by violence and intimida- tion of such character as cannot be overcome by the company or controlled by the civil authorities when called upon.*^ These cases, while seemingly an exception to the rule that mere mobs, riots or insurrections are not acts of public enemies, are rather based upon the ground that such acts form reasonable grounds for 40. Geismer v. Lake Shore, etc., R. 43. Haas v. Kansas City, etc., E. Co., 102 N. Y. 563, 55 Am. Eep. 837, Co., (Ga.) 7 S. E. 629; International, 26 Am. & Eng. K. Cas. 287, revg. 34 etc., E. Co. v. Tisdale, (Tex.) 4 L. fi. Hun (N. Y.) 50. A. 545, 11 S. W. 900; Little v. Fargo, 41. Pittsburgh, etc., E. Co. v. Ha- 43 Hun (N. Y.), 233, and the same zen, 84 III. 36, 25 Am. Eep. 422. See defense is available to a transporta- also Blackstock v. New York, etc., E. tion company which has undertaken Co., 20 N. Y. 48; Indianapolis, etc., to move goods over the railway com- E. Co. V. Jungten, 10 111. App. 295. pan/s line where such railroad was 42. Wertheimer v. Pennsylvania E. the known agency for the transporta- Co., 17 Blatchf. (U. S.) 421; Hall v. tion of such goods. (Wibert v. New Pennsylvania E. Co., 1 Fed. 226, 3 York, etc., E. Co., 12 N. Y. 245.) Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 274. Liability foe Loss oe Damage. 229 excusing the carrier from losses occasioned by delay in transpor- tation due to causes over which it had* no control, and must be distinguished from the cases! where an absolute loss of or injury to goods, in which delay is not a factor, has been sustained. § 5. Seizure under legal process, — Attachment. — Where goods are taken out of tbe carrier's possession under valid legal process, such as attachment or execution, or the carrier is obliged to and does deliver them to the lawful authorities of the place where the goods are, either in transit, or waiting delivery, or the carrier fails to transport and deliver them because of the lawful order of a court having jurisdiction of the subject-matter, the carrier is not liable for non-delivery, the process or order of the court being within the term vis major.** But a carrier cannot relieve itself from responsibility for failure to deliver property consigned, by 44. U. 8. ^Robinson v. Memphis, etc., E. Co. 16 Fed. 57; Stiles v. Davis, 1 Black (U. S.) 101; The M. M. Chase, 37 Fed. 708 ; The Idaho, 93 U. S. 575; Wells v. Maine S. S. Co., 4 Cliff. (U. S.) 232; Post v. Koch, 30 Fed. 208. N. Y. — Speigel v. Pacific Mail Steamship Co., 26 Misc. Kep. (N. Y.) 414, 56 N. Y. Supp. 171; Bliven v. Hudson River E. Co., 36 N. Y. 403; Scranton v. Bank, 24 N. Y. 424; Western Transportation Co. v. Bar- ber, 56 N. Y. 544; Roberts v. Stuy- vesant Safe Deposit Co., 123 N. Y. 57, 25 N. E. 294; Van Winkle v. U. S. Mail Steamship Co., 37 Barb. (N. Y.) 122; Livingston v. Miller, 48 Hun (N. Y.) 232; Rogers v. Weir, 34 N. Y. 463; Barnard v. Kobbe, 54 N. Y. 516; Bates v. Stanton, 1 Duer (N. N.) 79; Edson v. Weston, 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 78; Mierson v. Hope, 2 Sweeny (N. Y.) 561. Ga. — Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. Wil- cox, 48 Ga. 432, 11 Am. Ey. Rep. 375; Wallace v. Matthews, 39 Ga. 617, 99 Am. Dtec. 473. OoJ.— Hayden v. Davis, 9 Cal. 573. Ind. — Indiana, etc., E. Co. v. Dore- meyer, 20 Ind. App. 605, 67 Am. St. Eep. 264; Ohio, etc., E. Co. v. Yohe, 51 Ind. 181, 19 Am. Eep. 727. Moss. — ^Adams v. Scott, 104 Mass. 164. But see Edwards v. White Line Transit Co., 104 Mass. 163; French v. Star Union Co., 134 Mass. 288. Mich. — ^Pingree v. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 66 Mich. 143, 11 Am. St. Eep. 479, although the writ does not speci- fy the particular property levied on. Mo.r—'La.nia, v. Hoick, 129 Mo. 663. JV. Mex. — ^MacVeagh v. Atchison, etc., E. Co., 3 N. Mex. 205, 18 Am, & Eng. R. Cas. 654. On— ^Jewett v. Olsen, 18 Or. 419, 17 Am. St. Rep. 745, 42 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 435. Pa. — Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Da- vis, (Pa.) 12 Atl. 335, 32 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 563. Vt. — Burton v Wilkinson, 18 Vt. 186, 46 Am. Dee. 145. Eng. — ^Verrall v. Robinson, 6 Tyr. 1069, 4 D. P. C. 242; Wilson v. An- derton, 1 B. & Ad. 450, 2 B. C. L. 426 ; Sheridan v. New Quay Co., i C. B. N. S. 618, 93 E. C. L. 618. 230 The Law of Caeeiees. simply showing that it was taken from its custody under valid legal process ; but must also show that it promptly gave notice of that fact to the owner.*' A seizure under legal process will ex- cuse a common carrier from delivering to the owner goods in- trusted to its care for shipment, although the owner was not the attachment defendant.*^ But a seizure of property in the handa 45. Speigel v. Pacific Mail Steam- ship Co., 26 Misc. Kep. (N. Y.) 414, 56 N. Y. Supp. 171; Bliven v. Hud- son Eiver E. Co., 36 N. Y. 403, aiTg. 35 Barb. (N. Y.) 188; and other N. Y. cases cited under preceding note; Kobinson v. Memphis, etc., K. Co., 16 Fed. 57; Ohio, etc., K. Co. v. Yohe, 61 Ind. 181, 19 Am. Rep. 727; Jewett V. Olsen, 18 Or. 419, 17 Am. St. Eep. 745, 42 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 435 ; Bal- timore, etc., E. Co. V. O'Donnell, 49 Ohio St. 489; Lemont v. New York, etc., E. Co., 28 Fed. 920; The M. M. Chase, 37 Fed. 708; MacVeagh v. Atchison, etc., K. Co., 3 N. Mex. 205, 18 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 655; Frank v. Central E. Co., 9 Pa. Super. Ct. 129. A common carrier in whose hands goods shipped are attached discharges its duty to the consignor by 'giving notice of the attachment to the lat- ter's husband, having the bill of lad- ing in his possession, since the car- rier has the right to presume from such possession that the husband ia the agent of the consignor, without further inquiry as to how or by what means he acquired such possession. Furman v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 81 Iowa 540, 46 N. W. 1049, 45 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 385; Id., 57 Iowa 42, 6 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 280 ; 62 Iowa 395, 23 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 730; 68 Iowa 219. 46. Indiana, etc., E. Co. v. Dore- meyer, 20 Ind. App. 605, 67 Am. St. Rep. 264, 50 N. E. 497; Landa v. Hoick, 129 Mo. 663; Stiles v. Davis, 1 Black (U. S.) 101; Furman v. Chi- cago, etc., E. Co., 81 Iowa 540, 46 N. W. 1049, 45 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 345. It might be otherwise, if the sheriff had merely levied an attachment, but not taken possession of the goods. Rogers v. Weir, 34 N. Y..463. It has been held in Massachusetts and some other jurisdictions that it •- is no defense to an action against a common carriier for breach of his con- tract to deliver goods, that they were taken from him by an ofiBcer under an attachment against a person who was not their owner. Edwards • White Line Transit Co., 104 Mass. 159, 6 Am. Eep. 213. See also Wells V. American Express Co., 55 Wis. 23, 6 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 298, 42 Am. Eep. 695; Walker v. Detroit, etc., E. Co., 49 Mich. 446, 9 Am. t Eng. E. Cas. 251; The Mary Ann Guest, 1 Blatchf. (U. S.) 358. The Massachusetts decision above cited seems to have been affected somewhat by the form of the action since the court admitted that the seizure of the goods by the sheriff was not a con- version by the carrier, but that it was liable on its contract for failure to deliver. It is a good defense to an action against a common carrier for prevent- ing the levy of an attachment upon property in his hands, that the prop- erty does not belong to the defendant in the attachment. Simpson v. Du- four, 126 Ind. 322, 26 N. E. 69, 22 Am. St. Eep. 590; State v. Intoxicat- ing Liquors, 83 Me. 158. Liability foe Loss or Damage. 231 of a carrier by an officer without valid legal process, or without any warrant or other legal process, does not excuse a carrier for non-delivery, the goods being unlawfully taken from him.*^ If the goods attached while in a carrier's charge for transportation are not taken from its custody, and the attachment isi afterwards dissolved, the levy furnishes no defence to the carrier for failing to transport and deliver them.** Goods in the custody of a carrier within the territorial jurisdiction of the court are subject to attach- ment, but the service of an attachment on a carrier creates no lien on property not within the territorial jurisdiction of the court issuing the writ at the time of the service, but which ia in transit and beyond the limits of the court'si jurisdiction.*' There must be an actual seizure of tbe goods intended to be attadied.^" The lia- bility of the carrier ceases when the goods are taken from its cusr tody by legal process and it discharges its duty to the consignor and consignee by giving notice of the attachment, which gives them timely knowledge of the situation of the goods.^^ Receiving no reply, it has a right to presume that they have abandoned the prop- 47. Bennett v. American Express Co., 83 Me. 236, 22 Atl. 159, 23 Am. St. Rep. 774, 49 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 56; Gibbons v. Farwell, 63 Mich. 344, 6 Am. St. Rep. 301 ; Kiff v. Old Col- ony, etc., R. Co., 117 Mass. 591, 19 Am. Rep. 429 ; Faust v. South Carolina E. Co., 8 S. C. 118; Nickey v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 35 Mo. App. 79. But the carrier is not bound to know that a statute under which the process was issued is unconstitution- al, and need only look to the face of the writ. McAlister v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 74 Mo. 351, 7 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 373. See also Robinson v. Mem- phis, etc., R. Co., 16 Fed. 57. The carrier cannot defend by show- ing that the real title to the prop- erty is in a third party, who bailed them to the consignor, unless the property has been taken from the car- rier's possession by the bailor with- out injury to the consigner. Great Western R. Co. v. McComas, 33 111. 185. 48. Faust V. South Carolina R. Co., 8 S. C. 118. 49. Santa Fe Pac. E. Co. v. Bos- ■'sut, (N. M.) 62 Pac. 977; Suther- land V. Peoria Second Nat. Bank, 78 Ky. 250, 6 Am. & Eng. E. Cas 368; Western R. Co. v. Thornton, 60 Ga. 300; Lawrence v. Smith, 45 N. H. 533, 86 Am. Dec. 183; Illinois Cent. E. Co. V. Cobb, 48 111. 402; Wheat v. Platte City, etc., R. Co., 4 Kan. 370; Bonner v. Marsh, 10 Smed. & M. (Miss.) 376, 48 Am. Dec. 754. 5Q. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Pen- nock, 51 Pa. St. 244. 51. Furman v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 81 Iowa 540, 46 N. W. 10.49, 15 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 385; MaeVeagh V. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 3 N. M. 205, 5 Pac. 457, 18 Am. & Eng. R. Caa. 651; Savannah, etc., R. Co. T. Wilcox, 48 Ga. 432, 11 Am. Ry. Rep. 375; Eobinson v. Memphis, etc., R. Co., 16 Fed. 57. 232 The Law of Cabeibes. erty, as subject to the legal process whicli seized it.'' An officer •who has made a valid attachment of any property may maintain trover against a carrier who removes such property, after notice of the attachment'' But a demand of goods in the hands of a carrier, by virtue of a chattel mortgage after condition broken, but without any legal process, made by a constable acting merely as agent of the mortgagee, will not make the carrier liable for con- version if it refuses to surrender them, where the goods were re- ceived from a third person who has a bill of lading therefor.'* § 6. Seizure under legal process, — Garnishment. — A common carrier is subject to garnishment by the shipper's creditor of prop- erty delivered to it for transportation, which is in the carrier's depot or yard and in actual transit at the time of garnishment, and which is within the territorial jurisdiction of the garnishing court." But a common carrier cannot be charged as a garnisihee for goods consigned to defendant, when it does not know whether they belong to the defendant or not.'° Where a carrier, to whom goods have been entrusted for transportation is summoned as gar- nishee and remains in possession of the goods which have been attached as the property of a third person, his refusal to deliver them will not render him liable for a conversion." And garnish- ment after transportation has ended and the goods are stored in a warehouse, while it remains in force, excuses the carrier from de- livering the property to the shipper or consignee.'* But a common carrier cannot be held as garnishee for property in actual transit at the time of the service of the process," nor for property which is 52. Savannah, etc., E. Co. v. Wil- 57. Stiles v. Davis, 1 Black (U. cox, supra. S.) 101; Adams v. Scott, 104 Masi 53. Johnson v. Grand Trunk K. 164. Co., 44 N. n. 626. 58. Cooley v. Minnesota Transfer 54. Kohn v. Richmond, etc., E. Co., Co., 53 Minn. 327, 55 Am. & Eng. R. 37 S. C. 1, 16 S. E. 376, 47 Alb. L. Cas. 616, 55 N. W. 141. J. 71, 34 Am. St. Rep. 726. 59. Bates v. Chicago, etc., E. Ck), 55. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Cobb, 60 Wis. 298, 50 Am. Rep. 369; Uli- 48 111. 402; Landa v. Missouri, etc., nois Cent. R. Co. v. Cobb, 48 HI. 402; R. Co., (Mo.) 31 S. W. 900; Landa Michigan Cent. E. Co. v. Chicago, V. Hoick, 129 Mo. 663; Adams v. etc., R. Co., 1 111. App. 399; West- Scott, 104 Mass. 164. ern R. Co. v. Thornton, 60 Ga. 300; 56. Walker v. Detroit, etc., R. Co., Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Pennoolc, 51 49 Mich. 446, 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. Pa. St. 254, disapproving Childs v. 251. Digby, 24 Pa. St. 23; Steveaot v. Liability foe Loss oe Damage. 233 beyond the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of the court issu- ing the process.^" These exceptions to the general rule are founded upon considerations of public poliey, it being considered unreas- onable that a carrier should under such circumstances be subjected to the costs', inconvenience and burden of such process merely be- cause it had received to be carried that which the law compelled, to be received and carried. ^^ § 7. Seizure under police regulations. — A common carrier of goods is excused from liability to the shipper or owner, where the goods are taken from its custody by legal process other than at- tachment or execution, as, for example, by warrant for being stolen or embezzled property,'^ or being property liable to seizure and destruction, or forfeiture, under the laws of the State, be- cause of being intoxicating liquors or other articles intended for gale or for use in violation of law, or because of being infected with a contagious disease. ^^ Where goods are taken from the car- Eastern E. Co., 61 Minn. 104. Com- pare Adams v. Scott, 104 Mass. 164, holding that in an action against a resident of another state who ap- pears and answers, common carriers, having in their possession, in Massa- chusetts, in course of transportation to the defendant, at his place of resi- dence, a sealed package of money be- longing to him, may be summoned as his trustees. 60. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Cobb, 48 111. 402; Bates v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 60 Wis. 298, 50 Am. Eep. 369; Sutherland v. Peoria Second Nat. Bank, 78 Ky. 250, 6 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 368. See also Pennsylvania E. Co. V. Pennock, 51 Pa. St. 244 j Clark V. Brewer, 6 Gray (Mass.) 320; Lawrence v. Smith, 45 N. H. 533, 86 Am. Dec. 183; Wheat v. Piatt City, etc., E. Co., 4 Kan. 378. Compare Childs V. Digby, 24 Pa. St. 23. 61. See cases cited in last two pre- ceding notes. 62. Bliven v. Hudson Eiver E. Co., 36 N. Y. 407; Tyler v. London, etc.. E. Co., 1 C. & E. 285, where the car- rier had been intrusted with such goods by the police, who had takea possession of them for the purpose of prosecuting a person charged with theft. 63. Wells V. Maine Steamship Co.^ 4 Cliflf. (U. S.) 228; State v. Cree- den, 78 Iowa, 556, 43 N. W. 673, 7 E. A. 295, 40 Am. & Eng. E. Cas.. 31 ; Baltimore, etc., E. Co. v. O'Don- nell, 49 Ohio St. 489, 55 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 672; Atkinson v. Eitchie, la East 534; Indianapolis, etc., E. Co. V. Juntgen, 10 III. App. 295; Nash- ville, etc., E. Co. V. Estes, 10 Lea. (Tenn.) 755, 3 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 492; McAlister v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 74 Mo. 351, 4 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 210. A common carrier is liable, how- ever, for the value of fish shipped over its line which were seized by a- game warden on the ground that the fish were illegally caught, where such- warden had neither legal nor appar- ent legal right to seize the same.. 234 The Law of Oaebiees. rier under sucli circumstances it must appear that prompt notice of the seizure was given to the owner of the goods, and that they were taken from the carrier without its connivance, procurement or collusion, and that the proceeding and process under which the seizure was made was apparently regular and valid." The motive by which a carrier was controlled is of no avail as a defense, how- ever, though it may be shown to prevent recovery of exemplary damages.^' § 8. Duty of carrier after disaster, — It is the duty of a carrier, when goods in his care are injured, to make reasonable exertions to repair the injury or arrest its progress. Hence, if packages of fur become wet, he should have them opened and dried.'' But the master of a steamboat carrying wheat, which was wet by inev- itable accident, is not liable for damages because he did not dry the wheat." Where an express company, on receiving a packager for transportation, is not informed that it contains gold, the com- pany is not negligent in failing to search the ruins of the express car after a fire in order to recover the property, itfegligence can not be predicated on the company's omission under such circmn- stances.'* The consignor of goods by railway, who is also con- signee, may not recover of the company because the car containing the goods was left over night, unguarded, on the track, broken into, cases of goods opened, and the goods scattered, although he abandons the consignment to the carrier, when he is unable to Merriman v. Great Northern Express Where the declaration charges a Co., 63 Minn. 543, 65 N. W. 1080; non-delivery of the gooda by the car- Bennett V. American Express Co., 83 rier, a plea by the defendant that Me. 236, 23 Am. St. Eep. 774, 49 Am. the goods had, prior to their delivery & Eng. E. Cas. 57 ; Edwards v. White to the defendant, been forfeited to the Line Transit Co., 104 Mass. 163, 6 government for non-payment of cus- Am. Rep. 213. toms, states no valid defense. White 64. Robinson v. Memphis, etc., S. v. Canadian Pan. R. Co., 6 Man, L. Co., 16 Fed. 57; Gibbons v. Farwell, Eep. 169. 63 Mich. 344, 6 Am. St. Eep. 301 ; 66. Chouteaux v. Leech, 18 Pa. St. Kiff V. Old Colony, etc., R. Co., 117 224. Mass. 591, 19 Am. Rep. 429; Harker 67. Steamboat Lynx v. King, 12 V. Dement, 9 Gill (Md.) 7, 52 Am. Mo. 272. Dec. 670. 68. Rowan v. Wells, Fargo & O).. 65. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. 80 App. Div. (N. Y.) 31, 80 N. Y. O'Donnell, 49 Ohio St. 489, 55 Am. Supp. 226. & Eng. R. Cas. 667. LtABiuiTY FOE, Loss OE Damagb. 235 prove that any of the goods were damaged thereby, or that any were lost.^' § 9, Loss or injury from inherent nature of goods A carrier is not liable for losses or injuries resulting from the inherent nature of the goods, which would not have been prevented by the exercise of ordinary care on its part;™ or for loss or injury to goods caused by an inherent defect in the goods themselves, the existence of which was unknown both to the sender and the car- rier.'^ A carrier is not liable for loss due to the bursting of a hogshead of molasses by reason of fermentation, as this results from the operation of natural laws which a common carrier does not insure against/^ The general rule above stated has its most frequent application in determining the liability of carriers in the carrying of live stock.'' § 10'. Care required of carrier in general. — A carrier is not bound to provide against an unprecedented emergency, such as a greater flood than was ever known before in the locality, unless it has reason to suspect that such emergency is about to arise ; then it is bound to take such precautionary measures as prudent and skill- ful men in the same business under like circumstances might fairly be expected to use.'* A common carrier is liable for all losses which it could have prevented by skill and foresight; and the 69. Silverman v. St. Louis, etc., E. 71. Lister v. Lancashire & Y. Ky., Co., 51 La. Ann. 1785, 26 So. 447. 72 L. J. K. B. 385, 1 K. B. 878, 88 70. American Express Co. v. L. T. 561, 52 Wkly. Eep. 12. Smith, 33 Ohio St. 511, 31 Am. Eep. 72. Fauoher v. Wilson, 68 N. H. 661, if, while perishable goods are in 338, 38 Atl. 1002, 39 L. R. A. 431. transit, an unavoidable delay occurs, 73. See § 3, chap. 2. the carrier must exercise sound dis- 74. Nashville, etc., E. Co. v. David, cretion and reasonable diligence in 6 Heisk. (Tenn.) 261, 19 Am. Eep. forwarding them to their destination, 594, 12 Am. Ey. Eep. 9; Craig v. but, if it does not appear that a Childress, Peck (Tenn.) 270, 14 Am. change of route would prevent the Dec. 751; Dillard v. Louisville, etc., loss attendant upon delay, he is not E. Co., 2 Lea (Tenn.) 299. bound to divert the goods to a route Under Georgia statutes a carrier is over which he has no control, but bound to use extraordinary diligence, may sell the goods for the best price Eichmond, etc., E. Co. v. White, 88 he can obtain, in order to convert Ga. 805, 12 Ey. & Corp. L. J. 273, what would inevitably be a total loss 15 S. E. 802. See also Lamont v. into one that is partial merely. See Nashville, etc., R. Co., 9 Heisk. also § 4, chap. 2. (Tenn.) 59. 236 The Law of Caeeiees. onus is on it to show that the loss was such as it could not hava prevented." It is the duty of a carrier, when goods in its care are injured, to make reasonable exertions to repair the injury or arrest its progress.'^ If the means of conveyance has become dis- abled, it is bound to use its utmost exertions to transport or send forward the goods to the place of delivery, even though it have to hire or provide other means for that purpose, or send them by an- other route." Whether a carrier has discharged the duty of using care and diligence in the transportation of goods intrusted to it, is to be judged with reference to the nature of the services and the circumstances and exigencies under which it is to be performed. Where skill and capacity are required to accomplish the under- taking it is negligence not to employ persons having those quali- fications.'* A common carrier is relieved from liability if it ean show.- that it has provided all reasonable means of transportation, and exercised that degree of care which the nature of the property requires.™ A common carrier which has an option as to the mode 75. Baltimore, etc., E. Ck). v. More- head, 5 W. Va. 293, if access to the consignee and delivery of the goods at the end of the route is prevented by a state of war, it is the carrier's duty to take care of the goods for the consignor, and notify him within a reasonable time of its inability to make the delivery, after wheh its li- ability is only that of a bailee. See also Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Keedy, 75 Md. 320, 23 Atl. 643, 49 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 124. 76. Chouteaux v. Leech, 18 Pa. St. 224, 57 Am. Dec. 602; Pearoe v. The Thomas Newton, 41 Fed. 106. 77. The Majggie Hammond, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 435; Chicago, etc., E. Co. V. Manning, 23 Neb. 552. 78. Holladay v. Kennard, 12 Wall. (U. S.) 254. See also Memphis, etc.. E. Co. V. Beeves, 10 Wall. (U. S.) 176. Compare Shoemaker v. Kings- bury, 12 Wall. (U. S.) 369. The carrier's liability for loss of goods transported over connecting routes, in cases depending on special circumstances, determined; Wood- ward V. Illinois CMit. E. Co., 1 Biss. (U. S.) 403, 447; Cohen v. Southern Express Co., 45 Ga. 148; Gray v. Jackson, 51 N. H. 9; Pennsylvania E. Co. v. Berry, 68 Pa. St. 272. 79. Burke v. United States Ex- press Co., 87 m. App. 505. The liability of a common carrier as such does not attach to goods which were taken to and placed in its warehouse by the owner or his agent after the closing hours and when no one rep- resenting the carrier was there to receive them, notwithstanding that its " bill clerk " was informed at his residence, which was about 100 feet from the warehouse, that the goods had been left, and was requested to bill and ship them early the next morning. SpofFord v. Pennsylvani* E. Co., 11 Pa. Super. Ct. 97. SO. Stewart v. Comer, 100 G». 754, 62 Am. St. Eep. 353, 28 S. E. 461; Blitz V. Union S. B. Co., Bl Mich. 588. Liability fok Loss oe Damage. 237 of shipment must exercise it reasonably under the circumstances for the best interest of the consignee, and it is a breach of the con- Iract to exercise if to his disadvantage unless it is done in good faith and under circumstances which seem to require it.'" A rail- road company is not, as matter of law, free from negligence in permitting a carload of strawberries received by it to remain for about seven hours without re-icing, at which time the ice is about two-thirds gone, where it is necessary that the ice box should be filled for complete refrigeration.*^ A shipper of apples assumes ■the risk of their decay during transit owing to lack of ventilation, where he knew there was no practicable means of ventilating the cars in which they were shipped while in transit.*^ A railroad company will not be required to place its cars containing inflam- mable materials, when temporarily standing on side tracks, in such situation that they can be watched by policemen, or be within reach of fire engines or other means for extinguishing fires.*' A railroad will be liable for loss caused by defects in tank cars which it hires from a third person for the transportation of property of •a shipper of oil.** On refusal of the consignee to accept goods, it devolves on the master of the carrier to have them placed, at the ■expense of the consignee, in a place where they will not be ex- posed to loss.*' A common carrier of goods is excused from lia- bility to a shipper when the goods are taken from him by legal process and he immediately notifies the shipper.*^ If transporta- tion is delayed or the goods endangered by the acts of a mob, it is the duty of the carrier to use all reasonable efforts and diligence to protect the goods from injury, to overcome the obstacles thus interposed, and to forward the goods to their destination.*' 81. Lamb v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 85. Sonia Cotton Oil Co. v. The 101 Wis. 138, 76 N. W. 1123. Red River, 106 La. 42, 30 So. 303. 88. Densmore Commission Co. v. 86. Bliven & Mead v. Hudson Duluth, etc., R. Co., 101 Wis. 563, 77 River R. Co., 36 N. Y. 403. See N. W. 904. Seizure by legal process, § 5, ante. 83. Insurance Co. of N. A. v. Lake 87. Geismer v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Erie, etc., R. Co., 152 Ind. 333, 1 Co., 102 N. Y. 563, 55 Am. Rep. 837 ; Repr. 819, 4 Chic. L. J. Wkly. 201. Lang v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 154 Pa. 84. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. N. St. 342, 32 W. N. C. (Pa.) 205. See K. Fairbanks & Co., 90 Fed. 467, 33 Loss or injury by public enemy, § 4, C C. A. 611, 62 U. S. App. 231, 13 ante. Am. & Eng. R. Cas. N. S. 179. CHAPTER VIII. LIABILITY FOK DELAY. Sechon 1. Liability for delay in transportation. 2. Liability where there is a special contract. 3. Liability where there are special instructions by the shipper. 4. Liability under statutes requiring prompt forwarding of freight. 5. Delay in delivering perishable freight. 6. Delay must have been the proximate cause of injury. 7. Waiver of right of action for delay. 8. Excuses for delay generally. 9. Unusual floods and storms. 10. Accumulation of ears and freight. 11. Low water or freezing of water-way. 12. Strikes by employes. 13. Limitation of liability for delay. 14. Carrier's duty during delay. 15. Delay concurring with inevitable accident. ;§ 1. Liability for delay in transportation. — The general rule in reference to the liability of a carrier for a delay in the trans- portation and delivery of goods is that it is required to exercise due care and diligence to guard against delay, and to forward the goods to their destination with all convenient dispatch and deliver them promptly, and the carrier is liable for its failure to do so.' 1. N. T. — Geismer v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 102 N. Y. 563, 55 Am. Eep. 837; Waite v. New York Cent., etc., Bi Co., 110 N. Y. 635, 35 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 576., affg. 17 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 162, 17 N. E. 730; Stcdman V. Western Transp. Co., 48 Barb. (N. Y.) 97; Little v. Fargo, 43 Hun (N. Y.), 237. 17. 8. — Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Hall, 66 Fed. 868, 32 U. S. App. 60 j Thomas v. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 63 Fed. 200. Ala. — ^Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Touart, 97 Ala. 614. ^fc.— St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Heath, 41 Ark. 477, 18 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 557. Cal. — 'Palmer v. AtehiBon, etc., E. Co., 101 Cal. 187. La. — Berje v. Texas, etc., K. Co» 37 La. Ann. 468. Mo. — 'Dawson v. Chicago, etc., B. Co., 79 Mo. 296, 18 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 521; Rankin v. Pacific K. Ca, 55 Mo. 167; Schwab v. Union line, 13 Mo. App. 159. Neb. — Denman v. Chicago, etc., K. Co.y 52 Neb. 140, 71 N. W. 767; Gates V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 42 Neb. 379, 61 Am. & Eng. E. Gas. 218. N. C. — ^Purcell v. Richmond, etc., (238) Ltabilitt foe Deilat. 239 There is no rule of law which requires a carrier to transport and deliver goods within any definite time after receiving them for transportation, except where there is an express contract to do so within a certain time. In the absence of a special contract there is no absolute duty resting upon a common carrier, implied from the delivery to or receipt by it of goods for transportation, to transport and deliver them within what would be, under ordinary circumstances, a reasonable time. The actual circumstances in each case must be taken into consideration in determining what is a delivery with reasonable promptness in that case.^ A carrier is K. Co., 108 N. C. 414; Branch v. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 88 N. O. 670. Ohio. — Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. O'Donnell, 49 Ohio St. 489. Pa.— .Clark v. Needles, 25 Pa. St. S38. Tea>.' — International, etc., R. Co. v. Ritchie, (Tex. Civ. App.) 26 S. W. 840. Vaj — Spence v. Norfolk, etc., R. Co., 92 Va. 102, 22 S. E. 815, 29 L. R. A. 578, 2 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. N. S. 708, and a consignor of the goods who delivers them to a carrier for shipment subject to a lien for the purchase price, retaining the right to possession until the drafts therefor are accepted by the consignee, and who makes a special contract with the company for their shipment, guaranteeing the payment of freight, may sue for damages for failure to deliver within a reasonable time. Tbe person irho contracts tpith tlie carrier for the transpor- tation may maintain an action in his own name, although other parties have an interest in the goods. Gal- veston, etc., R. Co. V. Barnett, (Tex. Civ. App.) 26 S. W. 782. He may likewise sue in his own name, where the contract was made in the name of commission merchants to whom he coBsigns property, but for his own benefit and signed with his own name. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Case, 122 Ind. 310, 23 N. :e. 797, 42 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 537; Ohio, etc., R. Co. V. Emrich, 24 111. App. 245. That it received the stock on Sunday is no excuse for the delay of a railroad company in forwarding the stock. Guinn v. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 20 Mo. App. 453. 2. Carrier mnst deliver irith reasonable promptness or irith> out unreasonable delay. N. Y. — Geismer v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 102 N. y. 563, 55 Am. Rep. 837; Little v. Fargo, 43 Hun (N. Y.), 137; Parsons v. Hardy, 14 Wend. (N. Y.) 215, 28 Am. Dec. 521; Wibert v. New York, etc., R. Co., 19 Barb. (N. Y.) 36, 12 N. Y. 245; Stedman v. Western Transp. Co., 48 Barb. (N. Y.) 97. Deh — ^Truax v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 3 Houst. (Del.) 233. Ga. — Johnson v. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co., 90 Ga. 810; Smith v. Cleveland, etc.; R. Co., 92 Ga. 539; Rome R. Co. v. Sullivan, 14 Ga. 277, 32 Ga. 400. /««.— Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Cur- tis, 80 111. 324; Wabash, etc., R. Co. V. MeCasIand, 11 III. App. 491; Illi- nois Cent. R. Co. v. Waters, 41 111. 73; Michigan Southern, etc., R, Co. v. Day, 20 111. 375, 71 Am. Dec. 278; 240 The Law of Caeeiees. bound to deliver goods within a reasonable time, under ordinary circumstances. Accidents, temporary interruptions or obstruc- tions, which could not, by ordinary prudence, be provided against excuse delay, but do not absolve from the duty to carry atid deliver as soon as it becomes practicable, or as soon as the impediment to the transportation is removed or can reas'onably be overcome.' In remain, after its arrival, at tbe depot, for tbe convenience solely of tbe consignee, the liability of tbe carrier is tbat of a warehouse- man.^^ But such agreeements must be made with the carrier's au- thorized agent, or with one acting within the apparent scope of the agent's authority.*^ The provisions of the charter of a rail- road company or other incorporated carrier may affect its ha- bility as warehouseman, but a provision that, upon notice to 1i& consignee of- tbe arrival of the goods, the carrier's liability shall, after the lapse of a reasonable time for the consignee to remove the goods, become that of a warehouseman only, is simply a state- ment of the general rule which prevails in most States.'^ § 15. Duty of carrier as warehouseman to store safely. — It is the duty of a carrier, after having safely transported good* to their destination, to unload them with due care and store and keep them safely in its warehouse or depot for and on account of 79. Louisville, etc., E. Co. v. 44 N. Y. 505; Oderkirk v. Fargo, 88 Oden, 80 Ala. 38; Miller v. Mars- Hun (N. Y.), 347. field, 112 Mass. 260; Dimiek v. Mil- 82. Oderkirk v. Fargo, 58 Hutt waukee, etc., R. Co., 18 Wis. 471; (N. Y.) 347; Mulligan v. Northern Collins v. Alabama, etc., E. Co., 104 Pae. E. Co., 4 Dak. 315, 29 N. W. Ala. 390, 61 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 229; 659, 27 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 33. Angle V. Mississippi, etc., E. Co., 9 83. Mills v. Michigan Cent. E. Co.^ Iowa, 487. 45 N. Y. 622, 6 Am. Eep. 152; Michi- 80. Chapman v. Great Western E. gan Cent. E. Co. v. Mineral Springs- Co., 42 L. T. N. S. 252. But if it Mfg. Co., 16 Wall. (U. S.) 318; deliver them to a, warehouseman at Michigan Cent. E. Co. v. Lantz, 32 the expiration of such time, it is not Mich. 502, 8 Am. Ey. Rep. 74; MicU- responsible for the negligence of the gan Cent. E. Co. v. Hale, 6 Mick. latter. Bickford v. Metropolitan 243; Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Ward, Steamship Co., 109 Mass. 151. 2 Mich. 538. 81. Fenner v. BuflTalo, etc., R. Co., LlABlLITT AS WaEEHOUSEMAN. 281 the consignee until called for,^* or until they are, after the lapse of a reasonable time, subjected to its lien for charges.*^ A rail- road company is liable as a warehouseman for the security and fitness of the place in which goods shipped over its road are stored, and is required to take necessary precaution for the safety of sueti goods, and is also responsible for the ordinary care and attention of its servants and a,gents in caring for them, so that they may be delivered whenever called for.^' Where a railroad company is required by .special contract to deliver goods at a par- ticular warehouse,*' or by statute is forbidden from storing goods transported in any warehouse other than that to which it was specifically consigned, its liability as a common carrier continues until a storage in the proper warehouse.*' § 16. Carrier's liability as warehouseman for negligence, — "When a carrier has become a warehouseman as to goods by reason of a failure to remove them within a reasonable time, it is liable only for such losses or injuries as are shown to have resulted from the want of ordinary and reasonable care on its part, and such care is measured by the care a reasonable man would take of his own property under the same circumstances, or such care as men of ordinary or reasonable prudence usually bestow on property placed in their custody and similarly situated." In 84. Scheu v. Benedict, 116 N. Y. riam, 111 Ind. 5, 31 Am. & Eng. R. 510, 15 Am. St. Eep. 426; Cook v. Cas. 78. See also Madan v. Covert, Erie E. Co., 58 Barb. (N. Y.) 312; 81 N. Y. 296; Grossman v. Fargo, C Gregg V. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 147 Hun (N. Y.), 310. A common car- Ill. 550, 37 Am. St. Eep. 238; Cahn rier is not justified in storing goods V. Michigan Cent. E. Co., 71 111. 96; at an intermediate point, because He Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Bensley, 69 considers the further carriail. (U. S.) 428. Ark. — St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. J)odd, 59 Ark. 317; St. Louis, etc., Ti. Co. V. Bone, 52 Ark. 26. Del. — Culbreth v. Philadelphia, ■ 9. McMillan v. Michigan South- ern, etc., R. Co., 16 Mich. 79, 93 Am. Dec. 208; Western Transp. Co. v. Newhall, 24 111. 466, 76 Am. Dec, 760; Farmers', etc., Bank v. Cham- plain Transp. Co., 16 Vt. 52, 18 Vt. 131, 23 Vt. 186, 56 Am. Dec. 68; Adams Express Co. v. StettanerSf 61 111. 184, 14 Am. Rep. 57; Oppen- heimer v. United States Express Co., 69 111. 62, 18 Am. Rep. 596; South- ern Express Co. v. Newby, 36 G«. 635, 91 Am. Dee. 783. lO. New Jersey Steam Nav. Co. v. Merchants' Bank, 6 How. (U. S.) 344; Hopkins v. Westcott, 6 Blatchf. (U. S.) 64; Lawrence v. New York, etc., R. Co., 36 Conn. 63; Kallman v. United States Express Co., 3 Kan. 205; Brehme v. Dinsmore, 25 Md. 328; Judson v. Western E. Corp. ft Allen (Mass.), 486, 83 Am. Dec. 646; McMillan v. Michigan Southern, etc., R. Co., 16 Mich. 79, 93 Am. Dec. 208; Snider v. Adams Express Co., 63 Mo. 376; Ketchum v. American M. U. Express Co., 52 Mo. 390; Moses f. Boston, etc., R. Co., 24 N. H. 71, 5* Limitation of Liability. 291 lation in respect to duties designed simply to insure good faitli and fair dealing is held to be one of which the shipper must in- form himself if reasonable opportunity therefor be given him, and he -will be bound by it whether it is specifically brought to his attention or not. A general notice publicly posted is suf- ficient to discharge the carrier." In New York, however, the rule is that mere public notice will not operate as a limitation of the carrier's liability unless brought home to the owner of the goods. ^^ But except for the establishment of such rules or regu- lations to insure regularity and promptness and properly inform the carrier of the responsibility he assumes, the force of a mere notice cannot extend, and the general doctrine maintained by the courts of the United States, as well as in England and Canada, is that a carrier cannot limit its liability by any public notice unless such notice isi shown to have been brought to the knowl- edge or attention of the shipper within a reasonable time before shipment and to have been expressly assented to by him, or his agent." There are cases in some of the States, however, which Am. Dec. 222 ; Fibel v. Livingston, 64 Barb. (N. Y.) 179; Farmers', etc.,, Bank v. Champlain Transp. Co., 23 Vt. 186, 56 Am. Dec. 68; Boorman v. American Express Co., 21 Wis. 152. 11. Erie E. Co. v. Wilcox, 84 111. 239, 25 Am. Eep. 451, 16 Am. Ry. Eep. 457; Oppenheimer v. United States Express Co., 69 111. 62, 18 Am. Eep. 596. The language of the publica- tion must be plain, explicit and unambiguous, if the carrier relies on a mere notice or advertisement as a limitation of its liability. Beck- man V. Shouse, 5 Eawle (Pa.), 179, 28 Am. Dec. 653; Barney v. Prentiss, 4 Har. & J. (Md.) 317, 7 Am. Dec. 670. 12. Hollister v. Nowlen, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 234, 32 Am. Dec. 455; Cole V. Goodwin, 19 Wend. {N. Y.) 251, 32 Am. Dec. 470. 13. See cases cited note 12, supra. N. r.— Springer v. Westcott, 166 N. Y. 117, 59 N. E. 693; Rawson v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 48 N. Y. 212, 8 Am. Eep. 543; Blossom v. Dod'd, 43 N. Y. 264, 3 Am. Eep. 701; Camden, etc., E. Co. V. Belknap, 21 Wend. (N. Y.) 354; Zimmer v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 137 N. Y. 462; Gross- man V. Dodd, 63 Hun (N. Y.), 324, afld. 1S7 N. Y. 599; Madan v. Sherard, 73 N. Y. 329, 29 Am. Rep. 153; Reed v. Fargo, 7 N. Y. Supp. 185. Where an express company gave plaintiff a receipt for a trunk check which contained a provision limiting the company's liability, plaintiff was not bound thereby, when she had no knowledge of the contents of the paper, and there was no showing that it was proffered as a contract, or that plaintiff accepted' it as anything more than a means to identify her property. Walker v. Piatt, 34 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 799, 69 N. Y. Supp. 943. U. S. — New Jersey Steam Nav. Co. 292 The Law of Caeeiees. hold that while a general or published notice is insufficient for a contract limiting liability to be implied therefrom, yet wten the notice ia not unreasonable, and is clear and explicit, and is brought home to the shipper, or the course of business is well V. Merchants' Bank, 6 How. (U. S.) 344; Ormsby v. Union Pac. R. Co., 4 Fed. 706, 2 McCrary (U. S.), 48; Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Mineral Springs Mfg. Co., 16 Wall. (U. S.) 318; Ayres V. Western R. Corp., 14 Blatchf. (U. S.) 9; The Brig May Queen, 1 Newb. Adm. 465; The Pa- cific, Deady (U. S.), 17. A.la. — Southern Express Co. v. Armstead, 50 Ala. 350; Southern Express Co. v. Crook, 44 Ala. 468; 4 Am. Rep. 140; Southern Express Co. V. Caperton, 44 Ala. 101, 4 Am. Rep. 118; Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. Jarboe, 41 Ala. 644; Steele v. Town- send, 37 Ala. 247, 79 Am. Dec. 49. Conn. — Peck v. Weeks, 34 Conn. 145; Derwot v. Loomer, 21 Conn. 245; Hale v. New Jersey Steam Nav. Co., 15 Conn. 539, 39 Am. Dec. 398. See Coupland v. Housatonic R. Co., 61 Conn. 531, 55 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 380. &a. — Cteorgia R. Co. v. Gann, 68 Ga. 350. A common carrier of goods cannot limit his legal liability as an insurer, except by an express con- tract entered into by both parties. Central of Georgia R. Co. v. Lipp- man, 110 Ga. 665, 36 S. E. 202. III. — ^Oppenheimer v. United States Express Co., 69 111. 62, 18 Am. Rep. 596; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Frank- enberg, 54 111. 88, 5 Am. Rep. 92; Western Transp. Co. v. Newhall, 24 111., 466, 76 Am. Dec. 760; Chicago, etc., R. Co. V. Harmon, 12 111. App. 54. There must be clear proof that the shipper expressly assented to limitations on the carrier's liability contained in its contract, or the shipper, notwithstanding notice of such intended limitation, may insist that the carrier shall transport his goods incident to the common-law employment. Adams Exp. Co. t. Bratton, 106 111. App. 563. Ind. — Indianapolis, etc., E. Co. 7. Cox, 29 Ind. 360, 95 Am. Dee. 640; Evansville, etc., R. Co. v. Young, 28 Ind. 516. La. — ^New Orleans Mut. Ins. Co. v. New Orleans, etc., E. Co., 29 La. Ann. 302; Roberts v. Riley, 15 La. Ann. 103, 77 Am. Deo. 183; Logan v. Pontchartrain R. Co., 11 Rob. (La.) 24, 43 Am. Dec. 199; Baldwin v. Col- lins, 9 Rob. (La.) 468. Md. — Baltimore, etc., R. Co. ". Brady, 32 Md. 333. Mass. — Buckland v. Adams Ex- press Go., 97 Mas*. 131, 93 Am. Dec. 68; Judson v. Western R. Corp., 6 Allen (Mass.) 490. Mich. — McMillan v. Michigan Southern, etc., R. Co., 16 Mich. 79, 93 Am. Dec. 208; American Transp. Co. V. Moore, 5 Mich. 368. Miss. — ^Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. Wei- ner, 49 Miss. 725. Neb. — ^Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Miller, 16 Neb. 661, 18 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 545. N. G. — Gardner v. Southern K. Co., 127 N. C. 293, 37 N. E. 328. N. H. — ^Moses V. Boston, etc., E. Co., 24 N. H. 71, 55 Am. Dec. 222; Bennett v. Dutton, 10 N. H. 481. AT. J.— Gibbons v. Wade, 8 N. J. L. 255. OTito— Mack V. Great Western De- spatch, 2 O. C. D. 22, the acceptance of dray tickets did not constitute an assent to their terms; Gaines v. Union Transp. etc., Co., 28 Ohio St. Limitation of Liabiutt. 293 TiBderstood and has been often acted upon -without question, the limitation which it imposes may be binding upon the shipper." 418; Jones v. Voorhees, 10 Ohio 145; Davidson v. Graham, 2 Ohio St. 131; Union Mut. Ins. Co. v. Indianapolis, etc., E. Co., 1 Disney (Ohie) 480. 8. C. — Levy v. Southern Express Co., 4 S. C. 234. Tenn. — ^Walker v. Skipwith, Meiga (Tenn.) 502, 33 Am. Dee. 161. y<.— Winohell v. National Ex- press Co., 64 Vt. 15; Mann v. Bir- chard, 40 Vt. 326; Blumenthal v. Brainard, 38 Vt. 402, 91 Am. Dec. 350; Kimball v. Rutland, etc.,, E. Co., 26 Vt. 247, 62 Am. Dee. 567; Farm- ers', etc.. Bank v. Champlain Transp. Co., 18 Vt. 131, 23 Vt. 186, 56 Am. Dec. 68. W. Va. — Brown v. Adams Express Co., 15 W. Va. 812. Eng. — Peek v. North Staffordshire E. Co., 10 H. L. Cas. 473, 32 L. J. Q. B. 241 ; Doolan v. Midland E. Co., L. E. 2 App. 792, 25 W. E. 882; Cohen v. South Eastern E. Co., 2 Exch. Div. 253, 46 L. J. Exch. Div. 417. Can. — Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Vogel, 11 Can. Sup. Ct. 612, 27 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 18; Eitzgerald v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 4 Ont. App. 601, 5 Can. Sup. Ct. 209. 14. Bingham v. Rogers, 6 W. & S. (Pa.) 495, 40 Am. Dee. 581; Beck- man V. Shouse, 5 Rawle (Pa.) 179, 28 Am. Dec. 653. These decisions have been questioned in later cases. In Laing v. Colder, 8 Pa. St. 479, 49 Am. Dee. 533, the court says: "The expediency of recognizing in the car- rier a right to do so by a general notice has been strongly and justly questioned, and in some of our sister states altogether denied. Were the question an open one in Pennsyl- vania, I should, for one, unhesitat- ingly follow them in repudiating a principle which places the Bailor ab- solutely at the mercy of the carrier, whom in a vast majority of instances, he cannot but choose to employ.'* See also Farnham v. Camden, etc., R. Co., 55 Pa. St. 53; Pennsylvania Cent. R. Co. v. Schwarzenberger, 45 Pa. St. 208, 84 Am. Dec. 490; Ver- ner v. Schweitzer, 32 Pa. St. 208; Camden, etc., E. Co. v. Baldauf, 16 Pa. St. 67, 55 Am. Dee. 481. In Maine the rule is that notice brought home to the owner of the goods, at or before the time of de- livery for shipment, if either ex- pressly or impliedly assented to by the owner, will restrict the carrier's liability. Little v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 66 Me. 239 ; Sager v. Portsmouth, etc., R. Co., 31 Me. 228, 50 Am. Dee. 659; Fillebrowu v. Grand Trunk E. Co., 55 Me. 462, 92 Am. Dec. 606. In North Carolina it is held that common carriers may, by no- tice brought to the knowledge of the owner, reasonably qualify their lia- bility in certain cases, as, if the no- tice be that they will not be liable for glass in a, box, or articles of un- usual value, unless informed of the facts. Smith v. North Carolina E. Co., 64 N. C. 235. In Kentucky it has been held " that public notice given by the car- rier and brought homo to the knowl- edge of the shipper, enters into the contract of affreightment so far as the carrier has a right to impose terms, either by express or implied contract, unless the notice is incon- sistent with the terms of the express contract." Orndorff v. Adams Ex- press Co., 3 Bush (Ky.), 194, 96 Am. Dec. 207. S«« also Adams Express 294 The Law of Caeeiees. § 4. Limitation by special contract. — In the earlier cases in New York it was held that a common carrier could not, even by express contract, restrict' its common law liability.^ But these cases were modified by later authorities and the courts de- termined that a carrier may limit his responsibility by an ex- presfs agreement with the owner, in the form of a special accept- ance of the goods to be transported." The courts in England and America, both State and Federal, now generally maintain the rule thai^;3. carrier may, by special contraxjt not unreasonable be- tween himself and-^the shipper or passenger, limit its common law liability." It is usual for the consignor, on delivery of goods for transportation to a carrier, to receive a bill of lading, ex- pressing the terms and conditions upon which the merchandise is to be carried. He is presumed to assent to its conditions be- ' cause he receives it under circumstances which, by the ordinary usages of business, would naturally lead him to infer that the document he receives, which is his muniment of title, quasi nego- tiable and upon the faith of which he may borrow money, is a contract and not a mere receipt.^' The rule is, therefore, gen- Co. V. Nock, 2 Duv. (Ky.) 562, 87 Am. Dec. 510. 15. Cole V. Goodwin, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 251, 32 Am. Dec. 470; Gould V. Hill, 2 Hill (N. Y.), 623; HoUis- ter V. Nowlen, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 234, 32 Am. Dec. 455. 16. Dorr v. New Jersey Steam NaT. Co., 11 N. Y. 485; Parsons v. Mon- teath, 13 Barb. (N. Y.) 353; Moore V. Evans, 14 Barb. (N. Y.) 524, over- ruling Gould V. Hill, 2 Hill. N. Y. 623; Fibel v. Livingston, 64 Barb. (N. Y.) 179; Mercantile Mut. Ins., Co. V. Chase, 1 E. D. Sm. (N. Y.) 115. 17. Erie R. Co. v. Wilcox, 84 111. 239, 25 Am. Rep. 451, 16 Am. Ry. Rep. 457; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Schwartz, 13 111. App. 490; Thayer v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 22 Ind. 26, 85 Am. Dec. 409 ; Camp v. Hartford, etc., Steamboat Co., 43 Conn. 333; Feiga v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 62 Mich. 1 ; Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Hale, 6 Mich. 243; Potts v. Wabash, etc., E. Co., 17 Mo. App. 394; Bingham v. Rogers, 6 W. & S. (Pa.) 495, 40 Am. Dee. 581; Richmond, etc., E. Co. •- Payne, 86 Va. 481, 42 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 366 ; Baltimore, etc., R. Co. T. Rathbone, 1 W. Va. 87, 88 Am. Dec. 664; Zouch v. Chesapeake, etc., K. Co., 36 W. Va. 524, 19 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 711; Fitzgerald v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 4 Ont. App. 601, 28 U. C. C. P. 586; Southcote's Case, 4 Coke 84; Morse v. Slue, 1 Vent. 238; Nicholson v. Willan, 5 East 507/ Smith V. Horn, 8 Taunt. 144, 4 E. C. ' L. 50 ; Anon v. Jackson, 2 Peake N. P. 185. 18. Long V. New York Cent. E. Co., 60 N. Y. 76; Huntington v. Dinsmore, 4 Hun (N. Y.) 66, 6 T. 4 G. (N. Y.) 195; Grace v. Adams, 100 Mass. 505; Snider v. Adams Express Co., 63 Mo. 376; Brehme v. Adams Limitation op Liability. 295 «rally recognized in tke United States that tlie acceptance by the shipper or his agent of a receipt or bill of lading signed by the carrier expressing the terms and conditions upon which the goods are received, and are tO be carried, and containing a limitation of the carrier's liability, constitutes in the absence of fraud or im- position, where the limitation is not illegal or unreasonable, a contract controlling the rights of the parties.-'' The rule is main- tained even thou^ it he shown that the consignor did not read the bill of lading, since it was his' duty to do so.^" It is not essential to tbe validity of such a limitation that it be shown that the shipper was aware of it, or that it had been explained to him, or that his attention had been called to it, or that it was brought Express Co., 25 Md. 328; MeMahon V. Macy, 51 N. Y. 155; Farnham v. Camden, etc., E. Co., 55 Pa. St. 53; American Express Co. v. Second National Bank, 69 Pa. St. 394; Logan T. Mobile Trade Co., 46 Ala. 514. 19. V. /8.— Michigan Cent. E. Co. T. Mineral Springs Mfg. Co., 16 Wall. (U. S.) 329. If. T. — Kirkland v. Dinsmore, 62 N. Y. 171, 20 Am. Eep. 475; Belger V. Dinsmore, 51 N. Y. 166, 10 Am. Bep. 575. Ark. — St. Louis, etc., E. Co. v. Weakly, 50 Ark. 397, 35 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 635, 7 Am. St. Eep. 104. Ind. — ^Adams Express Co. v. Carna- han (Ind. App.), 63 N. E. 245, 64 N. E. 647. Kan. — ^Atchison, etc., E. Co. v. Dill, 48 Kan. 210, 55 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 378. Ky. — ^Adams Express Co. v. Nock, 2 Duv. (Ky.) 563, 87 Am. Dec. 5101 Mass. — Grace v. Adams, 100 Mass. 605, 97 Am. Deo. 117, 1 Am. Eep. 131. Miss. — Southern Express Co. v. Moon, 39 Miss. 832. Mo. — ^Levering v. Union Transp., etc., Co., 42 Mo. 88, 97 Am. Dec. 320. N. E. — Merrill v. American Ex- press Co., 62 N. H. 514. R. I. — Ballou V. Earle, 17 E. I. 441, 33 Am. St. Eep. 881, 48 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 31. Term. — East Tennessee, etc., E. Co., V. Brumley, 5 Lea (Tenn.) 401; Dil- lard V. Louisville, etc., E. Co., 2 Lea (Tenn.) 288. Vt. — ^Davis V. Central Vermont E. Co., 66 Vt. 290, 44 Am. St. Eep. 852, 61 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 197. Compare Blumenthal v. Brainard, 38 Vt. 402, 91 Am. Dec. 350. Wis. — Proof that shipper took a receipt containing provisions restrict- ing the carrier's liability is prima facie evidence of his assent to them. Morrison v. Phillips, etc., Constr. Co., 44 Wis. 405, 28 Am. Eep. 599, 19 Am. Eep. 312; Boorman v. American Ex- press Co., 21 Wis. 154; Strohn v. Detroit, etc., E. Co., 21 Wis. 554, 94 Am. Dec. 554. 20. — Grace v. Adams, 100 Mass. 505; Snider v. Adams Express Co., 63 Mo. 376; Mulligan v. Illinois Cent. E. Co., 36 Iowa 181; American M. U. Express Co. v. Schier, 55 III. 140, the question whether the shipper as- sented to the restrictions and' condi- tions in an inland bill of lading is one of fact for the jury. See also Illi- nois Cent. E. Co. v. Jonte, 13 Brad. (111. App.) 424. 296 The Law of Caeeiees. to the knowledge of the shipper himself where his agent assented to the stipulation, provided the carrier has used no deception or improper means to prevent the shipper or his agent from notic- ing or objecting to the provision limiting liability.^^ In the ab- 21. 2^. r. — Zimmer v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 137 N. Y. 460; Hill V. Syracuse, etc., R. Co., 73 If. Y. 351, 29 Am. Rep. 163; Germania P. Ins. Co. V. Memphis, etc., R. Co., 72 N. Y. 90, 28 Am. Rep. 113; Kirk- land V. Dinsmore, 62 N. Y. 171, 20 Am. Rep. 475. See also Fowler v. Liverpool, etc.. Steam Co., 87 N. Y. 190, 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 235; Coffin V. New York Cent. R. Co., 64 Barb. (N. Y.) 379, 56 N. Y. 632. Ala. — Western R. Co. v. Harwell, 97 Ala. 341 ; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Meyer, 78 Ala. 597. loioa. — ^Mulligan v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 36 Iowa 181. Ky. — ^Louisville, etc., R. Co., v. Brownlee, 14 Bush. (Ky.) 590. Mass. — Quimby v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 150 Mass., 365; Hill v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 144 Mass. 284, 28 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 88 ; Monitor Mut. F. Ins. Co. V. BuflFum, 115 Mass. 343. Mo. — ^Kellerman v. Kansas City, etc., R. Co. (Kan.), 34 S. W. 41; Patterson v. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 56 Mo. App. 657. 8. G. — Jonhstone v. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 39 S. C. 55, 55 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 346. Wis. — ^Morrison v. Phillips, etc., Constr. Co., 44 Wis. 405, 19 Am. Ry. Rep. 312, 28 Am. Rep. 599. Eng. — Burke v. South Eastern R. Co., 5 C. P. Div. 1; Harris v. Great Western R. Co., 1 Q. B. Div. 515; O'Rorke v. Great Western R. Co., 23 U. C. Q. B. 427. Tew. — Ryan v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 65 Tex. 13, 23 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 707, 57 Am. Rep. 589; International, etc., R. Co. V. Watt, 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. § 781. The insertion of a stipulation limit- ing the liability of a carrier in a bill of lading, and the receipt of the goods under it, are not sufficient evidence of an assent to such exemption by the shipper or consignee to render such stipulation binding upon the latter. The Guildhall, 58 Fed. 796. Where, under a, custom, a railroad company, on shipment of goods, in- stead of issuing a, bill of lading, signed a receipt for the goods prepared by the shipper, -whicli at the instance of the railroad company contained the clause, " subject to the terms and con- ditions of the R. R. Co.'s bill of lading," and such bill of lading con- tained the condition that " no car- rier or party in possession of all or any of the property Herein described shall be liable for any loss thereof or damage thereto by causes beyond its control, or by floods or fire" not due to its own negligence, the pro- visions of such bill of lading become incorporated into the contract of ship- ment, though the shipper was not aware that such provision was con- tained therein, he having the means to acquaint himself of such fact, and in such case neither the shipper nor the consignee can recover for the loss by fire of the goods shipped', while in possession of the carrier or of a con- necting carrier bound by the same contract of shipment; such loss occur- ring without the negligence of such carriers. Cincinnati, etc., E. Co. v, Berdan, 22 Ohio Cir. Ct. R. 326. Limitation op Liability. 29T sence of fraud, concealment, or improper practice, the legal pre- sumption is that stipulations limiting the common law liability of common carriers, contained in a receipt or bill of lading given to a shipper or passenger, are known to the party receiving it,, and that he has read and assented to them.^^ Eut a special con- tract limiting the liability of the carrier is only binding upon the' sliipper when fairly and freely executed or assented to by him, and he will not be bound by it when obtained unfairly or through, fraud or misrepresentation, nor will Ms assent be implied where undue advantage has been taken of him.^^ Tiie general rule is not followed by the courts of Illinois and Ohio, but it is there held that the express assent of the shipper to the limitation must be shown, and that it cannot be implied or presumed from the mere acceptance of the receipt or bill of lading containing the limitation, although, the fact of acceptance may be considered as some evidence of assent." In Georgia the statute provides 22. Steers v. Liverpool, etc., Steam- ship Co., 57 N. Y. 1, 15 Am. Eep. 453; McMillan v. Michigan Southern, etc., E. Co., 16 Mich. 79, 93 Am. Dec. 208; Ballou v. Earle, 17 R. I. 441, 33 Am. St. Rep. 881, 48 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 31; International, etc., R. Co. V. Watt, 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. J 781. Compare Brown v. Adams Ex- press Co.j 15 W. Va. 812. It may be a question for tbe jury whether or not the shipper actu- ally assented to the limitation in question. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Brady, 32 Md. 333; Palmer v. Grand Junction R. Co., 4 M. & W. 749, 3 Jur. 559, 7 D. P. C. 232. 23. Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Dill, 48 Kan. 210, 29 Pae. 148; Union Pae. E. Co. V. Marston, 30 Neb. 241, 45 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 328; Simons v. Great Western R. Co., 2 C. B. N. S. 620, 89 E. C. L. 620. 24. III. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Simon, 160 111. 648, affg. 57 111. App. 502; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Harmon, 12 III. App. 54; Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. T. Jurey, 8 111. App. 160; Me*. chants' Despatch Transp. Co. v.. Furthmann, 149 111., 66, 61 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 145; Erie R. Co. v. Wil- cox, 84 111. 239, 25 Am. Rep. 451, 16 Am. Ry. Rep. 457; Merchants' De- spatch Transp. Co. v. Joesting, 89 111. 153; Merchants' Despatch Transp. Co. V. Leysor, 89 111. 43; Field v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 71 111. 458; Anchor Line v. Dater, 68 111. 369; United States Express Co. v. Haines, 67 III. 137; Adams Express Co. v. Stettaners, 61 111. 184; 11 Am. Rep. 57; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Franken- berg, 54 111. 88, 5 Am. Rep. 92; Adams Express Co. v. Haynes, 42 111. 89. See Anchor Line v. Knowles, 66 111. 150; Black v. Wabash, etc., R. Co., Ill 111. 351, 53 Am. Rep. 628. Acceptance of receipt some evidence of assent: Erie, etc.» Transp. Co. v. Dater. 91 111. 195, 33 Am. Rep. 51; Boscowitz v. Adams Express Co., 93 111. 523, 34 Am. Rep. 191. See also Merchants' Despatch. Transp. Co. v. Theilbar, 86 111. 71. Ohio. — Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Barrett, 36 Ohio St. 448, 3 Am. & 298 The Law of Caeeiees. tliat no contract limiting the liability of a common carrier shall be valid unlesa it has the express assent of the shipper. ^^ § 5. Special contract must be express and will not be pre- sumed. — ^In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is to be assfumed that property accepted by a carrier fdr transportation is taken under the responsibility cast upon it by the common law, except as modified by statute, and, if lost under circum- stances which render the carrier liable by the general rule of law, it must respond, unless it can show that there was a special acceptance, equivalent to a contract, which exempts it from tHe ordinary liability of common carriers.^* The fact that the car- rier was accustomed to give to shippers' receipts containing pro- visions limiting its liability will not support a presumption that there was a special contract limitingits liability in the absence of any showing that such a receipt was never given or came to the knowledge of the shipper," nor wiU the carrier be absolved from liability by evidence that the sihipper or his agent previously knew of conditions in the shipping billsi or receipts usually given, which would discharge the carrier from liability for the loss sus- tained.^* Mere notices brought ihome to the owner of the goods, by which the carrier seeksi to avoid or limit its common law lia- bility, but which are not expressly assented to, cannot be availed of to defeat a claim for loss.^' Eng. E. Cas. 256; Gaines v. Union Eome, etc., R. Co., 144 N. T. 200, Transp., etc., Co., 28 Ohio St. 418, 14 affg. 68 Hun (N. Y.) 598, 23 N. Y. Am. Ey. Rep. 158; Davidson v. Gra- Supp. 231. ham, 2 Ohio St. 131. 28. Eeed v. Fargo, 7 N. Y. Supp. 25. Georgia E. Co. v. Spears, 66 185; Pearsall v. Western Union Tel. Ga. 485, 42 Am. Rep. 81; Wallace v. Co., 124 N. Y. 256, 26 N. E. 534; Sanders, 42 Ga. 486; Southern Ex- Kirkland v. Dinsmore, 62 N. Y. 171, preas Co. v. Newby, 36 Ga. 635, 91 175 ; Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co,, f. Bar- Am. Dec. 783; Puroell v. Southern rett, 36 Ohio St. 448, 3 Am. & Eng. Express Co., 34 Ga. 315; Southern E. Cas. 256. Express Co. v. Barnes, 36 Ga. 532. 29. Gott v. Dinsmore, lU Mass. 26. Park v. Preston, 108 N. Y. 434, 52. The assent of the shipper to cer- 15 N. B. 705 ; Madan v. Sherard, 73 tain express provisions in the receipt N. Y. 330; Blossom v. Dodd. 43 N. or bill of lading may be proven by Y. 264: Dorr v. New Jersey Steam implication, but not the provisions Nav. Co., 11 N. Y. 485. themselves. Dillard v. Louisville, 27. London, etc., P. Ins. Co. v. etc., E. Co., 2 Lea (Tenn.) 288. Limitation op Liability. 299 § 6. Contract need not be signed by shipper unless required by statute, — Although, as we' have seen, the contract limiting the carrier's liability must be express and cannot be implied, the assent of the shipper to the contract may be implied and the con- tract need not be signed by the shipper, unless a statute requires such signature by him.'" But under a statute providing that the obligations of a common carrier cannot be limited by general notice, and that, except as to the rate of hire, time, place and manner of delivery, the acceptance of a ticket, bill of lading, or written contract, shall not constitute an acceptance of provisions modifying the carrier's obligations, unless the person accepting it manifests his assent by his signature, a provision in such con- tract or receipt exempting the company from liability is of no effect, where such contract or receipt was signed only by the car- rier's agent ^^ But such a contract may still be binding on the carrier, under such a statute, whether signed by the shipper or not.^^ § 7. Where there are two contracts limiting liability. — Where there axe two contracts of shipment, both representing the same shipment, limiting the carrier's liability, the carrier is bound by the one which is the least bene- ficial to itself.'^ Where the carrier has posted one set of notices stating the conditions on which he will transport freight, and has advertised different conditions in printed hand bills spread abroad, he will be bound by the conditions which hold him more nearly to his common law liability.'* Where a ship- ping receipt, signed by the carrier's agent only, limited the amount for which damages would be paid, while a special agree- ment under seal signed by the shipper released the carrier from all liability, it was held that the receipt and release were sep- arate and distinct contracts, prepared and executed at the instance of the carrier, and the carrier could not, in its own interest, elect 30. See last preceding section. 3 Ey. & C. T. Cas. XXV., as to such 31. Hartwell v. Northern Pae. Ex- provision in the English Railway and press Co., 5 Dak. 463, 37 Am. & Eng. Canal Traffic Act. E. Cas. 635; Hazel v. Chicago, etc., 33. Munn v. Baker, 2 Stark. 255, R. Co., 82 Iowa 477 ; 49 Am. & Eng. 3 E. C. L. 399. E. Cas. 78. 34. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Smuek, 32. Baxendale v. Great Eastern E. 49 Ind. 302. Co., 10 B. & S. 212, L. R. 4 Q. B. 244, 300 The Law of Caebiees. ■which ahould be the shipping contract ; that the shipping receipt, not under seal or witnessed, and not regarded by the carrier as ^e shipping contract, could not be deemed the contract under whicili the goods were carried; the other agreement was the shipping contract, and the limitations therein being void as against publie policy because attempting to release the carrier from all liabihty for n^ligence, the shipper was not precluded from recovering the full value of his goods ; that, if both papers constitute but one contract, both are tainted with the illegality, and are therefore void, and the liability of the carrier must be determined under the principles of the public law.^^ § 8. Conflict of oral or written agreements. — A common car rier may, by special contract, limit its liability, and, in the ab- sence of fraud or mistake, the contract, signed by the shipper, is the sole evidence of the agreement, although it differs from the previous oral agreement, and the shipper did not read it." The presumption is that the written contract contains the entire agreement, and the general rule applies that oral, testimony cannot be admitted to contradict or vary its provisions.^' A final written contract betweeen the shipper and the carrier supersedes aU prior agreements relating to the same matter.'* A subsequent oral agreement cannot be shown to relieve the carrier from its Ua- 35. Woodburn v. Cincinnati, etc., parol evidence; Minneapolis, etc., R. R. Co., 40 Fed. 731, 42 Am. & Eng. E. Co. v. Home Insurance Co., 55 Mini. Cas. 514. 236; Western, etc., E. Co. v. McElwee, 36. St. Louis, etc., E. Co. v. Cleary, 6 Heisk. (Tenn.)208; Dixon v. Coliim- 77 Mo. 634, 46 Am. Eep. 13, 16 Am. bus, etc., E. Co., 4 Biss. (U. S.) 137, & Eng. E. Cas. 122; Missouri Pae. E. where a freight bill was signed by Co. V. Fagan, 72 Tex. 127, 13 Am. certain parties as agents, but there St. Eep. 776, 2 L. E. A. 75, 9 S. W. was nothing to indicate that it was 749, testimony cannot be elicited the contract of the railroad p,ompany, from a shipper on cross examination parol evidence to show that it was the as to the nature of his agreement, contract of the company was inadmis- where the contract of shipment is in sible. writing. 38. Smith v. Findley, 34 Kan. 316, 37. McFadden v. Missouri Pac. E. 23 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 712; Leonard Co., 92 Mo. 343, 1 Am. St. Eep. 721, v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 54 Mo. App. 30 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 17, but a re- 293; Hostetter v. Baltimore, etc., E. cital in a written contract of car- Co., (Pa.) 11 Atl. 609, 32 Am. t riage that the rate is a special and Eng. R. Cas. 549. reduced one may be contradicted by Limitation of Liabiutt. 301 tility under a -wTitten contract.^' Where a written contract waa entered into after tlie breach of an oral contract in relation to the same matter, the written contract did not merge the oral con- -tract and would not bar a recovery for the breach of it.*" So, a written contract which does not contain the entire agreement made between the parties, but only a part of such agreement, and which isi merely supplemental to a prior verbal agreement, does not merge such verbal contract, and the latter may be proven and the carrier will be liable thereunder, though such liability might not have existed under the written contract alone.*^ A verbal con- "traet which in no way varies or contradicts a written contract must be incorporated with it and the two together held to con- stitute the whole contract.*^ Where the terms of the written contract are contradictory or ambiguous, the real contract under which the carrier received the property may be shown by parol ■evidence to explain the written contract.^' Where a verbal con- tract between the parties was complete and the written contract set up by the carrier consisted of a receipt, handed to the shipper, -of the contents of which he was ignorant, the verbal contract may be shown and will control." In jurisdictions where the possession by the shipper of a receipt containing limitations upon the liability of the carrier is only prima facie evidence that he assented to its conditions, it has been held that where a ship- per claims that the shipment was made under a special oral agreement and that the receipt was not delivered until some •days after the shipment, it may be shown by other evidence ihat the shipment was in fact made under the oral agreement 39. Corbett v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 43. Saltsman v. New York Cent., 86 Wis. 82. etc., E. Co., 65 Hun (N. Y.), 448, 20 40. Harrison v. Missouri Pac. E. N. Y. Supp. 361. Co., 74 'Mo. 364, 7 Am. & Eng. E. 44. King v. Woodbridge, 34 Vt. Cas. 382, 41 Am. Eep. 318; Cross v. 565. So, where the written contract •Graves, 4 Tex. App. Civ. Cas., § 100; was signed after the goods left the Hamilton v. Western North Carolina station and was supposed by the ship- E. Co., 96 N. C. 398. per to be a mere receipt, evidence of 41. Shiff V. New York Cent., etc., a verbal contract different from the E. C, 16 Hun (N. Y.), 278; Hoskins written contract is admissible to V. Missouri Pac. E. Co., 19 Mo. App. show the real contract between the •315; Union E., etc., Co. v. Eiegel, 73 parties. St. Louis, etc., E. Co. v. Pa. St. 72. Clark, 48 Kan. 321, 55 Am. & Eng. 42. Fitzgerald v. Grand Trunk E. E. Caa. 367. -Co. 27 U. C. C. P. 528. 302 The Law of Cakeiees. and the presumption arising from possession of the receipt thus rebutted.^^ On an issue as to -whether a shipment was made under a written contract or a subsequent parol contract between the carrier and the shipper, the latter has the right to show that the written contract was abandoned, and that the shipment was made under a subsequent parol contract.^^ § 9. Contract must have been fairly entered into. — Contracts limiting the common law liability of carriers must have been fairly made and freely entered into in order to be binding on th« shipper.*' "Wliere such special contracts have been procured b7 duress,** or by the arbitrary insertion of words in the contract by the carrier,*^ or under circumstances where the shipper did not have a complete understanding of the contract or freely ac- cept the same,^" or where the carrier has made unreasonable de- mands and succeeded in obtaining an undue advantage of th& shipper,^^ the courts will not sustain the contract. Such contracts are not favored by the courts. The carrier is bound to carry un- der its common law liability if the shipper insists upon it, and it is the latter's option to accept a contract of limited liabilily instead of the insurance that the common law requires of th& carrier.'^ § 10. Necessity of consideration. — A special contract between a shipper and a common carrier, or a stipulation in a bill of lading, qualifying or limiting the common law liability of the carrier must be supported by a valuable consideration, apart from the mere acceptance of the property for carriage and agreement 45. Strohn v. Detroit, etc., E. Co., 49. Kansas City, etc., E. Co. t. 21 Wis. 554, 94 Am. Dec. 564; Wa- Simpson, 30 Kan. 645, 16 Am. t bash R. Co. v. Harris, 55 111. App. Eng. E. Cas. 158, 46 Am. Kep. 104. 159; Louisville, etc.. E. Co. v. Cray- 50. Adams Express Co. v. Nock, J craft, 12 Ind. App. 203; Missouri, Duv. (Ky.) 562, 87 Am. Dec. 510. etc., R. Co. V. Carter, 9 Tex. Civ. App. 51. Simons v. Great Western K. 677. Co., 2 C. B. N. S. 620, 89 E. C. I- 46. Toledo, etc., E. Co. v. Levy, 620; Hance v. Wabash Western E. 127 Ind: 168, 26 N. E. 773. Co., 56 Mo. App. 476; Paddock t. 47. Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Dill, Missouri Pac. E. Co., 1 Mo. App. Eep- 48 Kan. 210, 55 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 87. 355, 29 Pac. 148. 52. Wallace v. Matthews, 39 G». 48. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Car- 617, 99 Am. Dec. 473. ter, 9 Tex. Civ. App. 677. LiMITATIOlT OF LlAEILITT. 303 to transport it, such, for example, as an actual reduction from the usual freight rate,^^ or additional facilities for transportation.^* Both rates of transportation offered the shipper must be reason- able and he must be given the option to make his selection, in order to render the consideration of a reduced rate valid and sufficients^ Where there is but one contract and one rate open and offered to the shipper by a common carrier, and no option 53. Ullman v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 112 Wis. 168, 88 N. W. 41; Lake Erie, etc., R. Co. v. Holland (Ind.), 69 N. E. 138, 63 L. E. A. 948; Hance v. Wabash Western E. Co., 56 Mo. App. 476; Mouton v. Louisville, etc., E. Co. (Ala.), 29 So. 602; Southard V. Minneapolis, etc., E. Co., 60 Minn. 382; Wehmann v. Minneapolis, etc., E. Co., 58 Minn. 22, 61 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 273. Surrender of a prior verbal con- tract is sufficient consideration for a substituted writtfen one. Leonard v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 54 Mo. App. 293. A provision in a shipping receipt that no carrier shall be liable for damage by wet not due to its own negligence or that of its servants is binding where entered into in con- sideration of a reduced rate of ship- ment. Mears v. New York, etc., E. Co. (Conn.), 52 Atl. 610, 56 L. E. A. 884. 54. Gardner v. Southern E. Co., 127 N. C. 293, 37 S. E. 328. The clause in a bill of lading limiting the carrier's liability will not be held valid on the ground that a reduced rate was intended, no rate being spe- cified, and none being talked of by the parties. Phoenix Powder Mfg. Co. V. Wabash E. Co. (Mo. App.), 74 S. W. 492. 55. Duvenick v. Missouri Pac. E. Co., 57 Mo. App. 550; Louisville, etc., E. Co. V. Sowell,'90 Tenn. 17, 49 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 166. There must be an actual free- dom of choice between different rates offered: Little Eock, etc., E.. Co. V. Cravens, 57 Ark. 112, 55 Am.. & Eng. E. Cas. 650 ; Little Eock, etc.^ E. Co. V. Eubanks, 48 Ark. 460, 3 Am. St. Eep. 245, 31 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 176; Deming v. Merchants' Cotton. Press Co., 90 Tenn. 306. Parol evidence is admissible ta show that a pretended reduced rate- was actually the regular rate always charged, and the recital in the bill of lading that a reduced rate is not allowed is not conclusive. McEadden V. Missouri Pac. E. Co., 92 Mo. 343, 1 Am. St. Eep. 721, 30 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 17. Findings in an action against an express company for loss of goods^ that the company, 'on receiving the goods, gave the consignor a receipt therefor which limited the company's, liability to the sum fixed as the value of the property, and that the con- signor was informed' that the rate was 25 cents if the value did not ex- ceed $50, and that she authorized the agent of the company to fix the value at $100, and was informed that the charges were 35 cents, and that she knew that the charges were gradu- ated according to the value of the property, show an agreement limiting: the company's liability, based on a consideration. Adams Express Co. v. Carnahan (Ind. App.), 63 N. E. 245, 64 N. E. 647. 304 The Law of Caeeiees. is giren him, a special provision limiting the common-law lia- bility of the carrier ro "loss or damage occasioned by wrong- ful acts or gross negligence" is •without consideration and void.^ If no reduced rates were in fact allowed the shipper the limita- tion is invalid as being without consideration/^ or if the higher rate adopted by the carrier for shippers not signing a contract limiting liability is; illegal as in excess of the rate allowed by statute, although the statutory rate is actually in excess of that charged the shipper in signing the contract.'^ So also where there is no real option offered to the shipper because the agent of the carrier has no authority to offer transportation except at a particular rate fixed by his superiors,^' or the carrier's rules would not have permitted the shipment unless the shipper ac- cepted the bill of lading with its limitations.*" A stipulation in a contract for shipment of perishable freight, "Subject to de- lay," inserted without any further reduction of rate than ordi- narily charged on a bill of lading at owner's risk, is without con- sideration and void." Where a contract partially exempting a railroad from liability for injury to goods shipped was made in consideration of a reduced rate, but the company charged a rate in excess of that stipulated in the contract, it was not entitled to insist upon its exemption from liability.'^ But the lack of an independent consideration for an exemption of a carrier from liability for damages caused by fire, expressed in the bill of lad- ing, cannot successfully be urged to avoid such provision, although the carrier may have had but one rate, where the consideration expressed wag sufficient to support the entire contract made." Where it is entirely competent for parties to enter into a eon- 56. Illinois Cent. E. Co. v. Lan- 60. St. Louis, etc., E. Co. v. Spam cashire Ins. Co. (Miss.), 30 So. 43. 57 Ark. 127. 57. Ward v. Missouri Pac. E. Co., 61. Parker v. Atlantic, etc., E. Co., 158 Mo. 226, 58 S. W. 28; Gulf, etc., ^33 N. C. 335, 63 L. E. A. 827, 45 S. E. Co. V. McCarty, 82 Tex. 608 ; Gulf, E. 658, 43 S. E. 1005. etc., E. Co. V. Wright, 1 Tex. Civ. 62. Hendrix v. Wabash E. Co., App. 402. (Mo. App.), 80 S. W. 970. 58. Paddock v. Missouri Pac. E. 63. Cau v. Texas, etc., E. Co., 24 Co., 1 Mo. App. Eep. 87, 60 Mo. App. S. Ct. 663, 194 U. S. 427, 48 L. Ed. 328. 1053, aflfg. 113 Fed. 91, 51 C. C. A. 59. Kansas Pac. E. Co. v. Eey- 76. See also Texas, etc., R. Co. T. Holds, 17 Kans. 251 ; Louisville, etc., Cau, 120 Fed. 15, 645. E. Co. V. Gilbert, 88 Tenn. 430, 42 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 372. Limitation of Liability. 305 tract, and an agreement is made that, in consideration of a stipu- lated sum, the carrier agrees to perform certain services upon condition of certain exemptions, sufficient consideration is to be found in the carrier's obligation thus assumed to support the ex- emption provided for in the contract." But if not, in the ab- sence of proof to the contrary, sufficient consideration in the way of reduced rates or special privileges will be presumed and Deed not be proved.'^ Provisions of a contract as to the loading and unloading by the shipper and timely notice of injury to be given to the carrier,'* or limiting the liability of the carrier for goods shipped to a point beyond it's own line," need not be supported by additional consideration than the contract of shipment, as, of reduced rates, in cases where the contract limits the common law liability of the carrier. The latter is in effect a stipu- lation to carry the property only to the terminus of its own line, wthieh is all that its duty as a carrier requires. § 11. Contract signed by shipper without examination. — Where goods are delivered to a carrier for transportation, and before the goods are shipped, a bill of lading or receipt is delivered to the shipper, the latter is bound to ascertain its contents, and if he accepts without objection, he is bound by its terms ; he may not set up ignorance of its contents nor resort to prior parol nego- tiations to vary them.'* So, if he execute a contract hurriedly, 64. Nelson v. Hudson River E. Co., to the shipper wag a, rebate obtained 48 N. Y. 498; Rubens v. Ludgate on the charges for shipment or was Hill Steamship Co., 20 N. Y. Supp. in consideration of the assumption by 481; York Co. v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., the shipper of all risk of loss by fire, 3 Wall. (U. S.) 107. See also Jen- the presumption would be in favor of nings V. Grand Trunk E. Co., 127 the payment being a rebate. Thomas N. Y. 438, aflFg. 52 Hun (N. Y.), 227. v. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 63 Fed. 200. 65. Brown v. Louisville, etc., E. 66. Crow v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., Co., 36 111. App. 140. 57 Mo. App. 135. Where receipts contain no limita- 67. Hance v. Wabash Western R. tions and subsequent bills of lading Co., 56 Mo. App. 476. have stipulations limiting liability, 68. Oermania Fire Ins. Co. v. the latter will be presumed to be with- Memphis, etc., E. Co., 72 N. Y. 90, out consideration. Southard v. Min- 28 Am. Eep. 113; Hill v. Syracuse, neapolis, etc., E. Co., 60 Minn. 382. etc., E. Co., 73 N. Y. 352, 29 Am. Where the evidence is conflicting as Eep. 163; West v. First National to whether money paid by the carrier Bank, 20 Hun (N. Y.), 411. See also 20 306 The Law of Caeeiees, or without due examination, lie cannot avoid the limitations imposed by it by showing that he was ignorant of itsi contents If he signs a contract and acts under it in enjoyment of all it* advantages, he cannot repudiate it upon the ground that its pro- visions were not brought to his attention. In the absence of fraud misrepresentation, or mistake, he will be presumed to have read and assented to its provisions/' § 12. Contract must have been made at time of shipment — The acceptance of a bill of lading without assenting to its con- ditions' does not conclude one who has shipped goods under a ver- bal agreement before the bill of lading was tendered. The ship- per cannot be deprived of any of his common law rights by sub- sequently receiving a bill of lading or receipt containing limita- tions and conditions to which his attention had not been called when .he made the shipment™ When goods are shipped under au oral agreement for transportation, such agreement is not merged in a bill of lading afterward delivered to the shipper, although it provides for a limitation of liability and that, by accepting it, the shipper* agrees to the conditions, and the diipper is not con- cluded by an inadvertent omission to examine the conditions from showing the actual oral agreement of shipment'^ In order to limit the carrier's common law liability by a special contract or a clause in a bill of lading, the contract must have been made, or the bill of lading must have been taken, without dissent, at the time of the delivery of the property for transportation: When no receipt or bill of lading was given or contract made at the time of delivery, the carrier cannot limit its liability by a receipt or bill given afterwards and not assented to by the shipper or Hoadley v. Northern Transp. Co., Johnstone v. Richmond, etc., E. Co, 115 Mass. 304, 15 Am. Rep. 106; 39 S. C. 55; Coles v. Louisville, etc, Grace v. Adams, 100 Mass. 505, 1 R. Co., 41 111. App. 607; O'Eorke v. Am. Rep. 131; Mulligan v. Illinois Great Western R. Co., 23 U. C. Q. B. R. Co., 36 Iowa, 181, 14 Am. Rep. 427. 514 ; Kirkland v. Dinsmore, 62 N. Y. 70. Lamb v. Camden, etc., E, Co., 171, 20 Am. Rep. 475; Ullman v. 4 Daly (N. Y.), 483; Merehaiito' Chicago, etc., R. Co., 112 Wis. 168, Despatch Transp. Co. v. Furtlimiuin, 88 N. W. 41. 149 111. 66, affg. 47 111. App. 561. 69. Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Has- Tl. Bostwick v. Baltimore, eto., ^ lett (Tenn.), 79 S. W. 1031; Bethea Co., 4£ N. Y. 712. V. Northeastern R. Co., 26 S. C. 96; Limitation of Liability. 307 consignee." When the bill or receipt is given after shipment or loss or injury of the goods the limitations contained therein are void, and cannot affect the rights of the shipper under the verbal contract made at the time of shipment, in the absence of proof that the bill was accepted in place of the prior contract.''* Where, however, the carrier gives the consignor a shipping re- ceipt stating that a bill of lading will be issued on application at a designated place and the goods transported subject to the con- ditions in the bill of lading, the consignor will be bound by the terms of the bill of lading,'* and, where the intention of tha parties is not clear, it may be a question for the jury whether a particular shipment was made under the oral contract or the subsequent written agreement.'^ § 13. Contract must be legible and intelligible, — Where there is nothing in the nature of the transaction, or the custom of trade, which should necessarily charge the shipper with knowledge that he was receiving and accepting the written evi- dence of a contract, a receipt, obscurely printed in fine type, de- livered in a dimly lighted car in which it was difficult to read the 72. Michigan Cent. E. Co. v. Boyd, v. Adams, 15 Mich. 458; McCullough 91 111. 268; American Express Co. v. v. Wabash Western E. Co., 34 Mo. Spellman, 90 111. 455; Kansas Pac. App. 23; Missouri, etc., E. Co. v. Car- E. Co. V. Eeynolds, 17 Kan. 251; ter, 9 Tex. Civ. App. 677; Louisville, Gulf, etc., E. Co. T. Wood (Tex. Civ. etc., E. Co. v. Craycraft, 12 Ind. App. App.), 30 S. W. 715. 203; Gulf, etc., E. Co. v. Wood (Tex. Where plaintiff directed a delivery Civ. App.), 30 S. W. 715; Louisville, company to transport his baggage etc., E. Co. v. Meyer, 78 Ala. 597, 27 from a certain place, and paid the Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 44; Goctter v. charges, a receipt given by an em- Pickett, 61 Ala. 387; Strohn v. De- ploye of the company, when he sub- troit, etc., E. Co., 21 Wis. 55'4, 94 eequeutly called for the baggage, to Am. Dec. 554; Gott v. Dinsmore, 111 a person who pointed it out to him, Mass. 45, the rule applies although did not constitute the contract, so as the shipper had formerly been tha to limit the company's liability for agent of the carrier, and knew that the loss of the baggage to the amount receipts given for goods always con- stipulated therein. Pompilj v. Man- tained a limitation of the carrier's hattan Delivery Co., 84 N. Y. Supp. liability. 230. 74. Wilde v. Merchants' Despatch 73. Swift V. Pacific Mail Steam- Transp. Co., 47 Iowa, 272. ship Co., 106 N. y. 206, 30 Am. & 75. Wallingford v. Columbia, etc., Eng. E. Cas. 105 ; Park v. Preston, R. Co., 26 S. C. 258. lOi N. y. 434; Detroit, etc., R. Co. ~ 308 The Law of Caeeibes. limitations contained in the receipt, although a direction to read them was legible, has been held not to be binding as to the limi- tations therein contained on the shipper, because of the lack of the requisite evidence of the shipper's assent to the contract.™ So, where a receipt contained a printed clause limiting the ca^ Tier's liability for goods transported by it, but over part of this clause in the receipt, a stamp was pasted so as to render it unintel- ligible, it was held insufficient to warrant a finding that the ship- per assented to any limitation of the carrier's liability." § 14. By what law validity of contract is determined ^A con- tract of affreightment made in one country or State be- tween citizens or residents thereof, and the performance of which begins there must be governed as to the vaJidiiy, the nature, the ob- ligation, and the interpretation thereof by the law of that country or State, unless the parties, when entering into the contract, clearly manifest a mutual intention that it shall be governed by the law of some other country or State, or unless there ia something to show that the intention of th.e parties was that the law of the State or government where the contract' is to be performed should prevail; and then, in conformity to the presumed intention of the parties, the law of the place of performance governs.™ A contract made in 76. Blossom v. Dodd, 43 N. Y. 264, 78. Liverpool, etc.. Steam Co. v. 3 Am. Kep. 701 ; Madan v. Sherard, Phoenix Ins. Co., 129 U. S. 397, 32 73 N. Y. 329, 29 Am. Eep. 153. L. Ed. 788, 39 Alb. L. J. 373, 5 E. E. These were eases of local express & Corp. L. J. 435, 9 Sup. Ct. Eep. 469, companies receiving baggage from 37 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 699, where a travelers for transportation to their contract was made in New York for immediate destination. In the latter shipment of good's on a British vessel, case the question as to whether the that the goods shipped were to he de- delivery of the receipt under the eir- livered by a carrier at Liverpool, and cumstanees created a contract accord- the freight and primage were pay- ing to its terms was held to be one able there in sterling currency, and for the jury. See also Eawson v. that the vessel was stranded on the Pennsylvania R. Co., 48 N. Y. 216; coast of Great Britain, do not make Isaacson v. New York, etc., R. Co., the contract an English contract, or 94 N. Y. 286; Westeott v. Fargo, 63 refer to tho English law the qoes- Barb. (N. y.) 354; Coffin v. New tion of the liability of the carrier for York Cent. R. Co., 64 Barb. (N. Y.) the negligence of the master and the 391; Kerr v. Liverpool, "tc, R. Co., crew in the course of the voyage. 12 Wkly. Dig. (N. Y.) 265. See also China Mut. Ins. Co. v. 77. Perry v. Thompson, 98 Mass. Force, 142 N. Y. 90-100, 36 N. E. 249. ' 874; Robertson v. National Steam- Limitation of Liability. 309 one State to be performed partly in that State and partly in an- other State, being void under the laws of the State where made, will not be enforced in the other State, though, valid under the law of tihe other State wherein it is to be partly performed,™ and where valid in the State where made, will be binding in the other State, although void under the statute there.*" Contracts ship Co., 1 App. Div. (N. Y.) 61, 37 N. Y. Supp. 68; Armour v. Michigan Cent. E. Co., 65 N. Y. Ill, 22 Am. Eep. 603; Dyke v. Erie R. Co., 45 N. Y. 113, 6 Am. Eep. 43; Fairchild v. Philadelphia, etc., E. Co., 148 Pa. St. 527; Cantu v. Bennett, 39 Tex. 303; Eyan v. Missouri, etc., E. Co., 65 Tex. 13, 57 Am. Eep. 589, 23 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 703; Palmer v. At- chison, etc., E. Co., 101 Cal. 187, 61 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 241; Hale v. New Jersey Steam Nav. Co., 15 Conn. 639, 39 Am. Dec. 398; Western, etc., E. Co. T. Exposition Cotton Mills, SI Ga. 522, 35 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 602 ; Wald V. Pittsburg, etc., E. Co., 60 111. App. 460; Fonseca v. Cunard Steamship Co., 153 Mass. 553; The Carib Prince, 63 Fed. 266. Contract for through ship- ment. — A provision in a bill of lad- ing of goods to be shipped from Texas to another State, that the carrier shall not be liable for loss by fire, is valid notwithstanding a Texas stat- ute making a stipulation of that character void, as that statute does not apply to interstate or foreign commerce. Otis Co. v. Missouri Pac. E. Co., 112 Mo. 623, 55 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 636; Missouri Pac. E. Co. v. Sherwood, 84 Tex. 125, 19 S. W. 455. A State statute making it unlawful for a carrier to limit his common law liability to deliver property received for transportation will not control a contract made in another State con- templating a through carriage to a third State, although the carrier is incorporated in the first State. Thomas v. Wabash, etc., E. Co., 63 Fed. 200, 4 Inters. Com. Eep. 802. The presumption that a contract for shipment, made with plaintiffs by defendant carrier in Massachusetts, was intended to be governed by its laws, by which the clause exempting the carrier from liability is void, is not overcome by the fact that defend- ant was a New York corporation, and plaintiffs residents of New York, and that the stock shipped was to be de- livered in New York, especially where, indorsed on the contract, there was a provision, exempting the car- rier from liability for injury to the persons accompanying the stock, which expressly provided that any question arising thereunder should be determined by the laws of New York. Grand v. Livingston, 4 App. Div. (N. Y.) 589, 38 N. Y. Supp. 490. 79. Pittman v. Pacific Express Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 59 S. W. 949; Mc- Daniel v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 24 Iowa, 412. See also Hartman v. Louisville, etc., E. Co., 39 Mo. App. 88; Eobinson v. Merchants' Despatch Transp. Co., 45 Iowa, 470. 80. Hazel v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 82 Iowa, 477, 49 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 78; Talbott v. Merchants' Despatch Transp. Co., 41 Iowa, 247, 20 Am. Eep. 589; International, etc., E. Co. V. Moody, 71 Tex. 614, the burden of proof is on the carrier to show that the stipulation was valid under the laws of the State where made. But this rule does not operate to 310 The Law of Caeeiees. which are to be partly performed in the State where they are made and entered into are governed by the laws of such State, although they are to be partly performed in another State.*' When a contract isi made in one country or State, to be wholly performed in another, its validity is to be determined by the law of the place of performance, unless the contract expressly pro- vide otherwise.*^ The Federal courts have refused to follow or be bound by the decisions of the State courts in determining the render invalid a, contract for inter- state shipment which is contrary to the laws of the State where it was made, where such laws rendering it invalid are themselves invalid, as an interference with the exclusive power of congress over interstate commerce. Carton v. Illinois Cent. E. Co., 59 Iowa, 148, 44 Am. Rep. 672, 6 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 305; Texas, etc., E. Co. V. Richmond (Tex. Civ. App.), 63 S. W. 619. 81. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Dru- ien, 26 Ky. Law Rep. 103, 80 S. W. 778; Merchants' Despatch Transp. Co. V. Furthman, 149 111. 66, 66 Am. ft Eng. R. Cas. 145; Michigan Cent. E. Co. V. Boyd, 91 111. 268; Fore- paugh V. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 128 Pa. St. 217, 15 Am. St. Rep. 672, 40 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 78; Brooke v. New York, etc., R. Co., 108 Pa. St. 630, 56 Am. Rep. 235, 21 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 64; Milwaukee, etc., R. Co. V. Smith, 74 111. 197; Coup v. Wa- bash, etc., R. Co., 56 Mich. Ill, 56 Am. Rep. 374, 18 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 642; Hale v. New Jersey Steam Nav. Co., 15 Conn. 539, 39 Am. Dec. 398; Atlanta, etc., R. Co. v. Tanner, 68 Ga. 390; Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Moore, 29 Kans. 632, 11 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 243; McMaster v. Illinois Cent. E. Co., 65 Miss. 271, 7 Am. St. Eep. 653; ICnowlton v. Erie E. Co., 19 Ohio St. 260, 2 Am. Eep. 395; Bridges v. Ashville, etc;, E. Co., 27 a C. 462, 13 Am. St. Rep. 653; Pennsylvania Co. v. Fairchild, 69 111. 260. 82. Curtis v. Delaware, etc., E. Co., 74 N. Y. 116; Dyke v. Erie R. Co., 45 N. Y. 113, 6 Am. Eep. 43; Burckle v. Eckhart, 3 N. Y. 132; Pritchard v. Norton, 106 U. S. 124; Junction Railroad Co. v. Bank of Ashland, 12 Wall. (U. S.) 226; Os- good' V. Bauder, 75 Iowa, 550, 39 N, W. 887. The rnle that the place of performance of a contract gives the law of its performance was ap- plied in an action brought in Pens- sylvania by a passenger against a New Jersey railroad corporation, for the loss of his trunk, and it was held that it made no difference that the undertaking was in part to carry the baggage across the Delaware river, as the inhabitants of both States have equal rights of navigation and pas- sage on that stream. Brown v. Cam- den, etc., R. Co., 83 Pa. St. 319. But a contract limiting the car- rier's common law liability, void by the statute of the State where the contract was made, even though it was interstate in character, was held to be void, although the contract was to be performed in another State, in the absence of evidence as to the law of the State where the contract was to be performed, the law there being presumed to be the same as in ^^ State where the contract was made- Texas, etc., R. Co. V. Limitation of Liabiutt. 311 Talidity of such contracts and other questions of unwritten com- mercial law, but hold that there is a general commercial law of the United States, of which any local decision is but the evi- dence, and that the Federal courts' will not follow such local •decision if they consider it wrong, but will follow the rules laid down by Federal tribunals, or exercise their own judgment where the question is a new one, even when their jurisdiction attaches only by reason of the citizenship of the parties, in an action at law of which the courts of the State have concurrent jurisdiction, and upon a contract made and to be performed within the State. ^' An express stipulation by any common carrier for hire, in a con- trad; of carriage, that it shall be exempt from liability for losses «aused by the negligence of itself or its servants', is held in the Federal courts, to be unreasonable and contrary to public policy, and consequently void, and will not be enforced by such tribunals although it may be valid under the law of the State where it was made.** In some of the State courts and in the English courts it is held, on the contrary, that such stipulations, although void under the law of their State or country, are not immoral, and will be given effect, if it appears that they were made in another State or country where such contracts are valid.*^ Whether or not a special contract existed has been held to be a question affect- ing only the shipper's remedy and, therefore, to be governed by the law of the place where the action is brought.^^ Where the action against a carrier is not based on any special contract and auoh a contract is not set up or involved in the action but arises from the contract and duties resulting therefrom under the com- (Tex. Civ. App.), 63 S. W. 619, revg. Phoenix Ins. Co., supra; Inman v. «1 S. W. 410. See also Southern Pac. South Carolina, etc., R. Co., 129 U. Co. V. Anderson (Tex. Civ. App.), 63 S. 128, 32 L. Ed. 612, 5 E. R. & Corp. S. W. 1023. L. J. 271 ; Lewisohn v. National 83. Liverpool, etc.. Steam Co. v. Steamship Co., 56 Fed. 602; The Phoenix Ins. Co., 129 U. S. 397, 37 Guildhall, 58 Fed. 796; The Hugo, Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 688; Myrick v. 57 Fed. 403; The Brantford City, 29 Michigan Cent. R. Co., 107 V. S. 102, Fed. 373. 8 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 25; Bucher v. 85. O'Eegan v. Cunard Steamship Cheshire R. Co., 125 U. S. 555, 34 Co., 160 Mass. 356; Fonseca v. Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 389; Eells v. St. Cunard f5teamship Co., 153 Mass. 553, Louis, etc., E. Co., 52 Fed. 903, 55 25 Am. St. Rep. 660; In re Missouri Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 341; Swift v. Steamship Co., L. E. 42 Ch. D;v. 321. Tyson, 16 Pet. (U. S.) 1. 86. Hoadley v. Northern Transp. 84. Liverpool, etc., Steam Co. v. Co., 115 Mass. 304, 15 Am. Eep. 106. 312 The Law of Caeeiees. mon law, the right of the shipper to recover for loss or damage is to be governed by the law of the plaee where the loss or damage occurred, and any litimation' placed by the law of a particular State upon the extent of the recovery for a breach of such a con- tract, or for a tort committed in violation of it, ia not applicable in a suit brought in another State.*' § 15. Who may make special contract. — A consignor of goods has power to contract for their carriage and bind the consignee.** A shipping contract limiting the liability of a carrier is binding upon the consignor who delivers his goods by his; agent to the car- rier for shipment, where the agent to make the shipment as- sents to the stipulations limiting liability or accepts a receipt or bill of lading containing such stipulations in the usual course of business.^' But while, ordinarily, a person authorized to de- liver and delivering the property of another to a common car- rier for shipment may be by the latter treated as having authority to stipulate for and accept the terms of affreightment, and as against the carrier the owner is bound by them, he is not neces- sarily charged with any of the terms and conditions of the bills of lading other than those which the carrier is at liberty to treat as within the authority of the person receiving them to accept in behalf of the owners of the property.^" Where a carrier accepts goods for carriage to a place beyond the terminus of its route, 87. Lyon v. Erie K. Co., 57 N. Y. 89. Zimmer v. New York Cent., 489; Dyke v. Erie R. Co., 45 N. Y. etc., E. Co., 137 N. Y. 460; Shelton 113, 6 Am. Rep. 43; Pomeroy v. v. Merchants' Despatch Transp. Co., Ainsworth, 22 Barb. (N. Y.) 118; 59 N. Y. 258; Squire v. New York. Pope V. Niekerson, 3 Story (U. S.), Cent., R. Co., 98 Mass. 239, 93 Am. 485; Gray v. Jackson, 51 N. H. 9, Dee. 162; Hill v. Boston, etc., K. 12 Am. Rep. 1 ; Barter v. Wheeler, 49 Co., 144 Mass. 284, 28 Am. & Eng. B. N. H. 9, 6 Am. Rep. 434; Little v. €as. 89; Smith v. Southern Expreai Riley, 43 N. H. 109; Knowlton v. Co., 104 Ala. 387; Illinois Cent. R. Erie R. Co., 19 Ohio St. 260, 2 Am. Co. v. Morrison, 19 111. 136; Ryan t. Rep. 305 ; Brown v. Camden, etc., R. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 65 Tex. 13, 57 Co., 83 Pa. St. 316; Springs v. South Am. Rep. 589; Lewis v. Great West- Bound R. Co., 46 S. C. 104; Bridges em R. Co., 5 H. & N. 867; Van V. Ashville, etc., R. Co., 27 S. C. 462, Schaack v. Northern Transp. Co., » 13 Am. St. Rep. 653. "Bisa. (U. S.) 394. 88. Nelson v. Hudson River R. 90. Jennings v. Grand Trunk K. Co., 48 N. Y. 498; Mills v. Michigan Co., 127 N. Y. 438, 49 Am. S Eng. K. Cent. R. Co., 45 N. Y. 622, 6 Am. Cas. 98; CoflSn v. New York Cent, Kep. 152. etc., R. Co., 64 Barb. (N. Y.) ST". Limitation of Liability, 313 being bound to deliver tbem at the end of its route to the next succeeding carrier, it is authorized to make such delivery upon the usual contract required by the latter, although under such con- tract the latter would be exempted from liability, and the con- signor would be bound by its act in so doing." General authority to a consignor to deliver goods to a carrier for transportation in- cludes power to contract for the terms of transportation and to agree on exemptions from liability, and the consignor's authority to enter into special contracts with the carrier, binding on the consignee, is to be presumed; the carrier need not inquire into it'^ In the absence of actual notice of the fact that the consignor has exceeded his authority from the consignee, the carrier cannot be made liable. °^ But the consignor, in an action against the car- rier, is not bound by a special contract limiting liability made by the consignee with the carrier, unless it is shown that he h.ad notice of the consignee's contract for carriage." § 16. Carrier may not limit its liability for negligence. — The doctrine ia established by the great weight of authority in this country that a carrier cannot by stipulation or contract relieve or 56 N. Y. 632; Bostwick v. Baltimore, 208; Squire v. New York Cent., etc., etc., E. Co., 45 N. Y. 712; Germania R. Co., supra; Craycroft v. Atchison, Fire Ins. Co. v. Memphis, etc., E. Co., etc., E. Co., 18 Mo. App. 487 ; South- 72 N. Y. 90; Guillame v. General em Pac. E. Co. v. Maddox, 75 Tex. Transp. Co., 100 N. Y. 491; Swift v. 300; Ryan v. Missouri, etc., E. Co., Pacific Mail, etc., Co., 106 N. Y. 206; supra; York Co. v. Illinois Cent. R. Park V. Preston, 108 N. Y. 434; Lon- Co., 3 Wall. (U. S.) 107; New Jer- don, etc., E. Co. v. Bartlett, 7 H. & sey Steam Nav. Co. v. Merchants' N. 400; Seller v. Steamship Pacific, Bank, 6 How. (U. S.) 344; Robinson 1 Or. 409 ; Hayn v. Campbell, 63 Cal. v. Merchants' Despatch Transp. Co., 143; Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. Hamlin, 42 45 Iowa, 470; Christenson v. Ameri- 111. App. 441 ; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. can Express Co., 15 Minn. 270, 2 Am. Morrison, 19 III. 139. Rep. 122; Barnett v. London, etc., E. 91. Eawson v. Holland, 59 N. Y. Co., 5 H. & N. 604. 611, 17 Am. Rep. 394. Compare Mer- 93. Meyer v. Harnden's Express chants' Wharf-Boat Assoc, v. Wood, Co., 24 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 290; Mo- 64 Miss. 661, 3 So. 248. riarty v. Harnden's Express Co., 1 92. Shelton V. Merchants' Despatch Daly (N. Y.) 227; Knell v. United Transp. Co., supra; Mills v. Miehi- States, etc. S. Co., 1 J. &S. (N.Y.) gan Cent. E. Co., supra; Brown v. 423; Briggs v. Boston, etc., E. Co., 6 Louisville, etc., E. Co., 36 111. App. Allen -(Mass.), 246, 83 Am. Dec. 626. 140; McMillan v. Michigan Southern, 94. White v. Goodrich Transp. Co., etc., E. Co., 16 Mich. 79, 93 Am. Dec. 46 Wis. 493, 21 Am. Ey. Eep. 398. «14 The Law of Caeeiees. •exempt itself from liability for losses or injuries caused by its own negligence or want of care and skill, or that of its servants, or by its own or tbeir wilful default, misfeasance or tort. Public policy and every consideration of right and justice, it is held, d^ manda that the right of the owners to absolute security against the negligence of the carrier, and of all persons engaged in per- forming its duty, shall not be taken away by any reservation in its receipt, or by any arrangement, contract or stipulation en- tered into. Such contracts are, therefore, declared to be void asi being unreasonable and contrary to public policy and afford no protection to the carrier.'^ A carrier cannot limit its liability 95. v. 8. — Liverpool, etc., Co. v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 129 U. S. 397, 32 L. Ed. 788, 5 R. E. & Corp. L. J. 435, 39 Alb. L. J. 373, 9 Sup. Ct. Eep. 469; Inman v. South Carolina E. Co., 129 U. S. 128, 32 L. Ed. 612, 5 K. E. & Corp. L. J. 271, 9 Sup. Ct. Eep. 249; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Erie, etc., Transp. Co., 117 U. S. 312; Oscanyan w. Winchester Eepeating Arms Co., 103 U. S. 261; The Guildhall, 58 Fed. 796, 2 MeCrary (U. S.), 48; Scruggs T. Baltimore, etc., E. Co., 18 Fed. 318, 5 McCrary (U. S.), 590; Nelson v. National Steamship Co., 7 Ben. (U. S.) 340; The Iowa, 50 Fed. 561; Eintoul V. New York Cent., etc., E. Co., 17 Fed. 905, 16 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 144; Thomas v. Lancaster Mills, 71 Fed. 481, 34 U. S. App. 404; Eells v. St. Louis, etc., E. Co., 52 Fed. 903; Kuter v. Michigan Cent. E. Co., 1 Biss. (U. S.) 35; Woodburn v. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 40 Fed. 731, 42 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 514; Wood- ward V. Illinois Cent. E. Co., 1 Biss. (U. S.) 447. See also cases cited note 1, § 1, ante. Ala. — Louisville, etc., E. Co. v. Sherrod, 84 Ala. 178, 4 So. 29; Ala- bama, etc., E. Co. v. Little, 71 Ala. Cll, 12 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 37; East Tennessee, etc., E. Co. v. Johnston, 75 Ala. 596, 51 Am. ^Rep, 489, 22 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 437; Central, etc., R. Co. V. Smitha, 85 Ala. 47; Alabama, etc., E. Co. V. Thomas, 89 Ala. 294, 18 Am. St. Eep. 119; Louisville, etc., H. Co. V. Grant, 99 Ala. 325; Montgom- ery, etc., R. Co. V. Edmonds, 41 Ala. 667; Mobile, etc., E. Co. v. Jarboe, 41 Ala. 644; Steele v. Townsend, 37 Ala. 247, 79 Am. Dec. 49; Alabama, etc., E. Co. V. Thomas, 83 Ala. 343, 3 So. 802. Ark. — St. Louis, etc., E. Co. v. Les- ser, 46 Ark. 236. CoJ.— Hooper v. Wells, 27 Gal. 11, 85 Am. Dec. 211. Colo. — Union Pac. E. Co. v. Eainey, 19 Colo. 225; Milton v. Denver, etc., E. Co., 1 Colo. App. 307. Corm. — See cases cited note 1, 9 1, ante. Dak. — Hartwell v. Northern Pac. E. Co., 5 Dak. 463; Hazel v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 82 Iowa, 477, 49 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 76. Del. — Truax v. Philadelphia, etc,, R. Co., 3 Houst. (Del.) 233; Flinn V. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 1 Houst. (Del.) 169. Flo.— Brock v. Gale, 14 Fla. 523, 14 Am. Eep. 356. Qa. — NiooU V. East Tennessee, etc., E. Co., 89 Ga. 260; Central K. Co. v. Bryant, 73 Ga. 722; Bryant v. South- western E. Co., 68 Ga. 805, 6 Am. & Limitation of Liabilitt. 315 ior the negligence of its employes by stipulating that those fur- Eng. E. Cas. 388 ; Mitchell v. Georgia, K. Co., 68 Ga. 644; Georgia E. Co. v. Spears, 66 Ga. 485, 42 Am. Eep. 81; Georgia E. Co. v. Beatie, 66 Ga. 438, 42 Am. Rep. 75. III. — United States Express Co. v. Council, 84 111. App. 491;Mercliants', etc., Transp. Co. v. Leysor, 89 111. 43; Merchants', etc., Transp. Co. v. Joest- ing, 89 111. 152; American Express Co. V. Spellman, 90 111. 195; Erie E. Co. v. Wilcox, 84 111. 239; Bosco- witz V. Adams Express Co., 93 111. 523, 5 Cent. L. J. 58 ; Adams Express Co. V. Stettaners, 61 111. 184; Erie, «tc., Transp. Co. v. Dater, 8 Cent. L. J. 293, 91 111. 195; Merchants', etc., Transp. Co. v. Theilbar, 86 111. 71; Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Moutfort, 60 111. 175; Illinois Cent. E. Co. v. Sauper, 38 111. 354. Ind. — Parrill v. Cleveland, etc., E. Co., 23 Ind. App. 638, 55 N. E. 1026; Terre Haute, etc., R. Co. v. Sherwood, 132 Ind. 129; Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. V. Forsythe, 4 Ind. App. 326; Michigan Southern, etc., E. Co. v. Heaton, 37 Ind. 448, 10 Am. Rep. 89 ; Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Allen, 31 Ind. 394; Adams Express Co. v. Har- ris, 120 Ind. 73, 16 Am. St. Eep. 315, 40 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. l53; Balti- more, etc., E. Co. V. Eagsdale, 14 Ind. App. 406; Lake Shore, etc., E. Co. T. Beinett, 89 Ind. 457, 6 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 391; St. Loais, etc., R. Co. T. Smuck, 49 Ind. 302; Ohio, etc., E. Co. V. Selby, 47 Ind. 471, 17 Am. Eep. 719; Adams Express Co. v. Fendrick, 38 Ind. 150; Adams Express Co. v. Eeagan, 29 Ind. 21, 92 Am. Dee. 332; Wright v.- GaS, 6 Ind. 416. Iowa. — Hart v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 69 Iowa, 485; MeCune v. Bur- lington, etc., E. Co., 52 Iowa, 600; Brush V. Sabula, etc., E. Co., 43 Iowa, 554 ; Mulligan v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 36 Iowa, 181; Thompson v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 27 Iowa, 561; Griswold V. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 90 Iowa, 265. See Iowa Code and Statutes. Eon. — ^Missouri Valley E. Co. v. Caldwell, 8 Kan. 244, 5 Am. Ry. Eep. 287; Sprague v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 34 Kan. 347, 23 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 684; Kansas City, etc., R. Co. V. Simpson, 30 Kan. 645, 46 Am. Rep. 104; Kansas Pac. E. Co. v. Peavey, 29 Kan. 169, 44 Am. Eep. 630; Leav- enworth, etc., E. Co. V. Maris, 16 Kan. 333; St. Louis, etc., E. Co. v. Piper, 13 Kan. 505; Goggin v. Kan- sas Pac. E. Co., 12 Kan. 416; Kail- man V. U. S. Express Co., 3 Kan. 205. Ky. — ^Louisville, etc., E. Co. v. Plummer (Ky.), 35 S. W. 1113; Louisville, etc., E. Co. v. Owen, 93 Ky. 201; Baughman v. Louisville, etc., E. Co., 94 Ky. 150; Louisville, etc., E. Co. V. Brownlee, 14 Bush (Ky.), 590; Louisville, etc., E. Co. v. Hedger, 9 Bush (Ky.), 645, 15 Am. Eep. 740; Adams Express Co. v. Guthrie, 9 Bush (Ky.), 78; Reno v. Hogan, 12 B. Mon. (Ky.) 63, 54 Am. Dec. 513; Adams Express Co. v. Nock, 2 Duv. (Ky.) 562, 87 Am. Dec. 510. La. — ^Maxwell v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 48 La. Ann. 385; Higgins v. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 28 La. Ann. 133 ; New Orleans Mut. Ins. Co. v. New Orleans, etc., E. Co., 20 La. Ann. 302 ; Eoberts v. Riley, 15 La. Ann. 103, 77 Am. Dec. 183; Baldwin v. Collins, 9 Rob. (La.) 468. Me. — Fillehrown v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 55 Me. 462, 92 Am. Dec. 606 ; Stone V. Waitt, 31 Me. 409, 52 Am. Dec. 621; Sager v. Portsmouth, etc., E. Co., 31 Me. 228, 50 Am. Dee. 659. Md. — In this- State it has been held 316 The Law of Caeriees. nished to assist the shipper in loading and unloading freight" that the right of common carriers to limit their common law liability by express contract, ■whenever there is reason and justice to sustain the lim- itation, is too well established to be questioned. But the contract ought to be in clear and distinct terms. McCoy V. Erie, etc., Transp. Co., 42 Md. 498; Bankard' v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 34 Md. 197, 6 Am. Rep. 321; Brehme v. Adams Express Co., 25 Md. 328; Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Brady, 32 Md. 333. Mich. — The limitation may be made by special contract, but not by general notice. Feige v. Michigan Cent. E. Co., 62 Mich. 1; Smith v. American Express Co. (Mich.), 06 N. W. 479; Coup v. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 56 Mich. Ill, 56 Am. Rep. 374, 18 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 542; Sisson V. Cleveland, etc., E. Co., 14 Mich. 489, 90 Am. Dec. 252; Great West- ern E. Co. V. Hawkins, 18 Mieh. 427 ; Hawkins v. Great Western E. Co., 17 Mich. 57, 97 Am. Dec. 179; McMil- lan V. Michigan Southern, etc., E. Co., 16 Mich. 79, 93 Am. Dec. 208; Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Hale, 6 Mich. 243. Compare Michigan Cent. R. Co. V. Ward, 2 Mich. 538. See also Michigan statutes. A contract between a railroad and a shipper by which the railroad builds a side track for the shipper's convenience, and' the shipper agrees to indemnify the railroad from all liability for loss by fire, though caused by the railroad's negligence, is not against public policy, as, in putting in such tracks, the railroad is not acting as a common carrier. Mann v. Pere Marquette R. Co. (Mich.), 97 N. W. 721, 10 Det. L. N. 764. Mirm. — Hutchinson v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 37 Minn. 524, 35 N. W. 433; Boehl v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 44 Minn. 191; Ortt v. Minneapolis, etc., E. Co., 36 Minn. 396; Moulton v. St! Paul, etc., E. Co., 31 Minn. 85, 12 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 13, 47 Am. Rep. 781; Shriver v. Sioux City, etc., E. Co., 24 Minn. 506, 31 Am. Rep. 353; Christenson v. American Express Co., 15 Minn. 270, 2 Am. Eep. 122. Miss. — Illinois Cent. E. Co. v. Bo- gard (Miss.), 27 So. 879; Johnson v. Alabama, etc., E. Co., 69 Miss. ]91, 30 Am. St. Eep. 534; Chicago, etc., R. Co. V. Moss, 60 Miss. 1003, 45 Am. Rep. 428, 21 Am. & Eng. R. Gas. 98; New Orleans, etc., R. Co. v. Faler, 5J Miss. 911, 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 96; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Scruggs, 69 Miss. 418; Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Abels, 60 Miss. 1017, 21 Am. & Eig. E. Cas. 105; Mobile, etc., E. Co. v. Franks, 41 Miss. 494; Southern Ex- press Co. V. Moon, 39 Miss. 822. Mo. — ^D. Klass Commission Co. v. Wabash R. Co., 80 Mo. App. 164, 2 Mo. App. Rep. 545; Witting v. St. Louis, etc., E. Co., 101 Mo. 631, 20 Am. St. Eep. 636, 45 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 369, 28 Mo. App. 103; Vaughn V. Wabash R. Co., 62 Mo. App. 461; Leonard v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 54 Mo. App. 293 ; Doan v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 38 Mo. App. 408; Hick v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 51 Mo. App. 532; McFadden v. Missouri Pac. E. Co., 92 Mo. 343, 1 Am. St. Eep. 721, 30 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 17; Potts v. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 17 Mo. App. 394; Drew v. Red Line Transit Co., 3 Mo. App. 495; Kirby v. Adams Ex- press Co., 2 Mo. App. 369, 3 Cent. L J. 435; Dawson v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 79 Mo. 296, 18 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 521; St. Louis, etc., E. Co. v. Cleary, 77 Mo. 634, 46 Am. Eep. 13, Limitation of Liability. 317 shall be the employes of the latter.'^ A shipping receipt that 16 Am. & Eng! E. Cas. 122; Read v. , St. Louis, etc.. R. Co., 60 Mo. 199; Sturgeon v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 65 Mo. 569 ; Snider v. Adama Express Co., 63 Mo. 376; Rice v. Kansas Pao. R. Co., 63 Mo. 413; 'Ketchum v. American Merchants' U. Exp. Co., 52 Mo. 390; Wolf v. American Express Co., 43 Mo. 421, 97 Am. Dec. 406; Levering v. Union Transp., etc., Co., 42 Mo. 88, 97 Am. Dec. 320. But a contract, fairly entered' .into, limiting a right of recovery to a sum expressly agreed upon by the parties as representing the true value of the property shipped, is not a contract exempting the carrier in any degree from the consequences of its own neg- ligence, but simply fixes the rate of freight and liquidates the damages. Harvey v. Terra. Haute, etc., R. Co., 74 Mo. 541, 6 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 293; Ball V. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 83 Mo. 574, 25 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 384. Neb. — Pennsylvania Co. v. Keunard Glass & Paint Co. (Neb.), 81 N. W. 372; Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Law- ler, 40 Neb. 356, 61 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 255; St. Joseph, etc., R. Co. v. Palmer, 38 Neb. 463, 61 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 69; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Witty, 32 Neb. 275, 29 Am. St. Rep. 436. 2f. ff.— Barter v. Wheeler, 49 N. H. 9, 6 Am. Rep. 434; Moses v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 24 N. H. 71, 55 Am. Dec. 222. See also Merrill v. American Express Co., 62 N. H. 514. N. J. — ^Taylor v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 8 N. J. L. J. 149; Paul v. Penn- sylvania R. Co. (N. J. Sup.), 57 Atl. 139; Gibbons v. Wade, 8 N. J. L. 255. N. C. — Parker v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 133 N. C. 335, 63 L. R. A. 827, 45 S. E. 658; Gardner v. Southern R. Co., 127 N. C. 293. 37 S. E. 328; Branch v. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 88 N. C. 573, 18 Am. & Eng. R. Caa. 621; Mason V. Richmond, etc., R. Co., Ill N. C. 482, 32 Am. St. Rep. 814, 53 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 183; Smith v. North Carolina R. Co., 64 N. C. 235. OMo. — Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Yoder, 25 Ohio C. C. R. 32; Union Express Co. v. Graham, 26 Ohio St. 595; Kuowlton v. Erie R. Co., 19 Ohio St. 260, 2 Am. Rep. 395 ; Cleve- land, etc., R. Co. V. Curran, 19 Ohio St. 1, 2 Am. Rep. 362; Jones v. Voorhees, 10 Ohio, 145; Welsh v. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co., 10 Ohio St. 65; 75 Am. Dec. 490; Graham v. Davis, 4 Ohio St. 362, 62 Am. Dec. 285; Davidson y. Graham, 2 Ohio St. 131. Or. — Seller v. Steamship Pacific, 1 Or. 409. Pa. — Willock V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 166 Pa. St. 184, 45 Am. St. Rep. 674, 35 W. N. C. (Pa.) 545; Arm- strong V. United States Express Co., 159 Pa. St. 640; Buck v. Pennsyl- vania R. Co., 150 Pa. St. 170, 30 ^m. St. Rep. 800; Weiller v. Pennsyl- vania R. Co., 134 Pa. St. 310 19 Am. St. Rep. 700 42 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 390; Grogan v. Adams Express Co., 114 Pa. St. 523, 60 Am. Rep. 360, 30 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 9; Pennsyl- vania R. Co. V. Raiordon, 119 Pa. St. 577, 4 Am. St. Rep. 670; Adams Express Co. v. Sharpless, 77 Pa. St. 516; Empire Transp. CX). v. Wam- sutta Oil Refining, etc., Co., 63 Pa. St. 14, 3 Am. Rep. 515; American Express Co. v. Sands, 55 Pa. St. 140; Powell V; Pennsylvania R. Co., 32 Pa. St. 414, 75 Am. Dec. 564; Goldey V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 30 Pa. St. 242, 72 Am. Dec. 703; Camden, etc., R. Co. V. Baldauf, 16 Pa. St. 67, 55 Am. Dec. 481; Bingham v. Rogers, 318 The Law of Caeeiees. goods are shipped "at o-wner's risk" exempts, even connecting 6 W. & S. (Pa.) 495, 40 Am. Dec. 681; feeckman v. Shouse, 5 Eawle (Pa.), 179, 28 Am. Dec. 653; At- wood V. Reliance Transp. Co., 9 Watts (Pa.), 87, 34 Am. Dec. 503. B. I. — ^Hubbard v. Hamden Ex- press Co., 10 R. I. 244. S. C. — Johnstone v. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 39 S. C. 55, 55 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 346; Springs v. South Boimd R. Co., 46 S. C. 104; Wallingford v. Columbia, etc., R. Co., 26 S. C. 258, 30 Am. & Eng. R: Cas. 44; Piedmont Mfg. Co. V. Columbia, etc., R. Co., 19 S. C. 353, 16 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 194; Porter v. Southern Express Co., 4 S. C. 135, 16 Am. Rep. 762; Swindler v. Hilliard, 2 Rich. L. (S. C.) 286, 45 Am. Dec. 732; Patten v. Magrath, Dudley L. (S. C.) 159, 31 Am. Dec. 552. Term. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Sowell, 90 Tenn. 17, 49 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 166; Deming v. Merchants' Cotton Press, etc., Co., 90 Tenn. 306; Merchants', etc.,- Transp. Co. v. Bloch, 86 Tenn. 392, 6 Am. St. Rep. 847; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Wynn, 88 Tenn. 320, 45 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 312; Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Jack- son, 6 Heisk. (Tenn.) 271; Southern Express Co. v. Womack, 1 Heisk. (Tenn.) 256; Olwell v. Adams Ex- press Co., 1 Cent. L. J. 186; East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. Nelson, 1 Coldw. (Tenn.) 272; East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. V. Bromley, 5 Lea (Tenn.) 401; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Rogers (Tenn.), 3 S. W. 660. Teso. — ^The statutes ol this state de- clare invalid any exceptions or spe- cial contract seeking to vary the com- mon law liability of common carriers. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Burke, 55 Tex. 323, 40 Am. Rep. 808, 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 59; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Trawick, 68 Tex. 314, 2 Am. St. Rep. 494, 30 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 49; Heaton v. Morgan's La., etc., S. Co., 1 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. § 774, 4 Tex. L. J. 375; New York Cent. R. Co. v. Lockwood, 17 Wall. (U. S.) 357; Arnold«v. Jones, 26 Tex. 337, 82 Am. Dec. 617; Chevalier v. Strahan, 2 Tex. 115, 47 Am. Dec. 639; Galveston, etc., R. Co. V. Ball, 80 Tex. 602; Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Williams, (Tex. Civ. App.) 31 S. W. 559; Hous- ton, etc., R. Co. V. Davis, 11 Tex. Civ. App. 24. A carrier independently of the stat- ute, cannot stipulate exemption from liability for losses resulting from its negligence. Gulf, etc., R. Co. t. Maetze, 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. § 631, 18 Am. &, Eng. R. Cas. 613; Missouri Pac. R. Co. V. China Mfg. Co., 79 Tex. 26 ; Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Grant, t Tex. Civ. App. 674; Gulf, etc., E. Co. V. Eddins, 7 Tex. Civ. App. 116; Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Wilhelm, 3 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. § 458; Texas, etc., E. Co. V. Davis, 2 Tex. App. Civ. Caa. § 191; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Ivey, 71 Tex. 409, 10 Am. St. Rep. 758, 9 S. Vf. 346; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Harris, 67 Tex. 166, 28 Am. & Eng. K. Cas. 107; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Corn- wall, 70 Tex. 611, 8 S. W. 312. Vt. — Davis V. Central Vermont E. Co., 66 Vt. 290, 44 Am. St. Rep. 852, 61 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 197; Cutts t. Brainard, 42 Vt. 566, 1 Am. Rep. 353; Mann v. Birchard, 40 Vt. 326; Farm- ers', etc.. Bank v. Champlain Transp. Co., 18 Vt. 131, 23 Vt. 186, S6 Am. Dec. 68; Blumenthal v. Brainard, 38 Vt. 402, 91 Am. Dec. 350. Fo.— Virginia, etc., R. Co. v. Say- ers, 26 Gratt. (Va.) 328. W. Fo.— Baltimore, etc., R. Co. t. Rathbone, 1 W. Va. 87, 88 Am. Dw. Limitation of Liability. SlQf lines of road from liability, save for the negligence of the party sought to be charged/' and the possession of such a receipt raises the presumption of the owner's assent to the risik.'* But a common carrier is not released from damages occurring through his own negligence, by stipulating that the goods are shipped " at the owner's risk." At most this would only protect him against loss occurring from the ordinary and known risks of transportation.'* It will not relieve from liability for delay in delivering goods.^ § 17. The New York rule. — ^In ISTew York it was held in an early case that common carriers could not limit their liability, or evade the consequences of a breach of their legal duties as such, by an express agreement or special acceptance of the goods to be transported.^ The ruling in this case was subsequently over- ruled and it became the doctrine of the courts of this State that it was competent for a common carrier and an owner of property, by an express agreement fairly entered into betvseen themselves, to establish conditions of liability for loss or damage, different from those imposed by the common law.^ Later the Court of Appeals of this State took the advanced ground that the power of 664; Baltimore, etc., E. Co. v. Skeels, v. Wilson, 78 Ala. 587, 27 Am. & Eng^ 3 W. Va. 556. E. Cas. 41. Wis. — UUman v. Chicago, etc., E. 98. Morrison v. Phillips, etc., Co., 112 Wis. 168, 88 N. W. 41; Const. Co., 44 Wis. 405, 28 Am. Eep. Cream City, etc., E. Co. v. Chicago, 599, 19 Am. Ey. Eep. 312. etc., E. Co., 21 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 70; 99. Nashville, etc., E. Co. v. John- Betts V. Farmers' Loan, etc., Co., 21 son, 6 Heisk. (Tenn.) 271, 12 Am. Ey_ Wis. 80; Boorman v. American Ex- Eep. 54; The Hugo, 57 Fed. 403. press Co., 21 Wis. 152; Falvey v. 1. Goldsmith v. Great Eastern E. Northern Transp. Co., 15 Wis. 129; Co., 44 L. T. N. S. 181, 29 W. E. 651; The Sultana v. Chapman, 5 Wis. 454. Stevens v. Great Western E. Co., 52 96. Missouri Pac. E. Co. v. Smith L. T. 324; D'Arc v. Loudon, etc., E. (Tex.), 16 S. W. 803. Cc, L. E. 9 C. P. 325, 22 W. E. 919, 97. KiflF V. Atchison, etc., E. Co., HO L. T. N. S. 763; Lewis v. Great 32 Kan. 263, 18 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. Western E. Co., 26 W. E. 255. 618. When the defense that the 2. Gould v. Hill, 2 Hill (N. Y.) goods were carried at the owner's risk 623. is inter])osed, a waiver of all other 3. Parsons v. Monteath, 13 Barb., grounds of defense and an admission (N. Y.) 353; Moore v. Evans, 14, that the goods were damaged while in Barb. (N. Y.) 524; Dorr v. New Jer- the possession of the carrier may be sey Steam Nav. Co., 11 N. Y. 485, 62 inferred. South, etc., Alabama E. Co. Am. Dee. 125 ; Stoddard v. Long: Island E. Co., 5 Sandf. (N. Y.) 180. 320 The Law of Caeeiees. the common carrier to limit ife liability by special contract ex- tends a> far as to enable it to exonerate itself from the effects of any degree of negligence on the part of its servants, agents, or em- ployes, even gross negligence, where the contract expressly pro- vides for such exemption and where the contract is founded upon a valuable consideration, such as abatement in whole or in part of the ordinary freight rate, fare or charge.* Such contracts, how- ever, are not favored by the courts, and a contract will not be construed as exempting from a liability for negligence, unless it is expressed in unequivocal terma; and every presumption ia against such an intention. Thus, it has been held that a contract releasing the carrier " from damage or lossi to any article from or by fire or explosion of any kind " does not release it from liability for damage by those means' resulting from the carrier's own negli- gence.^ And exemption from damages occasioned by delays from 4. Wells V. New York Cent. E. Co., 24 N. Y. 181] Perkins v. New York Cent. R. Co., 24 N. Y. 196, 82 Am. Dec. 282; Bissell v. New York Cent. E. Co., 25 N. Y. 442, 82 Am. Dec. 369; Nelson v. Hudson River R. Co., 48 N. Y. 498 ; Guillaume v. Hamburgh, etc., Packet Co., 42 N. Y. 212, 1 Am. Rep. 512; Weatcott v. Fargo, 63 Barb. (N. Y.) 349, 61 N. Y. 542, 19 Am. Eep. 300; Poucher v. New York Cent. R. Co., 49 N. Y. 263, 10 Am. Rep. 364; Nicholas v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 89 N. Y. 370, 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 103; Mynard v. Syracuse, etc., R. Co., 7 Hun (N. Y.) 399, 71 N. Y. 180, 27 Am. Rep. 28; Heineman v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 31 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 430, 1 Sheld. (N. Y.) 95; Wilson V. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 97 N. Y. 87, where thei contract provided that the carrier should not be liable for the negligence of its servants, and the validity of the exemption was sustained. In Cragin v. New York Cent. R. Co., 61 N. Y. 61, 10 Am. Rep. 559, 4 Am. Eey. Rep. 418, the contract expressly exempted the carrier from ali lia- bility, and this was held to cover a liability for the loss of certain lire stock caused by negligence in failing to water them. 5. Steinweg v. Erie R. Co., 43 N. Y. 123, 3 Am. Rep. 673; Holsapple v. Rome, etc., E. Co., 86 N. Y. 275; Con- diet V. Grand Trunk R. Co., 54 N. Y. 500; Rawson v. Holland, 59 N. Y. 611, 17 Am. Eep. 394; Alexander T. Green, 7 Hill (N. Y.), 533; Giles T. Fargo, 60 N. Y. Super, a. 117; Ghormley v. Dinsmore, 51 N. Y. Super. Ct. 196; Knell v. United States, etc., S. Co., 33 N. Y. Super. Ct. 423; Prentice v. Decker, 49 Barb. (N. Y.) 21. But where the bill of lading con- tains a general exemption from lia- bility for loss by flre, and the loss occurred from this cause, it is in- cumbent on the owner of the prop- erty, in order to avoid the effect of the -exemption, to show that the fire was the result of the carrier's negli- gence or that the loss resulted' from some breach of the carrier's duty. Whitworth v. Erie R. Co., 87 N. Y. 419; Van Akin v. Erie R. Co., 92 LmiTATioif OF Liability. 321 snj cause does not cover a loss by the negligent delay of the car- Tier.° An exemption from all claims for any damage or injury " from whatsoever cause arising " does not include a loss arising •from the carrier's negligence.' The .doctrine of such contracts firmly established by the decisions of the courts of this State is that in order to secure to a common carrier immunity from its jiegligence or that of its servants, it must b© so expressed in un- mistakable language in the contract and it must not be left to a presumption to be drawn from the language. General words in the contract of a carrier, either of persons or of goods, limiting its responsibility, will not be construed as exempting it from lia- "bility for negligence, if fairly capable of other construction.* Where by the contract of transportation, the property is shipped '" at the owner's risk," these words will not be held to exempt the carrier for loss caused by its negligence.' A provision in a lill of lading that the carrier shall not be liable for any loss or .breakage does not exempt the carrier from the consec|[uences oi its own negligence.^" A contract for the transportation of .App. Div. (N. Y.) 23, 87 N. Y. Supp. «71. So, a, contract for the carriage of goods, providing that the carrier should not be liable for any loss or damage by change in weather, heat, frost, wet, or decay, did not relieve the carrier from liability for damage caused by negligence, but did impose on the owner the burden of establish- ing that injury from wet was caused -by the carrier's negligence. Thyll v. New York, etc., E. Co., 92 App. Div. (N. Y.) 513, 87 N. Y. Supp. 345, modg. 84 N. Y. Supp. 175. 6. Nicholas v. New York, etc., K. •Co., 89 N. Y. 370, 9 Am. & Eng. R, Cas. 103; McKinney v. Jewett, 90 N. Y. 267, 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 209. 7. Maguin v. Dinsmore, 56 N. Y. 168; Westcott v. Fargo, 61 N. Y. 543; Mynard v. Syracuse, etc., E. Co., 71 N. Y. 180, 27 Am. Rep. 28. 8. Rathbone v. New York Cent., ■etc., R. Co., 140 N..Y. 48, 61 Am. & 21 Eng. R. Cas. 150; Kenney v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 125 N. Y. 422; Fowler v. Liverpool, etc.. Steam Co., 87 N. Y. 190, 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 235; Canfield v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 93 N. Y. 532, 45 Am. Rep. 268, 16 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 152; Blair v. Erie R. Co., 66 N. Y. 313, 23 Am. Rep. 55; and eases cited in pre- ceding notes to this section. See also Fasy v. International Nav. Co., 177 N. Y. 591, 70 N. E. 1098, affg. 77 App. Div. (N. Y.) 469, 79 N. Y. Supp. 1103. 9. Canfield v. Baltimore, etc., E. Co., supra; Wells v. Steam Nav. Co., 8 N. Y. 380; Mynard v. Syracuse, etc., E. Co., supra; Nicholas v. New York Cent. E. Co., supra; Moore v. Evans, supra; Alexander v. Greene, 7 Hill (N. Y.), 546; French v. Buf- falo, etc., E. Co., 4 Keyes (N. Y.), 113; McCaffrey v. Twenty-third St. R. Co., 47 Hun (N. Y.), 404. 10. Hutkoff V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 322 The Law of Cakeiebs. goods, stipulating that the carrier shall not be liable for any dam- age in excess of a specified amount, nor, in any event, for more than the true value of the property, does not, by the attempt to limit the carrier's liability, relieve it from liability for a loss oc- casioned by its negligence." And a contract exempting the ca> rier from liability for injuries caused by the negligence of tli& carrier's servantsi in the execution of the contract will not excuse a deliberate, intentional act constituting a breach of the contract." § 18. Rule in Illinois and Wisconsin, — In Illinois and Wis- consin the rule seems tc be that carriers may by special contract exempt themselves from liability when the loss or injury results from their negligence or the negligence of their servants, except when such negligence is grosa^' Railroad companies have a right to restrict their liability as common carriers by such contracts aa may be agreed on specially, they still remaining liable for gross^ negligence or wilKul misfeasance, against which morals and public policy forbid that they be permitted to stipulate." In accepting live stock for transportation, the carrier undertakes to use ordinary care for its safety commensurate with ita nature and condition, and all contracts in which the carrier undertakes to 29 Misc. Eep. (N. Y.) 770, 61 N. Y. Express Co. v. Stettaners, 61 lU. 184, Supp. 254. 14 Am. Eep. 57 ; Merchants' Despatch, 11. Marquis v. Wood, 29 Misc. etc., Co. v. Moore, 88 III. 136, 30 Am. Eep. (N. Y.) 590, 61 N. Y. Supp. 251. Eep. 541; Chicago, etc., E. Co. T. 12. Keeney v. Grand Trunk E. Co., Chapman, 30 111. App. 504, 133 HI. 47 N. Y. 525, 1 Am. Ey. Eep. 466. 96, 23 Am. St. Eep. 587, 42 Am. 4 13.111. — Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Eng. E.Cas. 392; Illinois Cent. R. Co., Davis, 159 111. 53; Wabash E. Co. v. v. Jonte, 13 111. App. 424; Chicago, Brown, 51 111. App. 656, 152 111. 484; etc., E. Co. v. Harmon, 17 111. App. Wabash, etc., E. Co. v. Peyton, 106 640; Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Hawk, 42^ 111. 534, 46 Am. Eep. 705, 18 Am. & 111. App. 322. Eng. E. Cas. 1; Merchants' Despatch Wis. — Abrams v. Milwaukee, etc., Transp, Co. v. Thielbar, 86 111. 71; E. Co., 87 Wis. 485, 41 Am. St. Eep. Erie, etc., Transp. Co. v. Dater, 55; Lawson v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 91 HI. 195, 33 Am. Eep. 51, 64 Wis. 455, 54 Am. Eep. 634; Black 8 Cent. L. J. 293; Erie E. v. Good'ridi Transp. Co., 55 Wis. 319, Co. V. Wilcox, 84 111. 239, 25 Am. 42 Am. Eep. 713; Cream City K. Co. Eep. 451, 16 Am. Ey. Eep. 457; Chi- v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 63 Wis. 93, oago, etc., E. Co. v. Montfort, 60 111. 53 Am. Eep. 267. 175; Illinois Cent. E. Co. v. Smyser, 14. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Boss, 38 111. 354, 87 Am. Dec. 301; Adams 105 111. App. 54. LiMiTATioiir OF Liability. 323 limit its liability to less than the use of ordinary care for the safety of such stock may be rejected.-'^ § 19. The English and Canadian rule. — The English courts at an early period adopted the rule that carriers might limit their liability either by contract or by general public notice for losses caused by their own negligence," except where the negligence was gross." By the English Carrier's Act of 1830 it was provided in substance that no common carrier by land for hire should be liable for a loss or injury to any article of property specified in the statute, if the value should exceed ten pounds, not occasioned by the felonious acts of his servants or his own personal negli- gence unless, at the time of shipment, its nature and value shoufd be stated and an increased charge paid for its tran^ortation ; that no public notice should have the effect of limiting the carrier's liability as to any articles other than those specified in the act; and that the act should not be so construed as in any wise to affect any special contract with the carrier. Under this act the courts still maintained the rule that carriers might, by special contract, stipulate against liability for any loss resulting from their own negligence, except where there was wilful negligence or misfeas- ance." The Carrier's Act was modified in 1854: by the Railway 15. United States Express Co. v. B. & Aid. 342, 7 E. C. L. 123; New- Burke, 94 III. App. 29. bom v. Just, 2 C. & P. 76, 12,E. C. L. 16. Gibbons v. Paynton, 4 Burr. 34; Beck v. Evans, 16 East 244, 3 2298; Downs v. Fromont, 4 Campb. Campb. 267; Birkett v. Willan, 2 B. 40; Maying v. Todd, 4 Campb. 225, & Aid. 356; Smith v. Home, 2 Moore 1 Stark. 72, 2 E. C. L. 37; Alfred v. 18, 8 Taunt. 144, 4 E. C. L. 50; Beal Home, 3 Stark. 136, 14 E. C. L. 168 ; v. South Devon E. Co., 3 H. & C. 337, Peek V. North Staffordshire R. Co., 9 12 W. R. 1115; Beekford v. Crutwell, Jur. K S. 914, 10 H. L. Cas. 473, 32 5 C. & P. 242, 24 E. C. L. 300, 1 M. L. J. Q. B. 241 ; Covington v. Willan, & Rob. 187 ; Bodenham v. Bennett, 4 Gow. 115, 5 E. C. L. 481; Garnett v. Price 31; Langley v. Brown, 1 M. Ss Willan, 5 B. & Aid. 53, 7 E. C. L. 19; P. 583, 17 E. C. L. 193. See also Hol- Bignold V. Waterhouse, 1 M. & S. lister v. Nowlen, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 255; Mayhew v. Eames, 3 B. & C. 234; Cole v. Goodwin, >9 Wend. (N. 601, 10 E. C. L. 195; Leeson v. Holt, Y.) 251; ISTew York Cent. R. Co. v. 1 Stark. 186, 2 E. C. L. 77 ; Butt v. Lockwood, 17 Wall. 357 ; Sager v. Great Western R. Co., 11 C. B. 140, Portsmouth, etc., R. Co., 31 Me. 228. 73 E. C. L. 140. See Fish v. Chap- 18. Webb. v. Great Western R. Co., man, 2 Ga. 349, 46 Am. Dec. 393. 26 W. R. Ill; Hughes v. Great West- 17. Wright V. Snell, 5 B. & Aid. em R. Co., 14 C. B. 637, 78 E. 0. L. 350, 7 E. C. L. 127 ; Sleat v. Fagg, 5 637 ; Slim v. Great Northern R. Co., 324 The Law of Caebiees. and Canal Traffic Act, -whicli applied to railways and oanal traffic only, and provided in substance that such carriers could not limit their liability for negligence except by a contract signed by the shipper or his agent and adjudged by the court before whom any question relating to it should be tried to be just and reasonable.*' Under these acts, upon which the adjudications of English courts are based, the rule has become well established that contracts limiting the liability of carriers are just and reasfonable and will be sustained by the courts when it has been shown that a fair and genuine alternative has been offered the shipper of having hia goods carried free from restrictive conditions at a higher rate, wihich is not prohibitive or excessive, or at a lower rate under which the carrier is released from all responsibility except gross negligence, fraud or wilful wrong on the part of the carrier or its servants, and that a sufficient consideration bas been given by the carrier for the reduced liability assumed under the contract™ 14 C. B. 647, 78 E. C. L. 647; York, etc., E. Co. V. Crisp, 14 C. B. 527, 78 E. C. L. 527; Morville v. Great Nor- thern R. Co., 16 Jur. 528, 7 Railw. Cas. 830, 21 L. J. Q. B. 319; Carr \. Lancashire, etc.. E. Co.. 7 Eicch. 707, 7 Eailw. Cas. 426, 17 Jur. 397; Wil- ton v. Atlantic, etc., Nav. Co., 10 C. B. N. S. 453, 100 E. C. L. 453, 8 Jur, N. S. 232, 9 W. E. 748; Dodson v. Grand Trunk E. Co., 7 Canada L. J. N. S. 263; The Duero, 22 L. T. N. S. 37; Stewart v. London, etc., E. Co., 3 H. & C. 135, 10 Jur. N. S. 805, 12 W. E. 689; Hoare v. Great Western E. Co., 37 L. T. N. S. 186, 25 W. E. 63; Chippendale v. Lancashire) etc., R. Co., 15 Jur. 1106, 7 Eailw. Cas. 824; Great Western E. Co. v. Glenister, 22 W. E. 72, 29 L. T. N. S. 422; Eonan V. Midland E. Co., L. E. 14 Ir. 157; Lewis V. Great Western R. Co., 3 Q. B. Div. 195, 47 L. J. Q. B. Div. 131, 37 L. T. N. S. 774, 26, W. R. 255, 15 Am. Ey. Eep. 601. 19. Eobinson v. London, etc., B. Co., 19 C. B. N. S. 51, 115 E. C. L. 51, 11 Jur. N. S. 390, 13 W. R. 660. 20. Gallagher v. Great Western R. Co., 8 Ir. E. C. L. 326; Taubman T. Pacific. Steam Nav. Co., 26 L. T. 7(J4j Peek V. North Staffordshire E. Co., 10 H. L. Cas. 473, 9 Jur. N. S. 914, 11 W. E. 1023; Garton v. Bristol, etc., E. Co., 1 B. & S. 112, 101 E. C. L. 112, 7 Jur. N. S. 1234; Lloyd v. Waterford, etc., R. Co., 15 Ir. C. I. R. 37; Steele v. State Line Steam- ship Co., L. R. 3 App. 72; HUl v. Scott, 2 Q. B. 371; Norman v. Bin- nington, 25 Q. B. Dir. 475; Foreman V. Great Western R. Co., 38 L. T. N. S. 851; Great Western R. Co. v. Mc- Carthy, L. E. 12 App. 218, 29 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 87; Great Western E. Co. V. Glenister, 29 L. T. N. S. 422, 22 W. E. 72; Manchester, etc., K. Co. V. Brown, L. E. 8 H. L. 703, 16 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 174; Beal v. South Devon E. Co., 3 H. ffi-C. 337, 12 W. K. 1115, 11 L. T. N. S. 184; Aldridge v. Great Western E. Co., 15 C. B. N. S. 682, 109 E. C. L. 582; MacAndrew v. Electric Tel. Co., 17 C. B. 3, 84 E. C. L. 3, 1 Jur. N. S. 1073; McManus v. Lancashire, etc., E. Co., 4 H. & N- Limitation of Liability. 325 The rule in Canada is practically the same.^^ As it has been ex- jressed by the courts, there are no fixed or establisihed rules by which the courts can be governed in concluding whether or not particular conditions in contracts of this character are just and reasonable or not, but each case must be determined upon its own circumstances.^^ § 20. Reasons upon which the different rules are based. — The ISFew York doctrine is founded upon the principle that it is a matter of personal right that an individual sh.ould bei permitted to make his own agreement aa to the terms upon which he shall ihave his goods transported, and that it is not a matter of public concern that he should be deprived of this right on the theory that it is necessary for his protection or benefit, except in so far as it is necessary to protect him from fraud or imposition.^' The i 327, 5 Jur. N. S. 651; Ashenden v. London, etc., R. Co., 28 W. E. 511; Baxendale v. Great Eastern K. Co., 10 B. & S. 212; Lord v. Midland E. Co., L. E. 2 C. P. 339, 15 W. E. 405, 36 L. J. C. P. 170; Eonan v. Midland E. Co., L. E. 14 Ir. 157; Moore v. Mid- land E. Co., 8 Ir. E. C. L. 232, 9 Ir. E. 0. L. 20; Harris v. Midland E. Co., 25 W. E. 63; Haynes v. Great Western E. Co., 41 L. T. N. S. 436; Doolan v. Midland E. Co., L. E. 2 App. 792, 37 L. T. N. S. 317; Eobin- son V. London, etc., E. Co., 19 C. B. N. S. 51, 115 E. C. L. 51, 11 Jur. N. S. 790; Pardington v. South Wales E. Co., 1 H. & N. 392, 26 L. J. C. P. 105 ; Harrison v. London, etc., E. Co., 2 B. & S. 122, 110 E. C. L. 122, 31 L. J. Q. B. 113; White v. Great Western R. Co., 2 C. B. N. S. 7, 89 E. C. L. 7, 26 L. J. C. P. 158; D'Arc v. London, etc, E. Co., L. E. 9 C. P. 325, 22 W. K. 919. 21. Farr v. Great Western E. Co., 35 U. C. Q. B. 534; Hamilton v. Grand Trunk E. Co., 23 U. C. Q. B. 600; Hood v. Grand Trunk E. Co., 20 V. C. C. P. 361; Henry v. Canadian Pac. R. Co., 1 Manitoba 210; Grand Trunk E. Co. v. Vogel, 11 Can. Sup. Ct. 612, 27 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 18; Spettigue v. Great Western E. Co., 15 U. C. C. P. 315; Scarlett v. Great Western E. Co., 41 U. C. C. P. 211; Scott V. Great Western E. Co., 23 V. C. C. P. 182. A condition in a shipping hill that the company is not to be liable for damage occasioned by fire not result- ing from its negligence, need not be just and reasonable in order to be valid. MeMorrin v. Canadian Pac. R. E. Co. (Can.), 1 Ont. Law Rep. 561. 22. Simons v. Great Western R. Co., 18 C. B. 805, 86 E. C. L. 805, 26 L. J. C. P. 25; Lewis v. Great West- em R. Co., 47 L. J. Q. B. Div. 131, 3 Q. B. Div. 195; Gregory v. West Midland R. Co., 33 L. J. Exch. 155, 2 H. & C. 944; Eooth v. North East- ern E. Co., 36 L. J. Exch. 83, L. E. 2 Exch. 173, 15 L. T. N. S. 624. 23. In Dorr v. New Jersey Steam Nav. Co., 11 N. Y. 485, 62 Am. Dec. 125, the court said: "To say the parties have not a right to make their own contract, and to limit the pre- cise extent of their own respective risks and liabilities, in a matter in 326 The Law of Caeeiees. opposing doctrine supported by the great weight of authority is based mainly upon the fact that the parties to such contracts stand .upon an unequal footing, carriers generally being corpora- tions of a qiMsi public nature, and that public policy and the commoni good demand that the privilege of the right of private contract should not be conferred upon such corporations to the extent of enabling them thus to secure exemption from their just obligations! as public servants, by securing absolute immunity from the results of their own negligence." DO way aflFecting the public morals or conflicting with the public interests, would, in my judgment, be an imwar- Tantable restriction upon trade and commerce, and a most palpable inva- fiion of personal right." In Parsons v. Monteath, 13 Barb. (N. Y.) 353, Welles, J., says: "If I have goods to transport, and the com- mon carrier tells me he will carry them for a particular price without incurring the risk of loss or damage by inevitable accident, but that if he takes such risks he must add a per- centage to the price of transportation, I really cannot see what the public have to do with our negotiations, nor why we should not be permitted to make a valid contract, with such con- ditions and stipulations as we choose." In Smith v. New York Cent. R. Co., 24 N. Y. 222, Allen, J,, says: "No principle is better settled than that a party to whom any benefit is se- cured by contract, by statute, or even by the Constitution, may waive such benefit, and the public are not inter- ested in protecting him or benefiting him against his wishes. . . . The public have no interest in the ques- tion which of the two, A. or B., shall take the risk of the seaworthiness of a ship, or the fitness of a railway car- riage, or the care and faithfulness of a third person employed in the per- formance of a duty in which either or both have an interest, although by certain general rules the law has de- clared that, in the absence of any con- tract, the risk shall be upon A. and not upon B. But if B. elects to re- lieve A., and to assume his risks and liabilities, the public are not at all concerned, and have no occasion to forbid such contracts." 24. In New York Cent. E. Co. t. Loekwood, 17 Wall. (U. S.) 357, the court, by Mr. Justice Bradley, says: " The carrier and his customer do not stand on a footing of equality. The latter is only one individual of a million. He cannot afford to higgle or stand out and seek redress in the courts. His business will not admit such a course. He prefers, rather, to accept any bill of lading, or sign any paper the carrier presents; often, in- deed, without knowing what the one or the other contains. In most cases he has no alternative but to do this, or abandon his business. . . . H the customer had any real freedom of choice ; if he had a reasonable and practicable alternative, and if the em- ployment of the carrier were not a public one, charging him with the duty of accommodating the public in the line of his employment — ^then, i' the customer cHose to assume the risk of negligence, it could with more reason be said to be his private affair, and no concern of the public. But the condition of things is entirely dif- ferent, and especially so under the Limitation of Liability. 32T § 21. Liabilities subject to limitation. — As has already been stated, in New York and a few other jurisdictions, the carrier may release itself by contract from its common law liability, ex- cept in case of fraud or culpable negligence amounting to fraud.^^ Elsewhere the rule is well establisihed, as we have seen, that, ex- cept as to losses resulting from its own negligence or wilful mis- ■conduct, or that of its servants, the carrier may by express con- tract stipulate against liability for any loss occurring from any cause whatever. ^^ It may sitipulate that it shall not be liable for losses occasioned by fire and a shipper is bound by such a pro- vision in a bill of lading, where he was chargeable with knowl- edge that the bill contained such a clause and made no objection thereto, and it is not shown that the loss resulted from the car- rier's negligence.^' It may stipulate against losses occasioned by modified arrangements which the car- rying trade has assumed. The busi- ness is mostly concentrated in a few powerful corporations, whose position in the body politic enables them to control it. They do, in fact, control it, and impose such conditions upon travel and transportation as they see fit, which the public is compelled to accept. These circumstances furnish an additional argument, if any were needed, to show that the conditions imposed by common carriers ought not to be adverse, to say the least, to the dictates of public policy and mo- rality. The status and relative posi- tion of the parties render any such conditions void. Contracts of com- mon carriers, like those of persons oc- cupying a fiduciary character giving them a position in which they can take undue advantage of the persona with whom they contra!«t, must rest upon their fairness and reasonable- ness." In Little Eock, etc., K. Co. v. Cra- vens, 57 Ark. 112, 55 Am. & Eng. K. Cas. 650, the court says: "The indi- vidual feels that transportation is necessary to his success and that un- less he gets it promptly he will suffer inconvenience and perhaps loss. He regards the probability of loss in tran- sit as remote, and knows that if there is no loss, the contract is immaterial. Under such circumstances, he will as- sume the risk of contingent future loss rather than sustain a, loss that is certain and present, as men usually are prone to sacrifice contingent fu- ture interest to satisfy present wants. So we thinh it should be held, as a matter of law, that the parties stand upon a footing of inequality, and that individuals desiring to make ship- ments are under a necessity sufficient, in the ordinary affairs of life, to amount to compulsion, where it ia pressed." 25. Bissell v. New York Cent. E. Co., 25 N. Y. 442; Wells v. New York Cent. E. Co., 24 N. Y. 181; Perkins v. New York Cent. E. Co., 24 N. Y. 196. See also §§ 17 and 18, ante, and cases there cited. 26. See | 1, ante, and cases there cited. 27. Cau V. Texas, etc., R. Co., 113 Fed. 91; Charnock v. Texas, etc., R Co., 113 Fed. 92; Steinweg v. Erie R Co., 43 N. Y. 123, 3 Am. Eep. 673; Bostwick V. Baltimore, etc., E. Co., 45 328 The Law of Caeeiebs. strikes of its employes.^ It may, by special contract, limit its liability for loss of or injury to goods of a specified class, unless the sihipper bias complied' with certain conditions.^' A provision inabiU of lading limiting the carrier's liability to damages resulting only from negligence of itself or its agents is reasonable and binding* An agreement that a carrier shall not be responsible for loss or damage from one of certain specified causes, other than its own negligence is valid. ^^ The carrier may stipulate that it will not be liable for loss or injury of goods after tliey have passed from its handsi into those of a connect- ing line'^ It may stipulate that it will not be liable for the loss of goods unless at the time they are received for ship- ment a memorandum in writing stating the character and value of the articles is delivered by the shipper and an extra compensa- tion paid; but sucli a provision will not relieve the carrier from liability for negligence, if it is informed before shipment of the special and unusual value of the goods shipped.'' Carriers have the right to contract against their assumption of liability that ac- crues to them merely as bailees, and in common with other bailees, and not as carriers.'* Where no duty rests upon the car- rier under the common law or by reason of a statute to receive and transport the goods, it may limit its liability to any extent except for wilful injury, negligence or misfeasance, as, for ex- ample, for losses occasioned in the transportation of dangeroufl K. Y. 712; Lamb v. Camden, etc., R. 441. See Liability for delay, § 1, Co., 46 N. Y. 271, 7 Am. Rep. 327; chap. 8. Stedman v. Western Transp. Co., 48 29. Georgia, etc., R. Co. v. Eeid, Barb. (N. Y.) 97; Davis v. Central 91 Ga. 377; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Vermont R. Co., 66 Vt. 290, 44 Am. Scruggs, 69 Miss. 418; Atchison, etc., St. Rep. 852; New Orleans Mut. Ins. R. Co. v. Bryan (Tex. Civ. App.), 28 Co. v. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 20 La. S. W. 98; Virginia, etc., R. Co. t. Ann. 302; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Sayers, 26 Gratt. (Va.) 328. Bone, 52 Ark. 26; Seller v. Steam- SO. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Lan- ship Pacific, 1 Or. 409; Levy v. Pont- ders (Ala.), 33 So. 482. chartrain R. Co., 23 La. Ann. 477; 31. Morse v. Canadian Pac. B. Co., New Jersey Steam Nav. Co. v. Mer- 87 Me. 77, 53'Atl. 874. chants' Bank, 6 How. (U. S.) 344; 32. See Connecting Carriers, chap. McMorrin v. Canadian Pac. R. Co. 17. (Can.) 1 Ont. Law Rep. 561. 33. Rathbone v. New York Cent., 28. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Gatewood, etc., R. Co., 140 N. Y. 48. 79 Tex. 89; International, etc., R. 84. Chicago, etc., B. Co. v. Schuldt Co. V. Server, 3 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. { (Neb.), 92 N. W. 162. Limitation of Liabilitt, 329' explosives,'^ or for losses not occurring on its own line or originat- ing there,^' or for losses in the transportation of a circus train loaded with wild animals." A carrier and a shipper have a right to stipulate in advance the value of goods shipped, and to limit the carrier's liability in case of their loss or damage from any cause except collision or from cars being throvwi from the track.^ Though a common carrier can make a valid agreement fixing the- value of shipments in case of loss by its negligence, such agree- ment must be reasonable, and it cannot stipulate that it shall be liable for an amount less than the value of property lost by its negligence, thereby exempting itself pro tanto from liability, the- measure of damages being the amount of the loss.'' In all such cases, the burden of proof is upon the shipper and the carrier will not be liable for any loss or injury to goods shipped within the terms of the exemption in the contract, except upon proof that the loss or injury was the result of the carrier's negligence.*" § 22. Mode or form of limitation — Bill of lading or shipping receipt. — The acceptance of a receipt limiting the liability of a. carrier for goods received by it for carriage makes a contract 35. California Powder Works v. agents, performers, or employes, was- Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 113 Cal. 329. not invalid, as contrary to publie 36. See Connecting Carriers, chap, policy. Wilson v. Atlantic, etc., R. 17. Co., 129 Fed. 774. Citing Ne\r 37. Where a railroad company York Cent. E. Co. v. Lockwood, agreed te haul certain cars of the pro- 17 Wall. 357, 21 L. Ed. 627 ; prietor of a circus according to a Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Wallace,, special schedule, and for a price less 66 Fed. 506, 14 C. C. A. 257, 30 than the regular rates for such serv- L. R. A. 161; Coup v. Wabash, etc., ices, the carrier's servants having no R. Co., 56 Mich. Ill, 22 N. W. 215,. right to direct the loading or unload- 56 Am. Rep. 374; Robertson v. Old ing, which was in the exclusive charge Colony R. Co., 156 Mass. 525, 31 N. of the employes of the circus com- E. 650, 32 Am. St. Rep. 482. FoUow- pany, an express contract between the ing Railway Co. v. Wright, 176 U. 8. parties, exempting the carrier from 498, 20 S. Ct. 385, 44 L. Ed. 560. liability for the negligence of its em- 38. Hill v. Northern Pac. R. Co.,. ployes, and releasing the carrier from 33 Wash. 697, 74 Pac. 1054. liability for loss and damage to any 39. Gardiner v. Southern R. Co., of the circus company's property, 127 N. C. 293, 37 S. E. 328. menagerie, cars, or equipment while 40. See Burden of Proof where- in transit, and to indemnify the car- special contract is set up, S 5, chap., rier against damage or injury to any 14. of the circus company's officers, 330 The Law op Caeeiees. binding on botli parties.^^ But, an express company acting as a collector cannot limit its liability as such, for accepting a draft in- stead of money to that of a forwarder, nor to a definite sum, by stipulations in its receipt given for the claim to be collected.** Where a package is delivered to a carrier, to be delivered in aa- other State, the company's receipt, stating that it shall not be liable to tbe holder beyond a certain sum, at which the artide for- warded is valued, which is not signed by tbe shipper, and no statement is made by him as to its value, is not a valid stipulation against the negligent loss of sach package.*' But where a shipping receipt, entered into in consideration of a reduced rate of ship- ment, stipulates that no carrier shall be liable for damages by water not due to its own negligence or that of its sesrvants, an ob- jection in an action against one of the carriers for damages to the freight by water that the instrument is a mere receipt, and not a binding contract, is untenable.** An initial carrier^ issuing a bin of lading stipulating for the carriage of goods to their desti- nation if on its road, otherwise to deliver the same to another ca^ rier on the route to said destination, and providing that no carrier sball be liable for loss not occurring on its own road, nor after the property is ready for delivery to the next carrier or consignee, is not liable for the failure of the connecting carrier to deliver the goods.** Exemptions from liability will not be presumed, but must be found clearly expressed in the contract, and, if there be any ambiguity, it will be resolved against the carrier;*' and the burden of proving such exemption is upon the carrier.*' If, by its terms, the contract of carriage covers all the lines between the point of shipment and the destination of the goods, then the initial carrier becomes liable for the faithful performance of duty by all the carriers, and each is entitied to such exemption as is con- tained in the contract of carriage.** But where the first carrier 41. Adams Express Co. v. Carna- 45. American Hay Co. v. Bath, han (Ind. App.), 63 N. B. 245, 64 etc., R. Co., 85 N. Y. Supp. 341. N. E. 647. 46. Edsall v. Camden, etc., B. Co., 42. Gowling v. American Express 50 N. Y. 661. Co., 102 Mo. App. 366, 76 N. W. 712. 47. Jennings t. Grand Trunk K. 43. Jacobson v. Adams Express Co., 127 N. Y. 438, 28 N. E. 394. Co., 1 O. C. D. 212. 48. Jennings v. Grand Trunk B. 44. Mears v. New York, etc., R. Co., supra. Co. (Conn.), 52 Atl. 610, 56 L. R. A. 884. LiMiTATiojsr OF Liability. 331 only contracts to carry to and deliver to another carrier, such con- necting carrier is not entitled to any exemptions by virtue of that contract of carriage; and the fact that it was knovsm at the time of shipment that the goods would go over different lines does not change the liability of the carrier, unless it stipulate therefor.*' Under a statute, providing that, when any property is delivered to a common carrier to be transported, it shall not be lawful for the carrier to limit its common law liability by any stipulation expressed in the receipt given for the property, the mere delivery of a receipt restricting the indemnity to the consignor, the car^ rier having full means of knowledge of the character of the con- signment, and in the abspence of any express agreement limiting the liability, docs not restrict the right of the owner, suffering loss from the negligence of the carrier, to recover full compensation.^" But, notwithstanding such a statute, a contract signed by the ship- per, providing that, in consideration of the lower rate of freight, Ms recovery, in ease of damage, shall be limited to a specified amount, is binding on him, he knowing of the provision, though the railroad clerk told him the clause " did not amount to any- thing," and was " only a matter of form," such statement not being within the line of the servant's duties, and the contract in- forming the shipper of the two rates, that the lower was in con- sideration of the limited liability, that the shipper could be bound only by written contract, and that a special contract coald only be made by a general officer." § 23. Limitation of time in which to bring suit. — A limitation of the time of suit for losg or damage to goods transported, con- tained in a bill of lading, is not invalid on the mere ground that it contravenes the statute of linaitations.^^ And the fact that a statute prohibits a carrier from limiting its cammon law liability by contract does not render such a stipulation invalid.^' Stipula- tions in the contracts of carriers limiting Ae time within which suit must be brought have been held valid by the courts when the period of time fixed is reasonable under the circumstances of 49. Aetna Insurance Go. v. 51. Jennings v. Smith, 99 Fed. 189. Wheeler, 49 N. Y. 616; Robinson v. 52. Central Vermont E. Co. v. Kew York, etc., S. Co., 63 App. Div. Soper, 59 Fed. 879, 8 C. C. A. 341. (N. Y.) 211, 71 N. Y. Supp. 424. 53. Gulf, etc., E. Co. v. Trawick, 50. Powers Mercantile Co. v. Wells, 68 Tex. 314, 2 Am. St. Eep. 494, 30 Targo & Co. (Minn.), 100 N. W. 735. Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 49. 332 The Law of Oaeexebs. the particular case." It has been held to be ^nerally a question for the jury.^ Similar dauses in policies of insurance are held valid. ^' Likewise in contracts of telegraph companies and for like considerations." The object of such a clause, like one requiring claim to be presented or notice of loss given within a specified time, is to enable the carrier to seaxch for the missing goods or find out the true cause of the loss or injury ; finding the missing goods, it may either deliver them to the consignee, or redeliver them to the shipper; failing to discover the goods, it can place the responsibility for the loss where it properly belongs and seek indemnity from the persons guilty of the wrong; finding the real facts as to the loas or injury it may be in a position to defend itseK where lapse of time might have deprived it of all facilities for ascertaining the true cause of the loss or injury. The law recognizes that the purpose is reasonable and just and hence sus- tains the validity of such clauses when the time and conditions are reasonable under all the circumstances.^ Under a statute in Texas no such stipulation is valid which limits the time in which 54. Southern Express Co. v. Caper- ton, 44 Ala. 101, 4 Am. Eep. 118; Texas, etc., E. Co. v. Klepper (Tex. Civ. App.), 24 S. W. 567, a reduced rate of freight was held sufficient con- sideration to support a limitation to forty days; McCarty v. Gulf, etc., K. Co., 79 Tex. 33; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. MeCarty, 82 Tex. 608; Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. White (Tex. Civ. App.), 32 S. W. 323; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Gate- wood, 79 Tex. 89; Gulf, etc., E. Co. V. Clarke, 5 Tex. Civ. App. 547. See nlso Riddlesbarger v. Hartford Ins. Co., 7 Wall. (U. S.) 386; Cray v. Hartford F. Ins. Co., 1 Blatchf. {V. S.) 280. 55. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Hawkins (Tex. Civ. App.), 30 S. W. 1113. 56. Wilkinson v. First Nat. Fire Ins. Co., 72 N. Y. 499; Steen v. Ni- agara Fire Ins. Co., 89 N. Y. 315. 57. Young V. Western Union Tel. Co., 1 Am. Electl. Cas. 187, 34 N. Y. Super. Ct. 390, 65 N. Y. 165; Cole V. Western Union Tel. Co., 1 Am. Eleetl. Cas. 707, 33 Minn. 227, 22 N. W. 385; Wolf v. Western Union Tel. Co., 62 Pa. St. 83, 1 Am. Rep. 387; Hill v. Western Union Tel. Co., 3 Am. Electl. Cas. 614, 85 Ga. 425, 21 Am. St. Rep. 166, 30 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 590; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Brown, 84 Tex. 54. 58. Security Trust Co. v. Wells, Fargo & Co. Express, 178 N. Y. 620, 81 App. Div. (N. Y.) 426, 80 N. Y. Supp. 830; Kaiser v. Hoey, 1 N. ?. Supp. 429 ; Hirschberg v. Dinsmore, 12 Daly (N. Y.), 429; Southern Ex- press Co. V. Caldwell, 21 Wall. (U. S.) 264; Marrus v. New Haven Steamboat Co., 30 Misc. Rep. (N. T.) 421, 62 N. Y. Supp. 474; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Hurst, 67 Ark. 407; Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Reeves, 97 Va. 284; Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. New- lin, 74 111. App. 638; Cox v. Vermont Cent. R. Co., 170 Mass. 129, 49 N. E. 97 ; Popham v. Barnard, 77 Mo. App. 619; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Bozarth, 91 111. App. 68. LtMITATION OF LIABILITY. 333 suits may be brought to less than two years and the statute does not apply to interstate commerce.^' Nor will the shipper be pre- cluded from bringing suit after the expiration of the time limited, ■where he was induced to delay action by the fraud or misrepre- sentation of the carrier.'" Upon the same principle it is held in Kew York that a shipping receipt limiting the liability of a car- rier to claims presented within a fixed time does not relieve it of liability for a wrongful delivery, though the claim was not pre- sented until long after the time limited, where it -was in fact pre- sented as soon as the consignor discovered the fraud.'^ Snch a stipulation will be waived by the carrier'a agreement, after exam- ining into the alleged injury, to pay a fixed sum in satisfaction oi the injury, and recovery may be had for the amount so agreed iipon.*^ § 24. Requirement of notice of loss or presentation of claim -within fixed time. — The carrier may lawfully, by contract with the shipper made by clause or stipulation in the bill of lading or shipping receipt or otherwise, provide a reasonable time within •which the shipper shall present his claim or give notice of claim for loss or damage, and the manner of giving such notice or pre- senting his claim, and limit its liability to cases in which the claim shall be presented or notice given in accordance with the terma of the contract. '^ Such agreements are not against the 59. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Will- v. Underwood, 62 Tex. 21, 21 Am. & iama (Tex. Civ. App.), 32 S. W. 225; Eng. R. Cas. 143. Eeevea v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 11 Tex. 63. N. T. — Osterhoudt v. Southern Civ. App. 5U; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Pac. Co., 47 App. Div. (N. Y.) 146, Elliott (Tex. Civ. App.), 26 S'. W. 62 N. Y. Supp. 134; Jennings v. 636; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Stanley, 33 Grand Trunk R. Co., 127 N. Y. 438, S. W. 110; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Hume, 49 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 98; Kaiser v. 87 Tex. 211. Hoey, 1 N. Y. Supp. 429. 60. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Kel- Ark. — St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. ley (Tex. Civ. App.), 26 S. W. 470; Hurst. 67 Ark. 407, 55 S. W. 215. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Silegman Dak. — Hartwell v. Northern Pac. (Tex. Civ. App.), 23 S.W. 298; Gulf, Express Co., 5 Dak. 463, stipulation «tc., R. Co. V. Trawick, supra. valid when signed by shipper. 61. Security Trust Co. v. Wells, /Hj— Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Bo- Targo & Co. Express, supra. zarth, 91 111. App. 68 ; Black v. Wa- 62. Chicago, etc., Bi. Co. v. Katzen- bash, etc., R. Co., Ill 111. 351, 53 Am. bach, 118 Ind. 174, 38 Am. & Eng. R. Rep. 628, 25 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 388; Caa. 375; International, etc., R. Co. Coles v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 41 334 The Law of Caeeiees. policy of the law and of the right to make conditions of this char- acter there is now no question. They do not relieve carriers from any part of their obligation as common carriers. As such they are bound to the same diligence, fidelity and care as they would be required to exercise if no such stipulation had been made. All 111. App. 607; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Simms, 18 111. App. 68. Ind. — United States Express Co. v. Harris, 51 Ind. 129; Adams Express Co. V. Reagan, 29 Ind. 21, 92 Am. Dec. 332; Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Ragsdale, 14 Ind. App. 406; Case v. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 11 Ind. App. 517. Delivery of a shipment of goods at the wrong place without fault of the consignor constitutes a conversion which deprives the carrier of an ex- emption from liability by the con- signor's failure to present a verified claim for damages within 10 days. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. C. & A. Potts & Co. (Ind. App.), 71 N. E. 685. Kan. — ^Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Mor- ris, 65 Kan. 532, 70 Pac. 651; Sprague v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 34 Kan. 347, 23 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 684; Goggin V. Kansas Pac. R. Co., 12 Kan. 416. Ky. — Owen v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 87 Ky. 626. Minn. — ^Armstrong v. Chicago, etc.,' R. Co., 53 Minn. 183. Miss. — ^^Southern Express Co. v. Hunnicutt, 54 Miss. 566, 28 Am. Rep. 385. Mo. — Dawson v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 76 Mo. 514; Rice v. Kansas Pac. R. Co., 63 Mo. 314, 20 Am. Ry. Rep. 424; D. Klass Commission Co. v. Wa- bash R. Co., 80 Mo. App. 164, 2 Mo. App. Rep. 545, but a clause in a con- tract of carriage, requiring the ship- per to give five days' notice of his claim for loss and damage, does not apply to loss occurring through the carriers' failure to- deliver the goods in a, reasonable time, but to injury during shipment. Where a contract of shipment pro- vided that all claims for damages by the consignee must be reported in writing to the delivering line within 36 hours after he has been notified of the arrival of the freight, failure ta give the notice will not defeat his right to recover for goods lost in transit, since notice of their arrival could not have been given, and writ- ten notice will be waived; the car- rier having acted on the verbal notice of the consignee that the goods were lost, and delegated a claim agent to- search for them. Ward v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 158 Mo. 226, 58 S. W. 28. Til. C— Wood V. Southern E. Co., 118 N. C. 1056; Capehart v. Sea- board, etc., R. Co., 77 N. C. 355. A clause in a bill of lading releasing the carrier from liability for loss or dam- age of the goods if notice is not pre- sented' in writing within 30 days after the delivery thereof, or after due time for such delivery, is unreasonable and void. Gwyn Harper Mfg. Co. v. Caro- lina Cent. R. Co., 128 N. C. 280, 3J S. E. 894. Po.— Pavitt V. Lehigh Valley E. Co., 153 Pa. St. 302; Weir v. Adams Express Co., 5 Phila. (Pa.) 355. Term. — Southern Express Co. v. Glenn, 16 Lea (Tenn.) 472. Tea>.— Gulf, etc., E. Co. v. Trawick, 68 Tex. 314, 2 Am. St. Hep. 494, 30 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 49. V. S. — Southern Express Co. v. Caldwell, 21 Wall. (U. S.) 264. £reff.— Lewis v. Great Western K. Limitation of Liabiu;tt. 335 that the stipulation requires is that the shipper shall make his claim in season to enable the carrier to ascertain the facts, and it specifies what that time shall be. The only question that can arise is as to whether the condition is a reasonable one with reference to the circumstances of any particular case. Sudi contracts when the time and conditions are not unreasonable are universally upheld by the courts, and the right to recover on a claim for loss or damage will be barred, if tbe conditions of the contract are not complied with.** That a shipping contract required a presentation of claims within an unreasonably short time, however, does not relieve the shipper from presenting his claims within a reasonable time.'^ Such stipulations may be waived by the carrier.'* And Co., 5 H. & N. 867, 29 L. J. Exch. 425 ; Simons v. Great Western K. Co., 18 Q. B. 805, 86 E. C. L. 805; Moore T. Great Northern R. Co., L. R. 8 Ir. 95; Nicholson v. Willan, 5 East 507. Can. — Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Mc- Millan, 16 Can. Sup. Ct. 543, 42 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 468 ; Kyle v. Buffalo, etc., R. Co., 16 U. C. C. P. 76. Comtra. — Southern Express Co. v. Tupelo Bank, 108 Ala. 517. Connecting lines. — Where the contract requires notice to the car- rier at the destination of the goods, and the goods are sent over several lines, the shipper or consignee is not hound to give notice to the initial carrier at the point where the goods left its line. Atchison, etc., R. Co. 'v. Grant, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 674; Wichita, etc., R. Co. V. Koch, 47 Kan. 753, 55 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 452. 64. Osterhoudt v. Southern Pac. Co., supra; Jennings v. Grand Trunk E. Co., supra; Browning v. Long Island R. Co., 2 Daly (N. Y.), 117; Central Vermont R. Co. v. Soper, 59 Fed. 879, 61 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 151; Adams Express Co. v. Reagan, su- pra; Goggin V. Kansas Pac. R. Co., supra; Pacific Express Co. v. Darnell (Tex.), 6 S. W. 765; Harned v. Mis- souri Pae. R. Co., 51 Mo. App. 482; Sanford v. Housatonic R. Co., 11 Cush. (Mass.) 155; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Hurst, supra. That the qnestion of reason- ableness of the time limit is for the jury has been held in several Texas cases: Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Adams, 78 Tex. 372, 22 Am. St. Rep. 56; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Barber (Tex. Civ. App.) 30 S. W. 500; Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Wright, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 402. Also whether the contract is one for an interstate or domestie shipment. International, etc., R. Co. v. Garrett, 5 Tex. Civ. App. 540. 65. Osterhoudt v. Southern Pac. R. Co., supra ; Matthews v. American Cent. Ins. Co., 154 N. Y. 449, 48 N. E. 761, 39 L. R. A. 433. 66. Pavitt v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 153 Pa. St. 302; Wood v. Southern R. Co., 118 N. C. 1056; Wabash, etc., R. Co. V. Brown, 152 III. 484; Interna- tional, etc., R. Co. V. Underwood, 62 Tex. 21, 21 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 143; Hess V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 40 Mo. App. 202; Central R. Co. v. Pickett, 87 Ga. 734, 55 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 337 ; Hudson v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 92 Iowa, 231; Bennett v. Northern Pae. Express Co., 12 Or. 49; Rice v. ■336 , The Law of Caeeiees. ■where the shipper has been prevented from or delayed in filiiig a claim for the goods within the time prescribed, by the carrier'a ialsely informing him that the goods were still in its possession and would be returned, or by the carrier's promising to find the goods, or by similar representations, the carrier is estopped from pleading the condition in the bill of lading or shipping receipt as a defense to the action." Such a condition of a contract of ship- ment applies to the carrier'a conduct as a warehouseman since such relation is properly incident to that of carrier.^ Most of the authorities sustain such stipulations even where the loss is one caused by the defendant company's negligence.^ In Texas such a stipulation is held to be a limitation of the common law liability of the carrier and of no effect where the loss is one result- ing from the carrier's negligence.'"' In New York such a stipula- tion is held not to be in the nature of a condition precedent to the plaintiff|s right to recover but rather of the nature of a statute of limitations, which should be set up in the defendant's ansTver." The time specified in such a stipulation begins to run and is to be reckoned, not from the day when the loss occurs, or when it has been reported that the goods are lost and the carrier is endeav- oring to trace them, but from the day when their actual loss is ascertained and the effort to trace them has been abandoned." § 25. To what damages stipulation does not apply. — ^A stipu- lation or clause in a contract of shipment providing that, should Kansas Fac. K. Co., 63 Mo. 314, 20 carrier's liability or other special con- Am. Ry. Eep. 424; Merrill v. Ameri- tract, is not bound by such limita- ser, 46 Ark. 236. 514, 55 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 600; 24. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Kat- Hooper v. WeUs, 27 Cal. 11, 85 Am. zenbach, 118 Ind. 174, 20 N. E. 709, Dec. 211; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v.. 38 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 375; Interna- Davis, 159 111. 53; Atwood v. Reli- tional, etc., E. Co. v. Underwood, 62 ance Transp. Co., 9 Watts (Pa.) 87, Tex. 21, 21 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 143. 34 Am. Dec. 503; Deming v. Mer- 25. Grlnnell v. Wisconsin Cent. R. chants Cotton-press, etc., Co., 90 Co., 47 Minn. 569. Tenn. 306; Thomas v. Lancaster 26. Bermel v. New York; etc., R. Mills, 71 Fed. 481; Cream City R. Co., 172 N. Y. 639, 65 N. E. 1113, Co. v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 63 Wis. affg. 62 App. Div. (N. Y.) 389, 70 93, 53 Am. Rep. 267; Hawkins v. N. Y. Supp. 804; Westcott v. Fargo, Great Western E. Co., 17 Mich. 57, 61 N. Y. 542, 19 Am. Rep. 300; My- 97 Am. Dec. 179; Kansas City, etc., nard v. Syracuse, etc., R. Co., 71 N. R. Co. v. Holland, 68 Miss. 351;. Y. 180, 27 Am. Rep. 28; Edsall v. Menzell v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., I Camden, etc., R. Co., 50 N. Y. 661; Dill ^U. S.) 531; Coupland v. Housa- Alexander v. Greene, 7 Hill N. Y.) tonic R. Co., 61 Conn. 531. 633; Steele r. Townsend, 37 Ala. 27. Westcott v. Fargo, supra; Ber- 352 The Law of Caeeiees. so far as it purports to exempt the carrier from liability for its negligence, must be construed so as not to include any kind or sort of negligence not specifically and expressly stated in it. However broad or general may be the language of the contract which does not specifically and in express terms release the carrier from the consequences of his own negligence, it will not effect such release, if the general words may operate without includiag such negligence.^* Some of the rulings of the courts aa to exemptions from particular risks or causes of loss are stated in the note below.^' Generally, the courts will not construe a contract so as mel V. New York, etc., E. Co., supra; New Jersey Steam Nav. Co. V. Merchants' Bank, 6 How. (U. S.) 344. A clause in a bill of lading pro- viding that merchandise on wharf, awaiting shipment or delivery, shall be at shipper's risk of loss or dam- age by fire or flood, must be given the meaning the language plainly expresses, and is applicable where the goods were burned after being placed on the wharfs but before ship- ment. Washburne-Crosby Co. v. WiUiam Johnston & Co., 125 Fed. 273, 60 C. C. A. 187. 28. Kenny v. New York Cent., etc., E. Co., 125 N. Y. 422, 26 N. E. 626; Holsapple v. Eome, etc., E. Co., 86 N. Y. 278; Nicholas v. New York Cent., E. Co., 89 N. Y. 370; Mynaid V. Syracuse, etc., E. Co., 71 N. Y. 180, 27 Aip. Eep. 28; Zimmer v. New York Cent., etc., E. Co., 137 N. Y. 462, aflg. 42 St. Eep. (N. Y.) 63, 16 N. Y. Supp. 631; Hawkins v. Great Western E. Co., 17 Mich. 57, 97 Am. Dec. 179; Central E., etc., Co. v. An- derson, 59 Ga. 393, 16 Am. Eep. 85. 29. Tbeft, barratry, etc. — Where a quantity of gold coin was shipped on a steamship, under a bill of lading exempting the carrier from liability for loss by " barratry of master or mariners," and the proof indicated that some of the money wan stolen on the passage by the purser, the loss was held to be within the ex- emption. Spinetti v. Atlas Steam- ship Co., 80 N. Y. 71, 36 Am. Eep. 579, following the doctrine laid down as to similar clauses in a policy oi insurance in American Ins. Co. t. Bryan, 1 Hill (N. Y.), 25, 26 Weni (N. Y.) 563, 37 Am. Dec. 278; At- lantic Ins. Co. V. Storrow, 5 Paige (N. Y.) 285, and controverting the contrary doctrine of the English cases, De Eothschild v. Royal Mail Packet Co., 7 Exch. 734, 21 L. J. Exch. 273; Taylor v. Liverpool, etc.. Steam Co., L. R. 9 Q. B. 548, 22 W. E. 752, 43 L. J. Q. B. 205. Limiting liability after freight bad reached its desti- nation. — Notwithstanding a bill of lading provided that the railroad company would not be liable as a common carrier after the freight had reached its destination, public policy so modified the contract as to give the consignee a reasonable time with- in which to remove the goods after arrival before such liability ceased. Tallassee Falls Mfg'. Co. v. Western Ey. of Alabama (Ala.), 29 So. 203. See also Ayres v. Western K. Corp., 14 Blatchf. (U. S.) 9; The Majestic, 56 Fed. 244. Iioss of cotton by fire.— A pr* Limitation of Liability. 353 -to render it illegal if it will bear another construction, as for example, where the carrier is exempted from' liability for certain vision of a bill of lading that " cot- ton is excepted from any clause herein on the subject of fire, and the ■cartier shall be liable as at common law for loss or damage of cotton by fire," affects not only such other pro- -yisions of the contract as relate to the subject of fire, but the latter ■clause applies to all other provisions ■which modify the common-law lia- bility of the carrier, such as that it shall not be liable for loss or damage to the property after it is ready for delivery to another carrier or the consignee, or shall only be liable un- der certain circumstances as ware- houseman; and where the subject of the shipment is cotton, and it is de- stroyed by fire, the liability of the carrier is in all respects governed by the common law. Texas, etc., R. Oo. V. Callendar, 98 Fed. 538, 39 C. C. A. 154. Cases where loss of cotton by fire while in a compress not owned or operated by the carrier have been held within an exemption in the bill of lading are: Lancaster Mills v. Merchants' Cotton-press Co., 89 Tenn. 1, 24 Am. Rep. 586, 45 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 423; Missouri Pac. E. Co. V. Sherwood, 84 Tex. 12S. Com- pare Deming v. Merchants' Cotton- press Co., 90 Tenn. 306. Breach of agreement to fur- nish cars. — ^A limitation from lia- bility contained in a drover's pass does not constitute a defense to a breach, prior to its delivery, of an agreement to furnish cars for trans- portation. Hastings v. New York, etc., R. Co., 53 Hun (N. Y.), 638, 6 N. Y. Supp. 836. 23 Dangers of fire, collision &nd navigation. — Such a clause will embrace a loss caused by the vessel's running into a newly formed sand reef, no negligence on the part of the carrier being shown. Hibernia Ins. Co. V. St. Louis Transp. Co., 120 V. S. 166; Selby v. Wilmington, etc., E. Co., 113 N. C. 588. But it is not applicable to a loss by fire after the goods have been unloaded and stored in a warehouse, but only to loss by fire occurring on shipboard. Black V. Ashley, 80 Mich. 90, 42 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 428. '"Unavoidable dangers of river navigation excepted " will cover a loss through collision with another boat, through the negligence of such other boat, and without fault on the part of the contracting car- rier. Hayes v. Kennedy, 2 Pittsb. (Pa.) 262. An exception from '"dangers of the river " will not cover a loss of goods by robbery, or forcible or il- legal seizure without fault or neg- lect of the carrier. Boon v. Steam- boat Belfast, 40 Ala. 184, 88 Am. Dec. 161. See also Steele v. McTyer, 31 Ala. 677, 70 Am. Dee. 516. An exception of losses from " stoirage " or from " perils of the sea " will not cover an injury to cattle through the insufficiency of the cattle fittings. The Brantford City, 29 Fed. 373. An exemption from losses caused by "any act, neglect or default whatever of master or crew in the navigation of the ship and in the ordinary course of the voyage " will not include such an injury after the ship had reached her destination 354 The Law of Caeeiees. specified causes, the contract will not be construed to relieve it from ordinary negligence on its part,'" and where the contract relieves it from negligence, it will not be held to exempt tiie car- rier from liability for wilful acts or misconduct ^^ The validity of a contract of shipment, fixing the value of the property shipped, depends on the facts connected therewith ; and, the issue of its invalidity being tendered by plaintiff, he is entitled to have it determined as an issue of fact'^ A provision limiting a carrier's liability, purporting to have been entered into as a basis for his charges, is not conclusive on the question whether it was fairly entered into, but extrinsic evidence is admissible in determining that question. ^^ Though contracts limiting the liability of com- mon carriers are strictly construed against the carrier, evidence and findings in cases involving the construction of such contracts are not measured by any different rules than in cases to which carriers are not parties.'* and while the cargo was being dis- charged. The Aeeomac, 15 Prob. Div. 208. But see The Carron Park, 15 Prob. Div. 203. Injnry received " \rliile at depots." — ^A clause excepting from " damages incident to railroad trans- portation, loss or damage by fire, or the elements, while at depots ex- cepted," refers only to depots en route to the place of destination and not to the depot at the end of the route. E. 0. Stannard Milling Co. v. White Line Cent. Transit Co., 122 Mo. 258, 61 Am. & Eng. K Cas. 192. " Accidents to bailers or ma- cliiniery" includes the breaking of the axle of a ear. Fairbank v. Cin- cinnati, etc., R. Co., 66 Fed. 471. Exemption from " damage or loss by reason of breaking, chafing, ireatlier, fire or water " will not include breaking of an ani- mal's leg, caused by its being thrown down by a violent side movement of the car. Menzell v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 1 Dill. (U. S.) 531. Exemption from "loss on perishable property " will not in- clude mature, merchantable corn. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. McClellan, 64 111. 58, 5 Am. Rep. 83. The -words " contents and value unknown," intended to ap- ply to packages the contents of which are concealed, will not cov- er a shipment of corn in bulk, the character of which is obvious to the carrier. Tibbits v. Eock Island, etc., R. Co., 49 111. App. 567. 30. Welch V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 41 Conn. 333, 6 Am. Ry. Rep. 95; NicoU V. East Tennessee, etc., K. Co., 89 Ga. 260. 31. Ronan v. Midland R. Co., L. R. 14 Ir. 157. 32. Evansville, etc., R. Co. v. Keve- kordes (Ind. App.), 69 N. E. 1022. 33. O'Malley v. Great Northern R. Co., 86 Minn. 580, 90 N. W. 974. 34. Adams Express Co. v. Carna- han (Ind. App.), 63 N. E. 245, 64 N. E. 647. Limitation of Liability. 355 § 33. When stipulations of contract become inoperative. — Limitations in a contract of shipment upon the liability of the carrier are rendered inoperative and the shipper is released there- from, the carrier becoming subject to its full common law liability as an insurer, where it deviates from the contract by carrying the property by freight, instead of complying with the provision that it shall be carried by passenger train service,'^ or in failing to carry the shipper, where by its terms he is entitled to ride free on the train with his stock.'* § M. Fraudulent concealment or misrepresentation of value by shipper. — A carrier has the right to demand from a consignor such information as will enable it to decide as to the proper com- pensation to charge for the risk, and the degree of care to bestow in discharging its trust; and a limitation of its liability to a certain amount, unless the value of the goods forwarded is truly stated, if brought to the knowledge of the consigTior, is reasonable and consistent with public policy. '' Where the consignor ships goodsi, taking a receipt containing such a stipulation limiting the liability of the carrier, and fails to state the value, and in con- sequence thereof is charged a less premium than otherwise would have been required, independently of the qualifying words in the receipt, the carrier would be exempt from liability on the ground of want of good faith in not disclosing the value of the goods.^' If the shipper us© any artifice whatever to conceal from the car- rier the true value of the contents of a package delivered to it for transportation, the carrier is relieved from liability for ordinary negligence to a greater extent than the value indicated by the external appearance of the package, or, where there is a contract limiting liability to a specified amount, to a larger amount than 35. Pavitt V. Lehigh Valley R. 83 Pa. St. 316; Little v. Boston, etc., Co., 153 Pa. St. 302, 32 W. N. C. 65, R. Co., 66 Me. 239; Norfolk, etc., E. 25 Atl. 1107. Co. V. Irvine, 85 Va. 217. 36. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Davis, 2 38. Oppenheimer v. United States Tex. App. Civ. Cas. § 191. Express Co., supra; Graves v. Lake 37. Oppenheimer v. United States Shore, etc., R. Co., 137 Mass. 33, 16 Express Co., 6& 111. 62; Magnin v. Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 108, 50 Am. Rep. Dinsmore, 51 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 457; 282; J. J. Douglass Co. v. Minnesota -Baldwin v. Liverpool, etc.. Steam- Transfer R. Co., 62 Minn. 288; ship Co., 74 N. Y. 125, 30 Am. Rep. M'Cance v. London, etc., R. Co., 7 277; Brown v. Camden, etc., R. Co., H. & N. 477. 356 The Law of Caeeiees. is specified in the contract,^' and is liable only in case of a conr version, or gross, wanton or wilful negligence for the full value.*" This qualification is just and reasonable. There is no justice in allowing the shipper to be paid a large value for an article which he has induced the carrier to take at a low rate of freight on the assertion and agreement that its value is a less sum than claimed after loss. Such a concealment of the value of an article destroys all just claim to indemnity, for it goes to deprive the carrier of the compensation it is entitled to, in proportion to the value of the article intrusted to its care and the consequent risk it incurs, and it tends to lessen the vigilance the carrier would otherwise bestow. The shipper has no right, in order to cheapen the freight, which is the usual inducement, to expose the carrier to an increased risk, as must inevitably be the case where the nature and value of the article are studiously concealed. The strict rule of the carrier's liability is for this reason subject to this qualification that the shipper, in such cases, cannot hold the carrier liable for the loss of his goods beyond tbeir apparent value, or the agreed value specified in the contract.*^ The courts do not state accurately 39. Warner v. Western Transp. Co., 5 Robt. (N. Y.) 490; Orange County Bank v. Brown, 9 Wend. (N. Y.) 116, 24 Am. Dee. 129; Pardee V. Drew, 25 Wend. (N. Y.) 459; Hayes v. Wells, 23 Cal. 185, 83 Am. Dec. 89; Chicago, etc., K. Co. v. Thompson, 19 111. 578; St. John v. Southern Express Co., 1 Woods (U. S.) 612; The Ionic, 5 Blatehf. (U. S.) 538; Everett v. Southern Ex- press Co., 46 Ga. 303; Phillips v. Earle, 8 Pick. (Mass.) 182; Earnest V. Southern Express Co., 1 Woods (U. S.) 573; South, etc., Alabama R. Co. V. Henlein, 52 Ala. 606, 23 Am. Rep. 578, 56 Ala. 368; Cooper v. Berry, 21 Ga. 526, 68 Am. Dec. 468; Charleston, etc., R. Co. v. Moore, 80 Ga. 522, 35 Am. & Bng. R. Cas. 623; United States Express Co. v. Koer- ner (Minn.), 68 N. W. 608; Gibbon V. Paynton, 4 Burr, 2298; Crouch v. London, etc., R. Co., 14 C. B. 255, 78 E. C. L. 255, 18 Jur. 148, 7 Railw. Cas. 717;' Edwards v. Sherratt, 1 East 604; Batson v. Donovan, 4 B. & Aid. 21, 6 E. C. L. 373; Belfast, etc., R. Co. V. Keys, 9 H. L. Cas. 556; Bradley v. Waterhouse, M. & M. 154. 40. Rice T. Indianapolis, etc., R. Co., 3 Mo. App. 27; Zouch v. Chesa- peake, etc., E. Co., 36 W. Va. 524, 49 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 712. See other cases cited in notes to this section. 41. Hart v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 112 U. S. 331, 18 Am. & Eng. K. Cas. 604; Relf v. Rapp, 3 W. & S. (Pa.) 21, 37 Am. Dec. 528, 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 73; Coxe v. Heisley, 19 Pa. St. 243; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Shea, 66 111. 471; Harvey v. Terre Haute, etc., R. Co., 74 Mo. 541, 6 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 293; Hyde v. New York, etc, Steamship Co., 17 La. Ann. 29; El- kins V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 19 N. U. 337, 51 Am. Dec. 184; Savannah, etc., R. Co. V. Collins, 77 Ga. 376, 4 Am. St. Rep. 87; Gait v. Adams Express Co., McArthur & M. (D. C.) 124. Limitation of Liability. 357 wtat will amount to fraudulent concealment, but it is htld that fraud may be as effectually practiced on the carrier by silence as by a positive and express representation, and a neglect or failure to disclose the real value of a package and the nature of its con- tents, if there be anything in its form, dimensionsi or outward appearance calculated to deceive and mislead the carrier is fraudu- lent concealment.*^ And mere silence on the part of the shipper as to the real value of the goods, although there was no inquiry by the carrier and no artifice used to deceive, has been held to be concealment without design, by failure to observe an implied condition that the contract of carriage is free from misrepresenta- tion or concealment, which will relieve the carrier from a loas caused by ordinary negligence.*^ A carrier carrying goods of much greater value than they were represented to be, and at the rate chargeable for a package of the value represented, cannot recover the additional compensation which would have been charged for the package if its true value had been stated, since its liability cannot exceed the value represented, but is entitled to compensation for the increase of risk of loss, up to that amount, by reason of the greater value of the package.** And where a com- mon carrier received a package for transportation, agreeing to carry it for a stipulated sum prepaid, without inquiry into ita value, or notice of a limited liability on account of value, and without misrepresentation, deceit or artifice on the part of a ship- per, and discovering that the package was of greater value than A distinction between money B.) 35; Kosenfeld v. Peoria, etc., R. as baggage and as freight is Co., 103 Ind. 121, 53 Am. Kep. 500, made by the courts. A passenger 21 Am. & Eng. K. Cas. 89. may place a reasonable amount OJE 43. Magnin v. Dinsmore, 62 N, Y. money in his trunk without commu- 35, 20 Am. Eep. 42, 70 N. Y. 410, nicating the fact to the carrier, but 26 Am. Eep. 608. he is gulty of concealment or fraud 44. United States Express Co. v. in so doing where the trunk la Koerner, 65 Minn. 540, 33 L. R. A. shipped as freight. Missouri Pac. K. 600, 4 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. N. S. Co. V. York (Tex.), 18 Am. & Eng. 646, 68 N. W. 181. But see Rice v. E. Cas. 623; Belger v. Dinsmore, 51 Indianapolis, etc., R. Co., 3 Mo. App. N. Y. 166, 10 Am. Rep. 575 ; Dunlap 27 ; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Trinity V. International, etc., R. Co., 98 Mass. County Lumber Co., 1 Tex. Civ. App. 371. 553, holding that the carrier may re- 42. Shaekt v. Illinois Cent. E. Co., cover of the consignee the usual 94 Tenn. 665, disapproving Kuter v. charges. Michigan Cent. E. Co., 1 Biss. (U. 358 The Law of Caeeiees. it supposed, refused to deliver it to the consignee without addi- tional compensation, which the consignee paid, the latter may maintain an action to recover it back.*' But a consignee, though a factor only, is liable for any balance of freight due, according to the statements in the bill of lading, on account of the excess of the real value of the goods over that named in the bill of lading, which wag known to him but concealed from the carrier, although on delivery of the goods he paid all the freight which the carrier then supposed to be due.** § 35. Carrier's duty to inquire as to value of property. — Where a carrier has given no notice limiting its liability or imposing any condition on the shipper of property to disclose its value, it becomes it-s duty if it desires to be informed of such ' value to make inquiry, and having accepted the goods for carriage without seeking such information and without qualification, it would be presumptively liable as a common carrier upon common law principles), for a full value. Thus, under a receipt for an article of furniture capable of containing other goods, the carrier is liable for the contents, where there is no fraud.*' But if any means were used to conceal the value or nature of the article, as, for example, the delivery of a trunk without any information as to its more than ordinarily valuable contents, thereby creating the impression that it contained only the ordinary baggage of a pas- senger, this would be a fraudulent concealment which would release the carrier from liability for any amount in excess of what is ordinarily carried for traveling expenses;** or where the ship- 45. Baldwin v. Liverpool, etc., Co., 28 Barb. (N. Y.) 323; Walker Steamship Co., 74 N. Y. 125, 30 Am. v. Jackson, 10 M. & W. 168.; Lebeau Kep. 277. V. General Steam Nav. Co., L. E. 8 46. North German Lloyd v. Heule, C. P. 88. This rule does not extend 44 Fed. 100, 10 L. R. A. 814. And to carriers of letters, it being prac- see Gates v. Ryan, 37 Fed. 154; tieally impossible for the carrier te Neilsen v. Jessup, 30 Fed. 138 ; The make inquiry of a shipper. Hayes v. Bermuda, 29 Fed. 399 ; Elwell v. Wells, 23 Cal. 185, 83 Am. Dee. 89. Skiddy, 77 N. Y. 282 ; The Denmark, 48. Orange County Bank v. Brown, 27 Fed. 141; Philadelphia, etc., R. 9 Wend. (N. Y.) 85, 24 Am. Dec. Co. V. Barnard, 3 Ben. (U. S.) 39; 129; Hawkins v. Hoffman, 6 Hill (N. Allen V. Coltart, 11 Q. B. Div. 782; Y.), 586; Gait v. Adams Express Co., Sanders v. Vanzeller, 4 Q. B. 294, 45 McArthur & M. (D. C.) 124. E. C. L. 2941 But where the shipper informed the 47. Harmon v. New York, etc., R. carrier that a package shipped by Limitation of Liability. 359 per deceives the carrier by his own carelessness in treating the parcel shipped as a thing of no value." "Where there is anything in the external appearance of the package calculated to create a doubt as to its value or indicating that it contains articles of great value, it is the duty of the carrier to make some inquiry of the shipper ; it cannot claim exemption but is responsible for its loss, in the absence of fraud, imposition or disguise.^" But when the value appears in the package itself and the carrier can determine it for itself such an inquiry would be useless, and a voluntary statement unnecessary.^' § 36. Shipper's duty to state value and character of goods. — It is well settled that when the carrier has not given notice that he would not be answerable for parcels, beyond a specified amount, unless informed of the value, or has made a special acceptance, it is not the duty of the shipper to state the quality or the value, but, when there is neither notice nor special acceptance, the carrier is bound to make inquiry as to the value and character of the article or package received, and the owner must then answer truly, at his peril. And if such inquiries are not made, and the property is received at suoh price for transportation as is asked with reference to its bulk, weight or external appearance, the Wm was valuable, tut did not state Co., 3 Eobt. (N. Y.) 59; Boscowitz that it contained money, fraud could v. Adams Express Co., 93 111. 523, 9 not be properly imputed. Allen f. Cent. L. J. 389, 34 Am. Eep. 191, 5 ■Sewall, 2 Wend. (N. Y.) 327. Cent. L. J. 58; Dwight v. Brewster, 49. Relf V. Rapp, 3 W. & S. (Pa.) 1 Pick. (Mass.) 50, 11 Am. Deo. 133; 21, 37 Am. Dee. 528; Hart v. Penn- Orndorflf t. Adams Express Co., 3 sylvauia E. Co., 112 U. S. 331, IS Bush (K/.), 194, 96 Am. Dec. 207; Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 604; Houston, Southern Express Co. v. Crook, 44 etc., R. Co. V. Burke, 55 Tex. 323, 40 Ala. 468, 4 Am. Eep. 140; Moses v. Am. Eep. 808, 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. Boston, etc., E. Co., 24 N. H. 71, 55 73. Am. Deo. 222. 50. Gorham Mfg. Co. v. Fargo, A connecting carrier, having no 45 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 90, 3 J. & Sp. means of ascertaining the value of (N. Y.) 434; Phillips v. Earle, 8 packages shipped, is entitled to re- Pick. (Mass.) 182; Merchants' Des- gard them of the value they appear patch Transp. Co. v. Bolles, 80 111. to be, no value being stated in the 473; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Clark, 2 bill of lading, and is responsible ac- Tex. App. Civ. Cas. § 512, 18 Am. & cordingly. Marquette v. Kirkwood, Eng. R. Cas. 628; Kuter v. Michigan 45 Mich. 51, 40 Am. Eep. 453, 9 Am. Cent. R. Co., I Biss. (U. S.) 35. & Eng. R. Cas. 85. 51. Van Winkle v. Adams Express ' 360 The Law of Caeeiebs. carrier is responsible for its loss, whatever may be its value.^^ But an exception to the rule is made where the articles are dangerous- or of a fragile nature requiring special care.^* A shipper of goods for carriage is bound by an agreed valuation in the bill of lading, and a stipulation that such valuation is to be the limit of recovery in case of loss ; ^ and this is held to be the rule where he makes a statement of the value of the property in answer to th& carrier's inquiry, although he did not suppose that his statement would affect the amount of the carrier's liability ; ^' and where he is silent as to the real value, when he accepts a receipt containing^ such a stipulation, although there is no inquiry by the carrier, and no artifice to conceal the value or deceive the carrier. ^° The pre- sumption of law is that a party receiving an instrument of this- 52. Baldwin v. Liverpool, etc., Steamship Co., 74 N. Y. 125, 30 Am. Eep. 277; Gorham Manf. Co. v. Fargo, 35 N. Y. Super. Ct. 434; Sewall V. Allen, 6 Wend. (N. Y.) 349; Hollister v. Nowlen, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 234, 32 Am. Dec. 455; Southern Express Co. v. Crook, 44 Ala. 468, 4 Am. Eep. 140; Gait v. Adams Express Co., MacArthur & M. (D. C.) 124; Merchants' Despatch Transp. Co. v. Bolles, 80 111. 473; Boscowitz V. Adams Express Co., 93 111. 523, 34 Am. Eep. 191, 16 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 102; Parmalee v. Lo- witz, 74 111. 116, 24 Am. Eep. 276; Baldwin v. Collins, 9 Eob. (La.) 4C8; Fassett t. Euerk, 3 La. Ann. 694; Levois v. Gale, 17 la. Ann. 302; Little V. Boston, etc., E. Co., 66 Me. 239; Sheldon v. Eobinson, 7 N. H. 157; Brown v. Camden, etc., E. Co., 83 Pa. St. 316; Camden, etc., E. Co. V. Baldauf, 16 Pa. St. 67, 55 Am. Dec. 481; Eelf v. Eapp, 3 W. & S. (Pa.) 21, 37 Am. Dec. 528; McCune V. Burlington, etc., E. Co., 52 Iowa, 600; Texas Express Co. v. Scott, 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. § 72; Gulf, etc., E. Co. V. Clark, 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. § 512, 18 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 628; Batson v. Donovaii, 4 B. & Aid. 29, 6 E. C. L. 373; Wallace v. Jackson, 10 M. & W. 168; Phillips v. Earle, 8 Pick. 182; Brooke v. Pickwick, 4 Bing. 218, 13 E. C. L. 404; Maeklin V. Waterhouse, 5 Bing. 212, 15 E. C. L. 421, 2 M. & P. 319; Sleat v. Fagg,. 5 B. & Aid. 342, 7 E. C. L. 123. See Hayes v. Wells, 23 Cal. 185, an ex- press company which carries Ietter:s is not liable for the loss of any article of special value contained in a letter envelope, unless at the time- of its delivery to them they are in- formed of its value. 53. American Express Co. v. Per- kins, 42 111. 458; Crouch v. London, etc., E. Co., 14 C. B. 255, 78 E. C. L. 255, 18 Jur. 148, 7 Eailw. Cas. 717. 54. Graves v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 137 Mass. 33, 16 Am. & Eng. K. Cas. 108, 50 Am. Eep. 282; Judson V. Western E. Corp., 6 Allen (Mass.), 486, 83 Am. Dec. 646; J. J. Douglass Co. V. Minnesota Transfer E. Co., 62 Minn. 288, 30 L. R. A. 860, 64 N. W. 899, 2 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. N. S. 671. 55. Coupland v. Housatonic E. Co., 61 Conn. 531, 15 L. E. A. 534, 21 Atl. 870, 55 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 380. 56. Magnin v. Dinsmore, 50 N. Y- 168, 62 N. Y. 35, 20 Am. Eep. 442, 70 N. Y. 410, 26 Am. Eep. 608. Limitation op Liability. 361 character in the transaction of business, in the absence of fraud, imposition, concealment, or improper practice or conduct of any kind on the part of the carrier or its agents in the progress of the transaction, is acquainted with its contents." And understanding that he is securing transportation at a reduced rate by stipulating, as to value and assuming a portion of the risk of carriage himself,, the shipper cannot subsequently insist that the goods are of greater value for tbe purpose of increasing his claim for damages for the- loss.^» 57. Belger v. Dinsmore, 51 N. Y. 58. Durgin v. American Express. 166, 10 Am. Eep. 575. Co., 66 N. H.^77. CHAPTER XI. Caeeiee's Ebiation to Goods and Authoeitt of Agents. Section 1. Carrier's relation to goods. 2. Power and authority of carrier's general freight agents. 3. Powers and authority of local agents. 4. Authority of other agents and employes. § 1. Carrier's relation to goods. — ^A common carrier cannot sell goods so as to divest the title of the consignee, and the con- signee may follow up the goods, and recover them, or recover the price thereof, from one vs^ho has purchased of the carrier and sold them.^ If a common carrier sells the goods intrusted to it for conveyance, without other authority than that which he has as ear- lier, he can pass no title. Though he sells the goods for a fair price to one who purchases in good faith, the title of the owner is not affected by the sale, and the purchaser will be responsible to him for them.^ But the carrier has the right and it is its duty to sell peri^able goods for the benefit of their owner when their further transportation becomes impossible and they are about to perish from decay.' And it may sell goods by virtue of its lien for charges, but must sell them, in each case, in the manner pre- scribed by law.* It was formerly held that a common carrier could not dispute the sbipper's title to goods delivered to it for transportation, and could Hot, except in cases of fraud or insol- vency of the shipper, have an interpleader between the party from whom it received the goods and an adverse claimant' The best considered cases now hold that the right of a third person to which the bailee has yielded, by delivering the property, may be inter- posed in all oases as a defense to an action brought by the bailor subsequently for the property, and that when the true owner comes 1. Ely V. Ehle, 3 N. Y. 506; 4. See Carrier's lien for charges, Crumbacker v. Tucker, 9 Ark. 365. chap. 16. 2. Bailey v. Shaw, 24 N. H. 297, 5. McGaw v. Adams, 14 How. Pr. 65 Am. Dec. 241. (N. Y.) 461. 3. American Express Co. v. Smith, 33 Ohio St. 511, 31 Am. Eep. 561. (362) Caebiee's Relation to Goods, etc. 363 and deiriands his property it is the duty of the carrier to deliver it, and the law will not adjudge the performance of this duty tor- tious as against a consignor or bailor having no title.^ But in an action for negligence in not delivering goods consigned to it by the plaintiff, the carrier cannot defend by showing that the real title to the property is in a third person, who bailed them to the consignor, unless the property has been taken from the carrier's possession by the bailor without injury to the consignor.' Where a carrier delivers property shipped over its road to a third person, under the mistaken belief that he is the person entitled to receive the goods, or delivers to the proper person without requiring the performance of conditions required precedent to delivery, it may maintain an action to recover possession but cannot do so on a simple demand for iSie return of the property, without returning to such third person the freight charges paid by him on the delivery of the property.' A carrier has such a special property in the goods that it may maintain an action, in its own name, for an injury to property intrusted to it for transportation.' A car- rier, though it has not received freight, or paid the loss may yet recover damages from another who has caused the loss.^° If tho goods are wrongfully taken from its possession, it may bring 6. Western Trans. Co. v. Barber, made by the consignor. If he has, 66 K Y. 544; Western Transp. Co. in fact, no interest, he may recover V. Hoyt, 69 N. Y. 230; Mullins « for the benefit of the consignee or ac- Chickering, 110 N. Y. 514; German tual party in interest. Illinois Cent. Exchange Bank v. Commissioners, 57 E. Co. v. Schwartz, 13 111. App. 490. How. Pr. (N. Y.) 187, 6 Abb. N. C. See also Brill v. Grand Trunk E. Co., (N. Y.) 394; The Idaho, 93 U. S. 20 U. C. C. P. 440. 675 ; Knapp v. Sprague, 9 Mass. 262 ; 8. Walker v. Louisville, etc., E. Whittier v. Smith, 11 Mass. 210; Co., Ill Ala. 233, 4 Am. & Eng. E. Ogle V. Atkinson, 5 Taunt. 759; Cas. N. S. 65S, 20 So. 358; Jones v. Wells v. American Express Co., S5 Anderson, 82 Ala. 302; Jeflfersonville Wis. 23, 6 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 300, E. Co. v. White, 6 Bush (Ky.), 251; 42 Am. Eep. 695; Sheridan v. New Evans v. Gale, 17 N. H. 573, 43 Am. Quay Co., 4 C. B. N. S. 618, 93 E. C. Dec. 614; Brown v. Hodgson, 4 I. 618; Biddle v. Bond, 6 B. & S. Taunt. 189. Compare Young v. East 221. Alabama E. Co., 80 Ala. 100. 7. Great Western E. Co. v. Mc- 9. Merrick v. Brainard, 38 Barb. Comas, 33 111. 185. (N. Y.) 574; Steamboat Co. v. At- A consignor of goods may sue a kins, 22 Pa. St. 522; The Beacons- carrier for breach of the contract of field, 158 U. S. 303. carriage, the contract having been 10. White v. Bascom, 28 Vt. 268. 364 The Law of Oaeeieks. action to recover posgession or for a wrongful conversion^" and will be entitled in the latter action, if it recover the full value of the goods, to its interest in the goods, and will hold the balance in trust for the owner, unless it has satisfied such owner for his loss.^ The right conferred upon the carrier by reason of his special property is not inconsiatent with a co-existing right of action for the same cause in the general owner ; " but a recovery by the cat- rier will be a bar to a subsequent action by such general owner." The damages recovered in such cases takes the place of the prop- erty converted or destroyed, and, upon satisfaction of the judg- ment recovered by either, the title to the property passes to the party against whom the recovery was had.^^ § 2. Powrer and authority of carrier's general freight agents. — The general freight agent of a common carrier, in the abaence of any notice of a limitation of his authority, should be deemed, as to the public or third parties, to have been authorized by the carrier and clothed with all the power to make contracts for freight, or in respect to the carrying and delivery of freight, that the carrier itself has, and to have the power, therefore, to make vaUd con- tracts for the delivery of property at places on other roads beyond the terminus of the carrier's own route." A shipper dealing with 11. Wingard v. Banning, 39 Cal; 543. 12. IngersoU v. Van Bokkelin, 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 670; Woodman v. Not- tingham, 49 N. H. 387; Steamboat Farmer v. McCraw, 26 Ala. 189. 13. Booth V. Terrell, 16 Ga. 20; Morgan v. Id'e, 8 Cush. (Mass.) 420. 14. IngersoU v. Van Bokkelin, 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 670; Lyle v. Barker, 5 Bin. (Pa.) 457. 15. Root V. Chandler, 10 Wend. (N. Y.) 110; Strong v. Adams, 30 Vt. 221; Spence v. Mitchell, 9 Ala. 744; Hart v. Hyde, 5 Vt. 328; Bry- ant V. Clifford, 13 Mete. (Mass.) 138; Lovejoy v. Murray, 3 Wall. (U. S.) 1; Overby v. McGee, 15 Ark. 459; Bishell V. Huntingdon, 2 N. H. 142; ehesley v. St. Clair, 1 N. H. 189. 16. Burtis T. Buffalo, etc., E. Co., 24 N. Y. 274; Grover & B. Sewing Mach. Co. V. Missouri Pae. E. Co., 70 Mo. 672, 35 Am. Eep. 444. The general eastern treight agent of a western railroad being oper- ated by receivers, having his office in New York, has apparent power, by virtue of his position, to contract for the through carriage of goodB, over his line of road and a connect- ing steamship line across the Pa- cific, and a contract so made by him, when clear in its terms, will bind' the receivers, when the shipper has no notice of any limitation on his au- thority, and no knowledge that the steamship line is not owned by the railroad company and operated by the receivers. Farmers Loan & T. Caebiee's Eelation to Goods, etc. 365 one who, with the knowledge of his principal, publicly advertises himself as the general agent of a railroad company, both for passengers and frei^t, having an office in a great commercial center, with employees under him, is warranted in concluding that he had authority to contract." Where a railroad corporation is operated in connection with other roads, and is a part of the system, it is bound by the acts and declarations of the agents of •other companies which form a part of such system, and which are made to induce shipments over the system.''^ An agent, employed to solicit traffic for a foreign railroad company having no line of road in the State, has implied authority to bind his principal for the safe delivery of goods at a point beyond its own lines, and to contract over what road beyond that line the property shall be transported.^' But a general agent for the State, of a common ut ulienum non laedas.^ The principal is liahle if the article is shipped by his agent.^" The shipper is not liable where the carrier had been informed of the nature of the package either directly or by the marking of the package, even though an employe of the carrier had no knowledge of its dangerous character, if the injury could have been avoided by the exercise of ordinary care and pru- dence." Where a contractor of blasting ordered a manufacturer to send him a quantity of dualin, and another to send him cer- tain exploders. Each manufacturer, without the other's knowl- edge, delivered the respective articles to a carrier, who was ignor- ant of the danger of combining the two substances, which, while being transported with due care, exploded, injuring the property of the carrier, and the goods of a third party. It was impossible to distinguish what proportion of the explosion was caused by i either substance. It was held that the two manufacturers, but not the contractor, were jointly liable in tort, to the carrier and to the third party, and the fact that the omission of the shipper's agent to give notice of the dangerous character of the articles was a criminal or illegal act, did not affect the principal's liability for damages in a civil action.^ There is an implied contract on the part of the shipper that his goods are not of such a character as to cause injury, and the knowledge of the agent of the shipper is the knowledge of the principal, although such knowledge must be shown in order to fix liability upon the latter.^ In a recent 19. Boston, etc., R. Co. v. Shanly, it improperly branded. Id.; Morse tupra; Wellington v. Downer Kero- v. Minneapolis, etc., K. Co., 30 Minn, sene Oil Co., 104 Mass. 64; Carter v. 465, 11 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 168; Towne, 98 Mass. 567, 96 Am. Dec. Lang v. Sanger, 76 Wis. 71; Nalley €82. V. Hartford Carpet Co., 81 Conn. 524, 20. Barney v. Bumstenbinder, 50 Am. Eep. 47; Terre Haute, etc., tupra; Thomas v. Winchester, 6 N. Y. R. Co. v. Clem, 123 Ind. 15, 18 Am. 397. St. Eep. 303, 4? Am. & Eng. K. Cas. 21. Standard Oil Co. v. Tiemey, 229. (Ky.) 27 S. W. 983, 16 Ky. L. Eep. 22. Boston, etc., R. Co. v. Shanly, 327, revg. 92 Ky. 367, 36 Am. St. Eep. supra. In the Nitro-Clyeerine Case, 595, 49 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 117, 17 the carrier was held not liable to S. W. 1025, 13 Ky. L. Eep. 626, U third parties. Ry. & Corp. L. J. 92. 23. Barney v. Bumstenbinder. A subsequent change in the man- supra; Jeflfrey v. Bigelow, 13 Wend. ner of branding cannot be proved in (N. Y.) 518. an action for negligence in shipping CONTBIBUTOET NeGLIGENCB OF ShIPPEE. 385 case it has been held that illuminating gas, compressed into steel cylinders of insufficient strength to hold it, though liable to ex- plode by its tendency to expand when heated, is not within the provisions of the United States statutes, forbidding the carriage on passenger vessels of camphene, nitro glycerine, benzine, benzole, coal oil, crude or refined petroleum, or " other like explosive burn- ing fluids or like dangerous articles," as the danger lies not in the gas itself, but in the weakness of the vessel containing it^* 24. Eussell v. New Jersey Steam- boat Ck)., 10 Misc. Eep. (N. Y.) 593, 32 N. Y. Supp. 824. - ♦ 25 CHAPTER XIV. Peesumptions and Bueden of Peoof. Section 1. Presumptions and burden of proof generally. 2. Presumption as to stat^ of goods when received. 3. Defense of loss by the act of God. 4. Where goods lost consist of several kinds. 5. Where liability is limited by special contract. 6. Proof of loss by fire under contract limiting liability. 7. Where carrier is merely a warehouseman. § 1. Presumptions and Burden of proof generally. — In aa action against a carrier for loss of or injury to goods the burden, resta upon the plaintiff to show by aflSrmative proof the delivery of the goods to the carrier, their nature and condition, and that they were in fact in good order when received by the carrier.' There is no presumption that the goods were in good order when received by the carrier.^ The receipt of the carrier for the goods as being " in apparent good order " raises no presumption what- ever against the carrier as to the actual condition of the goods when received, and does not relieve the plaintiff of the burden of showing such condition, and that the goods were in fact in good order when received by the carrier. Such words in a receipt by the carrier refer only to the outward appearance of the package.' 1. Smith V. New York Cent. R. signment may be preaimied from th» Co., 43 Barb. (N. Y.) 225, aflfd. 41 delivery of a part. Union Pacific K. N. Y. 620; Hoflfberg v. Bumford, 88 Co. v. Hepner, 3 Colo. App. 313; Sa- N. Y. Supp. 940; Canfield v. Balti- vannah, etc., R. Co. v. Steininger, 84 more, etc., R. Co., 46 N. Y. Super. Ct. Ga. 679. 238 ; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Echols.. 2. Brooks v. Dinsmore, 3 St. Kep. 97 Ala. 556; Reubens v. Ludgate Hill (N. Y.) 587; Lake Shore Nitro-gly- Steamship Co., 20 N. Y. Supp. 481; cerine Co. v. IlUnois Cent E. Ck)., 75^ Wing V. New York, etc., R. Co., 1 111. 394; Marquette, etc., E. Co. v. Hilt. (N. Y.) 235; Peebles v. Bos- Kirkwood, 45 Mich. 51, 40 Am. Eep. ton, etc., R. Co., 112 Mass. 498; Mis- 453. See Rice v. Indianapolis, etc.,^ souri Pac. E. Co. v. Douglass, 2 Tex. E. Co., 3 Mo. App. 27. Compn App. Civ. Cas., § 28, 16 Am. & Eng. Breed v. Mitchell, 48 Ga. 533. R. Cas. 98. 3. Thyll v. New York, etc., E. Co., Delivery of the whole of aeon- 92 App. Div. (N. Y.) S13, 87 K. 7> (386) Presumptions anb Btteden of Peoof. 387 The burden, of proof is also on the plaintiff to show by affirmative evidence non-delivery or a failure of the carrier to deliver them at their destination in good order.* Wben there has been a loss or injury of goods in shipment by the carrier, such proof is suffi- cieLt to establish a prima facie case against the carrier, and, in the absence of a contract limiting, its liability, the burden of proof is then upon the carrier to show affirmatively that the losa. or injury resulted from a cause for which it was not responsible, such aa the act of God or the public enemy f or that the shipment Supp. 345, modg. 84 N. Y. Supp. 175; Miller v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 90 N. Y. 430, 43 Am. Rep. 179; Clark V. Bamell, 12 How. (U. S.) 272, 13 L. Ed. 985; Roth v. Hamburg- Ameri- can Packet Co., 59 N. Y. Super. Ct. 49; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Neel, 56 Ark. 279; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Benjamin, 63 111. 283; Burwell v. Raleigh, etc., R. Co., 94 N. C. 451; Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Holder, 10 Tex. Civ. App. 223. 4. Blum V. Monahan, 36 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 179, 73 N. Y. Supp. 162; Roberts v. Chittenden, 88 N. Y. 33; Mouton v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., (Ala.) 29 So. 602; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Dickinson, 74 111. 249; Chica- go, etc., R. Co. V. Provine, 61 Miss. 288; Day v. Ridley, 16 Vt. 48; Hot Springs R. Co. v. Hudgins, 42 Ark. 485, plaintiff is relieved from this necessity where the carrier pleads non-receipt of the goods; Ingledew v. Northern R. Co., 7 Gray (Mass.) 86; Armstrong v. Chica,go, etc., R. Co., 62 Mo. App. 639; Galveston, etc., R. Co. V. Gildea, 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas., § 271. 5. N. r.— Park v. Preston, 108 N. Y 434; Bowden v. Fargo, 2 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 551; Colt v. McMechen, 6 Johns. (N. Y.) 160, 5 Am. Dec. 200; Campe v. Weir, 28 Misc. Sep. (N. Y.) 243, 58 N. Y. Supp. 1082; Reiser v. Metropolitan Express Co., 91 N. Y. Supp. 170; Rind v. Stake, 2$ Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 177, 59 N. Y. Supp. 42; Lockwood v. Manhattan, etc.. Warehouse Co., 28 App. Div. (N. Y.) 68, 50 N. Y. Supp. 974; Westcott v. Fargo, 63 Barb. (N. Y.) 349; Canfield v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 93 N. Y. 532, 45 Am. Rep. 268, 16 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 162, holding "the law to have been settled beyond contra- versy that proof of the non-delivery of property by a bailee upon demand, unexplained, makes out a prima facii case of negligence against such bailed in the care and custody of the thing bailed, and, in the absence of any evi' d'ence on his part, excusing such non- delivery, presents a question of faci as to the negligence of the bailee foi the consideration of the jury. Steers V. Liverpool, etc.. Steamship Co., 57 N. Y. 6, 15 Am. Rep. 453; Magnin v. Dinsmore, 56 N. Y. 168; Burnell T. New York Cent. R. Co., 45 N. Y. 185. 6 Am. Rep. 61; Fairfax v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 67 N. Y. 11; Clailin v. Meyer, 75 N. Y. 260, 31 Am. Rep. 467; Schmidt v. Blood, 9 Wend. (N. Y.) 268, 24 Am. Dcci 143; Moore v. Evans, 14 Barb. (N. Y.) 524. The principle upon which this rule is founded embraces as well the case of a partial as of a total fail- ure to deliver the subject of a bail- ment." See also Place v. Union Ex- press Co., 2 Hilt. (N. Y.) 19, apply 388 The Law of Caeeieks. was such that it was only liable for negligence, as that the goods ing the rule in an action for delay in delivery. U. 8. — Cumming v. Barracouta, 40 Fed. 498; Western Mfg. Co. v. The Guiding Star, 37 Fed. 641 ; Woodward T. Illinois Cent. E. Co., 1 Biss. (U. S.) 403; The Samuel E. Spring, 29 Fed. 397. Ala. — ^Mouton v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., (Ala.) 29 So. 602; Richmond, ' etc., R. Co. V. Grousdale, 99 Ala. 389; Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Little, 71 Ala. 611; South, etc., Alabama R. Co. v. Wood, 66 Ala. 167. Cal. — ^Wilson v. California Cent. R. Co., 94 Cal. 166. Corm. — ^Mears v. New York, etc., R. Co., (Conn.) 52 Atl. 610, 56 L. R. A. 884; Boies v. Hartford, etc., R. Co., 37 Conn. 272. Fla. — Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. Har- ris, 26 Fla. 148. Gte. — Georgia R. etc., Co. v. Reener, 93 Ga. 808; Purcell v. Southern Ex- press Co., 34 Ga. 315; Central R. Co. v. Hasselkus, 91 Ga. 382. III. — Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. Radbourne, 52 111. App. 203. Ind. — Pennsylvania Co. v. Live- right, 14 Ind. App. 518. Iowa. — ^Winne v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 31 Iowa, 583; Angle v. Mississip- pi, etc., R. Co., 18 Iowa, 555; St. Clair V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 80 Iowa, 304, delay in delivery. La. — Chapman v. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 21 La. Ann. 224; Tardos V. Toulon, 14 La. Ann. 429. Me. — Dow V. Portland Steam Pack- et Co., 84 Me. 490; Bennett v. Amer- ican Express Co., 83 Me. 236; Little V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 66 Me. 239. Mass. — ^Alden v. Pearson, 3 Gray (Mass.) 342. Mitm. — Boehl v. Chicago, etc., h. Co., 44 Minn. 191; Hull v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 41 Minn. 510; Smith v. St. Paul City R. Co., 32 Minn. 1. , Mo.—GeoTge v. Chicago, etc., R. Co,. 57 Mo. App. 358; Heck v. Mis- souri Pac. R. Co., 51 Mo. App. 532j Hance v. Pacific Express Co., 48 Mo. App. 179; Davis v. Wabash, etc., E. Co., 89 Mo. 340; Buddy v. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 20 Mo. App. 206; Green V. Indianapolis, etc., R. Co., 56 Mo. 556; Degge v. American Express Co., 2 Mo. App. Rep. 904. y. fl.— Hall v. Cheney, 36 N. H. 26. N. J. — ^Hunt V. Morris, 12 N. J. L. 175. Pa. — Buck V. Pennsylvania B. Co., 150 Pa. St. 170; Grogan v. Adams Express Co., 114 Pa. St. 523; Adams Express Co. v. Holmes, (Pa.) 9 Atl. 166; New York Cent., etc., R. Co. v. Eby, (Pa.) 12 Atl. 482; Pennsylvania R. Co. V. MiUer, 87 Pa. St. 395; Em- pire Transp. Co. v. Wamsutta Oil Refining, etc., Co., 63 Pa. St. 14; Phoenix Clay Pot Works v. Pitts- burgh, etc., R. Co., 139 Pa. St. 284; American Express Co. v. Sands, 55 Pa. St. 140; Clark v. Spencer, 10 Watts (Pa.) 335. S. C. — Johnstone v. Richmond, etc., E. Co., 39 S. C. 55; Wardlaw v. South Carolina R. Co., 11 Rich. L. (S. C.) 337; Ewart v. Street, 2 Bailey L. (S. C.) 157. Temi.— Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Stone & Haslett, (Tenn.) 79 S. W. 1031; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Wynn, 88 Tenn. 320; Merchants Despatch Transp. Co. v. Bloch, 86 Tenn. 392; Turney v. Wilson, 7 Yerg. (Tenn.) 340; Deming v. Merchants Cotton Press, etc., Co., 90 Tenn. 306. Tex. — St. Louis, etc., E. Co. v. Martin, (Tex. Civ. App.) 35 S. W. 28; St. Louis, etc., E. Co. v. Par- Presumptions and Burden of Peoof. 38» ■were perishable or were live stock.' There is no presumption of negligence arising from the mere fact of loss or injury, and when the carrier has made such proofs as to the cause of the loss or injury, the burden is on the plaintiff to show that the carrier's negligence was the proximate cause of the loss.' Eut when prop- erty has been delivered in good condition to a carrier, and it haa been damaged while in possession of the carrier, nothing else appearing, the presumption is that there has been negligence on the part of the carrier, and the burden is on the carrier to remove such presumption.' Where, in an action against a railroad com- pany to recover for a case of plate glass, broken while in its pos- session as a carrier, the evidence disclosed that the case, with several other like cases, was delivered to defendant for transpor- tation, in good order, and that the other cases were delivered by the carrier in good order, as received, it will be presumed that it was negligently handled by defendant.' Negligence on the part of a carrier undertaking to transport heavy castings is shown by the fact that they were shipped in good order and were found cracked upon delivery, and the carrier, to avoid liability, has the burden mer, (Tex. Civ. App.) 30 S. W. 1109; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Scott, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 76; Texas, etc., E. Co. v. Morse, 1 Tex. App. Civ. Gas., § 411; Eyan v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 65 Tex. 13; Missouri Pac. E. Co. v. China Mfg. Co., 79 Tex. 26. Va. — ^Murphy v. Staton, 3 Munf. (Va.) 239. y«.— Mann v. Birchard, 40 Vt. 326, delay in delivery. Wis. — Browning v. Goodrich Transp. Co., 78 Wis. 391; Black v. Goodrich Transp. Co., 55 Wis. 319; Kirst V. Milwaukee, etc., E. Co., 46 Wis. 489. En?.— Eiley v. Home, 5 Bing. 217, IS E. C. L. 422. Can, — ^Henry v. Canadian Pac. E. Co., 1 Manitoba 210. 6. See Carriers of Live Stock, chap. 18. 7. The Guiding Star, 53 Fed. 936; Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Hazen, 84 111. 36; Terre Haute, etc., R. Co. v. Sherwood, 132 Ind. 129; Pittsburgh, etc., E. Co. V. Hollowell, 65 Ind. 188 ; Jordan t. American Express Co., 86 Me. 225; B. 0. Stannard Milling Co. V. White Line Cent. Transit Co., 122 Mo. 258; Cleveland, etc., E. Co. v. Crawford, 24 Ohio St. 631; Buck v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 150 Pa. St. 170 ; Pennsylvania E. Co. v. Eaiordon, 119 Pa. St. 577; East Tennessee, etc., E. Co. V. Stewart, 13 Lea (Tenn.) 432. 8. Pennsylvania E. Co. v. Naive, (Tenn.) 79 S. W. 124. 9. Hutkofif v. Pennsylvania E. Co., 29 Misc. Eep. (N. Y.) 770, 61 N. Y. Supp. 254. Citing Campe v. Weir, 28 Misc. Eep. (N. Y.) 243, 58 N. ST. Supp. 1082; Roth v. Hamburg Amer. Packet Co., 12 N. Y. Supp. 462; Trim- ble V. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 39 App. Div. (N. Y.) 403, 412, 57 N. Y. Supp. 437. 390 The Law of Caeeiees. of showing cause for the fracture which will overcome the pre- sumptive case raised against him." The destruction of goods while in the hands of an express company by the derailment and burning of the car on which they were shipped gives rise to a pre- sumption of negligence." But under a coimt asking recovery against a railroad company as a volvmt'ary bailee of goods whidi were destroyed before delivery to the consignee, the burden of proof was on the plaintiff to sihow tbe negligence averred.'^ Where a carrier, instead of delivering a trunk at the port as required by its contract, without giving the owner an opportunity to examine or take charge of it for the purpose of entry, sent it to the custom house, and, after entry and release, forwarded it by an express company to the owner's address, it had the burden of showing that a loss therefrom did not occur while it was in its actual custody.^' It may be presumed in case of a decay in perishable goods in transit by reason of negligence on the part of the carrier, that such negligence occurred while the goods were in the custody of the last carrier." The burden of proof is on the carrier to show that a shipper assented to its billing goods to a place otter than that specified in the shipping receipt." The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show that defendant is a common carrier." 10. Hudson River Lighterage Co. 12. Frederick v. Louisville, etc., B. ▼. Wheeler Condenser & E. Co., 93 Co., 133 Ala. 486, 31 So. 968. Fed. 374. Citing Phoenix Pot Works 13. Fasy v. International Nav. T. Pittsburgh, etc., K. Co., 139 Pa. Co., 177 N. Y. 591, 70 N. E. 1098, St. 284; Ketchum v. American Mer- aflfg. 77 App. Div. (N. Y.) 469, 79 chants Union Exp. Co., 52 Mo. 390; N. Y. Supp. 1103. Grieve v. Illinois C. K. Co., 104 14. Sensmore Commission Co. v. Iowa, 659, 74 N. W. 192; Terre Duluth, etc., R. Co., 101 Wis. 563, 77 Haute, etc., R. Co. v. Sherwood, 132 N. W. 904. Ind. 129, 17 L. R. A. 339; Hinton v. 15. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. C. 4 Eastern R. Co., (Minn.) 75 N. W. A. Potts & Co., (Ind. App.) 71 N. E. 373; Hull v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 41 685. Minn. 510, 5 L. R. A. 587; Shriver v. 16. Ringgold v. Haven, 1 Cal. 108; Sioux City, etc., R. Co., 24 Minn. Morrison v. Davis, 20 Pa. St. 171; 606; Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. Little, Doty v. Strong, 1 Pin. (Wis.) 313; 71 Ala. 611, 12 Am. & Eng. K. Uas. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Douglass, 2 37; Rintoul v. New York, etc., R. Co., Tex. App. Civ. Cas., § 28. See Den- 17 Fed. 905, 16 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. ver, etc., R. Co. v. Cahill, 8 Colo. 144. App. 158, allegation and proof not 11. Powers Mercantile Co. v. necessary where railroads are made Wells, Fargo & Co., (Minn.) 100 N common carriers by statute. W. 735. PsESUMPTIOIirS AITD BuEDEN OF PbOOF. 391 "Where plaintiff in an action against a railroad company to recover for a loss of goods in shipment, introduces evidence which tends fitrongly to show inferentially that defendant managed and con- trolled the line of road upon which the loss occurred, although it was owned by a separate corporation, such as that the managing officers of the two companies were the same, that defendant held itself out to the public as operating the line by advertising it as & part of its system, etc., and defendant, although having it within its power, fails to produce evidence to show the actual relation between the two companies, it is a reasonable presumption that fluch evidence would support plaintiff's contention, and the jury is justified in determining the issue in favor of the plaintiff." §2. Presumption as to state of goods when received. — If goods are delivered by a carrier in a damaged state, it will not be liable unless it is shown that they were in a different state when they were received by it. The presumption, if any, would be that the goods were received in the same condition as when they were delivered^' The burden of proof is, as we have seen, on the ship- per to show a delivery to the carrier in good order." It has, however, been held that the burden is on the carrier to show as a defence that, when delivered to it, the goods were in a damaged condition, or that the injury occurred from a cause for which it was not liable.^" § 3. Defense of loss by act of God — The carrier is always liable for a loss or injury resulting from its own negligence; and when that intervenes, it cannot discharge itself by showing that it was occasioned by one of those occurrences which are termed the act of God. If by its negligence, property committed to it is brought under the operation of natural causesi that work its destruction, or is exposed to such cause of loss, it is responsible. So also if but for its neglect the loss or injury would have beenl avoided. The rule is the same in reference to an act of the public «aemy. The burden of proof is on the carrier, therefore, to show 17. Pennsylvania E. Oo. v. Anoka 87; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Breed- Nat. Banlc, 108 Fed. 482, 47 C. G. A. ing, 4 Tex. App. Civ. Cas., § 154. 454. 19. See § 1, ante. 18. Goodman v. Oregon E., etc., 20. Montgomery, etc., E. Co., v. Co., 22 Or. 14, 49 Am. & Eng. E. Caa. Moore, 51 Ala. 394. 892 The Law of Caeeiees. not only ttat an act of God or the public enemy was the immediate and proximate cause of the loss or injury, but also that it actually exercised the requisite care and diligence to protect the goods from the operation of such causes.^^ But it has been held that where it is shown that a loss of goodsi in the possession of a carrier was due to an overpowering cause, the burden is on the opposite party to establish the negligence of the carrier.^ § 4. Where goods lost consist of several kinds. — Where a ship- ment consists of several kinds of goodsi of different values, a por- tion of which is lost, and the proof is not definite as to the pro- portion of each that was shipped, there is no legal presumption in such a case, but it is purely a question of fact, from the evidence, as to which kind of goods were destroyed, the burden of proof being on the plaintiff, and an instruction that the presumption is that all goodsi lost, the kind and value of which is not proven, must have been those of the least value, is erroneous.^ The plaintiff has the burden of proof to establish the value of goods lost, and in the absence of such proof a judgment in his favor cannot stand." § 5. Where liability is limited by special contract. — ^Where goods are received for transportation by a common carrier, under a special contract by which its common law liability as insurer is limited, it is held by the weight of authority that, the carrier having proved the loss to have occurred by reason of the excepted cause, it then devolves upon the shipper to establish the negli- gence of the carrier, failing in wbich he cannot recover.^ On the 21. Michaels v. New York Cent. K. Co., (Minn.) 97 N. W. 893. K. Co., 30 N. Y. 564, 86 Am. Dec. 23. Lake Shore Nitro-glycerine Co. 415; Montgomery, etc., E. Co. v. v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 75 111. 394. Moore, 51 Ala. 394; Agnew v. Steam- 24. Houston, etc., E. Co. v. Mc- cr Contra Costa, 27 Cal. 425; Jack- Glosson, 1 Tex. App. Civ. Cas., f son y. Sacramento Val. E. Co., 23 224. Cal. 269; Central E. Co. v. Hasselkus, 25. N. Y.— Canfield v. Baltimore, 91 Ga. 382; Eichmond, etc., E. Co. v. etc., E. Co., 93 N. Y. 532, 45 Am. Kep. White, 88 Ga. 805; Van Winkle v. 268; Whitworth v. Erie R. Co., 87 N. South Carolina E. Co., 38 Ga. 32; Y. 413; Steers v. Liverpool, etc, Davis V. Wabash, etc., E. Co., 89 Mo. Steamship Co., 57 N. Y. 1, 15 Am. 340; Leonard v. Hendrickson, 18 Pa. Eep. 458; Cochran v. Dinsmore, 49 St. 40; Bell v. Eeed, 4 Binn. (Pa.) N. Y. 249; Lamb v. Camden, etc., 127. 5 Am. Dec. 398. Co., 46 N. Y. 271, 7 Am. Eep. 327; 23. J'ones v. Minneapolis, etc., E. French v. Buffalo, etc. E Co., 4 Peesumptions and Burden of Peoof. 393 other hand, it is held in a number of jurisdictions that, under such contracts, the burden is upon the carrier to show not only that the loss -was by the excepted cause, but also that it itself was free from fault. ^° The reason why the carrier should not be Keyes (N. Y.) 108; Sutro v. Fargo, 41 N. Y. Super. Ct. 231. P. jS.— The Jefferson, 31 Fed. 489 ; The New Orleans, 26 Fed. 44; Clark V. Barnwell, 12 How. (U. S.) 272; Western Transp. Co. v. Downer, 11 Wall. (U. S.) 133; Wertheimer v. Pennsylvania E. Co., 17 Blatchf. (U. S.) 421; Van Sehaack v. Northern Transp. Co., 3 Biss. (U. S.) 394; Speyer v. The Mary Belle Roberts, 2 Sawy. (U. S.) 1. Ark. — Little Rock, etc., R. Co. v. Harper, 44 Ark. 208; Little Rock, etc., E. Co. V. Corcoran, 40 Ark. 375 ; Little Eock, etc., E. Co. v. Talbot, 39 Ark. 523. Iowa. — ^Mitchell v. United States Express Co., 46 Iowa, 214. Ind. — Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. ». Forsythe, 4 Ind. App. 326. Kan. — Kansas Pac. R. Co. v. Rey- nolds, 8 Kan. 623 ; Kallman v. United States Express Co., 3 Kan. 205. La. — New Orleans Mut. Int. Co. v. New Orleans, etc., E. Co., 20 La. Ann. 3u2; Kelham v. Steamship Kensing- ton, 24 La. Ann. 100; Kirk v. Fol- scm, 23 La. Ann. 584; Price v. The Uriel, 10 La. Ann. 413. Me. — Sager v. Portsmouth, etc., R. Co., 31 Me. 228. Md. — Bankard v. Baltimore, etc., E. Co., 34 Md. 197. Mo. — Otis Co. V. Missouri Pac. E. Co., 112 Mo. 622; Read v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 60 Mo. 199; Harvey v. Terre Haute, etc., 74 Mo. 538; Hance V. Pacific Express Co., 48 Mo. App. 179; Witting v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 28 Mo. App. 103; Heil v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 16 Mo. App. 363. 1}. G. — Smith V. North Carolina R. Co., 64 N. C. 235. Pa. — Buck V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 150 Pa. St. 170; Pennsylvania R. Co. V. Eaiordon, 119 Pa. St. 577; Col- ton V. Cleveland, etc., E. Co., 67 Pa. St. 211; Patterson v. Clyde, 67 Pa. St. 505; Farnham v. Camden, etc., E. C, 55 Pa. St. 53. Plaintiff in an action against a railroad company for injury to per- ishable property by heating has the burden of proving negligence, or cir- cumstances from which negligence may be reasonably inferred, where the contract of shipment releases the li- ability from any causes incident to transportation, such as "heating," not directly traceable to the negli- gence of its servants. Davenport v. Pennsylvania E. Co., 10 Pa. Super. Ct. 47. Term. — Louisville, etc., E. Co. v. Manchester Mills, 88 Tenn. 656. Eng. — Harris v. Packwood, S Taunt. 264. 26. Ala. — ^McCarthy v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 102 Ala. 193 ; Louisville, etc., R. Co. V. Touart, 97 Ala. 514; East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. Johnston, 75 Ala. 596 ; Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Little, 71 Ala. 611; Grey v. Mobile Co., 55 Ala. 387; Steele v. Town- send, 37 Ala. 247. Conn. — Harper v. Railroad Co., 3T Conn. 272. Oa. — Richmond, etc., E. Co. v. White, 88 6a. 805; Columbus, etc., E. Co. V. Kennedy, 78 Ga. 646 ; Berry V. Cooper, 28 Ga. 543. /!«.— Dunspeth v. Wade, 3 111. 285. Mirm. — Shea v. Minneapolis, etc., R.. 394 The Law ©f Caeeiees. required to prove the absence of negligence on ife part was in some oases stated to be. that the special agreement relieves tie carrier from all liability, except that of a bailee for hire," but that ground has been held untenable by subsequent cases.^ It is now generally put upon the ground that to require it would limit the restriction and destroy its chief purpose and, in effect, amount to holding that the carrier might not limit its liability, by prac- tically casting upon it the burden of proof in every case.^ On the other hand it is claimed that the duty of the carrier to prove the absence of negligence on its part arises from the terms of the •contract, from the character of its occupation, and from the rule of evidence requiring the facts, even of a negative averment, to be proved by the party within whose knowledge they peculiarly lie.^" The burden of proof ia on the carrier to show the special contract and that the loss was one within the exemptions of its provisions.'^ -Co., 63 Minn. 228; Hull v. Chicago, •€tc., R. Co., 41 Minn. 510; Shriver v. Sioux City, etc., E. Co., 24 Minn. ^06. Miss. — Southern Express Co. v. Seide, 67 Miss. 613; Chicago, etc., R. ■Co. V. Moss, 60 Miss. 1003. OMo. — Pennsylvania Co. v. Yoder, 25 Ohio Cir. Ct. R. 32; United States Express Co. v. Blackman, 28 Ohio St. 144; Erie R. Co. v. Lockwood, 28 Ohio St. 358 ; Gaines v. Union Transp., . New York Cent. R. Co., 33 N. Y. 610, 88 Am. Dec. 416; Ingalls v. Brooks, 1 Edm. Sel. Cas. (N. Y.) 104. 49. See cases cited note 48. 50. Denver, etc., R. Co. v. Hill, 13 Colo. 35, 40 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 145; Andrews v. Dieterich, 14 Wend. (N. Y.) 31; The Schooner Anne, 1 Mason (U. S.) 512; Fitch v. Newberry, 1 Doug. (Mich.) 1, 40 Am. Deo. 33; Bird v. Georgia E. Co., 72 Ga. 655, 27 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 39. Caeeiee's Lien. 439 goods -would be voluntary. A carrier receiving goods from an- other carrier with notice that the freight charges have been paid in advance for through shipment by the shipper can have no lien on the goods for its share of freight charges." But it is entitled to a lien for unpaid freight charges although the agent of the other -carrier had given the shipper a receipt erroneously endoraed. "Freight charges paid through."^^ And where the carrier re- ceives notice that the shipper has attempted to prepay the freight for the entire transportation, but has not paid it in full at the regular rates,^^ or, the bill of lading contains a stipulation that the total cost of transportation shall not exceed a certain sum, and it has no knowledge of such an agreement,^ the carrier has a lien for the balance of the freight. It is held in some cases that the aecond carrier is not bound by the unauthorized acts of the initial carrier; that the initial carrier acts, in ordinary cases, as the agent of the shipper for forwarding the goods beyond its line, and not as agent of the subsequent carriers.^^ Other authorities, how- ever, hold that the initial line is the agent of the subsequent car- riers and not of the shipper, and that its acts bind the subsequent carriers, whether actually authorized by them or not.^^ § 9. Priority over other liens. — The carrier's lien for freight charges ia superior to and has priority over the claims of general creditors, where the goods transported were received by it from the rightful owner, and neither creditors nor the sheriff can ac- quire, through attachment or other process, any better right to 51. Marsh v. Union Pac. E. Co., 55. Mallory v. Burrett, 1 E. D. ■3 McCrary (U. S.) 236, 9 Fed. 873, Sm. (N. Y.) 234; Mosea v. Fort <1i Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 359; American Townsend S. E. Co., supra; Briggs v. Nat. Bank v. Georgia E. Co., 96 Ga. Boston, etc., E. Co., supra; Bird v. ^65. Georgia E. Co., supra; Wells v. 52. Wolf V. Hough, 22 Kan. 659, Thomas, 27 Mo. 17, 72 Am. Dec. 228; 40 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 139. Sumner v. Southern E. Assoc, 7 53. Crossan v. New York, etc., E. Baxt. ((Tenn.) 346, 32 Am. Eep. 565, •Co., 149 Mass. 196, 14 Am. St. Eep. 9 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 18. 408, 21 N. E. 367, 6 E. E. & Corp. 56. Jones v, Boston, etc., E. Co., L. J. 27. 63 Me. 188; Schneider v. Evans, 25 54. Moses v. Fort Townsend S. E. Wis. 241, 9 Am. L. Eeg. N. S. 541, -Co., 5 Wash. 595, 55 Am. & Eng. E. note. Cas. 418. See also Fordyce v. John- son, 56 Ark. 430. 440 The Law of Caeeiees. the property than the shipper or consignee has. The common eai^ rier has a special interest in and lien on property attached, for freight due for its; transportation, to its full value, and neither the shipper, consignee, or sheriff has any right to seize the goods •without furnishing indemnity. If the property is seized without furnishing indemnity, the carrier may recover the full value of the goods in an action for unlawful taking." The lien of the car- rier for charges for carriage of the specific articles is prior to the rights of the vendor, and the carrier may insist upon retaining possession until those chargesi are paid. And an officer holding process against the vendee may lawfully advance these charges to- the carrier, on taking possession of the goods, and having so ad- vanced them is substituted to all the carrier's rights of posaesBion. as security therefor.^ The lien of a carrier and warehouseman for the keeping of property after a completion of the transporta- tion thereof is superior to that of a pledgee who procured the property to be transported and stored it^' But the lien of the carrier is inferior to that of a warehouseman to whom the carrier has delivered the goods for storage after the transportation has ended.*" The carrier's lien for freight charges on goods being transported, between the consignment and the stoppage, is superior to and may be asserted as against the consignor's right of stoppage in transitv^^ But the right of stoppage in transitu is not affected by a clause in the bill of lading which provides that the carrier may retain the goods for any charges due from the consigaee for other goods. The right of the carrier to extend its lien by contract to the general balance due from the owner of the goods consigned to him, if conceded, cannot apply to goods which do not become his because retaken by the consignor under the right of stoppage in transitu, and a lien under such a stipulation is subordinate to the 57. Campbell v. Conner, 70 N. Y. 61. Potts v. New York, etc., E. 424; Newhall v. Vargas, 15 Me. 314, Co., 131 Mass. 455, 3 Am. & Eng. E. 33 Am. Dee. 617; Santa Fe Pac. R. Cas. 424, 41 Am. Eep. 247; Hays v. Co. V. Bossut (N. M.), 62 Pae. 977. Monille, 14 Pa. St. 48; Pennsylvania 58. Rueker v. Donovan, 13 Kan. Steel Co. v. Georgia R, etc., Co., 94 251, 19 Am. Rep. 84. Ga. 636; Rueker v. Donovan, 13 Kan. 59. Cooley v. Minnesota Transfer 251, 19 Am. Rep. 84; Crass v. Mem- Co., 53 Minn. 327, 39 Am. St. Rep. phis, etc., R. Co., 96 Ala. 447, 55 Am- 609, 55 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 616. & Eng. R. Cas. 659. 60. Powers v. Sixty Tons of Mar- ble, 21 La. Ann. 402. Caeeiee's Lien. 441 right of stoppage m transitu.^^ In ordinary cases of the hypothe- cation of a cargo, the lien for freight takes precedence/^ § 10. How lien is lost, satisfied, or discharged. — The lien of a carrier, whether by land or water, is lost by an unqualified or un- conditional delivery of the goods to the owner or consignee or to any other person not the agent or servant of the carrier or under its control, without regard to the question of intent, where tbere is no fraud. Where the carrier voluntarily parts with the possession it loses its lien.^* As to what amounts to a delivery sufficient to consti- tute a waiver of lien under certain circumstances, it has been held that the delivery must be made with such intent, or it must be made under such circumstances that the law will presume the intent to have existed ; and nothing must remain to be done by the carrier in order to fully perform its contract. '^ Delivery of a portion of 62. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Ameri- can Oil Works, 126 Pa. St. 485, 24 W. N. C. 88, 17 Atl. 671, 12 Am. St. Eep. 885, 42 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 357 ; Farrell v. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 102 N. C. 390, 37 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 704; Oppenheim v. Russell, 3 B. & P. 42; Jackson v. .Nicol, 7 Scott 577; Morley v. Hay, 3 M. & R. 696; Leuckhart v. Cooper, 3 Ring. N. Cas. 99, 32 E. C. L. 55. 63. Grade v. Palmer, 8 Wheat. (TJ. S.) 605. See also Faith v. East India Co., 4 B. & Aid. 630, 6 E. C. L. 630; Howard v. Maeondray, 7 Gray (Mass.) sro. 64. in. Y.— Geneva, etc., R. Co. v. Sage, 35 Hun (N. Y.), 95; Bigelow v. Eeaton, 4 Den. (N. Y.) 496; Mc- Farland v. Wheeler, 26 Wend. (N. Y.) 467; Van Bokkelin v. IngersoU, 5 Wend. (N. Y.) 315. V. S. — Egan v. A Cargo of Spruce Lath, 43 Fed'. 480; The Eddy, 5 Wall. (U. S.) 481; Four Thousand, etc., Bags of Linseed, 1 Black. (U. S.), 108, the lien depends upoa the possession of the goods, and arises from the right to retain them until the amount of the lien is paid; Du- pont de Nemours v. Vance, 19 How. (U. S.) 171; Cutler v. Rae, 7 How. (U. S.) 729. Cal. — Wingard v. Banning, 39 CaU 543; Frothingham v. Jenkins, 1 CaL 42, 52 Am. Dec. 286. Iowa. — Reineman v. Covington, etc., R. Co., 51 Iowa, 338. Minn. — Shea v. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 63 Minn. 228. N. C. — Norfolk Southern R. Co. v. Barnes, 104 N. C. 25, the carrier's losing possession of the goods through its own negligence is equivalent to a voluntary delivery by it, so far as the rights of innocent third parties are concerned. y*.— Bailey v. Quint, 22 Vt. 474. Eng. — Forth v. Simpson, 13 Q. B. 680, 66 E. C. L. 680; Lambert v. Rob- inson, 1 Esp. N. P. 119; Skinner v. Upshaw, 2 Ld. Raym. 752. 65. iJew York Cent., etc., R. Co. v. Davis, 86 Hun (N. Y.), 86, 34 N. Y. Supp. 206. Where it appeared thai; carloads of coal on which the lien was claimed were, on reaching their destination, placed on spur tracks 442 The Law of Oaeeiees. the goods on wHch the carrier hag a lien for freight does not dis- charge the -lien for the entire freight charges on the portion not delivered. It does not discharge the lien pro tanto.^ The lien is not discharged where delivM-y of the goods is secured by fraud -which were on the consignee's prem- ises and for which he had furnished ■the ties, while the railroad com- pany built the tracks and furnished the iron. The spur tracks were oper- ated exclusively by the railroad com- pany, and part of its charge was for placing the coal on the spur track. Before the consignee could handle the coal, it was necessary to remove the cars from the spur track, and move them along the main track, thence along a branch track on the consignee's premises to his docks, and this was done by an engine and crew of the railroad company, which its superintendent furnished on re- quest. It was held that placing the ■cars on the spur tracks was not a delivery of the coal, so as to deprive the railroad company of its lien for ireight. Id. TJnloadlag and placing mer- chandise on a wharf does not in- dicate any intention of parting with the possession of it before the pay- ment of freight. Boggs v. Martin, 13 B. Mon. (Ky.) 239. See also 151 Tons of Coal, 4 Blatchf. (U. S.) 368. The placing by a carrier of a oar on the team track, to be unloaded by the consignee, is not such an abso- lute delivery to him of the lumber -therein as to cut oflF any future right of lien thereon of the carrier for demurrage charges because of the consignee not unloading in the time limit therefor. Southern Ey. Co. v. Lockwood Mfg. Co., (Ala.) 37 So. 667. 66. y. r.— New York Cent., etc., E. Co. V. Davis, supra. U. 8. — Brittan v. Barnaby, 21 How. (U. S.) 527; Cuff v. 95 Tons of Coal, 46 Fed. 670, nor where spe- cial delivery is made of the remainder subject to the lien. Cotm. — Fox V. Holt, 36 Conn. 558; Pinney v. Wells, 10 Conn. 104. Iowa. — Chicago, etc., E. Co. t. Northwestern Union Packet Co., 38 Iowa, 377. Ky. — Boggs V. Martin, 13 B. Mon. (Ky.) 239. Mass. — Potts V. New York, etc., E. Co., 131 Mass. 455, 41 Am. Eep. 247, 3 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 424; New- Haven, etc., E. Co. V. Campbell, 123 Mass. 104, 35 Am. Eep. 360; Ware Eiver E. Co. v. Vibbard, 114 Mass. 447; Lane v. Old Colony, etc., E. Co., 14 Gray (Mass.) 143. See New York, etc., E. Co. v. Sanders, 134 Mass. 53, 16 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 280, where a purchaser appropriated the remainder of goods after notice of lien. Pa. — Fuller v. Bradley, 25 Pa. St. 120; Philadelphia, etc., E. Co. v. Dows, 15 Phila. (Pa.) 101; Stein- man V. Wilkins, 7 W. & S. (Pa.) 466, 42 Am. Dee. 254. Wis. — Jeffris v. Fitchburg E. Co., 93 Wis. 250. Eng.—Alsa.ger v. St. Katherine's Dock Co., 14 M. & N. 794; Foster v. Colby, 3 H. & N. 705. Where the goods of different shippers are covered by the same bill of lading, the carrier has no right to hold the goods of one ship- per for charges upon the goods of the other. Hale v. Barrett, 26 111. 195. ' Caeriee's LiEiT. 443 on the part of the person receiving the goods, and, in such a case, the carrier may replevin the goods."' As against third persons ■without notice, the lien of a carrier for freight is lost by delivery to the consdgnee, though the latter agreed to hold until the freight -was paid.^ The lien of the carrier is released by the delivery of goods to the consignee, although they were consigned to him sub- ject to the order of another."' And if a lien for freight is waived under a mistaken belief as to the solvency of the consignee, such fact does not entitle the carrier to relief in equity.'"' Where the ■consignee fails or refuses to receive the goods, or to pay freight charges, and the goodsi are deposited by the carrier in its ware- house or that of another, not the consignee's agent, whether so de- posited by agreement with the consignee or not, or whether depos- ited in the name of the carrier or that of the owner subject to its lien, the lien is not lost, but is retained and may be enforced with the lien of the warehouseman added.'' If a common carrier, in ■order to sue out a writ of attachment against property on which he has a lien, makes affidavit, as req:uired by statute, that hisi debt ■" is not secured by any lien," he thereby abandons his lien, and cannot afterwards assert it.'^ The carrier or warehouseman also loses its lien by the acceptance of the consignee's note for the amount of the charges and cannot revive it by again getting pos- fiession of the goods." A tender of the amount of the charges 67. Bigelow v. Heaton, 4 Den. (N. S.) 481; Brittan v. Barnaby, 21 How. Y.) 496, 6 Hill (N. Y.) 43; Ash v. (U. S.) 527; Gregg v. Hlinois Cent. Putnam, 1 Hill (N. Y.) 302; Hays r. R. Co., 147 111. 550, 61 Am. & Eng. Hiddle, 1 Sandf. (N. Y.) 248; One E. Cas. 216; Costello v. 734, 700 Hmidred, etc., Tons of Coal, 4 Blatchf. Laths, etc., 44 Fed. 105 ; 4, 885 Bags (U. S.) 366, 18 How. (U. S.) 25; of Linseed, 1 Black (U. S.) 108; Wallace v. Woodgate, Ey. & N. 193, Hayward v. Grand Trunk E. Co., 32 21 E. C. L. 414; Bristol v. Wilsmore, U. C. Q. B. 392; Somes v. British Em- 1 B. & S. 514, 8 E. C. L. 218. pire Shipping Co., 8 H. L. Cas. 338. 68. Lembeck v. Jarvis Terminal, 72- Wingard v. Banning, 39 Cal. «tc., Co., (N. J.) 59 Atl. 360. 543. 69. Lake Shore, etc., E. Co. v. 73. Hale v. Barrett, 26 111. 195, 79 EUsey, 85 Pa. St. 283, 18 Am. Ey. Am. Dee. 367. See the Bird of Para- Eep. 413. dise, 5 Wall. (U. S.) 545; The Kim- 70. Sears V. Wills, 4 Allen (Mass.) ball, 3 Wall. (U. S.) 37, holding that 212, 1 Black (U. S.) 108. a note given for freight charges and 71. Western Transp. Co. v. Barber, falling due before the arrival of the ■56 N. Y. 544; Compton v. Shaw, 1 goods, and protested and unpaid, ii Hun (N. Y.) 441; Hall v. Dimond, no waiver of the lien. «3 N. H. 565; The Eddy, 5 Wall. (U. i44 The Law of Caeeiees, justly due discharges the lien.'* The lieu of a railroad for freight on goods shipped ceased when the company attempted to assign said lien to one who seized the goods for the debt of a stranger^ and, therefore, the assigned lien was no defense to an action for conversion by the consignor against the attaching creditor.'^ The rule that the carrier loses his lien by parting with possession of the goods does not apply where the person with whom the contract waa made makes an assignment for the benefit of his creditors accord- ing to their respective interests, and the lien of the carrier at- taches to the money collected by the assignee on the assignor's contract, in performance of which the assignee delivered the goods to another.''^ The lien of a vessel upon cargo for demurrage is not lost by the mere unloading of the cargo, unless there are cir- cumstances to show an abandonment of the lien, — as, where other security is taken, or the cargo when delivered is so mixed with other goods as to be incapable of separation and identification.'"^ A railroad company does not waive prepayment of freight charges- before delivery of the cars by responding " all right " to a state- ment by the consignee that he would give a disposal order for the cars and would send the amount of the freight whenever he got the expense notices and knew the amount.™ The carrier's lien is lost where the goods have been wilfully diverted from the route desig- nated by the carrier, through the fault of the carrier claiming the lien.''' The detention of the goods by the carrier on a different and inconsistent ground from that of its lien for charges will operate as a waiver of the lien f as, for example, where the refusal to de- liver the goods is upon the ground that they are not in its posses- sion at the place where demand is made.^^ 74. Tiffany v. St. John, 65 N. Y. S. App. 181, 84 Fed. 495, 28 C. a 314, 22 Am. Eep. 612; Burton v. A. 466. Kingrose, 63 Hun (N. Y.) 163, 17 N. 78. McEaehran v. Grand Trunk \. Supp. 665; Moynahan v. Moore, 9 R. Co., 115 Mich. 318, .4 Det. L. N. Mich. 9, 77 Am. Dec. 468; Martin- 879, 73 N. W. 231. dale V. Smitk, 1 Q. B. 389, 41 E. C. 79. Denver, etc., E. Co. v. HiU, IJ L. 592; Weeks v. Goode, C. B. N. Colo. 35, 40 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 143^ S. 367, 95 E. C. L. 367. 80. Tiffany v. St. John, 65 N. Y. 75. Rosencranz v. Swofiford Bros. 314; Louisville, etc., E. Co. v. Mc- Dry Goods Co., 175 Mo. 518, 7B S. Guire, 79 Ala. 395; Leigh v Mobile^ W. 445. etc., R. Co., 58 Ala. 165. 76. Cayo v. Pool's Assignee, (Ky.) 81. Adams Express Co. v. Harris, 65 S. W. 887, 49 L. R. A. 251. 120 Ind. 73, 16 Am. St. Eep. 315, 40' 77. A Cargo of Hard Coal, 55 U. Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 153. See al8» Caeeiee^s LiEisr. 445 § 11. Lien waived by express agreement or stipulation incon- sistent with it. — Tlie right to retain goods for freight grows out of the usage of trade, and isi waived by a special agreement incon- sistent with it, such as an agreement fixing the time and manner of the payment of the freight charges whereby a delivery of the goods is to precede the payment or security of payment of freight charges or the time when they become due and payable; or by stipulations inconsistent with the exercise of such a lien, or where it can be fairly inferred, from the language of the instrument, that the carrier did not intend to rely upon its lien but to trust to the personal responsibility of the owner or consignee of the goods.*^ But a waiver of the lien is not to be readily presumed ; it must be satisfactorily shown that the lien has been relinquisbed by stipu- lations so inconsistent with the existence of the lien as to fairly and clearly establish a waiver.^' § 12. How lien is enforced. — Tlie carrier has no right at com- mon law and in the absence of statutory authority to enforce its lien by a sale of the goods except pursuant to a judicial order or legal process, to be obtained in a proceeding in equity. It can only detain them until payment of the sum for which they are chargeable.** And if the carrier sells the goods be is liable to the owner for the value of the goods less the amount of charges Mathis V. Thomas, 101 Ind. 119; Vin- 83. Pinney v. Wells, 10 Conn. 104; tou V. Baldwih, 95 Ind. 433. Howard v. Maeondray, 7 Gray 82. Chandler v. Belden, 18 Johns. (Mass.) 516; The Kimball, 3 Wall. (N. Y.) 159, 9 Am. Dec. 193; Eay- (U. S.) 37; Drinkwater v. The Brig mond V. Tyson, 17 How. (U. S.) 53; Spartan, 1 Ware (U. S.) 149; Froth- The Schooner Volunteer, 1 Sumn. (U. ingham v. Jenkins, 1 Cal. 42, 52 Am. S.) 551; Certain Logs of Mahogany, Dec. 286; Paige v. Hubbard, 1 2 Sumn. (U. S.) 589; Euggles v. Sprague (U. S.) 338. See also cases Buekner, 1 Paine (U. S.) 363; The cited in last preceding note. Bird of Paradise, 5 Wall. (U. S.) 84. Saltus v. Everett, 20 Wend. 545; Chase v. Westmore, 5 M. & S. (N. Y.) 267, 32 Am. Dec. 541; Ev- 180; Crawshay v. Homfray, 4 B. & erett v. Saltus, 15 Wend. (N. Y.) Aid. 50, 6 E. C. L. 385; Lucas >-. 474; Chandler v. Belden, 18 Johns. Nockells, 4 Bing. 729, 15 E. C. L. (N. Y.) 157, 9 Am. Dec. 193; Fox v. 132; Cowell V. Simpson, 16 Ves. Jr. McGregor, 11 Barb. (N. Y.) 41; 2 275; Saville v. Campion, 2 B. & Aid. Kent's Com. 642. 603; Campion v. Colvin, 3 Bing. N. V. S. — ^Arthur v. Schooner Cassius, Caa. 17, 32 E. C. L. 19; Alsager v. St. 2 Story (U. S.) 97. Katharine's Dock Co., 14 M. &. W. /n.— Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. y. 794. Herndon, 81 111. 143. 446 The Law of Careiees. due under the lien.'' And the purchaser, though bona fide, is liable for their value to the owner. '* The carrier's lien may be enforced in an action at law against the owner or consignee, in which action an attachment or execution may issue." In most of the States there are statutes which provide specifically for the enforcement of the lien by a sale of the property after a specified time, if the freight is not paid. These statutes provide the method of procedure necessary which, like other statutory remedies, must be strictly pursued.** But statutory remedies at law do not take away any previously existing equitable remedy, in the absence of an express provision to that effect.*' The carrier can only seU the goods upon unquestionable proof that the consignee cannot be found, and that they are perishable. In the absence of a controll- ing necessity to sell the goods, the carrier can only enforce his hen by due process of law ; meanwhile carefully storing them.'" Under the New York statute perishable freight or baggage may be sold without notice, as soon as it can be, upon the best terms that can be obtained.'^ In some of the other States at least twenty-four hours' notice is required.'^ In an action by a carrier for freight, defendant may counterclaim or recoup damages for a breadi of Me. — Sullivan v. Park, 33 Me. 438; Hunt y. Haskell, 24 Me. 339, 41 Am. Dec. 387. Moss. — Briggs v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 6 Allen (Mass.) 252; Doane v. Kussell, 3 Gray (Mass.) 382. Pa. — ^Lacky v. McDermott, 8 S. & E. (Pa.) 500. Term. — Rankin v. Memphis, etc.. Packet Co., 9 Heisk. (Tenn.) 564, 24 Am. Rep. 339. Eng. — Jones v. Pearl, 1 Stra. 556; Liekbarrow v. Mason, 6 East. 21. 85. Briggs t. Boston, etc., R. Co., 6 Allen (Mass.) 253, 83 Am. Dec. 626; Gracie v. Palmer, 8 Wheat. (U. a.) 605; Binns v. Pigot, 9 C. & P. 208, 38 E. C. L. 82. See also Stev- ens V. Sayward, 3 Gray (Mass.) 108. 86. Everett v. Saltus, 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 474. 87. Gait v. Archer; 7 Gratt. (Va.) 307. 88. See N. Y. Railroad Law and statutes of other states. The sale of freight within less than the time pro- vided by statute is a conversion of the goods. Central, etc., R. Co. v. Chi- cago Portrait Co., 122 6a. 11, 49 S. E. 727. A sale without notice as provided by statute is illegal and ren- ders the carrier liable for conversion. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. North Texas Grain Co., (Tex. Civ. App.) 74 S. W. 567. 89. Crass v. Memphis, etc., K. Co., 96 Ala. 447, 55 Am; & Eng. R. Ces. 659. 90. Rankin v. Memphis, etc., Pack- et Co., 9 Heisk. (Tenn.) 564, 24 Am. Rep. 339; Arthur v. The Schooner Cassius, 2 Story (U. S.) 97. 91. N. Y. Railroad Law, chap. 565 Laws 1890, sec. 46. 92. Martin v. McLaughlin, 9 Colo. 153. See statutes of other states. Careieb's Lien. UT Ms contract," but cannot set off against the carrier's charges the amount of damages sustained by the goods from an act of God,°* and the last of connecting carriers cannot set off damages for an injury occurring on a previous line.'^ Ihe consignee is entitled to- a reasonable time after tender of goods and demand of payment of charges in which to pay charges/^ and demand of charges due and neglect or refusal to pay are conditions precedent to the right: to bring action or to eixercise the statutory right to sell.'' If the consignee is ready and willing to pay the freight due, on having the goods delivered to him, and the carrier refuses to deliver them unless he will pay more than is due, the consignee may maintain, detinue for the goods, or trover for their conversion, without making a formal tender or paying the money into court.'* Where the carrier insists upon the payment of more freight than it is- entitled to, oi* refuses to allow proper deductions for damages Or other cause, the consignee may bring replevin to recover possession. of the goods, upon tendering the proper amount due." 93. U. 7. — Gleadell v. Thomson, 66 N. Y. 194. V. /8.— Willard v. Dorr, 3 Mason (U. S.) 171; Snow v. Carruth, 1 Sprague (U. S.) 324. 7M.— Edwards v. Todd, 2 111. 462. Ky. — Boggs V. Martin, 13 B. Mon. (Ky.) 239. jlfe.— Hill V. Leadbetter, 42 Me. 572, 66 Am. Dec. 305. Pa. — Leech v. Baldwin, 5 Watts (Pa.) 446; Bartram v. McKee, 1 Watts (Pa.) 39; Humphreys v. Reed, 6 Whart. (Pa.) 435. S. C— Ewart v. Kerr, Kice L. (S. C.) 203. Hawaii. — La Motte v. Angel, 1 Hawaiian, 237. Eng.—Dakm v. Oxley, 15 C. B. N. S. 646, 109 E. C. L. 646, 10 Jur. N. S. 655, 12 W. K. 557; Sheels v. Da- vies, 6 Taunt. 65. 94. Lee v. Salter, Hill. & D. Supp. (N. Y.) 163; Newhall v. Vargas, 15 Me. 314, 33 Am. Dec. 617; Gait v. Archer, 7 Gratt. (Va.) 207. 95. Bowman v. Hilton, 11 Ohio, 303. 96. Great Western R. Co. v. Crouch, 3 H. &. N. 183, 4 Jur. N. S. 457. 97. Central E,., etc., Co. v. Sawyer,. 78 Ga. 784; Field v. Newport, etc., R. Co., 3 H. & N. 409, 27 L. J. Exch. 396. 98. Long. V. Mobile, etc., R. Co.,. 51 Ala. 512. See also Adams v. Clark, 9 Cush. (Mass.) 215, 57 Am.. Dec. 41; Isham v. Greenham, Handy (Ohio) 357; Adams Express Co. v.- Harris, 120 Ind. 73, 16 Am. St. Rep. 315, 40 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 153 ; Bird V. Georgia R. Co., 72 6a. 655, 27 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 39. 99. Fitch V. Newberry, 1 Dougl. (Mich.) 1, 40 Am. Dec. 33; Ohio, etc.,. R. Co. V. Noe, 77 III. 513; Dyer v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 42 Vt. 441, 1 Am. Rep. 350 ; Lane v. Chadwiek, 146 Mass. 68, 32 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 548,. but replevin cannot be maintained where the carrier is instructed to de- liver only upon the payment of an itemized bill, which the consignee re- fuses to pay. CHAPTER XVII. Connecting Caeeiees. Section 1. Who are connecting carriers. 2. Kelation of connecting carriers to shipper and to each other. 3. Carrier not bound to carry beyond its own line. 4. Delivery to succeeding carrier. 5. Notice of arrival of goods. 6. Duty to receive goods from connecting carrier. 7. Liability for delay. 8. Liability of initial carrier for loss or injury limited to its own line. 9. Liability of initial carrier for loss or injury extends over whole route. 10. Liability of intermediate carriers. 11. Liability. of terminal carrier. 12. Liability for miscarriage or diversion of goods. 13. Special contracts for through transportation. 14. What is sufficient to establish a through contract. 15. Charging and collecting entire freight in advance. . 16. Collection of entire charges by terminal carrier. 17. Accepting goods to be transported to or delivered at a certain point. 18. Carrier as forwarder or warehouseman. 19. Limitation of carrier's liability to its own line. 20. When connecting carriers entitled to benefit of limitations. 21. What constitutes delivery to a connecting carrier. 22. Notice to connecting carrier of arrival of goods. 23. FVesumptions and burden of proof. 24. Connecting lines as partners. 25. Rights of connecting carriers as to charges. § 1. Who are connecting carriers. — Ordinarily a connecting ■carrier is one wkose route, not being the first one, lies somewhere between the point of shipment and the point of destination, and the term is used to distinguisih the other carrier or carriers on the route over which the shipment is transported from the first or in- itial carrier. Used in this sense, a carrier who does not receive goods from another carrier under original contract for through (448) CONM-ECTING CaeEIEES. ' 449 transportation is not a connecting carrier.^ The term is, how- ever, sometimes used to indicate any one of the s'everal carriers -whose lines together constitute the entire route. A transfer com- pany employed by one carrier to transfer the goods to the next •carrier,^ or a cartage company employed by the last carrier to de- liver the goods to the consignee,' or a company employed by the consignee to remove the goods from the carrier's station,* is not a nnecting carrier, by receiving the goods from the contracting •carrier, becomes its agent for the purpose of completing its con- tract with the shipper, and where the contract of the shipper con- templates the employment of connecting lines, the law will imply from this circumstance sufficient privity between the shipper and "the connecting carrier to enable the shipper to maintain an action against such carrier on the contract of shipment.^' Where an in- termediate carrier receives goods from a preceding one marked to a point beyond its line, in the absence of an express agreement to x;arry to the place of destination, its full duty is discharged by carrying to the end of its line and there delivering to a responsi- "ble carrier for further transportation, and giving such connecting carrier proper instructions as to further carriage ; and, in the ab- sence of evidence to the contrary, it will be presumed that such instructions were given.*^ Where goods are lost or damaged in transit, the burden of proving that they were delivered to the first carrier, in good order, and were lost or injured, is upon the ship- per; but this being established a prima facie case is made, and 28, Ohio fat. 358, 14 Am. Ry. Hep. 66. Hemstead v. New Yo-rk Cent. 143; International, etc., E. Co. v. E. Co., 28 Barb. (N. Y.) 485. Tiadale, 74 Tex. 8; Conkey v. Mil- Agreenient with prior carrier. waukee, etc., R. Co., 31 Wis. 619, 11 — ^An intermediate carrier which has -Am. Rep. 630, 2 Am. Ry. Rep. 353. received for transportation perish- 64. Smith v. New York Cent. R. able goods from a connecting carrier ■Co., 41 N. Y. 620, 43 Barb. (N. Y.) cannot justify its failure to trans- .225; Lamb v. Camden, etc., R. Co., port them promptly by showing that 46 N. Y. 271, 2 Daly (N. Y.) 454; they were in defective cars, and that, Barter v. Wheeler, 49 N. H. 9, 6 under an agreement between the car- Am. Rep. 434. riers, it was the duty of the preced- es. Halliday v. St. Louis, etc., E. ing carrier to repair the cars. Cart- Co., 74 Mo. 159, 41 Am. Rep. 311. wright v. Rome, etc., R. Co., 85 Hun (N. Y.), 517, 33 N. Y. Supp. 147. 30 466 The Law of Caeeiees. the burden of proof is shifted to the carrier on whom it is incum- bent to sbow that the goods were not injured while in its posses- sion but were safely delivered, in good order, to the next succeed- ing carrier. Failing to show this the carrier will be held liable."" The liability of a common carrier, for freight received from a con- necting carrier, begins whenever tbe course of business has been duly observed by the agents of that road,** and the sending of way- bills to it may be sufficient to render it liable for unreasonable de- lay in tating possession of and forwarding the freight.** Where carriers transport over connecting lines, the one which receives the goods undertaking to deliver to the other, the liability of the- second carrier as such does not commence until that of the first, terminates, until the delivery of the whole consignment is com- pleted." Hence, in order to fix liability for a losg or injury to- goods upon an intermediate carrier, it is necessary to allege and prove the receipt by it of the shipment in good order. In the absence of allegation and proof the action cannot be maintained.'^ But the mere fact of receiving goods marked for a place beyond the terminus of its own route, in the absence of proof of an under- taking, express or implied, to carry them to their final destination, or to carry the goods over the entire route, using prior and subse- quent carriers as its own agents, or proof of a partnership between, the carriers, imposes on an intermediate carrier only an obligation 67. Smith v. New York Cent. R. etc., R. Oo., 1 Okla. 44; South Caro- Co., 41 N.' Y. 620, 43 Barb. (N. Y.) lina R. Co. v. Bradford, 10 Rich. L. 225; Wing v. New York, etc., R. Co., (S. C.) 307; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v.. 1 Hilt. (N. Y.) 235; Savannah, etc., Godair, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 514, unless R. Co. V. Harris, 26 Fla. 148, 23 Am. its duty to receive wag violated; St. Rep. 551, 42 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. Felder v. Columbia, etc., R. Co., 21 457 ; Brintnall v. Saratoga, etc., R. S. C. 35, 53 Am. Rep. 656, 27 Am. & Co., 32 Vt. 665. Eng. R. Cas. 264. 68. Mills V. Michigan Cent. R. Receipt of goods is presumed Co., 45 N. Y. 622, 6 Am. Rep. 152. when the connecting carrier is shown 69. Livingston v. New York to have received the car in which Cent., etc., R. Co., 76 N. Y. 631. they were when shipped. Central E., 70. Gass V. New York, etc., R. etc., Co. v. Bayer, 91 Ga. 115; East Co., 99 Mass. 220, 96 Am. Dec. 742. Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. Wright, 76 71. Western R. Co. v. Harwell, Ga. 532. Especially where it is 91 Ala. 340, 97 Ala. 341; Joseph v. shown that the car was sealed and Georgia R., etc., Co., 88 Ga. 426; the seals were unbroken. Newport Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Goldman, 46 News, etc., R. Co. v. Mendell (Ky.> 111. App. 625; Church v. Atchison, 34 S. W. 1081. Connecting Caeeiees. 467 to deliver tlie goods safely to the next carrier, and 'will not render it liable for loss or damage occurring on another line, either prior or subsequent." An intermediate carrier is liable for failure to furnish cars reasonably fit for transportation of goods received by it from a connecting carrier in cars defective or unsuitable for such shipment, and is not excused by showing that it carried the goodsi in the same cars in which, it received them from the prior line, unless it notified the consignee of the condition of the cara and shipment and obtained instructions in regard thereto.'^ If a loss of or injury to goods has occurred while in the custody of an intermediate line, its liability is not affected by the fact that the initial carrier is also liable, by express contract or otherwise.'* Where several common carriers form a continuous line, and con- tract to carry goods through and divide the compensation among 72. Eoot V. Great Western E. Co., 45 N. Y. 524; Hunt v. New York, etc., R. Co., 1 Hilt. (N. Y.) 228; Dil- lon V. New York, etc., K. Co., 1 Hilt. (N. Y.) 231; Smith v. New York Cent. E. Co., 41 N. Y. 620, 43 Barb. (N. Y.) 225, the act of 1847 only applies to the road which receives the goods for transportation, not to an intermediate road; East St. Louis, etc., E. Co. V. Wabash, etc., E. Co., 123 111. 594; Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Northern Line Packet Co., 70 HI. 217; Hill V. Burlington, etc., E. Co., 60 Iowa, 196; Carson v. Harris, 4 Greene (Iowa) 516; Swetland v. Bos- ton, etc., E. Ooi., 102 Mass. 276; South Carolina E. Co. v. Bradford, 10 Eich. L. (S. C.) 307; Galveston, etc., E. Co. V. Van Winkle, 3 Tex. App. Civ. Cas., § 443; Missouri Pac. E. Co. V. Weissman, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 86; St. Louis, etc., E. Co. v. Lear, 54 Ark. 399, and shipper cannot ofiF- set, against its claim for freight charges and back charges paid with his knowledge to a preceding car- rier, damages caused while the goods were in charge of the preceding line. Intermediate carrier nnder- taking through carriage. — Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Lewine (Tex. Civ. App.), 29 S. W. 835; Norfolk, etc., E. Co. V. Eeed, 87 Va. 185; Grant V. Northern Pac. R. Co., 22 Ont. Eep. 645. 73. Cartwright v. Rome, etc., R. Co., 85 Hun (N. Y.), 517; Shea v. Chicago, etc., R.. Co., 66 Minn. 102, 68 N. W. 608; Beard v. Illinois Cent. E. Co., 79 Iowa, 518, 18 Am. Rep. 381, 42 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 445; WaUingford v. Columbia, etc., R. Co., 26 S. C. 258, 30 Am. & Kng. R. Cas. 40; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Henderson, 57 Ark. 402, 21 S. W. 878, and the failure of its agent to sign the bill of lading is no defense. But see McCarthy v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 102 Ala. 193, 48 Am. St. Rep. 29. 74. Aigen v. Boston, etc.. R. Co., 132 Mass. 423, 6 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 426; Johnson v. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co., 90 Ga. 810; Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. V. Radbourne, 52 111. App. 203; San Antonio, etc., R. Co. t. Moore (Tex. Civ. App.), 39 S. W. 960; Anchor Line v. Dater, 68 DL 369. i68 The Law of Caeeiees. themselves, they are jointly and severally liable to the shipper for any loss on the whole line."' >75 § 11. Liability of terminal carrier — The rales stated in the last section by which the liability of intermediate carriers are de- termined apply as well to the last carrier, and upon proof of its having received the goods and of the loss or injury of the goods, it devolves upon the last carrier to prove that the loss or injury did not occur on its own line, but occurred on a prior line, or before delivery to it, or as a result of some cause set in operation before delivery to it, the consequences of which it could not prevent." Where the goods are received by the initial carrier in good condi- tion they are presumed to remain so, and where they are subse- quently delivered to the consignee by the terminal carrier in a damaged condition, the presumption is that the injury occurred on its own line, and a prima fade case is made against the dehv- ering carrier." Evidence that goods were in a damaged condition when tendered by a terminal carrier makes a prima facie case against it for the entire amount of damage, which is not overcome by simply showing that the goods were damaged to some extent, 75. Robert C. White Live Stock v. Williams, 77 Tex. 121, 42 Am. & Com. Co. V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 87 Eng. R. Cas. 464; Roach v. Canadian Mo. App. 330. Pae. R. Co., 1 Manitoba, 158. Under the English rnle that 77. Smith v. New York Cent. E. there is no privity of contract be- Co., supra; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. tween the shipper and subsequent Mazzie (Tex, Civ. App.), 68 S. W. lines, the initial carrier only is 56; Dixon v. Richmond, etc., R. Co., liable, except where a partnership 74 N. C. 538; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. exists between it and the subsequent Jones (Ind. Ten), 37 S. W. 208; lines. Coxon v. Great Western R. Grant v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 22 Co., 5 H. & N. 274, 29 L. J. Exch. Ont. Rep. 645, the last carrier is 165 ; Foulkes v. Metropolitan Dist. liable when the first carrier acted as E. Co., 28 W. R. 526; Kent v. Mid- its agent on a througn contract of land R. Co., L. R. 10 Q. B. 1, 44 L. shipment; Northern Transp. Co. v. J. Q. B. 18. McClary, 66 111. 233, both caiTiers 76. Smith v. New York Cent. R. held liable where both were negli- Co., 41 N. Y. 620, 43 Barb. (N. Y.) gent; Peoria, etc., R. Co. v. United 228; Georgia R. Co. v. Gann, 68 Ga. States Rolling Stock Co., 136 111. 350; Wolflf V. Central R. Co., 68 Ga. 643, 29 Am. St. Rep. 348, 49 Am. & 653, 45 Am. Rep. 501, 6 Am. & Etag. Eng. R. Cas. 81, last carrier not R. Cas. 441; Hawley v. Sorevens, 62 liable for loss while cars are on Ga. 347, 35 Am. Rep. 126; Louisville, switch being unloaded by the con- etc, R. Co. V. Tennessee Brewing Co., signee. See also Presumptions, § 23, 96 Tenn. 677; Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. post. Connecting Cabeiees. 469 the amount of -which is not shown, when they were delivered to it.'^ The terminal carrier has the burden of separating the dam- age sustained before it received them from that inflicted while the goods were in its charge.'^ Where grain was delivered to a car- rier for shipment to a destination beyond its own line under a through bill of lading; a sight draft, with the bill of lading at- tached, was forwarded through certain banks, for collection from the consignee, who refused to accept the same because of the non- arrival of the grain ; the draft was protested and returned to the shippers, and thereafter the connecting carrier delivered the grain to the consignee on a bond, without presentation of the bill of lad- ing, and without payment of the draft, such delivery constituted a conversion of the grain by the connecting carrier.*" Where a tra£5c arrangement .exists between two or more carriers, the con- necting carrier receiving goods from the contracting carrier be- comes a privy to the contract vsdth the shipper ; but without such traffic arrangement no such privity will be implied, and the con- necting carrier who received the goods independent of the contract ia not responsible for the wrongdoing of the contracting carrier.*' § 12. Liability for miscarriage or diversion of goods from proper route. — If a bill of lading does not stipulate for a par- ticular route beyond the terminus of the line of the connecting carrier, the implication is that any usual or reasonably direct route satisfies the contract.*^ The absence of special instructions as to route amounts to an assent to the carrier's shipping by the usual route.** And the burden is on the shipper to prove a contract to ship by a particular route.** Where goods were delivered to one carrier and its receipt for them delivered to two other carriers, whose roads formed part of a continuous route, and the agent gave a receipt for the goods, agreeing to transport them, the latter companies were liable for loss of the goods resulting from their 78. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. EdlofF, 89 109 Ind. 422, and parol evidence is Tex. 454, 34 S. W. 414. inadmissible to show that a certain 79. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Brown route was agreed upon. (Tex. Civ. App.), 37 S. W. 785. 83. Southern Kansas R. Co. v. 80. Marshall, etc.. Grain Oo. v. Duncan,. 40 Kan. 503; Frank v. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 176 Mo. Memphis, etc., R. Co., 52 Miss. 570; 480, 75 S. W. 638. Hostetter v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. 81. Shewalter v. Missouri Pac. R. (Pa.), 32 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 549. Co., 84 Mo. App. 589. 84. Dixon v. Columbus, etc., R. 82. Snow v. Indiana, etc., R. Co., Co., 4 Biss. (U. S.) 137. 470 The Law of Caeeiees. being sent in another direction from the point at which they should have been taken under the engagement entered into by the agent, unless they could show that the miscarriage of the goods was under circumstances: that would relieve them from responsi- bility.'^ A common carrier undertaking to forward goods beyond its terminus and disobeying the shipper's directions in regard theretc< is liable for their loss.*' And a deviation from instruc- tions of the shipper works a forfeiture of a special contract of shipment under which the initial carrier had limited its liability.*' Special instructions of the shipper to forward by a specified route must be followed, and if disregarded will render the carrier liable for any loss or delay, as for a conversion.** An initial carrier which receives goods for shipment with special instructions as to the route over which the consignment is to go, or under special conditions as to the manner of transportation, is bound to transmit to the connecting carrier such special instructions and conditions, and is liable for its failure to so advise the connecting carrier as for a diversion of the consignment from its proper route.*' It must so deliver the consignment to the connecting carrier that the latter will be under the same obligationsi to the shipper with respect to the goods as it would have been had it received thiem directly from the shipper.'" If an intermediate carrier, which 85. Le Sage v. Great Western R. Merchants', etc., Transp. Co., 146 Co., 1 Daly (N. Y.), 306. Mass. 315. 86. Johnson v. New York Cent. 90. Palmer v. Chicago, etc., E. R. Co., 33 N. Y. 610, 88 Am. Dee. Co., 56 Conn. 137, 35 Am. & Eng. R. 416; Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Caa. 629; Little Miami, etc., R. Co. T. Thomas, 89 Ala. 294, 18 Am. St. Rep. Washburn, 22 Ohio St. 324; Booth c 119. Missouri, etc.,, R. Co. (Tex. Civ. 87. Uptegrove v. Central R. Co., App.), 37 S. W. 168; Southern Pac. 16 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 14. R. Co. v. Booth (Tex. Civ. App.), 39 88. Michigan Southern, etc., R. S. W. 585, such a failure, while it Co. V. Day, 20 111. 375, 71 Am. Dec. will render the initial carrier liable 278; Georgia R. Co. v. Cole, 68 Ga. for damages caused to the goods by 623; Congar v. Galena, etc., R. Co., their being diverted from their 17 Wis. 477. proper route, will not constitute a 89. Patten v. Union Pac. R. Co., conversion and render the carrier ab- S9 Fed. 590; Selma, etc., R. Co. v. solutely liable for their value; Brown, Butts, 43 Ala. 385, 94 Am. Dec. 695; etc., Co. v. Pennsylvania Co., 63 Minn. Colfax Mountain Fruit Co. v. South- 546, the initial line is responsible for ern Pac. Co. (Cal.), 46 Pac. 668, the the damages occasioned, although it burden is on the carrier to show that had no reason to expect special dam- it performed this duty; North v. age. See also Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. V. Murray, 72 III. 128. CoNiirECTiNG Caeeiees. 471 limits responsibility to that of a forwarder only, neglect to give proper instructions to the connecting carrier, as to the destination and delivery of the property, it is liable to the consignor for the damages sustained thereby.'^ Whether or not special instructions ■were given to the carrier isi a question of fact.'^ Where the con- tract for carriage is in writing, partly printed and partly written, the intent of the parties is to be gathered from the entire instru- ment, the written part controlling where that and the printed part are in conflict.'' A subsequent carrier named in the bill of lading cannot sue the first carrier for loss of profits where it fails "to carry out its contract of transportation with the shipper.'* § 13. Special contracts for through transportation. — That a Tailroad or other corporation may bind itself, by a contract, to ■carry goods to a point beyond the terminus of its own line of road, and to be responsible for the safe carriage of such goods for the entire distance, is affirmed by the general current of authority, in ilngland and in this country, and such contract is not ultra vires.^ It may also contract to receive goods away from its terminus, to 91. Dana v. i*ew York Cent. R. Co., 50 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 428. Where the initial carrier gave to the shipper XI receipt providing that goods con- signed to any place beyond the ter- minus of its road should be forwarded by a carrier or freighter willing to receive the same unconditionally, and that after delivery to it, the for- mer should not be liable, evidence of an oral direction at the time to for- ward by rail only was incompetent. JHinekley v. New York Cent., etc., K. Co., 56 N. Y. 429. 92. Johnson v. New York Cent. E- Co., 39 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 127; Bird v. Georgia E. Co., 72 Ga. 655, 7 Am. & Bng. B. Cas. 39, marks on the ^oods and similar circumstances may be considered in determining the question. 93. Babcock v. Lake Shore, etc., B. Co., 49 N. Y. 491, 43 How. Pr. !. H. — Gray v. Jackson, 51 N. H. 9, 12 Am. Eep. 1; Nashua Lock Co.. V. Worcester, etc., R. Co., 48 N. H. 339, 2 Am. Eep. 242. N. 0. — ^Knott V. Ealeigh, etc., E. Co., 98 N. C. 73, 32 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 481, 2 Am. St. Eep. 321; Lindley V. Eichmond, etc., E. Co., 88 N. C. 547, 9 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 31; Phillips V. North Carolina E. Co., 7» N. C. 294. Pa. — Baltimore, etc., Steamboat Co. V. Brown, 54 Pa. St. 77. TeiB. — ^Texas, etc., E. Co. v. Lynch (Tex. Civ. App.), 73 S. W. 65; Gulf, etc., E. Co. V. Insurance Co. of N. A., (Tex. Civ. App.) 28 S. W. 237; Houston, etc., E. Co. v. Park, L Tex. App. Civ. Cas. § 332. Va. — ^Herring v. Chesapeake & W. E. Co. (Va.), 45 S. E. 322, but th& fact that a car is waybilled to a particular place is no evidence of such a contract. y*.— Hadd V. United States, etc.. Express Co., 52 Vt. 335, 36 Am. Eep. 757, 6 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 443; Morso V. Brainerd, 41 Vt. 550; Noyes t. Eutland, etc., E. Co., 27 Vt. 110. Contra: Hood v. New York, etc., E. Co., 22 Conn. 1, 502. Connecting Caeeiees. 473 that it may fairly be said to be incident to its legitimate corporate business.'^ The contract must be shown to have been made with a competent and authorized agent, since the carrier is not bound by such a contract of its agent, in the absence of express authority, or an established usage." A general freight agent has been held to have implied authority.'* Such a contract will be inferred! only from clear and satisfactory evidence; it will not be pre- sumed, but the proof must be clear and explicit.'^ Whether such an agreement was in fact made is a question for the jury, .unless it is a matter of the construction of the termsi of a bill of lading.^ A carrier contracting for through transportation is bound to fur- nish adequate facilities for such transportation, and it cannot excuse its failure to do so by showing that the usual means of trans- portation beyond its own line failed or refused to carry for it.^ § 14. What is sufficient to establish a through contract. — The custom and usage of the carrier in accepting merchandise for transportation over its road and connecting lines, the extent to which it has held itself out to the public as undertaking the respon- sibility of through transportation, the giving of a through bill of lading or waybill, the collection in advance of freight charges for the entire route, the relations existing between the initial carrier and the connecting lines, are facts and circumstances which con- stitute competent evidence to be taken into consideration by the jury in determining whether or not there was an undertaking for through liability.' The weight of it is a question for the 96. Swift V. Pacific Mail Steam- Cas. 25; Baugh v. McDaniel, 42 Ga. ship Co., 106 N. Y. 206, 30 Am. & 641; Baltimore, etc., E. Co. v. Green, Eng. E. Cas. 105, 12 N. E. 583. 25 Md. 72; Pennsylvania E. Co. v. 97. Wait V. Albany, etc., E. Co., 5 Berry, 68 Pa. St. 272, 1 Am. Ey. Lans. (N. Y.) 475; Moore v. Henry, Eep. 501. 18 Mo. App. 35; Taylor v. Chicago, 1. Pereira v. Central Pac. E. Co., etc., E. Co., 74 111. 86; Michigan 66 Cal. 92 18 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. Southern, etc., E. Co. v. Day, 20 111. 565. 375, 71 Am. Dee. 278. 2. Condict v. Grand Trunk. E. Co., 98. Eiley v. New York, etc., R. 54 N. Y. 500, 6 Am. Ey. Eep. 410; Co., 34 Hun (N. Y.), 97; Schroedei Bussey v. Memphis, etc., E. Co., IS V. Hudson Eiver E. Co., 5 Duer (N. Fed. 330, 4 McCrary (U. S.), 405; Y.), 55; Wiggins Ferry Co. v. Chi- Frank v. Memphis, etc., E. Co., 52. cago, etc., E. Co., 73 Mo. 389; Baugh Miss. 570; Arnold v. Shade, 3 Phila. T. McDaniel, 42 6a. 641. (Pa.) 82. 99. Myrick v. Michigan Cent. E. 3. Jennings v. Grand Trunk E. Co., Co., 107 U. S. 102, 9 Am. & Eng. R. 127 N. Y. 438, 49 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 474 The Law of Caeeiees. jury.* The authoritiesf generally which, maintain.the American rule that the liability of the initial carrier is limited to its own line, in the absence of an express contract, hold that the mere acceptance by a carrier of goods marked to a point beyond its line, or the mere issuing of a through bill of lading, or the mere failure to stipulate that it shall be liable only for injuries occurring on its own linei, is not sufficient to create, by implication, a contract to carry over the entire distance and to establish an undertaking for through liability, but there must be an express contract.^ On liie other hand 98, wherein the giving and accepting •of rates for through transportation and the unqualified delivery and ac- -eeptanee of the goods in pursuance thereof were held to show an under- taking for through transportation, w^hich was not modified by stipula- -tions and conditions in shipping bills which the shipper's agents, who de- livered the goods, were not author- ized to execute and of which the ■shipper had no knowledge; Ogdens- l)urg, etc., E. Co. v. Pratt, 22 Wall. intermpted. — Where the prior car- fused. — ^An intermediate carrier is rier is notified by a connecting line bound only to use reasonable dili- that it is unable to receive the good's, gence to secure further transporta- on account of a block in freight, the tion of goods by tendering them to former will be liable for damages the connecting line, and, if accept.- caused by delay, unless it notifies the ance be refused, then to notify the shipper so that he may protect him- consignor or consignee without un- self. Johnson v. New York Cent. R. reasonable delay, and store or other- Co., 39 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 127; Dem- wise care for the goods while await- ing v. Norfolk, etc., E. Co., 21 Fed. ing instructions. Having done this, 25; Peterson v. Case, 21 Fed. 885; its liability as a carrier will cease, Louisville, etc., E. Co. v. Odil, 96 and liability as a warehouseman be Tenn. 61. substituted. Buston v. Pennsylvania Connecting Caeeiees. 491 ■who may have been made a defendant, of proving that they were not injured while in its possession and were delivered in good order to the next carrier, or that the goods were damaged before being delivered to it and came into its possession thua injured. ^^ A question for the jury is raised in an action by a shipper to recover for injury to grain while in transit on account of unsuit- able ears, by evidence of a rule and universal habit of the carrier to send out only safe cars, which is not met by evidence that when the grain reached its destination it was seriously damaged by water.^^ § 24. Connecting lines as partners. — Two or more corpora- tions, each carrying over a portion of a continuous route, may enter into joint contracts for transportation, or form a partner- ship or association for the purpose of through freight and pas^ senger traffic,^* although they have no power to form pools or asso- 52. N. r.-HSinith v. New York Cent. E. Co., 43 Barb. (N. Y.) 225, affd. 41 N. Y. 620. U. S. — Dixon V. Columbus, etc., E. Co., 4 Biss. (U. S.) 137. Alaj — liouisville, etc., E. Co. v. Jones, 100 Ala. 263; Cooper v. Georgia Pao. E. Co., 92 Ala. 329; Montgomery, etc., E. Co. v. Culver, 75 Ala. 587; Georgia Pac. E. Co. v. Eughart, 90 Ala. 36. Flaj — Savannah, etc., E. Co. v. Har- ris, 26 Fla. 152. Gaj — ^Forrester v. Georgia E., etc., Co., 92 Ga. 699; Central E., etc., Co.. V. Bayer, 91 Ga. 115; Georgia E. Co. V. Gann, 68 Ga. 350; Central E. Co. v. Rogers, 66 Ga. 251. Ilh — Lake Erie, etc., E. Co. v. Oakes, 11 111. App. 489. Iowa. — Beard v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 79 Iowa, 518. Minnj — ^Leo v. St. Paul, etc., E. Co., 50 Minn. 438; Shriver v. Sioux City, «tc., E. Co., 24 Minn. 506. Miss. — Faison v. Alabama, etc., E. Co., 69 Miss. 569; Mobile, etc., E. Co. v. Tupelo Furniture Mfg. Co., 67 Miss. 35. Moj — Plyun V. St. Louis, etc., 11. Co., 43 Mo. App. 424; Crouch v. Louisville, etc., E. Co., 42 Mo. App. 248; Orr. v. Chicago, etc., B, Co., 'H Mo. App. 333. N. C. — ^Lindley v. Eichmond, etc., E. Co., 88 N. C. 547 ; Dixon v. Eich- mond, etc., E. Co., 74 N. C. 538. R. I. — ^Knight v. Providence, etc., E. Co., 13 E. I. 572. Tenn. — ^Louisville, etc., E. Co. v. Tennessee Brewing Co., 96 Tenn. 677. Texj — ^Texaa, etc., E. Co. v. Adams, 78 Tex. 372; Texas, etc., E. Co. v. Barnhart, 5 Tex. Civ. App. 601; In- ternational, etc., E. Co. V. Wolf, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 383. Vtj — Brintnall v. Saratoga, etc., E. Co., 32 Vt. 665. Wis. — ^Laughlin v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 28 Wis. 204. Compare Swet- land V. Boston, etc., E. Co., 102 Mass. 276; Farmington Mercantile Co. V. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 116 Mass. 154; Marquette, etc., E. Co. v. Kirk- wood', 45 Mich. 51. 53. Searles v. Alabama, etc., E. Co., 69 Miss. 186, 13 So. 815. 54. Swift v. Pacific Mail Steam- 492 The Law of Cakriees. ciations for the purpose of suppressing competition.^^ The effect of such a relation of partnership renders them jointly liable and each liable for the defaults of the other. ^' Such a partnership is. constituted when the connecting roads are jointly interested in a contract for the carrying of goods, in the running of the roads and the operating of the lines and share in the profits, or where they associate and form what, to the shipper, is a continuous line, and contract to carry goods through for an agreed price, which the shipper pays in one sum and the carriers divide between them. In all such cases, as to third parties with whom they contract, they are liable jointly for a loss taking place on any part of th& whole line." And the word " partners " or any particular simi- lar word to describe the relation need not be used in the dedara- ship Co., 106 N. Y. 206, 30 Am. & Eng. K. Cas. 105; Wylde v. North- ern E. Co., 53 N. Y. 156; St. Lopis Ins. Co. V. St. Louis, etc., E. Co., 104 U. S. 146; Investment Co. v. Ohio, etc., E. Co., 41 Fed. 378; Block V. Fitehburg E. Co., 139 Mass. 308; Aigen v. Boston & N. E. Co., 132 Mass. 423 ; Gass v. New York, etc., R. Co., 99 Mass. 220; Philadelphia, etc., E. Co. V. State, 58 Md. 372; Barte^ V. Wheeler, 49 N. H. 9; Hot Springs K. Co. V. Trippe, 42 Ark. 465. Con- tra : State v. Concord E. Corp., 62, N. H. 375; Burke v. Concord, E. Corp. 81 N. H. 160. But see Nashua Lock Co. V. Worcester, etc., E. Co., 48 N. H. 339; Stewart v. Erie, etc., Transp. Co., 17 Minn. 372. 55. Bissell v. Michigan Southern E. Co., 22 N. Y. 259; Pearce v. Mad- ison, etc., E. Co., 21 How. (U. S.) 441. 56. N. Y.— Swift V. Pacific Mail Steamship Co., 106 N. Y. 206 ; Wylde V. Northern E. Co., 53 N. Y. 156. Iowa. — Independence Mills Co. v Burlington, etc., E. Co., 72 Iowa, 535, Mass. — Block v. Fitehburg E. Co. 139 Mass. 308, and a special stipu- lation will not be construed to re lieve from such liability, unless no other reasonable construction ia pos- sible. Mo. — Coates v. United States Ex- press Co., 45 Mo. 238; Barrett v. In- dianapolis, etc., E. Co., 9 Mo. App> 226; Wyman v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 4 Mo. App. 35; Eice v. Indianapolis^ etc., E. Co., 3 Mo. App. 27. Neb. — ^Missouri Pae. E. Co. v.^ Twiss, 35 Neb. 267. N. H. — Barter v. Wheeler, 49 N. H. 9. N. C. — ^Washington v. Ealeigh, etc., E. Co., 101 N. C. 239; Phillips v. North Carolina E. Co., 78 N. 0. 249. Tex. — Gulf, etc., E. Co. v. Wilson, 7 Tex. Civ. App. 128; Atchison, etc., E. Co. V. Grant, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 674; Miller v. Texas, etc., E. Co., 83- Tex. 518. 57. See cases cited in last preced- ing note. Eoeky Mount Mills v. Wilmington, etc., E. Co., 119 N. 0. 693; Felder v. Columbia, etc., E. Co., 21 S. C. 35; Bradford v. South Car- olina E. Co., 7 Eich. L. (S. C.) 201; Harris v. Cheshire E. Co., (E. I.) 1ft Atl. 512; Cincinnati, etc., E. Co. v. Spratt, 2 Duv. (Ky.) 4; Gulf, etc., E. Co. V. EdlofF, (Tex. Civ. App.) 34. S. W. 410, 35 S. W. 144. CONNECTIITG CabEIEES. 493 tion or petition.^^ It is held by some authorities that one of sev- eral lines in a partnership or association may by express stipula- tion relieve itself from liability except for losses occurring on its own line;'^ but other authorities hold to the contrary.'" Where one railroad company projects, constructs, controls and manages another railroad for the purpose of a local line, it is liable for the negligence of those operating the local line ; but otherwise, where it aids, as stockholder, or bondholder, or as guarantor of bonds, another company in constructing its own road in its own name.'^ Courts will not take judicial notice of the fact that any line of railroad is a part of a general system. The fact must be estab- lished by competent proof. °^ Where connecting lines each have exclusive ownership and control of its line, mere traffic arrange- ments for continuous transportation and a proper division of freight charges pro rata, or otherwise ;^^ or an association for through carriage of freight and a division of receipts according to certain stipulated rates;'* or an agreement to share expenses 58. Wyman v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 4 Mo. App. 39; Barter v. Wheeler, 49 N. H. 25; International, etc., K. Co. V. Tisdale, 74 Tex. 8. 59. Milne v. Douglass, 4 McCrary, (U. S.) 368, 13 Fed. 37. 60. Weinberg v. Albemarle, etc., R. Co., 91 N. C. 31; Phifer v. Carolina Cent. E. Co., 89 N. C. 311. 61. Atchison, etc., E. Co. v. Da- vis, 34 Kan. 209, 25 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 312; International, etc., E. Co. V. Anderson, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 8. 62. Brown v. Piper, 91 U. S. 37; Georgia Pac. E. Co. v. Gaines, 88 Ala. 377 ; Evansville, etc., E. Co. v. Smith, 65 Ind. 92; Miller v. Texas, etc., E. Co., 83 Tex. 518. 63. Merrick v. Gordon, 20 N. Y. 96; Deming v. Norfolk, etc., E. Co., 21 Fed. 25; Straiton v. New York, etc., E. Co., 2 E. D. Sm. (N. Y.) 184, certain business regulated by a joint committee; St. Louis Ins. Co. v. St. Louis, etc., E. Co., 104 U. S. 146, contract between a dispatch company and a railroad company; St. Louis, etc., E. Co. V. Neel, 56 Ark. 279, one company furnishing facilities to an- other; Ellsworth V. Tartt, 26 Ala. 733, doing a business through a com- mon agent; Converse v. Norwich, etc., Transp. Co., 33 Conn. 166; Irvin r. Nashville, etc., E. Co., 92 111. 103; Burroughs v. Norwich, etc., E. Co., 100 Mass. 26; Wehmann v. Minne- apolis, etc., E. Co., 58 Minn. 22; Watkins v. Terre Haute, etc., E. Co., 8 Mo. App. 570, two roads doing a through business for a shipping as- sociation which furnished its own cars and agents and distributed the freight receipts; Washington v. Ealeigh, etc., E. Co., 101 N. C. 239; Galveston, etc., E. Co. v. Johnson, (Tex. Civ. App.) 37 S. W. 243; Fort Worth, etc., E. Co. v. Johnson, 5 Tex. Civ. App. 24 ; Croft v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 1 McArthur (D. C.) 492. 64. Irwin v. New York Cent. E. Co., 1 T. & C. (N. Y.) 473, aflfd. 59 N. Y. 653; Hot Springs E. Co. v. Tripple, 42 Ark. 465; Burroughs v. Norwich Transp. Co., 100 Mass. 26; Gass v. New York, etc., E. Co., 99 Mass. 220; Darling v. Boston, etc.. 494 The Law of Caeeiebs. and warehouse facilities f^ or to pay damages in certain cases in certain proportions," do not constitute the several carriers part- ners, nor render one of them liable for loss or injury occurring on another line. Where there was no joint expense, or loss, or profit, except that where a loss could not be located on a particular road, a pro rata share of the loss was borne by all who carried the freight, .there was no partnership created thereby." § 25. Rights of connecting carriers as to charges. — ^Where the initial carrier has guaranteed a fixed rate of freight over connect- ing lines, it is liable for the failure of the connecting lines to make the rate agreed, and the shipper has a right of action against it to recover for charges made in excess of the guaranteed rate.** But, in the absence of proof that the initial carrier was authorized to bind the connecting carrier by a contract to carry at a fixed rate, the shipper or consignee cannot recover such excess charges from the subsequent carrier. °' Each connecting carrier is entitled to charge its regular rates over its own line, and is not bound by the acts of any previous carrier, unless such carrier was author- ized to act for it, by special agreement or otherwise, and may recover its charges from the shipper or consignee although in excess of the amount fixed by the first carrier.™ And each ooiir E. Corp., 11 Allen (Mass.) 295; Phifer v. North Carolina Cent. R. Co., 89 N. C. 311; Fremont, etc., K. Co. V. Waters, (Neb.) 70 N. W. 225, a "system"' is not a partnership; Brad- ford V. South Carolina R. Co., 10 Rich. L. (S. C.) 221; Fort Worth, etc., R. Co. V. Williams, 77 Tex. 121; Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Baird, 73 Tex. 256; Miller v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 83 Tex. 518, entire freight charges col- lected by one line under agreement. 65. Mohawk, etc., E. Co. v. Niles, 3 Hill (N. Y.) 162. 66. Shiff V. New York Cent, etc., R. Co., 16 How. (N. Y.) 278, affd. 81 N. Y. 638; Aigen v. Boston, etc., E. Co., 132 Mass. 423. 67. Irwin v. Nashville, etc., R. Co., 82 111. 103, 34 Am. Rep. 116. 68. Little Rook, etc., R. Co. v. Daniels, 49 Ark. 352 ; Little Rock, etc., E. Co. V. Odom, 63 Ark. 326, but it i* not liable for the conversion of the consignment by the last carrier by a refusal to deliver except upon the payment of a greater rate. See als7 Sherman, etc., E. Co. v. Beebe, (Tex. Civ. App.) 39 S. W. 1102; Fry ?. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 103 Ind. 265; Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Wilkens, 44 Md. 11; Tardos v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 35 La. Ann. 15. 69. Detroit, etc., R. Co. v. Mc- Kenzie, 43 Mich. 609; Mt. Pleasant Mfg. Co. V. Cape Fear, etc., R. Co., 106 N. C. 207; Schneider v. Evans, 25 Wis. 241; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Dwyer, 75 Tex. 572. 70. Wells V. Thomas, 27 Mo. 17; Georgia, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, 83 6a. 626. Connecting Caeeiees. 49S necting carrier has a lien upon the goods for his unpaid freight until they are delivered to the consignee." Any carrier may pay to the preceding carrier back charges due for transportation to its- line, and reoover the amount of such advances, together with its own charges, from the owner of the goods ;" and may recover such advances, although he fails to perform his own contract." But no intermediate carrier is obliged to advance charges due to a pre- ceding line, or to assume the payment of such charges, in the absence of an express contract, or evidence of some usage, custom or settled course of dealing between the parties from which a contract might be implied.'* 71. Patten v. Union Pac. E. Co., 29 Fed. 590; Price v. Denver, etc., R. Co., 12 Colo. 402; Lewis v. Kichmond, etc., E. Co., 25 S. C. 249; Southern Kansas E. Co. v. Duncan, 40 Kan. 503. See also St. Louis, etc., E. Co. V. Lear, 54 Ark. 399. 72. Bissel v. Price, 16 111. 408; White V. Vann, 6 Humph. (Tenn.) 70. 73. Western Transp. Co. v. Hoyt, 69 N. Y. 230, 25 Am. Eep. 175, and the fact that his bill of lading is for transportation and delivery upon payment of freight and charges does not affect his right. 74. New York, etc., E. Co. v. Na- tional Steamship Co., 137 N. Y. 23,. aflfg. 62 Hun (N. Y.) 621, 14 N. Y. Supp. 253; Oregon Short Line, etc., 145. See also Canfield v. North- Ted. 465, 51 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. E. Co. v. Northern Pac. E. Co., 51 em E. Co., 18 Barb (N. Y.) 686, a» to special contract for deduction of damages from charges by consignee,, a carrier being an intermediate con- signee. CHAPTER XVIII. Cakeiees of Live Stock. Section 1. Carriers of live stock are common carriers. 2. Duty to receive and carry. 3. Duty in respect to facilities and means of transportatioH. 4. Stock pens and yards. 5. Shipper's knowledge of defects in cars. 6. Duty to provide food, water, and rest for stock. 7. When shipper assumes duty of caring for stock. 8. Other duties in respect to transportation. 9. Statutes limiting the confinement of cattle. 10. Liability for loss or injury. 11. Commencement and termination of liability. 12. Liability for delay in transportation or delivery. 13. Delivery to carrier. 14. Delivery by carrier. 15. Contributory negligence of owner. 16. Measure of damages. 17. Limitation of liability. 18. Stipulations that shipper will accompany stock, load, and unload. 19. Injuries caused by viciousness of animals, or defects in cars. 20. Stipulations as to claim for damages. 21. Limitation of liability to a specified amount. 22. Loss or injury due to carrier's negligence. 23. Stipulation requiring shipper to report condition of stock. 24. Limitations rendered inoperative. 25. Presumptions and burden of proof. 26. Liability of connecting carriers. 27. Liability for improper loading or unloading. 28. Liability for animals escaping. § 1. Carriers of live stock are common carriers. — Carriers of live stock are common carriers, subject to all the duties, responsi- bilities, and liabilities, and entitled to all the rights and privi- leges, of a common carrier of merchandise or other inanimate property, save in one important respect. While common carriers are insurers of inanimate property against all loss and damage except such as is inevitable or attributable to the act of God, or caused by pubUc enemies, and except that they are not held liable for losses which result from the inherent and intrinsic qualities (496) Caeeiees of Live Stock. 49'i of the goods carried by them, as carriers of live stock they are not insurers of animals against injuries arising from or attributable to the natural or proper vices, or the inherent nature, propensi- ties and habits of the animals themselves, and -which could not be prevented by foresight, vigilance and care.^ In Michigan the rule is maintained that a railroad company is not a common car- rier of live stock unless it specially assumes to act as such.^ Car- riers of live stock include all who hold themselves out as -willing to carry such stock for all -who ask for their service and offer to pay their hire, and -who undertake the transportation for hire.' live stock includes awine,* dogs,^ and pigeons,* as -well as all cattle. § 2. Duty to receive and carry. — Where a common carrier has held itself out as a carrier of live stock, or is made by statute a common carrier of all personal property, it is bound to accept and 1. N. Y. — ^Mynard v. Syracuse, etc., H. Co., 71 N. Y. 180, 27 Am. Rep. 28; Penn v. BuflFalo, etc., E. Co., 49 N. Y. 204, 10 Am. Rep. 355, 3 Am. Ey. Rep. 355; Clarke v. Rochester, etc., R. Co., 14 N. Y. 570, 67 Am. Dee. 205. XJ. 8. — Myrick v. Michigan Cent. E. Co., 107 U. S. 102, 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 25. Arh. — Fordyce v. McFlynn, 56 Ark. 424. 111. — Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Fox, 113 111. App. 180; Coles v. Louisville, «tc., R. Co., 41 111. App. 607. Ind. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Wood- ward, (Ind.) 72 N. E. 558. Mo.— Cash V. Wabash R. Co., 81 Mo. App. 109; Leonard v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 54 Mo. App. 293; Doan V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 38 Mo. App, 408. Tenn. — Baker v. Louisville, etc., E. ■Co., 10 Lea (Tenn.) 304, 16 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 149; Nashville, etc., R. Co. V. Jackson, 6 Heiak. (Tenn.) 273. Tex. — ^Missouri Pac. E. Co. v. 32 Graves, 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas., § 675; Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Ellison, 70 Tex. 491. Vt. — ^Kimball v. Rutland, etc., R. Co., 26 Vt. 247, 62 Am. Dec. 567. Eng. — ^Moflfat v. Great Western R. Co., 15 L. T. N. S. 630; Hodgman v. West Maryland R. Co., 5 B. & S. 173, 117 E. C. L. 173, 13 W. R. 758, 35 L. J. Q. B. 85. See also cases cited I 10, note 76. 2. Smith V. Michigan Cent. E. Co., 100 Mich. 148, 43 Am. St. Rep. 440; Lake Shore, etc., E. Co. v. Perkins, 23 Mich. 329, 12 Am. Rep. 275; Michi- gan Southern, etc., R. Co. v. McDon- ough, 21 Mich. 165, 4 Am. Rep. 466; Great Western R. Co. v. Hawkins, 13 Mich. 427. 3. See Common Carriers, chap. 2, § 3. 4. Central R. Co. v. Pickett, 87 Ga. 734. 5. See Common Carriers, chap. 2, § 40. 6. American M. U. Express Co. v. Phillips, 29 Mich. 515. 498 The Law of Caeeiees. carry all live stock properly tendered for transportation, and wiE be liable to an action for refusal to receive and carry stock so ten- dered.' Where a railroad company fails to furnish stock cars- within a reasonable time after their being ordered, it is liable ta the shipper for the expense of holding the cattle while waiting for the cars.* A carrier cannot excuse its failure to receive and carry by showing that the stock was tendered by a connecting lin& on Sunday,' or by setting up an unconstitutional statute wMck prohibited, the transportation of such cattle as were tendered.^ An undertaking by the carrier to transport the property may be- implied from the ciroumstances under which it comes into his possession, and in that case he is charged with the same responsi- bility for its safety as though his obligation to transport it was created by express agreement. An express contract to carry need not, therefore, be shown.-'^ § 3. Duty in respect to facilities and means of transportatioa — ^A commoDi carrier is bound to employ safe and sufficient means of carriage, trustworthy andi competent servants, and, by itself or its agents, to exercise an intelligent supervision over the system, of carriage which it employs. It is therefore to all intents and purposes an insurer against such perils of transportation as it is. its duty to provide against ; and these include all the perils of thff journey except such as arise from the act of God or the public ene- mies." The obligation of a carrier to provide cars upon demand is the same in respect to the carriage of live stock as of meirehan- dise.^' A carrier of live stock is bound to provide cars properly 7. South, etc., E. Co. v. Henlein, 52 9. Philadelphia, etc., E. Co. v.. Ala. 606, 23 Am. Eep. 578; Wabash, Lehman, 56 Md. 209, 5 Am. & Eng. etc., E. Co. V. Black, 11 HI. App. E. Cas. 194, 40 Am. Ey. Eep. 415; 465 ; Ballentine v. North Missouri E. Guinn v. Wabash, etc., E. Co., 20 M»- Co., 40 Mo. 491, 93 Am. Deo. 315; App. 453. Texas Pac. E. Co. v. Nicholson, 61 10. Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Erick- Tex. 491. See Louisville, etc., E. Co. son, 91 111. 613, 33 Am. Eep. 70. V. Godman, 104 Ind. 490, holding 11. Aiken v. Chicago, etc., E. Oo,f failure to maintain fences and b8 Iowa, 363, 25 Am. & Eng. E Cas. shutes in good order by reason of 378. which cattle escaped, was insufficient 12. Trace v, Pennsylvania E. Co.^ to constitute a refusal to carry. 26 Pa. Super. Ct. 466. 8. Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Smith & 13. Newport News, etc. E. Co. ■■'- White, (Tex. Civ. App.) 79 S. W. Mercer, 96 Ky. 475; White v. Mia- 614. Bouri Pac. E. Co., 19 Mo. App. 400^ Caebiees of Live Stock. 499 constructed, of sufficient strengtli, safe, fit and suitable under existing conditions for the transportation of tlie stock tendered for shipment, due consideration being given to the kind, character, and value of the stock, and to exercise due care to carry safely." It has been held that the cars and doors must be absolutely and actually sufficient to prevent cattle breaking through and escaping although they may be unruly and vicious.^^ On the other hand it has been held that it is enough if the cars are reasonably safe and suitable for the purpose for which they are to be used, and that the carrier is not bound to provide the safest and most approved cars or the best appliances in use." In an action to recover dam- ages the shipper must prove the car to have been defective or unsniitable," and ■where there is a conflict of testimony as to whether the car or its fixtures were suitable, the question is one Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Hume, 87 Tex. 211; Lawrence v. Milwaukee, etc., E. Co., 84 Wis. 427. this duty ia im- posed by statute in Wisconsin and other States. Ayres v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 71 Wis. 372, 75 Wis. 215. Cars for exclusive nse. — ^When a shipper requires a car at a railroad station for his exclusive use, he must give notice to the railroad company, after which it will have a reasonable time in which to furnish the car. Il linois Cent. E. Co. v. Bundy, 97 lU App. 202. Where shippers held their cattle at a certain point on account of a railroad's failure to furnish cars at an agreed time, they could re- cover on account of defects in the cars finally furnished them, whether they demanded other cars in writing or not. Gulf, etc., E. Co. v. Irvine & Woods. (Tex. Civ. App.) 73 S. W. 540. 14. Western E. Co. v. Harwell, 91 Ala. 340; Union Pac. E. Co. v. Eainey, Ig Colo. 225; Indianapolis, etc., E. Co. V. Strain, 81 111. 540; St. Louis, etc., E. Co. v. Dorman, 72 HI. £04 ; Betts v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 92 Iowa, 343; McDaniel v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 24 Iowa, 412; Ehodes v. Louisville, etc., E. Co., 9 Bush (Ky.) 688; Great Western E. Co. v. Hawk- ins, 18 Mich. 427; Harrison v. Mis- souri Pac. E. Co., 74 Mo. 364; East Tennessee, etc., E. Co. v. Whittle, 27 Ga. 535; Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Will- iams, 61 Neb. 608, 85 N. W. 832; Blower v. Great Western E. Co., L. E. 7 C. P. 655, 41 L. J. C. P. 268. See also The Braritford City, 29 Fed. 373, as to cattle fittings on vessel. 15. Pratt V. Ogdensburg, etc., R. Co., 102 Mass. 557; Smith v. New Haven, etc., E. So., 12 Allen (Mass.) 531, 90 Am. Dec. 166; Indianapolis, etc., E. Co. V. Strain, 81 111. 504; Betts V. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 92 Iowa, 343. 16. Illinois Cent. E. Co. v. Haynes, 63 Miss. 485; Selby v. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 113 N. C. 588. 17. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Hen- derson, 57 Ark. 402, car alleged to have been infected with Texas fever; 'Morrison v. Phillips, etc., Constr. Co., 44 Wis. 405, injury caused by car wheel breaking. 600 The Law of Caeeiees. for the jury.^ Tke fact that the ear used waa similar to those the carrier had always used for the purpose is no defense if the car was in fact defective." The carrier is liable for negligence in failing to properly bed the cars, if it has undertaken to supply bedding.^" But if the bedding of the cars was included in the loading to be done by the shipper/^ or if the shipper accepted and loaded a car without objection, knowing that it was not " bedded,^ or was present when the cars were bedded and expressed his satis- faction therewith, whereupon the carrier ceased to bed the cars and turned them over to the shipper to be loaded,"' such facts if found, constitute a defense. Where defendant carrier placed a horse delivered to it for transportation in a car, one door of which could not be closed, and the car was put in a train without i being inspected, and, after the train started, the horse fell out of the car and was killed, the carrier was held guilty of gross n^li- gence within a provision in the contract of shipment that the car- rier should not be liable except for gross negligence.^* The charac- ter of cars to be provided for transporting certain classes of Hve stock is sometimes provided by statute, and such provisions have been held to be reasonable regulations of common carriers and constitutional.^^ It is not necessary to plead or prove the defend- ant's negligence in an action against a carrier for injuries to a shipment of stock, caused by its failure to provide proper cars, since it is responsible for such injuries, without regard to the question of negligence.^* § 4. Stock pens and yards. — A railroad company as a carrier of live stock is obliged to provide necessary means and facilities, such as good and sufficient stock pens and yardg at its depot, for 18. Haynes v. Wabash R. Co., 54 24. Root v. New York, etc., R. C!o., ' Mo. App. 582; Armstrong v. Uniteil 83 Hun (N. Y.) Ill, 31 N. Y. Supp. States Express Co., 159 Pa. St. 640. 357. 19. Leonard v. Fitehburg R. Co., 25. Emerson v. St. Louis, etc., E. 143 Mass. 307. Co., Ill Mo. 161, as to statute re- 20. Powell V. Pennsylvania R. Co., quiring double-decked cars for sheep; 32 Pa. St. 414, 75 Am. Dee. 564. Paddock v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 1 21. Atchison v. Chicago, etc., R. Mo. App. Rep. 87, as to statute re- Co., 80 Mo. 213. quiring all stock cars to be pro- 22. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. vided with trap doors. Johnson, 75 Ala. 596. 26. International, etc., R. Co. 7. 23. Texas Cent. R. Co. v. O'Laugh- Pool (Tex. Civ. App.), 59 S. W. 911. lin, (Tex. Civ. App.) 72 S. W. 610. Caebiees of Live Stock. 501 receiving live stock offered it for shipment, and for its delivery to the consignee," and suck other facilities as may be necessary for the safe and convenient loading and unloading of the stock.^* But a railroad company, in providing pens for delivering cattle at a certain point, is only required to have such a number of pens as, according to the business of the carrier at that point, is suffi- cient for the ordinary and usual volume of business, and the busi- ness of other carriers there is immaterial.^' The shipper is entitled to recover for any damages caused to his stock by reason of the carrier's failure to provide such facilities and to keep them safe, or to provide suitable facilities for stock unloaded en route 1o feed,'" or on account of a delay,'^ or for unloading the stock after 27. Covington Stock- Yards Co. v. Keith, 139 U. S. 128, 49 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 149, 35 L. Ed. 73, 9 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 382, 11 Sup. Ct. 461; Lackland v. Chicago, etc., Ey. Co. (Mo. App.), 74 S. W. 505, and it id at least open to the jury to find pens on ground sloping to the south, with no shade, shelter or water thereon, and an embankment to the soutli, shutting off the breeze, are not safe pens for fat hogs in June; Mint V. Boston, etc., R. Co. (N. H.), 59 Atl. 938, duty of railroad under statute. Bailroad companies cannot absolve themselvea from their statutory duty to keep suitable pens for the shipment of cattle, by show- ing that they were so badly kept or constructed as to make it contribu- tory negligence upon the part of the shipper to use them. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Trawick, 80 Tex. 270, 15 8. W. 568; Gulf, etc., E. Co. v. Wood (Tex. Civ. App.), 30 S. W. 715; Gal- veston, etc., R. Co. V. Jackson (Tex. Civ. App.), 37 S. W. 255; Mason »'. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 25 Mo. App. 473. Delivery of live stock to a carrier is complete, so that its lia- bility as such attaches, where the shipper applies to the carrier's freight agent for transportation, and, at his direction, places the ani- mals in the usual place for receiv- ing them for shipment; the agent being then notified thereof, and tak- ing directions for their shipment. Lackland v. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. (Mo. App.), 74 S. W. 505. But a mere permission of the carrier's agent to use the stock pens, no con- tract of shipment having been made or bill of lading given, is insufficient. Fort Worth, etc., E. Co. v. Riley (Tex. App.), 1 S. W. 446, 27 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 49. 28. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. Herrman, 92 Ga. 384, defective plat- form; Owen V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 87 Ky. 626; Armstrong v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 45 Minn. 85; Missouri, etc., E. Co. v. Wood (Tex. Civ. App.), 31 S. W. 237. 29. Casey v. St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 83 S. W. 20. 30. International, etc., E. Co. v. McRae, 82 Tex. 614, 27 Am. St. Rep. 926. 31. Feinberg v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 52 N. J. L. 451, 45 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 348; Chapin v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 70 Iowa, 582, 42 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 542. 602 The Law of Cabeiees. the transportation is ended and keeping them until called for ly the owner or consignee.^^ Where a railroad company does not provide suitable facilities for the delivery of live stock contracted to be carried by it, it may be compelled to deliver through facilities furnished by the consignee.^' The carrier cannot, without special contract, require compensation from the shipper or consignee for providing such means and facilities for shipment, transportation, and delivery in addition to the charges for transportation, since it must at all times be in proper condition both to receive from tJie shipper and to deliver to the consignee, according to the nature of the property to be transported.'* But it may charge a separate item for the transfer from its line to stockyards not on its line over tracks owned by the stockyards company, where the printed schedule shows in two items the compensation for the haul over its ^ own line to its station, and that exacted for the transfer from its station to the place of delivery, and delivery was to be made at the stockyards.'^ § 5. Shipper's knowledge of defects in cars Where the owner of property to be transported makes his own selection of the vehicles, under circumstances which charge him with full knowl- edge of all their capabilities and defects, the carrier is not respon- sible for any injury which may result exclusively from such de- fects. It is required of the carrier, however, to see that the owner has such knowledge. The carrier need not point out such defects aa are palpable, and wMich could not well be overlooked without some degree of negligence, but if the vehicles selected have defects which are not pointed out, it is incumbent upon the carrier to prove affirmatively that they were open, visible and apparent.** 32. Myrick v. Michigan Cent. E. Co., 51 Fed. 611, 50 Am. & Eng. R. Co., 9 Biss. (U. S.) 44; Chesapeake, Cas. 554. etc., E. Co. V. American Exch. Bank, 35. Walker v. Keenan, 73 Fed. 755, 82 Va. 495; Cooke v. Kansas City, 34 U. S. App. 691, 19 C. C. A. 668. ' etc., E. Co., 57 Mo. App. 471; Moses 86. Harris v. Northern Indiana B. V. Port Townsend Southern E. Co., Co., 20 N. Y. 232, but the selection 6 Wash. 595; Gulf, etc., E. Co. v. by the shipper of defective cars, by York, 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. § 812. which the injury was caused, did not 33. Covington Stock- Yards Co. v. relieve the carrier from responsibility Keith, supra. in the case of an improper detention: 34. Covington Stock- Yards Co. v. Illinois Cent. E. Co. v. Hall, 58 111. Keith, supra. See also Oregon Short 409, hogs escaping owing to defects Line, etc., E. Co. v. Ilwaco R., etc., in the fastenings ef ears of another Cakeiees of Live Stock. 503 Tte shipper is not to be charged witli knowledge of defects not patent and easily recognized." He must not only have known of the defect causing the losis, but must have expressly agreed to assume the risk of loss therefrom, and mere acceptance of the cars is not a waiver of the defects f^ nor the mere presence of the ship- per while the stock were being loaded, he having no control over the train or the carrier's servants.^^ A provision in a contract of shipment or bill of lading that the shipper agrees to accept the •cars furnigihed him, or that he had examined the cars and found them safe and suitable, does not estop the shipper to show that the cars were in fact unsafe, or relieve the carrier from liability for injuries caused by its negligence in supplying defective or insufficient ears. The carrier has the burden of proving that the •cars were suitable where there is evidence on both sides of the question.*" But an agreement in a bill of lading that, in consid- «ration of a reduced rate of shipment, the shipper agrees to ex- amine the cars and assume all risks of injuries through insecurity -of or defects in the cars, vsdll be binding on the shipper, if made in good faith and an opportunity is given to inspect the carsi or make objection to them." A carrier is not bound to carry live stock in the same cars in which it received them from a connect- ■company, selected by the shipper, af- Pr. (U. S.) 84, 102 Mass. 557; Wal- ter refusing to use the ears of the de- lingford v. Columbia, etc., E. Co., 26 fendant carrier; Coupland v. Housa- S. C. 258; Kansas City, etc., E. Co. ■tonic E. Co., 61 Conn. 531, 55 Am. & v. Holland, 68 Miss. 351. Eng. R. Cas. 380, shipper, informed 39. Peters v. New Orleans, etc., E. ■of defects, offered more suitable cars Co., 16 La. Ann. 222, 79 Am. Dec. at a higher and not unreasonable 678. rate, which he refused; Betts v. 40. Western E. Co. v. Harwell, 91 Farmers' L. & T. Co., 21 Wis. 80, 91 Ala. 340; Gulf, etc., E. Co. v. Wil- Am. Dec. 460, shipper recognizing de- helm, 3 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. § 457. fects and attempting to repair them 41. Squire v. New York Cent. R. without advising the carrier; Chi- Co., 98 Mass. 239. See Welsh v. •cago, etc., E. Co. v. Van Dresar, 22 Pittsburg, etc., E. Co., 10 Ohio St. Wis. 611; Miltimore v. Chicago, etc., 65, 75 Am. Dec. 490, holding that it E. Co., 37 Wis. 190; Great Western is not competent for a carrier to pro- E. Co. V. Hawkins, 18 Mich. 427. vide by special contract that it will 37. Union Pac. E. Co. v. Eainey, not be responsible for its neglect, or 19 Colo. 225, 61 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. the unsafe condition of the doors of 302 ; Haynes v. Wabash E. Co., 54 its cattle cars ; Gregory v. West Mid- Mo. App. 582. land E. Co., 2 H. & C. 944, 19 Cent^ 38. Ogdensburg, etc., E. Co. v. L. J. 165. Pratt, 22 Wall. (U. S.) 123, 49 How. 504 The La.w of Caeeiees. ing line, and the fact that the cars used belonged to and were fur- nished to the shipper by another company will not relieve a cai' rier from liability caused by defects in such cars.*^ § 6. Duty to provide food, water, and rest for stock. — In the absence of a special contract of shipment providing otherwise, a carrier transporting live stock must afford proper facilities and reasonable opportunities for feeding, watering, and resting the. stock during the transportation, and supply food, water, and rest,, at proper intervals along the route, and, if necessary, to unload them for that purpose.*^ But it is not required to supply food,, water, and unload for rest on the mere request of the shipper,, without regard to the reasonablenessi of the demand." The carrier having control of the train is responsible for an injury to stock, from their not being watered at a- place where they are detained by a collision, and the shipper is not obliged to persist in attempt- ing to water the stock until forcibly resisted, nor to make an actual demand that the train should proceed.*^ It is the duty of the car- rier to furnish suitable water for the stock, and it is not relieved from liability by s'howing that unwholesome water furnished was the water afforded by that section, where water for the people at that place was hauled there, so that it was not impossible by reasonable effort to have furnished wholesome water for the stock.*' In some States statutes provide that the carrier shall feed 42. Pennsylvania Co. v. Roy, 102 nibal, etc., R. Co., 68 Mo. 268, and U. S. 452; St. Louis, etc., E. Co. v. to unload, feed and water them at Henderson, 57 Ark. 4j02; McAlister the journey's end, if there be delay V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 74 Mo. 351 ; in making delivery, and the health of Wallingford v. Columbia, etc., R. Co., the animals requires it; Taylor, etc., 26 S. C. 258; Louisville, etc., R. Co. E. Co. v. Montgomery, 4 Tex. App. v. Dies, 91 Tenn. 177; Combe v. Lon- Civ. Cas. § 237, 16 S. W. 178; Gulf, don, etc., K. Co., 31 L. T. N. S. 631. etc., R. Co. v. Wilhelm (Tex. App.), 43. Harris v. Northern Indiana R. 16 S. W. 109; Abrams v. Milwaukee, Co., 20 N. Y. 233; Toledo, etc., K. etc., E. Co., 87 Wis. 485; Taff Vale Co. V. Hamilton, 76 111. 393; Toled... R. Co. v. Giles, 23 L. J. Q. B. 43; etc., R. Co. V. Thompson, 71 111. 434, Allday v. Great Western R. Co., 5 and it is no excuse that a pump at B. & S. 903, 11 E. C. L. 903. its station was accidentally out of 44. Missouri, etc., Ey. Co. v. Clark order unless it was not due to its (Tex. Civ. App.), 79 S. W. 827. negligence and there were no other 45. Harris v. Northern Indiana R. means of watering the stock; Illi- Co., 20 N. Y. 233. nois Cent. R. Co. v. Adams, 42 111. 46. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. v. Mit- 474, 92 Am. Dec. 85; Dunn v. Han- chell (Tex. Civ. App.), 85 S. W. 288. CaeeielEs of Live Stock. 505 and water cattle being transported over its road, and in case of default shall be liable for all damages resulting therefrom, and also for a, fixed penalty." §' 7. Where shipper assumes duty of caring for stock Where, by the contract for carrying the stock, the shipper agrees to feed and water it, there can be no recovery of damages against the carrier arising from failure to care for, feed, and water.** A contract between a carrier of live stock and the shipper that ship- per shall take care of and feed and water the cattle, whether de- layed in transit or otherwise, is valid, and the carrier is not liable for injuries by failing to feed and water." But under a contract of shipment, providing that the shipper s'hall take care of, feed,, water, and tend the stock during transportation, and his agent goes along with them, the carrier must furnish reasonable facili- ties for feeding and watering, but has no duty to feed and water.^"' It 13 prima fade negligence for a car- rier of live stock to give the stock alkaline water injurious in its efTect, and it does not devolve on the ship- per to show that the carrier did not know that the cattle were not ac- customed to such water, where tlie carrier, from the contract of ship- ment, must have known that the stock came from a, place outside of the alkaline region. Id. 47. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Gray, 87 Tex. 312; Galveston, etc., E. Co. v. Thompson (Tex. Civ. App.), 23 8. W. 930; Good V. Galveston, etc., E. Co. (Tex.), 11 S. W. 854; Missouri Pae. E. Co. v. Texas, etc., E. Co., 41 Fed. 913. 48. Paul V. Pennsylvania E. Co. (N. J. Sup.), 57 Atl. 139; Western E. Co. V. Harwell, 91 Ala. 340; South, etc., Alabama E. Co. v. Hen- lein, 52 Ala. 606; Central, etc., R. Co. V. Bryant, 73 6a. 722; Duvenick V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 57 Mo. App. 550; Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. Mullins, 70 Miss. 730, it is a question for the jury whether the shipper was guilty of contributory negligence where the evidence is conflicting as" to whether he was prevented from feeding and watering the stock by the acts of the carrier's servants. The shipper is not relieved from, duty by delay. Fort Worth, etc., R.. Co. v. Daggett, 87 Tex. 322. Nor by the fact that his agent, in charge of the cattle, left his employ and be- came an employe of the carrier. Id. 49. Cragin v. New York Cent. R.. Co., 51 N. Y. 61, 10 Am. Eep. 559; Heineman v. Grand Trunk E. Co., 31 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 430; Lewis v. Pennsylvania E. Co.'(N. J. Sup.), 56 Atl. 128, 59 Atl. 1117; Seaboard, etc., R. Co. V. Cauthen, 115 6a. 422, 41 S. E. 653; Georgia R., etc., Co. v. Reid, 91 Ga. 377; Boaz v. Central R. Co., 87 Ga. 463; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Trent, 11 Lea. (Tenn.) 82. 50. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Byers Bros. (Tex. Civ. App.), 73 S. W. 427; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Martin, 8 Ky. L. Eep. 432; Duvenick v. Mis- souri Pac. E. Co., 57 Mo. App. 550. The carrier is liable for damage from 606 The Law of Carbtebs. Upon being requested by tbe owneu, the carrier is bound to place the cars in a convenient and accessible place, if practicable, so that the owner can unload and take care of the cattle and reload, and it is responsible for resultant damages from its failure or refusal to do so.^^ Whether the shipper assumed the duty of caring for the stock must be determined from the written contract or from the circumstances attending the shipment, and where there is a conflict of evidence as to the facts the question is one for the jury.^^ The mere proof of a custom,^ or the fact of the shipper's accompanying the stock,^^ is not conclusive proof that he was to attend to their safety during the journey. A carrier cannot transfer to the shipper the duty to feed and water stock during transportation by a custom requiring him to go along on the same train with the stock to feed and water them at his own risk and expense, since a custom not to receive for transportation any live stock unless under conditions modifying its common law liability would be contrary to law and puWic policr^.^ Though a contract of shipment of cattle provided that the shipper should at his own risk feed and water his stock while en route, where the carrier undertook to perform that duty against the protest of plaintiff, it was liable for damages resulting from a negligent per- formance thereof.^' Where a carrier transporting live stock had failure to furnish proper facilities Co., 84 N. Y. 5, 3 Am. & Eng. E. lor feeding and watering. Wabash, Cas. 318; Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. etc., K. Co. V. Pratt, 15 111. App. 177; Heggie, 86 Ga. 210; Texas, etc., R. Illinois Cent. E. Co. v. Eblen, 24 Ky. Co. v. Stribling (Tex. Civ. App.), 34 L. Rep. 1609, 71 S. W. 919; Smith v. S. W. 1002; Norfolk, etc., E. Co. v. Michigan Cent. E. Co., 100 Mich. 148, Sutherland, 89 Va. 703. 68 N. W. 651; Fort Worth, etc., R. 52. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Dls- Co. V. Daggett, 87 Tex. 322, 28 S. W. brow, 76 Ga. 253. 525; Comer v. Stewart, 97 Ga. 403; 53. Evansville, etc., E. Co. v. Bryant v. North Western R. Co., 68 Young, 28 Ind. 516. Oa. 805; Feinberg v. Delaware, etc,, 54. Clarke v. Rochester, etc., R. E. Co., 52 N. J. L. 451; Black v. Co., 14 N. Y. 573, 67 Am. Dec. 205; Chicago, etc., R. Co., 30 Neb. 197; Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. Truesdale, liowensteln v. Wabash R. Co., 63 Mo. 99 Ala. 389. App. 68; Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. 55. Missouri Pao. R. Co. v. Fagan, Ivey (Tex. Civ. App.), 23 S. W. 321; 72 Tex. 127, 13 Am. St. Rep. 776, 36 Comer v. Columbia, etc., E. Co., 62 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 666. S. C. 36; Chesapeake, etc., E. Co. v. 56. 101 Live Stock Co. v. Kansas The American Exchange Bank, 92 Va. City, etc., E. Co., 100 Mo. App. 674, ■495. 75 S. W. 782. A shipper of cattle 61. Bills V. New York Cent. R. whose contract provided that he aa- Caejiiebs of Live Stock. 507 not contracted to feed and water the stock, and it was accom- panied by a care taker, the carrier was not chargeable with neglect to afford an opportunity to feed and water' them until it was re- quested by the care taker to do so and had refused.^' § 8. Other duties in respect to transportation A railroad company undertaking to transport live stock is liable for the negli- gence of its agents and servants, but not as insurer.^' It is bound to exercise reasonable care for their safe transportation and to take such precautions against injury as reasonable prudence would suggest. Its duty of general supervision over the stock committed to its charge requires it to keep a reasonably careful watch to pre- vent their injuring each other during the journey by crowding, or " piling up,"'' or from being injured by suffocation,^" or strangulation.*^ It must seasonably cause water to be poured on hogs in danger of becoming overheated during the transporta- tion.*^ Where stock in course of transportation are in danger of becoming injured or killed by further transportation, because of fright, suffering, need of rest, or an unsafe manner of loading, it is the carrier's duty to side^-track and lay off the car and unload it, or in order that it may be unloaded by the shipper.*^ Such un- sumed all risks and expenses of feed- W. 25. Where hogs were delivered ing and watering them while in cars to a railroad company, as directed by or pens, cannot recover for damages its agent, just prior to the schedule to them from want of water while at time for arrival of the train upon the station from which they were which they were shipped, the duty shipped, where they were in pens of moving them without unreasonable from the forenoon till they were load- delay was imposed upon defendant. ed during the night, though the car- McCrary v. Missouri, etc., Ey. Co, Tier's agent, when asked about water- 99 Mo. App. 518, 74 S. W. 2. ing them, told the shipper there was 59. Kinnick v. Chicago, etc., R. no water in the pens; the shipper Co., 69 Iowa, 665. not testifying that he asked for water 60. Sturgeon v. St. Louis, etc., R. to be furnished him, and stating that Co., 65 Mo. 569. he made no effort to water them there 61. Harrison v. Missouri Pac. E. because he did not think they were Co., 74 Mo. 364; Heller v. Chicago, suffering. St. Louis Southwestern etc., E. Co. (Mich.), 66 N. W. 667. Ey. Co. v. Hun (Tex. Civ. App.), Si 62. Toledo, etc., E. Co. v. Hamil- S. W. 322. ton, 76 111. 393; Toledo, etc., R. Co. 57. McKenzie v. Michigan Cent. v. Thompson, 71 111. 434; Illinois E. Co. (Mich.), 100 N. W. 260, 11 Cent. E. Co. v. Adams, 42 111. 474; Det. L. N. 214. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Cornwall, 7U 58. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Tex. 611. Harned, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 1651, 66 S. 63. Coupland v. Housatonic R. Co., 508 The Law of Caeeiees. loading, and the reloading of the cars by either the carrier or the shipper, are governed by the same rules as to negligence as apply to the original loading or the unloading at destination." The cai-rier is liable for its negligence in the management of its trains causing injury or suffering to stock transported, as, for example, the jolting and bruising of animals by unnecessary switohing,'' or leaving them exposed to the inclemency of the weather. '^ Not- withstanding provisions in the bill of lading that the shipper as- sumes the risk from fire, or releasing the carrier from injury caused by the burning of hay, straw, or other material used for feeding said animals or otherwise, the carrier cannot escape lia- bility for a loss caused by such material catching fire through its negligence.*' § 9. Statutes limiting confinement of cattle. — Under the United States statute, a railroad company transporting live stock from one State to another, which keeps it's stock upon the cars for more than twenty-eight consecutive hours, is guilty of negligence per se, and is liable not only for the penalty prescribed, but also for any damages or injury thereby sustained by the owner of the stock ; and the failure of the agent in charge of the stock to insist upon performance of the carrier's duty does not excuse the latter.*^ This statute has been held to be constitutional,*' but to 61 Conn. 531; Johnson v. Alabama, 67. Holsapple t. Rome, etc., R. etc., E. Co., 69 Miss. 191; Illinois Co., 86 N. Y. 275, 3 Am. & Eng. E. Cent. R. Co. v. Peterson, 68 Miss. Cas. 487; McFadden v. Missouri Pac. 454; Gulf, etc., E. Co. v. Kemp (Tex. R. Co., 92 Mo. 343, 1 Am. St. Rep. Civ. App.), 30 S. W. 714. 721; Powell v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 64. Feinberg v. Delaware, etc., R. 32 Pa. St. 414, 75 Am. Dee. 564. Co., 52 N. J. L. 451; Alabama, etc, 68. Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Heg- R. Co. V. Sparks, 71 Miss. 757; In- gie, 86 Ga. 210, 12 S. E. 363, 22 Am. temational, etc., R. Co. v. McRae, 82 St. Rep. 453, nor will the fact that Tex. 614. Notwithstanding stipula- its stock yards at an intermediate tion in bill of lading that the shipper point were on fire when the train ar- shall unload the stock, the carrier rived excuse the carrier in such a undertaking to do this without notice case. See also Missouri Pac. R. Co. to the shipper is liable for negligence v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 41 Fed. 913; therein. Normile v. Oregon R. & Chesapeake, etc., Rj Co. v. American Nav. Co., 41 Or. 177, 69 Pac. 928. Exchange Bank, 92 Va. 495; Galves- 65. Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Dit- ton, etc., R. Co. v. Warnken (Tex. mars, 3 Kan. App. 459. Civ. App.), 35 S. W. 72. 66. Corbett v. Chicago, etc., R. 69. United States v. Boston, etc., Co., 86 Wis. 82. E. Co., 15 Fed. 209. Caekiees of Live Stock. 509 apply only to interstate shipments," and with its enforcement State courts are in no way concjerned.'^ Under this statute a rail- road company is guilty of a violation of the statute if it fails to give animals rest, feed, and water when the period of 28 hours hours from the time they were last fed expires, although they were in the possession of a connecting carrier during part of that period.'^ The statute does not relieve the carrier from any negli- gence in so confining the stock for a less period of time, but such Cleary, 77 Mo. 634; Dawson v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 76 Mo. 514; Hance- V. Pacific Express Co., 48 Mo. App. 179; Clark v. St. Louis, etc., E. Co.,. 64 Mo. 440. Neb. — Black v. Chicago, etc., B.. Co., 30 Neb. 197. N. H.— Rixford v. Smith, 52 N. H- 355. N. C. — Lee v. Raleigh, etc., E. Co., 72 N. C. 236. Ohio. — Welsh v. Pittsburg, etc., R» Co., 10 Ohio St. 65. Pa. — Powell V. Pennsylvania E. Co.,. 32 Pa. St. 414. S. C. — Bamberg v. South Carolina E. Co., 9 S. C. 61. Term. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Wynn, 88 Tenn. 230. Tea. — ^Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Fa- gan (Tex. Civ. App.) 27 S. W. 887, 29 S. W. 1110. Yt. — ^Kimball v. Rutland, etc. It. Co., 26 Vt. 247. Fo.^Virginia, etc., R. Co. v. Say- ers, 26 Gratt. (Va.) 328. W. Va. — ^Maslin v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 14 W. Va. 180. Wis. — ^Morrison v. Phillips, etc, Constr. Co., 44 Wis. 405. Eng. — Kendall v. London, etc., K- Co., L. R. 7 Exch. 373, 20 W. E. 886. Caeeiees of Live Stock. 511 mode of conveyance opposed to their habits and instincts has no such means of securing absolute safety. They may die of fright or by refusing to eat, or they may, notwithstanding every pre- caution, destroy themselves in attempting to break away from the fastenings by which they are secured in the vehicle used to transport them, or they may kill each other. In such cases, sup- posing all proper care and foresight to have been exercised by the carrier, it would be unreasonable in a high degree to charge him with the loss." But the carrier is bound to exercise reason- able care to prevent lossi or injury from these causes, and it is not excusable from liability for loss or injuries so resulting which might have been prevented by it by the exercise of ordinary care. In order to relieve it from liability, it must appear that the vice or natural propensities of the animal was the sole proximate cause of the loss or injury.'* Unless it so appears, the carrier is liable as an insurer, even in cases where no negligence on its part is shown.'* A common carrier of chattels does not insure them against their own fault or the fault of their owner, nor against damages caused by an inherent defect in the chattels carried, or by want of care which the owner was bound to exercise.*" Loss or injury due to a want of inherent vitality, irrespective of any fault of the car- rier's servants, will not render the carrier liable.*^ The carrier is not an insurer against loss or injury due to the negligence of the shipper or his servants, where the shipper undertakes to take charge of and care for his own stock. *^ 77. Clarke v. Rochester, etc., E. Co., Ill Mass. 142; Crow v. Chicago, Co., 14 N. Y. 570. 67 Am. Dec. 205. etc., E. Co., 57 Mo. App. 135; Moore See also Evans v. Fitchburg K. Co., v. Great Northern R. Co., L. R. 10 111 Mass. 142, 15 Am. Rep. 19; Ir. 95; Gill v. Manchester, etc., R. Michigan Southern, etc., R. Co. v. Co., L. R. 8 Q. B. 186, 42 L. J. Q. B. McDonough, 21 Mich. 165, 4 Am. 89. Rep. 466. 79. Kinnick v. Chicago, etc., R. 78. Cragin v. New York Cent. R. Co., 69 Iowa, 665, 27 Am. & Eng. R. Co., 51 N. Y. 61; Penn. v. Buffalo, Cac. 58; Nugent v. Smith, 1 C. P. etc., R. Co., 49 N. Y. 204; Giblin v. Div. 423, 45 L. J. C. P. Div. 697; National Steamship Co., 8 Misc. Rep. Kendell v. London, etc., R. Co., L. R. (N. Y.) 22, 28 N. Y. Supp. 69; Con- 7 Exch. 373, 41 L. J. Exch. 184. ger V. Hudson River R. Co., 6 Duer 80. Rixford v. Smith, 52 N. H. (N. Y.), 375; Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. 355, 13 Am. Rep. 42. Thompson, 71 111. 434; Illinois Cent. 81'. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Har- R. Co. V. Adams, 42 111. 474; Rhodes mon, 12 111. App. 54. v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 9 Bush 82. Hart v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., snow storms. — Pruitt V. Hannibal, etc., E. Co., 62 Mo. 527; Ballentine v. North Mis- souri E. Co., 40 Mo. 491; Black /. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 30 Neb. 197. Telegraph line doirn. — Interna- tional, etc., E. Co. V. Hynes, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 20. 616 The Law of Caeeiees. § 13. Delivery to carrier. — Delivery of live stock to a railroad companj is complete and its liability as a carrier attaches when the stock are received in its pens for transportation, and there has been a change of possession of the stock from the shipper to the carrier, the shipper reserving no right of control. It then becomes bound to carry them promptly and is liable for a loss or injury to them.' Actual transportation need not have been commenced.'" But a mere permission to the shipper to use stock pens does not amount to a change of possession.^ When the shipper specially con- tracts to take charge of his stock over the entire route, there is no complete delivery, and the carrier is not liable except for defects in the cars furnished or in the management of its trains.^ Actual loading upon the cars,'^ or the giving of a bill of lading," if there has been a change of possession, is not necessary to complete the delivery and render the carrier liable for the stock. But delivery must be made to an authorized agent of the carrier and at a proper place in order to bind the carrier.^ § 14. Delivery by carrier. — The general rules governing de- livery by a carrier of goods stated elsewhere" apply to delivery by carriers of animals. But what constitutes a sufficient delivery must largely be determined by the facts of each particular case." For example, where a railroad company contracts to deliver cattle trnnsnal press of business. — 14 C. B. 647, 78 E. C. L. 647. See International, etc., E. Co. v. Lewis Carriers of Goods. (Tex. Civ. App.), 23 S. W. 323. 16. See Carriers of Goods. Where 9. Pruitt V. Hannibal, etc., E. Co., animals are killed by accident while 62 Mo. 527; Louisville, etc., E. Co. being transported the carrier ia not V. Godman, 104 Ind. 490; Gulf, etc., liable for not delivering the car- E. Co. V. Trawick, 80 Tex. 270. See casses. Lee v. Marsh, 43 Barb. (N. Carriers of Goods. Cotamencement Y.) 102, 28 How. Pr. (!N. Y.) 275. of Liability. Also § 11, ante. 17. Gulf, etc., E. Co. v. Eddins, 7 10. Mason v. Missouri Pac. E. Co., Tex. Civ. App. 116, carrier respon- 25 Mo. App. 473. sible for cattle escaping from a stock- 11. Fort Worth, etc., E. Co. v. yards company to which it had deliv- Eiley (Tex. App.), 1 S. W. 446, 27 ered them at an intermediate sta- Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 49. tion where a connecting line was to 12. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Mor- receive them; Cleveland, etc., R. Co. rison, 19 111. 136. v. Sargent, 19 Ohio St. 438, where 13. Bowie v. Baltimore, etc., R. the consignor and consignee found the Co., 1 MacArthur (S. C), 609. animals shipped in a stable at the 14. See Carriers of Goods. place of destination and directed the 15. Slim v. Great Northern E. Co., owner of the stables to keep them Caeeiees of Lite Stock. 517 to a consignee at the public stock yards, and receives tiie through, freight, it cannot claim that it only undertook to deliver them at its station, and its liability continued until the cattle were de- livered at their destination.^* Where a shipper of live stock agrees with the company's agent that on reaching its destination the car shall be backed down, to the cattle chute, which isi in fact done, for the purpose of delivery, it constitutes a delivery, though there is no formal turning over of the car by the conductor to the ship- per." The carrier is required to unload the stock and place them in stock-pens from which they may be removed by the consignee, unless there is a special contract providing otherwise.^" Where by the terms of a special contract the carrier is bound to unload the stock, itsi duty in this respect will not be affected by a local usage or general regulation of the carrier requiring consignee to unload live stock.^ Where the shipper, under a special contract, is bound to unload his stock, he is responsible for all injuries oeaurring during the unloading, except where the carrier has failed to pro- vide proper facilities, in which case the carrier is responsible.^^ It is the duty of the carrier to unload stock promptly upon their arrival at their destination and it is liable for injuria resulting from failure so to do. This duty is important owing to the danger until they returned later, and the that the plaintiff was not obliged to animals in the meantime were de- receive the cattle when tendered stroyed, there was held to be a suflS- under such circumstances, and ac- cient delivery to discharge the car- cordingly the company's liability as ner. a carrier did not cease upon the un- ITnder Texas statute a railroad loading of the cattle. Houston, etc., is required to have at each place of Ey. Co. v. Trammell (Tex. Civ. App.), unloading freight suitable buildings 68 S. W. 716. and inclosures to protect the same 18. Jones v. St. Louis, etc., E. Co., from damage. The evidence showed 89 Mo. App. 653. that plaintiff's cattle reached their 19- Brown v. Pontiac, etc., E. Co. destination at midnight, and wera (Mich.), 94 N. W. 1050, 10 Det. Leg. then offered him upon payment of the N. 173. freight. He did not have the money 20. Benson v. Gray, 154 Mass. 391 ; with him, and refused to receive the Gill v. Manchester, etc., E. Co., L. E. cattle that night, whereupon they 8 Q. B. 186, 21 W. E. 525. were unloaded, and put in the com- 21. Myrick v. Michigan Cent. E. pany's pens. The weather was cold Co., 9 Biss. (U. S.) 44; Benson v. and wet, and the plaintiff, who was a Gray, 154 Mass. 391. stranger in the city, did not know 22. Owen v. Louisville, etc., R. where to take his cattle. Held, that Co., 87 Ky. 626, 35 Am. & Eng. R. the evidence supported the finding Cas. 687. 518 The La-w of Caeeiebs. to which animals crowded in a car while the car is at rest are sub- jected.^' The carrier is also required to promptly deliver the stock, after they are unloaded, to the consignee,^ or to a connect- ing carrier,^' and is liable for any delay or wrongful detention. It is held in some cases that no notice to the consignee of the ar- rival of the stock is necessary f' but other cases hold to the con- trary." Where a railroad company has, by building stock yards, or by contract with a stock yard company, made adequate pro- vision for the discharge of its duty as a common carrier with re- spect to live stock shipped over its line to a city, it is not required by the common law to make delivery of stock consigned to such city to connecting roads for delivery at other stock yards therein.^ § 15. Contributory negligence of owner. — ^Where the contrih- * utory negligence of the owner is the proximate cause of the loss, whether such negligence arises from his failure to discharge the duties which he has assumed by contract, or those which are im- posed upon him by law, it is a good defense, either in an action for breach of contract or ex delicto, and will prevent recovery.^ Where the owner of live stock was at fault in loading too many 23. Lake Erie, etc., E. Co. v. Eo- ston v. Chicago, etc., E. Co. (Neb.), senberg, 31 111. App. 47. 97 N. W. 479. 24. San Antonio, etc., E. Co. v. 28. Central Stock: Yards Co. v. Pratt (Tex. Civ. App.), 32 S. W. Louisville, etc., E. Co., 118 Fed. 113, 705; St. Louis Southwestern E. Co. 55 C. C. A. 63. v. Williams (Tex. Civ. App.), 32 S. 29. Hart v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., W. 225; Corbett v. Chicago, etc., E. 69 Iowa, 485, where stock was Co., 86 Wis. 82; Gordon v. Great burned by fire started in the bedding Western E. Co., 8 Q. B. Div. 44, 3 through negligence of shipper's Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 619. agent; Myers v. Wabash, etc., E. 25. Eock Island, etc., E. Co. v. Co., 90 Mo. 98, stock injured through Potter, 36 111. App. 590. failure of shipper to care for stock 26. Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Pratt, after being unloaded at their desti- 13 111. App. 477. nation, under special contract; Pratt 27. See Carriers of Goods. Where v. Ogdensburg, etc., E. Co., 102 Mass. a chattle mortgagee consigned a ship- 557, shipper's wrongful conduct id ment of cattle to a commission firm putting combustible material in the to protect the payment of his mort- cars without the knowledge of the gage debt, and on payment thereof carrier; Hutchinson v. Chicago, etc., directed the delivery of the shipment E. Co., 37 Minn. 524, shipper negli- to the firm designated by the mort- gently leaving car door open after gagor, no action will lie against the putting horse in car. Compare Root carrier for non-delivery to the party v. New York, etc., E. Co., 83 Hun (N. designated by the mortgagor. John- Y.), Ill, 31 N. Y. Supp. 357; Newby Carriebs of Live Stock. 619 animals into a car by reason of whicli they were injured by over- crowding,^" where he failed to comply with his special contract to accompany the stock and water, feed and attend it and damage re- suted,'^ where he placed cattle in the pens some hours before the train agreed upon with the carrier for their shipment,'^ where, under a special contract to load and unload it at his own risk, he undertook to unload the cattle before daylight, without notice to the carrier, and in so doing used a chute which he knew to be de- fective, '^ he was guilty of contributory negligence and could not recover. But failure on the part of the shipper to unload and properly feed and water cattle merely precludes him from recov- erihg such damages as resulted therefrom, but does not bar a re- covery for damages that were proximately caused by the negli- gence of the carrier.'* And where want of care prior to trans- poration is set up as a defense, it must be shown that the ship^ per's prior treatment of the stock proximately caused, or contrib- uted to cause, the injuries complained of, in order to preclude re- covery.'^ But a shipper of live stock is not guilty of contributory negligence in putting them in the pens furnished by the carrier therefor till they are loaded for transportation, unless they are so obviously unsafe as to make it reasonably certain that injury to the animals must inevitably result.^' Shippers having a contract for a certain rate for carrying cattle are not, by refusing, for a time, to pay a higher rate demanded at their destination, pre- vented from recovering damages for injuries to the cattle from ill treatment while they are being detained till such rate shall be paid.'^ Failure of a shipper to notify a railroad company to stop a train, so that he can water, feed, and rest the cattle before they ▼. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 19 Mo. App. 32. International, etc., R. Co. v. 391; Powell v. Pennsylvania, etc., R. Earnest & Bost, (Tex. Civ. App.), 77 Co., 32 Pa. 'St. 414; Paddock v. Mia- S. W. 29. srairi Pac. R. Co., 60 Mo. App. 328; 33. Candee v. New Yoric, etc., R. Caiesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. American Co., 73 Conn. 667, 49 Atl. 17. Exch. Bank, 92 Va. 495. 34. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Chit- 30. Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Edins, tin (Tex. Civ. App.), 60 S. W. 284. (Tex. Civ. App.), 83 S. W. 253. 35. Fort Worth, etc., R. Co. v. 31. Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Alexander (Tex. Civ. App.), 81 S. W. James, 117 Ga. 832, 45 S. E. 223; 1015. Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Rogers, 111 36. Lackland' v. Chicago, etc., R. Ga. 865, 36 S. E. 946; Chicago, etc., Co. (Mo. App.), 74 S. W. 505. R. Co. V. Schuldt (Neb.), 92 N. W. 37. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Leather- 162. wood (Tex. Civ. App.), 69 S. W. 119. 520 The Law of Caeeimis. have been confined on the cars more than 28 hours, in violation of the statute, ia not necessarily fatal to his right to recover for damages caused by the negligent delay and confinement of the cattle, if he has not consented thereto.^* § 16. Measure of damages. — The rules as to the measure of damages stated in reference to carriers of goods generally apply to carriers of live stock. ^' The measure of damages to a shipment of cattle resulting from negligence of the carrier in transporta- tion is the difference in their market value at the place of destina- tion in the condition in which they should have been delivered, and the condition in which they were delivered,*" and not neces- sarily the difference in net value at destination immediately be- fore and after the injury.*' The measure of damages recoverable against connecting carriers for improper treatment of cattle ship- ped over their lines is the difference between their market value at their final destination and what it would have been but for the improper treatment, and the fact that each carrier limited its lia- bility to its own line, and that none of them carried the cattle to the place of final destination, ia immaterial.*^ The measure of damages for failing to deliver cattle within a reasonable time is the difference between the market price at the place of destina- tion when they should have arrived, and the price received at the sale made on the first available market,*^ or between their market value in the condition in which they were delivered and their market price if seasonably delivered, disregarding any deprecia- tion in value necessarily resulting from the transportation.** It 38. Southern Pae. Co. v. Arnett, 41. St. Louis, etc., E. Co. v. Burns 126 Fed. 75. (Tex. Civ. App.), 80 S. W. 104. 39. See Carriers of Goods. Meas- 42. Gulf, etc., E. Co. v. Houghton ure of Damages. (Tex. Civ. App.), 63 S. W. 718. 40. Gulf, etc., E. Co. v. Butler 43. Perry v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., (Tex. Civ. App.), 63 S. W. 650; 89 Mo. App. 49; Sloop v. Wabash R. Texas, etc., E. Co. v. Murtishaw Co., 93 Mo. App. 605, 67 S. W. 956; (Tex. Civ. App.), 78 S. W. 953; Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Halsell (Tex. Cleveland, etc., E. Co. v. Patton, 203 Civ. App.), 61 S. W. 1241; Southern 111. 376, 67 N. E. 804; International, Kansas E. Co. v. Crump (Tex. Civ. etc., R. Co. V. Young (Tex. Civ. App.), 74 S. W. 335. See also Hehn App.), 72 S. W. 68; San Antonio, v. Missouri Pac. E. Co. (Mo. App.). etc., E. Co. V. Dolan (Tex. Civ. App.), 72 S. W. 148. 85 S. W. 302; Gulf, etc., E. Co. v. 44. Galveston, etc., E. Co. ». Ware & Walker (Tex. Civ. App.), Botts (Tex. Civ. App.), 70 S. W. U3. 78 S. W. 961. Caiseiers of Live Stock. 521 is not error to take as the basis for computation of damages tte difference in the market price of the cattle in the market to which they were being shipped, where the destination was known to the defendant, although its contract covered their transportation only over its own line, and their delivery to a connecting carrier for the remainder of the shipment. ^^ The measure of damages for cattle dying in transit through the negligence of a carrier is the reasonable net value of such cattle at their destination." Where cattle were delivered by a carrier in a condition which rendered them unsalable for food, expenses incurred by plaintiff in restor- ing them so as to make them marketable, which redounded to the benefit of defendant by enhancing the price of the animals, were proper elements of plaintiff's damages.*' The only damage shown being deterioration in the weight and condition of the cattle, an instruction that the measure of damages would be the difference between the market value when the cattle should have arrived, and when they did arrive, and such damages as they might have sus- tained by the negligent delay in furnishing the cars, was erron- eous, as authorizing double damages.** In an action against a railroad company for delay in shipping cattle, plaintiff was en- titled to recover what he paid for extra feed because of the delay, and the difference between the value of the cattle in the condition they were in when delivered, and the condition they would have been in had the delay not occurred.*' It is the duty of the carrier See also Glasscock v. Chicago, etc., St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co. v. Hunt (Tex. E. Co., 86 Mo. App. 114. Civ. App.), 81 S. W. 322. 45. Missouri, etc., E. Co. v. Trus- 46. St. Louis, etc., E. Co. v. Burns kett, 186 U. S. 479, 22 S. Ct. 943, 46 (Tex. Civ. App.), 80 S. W. 104; Gulf, L. Ed. 1259. A shipper of cattle etc., E. Co. v. Butler (Tex. Civ. damaged in transit may put them on App. ) , 73 S. W. 84, where an owner the market for sale at their place of of cattle, which died from injuries destination, and is not required' to in transit, sold the same at the point seek some other market. St. Louis, of destination, the amount received etc., Ey. Co. v. Honea (Tex. Civ. therefor should be deducted from App.), 84 S. W. 267. damages recovered against the car- A shipper of cattle for sale need rier for injuries to the cattle, not hold and feed them, to obviate 47. Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Wood- the eflFect of a carrier's negligence, ward (Ind.), 72 N. E. 558. but may dispose of them at once in 48. St. Louis S. W. E. Co. v. Mu- the market, and sue for the differ- sick (Tex. Civ. App.), 80 S. W. 673; ence between their market value Nelson v. Great Northern E. Co., 28 then and there, and what it would Mont. 297, 72 Pac. 642. have been with proper transportation. 49. Hendrix v. Wabash, etc., R._ 522 The Law of Caeeiees. to inquire of the sMpper whether an animal possesses any special value, and the shipper is entitled to recover its fuU value although the carrier was not informed of it, in the absence of misrepresentations inducing the carrier to give a lower freight rate or to exercise less care.^" The carrier is likewise bound to examine into the condition of cattle, and it is not relieved of Habil- ity because it was not informed, in the absence of misrepresenta- tion, or the actual condition of the animal not being apparent, as that a cow was pregnant, or a mare with foal.'^ § 17. Limitation of liability. — The general rules by which limitation of the carrier's liability is governed as discussed iu carriers of goods apply as well to carriers of live stocL^^ Where written contracts for the transportation of cattle, executed en route, limited the carrier's liability to its own linra, but did not purport to cover shipments beyond, by virtue of an oral agrees ment made at the instance of the carrier's agent to conceal the real destination of the cattle, such carrier was estopped to contend that its liability was limited to injuries occurring on its own line.^ "Wlhere at the time of a parol contract between a shipper of live stock and the carrier, the shipper expected to sign a written con- tract, and he subsequently did so, he was not in position to avoid the force of provisions in the written contract limiting the liabil- Co. (Mo. App.), 80 S. W. 970. See In an action against a railroad Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. Barnett, company for failure to deliver certain 69 Ark. 150, 61 S. W. 919, as to re- live stock alleged to have been re- covery of reasonable expenses of col- eeived by defendant as carrier, plain- lecting cattle which had escaped and tiff could not recover freight charges, holding them for shipment; Texas, in the absence of any evidence that etc., R. Co. v. Powell (Tex. Civ. such charges had been paid. John- App.), 79 S. W. 86, expenses for pas- son v. Alabama Great Southern R. turage, feeding, and care of cattle Co., (Ala.) 37 So. 226. reasonably necessary, where there 50. Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Har- was a negligent delay to furnish mon, 12 111. App. 54; Melendy v. Bar- cars, are recoverable. bour, 78 Va. 544. Where two connecting car- 51. New York, etc., R. Co. v. Es- rlers were sned for injuries to till, 147 U. S. 591; McCune v. Bur- cattle carried over both roads, and a lington, etc., R. Co., 52 Iowa, 600; verdict for the full amount of dam- Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Fagan (Tex. ages demanded was rendered against Civ. App.), 27 S. W. 887. one road, the verdict is excessive, the 52. See Carriers of Goods; lami- evidence tending to show both roads tation of Liability, negligent. Gulf, etc., Ry. Co. v. 53. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Carroll Lee (Tex. Civ. App.), 65 S. W. 54. (Tex. Civ. App.), 81 S. W. 1020. Caejiibbs of Live Stock. 523 ity of tke carrier to damages occurring on its own line.^ "Where plaintiffs had been engaged in skipping cattle over other lines for years, and had been executing limited liability contracts therefor, they were bound by the legal provisions of a similar contract entered into with defendants for the shipment in question.^' The granting of rates specified in a schedule filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission is not a consideration for a contract lim- iting the railroad company's liability for delay in the transporta- tion of live stock, though the company had a schedule of other and higher rates which was not filed with the commission.^^ Where a shipper of live stock signed a special contract, in consideration of the reduced freight rate, that the defendant should be liable only as a private carrier for hire, in an action for damages to live stock, it was error to charge that the railroad company was bound to exercise extraordinary diligence." § 18. Stipulations that shipper will accompany stock, load and unload. — A common carrier has a right to limit its; liability by a special contract that the shipper or his representative shall accompany, take care of in transit, prevent the escape of, and feed and water live stock transported by it, proper facilities being supplied by the carrier, and thus relieve itself of these duties. Under such a contract the shipper is liable for any loss or damage resulting from his failure to comply with these provisions.^ The carrier may also contract for nonliability for loss or injury in loading, unloading and reloading of the stock, and impose these 54. Chicago, etc., E,. Co. v. Halsell 397; Georgia R., etc., Co. v. Eeid, 91 (Tex. Civ. App.), 81 S. W. 1243. Ga. 377; Betts v. Farmers' L. & T. 55. Texas & P. Ey Co. v. Byers Co., 21 Wis. 80; Gannell v. Ford, 5 Bros. (Tex. Civ. App.), 84 S. W. L. T. N. S. 604; Harrison v. London, 1087. etc., R. Co., 2 B. & S. 122, 110 E. C. 56. Summers v. Wabash R. Co. L. 122. Under a statute prohibiting (Mo. App.) 79 S. W. 481. common carriers from contracting for 57. Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. relief from any liability imposed on Glascock & Warfield, 117 Ga. 938, them by law, provisions in a bill of 43 S. E. 981 lading for stock that the shipper 58. Baltimore, etc., E. Co. v. Fox, should feed, water, and attend to the 113 111. App. 180; Ormsby v. Union stock at his own risk while in transit Pac. R. Co., 4 Fed. 706, 2 McCrary do not relieve the carrier of its duty (U. S.), 48; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. to look after the stock. Cincinnati, Schuldt' (Neb.), 92 N. W. 162; St. etc., Ry. Co. v. Sanders & Russell, 25 Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Weakly, 50 Ark. Ky. Law Rep. 2333, 80 S. W. 488. 524 The La.w of Caeeiees. duties upon the shipper, in which event the latter will be liable for all injuries except such as result from the carrier's own negli- gence in failing to provide proper facilities.^' But such a pro- vision does not apply where the carrier itself assumes control of such matters.*" § 19. Injuries caused by viciousness of animals or defects in cars. — A shipper can by special contract, in consideration of spe- cial freight rates, assume, and relieve the carrier from, all liabil- ity for injuries, loss or damage which live stock transported may sustain as a result of their viciousness or inherent propensities.^ But such a stipulation will not protect the carrier from liability for a loss caused by its own negligence,*^ or where the carrier's negligence was the proximate cause, although the injuries resulted from the viciousness of the animals.*' The shipper may likewise relieve the carrier from liability for injuries to stock caused by defects in the cars which have been examined by him,*^ unless the carrier knew the cars to be unsafe, and the shipper failed to dis- cover the unsoundness by reason of the defect being hidden. Proof of these facts would charge the carrier with damages accruing 59. Candee v. New York, etc., U. Dolan (Tex. Civ. App.), 85 S. W. 302. Co., 73 Conn. 667, 49 Atl. 17, where 61. Ragsdale, Harper & Weathers the shipper had entered into a uni- v. Southern Ry. Co., 119 Ga. 627, 46 form live stock contract, which al- S. E. 832; Illinois Cent. E. Co. r. lowed a lower rate in consideration Morrison, 19 111. 139; Central E., of his loading and unloading at his etc., Co. v. Smitha, 85 Ala. 47; Lake own risk, he could not recover for in- Shore, etc., E. Co. v. Bennett, 89 Ind. jnries to cattle while being unloaded, 457; Grand Trunk E. Co. v. Vogel, by reason of a defective chute; 11 Can. Sup. Ct. 612, 27 Am. & Eng. Morse v. Canadian Pac. E. Co., 97 E. Cas. 18. Me. 77, 53 Atl. 874; Eobert C. White 62, Texas, etc., E. Co. v. Davis, 2 Live Stock, etc., Co. v. Chicago, etc., Tex. App. Civ. Cas. § 190. In New R. Co., 87 Mo. App. 330; Myers v. York it will, if specially provided, Wabash, etc., E. Co., 90 Mo. 98; protect from the negligence of the Terre Haute, etc., E. Co. v. Sherwood, carrier's servants. Wilson v. New 132 Ind. 129; Illinois Cent. E. Co. v. York Cent., etc., E. Co., 97 N. Y. 87. Peterson, 68 Miss. 454; Texas & P. 63. Loeser v. Chicago, etc., R. Co. R. Co. V. Edins, (Tex. Civ. App.) 83 (Wis.), 69 N. W. 372. S. W. 253. See also Central E., etc., 64. Lake Erie, etc., R. Co. v. Hol- Co. V. Smitha, 85 Ala. 47; Atchison, land, 162 Ind. 406, 69 N. E. 138, 63 etc., E. Co. V. Mason, 4 Kan. App. L. E. A. 948; Eagsdale, Harper & 391; Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Van Weathers v. Southern Ey. Co., 119 Dresar, 22 Wis. 511. Ga. 627. 60. San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Caebieks of Live Stock. 525 therefrom, notwitlistaiidmg a special contract released it from liability. '^ A provision that the shipper accepts the cars tendered, and agrees that they are satisfactory, does not relieve the carrier from liability for defects therein.'^ In New York a contract releasing the carrier from liability occasioned by the insecurity of its cars, or by the negligence of its servants, is valid, and will prevent the shipper recovering for injuries thus occasioned." § 20. Stipulations as to claims for damages. — A provision in a contract for the shipment of live stock that any claim for injury or damages shall be made by the owner or consignee before the stock is removed from the station at the place of destination, has been held in some jurisdictions to be reasonable and valid,*^ while in other jurisdictions it has been held to be unreasonable and invalid.*' Where the carrier has ao agent at the place of destina- tion, or he cannot be found,'" or the circumstances of the case 65. Lake Erie, etc., E. Co. v. Hol- land, supra, and the shipper's failure to send an attendant with the stock shipped would not relieve the car- rier from liability. 66. San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Dolan (Tex. Civ. App.), 85 S. W. 302. See also Potts v. Railway Co., 17 Mo. App. 394; Welsh v. Railroad do., 10 Ohio St. 65, 75 Am. Dec. 490. 67. Wilson v. New York Cent., etc , H. Co., 97 N. Y. 87. 68. Ark. — ^Kansas, etc., E. Co. v. Ayers (Ark.), 38 S. W. 516. See also St. Louis, etc., E. Co. v. Jacobs, 70 Ark. 401. Ga. — Southern Ry. Co. v. Adams, 115 Ga. 705, 42 S. E. 35. Kan. — ^Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Kirkham (Kan.), 65 Pac. 261; At- chison, etc., R. Co. V. Dill, 48 Kan. 210; Wichita, etc., R. Co. v. Koch, 47 Kan. 753; Sprague v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 34 Kan. 347; Goggin v. Kansas Pac. R. Co., 12 Kan. 416. Mo. — ^Rioe V. Kansas Pac. R. Co., 63 Mo. 314; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Cleary, 77 Mo. 634. N. C. — Selby v. Wilmington, etc., E. Co., 113 N. C. 588. Tex. — Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Harman, 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. § 135; Texas Cent. R. Co. v. Morris, 1 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. § 373. 69. III. — Coles V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 41 111. App. 608. Compare Black V. Wabash, etc., R. Co., Ill 111. 351. Ky. — Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. Tabor, 98 Ky. 503, 32 S. W. 168, 36 S. W. 18. Compare Owen v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 87 Ky. 626. Minn. — Engesether v. Great North- ern R. Co., 65 Minn. 168, 68 N. W. 4. Tenn. — Louisville, etc., E. Co. v. Wynn, 88 Tenn. 320; Smitha v. Louisville, etc., E. Co., 86 Tenn. 198. Tex. — ^Eailroad Co. v. Stanley, 89 Tex. 42, 33 S. W. 109; Gulf, etc., E. Co. V. Yates (Tex. Civ. App.), 32 S. W. 355. 70. Carpenter v. Eastern E. Co. (Minn.), 69 N. W. 720; Engesether V. Great Northern E. Co., 65 Minn. 168. 526 The Law of Caeeiees. ■were such that it was not possible to discover the damage or its extent for some time,'^ such a stipulation is unreasonable, and fail- ure to give the required notice or present the claim will not defeat the shipper's right of action. In Texas the carrier must allege and prove the reasonableness of such a stipulation.'^ In other jurisdictions the shipper having assented to the stipulation must prove that the stipulation is unreasonable.'^ A reasonable and substantial compliance with the stipulation is all that is required.'^ Notice of injury to stock, required by a contract of shipment to be given by the shipper as a condition precedent to his right to damages for such injury, was waived by the carrier, where it, on receiving a partial and incomplete notice, refused to investi- gate the shipper's claim and denied liability.'^ A stipulation limiting the time in which claims for damages may be presented is binding on the shipper, when voluntarily and understandingly entered into by him, as the manifest object of such a provision is to force those claiming to be damaged by the carrier's negligence to promptly present their claims for adjustment, while the facts and circumstances on which they are based are fresh in the memo- ries of the parties and witnesses, and to prevent the company from being harrassed or imposed upon by dishonest claimants.'* A provision that the carrier shall not be liable for damages on account of injury or damage to the property shipped, unless a claim therefor, verified by affidavit, shall be presented to it or its agent within 30 days after the property is delivered, is reasonable and valid; and the presentation of such claim thereunder is a condition precedent to the right of the shipper to maintain an action, and must be alleged in his complaint." But it has been held that a special contract with a carrier for transportation of 71. Ormsby v. Union Pac. E. Co., Co., 28 Mont. 297, 72Pac. 642; West- 2 McCrary (U. S.), 48; Louisville, em K. Co. v. Harwell, 97 Ala. 341 ; At- etc., E. Co. V. Steele, 6 Ind. App. cbison, etc., K. Co. v. Temple, 47 183; Oxley v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., Kan. 7; Eice v. Kansas Pac. E. Co., 65 Mo. 629; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. 63 Mo. 314; Gulf, etc., E. Co. v. Stanley (Tex.), 33 S. W. 110. York, 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. § 812. 72. Fort Worth, etc., R. Co. v. 75. 101 Live Stock Co. v. Kansas Greathouse, 82 Tex. 104, 49 Am. & City, etc., E. Co., 100 Mo. App. 674. Ehg. E. Cas. 165. 76. Baltimore, etc., E. Co. v. Boss, 73. Louisville, etc., E. Co. v. 105 111. App. 54. Sowell, 90 Tenn. 17. See Carriers of 77. Metropolitan Trust Co. v. To- Goods. ledo, etc., E. Co., 107 Fed. 628^ 74. Nelson v. Great Northern E. Harms v. Hunt. Id. Cakeiebs of Live Stock. 527 live stock, reciting that no claim for damages shall be allowed unless a claim is made and delivered to its agent within five days aiter removal of the stock from the car, is void as against public policy; such provision being a limitation on the carrier's liabil- ity." So, of a provision fixing a limit of ten days.™ And a limit for one day has been held invalid under the Texas Statute.*" § 21. Limitation of liability to a specified amount. — The rules governing the validity of stipulations fixing a specified amount beyond which the carrier shall not, in any event, be liable, are the same with respect to carriers of live stock as in respect to carriers of goods. *^ Such contracts are common in the transportation of live stock, and their reasonableness is held to be specially demon- strated when applied to this class of property, because the agenta of common carriers are not expected to be, and usually are not, experts as to the special or peculiar value of particular animals, and ordinarily must rely on the shipper's statement, such value not being usually apparent from mere inspection.*^ Where such a contract is fairly and freely entered into, in consideration of a reduced freight rate, the shipper is bound thereby, and the measure of the liability of the carrier for damages resulting from a breach of its duties is the amount of the actual damages, not exceeding the amount stipulated in the contract as the true value of the stock.*^ Where there is no evidence of a reduction in the 78. Baltimore, etc., E. Co. v. Hub- clined to settle, but not on the bard, 25 Ohio Cir. Ct. R. 477. ground that the claim was filed too 79. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Ead- late. Held sufBeient to show a waiver ford, 23 Ky. L. Eep. 886, 64 S. W. of the provision as to time of filing 611. the claim. Wallace v. Lake Shore, 80. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Mit- etc., Ey. Co., 10 Detroit Leg. N. 331 chell (Tex. Civ. App.), 85 S. W. 286. (Mich.), 95 N. W. 750. Waiver of provision. — A ship- 81. See Carriers of Goods, per sought to recover damages aris- 82. Alair v. Northern Pae. E. Co., ing from defendant's neglect in the 53 Minn. 160, 39 Am. St. Eep. 588, transportation of a carload of hogs, 55 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 360; Duntley The way-bill provided that no claim v. Boston, etc., E. Co., 66 N. H. 263; for damages should be made, imless Johnstone v. Eiehmond, etc., E. Co., filed within five days and verified by 39 S. C. 55; Loeser v. Chicago, etc., the affidavit of the shipper or his E. Co., (Wis.) 69 N. W. 372; Meleridjr agent. Plaintiff's claim was filed v. Barbour, 78 Va. 544. one day late, but was returned to 83. Metropolitan Trust Co. v. him to have the bill attached, which Toledo, etc., E. Co., 117 Fed. 628; was done, whereon the defendant de- Jennings v. Smith, 160 Fed. 109, 45 528 The Law of Caeeiees. rate charged for a ahipotneat of live stock, tliere was no considera- tion for the limitation of the carrier's liability in the contract, and audi limitation is no defense.** But a stipulation that in case of loss the value should be fixed as at the time and place of shipment, is valid, though there is nothing to show that the transportation was at a reduced rate.'^" Where a shipper executed a contract of shipment of live stock, containing a stipulation limiting its value, it will be presumed, in the absence of fraud, mistake, im- position, or incapacity, and no protest having been made by him, that he knew and consented to its terms.'* Evidence of custom of a carrier in issuing contracts for the transportation of live stock is inadmissible to impose a limitation of the carrier's liability not provided for in the contract of shipment.''' A recital in a con- tract to carry live stock, that the rate is a reduced rate, is prima facie evidence of such fact, and such, reduced rate is a sufficient consideration for a release of liability in excess of the declared value.'' Cj. C. A. 249; O'Malley v. Great Northern E. Co., 86 Minn. 580, 90 N. W. 974, whether the limitation aa to value was honestly made as a basis for the carrier's compensation was a question for the jury; Normile v. Oregon E. & Nav. Co., 41 Or. 177, 69,Pac. 928; Nelson v. Great North- ern E. Co., 28 Mont. 297, 72 Pae. 642; Hart v. Pennsylvania E. Co., 112 U. S. 331; Starnes v. Eailroad Co., 91 Tenn. 516; Louisville, etc., E. Co. V. Frazee, 24 Ky. L. Eep. 1273, 71 S. W. 437, the shipper is not lim- ited to the stipulated amount, where there was no agreement that the amount so stated should be treated as the value of the animals; Chicago, etc., E. Co. V. Calumet Stock Farm, 194 111. 9, 61 N. E. 1095, but shipper is not boimd by a stipulation unless he assented thereto. Contra: Illi- nois Cent. E. Co. v. Eadford, 23 Ky. L. Eep. 886, 64 S. W. 511. 84. Sloop V. Wabash E. Co., (Mo. App.) 84 S. W. Ill; Eice v. Wabash E. Co., (Mo. App.) 80 S. W. 976. 85. 101 Live Stock Co. v. Kansas City, etc., E. Co., 100 Mo. App. 674, 75 S. W. 782. 86. Evansville, etc., E. Co. v. Kevekord'es, (Ind. App.) 69 N. E. 1022. 87. McMillan v. American Ex- press Co., (Iowa) 98 N. W. 629. 88. Bowring v. Wabash E. Co., 90 Mo. App. 324. Shippers entitled to propor- tional recovery. — Where a contract between a shipper of horses and ths carrier provided that the latter should be liable only to the extent of actual damage, which should in no case exceed the valuation of the shipment declared by the shipper, and there was a partial loss, but the horses thereafter brought the full de- clared value, the carrier was not ex- empt from liability, but the shipper was entitled to recover such a propor- tion of the actual loss as the de- clared value of the shipper bore to the actual value. United States Ex- Caeriehs of Live Stock. 529 § 22. Loss or injury due to carrier's negligence In New York, where a carrier is permitted to contract against liability ior negligence on the part of its servants, agents, and employes, & stipulation specifically and in express terms exempting the car- rier from liability, although due to the carrier's negligence, is valid and binding.*' This is also the English rule.'" The rule generally maintained elsewhere is that a carrier of live stock can- not, by any stipulation in a contract, exempt itself from liability in caaes where it appears that the proximate cause of the loss or injury was the negligence of the carrier.'^ It cannot stipulate that press Co. T. Joyce, (Ind.) 72 N. E. «65. Where Talne stated is greatly lielow true valne. — Where the bill of lading contains a stipulation that, In consideration of reduced rates, lia- bility of the carrier shall be limited to the value expressed therein, such ■stipulation is void as against public policy in case the value so stated is greatly below the true value, whether the carrier is informed of the true value or not. Southern Ey. Co. v. -Jones, (Ala.) 31 So. 501; Nashville, etc., E., Co. V. Stone & Haslett (Tenn.) 79 S. W. 1031. Conflict of laws. — Where a con- tract for the carriage of a dog, made in Ohio, limiting the carrier's com- mon law liability, would have been invalid in Kentucky, under Const. § 196, forbidding carriers to contract away their common law liability, the carrier should show, in order to pro- tect itself under such contract, not ■only that the contract was valid un- der the law of Ohio, but that the loss ■of the dog, constituting the non- performance of the contract, also oc- curred there, Adams Exp. Co. v. Walker, 26 Ky. Law Eep. 1025, 83 S. W. 106, 67 L. E. A. 412. 89. Holsapple v. Eome, etc., E. Co., 86 N. Y. 275, 3 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 487; Cragin v. New York Cent. E. 34 Co., 51 N. y. 61, 10 Am. Eep. 559, 4 Am. Ey. Eep. 418; Heineman v. Grand Trunk E. Co., 1 Sheld. (N. Y.) 95, 31 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 430. In the former case a stipulation exempting the carrier from loss by heat, al- though due to the carrier's negli- gence in not watering and cooling the hogs, was held valid, as any other construction would render the con- tract meaningless in that it would not affect the carrier's liability, as that would exist in the absence of any contract. See Carriers of Good-s. — New York ruje. 90. Farr v. Great Western E. Co., 35 U. C. Q. B. 534; Hood v. Grand Trunk E. Co., 20 U. C. C. P. 361. 91. Kentucky Bank v. Adams Ex- press Co., 93 U. S. 174; Welch v. Boston, etc., E. Co., 41 Conn. 383; NicoU V. East Tennessee, etc., E. Co., 89 Ga. 260; Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Calumet Stock Farm, 96 111. App. 337, 61 N. E. 1095, carrier cannot exempt itself from its gross negli- gence; Wabash E. Co. v. Brown, 152 111. 484; United States Express Co. V. Joyce, (Ind. App.) 69 N. E. 1015; Anderson v. Lake Shore, etc., E. Co., (Ind. App.) 59 N. E, 396; Indianapo- lis, etc., E. Co. V. Allen, 31 Ind. 394; Ehodes v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 9 Bush (Ky.) 688; Louisville, etc., R. Co. V. Owen, 93 Ky. 201; Sisson v. 530 The Law op Caebiees. it shall be Kable only for losses or injuries due to its gross negli- gence.'^ The carrier has been guilty of gross negligence, under the circumstances of the case, in certain cases where the validity of such a stipulation was not passed upon.'^ In the construction of such contracts, it will be presumed that the parties intended to make a legal contract, and a provision wiU not be construed aa^ exempting the carrier from liability for negligence unless th& intention is clearly expressed.'* § 23. Stipulation requiring shipper to report condition of stock. — A stipulation has been held to be unreasonable and, there- fore, invalid, which requires the shipper to furnish to each con- ductor into whose charge his stock may come a statement showing their condition, and providing that a failure to furnish such report shall be conclusive evidence that the stock were in good order at the time such report should have been made. Such a stipulation if enforceable would, in effect, act as an estoppel ta a meritorious claim, when the failure to make such report might not, in any wise, mislead the carrier or place it in any worse con- Cleveland, etc., K. Co., 14 Mich. 489 ; Moulton V. St. Paul, etc., E. Co., 31 Minn. 85; Christenson v. American Express Co., 15 Minn. 270; Balti- njore, etc., R. Co. v. Hubbard, 25 Ohio, C. C. E. 477; Welch v. Pitts- burg, etc., E. Co., 10 Ohio St. 65; Armstrong v. United States Express Co., 159 Pa. St. 640; Trace v. Penn- sylvania E. Co., 26 Pa. Super Ct. 466; Minter v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 82 Mo. App. 130; Ball v. Wabash, etc., E. Co., 83 Mo. 574; Botts v. Wabash E. Co., (Mo. App.) 80 S. W. 976; Johnstone v. Eichmond, etc., E. Co., 39 S. C. 55; Normile v. Ore- gon E. Nav. Co., 41 Or. 177, 69 Pae. 928; Gulf, etc., E. Co. v. Dun- man, (Tex. Civ. App.) 81 S. W. 789; Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Mitchell, (Tex. Civ. App.) 85 S. W. 286; Mis- souri Pac. E. Co. V. Smith, (Tex.) 16 S. W. 803 ; Loeser v. Chicago, etc., B. Co., (Wis.) 69 N. W, 372; Bosley T. Baltimore, etc., E. Co., (W. Va.) 46 S. E. 613. But see Coup v. Wa- bash, etc., E. Co., 56 Mich. 111,, wherein a. stipulation that the cat- rier should' not be liable for injuries- to a menagerie caused by a want of care was upheld, where the carrier moved the menagerie in the latter'* own cars controlled by its own agents, and though operated by the carrier's employes, run upon a, time schedule to suit the menagerie. 92. Alabama, etc., E. Co. v. Thom- as, 83 Ala. 343; Moulton v. St. Paul, etc., E. Co., 31 Minn. 85; Missouri Pac. E. Co. V. Cornwall, 70 Tex. 611', Missouri Pac. E. Co. v. Harris, 67 Tex. 166. 93. Bryan v. Southwestern S. Co., 68 Ga. 805; Indianapolis, etc., E. Co.. V. Adams, 36 111. App. 629. 94. Powell V. Pennsylvania E. Co., 32 Pa. St. 414; Virginia, etc., E. Co. V. Sayers, 26 Gratt. (Va.) 328. Cakeibes of Live Stock. 531 dition than it would occupy if the condition was complied with.*^ Receipts and written statements signed by a sliipper without reading, sliowing that the articles shipped arrived in good condi- tion at intermediate points along tlie route, have also been held to amount to no more tban an admission of the facts stated, and not to be conclusive if untrue." § 24. Limitations rendered inoperative. — Limitations in a contract of shipment upon the liability of the carrier are ren- dered inoperative and the carrier is subject to ita full common law liability as an insurer, where it deviates from the contract by carrying the property by freight, instead of complying with a pro- vision that it shall be carried by passenger train service,^' or vio- lates a provision of the contract that the shipper shall be entitled to ride free on the train carrying his stock, by a refusal to carry the shipper. °^ § 25. Presumptions and burden of proof. — Where it is shown that live stock were delivered to a carrier for shipment in good con- dition, and that the loss or injury was not due to the neglect of any duty owing by the shipper or assumed by him, and the stock are not accounted for by the carrier,'^ or an unreasonable delay in the transportation is shown,^ or loss resulting from an injurious accident by reason of that which the carrier provides for the transportation,^ negligence or a want of that care which the law 95. Missouri, etc., E. Co. v. Car- 99. Missouri Pac. E. Co. v. Texas, ter, 9 Tex. Civ. App. 677. etc., E. Co., 41 Fed. 913; Adams Ex- 96. Missouri Pac. E. Co. v. Ivy, press Co. v. Walker, 26 Ky. L. Een. 79 Tex. 444, 15 S. W. 692; Missouri 1025, 83 S. W. 106, 67 L. E. A. 412; Pao. E. Co. V. Fennell, 79 Tex. 448, 15 Chapin v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 79 S. W. 693; St. Louis, etc., E. Co. v. Iowa, 582. Turner, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 625. 1. McCrary v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 97. Pavitt V. Lehigh Valley E. Co., 109 Mo. App. 567, 83 S. W. 82; Nash- 153 Pa. St. 302, 32 W. N. C. 65, 25 ville, etc., E. Co. v. Stone & Haslett, Atl. 1107, but a provision of such a (Tenn.) 79 S. W. 1031; Anderson f. contract of shipment for notice by the Atchison, etc., E. Co., 93 Mo. App. shipper to the carrier of any claim for 677, 67 S. W. 707 ; Wallace v. Lake damages thereunder within five days Shore, etc., E. Co., (Mich.) 10 Det. from the time the property is uu- Leg. N. 331, 95 N. W. 750, as to pre-' loaded, is not rendered inoperative sumption as between conencting ear- by such deviation. riers ; Bosley v. Baltimore, etc., R. 98. Texas, etc., E. Co. v. Davis, 2 Co., (W. Va.) 46 S. E. 613. Tex. App. Civ. Cas., § 190. 2. Trace v. Pennsylvania E. Co., 25 532 The La.w of Cakeiebs. imposes upon it will be presumed on the part of the carrier, and the burden placed upon it of relieving itself from that presump- tion. Where injuries to live stock in transit are such that they are as likely to have been caused by the nature of the animals as by the negligence of the carrier, the court cannot assume that the injuries were due to the latter cause.' Where there is a conflict of evidence, or more than one conclusion can fairly be drawn from the facts, the question as to how the loss or injury was caused is properly one for the jury to determine from all the facts and circumstances of the case.* Proof of delivery to the carrier of stock, in good condition, and injury or death while in the custody of the carrier, makes a prima facie case against it, which may be rebutted by evidence that it provided all suitable means of trani^ portation, and exercised that degree of care which the nature of ' the property required.^ Where cattle were delivered to a carrier without any limitation of its common-law liability, and without the shipper assuming any of the hazards of shipment, or being required or permitted to accompany and care for the cattle, and it is shown, that the cattle were delivered at their destination in an injured condition, the burden is on the carrier to prove that the cause of injury was one for which it is not liable.' Though the contract under which animals were carried by a railroad excepted fire when not caused by the carrier's negligence from the risk assumed, the burden of proof was on the carrier in an action for damages from fire to show that the injury done was not due to its negligence.' As a general rule, where loss or injury has been Pa. Super. Ct. 466, if a railroad com- 147 U. S. 591, 41 Fed. 849; St. pany employed in the transportation Louis, etc., E. Co. v. Weakly, 50 Ark. of live stock permits straw or other 397; Missouri Pac. E. Co. v. Texas, combustible material to be used on etc., E. Co., 41 Fed. 913; Indiana, etc., the cars and a fire originates there- E. Co. v. James, 18 111. App. 655 ; Ball from by which the animals are in- v. Wabash, etc., E. Co., 83 Ho. 574; jured, a presumption of negligence Good v. Galveston, etc., E. Co., (Tex.) arises against the company, which it 11 S. W. 854; Galveston, etc., E. Co. must rebut in order to relieve itself v. Stovall, 3 Tex. App. Civ. Cas., i of liability for the loss; Schaeffer v. 250. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 168 Pa. St. 5. Baltimore, etc., E. Co. v. Fox, 209; Crow v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 113 111. App. 180; Keyes-MarshaU 67 Mo. App. 135. Bros. Livery Co. v. St. Louis, etc., B. 3. Lewis V. Pennsylvania E. Co., Co., (Mo. App.) 80 S. W. 53. 70 N. J. L. 132, 56 Atl. 128, affd. 59 6. Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Wood- Atl. 1117. ward, (Ind.) 72 N. E. 558. 4. Estill V. New York, etc., R. Co., 7. Texas & P. Ey. Co. v. Dishmau Caeeiees of Live Stock. 533 shown while in the custody of the carrier, the burden of proof is on the carrier to show that loss or injury was due either to the proper vice or inherent propensities of the stock,' Or to the negli- gence of the shipper in failing to discharge some duty which he had assumed, or to some cause other than its own negligence.' In New York and some other States the carrier, in addition to show- ing that the injury arose from the vieiousness of the animals, must show that it has not been guilty of any negligence itself." Where the shipper has undertaken to care for the stock, and to load or unload it, or has assumed any other duty in respect to it, the burden is on him to show that the negligence of the carrier was the proximate cause of the loss or injury." But the burden & Tribbler (Tex. Civ. App.) 85 S. W. 319. 8. Richmond, etc., E. Co. v. Trous- dale, 99 Ala. 389; Western E. Co. v. Harwell, 91 Ala. 340; Toledo, etc., R. Co. V. Durkin, 76 111. 395; McCoy v. Keokuk, etc., R. Co., 44 Iowa, 424; Dow V. Portland Steam-Packet Co., 84 Me. 490; Evans v. Fitchburg R. Co., Ill Mass. 142; Llndslev v. Cbi- cago, etc., R. Co., 36 Minn. 539; Hull T. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 41 Minn. 510; Doan V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 38 Mo. App. 408; Wallingford v. Columbia, etc., R. Co., 26 S. C. 258; Louisville, etc., R. Co. V. Wynn, 88 Tenn. 320. See Cash v. Wabash R. Co., 81 Mo. App. 109. 9. Nelson v. Great Northern R. Co., 28 Mont. 297, 72 Pac. 642. 10. Cragin v. New York Cent. R. Co., 51 N. Y. 61 ; Penn. v. Buffalo, etc., R. Co., 49 N. Y. 204, 10 Am. Rep. 355; Giblin -v. National Steamship Co., 8 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 22, 28 N. Y. Supp. 69; Evans v. Fitchburg R. Co., Ill Mass. 142; Adams Express Co. V. Bratton, 106 111. App. 563, where the carrier has the sole cus- tody of animals, the burden of proof is on it to show that it has exercised ordinary care in the carriage of the freight; in other words, that it is free from negligence which, as a suf- ficient contributing cause, brought about the damage. 11. Louisville, etc., E. Co. v. Hamed, 23 Ky. L. Eep. 1651, 66 S. W. 25; Needy v. Western Maryland E. Co., 22 Pa. Super. Ct. 489; Chi- cago, etc., E. Co. V. Carey, 115 111. 115; Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Craw- ford, 24 Ohio St. 631; Boehlv. Chi- cago, etc., E. Co., 44 Minn. 191; Peterson v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., (S. D.) 102 N. W. 595. The burden of proof is on the shipper, suing for in- juries to live stock, to show that a valuation placed on the property in the contract of shipment, on which the rates of transportation were based, was invalid and not binding on him. United States Exp. Co. v. Joyce, (Ind. App.) 69 N. E. 1015. The burden of establishing the absence of considera- tion for a contract limiting tlie value of live stock shipped rested on the shipper, where he alleged absence of such consideration in his complaint. Evansville, etc., R. Co. v. Kevekordes, (Ind. App.) 69 N. E. 1022. Where a contract of shipment provides that the shipper shall make any claim for injuries to stock within a certain time, the burden of showing perform- ance of such condition rests on the 634 The Law of Cabjeibes. is on the carrier to show that the terms of a contract of carriage relied on in defense to an action for injury to live stock, were assented to by the consignor." The carrier is relieved from responsibility upon proof that it has provided suitable means of transportation and exercised the degree of care which the nature of the property requires, as the presumption then arises that the stock were injured through their inherent vice." Where this is not shown, and the defense is merely that the injury resulted from the proper vice of the animals, such defense must be proven affirmatively." Where the carrier is by special contract relieved from liability for loss occasioned otherwise than by negligence, the fact of loss raises no presumption of negligence, and the bur- den is upon the shipper to prove negligence.^' Where the shipper assumes to take care of the stock during transportation he has the burden of proving that the loss was occasioned by the carrier's negligence, whether in failing to furnish proper care or in the transportation." § 26. Liability of connecting carriers. — A connecting line is ordinarily relieved from all liability after it has delivered live stock in transit to the next succeeding line in good order." But shipper. Ealina & Cizek v. Union 15. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Baior- Pac. R. Co., (Kan.) 76 Pac. 438. The dan, 119 Pa. St. 577; Hussey v. Sar- burden of showing that a. defect in a agossa, 3 Woods (U. S.) 380; Inter- car accepted by him as sufficient was national, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, 1 Tex. not patent when he examined the car App. Civ. Cas., § 844; Harris v. Mid- is on the shipper. Williams v. Cen- land R. Co., 25 W. E. 63. See East tral of Ga. R. Co., 117 Ga. 830, 43 S. Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. Johnson, 75 E. 980; Nevises v. Chicago, etc., R. Ala. 596; Lindsley v. Chicago, etc., Co., (Wis.) 102 N. W. 489. R. Co., 36 Minn. 539. 12. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Pat- 16. Terre Haute, etc., R. Co. v. ton, 203 HI. 376, 67 N. E. 804. Sherwood, 132 Ind. 129; St. Louis, 13. Hayman v. Philadelphia, etc., etc., R. Co. v. Piper, 13 Kan. 510; R. Co., 8 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 86; Hey- Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Hedger, 9 man v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 54 Bush (Ky.) 645; Bankard v. Balti- N. Y. Super. Ct. 158; Chicago, etc., more, etc., R. Co., 34 Md. 197; Mc- R. Co. v. Abels, 60 Miss. 1017 ; Louis- Beath v. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 20 Mo. ville, etc., R. Co. v. Bigger, 66 Miss. App. 445. 319; Hlinois Cent. R. Co. v. Team, 17. See Connecting Carriers. Nash- (Miss.) 20 So. 706. ville, etc., R. Co. v. Stone & Haslett, 14. Fort Worth, etc., R. Co. v. (Tenn.) 79 S. W. 1031. Greathouse, 82 Tex. 104, 17 S. W. 834. Caeeiebs of Live Stock. 635 a common carrier may make either express or implied contracts for the delivery beyond its own lines and become liable for injury on the connecting line.^^ Where stock is shipped over connecting lines under a through contract of shipment, both carriers are liable for the damages occasioned by either.^' Where the contract •of carriage limits the carrier's liability to damages occurring on its own line, it is not liable for damage resulting from delays on connecting lines. ^^ But it is liable for delay in not furnishing cars Tvithin a reasonable time f^ and for unreasonable delay in deliver- ing them to a connecting carrier ;^^ and for delay caused by defects in a car accepted from a connecting line;^' and for injuries due to failure to properly bed the cars, although the injuries did not develop until after the cattle were in the hands of a connecting carrier.^ An initial line is liable for a loss resulting from a -defect in a oar furnished by it, although the loss occur on a con- necting line. The shipper in such case may hold either line liable.^' Where a connecting carrier refuses to accept cattle ten- ia. Missouri, etc., E. Co. v. Wells, (Tex. Civ. App.) 58 S. W. 842; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. McCarty, (Tex. ■Civ. App.) 69 S. W. 229; Texas Mex- ican Ey. Co. V. Gallagher, (Tex. Civ. App.) 64 S. W. 809; San Antonio, ■etc., E. Co. V. Barnett, (Tex. Civ. App.) 66 S. W. 474, verbal agree- ments are merged in written contract. Where a carrier contracted to ship beyond its own line on a connecting line, it is not liable to the consignor lor stock loaded at a point beyond its terminus, and for which the consignor accepted a bill of lading from the 'Carrier operating it at such place. Hartley v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., (Iowa), 89 >r. W. 88. See also Eob- ■ert C. White Live Stock, etc., Co. v. <3hicaigo, etc., E. Co., 87 Mo. App. ^30. 19. Texas, etc., E. Co. v. Andrews, (Tex. Civ. App.) 80 S. W. 390; Texas, «te., E. Co. V. Eandle, 18 Tex. Civ. App. 351, 44 S. W. 603. See Texas ■Cent. E. Co. v. Cauble, (Tex. Civ. App.) 81 S. W. 1022; Texas, etc., E. Co. V. Byers Bros., (Tex. Civ. App.) 73 S. W. 427; Texas, etc., E. Co. v. Cushny, (Tex. Civ. App.) 64 S. W. 795. By statute in some states the last carrier which receives the ship- ment "in good order" is liable. Susong V. Florida Cent. E. Co., 115 Ga. 361, 41 S. E. 566; Galveston, etc., E. Co. V. Botts, (Tex. Civ. App.) 70 S. W. 113. 20. International, etc., E. Co. v. Earnest & Bost, (Tex. Civ. App.) 77 S. W. 29; International, etc., E. Co. V. Startz, (Tex.) 77 S. W. 1. 21. Texas, etc., E. Co. v. Smith & White, (Tex. Civ. App.) 79 S. W. 614. 22. Felton v. McCreary, etc.. Live Stock Co., 22 Ky. L. Eep. 1058, 50 S. W. 744. 23. St. Louis, etc., E. Co. v. Car- lisle, (Tex. Civ. App.) 78 S. W. 553. 24. Tex. Cent. E. Co. v. O'Lough- lin, (Tex. Civ. App.) 84 S. W. 1104. 25. Indianapolis, etc., E. Co. v. Strain, 81 III. 504; Potts v. Wabash, 536 The Law of Caeeiees. tered by the initial carrier, because unaccompanied by a proper way-bill, the initial carrier is liable. ^^ Where a connecting car- rier, over whose line a shipment of live stock was routed, refused to accept the same, it was the duty of the initial carrier to notify the consrignor of such fact, and obtain further directions, unless the property was of such a perishable nature that the delay would be calculated to injure or destroy it.^ A contract to carry by con- necting lines, the carrier making the contract not contracting for itseK beyond its lines, but acting as agent only for the contracting carrier, and the freight charges for each line being distinct, is a separable contract.^* Where cattle are shipped on a through bill of lading, a connecting carrier is not required to furnish imme- diate transportation for the same on receiving it, but is only bound to forward the shipment with reasonable diligence.^ In an action, for damages caused by delay in the shipment of cattle, connecting carriers are not liable for damages resulting from the fact that the shipment was improperly routed.^" § 27. Liability for improper loading or unloading. — ^It is the- carrier's duty, in the absence of special contract, to load on the cars live stock tendered to it for transportation, and it is liable for injuries received by them while being loaded or resulting from improper loading or overloading.'^ But where the shipper spe- cially contracts to load his stock,'^ or where he voluntarily under- takes to load them although there is no special contract,^' he alone etc., E. Co., 17 Mo. App. 394; Mis- 29. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Kapp, souri Pae. R. Co. v. Kingsbury, (Tex. (Tex. Civ. App.) 83 S. W. 233. Civ. App.) 25 S. W. 323; Alabama 30. Houston, etc., E. Co. v. Bu- G. S. R. Co. V. Thomas, 89 Ala. 297. chanan, (Tex. Civ. App.) 84 S. W. 26. 101 Live Stock Co. v. Kansas 1037; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Harris,. City, etc., E. Co., (Mo. App.) 75 S. (Tex. Civ. App.) 72 S. W. 71. W. 782; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Dil- 31. See Carriers of Goods, worth, (Tex.) 67 S. W. 88. 32. Fordyce v. McFlynn, 56 Ark. 27. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Dun- 424; St. Louis, etc., E. Co. v. Weakly, can & Orr, 137 Ala. 446, 34 So. 988. 50 Ark. 397; Fort Worth, etc., E. Co. See Ft. Worth, etc., E. Co. v. Mas- v. Wood, (Tex. Civ. App.) 32 S. W. terson, (Tex.) 66 S. W. 833, exist- 14; Texas, etc., E. Co. v. Klepper, ence of void state quarantine line will (Tex. Civ. App.) 24 S. W. 567; Mls- not justify a refusal to accept cat- souri Pac. E. Co. v. Edwards, 78 Tex. tie. 307. 28. Hughes v. Pennsylvania Co., 33. Bowie v. Baltimore, etc., U. 502 Pa. 222. 51 Atl. 990. Co., 1 MacArthur (D. C.) 94; Hous- Caeeiees of Live Stock. 63 T is liable for any injuries resulting from overloading or improper loading, and lie cannot hold the carrier liable therefor, aMough there is a general duty resting upon the carrier's agent to examine trains under his control and see that the cars are properly loaded. It has been held, however, in some oases that the shipper may recover although, he has improperly loaded the stock, where, not- withstanding his negligence, it clearly appears that the carrier knew, or ought to have known, the condition of the cars as to their loading when received by it.^* So where the carrier's servants in. fact do the loading and unloading, although the shipper may have expressly agreed to do so.^^ Where the shipper undertakes to fur- nish the cars for the shipment of his stock and to load them, the carrier is not responsible either for defects in the cars or for injuries resulting from improper loading.^* The carrier is respon- sible for injuries to stock occurring while they are being unloaded due to insufficient or improper facilities or means for unload- ing them." § 28. Liability for animals escaping. — It is the duty of the carrier to see that animals being transported are properly and securely fastened in the car so that they cannot escape, audi it is- liable for the loss of animals by escaping from the cars, whether the loss results from defects in the cars provided for the purpose,'* or from a failure to properly secure the animals therein','' or to ton, etc., E. Co. v. Hester, (Tex.) 7 shipment aa agreed. Lawrence v. Mil- S. W. 776; Griffin v. Great Western waukee, etc., E. Co., 84 Wis. 427. E. Co., 15 U. 0. Q. B. 507 ; Richardson 37. East Tennessee, etc., E. Co. v. V. North Eastern E. Co., L. E. 7 C. Herrman, 92 Ga. 384 ; Owen v. Louis- P. 75, 20 W. E. 461. ville, etc., R. Co., 87 Ky. 626 ; Chesa- 34. Kinnick v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., peake, etc., E. Co. v. American Exch. 69 Iowa, 665 ; Doan v. St. Louis, etc.. Bank, 92 Va. 495 ; Willoughby v. E. Co., 38 Mo. App. 408. Horridge, 12 C. B. 742, 74 E. C. L. 35. Missouri Pac. E. Co. v. Kings- 742; Combe v. London, etc., E. Co., bury, (Tex. Civ. App.) 25 S. W. 322; 31 L. T. N. S. 613. See Chicago, etc., Norfolk, etc., E. Co. v. Sutherland, R. Co. v. Owen, 21 III. App. 339, ' 89 Va. 703. where the injury was held properly 36. Fordyce v. McFlynn, 56 Ark. attributable to the proper vice of the 424. A shipper is not at fault for animal and the carrier not liable, failure to furnish cars where it has 38. See § 3, ante. tendered such cars in a way not oh- 39. Porterfield v. Humphreys, 8- jected to by the carrier and the lat- Humph. (Tenn.) 497; Stuart y. ter fails to accept them and make the Crawley, 2 Stark. 323, 3 E. C. L. 428. S38 The Law of Caeeiees. • keep the doors and windows properly closed,** or from a failure to provide safe and suitable sftock yards or pens at the point of shipment or destination." The contributory negligence of the shipper is, however, a good defense in such cases,*^ as where the carrier's agraat was prevented by the shipper from locking the door of a oar,^^ or the shipper, who loaded the car, allowed it to start before the doors were dosed," or knowing of a defect in the door, failed to make it known to the carrier.*^ 40. Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Allen, 31 Ind. 394; Oxley v. St. Louis, «tc., K. Co., 65 Mo. 629. See North Missouri R. Co. v. Akers, 4 Kan. 453, yrhere mules escaped while being driv- ■en to water it was held to be a ques- tion whether the carrier was liable as a carrier or only as a wareHouae- jnan. 41. Chapin v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 79 Iowa, 582. 42 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 543. 42. Hutchinson v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 37 Minn. 524. 43. Lee v. Raleigh, etc., R. Co.. 72 N. C. 236. 44. Newhy v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 19 Mo. App. 391. 45. Betts V. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 21 Wis. 80, 91 Am. Dec. 460. CHAPTER XIX. Caeeiees of Passenoees. SlonOH 1. Definition and nature of carriers of passeugen. 2. Belation between carrier and passenger. 3. Who are passengers. 4. Commencement of relation. 5. Purchase of ticket. 6. Entry in vehicle of carrier. 7. Payment of fare. 8. Termination of relation. 9. Leaving the vehicle of carrier. 10. After leaving vehicle of carrier. 11. Stop-overs on continuous passage tickets. 12. Who are not passengers. 13. Limited and unlimited tickets. 14. Nontransferable tickets. 15. Persons riding gratuitously. 16. Persons riding on passes. 17. Persons riding on drover's pass. 18. Persons riding on trains not generally used for passengers. 19. Persons riding on engine. 20. Persons riding on hand cars. 21. Employes of others carried under contract. — ^Mail clerks. 22. Employes of others carried under contract. — Express messengers. 23. Persons riding on freight trains. 24. Persons accompanying passengers. 25. Employes of carrier as passengers. 26. Bules and regulations of the carrier. § 1. Definition and nature of carriers of passengers. — Car- Tierg of passengers are those who undertake either gratuitously or for hire, to carry persons from place to place.^ Common carriers •of passengers are those who undertake to carry all persons indif- ferently who apply for passage, so long as there is room and there is no legal excuse for refusing.^ To constitute one a common car- 1. A carrier, who undertakes the 208; Gillingham v. Ohio River R. ■transportation of prisoners of war, is Co., 35 W. Va. 588, 29 Am. Rep. 827; a carrier of passengers as to the ne- Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Messino, I -«essary guards. Truax v. Erie R. Co., Sneed (Tenn. ) 220; Bouv. L. Diet., 4 Lans. (N. Y.) 98. tit. "Common carrier of passengers." 2. Vemer v. Sweitzer, 32 Pa. St. (539) •540 The Law of Caeeiees. rier of passengers it is necessary that he hold himself out to th» public as such.' The distance to be traveled by the passenger, or his destination, do not affect the question as to whether the car- rier is or is not a common carrier of passengers.^ A corporation may be liable as a common carrier of passengers, although its con- tracts for such carriage were ultra vires.^ Common carriers of pas- sengers include railroads f street railroads, whether horse,' dum- my,* electric,' or cable ;^° city omnibus lines ;" proprietors of stage- coaches;" hackmen;^' steamboat companies;" ferrymen;^' sleep- ing car companies ;^* and owners of elevators." 3. Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Mes- sino, supra. 4. Parmelee v. Lowitz, 74 111. 116, 24 Am. Eep. 276; Parmelee v. Mc- Nulty, 19 111. 556; Lemon v. Chans- lor, 68 Mo. 340, 30 Am. Rep. 799; Bennett v. Peninsular, etc., Steam- boat Co., 6 C. B. 785, 60 E. C. L. 785. 5. Albion Lumber Co. v. De Nobra, 44 U. S. App. 347; Baltimore, etc., R. Co. V. Eambo, 16 U. S. App. 277; Caldwell v. Richmond, etc., E. Co., 89 Ga. 550. 6. Davis V. Button, 78 Cal. 247; Gilienwater v. Madison, etc., E. Co., 5 Ind. 342, 61 Am. Dec. 101; Cald- well V. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 89 Ga. 550; Murch v. Concord R. Corp., 29 N. H. 28, 61 Am. Dec. 631, a rail- road is a common carrier of passen- gers in a caboose attached to a freight train where it is was the usual cus- tom of the company to so carry pas- sengers. 7. Holly V. Atlanta St. R. Co., (Ga.) 7 Eep. 460. 8. Spellman v. Lincoln Eapid Trans. Co., 36 Neb. 890, 38 Am. St. Eep. 753. 9. Richmond R., etc., Co. v. Bowles, 6 Am. Electl. Cas. 449, 92 Va. 738. 10. Watson v. St. Paul City R. Co., 42 Minn. 46. 11. Parmelee v. Lowitz, supra. 12. Frenk v. Coe, 4 Greene (Iowa) 555, 61 Am. Dec. 141; Bennett v. Dutton, 10 N. H. 481; Lovett v. Hobbs, 2 Show. 127. 13. Lemon v. Chanslor, supra. Sefr Siegrist v. Arnot, 86 Mo. 200, 10 Mo. App. 197, 56 Am. Eep. 42S. 14. The Pacific, 1 Blatchf. (U. S.) 569; The Zenobia, 1 Abb. Adm. 48; The Aberfoyle, 1 Blatchf. (U. S.) 360; Jencks v. Coleman, 2 Sumn. (U. S.) 221; McCleneghan v. Brock, 5 Rich L. (S. C.) 17. 15. Le Barron v. East Boston Fer- ry Co., 11 Allen (Mass.) 312, 87 Am. Dec. 717; Whitmore v. Bowman. 4^ Greene (Iowa) 148; Slimmer v. Merry, 23 Iowa, 90; Blakely v. I* Due, 19 Minn. 187. 16. Welch V. Pullman Palace Car Co., 1 Sheld. (N. Y.) 457; Nevin v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 106 111. 222, 46 Am. Rep. 688; Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. Barker, 4 Colo. 344, 34 Am. Rep. 89; Pullman's Palace Car Co. V. Fielding, 62 111. App. 577. Iiiability of railroad companr drawing sleeping oara. — The pub- lic interest and due protection of the rights of passengers require that the railroad company, which is exer- cising the franchise of operating th« road for the carriage of passengerv should be charged with and responsi- ble for the management of the train, and that all persons employed there- on should, as to passengers, be Caeeiees of Passengees. 541 § 2. Relation between carrier and passenger. — The relation between carrier and passenger can only be created by contract, express or implied. Where there is no express contract which determines the liability of the carrier for personal injuries sus- tained by the passenger, the liability of the carrier must depend solely on the duty raised by the law.^* There is a radical dis- tinction between the liability of a carrier with res-pect to the transportation of goods and the carrying of persons, which arises from the intelligence and power of locomotion of the latter. The former have neither power of volition, nor of motion, and are affected by physical causes only ; while tlie latter have intelligence, judgment and discretion, are operated upon by moral causes, and the carrier has not, and cannot have, even in the case of human beings in whose persons another has a property interest, the same absolute control over them, as it has over inanimate matter. The doctrine of the law of common carriers that the carrier is respon- sible for every loss of or injury to goods carried which is not pro- duced by inevitable accident, and which has been pressed by con- deemed to be servants of the cor- poration. The railroad company is, therefore, liable for an assault by the porter of a sleeping car on a, pas- senger. Thorpe v. New York Cent., etc., E. Co., 76 N. Y. 402, 32 Am. Eep. 325; Dwindle v. New York Cent., etc., K. Co., 120 N. Y. 117. It is also liable for defects in a sleep- ing car, especially when the passenger is not aware that the car is under the management of the sleeping car com- pany. Pennsylvania Co. v. Eoy, 102 U. S. 457; Kingsley v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 125 Mass. 54, 28 Am. Eep. 200; Iron R. Co. v. Mowery, 36 Ohio St. 418, 38 Am. Eep. 597; Cleve- land, etc., R. Co. V. Walrath, 38 Ohio St. 461, 4 So. 85. 17. Springer v. Ford, 189 111. 430, 62 L. R. A. 930, 59 N. E. 953. But see Seaver v. Bradley, (Mass.) 69 N. E. 795. See also Owners of Passenger Elevators, chap. 2, § 42. 18. Farley v. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co.. 108 Fed. 14, 47 C. C. A. 156; Illinois Cent. E. Co. v. O'Keefe, 168 111. 115, 48 N. E. 294; Schepers v. Union Depot R. Co., 126 Mo. 665, 5 Am. Electl. Cas. 398, 29 S. W. 712, 2 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. N. S. 9; Schaefer v. St. Louis, etc., E. Co., 128 Mo., 64, 30 S. W. 331; Spannagle V. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 31 111. App. 460; Gardner v. New Haven, etc., E. Co., 51 Conn. 143, 50 Am. Eep. 12, 18 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 170; Hoar v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 70 Me. 65 ; Penn- sylvania E. Co. V. Price, 96 Pa. St. 267, 1 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 234; Fre- mont, etc., E. Co. V. French, 48 Neb. 638, 4 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. N. S. 365; Higley v. Gilmer, 3 Mont. 90, 35 Am. Eep. 450; North Chicago St. R. Co. V. Williams, 140 111. 275, 52 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 522; Baltimore, etc., E. Co. V. Breinig, 25 Md. 378. The contract may be made between the respective agents of the carrier and passenger. Euss v. Steamboat War Eagle, 14 Iowa, 363; Gulf, etc., E. Co. V. Wilson, 79 Tex. 371. 542 The Law of Caeeiees. siderations of policy beyond the general principles) which govern the law of bailment, which a carriage of goods is, is not, thereforey applicable to the carriage of passengers. The rights, privileges and protection attaching to the relation of a passenger are im- posed upon common carriers upon considerations of public policy, independent of contract, and arise from the nature of their public employment. Carriers of passengers are answerable for any injury sustained by their passengers in consequence of their neg- ligence or want of skill, or that of their agents or servants, but they are not insurers of the safety of their passengers, like com- mon carriers of goods. Their duties are measured in degree by the dangers which attend their method of carriage, and the high- est degree of care and prudence, the utmost skill and foresight, which can be exercised under all the circumstances as to possibla dangers and guarding against them, are the only limits which a decent regard to the safety of men, and a conformity to the estab- lished principles of law, allow to be fixed to their responsibility." Where the carrier acts as the carrier of passengers and also of their baggage its responsibility as to passengers is that already stated, while as to their baggage it incurs the ordinary responsi- bility of a common carrier, nothing excusing it for loss of or injury to it but inevitable accident or the act of the public enemy.'"' The 19. Coddington v. Brooklyn, etc., 18 E. C. L. 227; Tattan v. Great E. Co., 102 N. Y. 66; Palmer v. Del- Western E. Co., 2 El. & El. 844, 105 aware, etc.. Canal Co., 120 N. Y. 170, E. C. L. 844; Collett v. London, etc, 17 Am. St. Eep. 629; Maverick v. E. Co., 6 Eng. L. & Eq. 305; Breth- EigMh Ave. E. Co., 36 N. Y. 378; erton v. Wood, 3 Brod. & B. 54, 7 Deyo V. New York Cent. E. Co., 34 E. C. L. 345. N. Y. 9, 83 Am. Dee. 418; Bowen v. 20. Camden, etc., E. Co. v. Burke, New York Cent. E. Co., 18 N. Y. 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 611; HoUister v. 408; Caldwell v. New Jersey Steam- Nowlen, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 234; Cole boat Co., 47 N. Y. 282; Hegeman v. v. Gtoodwin. 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 251; Western E. Co., 13 N. Y. 9, 64 Am. Powell v. Myers, 20 Wend. (N. Y.) Dee. 517; Boyce v. Anderson, 2 Pet. 591; Caldwell v. Murphy, 1 Duer (N. (U. S.) 155; Philadelphia, etc., E. Y.) 233; Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Car- Co. V. Derby, 14 How. (U. S.) 468; roll, 5 111. App. 201; Bennett v. Dut- Nolton V. Western E. Corp., 15 N. Y. ton, 10 N. H. 481; Pittsburgh, etc., 444, 69 Am. Dec. 623; Clark v. Mc- E. Co. v. Hinds, 53 Pa. St. 512, 91 Donald, 4 McCord L. (S. C.) 223; Am. Dec. 224; Grand Eapids, etc., R. McClenaghan v. Brock, 5 Eieh L. (S. Co. v. Huntley, 38 Mich. 537, 31 Am. C.) 17; McNeill v. Durham, etc., E. Eep. 321; East Tennessee, etc., E. Co. Co., 135 N. C. 682, 47 S. E. 765; An- v. Mitchell, 11 Heisk. (Tenn.) 400; sell V. Waterhouse, 8 Chit. Eep. 1, Gillingham v. Ohio Eiver E. Co., 35 Caeeiers of Passengees. 643- relation of carrier and passenger being entered upon, the carrier is answerable for all consequences to the passenger of the wilful misconduct or negligence of the persons employed by it in the execution of the contract which it has undertaken toward the pas- senger. This is a reasonable and necessary rule which has been upheld by the courts in many cases. ^^ § 3. Who are passengers. — The general rule is that any per- son whom a common carrier has contracted, expressly or impliedly, to convey from one place to another, in consideration of the pay- ment of fare, or its equivalent, and who, in the course of the per- formance of such contract has been received by the carrier under its care, either upon the means of conveyance, or at the point of departure of that conveyance, is a passenger.^ "When a railroad, company admits passengers to a freight train, and takes the cus- tomary fare, it incurs the same liability for their safety as if they were on the regular passenger trains.^* Railroad companies are also liable for injuries resulting from negligence in carrying pas- sengers over their roads whether with or without compensation, but the action in the latter case is not to be maintained upon the basis of a contract, express or implied, but upon the neglect of the duty which the law imposesi, and such companies owe to all whom they voluntarily undertake to carry the duty to exercise a W. Va. 595, 29 Am. St. Eep. 827; derson, 90 Va. 6, 44 Am. St. Eep. 886, Stoker v. Saltonstall, 13 Pet. (U. S.) 17 S. E. 759. 191; Crofts v. Waterhouse, 11 Moore 22. Kane v. Cicero, etc., R. Co.,. 133; Christie v. Griggs, 2 Campb. 79. 100 111. App. 181; Altemeier v. Cin- 21. Palmeri v. Manhattan E. Co., cinnati, etc., E. Co., 4 Ohio N. P. 133 N. Y. 261, 30 N. E. 1001; Dwin- 224, 4 Ohio L. N. 300; Pennsylvania elle V. New York Cent. E. Co., 120 E. Co. v. Price, 96 Pa. St. 267, 1 N. Y. 117, 17 Am. St. Eep. 611, S Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 234; Higley v., L. E. A. 224; Stewart v. Brooklyn, Gilmer, 3 Mont. 90, 35 Am. Eep. etc., E. Co., 90 N. Y. 588, 43 Am. 450. Rep. 185; Hamilton v. Third Ave. E. A passenger is one who enters th<^ Co., 53 N. Y. 25; Weed v. Panama R. vehicle of a carrier with the inten- Co., 17 N. Y. 362, 72 Am. Dec. 474; tion of paying in money the usual fare Steamboat Co. v. Broekett, 121 U. for his transportation, or who is S. 637, 30 L. Ed. 1039; Baltimore, supplied with a ticket or pass en- etc, E. Co. V. Barger, 80 Md. 31, 45 titling him to ride to a given point.. Am. St. Eep. 322, 30 Atl. 561, 26 Holt v. Hannibal, etc., E. Co., 87 Mo. L. E. A. 222 ; Haver v. Central E. Co , App. 203. 62 N. J. L. 286, 41 Atl. 917, 43 L. E. 23. Edgerton v. New York, etc.,, A. 85; Norfolk, etc., E. Co. v. An- E. Co., 39 N. Y. 227. 544: The Law of Caeeiees. proper degree of care and skill in the performance of what they have undertaken. This duty does not result alone from the con- sideration paid for the service, but is imposed by law even when the service is gratuitous, and where there is no actual contract to carry, it is properly said that the liability in an action founded upon the public duty is co-extensive with the liability on the con- tract.^^ It is this duty to carry safely, which arises out of contract express or implied, between the carrier and its passenger, or which exists, independently of contract, and although there is no contract in a legal sense between the parties, which distinguishes the rela- tion between the carrier and its passengers from that which it sustains toward licensees,^^ or trespassers,^' its own employes,^' or the employes of sleeping car companies,^ or of railroad contrac- tors," or of shippers of goods, when transported by consent or per- mission without payment of fare,'" to whom the carrier owes no 24. Carroll v. Staten Island E. Co., 68 N. Y. 126, 17 Am. Eep. 221; Nol- ton V. The Western Railroad Corp., 15 N. Y. 444, 69 Am. Dec. 623; Phil- adelphia, etc., R. Co. V. Derby, 14 How. (U. S.) 483; Allen v. Sewall, 2 Wend. (N. Y.) 338; Steamboat v. King, 16 How. (U. S.) 474; Gillen- "water v. Madison, etc., R. Co., 5 Ind. -339; Farwell v. Boston E. Co., 4 Mete. (Mass.) 49, 38 Am." Dec. 339; Wilton V. Middlesex E. Co., 107 Mass. 108; Waterbury v. New York Cent., etc., H. Co., 17 Fed. 671; Prince v. Inter- national, etc., R. Co., 64 Tex. 144, 21 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 152; Bretherton V. Wood, 5 Brod. & B. 54, 7 E. C. L. 345. 25. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. y. Bodemer, 139 111. 596, 54 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 177; Shelby v. Cincinnati, «te., E. Co., 85 Ky. 224; Benson v. Baltimore Traction Co., 77 Md. 535; Blackmore v. Toronto St. R. Co., 38 V. C. Q. B. 172. 26. Morris v. Brown, 111 N. Y. 318, 7 Am. St. Rep. 751; Schurr v. Houston, 10 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 262; Lygo V. Newbold, 9 Exch. 302. 27. Yeomans v. Contra Costa Steam Nav. Co., 44 Cal. 71. 28. Hudson v. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 2 App. Cas. (D. C.) 98. But contra, see Jones v. St. Louis SoutTi- western R. Co., 125 Mo. 666. 29. McCauley v. Tennessee, etc.. Coal Co., 93 Ala. 356, 47 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 580; Sherman v. Toronto, etc., E. Co., 34 U. C. Q. B. 451; Gra- ham V. Toronto, etc., E. Co., 23 U. C. C. P. 541. But see Torpy v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 20 U. C. Q. B. 446, where a contract existed. 30. Gradin v. St. Paul, etc., E. Co., 30 Minn. 217, an employe of a lumber company, whose lumber was being loaded and carried by the rail- road company riding in an empty car merely by consent and permission of the conductor, was not a passenger, though not a trespasser. But where, by an arrangement be- tween a lumber company and the carrier, the latter agreed to carry the former's employes to and from work, an employe riding to work on a logging train was entitled to the rights of a passenger. Trinity Val. Caeeibes of Passengbes. 645' £uch duty. Every person being carried upon a public conveyance usually employed in the carriage of passengers, and not employed by or connected with the carrier, is presumed to be lawfully upon it as a passenger, and the burden- is on the carrier to show that he is a trespasser.^^ But this presumption may be rebutted.^^ And a person upon a car, as a freight car, not designed for passengers, is presumed by law not to be a passenger, and it requires special circumstances to rebut thia presumption.^' § 4. Commencement of relation. — The relation of carrier and passenger is a contract relation, which commences when the pas- senger has put himself into the care of the carrier with a hona fide intention of being transported, and the carrier has expressly or impliedly received and accepted him as a passenger.'* Where one has made a contract for passage upon a vehicle of a common car- rier, and has presented himself at the proper place to be trans- ported, his right to care and protection begins. '^ So, one taking E. Co. V. Stewart (Tex. Civ. App.), 62 S. W. 1085. 31. Bryant v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 53 Fed. 997, 58 Am. & Eng. K. Caa. 15; Pennsylvania R. Co., v. Books, 57 Pa. St. 339; Atchison, etc., R. Co. V. Headland, 18 Colo. 447, 58 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 4; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Thompson, 107 Ind. 442, 57 Am. Rep. 120, 27 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 329; Creed v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 86 Pa. St. 139, 27 Am. Rep. 693; Gillingham v. Ohio River R. Co., 35 W. Va. 588, gl Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 222. 32. People v. Douglass, 87 Cal. 281, and the presumption does not arise as to every one who' goes on board a steamboat stopping at one of its usual stopping places. Keokuk Packet Co. v. Henry, 50 111. 264. 33. Eaton v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 57 N. Y. 382, 15 Am. Rep. 513; Waterbury v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 21 Blatchf. (U. S.) 314, 17 Fed. 671; Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Headland, supra. And if a person by 35 his own solicitation or consent is car- ried on a vehicle or conveyance whicli is not used for passenger carriage, and this be known to him, there can be no presumption that he is a pas- senger, although the owner may be a common carrier of passengers by other and diiferent means of convey- ance. Snyder v. Natchez, etc., R. Co.. 42 La. Ann. 302, 44 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 278. 34. O'Dounell v. Chicago, etc., E. Co.. 106 111. App. 287; Haselton v. Portsmouth, etc., St. Ey., 71 N. H. 589, 53 Atl. 1016; Spannagle v. Chi- cago, etc., E. Co., 31 111. App. 460; Webster v. Fitchburg E. Co., 161 Mass. 298, 24 L. R. A. 521, 37 N. E. 165; Allender v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 37 Iowa, 264. See also Bricker v. Campbell, 132 Pa. 1, 18 Atl. 983. 35. Davis v. Cayuga, etc., E. Co., 10 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 330; Wabash, etc., R. Co. V. Rector, 104 111. 296; Hannibal, etc., R. Co. v. Martin, U 111. App. 386; Central R., etc., Co. v. Perry, 58 Ga. 461; Dodge v. Boston, 546 The Law of Caeeiees. a seat in a railroad car, for transportation, becomes a passenger, entitled to full protection in his rights as such, from the starting of the car, although he has not purchased a ticket or paid his fare.'° Formal announcement on the part of the passenger that he wishea or intends to become a passenger or formal delivery of his person into the care of the carrier, or formal acceptance of him as a pas- senger on the part of the. carrier are not necessary to constitute the relation of carrier and passenger. Such relation is to be im- plied from all the circumstances surroimding the case, and these circumstances must fully justify the inference that lie passenger has offered or presented himself as a passenger," and that the car- rier has accepted and received him as such.'' Entering upon the carrier's premises, into the station, ticket office, or -waiting room, with the intention in good faith of becoming a passenger, and while passing therefrom to a seat in the conveyance, ordinarily places one in the position of a passenger.^' The relation of car- rier and pasEfenger arises when a street car stops at a usual place for passengers, or upon signal, and a person in the exercise of due care gets on the steps or platform of the car, for the purpose of taking passage 5^° when the conductor of an elevated railroad train. etc., Steamship Co., 148 Mass. 207, Pac. 996 ; White v. Atlanta St. R. Co, 12 Am. St. Rep. 541; Warren v. 92 Ga. 494, 17 S. E. 672. Fitehburg R. Co., 8 Allen (Mass.), 38. Gardner v. New Haven, etc., 227, 85 Am. Dec. 700 ; Smith v. St. R. Co., 51 Conn. 143, 50 Am. Rep. 12, Paul City R. Co., 32 Minn. 1, 50 Am. 18 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 170; Hoar v. Rep. 550, 16 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 310. Maine Cent. R. Co., 70 Me. 65; A mere contract for future Lewis v. Houston Elee. R. Co. (Tex.), transportation does not of itself 88 S. W. 489; Missouri, etc., R. Co. create the relation of carrier and pas- v. Williams, 91 Tex. 255. See also senger. Donovan v. Hartford St. R. Martin t. Southern Ry., 51 S. C. 150, Co., 65 Conn. 201. 28 S. E. 303. 36. BufiFett v. Troy, etc., R. Co., 40 39. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Weeks, N. Y. 168, so held of a person who 99 111. App. 518, 64 N. E. 1039; was riding in the stage used by a Gordon v. Grand St., etc., R. Co., 40 railroad company to carry passengers Barb. (N. Y.) 546; McKeman v. to and from its depot; Bissell v. Manhattan R. Co., 65 Conn. 201; Michigan Southern, etc., R. Co., 22 Hansley v. Jamesville, etc., E. Co., N. Y. 307; Nolton v. Western R. 115 N. C. 602; Grimes v. Pennsyl- Corp., 15 N. Y. 444. vania Co., 36 Fed. 72, although a 37. BufFett v. Troy, etc., R. Co., ticket has not been purchased; Nor- supra; Spannagle v. Chicago, etc., R. folk, etc., R. Co. v. Galliher, 89 Va. Co., supra; Higley v. Gilmer, 3 Mont. 639, or the agent refused to sell him 90, 35 Am. Rep. 450; Finkeldey v. a ticket; Atchison, etc., R. Co. ". Omnibus Cable Co., 114 Cal. 28, 45 Holloway (Kan.), 80 Pac. 31. Caeeikes of Passengees. 547 permits one to enter on the steps or platform of a car at one of the stations, "with other passengers," where the carrier accepts a fare from a person on the front platform of a crowded ear, although he is there in violation of a rule of the company;" where a person announces his intention not to pay as he enters the ear, but is allowed to enter and take a seat, and the fare is afterwards de- manded in the usual manner.*' So, if the company undertakes to carry him gratuitously/* Whether the relation of carrier and pas- senger exists is a question of fact for the jury, if the evidence be conflicting.*^ The driver of an omnibus or conductor of a street car by stopping to take on a person, on signal given, thereby accepts him as a passenger.*^ So a connecting carrier whichi 40. Ganiard v. Rochester City, etc., E. Co., 50 Hun (N. Y.), 22, 18 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 692, affd. 121 N. Y. 661; Wallace v. Third Ave. R. Co., 36 App. Div. (N. Y.) 57, 55 N. Y. Supp. 132 ; Drew v. Sixth Ave. R. Co., 26 isr. Y. 49, 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 556; GaflFney v. St. Paul City E. Co., 81 Minn. 459, 84 N. W. 304; Gordon v. West E. St. Ry. Co., 175 Mass. 181, 55 N. E. 990; MoDonough V. Metropolitan R. Co., 137 Mass. 210; Davey v. Greenfield, etc., St. Ey., 177 Mass. 106, 58 N. E. 172. Car stopping npon, signal. — Carney v. Cincinnati St. R. Co., 8 Ohio S. & C. P. Dec. 587; West Chi- cago St. E. Co. V. Shiplett, 85 111. App. 683. But see Duchemin v. Bos- ton El. Ey. Co., 186 Mass. 353, 71 N. E. 780; Donovan v. Hartford St. E. Co., 65 Conn. 201, 32 Atl. 350, 29 L. R. A. 297; Schaefer v. St. Louis S. R. Co., 128 Mo. 64, 30 S. W. 331; Birmingham Ey., etc., Co. V. Eynum, 3 St. Ey. Eep. 6, 139 Ala. 339, 36 So. 736; Citizens' St. Ry Co. V. Jolly, 1 St. Ry. Kep. 157 (Ind.), 67 N. E. 935. See Kennedy V. North Jersey St. R. Co., 3 St. Ey. Eep. 608 (N. J. Sup.), 60 Atl. 40, as to pleading invitation to become a passenger. 41. O'Mara v. St. Louis Transit Co., 102 Mo. App. 202, 76 S. W. 680; Barth v. Kansas City Elev. R. Co., 142 Mo. 535, 10 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. N. S. 281, 44 S. W. 778; Smith v. St. Paul City E. Co., 32 Minn. 1, 50 Am. Eep. 550. 42. Hanna v. Nassau El. E. Co., 18 App. Div. (N. Y.) 137, 45 N. Y. Supp. 437. 43. Sanford v. Eighth Ave. E. Co., 23 N. Y. 343. 44. Perkins v. New York Cent. E. Co., 24 N. Y. 196; Eosenberg v. Third Ave. E. Co., 47 App. Div. (N. Y.) 323, 61 N. Y. Supp. 1052; Buck v. Peoples St. E., etc., Co., 108 Mo. 179, 52 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 512, 18 S. W. 1090; North Chicago St. E. Co. v. Williams, 140 111. 275, 52 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 522, 27 N. E. 672. 45. Buffett V. Troy, etc., E. Co., 40 N. Y. 168; Gordon v. Grand St., etc., E. Co., 40 Barb. (N. Y.) 546; Meyer v. Second Ave. E. Co., 21 N. Y. Super. Ct. 305; George v. Loa Angeles E. Co., 126 Cal. 357, 46 L. E. A. 829, 58 Pac. 819. 46. Citizens St. E. Co. v. Merl, 26 Ind. App. 284, 59 N. E. 491; Brien V. Bennett, 8 C. & P. 724, 34 E. C. L. 603. 548 The Law of Caeeiees. receives upon its track the passenger cars of another company for carriage over its own line assumes the relation of common carrier of passengers toward them when the cars are switched upon its track." § 5. Purchase of ticket. — The relation of passenger and car- rier may exist, notwithstanding the person claiming to be a pas- senger has neither paid fare nor provided himself or herself with a ticket, since it cannot be presumed at law that a demand by the carrier for payment of fare would not be complied witL The purchase of a ticket is not essential to create the relation of pas- senger and carrier.^* The purchase of a ticket, however, creates the relation of carrier and passenger, and subjects each party to all the duties and obligations imposed by law.*' And liiis rule applies although the ticket was not actually paid for at the time,™ and whether purchased from the carrier itself or a duly authorized agent,'^ or a scalper or person who is not a regular dealer and is 47. Sehopman v. Boston, etc., R. Corp., 9 Cush. (Mass.) 24; Chatta- nooga, etc., R. Co. V. Huggins, 89 Ga. 494, 52 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 473. But see Vormus v. Tennessee, etc., R. Co., 97 Ala. 326, where an excur- sion train was permitted to pass over a railroad not used for passenger travel, without the authority of its officers. 48. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Scott, 111 111. App. 234; Edgerton v. New York, etc., R. Co., 39 N. Y. 227; Schurr v. Houston, 10 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 262; Allender v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 37 Iowa, 264, 8 Am. Ry. Rep. 115; Lake Erie, etc., R. Co. v. Mays, 4 Ind. App. 113; Cross v. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 56 Mo. App. 664; Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Galliher, 89 Va. 639; Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Groseclose, 88 Va. 267 ; Jones v. Bos- ton, etc., R. Co., 163 Mass. 245 ; The Wasco, 53 Fed. 546; Secord v. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., 5 McCrary (U. S.), 515, 18 Fed. 221; Prince v. Inter- national, etc., R. Co., 64 Tex. 144, 21 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 152; Houston, etc., R. Co. V. Washington (Tex. Civ. App.), 30 S. W. 719; Nellis St. Ed. Acct. L., 40, and cases there cited. 49. Poucher v. New York Cent. R. Co., 49 N. Y. 263, 10 Am. Eep. 364; Wabash, etc., R. Co. v. Rector, 104 111. 296, 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 264; Spannagle v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 31 111. App. 460, but not as to any par- ticular train; Chicago, etc., E. Co. V. Chisholm, 79 111. 584, and a family commutation ticket authorizes a son residing with his father, although he is of age, to travel thereon; Illinois Cent. E. Co. v. Treat, 179 HI. 576, 54 N. E. 290. Possession of a baggage check and proof of its issue in the custom- ary way is sufficient evidence that the possessor was a passenger. Davis v. Cayuga, etc., E. Co., 10 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 330. 50. Ellsworth v. Chicago, etc., R. Co. (Iowa), 63 N. W. 584. 51. Skinner v. London, etc., E. Co., 5 Bich. 787. Caebiees op Passeingeies. 549 forbidden by law to sell or deal in tickets. ^^ But the mere fact that a party has a ticket and intends to take a train does not create the relation of carrier and passenger, as he must be at some place which is under the control of the carrier and provided for pas- sengers, so that it may exercise the high degree of care exacted of it=^ § 6. Entry in vehicle of carrier. — When one enters into or goes upon the conveyance of a carrier used for carrying passengers, in good faith, intending to take passage thereon, his rightsi are those of a passenger.^* So, when he has been invited to enter, or enters in obedience to an announcement that it is ready to receive pas- sengers;^^ or is in the act of entering for the purpose of taking passage, as upon the gangplank of a steamer ;^* or stepping on the platform of a street car which has stopped for him." So, when he takes a train at a place which is not a depot but where passen- gers are permitted to board the train, and has reached in safety tlie inside of ,a passenger car f^ or enters a car made up for its usual run and ready for the reception of passengers, but not drawn 52. Sleeper v. Pennsylvania E. Co., 100 Pa. St. 259, 45 Am. Rep. 380, 9 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 291; State v. Clarke. 109 N. C. 739; State v. Eay, 109 N. C. 736. 53. O'Donnell v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 106 111. App. 287; Vandegrift v. West Jersey & S. E. Co. (71 N. J. L.), 60 Atl. 184. 54. Cleveland v. New Jersey Steamboat Co., 68 N. Y. 306; Buf- fett V. Troy, etc., E. Co., 40 N. Y. 168; Lake Shore, etc., E. Co. v. Fos- ter, 104 Ind. 307; Lake Erie, etc., E. Co. V. Mays, 4 Ind. App. 413; Union Pac. E. Co. V. Nichols, 8 Kans. 505, 12 Am. Eep. 475; Nashville, etc., K. Co. V. Messino, 1 Sneed (Tenn. ), 220; The Wasco, 53 Fed. 546; Brown V. Scarbora, 97 Ala. 316, 58 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 364; Pittsburgh, etc., E. Co. V. Krouse, 30 Ohio St. 222, 15 Am. Ey. Eep. 298. And see Higley v. Gilmer, 3 Mont. 90, 35 Am. Eep. 450; Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Bills, 104 Ind. 13; Coleman y. Georgia E., etc., Co., 84 Ga. 1, 40 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 690; Texas, etc., E. Co. v. White, 4 Tex. Civ. App. Cas. 5 451. 55. Hannibal, etc., E. Co. v. Mar- tin, 11 111. App. 386. 56. Eogers v. Kennebec Steam- boat Co., 86 Me. 261; Warren T. Fitchburg E. Co., 8 Allen (Mass.), 227, 85 Am. Dec. 700; Northwestern U. P. Co. V. Clough, 22 Wall. (U. S.) 528. 57. McDonough v. Metropolitan R. Co., 137 Mass. 210, 21 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 354; Smith v. St. Paul City E. Co., 32 Minn. 1, 50 Am. Eep. 550, 16 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 310; Brien v. Bennett, 8 C. & P. 724, 34 E. C. L. 603; Citizens' St. Ry. Co. v. Merl (Ind. App.), 59 N. E. 491. 58. Dewire v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 148 Mass. 343, 37 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 57. 550 The La.w of Caeeiees. up to the station platform ;'° or when, seeking to board a train at night, finding no one to inform him how to reach the sleeping car attached to the train, he follows the direct route provided by the carrier, and is injured by reason of defective and insufficient light- ing of the station approaches.^" One who entersi the carrier's vehicle or conveyance to ride therein to a certain point, at the invi- tation or by the consent or permission of the carrier's employes having charge of the means of transportation, is ordinarily held to be a passenger/^ But the invitation or consent must be by one having the right or authority, express or implied, to give it.*^ But one boarding a train without the knowledge or permission of the conductor, if the conductor, after he knows of his presence, allows him to remain as such, is a passenger as much, as if he had paid his fare.^* A person who, by mistake, gets on a passenger train 59. Missouri, etc., E. Co. v. STm- mons (Tex. Civ. App.), 33 S. W. 1096. 60. Mosea v. Louisville, etc., E. Co., 39 La. Ann. 649, 30 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 556. 61. Alabama, etc., E. Co. v. Yar- brough, 83 Ala. 238, 3 Am. St. Eep. 715, even though the train is not in- tended and operated for the carriage of passengers; Muehlhausen v. St. Louis E. Co., 91 Mo'. 332, 28 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 157, al- though he has paid no farej Whitehead v. St. Louis, etc., E. Co., 99 Mo. 263, 39 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 410; Atlanta, etc., E. Co. v. Ful- ler, 92 Ga. 482; Chicago, etc., E. Co. V. Field, 7 Ind. App. 172; Eeliflf v. Wabash, etc., E. Co., 64 Mich. 196; Hurt V. Southern E. Co., 40 Miss. 391 ; Woolsey v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 39 Neb. 798; Texas, etc., E. Co. v. Hay- den, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 745; Prince v. International, etc., E. Co., 64 Tex. 144, 21 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 152. 62. Snider v. Hannibal, etc., E. Co., 60 Mo. 413; Danbeck v. New Jersey Traction Co., 57 N. J. L. 463, such as a conductor; Wilton v. Mid- dlesex E. Co., 107 Mass. 108, 9 Am. Eep. 11, a street-car driver; Thomp- son V. Yazoo, etc., E. Co., 47 La. Ann. 1107, or a general agent of the company; Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Bryant, 65 Fed. 969; Dwight v. Brewster, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 50, 11 Am. Dec. 133 ; Satterlee v. Groat, 1 Weni. (N. Y.) 272; Lygo v. Newbold, 9 Exch. 306; Gradin v. St. Paul, ete., E. Co., 30 Minn. 217, 11 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 644. Ordinarily an engineer has no snch authority, Chicago, etc., B. Co. V. Michie, 83 111. 428; Chicago, etc., E. Co. V. Casey, 9 111. App. 632; Ohio, etc., E. Co. v. Allender, 59 111. App. 620. Nor a baggage master, Eeary v. Louisville, etc., E. Co., 40 La. Ann. 32, 34 Am. & Eng. B. Cas. 277, 8 Am. St. Eep. 497. Nor a su- perintendent of construction. Ev- ansville, etc., B. Co. v. Barnes, 137 Ind. 306. 63. Muehlhausen v. St. Louis E. Co., supra; Sherman v. Hannibal, etc., E. Co., 72 Mo. 65, 37 Am. Eep. 423 ; Whitehead v. St. Louis, etc., fi. Co., 99 Mo. 263, 39 Am. & Eng. B. Cas. 410. OaBEIEKS of PASSEaSTGEES. 551 other thaa the one upon which he intended to take passage,'* or who takes passage on a train not provided for passengers, with- out being advised that he is not permitted to ride thereon f^ or who boards a train not stopping at the station named in the ticket, and the conductor, after examining the ticket, punches it so that he cannot ride on another train,^* is nevertheless a passenger upon the train upon which he is riding. But the relation of carrier and passenger may be created without actual entry into or upon the carrier's means of conveyance," and one may become a passenger before he has entered the vehicle or conveyance,*^ and before trans- portation has been commenced, as while waiting for a train in the depot or waiting room, or at the ordinary point of departure,'' or while passing from the ticket office or station to the train.™ 64. St. Louis Southwestern E. Co. v. Pruitt (Tex.), 80 S. W. 72, 79 S. W. 598; Cincinnati, etc., K. Co. v. Carper, 112 Ind. 26, 2 Am. St. Rep. 144, 31 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 36; Co- lumbus, etc., E. Co. V. Powell, 40 Ind. 37; Arnold v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 115 Pa. St. 135, 2 Am. St. Eep. 542, 28 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 189; Laki Shore, etc., E. Co. v. Eosenzweig, 113 Pa. St. 519, 26 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 489; International, etc., E. Co. v. Gilbert, 64 Tex. 536, 22 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 405. 65. Washburn v. Nashville, etc., E. Co., 3 Head (Tenn.), 6S8, 75 Am. Dec. 784; Boggess v. Chesapeake, etc., E. Co., 37 W. Va. 297. But the rule does not apply where be is informed to the contrary or had BO reason to so believe. Toledo, etc., E. Co. V. Brooks, 81 III. 245; Mc- Veety v. St. Paul, etc., E. Co., 45 Minn. 268, 22 Am. St. Eep. 728, 47 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 471; Eailroad Co. v. Meaeham, 91 Tenn. 428; Trot- linger V. East Tennessee, etc., E. Co., 11 Lea. (Tenn.) 533, 13 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 49; Houston, etc., E. Co. v. Moore, 49 Tex. 31, 30 Am. Eep. 98: Gulf, etc., E. Co. V. Campbell, 76 Tex. 174, 41 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 100. 66. Schurr v. Houston, 10 St. Eep. (N. Y.) 262. But where he boards a train without inquiry, and refuses to pay his fare to the next station at which the train is to stop and re- fuses to leave the train at a proper place, he becomes a trespasser. At- chison, etc., E. Co. V. Gants, 38 Kan. 608, 5 Am. St. Rep. 780, 34 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 290. ' 67. Gordon v. Grand St., etc., E. Co., 40 Barb. (N. Y.) 546; Balti- more, etc., E. Co. V. State, 63 Md. 135, 21 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 202; Murphy v. St. Louis, etc., E. Co., 43 Mo. App. 342; Norfolk, etc., E. Co. V. Galliher, 89 Va. 639. 68. Allender v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 37 Iowa, 264. See also cases cited in note 56 to this section. 69. Gordon v. Grand St., etc., E. Co., supra; Carpenter v. Boston, etc., E. Co., 97 N. Y. 494, 49 Am. Eep. 540, 21 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 331; Cen- tral E., etc., Co. v. Perry, 58 Ga. 461; Shannon v. Boston, etc., E. Co., 78 Me. 52, 23 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 511. And see Spannagle v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 31 III. App. 460. 70. Northrup v. Railway Pass. Assur. Co., 43 N. Y. 516, 3 Am. Eep. 724; Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Chan- 552 The Law of Caeeiees. § 7. Payment of fare. — The actual payment of fare is not essential to constitute one a passenger and create tHe relation of passenger and carrier, for, remaining on board the conveyance, he is liable for the payment of the passage money.'^ But the pay- ment and receipt of fare is imequivocal evidence that such a rela- tion was entered into.'^ But such, payment must be made to an employe having real or apparent authority to collect fares.™ It ia immaterial at what time the fare is paid whether in advance, or at the office, or in the car or conveyance. It is sufficient that it is understood that it is to be paid, and that it is paid when demanded by the proper officer.'* Carriers may, however, demand pre-pay- ment of fare ; and if they do not they must be presumed to rely upon their lien on the passengers' baggage, or the integrity and responsibility of the passengers.'^ Payment, when -demanded^ need not be made in coin ; legal tender notes are sufficient and the cellor, 60 111. App. 525; Baltimore, etc., R. Co. V. State, 63 Md. 135, 21 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 202; Warren v. Fitchburg R. Co., 8 Allen (Mass.), 227, 85 Am. Deo. 700. But see In- diana Cent. R. Co. v. Hudelaon, 13 Ind. 325, 74 Am: Dec. 254. 71. N. T. — Cleveland v. New Jer- sey Steamboat Co., 68 N. Y. 306; Buffett V. Troy, etc., R. Co., 40 N. Y. 168 ; Gordon v. Grand St., etc., R. Co., 40 Barb. (N. Y.) 546; Doran v. East River Ferry Co., 3 Lans. (N. Y.) 105; Bartlett v. New York, etc.. Ferry, etc., Co., 57 N. Y. Super. Ct. 348, affd. 130 N. Y. 659. U. fif.— The Wasco, 53 Fed. 546. Fla. — Florida Southern R. Co. v. Hirst, 30 Fla. 1, 32 Am. St. Rep. 17, 62 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 409. III. — Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. Muhling, 30 111. 9, 81 Am. Deo. 336. Io^Ba. — Rose v. Des Moines Valley R. Co., 39 Iowa, 246; Russ v. Steam- boat War Eagle, 14 Iowa, 363. Miss. — Hurt v. Southern R. Co., ?D Miss. 391. Mo. — Muehlhausen v. St. Louis R. Co., 91 Mo. 332, 28 Am. & Eng. S.. Cas. 157; Sherman v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 72 Mo. 65, 17 Am. Rep. 423; Murphy v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 43- Mo. App. 342. Term. — Nashville, etc., R. Co. t. Messino, 1 Sneed (Tenn.), 220. Tex, — ^Prince v. International, etc.^ R. Co., 64 Tex. 144, 21 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 152; Gulf, etc., R. Co. t. Wilson, 79 Tex. 371. Wash. — Cogswell v. West St., ete.» Elec. R. Co., 5 Wash. 46, 52 Am. i. Eng. R. Caa. 500. See also Nellis Street Railroad Ac- cident Law, page 40. 72. Carroll v. Staten Island B. Co., 58 N. Y. 126, 17 Am. Rep. 221. 73. McNamara v. Great Northern. R. Co., 61 Minn. 296; Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Bartram, 11 Ohio St. 457. 74. Gordon v. Grand St., etc., K- Co., supra; Russ v. Steamship War Eagle, 14 Iowa, 363; The Wasco, 53. Fed. 546; Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Messino, supra. 75. Hurt V. Southern R. Co., 40' Miss. 391. Caeeiees of Passenghes. 553 carrier is bound to accept them." ITor need the fare be actually paid in money ; any valuable consideration moving from the pas- senger to the carrier makes him a passenger for hire." And the fare need not be paid by the passenger himself in person.™ The relation of carrier and passenger being based upon contract, express or implied, if a person proposes to become a passenger and yet refuses to pay his fare, whereupon the carrier refuses to under- take to carry him, there cannot be said to be a contract of carriage, and the passenger becomes a trespasser ah initio, as tiiough his entry had been unlawful;" unless such refusal to pay fare was justifiable, because of the unlawful demand of extra fare by the carrier,*" or the refusal of the carrier to provide him a seat as required by law.^-^ Where one fraudulently evades the payment of fare and thus induces the carrier to permit him to remain on the train, the relation of carrier and passenger is not established.** But the fact that a person has not paid his fare on a railroad train 76. Lewis v. New York Cent. E. Co., 49 Barb. (N. Y.) 330; Tarbell V. Central Pae. K. Co., 34 Cal. 616. 77. Grand Trunk E. Co. v. Stevens, 93 U. S. 655; Ohio, etc., E. Co. v. Nickless, 71 lud. 271; Pennsylvania, E. Co. V. Henderson, 51 Pa. St. 315; International, etc., E. Co. v. Gray, 65 Tex. 32, 27 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 318; Pool v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 53 Wis. 657, 3 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 332, 56 Wis. 227, 8 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 360. See also cases cited, Eiding on Dro- ver's Pass, in note 74, § 17, post. 78. Marshall v. York, etc., E. Co., Ill C. B. 655, 73 E. C. L. 655. 79. People v. Jillson, 3 Park. Cr. Eep. (N. Y.) 234; Moore v. Colum- bia, etc., E. Co., 38 S. C. 1; Higley v. Gilmer, 3 Mont. 90, 35 Am. Eep. 450; Louisville, etc., E. Co. v. John- son, 92 Ala. 204, 47 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 611; Terre Haute, etc., E. Co. v. Fitzgerald, 47 Ind. 79. 8 Am. Ey. Eep. 282; Lake Erie, etc., E. Co. v. Mays, 4 Ind. App. 413; Lillis v. St. Louis, etc., E. Co., 64 Mo. 464, 27 Am. Eep. 255. Unless the carrier consented to his remaining on the conveyance, Union Packet Co. v. Clough, 20 Wall. (U. S.) 528; Muehlhausen v. St. Louis, etc., E. Co., 91 Mo. 332, 28 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 159. Having refused to pay his fare, he does not become a passen- ger, by offering to pay his fare after he has caused the train to be stopped to put him off. People v. Jillson, 3 Park. Cr. Eep. (N. Y.) 234; Harri- son V. Fink, 42 Fed. 787. 80. The Wasco, 53 Fed. 546; Ells- worth V. Chicago, etc., E. Co. (Iowa), 63 N. W. 584; Poole v. Nor- thern Pac. E. Co., 16 Or. 261. 81. Hardenbergh v. St. Paul, etc., E. Co., 39 Minn. 3, 12 Am. St. Eep. 610, 34 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 359. A passenger on a street car who fails to pay a second fare, when the same has become due, ceases there- upon to be a passenger. Hudson y. Lynn & Boston E. Co., 3 St. Ey. Eep. 394, 185 Mass. 510, 71 N. E. 66. 82. Condran v. Chicago, etc., B. Co., 67 Fed. 522. U4 The Law of Caeeiees. zt tlie time of an accident in which he is injured, will not deprive laim of his character as passenger, if the conductor has not asked for his fare.*' § 8. Termination of relation. — A person entitled to passage on a train or other conveyance between two points is entitled to the protection of a passenger from the starting point to the ap- propriate and usual stopping place at the final destination,** and until the passenger has been safely discharged or has safely alighted from the vehicle of carriage by the proper mode of egress,*^ and until he has left the carrier's depot, station or prem- ises;*' or has had reasonable time and opportunity to leave the ■carrier's premises at the place where his journey ends, and pas- sengers are discharged.*' But he may forfeit this right by such 83. Chicago, etc., K. Co. v. Lee, 92 Fed. 318, 34 C. C. A. 365, 14 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 264, citing Philadel- phia, etc., E. Co. V. Derby, 14 How. (U. S.) 468, 14 L. Ed. 502; The New World v. King, 16 How. (U. S.) 469, 14 L. Ed. 1019. 84. Gilhooly v. New York, etc.. Steam Nav. Co., 1 Daly (N. Y.), 197; Hardin v. Fort Worth, etc., E. €o. (Tex. Civ. App.), 77 S. W. 431; Pearson v. Duane, 4 Wall. (U. S.) «05. 85. Timpson v. Manhattan E. Co., S2 Hun (N. Y.), 489; Burke v. Chi- cago, etc., E. Co., 108 111. App. 565; West Chicago St. E. Co. v. Walsh, 78 III. App. 595; Smith v. City, etc., E. Co., 29 Or. 539, 46 Pac. 136, 5 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. N. S. 163; Cen- tral E. Co. V. Whitehead, 74 Ga. 441; Pittsburgh, etc., E. Co. v. Martin, 3 Ohio Dec. 93; Texas, etc., E. Co. v. Miller, 79 Tex. 78; St. Louis, etc., E. Co. V. Finley, 79 Tex. 85; Eat- teree v. Galveston, etc., E. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 81 S. W. 566; Indian- apolis St. Ey. Co. V. Tenner, 1 St. Ey. Eep. 178 (Ind. App.), 67 N. E. 1044. 86. Lake St. Elev. E. Co. v. Gorm- ley, 108 111. App. 59; Houston, etc., E. Co. V. Batchler (Tex. Civ. App.), 73 S. W. 981; Hansley v. Jamesville, etc., E. Co., 115 N. C. 602, 44 Am. St. Eep. 474; Pittsburgh, etc., E. Co. v. Krouse, 30 Ohio St. 222. Where a passenger Is sleeping in, a day coach when the train arrives at his destination, his failure to leave the train immediately does not ter- minate the relation of passenger and the carrier's duty to him as such. Bass V. Cleveland, etc., Ey. (Mich.), 105 N. W. 151. 87. Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Tracey, 109 HI. App. 563; Pittsburgh, etc., E. Co. V. Gray (Ind. App.), 59 N. E. 1000; Texas, etc., E. Co. v. Dick (Tex. Civ. App.), 63 S. W. 895; Chi- cago Ter. Trans. Co. v. Schmelllng, 99 111. App. 577, 197 III. 619, 64 N. E. 714; Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Bar- rett, 16 111. App. 17; Jeflfersonville, etc., E. Co. V. Parmalee, 51 Ind. 44; Central E. Co. v. Whitehead, 74 Ga. 441; Imhoff V. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 20 Wis. 344; Chicago; etc., E. Co. v. Frazer, 55 Kan. 582; Prlckett v. New Orleans Anchor Line, 13 Mo. App. 436; Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Wood, 104 Fed. 663, 44 C. C. A. 118. See Caeeibes or Passewghes. 555 misoonduct on his part as will justify the carrier in rescinding the contract of carriage and in ejecting him,*' as for a refusal to pay fare,*' refusal to produce or failure to procure a ticket,'" at- tempting to use an invalid ticket,'^ detaching coupons from ticket,'^ failure to have ticket properly stamped,'^ or refusing to ownply with the reasonable rules and regulations of the carrier.'* as to street railroads, Nellis St. Bd. Acct. Law, 45, 46, 47. 88. Chicago; etc., E. Co. v. Bar- rett, 16 111. App. 17; Louisville, etc., E. Co. V. Johnson, 92 Ala. 204, 47 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 611. TraTelimg on Sunday for pleasure, in violation of statute, does not affect the relation of carrier and passenger so as to relieve the car- rier from liability for negligence. Carroll v. Staten Island E. Co., 58 N. Y. 126, 17 Am. Eep. 221; Bucher r. Fitchburg E. Co., 131 Mass. 156, 41 Am. Eep. 216; Smith v. New York, «te., E. Co., 46 N. J. L. 7, 18 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 399; Illinois Cent. E. Co. V. Dick, 91 Ky. 434; Knowlton v. , Milwaukee City E. Co., 59 Wis. 278. 89. Hoelljes v. Interurban St. Ey. Co., 43 Misc. Eep. (N. Y.) 350, 87 N. Y. Supp. 133; St. Louis, etc., E. Co. V. Carroll, 13 111. App. 585; Hurt v. Southern E. Co., 40 Miss. 391; At- water v. Delaware, etc., E. Co., 48 N. J. L. 55, 57 Am. Eep. 543, 23 Am. 4i Eng. E. Cas. 470; Cresson v. Phila- delphia, etc., E. Co., 11 Phila. (Pa.) 697; Atchison, etc., E. Co. v. Gants, 38 Kan. 608, 34 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 290; Sherman v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 40 Iowa, 45, 8 Am. Ey. Eep. 410; Johnson v. Philadelphia, etc., E. Co., 63 Md. 106, 18 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 304. See also Arnold v. Pennsylvania E. Co., 115 Pa. St. 135, 28 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 189. 90. Lynch v. Metropolitan Elev. E. Co., 90 N. Y. 77; Hibbard v. New York, etc., E. Co., 15 N. Y. 455; Brown v. Eapid Ey. Co., 10 Det. L. N. 579, 96 N. W. 925; Crowley v. Fitchburg, etc., E. Co. 185 Mass. 279, 70 N. E. 56; Nutter v. Southern Ey., 25 Ky. Law Eep. 1700, 78 S. W. 470; Harp v. Southern Ey. Co., 119 Ga. 927, 47 S. E. 206; Chicago, etc., E. Co. V. Willard, 31 111. App. 435; Eipley v. New Jersey E., etc., Co., 31 N. J. L. 388; Craw- ford V. Cincinnati, etc., E. Co., 26 Ohio St. 580; Bennett v. Eailroad Co., 7 Phila. (Pa.) 11; Downs V. New York, etc., E. Co., 36 Conn. 287, 4 Am. Eep. 77. See also Maples V. New York, etc., E. Co., 38 Conn. 557, 9 Am. Eep. 434; Mc- Kimble v. Boston, etc., E. Co., 141 Mass. 463, 3 Am. Neg. Cas. 831; State V. Campbell, 32 N. J. L. 309; Beaver v. Grand Trunk E. Co., 20 Ont. App. 476, 58 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 42. 91. Godfrey v. Ohio, etc., E. Co., 116 Ind. 30, 37 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 8; Wyman v. Northern Pac. E. Co., 34 Minn. 210, 22 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 402. 92. Boston, etc., E. Co. v. Chip- man, 146 Mass. 107, 4 Am. St. Eep. 293, 34 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 336; Louisville, etc., E. Co. v. Harris, 9 Lea (Tenn.), 180, 16 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 374; Norfolk, etc., E. Co. v. Wysor, 82 Va. 250, 26 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 234; Houston, etc., E. Co. v. Ford, 53 Tex. 364. 93. Boylan v. Hot Springs E. Co., 132 U. S. 146, 40 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 666; Cloud v. St. Louis, etc., E. Co., 14 Mo. App. 136. 94. Lake Erie, etc., E. Co. v. Mays, 556 The Law of Caeeiees. § 9. Leaving the vehicle of carrier — ^Persons while rightfully in the act of getting off or alighting from a train or other vehicle of transrportation, at a station or place at which it has stopped for receiving or discharging passengers, are deemed to be passen- gers.'^ But one who leaves a train while it is in motion, and has run by a station, ceases to be a pasenger.'* A carrier has the right to determine the routes by which passengers shall enter on and leave its trains, and where a safe and suitable egress in one direc- tion is provided, and a passenger, instead of taking it, goes in an- other direction which is unsafe, he severs his relation with the company as a passenger." § 10. After leaving vehicle of carrier. — The liability of the carrier to provide for the safety of passengers continues, not only while the passenger is in the vehicle of transportation, but so long as he is still upon the premises of the company, while leaving the vehicle, at his point of destination, in a proper manner and by the usual routes °' And a passenger does not necessarily terminate his relation as such by temporarily leaving the vehicle and then returning to it.'' In the case of street surface railroads the rela- 4 Ind. App. 413; Manning v. Louis- Pittsburgh, etc., E. Co. v. Martin, J ville, etc., E. Co., 95 Ala. 392, 36 Am. Ohio Dec. 93 ; Burnham v. Wabash St. Eep. 225. But see Sharer v. Western E. Co., 91 Mich. 523; Or- Paxson, 171 Pa. St. 26, 37 W. N. C. mond v. Hayes, 60 Tex. 180, where (Pa.) 319, as to boarding a moving the passenger was assisting the cat- car, rier's servants in removing his bag- 95. Pittsburgh, etc., E. Co. v. gage; Wallace v. Wilmington, etc., Gray, 28 Ind'. App. 588, 64 N. E. 39; E. Co., 8 Houst. (Del.) 529, where McKimble v. Boston, etc., E. Co., 139 passenger left in utter darkness at Mass. 542, 21 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. a station at which he alighted, was 213; Hrebrik v. Carr, 29 Fed. 298; injured while seeking to get to a Theobald v. Eailway Pass. Assur. place of safety. See also Allerton v. Co., 10 Exch. 45, 26 Eng. L. & Eq. Boston, etc., E. Co., 146 Mass. 241, 439. 34 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 563; Eoz- 96. Commonwealth v. Boston, etc., wadosfskie v. International, etc., E. E. Co., 129 Mass. 500, 37 Am. Eep. Co., 1 Tex. Civ. App. 487, as to in- 382, 1 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 457. toxicated passenger. 97. Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Harri- 99. Bellman v. New York Cent., son, 100 111. App. 211. etc., E. Co., 42 Hun (N. Y.), 130, 98. Keefe v. Boston, etc., E. Co., affd. 122 N. Y. 671, 34 (St. Eep.> 142 Mass. 251; Gaynor v. Old Col- N. Y. 1016; Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. ony, etc., E. Co., 100 Mass. 208; Caeeiers of Passewgbes. 557 tion of passenger and carrier ceases -when the passenger safely alights from a oar which has been, stopped at a safe place for him to alight. When the passenger steps from the car to the street he is not upon the premises of the railroad company, but upon a public place, over which the company has no control, and where he has the same rights as every other occupier.^ But when a per- son voluntarily leaves a train or other vehicle for some purpose not incident to the journey, at a place other than his place of des- tination and not designed for the discharge of passengers, he there- by terminates his relation as a passenger.^ The passenger, how- ever, does not lose his character as such by leaving his car or boat temporarily at a regular station, or landing, either by reason of business or curiosity, though, he has not yet arrived at the end of his journey f for example, to get a meal at refreshment and eating stations,* or to stand or walk on the station platforms while the train is so stopping,^ or where stops are made to allow other trains Flexman, 103 111. 546, 8 Am. & Eng. R. Caa. 354; Dodge v. Boston, etc., Steamship Co., 148 Mass. 207, 12 Am. St. Eep. 541. But see Pitts- burgh, etc., E. Co. V. Krouse, 30 Ohio St. 222. A passenger rightfully ejected from a train is a trespasser, if he immediately get on again. North Chicago St. E. Co. v. Olds, 40 111. App. 421; State v. Campbell, 32 N. J. L. 309; People v. Jillson, 3 Park. Cr. Eep. (N. Y.) 234; Harrison v. Fink, 42 Fed. 787. 1. Piatt V. Forty-Second' St., etc., R. Co., 2 Hun (N. Y.), 124, 4 T. & C. (N. Y.) 406; West Chicago St. E. Co. V. Walsh, 78 111. App. 595 ; Smith V. City, etc., E. Co., 29 Or. 539, 5 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. N. S. 163, 46 Pac. 136; Creamer v. West End St. Ey. Co., 4 Am. Electl. Cas. 476, 156 Mass. 320, 16 L. E. A. 490, 31 N. E. 391, 52 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 558. 2, Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Sattler (Neb.), 90 N. W. 649, 57 L. E. A. 890; Buckley v. Old Colony E. Co., 161 Mass. 26 ; Central E. Co. v. Hen- derson. 69 Ga. 715; Cincinnati, etc, E. Co. V. Carper, 112 Ind. 26, 2 Am. St. Eep. 144, 31 Am. & Eng. E. Caa. 36; Finnegan v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 48 Minn. 378. In the last two cases the passenger had taken the wrong train and had the same stopped and voluntarily left. 3. Parsons v. New York Cent., etc., E. Co., 113 N. Y. 355, affg. 48 Hun (N. Y.), 615, 15 St. Eep. (N. Y.) 1016; Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Sat- tler (Neb.), 90 N. W. 649, 57 L. R. A. 890; State v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 58 Me. 176, 4 Am. Rep. 258, but he should not go out of reach of notice by the usual signal for all to repair on board; Dice v. Willamett Transp., etc., Co., 8 Or. 60, 34 Am. Eep. 575; Keokuk Northern Line Packet Co. v. True, 88 111. 608. But see DeKay v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 41 Minn. 178, 39 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 463; Missouri Pac. E. Co. V. Foreman, 73 Tex. 311. 4. Dodge V. Boston, etc.. Steam- ship Co., 148 Mass. 207, 12 Am. St. Eep. 541, 37 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 67 ; Atchison, etc., E. Co. v. Shean, 18 Colo. 368, 58 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 360. 5. Jeffersonville, etc., E. Co. v. 558 The Law of Caeeiees. to pass and he leaves the car without objection made or notioft given.* § 11. Stop-overs on continuous passage tickets. — If a ticket is silent on the subject of the passenger's right to stop over before he reaches the point to which the ticket entitles him to ride, it has been held in California that a passenger who stops over at an in- termediate point cannot resume his journey on that ticket.' In Ohio it has been held that, in the absence of anj agreement, or of a rule or regulation to the contrary, the obligation created by a sale of a ticket is for one continuous passage, and if the passenger voluntarily leaves the train at an intermediate station while the carrier is engaged in the performance of its contract, he thereby releasies it from further performance, and has no right to demand such performance on another train, or at another time.* In New York and generally in other jurisdictions, where the ticket of the passenger provides for " a single passage " or " one continuous passage only " between two points, it precludes the passenger's right to stop at any intermediate station and renew the journey on another train at a subsequent time, and by so leaving the train and stopping over he voluntarily terminates his contract with the carrier for carriage to the designated point.' The same rule ap- Eiley, 39 Ind. 568, 10 Am. Ry. Eep. Ayres, 28 Barb. (N. Y.) 275; Bar- 325. ber v. Coflin, 31 Barb. «N. Y.) 556. 6. Wand'ell v. Corbin, 17 St. Rep. U. 8. — Roberts v. Koehler, 30 Fed. (N. Y.) 718, 1 N. Y. Supp. 795; 94. State V. Grand Trunk E. Co., 58 Me. Iowa. — Stone v. Chicago, etc., B. 176; DeKay v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., Co., 47 Iowa, 82, 17 Am. Ry. Bep. 41 Minn. 178, 39 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 461. 463. Md. — Johnson v. Philadelphia, etc., 7. Drew v. Central Pac. R. Co., 51 R. Co., 63 Md. 106, 18 Am. & Eng. Cal. 425, 12 Am. Ry. Rep. 222. R. Cas. 304. 8. Hatten v. Railroad Co., 39 Moss. — Johnson v. Boston, etc., E. Ohio St. 375, 13 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. Co., 125 Mass. 75, 3 Am. Neg. Cas. 53; Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Bar- 791; Cheney v. Boston, etc., E. Co., tram, 11 Ohio St. 457. 11 Mete. (Mass.) 121. 9. N. Y. — ^Hamilton v. New York Minn. — Wyman v. Northern Pac. Cent. E. Co., 51 N. Y. 100, 4 Am. Ey. E. Co., 34 Minn. 210, 22 Am. & Eng. Eep. 423 ; Dunphy v. Erie E. Co., 42 R. Cas. 402. N. Y. Super. Ct. 128; Terry v. Mo. — Walker v. Wabash, etc., B. Flushing, etc., R. Co., 13 Hun (N. Co., 15 Mo. App. 333, 16 Am. & Eng. Y.), 359; Gale v. Delaware, etc., R. R. Caa. 380. Co., 7 Hun (N. Y.), 670; Be^be v. N. H.— Johnson T. Concord E. Cakeibes of Passengees. 559- plies in reference to stoppage at a way station where a passenger is being transported over connecting lines," but he may stop over at the end of one line, before resuming his ride on the next connect- ing line, since the contract vfith each road for a continuous pas- sage is separate, and there is no joint contract for a continuous- passage over the entire route." The relation of passenger does not terminate where the continuous transit may be interrupted by a washout, ^^ or a wreck, ^' or by any accident, misfortune, fault of the carrier, or the misconduct of the employees of the carrier ; in. such cases he is entitled to resume his journey and be transported, as though no interruption had occurred." Nor does the relation terminate when the passenger stops over under a contract permit- ting him to do so, whether by agreement with an authorized agent of the carrier," or under a ticket to that effect," nor where- the passenger is required to change cars at transfer stations." Corp., 46 N. H. 213, 88 Am. Dec. 199. N. J. — Petrie v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 42 N. J. L. 449, 1 Am. & Eng.. E. Cas. 258; State v. Overton, 24 N. J. L. 435, 61 Am. Dec. 671. Pa. — ^Van Kirk v. Pennsylvania E. Co., 76 Pa. St. 66, 18 Am. Eep. 404; Oil, Creek, etc., R. Co. v. Clark, 72 Pa, St. 231; Dietrich v. Pennsyl- vania E. Co., 71 Pa. St. 432, 3 Am. Ey. Eep. 435. Tex. — Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Henry, 84 Tex. 678, 52 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 230; Breen v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 50 Tex. 43. y«.— Shedd v. Troy, etc., R. Co., 40 Vt. 88. Can. — Craig v. Great Western R. Co., 24 U. C. Q. B. 504; Briggs v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 24 U. C. Q. B. 510. 10. McClure v. Philadelphia, etc., E. Co., 34 Md. 532; State v. Over- ton, 24 N. J. L. 435, 61 Am. Deo. 671. 11. Auerbaeh v. New York Ceat. etc., R. Co., 89 N. Y. 281, 42 Am. Rep. 290; Nichols v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 23 Or. 123, 52 Am. & Eng, R. Cas. 205; Little Eock, etc., R. Co. v. Dean, 43 Ark. 529, 51 Am. Rep. 584, 21 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 279. 12. Dwinnelle v. New York Cent.,, etc., E. Co., 120 N. Y. 117, 44 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 384. 13. Wilsey v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 83 Ky. 511, 26 Am. & Eng. R- Cas. 258. 14. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Henry, 84- Tex. 678, 52 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 230. 15. Tarbell v. Northern Cent. K. Co., 24 Hun (N. Y.), 51; Beebe v.- Ayres, 28 Barb. (N. Y.) 275; New York, etc., E. Co. v. Winter, 143 TJ. S. 60, 52 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 328. 16. Cherry v. Kansas City, etc., R, Co., 52 Mo. App. 499. The fact that a conductor on one- part of the route allowed a passen- ger a stop over on a through ticket,- did not entitle him to it, by a dif- ferent conductor on another part of" the road. Dietrich v. Pennsylvani*. R. Co., 71 Pa. St. 432, 3 Am. Ry. Rep. 435. And see Yorton v. Mil- waukee, etc., R. Co., 62 Wis, 367, la Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 332. 17. Knight v. Portland, etc., R.- 560 The Law op Caeeiees. § 12. Who are not passengers. — ^A trespasser or " dead head " upon a train or other vehicle of transportation cannot be deemed a passenger." A trespasser stealing a ride or attempting to do so cannot be considered in any sense a passenger." A tramp, or person who clandestinely enters a box car of a freight train to beat his way over the road f one riding by stealth upon the engine, without consent of any officer or agent of the company, and in vio- lation of the rules of the company, known to him, although an en- gineer or engine driver gave him authority to do soj^^ one who pays a brakeman on a passenger train money to be carried to a certain point, and is told to ride on the platform of the baggage oar, get off the train at all stops and keep out of sight, and who follows such instructions,^^ is a trespasser and not a passenger. One who, knowing that a conductor has no authority to grant free transportation, enters the train with the intention not to pay his fare, under an understanding with the conductor, commits a fraud on the railroad company, and is a mere trespasser, to whom the only duty of the company is to abstain from wilful or reckless in- jury.^^ So, if a ticket is procured by fraud,^ or the conductor is induced by a tip or bribe or otherwise to permit him to travel contrary to the regulation of the company,^' or in any way he Co., 56 Me. 234; Baltimore, etc., E. Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Casey, 9 111, Co. V. State, 60 Md. 449, 12 Am. & App. 632; Farber v. Missouri Pac, Eng. E. Cas. 149; St. Louis South- E. Co., 116 Mo. 81; Sherman v. Han western R. Co. v. Griffith (Tex. Civ. nibal, etc., E. Co., 72 Mo. 62, 37 Am, App.) 35 S. W. 741. Eep. 423; Eucker v. Missouri Pac. 18. Higley v. Gilmer, 3 Mont. 90, E. Co., 61 Tex. 499; State v. Balti' 35 Am. Eep. 450; Brown v. Missouri, more, etc., R. Co., 24 Md. 84; Muehl- etc., E. Co., 64 Mo. 536. See also § hausen v. St. Louis E. Co., 91 Mo. 3, note 26, ante. 332, 2 S. W. 315 ; Barry v. Union Ry. Trespassers are not passen- Co., 94 N. Y. Supp. 449. gers within the meaning of statutes 20. Hendrix v. Kansas City, etc., prohibiting the expulsion of passen- E. Co., 45 Kan. 377. gers at places other than regular sta- 21. See § 19, post. tions. Chicago, etc., E. Co, v. Fea- 22. Mendenhall v. Atchison, etc., cock 48 III. 253 ; Hobbs v. Texas, etc., E. Co., 66 Kan. 438, 61 L. R. A. 120, R. Co., 49 Ark. 357, 34 Am. & Eng. 71 Pac. 846. E. Cas. 268; Fulton v. Grand Trunk 23. Purple v. Union Pac. E. Co., R. Co., 17 U. C. Q. B. 428. 114 Fed. 123, 51 C. C. A. 664, 67 L. 19. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Mehl- E. A. 700. sack, 131 111. 61, 19 Am. St. Eep. 17, 24. Brown v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 41 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 60; Toledo, 64 Mo. 536. etc., E. Co. V. Brooks, 81 111. 245; 25. Brevig v. .Chicago, etc., R. Co., Caeeiers of Passengers. 561 •secures his conveyance by fraud or against the express orders of the carrier. ^° A person who gets upon a train after it has started ■does not become a passenger until he reaches a place of safety in- fiide.^' One who attempts to board a moving street car going at a rapid rate;^ or when he has not indicated hig intention to do so in time to enable the persons in charge of the car to stop it at a proper place/' does not become a passenger. One cannot be con- sidered a passenger who, without having procured a ticket, was •crossing a side track, in the night, to get upon a passenger train at its usual stopping place on the main track;'" or who, having purchased no ticket and paid no fare, attempts to board the ca- boose attached to a freight train, at a place where the company is not accustomed to receive passengers, without the knowledge of those in charge of the train;'* or who, by signals, causes a pas- jsenger train to stop at night at a point not a stopping place, and, without the knowledge of the trainmen, endeavors to board the train f' or who endeavors to get upon a car without the knowledge of the trainmen, when it has stopped at a station for the purpose of discharging passengers', but not receiving passengers, although ■64 Minn. 168; Canadian Pao. R. Co. V. Johnson, 6 Montreal Q. B. 213; MoVeety v. St. Paul, etc., K. Co., 45 Minn. 268, 47 Am. & Eng. E. Gas. 471. 26. Satterlee v. Groat, 1 Wend. (N. Y.) 272; Condrau v. Railroad Co., 67 Fed. 522, 14 C. C. A. 506, 32 U. S. App. 182; Way v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 64 Iowa, 48, 19 N. W. 828, 52 Am. Rep. 431, 73 Iowa, 463, 35 N. W. ^25; Railway Co. v. Ganta, 38 Kan. •608, 17 Pac. 54, 5 Am. St. Rep. 780; Prince v. Railway Co., 64 Tex. 146; O'Brien v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 15 Gray (Mass.), 20, 77 Am. Dec. 347; Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Brooks, 81 111. S45; Great Northern R. Co. v. Har- rison, 10 Exch. 376, 26 Eng. L. & Eq. 443. 27. Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. AUender, ^9 111. App. 620; Merrill v. Eastern il. Co., 139 Mass. 238, 52 Am. Rep. 86 705. Yet one who does safely board a moving train, having a ticket, must be considered a passenger. Sharer v. Paxson, 171 Pa. St. 26. And one who, waiting at a flag sta- tion, attempts to board a moving train, on the invitation of the con- ductor, is a passenger. Murphy v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 43 Mo. App. 342. 28. Baltimore Tract Co. v. State, Ringgold, 78 Md. 409, 58 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 200, 28 Atl. 397. 29. Schepers v. Union Depot R. Co., 5 Am. Electl. Cas. 398, 126 Mo. 665, 2 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. N. S. 9. 30. Indiana Central R. Co. v. Hu- delson, 13 Ind. 325. 31. Haase v. Oregon, etc., R. Co., 19 Or. 354, 44 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 360. 32. Georgia Pac. R. Co. v. Rob- inson, 68 Miss. 643. 562 The Law of Caeeiees. he has a ticket." One is not a passenger who attempts to enter a station by a route not meant for passengers ;^ or who is walkings or running, towards a station or car or train, with the intention of buying a ticket, or taking the car or train, before he reaches the station, car or train -^ or who goes upon the premises of a railroad station from curiosity or for the transaction of business not con- nected with the company ;^^ or who, having entered a railway sta- tion to take a certain train and finding it gone, waits there for a horse oar;^' or who has come to the carrier's station with the in- tention of taking passage at some indefinite time in the future.* One who rides on a train which he knows, or with diligence would, know, is prohibited from carrying passengers, is a trespasser, and not a passenger.^' So, one riding on a hand car, at the invitation of a section foreman on a railroad who is not an agent of the company for the purpose of carrying passengers on such a car.*" A newsboy who has a license to pass on and off street cars or trains for the purpose of selling his newspapers, is only a licensee and not a passenger.*^ Ifewsboys entering cars or trains to sell papers without permission of the carrier are not passengers or licensees, but trespassers ;" and one who boards a street car without signal- 33. Jones v. Boston, etc., B. Co., 163 Mass. 245. 34. Comly v. Pennsylvania E. Co. (Pa.), 12 Atl. 496; Wilby v. Midland E. Co., 35 L. T. N. S. 244; Walker V. Great Western E. Co., 8 U. C. C. P. 161. 35. Southern Ey. Co. v. Smith, 86 Fed. 292; Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Jennings, 190 III. 478, 60 N. E. 818; Foster v. Seattle Electric Co., 35 Wash. 177, 76 Pac. 995; June v. Boston, etc., E. Co., 153 Mass. 79; Webster v. Fitchburg E. Co., 161 Mass. 298; Jones v. Boston, etc., E. Co., supra; Schepers v. Union Depot E. Co., supra. 36. Gillis V. Pennsylvania E. Co., 69 Pa. St. 129, 98 Am. Dec. 317; Diebold v. Pennsylvania E. Co., 50 N. J. L. 478; Pittsburgh, etc., E. Co. V. Bingham, 29 Ohio St. 364, 23 Am. Eep. 751; St. Louis, etc., E. Co. v. Fairbairn, 48 Ark. 491; Kansas City,, etc., E. Co. V. Kirksey, 48 Ark. 366. 37. Heinlein v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 147 Mass. 136, 9 Am. St. Eep, 676, 33 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. BOO. 38. Harris v. Stevens, 31 Vt. 79, 73 Am. Dec. 337. 39. Purple v. Union Pac. E. Co.. supra. See also Persons riding on freight trains, § 23, post. 40. See § 20, post. 41. Fleming v. Brooklyn City R. Co., 74 N. Y. 618, 1 Abb. N. C. (N- Y.) 433; Philadelphia Tract. Co. v. Orbann, 119 Pa. St. 37; Indianapolis St. Ey. Co. v. Hockett (Ind.), 1 St, Ey. Eep. 115 and notes, 67 N. E.. 106; Blackmore v. Toronto St. E, Co., 38 U. C. Q. B. 172. 42. Barber v. Broadway, etc., R. Co., 10 Misc. Eep. (N. Y.) 109, 81 St. Eep. (N. Y.) 466, 30 N. Y. Supp. 931; Coll V. Toronto E. Co. (Can.), 2S Ont. App. 56. Cakeiees of Passebtgeies. 563 ing it to stop, for the purpose of selling papers and jumping off again, is not a passenger, although he intended to pay fare if the conductor asked him.^^ It has been held that a servant of a sleep- ing car company who is given free transportation by a railroad company, under a contract between the two companies, is neither a fellow servant with those operating the engine and train, nor a passenger of the railroad company, in any such sense as to re- quire of it the highest degree of skill and care in the construction and maintenance of its roadway and machinery, and in the opera- tion of its road and the running of its trains, such, as are required in the case of a passenger." On the other hand it has been held that he is in no sense a fellow servant, but while being transported over the carrier's road under a contract, which is supported by a sufficient consideration, he is entitled to the rights of a passenger in respect to careful running and management of the train; that he does not differ materially from mail agents, express agents, and persons in like circumstances who are transported under contract of a similar nature.*^ One boarding a railroad train, knowing it was not a regular train, but a special excursion train, will not be presumed to have sustained to the company the relation of a pas- senger thereon.^* § 13. Limited and unlimited tickets. — In the absence of a stipulation to the contrary on a passenger's ticket, or notice to the buyer at the time of purchase, a ticket is good until used, the 43. Kamin'g v. Metropolitan St. 45. Jones v. St. Louis Southwest- Ey. Co., 157 Mo. 477, 57 S. W. 268. erii K. Co., 125 Mo. 666. A pop corn Tender who pays 46. Fitzgibbon v. Chicago, etc., K. a certain sum and supplies the pas- Co., 108 Iowa, 614, 79 N. W. 477, 14 sengers with ice water as a consid- Am. & Eng. E. Cas. N. S. 270. Citing eration for a contract to permit him Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Price, 96 Pa. to travel on the train and sell pop 267; Louisville, etc., E. Co. v. corn, is, however, a passenger while Thompson, 107 Ind. 442, 57 Am. Eep. so traveling and not an employe. 120; Wagner v. Missouri Pac. E. Co., Commonwealth v. Vermont, etc., E. 97 Mo. 512, 3 L. E. A. 156; Atchi- Co., 108 Mass. 7, 7 Am. Ey. Eep. 394. son, etc., E. Co. v. Headland, 18 But see Yeomans v. Contra Costa Colo. 477, 20 L. E. A. 822; Eaton v. Steam Nav. Co., 44 Cal. 71; Small- Delaware, etc., E. Co., 57 N. Y. 382, man v. Whilter, 87 111. 545, 27 Am. 15 Am. Eep. 513; Texas, etc., E. Co. Eep. 76, as to persons carrying on a v. Black, 87 Tex. 160, 27 S. W. 118; business on a carrier's vehicle. People v. Douglas, 87 Cal. 281; 44. Hughson v. Eiehmond, etc., E. Southwestern E. Co. v. Singleton, 66 Co., 2 App. Cas. (D. C.) 98. Ga. 252; Eosenbaum v. St. Paul, etc., 564 The Law of Caebiess. passenger not being bound by a regulation to the contrary, of whieli he is not informed/^ The words " good this trip only," do not limit the undertaking of the company to any particular day, or any special train of cars; they do not relate to time, but to the journey.* But a railroad company or other carrier has a right to provide on its tickets and insist that its passenger tickets shall be used on the day when issued, or within a certain specified time; and where the ticket by itg terms limits the time within which it is to be used, it does not exonerate the holder from the payment of fare, if he takes passage on the road after the expiration of the time, and the carrier may refuse to recognize him as a passenger unless he pays fare when demanded.*' And the carrier has the E. Co., 38 Minn. 173; Keating v. Michigan Cent. K. Co., 97 Mich. 154; Haase v. Oregon, etc., R. Co., 19 Or. 354. 47. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Spieker, 105 Pa. St. 142, 23 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 672; Brooke v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 15 Mich. 332. Unless his attention is called to limitations thereon, he has a right to ride on the ticket at any time. Dagnall v. Southern Ry. Co., 69 S. C. 110, 48 S. C. 97; Norman v. Southern Ry. Co., 65 S. C. 517, 44 S. E. 83. But see Daniels v. Florida Cent., etc., R. Co., 62 S. C. 1; Walker v. Price (Kan. App.), 59 Pac. 1102. But he is en- titled to only a continuous passage and has no right to stop over at an intermediate station, and afterwards demand the completion of the con- tract on a later train. Louisville, etc., R. Co. V. Klyman (Tenn.), 67 S. W. 472, 56 L. E. A. 769. 48. Pier v. Finch, 24 Barb. (N. Y.) 614, 29 Barb. (N. Y.) 170. The words " good for this day only," however, limit the passenger's right to a passage upon the company's cars to the day of its date. Elmore v. Sands, 54 N. Y. 512; Boice v. Hud- son River Co., 61 Barb. (N. Y.) 611. 49. N. r.— Hill V. Syracuse, etc., U. Co., 63 N. Y. 101 ; Elmore v. Sands, 54 ' N. Y. 512, 13 Am. Rep. 617; Ba/ker v. Coflin, 31 Barb. (N. Y.) 556; Boice V. Hudson River E. Co., (il Barb. (N. Y.) 611; Gale v. Delaware, etc., E. Co., 7 Hun (N. Y.) 670; Nel- son V. Long Island E. Co., 7 Hun (X. y.) 140; Wentz v. Erie E. Co., 3 Hun (N. Y.) 241. Ga. — Boyd v. Spencer, 103 G.i. 828, 4 Am. Neg. Rep. 619, 11 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 247. 30 S. E. 841, pur- chaser not bound where he had no notice; Southern Ry. Co. v. Watson, 110 Ga. 681, 36 S. E. 209. Ind. — Callaway v. Mellett, (InJ. App.) 44 N. E. 198; Terre Haute, etc., R. Co. v. Fitzgerald, 47 Ind. ?«. Kan. — Rolfs v. Atchison, etc., E. Co., (Kan.) 71 Pac. 526. La. — Rawitsky v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 40 La. Ann. 47, 31 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 129. A time limit of one day is not unreasonably short, ' and the purchaser must take notice of the limit printed on the ticket. Coburn v. Morgan's L. & T. E. Co., 105 La. 398, 29 So. 882. Md. — Pennington v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 62 Md. 95, 18 Am. & En?. R. Cas. 310; McClure v. Philadelphia, etc., E. Co., 34 Md. 532, 6 Am. Kep. 345. Caebiebs of Passengees, 565 same right to make its ticket receivable on a particular train, and to refuse to accept it for any other train than the ticket provides that the passenger may travel on.^" A passenger who applies for and accepts a secsnd class ticket, is not entitled to ride on a train loiva. — Hanlon v. IllinoiB Cent. R. Co., 109 Iowa, 136, 80 N. W. 223. Mass. — Boston, etc., E. Co. v. Proc- tor, 1 Allen (Mass.) 267, 79 Am. Dee. 729. Mich. — HefFron v. Detroit City Tl. Co., 92 Mich. 406. Miss. — Howard v. Chicago, etc., H. Co., 61 Miss. 194, 18 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 313. Mo. — ^Lillis V. St. Louia, etc., R. Co., 64 Mo. 464, 27 Am. Rep. 255, a 1,000 mile commutation ticket ex- pressed upon its face to be "good for six months only,'' is not good after the expiration of that period. N. E. — Johnson v. Concord R. Corp., 46 N. H. 213, 88 Am. Deo. 199. ]f. J^.— State V. Campbell, 32 N. J. L. 309. N. C. — McRae v. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 88 N. C. 526, 43 Am. Rep. 745, 18 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 316. Ohio. — Pennsylvania Co. v. Hlne, 41 Ohio St. 276; Powell v. Pittsburg, etc., E. Co., 25 Ohio St. 70, 13 Am. Ry. Rep. 477, a 1,000 mile commuta- tion ticket. Pa. — McElroy v. Railroad Co., 7 Phila. (Pa.) 206. Term. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Turner, 100 Tenn. 213, 47 S. W. 223, but limitations not binding vmleaa paaaenger'a attention called to them and he assents thereto. Tece. — Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Henry, 84 Tex. 678, 52 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 230; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Looney, 85 Tex. 158, 34 Am. St. Rep. 787, 52 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 197; Texas, etc.. R. Co. V. McDonald, 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas., § 163. F«.— Shedd v. Troy, etc., R. Co., 40 Vt. 88. Can. — Brigga v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 24 U. C. Q. B. 510; Farewell ,. Grand Trunk R. Co., 15 U. C. C. P. 427. 50. Nolan v. New York, etc., R. Co., 41 N. Y. Super. Ct. 541; Gale v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 7 Huu (N. Y.) 670, a ticket "good for this day and train only," dated on the day when issued, authorizes the passenger to select any train on that day, but not to stop over, and complete his jour- ney on another train. See also Mc- Mahon v. Third Ave. R. Co., 15 J. & S. (N. Y.) 282. An "excursion ticket" only en- titles the holder to a continuous passage; he has not the right to stop over at an intermediate point. Terry y. Flushing, etc., R. Co., 13 Hun (N. Y.) 359 and where it pro- vides that it is to be used on the ex- cursion train only, the excursionist cannot return on a regular train, even at an earlier day than that advertised for the excursion train, McEae v. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 88 N. 0. 526, 43 Am. Rep. 745, 18 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 316; and if it calls for a "con- tinuous trip only'' between two points, it is not valid for passage to an intermediate point on a, train which does not make the whole trip, Johnson v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 63 Md. 106, 18 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 304. See also Claybrook v. Hanni- bal, etc., R. Co., (Tex. Civ. App.) 73 S. W. 24. 566 The Law of Caeeiees. limited to the carriage of passengers having first class tickets.'* The time limit specified in such a ticket may be extended by a duly authorized agent of the carrier,'^ but the representations of an unauthorized agent will not avail to entitle the passenger to transportation after the expiration of the time.^' Neither will the fact that the passenger within and after that time had been permitted, with the permission of the conductor, to use the ticket to ride to intermediate stations or in violation of the condition, or had been permitted to ride on other expired tickets ;'* or the check- ing of the holder's baggage and the punching of the ticket by the baggageman of the company,^^ act as a waiver of the limitation. 51. New York, etc., E. Co. v. Ben- nett, 50 Fed. 496, 6 U. S. App. 95, 12 Ey. & Corp. L. J. 136. But where a passenger paid for first-class tickets for himself and family and received second-class tickets, he may recover damages for being compelled to ride in a second-class car. St'. Louis, etc, R. Co. V. Mackie, 7l Tex. 491, 10 Am. tit. Rep. 766, 37 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 94. 52. Randall v. New Orleans, etc., E. Co., 45 La. Ann. 778 ; Spellman v. Eichmond, etc., E. Co., 35 S. C. 475. 53. Boice v. Hudson E. Co., 61 Barb. (N. Y.) 611; McClure v. Philadelphia, etc., E. Co., 34 Md. 632, 6 Am. Eep. 345. But see Nel- son V. Long Island E. Co., 7 Hun (N. Y.) 140. 54. Hill V. Syracuse, etc., E. Co., C3 N. Y. 101; Wakefield v. Soutli Boston E. Co., 117 Mass. 544; John- son V. Concord E. Corp., 46 N. H. 213, 88 Am. Dee. 199; Dietrich v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 71 Pa. St. 432, 10 Am. Rep. 711; Sherman v. Chi- cago, etc., E. Co., 40 Iowa, 45. 55. Wentz v. Erie E. Co., 3 Hun (N. Y.) 241. Bonnd-tTip tickets, punctured for separation into two parts and marked "not good for passage if de- tached," are good where the parts have become separated by accident, if both parts are in good faith present- ed to the conductor on the outward trip. Wightman v. Chicago, etc., K. Co., 73 Wis. 190. Tlie wrong part of a round-trip ticket, returaed to a passenger by the conductor by mis- take, is good on the return trip, when presented by the passenger who had not before noticed the mistake but then explained it to the conduct- or. Kansas City, etc., E. Co. v. Eiley, 68 Miss. 765, 47 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 476. A round-trip ticket good for one day is good for a return trip on the only train returning that day, though such train is not scheduled to stop at the station of purchase. Il- linois Cent. E. Co. v. Harris, (Miss.) 32 So. 309. Conductor's chechs, — A pas- senger having a through ticket has no right, without the carrier's con- sent, to stop at an intermediate sta- tion and demand by virtue of his ticket, or a conductor's check given in lieu thereof, a continuation of his passa^ on another train. State v. Overton, 24 N. J. L. 435, 61 Am. Dec. 671; Breen v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 30 Tex. 43. But where such a ticket has coupons for the different roads, and two coupons for different divi- sions of one of the roads, »,nd the Oareibes of Passe(nq-ees. 567 ■or estop the company. A ticket conditioned not to be good for passage after a specified number of days from date of sale, or good for passage -within a certain number of days only, does not require the passage to be completed within that time, and is good where the passenger enters upon his journey before midnight of the day of expiration,^' notwithstanding the time limited expires! while he is on the journey." Where a railroad ticket over connecting lines is limited to a specified number of days, the last day falling on Sunday and ihe last line runs no train on that day, the passenger is entitled to passage on the next day.^^ § 14. Nontransferable tickets — In the absence of constitu- tional or statutory prohibition, or a stipulation to the contrary on the face thereof, a passenger ticket is transferable, and entitles the holder thereof to the rights of the original purchaser.^' But conductor on that road detached both coupons, and gave a conductor's check, good only for that trip by the rules of the company, the passenger ■who stops at the end of the division over night and offers his check the next day, is entitled to passage. Palmer v. Charlotte, etc., E. Co., 3 S. C. 580. On a commntation ticket one of the members of a partnership named on the face of the ticket is not entitled to ride unless he shows the conductor lis name endorsed thereon in compli- ance with the conditions on the ticket. ■Granier v. Louisiana Western E. Co., 42 La. Ann. 880. But a son, over age, Tesiding with his father as a mem- ber of his family, is entitled to ride on a family commutation ticket given ior the exclusive use of a man and his iamily. Chicago, etc., K. Co. v. Chisholm, 79 111. 584. 56. Auerbach v. New York Cent., «tc., E. Co., 89 N. Y. 281, 42 Am. Kep. 290; Lundy v. Central Pac. K. €o., 66 Cal. 191, 56 Am. Kep. 100, 18 Am. & Eng. K. Cas. 309; Georgia Southern R. Co. v. Bigelow, 68 Ga. 219; Evans v. St. Louis, etc., E. Co., 11 Mo. App. 463; Eutherford v. St. Louis, etc., E. Co., (Tex. Civ. App.) 67 S. W. 161. 57. Auerbach v. New York Cent., etc., E. Co., supra; Gulf, etc., E. Co., v. Looney, 85 Tex. 158, 34 Am. St. Eep. 787, 52 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 197. But see Gulf, etc., E. Co. v. Wright, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 463, a ticket "good only three days after date,'' means that the journey must be completed within the three days. 58. Little Eock, etc., K. Co. v. Dean, 43 Ark. 529, 51 Am. Eep. 584, 21 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 279. 59. Nichols v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 23 Or. 123, 31 Pac. 296, 52 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 205, 18 L. E. A. 55; International, etc., E. Co. v. Tng, (Tex. Civ. App.) 68 S. W. 722; Hoff- man V. Northern Pac. E. Co., 45 Minu. 53, 47 N- W. 312: Carsten v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 44 Minn. 454, 47 N. W. 49, 9 L. E. A. 688, 44 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 392; Hudson v. Kan- sas Pac. E. Co., 3 AlcCrary (U. S.) 249. 568 The Law of Caeeiees. a commoii carrier has a right to issue and sell special tickets at a reduced rate of fare in consideration of the purchaser's agreement to certain conditions and limitations contained therein, among ■which it may be stipulated that the ticket shall not be transferred and shall be valid only in the hands of the original purchaser, and the purchaser of a ticket, marked " not transferable," and bought by him subject to that restriction, cannot sell the ticket to another,, or take part of the journey and then sell the ticket to another, with effect to entitle the latter to passage on that ticket, or to the rights of a passenger; and the use of such a ticket by another to whom it has been transferred in violation of the contract is a fraud and an actionable wrong. ^" The same rule has been held to apply to the purchase of a nontransferable free pass,^^ and of a train check given by a conductor to another passenger on a limited ticket*^ § 15. Persons riding gratuitously generally. — ^Although it was for a long time urged on behalf of the carrier that it was liable only on its contract, and consequently that the law imposed no liability upon it in the case of a gratuitous undertaking to carry a 60. Delaware, etc., E, Co. v. Frank, (U. S. C. C. N. Y.) 110 Fed. 689; Cody V. Central Pao. R. Co., 4 Sawy. (U. S.) 114; Way v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 64 Iowa, 48, 52 Am. Rep. 431; Crosby v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 69 Me. 418; Post V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 14 Neb. 110, 45 Am. Rep. 100, 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 345; Drummond t. Southern Pac. Co., 7 Utah 118; Langdon v. Howell, 4 Q. B. Div. 337 ; Sehubach v. McDonald, 179 Mo. 163, 78 S. W. 1020, and the carrier can invoke the aid of equity to cancel the contract because of the fraud thus perpetrated, or, if the ticket is used by another, it can sue for damages for the breach of contract. See also Kin- ner v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 69 Ohio St. 339, 69 N. E. 614, holding the carrier entitled to an injunction restraining sale in violation of con- tract. The rule applies although the tick- et was issued in the name of the wrong party, as for example to Mr. E. B. instead of Mrs. E. B., although it was bought for the latter and she- offered to sign it. Chicago, etc., E- Co. V. Bannerman, 15 111. App. 100, and although the ticket was not signed by the original purchaser, Drummond V. Southern Pac. R. Co., 7 Utah 118. But one is entitled to tlie riglits of a passenger, if he presents such a ticket in good faith, and his claim to be carried thereon is recognized,, and he is carried as a passenger. Robostelli v. New York, etc., R. Co., 33 Fed. 796, 34 Am. & Eng. R. Cas- 515. 61. Louisville, etc., E. Co. v. Thompson, 107 Ind. 442, 57 Am. Rep- 120, 27 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 88, 329; Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Beggs, 85 111. 80, 28 Am. Rep. 613. 62. Walker v. Wabash, etc., E. Co., 15 Mo. App. 333, 16 Am. & Eng. B. Cas. 380. Caejbiers of Passeitgers. 56i> passenger, there being no consideration and, therefore, no legal contract, express or implied, the courts finally held otherwise, and it is now well settled that the carrier owes a duty to all upsn ita vehicle, independent of contract, even when the service is gratui- tous, and that the breach of this duty is negligence for which it i» liable ta the same extent that it is liable to passengers who pay fare. The confidence induced by undertaking any service for an- other isr £C sufficient legal consideration to create a duty in the performance of it.°^ In some of the cases cited in support of the rule just stated, and in other cases, persons have been held to be passengers, who are riding free by consent of the carrier fairly obtained ;" or with the consent of the conductor or brakeman of the train ;'^ or by invitation of the general agent of 63. N. r.— Carroll v. Staten Isl- and R. Co., 58 N. Y. 126, 17 Am. Eep. 221; Nolton v. Western E. Co., 15 N. Y. 444; Bissell v. New York Cent. E. Co., 25 N. Y. 442; Allen v. Sewall, 2 Wend. (N. Y.) 338; Bank of Or- ange V. Brown, 3 Wend. (N. Y.) 158. See also eases cited § 7, supra, Payment of fare. U. 8. — Philadelphia, etc., E. Co. v. Derby, 14 How. (U. S.) 468; Water- bury T. New York Cent., etc., E. Co., 17 Fed. 671; The Steamboat New World V. King, 16 How. (U. S.) 469. Ind. — Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Keteham, 133 Ind. 346, 36 Am. St. Eep. 550; Ohio, etc., E. Co. v. Selby, 47 Ind. 479, 17 Am. Eep. 719; Ohio, etc., E. Co. V. Nickless, 71 Ind. 271; Gilleuwater v. Madison, etc., E. Co., 6 Ind. 339, 61 Am. Dec. 101. Md. — State v. Western Maryland E. Co., 63 Md. 433, 21 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 503. Mass. — Todd v. Old Colony, etc., E. Co., 3 Allen (Mass.) 18, 80 Am. Dec. 49, 7 Allen (Mass.) 207, 83 Am. Dec. 679. Mioh. — Flint, etc., E. Co. v. Weir, 37 Mich. Ill, 26 Am. Eep. 499. Minn. — Jacobus v. St. Paul, etc., E. Co., 20 Minn. 125, 18 Ami Eep. 360. Mo. — ^Lemon v. Chanslor, 68 Mo. 340, 30 Am. Eep. 799. Pa. — Pennsylvania E. Co. v. But- ler, 57 Pa. St. 335; Railroad Co. T. O'Hara, 12 W. N. C. (Pa.) 473. Tex.—Guli, etc., E. Co. v. McGown, 65 Tex. 640, 26 Am. tt, Eng. R. Cas. 274. Wis. — ^Annas v. Milwaukee, etc., E. Co., 67 Wis. 46, 58 Am. Rep. 848, 27 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 102. 64. Todd V. Old Colony, etc., S. Co., supra; Philadelphia, etc., E. Co. V. Derby, supra; Jacobus v. St. Paul, etc., E. Co., supra; Rose v. Dea Moines Valley R. Co., 39 Iowa, 246; Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Stevens, 95 U. S. 655 ; Austin v. Great Western R. Co., L. E. 2 Q. B. 442. 65. Sherman v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 72 Mo. 62, 37 Am. Eep. 423, 4 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 589; Buck f. Peoples St. R.. etc., Co., 46 Mo. App. 555; Pittsburg, etc., E. Co. v. Cald- well, 74 Pa. St. 421; Washburn v. Nashville, etc., E. Co., 3 Head (Tenn.) 638, 75 Am. Dec. 784; Wiltoa v. Middlesex E. Co., 107 Mass. 108, 9 Am. Eep. 11, 125 Mass. 130. The last three cases cited hold this, not- withstanding the agent violated his duty in inviting him, there being nby which he is injured. 37 &78 The Law of Caeeiebs. tlie government for the carriage of the mails. He is in no sense an employe of the railroad company on whose trains he travels in the performance of his official duty.' The carrier is under the same obligation to him, as regards suitable and safe carriage, that it is. to the ordinary passengers, and for a breach of its duty, expressly 9. N. r.— SeyBolt v. New York, etc., R. Co., 95 N. Y. 562, 47 Am. Rep. 75, 18 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 162; Nol- ton V. Western R. Corp., 15 N. Y. 444, 69 Am. Dec. 623. V. 8. — Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. Patton, 23 App. D. C. 113, 32 Wash. L. Rep. 85; Weaver v. BaKi- more & O. Ry. Co., 3 App. D. C. 436, 22 Wash. L. Rep. 393; Gleason v. Virginia Midland R. Co., 140 U. S. 435, 35 L. Ed. 458, 11 Sup. Ct. 859; Arrowsmith v. Nash- ville, etc., R. Co., 57 Fed. 165, 58 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 3. But see Price V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 113 U. S. 219, dismissing writ of error in 96 Pa. St. 256, 1 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 234, holding that under the statutes of Pennsylvania postal agents are ex- eluded from the class therein desig- nated as passengers, and are thereby placed on the same footing as the employes of the carrier in respect to their rights of action against the car- rier for injury occasioned by negli- gence. Ind. — Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Ketcham, 133 Ind. 346, 36 Am. St. Rep. 550, 19 L. R. A. 339, 33 N. E. 116; Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. Voight, 122 Ind. 288, 23 N. E. 774. In the first of these cases it was also held that do- ing extra work on a train, while not on his regular run, did not affect the carrier's liability, or make him a trespasser. Ky. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Kingman, 18 Ky. Law Rep. 82, 35 S. W. 264, 5 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. N. S. 401. Me. — Libby v. Maine Cent. R. Co.» 85 Me. 34, 26 Atl. 943, 20 L. R. A. 812. Ud. — Baltimore, etc., R. Co. t.. State, 72 Md. 36, 20 Am. St. Kep. 454, 18 Atl. 1107, 6 L. R. A. 706. Mo. — ^Mellor v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 105 Mo. 455, 47 Am. & Eng. lU Cas. 450, 16 S. W. 849, 10 L. R. A. 36; Magoffin v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 102 Mo. 540, 47 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 489. N. C. — Grant v. Raleigh, etc., R. Co., 108 N. C. 462. S. 0. — Hammond v. North Eastern R. Co., 6 S. C. 130. Tex. — Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Mc- CuUough, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 208, 65 S. W. 392; Houston, etc., R. Co. t. Hampton, 64 Tex. 427, 22 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 291; Railroad Co. v. Davis, 17 Tex. Civ. App. 340, 43 S. W. 540. Vt. — ^Hale V. Grand Trunk R. Co., 60 Vt. 605. Ta. — Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Shott, 02 Va. 34, 22 S. E. 811. Eng. — CoUett v. London, etc., R. Co., 16 Q. B. 984, 71 E. C. L. 984. In Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Wilson, 79- Tex. 371, the court says: "Whether the public carrier of passengers re- ceives an agreed compensation for the transportation of such persons (mail agents, express agents or messen- gers), is compensated therefor by th» charge for the car or for transporta- tion of the property of which the per- son to be carried has charge, or re- rsives no compensation whatever for the carriage of such persons, is a matter of no importance. It i* Cabeiehs of Passengees, 579 imposed upon the carrier by statute, to heat the mail car in which he is compelled to ride in the discharge of his duties, whereby an injury is sustained, a right of action accrues.'* § 22. Employes of others carried under contract — Express messengers. — An express messenger, occupying an express car, in charge of express matter, in pursuance of a contract between the railroad company and the express company to transport the mesr sengersi of the express company and certain specified property free of charge, the latter company assuming all transportation risks and other liability arising in respect thereof, is a passenger, and cannot, without his knowledge or consent, be chargeable with the etipulations in the contract; while, when he entered into the service of the express company, he assumed the ordinary hazards incident to that business, there was no presumption or implied understanding, that he took upon himself the risks of injury which he might suffer through the railroad company's negligence.^" Presumptively he is entitled to protection against personal injury by the negligence of the carrier, and where there is no express exemption provided by the contract, the carrier is liable for the consequences of its own or its servant's negligence, to persons traveling upon its trains as messengers or agents of an express company, to the same extent as to other passengers, although no charge is made for their fare." But an express messenger is not a passenger, within tbe meaning of the rule of public policy, which denies the validity of contracts limiting the liability of a carrier to a passenger for negligence, and cannot recover from the carrier for injuries sustained by the carrier's negligence, where the contract between the companies exempts the railroad company from such liability, while his own contract, voluntarily entered into as a condition of employment, assumes all such risks, and enough that he is lawfully on the car, York Cent. E. Co., 24 N. Y. 222, 29 and entitled to transportation, to Barb. (N. Y.) 132; Nolton v. West- give him the character of a passen- ern E. Co., 15 N. Y. 444, 69 Am. Dec. ger." 623; Collett v. London, etc., E. Co., 9a. Lindsey v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 16 Q. B. 984, 16 Ad. & E. 984. And 34 Wash. L. Eep. (Feb., 1906), 95. one temporarily supplying the place 10. Brewer v. New York Cent,, of an express messenger stands in the etc., E. Co., 124 N. Y. 59, 21 Am. St. same position and is entitled to the Eep. 647, 47 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 485. same protection. Blair v. Erie R. 11. Blair v. Erie E. Co., 66 N. Y. Co., supra. 313, 23 Am. Eep. 55; Smith v. New 580 The Law of Cabeiees. stipulates that lie will indemnify and hold his employer harmless from all liability for such injury." Where there is no express contract between the express messenger and the railroad company, and he is being carried under a contract between the railroad com- pany and the express company, his passage being paid for in the contract, he occupies the position of an ordinary passenger, as to the liability of the common carrier, for injuries he may sustain, caused by its negligence or that of its employes. In accepting his employment, he took upon himself the risk of accidents incident to the nature of his business, but not the risks resulting from the negligence of the railroad company in the management of its trains." But a person riding in an express car who is not in the employ of the express company," or one who imposes himself i upon the carrier as an express messenger,^' or one who rides in an express car in violation of a known rule of the carrier, even with the permission, connivance, or knowledge of the conductor of the train," is not a passenger. 12. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Voight, 176 U. S. 498, 20 Sup. Ct. 385, Adv. S. U. S. 385. But the rule is otherwise, where the messenger has not entered into such a contract and did not know of the agreement between the companies. Chamberlain v. Pierson, 87 Fed. 420, 59 U. S. App. 55. An express messenger wliile riding in a railway car in the performance of the duties of his employment is not a passenger, nor does the railroad company occupy the relation of com- mon carrier toward him, but of a pri- vate carrier only, and there is no public policy which forbids the par- ties from contracting for its exemp- tion from liability for negligence in the carrying of such messenger; and the messenger is chargeable with no- tice of the contract under which he is being transported by the railroad company. Long v. Lehigh Valley R. Co. (U. S. C. C. A. N. y.), 130 Fed. 870. 13. Fordyce v. Jackson, 56 Ark. 694, 20 S. W. 528; Yeomans v. Con- tra Costa Steam Nav. Co., 44 CaT. 71; Pennsylvania Co. v. Woodworth, 26 Ohio St. 585; Jennings v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 15 Ont. App. 477; Bal- timore, etc., E. Co. V. McCamey, 12 Ohio C. C. 543, when also baggage master entitled only to rights of em- ploye. See also Hammond v. North Eastern R. Co., 6 S. C. N. S. 130, 24 Am. Rjep. 467. 14. Pflster V. Central Pac. E. Co., 70 Cal. 169. 15. Union Pac. E. Co. v. Nichols, 8 Kan. 505, 3 Am. Ry. Rep. 419, 1? Am. Rep. 475, person learning route and assisting messenger. See also Muldoon V. Seattle City E. Co. (Wash.), 22 L. R. A. 794, note. 16. Florida Southern E. Co. v. Hirst, 30 Fla. 1, 52 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 409, 11 So. 506, 16 L. E. A. 631, 12 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 218, although a carrier may abandon its rule prohib- iting passengers to ride in an express car, the mere delinquency of a con- ductor in enforcing the rule is not sufficient to c onstitute an abandon- ment without such conduct as in ef- Caeeiers of Passengees. 581 § 23. Persons riding on freight trains. — ^Railroad companies may prescribe the conditions on ■which passengers may ride on. freight trains." In the absence of any rule psarmitting freight trains to carry passengers, the presumption is that one riding, for his own convenience on such train is a trespasser, and not a pas- senger.-'* In the absence of any rule or practice permitting freight trains to carry passengers, the presumption is that conductors have no authority to authorize them to ride thereon ; but this pre- sumption may be overcome by proof of an order to the conductor from the superior officer to carry the person on his freight train; and where such an order is within the scope of his agency, the apparent authority of such superior officer is as binding on the railroad company as actual authority would have been." Though rules! are made and promulgated by a carrier prohibiting the car- riage of passengers on freight trains, when such rules are openly and habitually violated by the conductor and brakeman with the knowledge of the carrier's officers, or such violation had continued for such a length of time that such officers, by the use of ordinary care might have known of it, and no attempt is made to enforce the rules, and such freight trains had for years openly, publicly, and without protest from the carrier's officers carried pas'sengers, to the knowledge of the general public and a person, who in re- sponse to the invitation of the conductor and the brakeman, boarded a freight train and paid his fare, having no knowledge of the carrier's rules, such rules will be presumed to have been abrogated, the person so boarding the train authorized to presume that the carrying of passengers was permitted, and that he would be protected as one, knowledge of the acts of the conductor and brakeman will be imputed to the carrier, and if will be held re- sponsible for such acts.^° A conductor of a freight train having authority to receive and carry persons on his train on certain con- feet establishes the concurrence of 19. Dysart v. Missouri, etc., R. the carrier in the disregard of the Co., 122 Fed. 228, 58 C. C. A. 592. regulation. 20. Missouri, etc., E. Co. v. Huff 17. Eaton v. Delaware, etc., E. (Tex. Civ. App.), 78 S. W. 249, judg. Co., 57 N. Y. 382, 15 Am. Rep. 513; revd. 81 S. W. 525. See also Burke v. Greenfield v. Detroit, etc., E. Co., 10 Missouri Pac. R. Co., 51 Mo. App. 491; Detroit Leg. N. 256, 95 N. W. 546. Jones v. Wabash, etc., E. Co., 17 Mo. 18. Eaton v. Delaware, etc., E. App. 158 . The rule is different where Co., supra; Purple v. Union Pac. E. the carrier used reasonable efforts to Co., 114 Fed. 123, 51 C. C. A. 564, 57 suppress the violation of the rule and L. E. A. 700. to enforce its observance. San An- 582 The Law of Caeeiees. tlitions, his action in receiving and carrying, in violation of his instructions, unauthorized persons ignorant of tlie limitations on his authority, is vs^ithin his apparent authority; so that the car- rier will he liable to such persons, as passengers', for injury from negligence of operators of the train. ^^ When a carrier receives and undertakes to carry a person upon a freight train,^^ or such person is lavyfuUy on such train treating with the conductor for passage,^' or, having a ticket for passage upon the railroad, in good faith boards a freight train which does not carry passengers, believing the ticket good on that train,^ or in good faith boards an extra freight train which does not carry passengers, but is in all appearance similar to a regular freight which does carry passen- gers, and is allowed by the conductor to ride thereon,^^ he is to be regarded as a passenger to whom the carrier is bound by aU the '' obligations of a common carrier of passengers the same as it is to passengers upon regular passenger trains. And, generally, per- sons permitted by the carrier's servants to ride without payment of fare, if the servants had authority, express or implied, to grant such permission,^^ or whom tihey permit to ride and accept the tonio, etc., E. Co. v. Lynch (Tex. Civ. App.), 40 S. W. 631; Houston, etc., E. Co. V. Norris (Tex. Civ. App.), 41 S. W. 708. 21. Simmons v. Oregon E. & Nav. Co., 41 Or. 151, 69 Pae. 440, 1022. 22. Ohio, etc., E. Co. v. Muhling, 30 111. 9, 81 Am. Dec. 336; Ohio, etc., E. Co. V. Dickerson, 59 Ind. 317; Texas, etc., E. Co. v. Garcia, 62 Tex. 285; Hazard v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 1 Biss. (U. S.) 503; Missouri Pao. R. Co. V. Holcomb, 44 Kan. 332, 24 Pac. 467; Perkins v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 60 Miss. 726. 23. Western, etc., E. Co. v. Tur- ner, 72 Ga. 292, 53 Am. EeJ). 842, 28 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 455. 24. Illinois Cent. E. Co. v. Daven- port, 177 111. 110, 52 N. E. 266; Boehm v. Duluth, etc., E. Co., 91 Wig. 592; Boggess v. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 37 W. Va. 297. See also Lucas V. Milwaukee, etc., E. Co., 33 Wis. 41, 14 Am. Rep. 735; MeGee v. Mis- souri Pac. R. Co., 92 Mo. 208, 1 Am. St. Rep. 760, 31 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 1. 25. Simmons v. Oregon B. Co., supra; EveVett v. Oregon, etc., E. Co., 9 Utah, 340. 26. Secord v. St. Paul, etc., E. Co., 18 Fed. 221, 5 McCrary (U. S.), 515; Pittsburg, etc., E. Co. v. Cald- well, 74 Pa. St. 421; Creed v. Penn- sylvania R. Co., 86 Pa. St. 139, 27 Am. Rep. 693; Pennsylvania E. Co. V. Books, 57 Pa. St. 345; St. Joseph, etc., R. Co. V. Wheeler, 35 Kan. 185, 26 Am. & Eng. E, Cas. 173; Wilton V. Middlesex R. Co., 107 Mass; 108, 9 Am. Eep. 11, 125 Mass. 130; Gradin V. St. Paul, etc., E. Co., 30 Minn. 217, 11 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 644; Sherman V. Hannibal, etc., E. Co., 72 Mo. 62, 37 Am. Eep. 423, 4 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 589; Muehlhausen v. St. Louis E. Co.,91 Mo. 332; Buck V.Power Co.j 108 Mo. 185. Caeeibrs op Passbngees. 583 customary fare,^' become passengers for whose safety the carrier is liable. But persona unlawfully riding on freight trains are not passengers, as when they have boarded the train in violation of the rules of the carrier/* or after having been refused free trans- portation by the conductor/' or where a condition of the ticket, expressly assented to, provides that it shall not be good for pas- sage on freight trains! f and an excursion ticket marked " good going on any train " on a certain day, applies to passenger trains, and gives no right to ride upon a through freight train on which, by rule of the company, passengers are not allowed to ride with- out a special permit.^^ Freight trains are run primarily for the transportation of freight, not passengers. The law would in gen- eral only confer upon the conductor of such a train such authority as was incidental to the movement of freight, and no power what- ever as to the transportation of passengers. He would have, no implied authority to invite or permit wayfarers to become pas- sengers, and persons riding on such trains, by the invitation or permission of the carrier's agents who have no authority, express or implied, to invite or permit them so to do, are not to be re- And snch persons are not irliolly trespassers, though the train is not intended and operated for carrying passengers, and the con- ductor has no authority to permit such persons to ride. Alabama, etc., E. Co. V. Yarbrough, 83 Ala. 238, 3 Am. St. Rep. 715; Whitehead v. St. Louis, etc., E. Co., 99 Mo. 263, 39 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 410. See also Prince v. International, etc., E. Co., 64 Tex. 144, 21 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 152. 27. Edgerton v. New York, etc., R. Co., 39 N. Y. 227, 35 Barb. (N. Y.) 389; New York, etc., E. Co. v. Doane, 115 Ind. 435, 37 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 87, 7 Am. St. Eep. 451; Dunn v. Grand Trunk E. Co., 58 Me. 187; Lake Shore, etc., E. Co. v. Brown, 123 111. 162, 31 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 61 ; International, etc., E. Co. v. Irvine, 64 Tex. 529, 23 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 518. Contra: St. Louis, etc., E. Co. V. White (Tex. Civ. App.), 34 S. W. 1049; Texas, etc., E. Co. v. Black, 87 Tex. 160. 28. Flanz v. Boston, etc., E. Co., 157 Mass. 577; Cleveland, etc., E. Co. v. Bartram, 11 Ohio St. 457; Haase v. Oregon E., etc., Co., 19 Or. 354, 44 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 360; ban Antonio, etc., E. Co. v. Lynch, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 513; Powers v. Boston & M. E. Co., 153 Mass. 188, 26 N. E. 446; Stalcup v. Louisville, etc., E. Co., 16 Ind. App. 584, 45 N. E. 802. 29. Hendrix v. Kansas City, etc., E. Co., 45 Kan. 377; Atchison, etc., E. Co. V. Headland, 18 Colo. 477, 58 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 4. 30. Dunlap v. Northern Pac. E. Co., 35 Minn. 203; Perkins v. Chi- cago, etc., E. Co., 60 Miss. 726, 21 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 242. 31. Thomas v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 72 Mich. 355, 40 N. W. 463, 37 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 108. 584 The Law of Caemees. garded as passengers.'^ This is esp«5ially so -where the carrier's regulations, publicly made known, prohibit the employes to accept passengers on freight trains. '^ § 24. Persons accompanying passengers. — ^Persons entering the carrier's depot, premises, or a car or train, for the purpose of assisting aged, or helpless passengers, or children, and seeing them safely on and off the car or train, or for the purpose of seeing a friend arrive or depart, are not passengers, but simply licensees to whom the carrier owes certain duties.'* The carrier is under special duty to provide suitable and safe accommodations with regard to its depot and platforms for such persons,'^ and to give persons assisting or escorting sick or infirm passengers on and off a car reasonable time, and as fair & warning of the starting of the train as passengers are entitled to, under the implied license granted them to board the train for such purpose.'* But the ob- 32. Eaton v. Delaware, etc., E. Co., 57 N. y. 382, 15 Am. Eep. 513; Waterbury v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 17 Fed. 671; Smith v. Louis- ville, etc., E. Co., 124 Ind'. 394; Louisville, etc., E. Co. v. Hailey, 94 Tenn. 383; Candiflf v. Louisville, etc., E. Co., 42 La. Ann. 477; Powell v. East Tennessee, etc., E. Co. (Miss.), 8 So. 738. See also Janny v. Great Northern E. Co., 63 Minn. 380; Bre- vig V. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 64 Minn. 168; Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. John- son, 3 Okla. 41. 33. Gardner v. New Haven, etc., E. Co., 51 Conn. 143, 50 Am. Eep. 12, IS Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 170; Chicago, etc., E. Co. V. Michie, 83 111. 427; Toledo, etc., E. Co. v. Brooks, 81 111. 245; Duff v. Alleghany Valley E. Co., 91 Pa. St. 458; Jenkins v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 41 Wis. 112; Houston, etc., E. Co. V. Moore, 49 Tex. 31, 30 Am. Eep. 98; Gulf, etc., E. Co. v. Campbell, 76 Tex. 174, 41 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 100. 34. Dunne v. New York, etc., R. Co., 99 App. Div. (N. Y.) 571, 91 N. Y. Supp. 145; Griswold v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 64 Wis. 652, 23 Am. 4 Eng. E. Cas. 463. See also cases cited in following notes to this section. 35. Hamilton v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 64 Tex. 251, 21 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 336; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Best, 66 Tex. 116; Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Johns, 36 Kan. 769, 59 Am. Rep. 609, 34 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 480; Mont- gomery, etc., R. Co. V. Thompson, 77 Ala. 448, 54 Am. Rep. 72; McKone V. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 51 Mich. 601, 47 Am. Rep. 596, 13 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 29. But its duty does not extend to persons at the station at an unusual hour to bid farewell to one about to leave on a freight train in charge of stock, and who is a pas- senger only in a limited and re- stricted sense. Dowd v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 84 Wis. 105, 58 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 18. 36. Doss V. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 59 Mo. 27, 21 Am. Eep. 371, 8 Am. Ry. Rep. 462; Louisville, etc., R. Co. V. Crunk, 119 Ind. 542, 12 Am. St. Eep. 443, 41 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. Caeeiers op Passewgees. 585- ligation of tlie carrier to one accompanying a passenger into a car is not that due a passenger, although, if it suffers him to enter its car, it owes him ordinary care while he is entering the car, while he is* in it, and while he is leaving it. There is no obligation upon, the carrier to hold its train or car until every person not a pas- senger leaves the same, irrespective of the time of the stop made at the station." It isi the duty of one who has assisted a passenger on board, if the train starts before he has had time to get off, to remain until he can make known his wish to get off, and if he alight while the train is in motion, he does so at his ovsm risk, and cannot maintain an action against the carrier for injuries received unless he Shows that he exercised due care and the carrier was negligent.'^ It is not negligence for the carrier to start its train before such a person has had time to get off, unless its servants had notice of his intention to do so.^' And where railroad employes offer to assist a passenger needing assistance to board or leave the 158; Hamilton v. Texas, etc., E. Co., supra. 37. Dunne v. New York, etc., E. Co., supra; Lucas v. Taunton, etc., E. Co., 6 Gray (Mass.), 64, 66 Am. Dec. 406. 38. Coleman v. Georgia, etc., E. Co., 84 Ga. 1, 10 S. E. 498, 40 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 690; Lucas v. Taun- ton, etc., E. Co., supra. The carrier is not liable where such a person boards the train at an improper place some distance from the depot and is injured through such negli- gence. Stiles V. Atlanta, etc., E. Co., 65 Ga. 370, 8 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 195. 39. Dunne v. New York, etc., E. Co., 99 App. Div. (N. Y.) 571, 91 N. y. Supp. 145, wherein the court held: The fact that servants of a railroad saw a person who accompa- nied a passenger onto the train walk- ing in the aisle of the car, or coming cut on the pla'tform, did not require tfiem to forbear from giving the sig- nal that the train could proceed; but their obligation so to do only arose after they had received, or >^ould, in the exercise of due care. have received, actual notice of the intention of such person to leave the- car. The mere fact that such person descended on to the step of the car was not sufficient to render the con- duct of the railroad's servants in starting the train negligence. A rail- road is not required, as a matter of law, to have a servant stationed at the foot of the steps to hold a train until a person not a passenger can leave the Same, when that person only signifies his intention of leaving by his act of alighting. Where it was the custom of a railroad to so station a brakeman, who was not to signal the train to proceed until all persons, including those in the act of alighting, had reached the ground in safety, a person who accompanied a passenger into the train and knew of the custom, had a right to rely on its observance; but, if he did not know of such a custom, he took the conse- quences of his act in alighting from the car. See also Yarnell v. Kansas City, etc., E. Co., 113 Mo. 570, 21 S. W. 1, 18 L. E. A. 599; Little Rock, etc., E. Co. V. Lawton, 55 Ark. 428,_ 586 The Law of Caeeiees. car, the escort has no right to enter the coach for that purpose, and the company owes him no duty except to refrain from wilful or wanton injury.*" § 25. Employes of carrier as passengers. — ^An employe of a railroad company, traveling from his home to his post of du^ upon the cars of the company free of charge, as stipulated for in the contract of service, is not a passenger but will be regarded a servant or employe, and the company is not liable for his death or injury, while so traveling, caused by the negligence of a co^m- ploye.*^ And where an employe of a railroad company, after Ha day's work was done, took gratuitous passage on a freight train from the place of his work to his home, the gratuitous carriage was a privilege incidental to his contract of service, and did not make him a passenger.*^ An engine wiper riding on an engine was not a passenger, though the carrier knew that he and other of its employes were habitually violating its express rules, which prohibited them, under any circumstances, riding on the engine; and, being a oo-employe, could not recover for injuries sustained through the negligence of an engineer with whom he was riding.*' 18 S. W. 543, 29 Am. St. Rep. 48, .52 tral, etc., Pac. K. Co., 30 Kan. 689, Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 260; Missouri, 15 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 226; Hutchin- etc, E. Co., V. Miller, 8 Tex. Civ. son v. York, etc., E. Co., 6 Eng. Ey. App. 241, 27 S. W. 905; Louisville, & C. Cas. 580; Tunney v. Midland S. etc., E. Co. V. Espenscheid, 17 Ind Co., L. E. 1 C. P. 291; Wright v. App. 558, 571, 47 N. E. 186. Northampton, etc., E. Co., 122 N. C. 40. Little Eock, etc., E. Co. v. 852, 29 S. E. 100, 8 Am. & Eng. E. Lawton, supra. ■ Cas. N. S. 151; State, Abell v. West- 41. Vick V. New York Cent., etc., em Maryland E. Co., 63 Md. 433. See E. Co., 95 N. Y. 267, 47 Am. Eep. 36, also Howland v. Milwaukee E. Co., 54 17 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 609; Eoss v. Wis. 226; Kumler v. Junction E. Co., New York Cent., etc., E. Co., 74' N. 33 Ohio St. 150; Ladd v. Eailroad Y. 617; Eussell v. Hudson Eiver E. Co., 119 Mass. 412; Sullivan v. In- Co., 17 N. Y. 134; Ewald v. Chicago, dia Mfg. Co., 113 Mass. 396; Ohio, etc., E. Co., 70 Wis. 420, 5 Am. St. etc., E. Co. v. Tyndall, 13 Ind. 3ti6, Eep. 178; Kansas Pao. E. Co. -v. Sal- 74 Am. Dee. 259; May v. Ontario, mon, 11 Kan. 83; Columbus, etc., E. etc., E. Co., 10 Ont. Eep. 70^ 26 Am. Co. V. Arnold, 31 Ind. 174; Gillshan- & Eng. E. Cas. 337. I. n V. Stony Brook E. Corp., 10 Cush. 42. lonnone v. New York, etc., R. (Mass.) 228; Seaver v. Boston, etc., Co. (E. I.), 44 Atl. 592. See also E. Co., 14 Gray (Mass.), 466; Hig- Moss v. Johnson, 22 111. 633; Ubbson gins V. Hannibal, etc., E. Co., 36 Mo. v. New Orleans, etc., E. Co., £2 ta. 418; Eyan v. Cumberland Valley R. Ann. 1127, 27 So. 670, contra. Co., 23 Pa. St. 384; McQueen v. Cen- 43. Streets v. Grand Trunk E. Co., Oaeeibes of Passewgees. 587 A railroad employe traveling upon a train, operated by a yard master -when he is not on duty, for the purpose of taking employes to and from a meeting, is not a passenger to whom the company isi liable as such for injuries." But, in some jurisdictions, it is held that where employes of a railroad are carried to and from their work as a part of their wages,*^ or where their contract en- titles them to free transportation and they are not under any obli- gation to ride, or engaged in any service for the company while so riding,*' or where they are riding for purposes of their own when off duty, and their time is their own," they must be deemed to be passengers and governed by the rules applicable as between carrier and passenger. So, a station agent riding to his home on a pas- senger train of his employers, by permi&aion of the conductor, five hours after his labors of the day had ceased,*' and a section hand of a street railway company riding upon one of its cars by direc- tion of his foreman, though paying no fare,*' have been held to be passengers. And the fact that an employe of a railroad was riding on one of its cars under a rule allowing employes to ride at 178 N. Y. 553, affg. 76 App. Div. (N. Y.) 480, 78 N. Y. Supp. 729. 44. Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Bryant, 65 Fed. 969, 13 C. C. A. 249. But see Bryant v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 53 Fed. 997, 58 Am. & Eng. E. Caa. 15. So where the employe and others op- erated the train for their own pur- poses by permission of the yard mas- ter. Davis V. Chicago, etc.. E. Co., 45 Fed. 543. 45. Carswell v. Macon, etc., E. Co., 118 Ga. 826, 45 S. E, 695, a telegraph lineman; Chattanooga E. T. Co. V. Venable, 105 Tenn. 460, 58 S. W. 861, 51 L. E. A. 886; New York, etc., E. Co. v. Bums, 51 N. J. L. 340; O'Donnell v. Allegheny Val- ley n. Co., 59 Pa. St. 239; Doyle v. Fitchburg E. Co., 162 Mass. 66, 44 Am. St. Eep. 335; Gillenwater v. Madison, etc., E. Co., 5 Ind. 339; Poole V. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 53 Wis. 658, 3 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 332, a, detective employed to discover stolen property. 46. McNulty v. Pennsylvania B. Co., 182 Pa. St. 479, 38 L. E. A. 376, 41 W. N. C. 105, 28 Pittsb. L. J. N. S. 149, 38 Atl. 524; Texas, etc., R. Co. V. Smith, 67 Fed. 524, 31 L. E. A. 321, and notes. 47. Whitney v. New York, etc., E. Co., 102 Fed. 850, 43 C. C. A. 19; Albion Lumber Co. v. De Nobra, 72 Fed. 739; McDaniel v. Highland Ave. E. Co., 90 Ala. 64; Eosenbaum V. St. Paul, etc., E. Co., 35 Minn. 173, 34 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 274; Simmons v. Oregon E., etc., Co. (Or.), 60 Pac. 440. 48. Louisville, etc., E. Co. v. Scott's Admtr., 22 Ky. Law Eep. 30, 56 S. W. 674, 50 L. E. A. 381. 49. Denver, etc., E. Co. v. Dwyer, 20 Colo. 132. Contra, as to a sec- tion master of a train, Wright v. Northampton, etc., E. Co., 122 N. C. 852, 29 S. E. 100, 10 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. N. S. 151. 588 The Law of Caeeibes. any time free of charge did not deprive him of the rights of a passenger.^" Where a passenger upon a street car undertakes, at the request of an employe of the carrier to render some casual service or assistance, such as pushing, jumping or lifting a car,'* or cutting cars loose in a train,'^ applying brakes, etc.,'^ he does not lose the character of a passenger and become a volunteer servant or a fellow-employe; though^ if injured, the question of his contributory negligence may be, in some circumstances, a ques- tion for the jury.^ § 26. Rules and regulations of the carrier. — It is the right and duty of railroad corporations and carriers generally to make regulations for the convenience, comfort, and safety of their pas- ssngers and for the management of the business of conveying pas- sengers and their baggage, and the propriety and reasonableness of such regulations is to be .determined by the court, rather than by a jury. This rule is well settled in New York and some other States.^' It is quite generally held that such rules or regulations 50. Dickinson v. West End St. Ey. Co., 177 Mass. 365, 59 N. E. 60, 52 L. E. A. 326. 51. Mclntire St. R. Co. v. Bolton, 43 Ohio St. 224, 64 Am. Eep. 803, 21 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 501; Stastney v. Second Ave. R. Co., 61 N. Y. Super. Ct. 104, affd. 138 N. Y. 609, 51 St. Eep. (N. Y.) 932, 18 N. Y. Supp. 800. 52. Cumberland Valley E. Co. w. Myers, 55 Pa. St. 288. 53. Peoples Pass. R. Co. v. Green, 56 Md. 84, 6 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. lOS; Brown v. Scarboro, 97 Ala. 316, 58 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 364. Compare Everhart v. Terre Haute, etc., R. Co., 78 Ind. 292, 41 Am. Eep. 567, 4 Am. & Eng. R. Caa. 599; Sherman V. Hannibal, etc., E. Co., 72 Mo. 62, 37 Am. Eep. 423, 4 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 589; Wright v. London, etc., R. Co., 33 L. T. N. S. 830, 12 B. Div. 252, 45 L. J. Q. B. Div. 570; Potter V. Taulkner, 1 B. & S. 800, 101 E. C. L. 800. 54. Stastney v. Second Ave. E. Co., sufra. 55. O'Gorman v. New York, etc., E. Co., 96 App. Div. (N. Y.) 594, 89 N. Y. Supp. 589, forbidding car- riage of dogs on cars; Eowe v. Brooklyn, etc., E. Co., 71 App. Div. (N. Y.) 474, 75 N. Y. Supp. 893, prohibiting employees in vmifonn from occupying a front seat; Dowd v. Albany Ey., 47 App. Div. (N. Y.) 202, 62 N. Y. Supp. 179, relating to the size of packages which passen- gers may carry; Muckle v. Eoches- ter E. Co., 79 Hun (N. Y.) 32, 29 N. Y. Supp. 732; Avery v. New York Cent., etc., E. Co., 121 N. Y. 31, 24 N. E. 20; Morris v. Atlantic Ave. E. Co., 116 N. Y. 552, 22 N. E. 1097; Peck v. New York Cent., etc., E. Co., 70 N. Y. 587, requiring fe- males traveling alone, or with male relatives or friends, to ride in a special car; Putnam v. Broadway, etc., E. Co., 55 N. Y. 108, 14 Am. Rep. 190; Vedder v. Fellows, 20 N. Caerieks op Passeingees. 589 must be reasonable and not violative of law in order to be binding upon passengers.^' The courts have held that icarriers of pas- sengers may make reasonable rules for the conducting of busi- ness/' for the dispatch of business,^ for the management of trains,^' for the government of their employes in the conduct of their business upon trains,'" for the conduct of employes, and also for the conduct of passengers," for the transportation of passen- gers from point to point,'^ for Uie safe and orderly conduct of their y. 126; Hibbard v. Kew York, etc., K. Co., 15 N. Y. 455; Tracy v. New- York, etc., E. Co., 9 Bosw. (N. Y.) 596; Illinois Cent. K. Co. v. Whitte- more, 43 III. 420, 92 Am. Dec. 278; ■Chilton V. St. Louis, etc., K. Co., 114 Mo. 88; South Florida E. Co. v. Ehodes, 25 Fla. 40, 23 Am. St. Eep. 506, 37 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 100; Ijouisville, etc., E. Co. v. Fleming, 14 Lea (Tenn.), 128, 18 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 347; Norfolk, etc., E. Co. v. Wysor, 82 Va. 250, 26 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 234; Florida Southern E. Co. v. Hirst, 30 Fla. 1, 52 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 409; Pierce v. Eandolph, 12 Tex. 290. 56. Boster v. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 36 W. Va. 318, 52 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 357, 15 S. E. 158; Day v. Owen, 5 Mich. 520; State v. Chovin, 7 Iowa, 204; Eobinson v. Southern Pao. E. Co., 105 Cal. 526; Eddy v. Eider, 79 Tex. 53; Central E., etc., Co. V. Strickland, 90 Ga. 562, 52 Am. & Eng. K. Cas. 216; Northern Cent. E. Co. V. O'Connor, 76 Md. 207, 52 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 176; Gulf, etc., E. Co. V. Moody (Tex. Civ. App.), 30 S. W. 574. See also cases cited in last preceding note. 57. Houston, etc., E. Co. v. Moore, 49 Tex. 31. 58. Watkins v. Pennsylvania E. Co. (D. C), 52 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 159; Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Graham, 3 Ind. App. 28; Browne v. Ealeigh, etc., E. Co., 108 N. C. 34; Interna- tional, etc., E. Co. V. Goldstein, 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. § 274. 59. Atchison, etc., E. Co. v. Gants, 38 Kan. 608, 5 Am. St. Eep. 780; Lake Shore, etc., E. Co. v. Green- wood, 79 Pa. St. 373; Plott v. Chi- cago, etc., E. Co., 63 Wis. 511; Con- nell V. Mobile, etc., E. Co. (Miss.), 7 So. 344; McRae v. Wilmington, etc., E. Co., 88 N. C. 526, 43 Am. Eep. 745, 18 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 316; Britton v. Atlanta, etc., E. Co., 88 N. C. 536, 43 Am. Eep. 749, 18 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 391 ; Texas, etc., E. Co. V. White, 4 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. § 259. 60. Crawford v. Cincinnati, etc., E. Co., 26 Ohio St. 580, 13 Am. & Eng. Eep. 387. 61. Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Mc- Lallen, 84 111. 109, 16 Am. Ey. Eep. 425; New Orleans, etc., E. Co. v. Burke, 53 Miss. 200, 24 Am, Eep. 689; Macon, etc., E. Co. v. Johnson, 38 Ga. 409; Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. V. Pillow, 76 Pa. St. 510; West Chester, etc., E. Co. v. Miles, 55 Pa. St. 209, 93 Am. Dec. 744. 62. Gray v. Cincinnati Southern E. Co., 11 Fed. 683. A rule that passenger coaches shall be run in the same train with freight cars is not unreasonable unless the safety of passengers is endangered. Ar- kansas M. E. Co. V. Canman, 52 Ark. 517. 590 The Law of Caeeiees. business, and to protect themselves against impositions,*' for the admission of passengers to their trains,** for the division of pas- sengers into classes,*" and providing separate cars for ladies,** and for ■white and colored passengers.*' In some of the cases cited the reasonableness of this class of rules is held to be a pure question of fact for the jury,** while in others it is held to be a mixed question of law and fact, to be found by the jury on the trial, under the instructions of the court. *° If the facts are undisputed, the question would seem to be a proper one for the court," while if the facts are controverted, the question should be submitted to the jury, under appropriate instructions.'^ In many cases it is held that passengers seeking to take passage on railway trains are bound to make inquiry and inform themselves as to the rules established by the carrier with reference to the proposed transit, and the con- duct of the trains, and conform thereto, and that if no inquiry be made, they are subject to such rules of the carrier, if reasonable^ 63. Wrightman v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 73 Wis. 169. 64. Johnson v. Concord R. Corp., 46 N. H. 213; Cleveland, etc., R. Co. V. Bartram, 11 Ohio St. 457; Northern Cent. K. Co. v. O'Connor, 76 Md. 207, 52 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 176; Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Carr, 71 Md. 135. 65. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Parks, 18 111. 460, 68 Am. Dec. 562. 66. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Will- iams, 58 111. 185, 8 Am. Rep. 641; Memphis, etc., R. Co. v. Benson, 85 Tenn. 627, 4 Am. St. Rep. 776; Bass V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 36 Wis. 450, 17 Am. Rep. 495. 67. Railroad companies are au- thorized, in the absence of statute, to establish such rules, if equal ac- commodations are afforded to ea'ch class. Ohio Valley R. Co. v. Lan- der, 20 Ky. L. Rep. 913, 926, 47 S. W. 344, 882, 48 S. W. 145; McGuinn T. Forbes, 37 Fed. 639; Houck v. Southern Pae. R. Co., 38 Fed. 226; Commonwealth v. Power, 7 Mete. (Mass.) 596, 41 Am. Dee. 465; West Chester, etc., R. Co. v. Miles, 55 Pa. St. 209, 93 Am. Dec. 744; Day v. Owen, 5 Mich. 525, 72 Am. Dec. 62; Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. Wells, 83 Tenn. 615; Britton v. Atlanta, etc.. Air Line R. Co., 88 N. C. 542, 43 Am. Rep. 749. 68. Compton v. Van Valkenburgh, 34 N. J. L. 135; Morris, etc., R. Co. V. Ayres, 29 N. J. L. 393, 80 Am. Dee. 215; State v. Overton, 24 K. J. L. 435, 61 Am. Dec. 671; State v. Chovin, 7 Iowa, 204. 69. Bass V. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 36 Wis. 458, 17 Am. Rep. 495; Day V. Owen, 5 Mich. 520, 72 Am. Dec. 62; Commonwealth v. Power, 7 Mete. (Mass.) 596, 41 Am. Dec. 465; Jencks v. Coleman, 2 Sumn. (U. S.) 221; Brown v. Memphis, etc., R. Co., 4 Fed. 37. 70. Pittsburg, etc., E. Co. v. Lyon, 123 Pa. St. 140, 10 Am. St. Rep. 517, 37 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 231. 71. Avery v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 121 N. Y. 31. Caeeiers of Passbngees. 591 even though imkiiown to them.'* Other cases hold that reasonable rules of the carrier are binding upon passengers when they are no- tified thereof, or the carrier has given such publicity to them that, by the use of reasonable care and caution, they should have kno"wn of them.'^ A conductor has no general power to waive or modify the rules of the carrier,'* but his violation thereof may in some cases bind the carrier,'^ and a waiver or modification of the rules may be established by custom and habit of the carrier to the contrary or long continued disregard thereof." In the enforcement of order upon the train, and in the execution of reasonable regulations for the s'afety and comfort of the passengers and for the security of the train, the authority of the officers, exercised upon. the respon- sibility of the carrier, must be obeyed by the passengers ; but the carrier is bound to afford reasonable facilities to enable passengers to comply with its rules and regulations," and a carrier has author- 72. Terry v. Flushing, etc., E. Co., 13 Hun (N. Y.) 359; Elmore v. Sands, 54 N. Y. 512; Beebe v. Ayres, 28 Barb. (N. Y.) 275; Northern E. Co. V. Page, 22 Barb. (N. Y.) 130; Dunphy v. Erie E. Co., 42 N. Y. Super. Ct. 128; Cheney v. Boston, etc., E. Co., 11 Mete. (Mass.) 121; Duling V. Philadelphia, etc., E. Co., 65 Md. 120, 5 Cent. Eep. 570; Mc- Eae V. Wilmington, etc., E. Co., 88 N. C. 526, 43 Am. Eep. 745, 18 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 316; Britton v. At- lanta, etc.. Air Line E. Co., 88 N. C. 536, 33 Am. Eep. 749, 18 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 391; Southern Kansas E. Co. V. Hinsdale, 38 Kan. 507, 34 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 256; Atchison, etc., E. Co. V. Gants, 38 Kan. 608; Drew V. Central Pac. E. Co., 51 Cal. 425; Oil Creek, etc., E. Co. v. Clark, 72 Pa. St. 231; State v. Overton, 24 N. J. L. 435; Dietrich v. Pennsyl- vania E. Co., 71 Pa. St. 432; Huf- fard V. Grand Eapids, etc., E. Co., 64 Mich. 631; Georgia E. Co. v. Murden, 86 Ga. 434 ; Lake Shore, etc., "R. Co. V. Eosenzweig, 113 Pa. St. 519, 26 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 489; Johnson v. Concord E. Corp., 46 N. H. 213; Gulf, etc., E. Co. v. Moody, (Tex. Civ. App.) 30 S. W. 5f4; Drake v. Pennsylvania E. Co., 137 Pa. St. 352. 73. Wright v. California Cent. E. Co., 78 Cal. 360; Macon, etc., E. Co. V. Johnson, 38 Ga. 409; Norfolk, etc., E. Co. V. Wysor, 82 Va. 250, 26 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 234; Baltimore City Pass. E. Co. V. Wilkinson, 30 Md. 224; Trotlinger v. East Tennessee, etc., E. Co., 11 Lea (Tenn.) 533, 13 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 49; Motteram v. Eastern Counties E. Co., 7 C. B. N. S. 58, 97 E. C. L. 58, 6 Jur. N. S. 583, 29 L. J. M. C. 59. 74. Lake Shore, etc., E. Co. v. Pierce, 47 Mich. 277, 3 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 340. 75. McGee v. Missouri Pac. E. Co., 92 Mo. 208, 31 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 1. 76. Greenfield v. Detroit, etc., K. Co., 10 Det. Leg. N. 256, (Mich.) 95 N. W. 546; Burke v. Missouri Pae. E. Co., 51 Mo. App. 491. But see Drake v. Pennsylvania E. Co., 137 Pa. St. 352. 77. Cincinnati, etc., E. Co. v. Lohe, (Ohio) 67 N. B. 161; Bass v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 36 Wis. 450 592 The Law of Caeeiees. ity to enforce observance of its regulations only by preventing, not by punishing the breach of them. Only by present or prospective, and not by past, misconduct, does a passenger lose his privileges." a Am. Ey. Eep. 101; Chicago, etc., E. Co. V. Graham, 3 Ind. App. 28; Brown v. Kansas City, etc., E. Co., 38 Kan. 634; Crawford v. Cincinnati, etc., E. Co., 26 Ohio St. 580, 13 Am. Ey. Eep. 387; Baltimore, etc., E. Co. V. Carr, 71 Md. 135; Baltimore, etc., E. Co. V. Blocher, 27 Md. 277; Flor- ida Southern E. Co. v. Hirst, 30 Fla. 1, 52 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 409; Chi- cago, etc., E. Co. V. Eielly, 40 111. App. 416; Britton v. Atlanta, etc.. Air Line E. Co., 88 N. C. 536, 43 Am. Eep. 749, 18 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 391; Downey v. Chesapeake, etc., E. Co., 28 W. Va. 732; Central E. Co., V. Strickland, 90 Ga. 562; Jen- nings V. Great Northern E. Co., 35 L. J. Q. B. 15, L. E. 1 Q. B. 7, 1 Ey. & C. T. Cas. 15 ; Houston, etc., E. Co. V. Bryant. (Tex. Civ. App.) 72 S. W. 885. 78. Smith v. Manhattan Ey. Co., 48 St. Eep. (N. Y.) 856, 18 N. Y. Supp. 759, aflfd. 138 N. Y. 627, 33 N. E. 1083; Penfield v. Cleveland, etc., E. Co., 26 App. Div. (N. Y.) 413, 50 N. Y. Supp. 79; Hart v. Metropolitan St. E. Co., 34 Misc. Eep. (K Y.) 531, 69 N. Y. Supp. 906; Steamboat Co. v. Brockett, 121 U. S. 637, 7 S. C. Eep. 1039; Eowe V. Brooklyn, etc., E. Co., 80 App. Div. (N. Y.) 477, 81 N. Y. Supp. 106; Choctaw, etc., E. Co. v. Hill, (Tenn.) 75 S. W. 963. Bnles and regulations of street railways. — ^A railway company has the right to make reasonable rules and regulations prohibiting pas- sengers from occupying positions ou its cars considered to be dangerous, except at their own risk; but when, notwithstanding such rules, pas- sengers are permitted, and in some instances required, to occupy such positions, the company is still under the duty to exercise extraordinary care and diligence for their safety. Augusta Ey. & Elec. Co. \. Smfth, 3 St. Ey. Eep. 75, 121 Ga. 29, 48 S. E. 681. See also as to other rules and regulations: Stevens v. Boston Elev. Ey. Co., 2 St. Ey. Eep. 435, 184 Mass. 476, 69 N. E. 338; Nas- sau Elec. Ey. Co. v. Corliss, 2 St. Ey. Eep. 999, 126 Fed. 355; United Eailways & Elec. Co. v. Hertel (Md.), 1 St. Ey. Eep. 273, 55 Atl. 428; Frizzell v. Omaha St. Ey. Co., 1 St. Ey. Eep. 854, 124 Fed. 176. See also note, 1 St. Ey. Eep. 273. . CHAPTER XX. Duties and Liabilities of Caeeiebs of Passeitgees. ■Section 1. Care required of carrier in general. 2. Obstructions on or near tracks. 3. Duty of railroad company to fence tracks. 4. Locomotives, cars, and appliances. 5. Improved appliances and methods. 6. Duty of inspection. 7. Liability for latent defects. 8. Negligeno* of persons engaged in construction or manufacture. 9. Liability of carrier employing leased lines, or using cars of an- other company. 10. Liability for injuries caused by inevitable accident. 11. Means and appliances for receiving and discharging passengers. 12. Passenger carriers by stage coaches. 13. Carriers of passengers by water. 14. Carrier's liability as to employment of servants. 15. Duty to receive and transport passengers. 16. Persons who may be refused transportation. 17. When refusal to transport must be made. 18. Duty to carry i assengers on freight and special trains. 19. Duty of carrier to protect passenger. 20. Acts or omissions of carrier's employes. 21. The New York rule. 22. Carrier's liability for assaults by servants. 23. Liability for insult and abuse by servants. 24. Liability for expulsion by servants. 25. Liability for false arrest of passengers. 26. Liability for acts of fellow passengers or other third persons. 27. Liability for assaults by passengers or other third persons. 28. Indecent language and conduct of fellow passengers or intruders. 29. Duty to protect from acts of drunken passengers. 30. Duty of carrier to sick passengers. 31. Protection from accidental injuries. 32. Care of carrier in the carriage of passengers. 33. Management of conveyance. — Sudden jerks and jolts. 34. Duty of carrier to announce stations. 35. Duty of carrier to stop at stations. 36. Warning of departure of trains. 37. Duty to provide safe means of ingress and egress. 38. Reasonable time for ingress and egress. 38 (5»3) 594 The Law of Caeeiees. 39. Duty to warn, instruct, or inform passengers. 40. Duty to assist aged, infirm, or helpless passengers, 41. Duty to carry to point of destination. 42. Carrying passengers beyond destination. 43. Duty to carry promptly. 44. Safety of passengers. 45. Safety of passengers on freight and other trains. > 46. Duty of carrier to provide passengers with seats. 47. Liability for injuries caused by collision. 48. Duty of carrier for safety of sick passengers. 49. Articles constituting personal baggage. 50. Duty to carry baggage. 51. Liability of carrier for loss or injury. 52. Limitation of liability. 53. Baggage checks mere receipts or vouchers. 54. Commencement and termination of liability. 55. Carrier's liability as warehouseman. 56. Connecting carriers. § 1. Care required of carriers in general. — ^While the common carrier of passengers is not an insurer of the safety of its passen- gers, the rule is firmly established that it is bound to use tli& utmost care, so far as human skill and foresight can go, to guard against the possibility of accidents arising from the condition of its road and the machinery used in the transportation of passen- gers. This obligation exists only -with respect to those results- "which are naturally to be apprehended from unsafe roadbeds, de- fective machinery, imperfect cars, and other conditions endaIlge^ ing the success of the undertaking. The degree of care to be exer- cised in any case is dependent upon the circumstances ; and, where the injury occurs from a defect in the roadbed, or machinery, or in the construction of the cars, or •where it results from a defect in any of the appliances such as would be likely to occasion great danger and loss of life to those traveling on the road, as the result of the least negligence may be of so fatal a nature, the duty of vigi- lance, on the part of the carrier, requires the exercise of that amount of care and skill in order to prevent accidents.^ But in the 1. Stierle v. Union Ry. Co., 156 N. E. Co., 58 N. Y. 126, 17 Am. Eep. Y. 70, 50 N. E. 419, 5 Am. Annot. 221; Caldwell v. New Jersey Steam- Cas. 326; Aimer v. Delaware, etc., boat Co., 47 N. Y. 282; Maverick?. Canal Co., 120 N. Y. 170, 17 Am. St. Eighth Ave. R. Co., 36 N. Y. 378; Kep. 629; Coddington v. Brooklyn, Deyo v. New York Cent. E. Co., 3i etc., E. Co., 102 N. Y. 66, 5 N. E. N. Y. 9; Bower v. New York Cent 795; Carroll v. Staten Island, etc., E. Co., 18 N. Y. 410, 72 Am. Dec> Duties and Liabilities. 595 approaches to the cars, such as platforms, halls, stairways, and the like, a less degree of care is required, and for the reason that the consequences of a neglect of the highest skill and care which human foresight can attain to are naturally of a less serious nature. The rule in such cases is that the carrier is bound simply to exercise ordinary care in view of the dangers to be appre- hended.^ So, likewise, the courts have not held carriers to the exercise of such a high degree of care in the operation of their roads to prevent injuries to other travelers, as at railroad crossings and, notably in the case of street railways, as is required of them in respect to passengers, but have held them bound to exercise due and ordinary care and prudence and such reasonable diligence and caution as all tbe surrounding circumstances of the case require." 529;- Hegeman v. Western E. Co., 13 N. Y. 9, 64 Am. Dee. 517 ; Ingalls y. Bills, 9 Mete. (Mass.) 1; Moreland V. Boston, etc., E. Co., 141 Mass. 31, 6 N. E. 225; Central E. Co. v. Free- man, 75 Ga. 331; Metropolitan St. Ry. Co. V. Hanson, 1 St. Ey. Eep. 234, (Kan.) 72 Pae. 775; St. Louis, etc., E. Co. V. Mitchell, 57 Ark. 418, 21 S. W. 883; Eureka Springs E. Co. v. Timmons, 51 Ark. 459, 40 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 698 ; George v. St. Louis, etc., E. Co., 34 Ark. 613; Holloway v. Passadona, etc., E. Co., 130 Cal. 177, 62 Pac. 478; Macon Consol. St. E. Co. V. Barnes, 113 Ga. 212, 38 S. E. 746; Illinois Cent. E. Co. v. Kuhn, 107 Tenn. 106, 64 S. W. 202; Smith v. St. Paul City Ey. Co., 32 Minn. 1, 18 N. W. 827; Gilson v. Jackson, etc., E. Co., 76 Mo. 282; Searle v. Kanaw- ha, etc., E. Co., 32 W. Va. 370, 37 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 179. See Nellis St. Ed. Acct. Law, 47, 55; Louisiana, etc., E. Co. V. Grumpier, 122 Fed. 425. 2. Kelly v. Manhattan E. Co., 112 N. Y. 443; Palmer v. Pennsylvania Co., Ill N. Y. 488, 18 N. E. 859; Morris v. New York Cent., etc., E. Co., 106 N. Y. 678, 13 N. E. 475; Miller v. Ocean Steamship Co., 118 N. Y. 211; Unger v. Forty-second St. E. Co., 51 N. Y. 497; Taylor v. Pennsylvania Co., 50 Fed. 755; Cleveland, etc., E. Co. v. Anderson, 21 0. C. C. E. 288, 11 0. C. D. 765. As to defective platforms and stations: See Wagner v. Brook- lyn H. E. Co., 3 St. Ey. Eep. 710, 95 App. Div. (N. Y.) 219, 88 N. Y. Supp. 791; Indianapolis St. Ey. Co. V. Eobinson, 157 Ind. 414, 61 N. E. 936; Wood v. Metropolitan St. Ey. Co., 3 St. Ey. Eep. 540, 181 Mo. 433, 81 S. W. 152; Haselton v. Ports- mouth, etc., St. Ey. Co., 7l N. H. 589, 53 Atl. 1016. See also Leveret v. Shreveport Belt Line Co. (La.), 1 St. Ey. Eep. 253 (and note), 34 So. 579; Cotant v. Boone Sub. Ey. Co. (la.), 2 St. Ey. Eep. 269 (and note), 99 N. W. 115. 3. Weber v. New York Cent. E. Co., 58 N. Y. 451; Baltimore, etc., E. Co. v. Breinig, 25 Md. 378; Ethering- ton v. Prospect Park, etc., E. Co., 88 N. Y. 461; Weiler v. Manhattan R. Co., 53 Hun (N. Y.) 372, 6 N. Y. Supp. 320; Geipel v. Steinway Ei Co., 14 App. Div. (N. Y.) 551, 43 N. Y. ciupp. 934; Western, etc., E. Co. v. 596 The Law of Caeeiees. The carrier is required to exercise the highest degree of care in providing a properly constructed and safe roadbed and track/ and in constructing, maintaining and repairing its road when upon a street or highway and the crossings where it intersects, a pubhe highway at grade, and the approaches thereto, in a safe condition.' It is required to have safe and properly constructed bridges,^ and King, 70 Ga. 261, 19 Am. & Bng. R. Cas. 255; Gorman's Admr. v. Louis- ville, etc., R. Co., 24 Ky. L. Rep. 1938, 72 S. W. 760; Goldrick /. Union R. Co., 20 R. I. 128, 37 Atl. 635, 2 Am. Neg. Rep. 647; Hall v. Ogden City St. R. Co., 13 Utah, 243, 44 Pae. 1046, 4 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. N. S. 77; Pendleton St. R. Co. v. Shires, 18 Ohio St. 255; Pendleton St. R. Co. V. Stallman, 22 Ohio St. 1 ; Potts V. Chicago City R. Co., 33 Fed. 610; Roller v. Sutter St. R. Co., 66 Cal. 230, 5 Pae. 108; Fort Worth St. E. Co., V. Witten, 74 Tex. 202, US. W. 1091; Boland v. Missouri R. Co., 36 Mo. 484; Citizens St. E. Co. v. Steen, 42 Ark. 321; Wilman v. Peo- ples Ry. Co., (Del.) 55 Atl. 332; Koenig v. Union Depot R. Co., 173 Mo. 698, 73 S. W. 637; Aldrich v. St. Louis Trans. Co., (Mo. App.) 74 S. W. 141. See Nellis St. Rd. Acct. Law, 217. 4. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Lewis, 145 111. 67, 33 N. E. 960; Peoria, etc., E. Co. v. Reynolds, 88 111. 418; Pitts- burg, etc., R. Co. V. Thompson, 56 III. 138 ; OTDonnell v. Allegheny Val- ley E. Co., 59 Pa. St. 239, 98 Am. Dec. 336; Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. v. Williams, 74 Ind. 462 ; Nashville, etc., E. Co. v. Johnson, 15 Lea (Tenn.) 677; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Killebrew, (Tex.) 20 S. W. 182; Virginia Cent. R. Co. V. Sanger, 15 Gratt. (Va.) 250; Great Western R. Co. v. Faw- cett, 1 Moo. P. C. N. S. 101. See. also cases sited in preceding notes to this section; Macon Consol. St. R. Co. V. Barnes, 113 Ga. 212, 38 S. E. 756; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Kuhn, 107 Tenn. 106, 64 S. W. 202. 5. Gilmore v. City of Utica, 121 S. Y. 561; Post V. West Shore S. Co., 123 N. Y. 580; People v. New York, etc., R. Co., 89 N. Y. 266, 10 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 250, having construct- ed its line through a street or crossed a highway, it must restore it to such a condition that its usefulness will not be unnecessarily impaired; Pitts- burg, etc., E. Co. V. Dunn, 56 Pa. St. 280; Padueah, etc., E. Co. v. Com- monwealth, 80 Ky. 147, 10 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 318; People v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 67 111. 188 ; State v. Day- ton, etc., R. Co., 56 Ohio St. 436, 5 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 447 ; Maltby v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 52 Mich. lOS, 13 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 606; Cooke V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 113 Mass. 185; Farley v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 42 Iowa, 234. 6. Birmingham v. Rochester City, etc., R. Co., 137 N. Y. 13, 58 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 134; Oliver v. New York, etc., E. Co., 1 Edm. Sel. Cas. ,- (N. Y.) 589; Pershing v. Chicago, , etc., E. Co., 71 Iowa, 561, 34 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 405; Locke v. Sioux City, etc., R. Co., 46 Iowa, 100: Jamison v. San Jose, etc., R. Co., 5i Cal. 593, 3 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 350; Kansas Pae. R. Co. v. Miller, 2 Colo. 442, 20 Am. Ry. Rep. 245; Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Conroy, 68 111. 560; Lodisville, etc., R. Co. v. Snyder, UT Ind. 435, 10 Am. St. Rep. 60, 37 Am. £ Eng. R. Cas. 137; Louisville, etc.. Duties and Ltabilities. 597 culverts,' sound ties/ and rails,' and to have the latter safely spiked or fastened f its embankments and -walls must be properly and safely constructed," and switches -which are not defective in construction or out of repair provided." The common carrier E. Co. V. Thompson, 107 Ind. 442, .57 Am. Rep. 120; Bedford, etc., E. Co. V. Eainbolt, 99 Ind. 551, 21 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 446; Union Pac. E. Co. V. Hand, 7 Kan. 380, 1 Am. Ey. Eep. S48; Dallas, etc., B. Co. v. Spicker, 01 Tex. 427, 48 Am. Eep. 297, 21 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 160; Baltimore, etc., E. Co. V. Noell, 32 Gratt. (Va.) 394; Grote V. Chester, etc., E. Co., 2 Exch. 251. 7. Philadelphia, etc., E. Co. v. An- derson, 94 Pa. St. 351, 39 Am. Eep. 787, 2 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 407 ; Bon- ner V. Mayfield, 82 Tex. 234. See also Withers v. North Kent E. Co., 3 il. & N. 969. 8. Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Le-wia, 145 III. 67, 58 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 126; St. Louis Coal E. Co. v. Moore, 14 111. App. 510; Pittsburg, etc., E. Co. v. Thompson, 56 111. 138; South- ern Kansas E. Co., v. Walsh, 45 Kan. 653, 47 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 493; Texas, etc., E. Co. v. Hardin, 62 Tex. 367, 21 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 460. 9. 2V. r.— Eeed v. New York Cent. E. Co., 56 Barb. (N. Y.) 493; Brig- noli V. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 4 Daly (N. Y.) 182. TJ. S. — -Vicksburg, etc., E. Co. v. Putnam, 118 U. S. 545, 27 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 291; Newman v. Ala- bama G. S. E. Co., 38 Fed. 819. Ark. — George v. St. Louis, etc., E. Co., 34 Ark. 613, 1 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 294. Dak. — Patten v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 5 Dak. 267, 34 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 399. Fio.— Florida E., etc., Co. v. Web- ster, 25 Fla. 394. III. — Peoria, etc., E. Co. v. Rey- nolds, 88 111. 418. Ind. — Cleveland, etc., E. Co. v. Newell, 75 Ind. 542, 8 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 377. Iowa. — Pershing v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 71 Iowa, 561, 34 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 405. N. F.— Taylor v. Grand Trunk E. Co., 48 N. H. 304, 2 Am. Eep. 229. Eng. — Pym v. Great Northern R. Co., 2 F. & F. 619. 10. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Lewis, 145 111. 67, 58 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 126; Toledo, etc., E. Co. v. Apper- son, 49 111. 480; Florida E., etc., Co. V. Webster, 25 Fla. 394; Southern Kansas E. Co. v. Walsh, 45 Kan. 653, 47 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 93. 11. Hanley v. Harlem E. Co., 1 Edm. Sel. Cas. (N. Y.) 395; Kansas Pac. E. Co. V. Ludin, 3 Colo. 94; Gleeson v. -Virginia Midland E. Co., 140 U. S. 435, 47 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 513; Philadelphia, etc., E. Co. v. An- derson, 94 Pa. St. 351, 39 Am. Eep. 7»7 ; International, etc., E. Co. v. Hal- loren, 53 Tex. 46, 37 Am. Eep. 744, 3 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 343. 12. Stodder v. New York, etc., R. Co., 50 Hun (N. Y.) 221, 2 N. Y. Supp. 780, affd. 121 N. Y. 655; Smith V. New York, etc., E. Co., 19 N. Y. 127, 75 Am. Dec. 305; Caswell v. Boston, etc., R. Corp., 98 Mass. 194, 93 Am. Dec. 151; McElroy v. Nashua, etc., R. Corp., 4 Cush. (Mass.) 400, 50 Am. Dec. 794; Peoria, etc., R. Co. V. Lane, 83 111. 449; Baltimore, etc., R. Co. V. Worthington, 21 Md. 275, 83 Am. Dee. 578; Farrell v. Houston, etc., R. Co., 4 N. Y. Supp. 597. See 598 The Law of Caebiees. always guarantees the safety of the vehicle in which the passen- ger is transported, since, the law implies a contract, in all cases on the part of the carrier, that the vessel or coach, or vehicle, what- ever it may be, is sufficient for the business in which it is em- ployed.^' The railroad ig part of the machinery for the carriage of passengers, as much as the stage coach or ship." Carriers of per- sons and passengers over railways operated by the powerful agency of steam or electricity are, therefore, bound to construct their road- bed and track with all possible care, and are bound to keep it in a safe and proper condition. They are bound to exercise the utmost skill and care in the preparation and management of their road and of all the means of conveyance thereon. As com- mon carriers of passengers, they impliedly warrant and guarantee to every person who gets into one of their cars to be transported ■* over their road, or any point or part thereof, that such road is land-worthy, or road-worthy; that its track, bridges, and all its structures are made and constructed in the most s'killful manner and of suitable and proper materials, and are, in all respects, kept and maintained in a sound and safe condition ; that their locomo- tives and cars and all their appurtenances are constructed with the utmost care and skill, and are kept in sound and proper order; and, also, that they have provided for the care and management of the trains and cars on their said road, careful, skillful, compe- tent and sober engineers, conductors, switchtenders, brakemen, and all other necessary agents.^^ § 2. Obstructions on or near tracks. — A railroad company en- gaged in the carriage of passengers must exercise the highest de- gree of care and skill in the construction and maintenance of its tracks so that they will be free from obstructions by reason of the dangerous proximity of parallel tracks, or of structures, or exca- vations to the tracks," and in disposing of materials brought upon State V. Young, (N. J.) 56 Atl. 471, Co., 24 N. Y. 219, 82 Am. Dec. 282; ' as to whether a derailing switch is Curtis v. Rochester, etc., E. Co., su- a necessary precaution to be used on pra; Costikyan v. Home, etc., R. Co., a street railroad track. 58 Hun (N. Y.), 590, 12 N. Y. Supp- 13. Camden, etc., R. Co. v. Burke, o83; Hegeman v. Western R. Corp., 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 628, 28 Am. Deo. 13 N. Y. 22; Story Bail., § 593; 488; Story Bail., §§ 509, 592. Angell Carr., §§ 78, 338. McAllister 14. Curtis V. Rochester, etc., R. v. People Ry. Co. (Del. Super.), 54 Co., 18 N. Y. 536, 75 Am. Dec. 258. Atl. 743. 15. Perkins v. New York Cent. R. 16. Bias v. Rochester R. Co., 169 Duties and Liabilities. 599 the ground, or removed by it, or any obstruction whicb prevents the safe movement of its cars or trains," and in discovering and Temoving such obstructions.^^ § 3. Duty of railroad company to fence tracks. — A railroad company, for the siafety of its passengers as well as its employes upon its engines and cars, must exercise reasonable prudence and . — Texas, etc., E. Co. v. Hamil- ton, 66 Tex. 92; International, etc., E. Co. V. Halloren, 53 Tex. 46, 37 Am. Rep. 744, 3 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 343. Eng. — Ford v. London, etc., R. Co., 2 F. & F. 730; Freemantle v. London, etc., E. Co., 10 C. B. N. S. 95, 100 E. C. L. 95. 45. Loftus V. Union Ferry Co., 84 N. Y. 461, 38 Am. Eep. 533; Dougan V. Champlain Transp. Co., 56 N. Y. 1; Crocheron v. North Shore, etc., Ferry Co., 56 N. Y. 656; Cleveland Duties and Liabilities. 605 employed, under varying conditions, upon countless occasions, and uniformly answered its purpose without injury to any one." And iiiej are not bound to adopt and use a new and improved methud because safer and better than the methods employed by them, if it is not requisite to the reasonable safety and convenience of pas- sengers, and if the expense is unreasonably excessive.*'' § 6. Duty of inspection, — The rule of liability requires a car- rier of passengers to exercise the greatest diligence to secure them safe transportation, and while it is not an insurer of its passen- ^rs against accident, the inspection of its cars and appliances, roadbed and machinery, must be such as, in the judgment of those who understand the subject, will be sufficient to secure, or such as experience has shown to be sufficient to secure, the safety of its passengers.** The mode of inspection should be such aa is gener- ally found adequate and sufficient to discover defects if any exist, and diould be made with such frequency as the liability to impair- ment reasonably requires and is practically possible consistently with the conduct of its business ;*' but the carrier is not bound to teep up a continuous inspection, or to know at each moment the T. New Jersey Steamboat Co., 68 N. Cas. 683, 57 App. Div. (N. Y.) 125, y. 306. 67 N. Y. Supp. 985 ; Smith v. Metro- 46. Burke v. Witherbee, 98 N. Y. politan St. E. Co., 59 App. Div. [N. .662; Grafter v. Metropolitan R. Co., Y.) 60, 69 N. Y. Supp. 176; Volk- li. E. 1 C. P. 300. mar v. Manhattan E. Co., 134 N. Y. 47. Le Barron v. East Boston 418, 31 N. E. 870; O'Flaherty v. Nas- Terry Co., 11 Allen (Mass.), 312, 87 sau Elec. R. Co., 34 App. Div. (N. Am. Dec. 717; Taylor v. Grand Y.) 74, 54 N. Y. Supp. 96; Toledo, Trunk R. Co., 48 N. H. 304, 2 Am. etc., E. Co. v. Apperson, 49 III. 480; Eep. 229; Pershing v. Chicago, etc., Cleveland, etc., E. Co. v. Newell, 104 R. Co., 71 Iowa, 561, 34 Am. & Eng. Ind. 264, 54 Am. Eep. 312; Furnish E. Cas. 405; Pittsbiirg, etc., E. Co. v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 102 Mo. 438; T. Thompson, 56 111. 138; Louisville, Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Suggs, 62 Tex. €tc., R. Co. V. Jones, 83 Ala. 376, 34 323, 21 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 475. See Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 417. Nellis St. Ed. Acct. Law, 67-71. 48. Schneider v. Second Ave. R. 49. Palmer v. Delaware, etc., E. ■Co., 133 N. Y. 583, 30 N. E. 752, 44 Co., 120 N. Y. 170, 17 Am. St. Rep. St. Eep. (N. Y.) 680; Stierle v. 629, 44 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 298 ; Poul- Union Ey. Co., 156 N. Y. 74, 684, 50 sen v. Nassau Elec. E. Co., 7 Am. N. E. 419, 834; Koehne v. New York, Electl. Cas. 675, 18 App. Div. (X. •etc., E. Co.. 32 App. Div. (N. Y.) Y.) 221; Richardson v. Great East- 419, 52 N. Y. Supp. 1088; Leonard ern, etc., R. Co., 24 W. R. 907, 1 C. r. Brooklyn H. R. Co., 7 Am. Electl. P. Div. 342, 35 L. T. N. S. 351. 606 The Law of Caeeiees. condition of every part of a train, and its equipments.^" Ordi- narily, -whether the system and manner of executing its duty in. esamining its machinery and appliances are all that may be re- quired of a carrier cannot be measured by any rule of law to be applied by the court, but is a question of fact for the jury, to be determined upon proper instructions.^^ A railroad company i& bound to know the effect of time and weather upon its appliancea and it should, by proper inspection, and timely changes and re- newals, keep them safe ;°^ it should inspect its lines with more than ordinary promptitude under circumstances of more than ordinary peril; the greater the peril the greater the vigilance demanded.^* A neglect of its duty of proper and adequate inspection will ren- der the carrier liable for any injuries to passengers caused by defects which might have been discovered by proper care and skill and the consequences thus avoided.^ § 7. Liability for latent defects. — In an early case in New York, based upon an early English case, it was held that a com- mon carrier of passengers was bound absolutely, and irrespective of negligence, to provide road-worthy vehicles, and that it was liable for injuries caused by defects, although they could not have been discovered by any practical mode of examination.^' But in a later case it was pointed out that that case had no foundation of authority to rest on, and it was said to be a departure from every prior decision and authority to be found in the books of thi» country and England, and never to have been followed anywhere 50. Proud V. Philadelphia, etc., R. 54. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Lewis, Co. (N. J.), 46 Atl. 710, 50 L. R. A. 145 111. 67, 58 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 468. 126; Hanley v. Harlem K. Co., 1 51. Palmer v. Delaware, etc., Ca- Edm. Sel. Cas. (N. Y.) 395; Fur- nal Co., supra; Mansee v. Eastern nish v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 102 Mo. Counties R. Co., 3 L. T. N. S. 585. 438; Peoria, etc., R. Co. v. Reynolds, 52. Leveret v. Shreveport Belt 88 111. 418, 21 Am. Ry. Rep. 324; Line Co., 1 St. Ry. Rep. 253 (La.), St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Mitchell, 57 34 So. 579 ; Williams v. Electric Co., Ark. 418 ; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Ham- 43 La. Ann. 300 ; Aiken v. Southern ilton, 66 Tex. 92, 26 Am. & Eng. E. Pao. Co., 104 La. 162, 29 So. 1. Cas. 162. See also cases cited in 53. Libby v. Maine Cent. R. Co., preceding notes to this section. 85 Me. 34, 20 L. R. A. 812, 58 Am. 55. Alden v. New York Cent. E. & Eng. R. Cas. 81, 26 Atl. 943; Co., 26 N. Y. 102, 82 Am. Dec. 401, Hardy v. North Carolina Cent. R. 3 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 498; Sharp v. Co., 74 N. C. 734 ; International, etc., Grey, 9 Ring. 457, 23 E. C. L. 331, 2 R. Co. V. Halloren, 53 Tex. 46. M. & S. 621- Duties and Liabilities. 607 out of New york.^* So, the English, case above referred to waa subsequently disrtinctly repudiated by the English courts, and the rule was established that the contract made by a common carrier of passengers for hire with a passenger is to take due care, includ- ing in that term the use of skill and foresight, to carry the pas- senger safely, and that it does not contain or imply a warranty that the vehicle in which he travels shall be in all respects perfect for its purpose and road-worthy ; that the carrier is not liable for latent defects not discoverable by the most careful inspection or by any degree of care, skill, and foresight." The same rule is maintained by the courts of several of our States.^^ The doctrine of the New York courts now firmly established is that a latent de^ feet in its road and appliances, which will relieve the carrier of passengers from responsibility, is such only as no reasonable de- gree of human skill and foresight could guard against'.^' And it is so held in the Federal courts.'" In some of the cases the rule is 'Stated to be that the carrier is not liable for defects not discover- able by the application of any tests known or practiced, or by the usual and proper tests, by skillful and experienced men.^^ But. 56. McPadden v. New York Cent. E. Co., 44 N. Y. 478, 4 Am. Eep. 705. 57. Eeadhead v. Midland R. Co., L. E. 2 Q. B. 412, 15 W. E. 831, 8 B. & S. 371, 36 L. J. Q. B. 181, afif4. 9 B. & S. 519, L. E. 4 Q. B. 379, 38 L. J. Q. B. 169, 20 L. T. N. S. 628, 17 W. E. 737; Stokes v. Eastern Coun- ties E. Co., 2 F. & F. 691; Eichard- son V. Great Eastern E. Co., 1 C. P. Div. 342; Christie v. Griggs, 2 Campb. 79. 58. Buekland v. New York, etc., E. Co. (Mass.), 62 N. E. 955; Ladd v. New Bedford E. Co., 119 Mass. 413. 20 Am. Eep. 331; Ingalls v. Bills, 9 Mete. (Mass.) 1, 43 Am. Deo. 346; Pittsburg, etc., E. Co. v. Thompson, 6 J III. 138; Meier v. Pennsylvania E. Co., 64 Pa. St. 225, 3 Am. Rep. 581 ; Hadley v. Cross, 34 Vt. 586, 80 Am. Dec. 699; Yerkes v. Keokuk, etc., Packet Co., 7 Mo. App. 265 ; St. Louis Coal E. Co. V. Moore, 14 111. App. 610. 59. Birmingham v. Eoehester, etc., E. Co., 137 N. Y. 13; Palmer v. Delaware, etc., Canal Co., 120 N. Y. 170, 17 Am. St. Rep. 629, 44 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 298; Caldwell v. New- Jersey Steamboat Co., 47 N. Y. 282; Brown v. New York Cent. E. Co., 34 N. Y. 404; Bowen v. New York Cent. E. Co., 18 N. Y. 408, 72 Am. Dec. 529; Hegeman v. Western E. Corp., 13 N. Y. 9, 64 Am. Dec. 517; Poul- son v. Nassau Elec. E. Co., 7 Am- Electl. Cas. 675, 18 App. Div. (N. Y.) 221, 45 N. Y. Supp. 941; Schnei- der V. Second Ave. E. Co., 15 N. Y. Supp. 556; Curtis v. Eoehester, etc., E. Co., 18 N. Y. 534, 75 Am. Dee. 238. 60. Pennsylvania Co. v. Eoy, lOi U. S. 451, 1 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 225. 61. Carroll v. Staten Island E. Co., 58 N. Y. 126; Toledo, etc., E. Co. v. Bcggs, 85 III. 80, 28 Am. Eep. 613; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Phillips, 4» 111. 234; Frelsen v. Southern Pae, 60'8 The Law of Caeeiees. it has been held in New York, that the carrier is liable, if the de- fects could have been discovered in the course of the manufacture of the machinery or materials used in the structure or operation of the road, by any process or test known to the skillful in such busi- ness, whether discoverable by any exercise of care and skill on the part of the immediate agents of the carrier or not.*^ § 8. Negligence of persons engaged in construction or manu- facture. — ^While carriers of passengers are not insurers of the safety of the persons whom they carry, and do not undertake that the vessels or vehicles which they use, or the machinery and ap- pliances which they employ, or the roadbeds or tracks, are abso- lutely free from defects, they are held to the utmost srkiU and care in the construction and management of both, and when they un- dertake to carry by such dangerous agencies as steam or electricity, they cannot escape liability for injuries occasioned to passengers thereby, unless Id appears that the accident happened from causes beyond their control and to which neither the negligence of the carrier, or of those employed in the construction of the carrier's road, or of the manufacture of the machinery, or of those em- ployed to manage it, contributed.*' The carrier of passengers con- tracts not only for his own skill and care in the conduct of the business, but for the skill and care of all those who have made or furnished any of the instrumentalities or appliances by means of which the business is conducted ; and the fact that the road was constructed under the supervision of competent engineers, or the machinery was constructed by skillful and reputable manufac- turers, will not relieve the carrier from liability for injuries due to defects discoverable by the builder or maker in the process of construction or manufacture, by the exercise of the highest care and diligence." Co., 42 La. Ann. 673, 44 Am. & Eng. 64. Birmingham v. Rochester, etc., K. Cas. 319; Dube v. Eeg., 3 Can. K. Co., 59 Hun (N. Y.), 583, revd. on Excn. 147. another point in 137 N. Y. 13; Pal- 62. Bissell v. New York Cent. R. mer v. Delaware, etc., Canal Co., 120 Co., 25 N. Y. 445, 82 Am. Des. 369; N. Y. 170, 24 N. E. 302; Caldwell f. Hegeman v. Western R. Corp., 13 N. New Jersey Steamboat Co., 47 N. T. Y. 9, 64 Am. Dec. 517; Brown v. New 287, 56 Barb. (N. Y.) 425; Bissell York Cent. R. Co., 34 N. Y. 404. v. New York Cent. R. Co., 25 N. Y. 63. Carroll v. Staten Island R. 442, 82 Am. Deo. 369; Perkins v. Co., 58 N. Y. 126, 17 Am. Rep. 221. New York Cent. R. Co., 24 N. Y. Duties and Liabilities. 609 § 9. Liability of carrier employing leased lines or using cars of another company. — Where a railroad company uses the track of another road, or the bridge of another company, which it in neither case owns or controls, but which it simply leases, or other- wise legally obtains the right of trackage thereon, in doing so it makes the roadway or bridge, which it obtains the right to use, its ■own, and is under the same liability by virtue of its own act as if it had itself built, equipped, and operated the roadbed or bridge.'^ The railroad company so owning and leasing the road is also liable to one who is injured, while riding on the train of the other mpany over its road, by reason of any defect in its road, since it is liable in such case to any one lawfully traveling over ita road.'° Eut where a street railroad is confronted by one of the canals of ■the State, over which it has no right to build a bridge, but which it is necessary to cross in order to carry out the purpose of its organization, to lay railroad tracks in the public streets, and the bridge forma in substance a continuation of the street, it may cross such bridge with the permission of the State authorities, without thereby making it a part of its appliances, for a latent de- fect in which it must be held responsible if discoverable in the 219, 82 Am. Dec. 282; Curtis v. Eoeheater, etc., R. Co., 18 N. Y. 538, 75 Am. Dec. 258; Hegeman v. West- ern E. Corp., 13 N. Y. 9, 64 Am. Dec. 517; Philadelphia, etc., E. Co. v. Anderson, 94 Pa. St. 351, 39 Am. Eep. 787, 6 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 407 ; Tread'well v. Whittier, 80 Cal. 574, 13 Am. St. Rep. 175; Pym v. Great ^J'orthern R. Co., 2 F. & F. 619; Burns v. Cork, etc., E. Co., 13 Ir. 0. L. R. 543; Grote v. Chester, etc., R. ■Co., 2 Exch. 251; Francis v. Cockrell, L. R. 5 Q. B. 184. Contra, Grand Rapids, etc., E. Co. v. Huntley, 38 Mich. 537, 31 Am. Eep. 321; Nash- ville, etc., R. Co. V. Jones, 9 Heisk. (Tenn.) 27, 19 Am. Ey. Eep. 61, but in a case where the action was by an employe of the road, to whom the duty of the carrier is not the same as that it owes to passengers. See also Knoxville Iron Co. v. Dobson, 7 39 Lea (Tenn.), 367; Guthrie v. Louis- ville, etc., E. Co., 11 Lea (Tenn.) 372, 47 Am. Eep. 286. 65. Birmingham v. Eochester City, etc., E. Co., 137 N. Y. 13, 59 Hun (N. Y.), 583, 14 N. Y. Supp. 13; Phila- delphia, etc., R. Co. V. Anderson, 94 Pa. St. 351, 39 Am. Eep. 787, 6 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 407; Murch v. Con- cord R. Corp., 29 N. H. 9, 61 Am. Dec. 631; Eureka Springs Co. v. Tim- mons, 51 Ark. 459, 40 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 698; Wisconsin Cent. R. Co. v. Ross, 142 HI. 9, 34 Am. St. Rep. 49, 53 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 73; John v. Bacon, L. R. 5 C. P. 437. 66. Stodder v. New York, etc., R. Co., 50 Hun (N. Y.), 221, 2 N. Y. Supp. 780, affd. 121 N. Y. 655; Smith V. New York, etc., R. Co., 19 N. Y. 127. Contra: Philadelphia, etc., E. Co., V. Anderson, supra; Murch v. Concord R. Corp., supra. 610 The Law of Caeeiees. process of the manufacture, and is not liable unless it has been guilty of negligence in failing to discover the defect. ^^ Where a carrier of passengers by railroad uses cars of another company t» transport its passengers, as for example, sleeping or palace cars, for the purpose of the contract with the railroad company for transportation, and in view of its obligation to use only cars tliat are adequate for safe conveyance, the palace or sleeping car com- pany, its conductor and porter, are, in law, the servants and em- ployes of the railroad company, and the negligence of either of them, aa to any matters involving the safety or security of pas- sengers, is that of the railroad company.** § 10. Liability for injuries caused by inevitable accident. — In the law of negligence and common carriers no case or principle can be found, or if found can be maintained, subjecting a person to liability for an act done without fault on his part. If one who is doing a lawful and proper act, using due care and proper pre- caution necessary to the exigencies of the case to avoid injuring others, accidentally does injure another, it is the result of pure accident, or is involuntary and unavoidable, and is but the misfor- tune of the sufEerer, and no action will lie.*' Common carriers are not to be held liable for injuries which are the result of a purely accidental occurrence, or an inevitable accident — an act of God — vis major — a fortuitous occurrence occasioned by natural causes exclusively without the intervention and beyond the control of man, or of an act of the public enemy, such as no human care and foresight on their part could have foreseen and prevented, and not 67. Birmingham v. Rochester City, Cush. (Mass.) 296; Brown v. Col- ete., E. Co., 137 N. Y. 13. lins, 53 N. H. 442, 16 Am. Rep. 372; 68. Pennsylvania Co. v. Roy, 102 Burton v. Davis, 15 La. Ann. 448; U. S. 457. See Palace and sleeping Gulf, etc., E. Co. v. Wood (Tex. Civ. car companies, § 24, chap. 2. App.), 63 S. W. 164. A collision of 69. Sheldon v. Sherman, 42 N. Y. two vessels at sea under circmn- 484, 1 Am. Rep. 569 ; Harvey v. Dun- stances where neither vessel wa* lop. Hill & D. Supp. (N.Y.) 193, 17 chargeable with any fault must be Barb. (N. Y.) 94; Seaboard, etc., R. attributed to unavoidable accident. Co. v. Spencer, 111 Ga. 868, 36 S. E. Dunton v. Allen Line S. S. Co., UJ 921; American Express Co. v. Smith, Fed. 250. But the defense of inevi- 33 Ohio St. 511, 31 Am. Rep. 561; table accident in a suit for collision Murphy v. City of Dayton, 7 Ohio will not avail a vessel unless she i» N. P. 227 ; Shailer & Schniglan Co. shown to have been free from fault, v. Corcoran, 11 0. C. D. 599, 21 The Severn, 113 Fed. 578. Ohio C. C. 639; Brown v. KendaH, 6 Duties and Liabilities. 611 due in any way to negligence on the part of the carriers.'" A rail- way company is required to construct its road so as to be sufficient to resist all such violence of weather as might be reasonably ex- pected to occur, even though rarely, in the climate and locality through which it runs." But it is not bound to anticipate or pro- vide against storms or floods of an unusual, extraordinary and un- precedented nature, or other inevitable casualty, such as have not within practical experience been known in the locality in which its road ia operated, and which could not have been foreseen and guarded against by due care, and prudence.'^ Thus, a carrier is not liable for an injury to a passenger caused by the breaking of a rail from extreme cold, under circumstances which human foresight could not have anticipated or prevented, provided the rail before the accident was such as a person of competent skill might reasonably presume upon inspection to be free from liabil- 70. Illinois Cent. E. Co. v. Smiesni, 104 111. App. 194; Wald v. Pittsburg, etc., R. Co., 162 III. 545, 44 N. E. 888, 5 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. N. S. 770, 43 Cent. L. J. 423; Atchi- son, etc., E. Co. T. Flynn, 24 Kan. 627, 1 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 240; Hal- lihan v. Hannibal, etc., E. Co., 71 Mo. 113, 2 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 38; Hestonville, etc., R. Co. v. Kelly, 102 Pa. St. 115; Eoadbridge v. Delaware, etc., E. Co., 105 Pa. St. 460; Meyer V. Missouri Pac. E. Co., 2 Neb. 320; State V. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 24 Md. 84; Beach v. Parmeter, 23 Pa. St. 197; Rea v. St. Louis, etc., E. Co. (Tex.), 73 S. W. 555; Gulf, etc., E. Co. V. Bell (Tex. Civ. App.), 58 S. W. 614; Denver, etc., E. Co. v. An- drews, 11 Colo. App. 204, 53 Pac. 518; Henry Sonneborn & Co. v. Southern Ey. Co., 65 S. C. 502, 44 S. E. 77; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Ander- son (Tex. Civ. App.), 61 S. W. 424, regardless of whether or not the car- rier used ordinary care; Sawyer v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 37 Mo. 240, 90 Am. Dec. 382, where a passenger was injured by the precipitation of a train into a chasm, the bridge over which had been burned by the public enemy. \VIiere a steamship company contracted to carry a passenger to a certain port, an ice blockade, pre- venting the port from being reached, was not an act of God, excusing the breach. Bullock v. White Star S. S. Co., 30 Wash. 448, 70 Pac. 1106. 71. Libby v. Maine Cent. E. Co., 85 Me. 34, 58 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 81; Missouri Pac. E. Co. v. Johnson, 72 Tex. 95, 37 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 128; Gulf, etc., E. Co. v. Pomeroy, 67 Tex. 498; International, etc., E. Co. v. Halloren, 53 Tex. 46, 37 Am. Rep. 744, 3 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 343; Mo- Pherson v. St. Louis, etc., E. Co., 97 Mo. 253; Great Western E. Co. v. Braid, 1 Moore, P. C. N. S. 101. 72. Connelly v. Manhattan R. Co., 68 Hun (N. Y.), 456, 23 N. Y. Supp. 88 ; Ellet v. St. Louis, etc., E. Co., 76 Mo. 518, 12 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 183; Withers v. North Kent E. Co., L. J. Exch. 417. See also cases cited in last preceding note. Gillespie v. St. Louis, etc., E. Co., 6 Mo. App. 454. 612 The Xaw of Oaeriees. ity to such fracture.'' Tlie test of liability is whether the carrier exercised such prudence and foresight as exercised before the event would ha-ve prevented the accident, and not particular pre- cautions that might have been adopted, apparent from an inves- tigation after the accident. Nothing is so easy as to be wise after the event.'* Where an accident is not the reasonable, natural, and probable result of the situation which ought to have been foreseen by the carrier in the exercise of the degree of care exacted from a carrier of passengers, no liability follows.'^ § 11. Means and appliances for receiving and discharging passengers. — The rule of liability of a carrier of passengers for hire that it is bound by its contract to use the utmost dihgence possible to secure the safe transportation of the passenger, and, to that end, to furnish carriages of the most approved construc- tion, and keep them in perfect repair, so far as human gkiU and foresight can provide, applies as well to the means and appliances provided for receiving and discharging passengers as for trans- porting them ; and it is the duty of a railroad company to provide passengers with reasonably safe and convenient means of ingress and egress from its' cars.'^ It must provide safe exits, and reason- 73. McPadden v. New York Cent. Chicago City R. Co. y. Burrell, 70 E. Co., 44 N. Y. 478, 4 Am. Eep. 705; 111. App. 60; Hamilton v. West End Missouri Pac. E. Co. v. Johnson, 72 St. E. Co., 163 Mass. 199, 30 N. E. Tex. 95, 37 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 128; 1010; Perry v. Malarin, 107 Cal. Missouri Pac. E. Co. v. Mitchell, 72 363, 40 Pac. 489; Denver, etc., E. Tex. 171. Co. V. Andrews, 11 Colo. App. 204, 74. Bowen v. New York Cent. E. 53 Pac. 518; Holt v. Southwestern Co., 18 N. Y. 408, 72 Am. Dec. 529; Mo. Elec. E. Co., 84 Mo. App. 443; Libby v. Maine Cent. E. Co., 85 Me. Feary v. Metropolitan St. E. Co., 162 34, 58 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 81; Corn- Mo. 75, 62 S. W. 452; Davis v. Chi- man v. Eastern Counties E. Co., 4 cago, etc., E. Co., 93 Wis. 470, 67 N. ' H. & N. 781. W. 16, 1132. See Nellis St. Ed. 75. Ayers v. Eochester E. Co., 156 Acot. Law, 17-19. N. Y. 104, 50 N. E. 960; Cleveland 76. Chase v. Jamestown St. R. Co., V. New Jersey Steamboat Co., 125 N. 60 Hun (N. Y.), 582, 38 St. Kep. Y. 299; Loftus v. Union Ferry Co., (N. Y.) 954, 15 N. Y. Supp. 35, affd. 84 N. Y. 455; Dougan v. Champlain 133 N. Y. 619, where a passenger wa? Transp. Co., 56 N. Y. 1; Snediker v. injured by her dress catching in the Nassau Elec. E. Co., 41 App. Div. (N. sheet iron covering of the car wheel Y.) 028, 58 N. Y. Supp. 457; Nelson projecting above the floor; Falk v. V. Lehigh Valley E. Co., 25 App. Div. New York, etc., E. Co., 56 N. J. L- (N. Y.) 535, 50 N. Y. Supp. 63; 380, 58 Am. & Eng. E. Gas. 191; Duties and Liabilities. 613 ably safe platforms or facilities and places for entering and leav- ing the ears, and wait long enough for a diligent passenger to be able to do so." But the rule in relation to the liability of railroad corporations for injuries sustained by passengers by reason of de- fects in the approaches to the cars, such as platforms, halls, stair- ways, and the like, differs from that which obtains in the case of an injury to a passenger while he is being carried over the road of the corporation and where the injury occurs from a defect in the roadbed or machinery, or in the construction of the cars, or where it results from a defect in any of the appliances, such as would be likely to occasion great danger and loss of life to those traveling on liie road. The rule in the former case is that the carrier is bound to exercise simply ordinary care in view of the danger to be apprehended, and for the reason that the conse- quences of a neglect of the highest care and skill which human foresight can attain to are naturally of a much less serious nature." A railroad company, which has made an arrangement Louisville, etc., E. Co. v. Lucas, 119 Ind. 583; Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. Stacy, 68 Miss. 463; Alexandria, etc., R. Co. v. Herndon, 87 Va. 193. 77. Wells V. Steinway R. Co., 18 App. Div. (N. Y.) 180, 45 N. Y. Supp. 864; Onderdonk v. New York, etc., R. Co., 74 Hun (N. Y.), 42, 26 N. Y. Supp. 310; Van Ostran v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 35 Hun (N. Y.), 590; Memphis, etc., E. Co. v. Whitfield, 44 Miss. 486, 7 Am. Rep. 699 ; Missouri, Pac. R. Co. v. Long, 81 Tex. 253, 26 Am. St. Rep. 811; Missouri Pac. E. Co. v. Wortham, 73 Tex. 25, 37 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 82; Leveret v. Shreveport Belt Line Co., 1 St. Ry. Rep. 253, and notes, (La.) 31 So. 579; West Chicago St. E. Co. V. Buckley, TD2 111. App. 314; Bass v. Concord St. E. Co. (N. H.), 46 Atl. 1056; Henry v. Grant St. Elec. E. Co., 24 Wash. 246, 64 Pac. 137. See Nellis St. Ed. Acet. Law, 102- 118. 78. Kelly v. Manhattan E. Co., 112 N. Y. 443, 20 N. E. 383; Weston V. New York El. R. Co., 73 N. Y. 595; McMahon v. New York El. R. Co., 50 N. Y. Super. Ct. 507; Lafflin V. Buffalo, etc., E. Co., 106 N. Y. 136, 60 Am. Eep. 433, 12 N. E. 599; Mor- ris V. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 106 N. Y. 678, 13 N. E. 455; Palmer V. Pennsylvania Co., Ill N. Y. 488, 18 N. E. 859; Unger v. Forty-Second St. E. Co., 51 N. Y. 497; Flagg v. Manhattan R. Co., 49 N. Y. Super. Ct. 251; Timpson v. Manhattan R. Co., 52 Hun (N. Y.), 489, 5 N. Y. Supp. 684; Ryan v. Manhattan R. Co., 121 N. Y. 126, 23 N. E. 1131; Hanrahan v. Manhattan R. Co., 52 Hun (N. Y.), Ill, 4 N. Y. Supp. 848; Palmer v. Delaware, etc.. Canal Co., 120 N. Y. 177, 24, N. E. 302; More- land V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 141 Mass. 31, 6 N. E. 225; Pennsylvania Co. v. Marion, 104 Ind. 239, 3 N. E. 874; Pittsburgh, etc., E. Co. v. Brigham, 29 Ohio St. 374; Beard v. Conn. & Pass. E. E. Co., 48 Vt. 101 ; MeKone V. Michigan Cent. E. Co., 51 Mich. 601; St. Louis, etc., E. Co. v. Fair- 614 The Law of Caeeiees. ■with a transfer company to furnish at its passenger station all the vehicles necessary for the accommodation of the passengers arriving there on its trains or on the trains of other railroad com- panies using the station, may legally exclude from the station and depot grounds all other hackmen and cabmen seeking entrance for the purpose of soliciting for themselves lie custom or patron- age of pasengers. It has the right, if it is not its legal duty to erect and maintain a passenger station and depot buildings for the accommodation of passengers and shippers as well as for its bene- fit; and it is its duty to maintain that station so as to subserve, primarily, the convenience, comfort, and safety of passengers and the wants of shippers. It is, therefore, its duty to see to it tliat passengers are not annoyed, disturbed, or obstructed in the use either of the station house or of the grounds over which such pas- ' sengers, whether arriving or departing, must pass. Any arrange- ment to that end is neither unnecessary, unreasonable, or arbi- trary, and is within the legal rights of the company in the efficient conduct of its business. '^^ bairn (Mo.), 4 S. W. 50; Moore v. Wabash, etc., E. Vn., 84 Mo. 481; Taylor v. Pennsylvania Co., 50 Fed. 755. See also Nellis St. Rd. Acet. Law, 181-186, and cases there cited. 78a. Donovan v. Pennsylvania Co., 26 Sup. Ct. Eep. (U. S.) 91, affg. 124 Fed. 1016, 60 C. C. A. 168. It was further held that licensed hack- men or cabmen, when not forbidden by valid municipal regulations may, within reasonable limits, use the pub- lie sidewalk in front of, adjacent to, or about the main entrance to a rail- way passenger station in prosecuting their calling, but are not entitled to congregate upon such sidewalk so as to interfere with the ingress and egress of passengers and employees. It was also decided that the inade- quacy of any remedy at law justifies injunctive relief against the constant, unlawful attempt of hackmen and cabmen to enter a railway passenger station and depot grounds to solicit patronage, and their use of the side- walk in front of the station so as to interfere unduly with the ingress and egress of passengers. Id. See also Barney v. Oyster Bay S. B. Co., 67 N. Y. 301; Jeneks v. Coleman, 2 Sumn. 221, Fed. Cas. No. 7,258; The D. E. Martin, 11 Blatchf. 233. Fed. Cas. No. 1,030; Commonwealth V. Power, 7 Mete. (Mass.) 596, 41 Am. Dee. 465 ; Old Colony R. Co. v. Tripp, 147 Mass. 35, 9 Am. St. Eep. 661, 17 N. E. 89; CommonwealtS v. Carey, 147 Mass. 40, note, 17 N. E. 97; State ex rel. Sheets v. Union Depot Co., 71 Ohio St. 379, 68 L. R. A. 792, 73 N. E. 633; Norfolk & W. E. Co. V. Old Dominion Baggage , Transfer Co., 99 Va. Ill, 50 L. K. A. 722, 37 S. E. 784; Fluker v. Georgia E. & Bkg, Co., 81 Ga. 461, 2 L. R. A. 843, 12 Am. St. Eep. 328, 8 S. E. 529; Griswold v. Webb, 16 R. I. 649, 7 L. E. A. 302, 19 Atl. 143; Sum- mitt V. State, 8 Lea (Tenn.) 413, 41 Am. Rep. 637; New York, N. H. & H. E. Co. v. Sco- Duties and Liabilities. 616 § 12. Passenger carriers by stage coaches. — Passenger car- riers by stages are liable for injuries resulting even from the slightest negligence on the part of the coachman or proprietor of the stage, and are bound to use the utmost care and diligence of -cautious persons to prevent injury to passengers. They are bound to furnish sudi good coaches, gentle and well broke horses, good ha,mess, and prudent and skillful drivers as will best secure the safety of the passengers.'' They are answerable to a passenger for an injury which happens by reason of any defect in a coach, which might have been discovered by the most careful and thorough ex- .amination, but not for an injury which happens by reason of a hidden defect which could not, upon such examination, have been discovered.'" They are responsible for the negligence of their xiriver, but not for mere accident." § 13. Carriers of passengers by water. — Carriers of passengers by steamboat or steamship are bound to provide good, stanch and sufficient boats and ships, with proper and sufficient machinery and appliances, but it is not necessary that they should be con- structed of the best material, and in the most perfect manner care i^nd diligence can suggest.*^ They are liable, both under the com- mon law and the Federal statutes, for any injuries caused by known defects of the steaming apparatus, and a certificate by the United States inspector that the vessel, her boilers and machinery •come up to the requirements of the statute does not exonerate the owner from liability for such defects.*^ They are bound to use vill, 71 Conn. 136, 42 L. E. A. 157, 79. McKinney v. Neal, 1 McLean 71 Am. St. Eep. 159, 41 Atl. 246; (U. S.), 540; Farish v. Eeigle, 11 Kates V. Alabama Baggage & Cab. Gratt. (Va.) 697, 62 Am. Dec. 666; Co., 107 Ga. 636, 46 L. E. A. 431, 34 Maury v. Talmad'ge, 2 McLean ( U. S. E. 372; Godbout v. St. Paul Union S.), 157; Hyman v. Nye, 6 Q. B. Biv. Depot Co., 79 Minn. 188, 47 L. E. A. 685, 29 Moak 769; Fairehild v. Cali- 522, 81 N. W. 835; Boston & A. E. fornia Stage Co., 13 Cal. 599; Feci Co. V. Brown, 177 Mass. 65, 52 L. E. v. Neil, 3 McLean (U. S.), 22. A. 418, 58 N. E. 189; Boston & M. SO. Ingalls v. Bills, 9 Mete. E. Co. V. Sullivan, 177 Mass. 230, 83 (Mass.) 1, 43 Am. Dee. 346. Am. St. Eep. 275, 58 N. E. 689; New 81. McLane v. Sharpe, 2 Harr. York, N. H. & H. E. Co. v. Bork, 23 (Del.) 481. E. I. 218, 49 Atl. 965 ; St. Louis 82. Yerkes v. Keokuk, etc., Packet Drayage Co. v. Louisville & N. E. Co., Co., 7 Mo. App. 265. 5 Inters. Com. Eep. 137, 65 Fed. 39; 83. Swarthout v. Nevf Jersey Hedding v. Gallagher, 72 N. H. 377, Steamboat Co., 48 N. Y. 209, 8 Am. 64 L. E. A. 811, 57 Atl. 225. Eep. 541. 616 The Law of Caebiees. ordinary skill and care in the construction and erection of the- berths in the boat or ship, and to use materials of sufficient strength, and, so far as practicable such as would be safe and secure against the commotion of the elements, and the violence occasioned thereby, and they will be liable for any injury to the- passengers by reason of their failure to perform their duty in this respect.** They may become liable for a failure to provide proper guard rails along the side of their cabins.'^ Carriers of passen- gers by water are required to provide safe approaches and land- ings for the receipt and discharge of passengers, and are liable for injuries to passengers while boarding or leaving the steamer by the falling of a stage, plank, or gangway,*^ or by an obstruction negligently placed in the gangway," or by the negligence of a watchman in misdirecting a passenger as to the proper approach.^ § 14. Carrier's liability as to employment of servants. — Car- riers of passengers, whether by land or water, are under obliga- tion, and, as we have already stated, impliedly warrant and guar- antee, to every passenger transported over their route, to provide for the care and management of their vehicles of transportation, careful, skillful, competent and sober engineers, conductors, driv- ers, brakemen, switchmen, and all other necessary employes, to the- end that they may be safely, promptly, comfortably, and properly carried to their destinations ; and the law holds them responsible for the manner in which they execute tbis duty or obligation, and makes tliem liable for injuries resulting from a failure to do so.^ 84. Smith v. British, etc., Steam lyn, etc., R. Co., 90 N. Y. 588, 43 Am. racket Co., 86 N. Y. 408. Eep. 185 ; Brand v. Schenectady, etc.,. 85. American Steamship Co. v. R. Co., 8 Barb. (N. Y.) 368; Cleg- Landreth, 102 Pa. St. 131, 48 Am. horn v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., Rep. 196. 56 N. Y. 44, 15 Am. Rep. 375. 86. Eagle Packet Co. v. Defries, 94 17. S. — Gallena v. Hot Springs E. III. 598, 34 Am. Rep. 245. Co., 13 Fed. 116; Nieto v. CTark, 1 87. Osbom v. Union Ferry Co., 53 Cliff. (U. S.) 145. Barb. (N. Y.) 629. A Jo.— Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 88. Magoric v. Little, 25 Fed. 627, Jones, 83 Ala. 376; Gray v. Mobile 23 Blatchf. (U. S.) 399. Trade Co., 55 Ala. 387, 28 Am. Kep. 89. N. r.— Perkins v. New York 729; Kansas City, etc. R. Co. v. San- Cent., etc., R. Co., 24 N. Y. 219, 82 ders, 98 Ala. 293, 58 Am. & Eng. R. Am. Dec. 282; Curtis v. Rochester, Cas. 140. etc., R. Co., 18 N. Y. 536, 75 Am. Conn.— Hall v. Connecticut River Dee. 258; Hegeman v. Western R. Steamboat Co., 13 Conn. 319; Der- Corp., 13 N. Y. 22; Stewart v. Brook- wort v. Loomer, 21 Conn. 245. Duties and Liabilities. 6ir The proprietors of stages, as well as corporations operating steam, and electric railroads or steamship lines, rest under the same obligation, it being the duty of the former to provide prudent and skillful drivers for their conveyances; and for negligence in this, respect they become liable for any injuries sustained by their pas- sengers by reason thereof.'" If a person acts in the capacity of an employe of a carrier, whether regularly employed or not, and the carrier, through its regular agents, authorizes, requests, permits or acquiesces in his so acting, the carrier ia liable for any injury resulting from his incompetency, unskillfulness, or negligence."^ Del. — McAllister v. Peoples Ey. Co. (Del. Super.), 54 Atl. 743. Ga. — Gasway v. Atlanta, etc., R. Co., 58 Ga. 216. III. — Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Flex- man, 9 111. App. 230; Chicago, etc., E. Co. V. Pillsbury, 123 111. 9, 5 Am. St. Eep. 483. Ind. — Grand Eapids, etc., E. Co. v. Boyd, 65 Ind. 526; Evansville, etc., E. Co. V. Baum, 26 Ind. 70; Gillen- water v. Madison etc., E. Co., 5 Ind. 339, 61 Am. Dec. 101. Kan. — Topeka City E. Co. v. Higgs, 38 Kan. 375, 5 Am. St. Eep. 754. Ky. — ^Alexander v. Louisville, etc., E. Co., 83 Ky. 589, 25 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 458 ; Sherley v. Billings, 8 Bush (Ky.), 147, 8 Am. Eep. 451. La. — Carmauty v. Mexican Gulf E. Co., 5 La. Ann. 703. Me. — Goddard v. Grand Trunk E. Co., 57 Me. 202, 2 Am. Eep. 39. Mieh. — ^Day v. Owen, 5 Mich. 520, 72 Am. Dec. 62. , Moss. — Bryant v. Eich, 106 Mass. 180, 8 Am. Eep. 311; Simmons v. New Bedford, etc., Steamboat Co., 97 Mass. 361, 93 Am. Dec. 99. Miss. — New Orleans, etc., E. Co. v. Allbritton, 38 Miss. 242. Mont.— Wall v. Helena St. E. Co., 12 Mont. 44. Or. — Sullivan v. Oregon, etc., R. Co., 12 Or. 392, 53 Am. Eep. 364. Pa. — Pennsylvania E. Co. v. Van- diver, 42 Pa. St. 365, 82 Am. Dec. 520 ; Sullivan v. Philadelphia, etc ,. E. Co., 30 Pa. St. 234, 72 Am. Dec. 698; Laing v. Colder, 8 Pa. St. 479, 49 Am. Dec. 533; Pennsylvania E. Co. V. Books, 57 Pa. St. 339, 98 Am.. Dec. 229. 8. C— Caveny v. Neely, 43 S. C. 70. Tenn. — Nashville, etc., E. Co. v. Messino, 1 Sneed (Tenn.), 220. Tex. — Dallas City E. Co. v. Bee- man, 74 Tex. 291; Hays v. Gainesville St. E. Co., 70 Tex. 602; 34 Am. &. Eng. E. Cas. 97; International, etc., E. Co. V. Halloren, 53 Tex. 46. W. Va. — Gillingham v. Ohio Eiver E. Co., 35 W. Va. 588, 29 Am. St. Eep. 827. 90. Stokes V. Saltonstall, 13 Pet.. (U. S.) 181; Saltonstall v. Stockton, Taney (U. S.), 11; Derwort v. Loomer, 21 Conn. 245 ; Ware v. Gray,. 11 Pick. (Mass.) 106; Stockton v. Frey, 4 Gill (Md.), 406, 45 Am. Dec. 138; Sales v. Western Stage Co., 4 Iowa, 547; Frink v. Coe, 4 Green (Iowa), 555, 61 Am. Dec. 141; Schafer v. Gilmer, 13 Nev. 330; Gal- lagher V. Bowie, 66 Tex. 265 ; Sawyer V. Dulany, 30 Tex. 479. See also § 12, ante, and cases there cited. 91. Tuller v. Talbot, 23 111. 357, 76 Am. Dec. 695, where a passenger drove a stage at the request of the- 618 The Law of Caeeiees. Carriers of passengers by sea wlio are required by law to carry & duly qualified and competent physician, and railroad companies ■who voluntarily assume the responsibility of engaging a surgeon and placing him in charge of parties that may be injured, are not liable for the negligence of such physician or surgeon. They are liable, however, for any carelessness or negligence in the selection of such surgeon or physician, and unless, in the former case, they employ a duly qualified and competent surgeon and medical prac- titioner and furnish him with proper instruments and medicine, and in the latter case, employ a reasonably competent man and he is ordinarily competent for that duty, the carriers become liable. They are not obliged to engage the very highest and best talent that can be engaged, but they must engage a man who is reason- ably competent in his profession so that he would be an ordinarily competent man, having ordinary knowledge and skill to perform the duties placed upon him.'^ The servants of carriers of passen- gers ordinarily must be persons of reasonable skill, possessing knowledge, experience and skill ordinarily fit to meet the exigen- •cies of their employment and such as might reasonably have been anticipated.'' Carriers of passengers must employ a sufficient number of suitable and competent servants to meet the ordinary conditions attending, the proper management of their trains, ves- sels, or other means of transportation, and to meet any emergen- cies which, in the exercise of the greatest vigilance and care con- sistent with the nature and extent of their business, might reason- ably be anticipated.'* But it is not incumbent upon them to pro- driver; Lakin v. Oregon Pac. E. Co., Ala. 235, 58 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 258; 15 Or. 220, 34 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. (iabrielson v. Waydell, 67 Fed. 342. 600, a, person acting by request of the 93. Bartlett v. New York, etc., engineer of a railroad in the manage- Transp. Co., 57 N. Y. Super. Ct. 348, ment of the engine. 8 N. Y. Supp. 309; HoUiday v. Ken- 92. Allan v. State Steamship Co., nard, 12 Wall. (U. S.) 254; Tanner 132 N. Y. 91, 28 Am. St. Rep. 556, 15 v. Louisiana, etc., R. Co., 60 Ala. L. R. A. 166; O'Brien v. Cunard 621; Farish v. Reigle, 11 Gratt. (Va.) Steamship Co., 154 Mass. 272 ; Laub- 697, 62 Am. Dec. 666 ; Sawyer v. Du- heim v. De Koninglyke Nederlandsche lany, 30 Tex. 479. Stoomboot Maatschappy, 107 N. Y. 94. Bryant v. Rich, 106 Mass. 228, 1 Am. St. Rep. 817; Chapman 180, 8 Am. Rep. 311; Schmidt v. V. Erie R. Co., 55 N. Y. 579; Secord Chicago, etc., R. Co., 83 111. 405; /» V. St. Paul R. Co., 18 Fed. 221; Mc- re Meyer, 74 Fed. 881; Wright f. Donald v. Hospital, 120 Mass. 432; Chicago, etc., R. Co., 4 Colo. App. Gadsden, etc., R. Co. v. Cansler, 97 102; Grey v. Mobile Trade Co., 55 Ala. 387, 28 Am. Rep. 729. Duties and Ijabilitibs. 619 vide a number suflSeient to act as a police force m protecting their passengers from violence unexpectedly and suddenly offered.'^ § 15. Duty to receive and transport passengers. — Common Carriers of passengers are in some instances required by statute to receive and transport all proper persons who apply to be carried on payment of fare.'* Independent of statutory requirement, how- ever, they are bound to receive and transport all persons who require a passage and offer to pay, or are ready and willing to pay, the legal fare, provided there is room in the conveyance, the pas- senger is a fit person to be admitted, and there is no legal excuse for refusal. '^ It has been held in the case of railroad corporations that it is a duty incident to the business for which their corporate powers were conferred, that it is a public trust which may be enforced for the public benefit, and that it also rests upon the con- tract between the corporation and the State, expressed in its char- ter, or implied by the acceptance of the franchise.'^ But the duty exists independent of contract, arises by implication of law from 95. Pittsburgh, etc., E. Co. v. Hinds, 53 Pa. St. 512, 91 Am. Dec. 224; Britton v. iitlanta. "itc, Aii Line Co., 88 N. C. 536, 43 Am. Eep. 749. ■ 96. See Railroad Law of New York and statutes of California. People V. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 25 Hun (N. Y.), 543; Wheeler v. San Francisco, etc., E. Co., 31 Cal. 46, 89 Am. Dec. 147. 97. N. T. — ^Abbott v. Johnstown, etc.. Horse R. Co., 80 N. Y. 31, 36 Am. Rep. 572; Beekman v. Saratoga,, etc., E. Co., 3 Paige (N. Y.), 45, 22 Am. Dec. 679; Barney v. Oyster Bay, etc., Steamboat Co., 67 N. Y. 301. CoJ.— Tarbell v. Central Pac. R. Co., 34 Cal. 616. Dak. — Waldron v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 1 Dak. 336. III. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Bryan, 90 111. 126; Galena, etc., R. Co. v. Yarwood, 15 111. 468. Ind. — Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Einard, 46 Ind. 293. Iowa. — State v. Chovin, 7 Iowa, 204. Ky. — Winnegar v. Central Pass. R. Co., 85 Ky, 547. Me. — Railroad Comrs. v. Portland, etc., E. Co., 63 Me. 269, 18 Am. Eep. 208. N. ff.— Bennett v. Dutton, 10 N. H. 481. N. J. — Mershon v. Hobensack, 22 N. J. L. 372. Ohio. — Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Bartram, 11 Ohio St. 457. Va. — Norfolk, etc., E. Co. v. Gal- liher, 89 Va. 639. U. 8. — ^Hannibal, etc., E. Co., v. Swift, 12 Wall. (U. S.) 202; Pear- son V. Duane, 4 Wall. (U. S.) 605; Saltonstall v. Stockton, Taney (U. S.) 11. Eng. — Bretherton v. Wood, 3 Bred. & B. 54, 7 E. C. L. 345. 98. Abbott V. Johnstown, etc.. Horse E. Co., supra; People v. New- York Cent., etc., E. Co., supra. 620 The Law of Caeeiees. the nature of their employment, and applies to all common carriera of passengers.^' The same rule applies to the passenger's personal baggage, there being an implied contract that' it shall be trans- ported, the price that a passenger pays for his ticket or fare being the consideration for the carriage of his baggage as well as his person.^ But this right of passengers to be received and trans- ported is not an unlimited one, but is subject to reasonable regu- lations and restrictions. Generally, carriers are not bound, to receive passengers who refuse to obey their reasonable regulations, or who are guilty of gross and vulgar habits of conduct, or who makes disturbances on board, or whose characters are doubtful or dissolute, or suspicious, or unequivocally bad, or whose object it is to interfere with the interest or patronage of tihe earners.^ They are not bound to carry passengers wbo are fleeing from jus- tice, or whose conduct is riotous or disorderly or who are known to be dangerous characters or maniacs, or whose clothing is in such a filthy or disgusting condition as to make them obnoxious to other pa^engers, or who are affected with a contagious disease, or with vermin, or who are intoxicated.' It may be the duty of a common carrier of passengers to carry under discriminating restrictions or to refuse to carry those who, by reason of their physical condi- tion would injure, endanger, disturb, or annoy other passengers.* They may refuse carriage to one going upon the train to assault a passenger, or to commit robbery, larceny, or any crime or offense.^ 99. Carroll v. Staten Island R. Co., fusal of one of its conductors to ae- 58 N. Y. 126, 17 Am. Rep. 221 ; Dela- cept a passenger carrying in his arms ware, etc., R. Co. v. Trautwein, 52 a live goat, it is error to submit to N. J. L. 169, 19 Am. St. Rep. 442, the jury the reasonableness of a reg- 41 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 187, 7 Ry. &, ulation of the company forbidding Corp. L. J. 316, 19 Atl. 178, 7 L. R. the carrying of live animals in the A. 435; New York, etc., R. Co. v. car. Daniel v. North Jersey St. Ry. Ball, 53 N. J. L. 283; Bennett v. Co. (N. J.), 46 Atl. 625. Button, 10 N. H. 481, so held with 3. Putnam v. Broadway, etc., E. reference to the proprietors of a stage Co., 55 N. Y. 108, 14 Am. Rep. 190; coach; Austin v. Great Western R. Walsh v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 42 Co., L. R. 2 Q. B. 442. Wis. 23, 24 Am. hep. 376. 1. Wilson V. Grand Trunk R. Co., 4. MeDuffee v. Portland, etc., R. 66 Me. 60. See also Duty to Carry Co., 52 N. H. 451, 13 Am. Rep. 72. Baggage, § 50, post. 5. Brown v. Memphis, etc., K. Co., 2. Jencks v. Coleman, 2 Sumn. (U. 7 Fed. 51, 1 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 247; S.) 221, per Story, J. In an action Thurston v. Union Pao. R. Co., 4 Dill, lor damages against a corporation (U. S.) 321; Stephens v. Smith, 29 operatingja street railway for the re- Vt. 160; Beeson v. Chicago, etc., R. Duties and Liabilities. 621 § 16. Persons who may be refused tTcinsportation. — Oommoni carriers are not bound to receive as a passenger and may refuse any person who is in an intoxicated and almost helpless condition, or is intoxicated to auch a degree as to make it reasonably certain that by act or speech he will become disgusting, offensive, or an- noying to other passengers, or interfere with their reasonable com- fort and convenience.* But the mere fact that a man is intoxicated ■does not of itself deprive him of the right of carriage, or free the carrier from its duty to render him as a passenger due care; and slight intoxication, such as would not be likely to seriously affect the conduct of the person intoxicated and render him obnoxious or •offensive to other passengers, would not be sufficient ground to refuse him passage in a public conveyance' The right of passen- aenger carriage is not confined to persons who are physically sound, but is open, within a reasonable degree, to those ailing and infirm.' The blindness of a person does not justify his rejection as a passenger where unaccompanied by some other person, unless he is otherwise incompetent to travel alone.' But a carrier of pas- sengers is not under obligation to carry persons infected with con- tagious diseases, to the danger of other passengers." Common car- riers are not obliged, as a matter of law, to receive as a passenger an insane person or one whose physical or mental condition is such Co., 62 Iowa, 173, 13 Am. & Eng. R. v. West Seattle, etc., Co., (Wash.) Cas. 45. 60 Pao. 51. 6. Freedon v. New York Cent., etc., 7. Milliman v. New York Cent., E. Co., 24 App. Div. (N. Y.) 306, 48 etc., E. Co., 4 Hun (N. Y.) 409, 6 Jif. Y. Supp. 584; Putnam v. Broad- T. & C. (N. Y.) 586, affd. 66 N. Y. ■waj, etc., E. Co., 55 N. Y. 108, 113, 642; Pittsburg, etc., E. Co. v. Van- 13 Am. Eep. 190, 15 Abb. Pr. N. S. dyne, supra. (N. Y.) 383; Pittsburgh, etc., E. Co. 8. Mathew v. Wabash E. Co., (Mo. v. Hinds, 53 Pa. St 512, 91 Am. Deo. App.) 78 S. W. 271; New Orleans, 224; Flint v. Norwich, etc., Transp. etc., E. Co. v. Statham, 42 Miss. 607. Co., 34 Conn. 554, 6 Blatchf. (U. S.) 9. Zackry v. Mobile, etc., E. Co., 158; Vinton v. Middlesex E. Co., 11 75 Miss. 746, 23 So. 434, 41 L. E. A. Allen (Mass.) 304, 87 Am. Dec. 14; 385. But see Illinois Cent. E. Co. v. Pittsburgh, etc., E. Co. v. Vandyne, Allen, (Ky.) 89 S. W. 150, holding 57 Ind. 576, 26 Am. Eep. 68, that the carrier was justified in re- 18 Am. Ey. Eep. 454; Pittsburg, etc., fusing to sell a blind man a ticket E. Co. V. Pillow, 76 Pa. St. 510; Mur- unless he secured an attendant, phy V. Union R. Co., 118 Mass. 228; lO. Walsh v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., Lemont v. Washington, etc., E. Co., 1 42 Wis. 23, 24 Am. Eep. 376; Thurs- Mackey (D. C.) 180, 47 Am. Rep. 238, ton v. Union Pac. E. Co., 4 Dill. (U. 1 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 263 ; Stevenson S. ) 321. 622 The Law of Caeeiees. that his presence upon the vehicle may cause injury or substantial discomfort to the other passengers," nor can they absolutely refuse to transport insane persons, but they may in all cases insist that such persons be properly attended and sufficiently restrained and when it becomes necessary to transport a lunatic, who may endanger the safety or interfere with the comfort of other travel- ers, they are entitled to reasonable notice so that proper arrange- ments may be made for his transportation." The increased risk arising from conditions of health affecting the fitness of a passen- ger to travel, where such conditions are unknown to the carrier, must be assumed by the passenger.^' But a carrier who voluntar- ily 'accepts as a passenger, without an attendant, a person whose inability tO' care for himself is apparent or made known at the time to its servants, is negligent if it fails to render such passen- ger the necessary care and assistance." The degree of care required of the carrier in such cases is that which is reasonable for the safety of the passenger in view of his physical and mental condi- tion.^' Carriers may avail themselves of the opportunity which their business gives them to supply the special wants of travelers by the sale of books, papers, refreshments, and the establishment of an agaicy for the delivery of baggage and in other respects, and have the right to exclude third persons as passengers from enter- ing the car or vessel to carry on the same business in opposition to them. The passenger has the right to be carried on equal terms with other passengers, but he has no right to demand that the car- rier shall surrender in any respect rights incident to his ownership of the property." A carrier, however, is not justified in refusing 11. Meyer v. St. Louis, etc., E. Co., Putnam v. Broadway, etc., E. Co., 55 54 Fed. 116. N. Y. 108, 14 Am. Eep. 190. 12. Owen v. Macon, etc., E. Co., 16. Barney v. Oyster Bay, etc., 119 Ga. 230, 46 S. E. 87, 63 L. E. A. Steamboat Co., 67 N. Y. 301 j SmaU- 946. man v. Whilter, 87 III. 545, 29 Am. 13. Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Eep. 76; The D. E. Martin, U Barker, 4 Colo. 344, 34 Am. Eep. 89. Blatchf. (U. S.) 233. See also Oli 14. Croom v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., Colony E. Co. v. Tripp, 147 Mass. 35, 52 Minn. 296, 7 Am. E. & Corp. Eep. 9 Am. St. Eep. 661, 38 Abb. L. J. 468, 63 N. W. 1128, 18 L. E. A. 602, 45; Summitt v. State, 8 Lea. (Tenn.) 38 Am. St. Eep. 557. 413, 41 Am. Eep. 637; Landrigan v. 15. Meyer v. St. Louis, etc., E. Co., State, 31 Ark. 50, 25 Am. B«p. 647? 64 Fed. 116, 58 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. People eai rel. v. Hudson Eiver Tel 111, 10 U. S. App. 677. And see Co., 19 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 478, 10 St Duties and Liabilities. 623 to receive as a passenger a non-union latorer, because a mob of strikers make unreasonable demonstrations of hostility against his person." The carrier cannot refuse passage to a person on account of race or color, although it may exclude persons of color from a particular car or room when order and harmony are likely to be promoted thereby; but accommodations equal in comfort and equipment must be provided in other parts of the train or boat.^' "While the right to be carried by a common carrier of passengers is a right superior to the rules and regulations for the accommoda- tion of passengers, their accommodation while being transported is subject to such general rules as the carrier may think proper to make, provided they are reasonable." An action of toit will lie and punitive damages are recoverable against a railroad company for disregard of its statutory duty to stop at a station for a pas- senger, when it has advertised for passengers for that train and has room for them, or could by reasonable diligence have had cars enough to accommodate them.^" But when an unusual, extraor- dinary demand for the transportation of passengers occurs, the carrier should be held only to such diligence as is reasonable under the circumstances, and there is no negligence on the part of a car- rier in not furnishing sufficient cars to seat all passengers, if so large a number could not reasonably be expected.^^ The Revised Statutes of the United States regulate the number of passengersi which may be brought in a vessel from a foreign port, and when Eep. (N. Y.) 284; Fluker v. Georgia Central R. Co. v. Green, 86 Pa. St. E. Co., 2 L. R. A. 844. 421; Britten v. Atlanta, etc., R. Co., 17. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Pitts- 88 N. C. 536, 43 Am. Rep. 749. burg, (III.) 8 N. E. 803. 19. Day v. Owen, 5 Mich. 520, 72 18. Houck V. Southern Pac. R. Co., Am. Dec. 62; Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. 38 Fed. 226; Gray v. Cincinnati v. Wells, 85 Tenn. 613; Chilton v. Southern R. Co., 11 Fed. 638, 6 Am. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., (Mo.) 21 S. & Eng. R. Cas. 588; West Chester, W. 457, 19 L. E. A. 269; Smith v. etc., R. Co. V. Miles, 55 Pa. St. 209: Chamberlain, (S. G.) 17 S. E. 371,. Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Williams, 55 32 Am. L. Reg. 747, 19 L. R. A. 710; 111. 185; Alexandria, etc., R. Co. v. Rose v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 70 Brown, 17 Wall. (U. S.) 445, 3 Am. Miss. 725, 12 So. 825. Ey. Rep. 413; Decuir v. Benson, 27 20. Pureell v. Richmond, etc., E. La. Ann. 1; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Co., 108 N. C. 414, 47 Am. & Eng. R. Crayton, 69 Miss. 152; Logwood v. Cas. 457. Memphis, etc., E. Co., 23 Fed. 318; 21. Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Fisher, Murphy v. Western, etc., E. Co., 23 31 111. App. 36; Chicago, etc., E. Co. Ted. 637; The Sue, 22 Fed. 843; v. Carroll, 5 111. App. 201. 624: The Law op Cabeiees. the number permitted by law has been received for passage, thie carrier is not liable for a refusal to receive further applicants.^^ § 17. When refusal to transport must be made. — ^If a carrier ias reasonable ground for refusing to receive and carry persons or property applying, he is bound to make the objections at the time the application is made. If the carrier, without making the ob- jection, receives the person or property for transportation, its liability is the same as though no groimd for refusal existed.^' In the case of a vessel the refusal should be made before the sailing of the ship, and the master cannot lawfully stop a returning vessel, put the passenger aboard, and send him back to the port of de- parture, notwithstanding he may be a pers'on whom he had a right to refuse passage in the first instance.^ § 18. Duty to carry passengers on freight and special trains. ' ~ — Railroad companies, like other common carriers, have a right to make regulations, as to the management of their business. While they may if they see fit have the freight and passenger business ■carried on upon a single train, under one management, they may also completely separate their transactions by arranging them in distinct departments, and may make regulations that passengers shall not be carried on freight trains, in which case they have ai right to refuse to accept and transport passengers in such trains.^ They may also prescribe the conditions on which passengers may ride on freight trains, if they see fit to accept and carry them oa ^uoh trains.^" The conveyance of such passengers as succeed ini 22. The Strathairly, 124 U. S. E. Cas. 455; Arnold v. Illinois Cent. -558; Sehwerin v. North Pac. C. R. R. Co., 83 111. 273, 25 Am. Rep. 386; Co., 36 Fed. 710, 13 Sawy. (U. S.) Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. iNelson, 39 507, this statute has no application III. 110; Chicago, etc., E. Co., v. to a steam ferry boat regularly li- Randolph, 53 111. 510j Houston, etc., censed as such, while employed as an E. Co. v. Moore, 49 Tex. 31, 30 Am. excursion boat. Eep. 98; Louisville, etc., E. Co. v. 23. Hannibal, etc., E. Co. v. Turner, 100 Tenn. 213, 47 S. W. 223. Swift, 12 Wall. (U. S.) 262. 26. Greenfield v. Detroit, etc., R. 24. Pearson v. Duane, 4 Wall. (U. Co. (Mich.), 10 Detroit Leg. N. 256; S.) 605. Burlington, etc., E. Co. v. Rose, U 25. Eaton v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., Neb. 177, 1 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 253; 67 N. Y. 382, 15 Am. Eep. 513; McCook v. Northup, 65 Ark. 225,45 Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Bartram, 11 S. W. 547; Randall v. Chicago, etc., Ohio St. 457; Western, etc., R. Co. R. Co., 113 Mich. 115, 71 N. W. 450, V. Turner, 72 Ga. 202, 28 Am. & Eng. 39 L. R. A. 666. Dtttibs and Liabilities. 625 getting on a freight train, on the receipt of fare from them, does not render it a passenger train, nor impose on the carrier the dutiy of making a convenient mode of acce^ to it." But if a railroad Co., 99 Ky. 59, 34 S. W. 1066; Louis- ville, etc., R. Co. V. McEwan, 17 Ky. L. Rep. 406, 31 S. W. 465; Louis- ville, etc., R. Co. V. Finn, 16 Ky. L. Rep. 57. La. — Clerc v. Morgan's L. & T. B. Co., 107 La. 370, 31 So. 886; Will- iams V. Pullman Palace Car Co., 40' La. Ann. 417, 8 Am. St. Rep. 538; Block V. Bannerman, 10 La. Ann. L Mass. — Bryant v. Rich, 106 Mass. 180, 8 Am. Rep. 311. A carrier is^ liable where plaintiff, after a street car had stopped for the purpose of receiving passengers, and while stilly or slowly moving, attempted to get on, and was violently and without provocation assaulted by the con- ductor, causing plaintiff to fall from the car, whereby he sustained inju- ries. Strauss v. St. Louis Transit Co.. 102 Mo. App. 644, 77 S. W. 150. Minn. — ^Luey v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 64 Minn. 7, 65 N. W. 944, 31 L. R. A. 551; Rosted v. Railway Co., 76 Minn. 123. Miss. — Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Minor (Miss.), 16 L. R. A. 627. Mo. — ^Robinson v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. (Mo. App.), 77 S. W. 493; Mueller v. St. Louis Transit Co., J St. Ry. Rep. 567, 108 Mo. App. 325, 83 S. W. 270; O'Donnell v. St. Louia. Transit Co., 3 St. Ry. Rep. 568, 107 Mo. App. 34, 80 S. W. 315; Tanger Duties and Liabilities. 63S third persons the discretion and act of the master, and this although the servant departed from the private instructions of the master, provided he v^as engaged at the time in doing his master's business and was acting "within the general scope of his employment. In most cases where the master has been held liable for the tortious act of the servant, the servant acted not only without express authority to do the wrong, but in violation of his duty to the mas- ter. ^^ The weight of authority holds that a passenger upon the vehicle of a common carrier is entitled to be safely transported, and that any act on the part of the carrier's servants in carrying out its contract, whether carelessly done or done with personal malice on the part of the servant, which results in injury to the plaintiff, must charge the carrier with liability, and that the cause of action, whether for the assault or for negligence, is prop- erly maintainable against the carrier.** But the act of the employe complained of must be while he is , in the discharge of his duty or V. South West Mo. El. Ey. Co., 85 Mo. App. 28; O'Donnel v. St. Louis Transit Co. (Mo. App.), 80 S. W. 315. Ohio — Passengers E. Co. v. Young, 21 Ohio St. 518, 8 Am. Eep. 78: Pittsburg, etc., E. Co. v. Slusser, 19 Ohio St. 157. Uich. — Johnson v. Detroit, etc., R. Co. (Mich.), 90 N. W. 274, 9 Det. Leg. N. 123. Pa. — Sharrer v. Paxson, 171 Pa. St. 26. Term. — West Memphis Packet Co. V. White, 99 Tenn. 256, 41 S. W. 283, 38 L. E. A. 427; Springer Transp. Co. V. Smith, 16 Lea (Tenn.), 498. Tex. — St. Louis, etc., E. Co. v. Johnson (Tex.), 68 S. W. 58; Texas, etc., E. Co. V. Edmond (Tex. Civ. App. ) 29 S. W. 518; Dillingham v. An- thony, 73 Tex. 47; Galveston, etc., E. Co. V. La Prelle (Tex. Civ. App.), 65 S. W. 488. Va. — Connell v. Chesapeake, etc., E. Co., 93 Va. 44, 24 S. E. 467. Wis. — Fick V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 68 Wis. 469, 60 Am. Eep. 878, as- sault by one acting temporarily as agent of a railroad company. Wash. — Cunningham v. Seattle Elec. etc., E. Co., 3 Wash. 471. W. yo.— Smith V. Norfolk, etc., E. Co. (W. Va.), 35 S. E. 834. V. S. — St. Louis, etc., E. Co. v. Meyer, 40 U. S. App. 554, 77 Fed. 150, 23 C. C. A. 100; See also cases cited in notes to § 19, ante. 45. Nowaek v. Metropolitalh St. Ey. Co., 166 N. Y. 433; Eounds v. Delaware, etc., E. Co., 64 N. Y. 129, 21 Am. Eep. 597. 46. Willis V. Metropolitan St. Ey. Co., 76 App. Div. (N. Y.) 340, 78 N. Y. Supp. 478 ; McCann v. Sixth Ave. E. Co., 117 N. Y. 505, 23 N. E. 164, 15 Am. St. Eep. 539; Stewart v. Brooklyn & C. E. Co., 90 N. Y. 588, 592, 593, 43 Am. Eep. 185, and au- thorities there cited: Dwinelle v. New York Ceijt., etc., E. Co., 120 N. Y. 117, 122, 24 N. E. 319, 8 L. E. A. 224, 17 Am. St. Eep. 611; Palmerl V. Manhattan Ey. Co., 133 N. Y. 261, 265, 30 N. E. 1001, 16 L. E. A. 136, 28 Am. St. Eep. 632; Hart v. Metro- 634 The Law of Caeeiees. within the line of his employment." The rule that the carrier is responsible for th© willful acts of its employes while in the line of the diaeharge of their duty does not apply to a case where a passenger provokes an assault by acts or threats of personal vio- lence/* or commences an altercation with the carrier's employe, using abusive and insulting language, and thus provokes an as- politan St. Ey. Co., 65 App. Div. (N. y.) 493, 495, 72 N. Y. Supp. 797, and «,uthorities there cited; Lake Shore, etc., Ry. Co. v. Prentice, 147 U. S. 101, 109, 13 Sup. Ct. 261, 37 L. Ed. 97, and authorities there cited; Mul- ligan V. New York, etc., E. Co., 129 N. Y. 506, 512, 29 N. E. 952, 14 L. B. A. 791, 26 Am. St. Kep. 539; Magar "V. Hammond, 54 App. Div. (N. Y. ) 532, 67 N. Y. Supp. 63; and authori- ties cited; Nowack v. Metropolitan St. Ey. Co., 166 N. Y. 433, 440, 60 N. E. 32, 54 L. R. A. 592. 82 Am. St. Hep. 691. See also Ray v. United Tract. Co., 3 St. Ry. Rep. 715, 96 App. Div. (N. Y.) 48, 89 N. Y. Supp. 49. 47. Palmer v. Winston-Salem Ry. A Elec. Co., 131 N. C. 250, 42 S. E. «04; McGilvray v. West End St. E. Co. (Mass.), 41 N. E. 116, where the Assault by the employe was upon one waiting in the street in front of the carrier's carhouse to take a car, and was unauthorized and unratified by -the carrier; La Eitte v. New Orleans, etc., Co. (La.), 12 L. E. A. 337, 8 So. 701; Central Ey. Co. v. Peacock, 69 Md. 257, 14 Atl. 709, where the as- sault was committed by the driver just as the passenger left the car and had reached the sidewalk for the pur- pose of making a complaint at the company's oflSee; and it was held that the company was not responsi- ble, although the assault was prompted by a quarrel between the driver and the passenger before the latter left the car, although it was suggested by the court that if, while the car stopped momentarily befor? the office, the passenger stepped out for the special purpose of makin;; complaint, intending to return and resume his journey, to the knowledge of the company's servants in charge of the car, he might still have re- tained the relation of a passenger '. and be entitled to all legal rights as fully as if he had remained in the car; Keokuk North. Line, etc., Co. t. True, 88 111. 608 ; Jefifersonville, etc., Co. V. Eiley, 39 Ind. 568; State v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 58 Me. 176; Goodloe V. Memphis & C. E. Co., 170 Ala. 233, 29 L. R. A. 729, 18' So. 166, 41 Cent. L. J. 325, where an employe struck a passenger while making a playful attempt to strike another em- ploye. But where the assault was committed by the conductor while the passenger was in the car and re- peated shortly afterwards at the office of the company whither the pas- senger had gone to make complaint to the superintendent, and it was impossible to determine from the evi- dence where the most serious wounds had been inflicted, the company was held liable, Savannah St. R. Co. v. Bryan, 86 Ga. 312, 12 S. E. 307. But see Missouri Pac. E. Co. v. Divinney, 66 Kan. 776, 71 Pac. 855. See also § 20, note 36, ante. 48. Weber v. Brooklyn, etc., R- Co., 45 App. Div. (N. Y.) 306, 62 N. Y. Supp. 1. Duties and Liabilities. 635 sault by the employe." But the rule has been held otherwise in a number of cases.^° The carrier is never liable for an injury done to a passenger by an employe while acting in self-defense or to save himself from bodily harm." But the fact that an employe 49. Seott V. Central Park, etc., K. Co., 53 Hun (N. Y.), 414, 24 St. Eep. (N. Y.) 754, 6 N. Y. Supp. 382; James v. Metropolitan St. Ky. Co., 80 App. Div. (N. Y.) 364, 80 N. Y. Supp. 710, where an assault on a paa- «enger by a conductor was provoked by the passenger's violence; Harri- son V. Fink, 42 Fed. 787; Peavey v. Georgia E. etc., Co., 81 Ga. 485; Eada T. Metropolitan E. Co., 43 Mo. App. 536; Little Miami E. Co. v. Wet- more, 19 Ohio St. 110, 2 Am. Eep. 337; Wise v. Covington, etc., St. E. Co., 91 Ky. 537, 34 S. W. 894: Georgia E., etc., Co. v. Hopkins, 108 Ga. 324, 33 S. E. 965; Central, etc.. R. Co. V. Motes, 117 Ga. 923, 43 S. E. «90. 50. Abusive language or opprobri- ous epithets alone are insufficient to justify the commission of an assault by a conductor on a passenger. Bir- mingham Ey., etc, Co. v. Mullen, 138 Ala. 614, 35 So. 701; Birmingham Ey., etc., Co. v. Baird, 130 Ala. 350, 30 So. 456, 89 Am. St. Eep. 43, 54 L. E. A. 752. See also Weber v. Brook- lyn, etc., E. Co., 47 App. Div. (N. Y.) 306, 62 N. Y. Supp. 1; Cog- gins V. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 18 III. App. 620; Wise v. Eailway Co., 17 Ky. Law Eep. 1359, 34 S. W. 894; Haman v. Omaha Ey. Co., 35 Neb. 74, 52 N. W. 830; Chicago, etc., R. Co. V. Flexman, 103 111. 546; Baltimore, «tc., E. Co. V. Barger, 80 Md. 23, 45 Am. St. Eep. 319; Gallena v. Hot Springs E. Co., 13 Fed. 116; East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. Fleetwood, flO Ga. 23, sneers, looks and contemp- tuous gestures will not justify an as- sault by a conductor on a passenger; see also Texas, etc., E. Co. v. Will- iams, 62 Fed. 440; Bryan v. Chi- cago, etc., E. Co., 63 Iowa, 464, 16 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 335. Provocation may be considered in mitigation of compensatory ■ dam- ages: Freedman v. Metropolitan St. Ey. Co., 2 St. Ey. Eep. 802, 89 App. Div. (N. Y.) 486, 85 N. Y. Supp. S86. Contra: Mahoning Valley E. Co. v. De Paseale, 3 St. Ey. Eep. 737, 70 Ohio, 179, 71 N. E. 633. 51. New Orleans, etc., E. Co. v. Jopes, 142 U. S. 18, 35 L. Ed. 919, 11 Ey. & Corp^ L. J. 41, 12 Sup. Ct. Eep. 190, wherein the court said: " There is no misconduct when the conductor uses force and does injury in simple self-defense; and the rules that determine what is self-defense are of universal application and are not affected by the character of the employment in which the party is en- gaged. Indeed, while the courts hold that the liability of a common car- rier to its passengers for the assaults of its employes is of a most singular character, far greater than that of ordinary employers for the actions of their employes, yet they all limit the liability to cases in which the assault and' injury are wrongful; Wise v. South Covington, etc., E. Co., 17 Ky. L. Eep. 1359, 34 S. W. 894, wherein it was held that a passenger on a • street car cannot recover for abusive language addressed to him by the conductor, or for the act of the lat- ter in knocking him down after he had left the car, where the offensive laiiKua^e was used and the blow 630 The Law of Caeeiees. who assaulted a passenger honestly and mistakenly supposed that he was justified would not exempt the carrier from liabihty, where such was not the case.'^ The mere fact that a passenger is intoxicated does not authorize the employes of the carrier to treat him with personal violence ;^' nor does the fact that he has violated the rule of the company operate as a license to such employes t» maltreat a passenger, nor relieve the carrier from responsibility for such violence or assault.^* § 23. Liability for insult and abuse by servants. — A common, carrier is liable in damages to a passenger for an injury to his feelings caused by the insulting, indecent, or abusive language, or indecent, or insulting conduct, of its employes, whether conduc- tors, motormen, ticket agents, or other employes, upon the ground of a breach of its contract which obligates it not only to safely transport the passenger, but to accord to him respectful and cour- teous treatment, and to protect him from insult from strangers and its own employes.^^ And the rule applies, although the car- struck in response to abuse and as- sault by the passenger, who was the aggressor; Texas & P. E. Co. v. Will- iams, 10 G. C. A. 463, 62 Fed. 440, but the insult and wrong to justify the act of the employe must be real and not fancied; Baltimore & O. R. Co. V. Barger, 80 Md. 23, 26 L. H. A. 220, 30 Atl. 560, and an assault by him is not excused, or the liability of the carrier defeated, by the fact that the passenger had used grossly pro- fane and abusive language to the con- ductor without provocation; St. Louis S. W. R. Co. V. Berger, 64 Ark. 613, 44 S. W. 809, 39 L. E. A. 784, and if he beat the passenger who slaps his face with his hand, and in BO doing uses force greatly exceeding that which would appear to a reason- able man necessary to repel the as- sault, the carrier is liable; Galves- ton, H. S. Ey. Co. V. La Prelle (Tex. Civ. App.), 65 S. W. 488. 52. Birmingham Ry., etc., Co. v. Mullen, 138 Ala. 614, 35 So. 701. 53. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Shee- han, 29 111. App. 90; Texas, etc., K. Co. V. Edmond (Tex. Civ. App.), 2» S. W. 518. 54. Smith v. Manhattan R. Co., 45 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 865, 18 N. Y. Supp. 759; Hanson v. European, etc., E. Co., 62 Me. 84, 16 Am. Rep. 404. 55. Gillespie v. Brooklyn Height* R. Co., 3 St. Ry. Rep. 694, 178 N. Y. 347, 70 N. E. 857; Palmer! v. Man- hattan R. Co., 133 N. Y. 261, 28 Am. St. Rep. 632; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Tarkington (Tex. Civ. App.), 66 S. W. 137; San Antonio Tract. Co. f. Crawford (Tex. Civ. App.), 71 S. W. 306; La Fitte v. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 43 La. Ann. 24, 8 So. 701; Goddard v. Grand Trunk E. Co., 57 Me. 202; McGinnis v. Missouri Pac. E. Co., 21 Mo. App. 399; Malecek v. Tower Grove, etc., E. Co., 57 Mo. 17; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Griffin, 68 111. 499; Dawson v. Louisville, etc., R. Co. (Ky.), 11 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 134; Bryan v. Chicago, etc., R. Co.i Duties and Liabilities. 637 rier did not authorize or ratify such conduct, and was not negli- gent in selecting the employe.^' In the case of female passengers the carrier's obligation is further extended so as to require that they shall be protected against obscene conduct, lascivioua behav- ior, and every immodest and libidious approach.^' ;§ 24. Liability for expulsion by servants. — Though a passen- ger renders himself liable to be expelled from the car or other vehicle of a carrier, on account of refusal to pay fare, disorderly conduct, or otherwise, if the carrier's employes use excessive or unnecessary force, and violence in expelling him, the carrier will be liable.^ And it has been held that if an employe of the carrier uses insulting, and abusive language to a passenger while putting him off its vehicle of transportation, the latter may recover dam- A person cannot be ejected from a car in rapid motion lard, 85 Ky. 307, 3 S. W. 530, 7 Am. St. Eep. 600; Keene v. Lizardi, 5 La. 431, 25 Am. Dec. 197. 58. Peck V. New York, etc., R. Co, 70 N. Y. 587; Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. V. Anthony, 43 Ind. 183; Jeffer- Bonville E. Co. v. Rogers, 38 Ind. 116, 10 Am. Eep. 103; Chicago, etc., R. Co. V. Bryan, 90 111. 126; Coleman v. New York, etc., R. Co., 106 Mass. 160; Moore v. Fitchburg E. Corp., 4 Gray (Mass.), 465, 64 Am. Dec. 83; Jardine v. Cornell, 50 N. J. L. 485: Brokaw v. New Jersey R., etc., Co., 32 N. J. L. 328, 90 Am. Dee. 659; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Vandiver, 42 Pa. St. 305; Brown v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 66 Mo. 589; Perkins v. Mis- souri, etc., R. Co., 55 Mo. 201; For- dyce V. Beecher, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 29, 21 S. W. 179; Seymour v. Green- wood, 7 H. & N. 355; Bayley v. Man- chester, etc., E. Co., L. E. 8 C. P. 148, 42 L. J. C. P. 78, 28 L. T. N. S. 366; McKinley v Chicago, etc., R. Co., 44 Iowa, 314. See also Ejection of passengers chap. 21, post. 59. McGinnis v. Missouri Pac. E. Co., 21 Mo. App. 399; Southern Kan- sas R. Co. V. Hinsdale, 38 Kan. 507. 63 Iowa, 464, 16 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 335; Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Blocher, 27 Md. 277; Louisville, etc., E. Co. V. Patterson, 69 Miss. 421; Block V. Bannerman 10 La. Ann. 1. See Sweeney v. Railway Co., 150 Mo. 385; Southern Ey. Co. v. Wideman, 119 Ala. 665; Central, etc., R. Co. v. Price, 106 Ga. 170; Haver v. Eail- road Co., 62 N. J. L. 282; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Humphries, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 28; Nelson v. Southern Pac. Co., 18 Utah, 244. See also Birming- ham Ey. & Elec. Co. v. Mason, 1 St. Ey. Eep. 1, 34 So. 270. 56. Knoxville Tract. Co. v. Lane, 103 Tenn. 376, 53 S. W. 557, 46 L. E. A. S49. But mere rudeness or brusqueness of manner will not ren- der the carrier liable. Rose v. Wil- mington, etc., R. Co., 106 N. C. 168, 11 S. E. 526; Daniels v. Florida Cen- tral, etc., R. Co., 62 S. C. 11, 39 S. E. 762; New York, etc., R. Co. v. Bennett, 50 Fed. 496. 57. Nieto v. Clark, 1 Cliflf. (U. S.) 145; Chamberlain v. Chandler, 3 Ma- son (U. S.), 242; Craker v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 36 Wis. 657, 17 Am. Rep. 604; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Bal- 638 The Law of Caeriees. •without imminent danger to life, and although liable to espulsion he may lawfully resist such an attempt to expel him.'" While a passenger who refuses to pay his fare, or is, disorderly, may be fex- pelled from a car or other vehicle in. a proper manner, he canaot lawfully be expelled while the car is in motion, and if he be ex- pelled under these circumstances and be injured, the carrier is liable.'^ Nor can a trespasser be ejected so long as the train is moving at a rate whioh renders the ejection dangerous to life and limb.'^ If an employe of the carrier pushes a trespasser, or compels him to jump from a moving train, to his injury, the carrier -vnll be liable.*' § 25. Liabdlity for false arrest of passenger. — There can be no doubt that a conductor,, ti,ck6t agent, or other like agent of a car- rier of passengers, who has them in his charge and tmder his care, may violate the duty which he owes to them by directing an| arrest without cause, for which his principal may be held liable. Where an employe of a carrier, while engaged in the business of the car- rier, whether willfully and maliciously, or in consequence of what he considers a duty, ill treats a passenger so far as to wrongfully cause his arrest, the carrier is liable for it. If the detention is wrongful and unlawful and the charges false, and the employe is acting within the scope of his employment, the carrier will be liable for false imprisonment." Thus, when passengers have 60. Sanford v. Eighth Ave. E. Co., Kelly, 36 Kan. 655; Gallena v. Hot 23 N. Y. 343, 80 Am. Dec. 286. Springs K. Co., 13 Fed. 116. 61. English v. Delaware, etc., Ca- 64. Palmeri v. Manhattan E. Co., nal Co., 66 N. Y. 454, 23 Am. Rep. 133 N. Y. 261, 28 Am. St. Rep. 632, 69; Higgins v. Watervliet Turnpike 30 N. E. 1001, 16 L. K. A. 136, 40 Co., 46 N. Y. 28; Oppenheimer v. St. Eep. (N. Y.) 894; Mulligan v. Manhattan E. Co., 18 N. Y. Supp. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 129 N. 411; Louisville, etc., E. Co. v. Whit- Y. 506, 26 Am. St. Eep. 539, 42 St. man, 79 Ala. 328; Mykleby v. Chi- Rep. (N. Y.) 83, 14 L. E. A. 791; cago, etc., R. Co., 39 Minn. 54, 34 Stewart v. Brooklyn, etc., R. Co., 90 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 387; Cain v. N. Y. 588; Shea v. Manhattan E. Co., Minneapolis, etc., E. Co., 39 Minn. 27 St. Eep. (N. Y.) 33, 7 N. Y. Supp. 297. 497, afld. 15 Daly (N. Y.), 528, 8 N. 62 Eounds v. Delaware, etc., E. Y. Supp. 332, 29 St. Eep. (N. Y.) Co., 64 N. Y. 138; Hughes v. New 313; McLeod v. New York, etc., K. York, etc., E. Co., 36 N. Y. Super. Co., 72 App. Div. (N. Y.) 116, 76 N. Ct. 226. Y. Supp. 347; Atchison, etc., R. Co. 63. Wabash E. Co. v. Savage, 110 v. Henry, 55 Kan. 715, 2 Am. & Eng. Ind. 156; Kansas City, etc., E. Co. v. R. Cas. N. S. 418, 41 Pac. 952, 29 L R. A. 465; Hoffman v. New York Duties and Liabilities. 639' been arrested or detained by direction of the carrier's agents upon a false charge of not having paid their fare, or of attempting to- evade the payment of fare, the carrier has been held liable.*^ A Cent., etc., E. Co., 87 N. Y. 25; White V. Twenty-third St. E. Co., 20 Week. Dig. (N. Y.) 510; Eown v. Christopher, etc., E. Co., 34 Hun (N. Y.), 471; Corbett v. Twenty-third St. E. Co., 42 Hun (N. Y.), 587; Hamel. V. Brooklyn, etc., Ferry Co., 53 Hun (N. Y.), 634, 6 N. Y. Supp. 102, 25 St. Eep. (N. Y.) 153, affd. 125 N. Y. 707. In the first case cited above ( 133 N. Y. 261) a ticket agent, who followed a woman who had bought a ticket out up- on the platform and charged her with having given him counterfeit money, with demand for other money in its stead, and on her refusal, insulted her by slandering her character, and put his hand upon her, telling her not to stir until he got a policeman to arrest and search her, and then let her go when he failed to get an officer, was held to be acting within the scope of his employment, and the carrier liable for false imprisonment . and slander. In the second ease cited (129 N. Y. 506) a ticket agent who directed the arrest, by police officers, of a per- son in the railroad station, who was suspected of passing counterfeit bills, and had just purchased a ticket tendering a five dollar bill, which the agent took supposing it to be . coun- terfeit, but which was subsequently found to be good, was held not to be acting within the line of his duty, but to perform a supposed service to the community by procuring the ar- rest for a criminal whom he knew the authorities were endeavoring to apprehend and, therefore, the carrier was not liable for the neglect of any duty growing out of the relation of passenger and carrier. As to passing counterfeit money in payment of fare, how- ever, see La Fitte v. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 43 La. Ann. 34, where, the arrest by a street car driver was held not to be within the scope jf the agent's employment; Central R. Co. V. Brown, 78 Md. 394, 27 L. E. A. 63, where the carrier was held not liable unless the agent was author- ized to make the arrest; Galveston, etc., E. Co. V. Donahoe, 56 Tex. 162, where it was held to be a question for the jury whether the agent was- acting within the scope of his em- ployment. 65. Lynch v. Metropolitan Elev. E- Co., 90 N. Y. 77, 43 Am. Rep. 141; Eown V. Christopher, etc., St. E. Co., 34 Hun (N. Y.), 471; Toomey v. Delaware, etc., E. Co., 2 Misc. Eep^ (N. Y.) 82, 4 Misc. Eep. (N. Y.) 392; Corbett v. Twenty-third St. E. Co., 42 Hun (N. Y.), 587; Corwin v.. Long Island E. Co., 2 N. Y. City Ct. Eep. 106, carrier held not liable where arrest was made after passen- ger had left the carrier's premises; Southern Pac. E. Co. v. Hamilton, 54" Fed. 468; Murdoek v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 133 Mass. 15, 43 Am. Eep. 480; Standish v. Narragansett Steamship Co., Ill Mass. 512, 15 Am. Eep. 66; Goff V. Great Northern E. Co., 3 El. & El. 672, 107 E. C. L. 672; Moore V. Metropolitan E. Co., L. E. 8 Q. B. 36. But the arrest of a street car- passenger by a policeman called by the conductor of the car to arrest an;!' take him off, on the charge of riding without payment of fare, does not €40 Thb,Latv of Caeeiees. railroad company which employs a detective officer with general authority, actual or apparent, either expressly or by general usage and consent, to arrest in behalf of the company, is liable for the wrong arrest of a passenger without a warrant, although no ex- press authority to make arrests in that manner is given such of- ficer.*' But if the circumstances are such as to justify the careful conclusion on the part of the officer that the passenger has either committed a felony or is about to commit a felony, then he is ex- cused for making the arrest and the carrier is not liable aMougib it turns out that the suspicion was unfounded." In a number of cases it has been held that the carrier was not liable for the false arrest or imprisonment of a passenger at the instance of its serv-i ant for alleged non-payment of fare, or for disorderly conduct, or ■other offense, for the reason that the act was not within the scop^ of his authority, express or implied, or subsequently ratified by the carrier.** On the other hand, it has been held that a statute giving a conductor all the power of a conservator of the peace while in charge of a car or train does not relieve the carrier from liability for false imprisonment of a passenger made or caused to be made by him.*' A steamboat company is liable for wrongs and injuries to a passenger accused of not having paid his fare by the Tender the carrier liable for false im- v. London & S. W. E. Co., L. E. 2 Q. priaonment, when the conductor had B. 534; Edwards v. London & N. W. heen authorized only to put delin- R. Co., L. E. 5 C. P. 445; Allen v. quent passengers off the car. Little London & S. W. R. Co., L. R. 6 Q. B. Rock, etc., R. Co. v. Walker, 64 Ark. 65; Roe v. Birkenhead, etc., R. Co.. 144, 45 S. W. 57, 40 L. R. A. 473. 7 Exch. 36; See Mali v. Lord, 39 N. 66. Duggan v. Baltimore, etc., R. Y. 381, 100 Am. Dee. 448; Vander- Co., 159 Pa. St. 248, 25 Pittsb. L. J. bilt v. Richmond Tump. Co., 2 N, Y. N. S. 13, 33 W. N. C. 381, 28 Atl. 479, 51 Am. Dec. 315; Brokaw v. 182, 39 Am. St. Rep. 672 ; Harris v. New Jersey, etc., Co., 32 N. J. L. 328, Louisville, etc., R. Co., 35 Fed. 118. 90 Am. Dec. 659; Pressley v. Mobile, 67. Newman v. New York, etc., R. etc., R. Co., 15 Fed. 199. Co., 54 Hun (N. Y.), 335, 7 N. Y. 69. GUlingham v. Ohio River E. Supp. 560. Co., 35 W. Va. 588, 29 Am. St. Eep. 68. Lezinsky v. Metropolitan St, 827, 15 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 222, 14 R. Co., 88 Fed. 437, 59 U. S. App. S. E. 243, 14 L. R. A. 798; Krulevitz 588, 31 Chic. Leg. N. 42; Cunning- v. Eastern R. Co., 143 Mass. 228, 9 ham V. Seattle Electric R., etc., Co., N. E. 613; King v. Illinois Cent. R- 3 Wash. 471, 28 Pac. 745; Carter v. Co., 69 Miss. 245, 10 So. 42; Moore Howe Machine Co., 51 Md. 290, 34 v. Metropolitan R. Co., L. R. 8 Q. B. Am. Eep. 311; Eastern Counties E. 36. Co. V. Broom, 6 Exch. 314; Poulton Duties aitd Liabilities. 641 captain, who arrested the passenger and chained him to a post on the lower deck, and subsequently ejected him from the boat, al- though the injuries were willfully or wantonly inflicted.'"' Unless the arrest in such cases is followed by some sort of a judicial pro(- ceeding, there can be no malicious prosecution, and the plaintiff must seek his remedy in an action for false imprisonment.'^ § 26. Liability for acts of fellow-passengers or other third persons. — There is no such privity between a common carrier of passengers and a disorderly passenger as to make the former liable for the acts of the latter on the principle of respondeat superior. But a carrier has the power of refusing to receive as a passenger, •or to expel, any one who is drunk, disorderly, or riotous, or who so demeans himself as to endanger the safety, or interfere with the reasonable comfort and convenience of other passengers, and may exercise all necessary power and means to eject from its ■conveyance any one so imperiling the safety of or annoying ■others; and this police power the conductor, or other servant of the company in charge of the vehicle, is bound to exercise with all the means he can command whenever occasion requires. If this ^uty is neglected without good cause, and a passenger receive in- jury, which might have been reasonably anticipated or naturally expected, from one who is improperly received or permitted to ■continue as a passenger, the carrier is liable.'^ The carrier must ■exercise the highest diligence reasonably practicable to protect pas- 70. Trabing v. California Nav., R. Co., 75 App. Div. (N. Y.) 282, ■etc., Co., 121 Cal. 137, 53 Pae. 644, 8 78 N. Y. Supp. 99 ; Pittsburgh, etc.. Am. & Eng. Corp. Caa. N. S. 695; E. Co. v. Hinds, 53 Pa. St. 512, 91 Rounds V. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 64 Am. Dec. 224; Flint v. Norwich, etc., N. Y. 129, 21 Am. Rep. 597; Lothrop Transp. Co., 34 Conn. 554; MuUan v. Adams, 133 Mass. 471, 43 Am. v. Wisconsin Cent. Co., 46 Minn. 474, Rep. 528; Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. 47 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 649; Spohn v. Prentice, 147 U. S. 109, 37 L. Ed. Missouri Pae. R. Co., 87 Mo. 74, 101 102. Mo. 417, 26 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 252; 71. Barry t. Third Ave. R. Co., 51 VVinnegar v. Central Pass. R. Co., 85 App. Div. (N. Y.) 385, 64 N. Y. Ky. 547; Gillingham v. Ohio River Supp. 615. R. Co., 35 W. Va. 588, 14 L. R. A. 72. Carpenter v. Boston, etc., R. 798. See also note on Passengers in- Co., 97 N. Y. 494; Putnam v. Broad- jured by acts of fellow passengers and way, etc.,, R. Co., 55 N. Y. 108, 15 third persons, 3 St. Ry. Rep. 783, cit- Abb. Pr. N. S. (N. Y.) 383, 14 Am. ing all recent cases. J'a'p. 190; Koch v. Brooklyn Heights 41 642 The Law of Oaeeiees. srengers from assault, abuse, or injury at the hands of fellow-pas- sengers or third persons, and the carrier is responsible to a pas- senger for a wrong inflicted by an intruder, stranger, or fellow- passenger, if the conductor, or other servant, knew, or ought t& have known, or ought to have reasonably anticipated, that it was threatened or was reasonably to be apprehended, and it could,, with the assistance of employes and other willing passengers, have prevented it, but failed to do so.'^ But a street railway company is not, as to its passengers, guilty of negligence in attempting to- operate its cars during a strike of its employes, unless the con- ditions are such that it ought to know, or ought to reasonably an- ticipate, that it can not do so and at the same time guard from, violence, by the exercise of the utmost care on its part, those who. accept its implied invitation to become passengers; and where a passenger was struck and injured by a missile thrown by a mem- ber of a mob of striking employes of the street car company, the failure to pull do^vn the blinds of the car in which the injured, person was riding, or stretch a heavy canvas over the outside of the car, was not negligence, justifying a recovery against the street car company.'* So the unusual, rude and hasty act of a 73. Ga. — Savannah, etc., K. Co. v. Orleans, etc., E. Co. v. Burke, 55 Boyle, 115 Ga. 836, 42 S. E. 242; Miss. 200, 24 Am. Rep. 689. Holly V. Atlanta St. R. Co., 61 Ga. N. J. — Partridge v. Woodland S. 215, 34 Am. Rep. 97. Co. (N. J.), 49 Atl. 726. Ind. — Louisville, etc.. Ferry Co. v Pa. — Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v.. Nolan, 135 Ind. 60. Pillow, 76 Pa. St. 510; Rommel v. III. — Springfield' Consol. E. Co. v. Schambacher, 120 Pa. 519. Flynn, 55 111. App. 600. Tex. — Galveston, etc., R. Co. t. Kan. — Southern, etc., R. Co. v. Johnson, 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. § 186; Rice, 38 Kans. 398. International, etc., R. Co. v. MiUer,. Ky. — ^Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Mp- 9 Tex. Civ. App. 104; Dillingham v. .Ewan (Ky.), 31 S. W. 465; Sherley Anthony, 73 Tex. 47. V. Billings, 8 Bush (Ky.), 147, 8 Am. U. S.— King v. Ohio, etc., E. Co., Rep. 451. 22 Fed. 413, 18 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. Me. — Libby v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 386; Meyer v. St. Louis, etc., K. 85 Me. 34, 26 Atl. 943, 20 L. Tl. A. Co., 54 Fed. 116, 58 Am. & Eng. R. 812. Cas. Ill, where the carrier was held: Mass. — Simmons v. New Bedford, liable for the act of an insane pas- etc.. Steamboat Co., 97 Mass. 361, 93 senger in shooting and killing a fel- Am. Dec. 99. low passenger, his insanity beins Miss. — Illinois Cent. E. Co. v. known to the agents of the carrier. Minor, 69 Miss. 710; Royston v. Illi- 74. Fewings v. Mendenhall, 83 nois Cent. E. Co., 67 Miss. 37'!: Kfvr Minn. 237, 86 N. VV. 96, 93 N. W. Duties and Liabilities. 643 stranger in rashing through the door of a car, thereby violently striking a person on the other side, does not render the company liable ;'^ nor the pushing of a passenger off the platform by a crowd hurrying to get to a transfer point, -where the passenger with a knowledge of the conditions had forced himself into the crowd for the purpose of alighting.'^ But where a child was compelled by the conductor of a horse car t'o stand upon the crowded platform, and while there was thrown from the car by the hasty and careless exit of another passemger, the company was liable." The carrier is not liable for an injury to one of its passengers by the conduct of the other passengers unless it was unusual and disorderly and could have been prevented by those who had charge of the car at the time, as, for illustration, where a passenger able to travel without attendant, was jostled and pushed and her dress stepped on by another passenger as she was alighting, the conductor at the time assisting a child in her care to alight ;™ or where a lady pas- senger's light summer dress was ignited on an open car by a match carelessly thrown by another passenger after lighting a erfect cars, and other conditions endangering the success of the undertaking, but also to the selection of its employes by the com- pany and to the conduct' of the agents and servants of the corpora- tion in the operation of the road." In the use of motive power like electricity, power of such dangerous possibilities, it should be a very high degree of care." The carrier and its servants in any ■case are bound to use a degree of care commensurate vnth the cir- ■cumstanees of the case, as they appear or can be observed with the use of ordinary care, or such care and foresight as is reasonably practicable.^^ They must use a high degree of care to protect their passengers from dangers that should be anticipated in the absence of due care.'' The exposure of a passenger to danger 16. Stierle v. Union R. Co., 156 N. T. 70, 5. N. y. Ann. Cas. 326, ^0 N. E. 419, 156 N. Y. 684; Dallas Consol. Elec. R. Co. v. Broadhurst, 68 S. W. 315, 28 Tex. ■Civ. App. 630; Hausberger v. Sedalia El., etc., Co., 82 Mo. App. 566; Bos- qul V. Sutro R. Co., 131 Cal. 390, 6.1 Pac. 682; Macon Consol. St. R. Co. v. Barnes, 113 Ga. 212, 38 S. E. 756; Xird V. New Orleans & N. W. R. Co., 105 La. Ann. 226, 29 So. 729; Chi- •cago & A. R. Co. V. Dumser, 161 111. 190, 43 N. E. 698 ; Hamilton v. Great Falls St. R. Co., 17 Mont. 334, 42 Pac. 860; Levy v. Campbell (Tex.), 19 S. W. 438; McAllister v. People's Ry. Co. (Del.), 54 Atl. 743. If the in- jury would not have occurred if two men instead of one had managed the car, the company has been held' li- -able. Redfleld v. Oakland Consol. St. E. Co., 110 Cal. 277, 42 Pac. 822, 1063. A livery stable keeper, who lets a conveyance for a special journey, and furnishes a driver therefor, is merely a private carrier for hire, and is bound only to exercise that degree of care and skill in the selection of a vehicle, team and driver which a prudent man would bestow in such a matter, and is not liable for in- 42 juries caused to a, person in the vehicle by negligent driving. Mc- Gregor v. Gill (Tenn.), 86 S. W. 318. Livery stable keepers are not within the rule that common carriers of passengers are bound to exercise ex- traordinary care for the safety of their passengers. Stanley v. Steele (Conn.), 69 L. R. A. 561, 60 Atl. 640. 17. Leonard v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 57 App. Div. (N. Y.) 125, 67 N. Y. Supp. 985; Denver Tramway Co. V. Reid, 4 Am. Electl. Cas. 332, 4 Colo. App. 53, 35 Pac. 269. 18. Regensburg v. Nassau Elec. R. Co., 69 N. Y. Supp. 147, 58 App. Div. (N. Y.) 566; Feary v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 62 S. W. 452, 162 Mo. 75; Freeman v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 95 Mo. App. 94, 314, 68 S. W. 452, 1057 ; Merrill v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co. (N. Y.), 73 App. Div. 401, 77 N. Y. Supp. 122. In approaching any place of danger as in attempting to run its cars through a mob, it is the duty of a common carrier to use the utmost care to protect its passengers from injury, Bosworth v. Union R. Co., 1 St. Ry. Rep. 757, 55 Atl. 490. 19. Hansen v. North Jersey St. R. Co., 46 Atl. 718, 64 N. J. L. 686. 658 The Law of Caeeiees. ■which, the exercise of reasonable foresight would have anticipated and due care have avoided, is negligence on the part of the car- rier.*" The degree of care required in any case must have refer- ence to the conditions existing. It has been held that the utmost care and diligence which human skill and foresight suggest are required of a street railway company for the protection of its pas- sengers) when the conditions are such as call for that degree of care and diligence.*^ The situation and circumstances surround- ing the ear at different times and places, the amount of traffic on the streets and on the cars, the danger to be encountered in oper- ating the cars over the particular route or place, the rate of speed,, and the motive power in use, are all to be taken into consideration. The fact that, except in boarding the car, alighting therefrom, and in taking and occupying a place therein, the passenger is unable to look out for himself, is also among the circumstances to be con- sidered.** The care and skill required in the operation of street cars drawn by horses is not as great as that required in the man- agement of electric or cable cars propelled at a much higher rate of speed.*^ A horse railroad company must, however, use reason- 20. Eeem v. St. Paul City Ry. Co., 77 Minn. 503, 80 N. W. 638. 21. Keegan v. Third A.ve. R. Co., 34 App. Div. (N. Y.) 297, 54 N. Y. Supp. 391; as, for example, where the car is followed at a distance of a very few feet by a truck proceeding rapidly and confined to the car track by the presence of vehicles on either side, the conductor of the car is bound to exercise a high degree of care in requiring a passenger to leave it, Maverick v. Eight Ave. R. Co., 36 N. Y. 378 ; Faris v. Brooklyn City & N. R. Co., 46 App. Div. (N. Y.) 231, 61 N. Y. Supp. 670; Schenkel v. Pittsburg & B. Tract. Co., 194 Pa. St. 182, 44 Atl. 1072; or, where it is approaching a steam railroad cross- ing, Coddington v. Brooklyn C. T. R. Co., 102 N. Y. 66, 5 N. E. 797; or, at a street crossing where a run- away team might have been seen, Re- gensburg v. Nassau Elec. R. Co., 68 App. Div. (N. Y.) 566, 59' N. \. Supp. 147; West Chicago St. E. Co. V. Manning, 170 111. 417, 48 N. E. 958, 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. (N. S.) 364^ Knauff V. San Antonio Tract. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 70 S. W. 1011; Os- good V. Los Angeles Tract. Co., 137 Cal. 280, 70 Pac. 169, California Civ. Code declares that a carrier of per- sons must use the "utmost" care ani diligence for their carriage, but it i» not error to charge that they must use "the highest degree of care." 22. Palmer v. Winona Ey. & Light Co., 80 N. W. 869, 78 Minn. 138; Seelig V. Metropolitan St. Ey. Co., 18' Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 383, 41 N. Y. Supp. 656. 23. Cogswells v. West. St., etc,. Elec. R. Co.. 4 Am. Electl. Cas. 412, 5 Wash. 46, 52 Am. & Eng. E. Cm. 500, 31 Pac' 411; Stierle v. Union Ey. Co., 156 N. Y. 70, 684, 60 N. E. 419, 834; Dickert v. Salt Lake City R- Co., 20 Utah 394, 59 Pae. (Utah> 95. Duties and Liabilities. 659 able care in selecting horses, and must take reasonable steps to ascertain wbether the horses are safe for such use.^* The employes of a street car company are bound to exercise greater care where a passenger is forced to ride upon the step of the oar, because he cannot find a seat in the car.^^ A carrier does not owe to every passenger precisely the same care, without respect to age, sex, or bodily infirmity.^^ If a passenger is evidently crippled, infirm, or very young, the duty of the carrier towards him must be per- formed with due regard to such apparent condition.^' A sick or aged person, a delicate woman, a lame man, or a child, is entitled to more attention and care from a carrier than one in good health and under no disability. They are entitled to more time in whicfe to get on and off the car ; they are entitled to more consideration when crossing a street, to the end that the cars shall not run over them. All these classes are entitled to use the street and to ride in the cars ; and such haste in starting up, or such speed in running the oar as would be reasonable care toward others, might well be carelessness and negligence toward them.^^ The fact that a pas- senger is intoxicated will not excuse a carrier from using the same degree of care towards him as towards other passengers; that is only to be considered on a question of his contributory negli- gence.^' But the carrier is not required to exercise that high de- gree of care which is required of it in the actual transportation df the passenger in respect to all incidents connected therewith, but only reasonable care, to be measured by the circumstances sur- rounding each case, is all that is demanded. For example, in the case of injury to a passenger caused by the falling upon him of 24. Noble v. St. JoBeph, etc., St. 14 Barb. (N. Y.) 585; Louisville, E. Co., 98 Mich. 249, 57 N. W. 126. etc., E. Co. v. Fleming, 14 Lea (Tenn.) 25. Kinkade v. Atlantic Ave. E. 128, 18 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 347; Co., 9 Misc. Eep. (N. Y.) 275, 29 N. East Line, etc., E. Co. v. Eushing, Y. Supp. 724. 69 Tex. 306, 34 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 26. St. Louis, etc., E. Co. v. Fin- 367. ley, 79 Tex. 85, 15 S. W. 266; Cleve- 29. Milliman v. New York Cent., land, etc., E. Co. v. Manson, 30 Ohio etc., E. Co., 4 Hun (N. Y.) 409, 6 St. 451. T. & C. (N. Y.) 585, afld. 66 N. Y. 27. Eidenhour v. Kansas City Ca- 642; Strand v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., We E. Co., 102 Mo. 283, 14 S. W. 67 Mich. 380, 31 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 760. 54; Fisher v. West Virginia, etc., E. 28. Sheridan v. Brooklyn City, Co., 39 W. Va. 366, 58 Am. & Eng. R. etc., E. Co., 36 N. Y. 39, 93 Am. Dee. Cas. 337. 490; Willetts v. Buffalo, etc., E. Co., 660 The Law op Caeeiees. an article placed in a rack over his seat by another passenger ;"* am injury caused to a passenger by being jostled and thrown dowm^ when he was about to leave the car, by other passengers whio were entering ;^^ and in duties touching the convenience or accommoda- tion of passengers while awaiting the departure of trains at the station or usual places of departure.^^ When an injury occurs from causes beyond the control of the carrier and to which neither the negligence of the carrier, nor thoae employed by it contributed, by reason of inevitable accident, vis major, or an act of God, the carrier is relieved from responsibility. '^ § 23. Management of conveyance — Sudden jerks and jolts. The sudden jerking of a train backward or forward whUe passen- gers are rightfully passing out of the cars is evidently liable to produce accidents, and under such circumstances is a negligent act.^* The sudden stoppage of a train with such violence as to throw a passenger through an open door is prima facie negli- gence.^' But while it is the duty of a carrier operating a passen- ger or mixed train to use the highest degree of care praaticable in the operating of such trains, it is not responsible for injuries to a passenger from jerks and bumpings of the cars, usually inciden- tal to such trains when operated with such care.'* A passenger 30. Morris v. New York Cent., etc.. Shore, etc., R. Co., 49 Mich. 370 E. Co., 106 N. Y. 678, 11 St. Eep. Smith v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 108 Mo. (N. Y.) 204. 243, 52 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 483; De- 31. Buck V. Manhattan E. Co., 15 troit, etc., E. Co. v. Curtis, 23 Wis. Daly (N. Y.) 550. 152, 99 Am. Dec. 141; Kentucky, etc, 32. Central E., etc., Co. v. Perry, Bridge Co. v. Quinkert, 2 Ind. App. 58 Ga. 461. 244; Nance v. Carolina Cent. E. Co., 33. Carroll v. Staten Island R. Co., 94 N. C. 619; Cincinnati, etc., E. Co. 58 N. Y. 126, 17 Am. Eep. 221; Kan- v. Cooper, 120 Ind. 469; Ilges v. St. sas Pac. E. Co. v. Miller, 2 Colo. 442; Louis Transit Co., 102 Mo. App. 529, Higgins V. Cherokee E. Co., 73 Ga. 77 S. W. 93. 149; Murphy v. Atlanta, etc., E. Co, 35. Moorman v. Atchison, etc., fi. 89 Ga. 832; Topeka City E. Co. v. Co. (Mo. App.), 78 S. W. 1089; Higgs, 38 Kan. 375, 5 Am. St. Eep. Condy v. St. Louis, etc., E. Co., 13 754, 34 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 529 ; Mo. App. 588, 85 Mo. 79. Gillespie v. St. Louis, etc., E. Co.,' 6 36. Illinois Cent. E. Co. v. Vinson, Mo. App. 454. 25 Ky. L. Eep. 38, 652, 74 S. W. 671, 34. Sauter v. New York Cent., etc., 76 S. W. 167 ; Saxton v. Missouri E. Co., 66 N. Y. 50, 23 Am. Eep. 18; Pac. E. Co., 98 Mo. App. 494, 72 S. Milliman v. New York Cent., etc., R. W. 717; Portuchefc v. Wabash R. Co. Co., 66 N. Y. 643; Wood v. Lake (Mo. App.), 74 S. W. 368; Erwin v. Duties and Liabilities. 661 ■who voluntarily seeks to be transported on a freight train takes the risk of the usual and necessary jolts and jars which occur in the operation of such train, but the carrier ig not relieved from the use of the highest diligence to prevent unusual and unneces- sary jolts and jars." A street railway company is not diargeable ■with negligence, where a passenger falls off the car as it was pass- ing in its ordinary motion, jolting over another railroad track at a cross street.*^ But where plaintiff took passage on a street car ■which was so crowded that he was compelled to stand on the rear platform and hold on by the hand rail and the conductor accepted his fare while in this position, and, without notice to plaintiff, the car was driven around a curve in the track without slackening speed, in violation of a rule of the company requiring the speed to be reduced one-half in rounding curves, and plaintiff was vio- lently thro^wn from the car and injured, such facts were sufficient to establish negligence on the part of the carrier entitling plaintiff to recover for his injuries.^' In the management of a street car a sudden and violent stopping of such car, unless it is unusual in Kansas, ete., E. Co. (Mo. App.), 68 S. W. 88. As to freight trains see Southern E. Co. v. Vand'ergriff (Tenn.), 64 S. W. 481; Wait y. Omaha, etc., E. Co., 165 Mo. 612, 65 S. W. 1028; Cincinnati, etc., E. Co. V. Jackson, 22 Ky. L. Eep. 630, 58 S. W. 526, a sudden movement of the train does not evidence negligence, in the absence of any thing to show that the movement •was unusual, or was caused by any unnecessary force ap- plied to the brakes. 37. Central of Ga. E. Co. v. Lipp- man, 110 Ga. 665, 36 S. E. 202; Gar- land V. Southern E. Co., Ill Ga. 852, 36 S. E. 595. Where plaintiff was in- jured by being thrown from an engine where he had been directed to ride by a brakeman to whom he had paid a sum less than the fare for such privi- lege, and' claimed that the engineer had invited him to climb over the tender into the cab, and that he was thrown by reason of the engineer's negligent act in causing the jerk of the engine, the engineer was bound, if he saw plaintiff, and knew his per- ilous postiion, to use ordinary care to avoid doing any act which would probably result in injury to plain- tiff, though such act was usual in the operation of the train. Claiborne V. Missouri, etc., E. Co., 21 Tex. Civ. App. 648, 57 S. W. 336. See also Macon, etc., E. Co. v. Moore, 108 Ga. 84; Currie v. Mendenhall, 77 Minn. 179; Scott V. Bergen Co. Tract. Co., 63 N. J. L. 407. 38. Barry v. Union Tract. Co., 194 Pa. St. 576, 45 Atl. 321. See Bir- mingham Ey., etc., Co. v. James, 121 Ala. 120; Kennou v. Eailroad Co., 51 La. Ann. 1599; Bartley v. Eailway Co., 148 Mo. 124. 39. Gaten v. Metropolitan St. E. Co., 89 App. Div. (N. Y.) 311, 85 N. Y. Supp. 967. See also Lynn v. Southern Pae. E. Co., 103 Cal. 7, 24 L. E. A. 710, 36 Pae. 1018; Brusch v. Eailway Co., 52 Minn. 510, 55 N. W. 57. 662 The Law of Caeeieks. degree and caused by some defect in the car or in the track, or by some unusual or dangerous rate of speed, furnishes no evidence of negligence on the part of the company.^" A passenger on a street car, who was injured by being thrown to the ground by the lurch of the car in passing from the main track to a switch track, aaa- not recover therefor where there is no evidence that the injury was due to any defect in the car or the track, or that the speed was unusual or dangerous, or that the jar was unusual, since such motion of the car is not sufficient. to show negligence.*^ Where a street car passenger, intending to alight, leaves his seat and places himself on the step while the car is in motion and slowing up as if about to stop to let off passengers at a crossing, and while the conductor is in the front part of the car collecting fares and in such a position as not to see the passenger, and he ia thrown off and injured by the sudden increase of the speed of the car before he had indicated to the conductor that he intends to alight, such acceleration of speed unaccompanied by any other fact except that' the conductor, in order to perform his duty of collecting fares, has placed himself in a position where he cannot see the passenger as he intends to alight, is not a foundation for a charge of action- able negligence, and, when nothing more is alleged or claimed in plaintiff's opening statement the complaint is properly dismissed.^ Where a passenger on a street car was thrown off by the sudden stopping of the car in an effort to avoid a collision, and by the shock of the collision which was not brought about by the n^li- gence of the defendant, it was damnwm absque injuria.^ Where 40. Chicago City Ey. Co. v. Morse, Co., 65 App. Div. (N. Y.) 270, 72 N. 98 111. App. 662, aff'd 64 N. E. 304, Y. Supp. 835. The mere fact that 197 111. 327. See also Hoffman v. while a street car is rounding a Third Ave. E. Co., 45 App. Div. (N. curve a passenger is injured by rea- Y.) 568, 61 N. Y. Supp. 590. son of another passenger being thrown 41. Byron v. Lynn & B. E. Co., upon her is insufiScient, in the ab- 177 Mass. 303, 58 N. E. 1015, such mo- sence of excessive speed or of the tions of street cars are of common application of more power than and' frequent occurrence and are to necessary to round the curve, to jus- be expected to a greater or less de- tify a recovery against the company gree whenever the car passes from for the injuries thus received. Mer- one track to another, and so are of rill v. Metropolitan St. Ey Co., 77 the class of usual unavoidable inci- N. Y. Supp. 122, 73 App. Div. (N. Y.> dents to the use of cars upon the 401. street. 43. Cleveland City Ey. Co. v. Os- 42. Sims V. Metropolitan St. Ey. born, 66 Ohio St. 45, 63 N. E. 604. Duties and Liabilities. 663 plaintiff, two years and nine months old, was thrown down by the starting of a street car before she had time to be seated, and while for the moment out of the reach of her attendant, it was not error to refuse to charge that the starting of the car before a passenger is seated is not negligence.** But a street railway may be held negligent where the driver, without warning, struck his horses, a spirited team, starting the car with a sudden jerk, causing a pas- senger on the crowded front platform to lose his hold, and throw- ing him to the ground.*^ In order to recover from a cable railroad it is not enough to show that there was a jerk, but it must affirma- tively appear that the jerk was an extraordinary or unusual one, or attributable to a defect in the track, an imperfection in the car or apparatus, or to a dangerous rate of speed, or to unskillful hand- ling of the car by the gripman." It has been held, however, that the occurrence of a sudden lurch or jerk of a street car, of sufficient violence to throw a passenger off the platform, who was there pre^ paring to alight, and awaiting the stoppage of the car for that purpose, justified an inference of a breach of duty upon the part of those operating the car, within the maxim " Res ipsa loqui- twr." Where the testimony of the plaintiff is to the effect ' that he was injured in attempting to alight from a trolley car 44. Herbich v. North Jersey St. Stewart v. Railroad Co., 146 Mass. Hy. Co., 67 N. J. L. 574, 52 Atl. 357. 605, 16 N. E. 466. The car upon See also Harty v. New York, etc., R. which the plaintiff was riding was Co., 3 St. Ry. Rep. 712, 95 App. Div. moving along in an ordinary way (N. Y.) 119, 88 N. Y. Supp. 422, as when the speed slackened, and the "to passengers thrown down by sud- plaintiff who was standing near the ■den lurch of car. edge of the rear platform, not holding 45. Eberhardt v. Metropolitan St. on to anything, and with one hand in Hy. Co., 69 App. Div. (N. Y.) 560, his pocket, was thrown from the car 75 N. Y. Supp. 46, affd. 174 N. Y. and sustained the injuries complained 522, 66 N. E. 1107. of. It was held that the negligence 46. Hartley v. Metropolitan St. of the defendant was not proved, in Hy. Co., 148 Mo. 124, 49 S. W. 840. the absence of proof of a defect in See also Adams v. Washington & G. the car or in the rails, Timms v. 0!d H. Co., 9 App. D. C. 34; Weaver v. Colony St. Ry. Co., 1 St. Ry. Rep. Washington & G. R. Co., 3 App. D. 301, (Mass.) 66 N. E. 797. €. 436; Hayes v. Forty-second St., 47. Scott v. Bergen Co. Tract. Co., «to., R. Co.. 97 N. Y. 259; Stager v. (N. J.), 48. Atl. 1118, affg. 63 N. J. Ridge Ave. R. R. Co., 119 Pa. St. 70, L. 407, 43 Atl. 1060; Consol. Tract. 17 Atl. 821: Mitchell v. Railway Co., Co. v. Thalheimer, 59 N. J. L. 471, 61 Mich. 236: Holland v. West End 37 Atl. 132. By Co., 155 Mass. 387, 29 N. Y. 622 ; 664 The Law of Carriers. -which had suddenly started and threw him to the ground, and on the other hand witnesses for the defendant testified that the con- ductor in charge carefully assisted the plaintiff to the ground and that after he had alighted he staggered and fell into the gut- ter, it is for the jury to determine which theory aa to how the accident occurred was true.^ § 34. Duty of carrier to announce stations. — ^It has been heli in New York that, although a different custom may prevail on rapid transit or elevated railroads, it has never been understood to be the duty of a steam surface railroad company to expressly warn its passengers of the starting or of the stopping of trains.** But other authorities have expressly held that when a railroad, as a common carrier, for compensation, receives a person on its passenger train as a passenger, it thereby assumes lie obUgation of active vigilance and great care to safely transport such passen- ger to his place of destination, and, when he arrives there, it is the duty of the railroad to announce that fact in the car in which he is, or to give him personal notice of the fact.^ The same rule i& maintained in other States, where it is held that the liabilily of a railroad company, as a common carrier, for the safety of passen- gejs ceases after they have been made aware of their arrival at their place of destination, and have had a reasonable time to get off the train, and the company is liable for actual damages for fail- inr to announce or give notice in some way of the station, and to stop its train long enough for a passenger to get off with safety.^ 48. Miller v. South Covington & C. Keller v. New Yopk Cent. E. Co., i St. Ey. Co., 1 St. Ey. Eep. 246, 23 Abb. App. Dec. (X. Y.) 480. Ky. L."!Rep. 207, 74 S. W. 747. 51. Houston, etc., E. Co. v. Kohn, 49. Mearns v. Central E. Co., 16."} 22 Tex. Civ. App. 11, 53 S. W. 698, N. Y. 108, distinguished in Willis v. but it need not give passengers per- Metropolitan St. Ey. Co., 63 App. sonal notice that their station is Div. (N. Y.) 332, 71 N. Y. Supp. reached; Imhoff v. Chicago, etc., R. 554; Lobsenz-v. Metropolitan St. Ey. Co., 20 Wis. 344; Dorrah v. Illinois Co., 72 App. Div. (N. Y.) 181, 76 N". Cent. E. Co., 65 Miss. 14, 7 Am. St Y. Supp. 411, in applying the propp- Eep. 629, 3 So. 36; Louisville, etc.,. sition to street railroads. E. Co. v. Mask, 64 Miss. 738; Daw- 50. Mahar v. New York Cent., etc., son v. Louisville, etc., E. Co. (Ky.) E. Co., 5 App. Div. (N. Y.) 22, 39 11 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 134; Lehman N. Y. Supp. 63; Dickens v. New v. Louisiana Western E. Co., 37 La- York Cent. E. Co., 1 Keyes (N. Y.) Ann. 705; Southern E. Co. v. O'Bry- 23, 1 Abb. App. Dec. (N. Y.) 504; an, 115 Ga. 659, 42 S. E. 42. A ail- Duties and Liabilities. 665 Tlie announcement by the conductor or brakeman of the station the train is approaching is the customary -warning to passengers that the train is nearing the station, in order that they may get ready to alight. When a station is called the passengers have a right to infer that the first stop of the train will be at such sta- iton,^^ and when the train is stopped it is an invitation to the pas- sengers to alight, and the carrier is thereby charged with the duty of using due care to provide a proper place and safe means for the passengers to alight, and for a failure to do so the carrier will be liable for any injury caused thereby.^' Where a brakeman or conductor has announced the name of the station on the approach of a train, and the train makes its next stop short of or beyond the station, such fact should be announced before the passengers at- road company is not negligent as a matter of law, in failing to announce the arrival of trains at stations in the absence of a statute requiring it. Houston, etc., E. Co. v. Goodyear (Tex. Civ. App.), 66 S. W. 862, 52. Lent v. New York Cent., etc., E. Co., 120 N. Y. 467, 24 N. E. 653; McDonald v. Long Island E. Co., 116 N. Y. 546, 22 N. E. 1068; Taber v. Delaware, etc., E. C, 71 N. Y. 489; Central E. Co. v. Van Horn, 38 N. J. L. 133; Mitchell v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 51 Mich. 236, 47 Am. Eep. 566, 18 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 176 ; Smitson T. Southern Pac. E. Co. (Or.), 60 Pac. 910; Memphis, etc., E. Co. v. String- fellow, 44 Ark. 322, 51 Am. Eep. 598, 21 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 374; Eoss V. Eailroad Co., 15 E. I. 149, 1 Atl. 9; McDonald v. Eailroad Co. (Iowa), 55 N. W. 102; Columbus, etc., E. Co. V. Parrell, 31 Ind. 408; Smith v. Georgia Pac. E. Co., 88 Ala. 538, 41 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 143, 7 So. 119, 7 L. E. A. 323 ; Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Arnol, 144 III. 261, 33 N. E. 204, 19 L. E. A. 313; Devine v. Eailroad Co. (Iowa), 69 N. W. 1042; Ward v. Eailroad Co. (111. Sup.), 46 N. E. 365; Philadelphia, etc., E. Co. v. Mc- Cormiek, 124 Pa. St. 427; Blitch v. Central E. Co., 76 6a. 333. 53. Boyce v. Manhattan Ey. Co.,. 118 N. Y. 314; McNulta v. Ensch, 134 111. 46; Taber v. Delaware, etc., il. Co., 71 N. Y. 489; McGee V.Missouri Pac. E. Co., 92 Mo. 218, 1 Am. St, Eep. 706; Pennsylvania E. Co. v. White, 88 Pa. St. 327; Philadelphia^ etc., E. Co. V. Edelstein, 23 W. N. C. (Pa.) 342; Whittaker v. Manchester, etc., E. Co., L. E. 5 C. P. 464, note 3; Bridges v. North London E. Co., L. E. 6 Q. B. 377, L. E. 7 H. L. 213; Petty V. Great Western E. Co., L. E. 5 C. P. 461, note 1; Weller v. Lon- don, etc., E. Co., L. E. 9 C. P. 126. In some of the cases cited it was held to be a question for the jury whether there was an invitation to alight. But see Mitchell v. Chicago, etc., E. Co.,. 51 Mich. 236, 47 Am. Eep. 566; Min- ock V. Detroit, etc., E. Co.. 97 Mich. 425, where a railroad company was- held not liable for negligence in stop- ping, as required by law, a train ap- proaching a station where there was a crossing of railroad tracks, before- proceeding to cross the track, al- though the name of the station had just been called. ■666 The Law of Caeeiees. tempt to leave the train, and failure to do so is a neglect of dufy, rendering the carrier liable for resulting injuries.^* § 35. Duty of carrier to stop at statdons. — When a person pur- chases a ticket or boards a train, he should ascertain before getting on, whether such train will only stop at the principal stations or all of them or when, where, and how he can go and stop by suet train, and if he boards one that is not accustomed to stop at the station to which he desires to go, and for which his ticket calls, he has no right to insist, in the absence of an agreement to stop, on the carrier changing the course of its business for his accommoda- tion or convenience.^' But it is gross disregard of the duty it owes a passenger for a railroad company not to bring a train to a full stop at a regular station to which it has gold a ticket, and give the passenger ample time and opportunity to alight,^' or not . to stop at each station advertised as a place for receiving and dis- charging passengers, and for or at 'which the carrier has sold a ticket, a suflB.cient length of time to receive and let off passengers Tvith safety." Mere checking of speed is not sufficient.^* Passen- 54. Englehaupt v. Erie B. Co., 209 Pa. 182, 58 Atl. 1S4. See also cases «ited in last preceding note. Ellis v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 120 Wis. 645, 93 Jf. W. 942. 55. Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Ran- dolph, 53 111. 510, 5 Am. Rep. 60; Beauchamp v. International, etc., R. Co., 56 Tex. 239, 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 307; Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Pierce, 47 Mich. 277, 3 Am. & Eng. R. ■Cas. 340; Martindale v. Kansas City, •etc., R. Co., 50 Mo. 508; Gadsden, etc., R. Co. V. Causler, 97 Ala. 235, 58 Am. -& Eng. R. Cas. 258; Texas, etc., R. Co. V. Ludlam, 57 Fed. 481; Little Rock, etc., R. Co. v. Miles, 40 Ark. ^98, 48 Am. Rep. 10, 13 Am. & Eng. 10 ; Pittsburgh, etc., E. Co. v. Nuzum, 50 Ind. 141, 333, 3 Am. & Eng. JR. Cas. 478; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Rosenberry, 45 Ark. 256; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. At- chison, 47 Ark. 74; Ohio, etc., R. Co. V. Applewhite, 52 Ind. 540; At- chison, etc., R. Co. V. Gants, 38 Kan. 608, 5 Am. St. Rep. 780, 34 Am. t Eng. R. Cas. 290; Duling v. Phila- delphia, etc., R. Co., 66 Md. 120; Plott V. Chicago etc., E. Co., 63 Wis. 511; Logan v. Hannibal, etc., B. Co., 77 Mo. 663 ; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Bills, 104 Ind. 13. 56. Bucher v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 98 N. Y. 128; Filer v. New York Cent. R. Co., 49 N. Y. 51, 10 Am. Rep. 327 ; Raben v. Central Iowa R. Co., 73 Iowa, 579, 5 Am. St. Eep. 708; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Bingham, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 278. 57. Wabash, -etc., R. Co. v. Eector, 104 111. 296; Indianapolis, etc., E. Co. V. Birney, 71 111. 391; Sears v. Eastern R. Co.. 14 Allen (Mass.) 433, 92 Am. Dec. 780; Poole v. Georgia R., etc., Co., 89 Ga. 320; Hawcroft v. Great Northern R. Co., 8 Eng. L. & Eq. 362, 16 Jur. 196; Denton v. Great Duties and Liabilities. 667 gers have a right to rely, until differently informed, on the infor- mation received by them from ticket agents as to the stoppages of trains,^ but the carrier wiU not be bound by the statements of a ticket agent that the train will be stopped at a station which is not & regular stopping place for the train/" The carrier is not respon- sible if unable to stop its train at a station by reason of storms and tempests without the intervention of human agency, or other un- avoidable accident.'^ A railroad company is not required to stop a train at a station at which it is not scheduled to stop, or at a fitation where under its rules the train does not usually stop, in the absence of an agreement so to do.'^ But it is negligence on the part of the railroad not to stop at a station where the regulations of the company require it to stop,*^ and it is not liable for not stop- ping at a station where under the rule the train is not required to stop." A passenger failing to notify the conductor of his desire to get off at a flag station at which trains do not stop unless sig- naled cannot recover for being carried to the next station,*^ before Northern E. Co., 5 El. & Bl. 860, 85 E. C. L. 860, 34 Bng. L. & Eq. 154. The crowded condition of a train of cars for which the com- pany alone is responsible is not a legal or just excuse for failure to atop the train at a station called for hy the ticket of a passenger, for fear that still more passengers will get on board. Hoyt v. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 112 Mich. 638, 4 Det. L. N. 142, 71 N. W. 172, 29 Chic. L. N. 330, 9 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. N. S. 818. 58. Montgomery, etc., E. Co. v. Stewart, 91 Ala. 421 ; Georgia R., etc., Co. V. McCurdy, 45 Ga. 288, 12 Am. Eep. S77. 59. Lake Shore, etc., E. Co. v. Pierce, 47 Mich. 277, 3 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 340. 60. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Nu- zum, 60 Ind. 533; Marshall v. St. Xouis, etc., R. Co., 78 Mo. 610; Ohio, «tc., R. Co. V. Hatton, 60 Ind. 12. 61. Compton v. Long Island R. ■Co., 1 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 554; Free- man V. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 56 Mich. 577; Fitzgerald v. Midland R. Co., 34 L. T. N. S. 771. 62. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Miles, 100 Ky. 84, 18 Ky. L. Rep. 580, 37 S. W. 486; Evansville, etc., R. Co. v. Wilson, 20 Ind. App. 5, 50 N. E. 90; Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Gants, 38 Kan. 608, 5 Am. St. Rep. 780, 34 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 290; Plott v. Chica- go, etc., R. Co., 63 Wis. 511, 22 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 319; Sira v. Wabash R. Co., 115 Mo. 127, 37 Am. St. Rep. 386, 58 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 538 ; Co- lumbus, etc., R. Co. V. Powell, 40 Ind. 37. 63. Parker v. White, 27 New Bruns. 442; Burnett v. Great North, etc., R. Co., L. R. 10 Add. 147, 54 L. J. Q. B. Div. 531, 53 L. T. N. S. 507, 24 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 647. 64. Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. Apple- white, 52 Ind. 540 ; Wells v. Alabama, etc., E. Co., 67 Miss. 24; Turner v. London, etc., E. Co., L. R. 17 Eq. 561, 43 L. J. Ch. 430 ; Hood v. North Eastern R. Co., 19 W. E. 523. 65. Gulf, etc., E. Co. v. Eyan, 4 668 The Law of Caeeiees. being called upon to exhibit his ticket.** A passenger in North Carolina who presents himself at a flag station a reasonable time before the arrival of the train for the purpose of procuring passage and by reason of the absence of the agent and tibe failure of the engineer to see his signal the train does not stop for him, is en- titled to recover the actual damages sustained." A railroad com- pany is under no legal obligation to stop at a flag station short of the destination named in the ticket.** A railroad company i& bound by an agreement made with its agent, having real or ap- parent authority to do so, to stop a train at a particular station,'* or to stop at a point where there is no station.'" And when the company so stops a train, a passenger taking or leaving the train has a right to assume that the company vpill not expose him to un- necessary danger and will provide him a safe passage to and from the train the same as at a regular station." But the fact that pas- sengers have at different times taken advantage of the statutory stop at the crossing of another road to leave the train, without the direction or supervision of the company's agents will not bind the company to conduct and manage its trains at the crossdng as at a station.'^ Under statutes providing that all regular passenger trains shall stop at county seats, it has been held that a through express was a regular passenger train and that the statute is vaUd as a proper exercise of the police power of the State,'' but the Tex. App. Civ. Cas. § 305, 18 S. W. Ga. 489, 7 Am. Ry. Rep. 352; Georgia 866. But see St. Louis, etc., R. Co. R., etc., Co. v. McCurdy, 45 Ga. 288, V. Berryhill, 3 Tex. App. Civ. Cas., § 12 Am. Rep. 577 ; Louisville, etc., E. 319. Co. V. Johnston, 79 Ala. 436; Hull 7. 66. Chattanooga, etc., R. Co. t. East Line, etc., R. Co., 66 Tex. 619: Lyon, 89 Ga. 16, 15 S. E. 24, 15 L. Columbus, etc., R. Co. v. Powell, 40 R. A. 857, 32 Am. St. Rep. 72, 52 Am. Ind. 37 ; Wells v. Alabama, etc., R. & Eng. R. Cas. 307. Co., 67 Miss. 24. 67. Thomas v. Southern R. Co., 71. Brassell v. NewYorkCeiit.,etc., 122 N. C. 1005, 30 S. E. 343. R. Co., 84 N. Y. 241; Pennsylvania 68. Matthews v. Charleston, etc., R. Co. v. White, 88 Pa. St. 327; R. Co., 38 S. C. 429, 37 Am. St. Rep. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Kane 773. (Md.), 17 Atl. 1032. 69. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 72. Louisville, etc.. It. Co. v. Stacker, 86 Tenn. 343, 6 Am. St. Rep. Johnson, 44 111. App. 56. 840; East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. 73. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Peo- Massengill, 15 Lea (Tenn.) 328. pie, 143 III. 434; Chicago, etc., B. And see Humphries v. Illinois Cent. Co. v. People, 105 111. 657, 13 Am. i R. Co., 70 Miss. 453. Eng. R. Cas. 42; People v. LouisviUe, 70. Western R. Co. v. Young, 51 etc., R. Co., 120 111. 48; Gladson v. Duties and Liabilities. 669 TTnited States courts have held them to be ineffective to burden or impede interstate commerce.'* A passenger who took a train ■which he should have knovm did not stop at his destination, and was carried by and compelled to pay fare for the additional dis- tance, has no right of action against the company by reason of the conductor having taken up and punched his ticket after having told him that the train would not stop at the point named on the ticket." § 36. Warning of departure of trains.— To put a train in mo- tion, without signal, whilst passengers are getting on and off, is an act of negligence whether such motion is in a backward or for- ward direction.'* It is the duty of a railway professing to provide rapid transit, and making short stops at its stations, to give to in- tending passengers, for their safety, clear and intelligible signals indicating when it ceasesi to be safe or prudent to board the train." Passengers are not bound to get on board until the call " All on board " is given, and it is the conductor's duty, after the call, to give the passengers a reasonable opportunity of getting into the cars before starting the train.'* A call of " All aboard " given prematurely or before it is entirely safe to do so, or other mislead- ing announcement to board the cars before they are ready, may be treated as an invitation to board the cars which justifies the impu- tation of negligence on the part of the carrier." State (Minn.), 17 Sup. Ct. Eep. 627, R. Co., 3 Lans. (N. Y.) 469, aflfd. 49 57 Minn. 385. N. Y. 673; Andrist v. Union Pac. R. 74. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Illi- Co., 30 Fed. 345; MiHiman v. New nois, 163 U. S. 142; Smith v. Ala- York, etc., E. Co., 4 Hun (N. Y.) bama, 124 U. S. 465; Stone v. Farm- 409, 6 T. & C. (N. Y.) 585; Perry v. er's L. & T. Co., 116 U. S. 308; Du- Central E. Co., 66 Ga. 746; Mitchell buque, etc., E. Co. v. Richmond, 19 v. Western, etc., R. Co., 30 Ga. 22; Wall. (U. S.) 584. State v. Grand Trunk E. Co., 58 Mo. 75. Trotlinger v. East Tennessee, 176, 4 Am. Rep. 258; Doss v. Iilis- etc, E. Co., 11 Lea (Tenn.) 533. But souri, etc., R. Co., 59 Mo. 27, 21 Am. see Caldwell v. Richmond, etc., E. Eep. 371; Imhoflf v. Chicago, etc., B. Co., 89 Ga. 550, 15 S. E. 678, holding Co., 22 Wis. 681. that failure of a conductor to stop 77. McQuade v. Manhattan E. Co., his train and let a passenger off at a 53 Super. Ct. (N. Y.) 91, affd. 109 station to which he collects her fare, N. Y. 636, 15 St. Eep. (N. Y.) 932. with knowledge that she intends to 78. Hall v. McFadden, 19 New get off there, is a tort as well as a Bruna. 340. breach of contract. 79. Lent v. New York Cent., etc., 76. Keating v. New York Central E. Co., 120 N. Y. 467, 44 Am. & Eng. 670 The Law of Caeeiees. § 37. Duty to provide safe means of ingress and egress It is the duty of a common carrier of passengers to provide a safe place and suitable and safe accommodations for its passengers to embark upon and depart from its trains or cars, or boats, at sucL points as the carrier receives or discharges passengers.*" It is R. Cas. 373; Flint, etc., R. Co. v. Stark, 38 Mich. 714. And a prema- ture signal to start given by an un- authorized person will render the com- pany liable, if its servants in chargi. of the car, by the exercise of due care and diligence, could have prevented its running so as to avoid injury. North Chicago St. R. Co. v. Cook, 145 111. 551. In Texas it is held that it will not be an act of negligence per se to put the train in motion without giving signals, after a sufScient and reasonable time to leave the train has elapsed. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Will- iams, 70 Tex. 159. 80. N. T.— Loftus V. Union Ferry Co., 84 N. Y. 455; Hulbert v. New York Cent. R. Co., 40 N. Y. 145; Red- ner v. Lehigh, etc., R. Co., 73 Hun (N. Y.) 562, 26 N. Y. Supp. 1050, an in- adequate passageway; Onderdonk v. New York, etc., R. Co., 74 Hun (N. Y.) 42, 26 N. Y. Supp. 310; Van Os- tran v. New York Cent., etc.j R. Co., 35 Hun (N. Y.) 590, aflfd. 104 N. Y. 683; Hazman v. Hoboken, etc., Co., 2 Daly (N. Y.) 130; Liscomb v. New Jersey, etc., R. Co., 6 Lans. (N. Y.) 75, hole in the floor of the depot. U. S. — Lauterer v. Manhattan R. Co., 128 Fed. 540, 63 C. C. A. 38; Post V. Koch, 30 Fed. 208; Seymour V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 3 Biss. (U. S.) 43, platform unsafe because of ice. Go. — ^Atlanta, etc., R. Co. v. Hoi- combe, 88 Ga. 9. III. — Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Kee gan, 210 111. 150, 71 N. E. 321; Chi- cago, etc., R. Co. V. Coss, 73 111. 394. Ind. — ^Harris v. Pittsburg, etc., E. Co., 32 Ind. App. 600, 70 N. E. 407; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Lucas, 119 Ind. 583; Terre Haute, etc., R. Co. V. Buck, 96 Ind. 346, 49 Am. Rep. 168. lotpa. — Cotant v. Boone Suburban Ry. Co. (Iowa), 59 N. W. 115; Al- lender v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 4J Iowa, 276. Mich. — Lemon v. Grand Rapids, etc., R. Co., 11 Det. L. N. 151, 100 N. W. 22. Mo. — Newcomb v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 182 Mo. 687, 81 S. W. 1069. La. — Moses v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 39 La. Ann. 649, 4 Am. St. Rep. 231; Lehman v. Louisiana Western R. Co., 37 La. Ann. 705. Me. — State v. Grand Trunk R. Co,, 58 Me. 176, 4 Am. Rep. 258. Miss. — ^Memphis, etc., R. Co. v. Whitfield, 44 Miss. 481, 7 Am. Rep. 699. N. J.— Falk V. New York, etc., R. Co., 56 N. J. L. 380, 58 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 191 ; Delaware, etc., E. Co. v. Trautwein, 52 N. J. L. 169, 19 Am. St. Rep. 442. Pa. — ^Dunn v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 20 Phila. (Pa.) 258. Tex. — Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Woods, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 612, 40 S. W. 846; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Long, 81 Tex. 253, 26 Am. St. Rep. 811; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Northern, 73 Tex. 27: Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Miller, 79 Tex. 78, 23 Am. St. Rep. 308. Wis. — Ellis V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 82 Wis. 246, a defective footstool. Duties and Liabilities. 671 the duty of a railroad company to provide reasonably safe and sufficient platforms at its stations to enable passengers to descend- from the cars without danger and to stop its cars alongside such platforms so that prudent persona may safely alight. ^^ But that a train runs beyond the usual stopping place at the station before coming to a standstill is not negligence per se. This may happen from the condition of the track, through the failure of the air' brakes, or other cause, without the fault of the managers of the train, and of itself, it does not expose a passenger to danger. Nor- is a delay, after the train ia brought to a stop, for a period neces- sary to reverse the motion, so as to back the train to the usual stopping place, of itself negligence. But the circumstances at- tending such an occurrence may be such as to require that the carrier should give notice to passengers desiring to alight at the station, that the train had not come to a final stop and that it would back up, in order to relieve itself from liability for negli- gence in case of injury to a passenger.*^ Where a railroad train passes a platform or overshoots a station and the carrier requires a passenger to alight without assistance in an unusual and unsafe place, it will be liable for any injury resulting therefrom.*' It A railroad company is entitled to C. P. 464, 22 L. T. N. S. 545 ; Praeger designate certain doors and steps by v. Bristol, etc., R. Co., 24 L. T. N- which its passengers shall leave its S. 105. train, and is not liable for injuries 82. Taber v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., to a passenger, caused by his seeking 71 N. Y. 489; Porter v. Chicago, etc., an unusual mode of egress. Ratierel R. Co., 80 Mich. 156, 20 Am. St. Rep. V. Galveston, etc., R. Co. (Tex. Civ. 511; Smith v. Georgia, etc., R. Co.,. App.), 81 S. W. 566. 8b Ala. 538, 16 Am. St. Eep. 63; 81. Boyce v. Manhattan Ry. Co., Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Daney, 97 118 N. Y. 319; Garneau v. Illinois Ala. 338; Reed v. Duluth, etc., R. Cent. R. Co., 109 111. App. 169 ; Eddy Co., 100 Mich. 507, 58 Am. & Eng. V. Wallace, 49 Fed'. 801, 52 Am. & R. Cas. 77; Sherwood v. Railroad Co- Ens;. R. Cas. 265; St. Louis, etc., R. (Mich.), 46 N. W. 776; Lewis v. Lon- Co. V. Cantrell, 37 Ark. 519, 40 Am. don, etc., R. Co., 43 L. J. Q. B. 8, L. Eep. 105, 8 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 198; R. 9 Q. B. 66, 22 W. R. 153, 29 L. Hemmingway v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., T. N. S. 397. 72 Wis. 42, 7 Am. St. Rep. 823; 83. 2f. Y.— Filer v. New York. Delamatyr v. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co,, Cent. R. Co., 49 N. Y. 47, 10 Am.. 24 Wis. 578; Columbus, etc., R. Co. Rep. 327; Flanagan v. Kew York,. V. Farrell, 31 Ind. 408; Adams v. etc., R. Co., 55 Hun (N. Y.) 611, 5 Missouri Pac. R. Co., 100 Mo. 555, 41 Silv. Sup. Ct. (N. Y.) 495, 8 N. Y.. Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 105; Whitaker Supp. 744, affd. 125 N. Y. 773, 3& V. Manchester, etc., R. Co., L. K. 5 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 1011. «72 The Law of Caeeiebs. may be a question for the jury to determine whether an undue and improper opening between a station platform and car platform exists without any necessity therefor, and whether, assuming that its existence is a necessity in the practical operation of the ^road the carrier is negligent in failing to properly guard and light it." The maintenance of a stepping block at the side of its track, in- stead of the use of removable stools, at a station, to enable passen- gers to board and alight from trains, does not constitute negU- gence on the part of the railroad company.*^ The maintenance of ticket chopping boxes and a chain across the stairway at the foot of the stairway to an elevated railroad, is not an act of negligence, although these barriers, securely placed, are overridden and un- lav^fuUy crushed down by the mob, and an intending passenger injured.^* When a railroad train is stopped at or near a station, it is the duty of the conductor, on the request of any passenger who may desire to alight at auch station, to move the train back- Val. — Franklin v. Southern Cali- fornia, etc., E. Co., 85 Cal. 63. Mioh. — Cartwriglit v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 52 Mich. 606, 50 Am. Eep. 274, 16 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 321. /otod. — McDonald v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 26 Iowa, 124, 96 Am. Dec. 114. Miss. — ^Memphis, etc., E. Co. v. Whitfield, 44 Miss. 466, 7 Am. Eep. 699; Thompson v. New Orleans, etc., E. Co., 50 Miss. 315, 19 Am. Eep. 12. Mo. — Warden v. Missouri Pac. E. Co., 35 Mo. App. 631. N. 0. — Lambeth v. North Carolina E. Co., 66 N. C. 499, 8 Am. Eep. 508. N. H. — Foss V. Boston, etc., E. Co., 66 N. H. 256, 47 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 666. Tex. — Galveston, etc., E. Co. v. Crispi, 73 Tex. 236; Texas, etc., E. Co. v. Pollard, 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. § 481. Wis. — Hartwig v. Chicago, etc., E". Co., 49 Wis. 358. Eng. — Foy v. London, etc., E. Co, 18 C. B. N. S. 228, 114 E. C. L. 228, 13 W. E. 293, 11 L. T. N. S. 606. A railroad' company admitting passen- gers to a freight train incurs the same liability to transport and land them safely as if on a passenger train. New York, etc., E. Co. v. Doane, 115 Ini 435, 7 Am. St. Eep. 451, 37 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 87; Hays v. Wabash E. Co., 51 Mo. App. 438; Hemmingway V. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 67 Wis. 668. 84. Eyan v. Manhattan E. Co., 121 N. Y. 126, 23 N. E. 1131; Boyce v. Manhattan E. Co., 118 N. Y. 314, 23 N. E. 304; Lafflin v. Buffalo, etc, E. Co., 106 N. Y. 136, 12 N. E. 599; Fox V. Mayor, etc., of N. Y., 5 App. Div. (N. Y.) 349. 39 N. Y. Supp. 309; Sogers v. New York & Brooklya Bridge, 11 App. Div. (N. Y.) 141, 42 N. Y. Supp. 1046. See also Brady v. Manhattan E. Co., 127 N. Y. 46. 85. Pitkin v. New York Cent., etc., E. Co., 94 App. Div. N. Y. 31, 87 K- Y. Supp. 906. 86. Wagner v. Brooklyn Heights E. Co., 95 App. Div. (N. Y.) 219, 88 N. Y. Supp. 791. Duties and Liabilities. 673 •ward or forward so as to enable sucli passenger to step upon the platform." But where a passenger voluntarily leaves a train of cars while in motion, simply to avoid being carried beyond the sta- tion where he desires to stop, and in doing so receives an injury, his own negligence is the proximate cause of the injury, and he cannot recover against the company, though the conductor was also ^t fault in not stopping the train.** So, where the passenger de- clines an offer to have the train backed to the platform and is assisted in getting off, the conductor using ordinary care,*' and where the passenger gets off without objection, and without re- questing that the train be run back to the depot, after being iipprised of the dangers attending alighting at the place where the train has stopped, his failure to object to alighting there amounting to a waiver of his right to be carried back.'" A rail- road company carrying passengers is held by the law to the utmost ■care, not only in the management of its trains and cars, but also in the structure and care of the track and bridges and all other arrangements necessary to the safety of passengers.'^ It is bound 87. Memphis, etc., E. Co. v. Whit- ■field, 44 Miss. 466, 7 Am. Eep. 699; New York, etc., E. Co. v. Doane, 115 Ind. 435, 7 Am. St. Eep. 451; Penn- sylvania E. Co. V. Aspell, 23 Pa. St. 147, 62 Am. Dee. 323; Foy v. Lon- Jon, etc., E. Co., 18 C. B. N. S. 228, 114 E. C. L. 228. 88. Jeffersonville E. Co. v. Hen- dricks, 26 Ind. 228; Jeffersonville E. Co. V. Smith, 26 Ind. 459, nor is it •sufficient to charge the company in fiueh a ease that the conductor ad- vises the passenger that he could safely jump from the train; Evans- ville, etc., E. Co. v. Duncan, 28 Ind. 442, 92 Am. Dec. 322, if, however, the leap is made under such circum- stances that a person of ordinary care will not apprehend danger therefrom, then it is not such an act of care- lessness as will relieve the carrier ftom the responsibility otherwise rest- ing upon it. 89. Conwill v. Gulf, etc., E. Co., 85 Tex. 96. 4a 90. Winkler v. St. Louis, etc., E. Co., 21 Mo. App. 99; Gulf, etc., E. Co. V. Head, 4 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. § 209; Lewis v. London, etc., E. Co., 9 Q. B. 66 ; Weller v. London, etc., E. Co., 9 C. P. 126; Bridges v. North London E. Co., L. E. 6 Q. B. 377. But -wliere a passenger -was not aipare that he was carried beyond his station, his failure to demand that he be taken back will not operate as a waiver of his right, or relieve the carrier from its obligation to let him off at a proper place. Id. 91. Louisville, etc., E. Co. v. Lu- cas, 119 Ind. 583, 21 N. E. 968, 6 E. E. & Corp. L. J. 256 ; Searles v. Can- awha, etc., E. Co. (W. Va.), 9 S. E. 248; Dodge v. Boston, etc., S. Co. (Mass.), 19 N. E. 373, 2 L. E. A. 83, 39 Alb. L. J. 211; Louisville, etc., E. Co. V. Jones, 83 Ala. 376, 3 So. 902; Florida E. & Nav. Co. v. Web- ster (Fla.), 5 So. 714; Louisville, etc., E. Co. V. Eitter, 85 Ky. 368, 3 S. W. 519. 674 The Law of Caeeiees. as a general rule to keep in a safe condition all portions of its platforms and approaches thereto to which the public resort or would naturally resort, and all portions of its station grounds reasonably near to the platforms where passengers taking pas- sage on its cars would naturally or ordinarily be likely to go.'* It must, for the safety of its passengers, properly light its plat- forms and the passageways to its trains or cars if passengers are received and discharged after dark, within a reasonable timo before the arrival and departure of trains.'^ § 38. Reasonable time for ingress and egress It is the duty of the servants of a carrier of passengers, especially when in charge of a railroad train, to stop it a reasonable time to allow passengers to board or alight with safety ; and in the absence of contributory negligence on the part of the passenger, the carrier is liable for injuries resulting from a failure to perform this duty.'* It is not the duty of conductors to see to the debarkation 92. Union Pac. E. Co. v. Sue, 25 Neb. 772, 41 N. W. 801; Eeed v. Ax- tell, 84 Va. 231, 4 S. E. 587; Central E. Co. V. Thompson, 76 Ga. 770; Green v. Pennsylvania E. Co., 36 Fed. 66. 93. Grimes v. Pennsylvania Co., 36 Fed. 72; Alabama, etc., E. Co. v. Arnold, 84 Ala. 159, 5 Am. St. Eep. 354, 4 So. 359; Louisville, etc., E. Co. V. Lucas, supra; Eeynolds v. Tex- as, etc., E. Co., 37 La. Ann. 697 ; Gal- veston, etc., E. Co. V. Thornsberry (Tex.), 17 S. W. 521; Eozwadosfskie V. International, etc., E. Co., 1 Tex. Civ. App. 487. 94. N. Y. — Flanagan v. New York, etc., E. Co., 55 Hun (N. Y.) 611, 29 St. Eep. 744, 5 Silv. Sup. Ct. (N. y.) 495, affd. 125 N. Y. 773, 36 St. Eep. (N. Y.) 1011; McDonald v. Long Island E. Co., 116 N. Y. 546, 15 Am. St. Eep. 437; Bueher v. New York Cent., etc., E. Co., 98 N. Y. 128 ; Eoberts v. Johnson, 58 N. Y. 613; Keating v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 49 N. Y. 673; Filer v. New York Cent. E. Co., 49 N. Y. 47, 10 Am. Eep. 327; Mulhado, v. Brooklyn City E. Co., 30 N. Y. 370; Dillon v. Man- hattan E. Co., 49 Hun (N. Y.) 60S, 16 St. Eep. (N. Y.) 767; Sauter v. New York Cent., etc., E. Co., 6 Hun (N. Y.) 446. U. 8. — ^Washington, etc., E. Co. ». Harmon, 147 U. S. 571. Ala. — ^Montgomery, etc., R. Co. v. Stewart, 91 Ala. 421; Central R., etc., Co. V. Miles, 88 Ala. 266; Birming- ham, etc., E. Co. V. Smith, 90 Ala. 60. Cal.—Ca.iT V. Eel River, etc., R. Co., E. Co., 98 Cal. 366. Colo. — ^Denver Tramway Co. v. Owens, 20 Colo. 107. Conn. — Elwood v. Connecticut Ry., etc., Co., 77 Conn. 145, 58 Atl. 751; Fuller V. Naugatuck E. Co., 21 Comi. 557. /??.— North Chicago St. E. Co. v. Cook, 145 111. 551; Illinois Cent. R. Co. V. Taylor, 46 111. App. 141; Chi- cago, etc., E. Co. V. Ansol, 144 III. 261; Chicago West Div. R. Co. ▼, Duties and Liabilities. 675 or embarking of passengers, but when they have announced the arrival of the train at the station, and have stopped the train sufficiently long for the passengers to and from the station to get off and on, their duty to the passiengers is performed.'^ The rule is well settled that v?hen a passenger attempts to go aboard a car ■which is at rest, whether a steam, or an electric or horse car, it is the duty of those managing the car to give him a reasonable oppor- Mills, 105 111. 63; Wabash, etc., E. Co. V. Keetor, 104 111. 296; Chicago City R. Co. V. Mumford, 97 111. 560; Toledo, etc., K. Co. v. Baddeley, 54 111. 19, 5 Am. Rep. 71. Ind. — Louisville, etc., E. Co. v. Wood, 113 Ind. 544; Terre Haute, etc., E. Co. V. Buck, 96 Ind. 346, 49 Am. Kep. 168 ; Jeflfersonville, etc., R. Co. V. Parmalee, 51 Ind. 42; Jeffer- sonville, etc., R. Co. v. Hendricks, 26 Ind. 228. Iowa. — Patterson v. Omaha, etc., E. Co., 90 Iowa, 247. Ey. — Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. Reeves, 25 Ky. L. Eep. 2236, 80 S. W. 471. Md.— Central E. Co. v. Smith, 74 Md. 212. Mass. — Brooks v. Boston, etc., E. Co., 135 Mass. 21. Mich. — Wood V. Lake Shore, etc., E. Co., 49 Mich. 370; Michigan Cent. E. Co. V. Coleman, 28 Mich. 440; Flint, etc., E. Co. v. Stark, 38 Mich. 714; Finn v. Valley City St., etc., R. Co., 86 Mich. 74. Minn. — Keller v. Sioux City, etc., Vx. Co., 27 Minn. 178. Miss.— Dorrah v. Illinois Cent. E. Co., 65 Miss. 14, 7 Am. St. Eep. 629, 30 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 576; New Or- leans, etc., E. Co. V. Statham, 42 Miss. 607, 97 Am. Dec. 478; South- ern E. Co. V. Kendrick, 40 Miss. 374, 90 Am. Dee. 332. Mo. — Stoddard v. St. Louis, etc., E. Co. (Mo. App.), 80 S. W. 33; Mad- den V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 50 Mo. App. 666; Weber v. Kansas City Ca- ble R. Co., 100 Mo. 194, 18 Am. St. Eep. 541; Dougherty v. Missouri E. Co., 81 Mo. 325, 51 Am. Eep. 239, 21 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 497; Straus v. Kansas City, etc., E. Co., 75 Mo. 185, 86 Mo. 421; Swigert v. Hanni- bal, etc., E. Co., 75 Mo. 475. Jieb. — Chollette v. Eailroad Co., 26 Neb. 159, 41 N. W. 1106, 4 L. R. A. 135. Pa. — Fairmount, etc., Pass. R. Co. V. Stutler, 54 Pa. St. 375, 93 Am. Dec. 714; Pennsylvania E. Co. v. Kilgore, 32 Pa. St. 294, 72 Am. Dec. 787; Dunn V. Pennsylvania E. Co., 20 Phila. (Pa.) 258. Tex. — St. Louis, etc., E. Co. v. Turner (Tex. Civ. App.), 77 S. W. 255; Galveston, etc., E. Co. v. Hub- bard (Tex. Civ. App.), 76 S. W. 764; Houston, etc., E. Co. v. Gorbett, 49 Tex. 573; Allen v. Galveston City R. Co., 79 Tex. 631. Va. — Norfolk, etc., E. Co. v. Grose- close, 88 Va. 267, 29 Am. St. Eep. 718. Wash. — Foster v. Seattle Electric Co., 35 Wash. 177, 76 Pac. 995. Wis. — Imhoff V. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 20 Wis. 344; Davis v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 18 Wis. 175. Tf. Brunsw. — Hall v. McFadden, 19 N. Brunsw. 340. 95. New Orleans, etc., R. Co. v. Statham, 42 Miss. 607, 97 Am. l)ec. 478; ImhoflF v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 20 Wis. 344; Davis v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 18 Wis. 175. 676 The -Law of Caebiers. tunity to get aboard and to assure himself of his footing before starting the car.'* And it is equally well settled that it is the duty of a motorman of an electric car to use reasonable care in listen- ing for the usual signal to stop the car and give passengers an opportunity to alight, and when signaled by a passenger, to stop his car at a usual and customary station for stopping a sufficient length of time to give him a reasonable opportunity to alight in safety, and his failure to perform this duty constitutes negli- gence." The duty resting upon a carrier involves the obligation to deliver its passenger safely at his desired destination, and that involves the duty of observing whether he has actually alighted before the car is started again. If the conductor fails to attend to thig duty and does not give the passenger time enough to get 96. Keating v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 49 N. Y. 673; Morrison V. Broadway, etc., R. Co., 8 N. Y. Supp. 436 ; Ganiard v. Rochester City, etc., R. Co., 50 Hun (N. Y.), 22, 2 N. Y. Supp. 470, aff'd 121 N. Y. 661, 24 N". E. 1092; Myers v. Long Island R. Co., 10 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 430, aflf'd 112 N. Y. 681; Black v. Brooklyn City R. Co., 108 N. Y. 640, 15 N. E. 389; Kinkade v. Atlantic Ave. R. Co., 9 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 273, 61 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 323, 29 N. Y. Supp. 747, aff'd 149 N. Y. 615; McQuade v. Manhat- tan Ry. Co., 53 N. Y. Super. Ct. 91, it is a question for the jury as to the negligence of the carrier, although the conductor's arm is raised as if to take hold of the hell rope while the passenger is attempting to get on and the time for hoarding the car is passed; Shuart v. Consol. Tract. Co., 15 Pa. Super. Ct. 26; Baltimore City Pass. Ry. Co. v. Baer, 90 Md. 97, 44 Atl. 992 ; Barth v. Kansas City Eler. R, Co., 142 Mo. 535, 10 Am. &, Eng. R. Cas. N. S. 281, 44 S. W. 778, and time to permit the conductor to close behind him a gate used to protect passengers on an elevated railroad from falliiiT: from the car; Anacosta, etc., R. Co. V. Klein, 8 App. D. C. 73, 24 Wash. L. Rep. 117; Meriwether v. Kansas City Cable R. Co., 45 Mo. App. 528; Steeg v. St. Paul City K. Co. (Minn.), 52 Am. & Eng. E. Caa. 550, 16 L. R. A. 379, 20 Wash. L. Rep. 541, 52 S. W. 393. Whether the ear was prematurely started before the injured person had an opportu- nity to get aboard and reach a plaw of safety, may, under the circum- stances of a particular case, be a question for the jury. De Kozas v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 13 App. Div. (N. Y.) 296, 43 N. Y. Supp. 27; Shuart v. Consol. Tract. Co., supra. 97. Weiss v. Metropolitan St. Ky. Co., 29 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 332, 60 N. Y. Supp. 473; Murphy v. Metro- politan St. Ry. Co., 19 Misc. Eep. (N. Y.) 194, 43 N. Y. Supp. 223; ; Poulin V. Broadway, etc., E. Co., 61 , N. Y. 621, affg. 34 N. Y. Super. Ct. 296; Fuller v. Dennison, etc., Ey. Co., 1 St. Ey. Eep. 780 (Tex.), 74 3. W. 940; Paducah St. Ey. Co. v. Walsh, 22 Ky. L. Eep. 532, 58 S. W. 431; West Chicago St. E. Co. v. Waniata, 68 111. App. 481, affg. 169 111. 17, 48 N. E. 437 ; Conway v. New Duties and Liabilities. 677 off before the car starts, it is necessarily this neglect oi duty which is the primary and proximate cause of the accident, if injury be occasioned thereby to the passenger. It is not a duty due a person solely because he is in danger of being hurt, but it is a duty owed to a person whom the carrier had undertaken to deliver and who was entitled to the delivery safely, by being allowed to alight without danger.'^ What is a reasonable time for passengers to board or leave a car or train depends upon the circumstances in each case. A longer time would be required where there are many passengers to board or alight than when there are few ; in a dark night with the landing place badly lighted, than where there is full light; at a place difficult to board or alight than where it is easy. And as railroad companies usually carry not merely the vigorous and active, but also those who, from age or extreme youth, are slower in their movements than vigorous and active persons, the time of stopping is not to be measured by the time in which the latter may make their entry into or exit from the cars, but by the time in which the other classes may, using dili- gence, but without hurry and confusion, board or alight.^' A pas- Orleans & C. E. Co., 46 La. Ann. 1429, 16 So. 362. 98. Flanagan v. Met. St. R. Co., 31 Misc. Eep. (N. Y.) 820, 64 N. Y. Supp. 379 ; Grace v. St. Louis E. Co., 156 Mo. 295, 56 S. W. 1121; Fenig v. New Jersey St. Ey. Co. (N. J.), 46 Atl. 602; Morrison v. Charlotte, etc., E. Co., 123 N. C. 414, 31 S. E. 720; Springfield Consol. E. Co. v. Hoeflf- ner, 176 111. 634, 51 N. E. 884, aflj;. 71 111. App. 162; West Chicago St. E. Co. T. Manning, 170 111. 417, 48 N. E. 958, 9 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. N. S. 364, afifg. 70 111. App. 239; Nichols V. Lynn & B. E. Co., 168 Mass. 528, 47 N. E. 427; Washington & G. R. Co. V. Tobriner, 147 U. S. 571, 583, 37 I. Ed. 284, 289, 21 Wash. L. Eep. 231, 13 Sup. Ct. Eep. 557; Birmingham R. & E. Co. v. Weld- man, 119 Ala. 547, 24 So. 548; Leav- enworth Elect. E. Co. V. Cusick, 60 Kan. 590, 57 Pac. 519, 6 Am. Neg. Eep. 282; Louisville E. Co. v. Ram- macher, 21 Ky. L. Eep. 250, 51 S. W. 175; Cobb v. Lindell R. Co., 149 Mo. 135, 50 S. W. 310. Notice to conductor or grip- man on a car from the conduct of a passenger in his immediate presence and sight that such passenger wished to alight as soon as the car came to the stop which a would-be passenger has signaled the train to make, is the equivalent of express warning, or notification by the passenger, so as to render the company liable for the sudden starting of the car while he was endeavoring to alight. West Chicago St. E. Co. v. Stiver, 69 111. App. 625. 99. Keller v. Sioux City, etc., E. Co., 27 Minn. 178; Toledo, etc., B. Co. V. Baddeley, 54 111. 19, 5 Am. Eep. 71. And see cases cited under pre- ceding notes to this section. 678 The Law of Caeeiees. senger, diligent in attempting to get upon or alight from a car while it is stopped to receive passengers, although lacking in dex- terity or suffering from infirmities making it difficult to board or alight from the car, may recover for injuries sustained by the starting of the car while he is attempting to board or alight from it.* When passengers have been given a reasonable opportunity to get on or off, and all have apparently done so, and the employes in charge of the car or train do not know or have reason to believe that any passenger is about to embark or alight or do not see any person attempting to board or alight, or in any perilous position, it is not negligence for them to start the train, or car, although some persons in fact be in the act of alighting or boarding.^ But to start a train or car while passengers are obviously in the act of getting on or leaving the ear or train is negligence on the part of * the carrier.' In an action for injuries sustained by the premature starting of a car, train or other vehicle, the burden of proof is upon the passenger to establish that hia injuries were caused by the negligence or wrongful acts of the carrier's agents and that he exercised due care and reasonable diligence, or was free from con- tributory negligence, and he is entitled to the benefit of no pre- sumptions in support of his diligence or caution.* 1. Dudley v. Front St. Cable R. Ey. Rep. 293; Pfeffer v. Buffalo E. Co., 73 Fed. 128; Peat v. Hartford St. Co., 4 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 465, affd. Ry. Co., 72 Conn. 362, 44 Atl. 547. 144 N. Y. 636; Keating v. New York 2. McDonald v. Long Island R. Cent., etc., E. Co., supra; Detroit, Co., 116 N. Y. 546, 15 Am. St. Rep. etc., R. Co. v. Curtis, 23 Wis. 152, 99 437; Paulitseh v. New York Cent., Am. Dec. 141; Straus v. Kansas etc., K. Co., 102 N. Y. 280, 26 Am. & City, etc., R. Co., 86 Mo. 421, 27 Am. Eng. R. Cas. 162; Gilbert v. West & Eng. R. Cas. 170; Louisville, etc., R. End St. R. Co., 4 Am. Electl. Cas. Co. v. Wood, 113 Ind. 544; Chicago, 456, 160 Mass. 403; Central R., etc., etc., R. Co. v. Drake, 33 Dl. App. 114; Co. V. Perry, 58 Ga. 461; Perry v. Lehman v. Louisiana, etc., R. Co., 37 Central R. Co., 66 Ga. 746; Highland La. Ann. 705; Nance v. Carolina Ave. R. Co. V. Burt, 92 Ala. 291; Cent. R. Co., 94 N. C. 619; Gulf, etc., Hart V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 94 Mo. R. Co. v. Fox (Tex.), 6 S. W. 569, 255, 4 Am. St. Rep. 374; Straus v. 33 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 543. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 75 Mo. 1S3, 4. Wiwirowski v. Lake Shore, etc., 86 Mo. 421; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. R. Co., 124 N. Y. 424; McDonald v. Landauer, 36 Neb. 642 ; Georgia Pac. Long Island R. Co., 71 N. Y. 546, 15 R. Co. V. West, 66 Miss. 310. Am. St. Rep. 437; Evansville, etc., 3. Flanagan v. New York, etc., R. R. Co. v. Athon, 6 Ind. App. 295, 51 Co., 8upra; Eppendorf v. Brooklyn Am. St. Rep. 303; Gardner v. De- City, etc., R. Co., 67 N. Y. 52, 15 Am. troit St. R. Co., 99 Mich. 182. • Duties and Liabilities. 679 I 39. Duty to warn, instruct, or inform passengers. — It is the duty of a carrier to warn its passengers by proper and reasonable signals or other suitable warning of dangers that arise from un- Tisuai or extraordinary conditions which have been brought about by the acts of the carrier, and which are known to it or its agents, but are not known to its passengers;^ for example, the dangers that may attend the making of a running switch,' or alighting from or boarding the car or train under certain circumstances, such as when a passenger train is approaching,' or where there is •danger in leaving or entering by a certain car door or platform,* or in reaching the station platform at a particular place.' And, if, with knowledge of the existence of a latent danger, known to the carrier's servant, but not to the passengers, the carrier's serv- ant requests or invites the passenger, or permits him, to encounter this danger without informing him of it, or guarding against it, he fails to perform that duty to the passenger which the law requires and renders the carrier liable.^" As a general rule, a passenger is justified in obeying or heeding the directions of the servants •or agents of the carrier, and in relying upon their assurances that it is safe for him to act, under the particular circumstances, unless such obedience or assurances will expose him to such known or ap- parent danger as an ordinarily prudent person would not encoun- ter. The mere fact that it appears, under the circumstances, that, 5. Brockway v. Lascala, 1 Edm. Co., 141 Mass. 10; Gaynor v. Old Sel. Cas. (N. Y.) 135; Moses v. Colony, etc., R. Co., 100 Mass. 208, Louisville, etc., R. Co., 39 La. Ann. 97 Am. Dec. 96; Chafifee v. Boston, ■649, 4 Am. St. Rep. 231; Sullivan v. etc., R. Corp., 104 Mass. 108; Mayo Vickaburg, etc., R. Co., 39 La. Ann. v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 104 Mass. 137. «00, 4 Am. St. Rep. 239; Summers v. 8. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Long, ■Crescent City R. Co., 34 La. Ann. 81 Tex. 253, 26 Am. St. Rep. 811; 139, 44 Am. Rep. 419; East Line, McDonald v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 83 •etc., R. Co. V. Rushing, 69 Tex. 306, Iowa, 345, 58 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 34 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 367 ; Peniston 263. V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 34 La. Ann. 9. Praeger v. Bristol, etc., R. Co., 777, 44 Am. Rep. 444. 24 L. T. N. S. 105; Mensing v. Michi- 6. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v, gan Cent. R. Co., 117 Mich. 606, 76 Brown, 123 111. 162, 5 Am. St. Rep. N. W. 98, 5 Det. L. N. 353, 4 Am. ■510. Neg. Rep. 649, 12 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 7. Gonzales v. New York, etc., R. N. S. 223, where a rail of a side track ■Co., 39 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 407; Wil- was covered by a sudden fall of snow, burn V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 36 Mo. 10. Lewis v. Delaware, etc., Canal App. 203; Sonier v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 145 N. Y. 508. 680 The Law of Oaeeiees. had the passenger not obeyed such directions, he would have escaped the injury which he sustained, will not relieve the carrier of liability." But while passengers have a right to rely, until differently informed, on the information received by them from the carrier's agents, they must not disregard reasonable means of information, and cannot hold the carrier responsible for a mis- direction when proper attention on their part to such information would have prevented their being misled." It is the right of a passenger to leave a train at his point of destination, and the courts recognize the manifest distinction between the case of a passenger getting on and off a moving car. In the latter case the act may be justifiably excused by necessity or what is termed a stress of circumstances that cannot exist in the former.^' It is- negligence in a railroad corporation not to bring a train to a full stop at a regular station and for its officers to induce a passenger to leave it while in motion, and it is not negligence per se for the passenger to leave the train while in motion, if he is told by the carrier's agent to do so, or given by him to understand that he can safely do so, and the circumstances afford reason to believe he may, and the question of contributory negligence is for the jury." 11. Filer v. New York Cent. R. etc., E. Co. v. Kane, 69 Md. 11; At- Co., 49 N. Y. 47, 10 Am. Rep. 327, 59 chison, etc., R. Co. v. Hughes, 55 N. Y. 351; Weiler v. Manhattan R. Kan. 491; McCaslin v. Louisville,. Co., 53 Hun (N. Y.), 372; Hlinois etc., R. Co., 69 Miss. 136; Pennsyl- Cent. R. Co. v. Cheek, 132 Ind. 675; vania R. Co. v. McCloskey, 23 Pa. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Biseh, 120 St. 526. Ind. 549; Lake Erie, etc., R. Co. v. 12. Barker v. New York Cent. E. Fix, 88 Ind. 381, 45 Am. Rep. 464: Co., 24 N. Y. 599; Lake Shore, etc., Pennsylvania Co. v. Hoagland, 78 R. Co. v. Pierce, 47 Mich. 277; Dye Ind. 203; Nave v. Flack, 90 Ind. 205, v. Virginia Midland R. Co., 20 D. C. 46 Am. Rep. 205; Louisville, etc., R. 63; Pennsylvania Co. v. Hoagland,. Co. V. Kelly, 92 Ind. 371, 47 Am. Rep. 78 Ind. 203. 149; Prothero v. Citizens St. R. Co., 13. Mahar v. New York Cent., etc.,. 134 Ind. 431; Olson v. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., 5 App. Div. (N. Y.) 22; Mc- R. Co., 45 Minn. 536; Lambeth v. Donald v. Long Island R. Co., 116 N. North Carolina R. Co., 66 N. C. 494, Y. 546; Filer v. New York Cent. R. 8 Am. Rep. 508; Hinshaw v. Raleigh, Co., 49 N. Y. 47, 10 Am. Rep, 337; etc., E. Co., 118 N. C. 1047; Watkins Keller v. New York Cent. R. Co., 2 V. Raleigh, etc., R. Co., 116 N. C. Abb. App. Dec. (N. Y.) 480. 961; Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Leap- 14. Bucher v. Kew York Cent., etc.,. ley, 65 Md. 571; St. Louis, etc., R. R. Co., 98 N. Y. 128; Morrison v. Co. V. Cantrell, 37 Ark. 519, 40 Am. Erie R. Co., 56 N. Y. 305; Keating v. Rep. 105; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. New York Cent. R. Co., 49 N. Y. 673; Rosenberry, 45 Ark. 256; Baltimore, Malhado v. Brooklyn City R Co., SO" Duties and Liabilities. 681 But a man who, in the full possession of his faculties, attempts to- board a railroad train moving at a rapid rate is negligent, as a matter of law, and proof that he was directed by the carrier's servant to jump on does not make the question one of fact. Such a direction creates no emergency calling for the exercise of im- mediate judgment in the choice between two dangers, the passen- ger being in absolute safety before he makes the attempt to board, and affords not the slightest justification or excuse for attempting an act of so highly dangerous a nature.'" And where a passenger of his own motion, deeming the motion of the car slow enough for safety, attempts to leave the train while it is in motion, it is neg- ligence on his part and he cannot hold the carrier responsible in case of injury.-'^ Whether it is negligence for a passenger to fol- low the direction of a servant of a railroad company, and to pas» from one car to another, in motion, to find a seat, is a question for the jury." A passenger who, without the knowledge or con- sent of the conductor of the train, rides in the baggage, mail, or express car, cannot maintain an action against the railroad com- pany for injuries sustained which would not have happened to him had he been in a passenger car ; nor can he be heard to con- tend that the conductor ought to have discovered him and ordered. him out.^' N. Y. 372 ; Poulin v. Broadway, etc., part of the passenger to make the at- E. Co., 61 N. Y. 621; Sauter v. New tempt in view of all the cireum- York Cent., etc., R. Co., 66 N. Y. stances; and whether it was so or 54; Taber v. Delaware, etc., E. Co., not depends upon the fact whether, 71 N. Y. 493; Georgia E., etc., Co. v. under the circumstances, the act was McCurdy, 45 Ga. 288, 12 Am. Rep. obviously dangerous, and is a ques- 577; Jones v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., tion for the jury. Curry v. Canadian 42 Minn. 183; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Pac. R. Co., 17 Ont. Rep. 65. Bingham, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 278; In- 16. Blodgett v. Bartlett, 50 Ga. ternational, etc., R. Co. v. Smith 353; Mississippi, etc., R. Co. v. Har- (Tex.), 14 S. W. 642, 44 Am. & Eng. rison, 66 Miss. 419, 14 Am. St. Rep.. E. Gas. 324; Wilbum v. St. Louis, 573, 39 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 449. etc., R. Co., 48 Mo. App. 224. 17. Mclntyre v. New York Cent. 15. Hunter v. Cooperstown, etc., R. R. Co., 37 N. Y. 287 ; Louisville, etc.,. Co., 112 N. Y. 371, 2 L. R. A. 830, * R. Co. v. Kelly, 92 Ind. 371, 47 Am. Am. St. Rep. 75. Even where the Rep. 149. See Stewart v. Boston, agents of the carrier direct the pas- etc., R. Co. (Mass.), 16 N. E. 466. senger to attempt to get aboard a 18. Kentucky Cent. R. Co. v. train in motion, the carrier is not lia- Thomas, 79 Ky. 160, 42 Am. Rep. 208. Me if it was gross negligence on the 682 The Law of Oaeeiees. § 40. Duty to assist infirm, aged, and helpless passengers A railroad company having previded suitable and safe means for entering and alighting and having stopped its train in the proper position, is under no obligation to furnish some one to ^id pas- sengers generally in getting on board or alighting from its cars." In the case of infirm persons, however, whose age and infirmity is apparent from their appearance, it is the duty of the carrier's servants to assist them in alighting from or boarding a train, if such, assistance is necessary for their safety.^" And where a train stops at a place where passengers cannot alight without difficulty, they are bound to assist them.^^ Prima facie, the persons control- ling the motions of the train, and regulating its stoppings and its startings, would be those who would act in the admission and dis- charge of pasaengers.^^ But the employes of the carrier are under no obligation to awaken a passenger upon his arriving at his sta- tion, or to direct a passenger how to get on or off.^' A carrier is liable, however, for injuries sustained by a passenger in conse- quence of directing her to alight on a dark night at a distance from the station.^* Ordinarily, whether or not assistance should have been rendered by the carrier's employes to a passenger in a given instance is a question for the jury under the circumstances of the case.^^ The conductor of a train having stopped the train 19. Lafflin v. BuflFalo, etc., R. Co., Dee. 478, holding that any assistance 106 N. Y. 136, 60 Am. Rep. 433, revg. that a conductor may extend to 36 Him (N. Y.), 638; Central R. Co. women without escorts or with cMl- V. Whitehead, 74 Ga. 441 ; Deming v. dren, or to persons who are sick and Chicago, etc., R. Co., 80 Mo. App. ask his assistance in getting on or off 152, 2 Mo. App. Rep. 547 ; Raben v. trains, is purely a matter of courtesy, Central Iowa R. Co., 74 Iowa, 732, 73 and not at all incumbent upon him Iowa, 579, 5 Am. St. Rep. 708; Selby in the line of his public duty. V. Detroit Ry. (Mich.), 81 N. W. 21. Memphis, etc., R. Co. t. 106; Yarnell v. Kansas City, etc., R. Whitfield, 44 Miss. 446, 7 Am. Eep. Co., 113 Mo. 570; Simms v. South 699. Carolina R. Co., 27 S. C. 268. But 22. Drew v. Sixth Ave. R. Co., 26 see Cawfield v. Asheville St. R. Co., N. Y. 49. Ill N. C. 597. 23. Nichols v. Chicago, etc., K. 20. Memphis St. Ry. Co. v. Shaw, Co., 90 Mich. 203. 1 St. Ry. Rep. 771, and notes (Tenn.), 24. Wilburn v. St. Louis, etc., R- 75 S. W. 713; Railroad Co. v. Mit- Co., 36 Mo. App. 203; Warden v. chell, 98 Tenn. 31; Jacobs v. West Missouri Pac. R. Co., 35 Mo. App. End St. Ry. Co. (Mass.), 59 N. E. 631. 639. But see New Orleans, etc., R. 25. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Drake, Co. V. Statham, 42 Miss. 607, 97 Am. 33 111. App. 114; Texas, etc., R. Co. Duties and Liabilities. 683 sufficiently long for passengers to get out without danger to their persons or lives, is not bound to go through the train and see that every person has safely passed out of the carsr.^' As we have seen, it is the duty of a railroad company to give passengers a reason- able opportunity to leave its train at stations where it stops,^' and reasonable diligence on the part of the passenger in alighting from it is also required.^' But the fa«t that a passenger proceeds to leave a train at a station where it has stopped ought, for the pur- pose of his protection, to be known by the company, through its servants, and, therefore, so far as that is essential, it is deemed chargeable with knowledge ; and if the proper discharge of duty in that respect requires more means of observation or precaution it should be furnished.^' A railroad company which voluntarily accepts as a passenger, without an attendant, a person whose physi- cal disability or inability to care for himself ia apparent, or is made known at the time to its servants, and renders special assist- ance necessary, is negligent if it fails to render such passenger the necessary care and assistance.^" Knowledge communicated to the T. Miller, 79 Tex. 78, 23 Am. St. Kep. 308; AUender v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 43 Iowa, 276; Thompson v. Bel- fast, etc., E. Co., 5 Ir. E. C. L. 517. 26. Pennsylvania E. Co. v. Kil- gore, 32 Pa. St. 294, 72 Am. Dee. 787; Raben v. Central Iowa E. Co., 73 Iowa, 579, 5 Am. St. Rep. 708; Culberson v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 50 Mo. App. 556 ; Hurt v. St. Louis, etc., E. Co., 94 Mo. 255, 4 Am. St. Eep. 374. 87. See § 38, ante. 28. McDonald v. Long Island E. Co., 116 N. Y. 546, 15 Am. St. Eep. 437; Falls v. San I'rancisco, etc., E. Co., 97 Cal. 114; Pennsylvania R. Co, V. Lyons, 129 Pa. St. 113, 15 Am. Si. Rep. 701; Weber v. Kansas City Cable R. Co., 100 Mo. 194, 18 Am. St. Rep. 541. 29. McDonald v. Long Island E. Co., supra. A person who enters the cars of a railroad, not as a passenger, but for the purpose of assisting an aged and infirm person to takS a seat as a passenger, must, in order to re- cover for an injury sustained while leaving the car, show that he exer- cised due care and that the railroad company were wanting in ordinary care, and that such negligence was the cause of the injury. Lucas v. Taunton, etc., R. Co. 6 Gray (Mass.), 64. 30. Croom v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 52 Minn. 296, 38 Am. St. Rep. 557, 53 N. W. 1128, 18 L. R. A. 602, 7 Am. Ry. & Corp. Rep. 468; Foss v. Bosr ton & M. R. Co., 66 N. H. 256, 47 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 566, 21 Atl. 222, 11 L. R. A. 367 ; Toledo, etc., Ry. Co. v. Baddely, 54 111. 19; New Orleans, etc., R. Co. v. Statham, 42 Miss. 607 ; Wardle v. City R. Co., 35 La. Ann. 202; Jacksonville St. Ry. Co. v. Cap- pell, 21 Fla. 175; Memphis St. Ry. Co. V. Shaw, 1 St. Ry. Rep. 771 (Tenn.), 75 S. W. 713; Meyer v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 54 Fed. 116, 10 U. S. App. 677; Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. V. Cooper, 120 Ind. 469; AtcEi- 684 The Law of Caeeiees. conductor of the car or train that a passenger is feeble and will need assistance in getting on or off is notice to the carrier, and it is not necessary to notify every other conductor or employe that may be in charge of the car or train.'^ The act of the conductor, driver or brakeman of a street car in assisting passengers to get on board or to alight from the cars is in the course of their employ- ment, a passenger has the right to rely on such assistance, and the company is , liable for negligence in rendering it resulting in injury.'^ A passenger who becomes sick on a railroad train or ear is entitled to such care from the carrier as it is fairly practicable for it to give with the facilities at hand, without thereby unduly delaying the car or train or unreasonably interfering with the safety and comfort of the other passengers.^' A conductor's fail- ure to stop a street car when twice requested by a girl who had become suddenly ill and less able to look after her own safety and who had asked to get off, and his failure to afford her such reasonable attention as would save her from harm because of her detention in the moving vehicle, constitute negligence.'^ The per- sons in charge of the train or car are negligent when, with knowl- edge that the passenger boarding it is a cripple, compelled to use a crutch and stick, they start before she hasi reasonable time to enter the car and take her seat, thereby causing her injury.'* But the fact that a woman getting into a car is fleshy and incumbered with a number of children, when she has an escort with her, is not sufficient notice to the conductor of an infirmity which re- quires him to wait until she reaches a seat before starting a train.'* son, etc., E. Co. v. Weber, 33 Kan. Co. v. Pitzer, 109 Ind. 179; East 543, 52 Am. Eep. 543, 21 Am. & Eng. Line & R. Co. v. Rushing, 69 Tex. B. Gas. 418; Columbus, etc., R. Co. v. 306, 6 S. W. 834; Shenandoah Val. Powell, 40 Ind. 37. R. Co. v. Moose, 83 Va. 827, 3 S. B. 31. Foss V. Boston & M. R. Co., 66 796; Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Weber, N. H. 256, 47 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 566. 33 Kan. 543 ; Louisville, etc., K. Co. 32. Drew v. Sixth Ave. R. Co., 26 v. Fleming, 14 Lea (Tenn.), 128; Co- N. Y. 49, 3 Keyes (N. Y.), 429, 1 lumbus, etc., R. Co. v. Powell, 40 Abb. Dec. (N. Y.) 556. Ind. 37, as to the duty of the carrier 33. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. to ill, feeble or disabled passengers. Salzman, 52 Ohio St. 558, 31 L. R. A. 35. Central Texas, etc., By. Co. v. 261, 40 N. E. 891. ' HoUoway (Tex.), 54 S. W. 419. See 34. MeCann v. Newark, etc., R. Little Bock Tract., etc., Co. v. Nel- Co., 58 N. J. L. 642, 34 Atl. 1052, 4 son, 66 Ark. 494; Haug v. Bailway Am. & Eng. B. Cas. 382, 33 L. E. A. Co., 8 N. D. 23. 127. And see Indianapolis, etc., E. 36. Louisville & N. E. Co. v. Hale, Duties and Liabilities. 685 And the act of a conductor who, after attempting to assist a per- son negligently attempting to board a car in motion, releases him at his own request, will not charge the company with negligence, ■where he falls and is run over by the cars." Where plaintiff xequested the conductor of defendant's street car on which he was a passenger, to stop the car and it did stop, and according to his testimony, corroborated by two witnesses, the car was started while he was alighting and had one foot on the step and the other on the ground, whereupon, being infirm and using a cane, he fell and was injured, it was held that his complaint in an action against the street car company was erroneously dismissed.'* If a passenger on a street car is evidently crippled, infirm, aged, or very young, the duty of the carrier towards him while alighting from and boarding the car must be performed with due regard to such apparent condition.^' A railroad company is liable for an injury to a pregnant passenger, caused by its negligence in allowing a car to collide with a train, though such collision would not have injured an ordinary passenger, and the company or its agents had no knowledge of the passenger's condition.*" § 41. Duty to carry to point of destination. — Under the New York statute every railroad corporation is under the obligation to "take, transport, and discharge passengers from, to and at the usual stopping places established for receiving and discharging way pas- sengers for its trains, on the due payment of the fare legally authorized therefor. A passenger is, under such statute, entitled i» be safely carried to and discharged at the point of destination for which he has purchased a ticket or paid fare, when such point is a usual stopping place, and for a failure to perform this statu- tory obligation the railroad company is liable, because such failure 19 Ky. Law Eep. 1651, 42 L. R. A. 760; Clark v. Durham Tract. Co., a 293, 44 S. W. 213, 10 Am. & Eng. H. St. Ry. Rep. 731, 138 N. C. 77, 50 Cas. N. S. 73. S. E. 518; Macon Ry. & L. Co. v. 37. Baltimore Tract. Co. v. State, Vining, 3 St. Ry. Rep. 88, 120 Ga. Einggold, 78 Md. 409, 58 Am. & Eng. 511, 48 S. E. 232; Indianapolis & G. R. Cas. 200, 28 Atl. 397. R. T. Co. v. Derry, 3 St. Ry. Rep. 38. Schiller v. Dry Dock, etc., R. 231, (Ind. App.) 71 N. E. 912; see CO; 56 N. Y. Supp. (90 St. Rep.) also note, 2 St. Ry. Rep. 945. 184, 26 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 392. 40. St. Louis S. W. R. Co. v. Fer- 30. Eidenhour v. Kansas City guson (Tex.), 54 S. W. 797. Cable E. Co., 102 Mo. 283, 14 S. W. 68 C The Law of Caekieks. is of itself negligence." But, independent of such a statute, hj the sale of a ticket or the receipt of the price of transportation from one point to another, a railroad company expressly contracta to carry such person to the point covered by the contract, and there is an implied contract that the passenger shall be carried safely ; and the passenger has a right to be safely put off at a regular station to which he has bought a ticket or paid fare; and the carrier is liable for any injury that may result to the passenr ger through its negligence in the performance of such contract.**^ But, in the absence of a special contract, a railroad company is not bound to stop a train and discharge a passenger at his point of destination where such point is a station where, under reason- able rules of the company, the train does not regularly or ordin- arily stop and is not scheduled to stop.*^ In the absence of a spe- cial contract a passenger cannot complain that a carrier refused to stop its train at a point other than one of its stations, even if the passenger mistakenly embarked thereon and paid his fare^ if he is put off in a civil manner at the stopping place nearest hia destination.^* Where a railroad company's agent from -whom a 41. Minor v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 21 App. Div. (N. Y.) 307, 47 N. Y. Supp. 307. See N. Y. Laws 1890, Chap. 565, § 34. 42. Bucher v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 98 N. Y. 128, 21 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 361; Kentucky, etc.. Bridge Co. v. Quinkert, 2 Ind. App. 244; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Aspell, 23 Pa. St. 149, 62 Am. Dec. 323; Sunday v. Gordon, B. & H. Adm. (U; S.) 569, as to right of passengers and seamen carried to a port differ- ent from the one agreed upon; Lam- beth V. North Carolina R. Co., 66 N. C. 494, 8 Am. Rep. 508; Thomas v. Charlotte, etc., R. Co., 38 S. C. 485; Porter v. Steamboat New England, 17 Mo. 290. But he cannot require a train to be stopped at a station at which the time tables of the company do not provide that such train shall stop. Dietrich v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 71 Pa. St. 432, 10 Am. Rep. 711. A passenger has a right to have a train stopped at a place at which it is scheduled in the time table to stop, and his ejection at the last pre- ceding station is wrongful. McDon- ald V. Central R. Co. (N. J.), 62 AtU 405. 43. 7ZZ.— Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Randolph, 53 111. 510, 5 Am. Rep. 60. Ind. — Pittsburgh, etc., E. Co. v. Lightcap, 7 Ind. App. 249; Ohio, etc.^ E, Co. V. Applewhite, 52 Ind. 540; Pittsburgh, etc., E. Co. v. Nuzum, 5a Ind. 141, 19 Am. Eep. 703. Mich. — Lake Shore, etc., E. Co. T. Pierce, 47 Mich. 279. Miss. — Humphries v. Illinois Cent E. Co., 70 Miss. 453. Mo.— Sira v. Wabash E. Co., U& Mo. 127, 37 Am. St. Eep. 386. Wis. — Schiffler v. Chicago, etc., R Co., 96 Wis. 141, 71 N. W. 97, 8 Am & Eng. E. Cas. N. S. 122; Plott v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 63 Wis. 511. 44. Wells V. Alabama G- S. R Duties and Liabilities. 687 passenger purchased a. return ticket was informed and unaerstood that such, passenger purchased the ticket with the intention of returning from his destination on the night train, if that train did not stop at his station, it was the duty of the agent to notify him of the fact.*^ A railway passenger who is notified that he has reached his destination, but refuses to get off, and is so drunk that the conductor carriers him beyond that station because he does not dare to leave him, is rightfully ejected by the use of such force as is necessary, upon his refusal on the next day to pay his fare on a train which he boards to return to his destination." § 42. Carrying passengers beyond destination. — A passenger is entitled to recover damages for the inconvenience, loss of time, and labor of traveling back, where he has paid his fare to a regu- lar station and was carried beyond his destination by the failure of the conductor to stop his "train, as such failure is a breach of contract and of itself constitutes negligence on the part of the carrier ; and if injured by reason of such negligence, he is entitled to recover for such injury.*' But the carrier is not liable when Co. (Miss.), 6 So. 737, 40 Am. & Eng. B. Cas. 645. 45. St. Louis, etc., E. Co. v. Adcox, 52 Ark. 406, 12 S. W. 874, 40 Am. & Eng. E. Caa. 682. 46. liOuisville, etc., R. Co. v. Lewis,. 14 Ky. L. Eep. 770, 21 S. W. 341. 47. N. r.— Minor v. Lehigh Val- ley R. Co., 21 App. Div. (N. Y.) 307, 47 N. Y. Supp. 307; Bueher y. Netr York Cent., etc., E. Co., 98 N. Y. 128, 21 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 361. U. (8.— Brulard v. The Alvin, 45 Fed. 766. A/a.— Alabama G. S. E. Co. v. Sel- ler, 93 Ala. 9; East Tennessee, etc., E. Co. V. Loekhart, 79 Ala. 315. Ari;.— St. Louis, etc., E. Co. v. Cantrell, 37 Ark. 519, 40 Am. Rep. 105. Oai.— Franklin v. Southern Cali- fornia, etc., E. Co., 85 Cal. 63. Go.— Caldwell v. Richmond', etc., E. Co., 89 Ga. 550; Nunn v. Georgia E. Co., 71 Ga. 710, 51 Am. Rep. 284; Georgia E., etc., Co. v. McCurdy, 45 Ga. 288, 12 Am. Eep. 577. III. — Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Fisher, 66 III. 152. Ind.— White Water E. Co. v. Butler, 112 Ind. 598; Ohio, etc., E. Co. v. Hatton, 60 Ind. 12; Baltimore, etc., E. Co. V. Pixley, 61 Ind. 22; Colum- bus, etc., R. Co. V. Farrell, 31 Ind.. 408; Evansville, etc., R. Co. v. Kyte, 6 Ind. App. 52. Ky. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Jackson, 18 Ky. L. Rep. 296. Miss. — Thompson v. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 50 Miss. 315, 19 Am. Rep. 12; Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. McArthur, ■43 Miss. 180; Southern R. Co. v. Kendrick, 40 Miss. 375, 90 Am. Dec, 332; New Orleans, etc., R. Co. v. Hurst, 36 Miss. 660, 74 Am. Dec. 785. Mo. — Strange v. Missouri Pac. R. «88 The Law of Caeeiees. stopping the traim was deemed unsafe,*^ or where the air brakea were in good condition when the train started, but became unman- ageable from a cause which could not have been prevented.*' Nor is the carrier liable in damages for carrying a passenger past his destination, he being sick and drowsy, or asleep when his destina- tion is reached, although the conductor agreed to rouse him at his destination, and failed to do so f since the employes of a carrier are under no obligation to awaken a passenger upon his arrival at his station.'^ But a railroad company which carries a sick passen^ ger past his destination while unconscious, although the conductor and station agent had agreed to give him care on the way and have him carried from the train at his destination, is liable for the injuries which result to him therefrom.^^ Anid a railroad com- Co., 61 Mo. App. 586; Trigg v. St. Ixjuia, etc., E. Co., 74 Mo. 147, 41 Am. Eep. 305; Warden v. Missouri I'ac. E. Co., 35 Mo. App. 631. N. C. — Cable v. Southern K. Co., 122 N. C. 892, 29 S. E. 377. N. S. — Fobs v. Boston, etc., E. Co., m N. H. 256, 11 L. E. A. 367. Pa. — ^Pennsylvania E. Co. v. Aspell, 23 Pa. St. 147, 62 Am. Dec. 323. 8. C. — Samuels v. Eichmond E. Co., 35 S. C. 493. Tex. — Houston, etc., E. Co. v. Smith (Tex. Civ. App.), 32 S. W. 710; Texas, etc., E. Co. v. Manaell . St. Eep. 346; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Watson, 93 Ky. 654, 40 Am. St. Kep. Axley, 47 111. App. 307 ; Chicago, etc., 211, 58 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 418; R. Co. V. Hazzard, 26 111. 373; Ro- IMurphy v. St. Louis, etc., E. Co., 43 senbaum v. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., 33 Mo. App. 342; Dougherty v. Misaouii Minn. 173, 36 N. W. 447 ; Lake Shore, R. Co., 81 Mo. 325, 51 Am. Eep. 239; etc., R. Co. V. Brown, 123, 111. 162, 5 Reber v. Bond, 38 Fed. 822. D.UTiES AND Liabilities. 695 pssible on sucli a train for their safety.'* A railroad company -owes to a passenger the exercise of the highest degree of care con- sistent with the practical and efficient use of the train, whether it is a passenger or a freight train; but precautions which are re- quired in case of a passenger train are not always required in case of a freight train.™ § 46. Duty of carrier to provide passengers with seats. — A Tailroad company must furnish to its passengers seats as well as mere transportation, and cannot require the payment of fare or the surrender of a ticket until it has furnished both ; but a passenger accepting transportation without a seat waives his right to the latter, and for refusal to pay fare or surrender his ticket may be ejected. The pasenger has no right to ride free because not fur- nished with a seat. His remedy when he is refused a seat is to leave the train, and he may then recover damages for the railroad's breach of contract.'" A passenger who refuses to pay fare unless a seat is provided does not thereby become a trespasser on the train.'^ A male passenger who has taken a seat in a car exclu- .sively appropriated to ladies cannot rightfully be removed by force 78. Sprague v. Southern R. Co., 92 Mo. 208; Delaware, etc., E. Co. -63 D. S. App. 711, 34 C. C. A. 207, v. Ashley, 67 Fed. 209, 28 U. S. App. «2 Fed. 59, 14 Am. & Eng. E. Caa. 375, 14 C. C. A. 368 ; Louisville, etc., N. S. 356. And see New Jersey E., E. Co. v. Bisch, 120 Ind. 549, 22 N. etc., Co. V. Pollard, 22 Wall. (U. S.) E. 664. 341, 22 L. Ed. 877 ; Stokes v. Salton- 80. Memphis, etc., E. Co. v. Ben- stall, 13 Pet. (U. S.) 181, 10 L. Ed. son, 85 Tenn. 627, 4 S. W. 5, 4 Am. 115; Inland & S. Coasting Co. v. Tol- St. Eep. 776; St. Louis, etc., E. Co. son, 139 U. S. 551, 35 L. Ed. 270; v. Leigh, 45 Ark. 368, 55 Am. Eep. ■Gleeson v. Virginia Midland E. Co., 558; Davis v. Kansas City, etc., E. 140 U. S. 435, 35 L. Ed. 458. Co., 53 Mo. 317, 14 Am. Eep. 457. 79. Steele v. Southern E. Co., 55 A passenger may be rightfully S. C. 389, 33 S. E. 509, 14 Am. & ejected for refusing to pay his fare Eng. E. Cas. N. S. 350. See also or deliver his ticket unless a seat is Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Arnol, 144 furnished in a car already filled with 111. 261, 33 N. E. 206, 19 L. E. A. passengers, when there are seats va- 313; Olds V. New York, etc., E. Co., cant in another car which are offered 172 Mass. 73, 51 N. E. 451; Dunn v. to him. Pittsburgh, etc., E. Co. v. Grand Trunk E. Co., 58 Me. 187, 4 Van Houten, 48 Ind. 90. Am. Eep. 272; Crine v. East Tennes- 81. Hardenbergh v. St. Paul, etc., see, etc., E. Co., 84 Ga. 651, 11 S. E. E. Co., 39 Minn. 3, 12 Am. St. Rep. ■657; McGee v. Missouri Pac. E. Co., 610. 696 The Law of Caeeiebs. ■without being offered a seat elsewhere.'^ The conductor of a train must furnish the holder of a first class ticket with a seat in a first class coach unless a sudden and unusual influx of passengers more than exhaust the seating capacity of the car, allowing a single seat to each passenger.*' It is as much the duty of the conductor as the agent of the railroad company to see that each passenger is furnished with a proper seat, as it is to require him to pay his fare. The seat must be furnished by the company and the passen- ger is not compelled in seeking a seat to assume the risk of tres- passing upon the rights of others to ask as a favor from the cour- tesy of a fellow passenger that which is due from the company to bim as a right. He is not bound to pass from car to car in search of a seat, and is not negligent in standing on the platform of a car in motion, if there is no vacant seat within the car.*^ He is not a trespasser in passing into a drawing room car and taking a seat until seats in the other cars are vacated and when he offers to leave the car as soon as a seat is provided in the other car, the company is liable for removing or attempting to remove him forcibly for refusing to pay extra fare.*' The carrier is liable for injuries to a passenger who, being unable to find a seat, was directed by the conductor, while the train was in motion, to pass to another car, where he would find a seat, and in so passing was jostled by the brakeman on the platform and fell off the car.** The failure of a railroad company to furnish accommodations for its passengers, so that a large number of them are compelled to stand in, the aisles and upon the platforms of the cars, constitutes negligence." § 47. Liability for injuries caused by collision. — A passenger in a railway ear who has been injured in a collision caused by the negligence of the employes of the carrier, is entitled in an. action against the carrier to recover damages for the injury actually sustained.** But if the carrier were negligent, as, for ex- 82. Bass V. Chicago, etc., E. Co., Eep. 325. See Kingsley v. Lake 36 Wis. 450. Shore, etc., R. Co., 125 Mass. 54, 28 83. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Pat- Am. Kep. 200. terson, 69 Miss. 421, 13 So. 697. 86. Louisville, etc., E. Co. v. 84. Willis V. Long Island E. Co., Kelly, 92 Ind. 371, 47 Am. Eep. 149. 34 N. y. 670. But see Camden, etc., 87. Graham v. McNeill, 20 Wash. E. Co. V. Hoosey, 99 Pa. St. 492, 44 466, 55 Pac. 631, 4 L. E. A. 300, 5 Am. Rep. 120. Am. Neg. Eep. 484, 12 Am. & Eng. 85. Thorpe v. New York Cent., R. Cas. N. S. 149. etc., E. Co., 76 N. Y. 402, 32 Am. 88. U. S.— Farlow v. Kelly, 108 U. Duties and Liabilities. 69r ample, in leaving an engine on a side track unattended, and with, fire in it, if such negligence was not the proximate cause of the injury, the engine being moved to the main track by a wrong- doer, the carrier is not liable.*' In an action for injuries to a pas- senger from a railroad collision, it is presumed in the first in- stance that the collision was the result of the carrier's: negligence, to rebut which the defendant must affirmatively show that the collision was the result of inevitable casualty, or of some cause which human care and foresight could prevent.'" The carrier' is liable for injuries to a passenger received in a collision at a grade crossing where it failed to keep a proper lookout for an ap- proaching train or par on another road, and to have its train or car under proper control so as to be able to stop it before reaching- S. 288, 11 Am. & Eng. K. Cas. 104; Milwaukee, etc., K, Co. v. Arms, 91 U. S. 489. N. 7.— Truex v. Erie K. Co., 4 Lans. (N. Y.) 198. Del. — McAlister v. Peoples Ey. Co. (Del.), 64 Atl. 743, failure of em- ployes to discover that a snap switch was closed. Ind. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Faylor, 126 Ind. 126. £■!/.— Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Eichmond, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 2394, 67 S. W. 25; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Long, 94 Ky. 410; Louisville South- ern E. Co. V. Minogue, 90 Ky. 369, 29 Am. St. Rep. 378. N. J. — Dunn v. Pennsylvania 3. Co. (N. J.), 58 Atl. 164. Oftio.— Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Cincinnati, etc., E. Co., 30 Ohio St. 604, as to effect of statute to prevent collision. Po.— Bunting v. Hogsett, 139 Pa. St. 363, 23 Am. St. Rep. 192, 48 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 87. Moss.— Blanehett v. Holyoke St. Ey. Co., 175 Mass. 51, 55 N. E. 481. Jtfjss.— Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. Beardsley, 79 Miss. 417, 30 So. 660. ifo.— Fleming v. Kansas City, etc.. R. Co., 89 Mo. App. 129; Hennessy V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 173 Mo. 86,. 73 S. W. 162. Tem. — Central Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Smith (Tex. Civ. App.), 73 S. W. 537, a switch engine left standing on the track over which a passenger train was expected; International,, etc., E. Co. V. Gray, 65 Tex. 32, 27 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 318; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Holt (Tex. Civ. App.), 70 S. W. 519. Terere.— Louisville, etc., E. Co. v. Burke, 6 Coldw. (Tenn.) 45, carriers- liable for accidents and collisions un- less they show the precautions pre- scribed by the statute. 89. Mars v. Delaware, etc.. Canal Co., 54 Hun (N. Y.), 625, 8 N. Y. Supp. 107. On the general subject of proximate and remote cause in action for negligence, see West v. Ward (Iowa), 42 N. W. 309, and note; Phillips V. De Wald (6a.), 7 S. E.. 151, and note; Frazer v. Telegraph Co. (Ala.), 4 So. 831, and note. 90. Bower v. New York Cent. E. Co., 18 N. Y. 408, 72 Am. Dec. 529; Sambuek v. Southern Pae. Co. (Cal.),. 71 Pac. 174; Cod'dington v. Brook- lyn, etc., E. Co., 102 N. Y. 66. €98 The Law of Caeeiers. the crossing in ease danger of collision is apparent.'^ But want of proper care on its part must be shown. For instance, where a motorman of an electric railway started to cross an. intersecting steam railroad after his conductor had used proper care to ascer- tain that no train was expected, and while crossing at a moderate speed a railroad train rounded the curve at a high rate of speed without warning, and a collision seemed imminent, and the motor- man instantly applied all power and increased the speed, a verdict attributing negligence to the motorman on these facts, whereby a passenger was thrown to the floor of the car and injured, cannot be sustained.'^ One injured by the negligence of a railway com- pany in whose car he isi riding may recover therefor, although the negligence of another railway company concurred in or contril> uted thereto. If both were negligent in a manner and to a degree contributing to the result, they are liable jointly and severally. This rule is generally maintained by the courts of this country.'' 91. Selma St., etc., R. Co. v. Owen (Ala.), 31 So. 598; West Jersey E. Co. V. Railway Co., 52 N. J. Eq. 31, 29 Atl. 423; Kansas City, etc., R. Co. V. Stoner, 51 Fed. 649, 52 Am. & Eng. R. Caa. 462; West Chicago St. R. Co. V. Martin, 47 111. App. 610; Pratt V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 38 Minn. 455; Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Spencer, 98 Ind. 186, 21 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 478: Kellow v. Central Iowa E. Co., 68 Iowa, 470, 56 Am. Rep. 858, 21 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 485; Graham v. Great Western R. Co., 41 U. C. Q. B. 324; Flournoy v. Shreve- port Belt Ry. Co., 50 La. Ann. 491, 23 So. 465 ; Railroad Co. v. Beyer, 97 Pa. 91; Richmond v. Railway Co., 87 Mich. 374, 49 N. W. 621. 92. Cork-hill v. Camden, etc., R. Co. (N. J.), 54 Atl. 522. 93. N. r.— Dyer v. Erie R. Co., 71 N. Y. 228; Robinson v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 66 N. Y. 11, 23 Am. Rep. 1; Wylde v. Northern R. Co., 53 N. Y. 156; Barrett v. Third Ave. R. Co., 45 N. Y. 628; Webster T. Hudson River R. Co., 38 N. Y. 260; Brown v. New York Cent. R. Co., 32 N. Y. 597, 88 Am. Dec. 353; Colegrove v. New York, etc., K. Co., 20 N. Y. 492, 75 Am. Dee. 418; Chap- man V. New Haven R. Co., 19 N. Y. 341, 75 Am. Dec. 344; Mott v. Hud- son River R. Co., 8 Boaw. (X. Y.) 345; Knapp v. Murray, 18 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 165; Metcalf v. Baker, 2 J. & S. (N. Y.) 10, 11 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 431, 52 N. Y. 649. U. 8. — Kansas City, etc., E. Co. v. Stoner, 51 Fed. 649; The Steamer New Philadelphia, 1 Black (U. S.), 62; Little v. Hackett, 116 U. S. 366. Cal. — ^Tompkins v. Clay St. E. Co., 66 Cal. 163. /a.— Wabash, etc., R. Co. v. Shack- let, 105 111. 364, 44 Am. Rep. 791, 12 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 166. /rad.— Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Spencer, 98 Ind. 186; Albion v. Het- rick, 90 Ind. 545, 46 Am. Eep. 230. Ky. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Case, 9 Bush (Ky.), 728; Danville, etc., R. Co. V. Stewart, 2 Mete. (Ky.) 119. Duties and Liabilities. 699 'A railroad company is bound to exercise all the care and skill which human prudence and foresight can suggest and to take all measures necessary and proper to secure the safety of the train and passiengers, without regard to the statutory requirements as to cattle on the track.'* The presence of cattle on the track raises a prima facie presumption of negligence on the part of the com- pany, it being bound, as between itself and its passengers, to keep the road free from obstructions of that character by the use of every reasonable precaution, such as the' construction of fences, the absence of which renders the track unsafe, the keeping of a watchman where necessary at crossings, and the keeping of a proper watch by a fireman when the engineer is unable to see both sides of the track. ^^ A high rate of speed is not per se negligence, if the conditions of the railway and the machinery employed per- mit of it within the limit of prudence and safety and without in- creasing the peril of the passengers, yet in determining as to whether or not a certain rate of speed maintained is, in effect, a negligent operation of the road, the character of the road, its Mich. — Cuddy v. Horn, 46 Mich. 596, 41 Am. Rep. 178. Minn. — Flaherty v. Mlnteapolls, etc., R. Co., 39 Minn. 326, 12 Am. St. Rep. 654. Mo. — Olsen v. Citizens Ry. Co., 152 Mo. 426, 54 S. W. 470. N. J.^New York, etc., R. Co. v. Steinbrenner, 47 N. J. L. 161, 54 Am. Rep. 126; Bennett v. New Jersey R., etc., Co., 36 N. J. L. 225, 13 Am. Rep. 435. Ohio. — Covington Transfer Co. v. Kelly, 36 Ohio St. 86. Wis, — Prideaux v. Mineral Point, 43 Wis. 513. The leading English case holds to the contrary that an ac- tion will lie only against the carrier with whom the passenger contracted for carriage. Thorogood v. Bryan, 8 C. B. 131, 65 E. C. L. 131. The same rule has been adopted in Pennsyl- vania. Lockhart v. liehtenthaler, 46 Pa. St. 151. But the English case cited seems to have been overruled by the later case of The Bernina, 12 Prob. Div. 58. 94. Brown v. New York Cent. R. Co., 34 N. Y. 404; Bowers v. New York Cent. R. Co., 18 N. Y. 408, 72 Am. Dec. 529. 95. Card v. New York, etc., R. Co., 50 Barb. (N. Y.) 39; Sullivan v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 30 Pa. St. 234, 72 Am. Dee. 698; Chicago, etc., R. Co. V. McAra, 52 111. 296; Corn- wall V. Sullivan R. Co., 28 N. H. 161; Messerno v. Nashville R. Co., 1 Sneed. (Tenn.) 220; Wright v. Pennsyl- vania E. Co., 3 Pittsb. (Pa.) 116; Fordyee v. Jackson, 56 Ark. 594; East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. Deaver, 79 Ala. 216; East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. V. Bayliss, 75 Ala. 466; Nash- ville, etc., R. Co. v. Troxler, 1 Lea (Tenn.), 520; Patchell v. Irish North Western R. Co., 6 Ir. R. C. L. 117. 70'Q Thb Law of CIaeeiees. grades and cuires, and various other conditions necessarily affect- ing the question of safety must be taken into consideration.'* § 48. Duty of carrier for safety of sick passengers ^A pas- senger who becomes sick and unable to help herself during the transit is entitled to such care from the carrier's servants as will afford her proper protection in her prostrate condition, and, if re- moved from the conveyance, must be carried to a place of safety and security.^' A rule of a street railroad company, requiring conductors! not to allow intoxicated persons to ride on the cars, is no protection to the company for the forcible ejection of a person not disorderly or intoxicated, but affected with a disease, St. Vitus dance, which produces involuntary motions resembling the movements of an intoxicated person.'^ The rule of a street rail- way company forbidding passengers riding on car platforms is a reasonable one, however, and a passenger is not excused from com- plying with it by the fact that he is suffering from nausea, and upon his refusal to comply with a request to enter the car, the con- ductor is justified in ejecting him without the use of excessive force.'' § 49. Articles constituting personal baggage. — The personal baggage or effects of a passenger, within the rule of the carrier's liability, is, in general terms, defined to consist of and include all such articles of personal convenience and necessity as are usually carried by passengers for their personal use, comfort, and con- 96. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Lewis, 79 Ala. 216; East Tennessee, et<;., R. 145 111. 67 ; Indianapolis, etc., E. Co. v. Winters, 85 Tenn. 240. Co. V. Hall, 106 111. 371; Chicago, 97. Smith v. British, etc.. Steam etc., R. Co. V. Lea, 68 111. 576; Mc- Packet Co., 86 N. Y. 408; Atchison, Konkey v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 40 etc., E. Co. v. Webber, 33 Kan. 543. Iowa, 205; Maher v. Atlantic, etc., 98. Regner v. Glens Falls, etc., E. R. Co., 64 Mo. 267; Grows v. Maine Co., 74 Hun (N. Y.), 202, 26 N. Y. Cent. R. Co., 67 Me. 100; Telfer v. Supp. 625. Northern R. Co., 30 N. J. L. 188; 99. Montgomery v. Buffalo Ey. Young V. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 79 Co., 165 N. Y. 139, 58 N. E. 770, Mo. 336, 19 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 512; affg. 24 App. Div. (N. Y.) 454, 48 Houston V. Vieksburg, etc., R. Co., N. Y. Supp, 849. See also Barker v. 39 La. Ann. 796, 34 Am. & Eng. E. Central Park, etc., E. Co., 151 N. Y. Cas. 76; Black v. Carrollton E. Co., 237; Pease v. Delaware, etc., E. Co., 10 La. Ann. 33, 63 Am. Dec. 586; 101 N. Y. 367; Hibbard v. New York, East Tennessee, etc., E. Co. v. Deaver, etc., E. Co., 15 N. Y. 455. Duties and Liabilities. 701 Tenience, instruction and amusement, or protection, during the journey and for a reasonable period thereafter, having regard to the character and length, the purpose and object of the journey, the station in life and mode of living of the passenger, and the habits, usages and wants of the class to vyhich the traveler be- longs.^ These articles " are as various as the tastes, occupations, 1. Weeks v. New York, etc., E. Co., 72 N. Y. 50, a£Fg. 9 Hun (N. Y.), 669; Orange County Bank v. Brown, 9 Wend. (N. Y.) 85; Hawkins v. Hoffman, 6 Hill (N. Y.), 586, 41 Am. Dec. 767 ; Glovinski v. Cunard' Steam- ship Co., 6 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 388, 26 N. Y. Supp. 751; New York, etc., E. Co. V. Fraloff, 100 U. S. 24; Mau- litz V. New York, etc., E. Co., 23 Fed. 767, 21 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 286; Hannibal E. Co. v. Swift, 12 Wall. (U. S.) 272; Pfister v. Central Pac. E. Co., 70 Cal. 169; Hutchings v. Western, etc., E. Co., 25 Ga. 61; At- wood V. Mohler, 108 111. App. 416; Parmelee v. Fischer, 22 111. 212; Dunlap T. International Steamboat -Co., 98 Mass. 371; Collins v. Boston, etc., E. Co., 10 Cush. (Mass.) 507; Jordan v. Fall Eiver E. Co., 5 Cush. (Mass.) 69; New Orleans, etc., E. Co, V. Moore, 40 Miss. 39; Whitmore v. The Steamboat Caroline, 20 Mo, 613 ; Gleason v. Goodrich Transp. Co.- 32 Wis. 85; Oakes v. Northern Pac- E. Co., 20 Or. 392; Soman v. Max- well, 9 Humph. (Tenn.) 624; Ma •crow V. Great Western E. Co., L. E. « Q. B. 612; Texas, etc., E. Co. v. Ferguson, 1 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. § 1253; Johnson v. Stone, 11 Humph. (Tenn.) 419; Phelps v. London, etc., E. Co., 116 E. C. L. 321. 19 C. B. N. S. 321. Articles constitntimg personal laggago: Books and mannscripts. — Hop- kins V. Westcott, 6 Blatchf. (U. S.) ■64; Doyle v. Kiser, 6 Ind. 242; Glea- son V. Goodrich Transp. Co., supra. Compare Hannibal, etc., E. Co. v. Swift, 12 Wall. (U. S.) 262. A carpet. — Minter v. Pacific E. Co., 41 Mo. 503. Opera glass or telescope. — To- ledo, etc., E. Co. V. Hammond, 33 Ind. 379; Cadwallader v. Grand Trunk E. Co., 9 L. C. E. 169. Rifle, a revolver, two gold chains, two gold rings, and a, silver pencil case. Bruty v. Grand Trunk E. Co., 32 U. C. Q. B. 66. Kevolver. — Davis v. Michigan E. Co., 22 111. 278; Woods v. Devin, 13 111. 746. Two revolvers are not. — Chi- cago, etc., E. Co. V. Collins, 56 111. 212. The clothing of a woman and that of her children, including fancy work and miscellaneous orna- ments, a savings bank and contents, and a zither key, all being carried in her trunk. Yazoo, etc., E. Co. v. Baldwin (Tenn.), 81 S. W. 599, also a small amount of her husband's un- derwear. Articles not constituting per- sonal baggage: Books, which plaintiff bought for her husband with money which he remitted to her. Hurwitz v. Hamburg American Packet Co., 27 Misc. Eep. (N. Y.) 814, 56 N. Y. Supp. 379. Cloth for a dress intended for a third person. Dexter v. Syracuse, etc., E. Co., 42 N. Y. 326, 1 Am. Eep. 527. 702 The Law of Caejbiees. and habits of travelers. The sportsman who sets out on an ex- cursion for amusement in his department of pleasure, needs in addition to his clothing, his guns and fishing apparatus; the musician, his favorite instrument; the man of letters, his books- the mechanic, his tools. In all these cases, and in a vast number of others unnecessary to enumerate, the articles carried are neces- sary in one sense to the use of the passenger. He cannot attain the object he is in pursuit of without them, and the object of his- journey would be lost unless he was permitted to carry them with him. Yet, under pretense of carrying these articles, it by no- means follows that the carrier is bound to carry a box of guns, a pianoforte or organ, a library, or the tools or machinery of a ma- chine shop."^ JSTot only the ordinary clothing and wearing ap- parel of a traveler,' but fine apparel, such as valuable laces and all Child's Tocbing horse. — Hudston v. Midland K. Co., 36 L. T. R. Q. B. 213. Deeds and docnments required as evidence in a trial. Phelps v. Lon- don, etc., E. Co., 19 C. B. 321. Masonic regalia. — Nevis v. Bay State Steamboat Co., 4 Bosw. (N. Y.) 225. Stage costnmes, scenery, and paraphernalia of a theatrical com- pany. Saunders v. Southern Ry. Co., 128 Fed. 115, 62 C. C. A. 523. Masquerade costumes for use by others at a ball. Michigan Southern E. Co. V. Oehm, 56 111. 293. See Oakes v. Northern Pac. E. Co., 20 Or. 396, 26 Pac. 230, theatrical cos- tumes, etc. Medicines, handcuffs, and locks. Bomar v. Maxwell, 9 Humph. (Tenn.) 620. Engravings. — ^Nevis v. Bay State Steamboat Co., 4 Bosw. (N. Y.) 225. Memoranda and papers of a principal in the possession of an agent carried solely for business purposes. Yazoo, etc., E. Co. v. Greorgia Home Ins. Co. (Miss.), 37 So. 500, 67 L. R. A. 646. Papers of value. — Thomas v. Great Western E. Co., 14 U. C. Q. B. 389; Phelps v. London, etc., E. Co., 19 C. B. 321. Pencil sketches and utensils ot an artist. Mauritz v. New York, etc., E. Co., 21 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 286; Mytton V. Midland E. Co., 28 L. J. Exch. 385. Perishable articles, such as fruit, etc., when placed in a trunk, are not baggage. Georgia E., etc., Co. v. Johnson, 113 Ga. 589, 38 S. E. 954. Presents. — ^Nevins v. Bay State Steamboat Co., 4 Bosw. (N. Y.) 225; The Ionic, 5 Blatchf. (U. S.) 538. Toys. — Hudston v. Midland, etc., R. Co., 10 B. & S. 504. Sacqne, muff, and napkin rine carried in a trunk by a man. Chi- cago, etc., E. Co. V. Boyce, 73 111. 510. 2. Merrill v. Grinnell, 30 N. Y. 619. 3. Clothing,— Dexter v. Syracuse, etc., E. Co., 42 N. Y. 326, 1 Am. Kep. 527 ; Duffy v. Thompson, 4 E. D. Sm. (N. Y.) 178; Dibble v. Brown, 12 Ga. 217; Toledo, etc., E. Co. v. Ham- mond, 33 Ind. 379, 5 Am. Eep. 22U Duties and Liabilities. 70a articles pertaining to the wardrobe, to the extent that the articles, do not exceed in quantity and value such as are ordinarily taken hy passengers of like station and pursuing like journeys for their personal use when traveling;^ watches and jewelry intended for personal use, to a reasonable extent,^ but not where not intended to be worn on the person,^ or where carried for the purpose of sale or for the use of some other person ;' and money in sums reasonably Baltimore, etc., K. Co. v. Smith, 2"3 Md. 402; Munster v. Southeastern E. Co., 4 C. B. N. S. 676. A passenger cannot recover for an embroidered table centerpiece of her own and a dress belonging to her mother, carried with her own per- sonal clothing. BuUard v. Delaware, etc., E. Co., 21 Pa. Super. Ct. 583. Cloth and materials intended for clothing. Van Horn v. Kermit, 4 E. D. Sm. (N. Y.) 453; DuflFy v. Thompson, supra; Mauritz v. New York, etc., E. Co., 23 Fed. 767, 21 Am. & Ens. E. Cas. 286. Compare Dexter v. Syracuse, etc., E. Co., supra. 4. New York Cent., E. Co. v. Fra- loff, 100 U. S. 24; Galveston, etc., R. Co. V. Fales (Tex. Civ. App.), 77 S. W. 234. 5. Watches and jewelry when intended to be worn on the person. — Carlson v. Oceanic Steam Nav. Co., 109 N. Y. 359, 34 Am. & Eng. K. Cas. 215; Merrill v. Grinnell, 30 N. Y. 620; McCormick v. Hudson Eiver R. Co., 4 E. D. Sm. (N. Y.) 181; Tor- pey V. Williams, 3 Daly (N. Y.) 162; Central Trust Co. v. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 39 Fed. 417, 40 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 636; New York, etc., E. Co. v. FraloflF, 100 U. S. 24; Battle v. Columbia, etc., E. Co., 70 S. C. 329, 40 S. E. 849 ; American Contract Co. V. Cross, 8 Bush. (Ky.) 472; Jones V. Voorhees, 10 Ohio, 145; McGill v. Howland, 3 Pa. St. 451; Mexican Nat. E. Co. V. Ware (Tex. Civ. App.)^ 60 S. W. 343 ; Coward v. East Tennes- see E. Co., 16 Lea (Tenn.) 225; Gal- veston, etc., E. Co. v. Fales (Tex. Civ. App.), 77 S. W. 234. Compoj-e Mich- igan Cent. E. Co. v. Carrow, 73 111. 348; Mississippi Cent. E. Co. v. Ken- nedy, 41 Miss. 678, recovery cannot, be had for more than one watch. It is a question for the jury whether jewelry exceeds in value that usually carried by passengers of the same station and character, and therefore is not properly baggage^ Bonner v. Blum (Tex. Civ. App.), 25 S. W. 60. 6. Watches, jewelry, plate^ hnllion and the like, not intended to be worn on the person. — Steers 7. Liverpool, etc., E. Co., 57 N. Y. 1; Nevins v. Bay State Steamboat Co.,. 4 Bosw. (N. Y.) 225; Michigan, etc.. R. Co. V. Carrow, 73 111. 348; Cin- cinnati, etc., E. Co. V. Marcus, 38 IIU 219; Mississippi Cent. E. Co. v. Ken- nedy, 41 Miss. 671; The Ionic, 5 Blatchf. (U. S.) 538; Cadwallader v. Grand Trunk, E. Co., 9 L. C. Eep. 169. Compare American Contract Co. V. Cross, 8 Bush (Ky.) 472; Coward V. East Tennessee E. Co., 16 Lea. (Tenn.) 225. 7. Humphreys v. Perry, 148 U. S. 627 ; Wunsch v. Northern Pac. E. Co.^ 62 Fed. 878; Metz v. California Southern E. Co., 86 Cal. 329; Bowl- er, etc., Co. V. Toledo, etc., E. Co., S Ohio Dec. 41. 704 The Law of Caeeiees. necessary for the payment of traveling expenses,' but not money in excess of that reasonably necessary for such purpose,' or in- tended for the purchase of a business or merchandise," or other business purposes," may be considered as personal baggage for which the carrier is liable as an insurer. In determining what is a reasonable amount of money to meet the passenger's actual and contingent expenses, hotel bills, allowances for sickness, accidents, «tc., the length of the journey and, to some extent, the wealth of the traveler is to be considered.^ But carriers cannot be held 8. Money for expenses, — ^MerriH V. Grinnell, 30 N. Y. 594; Weed v. Saratoga E. Co., 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 634; Orange County Bank v. Brown, -9 Wend. (N. Y.) 85, 24 Am. Dee. 129; Hutehings v. Western R. Co., 25 Ga. -61; Toledo, etc., E. Co. v. Hammond, 33 Ind. 379; Doyle v. Kiser, 6 Ind. 242; Davis v. Michigan Cent. E. Co., 22 111. 278; Dunlap v. International S. Co., 98 Mass. 371; Mad River R. ■Co. V. Fulton, 20 Ohio, 318; Jones v. Voorhees, 10 Ohio, 180; Bomar v. maxwell, 9 Humph. (Tenn.) 621; Battle V. Columbia, etc., R. Co., 70 S. C. 329, 40 S. E. 849; Knieriem v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., N. Y. Law J. Jan. 3, 1906, (N. Y. Sup. Ct.). A reasonable amount of banb l>ills may be carried in a trunk as baggage, — ^Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. <3opeland, 24 111. 332. 9. Money, except reasonable sums intended for travelling expenses. — Fairfax v. New York Cent., etc., E. Co., 73 N.Y. 167; Merrill v. Grinnell, 30 N. Y. 594; Torpey v. Williams, 3 Daly (N. Y.) 162; Orange County Bank v. Brown, 9 Wend. (N. Y.) 85; Duffy V. Thompson, 4 E. & D. Sm. (N. Y.) 178; Taylor v. Monnot, 4 Duer (N. Y.) 116; Weed v. Sara- toga, etc., R. Co., 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 534; Hutehings v. Western, etc., R. €o., 25 Ga. 61; Dibble v. Brown, 12 Ga. 217; Davis v. Michigan, etc., R. Co., 22 111. 278; Cincinnati, etc., E. Co. V. Marcus, 38 111. 219; Illinois, etc., E. Co. V. Copeland, 24 111, 362; Doyle V. Kiser, 6 Ind. 242 ; Hiekox v. Naugatuck E. Co., 31 Conn. 281; Jordan v. Fall Eiver E. Co., 5 Gush. (Mass.) 69; Dunlap v. International Steamboat Co., 98 Mass. 371; Whit- more v. Steamer Caroline, 20 Mo. 513; First Nat. Bank v. Marietta, etc., E. Co., 20 Ohio St. 259; Bomar V. Maxwell, 9 Humph. (Tenn.) 620; Butcher v. London, etc., E. Co., 16 C. B. 13; Phelps v. London, etc., E. Co., 19 C. B. (N. S.) 321; Missouri Pac. E. Co. V. York, 2 Tex. App. Gas., § 638; International, etc., E. Co. v. McCoun, 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas., § 712; St. Louis S. E. Co. V. Berry, 60 Ark. 433. Small sum of money to meet current travelling expenses not bag- gage. — Grant v. Newton, 1 E. D. Sm. (N. Y.) 95; Davis v. Michigan, etc., E. Co., 22 111. 278. 10. Levins v. New York, etc., E. Co., 183 Mass. 175, 66 N. E. 803; Hiekox V. Naugatuck E. Co., 31 Conn. 281; Hutehings v. Western, etc., E. Co., 25 Ga. 61. 11. Pflster V. Central Pac. R. Co., 70 Cal. 169, 59 Am. Eep. 404, funds carrier by a county treasurer. 12. Merrill v. Grinnell, 30 N. t. 594 ; Weeks v. New York, etc., R. Co., 72 N. Y. 50, 28 Am. Eep. 104; Fair- fax V. New York Cent. E. Co., 73 N. Duties and Liabjlities. Y05 liable for the money and effects of travelers not delivered into their custody, but retained by the passengers and carried on their persons, except for gross neglect in the management of the cars or the selection of their servants.^' Bedding necessary for a steerage passenger on a steamer for the comfort of himself and family has been classed as baggage," but bedding and bed furnishings, not intended for use on the joumey,^^ curtains, table cloths and covers, books, pictures, albums, and household goods generally not neces- sary during the journey, are not baggage for which the carrier is liable as an insurer, but, if at all, only as a bailee." The guns and hunting apparatus of sportsmen," and in some cases hunting dogs,^* tools in reasonable quantity for a mechanic,^' surgical in- Y. 167; Duffy v. Thompson, 4 E. D. Sm. (N. Y.) 178j Johnson v. Stone, 11 Humph. (Tenn.) 419; Missouri Pac. E. Co. V. York, 2 Tex. App. Civ. Gas., § 638. It Is a qnestion. for the jury and their finding will not be dis- turbed except in plain cases of error. Illinois Cent. E. Co. v. Copeland, 24 111. 332; Bonn€r v. Blum '(Tex. Civ. App.), 25 S. W. 60; Jones v. Priester, 1 Tex. App. Civ. Cas., § 613; and cases cited supra this note. 13. Carpenter v. New York, etc., E. Co., 124 N. Y. 53, 21 Am. St. Rep. 644, 47 Am. & Eng. E. Caa. 421; Greenfield First Nat. Bank v. Mari- _ etta, etc., E. Co., 20 Ohio St. 259; 11-^ linoia Cent. E. Co. v. Handy, 63 Miss. 609. 14. Bedding, where passenger is required to provide it. — ^Hirschsohn V. Hamburg Am. Packet Co., 2 J. & S. (N. Y.) 531. See also Glovinsky V. Cunard Steamship Co., 4 Misc. Eep. 212; Ouimit v. Henshaw, 35 Vt. 605. (N.Y.)266; Parmalee v. Fischer, 22 III. Dressing case. — Cadwallader v. Grand Trunk R. Co. (Can.), 9 L. 0. Eep. 169. 15. Bedding, — St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Hardway, 17 111. App. 321; Connolly v. Warren, 106 Mass. 146, 4S 8 Am. Eep. 300; Texas, etc., E. Co. V. Ferguson, 9 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 395; Macrow v. Great Western E. Co., L. E. 6 Q. B. 612. But see Hirsohsohn v. Hamburg American Packet Co., 2 J. & Sp. (N. Y.) 521; Ouimit V. Henshaw, 35 Vt. 605. 16. Household goods, — Pardee v. Drew, 25 Wend. (N. Y.) 459; Mauritz v. New York, etc., R. Co., 23 Fed. 765; Hamburg- American Packet Co. V. Gattman, 127 HI. 598; Missis- sippi Cent. R. Co. y. Kennedy, 41 Miss. 679; Smith v. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 3 Ohio Dec. 192; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Ferguson, 1 Tex. App. Civ. Cas., § 1253; Pettigrew v. Barnum, >ill Md. 449. 17. Guns when for sporting pur- poses. — ^Van Horn v. Kermit, supra; Davis V. Cayuga, etc., R. Co., 10 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 330; Hawkins v. Hoffman, 6 Hill (N. Y.) 506, 51 Am. Dec. 44. 18. Kansas City, etc., E. Co. v. Higdon, 94 Ala. 286; Cantling v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 54 Mo. 385; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Hanks, 78 Tex. 300. But see Honeyman v. Ore- gon, etc., E. Co., 13 Or. 352; Jones V. Bond, 40 Fed. 281; Jemison v. Southwestern E. Co., 75 Ga. 444. 19. Tools in reasonable quantity Y06 The Law of Oaekiees. struments/'' and a dentist's instrmnemts,^* have been held to be baggage. But a passenger cannot include in his personal bag- gage the property of other persons, and the carrier is liable for such property only as a gratuitous bailee.^^ The samples carried in his trunk by a commercial traveler and belonging to his em- ployer, although necessary to the object of the passenger's journey, are held not to be personal baggage;, but properly mere merchan- dise,^* but a salesman's catalogue or price book is his personal baggage.*' Where a carrier undertakes, without extra compensa- tion, to transport a traveling case with notice that it contains mer- chandise or samples, and not baggage, it will be liable for the loss thereof.** And where a carrier, with a full knowle^e of the char- for a mechanic. — ^Davis v. Cayuga, etc., E. Co., supra; Porter v. Hilde- brand, 14 Pa. St. 129; Kansas City, etc., R. Co. V. Morrison, 34 Kan. 502, 23 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 481. 20. Surgical instrninents, — Hannibal, etc., E. Co. v. Swift, 12 Wall. (U. S.) 262. 20a. Dentist's instruments, — Brock V. Gale, 14 Fla. 523, 14 Am. Eep. 356. 21. Property of otber persons, Gurney v. Grand Trunk E. Co., 37 St. Eep. (N. Y.) 155, 14 N. Y. Supp. 321; Dexter v. Syracuse, etc., E. Co., 42 N. Y. 326, 1 Am. Eep. 527; Weed v. Saratoga, etc., E. Co., 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 534; Greenfield First Nat. Bank V. Marietta, etc., R. Co., 20 Ohio St. 260; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Boyce, 73 111. 510; Dunlap v. International Steamboat Co., 98 Mass. 371; Mis- sissippi, etc., R. Co. V. Kennedy, 41 Miss. 671; Becker v. Great Eastern E. Co., L. E. 5 Q. B. 241 ; Andrews v. Ft. Worth, etc., E. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 25 S. W. 1040. Members of the same family travelling together may carry each other's eflEeets. — Curtis v. Delaware, etc., E. Co., 74 N. Y. 116; Dexter v. Syracuse, etc., R. Co., 42 N. Y. 326; Jones V. Priester, 1 Tex. App. Civ. Cas., I 613. .See McCormiek v. Penn- sylvania Cent. E. Co., 9Q N. Y. 65, as to husband's right to recover for loss of clothing and ornaments of his wife. 22. Samples of a commercial traveler, — ^Talcott v. Wabash E. Co., 66 Hun (N. Y.) 456, 21 N. Y. Supp. 318; Gurney v. Grand Trunk E. Co., 14 N. Y. Supp. 321; Scoville v. Grif- fith, 12 N. Y. 509; Hawkins v. Hoff- man, 6 gill (N. Y.) 586; Switzer- land Marine Ins. Co. v. Louisville, etc., E. Co., 131 U. S. 440; Michigan Cent. E. Co. v. Carrow, 73 III. 348; Weber Co. v. Chicago, etc., R. Co. (Iowa), 60 N. W. 637; Southern Kansas E. Co. v. Clark, 52 Kan. 398; Jacobs V. Tutt, 33 Fed'. 412; Ailing V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 126 Mass. 121; Stimson v. Connecticut River R. Co., 98 Mass. 83; Pennsylvania R. Co. '. Miller, 35 Ohio St. 541; Texas, etc., R. Co. V. Capps, 2 Tex. App. Cas. f 33. 23. Catalogne or price-book used by a drummer, — Gleason ^. Goodrich Transp. Co., 32 Wis. 85, 14 Am. Eep. 716; Staub v. Kendriok, 121 Ind. 226, 40 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 632. 24. Saleeby v. Central R. Co. of Duties ai^d Liabilities. 707 acter of the contents of a trunk, or that the articles therein are not properly .baggage, receives the same for transportation as baggage, it will be liable therefor. ^^ But the fact that commercial travelers or others are accustomed to carry merchandise on passenger trains ■without paying any more than the usual price of a ticket for a passenger, even if known to the carrier, will not render it liable for such merchandise.^^ The mere payment of an extra charge, on account of the overweight of alleged baggage, does not convert it into freight and render the carrier liable for it as such ; and where merchandise to be used in trade is packed in a trunk, and shipped 33 personal baggage, the carrier having no notice or knowledge of its character, no liability as a common carrier attaches.^' But if the trunks and this compensation are received with notice that the trunks contained property other than the baggage of the passenger, then there is evidence of an agreement, aside from the contract to transport the passenger, for a new, separate, and inde- pendent consideration, to transport such property as freight, which will render the carrier liable therefor.^* A carrier is not respon- sible as carrier or insurer for merchandise or articles which are carried for the purpose of trade, and not for the personal use of the traveler on his journey, although carried in the trunk or valise of a passenger as baggage, the true character of the articles not being disclosed ; they do not come under the denomination of per- sonal baggage, and the carrier is not obliged to carry them, except upon the payment of an additional compensation, and cannot be held liable for them as baggage.^' But if the carrier makes an N. J., 99 App. Div. (N. Y.) 163, 90 26. Ailing v. Boston, etc., R. Co., N. Y. Supp. 1042. 126 Mass. 121. 25. Central Trust Co. v. Wabash, 27. Humphreys v. Perry, 148 U. etc., R. Co., 39 Fed. 417; Jacobs v. S. 627; Hamburg American Packet Tutt, 33 Fed. 412; Strouss v. Wa- Co. v. Gattman, 127 III. 598. bash, etc., R. Co., 17 Fed. 209; But- 28. Talcott v. Wabash R. Co., 159 ler V. Hudson River R. Co., 3 E. D. N. Y. 461, 54 N. E. I., modg. 89 Hun Sm. (N. Y.) 571; Texas, etc., R. Co. (N. Y.), 492, 35 N. Y. Supp. 574; V. Capps, 2 Tex. App. Civ. Caa. § 33 ; Trimble v. New York Cent., etc., R. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. I. B. Rosenthal Co., 162 N. Y. 84, 56 N. E. 532, 48 Millinery Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 29 L. R. A. 115; Sloman v. Great West- S. W. 196; Hoeger v. Chicago, etc., ern R. Co., 67 N. Y. 208; Perley v. R. Co., 63 Wis. 100; Rider v. Wa- New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 65 N. bash, etc., R. Co., 14 Mo. App. 529; Y. 374; Stoneman v. Erie R. Co., 52 Dixon V. Richelieu Nav. Co., 15 Ont. N. Y. 429. App. 647. 29. N. Y. — Pardee v. Drew, 25 708 The Law of C!aeeiees. extra diarge for the conveyance of a passenger's trunk, known to contain merchandise as well aa baggage, or in the absence of fraud or concealment as to its contents, it is liable for the loss.™ And it is generally held that while the obligation of a carrier of pas- sengers is limited to ordinary baggage, yet if it knowingly per- mits a passenger, either on payment or without payment of an extra charge, to take articles as personal baggage, which, are not properly such, ita acceptance will be considered a waiver of its right to object, or an estoppel to claim, that they were not bag- gage, and it vidll be liable for their loss or destruction, though without fault.'^ The carrier must be shown to have had actual Wend. (N. Y.) 459; Hawkins v. Hoffman, 6 Hill (N. Y.), 586; Bell V. Drew, 4 E. D. Sm. (N. Y.) 39; Grant v. Newton, 1 E. D. Sm. (N. Y.) 95. U. 8. — Wunsch v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 62 Fed. 878 ; Hellman v. Hol- laday, 1 Wollw. (U. S.) 365; The Ionic, 5 Blatchf. (U. S.) 538. Ga.— Dibble v. Brown, 12 Ga. 217. III. — ^Hamburg American Co. v. Gattman, 127 111. 598; Michigan Cent. E. Co. v. Carrow, 73 111. 348; Michigan Southern, etc., R. Co. v. Oehm, 56 111. 293; Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. V. Marcus, 38 111. 219. Ind. — ^Doyle v. Kiser, 6 Ind. 242. Me. — Blumenthal v. Maine Cent. E. Co., 79 Me. 550. Mass. — Blumantle v. Fitchburg B. Co., 127 Mass. 322; Ailing v. Boa- ton, etc., R. Co., 126 Mass. 121; Stimson v. Connecticut River R. Co., 98 Mass. 83; Collins v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 10 Cush. (Mass.) 506; Duu- lap V. International Steamboat Co., 98 Mass. 377. Minn. — Haines v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 29 Minn. 160. Miss. — ^Mississippi Cent. R. Co. v. Kennedy, 41 Miss. 671. Mo. — Spooner v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 23 Mo. App. 403. N. H. — Smith v. Boston, etc., K. Co., 44 N. H. 325. Ohio. — Bowler, etc., R. Co. v. To- ledo, etc., R. Co., 3 Ohio Dee. 41; Greenwich Ins. Co. v. Memphis, etc. Packet Co., 1 Ohio N. P. 126. Can. — Shaw v. Grand Trunk E. Co., 7 U. C. C. P. 493; Lee v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 36 U. C. Q. B. 350. Eng. — Cahill v. London, etc., K. Co., 100 E. C. L. 154, 106 E. C. L. 818; Belfast, etc., R. Co. v. Keys, 9 H. L. Cas. 556, 9 W. R. 793; Rich- ards V. London, etc., R. Co., 62 B. 0. L. 839. 30. Perley v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 65 N. Y. 375; Stoneman v. Erie R. Co., 52 N. Y. 429. 31. y. r. — Millard v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 86 N. Y. 441; Butler v. Hudson River R. Co., 3 E. S. Sm. (N. Y.) 571. U. fif.— Central Trust Co. v. Wa- bash, etc., R. Co., 39 Fed. 417; Strouss V. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 17 Fed. 209; Hannibal, etc., E. Co. v. Swift, 12 Wall. (U. S.) 262. Arfc.— St. Louis S. W. R. Co. v. Berry, 60 Ark. 433. Dak. — Waldron v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 1 Dak. 341. Iowa. — Weber Co. v. Chicago, etc., R. Co. (Iowa), 60 N. W. 637. £:(m.— Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Con- klin, 32 Kan. 55. Moss.— Blumantle v. Fitchburg K. Co., 127 Mass. 322. Duties and Liabilities. 709 knowledge of the character of the goods in order to render it liable;'^ but, although it is not bound to inquire as, to the nature of the property,^^ it may be chargeable with knowledge from the outward appearance of the package.^* Knowledge, however, on its part cannot be shown by proof of the custom of its agents at other places on the road.'^ The question of notice as to the con- tents of a trunk or valise may be one of fact for the jury.^^ The carrier is responsible for the acts of its duly authorized agents in accepting or refusing baggage offered.'' The carrier ia liable as a gratuitous bailee only for merchandise fraudulently imposed upon it^* ;§' 50. Duty to carry baggage. — The carrying of a traveler's baggage by a carrier constitutes a mere incident to its contract to carry the traveler, and a recovery for the losa thereof will not be governed by the rules applicable to carriers of goods'.'' A con- Uo. — Ross V. Missouri, etc., E. Co., 4 Mo. App. 583. OMo. — Bowler v. Toledo, etc., E. Co., 10 Ohio C. C. 272; Toledo, etc., R. Co. V. Ambach, 10 Ohio C. C. 490. Or, — Oakes v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 20 Or. 393. Tea;.— Fort Worth, etc., R. Co. v. I. B. Rosenthal Milling Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 29 S. W. 196. Wis. — Hoeger v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 63 Wis. 100. Eng. — Great Northern E. Co. v. Shepherd, 8 Exch. 30, 7 Railw. Cas. 310. 32. Humphreys v. Perry, 148 U. S. 627; Michigan Cent. E. Co. v. Carrow, 73 111. 348; Haines v. Chi- cago, etc., E. Co., 29 Minn. 160; Rider V. Wabash, etc., E. Co., 14 Mo. App. 529; Cahill v. London, etc., E. Co., 100 E. C. L. 154, 106 E. C. L. 818. 33. Michigan Cent. E. Co. v. Car- nw, supra; Haines v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., supra. 34. Hannibal, etc., E. Co. v. Swift, 12 Wall. (U. S.) 262; New York Cent., etc., R. Co. v. Fraloff, 100 U. S. 24; Ihmlap v. International Steamboat Co., 98 Mass. 371; Ross V. Missouri, etc., E. Co., 4 Mo. App 583. 35. Blumenthal v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 79 Me. 550; Blumantle v. Fitch- burg E. Co., 127 Mass. 322; Smith V. Boston, etc., E. Co., 44 N. H. 325. 36. Sloman v. Great Western. R. Co., 67 N. Y. 208; Blumantle y. Fitehburg R. Co., 127 Mass. 322. 37. Saleseby v. Central E. Co. of N. J., 99 App. Div. (N. Y.) 163, 90 N. Y. Supp. 1042; St. Louis S. W. E. Co. V. Berry, 60 Ark. 433; Wal- dron V. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 1 Dak. 341; Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Conklin, 32 Kan. 55; Winter v. Pacific E. Co., 41 Mo. 503. 38. Wunsch v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 62 Fed. 878; Cincinnati, etc., E. Co. V. Marcus, 38 111. 219; Ailing v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 126 Mass. 121; Smith v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 44 N. H. 325 ; Missouri Pac. E. Co. v. York, 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. § 638. 39. Talcott V. Wabash R. Co., 89 Hun (N. Y.), 492, 35 N. Y. Supp. 574, 154 N. Y. 461. TlO The Law of CIaeeiees. tract to carry without additional compensation a reasonable amount of personal baggage is implied from the sale of a ticket to a passenger, the price paid for the ticket or for transportation embracing compensation for the carriage of the baggage, but such implied obligation is limited to such articles of personal baggage as are reasonably required for the comfort or convenience of the passenger and his family.^" The obligation moreover includes, as in the case of merchandise, an obligation to deliver the baggage carried." The carrier has a right to make reasonable limitations as to the amount of personal baggage it will carry free,^ and is entitled to exact extra compens'ation for carrying an extra weight of baggage above such limited amount/^ The fare paid by a pas- senger is the compensation for his carriage and for the transporta- tion at the same time of such baggage as he may require for his personal convenience and necessity during his journey. Ba^age subsequently forwarded by his direction, in the absence of any special agreement with the carrier, or of negligence on its part, ig liable, like any other article of merchandise, to the payment of the usual freight^* Where baggage is not forwarded on the same train through the fault of the carrier, it will be liable for loss or injury due to its negligence.*^ If a carrier has reasonable grounds 40. Isaacson v. New York Cent., 41. Isaacson v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 94 N. Y. 278, 46 Am. etc., R. Co., supra; Powell v. Myers, Rep. 142, 16 Am. & Eng. R. Caa. 26 Wend. (N. Y.) 591; Cole t. Good- 188; Orange County Bank v. Brown, win, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 251. 9 Wend. (N. Y.) 85, 24 Am. Dee. 42. Nordemeyer f. Loescher, 1 129; Glasco v. New York Cent. R. Hilt. (N. Y.) 499; also cases cited Co., 36 Barb. (N. Y.) 557; Saun- in last preceding note. See also ders V. Southern Ry. Co., 128 Fed. Limitation of liability, § 52, post. 15, 62 C. C. A. 523; Beers v. Bos- 43. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Ions, 3 ton, etc., R. Co. (Conn.), 34 Atl. Tex. Civ. App. 619. 541; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Fahey, 44. Graffam v. Boston, etc., E. 52 111. 81, 4 Ani. Rep. 587; Atchison, Co., 67 Mo. 234, 15 Am. Ey. Eep- etc., E. Co. V. Brewer, 20 Kan. 669; 372; Wilson v. Grand Trunk B. Co., Commonwealth v. Connecticut River 57 Me. 138, 2 Am. Rep. 26, 56 Me. R. Co., 15 Gray (Mass.), 447; Miss- 60, 96 Am. Dec. 435. issippi Cent. R. Co. v. Kennedy, 41 45. Warner v. Burlington, etc., K. Miss. 671; Smith v. Boston, etcT, R. Co., 22 Iowa, 166, 92 Am. Dec. 389; Co., 41 Miss. 671; Peixotti v. Mc- Wilson v. Chesapeake, etc., K. Co., Laughlin, 1 Strobh. (S. C.) 468; 21 Gratt. (Va.) 654. Where a rail- Bomar v. Maxwell, 9 Humph. road company received a passenger's (Tenn.) 622; Norfolk, etc., E. Co. v. trunk from an expressman, but, when Irvine, 84 Va. 553. the passenger subsequently went to Duties and Liabilities. 711 for refusing to receive or carry persons applying or their property, it must make the objection at the time the application is made. If, without making objection, it receives the person or property for transportation, its liability is the same as though no ground for refusal existed.*^ The traveling public have the right to stop and receive their baggage at any regular station or stopping place for the train on vchich they may be traveling, and to have their bag- gage checked to and delivered at any such station, and any regu- lation that deprives them of that right is arbitrary, unreasonable, and illegal.*' Where the facts are indisputable, it is the province of the court to determine, as a matter of lav?, the reasonableness of a regulation by which a railroad company refuses to sell tickets or check baggage to a regular stopping place of a passenger train.*' In some States statutes impose a penalty for a refusal to check baggage properly tendered,*' and in some cases permit the recovery of actual damages in addition.^" A carrier has a lien on baggage in its possession for all charges which may be legally due it for its transportation,^^ and for any fare or passage money due by the passenger for that trip;^^ but it is liable for loss of or injury to the station to cheek the trunk, it could not be found, and the passen- ger accepted a check from the bag- gage master on his promise that he •would send the trunk on; she pre- sented the check at her destination, but failed to get the trunk, it ap- pearing that it had been stolen from the company, the company's relation to the trunk was that of common carrier, and not of warehouseman. Williams v. Central E. Co. of N. 0., .93 App. Div. (N. Y.) 582, 88 N. Y. Supp. 434. See also Curtis v. Dela- ware, .etc., E. Co., 74 N. Y. 116; Brown v. Camden, etc., E. Co., 83 Pa. 316. 46. Hannibal, etc., E. Co. v. Swift, 12 Wall. (U. S.) 262; Common- wealth V. Connecticut Eiver E. Co., 15 Gray (Mass.), 447. 47. Pittsburgh, etc., E. Co. v. Lyon, 123 Pa. St. 140, 16 Atl. 607, 2 L. E. A. 489, 10 Am. St. Eep. 517, 37 Am. & Jng. E. Cas. 233. 48. Vedder v. Fellows, 20 N. Y. 130; Pittsburgh, etc., E. Co. v. Lyon, supra; Old Colony E. Co. v. Tripp, 147 Mass. 35, 9 Am. St. Eep. 661, 33 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 496. 49. Commonwealth v. Connecticut Eiver E. Co., 15 Gray (Mass.), 447; Norfolk, etc., E. Co. v. Irvine, 84 Va. 553. 50. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Eeynolds, 77 Va. 178. 51. Nordemeyer v. Loescher, 1 Hilt. (N. Y.) 499; Singer Mfg. Co. V. London, etc., E. Co., 1 Q. B. 833, 10 E. 152, 42 W. E. 347; Eumsey v. North Eastern E. Co., 14 C. B. N. S. 641; 108 E. C. L. 641. See Blum v. Southern Pullman Palace Car Co., 1 Flip. (U. S.) 500. 52. Moskowitz v. International Nav. Co., 84 N. Y. Supp. 297; Eob- erts v Koehler, 30 Fed. 94; Wolf v. Summers, 2 Campb. 631. Y12 The Law of Caeeiees. baggage held under sfuch a lien.^' Where a passenger has obtained a ticket in regular course upon a prepaid certificate procured for her by her husband from the carrier, the fact that without notice to her the carrier has refunded the money to the husband, though without requiring him to deliver up the certificate, will not give the carrier a lien on her baggage for unpaid passage money." I 51. Liability of carrier for loss or injury. — Carriers of pas- sengers are common carriers of the baggage of their passengers and liable as insurers for the safety thereof. When they contract to carry a passenger, by virtue of that contract they are bound to carry his baggage without additional compensation therefor, and are liable for its value if lost, unless their liability has been re- stricted by a special contract. °^ The carrier is only relieved from 53. Southwestern E. Co. v. Bent- ley, 51 Ga. 311. 54. Moskowitz v. International Nav. Co., 84 N. Y. Supp. 297. 55. N. T. — Isaacson v. New York Cent., etc., E. Co., 94 N. Y. 278; Mc- Cormlck v. Pennsylvania Cent. E. Co., 80 N. Y. 353; Burnell v. New York Cent. R. Co., 45 N. Y. 184; Merrill v. Grinnell, 30 N. Y. 594; Van Horn v. Kermit, 4 E. D. Sm. (N. Y.) 453; Chamberlain v. West- ern Transp. Co., 45 Barb. (N. Y.) 218; Hollister v. Nowlen, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 234; Camden, etc., R. etc., Co. V. Burke, 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 611; Orange County Bank v. Brown, 9 Wend. (N. Y.) 85; Hawkins v. Hoff- man, 6 Hill (N. Y.), 586. U. 8. — ^Saunders v. Southern Ey. Co., 128 Fed. 15, 62 C. C. A. 523; Hannibal, etc., R. Co. v. Swift, 12 Wall. (U. S.) 262. Ala. — ^Montgomery, etc., E. Co. v. Culver, 75 Ala. 587; Mobile, etc., H. Co. V. Hopkins, 41 Ala. 486. Ga.— Dibble v. Brown, 12 Ga. 217. III. — ^Michigan Cent. E. Co. v. Car- row, 73 111. 348; Davis v. Michigan Southern, etc., E. Co., 22 111. 273. Compare Rice v. Illinois Cent. E. Co., 22 111. App. 643. Ind. — ^Louisville, etc., E. Co. v. Nieholai, 4 Ind. App. 119. Kan. — Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Con- klin, 32 Kan. 55. Mich. — Flint, etc., E. Co. v. Weir, 37 Mich. 111. Mirm. — Shaw v. Northern Pao. R. Co., 40 Minn. 144. Miss. — Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Troustine, 64 IVIiss. 834. Or. — Oakes v. Northern Pac. E. Co., 20 Or. 392. Pa. — ^Bullard v. Delaware, etc., E. Co., 21 Pa. Super. Ct. 583; Brown v. Camden, etc., E. Co., 83 Pa. St. 316. 8. C— Dill V. South "Carolina R. Co., 7 Eich. (S. C.) 158. Term. — ^Louisville, etc., E. Co. v. Katzenberger, 16 Lea (Tenn.), 380. Wyo.—Lake Shore, etc., E. Co. v. Warren, 3 Wyo. 134. Eng. — Cohen v. South Eastern S. Co., 2 Exeh. Div. 253, 25 W. E. 47S; Wiliams v. Great Western E. Co., 10 Exch. 15. Can. — Pelland v. Canadian Pac. R. Co., 7 Montreal Super. Ct. 131. Duties and Liabilities. Y13 liability where the loss is caused by the act of God or the public enemy/* and such a defense must be alleged and proved by the carrier.^'' Where by special contract the carrier's liability is limited to losses' caused by its negligence, the burden of proving negligence rests on the passenger and the question may be one for the jury.^' To render a carrier liable as an insurer the baggage must be placed in its exclusive charge and custody ; it is not re- sponsible if the passenger retain it in his own possession, except where the loss is due to the negligence or misconduct of the car- rier's agents or servants.^' It is not an insurer of baggage and hand luggage taken into a day coach.*" But that a steamship com- pany permitted a passenger to retain control of his valise, and store the same on deck, did not exempt it from liability for the misfconduct of its servant in ordering the same to be thrown over- board.*^ Where the passenger retains custody of his baggage the carrier is not responsible for its loss unless its negligence is af- firmatively shown ; it is not liable, even if some negligence on its part be shown, where it appears that the passenger's contributory negligence was the proximate cause of the loss.*^ A carrier is not 56. Strouas v. Wabash, etc., K. Co., 17 Fed. 209; Long v. Penmsyi- vania E. Co., 147 Pa. St. 343; Mar- tin V. Great Indian Peninsular B. Co., 3 Exch. 9, 17 L. T. N. S. S49. 57. Toledo, etc., E. Co. v. Tapp, Ind. App. 304; Toledo, etc., E. Co. v. Ambach, 10 Ohio Cir. Ct. Eep. 490. 58. Downey v. Inman Steamship Co., 2 N. Y. Supp. 659. But see Rice V. Illinois Cent. E. Co., 22 111. App. 643. • 59. N. r.— Cohen v. Frost, 2 Duer (N. Y.), 335; Sewall v. Allen, 6 Wend. (N. Y.) 335; Tolano v. Na- tional Steam Nav. Co., 5 Eobt. (N. Y.) 318, 35 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 496, 4Abb. Pr. N. S. (N. Y.) 316. U. B.—The Humboldt, 97 Fed. 656; The E. E. Lee, Fed. Cas. No. 11, 690. Ky. — Steamboat Crystal Palace v. Vanderpool, 16 B. Mon. (Ky.) 302; Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Gaylord, 6 Ky. L. Eep. 279. La. — Del Valle v. Steamboat Eich- moud, 27 La. Ann. 90. Me. — Abbott v. Bradstreet, 55 Me. 530. Mass. — Kinsley v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 125 Mass. 54 ; Clark v. Burns, 118 Mass. 275. Mo. — Williams v. Keokuk, '5tc., Packet Co., 3 Cent. L. J. (Mo.) 400. Pa. — ^American Steamship Co. v. Bryan, 83 Pa. St. 446. Tex. — Pullman Palace Cai:. Co. v. Pollock, 69 Tex. 120. 60. Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Lillie (Tenn.), 78 S. W. 1055. 61. De Felice v. Campagnie Fran- caise De Navigation A. Vapeur, Cy- •prien Fabre & Cie, 83 App. Div. (N. Y.) 73, 82 N. Y. Supp. 552. 62. Carpenter v. New York, etc., E. Co., 124 N. Y. 53; Bonner v. Grumbach, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 482; Henderson v. Louisville, etc., E. Co., 20 Fed. 430, 123 U. S. 61; Great Western E. Co. v. Bunch, L. E. IS 714 The Law of CXreieks. responsible for the loss of articles which the passenger retains in his own possession and places on hia seat in the train, where he leaves them there on his departure from the train or they are otherwise lost or stolen/^ unless such loss can be shown to have been due to the negligence or wrongful conduct of the carrier after full knowledge of the facts. ^* The rule is the same in the case of money carried by the passenger on his person and lost or stolen from him.*' Where the carrier's agent, pursuant to its regula- tions, takes charge of property inadvertently left in its cars, and it provides at its depot a place for its safe keeping, it is liable therefor as a bailee for hire.** In the case of steamship companies a different rule of liability prevails from that which is applied to carriers by rail and sleeping car companies. The relations that exist between a steamboat company and its passengers, who have procured staterooms for their comfort during the journey, are held to differ in no essential respect from those which exist between the innkeeper and his guests. It has been said that " the traveler who pays for his passage and engages a room in one of the modern floating palaces that cross the sea or navigate the interior waters of the country, establishes legal relations with the carrier that cannot well be distinguished from those that exist between the hotel keeper and his guests. The carrier in that case imdertakes to provide for all his wants, including a private room for his exclusive use, which is to be as free from all intrusion as that as- signed to a guest at a hotel. The two relations, if not identical, bear such close analogy to each other that the same rule of re- sponsibility should govern." When the passenger has been as- signed by the carrier to his stateroom, the steamship carrier is held to have taken entire charge of him and his effecfe, and it be- App. 31, 34 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 224; Co., 72 N. Y. 50, 28 Am. Rep. 104, 9 Talley v. Great Western R. Co., L. Hun (N. T.) 669; Carpenter v. New R. 6 C. P. 44, 19 W. R. 154. York, etc., R. Co., 124 N. Y. 53; 63. Tower v. Utica, etc., E. Co., 7 Greenfield First Nat. Pank v. Mari- Hill (N. Y.), 47, 42 Am. Dee. 36; etta, etc., R. Co., 20 Ohio St. 259; niinois Cent. R. Co. v. Handy, 63 Lewis v. New York Sleeping Car Co., Miss. 615, 56 Am. Rep. 846. 143 Mass. 267; Cobb v. Great West- 64. Kinsley v. Lake Shore, etc., R. ern R. Co., App. Cas. 419, C. R. 203. Co., 125 Mass. 54; Bonner v. De 66. Morris v. Third Ave. E. Co., 1 Mendoza, 4 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. § Daly (N. Y.), 202, 23 How. Pr. (N. 234; Gamble v. Western R. Co., 24 Y.) 345; Little Rock, etc., R. Co. v. U. C. Q. B. 407. Hunter, 42 Ark. 200; Clark v. East- 65. Weeks v. New York, etc., R. ern R. Co., 139 Mass. 423. Duties and Liabilities. 715 comes liable as an insurer for tlie loss from his stateroom, without negligence on his part or that of the company, of any of his ef- fects placed therein, including a sum of money reasonable and proper for him to carry upon his person for the expenses of his journey." A different rule has been maintained in some cases and the carrier has been held not liable except upon proof of neg- ligence.'* To exonerate the carrier from the loss of a passenger's baggage on the ground of the latter's omission to comply with a reasonable regulation, such as that passengers shall put certain articles in the custody of an officer, notice thereof must be brought home to him; a notice posted in a steamboat is not sufficient. *' And such a regulation is unreasonable and does not apply where the passenger is furnished with a stateroom, except as to baggage not necessary to be used on the voyage.'" It is the duty of the car- rier to carry the passenger and his baggage on the same train, and if it charges and receives compensation for extra baggage, to carry it on the same train with the passenger. '"^ Baggage not forwarded at the siame time with the passenger is subject to the usual charges for freight and the carrier is not liable therefor as baggage,'^ except where the carrier is at fault for not transport- 67. Adams v. New Jersey Steam- Mich. 368, 24 How. (U. S.) 1; Clark boat Co., 151 N. Y. 163, 45 N. E. 3ff9, v. Burns, 118 Mass. 275; Abbott v. 34 L. R. A. 682, 56 Am. St. Rep. 616 ; Bradstreet, 55 Me. 530; American Lincoln v. New York, etc., S. S. Co., Steamship Co. v. Bryan, 83 Pa. St. 30 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 753, 62 N. Y. 446. Supp. 1085; Dunn v. New Haven 69. Maoklin v. New Jersey Steam- Steamboat Co., 58 Hun (N. Y.), 461, boat Co., 7 Abb. Pr. N. S. (N. Y.) 12 N. Y. Supp. 406; Crozier v. Bos- 229. ton, etc., R. Co., 43 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 70. Crozier v. Boston, etc., Steam- 467;, Gore v. Norwich, etc., Transp. boat Co., 43 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 466; Co., 2 Daly (N. Y.), 254; Mudgett Horn v. Kermit, 4 E. D. Sm. (N. Y.) V. Bay State Steamboat Co., 1 Daly 453. (N. Y.), 151; Macklin v. New Jer- 71. Glasco v. New York Cent., E. sey Steamboat Co., 7 Abb. Pr. N. S. Co., 36 Barb. (N. Y.) 557; Blumen- (N. Y.) 229; Steamboat Crystal thai v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 79 Me. Palace v. Vanderpool, 16 B. Mon. 550; Collins v. Boston, etc., R. Co., (Ky.) 302; Del Valle v. Steamboat 10 Cush. (Mass.) 506. See also cases Richmond, 27 La. Ann. 90; Gleason cited note 44, § 50, ante. Compare V. Goodrich Transp. Co., 32 Wis. 85. Wilson v. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 68. The R. B. Lee, 2 Abb. (U. S.) 21 Gratt. (Va.) 654. 60; Laffrey v. Grummond, 74 Mich. 72. See cases cited in last pre- 186; McKee v. Owen, 15 Mich. 115; ceding note. American Transp. Co. v. Moore, 5 716 The Law of Caeeieks. ing it at the same time/' or where it expressly consents to so transport it.'* The carrier is liable for the wrongful conversion of the baggage of a passenger by its servants and, to escape lia- bility therefor, it must replace the same in the actual custody and possession of the owner. ''^ A tender more than a year after demand will not relieve it of liability.''' A carrier is also liable for delay in the delivery of baggage whether the same is injured thereby or not." In the absence of special agreement, the carrier does not incur liability as an insurer of the baggage of a passen- ger, unless the passenger accompanies it in its transportation, or is prevented from so doing by the fault of the carrier ; and, where the owner does not become a passenger, the carrier would not have his property in the character of baggage, and would not be re- sponsible for it as such.'* Where a carrier receives a trunk of a traveling salesman, with notice that it contained samples, for the transportation of which it charges and receives extra compensa- tion, it is liable for its value if lost while in its custody, not on its contract for the transportation of the passenger and his personal baggage, but on its contract to carry the same as freight.™ § 52. Limitation of liability. — A carrier may, by special con- tract or by a notice or regulation assented to by a passenger ex- pressly or impliedly, limit its liability as insurer of a passenger's 73. McCormick v. Pennsylvania 86, 10 Am. Ry. Rep. 16, as to statu- Cent. R. Co., 99 N. Y. 65; St. Louis tory penalty for such delay. S. W. R. Co. V. Ray (Tex.), 35 S. W. 78. Wood v. Maine Cent. E. Co., 951. 98 Me. 98, 56 Atl. 457, the same rule 74. Howell V. Grand Trunk R. applies where the owner did not in- Co., 36 N. Y. Supp. 544; Warner v. tend to accompany his baggage the Burlington, etc., R. Co., 22 Iowa, entire distance, and did not do- so. 166; Logan v. Pontchartrain R. Co., A steamship company Is not 11 Rob. (La.) 24. responsible for the destmction 75. McCormick v. Pennsylvania of trunks by fire while detained at Cent. R. Co., 99 N. Y. 65, 52 Am. the custom house, where a passenger, Rep. 6, 21 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 296; on arrival in Germany, directed hia Morris v. Third Ave. R. Co., 23 How. trunks to be forwarded to him by Pr. (N. Y.) 345, 1 Daly (N. Y.), 202. slow freight via. London to an in- 76. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. terior town in England. Parker v. Warren, 3 Wyo. 134, 21 Am. & Eng. North German Lloyd S. S. Co., 74 E. Cas. 302. App. Div. (N. Y.) 16, 76 N. Y. Supp. 77. International, etc., R. Co. v. h06. Philips, 63 Tex. 590. See also An- 79. Trimble v. New York Cent., derson v. Toledo, etc., R. Co., 32 Iowa, etc., R. Co., 162 N. Y. 84, 56 N. E. Duties and Liabilities. 717 baggage to losses arisiing from the negligence or misconduct of its agents, but it cannot stipulate for exemption from liability for lossesi caused by its own negligence or wrong-doing, or that of its agents or servants.^" It is competent for passenger carriers, by specific regulations which are reasonable and not inconsistent with any statute or its duties to the public, and which are distinctly brought to the knowledge of the passenger, to protect themselves against liability as insurers of baggage exceeding a fixed amount in value, except upon additional compensation proportioned to the risk.*^ A passenger is not bound by a printed notice on his ticket limiting the weight and value of hisi baggage, unless he is aware 532, 48 L. R. A. 115; Sloman v. Great Western R. Co., 67 N. Y. 214; Taleott, V. Wabash R. Co., 159 N. V. 470, 54 N. E. 3. 80. N. Y. — Rawson v. Pennsyl- vania R. Co., 48 N. y. 212, 8 Am. Rep. 543; Macklin v. New Jersey Steamboat Co., 7 Abb. Pr. N. S. (N. Y.) 229, 9 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 239; Camden, etc., R. Co. v. Burke, 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 611, 28 Am. Dec. 488; Cole v. Goodwin, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 354; HoUister v. Nowlen, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 234; Glovinsky v. Cunard Steamship Co., 4 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 266. V. S. — ^Mauritz v. New York, etc., R. Co., 23 Fed. 765, 21 Am. & Bng. R. Cas. 286; Saunders v. Southern Ry. Co., 128 Fed. 15, 62 C. C. A. 523. Ala. — ^Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. Hop- kins, 41 Ala. 486, 94 Am. Dec. 607, the rule applies where the passenger is using a free pass. III. — Adams Express Co. v. Stet- taners, 61 111. 184, 14 Am. Rep. 57. Ind. — Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Cox, 29 Ind. 360, 95 Am. Dec. 640; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Nicholai, 4 Ind. App. 119. Kan. — ^Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. Rodebaugh, 38 Kan. 45, 34 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 219. La. — ^Logan v. Pontehartrain R. Co., 11 Rob. (La.) 24, 43 Am. Dec. 199. Me. — Sager v. Portsmouth, etc., R. Vo., 31 Me. 228, 50 Am. Dec. 659. Mass. — Squire v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 98 Mass. 239, 93 Am. Dec. 162; Malone v. Boston, etc., R. Corp., 12 Gray (Mass.), 388. N. C— Smith v. North Carolina R. Co., 64 N. C. 235. Ohio. — Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Campbell, 36 Ohio St. 647, 38 Am. Rep. 617, 3 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 246; Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Pontius, 19 Ohio St. 221. Pa. — Bingham v. Rogers, 6 W. & S. (Pa.) 495, 40 Am. Dec. 581; Cam- den, etc., R. Co. V. Baldauf, 16 Pa. St. 67, 55 Am. Deo. 481. 8. C— Swindler v. Hilliard, 2 Rich. (S. C.) 286, 45 Am. Dec. 732. Tenn. — Coward v. East Tennessee R. Co., 16 Lea (Tenn.), 225, 57 Am. Rep. 227. Tex. — International, etc., R. Co. v. Foltz, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 644. Va. — Wilson v. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 21 Gratt. (Va.) 654. 81. New York Cent, etc., R. Co. v. Fralofif, 100 U. S. 24; The Majestic, 56 Fed. 244; Humphreys v. Perry, 148 U. S. 627, 54 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 29, revg. 39 Fed. 417, 40 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 636; Cole v. Goodwin, 19 718 The Law of O'aeeiees. of it when he purchases his ticket, and then he is presumed to assent unless he objects. The burden of proving such assent is upon the carrier.^^ An acceptance of baggage by the carrier as oflFered, either upon payment of extra compensation or with a knowledge of the facts, constitutes an implied waiver of the limi- tation in the ticket.*' But if by fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the passenger or others, the carrier is induced to receive an amount greater than its rules prescribe, itsi liability for the excess is that of a gratuitous bailee merely.** One who receives from a carrier a pass over its line, issued on condition that the person accepting it agrees that the company shall not be liable Wend. (N. Y.) 251, 32 Am. Dec. 470; Davis v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 83 Iowa 744; Norfolk, etc., K Co. v. Irvine, 84 Va. 553 ; Shaw v. Canadian Pae. K. Co., 5 Manitoba L. Rep. 334; Jacobs v. Central E. Co. of N. J., 208 Pa. 535, 57 Atl. 982, 19 Pa. Super. Ct. 13. Wbether any particular reg^n- lation is reasonable must be de- termined from the facts in the case and is generally a question for the jury. Glovinsky v. Cunard Steam- ship Co., 4 Misc. Eep. (N. Y.) 266; Weber Co. v. Chicago, etc., E. Co. (Iowa), 60 N. W. 637; Texas Mexi- can E. Co. V. Willis, 3 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. § 71; Norfolk, etc., E. Co. v. Irvine, 84 Va. 553. A provision lim- iting liability to $50, in a ticket for a first class cabin passage across the Atlantic, in a first class steamer, is unreasonable. The New England, 110 Fed. 415; Glovinsky v. Cunard Steamship Co., 4 Misc. Eep. (N. Y.) 266; 24 N. Y. Supp. 136. But see Steers v. Cunard Steamship Co., 57 N. Y. 1. In the absence of legislative enactment the law does not prescribe any definite limit to the value of baggage, beyond which a carrier is not liable. Galveston, etc., E. Co. v. Fales (Tex. Civ. App.), 77 S. W. 234. 82. Eawson v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 48 N. Y. 212; Wiegand v. Cent. E. Co. of N. J., 75 Fed. 370; In- dianapolis, etc., E. Co. V. Cox, 29 Ind. 360; Anderson v. Canadian Pac. E. Co., 17 Ont. Eep. 747, 40 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 624; Brown v. Eastern E. Co., 11 Cush. (Mass.) 97. See also The Majestic, 60 Fed. 624; Gleason V. Goodrich Transp. Co., 32 Wis. 97, 14 Am. Eep. 716; Mauritz v. New York, etc., E. Co., 23 Fed. 765; Cam- den, etc., E. Co. V. Baldauf, 16 Pa. St. 67; Little Eock, etc., E. Co. v. Eecord (Ark.), 85 S. W. 421. Where a railroad ticket has print- ed on its face in clear, legible type the words: "Only 150 pounds of baggage allowed each passenger; company's responsibility limited to $1.00 per pound" — no excess of the amount specified can be recovered for loss of baggage by a passenger accepting the ticket. MogiU v. Cen- tral E. of N. J., 25 Pa. Super. Ct. 164. 83. Glasco v. New York Cent. E. Co., 36 Barb. (N. Y.) 557; Chicago, etc., E. Co. V. Conklin, 32 Kan. 55. But see Baldraflf v. Camden, etc., E. Co., 2 Fed. Cas. 507. 84. Humphreys v. Perry, 148 U. S. 627. Duties and Liabilities. 719 under any circumstances for injury to- the person or damage to the property, cannot recover the value of baggage lost while traveling on the pass.*^ A statute permitting a common carrier to limit its liability for loss of a passenger's baggage to a certain amount per 100 pounds by posting a general notice, unless the passenger shall pay money to the company " by way of insurance " for the as- sumption of additional responsibility, does not apply to the loss of a passenger's trunk by theft from the company at the station of departure before the passenger has had an opportunity to check it; the gist of the passenger's action being negligence.*^ And where a statute authorized carriers to limit their liability for loss of " goods, merchandise, or baggage " received for transporta- tion by notice " inserted in the bills of lading or receipts given for such merchandise or in the tickets of passengers," a carrier's liability was not limited thereunder with respect to merchandise of a passenger transported in a packing case without extra compensa- tion, where no bill of lading or receipt was given therefor except the passenger's ticket, which limited the company's liability to baggage defined as) wearing apparel only.^' Under a contract of carriage, limiting the carrier's liability to $100 for loss of bag- gage, unless a declaration of the value thereof in excess of such sum be made by the passenger " at or before the issue of this con- tract or at or before the delivery of said luggage to the ship," the declaration need not be made before the delivery of the baggage on the ship; and, the baggage having been delivered to the car- rier's employes on the wharf without such declaration, for the purpos© of having it placed on the ship, and it not having been 85. Bissell v. New York Cent. R. 24 S. Ct. 408; Jacobs v. Central R. Co., 25 N. Y. 442, 82 Am. Dec. 369; Co. of N. J., 208 Pa. 535, 57 Atl. Wella V. New York Cent. R. Co., 24 982. N. Y. 181; Perkins v. New York 86. Williama v. Central R. Co. of Cent. R. Co., 24 N. Y. 196, 82 Am. N. J., 93 App. Mv. (N. Y.) 582, 88 Dec. 281; Holly v. Southern Ry. Co., N. Y. Supp. 434; Burnell v. New 119 Ga. 767, 47 S. B. 188; Quimby v. York Cent. R. Co., 45 N. Y. 184, 6 Boston, etc., R. Co. (Mass.), 23 N. Am. Rep. 61; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. E. 205, 5 L. R. A. 846; Kinney v. Knight, 58 N. J. L. 287, 33 Atl. 845; Cent. R. Co., 32 N. J. L. 407, 90 Am. Ashmore v. Pennsylvania Steam Dec. 675; Muldoon v. Seattle R. CO., Towing, etc., Co., 28 N. J. L. 180. 7 Wash. 528, 35 Pac. 422, 22 L. R. 87. Saleeby v. Central R. Co. of A. 794; Griswold v. New York R. N. J., 99 App. Div (N. Y.) 163, 90 Co. (Conn.), 4 Atl. 261, 55 Am. Rep. N. Y. Supp. 1042. 115; Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Adams, T20 The Law of OIareiees. placed thereon, the limitation does not apply.^ A passenger must have actual notice of a limitation of liability before the train is started and while he has an opportunity to leave the car and re- move his baggage, and a limitation brought to his notice after the journey has commenced will not be binding, or affect his rights." The delivery and acceptance of a paper containing the contract may be binding though not read, provided the business is of sueli a nature and the delivery is under such circumstances as to raise the presumption that the person receiving it knows that it is a contract, containing the terms and conditions upon which the property is received to be carried. But when the circumstances of the transaction are such that the passenger has a right to regard the paper received merely as a receipt or voucher to enable him to follow and identify his baggage, and no notice is given to him that it embodies the terms of a special contract, his omission to read it is not per se negligence, and the delivery and acceptance of the receipt under such circumstances does not create a contract according to its terms, and he is not bound by the limitations con- tained therein. Whether, in a given case, such a paper was de- livered and accepted by a passenger with notice of its contents, or that it contained a special contract, so as to require that he sjhould acquaint himself with its contents, is a question of fact for the jury."* Contracts limiting the carrier's liability being in derogation of the common law are strictly construed and as a rule against the carrier, where their provisions are not plain and unquestionable.'^ A distinction is made between a passenger's 88. Holmes v. North German v. Sherrard, 9 Hun (N. Y.), 322; Lloyd S. S. Co., 100 App. Div. (N. Limburger v. Westcott, 49 Barb. (N. Y.) 36, 90 N. Y. Supp. 834. Y.) 283;; Blossom v. Dodd, 43 N. Yi 89. Eawson v. Pennsylvania E. 270, 3 Am. Eep. 701; Brown y. Co., 48 N. Y. 212; Mauritz v. New Eastern E. Co., 11 Cush. (Mass.) 97; York, etc., E. Co., 23 Fed. 766; Wil- Baltimore, etc., E. Co. v. Campbell, son V. Chesapeake, etc., E. Co., 21 36 Ohio St. 647, 38 Am. Eep. 617; Gratt. (Va.) 654; Logan v. . Pont- Malone v. Boston, etc., E. Co., 12 chartrain E. Co., 11 Bob. (La.) 24. Gray (Mass.), 388, 74 Am. Dec. 598; 90. Malone v. Metropolitan Ex- Wilson v. Chesapeake, etc., E. Co., press Co., 86 N. Y. Supp. 1039; Eng- supra. berman v. North German Lloyd S. S. 91. Wheeler v. Oceanic Steam Co., 84 N. Y. Supp. 201; Madan v. Nav. Co., 72 Hun (N. Y.), 5; Earle Sherrard, 73 N. Y. 329, 29 Am. Eep v. Cadmus, 2 Daly (N. Y. ), 237; 153, afiFg. 42 N. Y. Super. Ct. 353; Hopkins v. Westcott, 6 Blatehf. (IT. Grossman v. Dodd, 63 Hun (N. Y.), S.) 64; Edsall v. Camden, etc., B. 324, aflfd. 137 N. Y. 599; Woodruff Co., 50 N. Y. 661; St. Louis, etc., E. Duties and LiABiLiTusa. , 721 contract ticket or engagement for a voyage across the ocean wliicli is a matter of more deliberation and attention than buying a rail- road ticket or taking an express company's receipt for baggage or ireight, it being held that there is no room in the former case for the suggestion that the party is surprised into a contract when he supposes himself only to be taking a token indicative of his right. In the absence of fraud, concealment or improper practice, the legal presumption is held to be that stipulations limiting the com- mon law liability of the carrier, contained in the ticket of a paff- ■senger by steamship for a foreign port, are known to the party receiving it.'^ Where plaintiff delivered his trunk at the docks of an outgoing steamer in time to be shipped, and the carrier failed to put it on board, and it was destroyed by fire on the docks two days later, in an action to recover the value the carrier could not defend on the condition in the passage ticket limiting liability to $50 unless value was declared, as its negligence in failing to ship the trunk was a proximate cause of the loss.'' § 53. Baggage checks mere receipts or vouchers. — The primary purpose of giving a passenger a duplicate check is to enable him to identify and claim his baggage at the end of the route. It has never been regarded as embodying the contract of -carriage, but only as a voucher or token for the purpose men- tioned.'* The possession of the check is prima facie evidence of the holder's ownership of the baggage,'^ and of the receipt and posr session of the baggage by the carrier and that it has not been de- Co. V. Smuck, 49 Ind. 302; Deming 94. Isaacson v. New York Cent., V. Merchants Cotton Press, etc., Co., etc., R. Co., 94 N. Y. 278, 46 Am. 90 Tenn. 320; Louisville, etc., R. Co. Eep. 142, 16 Am. & Eng. E. Cas., V. Nieholai, 4 Ind. App. 119; Cow- 193; Quimby v. Vanderbilt, 17 N. ard V. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co., 16 Y. 306, 72 Am. Dec. 469 ; Hyman v. Lea (Tenn.), 225, 57 Am-. Rep. 227. Central Vermont R. Co., 66 Hun (N. 92. Steers v. Liverpool, etc., Y.), 202; Marmonstein v. Pennsyl- Steamship Co., 57 N. Y. 1, 15 Am. vania R. Co., 13 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) Rep. 453; Quimby v. Boston, etc., R. 32; Hiokox v. Naugatiick R. Co., 31 Co., 150 Mass. 365; Fonseca v. Cun- Conn. 281, 83 Am. Dec. 143; Atchi- «rd Steamship Co., 153 Mass. 553. son, etc., R. Co. v. Brewer, 20 Kan. 93. Tewes v. North German Lloyd 669. Compare Wilson v. Chesapeake, S. S. Co., 89 App. Div. (N. Y.) 148; etc., R. Co., 21 Gratt. (Va.) 654. 42 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 148, 85 N. Y. 95. Isaacson v. New York Cent., Supp. 994. etc., R. Co., supra. 46 722 The Law of Caeuiees. livered.^' As between connecting carriers, the surrender of a check by one line to another is presumptive evidence that the bag- gage has been received in due course by the latter company, and it is responsible therefor."' The general practice or system of rail- road companies in checking baggage is a matter of common obser- vation and experience, and has so become a part of the common knowledge of the community that courts may take judicial notice of its existence.'^ A railroad company cannot escape liability for baggage lost, on the ground that the baggageman had no authority to check the baggage, by setting up a rule of the company prohibit- ing the baggageman from checking baggage of the class lost "with- out a release of liability therefor, where the traveler has no knowl- edge of such rule." § 54. Commencement and termination of liability. — The car- rier's liability for the baggage of a passenger commences with the actual delivery of such baggage to the carrier and its taking possession of the same,^ regardless of whether the passenger has purchased a ticket or not, if he in good faith intended to become a passenger,^ and regardless of whether the baggage has been checked or not' Except in cases where the delay in shipment is the fault of the carrier,* the carrier's liability is that of a ware- 96. Davis v. Cayuga, etc., R. Co., 1. Davis v. Cayuga, etc., R. Co., 10 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 330; Denver, 10 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 330; Wilson v. etc., R. Co. V. Roberts, 6 Colo. 333; Grand Trunk R. Co., 57 Me. 138; Davis V. Michigan, etc., R. Co., 22 Green v. Milwaukeei etc., K. Co., 41 111. 278; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Iowa, 410; Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. Clayton, 78 111. 616; Kansas Pac. R. v. Foster, 104 Ind. 293. Co. V. Montelle, 10 Kan. 119; Louis- 2. Fairfax v. New York Cent., ville, etc., R. Co. v. Weaver, 9 Lea etc., R. Co., 37 N. Y. Super. CU (Tenn.), 38; Lake Shore, tetc, R. 516; Hickox v. Naugatuck R. Co., Co. v. Lassen, 12 ni. App. 659. 31 Conn. 281; Lake Shore, etc., K. 97. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Clay- Co. v. Foster, supra; Green v. Mil- ton, supra; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. waukee, etc., R. Co., supra. Hawkins, 39 111. 406; Kansas Pac. 3. Rogers v. Lond Island E. Co., R. Co. V. Montelle, supra; Ahlbeck 2 Lans. (N. Y.) 269, 1 T. & C. (N. V. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., 39 Minn. Y.) 396, affd. 56 N. Y. 620; Chicago, 424, 12 Am. St. Rep. 661. etc., R. Cor. v. Clayton, 78 HI. 610f 98. Isaacson v. New York Cent., Jordan v. Fall River R. Co., 5 Gush, etc., R. Co., supra. (Mass.) 69. 99. Trimble v. New York Cent., 4. Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Tapp, 6 etc., R. Co., 162 N. Y. 84, 56 N. E. Ind. App. 304; Shaw v. Northern 532, 48 L. R. A. 115. Pac. R. Co., 40 Minn. 144. Duties and Liabilities. 723 louseman only for baggage trought to the station, or depot and voluntarily deposited there for safe keeping and not for imme- diate transportation.^ But the carrier is liable as a common car- rier where transportation of baggage is delayed for ita con- venience, although vsrith the passenger's consent* Delivery to the baggage master or other authorized agent of the carrier and an acceptance by him will bind the carrier. A baggage master is held out to the world as the agent of the company, with general authority to receive baggage; his acts, within the general scope of his agency, are binding on the company, unless) the owner of baggage has notice of a limitation of his powe^rs.' The carrier will be liable for a wrongful act of its baggage master,* and for an acceptance of baggage in violatioii of its rules, if they are un- usual and not brought to the notice of the passenger.' Delivery to the only person in charge of the station, by depositing the baggage at the place indicated by him, and giving him directions as to checking, is a delivery to the carrier." Delivery to an agent other than the baggage master, having the control and supervision of business at the depot or station is a delivery which will be binding on the carrier." But the carrier's agent must have notice of the delivery of the baggage at the depot or station; a mere deposit without notice is insufficient to constitute a delivery,^^ unless the carrier assents to such a delivery." The carrier will 5. Van Gilder v. Chicago, etc., E. 635, 49 N. Y. 303, 4 Am. Ey. Eep. Co., 44 Iowa, 548; Goodbar v. Wa- 429. bash E. Co., 53 Mo. Ap. 434; Little 9. Lake Shore, etc., E. Co. v. Foa- Eock, etc., E. Co. v. Hunter, 42 Ark. ter, supra. 200. lOL Battle v. Columbia, etc., E. 6. Illinois Cent. E. Co. v. Trous- Co., 70 S. C. 329, 49 S. E. 849. tine, 64 Miss. 834; Shaw v. Northern 11. Eogers v. Long Island E. Co., Pac. E. Co., supra. 38 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 289, 1 T. & C. 7. Lake Shore, etc., E. Co. v. Fos- (N. Y.) 396, 2 Lans. (N. Y.) 269, ter, 104 Ind. 293, 54 Am. Eep. 319; affd. 56 N. Y. 620; Whitbeck v. Anuiston Transfer Co. v. Gurley Schuyler, 31 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 97; (Ala.), 18 So. 209; Wilson v. Grand Fisher v. Geddes, 15 La. Ann. 14; Trunk E. Co., 57 Me. 138; Jordan v. International, etc., E. Co. v. Fol- Fall Eiver E. Co., 5 Cush. (Mass.) Hard, 66 Tex. 603. 69, 51 Am. Dec. 44. 12. Eider v. Wabash, etc., E. Co., 8. McCormiek v. Pennsylvania 14 Mo. App. 529; Wright v. Cald- Cent. E. Co., 99 N. Y. 65, 52 Am. well, 3 Mich. 51; Kerr v. Grand Eep. 6, 21 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 296, Trunk E. Co., 24 U. C. C. P. 209. 80 N. Y. 353, 2 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 13. Green v. Milwavkee, etc., R. Co., 38 Iowa, 100, 41 Iowa, 410. T24 The Law op C^jeieiees. incur the liability of a warehouseman for baggage delivered to it through the wrongful act or mistake of a connecting carrier.** The carrier's liability as a common carrier for the baggage of a passenger terminates' after the lapse of a reasonable time for its delivery after arrival at the place of destination; and it then be- comes liable as a warehouseman/^ The question of what is a reasonable time is largely one for the jury upon all the facts of the ease, such as the character of the station or depot, the facilities of the carrier for receiving baggage there and for delivering the same when called for, and the carrier's general custom of transact- ing such business, Ijut when the facts are not disputed it is for the court to decide/^ When the passenger's baggage is not ready for delivery when called for, or the baggage remains in the depot be- cause of the absence of the baggage master or his failure to dis- charge his duties, the liability of the carrier continues until the passenger has had reasonable time to again call for it.*' Where, upon arrival of the baggage at its destination, the passenger takes 14. Fairfax v. New York Cent., etc., E. Co., 67 N. Y. 11, 73 N. Y. 167, 29 Am. Eep. 119. 15. N. r.— Burnell v. New York Cent. E. Co., 45 N. Y. 184, 6 Am. Eep. 61; Eoth v. Buffalo, etc., E. Co., 34 N. Y. 548, 90 Am. Dec. 736; Burgevin v. New York Cent., etc., E. Co., 69 Hun (N. Y.), 479; Gary v. Cleveland, etc., E. Co., 29 Barb. (N. Y.) 35; Powell v. Myers, 26 Wend. (N. Y.) 591; Torpey v. Williams, 3 Daly (N. Y.), 162; Holdridge v. Utica, etc., E. Co., 56 Barb. (N. Y.) 191; Klein v. Hamburg- American Packet Co., 3 Daly (N. Y), 390; Kevins v. Bay State Steamboat Co., 4 Bosw. (N. Y.) 225. III. — St. Louis, etc., E. Co. v. Hard- way, 17 111. App. 321. Ind. — ^Pennsylvania Co. v. Live- right (Ind. App.), 41 N. E. 350. lovxt. — ^Mote V. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 27 Iowa, 22. Kan. — ^Kansas City, etc., E. Co. v. Patten (Kan.), 45 Pac. 108. Ey. — ^Wald v. Louisville, etc., E. Co., 92 Ky. 645. Mass. — Nealand v. Boston, etc., B. Co., 161 Mass. 67. Mo. — Cohen v. St. Louis, etc., K. Co., 59 Mo. App. 66; Lin v. Terre Haute, etc., E. Co., 10 Mo. App. 12.5. Tex. — Galveston, etc., E. Co. v. Smith (Tex. Civ. App.), 24 S. W. 668; Gulf, etc., E. Co. v. Jackaon (Tex. App.), 15 S. W. 128, Can. — ^Vineberg v. Grand Trunk E. Co., 13 Ont. App. 93, 27 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 271. 16. Eoth V. Buffalo, etc., E. Co., 34 N. Y. 548; Burgevin v. New York Cent. E. Co., 69 Hun (N. Y.) ,- 479; Jones v. Norwich, etc., Transp. i Co., 50 Barb. (N. Y.) 193; Nevins V. Bay State Steamboat Co., 4 Bosw. (N. Y.) 225; Louisville, etc., E. Co. V. Mahan, 8 Bush. (Ky.) 184; George F. Ditman Boot, etc., Co. v. Keokuk, etc., E. Co., 91 Iowa, 4I6; Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Boyce, 73 111. 510; Jacobs v. Tutt, 33 Fed. 412; Guimit V. Henshaw, 35 Vt. 605; Brown v. Canadian Pac. E. Co., 3 Manitoba L. Eep. 496. 17. Dininny v. New York, etc., B. Duties and Liabilities. 725 possession of it, and subsequently, for his convenience and ac- commodation, tiie carrier's agent agrees to store it until sent or called for, the carrier's liability as a common carrier ends and it becomes liable thereafter only as a warehouseman.^ It is the passenger's duty to call for and remove his baggage v?ithin a reasonable time after arriving at hia destination,^' and vrhat is such reasonable time is determined by the same rules as stated above in reference to delivery by the carrier.^" Delivery by the carrier must be made at the proper station, and the carrier's lia- bility continues until such delivery and notification to the pas- senger, if delay has been occasioned by delivery at a place other than that called for in the contract of carriage.^^ Delivery to an agent of the owner is suflScient.^^ But delivery to a stranger upon a forged order is no delivery and the carrier is liable for the loss.^* Co., 49 N. Y. 546, 4 Am. Ey. Rep. 457; Georgia R., etc., Co. v. Phil- lips, 93 Ga. 801. 18. Mattison v. New York Cent. E. Co., 57 N. Y. 552; Matteson v. New York Cent. R. Co., 76 N. Y. 381; Curtis v. Avon, etc., R. Co., 49 Barb. (N. Y.) 148; Northland v. Philadelphia, etc., E. Co., 81 Hun (N. Y.) 473; Mulligan v. Northern Pac. E. Co., 4 Dak. 315; Little Eock, etc., R. Co. V. Hunter, 42 Ark. 200; Laffrey v. Grummond, 74 Mich. 186; Minor v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 19 Wis. 40; Galveston, etc., E. Co. v. Smith, 81 Tex. 479, 24 S. W. 668. 19. Gilhooly v. New York, etc.. Steam Nav. Co., I Daly (N. Y.) 197; Morris v. Third Ave. E. Co., 1 Daly {N. Y.) 202; Holdridge v. Utica, etc., E. Co., 56 Barb. (N. Y.) 191; Curtis V. Avon, etc., E. Co., supra; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Addizoat, 17 111. App. 632; Eoss v. Missouri, etc., E. Co., 4 Mo. App. 583; Ouimit v. Henshaw, 35 Vt. 605; Texas, etc., E. Co. T. Cook, 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. § 659; Vineberg v. Grand Trunk E. Co., 13 Ont. App. 93. 20. Van Horn v. Kermit, 4 E. D. Sm. (N. Y.) 453; Gary v. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 29 Barb. (N. Y.) 35; Wiegand v. Central E. Co., 75 Fed. 370; Watkins v. New York Cent., etc., E. Co., 3 N. Y. Supp. 946; Hoeger v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 63 Wis. 100; Holdridge v. Utica, etc., E. Co., 56 Barb. (N. Y.) 91; Wald v. Louisville, etc., E. Co., 92 Ky. P45; Clark V. Eastern R. Co., 139 Mass. 423; Fenton v. Grand Trunk E. Co., 28 U. C. Q. B. 367. See also oases cited note 16. 21. Klein v. Hamburg American Packet Co., 3 Daly (N. Y.) 390; Murphy v. Emigration Com'rs, 28 N. Y. 154; Gilhooly v. New York, etc., R. Co., a Daly (N. Y.) 197; To- ledo, etc., E. Co. V. Hammond, 33 Ind. 379; Gulf, etc., E. Co. v. Moody (Tex. Civ. App.), 30 S. W. 574. 'Where baggage is checked to the vpTong station, it is contribu- tory negligence which will defeat a recovery for delay in returning it, for the passenger to fail to read the cheek given to him, which would have disclosed the mistake. Gon- thier v. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 28 La. Ann. 67. 22. Mobile, etc., E. Co. v. Hop- kins, 41 Ala. 486. 23. Mattison v. New York Cent. E. Co., 57 N. Y. 552; PoweU y. 726 The Law of Caejiiees. § 55. Carrier's liability as warehouseman. — Where a passen- ger neglects to take baggage from the possession of a railroad company within a reasonable time, the company is subject to a contractual liability to care therefor as warehouseman.^ But where a railroad company received a passenger's trunk from an expressman, but, when the passenger subsequently went to the station to check the trunk, it could not be found; the passenger accepted a check from the baggage master on his promise that he would send the trunk on ; she presented the check at her destina- tion, but failed to get the trunk, it appearing that it had been stolen from the company ; the company's relation to the trunk was that of a common carrier, and not of a warehouseman.^' So, v/here a passenger, on alighting at the station, was unable to get any information when his trunk would arrive; it arrived the next afternoon and was burglarized that night in the station, and he called for it on the next day ; as such carrier's relation to plaintiff was still that of a carrier when the trunk was burglarized, its lia- bility was not reduced to that of warehouseman. ^° If, after the lapse of a reasonable time, a carrier stores the baggage of a pas- senger, at his expense, it remains liable only as warehouseman." It is liable only as a gratuitous bailee, if no charge is made for the storage.^ The loss of a passenger's baggage is presumptively Myers, 26 Wend. (N. Y.) 591; Wal- Iowa. — George F. Ditman Boot, dron V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 1 Dak. etc., Co. v. Keokuk, etc., E. Co., 91 341. Iowa, 416. 24. Blackmore v. Missouri Pac. Ky. — Wald v. Louisville, etc., E. E. Co., 162 Mo. 455; 62 S. W. 993; Co., 92 Ky. 645. St. Louis, etc., E. Co. v. Hardway, 17 Mo.— Eoss v. Missouri, etc., E. Co., HI. App. 321 ; Louisville, etc., E. Co. 4 Mo. App. 583. V. Mahan, 8 Bush. (Ky.) 184; Kahn Tea!.— Galveston, etc., E. Co. v. V. Atlantic, etc., E. Co., 115 N. C. Smith, 81 Tex. 479. 638. See also § 54. Vt. — Ouimit v. Henshaw, 35 Vt. , 25. Williams v. Central E. Co. of 646. N. J., 93 App. Div. (N. Y.) 582, 88 Wis.— Hoeger v. Chicago, etc., R. N. Y. Supp. 434. Co., 63 Wis. 100. 26. Felton v. Chicago G. W. R. 28. Jones v. Norwich, etc., Transp. Co., 86 Mo. App. 332. Co., 50 Barb. (N. Y.) 193; Clark v. 27. iV. r.— Matteson v. New York Eastern E. Co., 139 Mass. 423; Cent., etc., E. Co., 76 N. Y. 381; Bur- Minor v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 19 nell V. New York Cent. E. Co., 45 N. Wis. 40; Litle Eock, etc., E. Co. v. Y. 184. Hunter, 42 Ark. 200. Ga. — Georgia E. Co. v. Thompson, 86 Ga. 327. Duties and Liabilities. 727 bj negligence of tlie carrier, it having been delivered into the cus- tody of its proper agent, and no excuse being given for its disap- peacance.^ And this rulfe applies -whether the carrier is acting as carrier or warehouseman,^" although the burden is upon the pas- senger to show that the loss or injury of baggage stored resulted &B a proximate cause of the carrier's negligence.'^ § 56. Connecting carriers. — Connecting railroads constituting one system, employing the same agents to sell passage tickets and receive baggage to be carried over the entire road, and being Tinder the same general direction and control, are liable as part- ners jointly for a loss occurring on any part of the route.'^ But an agreement between distinct and independent lines by which any one of them may sell tickets and check baggage over the others does not make them partners or liable as such,'' and each of them is liable only for losses occurring on its line, except in jurisdictions where the initial carrier is held to assume liability for the entire route.^* Where an initial carrier sold tickets to points on the line of a connecting carrier, there being no special •contract or partnership between the two under which one was responsible for the default of the other, nor anything to show that the initial carrier acted as agent for the other, the connecting car- rier could not be held liable for the loss of a trunk delivered to the initial carrier, in the absence of any evidence that it was ever ae. Burnell v. New York Cent. R. Co., 8 N". Y. 37, 59 Am. Dec. 447; •Co., 45 N. Y. 184, 6 Am. Eep. 61; Green v. New York Cent. E. Co., 4 The PriseUla, 106 Fed. 739; Penn- Daly (N. Y.) 553, 12 Abb. Pr. N. S. sylvania R. Co. v. Baldauf, 16 Pa. 67, (N. Y.) 473; Wolff v. Central R., 55 Am. Dee. 481. etc., Co., 68 Ga. 653; Peterson v. 30. Fairfax v. New York Cent., Chicago, etc., R. Co., 80 Iowa 92; €tc., E. Co., 73 N. Y. 167, 67 N. Y. Barter v. Wheeler, 49 N. H. 9; II, 29 Am. Rep. 119, 15 Am. Ey. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Fort, 1 Tex. Eep. 141. App. Civ. Cas. § 1252, 9 Am. & Eng. 31. Curtis V. Delaware, etc., R. R. Cas. 392; International, etc., R. €o., 74 N. Y. 116, 30 Am. Eep. 271; Co. v. Foltz, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 44. Pennsylvania Co. v. Miller, 35 Ohio 33. Ellsworth v. Tartt, 26 Ala. St. 541; Cohen v. St. Louis, etc., E. 733; Felder v. Columbia, etc., E. Co., €o., 59 Mo. App. 66; Mote v. Chi- 21 S. C. 35. Contra; Atchison, etc., ■cago, etc,, E. Co., 27 Iowa 24; Bar- E. Co. v. Roach, 35 Kan. 740; Texas tholomew v. St. Louia^ etc., E. Co., cases cited in last preceding note. 53 111. 227. See also cases cited note 34. Central Trust Co. v. Wabash, 27, ante. etc., E. Co., 31 Fed. 247; Pennsyl- 32. Hart v. Eensselaer, etc., R. vania R. Co. v. Connell, 112 111. 295. 728 The Law op CAkeiees. received by the connecting carrier. ^^ Mere proof that a passenger bought a ticket from the initial carrier reading over several lines named and that such, ticket was honored by the last line, is insuf- ficient to show either an original joint contract, or partnership, or ratification, so as to make the last line liable for lost baggage, without a showing that the baggage had once come into its pos- session.^^ Where baggage is checked on a through ticket over sev- eral connecting lines, the contract made with the initial carrier governs the liability of the other carriers, limitations contained therein inuring to the benefit of the connecting lines, unless expressly restricted to the initial line.'' But the initial carrier cannot, in the absence of a special contract, bind a connecting line to liability for injuries not occurring on the latter's line.'* Where a carrier seUs a ticket to a point on the line of a connecting car- rier, and checks the passenger's baggage through to the passen- ger's destination, the receiving carrier is, in the absence of ex- press contract to the contrary, liable for loss of the baggage by the connecting carrier. A carrier may contract to transport be- yond its own line and the sale of a through ticket is assumed to be an undertaking to safely deliver the baggage at the point to- which the ticket is sold.'' But the facts that a person, who has 35. Komero v. MeKernan, 88 N. Burnell v. New York Cent. E. Co.,. y. Supp. 365. 45 N. Y. 184, 6 Am. Eep. 61; Tal- 36. Kessler v. New York Cent., cott v. Wabash E. Co., 66 Hun (N. etc., R. Co., 61 N. Y. i538; Texas, Y.), 456; Cary v. Cleveland, etc., K- etc., E. Co. V. Berry (Tex. Civ. Co., 29 Barb. (N. Y.) 35; Weed v. App.), 71 S. W. 326; Felder v. Col- Saratoga, etc., E. Co., 19 Wend. (N.. umbia, etc., E. Co., 21 S. C. 35; 53 Y.) 534; Torpey v. Williams, 3 Am. Rep. 656, and proof that the Daly (N. Y.), 162; Kansas City, last line sent out tracers for the lost etc., R. Co. v. Washington (Ark.),, baggage did not show that it ever be- 85 S. W. 406; Little Eock. etc., E. came a party to the original con- Co. v. Eecord (Ark.), 85 S. W. 421; tract. Mauritz v. New York, etc., E. Co., 23 37. Whitworth v. Erie R. Co., 87 Fed. 765; Harp v. The Grand Era, 1 N. Y. 413; Babcock v. Lake Shore, Woods (U. S.), 184; Croft v. Haiti- etc., E. Co., 49 N. Y. 491; Western more, etc., E. Co., 1 MacArthur (D. Union Tel. Co. v. Carew, 15 Mich. C), 492; Hawley v. Screven, 62 Ga. 525. 347; Illinois Cent. E. Co. v. Cope- 38. Montgomery, etc., R. Co. v. land, 24 111. 332; Atchison, etc., E.- Culver, 75 Ala. 587. But see Wolff Co. v. Roach, 35 Kan. 740; Knight V. Central E., etc., Co., 68 Ga. 653. v. Portland, etc., E. Co., 56 Me. 234; 39. Isaacson v. New York Cent., Perkins v. Portland, etc., E. Co., 47 etc., R. Co., 94 N. Y. 278, 46 Am. Reji. Me. 573 ; Hartan v. Eastern E. Co., 142, 16 Am. & Esg. R. Cas. 188; 114 Mass. 44; Baltimore, etc., E. Cc Duties and Liabilities. 72& paid througli fare to the terminus of connecting railroad lines,, and received a coupon ticket to that place from the first of the connecting carriers, knew what a coupon ticket meant and in- tended to purchase a ticket that would take him over connecting lines, warrant the inference of notice to him, even if the name of the company was not correctly given, of a statement at the head of a ticket, that the company " selling this ticket " acted " as- agent," and that it did not intend to become " responsible beyond its own line," and tend to raise a question of fact as to whether the contract was for through transportation or not ; and a finding on that question in the negative prevents a recovery and calls for the dismissal of a complaint against the carrier which sold the ticket, as to a cause of action for damages for personal baggage of the passenger, carried free as an incident of the ticket and de- stroyed by fire on another road.*" The initial carrier is liable for any loss occurring on its own or coimecting lines due to its own negligence in failing to properly check baggage, whether there is a special contract or not." Other cases maintain the rule that the initial carrier is only liable for such losses as occur on its ovra. line, or by reason of its failure to make proper delivery of the baggage- to the connecting carrier, and that selling a through ticket and checking baggage through is not sufficient to create a greater lia- bility,*^ although the carrier may by special contract extend its liability for the entire route.*^ An intermediate carrier, or the last carrier, is liable, like the initial carrier, for a loss of baggage- occurring upon its own line, or where it fails to account for bag- V. Campbell, 36 Ohio St. 647; Louis- (N. Y.) 32; Michigan Cent. E. Co. v. ville, etc., R. Co. v. Weaver, 9 Lea Mineral Springs Mfg. Co., 16 Wall. (Tenn.), 38; Candee v. Pennsylvania (U. S.) 318; Mauritz v. Ne-w York, E. Co., 21 Wis. 582; Wilson v. Ghesa- etc., E. Co., 23 Fed. 769; Green v. peake, etc., R. Co., 21 Gratt. (Va.) Ne-w York Cent. E. Co., 4 Daly (N". 654; Nashua Lock Co. v. Worcester, Y.), 553; Gulf, etc., E. Co., v. Jack- etc, E. Co., 48 N. H. 339. son, 4 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. § 47. 40. Talcott v. Wabash E. Co., 43. Quimby v. Vanderbilt, 17 N.. 159 N. Y. 462. , Y. 313, 72 Am. Dee. 469; Van Sant- 41. Isaacson v. New York Cent., voord v. St. John, 6 Hill (U. S.), 157; etc., E. Co., supra; Najac v. Boston, Myrick v. Michigan Cent. E. Co., 107 etc., E. Co., 7 Allen (Mass.), 329. U. S. 107; Perkins v. Portland, etc.^ 42. Milnor v. Ne-w York, etc., E. E. Co., 47 Me. 573; Green v. New Co., 53 N. Y. 363; Marmonstein v. York Cent. E. Co., supra; Mauritz v.. Pennsylvania E. Co., 13 Misc. Eep. New York, etc., E. Co., supra. 730 The Law of Caeeiees. g&ge delivered to it in good order by a previous, carrier." Proof of the receipt of the baggage by it raises the presumption that the loss occurred on its line, and requires it to prove delivery in good cendition to the succeeding carrier to relieve it from liability.*' An intermediate carrier, like an initial carrer, is liable for any damage arising from the loss or detention of baggage delivered to it, caused by its failure to forward it promptly.** But a pas- senger's notice to a carrier's baggageman that he bad a large sample trunk, which he wished checked, is insufficient to charge the carrier with knowledge that any special reason existed for ex- pediting the delivery of the particular trunk, so as to render the carrier liable, as for breach of contract, for damage resulting from delay caused by the necessity of having the samples in order to fulfil engagements already made to meet prospective customers, to whom no goods could be sold in the absence of the samples." 44. Fairfax v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 73 N. Y. 167; Estes v. St. Paul, etc., K. Co., 7 N. Y. Supp. 863; MoCormick v. Hudson Eiver E. Co., 4 E. T>. Sm. (N. Y.) 181; Eome R. Co. V. Wimberly, 75 Ga. 316; Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Fahey, 52 111. 81; Atchison, etc., E. Co. v. Roach, 35 Kan. 740; Baltimore Steam Packet Co. v. Smith, 23 Md. 402; Montgomery, etc., R. Co. v. Culver, 75 Ala. 387; Hooper v. London, etc., E. Co., 29 W. R. 241, 43 L. T. 570; LouisvUIe, etc., E. Co. v. Weaver, 9 Lea (Tenn.), 38. 45. Caldwell v. Erie Transfer Co., 13 Misc. Eep (N. Y.) 37; Myerson V. Wolverton, 9 Misc. Eep. (N. Y.) 186; Hyman v. Central Vermont E. Co., 66 Hun (N. Y.), 802; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Hawkins, 39 111. App. 406; Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. Harper, 29 Md. 330. See also cases cited in last preceding note. 46. Davis v. Michigan Southern, etc., R. Co., 22 HI. 278, 74 Am. Dec. 151. 47. Ka,tz V. Cleveland, etc., E. Co., 46 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 259, 91 N. Y. Supp. 720. A carrier is not liable, as for a breach of contract, for delay in de- livery of a sample trunk of a pas- senger, who was a member of a firm and had taken the samples with him on a selling trip, merely on proof of the value of the lost time of the pas- senger, and the amount of commis- sion he would have earned by sales of goods he would have made each day, had the trunk not been delayed, where tne contract was not made with reference to the peculiar cir- cumstances known to both shipper and carrier, and the particular loss was not in contemplation of both, at the time of making the contract, as a contingency which might follow non-performance. Id. CHAPTER XXI. Ejection of Passengees. Section 1. Ejection of passengers for failure or refusal to procure ticket or pay fare. 2. Passenger entitled to reasonable time to pay fare or produce ticket. 3. Extra fare when paid on train. 4. Tender or payment of fare to avoid ejection. 5. Ejection of intoxicated passengers. 6. Ejection of disorderly passengers. 7. Ejection for violation of reasonable rules of the carrier. 8. Defective or invalid tickets. 9. Ejection of persons riding on freight trains. 10. Manner of ejection. 11. Place of ejection. § 1. Ejection of passenger for failure or refusal to procure ticket or pay fare. — ^Railroad passengers are bound to submit to a reasonable regulation of the company requiring them to exhibit their ticketsf when required to do so by the conductor, and for refusing to exhibit it the passenger may be removed from the car. So, a passenger who refuses or fails to pay proper fare, when de- manded, by such refusal forfeits his right to proceed further on the train or ear, and may be expelled.^ A passenger on a railroad 1. N. T. — ^Hoelljes v. Interurban Go. — Hornesby v. Georgia E., etc., St. Ry. Ck>., 43 Misc. Eep. (N. Y.) Co., 120 Ga. 913, 48 S. E. 339; Harp 350, 87 N. Y. Supp. 133; Sanford v. v. Southern Ey. Co., 119 Ga. 927, 47 J)ighth Ave. E. Co., 23 N. Y. 343; S. E. 206, and a passenger has no Eibbard v. New York, etc., E. Co., right to be carried on offer to prove lis N. Y. 455; Eown v. Christopher, that he has lost his ticket. See «tc., St. E. Co., 34Hun (N. Y.), 471; Louisville, etc., E. Co. v. Fleming, iLasher v. Third Ave. E. Co., 27 Misc. 14 Lea (Tenn.), 128; Eogers v. At- Eep. (N. Y.) 824, 57 N. Y. Supp. lantic City E. Co. (N. J.), 34 Atl. 395; Higgins v. Watervliet Turnpike, 11; Southern Ey. Co. v. De SaussurC; etc., Co., 46 N. Y. 23; Northern R. 116 Ga. 53, 42 S. E. 479; Gulf, etc. Co. V. Page, 22 Barb. (N. Y.) 130. E. Co. v. Asmore, 88 Ga. 529, 15 S. U. S.— Brown v. Memphis, etc., E. B. 13, 16 L. E. A. 53. 'Co., 4 Fad. 37. /JZ.— Illinois Cent. E. Co. v. Whit il Jo.— Southern Ey. Co. v. Bunnell, temore, 43 111. 420, 92 Am. Dec. 138: 138 Ala. 247, 36 So. 380. Ohio, etc., E. Co. v. Muhling, 30 III (731) 732 The Law of CiEEiEBs. car, being responsible for the fare of a child under his charge, may be ejected for refusal to pay such fare, though he has paid hig o-wn fare,^ and though he himself is a minor.' Under the Massa- chusetts statute, a child in the custody of his parent, upon refusal to pay fare, may be removed from the train at a regular passenger station, without being arrested.* 9, 81 Am. Deo. 336; Terre Haute, etc., R. Co. V. Vanatta, 21 111. 188, 74 Am. Dee. 96. Ind. — Indianapolis, etc., E. Co. v. Einard, 46 Ind. 293; Columbus, etc., E. Co. V. Powell, 40 Ind. 37; Toledo, etc., K. Co. V. Wright, 68 Ind. 586, 34 Am. Eep. 277. Iowa. — ^HoflEbauer v. Delhi, etc., E. Co., 52 Iowa, 342, 35 Am. Eep. 278; Haley v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 21 Iowa, 15. Ky. — Flood V. Chesapeake, etc., E. Co., 25 Ky. L. Eep. 2135, 80 S. W. 184; Nutter v. Southern Ey., 25 Ky. L. Eep. 1700, 78 S. W. 470. Ud. — ^McCliire v. Philadelphia, etc., E. Co., 34 Md. 532, 6 Am. Eep. 345. Mass. — Crowley v. Fitchburg, etc., E. Co., 185 Mass. 279, 70 N. E. 56; O'Brien v. Boston, etc., E. Co., 15 Gray (Mass.), 20, 77 Am. Dec. 347; McGarry v. Holyoke St. E. Co., 182 Mass. 123, 65 N. E. 45. Mich. — Brown v. Eapid Ey. Co., 10 Detroit L. N. 579 (Mich.), 96 N. W. 925; Lake Shore, etc., E. Co. v. Pierce, 47 Mich. 277, 3 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 340; Great Western E. Co. V. Miller, 19 Mich. 305. Mo. — Shular v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 92 Mo. 339, 28 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 186; Lillis v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 64 Mo. 464, 27 Am. Eep. 255. V. J. — Jardine v. Cornell, 50 N. J. L. 485; Petrie v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 42 N. J. L. 449. y. O. — ^McGraw v. Southern Ey. Co., 135 N. C. 264, 47 S. E. 758; Clark V. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 91 N. C. 512, 49 Am. Eep. 647, 18 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 366. Ohio. — New York, etc., R. Co. v. Willing, 24 Ohio C. C. 474. Pa. — Pennsylvania Co. v. Lenhart, 120 Fed. 61, as to wrongful ejec- tion for failure to present a mileage exchange ticket. 8. C. — ^Moore v. Columbia, etc., K.. Co., 38 S. C. 1. Tex. — Galveston, etc., E. Co. v. Scott (Tex. Civ. App.), 79 S. W. 642 ; Breen v. Texas, etc., E. Co., 50 Tex. 43. See Texas, etc., E. Co. v. Lynch (Tex. Civ. App.), 73 S. W. 65. Wash. — Braymer v. Seattle E., etc., Co., 35 Wash. 346, 77 Pac. 495. TF. Ya. — ^McKay v. Ohio River Co., 34 W. Va. 65, 26 Am. St. Eep. 913, 44 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 395. 2. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. Hoeflich, 62 Md. 300, 50 Am. Eep. 223, 18 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 373. 3. Warfield v. Louisville, etc., R. Co. (Tenn.) 55 S. W. 304. 4. Beekwith v. Cheshire R. Co., 143 Mass. 68, 27 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 192. Ejection of passengers from street railroads: As to use of in- sulting language by conductor, Os- teryoung v. St. Louis Transit Co., 3 St. Ry. Rep. 566, 108 Mo. App. 703, 84 S. W. 179; as to failure to ac- cept transfer, Sommerfield v. St. Louis Transit Co., 3 St. Ry. Eep. 566, 108 Mo. App. 7i8, 84 S. W. 172; as to refusal to accept lawful money in payment of fare, Breen v. St. LouU Transit Co., 3 St. Ey. Eep. 666, 108 Ejection of Passengees. 733 '§ 2. Passenger entitled to reasonable time to pay fare or pro- cluce ticket. — ^Wliere a passenger on a train or car hag lost or mis- laid hia ticket, and is in good faith trying to find it, he is entitled to a reasonable time to do so, and if, in case he fails to find it, he is willing and ready to pay his fare, the conductor has no right to put him off the train.^ So, where a passenger, when asked for his fare, demanded an opportunity to go to a rear car and get it of a man who had promised to pay it' Whether a reasonable or suffi- cient time was given a passenger to produce his ticket or pay his fare is ordinarily a question of fact for the jury under the circum- stances of the particular case,' ;§ 3. Extra fare when paid on train. — ^A requirement by a rail- Toad company that a passenger shall pay more for his fare when paid in the cars than at the depot is generally held to be reason- Mo. App. 443, 83 S. W. 998; as to unnecessary force, Kuebsam v. St. louis Transit Co., 3 St. Ey. Eep. 667, 108 Mo. App. 437, 83 S. W. fl84; Birmingham Ey. L. & P. Co. v. Mullen, 2 St. Ey. Eep. 5, 138 Ala. «14, 35 So. 701; as to force to be used by conductor for failure to pay fare, Gottwald v. St. Louis Transit Co. (Mo.), 2 St. Ry. Eep. 632, 77. S. W. 125; for failure to produce trans- fer, Crowley v. Fitehburg & L. St. Ey. -Co. (Mass.), 2 St. Ey. Eep. 453, 70 N. E. 56; see note on ejection of pas- senger for failure to present proper transfer, 2 St. Ey. Eep. 916, and note, 2 St. Ey. Rep. 5; as to injury to newsboy selling papers on street car, Indianapolis St. Ey. Co. v. Hockett (Ind.), 1 St. Ey. Eep. 115, 67 N. E. 106; as to reasonable time for 'paymenti of tfare. Garrison v. United Eys. & Elec. Co. of Balti- more (Md.), 1 St. Ey. Rep. 267, 55 Atl. 371; Huba v. Schenectady Ry. •Co., 1 St. Ry. Rep. 592; 85 App. J>iv. (N. Y.) 199, 83 N. Y. Supp. 157; for refusal to pay fare upon re- jection of transfer, Perriue v. North Jersey St. Ry. Co. (N. J.), 1 St. Ry. Rep. 525, 55 Atl. 799; upon presenta- tion of defective transfer, Memphis St. Ry. Co. V. Graves (Tenn.), 1 St. Ry. Rep. 760, 75 S. W. 729 ; see note, 1 St. Ey. Eep. 593. See also Nellis Street Eailroad Accident Law, 76-89, 158-103. 5. Hayes v. New York Cent, etc., E. Co., 34 Hun (N. Y.), 627, 30 Alb. L. J. 469, 18 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 363, 20 Wkly. Dig. (N. Y.) 237; Maples V. New York, etc., E. Co., 38 Conn. 557, and he is entitled to ride as long as there is any reasonable expectation of finding it during the trip, where the conductor knew that he had the ticket. 6. Clark v. Wilmington, etc., E. Co., 91 N. C. 506, 49 Am. Eep. 647; Western, etc., R. Co. v. Ledbetter (Ga.), 25 S. E. 663. 7. International, etc., R. Co. v. Wilkes, 68 Tex. 617, 2 Am. St. Rep. 515, 34 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 331; Texas, etc., E. Co. v. Bond, 62 Tex. 442, 50 Am. Eep. 532, 21 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 413; Cincinnati, etc., E. Co. V. Skillman, 39 Ohio St. 444, 13 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 31. 734 The Law of CXeeiees. able, and a passenger may be ejected for refusal to so pay; while in many States the carrier is authorized by statute to charge extra fare when it is paid on the train.* The rule is also generally main- tained that a railroad company, requiring tickets to be purchased at a station, must furnish reasonable facilitiea therefor by keep- ing its office open for a reasonable time before and imtil the depar- ture of the train so that passengers may purchase tickets, and where this has not been done no extra charge can be made for the carriage of the passenger because he has no ticket' And where 8. N. 7. — Bordeaux v. Erie R. Co., 8 Hun (N. Y.), 579. Conn. — Crocker v. New London, etc., B. Co., 24 Conn. 249. III. — St. Iiouis, etc., R. Co. v. South, 43 111. 176, 92 Am. Dec. 103; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Brisbane, 24 111. App. 463; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Dalby, 19 111. 353. Ind. — Indianapolis, etc., R. Co., v. Rinard, 46 Ind. 293; Lake Erie, etc., R. Co. V. Mays, 4 Ind. App. 413; Jeffersonville, etc., R. Co. v. Rogers, 38 Ind. 116, 10 Am. Rep. 103. loica. — State v. Chovin, 7 Iowa, 204. La. — McGowen v. Morgan's L., etc., Co., 41 La. Ann. 732, 17 Am. St. Rep. 415, 39 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 460. Me.— State v. Goold, 53 Me. 275. Mimn. — Du Laurans v. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., 15 Minn. 49, 2 Am. Rep. 102. N. ff.— Hilliard v. Goold, 34 N. H. 230. Ohio. — Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Skillman, 39 Ohio St. 444, 13 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 31. 7t.— Stephen v. Smith, 29 Vt. 160. 9. y. y.— Nellis V. New York Cent. R. Co., 30 N. Y. 505; Chase v. New York Gent. R. Co., 26 N. Y. 523; Por- ter V. New York Cent. R. Co., 34 Barb. (N. Y.) 353; Bordeaux v. Erie R. Co., 8 Hun (N. Y.), 579, but it is not bound to keep the ticket office open for any particular time, before the departure of the train, in the ab- sence of a statutory provision requir- ing it to do so. Ala. — ^Kennedy v. Birmingham Ey., etc., Co. (Ala.), 35 So. 108. III. — Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. John- son, 67 111. 312; Illinois Cent. R. i;o. V. Cunningham, 67 111. 316; Chicago, etc., R. Co. V. Flagg, 43 111. 364, 92 Am. Dec. 133; Chicago, etc., R. Co. V. Parks, 18 111. 460, 68 Am. Dec 562 ; and cases cited in last preceding note. Ind. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Gra- ham, 3 Ind. App. 28, 29 N. E. 170; Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Beckett, 11 Ind. App. 547 ; and cases cited in last preceding note. Kan. — ^Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Dickenson, 4 Kan. App. 345, 45 Pac. 975. Mass. — Swan v. Manchester, etc., K. Co., 132 Mass. 116, 42 Am. Rep. 432. Minn. — ^Du Laurans v. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., 15 Minn. 49, 2 Am. Rep. 102. Tenn. — ^Lane v. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co., 5 Lea (Tenn.), 124, and the fact that a ticket office was closed can raise no presumption that tlie regu- lation to sell tickets at less than (bo fare paid on the cars was discon- tinued. Tex.— Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Sparger (Tex. Civ. App.), 39 S. W. 1001. Contra.- Crocker v. New London, etc., R. Co., 24 Conn. 249, holding Ejection of Passenoees. 73& the statute requires the ticket office to be open the carrier is liable to the statutory penalty for extortion in exacting a greater rate of fare than that allowed by law.^" A rule of a railroad company requiring a passenger to either pay an amount in excess of tho highest amount that can be legally charged for his passage, or be expelled from the train, is not a valid rule, and the expulsion of a passenger because of his refusal to pay such excessive fare de- manded of him, will render the company liable. ^^ § 4. Tender or payment of fare to avoid ejection. — If the stop- page of a train is rendered necessary to expel a passenger there- from, for a fractious refusal to pay fare, and it is stopped for the sole purpose of ejecting him, he does not, by offering to pay the full fare before expulsion, become entitled to continue the trip. A mere offer to pay fare under all circumstances does) not estab- lish new relations between the carrier and the passenger, and. entitle the passenger to continue his passage. ^^ But a railroad passenger may not be ejected at a regular station or stopping place,, for refusal to pay fare, if before the train started again and be- fore being ejected, he, or others in his behalf, offer to pay the full fare.^^ When a passenger on a railroad, by an illegal refusal to that such a regulation of the company 455; Nelson v. Long Island R. Co.y was not a contract, but a mere pro- 7 Hun (N. Y.), 140; Hoffbauer v. posal, which might be withdrawn at Delhi, etc., R. Co., 52 Iowa, 342, 35 pleasure; that the closing of the Am. Rep. 278; Cincinnati, etc., R. ticket office was a withdrawal of the Co. v. Skillman, 39 Ohio St. 444, IS proposal to discriminate in favor of Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 31; State v. those purchasing tickets, and that the Campbell, 32 N. J. L. 309; Pickens conductor had a right to remove the v. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 104 N. C. passenger for refusal to pay the extra 312; Clark v. Wilmington, etc., R. fare. Co., 91 N. C. 512, 49 Am. Rep. 647; 10. Monnier v. New York Cent., O'Brien v. Boston, etc., R. Co., IS' etc., R. Co., 70 App. Div. (N. Y.) Gray (Mass.), 20, 77 Am. Dec. 347; 405, 75 N. Y. Supp. 521. And see Fulton v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 17 U. New York cases cited in last preced- C. Q. B. 428. But see Texas, etc.,. ing note. R- Co. v. Bond, 62 Tex. 442, 50 Am. 11. Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Dick- Rep. 532, 21 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 413, erson, 4 Kan. App. 345, 45 Pac. 975; where the refusal was not made- Chamberlain V. Lake Shore, etc., R. with intent to avoid payment of fare- Co. (Mich.), 68 N. W. 423. but in a mere jocular way. 12. O'Brien v. New York Central, 13. O'Brien v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 80 N. Y. 236; Hibbard etc., R. Co., 80 N. Y. 236; Stone v. V. New York, etc., E. Co., 15 N. Y. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 47 Iowa. 82, ■^3G, The Law of C^kriees. 3)ay fare, renders it the duty of the conductor, in: enforcing the' Teasonable rules and regulations of the company, to eject iim from the cars, and the refusal and resistance of the passenger con- tinues until after force has been required and applied, to enforce such rule, he cannot make the continuance of the process of expul- sion unlawful, by an offer to pay his fare during its progress. A -carrier of passengers is not required unconditionally to accept all persons who offer themselves for transportation, and tender fare- it may lawfully decline to receive or carry those who, after knowl- edge of the same, refuse to conform to its reasonable rules, or to pay their fare, or purchase tickets before entering the cars, and it may lawfully eject from the trains persons committing these -offenses." But refusal to pay fare will not justify the carrier under all circumstances in ejecting the passenger after tender of the fare by a third person before the passenger has been ex- I)elled.*^ If a passenger purchase a ticket at the point where he was ejected for non-payment of a fare, the conductor may nevertheless exclude him from the train, if the fare from the station where he first entered the train is not paid or tendered. ^° If a passenger tender the conductor the ticket fare, on his refusal to .pay the addi- tional amount required by the rules of the company to be paid by persons paying on the train, the conductor has no right to eject him without first returning the money which he has paid." § 5. Ejection of intoxicated passengers. — ^A carrier of passen- gers may expel a passenger who is intoxicated and in such, a con- dition as to be offensive, or as to make it reasonably certain that by act or speech he will become obnoxious or annoying, to the other 29 Am. Rep. 458; Louisville, etc., E. 16. Stone v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., Co. V. Breckinridge (Ky.), 34 S. W. 47 Iowa, 82, 29 Am. Rep. 458; Man- 702; Pickens v. Richmond, etc., R. ning v. Louisville, etc., E. Co., 132 " Co., 104 N. C. 312. Mass. 116, 42 Am. Rep. 432; Ward- 14. Pease v. Delaware, etc., R. well v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 46 Minn. Co., 101 N. y. 367, 54 Am. Rep. 699. 514, 24 Am. St. Rep. 246; Davis v. 15. Grey v. New York, etc., R. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 53 Mo. 317, Co., 30 Hun (N. Y.), 399; Randell 14 Am. Rep. 457. See also HUl v. V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 102 Mo. App. Syracuse, etc., R. Co., 63 N. Y. 101. 342, 76 S. W. 493; Ham v. Canal Co., 17. Bland v. Southern Pac. K. Co., 142 Pa. 617, 21 Atl. 1012; Louis- 55 Cal. 570, 36 Am. Rep. 50, 3 Am. ville, etc., R. Co. v. Garrett, 8 Lea & Eng. R. Cas. 285; Du Laurans v. (Tenn.), 438, 41 Am. Rep. 640; Rail- St. Paul, etc., R. Cc, 15 Minn. 49, ■way V. Mix, 68 Ga. 572. 2 Am. Rep. 102. Ejection of Passengers. 737 passengers, although lie has not actually committed any act of ■offense or annoyance.^* An intoxicated person who says he has no ticket but has money to pay his fare, and is apparently help- less, may be excluded from a railway train, without rendering the ■company liable to damages.^' A passenger on a street car, who acts in such a manner as to justify the inference that he is intoxicated, and falls into a deep sleep or stupor, which the conductor fails to break by shaking him, may be ejected. But it is not the due and proper care for his safety, required of the company in ejecting him, to put him, on a dark and stormy night, in an unlighted road, some distance from buildings, but where street cars are passing in each direction and teams are likely also to be passing.^ The ejection of an intoxicated passenger and particularly one un- able to take care of himself must be done in a reasonable manner, at a proper time and place, and, considering his condition, without exposing him to harm or imperiling his life, or the carrier will be liable, if such ejection is the proximate cause of death or in- jury of the passenger. ^^ Whether or not the death or injury is due to such wrongful ejection is ordinarily a question for the jury.*^ A conductor requiring an intoxicated man to leave the train for non-payment of fare does not render the carrier liable 18. Edgerly v. XJnion St. E. Co., 20. Hudson v. Lynn & is. R. Co., €7 N. H. 312, 36 Atl. 558; Vinton v. 69 N. E. (Mass.) 647; or at a place Middlesex R. R. Co., 11 Allen from which he could escape only by (Mass.), 304, 87 Am. Dec. 714; following the roughly-ballasted rail- Murphy T. Union R. Co., 118 Mass. road track and crossing cattle-guards 228; when boisterous, etc., see Louis- on the one side and a bridge over a Tille, etc., R. Co. v. Logan, 88 Ky. creek on the other, Louisville, etc., 232, 3 L. R. A. 80; Gulf, etc., R. Co. R. Co. v. Johnson, 108 Ala. 62, 19 V. Adam, 3 Tex. Civ. App. Cas. § So. 51, 31 L. R. A. 372. 422; Railway Co. v. Valleley, 32 21. Gill v. Rochester, etc., E. Co., •Ohio St. 345, 30 Am. Rep. 601; Pitts- 37 Hun (N. Y.), 107; Guy v. New burgh, etc., R. Co. v. Pillow, 76 Pa. York, etc., R. Co., 30 Hun (N. Y.), St. 510. So, a rule may be enforced 399; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. SuUi- which directs drivers to exclude in- van, 81 Ky. 624, 50 Am. Rep. 186, toxicated persons from the front 16 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 390; Johnson platform. O'Neill v. Lynn & B. E. v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 104 Ala. Co., 29 N. E. (Mass.) 630. 241; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Wil- 19. Freedon v. New York Cent., liams (Tex. Civ. App.), 37 S. W. etc., R. Co., 24 App. Div. (N. Y.) 992; Texas, etc., E. Co. v. Edmond 306, 48 N. Y. Supp. 584; Putnam v. (Tex. Civ. App.), 29 S. W. 518. Broadway, etc., R. Co., 55 N. Y. 108. 22. See last preceding note. 47 738 The Law of OAEEiEEa for the death of the man from exposure, where tiie conductor didE not have reasonable ground to believe that the man was unable to find his way or walk to the nearest house, or to the railroad station, or even to his own father's house, which was not far away.^' The failure of a conductor to compel a young man, twenty years of age, who was somewhat under the influence of liquor, to enter a car, after he had declined to do so and persisted in riding on the platform, will not render the carrier liable for his injuries when thrown from the car, if the conductor did not think he was sufficiently drunk to be unable to care for himself, although the young man's father asked the conductor to get him to come in.^ But the application of the rule of a railroad com- pany excluding intoxicated persons from its cars is at its peril in a given case, and the company is liable for the mistakes of it& servants, as, for instance, v;'here the conductor forcibly removed a passenger, believing him to be intoxicated, but the proof showed that he was not, but was afflicted with St Vitus dance ;^ or that he was simply ill and weak.^^ The slightest constraining power constitutes an assault under such circumstances and the question whether it was used should be left to the jury." The carrier is not liable for the death of one by heart disease, who was rudely and roughly removed from the car by the driver under the mistaken impression that he was drunk, and placed on the sidewalk where soon after he died ; there being nothing to show that it was not the disease that killed him, or that the driver's wrongful acts in any manner produced or hastened his death.^' 23. Roseman v. Carolina C. E. Co., Town of Mason City, 60 Iowa, 4S0; 112 N. C. 709, 16 S. E. 766, 19 L. E. East Tennessee, etc., E. Co. v. Wia- A. 327, 52 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 638. ters, 85 Tenn. 240; Mathison 7. 24. Fisher v. West Virginia, etc., Staten Island M. R. Co., 72 N. Y. E. Co., 42 W. Va. 183, 4 Am. & Supp. 954, 66 App. Div. (N. Y.) 610. Eng. E. Cas. N. S. 86, 24 S. E. 570, 25. Eegner v. Glens Falls, etc., K. 33 L. E. A. 69. As to duty of car- Co., 74 Hun (N. Y.), 202, 56 N. Y. rier to intoxicated passenger, see St. Eep. 300, 26 N. Y. Supp. 625. Missouri P. E. Co. v. Evans, 71 Tex. 26. Watson v. Oswego St. Ey. Co., 361, 1 L. E. A. 476; Milliman v. New 28 N. Y. Supp. 84, 58 N. Y. St. Eep. York Cent., etc., E. Co., 66 N. Y. 356. 642 ; McClelland v. Louisville, etc., 27. Watson v. Oswego St. Ey. Co., E. Co., 94.1nd. 276; Illinois C. E. Co. supra; Hart v. Hudson E. Bridge Co., V. Sheehan, 29 111. App. 90; Atchi- 80 N. Y. 622. son, etc., E. Co. v. Weber, 33 Kan. 28. Briggs v. Minneapolis, 52 643; Weeks v. New Orleans, etc., E. Minn. 36, 53 N. W. 1019. Co., 32 La. Ann. 615; Hubbard v. Ejection of Passewgees. Y39 § 6. Ejection of disorderly passengers — A railroad company has the power of expelling from its cars any one who is disorderly, riotous, or who uses indecent or profane language, or so demeans himself as to endanger the safety or interfere with the reasonable comfort and convenience of the other passengers, and may exert all necessary power and means to eject from the cars any one so im- periling the safety of, or annoying, others.^' This police power the conductor, or other servant of the company in charge of the car or train, is bound to exercise with all the means he can com- mand whenever occasion requires, and if this duty is neglected with good cause, and a passenger receives injury, which might have been reasonably anticipated or naturally expected, from one who has been improperly received, or permitted to continue as a passenger, the carrier is responsible.'" But the right of ejection. must be reasonably exercised, and not so as to inflict wanton or unnecessary injury upon the offending passenger.'^ 29. Putnam v. Broadway, etc., R. Co., 55 N. Y. 108, 14 Am. Rep. 190; Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Van Hou- ten, 48 Ind. 90; Robinson v. Rock- land, etc., St. R. Co., 87 Me. 387; Vinton v. Middlesex R. Co. 11 Al- len (Mass.), 304, 87 Am. Dec. 714; Murphy v. Union R. Co., 118 Mass. 228; Edgerly v. Union gt. R. Co., 67 N. H. 312, 36 Atl. 558; Gallegly v. Kansas City, etc., R. Co. (Miss.), 35 So. 420; Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Wood (Tex. Civ. App.), 77 S. W. 964. 30. N. 7. — Putnam v. Broadway, etc., R. Co., supra; People v. Caryl, 3 Park. Crim. Rep. (N. Y.) 326. U. S. — Brown v. Memphis, etc., R. Co., 7 Fed. 51; Jencks v. Coleman, 2 Sumn. (U. S.) 221; Thurston v. Union Pac. R. Co., 4 Dill. (U. S.) 321. D. C. — Lemont v. Washington, etc., R. Co., 1 Maekey (D.C.), 180,47 Am. Rep. 238, 1 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 263. So. — ^Peavy v. Georgia R., etc., Co., 81 Ga. 48S, 12 Am. St. Rep. 334; Hoi- ley V. Atlanta St. R. Co., 61 Ga. 215, 34 Am. Rep. 97. III. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Grif- fin, 68 111. 499. Ind. — Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Mo- Donald, 68 Ind. 316; Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. V. Vandyne, 57 Ind'. 576, 26 Am. Rep. 68. Ki/. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Lo- gan, 88 Ky. 232, 21 Am. St. Rep. 332. Me. — Robinson v. Rockland, etc., R. Co., 87 Me. 387. Mass. — Vinton v. Middlesex R. Co., 11 Allen (Mass.), 304, 87 Am. Dee. 714. Miss. — New Orleans, etc., R. Co. v. Burke, 53 Miss. 200, 24 Am. Rep. 689. Ohio. — Railway Co. v. Valleley, 32 Ohio St. 345, 30 Am. Rep. 601. Pa. — ^Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Pil- low, 76 Pa. St. 510; West Chester, etc., R. Co. V. Miles, 55 Pa. St. 209, 93 Am. Dec. 744. 31. Guy V. New York, etc., R. Co., 30 Hun (N. Y.), 399; Louisville, etc., R. Co. V. Sullivan, 81 Ky. 624, 50 Am. Rep. 186. liO The Law of Caeeiees. § 7. Ejection for violation of reasonable rules of the carrier 'A carrier may make reasonable rules and regulations for the con- duct of its business and when they are made known passengers are bound to obey them. When it has established, for the convenience of passengers and its own profit, an agency for the delivery of baggage to passengers, it may exclude all other persons, though passengers, from entering to solicit or receive orders from pas- sengers, in competition with the agency established by the car- rier, and may remove, without unnecessary force such person or persons conducting any other business in violation of its rules.'^ A railroad corporation may set apart one car for women traveling alone, or with male relatives or friends, and may forcibly remove from such car any man having no woman under his care, but for unnecessary force on the part of its employes in sruch removal, the " carrier is liable.^' It may exclude from the ladies' car a female passenger whose reputation is so notoriously bad as to furnish reasonable grounds that her conduct will be offensive or annoying to other passengers.'* But it may not forcibly remove a male pas- senger who had peaceably entered such car and without being for- bidden, being unable to find a seat elsewhere, without offering him a seat elsewhere.'^ A passenger who insisted on tearing out the coupons from a coupon book himself, in willful disregard of the known rule of the company requiring conductors to detach the coupons, and against the remonstrances of the conductor, has no right of action against the railroad, if the conductor refused to receive them and put him off the train.'* The conductor of a train may lav^fuUy stop the same and eject a passenger who holds 32. Barney v. Oyster Bay, etc., 33. Peek v. New York Cent., etc., Steamboat Co., 67 N. Y. 301; Small- E. Co., 70 N. Y. 587; Chicago, etc., man v. Whilter, 87 ni. 545, 29 Am. E. Co. v. Williams, 55 Bl. 185, 8 Rep. 76; Commonwealth v. Power, 7 Am. Rep. 641; MeKinley v. Chicago, Mete. (Mass.) 596; The D. R. Mar- etc., E. Co., 44 Iowa 314, 24 Am. tin, 11 Blatchf. (U. S.) 233. See Rep. 748. Old Colony R. Co. v. Tripp, 147 34. Brown v. Memphis, etc., K. Mass. 35, 9 Am. St. Rep. 661, 38 Alb. Co., 7 Fed. 51, 1 Am. & Eng. K. Gas. L. J. 45; Summitt v. State, 8 Lea 247. (Tenn.), 413, 41 Am. Eep. 637; Lan- 35. Bass v. Chicago, etc., K. Co., drigan v. State, 31 Ark. 50, 25 Am. 36 Wis. 450, 17 Am. Eep. 495, 9 Am. Rep. 547; People ex rel. v. Hudson Ry. Eep. 101. River Teleph. Co., 10 St. Eep. (N. Y.) 36. Norfolk, etc., E. Co. v. Wysor, 284, 19 Abb. N. C. 478; Fluker v. 82 .Va. 250, 26 Am. & Eug. E. Cas. Georgia E. Co. (Ga.), 2 L. E. A. 844. 234. Ejection of Passenge-ks. 741 a ticket to a station intermediate between the place where the fare is demanded and the next stopping place of the train, under the rules of the company, if the latter refuses to pay the difference of fare between his place of destination and the next stopping place, and may lawfully eject one who holds a ticket to a station at which the train does not stop, upon his refusal to pay fare to a station beyond, but, in the latter case, such ejection should be made at the last station at which the train stops before reaching the passenger's destination, and not between stations.*' A railway conductor who collects from a pasi- senger boarding the train without a ticket a less sum than the full train fare to his destination may within a reasonable time, on discovering the mistake, require him to pay the deficiency, and eject him at the next station on his refusal to pay it, upon first re- funding the sum paid less the fare for the distance actually trav- eled.*' Where a person purchases a ticket, and takes his passage upon a railroad train, and after the train starts upon the road, he gives up his ticket to the conductor, he cannot, at an intermediate station, by virtue of his subsisting contract, leave such train while in the reasonable performance of the contract, and claim passage on another train, but he may be ejected upon refusing to pay fare.*' So, a passenger who has purchased a ticket which entitles him to one continuous passage from point to point, cannot stop off at an intermediate point and then claim the right to resume his journey on another train on the same ticket, and may be ejected for refusal to pay fare.^" 37. Fink v. Albany, etc., E. Co., 4 to the rules, is not binding on the Lans. (N. Y.) 147; Noble v. Atehi- carrier. Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. Hat- son, etc., E. Co. (Okla.), 46 Pac. ton, 60 Ind. 12. 483; Logan v. Hannibal, etc., E. Co., 38. Wardwell v. Chicago, etc., R. 77 Mo. 663, 12 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. Co., 46 Minn. 514, 24 Am. St. Rep. 141; International, etc., E. Co. v. 246. Hassell, 62 Tex. 256, 50 Am. Eep. 39. Cleveland, etc., E. Co. v. Bar- 525, 21 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 315; tram, 11 Ohio St. 457. Stevens v. Atchison, etc., E. Co., 1 40. Hamilton v. New York Cent. Mo. App. Eep. 247. Where there is E. Co., 51 N. Y. 100; Beebe v. Ayres, an express contract of the carrier's 28 Barb. (N. Y.) 275. And see cases agent the carrier is bound to stop at generally cited in notes to § 11, chap. the passenger's destination. Pitts- 19. But he ia entitled to stop over burgh, etc., E. Co. v. Nuzum, 50 Ind. by permission of the conductor. Tar- 141, 19 Am. Eep. 703. But a con- bell v. Northern Cent. R. Co., 24 ductor's promise to stop, contrary Hun (N. Y.), 51. And where the 742 The Law of C'akeiees. § 8. Defective or invalid tickets. — The courts differ as to the liability of the carrier for the ejection of a passenger who holds and tenders an invalid or defective ticket, transfer or other token, the invalidity of or defect in which is due to the negligence of one of the carrier's agents. Some of the courts hold that it is the duty of the passenger, before going upon the train, to examine his ticket and ascertain therefrom whether or not any mistake has been made by the ticket agent ; that the face of the ticket is conclusive evidence to the conductor of the train as to the contract between the passenger and the railroad company; that the con- ductor can look only to the ticket, and has no right to be gov- erned by any statement or explanation of the passenger; that if the ticket is not upon its face such a ticket as entitles the passen- ger to ride, the conductor has the right and it is his duty, to eject him from the train; and that his only remedy for the mistake, negligence, or carelessness of the ticket agent is by an action for breach of the contract to recover the amount he was compelled to pay for his fare and a reasonable compensation for the loss of time sustained, but he cannot recover for the tort of the conductor in expelling him. In a recent case where plaintiff, having re- ceived from a street car conductor a wrong transfer slip, boarded a car on the connecting line, tendered the transfer, which the con- ductor refused, and declined to pay her fare, and the conductor then requested her to leave the car, and, on her refusal, used reasonable force to eject her, the authorities holding these views were marshaled in support of the ruling of the court that the plaintiff could not recover for any injuries sustained, it being her duty to peaceably leave the car and seek redress in the courts." time limitation has not expired when Connell, 1 12 111. 295 ; Car Co. v. Reed, his ticket is taken up by the con- 75 111. 125 ; Railroad Co. v. GrifBn, 69 ductor, he is entitled to be carried 111. 499 ; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Strat- to his destination, although the ton, 111 111. App. 142. ticket expires before it is reached, U. 8. — Poulin v. Canadian Pac. E. and he cannot lawfully be ejected Co., 52 Fed. 197, 3 C. C. A. 23; Rail- on the ground that the time that the way Co. v. Bennett, 50 Fed. 496, 1 ticket had to run had expired. Auer- C. C. A. 544. bach V. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., Kan. — Railroad Co. v. Gants, 38 89 N. Y. 281, 42 Am. Rep. 290, C Am. Kan. 618, 17 Pac. 54. & Eng. R. Cas. 334. Cojtn.— Downs v. Railroad Co., 38 41. III. — Riley v. Chicago City Ry. Conn. 287. Co., 189 111. 384, 59 N. E. 794, aflfg. Mo.— Woods v. Railway Co., 48 Mo. 90 111. App. 275; Railroad Co. v. Ejection of Passengees. 743 The weight of authority in the courts, State and national, how- ever, now is to the effect that the passenger has a right to rely upon the acts and statements of the ticket agents or conductors, and that if expelled from the train when he has acted in good faith and is without fault, the carrier will be liable in damages for such "expulsion, whether the action is brought for a breach of the contract or solely for tlie tort of the conductor ; that it is imma- terial that the different acts were by different agents of the car- rier; that its liability is the same, notwithstanding, for its own convenience, it has intrusted the management of its trains to different conductors. These authorities are cited to support a recent decision to the effect that where a passenger is aboard a street car without a proper transfer ticket, which is due to the mistake or fault of the conductor of the car from which he was transferred, and not to the fault of the passenger, the conductor in charge of the car must accept the reasonable explanations of the passenger in regard to the transfer in dispute, and if he eject the passenger tinder such circumstances, the carrier will be liable in an action to recover damages for the ejection.^ Passengers on App. 125; Percy v. Railroad Co., 58 Mo. App. 75. Md. — Garrison v. United Rys., etc., €o. (Md.), 55 Atl. 371; McClure v. Railroad Co., 34 Md. 532; Western Maryland Co. v. Stocksdale, 83 Md. 245; Western Maryland R. Co. v. Sohann (Md.), 55 Atl. 701. MtcA.— Hufford v. Railway Co., 53 Mich. 118, 18 N. W. 580; Van Dusan T. Railway Co., 97 Mich. 439, 56 N. W. 848. Uasa. — Bradshaw v. Railroad Co., 135 Mass. 407. y. y. — Townsend v. New York Cent., etc., Co., 56 N. Y. 295. m. Brady, 32 Md. 333. Mass. — Graves v. Lake Shore, etc.^ E. Co., 137 Mass. 33, 50 Am. Eep. 282; School Dist. v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 102 Mass. 556, 3 Am. Eep. 502; Squire v. New York Cent. E. Co., i)3 Mass. 239, 93 Am. Dec. 162. Butses cases cited § 1, note 2. Mich. — Hawkins v. Great Western E. Co., 17 Mich. 57, 97 Am. Dec. 179. Minn. — Boehl v. Chicago, etc., K. Co., 44 Minn. 191. Miss. — Johnson v. Alabama, etc., K. Co., 69 Miss. 191, 30 Am. St. Eep. 534. Mo. — Baker v. Missouri Pac. E. Co.,. 34 Mo. App. 98; Nickey v. St. Louia, etc., E. Co., 35 Mo. App. 79; Doan v. St. Louis, etc., E. Co., 38 Mo. App. 408; Ball v. Wabash, etc., E. Co., 83 Mo. 574. See also cases cited i 1, note 2. yeft.— Atchison, etc., B. Co. v. Washburn, 5 Neb. 117. Limitation of Caeuiee's Liability. 761 ject of or dependent on contract, but compliance therewith shonld be exacted of the carrier without regard to the will or wish of the carrier, or of the persons who transact business with it in the course of its employment.^^ The established rule in Illinois is that the carrier may by express contract stipulate for exemption from, ordinary negligence but not from gross negligence.^^ And a distinc- tion has been made in some of the cases in States where a dif- Ji. B. — ^Moses v. Boston, etc., E. Co., 24 N. H. 71, 55 Am. Dec. 222. And see eases cited § 1, note 2. 2f. C. — Branch v. Wilmington, etc., E. Co., 88 N. C. 573. But see Sea- board Air Line Ey. v. Main, 132 N. C. 445, 43 S. E. 930, where the pur- pose of a contract is not to exempt the company from liability for negli- gence, but to indemnify it in case it should be liable. Ohio. — Baltimore, etc., E. Co. v. Campbell, 36 Ohio St. 647, 38 Am. Eep. 617; United States Express Co. V. Baekman, 28 Ohio St. 144; Cin- cinnati, etc., E. Co. V. Pontius, 19 Ohio St. 221, 2 Am. Eep. 391. See also cases cited § 1, note 2. Or. — Eiehmond' v. Southern Pae. E. Co. (Or.), 67 Pae. 947; Seller v. Steamship Pacific, 1 Or. 409. Pa. — Pennsylvania E. Co. v. Fries, 87 Pa. St. 234; Adams Express Co. V. Sharpless, 77 Pa. St. 516; Grogan V. Adams Express Co., 114 Pa. St. 523, 60 Am. Eep. 360; Pennsylvania E. Co. V. Eaiordon, 119 Pa. St. 577, 4 Am. St. Eep. 670 ; Adams Express Co. V. Holmes (Pa.), 8 Cent. Eep. 155. And see eases cited § 1, note 2. B. /.— Ballou V. Earle, 17 E. I. 441, 33 Am. St. Eep. 881. S. C. — Johnstone v. Eiehmond, etc., E. Co. (D. C), 17 S. E. 512; Walling- ford V. Columbia, etc., E. Co., 26 S. C. 258; Piedmont Mfg. Co. v. Colum- bia, etc., E. Co., 19 S. C. 353 ; Oliver V. Columbia, etc., E. Co., 61 S. C. Tetm. — ^Louisville, etc., E. Co. v. Sowell, 90 Tenn. 17; kLouisville, etc., E. Co. V. Manchester Mills, 88 Tenn. 653. And see cases cited § 1, note 2.. Tex. — ^Missouri, etc., E. Co. v.. Flood (Tex. Civ. App.), 70 S. W. 1106; Fort Worth, etc., E. Co. v. Greathouse, 82 Tex. 104. And see cases cited § 1, note 2, § 2, note 11. Fort Worth, etc., E. Co. v. Eogera, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 605, 53 S. W. 366. Utah. — Williams v. Eailroad' Co.,, 18 Utah, 210. Vt. — ^Mann v. Birchard, 40 Vt. 326.. Va. — Norfolk, etc., E. Co. v. Tanner (Va.), 41 S. E. 721; Eiehmond, etc., E. Co. v. Payne, 86 Va. 481. Wash. — ^Muldoon v. Seattle City E. Co., 7 Wash. 528, 38 Am. St. Eep.. 901. W. Va. — Maslin v. Baltimore, etc.,. E. Co., 14 W. Va. 180, 35 Am. Eep 748. Wis. — ^Abrams v. Milwaukee, etc., E. Co., 87 Wis. 485. And see cases cited § 1, note 2. See also cases generally cited in note 95, chap. 10, § 16, Carriers of Goods. 21. Louisville, etc., E. Co. v. Tay- lor, 126 Ind. 126; Jacobus v. St. Paul, etc., E. Co., 20 Minn. 125, 18 Am. Eep. 360; Gulf, etc., E. Co. v. McGovra, 65 Tex. 640. And cases generally cited in last preceding note. 22. Belt Ey. Co. v. Banicki, 102 111. App. 642; Illinois Cent. E. Co. r. Anderson, 184 III. 294, 56 N. E. 331 ^ *I62 The Law of Caeeiees. ferent rule prevails between ordinary and gross negligenca^' But the best considered cases disapprove of the distinctions sought to be made between ordinary and gross negligence as being too arti- ficial and vague for clear definition or practical application.^ Wabash, etc., E. Co. v. Jaggerman, 115 111. 407; Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Chapman, 133 111. 96, 23 Am- St. Eep. 587 ; Boscowitz v. Adams Express Co., S3 111. 523, 34 Am. Eep. 191; Illi- nois Cent. E. Co. v. Jonte, 13 111. App. 424; Erie E. Co. v. Wilcox, 84 111. 239; Adams Express Co. v. Stettan- «rs, 61 111. 184, 14 Am. Eep. 57; Illi- nois Cent. E. Co. v. Adams, 42 111. 474, 92 Am. Dec. 85; Illinois Cent. E. Co. V. Morrison, 19 111. 136 ; Adams Express Co. v. Haynes, 42 III. 89. And cases cited § 1, note 2. 23. N. Y. — Steers v. Liverpool, etc., Steamship Co., 57 N. Y. 1, 15 Am. Eep. 453; French v. Buffalo, etc., E. Co., 4 Keyes (N. Y.) 108; Boswell v. Hudson Eiver E. Co., 5 Bosw. (N. Y.) 699 ; Smith v. New York Cent. E. Co., 29 Barb. (N. Y.) 132; Bissell v. New York Cent. E. Co., 29 Barb. (N. Y.) 602. Ind. — Thayer -v. St. Louis, etc., E. Co., 22 Ind. 26, 85 Am. Dec. 409; Indiana Cent. E. Co. v. Mundy, 21 Ind. 48, 83 Am. Dec. 339; Indianapo- lis, etc., E. Co. V. Eemmy, 13 Ind. 518. ^y.— Illinois Cent. E. Co. v. Stew- art, 23 Ky. L. Eep. 637, 63 S. W. 596; Chesapeake & 0. E. Co. v. Dodge, 23 Ky. L. Eep. 1959, 66 S. W. 606. Md. — Baltimore, etc., E. Co. v. Brady, 32 Md. 333. Pa. — Pennsylvania E. Co. v. Mc- Closkey, 23 Pa. St. 532; Bingham v. Eogers, 6 W. & S. (Pa.) 495, 40 Am. ,Dec. 581; Atwood v. Eeliance Transp. Co., 9 Watts (Pa.) 89, 34 Am. Dec. 503; Beckman v. Shouae, 5 Eawle '(Pa.) 179,25 Am. Dec. 653. 8. Dak. — ^Meuer v. Chicago, etc., fi. Co., 5 S. Dak. 568. W. Va. — ^Baltimore, etc., R. Co. V. Skeels, 3 W. Va. 556. Wis. — ^Annas v. Milwaukee, etc., E. Co., 67 Wis. 46, 58 Am. Eep. 848; Lawson v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 64 Wis. 455, 54 Am. Eep. 634; Richard- son V. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 61 Wis. 596; Black v. Goodrich Transp. Co., 65 Wis. 322, 42 Am. Eep. 713. Eng. — Great Western E. Co. r. Glenister, 29 L. T. N. S. 422. 24. Perkins v. New York Cent. E. Co., 24 N. Y. 196; Milwaukee,- etc., E, Co. V. Arms, 91 U. S. 495; Steamboat New World v. King, 16 How. (U. S.) 474; Philadelphia, etc., E. Co. v. Derby, 14 How. (U. S.) 468; String- er V. Alabama, etc., E. Co., 99 Ala. 397, 13 So. 75; Purple v. Union Pac. E. Co., 114 Fed. 123, 51 C. C. A 564, 57 L. E. A. 700; Denver, etc., E. Co. V. Peterson (Colo.), 69 Pac. 578; Griswold v. New York, etc., R. Co., 33 Conn. 371, 55 Am. Eep. 115; Brig^ V. Taylor, 28 Vt. 180; Ohio, etc., E. Co. V. Muhling, 30 111. 9, 81 Am. Dec 336; Ohio, etc., E. Co. v. Selby, 47 Ind. 484, 17 Am. Eep. 719; Rose v. Des Moines Valley E. Co., 37 Iowa, 246; Sager v. Portsmouth, etc., K. Co., 31 Me. 228, 50 Am. Dec. 659; Quimby v. Boston, etc., E. Co., 150 Mass. 365 ; Jacobus v. St. Paul, etc., E. Co., 20 Minn. 125, 18 Am. Eep. 360; Bryan v. Missouri Pac. E. Co., 32 Mo. App. 228; Atchison, etc., E. Co. V. Washburn, -5 Neb. 117; Cleve- land, etc., E. Co. V. Curran, 19 OUo St. 1, 2 Am. Eep. 362; Maslin v. Baltimore, etc., E. Co., 14 W. Va. 180, 35 Am. Eep. 748. Limitation of Caeeiee's Liability. 763 §■ 4, The New York rule. — The early !N"ew York cases, follow- ing the decisions of the United States Supreme Court, held that a common carrier of passengers might limit its liability by con- ti'act, but not for the negligence of itself or its servants.^ And other cases held that the carrier might exempt itself from liabil- ity for the ordinary negligence of itself or its servants, but not for gross negligence.^* The courts finally made a distinction between the negligence of the carrier itself and that of its servants arud asserted the rule that the carrier of passengers might enter into special contracts with its passengers for exemption from any de- gree of liability on the part of its servants, but that no contract could exempt it from liability for its own personal negligence, or the negligence of the directors or managing officers directly rep- resenting the company when the carrier is a corporation.^' The principle is that the parties cannot contract that they themselves may with impunity be guilty of willful misconduct, or of that de- gree of recklessness which is its equivalent. To this extent, no doubt, carriers of passengers are precluded from absolving them- selves by contract from their responsibilities. But the rule has no application to contracts exempting them from liability for the acts of third persons.^^ Thia rule has been followed in Ifew 25. Dorr v. New Jersey Steam 55 ; Stinson v. New York Cent. E. Co., Nav. Co., 11 N._ Y. 490, 62 Am. Deo. 32 N. Y. 333, 88 Am. Dec. 332; Per- 125; Stoddard v. Long Island R. Co., kins v. New York Cent. R. Co., 24 N. 5 Sandf. (N. Y.) 180; Moore v. Ev- Y. 196, 82 Am. Dec. 282; Smith v. ans, 14 Barb. (N. Y.) 524; Parsons New York Cent. E. Co., 24 N. Y. V. Monteath, 13 Barb. (N. Y.) 353. 222; Bissell v. New 'York Cent. E. Co., 26. Steers, v. Liverpool, etc., 25 N. Y. 442; Wells v. New York Steamship Co., 57 N. Y. 1, 15 Am. Cent. R. Co., 24 N. Y. 181; Coppock Rep. 453; Smith v. New York Cent. v. Long Island E. Co., 89 Hun (N. E. Co., 29 Barb; (N.Y.) 132;Boswell Y.) 186, 34 N. Y. Supp. 1039; V. iHudson Eiv. E. Co., 5 Bosw. (N. French v. BuflFalo, etc., R. Co., 4 Y.) 699. But in Perkins V. New York Keyes (N. Y.) 108; Poucher v. New Cent. R. Co., 24 N. Y. 196, it was York Cent. R. Co., 49 N. Y. 263, 10 held that there was no reason why the Am. Rep. 364. carrier should be responsible for the 28. Perkins v. New York Central gross negligence, which is another E. Co., 24 N. Y. 196, wherein Selden, name for criminal negligence, of its C. J., says: "There is some difi&culty servants, more than for slight negli- in applying these principles to rail- genee. road companies on account of the ar- 27. Wilson v. New York Cent., etc., tifioial nature of the corporations. As R. Co., 97 N. Y. 87; Blair v. Erie they can act only through agents, it R. Co., 66 N. Y. 313, 23 Am. Rep. may with equal plausibility be said. 764 The Law of Oaekiees. Jersey/' and applied in other States as to limitations contained in passes, while the general rule has been approved as to passen- gers for hire.^" This distinction between the negligence of the carrier and that of its servants is, however, expressly disapproved of in other cases which maintain the general rule, it being held that the negligence of the agent of whatever grade, as to matters within the scope of his employment, with reference to passengers, is the negligence of the corporation itself, which fixes a liabihly which the carrier cannot be permitted to avoid by contraet.^^ But, although the courts of New York have carried the power of the common carrier to make special contracts to the extent of enabling it to exonerate itself from the effects of even gross negligence of its servants, this effect has never been given to a contract general on the one hand, that every act of their authorized agents, and, on the other, that no such act, is to be re- garded as a direct act of the corpora- tion. But a, distinction is no doubt made between the directors or man- aging officers of a corporation and its subordinate agents. As the former exercise all the powers of the corpor- ation, and are its only direct medi- um of communication with outside parties, they must, in respect to all its external relations, be considered as identical with the corporation it- self. No contract, therefore, can ex- empt a railroad company from lia- bility for the willful or wanton mis- conduct or gross recklessness of its directors; but the rule extends to no other officer or agent of the com- pany." As to the general scope of the rule, the same Justice, in Bissell v. New York Cent. R. Co., 25 N. Y. 442, says: "The principle being estab- lished that parties may lawfully en- ter into contracts of this nature, there is no limit to the extent and variety of modification which may be given to such contracts. The pas- senger may assume all risks arising from the condition of the tracks, or from the condition of the locomotive, or of the cars, or all risks from the negligence of the agents, of all of them, or of any class of them. There is no danger which the party may en- counter, resulting from the journey, which he may not assume the re- sponsibility of, and he may assume all or any portion of it." 29. Kinney v. Central E. Co., 32 N. J. L. 407, 90 Am. Dec. 675; lah- more v. Pennsylvania Steam Towing, etc., Co., 28 N. J. L. 180. 30. Griswold v. New York, etc., R. Co., 53 Conn. 371, 55 Am. Rep. 115; Higgins V. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 28 La. Ann. 133; Rogers v. Kenne- bec Steamboat Co., 86 Me. 261; Qusn- by V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 150 Mass. 365 ; Muldoon v. Seattle, etc., R. Co., 7 Wash. 528, 38 Am. St. Rep. 901; Annas v. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co., 67 Wis. 46, 58 Am. Rep. 848. 31. New York Cent. R. Co. v. Lockwood, 17 Wall. (U. S.) 378; Walsh v. Pittsburg, etc., R. Co., 19 Ohio St. 75, 75 Am. Dec. 490; To- ledo, etc., R. Co. V. Beggs, 85 III. 80, 28 Am. Rep. 613; Illinois Cent. B. Co. V. Read, 37 111. 484, 87 Am. Dec. 260; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. McGown, 66 Tex. 465. LiMITATIOIT OF CaEEIEe's LIABILITY. 765 in its terms or by implication. The rule has been firmly main- tained that contracts will not be construed to exempt the carrier from liability for negligence unless expressed in unequivocal terms. General words in the contract of a carrier of persons or of goods, limiting its responsibility, will not be construed as exempt- ing it from liability for negligence, if capable of other con- struction.'^ § 5. The English rule. — The English rule, prior to the passage of the itailway and Canal Traffic Act in 1854, except in a few ■of the early cases, was that common carriers could, by express contract or notice, exempt themselves from liability for any de- gree of negligence.^' After the passage of that act the rale was established by the courts that a carrier might exempt itself from liability for negligence by express contract, but not by notice, pro- vided the limitations contained in the contract were just and war- rantable,'* but liability for wilful misconduct could not be avoided by contract.'' § 6. Limitation of liability for negligence as to particular classes of passengers, — The application by the courts of the rules as to contracts limiting the carrier's liability for negligence has depended in many instances upon the relation existing between the carrier and the passenger, whether the passenger was a gratui- tous passenger or a passenger for hire, an employe of the car- rier, or an employe of third persons contracting with the carrier. 32. Zimmer v. New York, etc., E. York Cent., etc., R. Co., 33 St. Rep. €o., 137 N. Y. 460; Kenney v. New (N. Y.) 861; Smith v. New York York Cent., etc., R. Co., 125 N. Y. Cent. E. Co., 29 Barb. (N. Y.) 132. 422; Brewer V. New York, etc., R. Co., 33. Slims v. Great Northern R. 124 N. Y. 59, 21 Am. St. Rep. 647; Co., 14 C. B. 647, 78 E. C. L. 647; Nicholas v. New York Cent., etc., R. York, etc., R. Co. v. Crisp, 14 C. B. Co., 89 N. Y. 370; Holsapple v. Rome, 527, 78 E. C. L. 527. «tc., E. Co., 86 N. Y. 275 ; Mynard v. 34. Aldridge v. Great Western R. Syracuse, etc., R. Co., 71 N. Y. 180, Co., 15 C. B. N. S. 582, 109 E. C. L. 27 Am. Rep. 28 ; Blair v. Erie R. Co., 582 ; Simons v. Great Western E. Co., €6 N. Y. 313, 23 Am. Rep. 55; Mag- 18 C. B. 805, 86 B. C. L. 805, 26 L. J. nin V. Dinsmore, 56 N. Y. 168; Stin- C. P. 25; Lewis v. Great Western E. son V. New York Cent. R. Co., 32 N. Co., 5 H. & N. 867. Y. 333, 83 Am. Dec. 332; Perkins v. 35. Great Western R. Co. v. Glen- New York Cent. R. Co., 24 N. Y. ister, 29 L. T. N. S. 422. 196, 82 Am. Dec. 282; Elliott v. New 766 The Law or Caeeiebs. As to gratuitous passengers it has been held that a stipulation in a free railway pass, requiring the user to assume the risk of personal injury due to the carrier's negligence, or that of its serv- ants, is binding on the person accepting the privilege, although notice of such stipulation may not have been brought home to such person, the rule of public policy making such conditions void as to passengers for hire being held not to apply to passes.'^ In some of the States the same rule has been applied to gratuitous passen- gers as to passengers for hire, whether the rule denied the right of the carrier to stipulate for exemption from n^ligence or allowed it wholly or partly to do so." A contract by an express messenger, relieving a railroad company from liability for per- sonal injuries to him while riding on its train in the performance of his duties, caused by the ordinary negligence of the railroad's employes, ifi valid, and not contrary to public policy.^ But an express messenger is not bound by such a stipulation in a contract between a railroad company and his employer, when it does not appear that he had any knowledge or information of the provisions 36. Blank v. Illinois Cent. E. Co., 182 111. 332, 55 N. E. 332; Russell V. Pittsburgh, etc., E. Co., 157 Ind. 305, 61 N. E. 678, 55 L. E. A. 253; Boering v. Chesapeake Beach Ey. Co., 193 U. S. 442, 24 S. Ct. 515, 48 L. Ed. 742, aflfg. 20 App. D. C. 500; North- ern Pae. E. Co. v. Adams, 192 U. S. 440, 24 S. Ct. 408, 48 L. Ed. 513; Quimby v. Boston, etc., E. Co., ISO Mass. 365, 23 N. E. 205, 5 L. E. A. 846; Muldoon v. Seattle City E. Co., 10 Wash. 311, 38 Pac. 995; Gris- wold V. New York, etc., E. Co., 53 Conn. 371, 4 Atl. 261, 55 Am. Eep. 115; Illinois Cent. E. Co. v. Eead, 37 111. 484, 510, 87 Am. Dec. 260; Dun- can V. Maine Cent. E. Co., 113 Fed. 608; Eogers v. Kennebec Steamboat Co., 86 Me. 261 ; Higgins v. New Or- leans, etc., E. Co., 28 La. Ann. 13'3; Annas v. Milwaukee, etc., E. Co., 67 Wis. 46, 58 Am. Eep. 848; Balti- more, etc., E. Co. V. Voigt, 176 U. S. 498, 20 S. Ct. 385, 44 L. Ed. 560; Payne v. Terre Haute, etc., E. Co., 157 Ind. 616, 62 N. E. 472; Chicago, etc., E. Co. V. Hambel (Neb.), 89 N. W. 643. 37. Ulrich v. New York Cent., etc., E. Co., 108 N. Y. 80, 2 Am. St. Rep. 369; Perkins v. New York Cent. R. Co., 24 N. Y. 196, 82 Am. Dee. 282; Wells V. New York Cent. E. Co., 24 N. Y. 181; Mobile, etc., E. Co. v. Hopkins, 41 Ala. 486, 94 Am. Dec. 607 ; Toledo, etc., E. Co. v. Beggs, 85 111. 80, 28 Am. Rep. 613; Rose t. Des Moines Valley E. Co., 39 Iowa, 246; Jacobus v. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., 20 Minn. 125, 18 Am. Rep. 360; Bryan v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 32 Mo. App. 228; Camden, etc., R. Co. v. Bausch (Pa.), 7 Atl. 731; Kinney v. Central E. Co.. 32 N. J. L. 407, 90 Am. Dec. 675, 34 N. J. L. 513, 3 Am. Eep. 265; Gulf, etc., E. Co. v. Me- Gown, 65 Tex. 640. 38. Peterson v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 119 Wis. 197, 96 N, W. 532. And see Hosmer v. Old Colony E. Co., 156 Mass. 506; Bates v. Old Colony K. Limitation op Caeeiee's Liabiutt. 767 of lihe contract between the tVo companies.^' A contract, however,, by wbich an express messenger, as a condition of his. employment, assumes all risk of personal injury while riding on any transpor- tation line, and agrees to release and indemnify the company or any transportation company with which it may contract from any claim which might be made on account of any such injury, must be construed to apply to an injury resulting from negligence of a railroad company in whose car he is riding in the course of hiff employment, since, not being a passenger while so riding, no claim could be made against the company except on the ground of negli- gence, and is effective to prevent such messenger from recovering from a railroad company for injury in a collision due to the neg- ligence of the railroad's employes.*" Where, by agreement be- tween a railroad company and a land-owner, the railroad agreed, in consideration of a grant of a right of way, to give the land- owner transportation for life, on the sole condition that her right to transportation should be forfeited if tickets were presented by any one save herself, and the tickets given the land-owner bore a provision exempting the railroad from liability for injuries, such condition was not binding on the land-owner in an action by her for injuries owing to the road's negligence, since it was without consideration, and her acceptance of the tickets did not indicate an intention on her part to assent to the terms thereof." Where a passenger bought from a railroad company an excursion ticket at a reduced rate, with indorsement that the person accepting it assumes all risk of accident and damage, the acceptance of the ticket was a waiver of the common law rule making the carrier liable for the passenger's safety, and he must affirmatively prove negligence on the part of the carrier, and cannot avail himself of Co., X47 Mass. 255; Doyle v. Fitch- (U. S. C. C. A. N. Y.), 130 Fed. burg E. Co., 162 Mass. 66, 44 Am. St. 870. Eep. 335. 41. Dow v. Syracuse, etc., R. Co., 39. Kenney v. New York Cent., 81 App. Div. (N. Y.) 362, 80 N. Y. etc., R Co., 125 N. Y. 422; Brewer v. Supp. 941. See also Corcoran v. New- New York, etc., E. Co., 124 N. Y. 59, York Cent., etc., R. Co., 25 App. Div. 21 Am. St. Rep. 647. And see Blair (N. Y.) 479, 49 N. Y. Supp. 701, 164 V. Erie R. Co., 66 N. Y. 313, 23 Am. N. Y. 587, 58 N. E. 1086; Trolan v, Eep. 55. But see Blank v. Illinois New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 31 App. Cent. E. Co., 182 111. 332, 55 N. E. Div. (N. Y.) 320, 52 N. Y. Supp. 232. 257 ; Scybolt v. New York, etc., R. Co., 40. Long V. Lehigh Valley R. Co. 95 N. Y. 562, 47 Am. Rep. 75; Van- derbilt v. Schreyer, 91 N. Y. 392. ■Y68 The Law of Oakeiees. the presumption of negligence arising in favor of the passenger where an injury occurs.*^ Persons accompanying stock and travel- ing on drovers' passes have been usually regarded as passengera for hire and the limitation of liability contained in such passes determined by the rule prevailing as to passengers for hire. Clauses limiting the carrier's liability for personal injuries due to the negligence of itself or its servants have been held void in certain jurisdictions,^' while in other jurisdictiona they have been held valid and sufficient to relieve the carrier from liability.** A con- tract made between a sleeping car company and an employe re- leasing the sleeping car company and all transportation companies from all liability for personal injuries while traveling over such lines inures to the benefit of a railway company transporting the car in which the employe was injured.*' 42. Crary v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., Pa. St. 315; Flinn v. Philadelphia, 203 Pa. 525, 53 Atl. 563, 59 L. R. A. etc., R. Co., 1 Houst. (Del.) 469; 815. See also New Jersey Steam Nav. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Ivy, 71 T«. Co. V. Merchants Bank, 6 How. (U. 409, 10 Am. St. Rep. 758. S.) 344, 12 L. Ed. 465. 44. Poucher v. New York Cent. H. 43. Illinois Cent R. Co. v. Ander- Co., 49 N. Y. 263, 10 Am. Rep. 364; «on, 184 111. 294, 56 N. E. 331 ; Bol- Stinson v. New York Cent. R. Co., 32 ton V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 172 Mo. N. Y. 333, 88 Am. Dec. 332; Smiti ¥. S2, 72 S. W. 530; Feldsohneider v. New York Cent. R. Co., 24 N. Y. 222; Chicago, etc., R. Co. (Wis.), 99 N. Bissell v. New York Cent. R. Co., 25 W. 1034; New York Cent. R. Co. v. N. Y. 442; Gallin v. London, etc., E. Lockwood, 17 Wall. (U. S.) 357; Co., L. R. 10 Q. B. 212. Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. Nickless, 71 Ind. 45. Russell v. Pittsburgh, etc., fi. 271 ; Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Cur- Co., 157 Ind. 305, 61 N. E. 678, 55 L ran, 19 Ohio St. 1, 2 Am. Rep. 362; R. A. 253. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Henderson, 51 CHAPTER XXIII. Peestjmptioits and Bitedeit of Peoof. SnmoN 1. Presumptions as to negligence from mere proof of injury. 2. Acts of servants or defects in instrumentalities of transportation. 3. Presumption arising from collisions. 4. Presumptions arising from derailment of train or car. 5. Presumption arising from defects in means of transportation. 6. Presumption of negligence as to injuries to persons other than passengers. 7. Keasons for presumption of negligence. 8. Rebutting presumption. 9. Other presumptions. 10. Presumptions as to contributory negligence. 11. Presumption arising from instinct of self preservation. 12. The burden of proving negligence. 13. The burden of proof as to contributory negligence. § 1. Presumptions as to negligence from mere proof of injury. — It lias been frequently held that the mere fact of an accident occurring whereby injury is suffered by a passenger while on his journey is sufficient to raise a presumption of negligence and is •of itself presumptive evidence of negligence on the part of the car- rier.' Negligence is not generally presumed, however, from the 1. When negligence pre- v. Virginia Midland R. Co., 140 U. «nmed from mere bappening of S. 435; Carter v. Kansas City Cable accident: R. Co., 42 Fed. 37; New Jersey R. y. r.— Loudoun V. Eighth Ave. R. Co. v. Pollard, 22 Wall. (U. S.) 341. Co., 162 N. Y. 380, 56 N. E. 988; -iZa.— Louisville, etc., R. Co. r. Gilmore v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., Jones, 83 Ala. 376. 6 App. Div. (N. Y.) 117, 39 N. Y. Cal.—Bush v. Barnett, 96 Cal. 202. Supp. 417; Horowitz v. Hamburg- D. C. — City, etc., R. Co. v. Sved- j^merican Packet Co., 18 Misc. Rep. borg, 20 App. D. C. 543. (N. Y.) 24, 41 N. Y. Supp. 54; Hege- Ga.— Electric R. Co. v. Carson, 98 man v. Western R. Corp., 16 Barb. Ga. 652; City, etc., R. Co. v. Find- (N. Y.) 333; Gonzales v. New York, ley, 76 Ga. 311; Southwestern R. Co. ■etc., R. Co., 39 How. Pr. (N. Y.) v. Singleton, 67 Ga. 306; Gardnei 407. V. Wayoross Air Line R. Co., 97 Ga. V. iSf.— The Warren Adams, 38 U. 482. S. App. 356, 74 Fed. 413; Gleeson III. — Chicago City R. Co. v. Mead, 49 (769) 770 The Law of Oakeiees. fact of damage or proof of the occurrence of an injury.' The pre- ?06 111. 174, 69 N. E. 19; Springer V. Schultz, 205 111. 144, 68 N. B. 753, affg. 105 III. App. 540; New York, etc., E. Co. v. Blumenthal, 160 111. 40; Illinois Cent. E. Co. v. Beebe, 69 111. App. 363; Elgin City E. Co. V. Wilson, 56 111. App. 364; West Chicago St. E. Co. v. Kennelly, 66 111. App. 244. Ind. — Indianapolis St. Ey. Co. ' v. Schmidt (Ind.), 71 N. E. 201; Louisville, etc.. Ferry Co. v. Nolan, 135 Ind. 60; Louisville, etc., E. Co. V. Snyder, 117 Ind. 435, 10 Am. St. Eep. 60. Kan. — Atchison, etc., E. Co. v. El- der, 57 Kan. 312. Ky. — Central Pass. E. Co. v. Kuhn, 86 Ky. 578, 9 Am. St. Eep. 309. Md. — Baltimore, etc., E. Co. v. Swann, 81 Md. 400, 31 L. E. A. 313; Philadelphia, etc., E. Co. v. Ander- son, 72 Md. 519, 20 Am. St. Eep. 483; North Baltimore Pass. E. Co. V. Kaskell, 78 Md. 517. Minn. — Graham v. Burlington, etc., E. Co., 39 Minn. 81. Mont. — ^Hamilton v. Great FaHs St. E. Co., 17 Mont. 334. Miss. — ^Vicksburg, etc., E. Co. v. Phillips, 64 Miss. 693. Mo. — Madden v. Missouri Pac. E. Co., 50 Mo. App. 666; Och v. Mis- souri, etc., E. Co., 130 Mo. 27, 36 L. E. A. 442. 2f. J. — Consolidated Tract. Co. v. Thalheimer, 59 N. J. L. 474. Pa. — Fredericks v. Northern Cent. E. Co., 157 Pa. 103, 22 L. E. A. 306; Thomas v. Philadelphia, etc., E. Co., 148 Pa. 180, 15 L. E. A. 416; Dam- pan V. Pennsylvania E. Co., 166 Pa. St. 520; Laing v. Colder, 8 Pa. St. 479, 49 Am. Dec. 533; Clow v. Pitts- burgh Traction Co., 158 Pa. 410; AUam v. Pennsylvania E. Co., 3 Pa. Super. Ct. 335. S. C— Zemp V. Wilmington, etc.^ E. Co., 9 Eich. L. (S. C.) 84, 64 Am. Dec. 763. Ohio. — Cincinnati St. E. Co. v.. Kelsey, 9 Ohio C. C. 170. Tex. — Bonner v. Grumbaeh, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 482; Missouri Pac. E. Co> v. Scott, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 77. 'Neb. — ^Lincoln Tract. Co. v. Heller (Neb.), 100 N. W. 197; Spellman v. Lincoln Eapid Trans. Co., 36 Neb.. 890, 20 L. E. A. 316; Lincoln St. IL Co. V. MeClellan, 54 Neb. 672, 74 N. W. 1074. V. 8. — Carter v. Kansas City- Cable E. Co., 42 Fed. 37, street car sliding down hill owing to slippery condition of track from frost. 2. When negligence not pie^ ■nmed from mere happening of accident: N. Y.— Holbrook v. Utica, etc., K.. Co., 12 N. Y. 236, 64 Am. Dec. 502; Buck v. Manhattan E. Co., 15 Daly (N. Y.), 550. Ala. — ^McDonald v. Montgomery St. E. Co., 11 Ala. 161, 20 So. 317: Louisville, etc., E. Co. v. Allen. 78 Ala. 494, 28 Am. & Eng. K. Cas. 514. D. C— Metropolitan R. Co. t. Snashall, 3 App. D. C. 420; Adams V. Washington, etc., E. Co., 9 App. D. C. 26. «!.— Chicago City E. Co. v. Eoodr 163 111. 477; West Chicago St. E. Co. V. Kennelly, 1 Chic. L. J. Wkly.^ 436; Illinois Cent. E. Co. v. Hobbs,^ 58 111. App. 130. Ind. — Dresslar v. Citizens St. K. Co., 19 Ind. App. 383, 47 N. E. 651. lotoa. — Case v. Chicago, etc., 5. Co., 64 Iowa, 762, 19 Am. & Eng. K. Cas. 142. Kan. — Jackson v. Kansas City B. Peestjmptions and Bueden of Peoof. 771 sumption of the proper performance of duty applies in cases of alleged negligence, as in all other cases, yet the circumstances Co., 31 Kan. 761, 15 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 178. jifd. — State V. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 58 Md. 221 J Barnard v. Phila- delphia, etc., E. Co., 60 Md. 555, 15 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 484; Philadel- phia, etc., E. Co. V. Stebbing, 62 Md. 504, 19 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 36. Mioh. — Mynning v. Detroit, etc., E. Co., 59 Mich. 257, 23 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 317; Brown v. Congress, etc., E. Co., 49 Mich. 153, 8 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 383. Mo. — ^Buesching v. St. Louis Gas Light Co., 6 Mo. App. 85. Ohio. — Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Crawford, 24 Ohio St. 631, 15 Am. Eep. 633. Pa. — ^Delaware, etc., E. Co. v. Napheys, 90 Pa. Ct. 135, 1 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 52; Fleming v. Pitts- burgh, etc., E. Co., 158 Pa. 130, 22 L. E. A. 351; Herstine v. Lehigh Valley E. Co., 151 Pa. 144; Farley V. Philadelphia Traction Co., 132 Pa. St. 58; Federal St., etc., E. Co. v. Gibson, 96 Pa. St. 83. R. /.—Elliott V. Newport St. R. Co., 18 E. I. 707, 23 L. R. A. 208. S. C. — Carter v. Columbia, etc., R. Co., 19 S..C. 20, 15 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 414. iSf. Dak. — Saunders v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 6 S. Dak. 40. Tenn. — East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. r. Stewart, 13 Lea (Tenn.), 432, 21 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 614. !tea!. — Texas Pac. R. Co. v. Bucka- lew, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 272; Missouri Pac. R. Co. V. Freeman, 73 Tex. 311, Wash. — Hawkins v. Front St, Cable E. Co., 3 Wash. 592, 28 Am, St. Eep. 72, 28 Pac. 1021. Wis. — Stimson v. Milwaukee, etc., E. Co., 75 Wis. 381. A presumption of neElleenco does not arise: Coupling made in an ordi- nary manner. — Yazoo, etc., E. Co. V. Humphrey, 83 Miss. 721, 36 So. 154. Passenger throtrn from seat in a car in rounding a curve. — Wilder v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 10 App. Div. (N. Y.) 364, 41 N. Y. Supp. 931, affd. 161 N. Y. 665, 57 N. E. 1128. Passenger falling from street car. — Paynter v. Bridgton, etc., Tract. Co., 67 N. J. L. 619, 52 AtL 367; Chicago City R. Co. v. Catlin, 70 HI. App. 97; Etson v. Fort Wayne, etc., E. Co.,' 110 Mioh. 494, 68 N. W. 298. Passenger falling from train. — ^Mitchell V. Western, etc., E. Co., 30 Ga. 22; Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Mock, 88 111. 87; Baltimore, etc.. Turnpike Eoad v. Cason, 72 Md. 377; State v. Baltimore, etc., E. Co., 58 Md. 221 ; Metropolitan E. Co. v. Snashall, 22 Wash. L. Eep. (D. C.) 377; East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. Mitchell, 11 Heisk. (Tenn.) 400 j Chamberlain v. Milwaukee, etc., E. Co., 7 Wis. 425. Passenger injured in alight- ing from car. — Peck v. St. Louis Transit Co., 178 Mo. 617, 77 S. W. 736; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Lyons, 129 Pa. St. 113, 15 Am. St. Rep. 701; Delaware, etc., R. Co. v. Napheys, 90 Pa. St. 141; Mitchell v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 51 Mich. 236, 47 Am. Rep. 566. Passenger injured in attempt- ing to get on car. — Illinois Cent. E. Co. V. Hobbs, 58 111. App. 130; Stager v. Eidge Ave. Pass. R. Co., 119 Pa. St. 70; Chicago, etc., R. Co. t. 772 The Law of Oaeeiees. imder which an injury occurred may be such as to create the presumption of negligence.' In such cases the rule, res ipsa loqui- tur, applies, and, when that which caused the injury is shown to have been under the management and control of the carrier or its Trotter, 60 Miss. 442; Weber v. New Orleans, etc., K. Co., 104 La. 367, 28 So. 892. Passenger falling over satchel in aisle. — Farley v. PhiladelpEia Tract. Co., 132 Pa. St. 58; Stimson V. Milwaukee, etc., K. Co., 75 Wis. 381. Passenger injured by missile tbro-wn from ontside. — Thomas ▼. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 148 Pa. St. 180; Pennsylvania, etc., K. Co. v. McKinney, 124 Pa. St. 462. Passenger injnred by rock falling from bill. — Fleming v. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co., 158 Pa. St. 130, 38 Am. St. Rep. 835. Accident caused by act of God. — Gillespie v. St. Louis, etc., E. Co., 6 Mo. App. 554, washing away of embankment by an unusual storm; McClary v. Sioux City, etc., E. Co., 3 Neb. 44, 19 Am. Rep. 631, upsetting of train by a cyclone. Accident cansed by act of stranger. — Federal St., etc., R. Co. V. Gibson, 96 Pa. St. 83, passenger struck by a passing loaded truck; Chicago City R. Co. v. Rood, 163 III. 477. Sa-nrdnst bloiring from ele- vated railroad. — Wadsworth v. Boston El. R. Co., 60 N. E. 421, 182 Mass. 572. Ordinary burning out of a fuse. — Cassady v. Old Colony St. R. Co. (Mass.), 68 N. E. 10. Sudden stopping of street oar but not more than usually vio- lent. — Johnson v. Interurban St. E. Co., 88 N. Y. Supp. 866. Falling of article placed by passenger in oar rack. — Morris r. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 106 N. Y. 678, 11 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 204. Passenger injured at station or trhile passing to train or boat. — Pennsylvania Co. v. Marion, 104 Ind. 239; Hayman v. PenDsyl- vania R. Co., 118 Pa. St. 508; Wel- fare V. London, etc., R. Co., L. R. 4 , Q. B. 693. But see Baltimore, etc., i R. Co. V. State, 63 Md. 135; Louis- ' ville, etc., R. Co. v. Reynolds, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 1402, 71 S. "V. 516. 3. Seybolt v. New York, etc., R. Co., 95 N. Y. 562, 18 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 162; Lowery v. Manhattiin R. Co., 99 N. Y. 158; Wiedmer v. New York Elev. R. Co., 41 Hun (N. Y.), 284; Holbrook v. Utica, etc., R. Co., 12 N. Y. 236; 64 Am. Dec. 502, note; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Suggs, 62 Tex. 323 ; Piggott v. Eastern, etc., R. Co., 3 C. B. 229; Dougherty v. Mis- souri R. Co., 81 Mo. 325, 21 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 497, 51 Am. Rep. 239; Bedford, etc., R. Co. v. Eainboli, 99 Ind. 551, 21 Am. & Eng. E Cas. 466; Kearney v. London, etc., E. Co., L. E. 5 Q. B. 411, 6 Q. B. 759; Scott v. London, etc.. Docks Co., 3 Hurl, t Colt. 596; Robinson i. New York Cent. R. Co., 20 Blatclif. (U. S.) | 338 ; Mulcairns v. Janesville, 67 Wis. 24. Cleveland, etc., E. Co. v. Craw- ford, 24 Ohio St. 631, 15 Am. Rep. 633 : " There is no presumption of negligence as against either party except such as arises from the faces proved. Indeed, the presumption of law is that neither party was guilty of negligence, and such presumption must prevail until overcome by proof." Peesumptions and Bueden of Proof. 773' servante, and furnished and applied by it, and the acoident is such srs in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation, that the accident arose from want of care, and there is said to be a presumption of negli- gence sufficient to entitle plaintiff to go to the jury. The reasonis of the rule are that the carrier is liable for the negligence of ita employes as well as for its own, and that it or its servants being in the exclusive management and control of that which caused the injury, the injury is more naturally to be attributed to its own acts or omissions than to those of a stranger, and ita means and sources of knowledge are superior to those of the plaintiff. There- fore, in the absence of an explanation showing by proof that the accident was caused by another, or by some other cause for which the carrier was not responsible, as the presence of vis major or the tortious act of a stranger, there is a presumption of negligence on its part* The presumption of negligence thus arises where a pas- senger is struck by objects projecting from trains passing on ad- joining tracks, as where a passenger was struck upon the arm by a swing door on a passing freight train;' where he was strudc with a heavy object projecting from a stationary car on an ad- 4. Jones v. Union Ey. Co., 18 App. S70; Cummings v. M'ational Furnace Div. (N. Y.) 267; Kaiser v. Lati- Co., 60 Wis. 603, 18 N. W. 742, 20 mer, 40 App. Div. (N. T.) 149, 57 N. N. W. 665; Kirst v. Milwaukee, etc., Y. Supp. 833, but wliere the proof R. Co., 46 Wis. 489, 1 N. W. 89; of negligence rests upon the plain- Iron E. Co. v. Mowrey, 36 Ohio St. tiff, a presiimption of defendant's 418, 38 Am. Eep. 597 ; Eyder v. Kin- negligence, arising from the facts, sey, 62 Minn. 85, 64 N. W. 94; Scott does not change the burden of proof; v. London Docks Co., 3 H. & C. 596; Chicago Union Tract. Co. v. Crosby, Carpue v. London, etc., R. Co., 5 Q. 109 111. App. 644; Feital v. Middle- B. 747; Kearney v. London, etc., R. sex E. Co., 109 Mass. 398, 12 Am. Co., L. R. 6 Q. B. 759; Kinney v. Eep. 720; White v. Boston, etc., R. London, etc., R. Co., L. E. 5 Q. B. Co., 144 Mass. 404, 11 N. B. 552; 411; Judson v. Giant Powder Co., Hicks V. New York, etc., E. Co., 164 107 Cal. 549, 40 Pac. 1020, 48 Am. 424, 41 N. E. 721; Fitch v. St. 146, 29 L. E. A. 718; Allen v. Mason City, etc., Tract. Co. (Iowa), Northern Pac. E. Co., 35 Wash. 221, 100 N. W. 618; Howser v. Cumber- 77 Pac. 204. land, etc., R. Co., 80 Md. 146, 30 Atl. 5. Breen v. New York Cent., etc., 906, 27 L. E. A. 154; Gleeson v. Vir- R. Co., 109 N. Y. 297. But see Han- ginia Midland R. Co., 140 U. S. 435, son v. Lancashire, etc., R. Co., 20 W. 11 S. Ct. 859; Volkmar v. Manhat- R. 297. tan E. Co., 134 N. Y. 418, 31 N. E. 774 The Law of Oabeiees. joining track ;' and wliere he was struck with a bar of iron project- ing from a construction train on an adjoining track.' The rule that a presumption of negligence on the part of a carrier arises when a passenger is injured in the course of transportation can- not be invoked, without evidence tending to connect the carrier or its employes, or some of the appliances of transportation with the happening of the injury. To throw the burden upon the car- rier, it must first be shown that the injury complained of resulted from the breaking of machinery, collision, derailment of cars, or something improper or unsafe in the conduct of the business or in the appliances of transportation.* § 2. Acts of servants or defects in instrumentalities of trans- portation. — The rule that proof of the occurrence of an accident ' causing injury to a passenger arising from any disarrrangement or displacement of the track or car of a railroad company, oper- ated by electricity, steam, cable power, or otherwise, or from a defect in any of those things which the carrier is bound to supply, is in itself presumptive evidence of the negligence of the carrier, is generally held, except that in certain jurisdictions proof is also required on the part of the passenger that the accident occurred without fault on his part' Such proof being made casts the bur- 6. Holbrook v. Utica, etc., R. Co., M^bere a car is started vith 12 N. Y. 236, 64 Am. Dec. 502. great violence it is a fair infer- 7. Walker v. Erie R. Co., 63 Barb, ence that such violence could not ■ (N. Y.) 260. have been the result of anything else 8. Ault V. Cowan, 20 Pa. Super, than the improper application of the Ct. 616. ^ power to move the ear, and negli- 9. Bosqui v. Sutro R. Co., 63 Pac. genee on the part of the railway 682, 131 Cal. 390; Hastings v. Cen- company. Grotsch v. Steinway R. tral, etc., R. Co., 40 N. Y. Supp. 93; Co., 19 App. Div. (N. Y.) 130, 45 Brimmer v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 101 N. Y. Supp. 1075. See Jonas v. 111. App. 198; Davis v. Paducah Ry. Long Island E. Co., 47 N. Y. Supp. & Light Co., 24 Ky. Law Rep. 135, 149, 21 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 306; 68 S. W. 140; Cleveland City Ey. Ferry v. Manhattan R. Co., 118 N. Co. V. Osborn, 66 Ohio St. 45, 63 N. Y. 497, 29 N. Y. St. Rep. 933; Mar- E. 604 ; Clow v. Pittsburgh Tract, tin v. Second Avenue R. Co., 3 App. Co., 158 Pa. 410, 27 Atl. 1004; Elgin Div. (N. Y.) 448, 38 N. Y. Supp. City E. Co. V. Wilson, 56 111. App. 220. 364; Curtis v. Rochester & Syracuse A presnmption of negligence R. Co., 18 N. Y. 534; Bowen v. New arises: York Cent. R. Co., 18 N. Y. 408; Conductor violently strildmg Adam v. Union Ry. Co., 80 N. Y. passenger in the face.— Kohner t. Supp. 264. Peesumptions and Bueden of Peoof. 775 den on tlie defendant to show that it and its agentsi were without Capital Traction Co., 22 App. D. C. 181, 62 L. E. A. 875. Pasienger Injured in fight be- tween drunken passengers. — Pittsburg, etc., E. Co. v. Pillow, 76 Pa. St. 510. Gate on rear platform of street oar sirang open -while the ear was in motion. — Aston v. St. Louis Transit Co. (Mo. App.), 79 S. W. 999. Train parting while in tran- sit.— Feldsclineider V. Chicago, etc., E. Co. (Wis.), 99 N. W. 1034. Escape of electricity in car. — D'Arey v. Westchester Elec. E. Co., «2 App. Div. (N. Y.) 263, 81 N. Y. Supp. 952. Sudden stopping of a train, or cable or street car. — Chicago Union Tract. Co. v. Mommsen, 107 311. App. 353 ; Wylde v. Northern E. Co., 14 Abb. Pr. N. S. (N. Y.) 213; Clow V. Pittsburgh Tract. Co., 158 Pa. St. 410. Overheating of plate over a -wheel. — PoTrell v. Hudson Valley E. Co., 88 App. Div. (N. Y.) 133, 84 N. Y. Supp. 337. Passenger struck by mail ponch suspended at side of track. — ^MeCord v. Atlanta, etc.. Air Xine R. Co. (N. C), 45 S. E. 1031. Passenger jumping from car because of well-grounded fear of collision. — Palmer v. Warren St. E. Co., 206 Pa. 574, 56 Atl. .g, €3 L. E. A. 507. Sudden stopping of horses and inability to apply the brake. — Nolan v. Brooklyn City R. Co., 87 N. Y. 63. Sudden and unespected re- lease of a brake. — Gilmore v. Brooklyn Heights E. Co., 6 App. Div. (N. Y.) 117, 39 N. Y. Supp. 417. Sudden starting of car while passenger is alighting. — ^United Eys., etc., Co. v. Beidelman (Md.), 52 Atl. 913; Consolidated Tract. Co. V. Thalheimer, 59 N. J. L. 474, 37 Atl. 132; Scott V. Bergen Co. Tract. Co. (N. J.), 43 Atl. 1060, 4 Chic. L. J. Wkly. 79; North Chicago St. E. Co. V. Schwartz, 82 111. App. 493; Armstrong v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 23 App. Div. (N. Y.) 137, 48 N. Y. Supp. 597; Eoberts v. Johnson, 58 N. Y. 613; Murphy v. St. Louis, etc., E. Co., 43 Mo. App. 342; Con- tinental Pass. E. Co. V. Swain, 13 W. N. C. (Pa.) 41. But see Brown V. Congress St., etc., E. Co., 49 Mich. 153. Handrail charged with elec- -tricity. — ^Dallas Consol. St. Elec. R. Co. V. Broadhurst (Tex.), 68 S. W. 315. Passenger injured By escap- ing electricity. — Eickhof v. Chi- cago, etc., E. Co., 77 HI. App. 196; Denver Tramway Co. v. Eeid, 4 Am. Electl. Cas. 332, 4 Colo. App. 53, 35 Pae. 269; Burt v. Douglass Co. St. E. Co., 83 Wis. 229, 18 L. E. A. 479. Passenger thro-wn from car by sudden lurch of moving train. — Murphy v. Coney Island, etc., E. Co., 36 Hun (N. Y.), 199; Lavis V. Wisconsin Cent. E. Co., 54 111. App. 636; Condy v. St. Louis, etc., E. Co., 85 Mo. 79 ; Dougherty v. Missouri R. Co., 81 Mo. 325, 51 Am. Rep. 239. Act of servant. — ^Memphis, etc.. Packet Co. v. McCool, 83 Ind. 392, 43 Am. Eep. 71; Murphy v. Atlanta, etc., E. Co., 89 Ga. 832, suddenly opening a closed door. Violent jolt or jar from coup- ling cars or otherwise. — Cook v. Long Island E. Co., 19 N. Y. Supp. 776 The Law of Oaeeiees. fault." Tor instance, when plaintiff, who was a passenger, was injured by the sudden and unexplained stopping of defendant's, street car, and on the trial introduced proof of such occurrencey and rested; defendant then produced four of its employes, who testified to the use of the best known appliances, careful super- vision, and skilKul service; the court held that a dismissal of plaintiff's complaint was error, since under the doctrine of res ipsa. loquitur proof of the accident cast the burden of explanation on the defendant." In a case where it was shown that an injury 648; Georgia Pac. R. Co. v. Love, 91 Ala. 432; Gardner v. Waycross Air Line E. Co., 97 Ga. 482. But see Herstine v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 151 Pa. St. 244. Falling of baggage. — Horowitz V. Hamburg-American Packet Co., 18 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 24. Falling of merchandise piled on boat. — Memphis, etc., Packet Co. V. McCooI, 83 Ind. 392, 43 Am. Rep. 71. Falling of Tentilator Trindov. — Och V. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 130 Mo. 37. But see Murray v. Metro- politan Dist. R. Co., 27 L. T. N. S. 762. Falling of lamp shade. — White V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 144 Mass. 404. Kicking of passenger by horse. — Budd v. United Carriage Co., 25 Or. 314. Dress catching on broken cnr> tain hook. — ^Kelley v. New York, etc., R. Co., 109 N. Y. 44. Overturning of stage coach or carriage. — Stokes v. Saltonstall, 13 Pet. (U. S.) 192; McKinney v. Neil, 1 McLean (U. S.), 540; Bush V. Bamett, 96 Cal. 202; Lawrence v. Green, 70 Cal. 417, 59 Am. Rep. 428; Boyce v. California Stage Co., 25 Cal. 460; Fairchild v. California Stage Co., 13 Cal. 599; Wall v. Livezay, 6 Colo. 465; Payne v. Hal- stead, 44 111. App. 97; Anderson v. Scholey, 114 Ind. 553; Stockton v. Frey, 4 Gill (Md.), 406, 45 Am. Dec. 138; Higley v. Gilmer, 3 Mont. 90, 35 Am. Rep. 450; Tenneiy v. Pip- pingcr, 1 Phila. (Pa.) 543; McCall V. Forsyth, 4 W. & S. (Pa.) 173; Farish v. Reigle, 11 Gratt. (Va.) 697, 62 Am. Dee. 666. 10. Texas & P. R. Co. v. Gardner (Tex.), 114 Fed. 186; Calumet Elcc. St. Ry. Co. V. Jennings, 83 111. App. 612; McCurrie v. Southern Pac. Co., 122 Cal. 561, 55 Pac. 324; Bassett V. Los Angeles Tract. Co. (Cal.), 22: Am. & Eng. R. Cas. N. S. 5, 65 Pac. 470; Olsen v. Citizens' Ry. Co., 152 Mo. 426, 54 S. W. 470; Clark v. Railroad Co., 127 Mo. 210, 29 S. W. 1016 ; Hill V. Ninth Ave. R. Co.. 109 N. y. 239, 16 N. E. 61; Smedley v. Hes- tonville, etc., R. Co., 184 Pa. St 620, 39 Atl. 544, 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. N. S. 649; Steele v. Consoli- dated Tract. Co., 30 Pittsb. (Pa.) L. J. N. S. 290; Scott v. Bergen Co. Tract. Co., 63 N. J. L. 407, 43 Atl. 1060, 48 Atl. 1118. 11. Langley v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 74 N. Y. Supp. 857, 36 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 804. But see Hoffman T. Third Ave. R. R. Co., 45 App. Div. (N. Y.) 586, 61 N. Y. Supp. 590, holding that the fact that a street car, when going through a crowded street, at a rate faster than a person can walk, comes to a stop suddenly, without any act of the gripman, doe* not of itself give rise to a presump- Peesumptions and EtrEDE]sr of Peoof. 77T to a passenger was caused by an act of the carrier in operating the instrumentalities employed in his business, it was held that there was a presumption of negligence, which threw on the carrier the burden of showing that the injury was sustained without neg- ligence on his part; and hence a verdict for injuries against a street railroad would not be reversed, because the evidence failed to show that the rate of speed of the car at the time of the accident was excessive, or that the excessive rate of speed or other negli- gence of defendant was the proximate cause of the injury, since it was sufficient that the evidence failed to show that it was not so.^^" But to enable a passenger to recover for injuries from a street railway company operating its cars by cable, it is not enough to show that there was a jerk in the cable which threw the plaintiff from the car, but it must affirmatively appear that the jerk was an extraordinary or unusual one, or attributable tO' a defect in the track, an imperfection in the car or apparatus, or to a dangerous rate of speed, or to unskillful handling of the car by the gripman.^ § 3. Presumption arising from collisions. — The presumption of negligence on the part of the carrier has been generally held to arise in cases of collisiongi between trains or cars, whether oper- ated by the same or different carriers, and in cases of collisions of trains or cars with some obstruction on or near the track.''* tlon of negligence on the part of the 620, 9 Det. Leg. News, 595; Adams car company, though a passenger is v. Washington, etc., E. Co., 9 App. injured by falling from her seat, in D. C. 34, 24 Wash. L. Rep. 634; consequence of the sudden stopping; Metropolitan E. Co. v. Snashall, S also Black v. Third Ave. R. Co., 2 App. D. C. 420; Stager v. Ridge Ave. App. Div. (N. Y.) 629; Nelson v. Pass. E. Co., 119 Pa. St. 70; Den- Lehigh Val. E. E. Co., 25 Id. 535. ver, etc., E. Co. v. Fotheringham 12. Bassett v. Los Angeles Tract. (Colo.), 68 Pac. 978. Co., 133 Cal. 1, 65 Pac. 470, 22 Am. 14. Collision with other & Eng. E. Cas. N. S. 5. trains. — N. T.— Seybolt v. New 13. Bartley v. Metropolitan St. E. York, etc., E. Co., 95 N. Y. 562, 47 Co., 148 Mo. 124, 5 Am. Neg. Rep. Am. Eep. 75; Bowles v. Eome, etc., 635, 49 S. W. 840. See also Hayes E. Co., 46 Hun (N. Y.), 324. v. Forty-second, etc., St. E. Co., 97 U. >S.— Kansas City, etc., E. Co. N. Y. 259; MuUer v. Second Ave. E. v. Stoner, 49 Fed. 209; New Jersey Co., 16 J. & S. (N. Y.) 546; Hoi- E. Co. v. Pollard, 22 Wall. (U. S.) land v. West End St. E. Co., 155 341. Mass. 357; Baltimore, etc., E. Co. v. Ala. — Georgia Pac. E. Co. v. Love, Cason, 72 Md. 377; Earth v. Hough- 91 Ala. 432. ton Co. St. E. Co. (Mich.), 93 N. W. 7Y8 The Law of Oaeeiees. § 4. Presumptions arising from derailment of train or car. , Proof of the derailment of a train or car causing injuries to a passenger raises a presumption of the carrier's negligence and justifies the conclusion, in the absence of evidence to the con- trary, that it resulted either from improper construction, failure to keep in proper repair, or negligence in operation. Whenever a car or train leaves the track it proves that either the track or //!.— Chicago Citj E. Co. v. Engel, ^5 III. App. 490. Ind. — ^Louisville, efc, R. Co. v. Taylor, 126 Ind. 126. Iowa. — Tuttle v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 48 Iowa, 236. Mimn. — Graham v. Burlington, «tc., R. Co., 39 Minn. 81. Miss. — New Orleans, etc., R. Co. v. AUbritton, 38 Miss. 242, 75 Am. Dec. S8. Mo. — Clark v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 127 Mo. 197; Magoffin v. Mis- souri Pac. R. Co., 102 Mo. 540; Wilkerson v. Corrigan Consol. St. R. €o., 26 Mo. App. 144. Ohio. — Iron R. Co. v. Mowery, 36 Ohio St. 418, 38 Am. Rep. 597. Pa. — ^Rowdin v. Pennsylvania E. Co., 208 Pa. 623, 57 Atl. 1125. Collision between street cars. — Loudoun V. Eighth Ave. E. Co., 162 N. Y. 380; Falke v. Second Ave. R. Co., 38 App. Div. (N. Y.) 49, 55 N. Y. Supp. 984; Kay v. Metropoli- tan St. R. Co., 29 App. Div. (N. Y.) 466, 51 N. Y. Supp. 724; inderson V. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 32 App. Div. (N. Y.) 266, 52 N. Y. Supp. 984; Savage v. Marlborough St. R. Co., 186 Mass. 203, 71 N. E. 531; Magrane v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 183 Mo. 119, 81 S. W. 1158; Robin- son V. St. Louis, etc., R. Cd. (Mo. App.) 77 S. W. 493; Palmer v. War- ren St. R. Co., 206 Pa. 574, 63 L. R. A. 507; North Baltimore Pass. R. Co. V. Kaskell (Md.), 28 Atl. 410; I^orth Chicago St. R. "Co. v. "Cotton, 140 111. 486; Smith v. St. Paul City R. Co.. 32 Minn. 1, 50 Am. Rep. 550; Hamilton v. Great Falls St. E. Co., 17 Mont. 334; Miller v. St. Loiis, etc., R. Co., 5 Mo. App. 471; Clow V. Pittsburgh Tract. Co., 158 Pa. St. 410. Collision between street car and wagon. — Shay v. Camden, etc., R. Co. (N. J.), 49 MX. 547; Hill v. Ninth Ave. R. Co., 109 N. Y. 239. But see Potts v. Chicago City E. Co., 33 Fed. 610; North Side St. E. Co. v. Want (Tex. App.), 15 S. W. 40; Quinlan v. Sixth Ave. E. Co., 4 Daly (N. Y.), 488, where a runaway team struck a street car. Collision between railroad train and street car. — Central Pass. E. Co. V. Kuhn, 86 Ky. 578 9 Am. St. Eep. 309. Steamboat colliding with -wliarf. — Bartlett v. New York, etc., Ferry, etc., Co., 57 N. Y. Super. Ct. 48. Collision with animal oa track. — Bowen v. New York Cent R. Co., 18 N. Y. 408, 72 Am. Dee. 529; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Hen- dricks, 128 Ind. 462; Louisville, etc., R. Co. V. Ritter, 85 Ky. 368; Sulli- van V. Philadelphia, etc., E. Co., 30 Pa. St. 234, 72 Am. Deo. 698; Mexi- can Cent. E. Co. v. Lauricella, 87 Tex. 277, 47 Am. St. Eep. 103; lor- dyce V. Jackson, 56, Ark. 594. Collision between vessel*.— Sherlock v. Ailing, 44 Ind. 184. Peesumptions and Btjedbn of Peoob'. 779 machinery, or some portion thereof, is not in a proper condition, or that the machinery is not properly operated, and presumptively proves that the carrier, whose duty it is to keep the track and machinery in the proper condition and to operate it with the necessary prudence and care, has in some respect violated its duty. The carrier is bound to show and give some explanation of the cause of the accident. ^^ 15. Where cause is not shown. — N. T. — Stevenson v. Second Ave. E. Co., 35 App. Div. (N. Y.) 474, 54 N. Y. Supp. 815; Armstrong v. Met- ropolitan St. E., Co., 23 App. Div. (N. Y.) 137, 48 N. Y. Supp. 597; Pollock V. Brooklyn, etc., E. Co., 15 N. Y. Supp. 189, 39 St. Eep. (N. Y.) 568; Seybolt v. New York, etc., R. Co., 95 N. Y. 562, 47 Am. Eep. 75; Edgerton v. New York, etc., E. Co., 39 N. Y. 27; Webster v. Elmira, etc., E. Co., 85 Hun (N. Y.), 167, 32 N. Y. Supp. 590. Compare Deyo v. New York Cent. E. Co., 34 N. Y. 9. V. 8. — Albion Lumber Co. v. De Nobra, 72 Fed. 739. Ala. — ^Montgomery, etc., E. Co. v. Mallette, 92 Ala. 209; Louisville, «te., E. Co. V. Jones, 83 Ala. 376. Ark. — Eureka Springs E. Co. v. Timmons, 51 Ark. 459; Little Eock, etc., E. Co. V. Miles, 40 Ark. 298, 48 Am. Eep. 10. Cai.— Mitchell v. Southern Pae. E. Co., 87 Cal. 62. Go. — Electric Car Co. v. Carson, 98 Ga. 652, 27 S. E. 156; Central R. Co. v. Freeman, 75 Ga. 331; Central E. Co. V. Sanders, 73 Ga. 513; Yonge V. Kinney, 28 Ga. 111. III. — Peoria, etc., E. Co. v. Eey- nolds, 88 III. 418 ; Elgin City E. Co. V. Wilson, 56 III. App. 364; Pitts- burg, etc., E. Co. V. Thompson, 56 111. 138. Ind.— Ohio, etc., E. Co. v. Voight, 122 Ind. 288; Louisville, etc., E. Co. ▼. Jones, 108 Ind. 551. Iowa. — Cronk v. Wabash E. Co., 123 Iowa, 349, 98 N. W. 884; Per- shing V. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 71 Iowa, 561. Kam. — ^Atchison, etc., E. Co, v. El- der, 57 Kan. 312; Southern Kansas E. Co. v. Walsh, 45 Kan. 653. Ki/. — Louisville, etc., E. Co. v. Smith, 2 Duv. (Ky.) 556. Me. — Stevens v. European, etc., E. Co., 66 Me. 74. Mass. — Feital v. Middlesex E. Co., 109 Mass. 398, 12 Am. Eep. 720. Mo. — Heyde v. St. Louis Transit Co., 102 Mo. App. 537, 77 S. W. 127; Furnish v. Missouri Pac. E. Co., 102 Mo. 438, 22 Am. St. Eep. 781; Dimitt v. Hannibal, etc., E. Co., 40 Mo. App. 654; Hipsley v. Kansas City, etc., E. Co., 88 Mo. 348. Neb. — Spellman v. Lincoln Eap. T. Co., 36 Neb. 890, 38 Am. St. Rep. 753. N. J. — Bergen County Tract. Co. v. Demarest, 62 N. J. L. 755, 42 Atl. 729. Ohio. — Cincinnati St. E. Co. v. Kelsey, 9 Ohio C. C. 170, 2 Ohio Dec. 440; Cincinnati, etc., E. Co. v. Brown, 2 Ohio Dee. 494. Pa. — Reading City Pass. E. Co. v. Eckart (Pa.), 4 Atl. 530. W. Va. — Carrico v. West Virginia Cent., etc., E. Co., 39 W. Va. 86. TeoB. — Texas, etc., E. Co. v. Suggs, 62 Tex. 323; Bonner v. Grumbaeh, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 482; Fordyce v. Withers, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 540. But see San Antonio, etc., E. Co. v. Rob- inson, 73 Tex. 277; Texas Pae. K. 780 The Law of C'aeeiees. § 5, Presumption arising from defects in means of transporta- tion. — The presumption of negligence on the part of the carrier, as a general rule, arises in eases of injuries to passengers arising from defects in the means of transportation.^* But the presump- tion of negligence does not arise where, although there was some Co. V. Buckelew, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 272, proof of circumstances neces- sary. Eng. — Bird v. Great Northern E. Co., 28 L. J. Exch. 3; Great West- ern E. Co. V. Fawcett, 8 L. T. N. S. 31; Dawson v. Manchester, etc., E. Co., 5 L. T. N. S. 682, 7 H. & N. 1037. Defective pail. — N. 7. — Curtis V. Eochester, etc., E. Co., 18 N. Y. 634, 75 Am. Dec. 258; Brignoli v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 4 Daly (N. Y.), 182. Ala. — ^Alabama, etc., E. Co. v. Hill, 93 Ala. 514, 30 Am. St. Eep. 65. Ark. — George v. St. Louis, etc., E. Co., 34 Ark. 613. III. — Heagle v. Indianapolis, etc., E. Co., 76 111. 501; Galena, etc., E. Co. V. Yarwood, 17 111. 509, 65 Am. Dec. 682. Ind. — Cleveland, etc., E. Co. v. Newell, 75 Ind. 542; Pittsburgh, etc., E. Co. V. Williams, 74 Ind. 462. Eng. — ^Pym v. Great Northern E. Co., 2 F. & F. 619; Carpue v. Lon- don, etc., E. Co., 5 Q. B. 747, 48 B. C. L. 747. Defective or misplaced STvitch. — Klinger v. United Tract. Co., 92 App. Div. (N. Y.) 100, 87 N. Y. Supp. 864; Curtis v. Eochester, etc., E. Co., 18 N. Y. 534, 75 Am. Dec. 258; Denver, etc., E. Co. v. Wood- ward, 4 Colo. 1; Moore v. Des Moines, etc., E. Co., 69 Iowa, 491; Baltimore, etc., E. Co. v. Worthing- ton, 21 Md. 275, 83 Am. Dec. 578; Logan V. Metropolitaji St. E. Co., 183 Mo. 582, 82 S. W. 126. Landslide in ont. — Gleeson v. Virginia Midland E. Co., 140 U. S. 435. Washont of embankment. — Brehm v. Great Western R. Co., 34 Barb. (N. Y.) 256; Philadelphia, etc., E. Co. V. Anderson, 94 Pa. St. 351, 39 Am. Eep. 787; Great West- ern E. Co. V. Fawcett, 9 Jut. N. S. 339. Giving way of bridge or trestle. — ^Louisville, etc., E. Co. v. Pedigo, 108 Ind. 481, 27 Am. & Eng. E. Caa. 310; Louisville, etc., E. Co. V. Thompson, 107 Ind. 442, 67 Am. Eep. 120; Bedford, etc., E. Co. v. Bainbolt, 99 Ind. 551; Kansas Fac. E. Co. V. Miller, 2 Colo. 442; Balti- more, etc., E. Co. V. Noell, 32 Gratt. (Va.) 394; Baltimore, etc., K. Co. v. Wightman, 29 Gratt. (Va.) 431. And see Sawyer v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 37 Mo. 240, 90 Am. Dee. 382, where a bridge was burned by the public enemy. 16. N. T. — ^Miller v. Ocean Steam- ship Co., 118 N. Y. 199; Holbrook v. Dtica, etc., E. Co., 12 N. Y. 236, 64 Am. Dec. 502; Hitchcock v. Brook- lyn City R. Co., 44 Hun (N. Y.), 627, 8 St. Eep. (N. Y.) 848. Ind. — Louisville, etc.. Ferry Co. v. Nolan, 135 Ind. 60. Md. — Baltimore, etc., E. Co. v. State, 63 Md. 135. Minn. — Wilson v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 26 Minn. 278, 37 Am. Eep. 410. Mo. — Madden v. Missouri Pac. B. Co., 50 Mo. App. 666. i»o.— Clow V. Pittsburgh Tract. Co., 158 Pa. St. 410; Fleming v. Pittsburgh, etc., E. Co., 158 Pa. St. 130, 38 Am. St. Eep. 835; Laing v. Pkesumptions and Btteden of Peoof. 781 defect in the means of transportation, the accident causing the injury could not have occurred had there not been an improper exposure to danger on the part of the passenger ; aa where a pas- Colder, 8 Pa. St. 479, 49 Am. Dec. 633. Va. — Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Noell, 32 Gratt. (Va.) 394; Balti- more, etc., R. Co. V. Wightman, 29 •Gratt. (Va.) 431, 26 Am. Rep. 384. Bng. — Harrison v. London, etc., E. Co., 1 0. & E. 540. A presniuptiou of negligence «Tiies from: Hand rail on street car giv- ing way. — ^McCarty v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., (Mo. App.), 80 S. W. 7. Defect in carrier's appliances. — Whalen T. Consol. Tract. Co., 61 y. J. L. 606, 40 Atl. 645, 11 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. N. S. 207, 4 Am. Neg. Rep. 422, 41 L. E. A. 836; Kefauver T. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 122 Fed. 466. Breaking doim of means of transportation. — Choquette t. Southern Eleo. R. Co., 80 Mo. App. 615, 2 Mo. A. Repr. 655. Car appearing to be on fire. — Poulson V. Nassau Elec. R. Co., 18 App. Div. (N. y.) 221, 45 N. Y. Supp. 941. Improper condition of street railway track. — Casper v. Dry Dock, etc., R. Co., 23 App. Div. (N. X) 451, 48 N. Y. Supp. 352. Breaking of trolley pole. — Keator v. Scranton Tract. Co., 191 Pa. 102, 44 W. N. C. 128, 6 Am. Neg. Eep. 187, 44 L. R. A. 546, 43 Atl. «6. Breaking of an appliance. — Murray v. Pawtuxet Val. St. E. Co., 25 E. I. 209, 55 Atl. 491. Breaking of axle. — ^Hegeman v. "Western R. Corp., 13 N. Y. 9, 64 Am. Dec. 517; Alden v. New York Cent. E. Co., 26 N. Y. 102, 82 Am. Dec. 401 ; Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. Voight, 122 Ind. 288; Meier v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 4 U. C. C. P. 543; Dawson v. Manchester, etc., R. Co., 7 H. & N. 1037; Western Maryland E. Co. v. State, 95 Md. 637, 53 Atl. 969. Breaking of car -wheel. — Toledo, etc., E. Co. V. Beggs, 85 111. 80, 28 Am. Rep. 613. Breaking of coupling pin. — McLean v. Burbank, 11 Minn. 277; Goodrich v. Pennsylvania, etc.. Canal Co., 29 Hun (N. Y.) 50. Breaking of bolt. — Germain v. Montreal, etc., R. Co., 6 L. C. Eep. 172. Falling of sleeping car berth. — Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Walrath, 38 Ohio St. 461. Explosion of boiler of locomo- tive. — Robinson v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 20 Blatchf. (U. S.) 338. Explosion of lamp, — Wilkie t. Bolster, 3 E. D. Sm. (N. Y.) 327. Breaking of axle of stage coach. — ^Lemon v. Chauslor, 68 Mo. 340, 30 Am. Rep. 799; Christie v. Griggs, 2 Campb. 79; Israel v. Clark, 4 Esp. N. P. 259. Wheel coming oflP. — Ware v. Gay, II Pick. (Mass.) 106. Explosion of boiler of steam- boat. — Caldwell v. New Jersey Steamboat Co., 47 N. Y. 282; Spear V. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 119 Pa. St. 61; Yeomans v. Contra Costa Steam Nav. Co., 44 Cal. 71; The Steamboat New World v. King, 16 How. (U. S.) 469; Dunlap v. Steam- boat Reliance, 2 Fed. 249; The Eeli- ance, 4 Woods (U. S.) 420; Fay v. Davidson, 13 Minn. 523. Breaking of paddle Tirheel.— 782 The Law of Oaeioees. eenger's arm was out of the window when struck," or an active and voluntary movement on hia part contributed to the accident,"* or he was riding in an improper place." It is only in respect to those accidents which happen to the passenger when he passively trusts himself to the safety of the carrier's means of transporta- tion, or to the skill, diligence, and care of its servants, that the rule applies.^" The fact that a passenger is injured while necessarily standing on the platform of a car is not in itself a cause for action against a railway company, if the accident is caused by the act of the plaintiff himself, or that of another passenger.^ § 6. Presumption of negligence as to injuries to persons other than passengers. — It has been held by the courts in certain jurisdictions that this presumption of negligence arises only when there exists a contractual relation,, like that of passenger and Yerkes v. Keokuk Northern Line Packet Co., 7 Mo. App. 265. Breaking of ship's mooring to -wharf. — ^Miller v. Ocean SteamsHip Co., 118 N. Y. 199. Falling of gang plank. — Eagle Packet Co. v. Defries, 94 111. 598, 34 Am. Rep. 245. Falling of berth on boat. — Smith V. British, etc.. Packet Co., 46 N. Y. Super. Ct. 86. But a presumption of negQ- gence does not arise from: Rail breaking and car running off the track. — Cole v. New York Cent. K. Co., 48 N. Y. 679. Passenger throvsrn from plat- form in starting of car. — Hayes V. Forty-Second St., etc., K. Co., 97 N. Y. 259. Passenger throim doivn by jerk in rounding curve. — ^Ayers v. Rochester R. Co., 156 N. Y. 104. Failure to carry to destination. — ^Mt. Adams, etc., R. Co. v. Isaacs, 18 Ohio C. C. 177. 17. Holbrook v. Utiea, etc., R. Co., 12 N. Y. 238, 64 Am. Dec. 502; Pitts- burg, etc., R. Co. V. Andrews, 39 Md. S29, 71 Am. Rep. 568. 18. Pennsylvania Co. v. Marion, 104 Ind. 239; Miller v. St. Louis K. Co., 5 Mo. App. 471. 19. Tuley v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 41 Mo. App. 432. 20. Indianapolis, etc., E. Co. t. Rutherford, 29 Ind. 82, 92 Am. Dec. 336; Morel v. Mississippi Valley L. Ins. Co., 4 Bush (Ky.) 535; Todd v. Old Colony E. Co., 3 Allen (Mass.) 21, 80 Am. Dec. 49; Pittsburg, etc., E. Co. V. McClurg, 56 Pa. St. 294; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Overall, 82 Tex. 247; Weaver v. Baltimore, etc., E. Co., 22 Wash. L. Rep. (D. C.) 393. 21. Rolette v. Great Northern R. Co. (Minn.), 97 N. W. 431. See also Willis v. Long Island R. Co., 34 N. Y. 670; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Bisch, (Ind.), 22 N. E. 662; Cleveland, etc., R. Co. V. Moneyhun (Ind.), 44 N. E. 1106, 34 L. R. A. 141; Camden, etc., R. Co. V. Hoosey, 99 Pa. 492, 44 Am. Rep. 120; Worthington v. Railway Co., 64 Vt. 107, 23 Atl. 590, 15 L. E. A. 326; Ward v. Railway Co., 102 Wis. 215, 78 N. W. 442; Fisher v. Railway Co. (W. Va.), 24 S. E. 570, 33 L. R. A. 69. Peesumptions and Btjeden of Peoop. 78$ carrier between the parties, and tliat it does not apply to persona holding other relations. ^^ But' it is held elsewhere that a con- tractual relation is not essential, and that the same presumption arises when such relation does not exist. ^' In an action against a street railway company where the plaintiff's evidence showed that his wagon was standing on one of the defendant's tracks, and that in front of him were two cars, and that, as the second car moved up a grade, the trolley wheel slipped, and the car slipped back- ward and struck the car back of it, when either the force of the collision drove the rear car against the wagon, or the motorman of that ear moved it backward to avoid a collision, it was held that the evidence raised a presumption of negligence on the part of the defendant, and made it incumbent on him to show due care.^* So, where the plaintiff, while walking across the street, was struck by a stick which flew from the hands of the defendant's car" con- ductor, who was using it to free the trolley, which had caught in the frog at the junction of some over-head wires ;^^ where plain- tiff's horse was frightened by a loud and unusual noise proceeding from an electric car, and a volume of smoke issuing therefrom. 22. Huff V. Austin, 46 Ohio St. 386, 21 N. E. 864, 15 Am. St. 613; Young V. Bransford, 12 Lea (Tenn.) 232. In an action against the com- pany brought by a person not a pas- senger, the law has been held in some cases not to raise a presumption of negligence against the defendant. In such eases, on the issue of defend- ant's negligence, the burden of proof rests on the plaintiff, and he cannot recover without establishing the fact alleged by a fair preponderance of evidence. Button v. Hudson River E. Co., 18 N. Y. 248; Philadelphia City Pass. Ey. Co. v. Henrice, 92 Pa. St. 431; North Chica- go City Ey. Co. v. Louis (111.), 27 N. E. 451; O'Neil v. Dry Dock, etc., E. Co., 129 N. Y. 125 j Thomas v. Citizens' Pass. Ey. Co., 132 Pa. St. 504; EoUer v. Sutter St. E. Co., 66 Cal. 230; North Side St. Ey. Co. V. Want (Tex.), 15 S. W. 40; Gumb v. Twenty-third St. Hy. Co., 58 N. Y. Super. Ct. 1; Girard College Pass. Ey. Co. v. Middleton, S W. N. C. (Pa.) 486; Potts v. Chica- go City Ey. Co., 33 Fed. Eep. 610. 23. Eose V. Stephens Transp. Co., 11 Fed. 483; Judson v. Giant Pow- der Co., 107 Cal. 549. 24. Campbell v. Consol. Tract. Co.» 201 Pa. 167, 50 Atl. 829. 25. Manning v. West E'nd St. R. Co., 166 Mass. 230, 44 N. E. 13J5; Denver Consol. Elec. Co. v. Simpson, 21 Colo. 371, 41 Pae. 499, 31 L. R. A. 566, holding that the jury may in- fer the unfitness of a switch stick from the fact that it flew from the hands of a conductor and injured a person on the street while it was be- ing used to free a trolley from a frog: in the wires, as this may show that there was unnecessary danger in it» use without India rubber gloves. *I84: The Law of Oaeeibes. and the horse ran away, and plaintiff was injured;^' and where plaintiff was injured while driving under defendant's elevated railroad, by an iron bar falling from such railroad, raises a pre- sumption of negligence on the part of the defendant.^ The un- -explained breaking of an ear and guy used by an electric railway company raises a presumption of negligence -on the part of Hie -company.^* And that an electric wire had become disconnected or detached from its fastening, and hung down in a public alley so -as to endanger public travel f and the falling of a troUey wire into the street,'" raises a presumption of negligence on the part of the company which maintains such wire. But the mere breaking of a trolley wire does not raise a presumption of negligence against & traction company in an action for personal injuries resulting from the fright of a horse caused by the breaking of such wire." "Where the span wire of an electric railroad breaks and falling to : the sidewalk strikes and bums a pedestrian, the doctrine, res ipsa loquitur, applies, and there is a presumption of negligence on the defendant's part which it is called upon to explain or rebut'' "Where plaintiff's horse upon stepping upon a rail of defendant's «lectrio railroad, sprung into the air and fell upon the track where it died in a few minutes, and plaintiff in putting his hands on the tames of the harness received a severe shock, the facts were suffi- •cient to justify the inference that tbe accident was due to the agency of the defendant.'' The unexplained breaking down of a scaffold while an employe is thereon is presumptive evidence of the master's n^ligence.'* Evidence that plaintiff while somewhat intoxicated signaled a west-bound car, and to reach it crossed over the other track on which a car was approaching at a fast trot, about 26. Elchmond Ey. & Elec. Co. v. 31. Kepner v. Harrislrarg Tract. Hudgins (Va.), 41 S. E. 736. Co., 183 Pa. 24, 38 Atl. 416. 27. Hogan v. Manhattan R. Co., 32. Jones v. Union Ey. Co., 18 149 N. Y. 23, 43 N. E. 403. App. Div. (N. Y.) 267, 46 N. Y. 28. Uggla V. West End. St. E. Co., Supp. 321. 4 Am. Electl. Cas. 389, 160 Mass. 33. Oarke v. Nassau Elec. R. Co., 351, 35 N. E. 1126. 9 App. Div. (N. Y.) 51, 41 N. Y. 29. Denver Consol. E. Co. v. Supp. 78. Simpson, 21 Colo. 371, 31 L. E. A. 34. Solarz v. Manhattan K. Co., 566, 41 Pac. 499. 29 N. Y. Supp. 1123, S9 N. Y. St. 30. O'Flaherty v. Nassau Elec. E. Eep. 537, 8 Misc. Eep. (N. Y.) 856, Co., 34 App. Div. (N. Y.) 75, 7 Am. 31 Abb. N. C. 426. Electl. Cas. 535, 54 N. Y. Supp. 96, aflFd. 59 N. E. 1128, 168 N. Y. 624. Presumptions and Bueden of Peoof. 785 SOO feet away, and that as he took hold of the west-bound car he fell, and the east-bound car passed over his foot, raises the pre- sumption that there was negligence on the part of those in charge of the east-bound car which was the cause of the accident. ^^ But, an accident to a person waiting for a street car, who is struck by the sudden switching of the car upon a side track, does not make & prima facie case of negligence on the part of the carrier.^* The mere fact that an employe is killed by a fall from a hand car while crossing a bridge of his employer's railroad is not evidence that the killing was caused by the negligence of the employer's agents or servants.^'' Negligence on the part of the driver of a horse car cannot be inferred from his mere failure to sstop the car within a very short distance from a child who has fallen upon the track.^* Negligence on the part of an employer cannot be inferred from the mere fact that an accident happened to an employe.^' The doctrine, res ipsa loquitur, does not apply in an action for personal injuries by the conductor of a cable car of one company against another company, based on the fact that the latter com- pany was repairing the crossing of the lines of the fwo companies, where the circumstances would justify the inference that the acci- dent, which was caused by the displacement of the slot in which the grip ran, was caused by the negligence of the gripman of the plaintiff's car in disregarding directions to run slowly over the ■crossing.* A prima facie case is not made out against a street railroad company in an action for personal injuries!, based upon the breach of an ultra vires city ordinance, by the mere introduc- tion of the ordinance in evidence without objection, in the absence of proof that defendant agreed to be bound by it.*^ The statutes in some States provide that in certain cases proof of injury shall raise a presumption of negligence, which it devolves upon the de- fendant to rebut'.^^ Proof of the violation of such a statute is evi- 35. Forwood v. Toronto, 22 Ont. 39. Lincoln St. K. Co. v. Cox, 48 Eep. 351, 56 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. Neb. 807, 67 N. W. 740, 4 Am. & 445. Eng. R. Cas. N. S. 273. 36. Donovan v. Hartford St. R. 40. Bailey v. Citizens' R. Co., 152 Co., 65 Conn. 201, 32 Atl. 350. Mo. 449, 52 S. W. 406. 37. Jones v. Alabama Mineral R. 41. Sanders v. Southern Elec. R. Co., 107 Ala. 400, 18 So. 30. Co., 147 Mo. 411, 48 S. W. 855. 38. Lavin v. Second Ave. R. Co., 42. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Trottet, 12 App. Div. (N. Y.) 381, 42 N. Y. 60 Miss. 442; Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. Supp. 512. Dale, 61 Miss. 206, 20 Am. & Eng. 50 786 The Law of Oaeeiees. dence simply of one of lie elementa of negligence, that defendaDt failed to exercise ordinary oaxe, and the elements of duty and proximate cause of the injury have still to be established.*' § 7. Reasons for presumption of negligence. — The reasons for the presumption of negligence from the circumstances attending the injury to a passenger have been variously stated by the courts. In some cases the presumption is based upon the ground that the- carrier not only has the entire control of the vehicle, but also of the track upon which it runs, and it owes a duty to the passenger to keep both in a perfect and safe condition for the transportation of passengers with entire safety, so far as human prudence can accomplish these results, and that the happening of an accident causing injury to the passenger is prima facie evidence of a viola- tion of this duly in some respect** In other cases it is said that where an act takes place which usually, and according to the ordi- nary course of things, would not happen if proper care was exer- E. Cas. 651; Vicksburg, etc., R. Co. V. Phillips, 64 Miss. 693, 30 Am. & Eng. E. Cos. 587; Columbus, etc., R. Co. V. Kennedy, 78 Ga. 646, 31 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 92; Central R. Co. v. Brinson, 64 Ga. 475, 8 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 343 ; Vickers v. Atlanta, etc., R. Co., 64 Ga. 306, 8 Am. and Eng. R. Cas. 337. In Mississippi and Georgia the presumption against the railroad company arises in all cases of injury. In other states where there is such a statute the presumption arises only in cases of injury to prop- erty by Are. 43. Briggs v. New York Cent. R. Co., 72 N. Y. 26; McGrath v. New York, etc., R. Co., 63 N. Y. 522; Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. Stebbing, 62 Md. 504, 19 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 36; Correll v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 38 Iowa, 120 ; Hoppe v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 61 Wis. 357; New Orleans, etc., R. Co. V. Toulme, 59 Miss. 284; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Hensil, 70 Ind. 669; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Boggs, 101 Ind. 522, 51 Am. Rep. 761; Au- gusta, etc., R. Co. V. McElmurry, 24 Ga. 75; Philadelphia, etc., E. Co. v. Kerr, 25 Md. 521; Hanlon v. South Boston, etc., R. Co., 129 Mass. 31; Hayes v. Michigan, etc., R. Co., Ill U. S. 228, 15 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 394; Clark v. Boston, etc., E. Co., 64 N. H. 323, 31 Am. & Eng. E. Caa. 548; Atlanta, etc., R. Co. v. Wyly^ 65 Ga. 120, 8 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 262; Karle v. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 55 Mo. 476; Quincy, etc., R. Co. V. Wellhoener, 72 lU. 60. In Ten- nessee only is proof of a violation of the statute at the time of the injury held to be conclusive evidence of de- fendant's liability. Tennessee K. Co. V. Walker, 11 Heisk (Tenn.) 383; Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Thomas, 5 Heisk (Tenn.) 262; Collins v. East Tennessee R. Co., 9 Heisk, 841. 44. Edgerton v. New York, etc.^ R. Co., 39 N. Y. 229; Curtiss v. Roch- ester, etc., R. Co., 18 N. Y 534; Walker v. Erie R. Co., 63 Barb. (N- Y.) 260; Dougherty v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 9 Mo. App. 484. Peesumptions and Bueden oe Proof. Y87 cieed, it is to be presumed that such care was not observed.*' In other cases the reason for the presumption is put upon the ground that the carrier usually has almost exclusively the means of know- ing what actually occasioned the injury, either within its posses- sion or under its control, and likewise the means of explaining how it occurred, while the passenger as a rule is without knowledge of the facts necessary to establish the carrier's negligence/' § 8. Rebutting presumption. — There must be reasonable evi- dence of negligence, but when the thing causing the injury is shown to be under the control of the carrier, and the accident is such as, in the ordinary course of business, does not happen if reasonable care is used, it does, in the absence of explanation by the carrier, afford sufficient evidence that the accident arose from a want of care on its part and thus cast upon the carrier the burden of dis- proving it.*^ To rebut such presumption the carrier must show that the injury was caused without its fault or negligence or that the accident occurred from circumstances against which human pru- dence and foresight could not guard,*^ or was caused by an act 45. Caldwell v. New Jersey Steam- boat Co., 47 N. Y. 282 ; Breen v. New York Cent., etc., E. Co., 109 N. Y. 297; Holbrook v. Utiea, etc., E. Co., 12 N. Y. 236, 64 Am. Dec. 502 ; Eose T. Stephens, etc., Transp., 20 Blatchf. (U. S.) 411. 46. Delaware, etc., E. Co. v. Napheys, 90 Pa. St. 135; Stevens v. European, etc., E. Co., 66 Me. 64; Saltonstall v. Stockton, Taney (U. S.) 11, 13 Pet. (U. S.) 181. 47. Breen v. New York Cent., etc., E. Co., 109 N. Y. 297 ; Bush v. Bar- nett, 96 Cal. 202; Feital v. Middle- sex E. Co., 109 Mass. 398, 12 Am. Rep. 720; Bonner v. Grumbach, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 482; Thatcher v. Great Western E. Co. 4 U. C. C.-P. 543; Flaunery v. Waterford, etc., E. Co., 11 Ir. E. C. L. 30. 48. y. Y.— Bowen v. New York Cent. E. Co., 18 N. Y. 408, 72 Am. Dec. 529; Curtis v. Eoehester, etc., E. Co., 18 N. Y. 584, 75 Am. Dec. 258 j Holbrook v. Utica, etc., E. Co., 12 N. Y. 26, 64 Am. Dec. 502; Wilkie v. Bolster, 3 E. D. Sm. (N. Y.) 327; Brehm v. Great Western E. Co., 34 Barb. (N. Y.) 256. Ala. — St. Louis, etc., E. Co. v. Mitchell, 57 Ark. 418. Gal. — Bush v. Barnett, 96 Cal. 202; Fairehild v. California Stage Co., 13 Cal. 599. Oa. — Yonge v. Kinney, 28 Ga. 111. III. — Toledo, etc., E. Co. v. Begga, 85 111. 80, 28 Am. Eep. 613; Pitts- burg, etc., E. Co. V. Thompson, 56 111. 138; Galena, etc., E. Co. v. Yar- wood, 17 111. 509, 65 Am. Dec. 682; Heazle v. Indianapolis, etc., R. Co.. 76 111. 501. Ind. — Cleveland, etc., E. Co. v, Newell, 104 Ind. 264, 54 Am. Eep, 312. Kffi — Central Pass. E. Co. v. Kuhn 86 Ky. 578, 9 Am. St. Rep. 309; Louisville, etc., E. Co. v. Eitter, 85 Ky. 368. 788 The Liw of Caeeiees. of God or vis major,^^ or by the tortious act of a stranger against which the utmost care and diligence could not have guarded,"' or by the contributory negligence of the passenger,'^ or by the viola- tion of some regulations of the carrier known to the passenger.^^ The presumption that a person on a train used for the carrying of passengers is, in the absence of countervailing circumstances, a passenger and rightfully there, may be rebutted, and does not apply to one seen to go on the platform of a mail car, or of some other car not run for the accommodation or use of passengers.^' § 9. Other presumptions. — Evidence showing that plaintiff was riding on a ticket purchased at defendant's ticket office, and at the time of the collision was a passenger on the train of the defendant, which was being operated over its railroad, is prima facie proof v that the train was being operated by and in charge of defendant's servants.^* Where plaintiff took passage on defendant's freight train under an agreement with the brakeman, and did not ride in the caboose but on a coal car, it was not to be presumed that the brakeman had authority to make such agreement, or that plaintiff acquired the relation of passenger by getting on the car, but the burden was on plaintiff to prove such facts.^^ Courts will take La. — Julien v. Steamer Wade - 49. Gillespie v. St. Louis, etc., E. Hampton, 27 La. Ann. 377. Co., 6 Mo. App. 554; Ellet v. St. Jfd.— Stockton v. Frey, 4 Gill Louis, etc., E. Co., 76 Mo. 518; Jic- (Md.) 406, 45 Am. Dec. 138. Clary v. Sioux City, etc., E. Co., 3 Mass. — Ware v. Gay, 11 Pick. Neb. 44, 19 Am. Eep. 631. (Mass.) 106. 50. Deyo v. New York Cent. E. Minn. — Eldridge v. Minneapolis, Co., 34 N. Y. 9; Worth v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 32 Minn. 253. etc., R. Co., 51 Fed. 171; Fredericks Mo. — Sawyer v. Hannibal, etc., R. v. Northern Cent. R. Co., 157 Pa. St. Co., 37 Mo. 240, 90 Am. Dec. 382. 103 ; Latch v. Rummer E. Co., 27" L. Pa. — ^Reading City Pass. R. Co. v. J. Exch. 155. Eekert (Pa.), 4 Atl. 530; Pittsburg, 51. Louisville, etc., E. Co. ^. Ei^ etc., R. Co. V. Pillow, 76 Pa. St. 510; ter, 85 Ky. 368. See Contributory Meier v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 64 Pa. Negligence, chap. 25. St. 225, 3 Am. Eep. 581 ; Sullivan v. 52. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v'. Win- Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 30 Pa. frey (Neb.), 93 N. W. 526. St. 234, 72 Am. Dec. 698; Laing v. 53. People v. Douglass, 87 Cal. Colder, 8 Pa. St. 483, 49 Am. Dec. 281, 25 Pao. 417; Bryant v. Chicago, 533. etc., R. Co., 53 Fed. 997. 7o.— Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. 54. Lake Erie &; W. E. Co. v. De- Wrightman, 29 Gratt. (Va.) 431, 26 long, 109 111. App. 241. Am. Rep. 384; Farish v. Eelgle, 11 55. Missouri, etc., E. Co. v. Huff Gratt. (Va.) 697, 62 Am. Dec. 666. (Tex. Civ. App.), 81 S. W. 625, nor Presumptions and Bueden of Peooe. 789 judicial notice of the functions of sucli railway officers as ticket agents', conductors and drivers/' and passengers are presumed to know these functions," and the regulations of the companies to which they trust themselves.^ But there is no presumption that a passenger knew that he must give up his ticket before leaving a boat, having purchased the ticket on the boat.^' § 10. Presumptions as to contributory negligence The pre- sumption of contributory negligence on the part of the person in- jured usually follows the rule as to the burden of proof. In juris- dictions where the burden is on the plaintiff to prove affirmatively his freedom from contributory negligence, the presumption, in the absence of proof, is that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negli- gence.^" In those jurisdictions where the burden is not on the plaintiff to prove affirmatively his freedom from contributory neg- ligence, but is on the defendant to prove such contributory negli- gence, if he would avail himself of that as a defence, the presump- tion, as a matter of course, in the absence of proof, is that plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence. The presumption thus raised in either case is rebutted when testimony to the contrary is presented sufficient to overcome such presiumption.^^ In New York it has been held that, in an action to recover damages for an injury occurring through negligence, it is not to be presumed that 2)laintiff was free from fault f and that no presumption exists, in the absence of proof, that an injured person was exercising due would an inference arise that the 409; Dye v. Virginia Midland E. brakeman had authority to agree to Co., supra. carry passengers merely because his 59. Standish v. Narragansett employer knew that such acts were Steamship Co., Ill Mass. 512, 15 done, as they might be done while Am. Rep. 66; GriflSth v. Cave, 22 the company was endeavoring to en- Cal. 534, 83 Am. Dee. 82. force rules forbidding such acts. 60. See cases cited from the states 56. Seamon v. Koehler, 122 N. Y. which hold the rule stated as to the 646, 33 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 729, 25 N. burden of proof of contributory negli- E. 353; Dye v. Virginia Midland R. gence, § 13, post. Co., 19 Wash. L. Rep. (D. C.) 369. 61. See cases cited from the jur- 57. Dye v. Virginia Midland R. isdictions holding the rule stated as Co., supra. to the burden of proof as to contrib- 58. Southern R, Co. v. Kendrick, utory negligence, § 13, post. 40 Miss. 387, 90 Am. Dec. 332; Ha- 62. Warner v. New York Cent. R. con, etc., R. Co. v. Johnson, 38 Ga. Co., 44 N. Y. 465. 790 The Law of Caeeiees. care at the time of the injury.^' It has also been held in that State that, in the absence of proof of any circumstances importing negligence on the injured person's part, such negligence cannot be presumed." And in a death case it was held that, in the ab- sence of direct evidence of negligence on the part of the deceased, it may be presumed in his favor that he was desirous of preserving himself from injury.'^ In North Carolina, where the burden of proving freedom from contributory negligence is on the plaintiff, it is nevertheless held that the presumption is against contributory negligence, if there is no evidence of the fact, even in the absence of a statute making it a matter of affirmative defense.'* The United States courts hold the same rule." In other States where con- tributory negligence is a matter of affirmative defense it has been held that there are no presumptions against a plaintiff in an action for death or injuries resulting from negligence, of a want of due care and diligence, nor has he the burden of proving their exercise affirmatively ;** that a woman will not be presumed to have been guilty of contributory negligence from the mere fact that she fell from the platform of a street car f^ that it is not prima facie the fault of a passenger where he is injured by riding on the foot- board of a trolley car;'™ that the presumption is that a person thrown from his load and fatally injured at a railroad crossing was exercising ordinary care and caution ;" and that it must be pre- sumed that a person who received injuries causing death, when no one saw the accident, was exercising due care, if there is no evidence to the contrary.''^ 63. Reynolds v. New York Cent., Co. v. Griffith, 159 U. S. 603; Grand etc., R. Co., 58 N. Y. 248. Trunk R. Co. v. Ives, 144 U. S. 408. 64. Button V. Hudson River R. Co., 68. Bromley v. Birmingham M. R. 18 N. Y. 248. See Maasoth v. Dela- Co. (Ala.), 11 So. 341. ware & Hudson Canal Co., 64 N. Y. 69. Metropolitan R. Co. v. Sna- 524, holding that there is no presump- shall (D. C. App.), 22 Wash. L. Eep. tion of law that a person about to 377. cross a railroad track in a vehicle 70. Elliott v. Newport St. E. Co. driven by another fails to look for a (R. I.), 23 L. R. A. 208, 28 Atl. 338, train. 18 R. I. 707. 65. Morrison v. New York Cent., 71. Lillstrom v. Northern Pac. R. etc., R. Co., 63 N. Y. 643. Co. (Minn.), 20 L. R. A. 587, 55 N. 66. Norton v. North Carolina R. W. 624. Co., 122 N. C. 910, 29 S. E. 886. 72. Reiehla v. Gruensfelder, 62 67. Texas & P. R. Co. v. Gentry, Mo. App. 43. 160 U. S. 353; Baltimore & Ohio R. Presumptions and Bubden or Peoof. 791 § 11. Presumption arising from instinct of self-preservation. — There seems to be a conflict of authority as to whether it should te presumed, in the absence of evidence, that a traveler, who was killed at a street crossing stopped, looked, and listened before crossing lie track. In Kansas it has been held that " the very definition of ordinary care implies a presumption that it will usually be exercised. It is because people ordinarily, in crossing a railroad track, look and listen for their own protection, that a failure to do so is held to be negligence. It can never be pre- ■sumed in the absence of evidence that a person fails to do that -which people ordinarily do to avoid injury.'"^ In an Illinois case ithe court said : " The rule in this State undoubtedly is that in suits for personal injuries caused by the negligence of another, the plaintiff must allege and prove that he was at the time in the exer- ■cise of due care, and, when the action is for causing the death of another, the burden is upon the administrator to show that the ■deceased exercised ordinary care to avoid the injury.'"^ But in the latter class of cases and especially where no one saw the killing, direct testimony as to such care is not necessary, but it may be in- ferred from the circumstances of the case as shown by the evi- dence.'^ In a Pennsylvania case the court said : " The common law presumption is that everyone does his duty until the contrary is proved, and in the absence of all evidence on the subject, the presumption is that the decedent observed the precautions which the law prescribed. In the case at bar, no witness was called who sa.w the occurrence. There is no evidence whatever whether in fact the decedent did stop, and look and listen. The presumption is that he did. Proof of that fact was no part of the plaintiff's ease. The presumption is of fact merely, and may be rebutted, hut we are without evidence on the subject.'"^ In 'New York it has been held that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show that in approaching a railroad crossing he looked and listened for the approaching train. The court said, " In the case of a death by accident at a railroad crossing it must often happen that the circumstances immediately preceding it, and the acts and conduct 73. Chicago, E. I. & P. Ey. Co. t. 74. Illinois Cent. E. Co. v. No- Hinds, 56 Kan. 758, 44 Pac. 093 ; De- wieki, 148 III. 29, 35 N. E. 358. -wald V. Railway Co., 44 Kan. 587, 24 75. Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Cary, Pac. 1101. And see McBride v. 115 111. 115, 3 N. E. 519. Northern Pac. R. Co., 19 Oreg. 64, 76. Sehum v. Pennsylvania E. Co., •23 Pac. 814. 107 Pa. St. 8, 52 Am. Eep. 468. 792 The Law of Oakeiees. of the deceased, are left in great obscurity. But the rules of la-w governing the right of recovery are the same as in other cases, although slighter evidence of compliance with the duty cast upon a plaintiff might be deemed sufficient than where the injured person was alive and competent to testify,"" In a recent Iowa case the court said : " The origin of the rule in this State as to the pre- sumption of action dictated by the instinct of self-preservation is. due to the doctrine that the burden of showing affirmatively free- dom from contributory negligence is on the plaintiff, and wa? introduced in order to avoid the evident injustice of such a doc- trine in cases where there was no evidence whatever one way or the other as to the exercise of care by the injured party, and no such evidence was obtainable by reason of the death of the party injured, and absence of any proof as to the circumstances, attending the injury. The rule has no application where there is direct evidence of contributory negligence at the instant of the accident.'"* It has never been held that the presumption from the instinct of self-preservation constitutes affirmative proof of any specific act, or the exercise of any specific care.™ In view of the fact that the rule generally applied to the conduct of persons cross- ing the tracks of steam railroads that the omission to " stop, look, and listen " before crossing the tracks is negligence, as matter of law, is only applicable to street railways where the attendant circumstances are such that reasonable care and prudence would dictate such precautions, and the mandatory duty to look and hsten is not applied with the same rigidity to pedestrians crossing street railroad tracks at the intersecting streets, it being the duty of the railroad company to have its cars under control as they ap- approach such crossings, it would seem that where there is no evi- dence upon the question as to whether a person who was killed at a street railroad crossing looked and listened before crossing the track, that the presumption would be even stronger in favor of his having taken the necessary precautions to prevent injury. The presumption that the decedent who was killed at a crossing per- 77. Eodrian v. New York, etc., Co., supra; Metz v. St. Paul City E. R. Co., 125 N. Y. 526, 26 N. E. 741. Co. (Minn.), 92 N. W. 502; McGee 78. Ames v. Waterloo, etc., E. T. v. Consol. St. E. Co., 102 Mich. 107; Co., 1 St. Ry. Rep. 199 (Iowa), 95 Watkins v. Union Tract. Co., 194 Pa. N. W. 161; Bell v. Incorporated St. 564; Nugent v. Tract. Co., 181 Town of Clarion, 113 Iowa, 126. Pa. St. 160. 78. Ames v. Waterloo, etc., R. T. Presumptions and Bueden of Proof. 793 formed iis legal duty of stopping, looking, and listening is re- tutted wken it appears from tlie evidence that he stopped on the track immediately in front of an approaching locomotive.*" If a person about to cross a track could have seen an approaching train if he had stopped and looked, it will be presumed, in the absence of contradictory evidence, tliat he did not look, or that, if he did look, he did not heed." § 1^. The burden of proving negligence. — The burden of proof is upon the plaintiff, as a general rule, to prove, in an action to recover damages for a personal injury siustained, the negligence of the carrier, and in the absence of any presumption of negligence on the part of the defendant, the plaintiff must prove by a fair pre- ponderance of the evidence facts which show that the negligence of thedefendantwas the proximate cause of the injury. ^^ Having done this, the plaintiff is entitled to recover, except where the rule of law is maintained that plaintiff also has the burden of proving his own freedom from contributory negligence.*' But the plaintiff is not 80. Pennsylvania E. Co. v. Moody, 126 Pa. St. 244, 17 Atl. 590; Belle- fontaine E. Co. v. Schneider, 24 OHo St. 670. 81. Pennsylvania E. Co. v. Righter, 42 N. J. L. 180; Myers v. Baltimore & 0. E. Co., 150 Pa. St. 386, 24 Atl. 747; Miller v. Truesdale, 56 Minn. 274, 57 N. W. 661; Kall- merten v. Cowen, 111 Fed. 297, 49 C. C. A. 746. 82. Searles v. Manhattan E. Co., 101 N. Y. 661, 25 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 358; Cordell v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 75 N. Y. 330; Seybolt v. New York, etc., E. Co., 95 N. Y. 562, 47 Am. Eep. 75, 18 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 162; Caldwell v. New Jersey Steamboat Co., 47 N. Y. 291; Oyster- bank V. Gardner, 49 N. Y. Super. Ct. 263; McCaig v. Erie E. Co., 8 Hun (N. Y.), 599; Cox v. Wilmington City E. Co. (Del.), 53 Atl. 569; Pennsylvania, etc., E. Co. v. Spearen, 47 Pa. St. 300; Holbrook v. Utica, etc., E. Co., 12 N. Y. 236; Curtis v. Rochester, etc., E. Co., 18 N. Y. 524; Cleveland, etc., E. Co. v. Troesch, 68. 111. 545; Allyn v. Boston, etc., E. Co., 105 Mass. 77; Brown v. Con- gress, etc., St. R. Co., 49 Mich. 153,- Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Smith, 4S Mich. 504; Willoughby v. Chi- cago, etc., E. Co., 37 Iowa, 432; But- ton V. Frink, 51 Conn. 342; Hersch- berger v. Lynch, 11 Atl. Eep. (Pa.) 642; Mynning v. Detroit, etc., E. Co., 67 Mich. 677; Chicago, etc., R. Co. V. Felton, 125 111. 458; Chicago, etc., E. Co. V. Mock, 88 111. 87 ; Hewea V. Philadelphia, etc., E. Co., 76 Md. 154; Crandall v. Goodrich Transp. Co., 16 Fed. 75 ; Allen v. Willard, 57 Pa. St. 374; Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Trotter, 61 Miss. 417; Herstine v. Lehigh Valley E. Co., 151 Pa. St. 244. 83. The burden of proving the ab- sence of contributory negligence '.s placed upon the plaintiff in a num- ber of States. See § 13, post, and cases there cited. Y94 The Law of Oakeiebs. bound to make out his case beyond all reasonable doubt, or so aa to exclude every other possible theory.** It is necessary for plain- tiff to establish by a preponderance of evidence circumstances from which it may be inferred that there is a reasonable probability that "the accident resulted from the want of ordinary care, or negligence, of the defendant, or that it -could not have been produced except by the operation of abnormal causes.'^ The plaintiff must prove .something which warrants the inference of negligence on the de- iendant's part, and not leave his case upon facts just as consistent with care and prudence as with the opposite, or so that there may not appear reasonable grounds upon which to impute negUgence to the defendant.*^ It is not necessary to prove every act of neg- ligence charged or every material fact alleged by the plaintiff, but the jury need only to be satisfied by a preponderance of the evi- (Ariz.) 11 Pac. 545; Fitzpatrlek T, Bloomington City R. Co., 73 111. App. 516, not admissible on the question of negligence, but it is competent to show his condition on the day of the injury. 10. Pyne v. Broadway, etc., E. Co., 19 N. Y. Supp. 217. Where plain- tiff gave evidence that on other days- the driver started his car suddenly and used intoxicants while on duty^ and the court, of its own motion, or- dered this evidence stricken out, so far as defendant's objection applied,. and it was not again referred to dur- ing the trial, any error in its recep- tion was cured. Ganiard v. Eoches- ter, etc., R. Co., 2 N. Y. Supp. 470. 11. Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Mes- sino, 1 Sneed. (Tenn.) 221. 12. N. y.— Reed v. New Tort Cent. R. Co., 45 N. Y. 574, evidence of the defective condition of the roai at a point half a mile distant from Evidence. 803 and track, over ■whicli a train had to pass before reaching the place where a deraiknent occurred, is admissible for the purpose of showing negligence in operating the train, such as the too rapid running of the train over an imperfect track.^' When the sta- bility of a bridge as a vrhole is involved in the charge of negli- gence, it is competent to give evidence of the condition, at the time of the accident, of the portions of the bridge left standing, and not immediately involved in the wreck." Evidence of the con- dition of the track some time after the accident is admissible, where it is shown that the track was in the same condition then as at the time of the accident.^' On an issue aa to the negligent operation of an electric car at the time of an accident, testimony that another car, moving over the same part of the road, a month later, was negligently operated, was inadmissible, where it did not appear that such car -was similar to the one on which the accident occurred, or that it was operated under like conditions.^' Official the place of the accident inadmissi- ble; Murphy v. New York Cent. R. Co., 66 Barb. (N. Y.) 125. U. 8. — ^Vieksburg, etc., E. Co. v. Putnam, 118 U. S. 545, evidence of general condition of the track in the vicinity of the place of derailment admissible. Ala. — Richmond, etc., E. Co. v. Vance, 93 Ala. 144; Alabama G. S. R. Co. V. Hill, 93 Ala. 514, general bad condition at or near the place and within 30 feet admissible. Dale. — Pattee v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 5 Dak. 267. Iowa. — Fitch v. Mason City, etc., Tract. Co., 116 Iowa, 716, 89 N. W. 33; Allison v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 42 Iowa, 274, evidence as to defects within 16 rods admissible. Kan. — Union Pac. E. Co. v. Hand, 7 Kan. 380. Ey.—OMo Valley E. Co. v. Wat- son, 93 Ky. 6S4. Mich. — ^Laughlin v. Grand Eapids St. R. Co., 62 Mich. 220; Grand Eapids, etc., E. Co. v. Huntley, 38 Mich. 539. ; Jfo.— Stoher v. St. Louis, etc., E. Co., 91 Mo. 509; Sidekum v. Wabash, etc., E. Co., 93 Mo. 400. N. 0. — ^Hedges v. Wilmington, etc., E. Co., 73 N. C. 558. Mirm. — ^Morse v. Minneapolis, etc., E. Co., 30 Minn. 465. Term. — Nashville, etc., E. Co. v. Johnson, 15 Lea (Tenn.), 677. Teas. — Taylor, etc., E. Co. v. Taylor, 79 Tex. 104; Missouri Pac. E. Co. v. Mitchell, 75 Tex. 77, 12 S. W. 810. Wis. — Stewart v. Everts, 76 Wis. 35. 13. Southeastern E. Co. v. South- worth, 135 111. 250; Missouri Pac. E. Co. V. Collier, 62 Tex. 318. 14. Leonard v. Southern Pac. E. Co., 21 Or. 555. 15. Byrne v. Brooklyn City, etc., E. Co., 6 Misc. Eep. (N. Y.) 260, 20 N.Y. Supp. 760, affd. 145 N.Y. 619; Jacksonville, etc., E. Co. v. South- worth, 135 111. 250; Pennsylvania Co. V. Marion, 104 lud. 239. See also Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Lewis, 48 111. App. 274. 16. Schmidt v. Coney Island, etc., E. Co., 49 N. Y. Supp. 777. 804 The Law of Caeeiees. reports of railroad officers and employes prior to the accident as to the condition of the track are admissible against the carrier to show the condition of the track at the time of the accident" Evi- dence of general rumor among the employes of the carrier as to the condition of any of the means of transportation is hearsay and irrelevant to prove its bad condition ; but it is admissible to show negligence in the use of such means by the carrier after it should have known of its .unsafe condition.-'^ Proof of a custom on the part of the carrier to keep its track in general good repair is not admissible to show the good condition of the track.'' § 3. Evidence of other and similar accidents. — ^Evidence of other and similar accidents, if any have occurred by reason of the method of construction of or defects in any of the means of trans- portation, is admissible, to show the dangerous condition of such means of transportation,^" and to show notice to and knowledge by the carrier of such condition,^' but it is not admissible to prove an independent act of negligence.^ Evidence as to former experi- ence of the carrier in operating its trains under similar conditions is inadmissible to disprove negligence,^^ tmless the conditions and circumstances are shown to have continued the same up to the time of the accident.^ Evidence as to the result of subsequent ex- periments made at tbe same place and under the same circum- stances and conditions as those existing at the ^time of the accident is admissible.^^ 17. Vicksburg, etc., E. Co. v. R. Co., 30 Minn. 465 ; Mobile, etc., R. Putnam, 118 U. S. 545; Texas, etc., Co. v. Ashcraft, 48 Ala. 15, 49 Ala. E. Co. V. Lester, 75 Tex. 56. 305. Contra: Davis v. Oregon, etc., 18. Wormsdorf v. Detroit City E. E. Co., 8 Or. 172. Co., 75 Mich. 472. 21. Hanrahan v.' Manhattan R. 19. Fort Worth, etc., E. Co. v. Co., supra; Johnson v. Manhattan Thompson, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 170. E. Co., 52 Hun (N. Y.), Ill; Cen- 20. Gabriel v. Long Island E. Co., tral E., etc., Co. v. Smith, 80 Ga. 526. 54 App. Div. (N. Y.) 41, 66 N. Y. 22. Hipsley v. Kansas City, etc., Supp. 301; Hanrahan v. Manhattan S. Co., 88 Mo. 348; Gulf, etc., E. Co. E. Co., 53 Hun (N. Y.), 420, 6 N. Y. v. Rowland, 82 Tex. 166; Missouri Supp. 395, aflFd. 130 N. Y. 658, 29 N. Pac. E. Co. v. Mitchell, 75 Tex. 77. E. 2033; Central, etc., Co. v. Smith, 23. Joliet St. E. Co. v. Call, 42 80 Ga. 526; Bullard v. Boston, etc., 111. ^pp. 41. E. Co., 64 N. H. 27; Missouri Pac. 24. Meloy v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., E. Co. V. Neiswanger, 41 Kan. 621; (Iowa), 37 N. W. 335. Cleveland, etc., E. Co. v. Newell, 104 25. Gilbert v. Third Ave. E. Co., Ind. 264; Morse v. Minneapolis, etc., 54 N. Y. Super. Ct. 470; Chicago, Evidence. 805 I i. Subsequent repairs and precautions Evidence of repairs, or alterations, or precautions, made or taken by the carrier after an accident, is not admissible as proof of prior negligence.^'' The ground of this rule is that it would be unjust that the carrier could not, after an unexpected accident, and as a measure of ex- treme caution, adopt additional safeguards, without being liable to have such acts construed asi an admission of prior negligence. To so construe such an act would be an unfair interpretation of human conduct and virtually an inducement for continued negli- gence." But such evidence has been held admissible in some jurisdictions.^* § 5. Custom or habit of carrier or passenger. — ^Where the di- rect testimony as to the alleged negligent act is conflicting, evi- dence as to what was the usual stopping place of a train or car,^* or what was the usual or customary time for trains or cars to stop,^* or as to the habit of the injured person in alighting from a mov- ing train or car, in despite of warning,^^ or as to the practice of etc., E. Co. V. Champion (Ind.), 32 N. E. 874. 26. y. T. — ^Dale v. Delaware, etc., E. Co., t3 N. Y. 468; Dougan v. Champlain Transp. Co., 56 N. Y. 1; Eeed v. New York Cent. R. Co., 45 N. Y. 574; Timpson v. Manhattan E. Co., 1 N. Y. Supp. 673; Sehmitt V. Dry Dock, etc., E. Co., 3 St. Eep. (N. Y.) 257; Delaney v. Hilton, 50 N. Y. Super. Ct. 341. Minn. — ^Morse v. Minneapolis, etc., E. Co., 30 Minn. 465. But see Kelly T. Southern Minnesota K. Co., 28 Minn. 98; Phelps v. Mankato, 23 Minn. 276; O'Leary v. Mankato, 21 Minn. 65. Jifo.— Hipsley v. Kansas City, etc., E. Co., 88 Mo. 348; Ely v. St. Louis, etc., E. Co., 77 Mo. 34. Or. — Skottowe v. Oregon Short Line, etc., R. Co., 22 Or. 430, but such evidence is admissible to show the authority of the carrier over the place in which the repairs were made. 27. Payne v. Troy, etc., E. Co., 9 Hun (N. Y.), 526; Morse v. Minne- apolis, etc., R. Co., 30 Minn. 465. 28. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Hen- derson, 51 Pa. St. 315; Augusta, etc., E. Co. v. Renz, 55 Ga. 126, evi- dence competent for the consideration of the jury, subject to being ex- plained by the defendant; Fordyce v. Withers, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 540, for the purpose of showing the actual condition of the track; Fordyce v. Chaneey, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 24, inad- missible to prove prior negligence, but admissible to rebut defendant's testimony as to track being in safe condition; Kansas Pac. E. Co. v. Miller, 2 Colo. 442, admissible to show that prior construction was de- fective. 29. Alexandria, etc., E. Co. v. Herndon, 87 Va. 193. 30. Fuller v. NaugatucK E. Co., 21 Conn. 557. 31. Craven v. Central. Pac. R. Co., 72 Cal. 345 ; Louisville, etc., E. Co. v. Berry, 88 Ky. 222, but such evidence 806 The Law of Caeeiebs. the carrier in regard to the approaches to ita trains,^^ or the general use of the same by the public/' is admissible. Evidence as to the custom or habit of passengers in alighting from or boarding trains and of the carrier's slowing trains but not coming to a fuU stop for this purpose, is admissible as bearing upon the carrier's duty to take proper precautions for the safety of its passengers.^* Bui; the occasional act of a passenger without the knowledge or consent of the carrier would not affect the rights and duties of the carrier.^ Evidence as to the usual rate of speed is admissible on the question as to whether the rate of speed was negligent. ^° Evidence of the carrier's departure from its usual practice may be admissible to show negligence." Evidence of the habit of passengers on the road of a street car company to give signal for stopping and starting cars is inadmissible in an action for an injury to a passenger caused by the sudden starting of the car while she was alibiing in response to a signal by one of the passengers.^ § 6. Tickets as evidence of contract for transportation. — Tick- ets for passage over a carrier's road are not, in themselves, written evidence of the contract by which the transportation was engaged, and the passenger is not precluded from contradicting, varying, or explaining them by parol testimony as to the actual contract with the carrier. They are rather in the nature of vouchers or receipts for the passage money and their office is to serve as tokens to enable the persons having charge of the vessels and carriages of the carrier to recognize the bearers as parties who are entitled to be received on board and to passage as thereon indicated. They are quite consistent with a more special bargain. They do not come within the rule which excludes parol testimony respecting a contract which has been reduced to writing.'' The fact that a is not admissible when the proofs 36. Cleveland, etc., E. Co. t. show that the injury was due to a Newell, 75 Ind. 542. defective platform. 37. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Fisher, ' 32. Wentworth v. Eastern R. Co., 31 111. App. 36. 143 Mass. 248. 38. Nichols v. Lynn & B. E. Co., 33. McDonald v. Chicago, etc., R. 168 Mass. 528, 47 N. E. 427. Co., 29 Iowa, 170. 39. Elmore v. Sands, 54 N. Y. 515, 34. Phillips V. Rensselaer, etc., R. 13 Am. Rep. 617; Van Buskirk v. Co., 67 Barb. (N. Y.) 644, 49 N. Y. Roberts, 31 N. Y. 663; Quimby v. 177. Vanderbilt, 17 N. Y. 306, 72 Am. Dpc 35. Drake v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 469; New York, etc., E. Co. v. Win- 137 Pa. St. 352. ter, 143 U. S. 60; Gordon v. Man- Evidence. 807 passenger bought a ticket over several lines of road with coupons attached may be shown by parol, the contents of the ticket not being involved.*" There is no such necessity of the sleeping car 4service, or guch suflScient reason, for giving the berth check issued to passengers on a sleeping car upon the surrender of their tickets -conclusive force as evidence of the contract between the passenger and the sleeping car company, as to exclude parol evidence of the agreement made between the conductor and the passenger.*^ § 7. Declarations and admissions of injured passengers. — The res gestae, speaking generally, is the accident, and declarations of the injured person as to the circumstances of the occurrence, which are no part of it, which were not made at the same time, or so nearly contemporaneous with it as to characterize it, or to throw any light on it, are not admissible in evidence as a part of the res gestae. They are purely narrative, giving an account of a trans- action not partly past, but wholly past and completed.*^ The state- ments of an injured person as to how or why an accident occurred, or as to the cause of his injuries, or the manner in which they were inflicted, unless made at the time of the accident, or while the transaction was in progress so as to constitute a part of the occurrence itself, are generally held to be inadmissible.*' Such statements have been held to be admissible in certain cases, how- ever, even though made a few moments after ih© accident, where Chester, etc., E. Co., 52 N. H. 596; 43. Hall v. Cedar Eapids, etc., R. Johnson v. Concord E. Corp., 46 N. Co.," 115 Iowa 8, 87 N. W. 739; Ed- H. 213. But see Memphis, etc., E. wards v. Foote (Mich.), 88 N. W. Co. V. Benson, 85 Tenn. 627. 404, 8 Det. L. N. 880; Perlmutter v. 40. Central E. Co. v. Wolff, 74 Ga. Highland St. Ey. Co., 121 Mass. 497; €64. Leahey v. Cass Ave., etc., E. Co., 97 41. Mann Boudoir Car Co. v. Mo. 165, 10 Am. St. Eep. 300; Chi- Dupre, 57 Fed. 646, 47 Alb. L. J. 446. cage W. D. Ey. Co. v. Becker, 128 42. Waldele v. New York Cent., 111. 545, 21 N. E. 524; Webber v. etc., E. Co., 95 K Y. 274, 47 Am. St. Paul City R. Co., 67 Minn. 155, Eep. 41; Martin v. New York, etc., 69 N. W. 716; Citizens St. E. Co. v. E. Co., 103 N. Y. 626; Downs v. New Stoddard (Ind. App.), 37 N. E. 723. York Cent., etc., E. Co., 47 N. Y. 83; See also Nellis St. Ed. Acct. Law, p. Savannah, etc., E. Co. v. Holland, 82 565; Illinois Cent. E. Co. v. Sutton, Oa. 257; Augusta, etc., E. Co. v. 42 111. 438; Fordyce v. McCants, 51 Eandall, 79 6a. 304; Chicago, etc.. Ark. 509, declarations to attending R. Co. v. Johnson, 36 HI. App. 564; physician. Sullivan v. Oregon E., etc., Co., 12 Or. 392. 808 The Law of Careiees. the courts have regarded the declarations as verbal acts or facts illustrating, explaining, interpreting, or growing out of the trans- action, and a part of the res gestae, or receiving support from the transaction itself." Declarations of an injured person, indicative of existing pain or suffering, made at the time of the injury or afterwards, are competent evidence in an action to recover for per- sonal injuries, although a narrative of how the injuries were received is not.^^ The fact that parties are now permitted to be witnesses in their own behalf has been held in Hew York not to- have changed the rule of evidence which made it competent, in actions for personal injuries, for the plaintiff to prove screaming or other exclamations tending to show suffering, uttered at the time of the injury or immediately after the accident." But, in 44. O'Keefe v. EigKth Ave. E. Co., 33 App. Div. (N. Y.) 324, 53 N. Y." Supp. 940; Louisville, etc., K. Co. v. Buck, 116 Ind. 566, 19 N. E. 453, 2 L. R. A. 520; Pennsylvania E. Co. v. Lyons, 129 Pa. St. 113, 18 Atl. 759, 15 Am. St. Eep. 701; International, etc., E. Co. V. Smith (Tex.), 44 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 324; Washington, etc., E. Co. V. McLane, 11 App. D. C. 220, 25 Wash. L. Eep. 485; Houston, etc., E. Co. V. Loefler (Tex.), 51 S. W. 536. Rebuttal. — Where evidence is given tending, to impeach the testi- mony of the injured person and show it to be an after-thought and a fab- rication of recent invention, the wit- ness may properly be permitted to show, in answer thereto, that he told the same story at the time of the ac- cident. Baber v. Broadway, etc., E. Co., 9 Misc. Eep. (N. Y.) 20, 29 N. Y. Supp. 40. 45. Montgomery St. Ey. Co. v. Shanks, 3 St. Ey. Eep. 12, 139 Ala. 489, 37 So. 166; Beddle v. City Elec. E. Co., 112 Mich. 547, 70 N. W. 1096; Harris v. Detroit City E. Co., 76 Mich. 227, 42 N. W. 1111; Win- ter V. Central I. E. Co., 74 Iowa, 448, 38 N. W. 154, and the statute making a party a competent witness does not abridge his right to have such decla- rations introduced in evidence; Han- cock V. Leggett, 115 Ind. 544, 18 N. E. 53; Bridge v. Oshkosh, 71 Wis, 363, 37 N. W. 409; Block v. Mil- waukee St. E. Co., 89 Wis. 371, 61 N. W. 1101, 27 L. E. A. 365; Birming- ham Union Ey. Co. v. Hale, 90 Ala. 8, 8 So. 142; Laughlin v. Grand Eapids St. E. Co., 80 Mich. 154; Mott V. Detroit, etc., E. Co., 120 Mich. 127, 79 N. W. 3; Beath v. Eapid E. Co., 119 Mich. 512, 78 N. W. 537; Brown v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 66 Mo. 588; Texas, etc., E. Co. V. Barron, 78 Tex. 421. 46. Hagenlocher v. Coney Island, etc., E. Co., 99 N. Y. 136, 1 N. E. 536; Nichols v. Brooklyn City R. Co., 30 Hun (N. Y), 437, affd. 109 N. Y. 635; Murphy v. New York Cent. E. Co., 66 Barb. (N. Y.) 12S; DeLong v. Delaware, etc., E. Co., 37 Hun (N. Y.), 282; Lewke v. Dry Dock, etc., E. Co., 46 Hun (N. Y), 283; Uransky v. Dry Dock, etc., R. Co., 44 Hun (N. Y.), 119; Geiler v. Manhattan E. Co., 11 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 413, 65 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 437, 32 N. Y. Supp. 254. See Griffith v. Utica, etc., E. Co., 63 Hun (N. T.)f EviDEITCE. 80& tliat State, declarations made by the injured person some time after the injury, to persons other than the physician in attendance upon the person injured, simply that he or she is then suffering pain, are held to be not a part of the res gestae, and, therefore, incompetent, although such evidence was admissible prior to the statute allowing parties to be witnesses.*' It isi also held that statements expressive of present condition are allowed in evidence only when made to a physician for the purpose of treatment by him.*' In other States it has been held that expressions or com^ plaints showing bodily suffering made at the time of the injury or soon thereafter, are competent evidence as part of the res gestae,. and may be testified to and described by any person in whose presence they were uttered, if they were made at the time of the suffering.*' Even dying declarations are not received in civil actions unless part of the res gestae, and come within the rule already stated.^" Admissions of the passenger that the injuries 626, 17 N. Y. Supp. 692, afld. 137 N. Y. 566, may prove by physician her appearance when she reached home and he first examined her. 47. Kennedy v. Rochester, etc., E. Co., 130 N. Y. C54, 41 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 329; Roche v. Brooklyn, etc., E. Co., 105 N. Y.* 294; Donohue v. Brooklyn, etc., R. Co., 53 App. Div. (N. Y.) 348, 65 N. Y. Supp. 634; otherwise, before the Code: Matte- son V. N. Y. Cent. R. Co., 35 N. Y. 487; Caldwell v. Murphy, 11 N. Y. 416; Brown v. N. Y. Cent. E. Co., 32 N. Y. 597; Fuller v. Jamestown St. E. Co., 75 Hun (N. Y.), 273, such testimony is, however, admissible in rebuttal. 48. Kennedy v. Rochester, etc., R. Co., supra; Davidson v. Cornell, 132 N. Y. 228, 30 N. E. 573. See contra, Matteson v. N. Y. Cent. R. Co., supra, holding that such expressions of pain, made to a physician examining the injured person with a view of giving evidence, are admissible; Schuler v. Third Ave. R. Co., 1 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 35, 48 St. Eep. (N. Y.) 663, 20 N. Y. Supp. 683. 49. Williams v. Great Northern E.. Co., 68 Minn. 55, 70 N. W. 860; Brush v. St. Paul City E. Co., 52 Minn. 572, 55 N. W. 57; Omaha St. E. Co. V. Emminger, 57 Neb. 240, 77 N. W. 675, 12 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. N. S. 188; Missouri, etc., E. Co. v. Sanders, 12 Tex. Civ. App. 5, 33 S. W. 245; Weiser v. Broadway, etc., E. Co., 10 Ohio C. C. 14, 2 Ohio Dec. 463; Heckle v. Southern Pac. Co.,. 123 Cal. 441, 5 Am. Neg. Eep. 298, 56 Pac. 56; Springfield Consol. E. Co. V. Hoeffner, 175 111. 634, 51 N. E. 884. But see West Chicago St. E. Co. v.. Kennelly, 170 111. 508, 48 N. E. 996,. 9 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. N. S. 359, affg.. 66 111. App. 244; West Chicago St. E. Co. V. Carr, 170 111. 478, 48 N. E. 992. 50. Waldele v. New York Cent.,, etc., E. Co., 95 N. Y. 274; Daily v. New York, etc., E. Co., 32 Conn. 356 ; East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. Maloy, 77 Ga. 237 ; Marshall v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 48 111. 475; Brownell v. Pa- cific E. Co., 47 Mo. 239, admissible as res gestae when made almost in-^ stantly after the accident. 810 The Law or Caeeiees. received by him were caused by his own negligence are admissible in evidence against him,^^ but are not conclusive and are subject to explanation.^^ § 8. Declarations and admissions of employes. — When the acts of employes or servants will bind the carrier the declarations or admissions of such employes or servants wiU also bind the car- rier, if it affirmatively appear that they were made at the time of the injury to the plaintiff and constituted a part of the res gestae.^ But declarations or admissions made subsequently to the 51. Gulzoni v. O^ler, 64 Cal. 334; De Mahy t. Morgan's Louisiana, etc., K. Co., 45 La. Ann. 1329; Kellor v. Sioux City, etc., R. Co., 27 Minn. 178, but the silence of a, wife when a hus- band is making such admission is not evidence against her. 52. Zemp v. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 9 Rich. L. (S. C.) 84. 53. y. Y. — Koetter v. Manhattan El. R. Co., 59 Hun (N. Y.), 623, 13 N. Y. Supp. 458, affd. 129 N. Y. 668, 30 N. E. 65; Butler v. Manhattan R. Co., 4 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 401, 3 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 453; Matteson T. New York Cent. R. Co., 62 Barb. (N. Y.) 364. U. 8. — New Jersey Steamboat Co. T. Brockett, 121 U. S. 637; Vicks- burg, etc., R. Co. v. O'Brien, 119 U. S. 99, 30 L. Ed. 299, 7 S. Ct. 118; Union Insurance Co. v. Smith, 124 U. S. 424; Pierce v. Van Dusen, 78 Fed. 706. Ala. — Chewning v. Ensley R. Co., 100 Ala. 493; Alabama G. S. R. Co. V. Erazier, 93 Ala. 45. Iowa. — ^Marion v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 64 Iowa, 568. Ky. — ^McLeod v. Ginther, 80 Ky. 399. III. — Springfield Consol. R. Co. v. Welsh, 155 111. 511, 40 N. E. 1034. Kam. — Cherokee, etc., Coal Co. v. Dixon, 55 Kan. 70, 39 Pac. 694. Oolo, — Denver, etc., R. Co. v. Dwyer, 20 Colo. 132, 36 Pac. 1106; Emerson v. Burnett, 11 Colo. App. 88, 52 Pac. 753. Dak. — First National Bank v. North, 6 Dak. 141, 41 N. W. 738. Mass. — Geary v. Stephenson, 1B9 Mass. 31, 47 N. E. 509. Mioh. — Joslin v. Grand Eapida, etc., R. Co., 53 Mch. 322, 19 N. W. 17; Ensley v. Detroit United Ey. Co., 1 St. Ry. Rep. 380 (Mich.), 96 N. W. 34; Hall v. Murdock, 119 Mich. 392, 78 N. W. 330. Minn. — ^Beardsley v. Minneapolis St. R. Co., 54 Minn. 504, 56 N. W. 176. Mo. — Shaefer v. Missouri Pac. E. Co., 98 Mo. App. 154, 72 S. W. 154j Bergeman v. Indiana, etc., Ey., 104 Mo. 86, 15 S. W. 994. Heh. — Omaha, etc., R. Co. v. Chol- lette, 41 Neb. 578. y. Dak. — Short v. Northern Pac. E. Co., 1 N. Dak. 164. 45 N. W. 70". Pa. — Coll V. Easton Trans. Co., 180 Pa. St. 618, 37 Atl. 89; Bayles V. Diamond St. Omnibus Co., 173 Pa- st. 378. Tea;.— Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Pierce, 7 Tex. Civ. App. 597. Wis. — Robinson v. Superior E. T- Ey. Co., 94 Wis. 345, 68 N. W. 961, 59 Am. St. Rep. 897; Bass v. CU- cago, etc., R. Co., 42 Wis. 654, 24 Am. Rep. 437. •jf . 7(j. — Sample v. Consol. L. & Evidence. 811 time of the injury are not part of the res gestae, and are not admis- sible in evidence against the carrier.^* Declarations made before the accident are not a part of the res gestae and are inadmissi- ble.^^ Declarations made bj an employe who was not directly connected with the occurrence are inadmissible.^^ Evidence of a declaration is incompetent where the declaration is not a state- ment of a fact, but of the opinion or conjecture of the declarant, as the statement of a guard, " You must be injured," made im- mediately after the fall, to a passenger wh.om he helped up." Eeports by employes to their superior officersi of the circumstances connected with an accident, made after the event and in accord- ance with rules or special orders of the carrier, are not admissible as res gestae.^ The declaration of the driver of a street car to the officer arresting him, on a trip subsequent to that on which it was claimed he ran into plaintiff's wagon, that he was the man Ey. Co., 50 W. Va. 472, 40 S. E. 397, 24 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. N. S. 389. See also Nellia St. Bd. Acct. Law, p. 558. 54. y. r.— Whittaker v. Eighth Ave. E. Co., 51 N. Y. 295; Hendricks T. Sixth Ave. E. Co., 44 N. Y. Super. Ct. 8. V. 8. — ^Vickaburg, etc., E. Co. v. O'Brien, 119 U. S. 99. AZa.— Alabama G. B. E. Co. v. Hawk, 72 Ala. 112. OoJ. — Boone v. Oakland Trans. Co., 1 St. Ey. Eep. 14 (Cal.), 73 Pac. 243. 111. — ^Mobile, etc., E. Co. v. Klein, 43 111. App. 63; Chicago, etc., E. Co. T. Fillmore, 57 111. 265; Springfield Consol. Ey. Co. v. Puntenney, 101 111. App. 95, affd. 65 N. E. 442. i .Ky. — Chesapeake, etc., E. Co. v. Eeeves (Ky.), 11 S. W. 464; Louis- ville, etc., E. Co. v. Ellis, 97 Ky. 330. Mass. — ^Williamson v. Cambridge E. Co., 144 Mass. 148, 10 N. E. 790. Jfiefc.— Patterson v. Wabash, etc., E. Co., 54 Mich. 91; Gardner v. De- troit St. E. Co., 99 Mich. 182, 58 N. W. 49. IfMm.— Eeem v. St. Paul City E. Co. (Minn.), 80 N. W. 638. Uiss. — Forsee v. Alabama G. S. E. Co., 63 Miss. 66; Moore v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 59 Miss. 243. Mo. — ^Euschenberg v. Southern El. Ey. Co., 161 Mo. 70, 61 S. W. 626. 2f . J. — Blackman v. West Jersey & S. E. Co. (N. J.) 52 Atl. 370. Tex. — Missouri Pac. E. Co. v. Ivy. 71 Tex. 409, 10 Am. St. Eep. 758. Wis. — ^Milwaukee, etc., E. Co. v. Finney, 10 Wis. 388. 55. Louisville, etc., E. Co. v. Stew- art, 56 Fed. 808; Mobile, etc., E. Co. V. Ashcraft, 48 Ala. 15; San An- tonio, etc., E. Co. V. Eobinson, 73 Tex. 277. 56. Metropolitan E. Co. v. Col- lins, 1 App. Cas. (D. C.) 383, 21 Wash. L. Eep. 811. 57. De Soueey v. Manhattan E. Co., 15 N. Y. Supp. 108. 58. Carroll v. East Tennessee, etc., E. Co., 82 Ga. 452; Wormsdorf v. Detroit City E. Co., 75 Mich. 472; North Hudson County E. Co. v. May, 48 N. J. L. 401; Nashville, etc., E. Co. V. Messino, 1 Sneed (Tenn.y, 221. But see Keyser v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 66 Mich. 390. 812 The Law of Caeeiees. he Tvas looking for, from which it could be inferred that he deemed himself at' fault, and was seeking to make a voluntary surrender, is inadmissible.^' Where the plaintiff was struck by a street car, and about fifteen minutes was occupied in eixtricating and caring for him at the place of the accident, when the motorman stated that he saw plaintiff, but thought he would get off the track, the statement was no part of the res gestae.'" § 9. Declarations and conduct of other persons. — Evidence of the actions of other passengers and their exclamations at the time of the accident, and of the confusion among the passengers as a result thereof, is competent as a part of the res gedae, and also as evidence of what was deemed prudent by those in the same situa- tion as the injured person, having an interest to take the least and avoid the greater hazard." Evidence of the outcries of bystanders on the occasion has also been held admissible.*^ But statements made after the accident as to the circumstances are inadmissible.*' 59. Seipp V. Dry Dock, etc., E. Co., 45 App. Div. (N. Y.) 489, 61 N. Y. Supp. 409; Luby v. Hudson R. R. Co., 17 N. Y. 131; Maisels v. Dry Dock, etc., R. Co., 16 App. Div. (N. Y.) 391; Anderson v. Rome, etc., R. Co., 54 N. Y. 334; Little Rock Tract. &,E. Co. V. Nelson, 66 Ark. 494. 52 S. W. 7. 60. Citizens St. R. Co. v. Howard, 102 Tenn. 474, 52 S. W. 863; Will- iamson V. Cambridge R. Co., 144 Mass. 148, 10 N. E. 790; Adams v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 74 Mo. 553; Tennis v. Interstate, etc., R. Co., 45 Kan. 503, 25 Pac. 876; Railroad Co. V. Stein (Ind.), 31 N. E. 180. 61. Hallahan v. New York, etc., R. Co., 102 N. Y. 194, 26 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 169; Twomley v. Central Park, etc., R. Co., 69 N. Y. 158, 25 Am. Rep. 162; Mitchell v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 87 Cal. 62; Mobile, etc., R. Co. V. Ashcraft, 48 Ala. 15; Ga- lena, etc., R. Co. V. Fay, 16 111. 558, 63 Am. Dec. 323; Hemmingway v. Chicago, etc., E. Co.. 72 Wis. 42, 7 Am. St. Rep. 823. 62. Kleiber v. Peoples E. Co., 107 Mo. 240; Shirley v. Billings, 8 Bush (Ky.), 147. 63. Metropolitan E. Co. v. Collins, 1 App. Cas. (D. C.) 383; Keller v. Sioux City, etc., E. Co., 27 Minn. 178; Missouri Pac. E. Co. v. Ivy, 71 Tex. 409; Macon, etc., E. Co. v. Johnson, 38 Ga. 409. 64. Levy v. Campbell (Tex.), 1» S. W. 438. Declaration of bystander as evidence. — In an action by a person who was injured while riding a bi- cycle along the defendant's tracks, by a collision with one of the defend- ant's street cars, remarks made by a person who witnessed the accident, to the motorman after he had stopped the car, are inadmissible. Indian- apolis St. Ry. Co. V. Taylor, 3 St. Ry. Rep. 151 (Ind.), 72 N. B. 1045. In an action to recover damages for an alleged unwarranted ejection from EVIDEITCE. 813 Hvidenee of the injuries to other passengers or that they were un- injured is not admissible on the question as to the extent of the plaintiff's injury." a street car, statements made by per- sons who saw the affair to the de- fendant's agent employed to investi- gate accidents were held inadmissi- ble. Foster v. Atlanta Rapid Tran- sit Co., 2 St. Ey. Rep. 75, 119 Ga. 675, 46 S. E. 840; statement of pas- senger, Boone v. Oakland Transit Co. (Cal.), 1 St. Ry. Rep. 14, 73 Pae. 243. See also notes on Declarations as to cause of accident, 3 St. Ry. Eep. pp. 153 to 160. CHAPTER XXV. COITTEIBDTOEY NEGLIGEiNCE. feECHON' 1. Contributory negligence must be proximate cause of injury. 2. Acts in disregard of warning or disobedience of carrier's rules. 3. Acts by permission or direction of carrier's employes. 4. Sudden peril. — Acts in emergencies. 5. Contributory negligence of children. 6. Contributory negligence of aged or infirm persons, 7. Contributory negligence of parents, guardians, or custodians. 8. Intoxication as evidence of contributory negligence. 9. Contributory negligence as a question of law or fact. 10. Traveling in violation of statute not contributory negligence. 11. Entering conveyance. 12. Boarding train or car in motion. 13. Place of entering cars or trains. 14. Leaving conveyance. 15. Alighting at improper place or in improper manner. 16. Alighting from train or cars in motion. 17. Eiding in dangerous position. 18. Eiding on platform, steps, or running board. 19. Standing up in car. 20. Passing from one car to another. 21. Eiding with part of person projecting from window. 22. Awaiting and seeking transportation. 23. Standing near or between tracks and crossing intervening tracks. §! 1. Contributory negligence must be proximate cause of injury. — The contributory negligence of a plaintiff, in order to de- feat a recovery by him, must have contributed proximately to the injury.* Thus a passenger may recover for injuries sustained by 1. Van Ostran v. New York Cent., 60 N. Y. 133; Lowery v. Western etc., E. Co., 35 Hun (N. Y.), 590. Union Tel. Co., 60 N. Y. 198; Mc- 104 N. Y. 683; Hofnagle v. New Quilken v. Central Pac. K. Co., 64 York Cent., etc., E. Co., 55 N. Y. 608 : Cal. 463, IS Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 353; Troy V. Vermont, etc., E. Co., 24 U. Hanson v. Mansfield E., etc., Co., 38 S. 487, 58 Am. Dec. 191; Lane v. At- La. Ann. Ill, 58 Am. Eep. 162; Csn- lantlo Works, 111 Mass. 136; HiU v. tral E. Co. v. Van Horn, 38 N. J. !-■ Windsor, 118 Mass. 251; Grain v. 133; Thirteenth, etc., St. Pass. R. Petrie, 6 Hill (N. Y.), 522; Cul- Co., 92 Pa. St. 475, 37 Am. Eep. 707, hane v. New York Cent., etc., E. Co., 2 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 30; Conroy t. (814) OONTBIBUTOEY NeGLIGEWCE. 815 I reason of defendant's negligence just after alighting from the car,, although plaintiff was negligent in leaving the car while in motion f the passenger's negligence in going to the platform of a car while it is still moving, does not affect his right to recover for an injury suffered in properly alighting from the train after it has stopped f or when he has left the train and is standing on the ground when he is injured;^ nor the fact that plaintiff was acting at tbe time in disobedience of a proper order to secure his safety, if it does not appear that the injury was caused by such disobedi- ence.^ So, the carrier will become liable, if, after becoming aware of plaintiff's danger through his own negligence, it could have prevented the injury by the use of ordinary skill, care, and caution, and failed to do so, or, if the injury would not have occurred but for an aiErmative act of negligence on the part of the carrier.* But if tbe negligence of a passenger amounting to absence of ordi- nary care, concurrently with the negligence of the carrier, proxi- mately contributed to the injury, it is a good defense, whether the carrier could or could not, with ordinary or even extraordinary care, have guarded against it.' § 2. Acts in disregard of warning or disobedience of carrier's rules. — A warning to the passenger by the carrier through its servants or otherwise not to do a certain act or occupy a certain position which exposes him to danger, and his dis- regard thereof, will, in the absence of a good reason for it, prevent his recovery from the carrier for an injury growing out of it, although the carrier may also be negligent.^ So, if a passen- Pennsylvania E. Co., 1 Pittsb. (Pa.) 5. Lawrenceburgh, etc., R. Co. v. 440; Moakler v. Williamette Valley Montgomery, 7 Ind. 474. E. Co., 18 Or. 189, 17 Am. St. Bep. 6. Pennsylvania E. Co. v. Eeed, 6a 717. Fed. 694; Montgomery, etc., E. Co. 2. Van Ostran v. New York Cent., v. Stewart, 91 Ala. 421 ; Kentucky etc., E. Co., 35 Hun (N. Y.), 590, Cent. E. Co. v. Dills, 4 Bush (Ky.),. 104 K. Y. 683; Central E. Co. v. 593; Straus v. Kansas City, etc., E. Smith, 74 Md. 212. Co., 72 Mo. 414; Price v. St. Louis, 3. Wood V. Lake Shore, etc., E. etc., E. Co., 75 Mo. 414; Whalen v. Co., 49 Mich. 370, 8 Am. & Eng. R. St. Louis, etc., E. Co., 60 Mo. 323. Cas. 478; Lackawanna, etc., E. Co. v. 7. Tobin v. Omnibus Cable Co. Chenewith, 52 Pa. St. 382, 91 Am. (Cal.), 34 Pac. 124, 58 Am. & Eng. Dee. 168. K. Cas. 223. 4. Gadsden, etc., E. Co. v. Causler, 8. Campbell v. Los Angeles E. Co., 97 Ala. 235, 58 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 135 Cal. 137, 67 Pac. 50; Dodge v. 258. Boston, etc., Steamship Co., 148 Mass. 816 The Law of Oaeeiees. ger is injured by reason of his disobedience of the reasonabls rules and regulations of the carrier, he cannot hold the carrier liable for an injury attributable in part to the carrier's negligence, since there is an implied agreement in the contract of carriage that the passenger will obey the reasonable rules of the carrier.' But a passenger is not guilty of contributory negligence who, in ignorance of a rule of a carrier, acts in violation of it." Where the regulation of the carrier is known to the passenger, or the cir- cumstances are such as to imply notice or to be equivalent to actual notice, the violation thereof, although by the permission, knowl- edge, or connivance of the carrier's servants, constitutes contribu- tory negligence.-'^ But where the regulation is unknown to the pas- 207, 37 Am. & Eng. K. Gas, 67; Ohio, etc., R. Co. V. Schiebe, 44 111. 460; Blake v. Burlington, etc., R. Co., 78 Iowa, 57, 39 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 405 ; Fulks y. St. Iiouis, etc., E. Co., Ill Mo. 335, 52 Am. & Eng R. Cas. 280; State V. Tom, 8 Or. 177; Pennsyl- vania R. Co. V. Aspell, 23 Pa. St. 147, 62 Am. Dec. 323; Jewett v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 54 Wis. 610, 41 Am. Rep. 63, 6 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 379; Central of Ga. R. Co. v. Mc- Kinney, 118 Ga. 535, 45 S. E. 430; Rolette V. Great Northern R. Co. (Minn.), 97 N. W. 431. 9. Ala. — ^Alabama, etc., E. Co. v. Hawk, 72 Ala. 112, 47 Am. Rep. 403. Cal. — Mitchell v. Southern Pao. R. €o., 87 Cal. 62. III. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Rielly, 40 111. App. 416. Iowa. — ^McDonald v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 26 Iowa, 124, 96 Am. Dec. 114. Ohio. — Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. t. Xohe (Ohio), 67 N. E. 161. Md. — Baltimore, etc., Turnpike Road Co. V. Leonhardt, 66 Md. 70; Western Maryland R. Co. v. Herold, 74 Md. 510. Mo. — ^Whitehead v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 22 Mo. App. 60. Pa. — ^Pennsylvania R. Co. v. don, 92 Pa. St. 21, 37 Am. Eep. 651. Va. — Virginia Midland E. Co. v. Roach, 83 Va. 375. W. Va. — ^Downey v. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 28 W. Va. 732. Tex. — Houston, etc., E. Co. 7. Moore, 49 Tex. 31, 30 Am. Eep. 98. 10. New York, etc., E. Co. v. Ball, 53 N. J. L. 283, 21 Atl. 1052; Han- son V. Mansfield, etc., E. Co., 38 La. Ann. Ill, 58 Am. Eep. 162; McDon- ald V. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 26 Iowa, 124, 96 Am. Dec. 114; Western Maryland E. Co. v. Herold, 74 Md. 610. H. Eaton v. Delaware, etc., E. Co., 57 N. Y. 382, 15 Am. Eep. 313; Pennsylvania E. Co. v. Langdon, 82 Pa. St. 21, 37 Am. Eep. 651; Florida Southern E- Co. v. Hirst, 30 Fla. 32, 32 Am. St. Ren. 17; Files v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 149 Mass. 204, 14 Am. St. Rep. 411. Knowledge will be presnmed from previous employment by tne carrier: Pennsylvania, etc., E. Co. V. Langdon, supra; Houston, etc., K. Co. V. Clemmons, 55 Tex. 88, 40 Am. Rep. 799; Virginia Midland E. Co. v. Roach, 83 Va. 375. CONTEIBUTOEY NeGLIGESTCEL 81T «enger and lie acts in violation thereof, under the direction or with the knowledge, consent or permission of the carrier's servant, he is not guilty of contributory negligence, which will preclude a re- covery.'^ So, if the carrier fails to enforce the rule and permits it to be generally disregarded.^' But the customary violation of a rule cannot avail a passenger who was requested by the carrier's ■employes to obey it." 3. Acts by permission or direction of carrier's employes. — "Where a passenger acts by permission or consent, or by the advice, direction, request, or command of a conductor or person in charge ■of a train or car, or other employe or agent of the carrier, acting ■within the scope of his authority, and such action on his part will not lead him into or expose him to any known or apparent or ob- vious danger, such as an ordinarily prudent person would not as- sume, he will not be chargeable with contributory negligence, al- though his action may result in causing injury to himself. ^^ Where 12. Jacobus V. St. Paul, etc., E, ■Co., 20 Minn. 125, 18 Am. Rep. 360; Dunn V. Grand Trunk E. Co., 58 Me. 187, 4 Am. Eep. 267; Jones v. Chi- cago, etc., R. Co., 43 Minn. 279 ; Han- son V. Mansfield E., etc., Co., 38 La. Ann. HI, 58 Am. Eep. 162; New York, etc., E. Co. v. Ball, 53 N. J. L. 286. 13. Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Lowell, 151 U. S. 209, 38 L. Ed. 131, 14 Sup. Ct. 281; Jones v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 43 Minn. 279; New York, etc., E. Co. V. Ball, 53 N. J. L. 286. 14. Houston, etc., E. Co. v. Bry- ant (Tex. Civ. App.), 72 S. W. 885. 15. N. T.— Lent v. New York Cent., E. Co., 120 N. Y. 467; Carroll v. New York, etc., E. Co., 1 Duer (N. Y.) 584; Schurr v. Houston, 10 St. Eep. (N. Y.) 262. Ala. — Southern E. Co. v. Eoebuok (Ala.), 31 So. 611; Highland' Ave., «tc., E. Co. V. Winn, 93 Ala. 309; Montgomery, etc., R. Co. v. Stewart, «1 Ala. 421; South, etc., Alabama R. Co. V. Schaufler, 75 Ala. 142. 52 Ark. — St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Person, 49 Ark. 182; Little Rock, etc., R. Co. V. Miles, 40 Ark. 298, 48 Am. Rep. 10; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Cantrell, 37 Ark. 519, 40 Am. Rep. 105. III. — ^Hannibal, etc., R. Co. v. Mar- tin, HI 111. 219. Ind. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Bisch, 120 Ind. 549, 41 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 589; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Kelly, 92 Ind. 371. Iowa. — ^Pence v. Wabash R. Co., 116 Iowa, 279, 90 N. W. 59. Mieh. — ^MeCaslin v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 93 Mich. 553; Clinton v. Root, 58 Mich. 182, 55 Am. Rep. 671. Miss. — ^Davis v. Louisville, etc., E. Co., 69 Miss. 136. OMo. — Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Krouse, 30 Ohio St. 222. Pa. — Hartzig v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 155 Pa. St. 364. Tenn. — Washburn v. Nashville, etc., E. Co., 3 Head (Tenn.) 638, 75 Am. Dec. 784. 818 The Law of Caekiees. for example, a passenger, under the direction of the conductor, gets off a slowly moving train ;" or passes from the platform of on& car to another." But, while if the conditions which led the pas- senger into danger were of the carrier's own creation, both common sense and justice forbid that it should be allowed to withhold com- pensation, if, on the other hand, the danger, notwithstanding th& permission, direction or solicitation of the carrier's servant, was so manifest that in the exercise of ordinary prudence the passenger should have observed it, or, if observing it, he voluntarily at- tempted an act obviously dangerous, he should be held guilty of contributory negligence and sihould suffer the consequences of an injury brought on by himself. ^^ § 4. Sudden peril — acts in emergencies. — There is no rule of law which imposes it as a duty upon one, over whom danger im- pends by the negligence of another, to incur greater danger by de- laying his efforts to avoid it until its exact nature and measure are ascertained. The instinctive effort of a passenger, or his im- pulsive or unguarded act, resulting in injury, while trying to avoid danger, in a reasonable and well grounded fear that a coUis- sion was about to take place, or an accident occur, which -would result in serious injury, due to the mismanagement of the carrier,, or the fact that he did not exercise the best judgment in the emer- gency, does not relieve the carrier from responsibility; but is to be deemed a consequence of such mismanagement for which the carrier is responsible, and a presumption of negligence on the part of tbe carrier arises because of the injuries received." The general Tex.—Gnlt, etc., R. Co. v. Shelton 588, 64 N. E. 39; East Tennessee, etc., (Tex. Civ. App.), 69 S. W. 653, 70 E. Co. v. Hughes, 92 Ga. 388; Jef- S. W. 359. fersonville E. Co. v. Swift, 26 Ind. 16. Southern Ey. Co. v. Bandy, 459; Files v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 149 120 Ga. 463, 47 S. E. 923. Mass. 204, 14 Am. St. Rep. 411; 17. Lient v. New York Cent., etc., Bardwell v. Mobile, etc., E. Co., 63 R. Co., 120 N. Y. 467. Miss. 574, 56 Am. Rep. 842; New 18. Hunter v. Cooperstown, etc., York, etc., R. Co. v. Ball, 53 N.J.L R. Co., 112 N. Y. 371, 8 Am. St. Eep. 283; Kansas, etc., R. Co. v. Dorough,, 752; Myers v. New York Cent. R. 72 Tex. 108; Worthington v. Central Co., 88 Hun (N. Y.) 619; Distler v. Vermont R. Co. (Vt.), 23 Atl. 590. Long Island R. Co., 78 Hun (N. Y.) 19. Voak v. Northern Cent. R. Co., z52, 28 N. Y. Supp. 865; Whitlock 75 N. Y. 320; Coulter v. American, V. Comer, 57 Fed. 565; Pittsburgh, etc.. Express Co., 56 N. Y. 685; etc., R. Co. V. Gray, 28 Ind. App. Heath v. Glens Falls, etc., St. By. CONTRIBUTOET IITeGLIGENCS 819 rule is that a person placed by tlie reckless or careless acts- of the servaBta or agents of another, in such a position as to be compelled to chose upon the instant and in the face of a great and impending peril between two hazards, such as a dangerous leap from tihe moving car, or to remain in the car at an apparently certain peril, is not precluded from recovery against the carrier for injuries thereby sustained, because of the fact that the car passed in safety and the peril was averted, wbere the action of the passenger was such) as would have been taken by any one of ordinary prudence, placed in the same situation, and was not the result of imreason- able alarm and the injury was the result of such enforced action, and the proximate cause of the injury the misconduct of the per- son in charge of tihe car. The peril of remaining in the car is to he judged by the circumstances as they then appeared to the pas- ffinger, and not by the result, and the passenger has the right to act upon the probabilities as they'appeared at the time. It is for the jury to say whether any one of ordinary prudence placed in the some situation would have acted in the same manner, and the outcries of the passengers in the same peril are competent upon the question as tO' whether the alarm of the person injured was un- reasonable.^" Ordinarily, a passenger who jumps from a train, Co., 90Hun (N. Y.) 560, 71 St. Eep. South Covington, etc., Ry. Co. v. (N. Y.) 29, 36 N. Y. Supp. 22; Buel Ware, 84 Ky. 267, 1 S. W. 493. T. New York Cent. E. Co., 31 N. Y. 20. N. Y.— Twomley v. Central 314; Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Becker, Park, etc., E. Co., 69 N. Y. 158, 25 76 111. 25; Palmer v. Warren St. Ey. Am. Eep. 162; Dyer v. Erie E. Co., Co., 206 Pa. St. 574, 56 Atl. 49; 71 N. Y. 236; Cuyler v. Decker, 20 Gannon v. New York, etc., E. Co., Hun (N. Y.) 175; Buel v. New York 173 Mass. SO, 52 N. E. 1075, 43 L. R. Cent. E. Co., 31 N. Y. 314, 88 Am. A. 833, 5 Am. Neg. Eep. 613; Deo. 271. Floutroup V. Boston & M. E. Co., 163 U. -Sf.— Ladd v. Foster, 12 Sawy. 8. 152, 39 N. E. 797; Dallas Con- (U. S.) 547; Saltonstall v. Stock- sol. Tract. Ey. Co. v. Randolph (Tex. ton, Taney (U. S.) 11; Hastings v. Civ. App.), 27 S. W. 925, 5 Am. Northern Pac. E. Co., 53 Fed. 224. Electl. Cas. 379; Adams v. Hannibal, Ala.— Selma, St., etc., E. Co. v. etc., E. Co., 71 Mo. 553; Pennsylvania Owen, 132 Ala. 420, 31 So. 598; E- Co. v. Stageneier, 118 Ind. 305, Central R., etc., Co. v. Miles, 88 Ala. 20 N. E. 843; Chicago, etc., E. Co. 256. V. Clongh, 134 111. 586, 25 N. E. 664; Arfc.— St. Louis, etc., E. Co. v. Knowlton v. Milwaukee City Ry. Co., Maddry, 57 Ark. 306, 58 Am. & Eng. S9 Wis. 278; Holzab v. New Orleans, E. Cas. 327; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. etc., E. Co., 38 La. Ann. 185; Duiney Murray, 55 Ark. 248, 29 Am. St. Eep. •V. Wheeling, etc., E. Co., 28 Wis. 32; 32, 52 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 373. 820 The Law of Caeeiees. though in rapid motion, to avoid a threatened forcible ejection by the conductor, is not guilty of contributory negligence.^^ In the use of electrical appliances, the carrier is bound to use the very highest degree of care to see that those in use on the car do not get out of order and so endanger the safety of passen- gers.^^ Where, by reason of the electric current being suddenly reversed to prevent a collision, the circuit breaker blew out, causing a loud explosion and a flash of light in the car, which was Cat — Mitchell v. Southern Pac. R. Co.,- 87 Cal. 62. Colo. — Denver, etc., E. Co. v. Pick- ard, 8 Colo. 163. Ga. — South Western E. Co. v. Paulk, 24 Ga. 366. /K.— West Chicago St. E. Co. v. Lyons, 57 111. App. 536; Galena, etc., E. Co. V. Yarwood, 17 111. 509, 65 Am. Dec. 682; Prink v. Potter, 17 111. 406. Ind. — Grand Eapids, etc., E. Co. v. Ellison, 117 Ind. 234, 39 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 480; Indiana Ey. Co. v. Maurer (Ind.), 66 N. E. 156. La. — Odom v. St. Louis, etc., E. Co., 45 La. Ann. 1201, 14 So. 734, 23 L. E. A. 152; Carruth v. Texas, etc., E. Co., 45 La. Ann. 1228, 14 So. 736; Eeary v. Louisville, etc., E. Co., 40 La. Ann. 32. Md. — ^Western Maryland E. Co. v. State, 95 Md. 637, 53 Atl. 969; Western Maryland E. Co. v. Herold, 74 Md. 510. Mass. — ^Ingalls v. Bills, 9 Mete. (Mass.) 1, 43 Am. Dec. 346. Mich. — ^Lacas v. Detroit City E. Co., 92 Mich. 412, 52 N. W. 745. Mimm. — ^Wilson v. Northern Pac. E. Co., 26 Minn. 278. Mo. — ^Dimmitt v. Hannibal, etc., E. Co., 40 Mo. App. 654; Siegrist v. Arnot, 86 Mo. 200, 56 Am. Eep. 425. Ohio. — Iron E. Co. v. Mowery, 36 Ohio St. 418, 38 Am. Eep. 597. Pa. — ^Dunlay v. Traction Co., 18 Pa. Super. Ct. 206; Pennsylvania R. Co. V. Lyons, 129 Pa. St. 120, 15 Am. St. Eep. 701 ; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Peters, 116 Pa. St. 206; Pennsyl- vania E. Co. V. Aspell, 23 Pa. St. 147, 62 Am. Dec. 323. If the pas- senger leaps from the car without rea- sonable apprehension of danger he °.3 guilty of contributory negligence, Lut whether the circumstances were, such as to afford reasonable grounds to apprehend danger has been held to be a question for the jury. See cases cited above in this note. W. Ta. — -Mannon v. Camden Inter- state Ey. Co., 3 St. Ey. Rep. 928, 56 W. Va. 554, 49 S. E. 450. See also notes on Acts in Emergencies anJ cases cited 3 St. Ey. Eep. 928-932. 21. Kline v. Central Pac. R. Co., 37 Cal. 400, 99 Am. Dec. 282; High- land Ave., etc., E. Co. v. Winn, 93 Ala. 309; International, etc., R. Co. V. Hassell,- 62 Tex. 256; Boggess v. Chesapeake, etc., E. Co., 37 W. Va. 297. But he must have reasonable grounds for believing that he would suffer bodily harm by remaining on the train. St. Louis, etc., E. Co. v. Eosenberry, 45 Ark. 256, affd. (Ark.) 11 S. W. 212. 22. Leonard v. Brooklyn H. E. Co., 7 Am. Electl. Cas. 583, 57 App. Div. (N. Y.) 125,67 N. Y. Supp. 985, an action for injuries received by a wo- man in jumping from an electric car, where it appeared by the evidence CONTEIBUTORY itTEGLIGENCB. 821 followed by the crash of breaking glass from the collision, the fact that the plaintiff, a nervous woman, was injured by jumping from the car, while the other passengers remained in the car and ■were uninjured, did not preclude her from the right to recover for her injuries. ^^ So, a passenger, attempting to board a street car ■which starts after she has her foot upon the step and her hand upon the railing, is not necessarily negligent in continuing her hold upon the car after it starts, since, being placed in sudden peril by the negligence of the carrier, she is not held to strict account- ability for her mode of action.^ But there must be a reason- able apprehension of danger, and the carrier is not liable for an injury to a passenger occasioned by her jumping from the car under an apprehension of danger where there was no real danger and the apparent danger was not caused by the negligence of the carrier. ^^ An act of the passenger to avoid great inconvenience, as shutting a car door to shut out smoke and cinders, although at- tended with slight danger, is not an act of contributory negli- that the entire car was enveloped in flames caused by defective insulation of the cables underneath. It was also held that the question whether the accident was caused by defective insulation, and whether the company used due care in its inspection, was for the jury. Poulson v. Nassau Elect. R. Co., 7 Am. Electl. Cas. 675 18 App. Div. (N. Y.) 221, 45 N. Y. Supp. 941, where plaintiff's ten-year- old daughter jumped from an elec- tric ear because of a blaze of fire com ing from alongside of the motorman ■which blaze was so great that it was noticed 50 or 60 feet away, it was sufficient to authorize the jury to in- fer negligence on the part of the com- pany. Poiilson V. Nassau Elec. E. Co., 7 Am. Electl. Cas. 677, 30 App. Div. (N. Y.) 246, 51 N. Y. Supp. 933, and the fact that other passengers re- mained in the car would not operate conclusively to establish contribu- tory negligence on plaintiff's part in jumping. Buckbee v. Third Ave. E. Co., 7 Am. Electl. Cas. 692. 64 App. Div. (N. Y.) 360, 72 N. Y. Supp. 217, where plaintiff, a woman, in escaping from a car stepped on the door sill and claimed to have received an electric shock, flames having broken from the controller box and extended beneath the car for its entire length, being preceded by a loud report, the evi- dence was held sufiBeient to go to the jury on the question as to whether plaintiiT's injury arose from a, shock of electricity. 23. Wanzer v. Chippewa Val. El. E. Co., 108 Wis. 329, 84 N. W. 423. And see Texarkana St. E. Co. v. Hart (Tex. Civ. App.), 26 S. W. 435. So, a passenger on a stalled electric car is not negligent, as a matter of law, in attempting to jump from a car on suddenly noticing that there is dan- ger of another car colliding with it. Quinn v. Shamokin & M. C. Elec. E. Co., 7 Pa. Super. Ct. 19; Shanken- bury V. Metropolitan St. E. Co., 46 Fed. 177. 24. Joliet St. Ey. Co. v. Duggan, 45 111. App. 450. And see Washing- 822 The Law of Careiees. gence ;^' but it has been held to the contrary where the act was at- tended with obviously great danger.^' § 5. Contributory negligence of children. — It is a rule of law now almost universally held that the degree of care, prudence and discretion required from children, who are sui juris, is not the same aa is required of adults, but is only such as ought rea- sonably to be expected of persons of their age, intelligence, capac- ity and experience.^' The courts have held, as a general rule, that children under five years of age are non sui juris, and can- not be guilty of contributory negligence, as a matter of law.^' It ton & G. R. Co. V. Hickey (D. C), 23 Wash. L. Rep. 177. 25. Kleiber v. Peoples R. Co., 107 Mo. 240, 17 S. W. 946, 14 L. R. A. 613. And see Getman v. Delaware, etc., E. Co., 162 N. Y. 21; Chicago, etc.. R. Co. V. Felton, 125 111. 458. 26. Western Maryland R. Co. v. Stanley, 61 Md. 266, 48 Am. Rep. 96. 27. Adams v. Lancashire, etc., R. Co., L. E. 4 C. P. 739; Gee v. Metro- politan R. Co., L. R. 8 Q. B. 161. 28. Swift V. Staten Island R. Co., 123 N. Y. 650; McCarragher v. Rog- ers, 120 N. Y. 535 ; Connolly v. Knick- erbocker Ice Co., 114 N. Y. 107; Kuebler v. New York, etc., R. Co., 15 N. Y. Supp. 187 ; Byrne v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 83 N. Y. 620 ; Hay- croft V. Lake Shore, etc:, R. Co., 2 Hun (N. Y.) 491, 64 N. Y. 636 j Casey v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 78 N. Y. 518; McGovern v. New York Cent., etc., E. Co., 67 N. Y. 417; Fallon v. Central Park, etc., R. Co., 64 N. Y. 13; Thurber v. Har- lem, etc., E. Co., 60 N. Y. 336; Eey- nolds V. New York Cent., etc., E. Co., 58 N. Y. 252; Mowrey v. Central City R. Co., 51 N. Y. 666; O'Mara V. Hudson River E. Co., 38 N. Y. 445; Sheridan v. Brooklyn, etc., R. Co., 36 Ni Y. 42; Mal- lard T. Ninth Ave. E. Co., 27 St. Eep. (N. Y.) 801, 7 N. Y. Supp. 666; Block v. Harlem, etc., E. Co., 28 St. Eep. (N. Y.) 495, 9 N. Y. Supp. 164; Western, etc., E. Co. v. Young, 83 N. Y. 512; Hemingway V. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 72 Wis. 42, 7 Am. St. Eep. 823; Chicago, etc., R. Co. V. Wilcox, 44 Alb. L. J. 70; Wright V. Detroit, etc., fi. Co., 77 Mich. 123; Citizens' St. E. Co. v. Hamer (Ind. App.), 62 N. E. 778; Philadelphia, etc., E. Co. v. Hassard, 75 Pa. St. 367; Coller v. Frankford, etc., R. Co. (Pa.), 9 W. N. C. 477; Ridenhour v. Kansas, etc., E. Co., 102 Mo. 270; Chicago City E. Co. v. Wilcox (111.), 24 N. E. 419; Erie City, etc., E. Co. v. Schuester, 113 Pa. St. 413; Louisville R. Co. v. Phil- lips, 22 Ky. Law. Rep. 842, 58 S. W. 995. 29. Ihl V. Forty-Second St., etc., R. Co., 47 N. Y. 317, 7 Am. Eep. 450; Neun V. Rochester Ry. Co., 165 N. Y. 146, 58 N. E. 876; Prendergast /. New York Cent., etc., E. Co., 58 N. Y. 652; Frick v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 23 Wis. 186; Wright v. Maiden, etc., E. Co., 4 Allen (Mass.) 283; Toledo, etc., E. Co. v. Grable, 88 HI. 441; Farris v. Cass Ave., etc., E. Co., 80 Mo. 325 ; Baltimore City P. E- Co. V. McDonnell, 43 Md. 534; Giraldo v. Coney Island, etc., E. Co., 16 N. Y. CONTEIBUTOET JTeGLIGEWCE'. 823 las been quite generally held also that infants over twelve years of age are presumed, as a matter of law, to be sui juris as to their responsibility for contributory negligence, and to have sufficient capacity to apprehend, and sufficient prudence and foresight to avoid danger, and this presumption prevails in the absence of S.B.J evidence showing the lack of such capacity.^" As to children under those ages, the courts have usually held the question whether the child was sui juris to be one of fact for the jury to determine, and not a question of law, unless the child was unusually intelli- gent, or the situation was such that a child of ordinary intelligence must of necessity realize his danger.'^ The rule adopted by the Hew York courts in the earlier cases holding an infant to the ■same degree of care as an adult was subsequently repudiated by the court of appeals of that state, which adopted the rule now gen- erally held as above stated.^^ In entering, riding upon, and leaving trains or street cars, children who are sui juris are bound to ex- ercise prudence equal to their capacity, knowledge, and experience, and to that extent are held responsible in law for acts or omisr Supp. 774; Mangam v. Brooklyn K. Co., 38 N. Y. 455, 36 Barb. (N. Y.) 130; Pittsburgh, etc., E. Co. v. Cald- •well, 74 Pa. St. 421; Westerfleld v. Lewis, 43 La. Ann. 63, 9 So. Bep. 52; Government St. E. Co. v. Hanlon, 53 Ala. 570. 30. Tucker v. New York Cent., etc., E. Co., 124 N. Y. 308, 26 N". E. 916; Manahan v. Steinway, etc., E. Co., 125N.Y.760; St. Clair St. By. Co. v. Eadie, 43 Ohio St. 91, 54 Am. Eep, 144; Nagle v. Alleghany Val. E. Co., «8 Pa. St. 35; Hogan v. Central Park, etc., E. Co., 124 N. Y. 647. 31. Stone v. Dry Dock, etc., E. Co., 115 N. Y. 104, 23 N. Y. St. Eep. 551, Tevg. 46 Hun (N. Y.) 184; Gumby v. Metropolitan St. Ey. Co., 171 N. Y. ■ess, 65 App. Div. (N. Y.) 38, 72 IST. Y. Supp. 551; Weitzman v. Nassau Kectrie E. Co., 33 App. Div. (N. Y.) ■685, 53 N. Y. Supp. 905; Sullivan v. Union Ey. Co., 81 App. Div. (N. Y.) ■696, 81 N. Y. Supp. 449; McDer- mott V. Boston Elev. Ey. Co., 1 St. Ey. Eep. 325, (Mass.) 68 N. E. 34; Costello V. Third Ave. E. Co., 161 N. Y. 317, 55 N. E. 897; Dowling v. New York Cent., etc., E. Co., 90 N. Y. 671; Moebus v. Herrman, 108 N. Y. 353; Tucker v. New York Cent., etc., E. Co., 124 N. Y. 308, 36 N. Y. St. Eep. 273; Zwaek v. New York Cent., etc., E. Co., 160 N. Y. 362, 54 N. E. 785. 32. Thurber v. Harlem, etc., E. Co., 60 N. Y. 326, repudiating former rule laid down in Honegsberger v. Second Ave. E. Co., 2 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 378, 1 Keyes (N. Y.) 574; Burke v. Sev- enth Ave., etc., E. Co., 49 Barb. (N. Y.) 529; Solomon v. Central Park, etc., E. Co., 1 Sweeny (N. Y.) 298; and Squire v. Central Park, etc., E. Co., 36 N. Y. Super. Ct. 432; Swift V. Staten Island E. T. Co., 123 N. Y. 645, 33 St. Eep. 604. See also Phillips V. Duquesne Tract. Co., 8 Pa. Super. Ct. 210, 42 W. N. C. 528, 29 Pittsb, L. J. N. S. 60. 5B24r' The Law of Oaeeiees. sions contributory to their own injury.^' A boy fourteen years old is not, as matter of law, free from contributory negligence in trying to board an electric car followed i by a trailer moving at the rate of from three to seven miles an hour.'* If a boy ten yeara old. fall from the platform or car steps because of hia own im- prudence, the carrier is not liable merely because the conductor called him to the platform when about to reach his destination and while giving the signal to stop.'^ 'Nov is the carrier haUe for the death of a seven year old boy caused by his falling from a car in which he was riding without permission while voluntarily attempting to alight while the car was moving.'* But where a young girl is boarding a street car and has hold of the hand rail when it starts, it is not contributory negligence for her to hold on to the rail, even though it causes her to be dragged half a block." Where a boy sixteen years of age, a passenger on defendant'^ street car, the rear platform being too crowded to allow him to get on, got on the front platform, which was also crowded, stand- ing with one foot on the platform and the other on the step, hold- ing to the dashboard rail; the conductor ran forward to get on the front platform and at the first attempt failed, and on the second attempt, calling out for the passenger to make room for him, hit against plaintiif, and he and the conductor were immed- iately forced off, and he was run over; the question of negligence- and contributory negligence were held to be properly submitted to the jury.^^ So, whether it was contributory negligence for a boy thirteen years of age, to sit on the platform of an electric car, resting his feet on the lower step, was held to be a question 33. Little Eock Tract. & E. Co. v. 35. Cronan v. Crescent City E. Nelson, 66 Ark. 494, 52 S. W. 7 ; Co., 49 La. Ann. 65, 21 So. 163: Baltimore City Pass. E. Co. v. Me- 36. Brightman v. Union St. E. Co., Donnell, 43 Md. 534; Phila. City 167 Mass. 113, 44 N. E. 1091. Pass. Ey. Co. v. Hassard, 75 Pa. St. 37. Schoenfelt v. Metropolitan St. 367. Ey. Co., 40 Misc. Eep. (N. Y.) 201, 34. Sly V. Union Depot E. Co., 134 81 N. Y. Supp. 644. Mo. 681, 36 S. W, 235; Chicago City 38. Gray v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Ey. Co. V. Wilcox (111.), 24 N. E. Co., 39 App. Div. (N. Y.) 536, 57 N. 419, 8 L. E. A. 494; Erie City Pass. Y. Supp. (91 St. Eep.) 587; Garonl v. Ey. Co. V. Schuester, 113 Pa. St. 412, Compagne Nationale de Navigation, 6 Atl. 269; Mowrey v. Central City 131 N. Y. 614, aflFg. 39 St. Eep. (N. Ey. Co., 66 Barb. (N. Y.) 43; Swift Y.) 63, 14 N. Y. Supp. 797. V. Staten Island E. T. Co., 123 N. y. 645, 25 N. E. 3TS. CONTEIBUTORY NEGLIGBBrCB. 825 for the jury, since, the defendant not attempting to prevent pas- sengers riding upon the siteips and having accepted the plaintiff as a passenger while occupying the position he did, the question of negligence was at least one concerning which reasonable minds might differ.^' A railroad company owes the duty of preventing children of such tender years that negligence cannot be imputed to them from being on the platform of a moving car, and, if such a child gets there without permission, failure to remove it from" its position of danger as soon as it is discovered, is negligence.^" Parents are not guilty of contributory negligence per se in per- mitting a boy of ten years, bright and healthy, to go upon an errand two miles away and return by a train whicb he knew would be sig- naled to stop near his borne, and would stop wben signaled, which ■will prevent a recovery by them for injuries sustained by the boy in jumping off the train upon the conductor's refusal to stop." How much experience and what degree of intelligence a child must evince before negligence can be imputed to him can never be determined as a matter of law. The age, the person, the cir- cumstancesi surrounding the accident must all be taken into con- sideration and the jury determines tbe question as a matter of facf^ § 6. Contributory negligence of aged or infirm persons. — A carrier does not owe to every passenger precisely the same care ■without respect to age, or bodily infirmity.*^ If a passenger be 39. Seller v. Market St. Ey. Co., 1 310, affg. 3 E. D. Smith, 103; Wash- St.Ey. Eep. 9, 139 Cal. 268, 72 Pac. ington & G. Ky. Co. v. Gladmon, 15 1006. Wall. (U. S.) 401; Brown v. Euro- 40. Levin v. Second Ave. Tract. pean, etc., E. Co., 58 Me. 384; Nagle Co., 201 Pa. 58, 50 Atl. 225; Barre v. Allegheny V. E. Co., 88 Pa. St. V. Railway Co., 155 Pa. 170, 26 Atl. 35; St. Claire St. Ey. Co. v. Eadie, 99. 43 Ohio St. 91, 54 Am. Rep. 144; 41. Avery v. Galveston, etc., E. Westerfield v. Lewis, 43 La. Ann. 63, Co., 81 Tex. 243, 26 Am. St. Eep. 9 So. 52; Government St. E. Co. v. 809, 16 S. W. 1015. Hanlon, 53 Ala. 70; Farris v. Cass 42. BarksduU v. New Orleans & Ave., etc., E. Co., 80 Mo. 325. See C. E. Co., 23 La. Ann. 180; MoMa- other cases cited elsewhere as to con- hon V. Northern Cent. Ey. Co., 39 tributory negligence of children and Md. 438; Hestonville Pass. Ey. Co., their parents, guardians or custodi- V. Connell, 88 Pa. St. 520; Oldfield ans. ■V. New York & H. R. Co., 14 N. Y. 43. St. Louis, etc., E. Co. v. Fin- S26 The Law of Caeeiees. evidently crippled, or infirm, or very young, the duty of the ■carrier toward him while boarding the car or alighting, or -while remaining in the car, must be performed with due regard to such apparent condition." A passenger has a right to rely on liie car- rier's exercising proper care and furnishing a reasonably safe place to board and alight, and the fact that he is old, crippled, ■deaf, or blind, or very young, and is traveling alone, without an attendant, does not as a matter of law, constitute contributory negligencfe** But where a passenger is laboring under such a dis- ability, he will be guilty of negligence if he does not make known his infirmity to the carrier's servants; and where a passenger alighting from a car did not ask for assistance, though having an opportunity, nor inform the servants in charge of his disabil- ity, nor look to see whether the place to alight was safe, he was negligent precluding recovery for an injury received.** Knowl- edge communicated to one employe upon a car that a passenger is feeble and will need assistance in getting off is notice to the car- rier ; and it is not necessary to notify the conductor or the one in charge of the car,*' and a conversation which plaintiff had with Jay, 79 Tex. 85, 15 S. W. 266; Schil- ler V. Dry Dock, etc., E. Co., 26 Misc. Eep. (N. Y.) 392, 5& N. Y. Supp. 184. 44. Bidenhour v. Kansas City Ca- ble R. Co., 102 Mo. 283, 14 S. W. 760; Sheridan v. Brooklyn & N. R. Co., 36 N. Y. 39, 34 How. Pr. (N. Y.") 217 ; MeCann v. Newark & So. R. Co., -68 N. J. L. (29 Vroom.) 642, 34 Atl. 1052, 4 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 382, 33 L. E. A. 127; Indianapolis, etc., K. Co. V. Pitzer, 109 Ind. 179; East Line & E. Co. v. Rushing, 69 Jex. 306, 6 S. W. 834; Shenandoah Val. E. Co. V. Moose, 83 Va. 827, 3 S. E. 796; Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Salz- man, 52 Ohio St. 558, 31 L. E. A. 261; Atchison, etc., E. Co. v. Weber, 33 Kan. 643; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Fleming, 14 Lea. (Tenn.) 128; Co- lumbus, etc., R. Co. V. Powell, 40 Ind. 37. 45. Texas & P. Ey. Co. v. Eeid Baldwin v. Barney, 12 E. I. 392, 34 Am. Eep. 431; Day v. Highland St. Am. Eep. 670; Sutton v. Wauwa- Ey. Co., 135 Mass. 113, 40 Am. Eep. tosa, 29 Wis. 21, 9 Am. Eep. 534; 447; Bucher v. Fitchburg E. Co., 13L «32 The Law of Caeeieks. by statute that such, a defence shall not be available in actions for personal injuries, and the later decisions in other States now eon- form to the principles of the rule above stated.'^ "Where a rail- road company, during the Rebellion, received a company of Con- federate soldiers upon its cars, the company was held not Hable for negligence in their transportation ; the rule in pan delicto be- ing applied.'^ So, where an officer of the Confederate army, while absent from service, took passage on a railroad train for the pur- pose of reporting to his general commanding, the railroad com- pany wag held not liable for personal injuries due to its negUgence, the act of the officer being illegaU* § 11. Entering conveyance. — It is the duty of a carrier to pro- vide reasonably safe means of ingress and egress to and from its trains, cars, or other vehicles employed for the transportation of passengers, and passengers must use the ways and means of going to and from such trains, cars, or vehicles provided for that purpose with such degree of care as ordinarily prudent and careful persons would exercise in like situations.'* Oh© who voluntarily and un- Mass. 156, 41 Am. Eep. 216; Cratty V. City of Bangor, 57 Me. 423, 2 Am. Eep. 56; Davidson v. City of Port- land, 69 Me. 116, 31 Am. Rep. 253; Jolinson V. Town of Irasburgh, 47 Vt. 28, 19 Am. Eep. Ill; Holeomb v. Town of Danby, 51 Vt. 428; Beacham V. Portsmouth Bridge (N. H.), 40 Atl. 1066. And see Bucher v. Che- shire E. Co., 125 U. S. 555, iolding that such adjudications established a local State law which would be fol- lowed in the federal courts in actions Arising therein. 71. Maine Laws 1895, Chap. 129; Mass. Stat. 1884, Chap. 37; Me- Donough V. Metropolitan E. Co., 137 Mass. 210; Cleveland v. Bangor, 87 Me. 259, 5 Am. Electl. Cas. 346; Jor- dan V. New York, etc., E. Co., 165 Mass. 346, 32 L. R. A. 101, 43 N. E. Ill ; Boyden v. Pitchburg E. Co., 70 Vt. 125, 10 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. N. S. 523, 39 Atl. 771. A railroad com- pany is not relieved from liability for negligently killing a person at a railroad crossing because he was trav- eling on Stmday in violation of the Vermont statute, where his act did not contribute to the injury; Hoad- ley V. International Paper Co., 72 Vt. 7^, 47 Atl. 169. 72. Eeed v. Muscogee R. Co., 48 Ga.. 102. 73. Turner v. North Carolina E. Co., 63 N. C. 522. 74. Clark v. Metropolitan St. E. Co., 68 App. Div. (N. Y.) 49, 74 N. Y. Supp. 267; Cleveland, etc., E. Co. V. Wade, 18 Ind. App. 346, 48 N. E. 12 ; Bancroft v. Boston, etc., E. Corp., 97 Mass. 275; Little Eock, etc., E. Co. V. Cavenesse, 48 Ark. 106; Cen- tral E., etc., Co. V. Perry, 58 Ga. 461 ; West Chicago St R. Co. v. Man- ning, 170 111. 417, 48 N. E. 958, 9 Am. & Eng. R. Caa. N. S. 364: Keller v. Hestonville, etc., Pass. R. Co., 149 P». St. 65; Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Cooper, 2 Tex. Civ, App. 42; Mlchi- CONTEIBUTORT NeGLIGEWCK 833 necessarily exposes liimself to a known danger, by attempting to climb on board a moving car, assumes all risks of injury there- from; and the railroad company is not cbargeable with negligence, causing his injury, which results from his falling from the car iMcause of the manner in wbicb its station or platform is con- structed.'^ But, unless there is obvious danger in doing so, a pas- senger about to embark upon a car or boat, is justified in assum- ing that he can safely follow the directions of the employes in charge in getting on, and is not guilty of contributory negligence in so doing.'' A person is not guilty of contributory negligence in attempting, after the signal to start has been given, to get on a train which is at rest when he begins his attempt ;" or in resuming his place without direction from the trainmen where the cars have gan Cent. E. Co. v. Coleman, 28 Mich. 440, passenger entering car from the ■wrong side guilty of contributory negligence; Pitcher v. Lake Shore, «tc., E. Co., 137 N. Y. 568, affg. 16 N. Y. Supp. 62, but drover entering through a side door of a car con- taining horses in his charge not guilty of contributory negligence, •where it is shown that the end door •was used only in case of emergency; Missouri Pac. E. Co. v. Watson, 72 Tex. 631, and a pregnant woman stepping from ground to ear step three feet high not guilty of con- tributory negligence, where no other means of entering the car were fur- nished her; Atlantic, etc., E. Co. v. Anderson, 118 Ga. 288, 45 S. E. 271, not contributory negligence to at- tempt to mount the steps at a point heyond the platform, where no notice of a peculiar method of receiving passengers at a baggage car door had teen given. See also Peterson v. Del- Aware, etc., E. Co., 9 Kulp. (Pa.) 552; Plant Investment Co. v. Cook, 85 Fed. 611, 52 U. S. App. 566, 29 €. C. A. 377; Pitchburg E. Co. v. Nichols, 85 Fed. 945, 50 U. S. App. 53 297, 29 C. C. A. 500; Chicago, etc., E. Co. V. Elliott, 55 Fed. 949, 12 U. S. App. 381, 5 C. C. A. 347, 20 L. E. A. 582; Savannah, etc., E. Co. v. Flaherty, 110 Ga. 335, 35 S. E. 677. See also Eedingtou v. Harrisburg Tract. Co., 210 Pa. St. 648, 60 Atl. 305, and' note. Duty to Passenger boarding car, 3 St. Ey. Eep. 7B2. 75. Lauterer v. Manhattan E. Co., 128 Fed. 540, 63 C. C. A. 38; South- em E. Co. V. Williams (Miss.), 36 So. 394; Walthers v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 72 111. App. 354. 76. Pence v. Wabash E. Co., 116 Iowa, 279, 90 N. W. 59; Illinois Cent. E. Co. V. Cheek, 152 Ind. 663, 53 N. E. 641 ; Missouri Pac. E. Co. v. Fore- man (Tex. Civ. App.), 46 S. W. 834; Clinton v. Eoot, 58 Mich. 182, 55 Am. Eep. 671; Detroit, etc., E. Co. V. Curtis, 23 Wis. 152, 99 Am. Dee, 141; Irish v. Northern Pac. E. Co., 4 Wash. 48, 31 Am. St. Eep. 899. See AUenger v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 43 Iowa, 276. 77. Dawson v. Boston, etc., E. Co., 156 Mass. 127, 30 N. E, 466. See also Houston, etc., E. Co. v. Schmidt, 61 Tex. 282. 834 The Law of Caeeiees. stopped for dinner and lie has alighted for that purpose;™ or for attempting to board a boat in the evening, instead of waiting until morning, where it was the custom to receive passengers on the boat the night before.™ But he is chargeable with contributoiy negligence in attempting to board a train before the proper time and get a seat in the dark before the usual time to light the car."' Where a railroad company had for many years run a certain train on the southerly of two tracks, and passengers, in taking said train had been accustomed to pass over the northerly track, lying be- tween it and the station, to reach such train, and a passenger, on such train being announced, left the station to board it, and while passing over the north track to take the train, as he thought, on the south track, as usual, was killed by the train passing on the north track, he was not guilty of contributory negligence in not looking to see which track the train was on.** Where, in accordance with a railroad's custom, passengers were allowed to board a freight train at a station before the coach had been drawn up to the depot after the switching had been done, a passenger attempting to enter the coach when it was standing still and injured by the engine backing into the car, as he did so, was not guilty of contributory negli- gence.*^ A person was not guilty of contributory n^ligence where injured by a sudden jerk of the car and there was no evidence to show that a reasonable time was allowed him to reach a place of safety after boarding the car before the same was started f' where he attempted to board a street car which was not carrying passen- gers but was proceeding to a shed for the night, unless he knew,. or by ordinary care should have known, that the car was not carry- ing passengers;** where he was injured while passing along the inside footboard to a seat, by being srtruck by a car approaxihing on a parallel track from the opposite direction, and he had no knowledge that the tracks were so close as to render his act dan- 78. Larkin v. Oregon Pac. E. Co., E. Co., 46 App. Div. (N. Y.) 470, 61 15 Or. 220, 34 Am. & Eng. R. Caa. N. Y. Supp. 721. See Moore v. Eail- 500. road Co., 119 Mich. 613; Atlantie 79. Skottowe v. Oregon, etc, R. City R. Co. v. Goodin, 62 N. J. L Co., 22 Or. 430. 394. 80. Hodges v. New Hanover 83. Stoddard v. St. Louis, etc., H, Transit Co., 107 N. C. 576. Ca (Mo. App.), 80 S. W. 33. 81. Beecher v. Long Island R. Co., 84. Leu v. St. Louis Transit Co. 161 N. Y. 222, 55 N. E. 899. (Mo. App.), 80 S. W. 273* 82. Jones v. New York Cent., etc., CONTEIBUTOUY NEGLIGENCa 835 serous, although he failed to look around before going onto such footboard f^ where, wishing to board a street car, he signalled for the motorman to stop, and the car slowed down almost to a stand- still, and while he was in the act of stepping on, the motorman called to him to take the next car, and immediately quickened the speed of the car, throwing him off f^ where he enters an elevator which is apparently at rest and with the door open, and which thej passenger has no reason to suppose can be started until the door is closed, though the elevator is moving, which would have been determined by a momentary observation of the car and machin- ery." But a person was guilty of contributory negligence pre- cluding a recovery where he, intending to take passage on a car and knowing that it had not stopped, seized the hand rail and walked along sideways to get on the car, and, while not looking where he was going, fell into an open manhole near the track, in use by workmen f^ where he, seeking to board a train and walking between the tracks of a double track railway beside a moving train, upon discovering the approach of a train upon the other track, fails to exercise ordinary care to prevent injury to himself, and go to a place of safety, where there is a reasonable opportunity f^ where he attempts to board a car moving from four to six mileg per hour, and which did not slow up for passengers, in the absence of an invitation by signals or othervsdse from the conductor or motor- man;'" where he signals an electric car to stop at a crossing, and the signal is heeded, and the car is slackening its speed, and he at- tempts to get on while it is running three miles an hour f^ where he approached a street car from the rear and did not reach it until after the signal to go ahead had been given and the car had started, and then seized the handrail and attempted to board, though others 85. Kreimelmaiin v. Jourdan (Mo. 90. Fremont v. Metropolitan St. App.), 80 S. W. 323. E. Co., 83 App. Div. (N. Y.) 414, 82 86. Schmidt v. North Jersey St. E. N. Y. Supp. 307. Co. (N. J.), 58 Atl. 72. 91. Hunterson v. Union Tract. Co., 87. Blackwell v. O'Gorman Co., 22 205 Pa. 568, 55 Atl. 543. See also E. I. 638, 49 Atl. 28. But see Bre- Monroe v. Metropolitan St. E. Co., 79 mer v. Pleiss, 121 Wis. 61, 98 N. W. App. Div. (N. Y.) 587, 80 N. Y. Supp. "*^' 177, the slowing up of the car as it 88. Sellers v. Union Tract. Co., 21 approached the street crossing was ja. Super. Ct. 5. not an invitation to the person signal- 89. Lake Shore, etc., E. Co. v ing it to board it before it stopped. Eotchkiss, 24 Ohio Cir. Ct. Eep. 431. 836 The Law of Cabeiees. appreciated His danger and sought to warn him;'* where he at tempts to board a railroad train, although it is not possible foi want of time allowed for him to board it in safety.'' § 12. Boarding train or car in motion. — It is the general rule of law, established by the decisions in 'New York and other States, that the boarding of or attempt to board a moving train is presumably and generally a negligent act per se, and that in order to rebut this presumption and justify a recovery for an injury sustained in getting on a moving train, it must appear that the passenger was, by the act of the carrier, put to an election be- tween alternate dangers, or that something was done or said, or that some direction was given to the passenger by those in charge of the train, or some situation created, which interfered to some extent with his free agency, and was calculated to divert his atten- tion from the danger, and create a confidence that the attempt could be made in safety.'* It has been held that it is not negK- 92. Foster v. Seattle Electric Co., 35 Wash. 177, 76 Pac. 995. 93. Houston, etc., K. Co. v. Stew- art, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 703, 37 S. W. 770. 94. W. Y. — ^Hunter v. Cooperstown, etc., R. Co., 126 N. Y. 23, 112 N. Y. 371; Solomon v. Manhattan R. Co., 103 N. Y. 437, 57 Am. Eep. 760, 27 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 155; Paulitsch V. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 102 N. Y. 280; Connaughton v. Brooklyn, etc., E. Co., 13 Misc. Eep. (N. Y.) 403, 34 N. Y. Supp. 243; Fahr v. Manhattan E. Co., 9 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 57, 29 N. Y. Supp. 1; Robinson V. Manhattan E. Co., 5 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 209, 25 N. Y. Supp. 91; Philips V. Rensselaer, etc., E. Co., 49 N. Y. 177. Ala. — ^Montgomery, etc.. R. Co. v. Stewart, 91 Ala. 421. Colo. — ^Denver, etc., R. Co. v. Pick- ard, 8 Colo. 163. V. 8. — ^Missouri Pac. E. Co. v, Texas, etc., R. Co., 36 Fed. 879. Ga. — Ricks v. Greorgia, etc., E. Co., 118 Ga. 259, 45 S. E. 268. /ZI. — Walthers v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 72 m. App. 354; Ohio, etc., E. Co. V. Allender, 47 111. App. 484; Spannagle v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 31 111. App. 460; Chicago, etc., E. Co. V. Koehler, 47 111. App. 147. La. — Slight V. Pontshartrain E. Co., 23 La. Ann. 462. Mass. — Harvey v. Eastern E. Co., 116 Mass. 269. Mich. — Cousins v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 96 Mich. 386. Mo. — Fulks V. St. Louis, etc., E. Co., Ill Mo. 335, 52 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 280, attempting to board when warned to the contrary. ff. C. — Browne v. Ealeigh, etc., E. Co., 108 N. C. 34, 47 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 544. Pa. — ^Bacon v. Delaware, etc., E. Co., 143 Pa. St. 14; Johnson v. West Chester, etc., E. Co., 70 Pa. St. 357. R. /.— ChaflFee v. Old Colony E. Co., 17 E. I. 658, 52 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 306. CONTEIBUTOEY NeGLIQEJSTCB. 837 genee per se to step Tipon a train moving at two or three miles an hour;'' to attempt to get on a train aU a station after it has started or from a station platform whicli it is slowly passing;'* that whether the train stopiped long enough for passengers to get on, and other circumstances, may affect the question, and if the evidence is conflicting the question is for the jury.'' But attempt- ing to board a train slowly passing or moving out of a station which resulted in the person being injured by falling from the train or being struck by some passing object has been held to be contributory negligence.'^ On th© other hand, it cannot be said, as matter of law, that it is always negligent for a person to get upon a street car while it is in motion, irrespective of the rate of speed and other circumstances, though presumptively negligent while the ear is moving at ordinary or accelerated speed, espe- cially if the attempt is made between cars or at the front end of the oar.'' Ordinarily it is perfectly safe to get upon a street car Tex. — Galveston, etc., E. Co. v. Le Gierse, 51 Tex. 189. Contra: Mills V. Missouri, etc., E. Co. (Tex.), 59 S. W. 874, 57 S. W. 291. Proof that some one on the train had called out the station, others were also getting on the train, and plaintiff himself and others had previously got on and off at this station when trains were in motion, and it was the custom to slacken the speed of the trains at such station affords no justification, Phil- lips V. Eensselaer, etc., E. Co., 49 N. Y. 177; Denver, etc., E. Co. v. Piekard, 8 Colo. 170. 95. Distler v. Long Island E. Co., 151 N. Y. 424, 45 N. E. 937. 96. Houston, etc., E. Co. v. Stew- art, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 703, 37 S. W. 770; Fulks V. St. Louis, etc., E. Co., Ill Mo. 335, 19 S. W. 818; Balti- more, etc., E. Co. V. Kane, 69 Md. 11, See also Warren v. Southern Kansas E. Co., 37 Kan. 408, 31 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 10. 97. Swigert v. Hannibal, etc., E. Co., 75 Mo. 475, 9 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 322. 98. Phillips V. Eensselaer, etc., E. Co., 49 N. Y. 177; McMurtry v. Louisville, etc., E. Co., 67 Miss. 601; Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Scates, 90 111. 586; Carroll v. Interstate Eap. T. Co., 107 Mo. 053; Halden v. Great Western E. Co., 30 U. C. C. P. 89. 99. Sahlgaard v. St. Paul City ?.. Co., 48 Minn. 232, 51 N. W. Ill; Mettlestadt v. Ninth Ave. E. Co., 4 Eobt. (N. Y.) 377. Trying to board a car in rapid motion is negligence, Chicago City Ey. Co. v. Delcourt, 35 111. App. 430. Wbere plaimtifl signaled a, street car approacbing the crossing on which he was standing to stop, and it slowed down, but did not stop completely, whereupon he at- tempted to board it while in motion, and after it had passed the crossing, and in doing so was injured and it did not appear that the slowing down of the car was in response to plain- tiff's signal, the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. Eeidy v. Metropolitan St. E. Co., 27 Misc. Eep. (N. Y.) 527, 58 N. Y. Supp. 326. 838 The Law of Caeeiees. moving slowly, and thousands of people do it every day with per feet safety. But there may be exceptional cases, when the car ii moving rapidly, or when the person is infirm or clumsy, or is in cumbered with, children, packages, or other hindrances, or whei there are other unfavorable conditions, when it would be reckless to do so, and a court might, upon undisputed evidence, hold as i matter of law that there was negligence in doing so. But in mosi cases it must be a question for the jury, to be determined by then Tinder all the circumstances of the caae.^ The Pennsylvania courts hold that to step on or off a moving car is per se negligence, and the burden is upon the plaintiff to clearly demonstrate to the courl why his case should go to the jury as a rare exception to this rule.' Wbere one stepped aboard a car Tvhen it had almost stopped, and was injured by its sudden start- ing, it cannot be said, as a matter of law, he was guilty of contributory negligence. Mulligan v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 89 App. Div. (N. Y.) 207, 58 N. Y. Supp. 791. 1. Eppendorf v. Brooklyn City., etc., R. Co., 69 N. Y. 195, 25 Am. Rep. 171; Omaha St. Ry. Co. v. Mar- tin, 6 Am. Electl. Cas. 417, 48 Neb. 65; Corlin v. West End. St. Ry. Co., 4 Am. Eleetl. Cas. 406, 154 Mass. 197, 27 N. E. 1000; Hansberger v. Se- dalia El. Ry. & L. Co., 82 Mo. App. 566; North Chicago St. R. Co. v. Kaspers, 186 111. 246, 57 N. E. 849; Brown v. Washington & G. R. Co., 25 Wash. L. Rep. 404, 11 App. D. C. 37; North Chicago St. R. Co. v. Wiswell, 168 III. 613, 48 N. E. 407, 9 Am. & Enj. R. Cas. (N. S.) 377; Moyland V. Second Ave. R. Co., 128 N. Y. 583, 37 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 871, 27 N. E. 977; Central Pass. R. Co. v. Rose, 15 Ky. L. Rep. 209, 22 S. W. 745; Picard v. Ridge Ave. Pass. R. Co., 147 Pa. St. 195, 1 Pa. Adv. Rep. 218, 23 Atl. 566; McDonough v. Metro- politan R. Co., 137 Mass. 210; Stager V. Ridge Ave. Pass. R. Co., 119 Pa. St. 70; North Birmingham Ey. Co. v Liddicoat, 99 Ala. 545; Railway Co V. Atkins, 46 Ark. 423; Esfllway Co V. Williams, 140 111. 275; Eailwaj Co. V. Spaher, 7 Ind. App. 23; Rail road Co. v. MeCandless, 33 Kan. 366; Ober V. Crescent City E. Co., 44 La Ann. 1059, 11 So. 818, 52 Am. & Eng R. Cas. 576; Baltimore & 0. E. Co V. Kane (Md.), 13 Atl. 387, 9 Am. St Rep. 387; New York, etc., R. Co. v Coulbown (Md.), 16 Atl. 207; Wyatt V. Railway Co., 55 Mo. 485; Schepers v. Union Depot B. Co., 12( Mo. 665; Sexton v. Metropolitan St R. Co., 57 N. Y. Supp. 577, 26 Misc Rep. (N. Y.) 432; Munroe v. Thirc Ave. R. Co., 18 J. & S. (N. Y.) 114; Finkeldey v. Omnibus Cable Co., IK Cal. 28; Citizens St. Ey. Co. v. Jolly 1 St. Ry. Rep. 157 (Ind.), 67 N. E 935; South Chicago City E. Co. - Dufresne, 102 111. App. 493, affd. 20( 111. 456, 65 N. E. 1057; Berry v Utica Belt Line St. E. Co., 76 App Div. (N. Y.) 490, 78 N. Y. Supp 542. 2. Hunterson v. Union Tract. Co. 1 St. Ry. Rep. 697 (Pa.), 55 Atl 543, holding that no recovery can bi permitted where it appears that thi plaintiff signals an approaehin' CONTEIBTJTOEY NeGLIGEWCB. 839 The authorities of other States quite generally sustain the oppo- site view.' An attempt to board a stationary car by the front plat- form is not negligence per se.* If the passenger be in good physi- cal condition and unincumbered, be may, without negligence, at- tempt to board a slowly moving car under all ordinary circum- stances, and it vnll be even a question for the jury if in boarding he was negligent in not holding fast to the handrail provided for the purpose of aiding him to board.^ But it has been held to be negligent, as a matter of law, for a person, even in good physical ■condition and unincumbered, to attempt to get on the front plat- form of a car moving at an ordinary rate of speed of seven or eight miles an hour.^ Where, however, provision is made to get on or oS the front or rear platform, it may not be negligence to board train to stop, whose signal is heeded, but who, before it stops, and while lunning at a speed of three or four miles an hour, attempts to get on a car; Powelson v. Union Tract. Co., 204 Pa. St. 474; Stager v. Eidge Ave. Pass. Ey. Co., 119 Pa. St. 70; Walton V. Philadelphia Tract. Co., 161 Pa. St. 36; Jagger v. Peoples Pass. Ey. Co., 180 Pa. St. 436. 3. Cicero & P. St. E. Co. v. Meix- aier, 160 lU. 320, 31 L. E. A. 331, 43 N. E. 823. The court in this case said: "The doctrine is established in nearly all of the States where the ;qnestion has arisen that it is not negligence per se for a passenger to board or alight from a street car op- erated by horse power, and the ques- tion of contributory negligence is one for the jury. It would be impossible for a court to lay down a ' rule as to what particular rate of speed would be sufficient notice to a passenger that, if he attempted to get on or ofif, he would be held guilty of contribu- tory negligence. It would also be a great hardship and unjust to lay down a general rule that a passenger attempting to board a street car while in motion at all should be held £nilty of contributory negligence." The court also considered the ques- tion whether the rule as to persona boarding or alighting from horse ears should apply to electric cars, and con- cludes as follows: "While in elec- tric cars the possibilities of speed are greater than in the case of horse cars, yet the general operation and manage- ment of such cars so nearly approach those of horse cars that it must be held that the same rule of law which in the cases cited and a, long line of other cases holds that it is not negli- gence per se to board or depart from such cars while in motion is also ap- plicable to electric cars." See also cases cited in note to § 6, chap. 19. 4. Pfefifer v. Buflfalo Ey. Co., 4 Misc. Eep. (N. Y.) 465, 24 N. Y. Supp. 490, 54 St. Eep. (N. Y.) 342, aflfd. 144 N. Y. 636, 64 St. Eep. (N. Y.) 868, 4 Am. Electl. Cas. 444. 5. Martin v. Second Ave. E. Co., 3 App. Div. (N. Y.) 448, 38 N. Y. Supp. 220, 73 St. Eep. (N. Y.) 714; Morrison v. Broadway, etc., E. Co., 130 N. Y. 166, 41 St. Eep. (N. Y.) 248, 29 N. E. 105. 6. Woo Dan v. Seattle El. E. & P. Co., 5 Wash. 466, 32 Pac. 103, 58 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 195. 840 The Law of Careiees. by the front platform/ A person attempting to board a trolley car in motion by way of the front platform is bound to exercise more care than he would had he waited to board by the rear step or for the car to stop. The fact that there was a jerk or sudden move- ment of the car when plaintiff jumped on the step did not neces- sarily establish negligence of the motorman. It might have been the natural result of applying the brake to stop the car.* It is not per se negligence for a person with an umbrella in one hand and a handkerchief in the other, to board or attempt to board an electric car while it is in the act of stopping to receive passengers and be- fore it has come to a full stop.' A passenger is not as matter of law guilty of negligence in entering a street car by the front plat- form at the invitation of the driver, and proceeding to her seat with her back to the horses, which will preclude her recovery for injuries from being thrown to the floor by the starting of the car, although the rear platform is the usual place for entering the car, and she did not use the straps placed in the car for passengers, to take hold of.'"' Nor is one, as matter of law, guilty of con- tributory negligence in attempting to board the front platform of a street car while it is in motion, where he has given a signal and the driver has slackened the speed of his horses.-*^ But a boy, 7. Peterson v. Delaware, etc., E. tending passenger carried a package- Co. (Pa.), 9 Kulp. 552. A boy seven on his shoulder which obstructed hi* years of age, injured' in attempting to line of vision so that he fell into an get upon the front platform of a excavation while attempting to reach street railroad car while starting, a slowly moving car. Hanson v. where no notice was given to the em- Third' Ave. E. Co., 27 Misc. Eep. (N. ployees in charge of the ear and they Y.) 524, 58 N. Y. Supp. 282. Anil had no knowledge of his intention see Eeadington v. Philadelphia Tract. and attempt to become a passenger, Co., 132 Pa. St. 154. It is negll- cannot recover against the company. gence per se for a person weighing Although there was no conductor on 200 lbs., and of low stature, to at- the car, the driver is not hound to tempt to board a street car moving look for passengers while engaged in at the rate of six miles per hour, attending to his horses. Pitcher v. while both his hands are encumbered Peoples St. E. Co., 154 Pa. St. 560, by packages. Baltimore Tract. Co. v. 32 W. N. C. 243, 26 Atl. 559. State, Einggold, 28 Atl. 337, 78 Md. 8. Paulson v. Brooklyn City R. Co., 409, 58 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 290. 13 Misc. Eep. (N. Y.) 387, 5 Am. 10. Holmes v. Alleghany Tract.. Electl. Cas. 419. Co., 153 Pa. 152, 25 Atl. 640. 9. White V. Atlantic Consol. E. 11. Finkeldey v. Omnibus Cable Co., 92 Ga. 494, 17 S. E. 672. Tlie Co., 114 Cal. 28, 45 Pac. 996, 5 Am. rule is otherwise, however, if the in- & Eng. E. Cas. N^. S. 393. COITTKIBUTOBY NeGLIGEWCB. 841L fourteen year old, is not, as matter of law, free from contributory negligence in trying to board an electric car followed by a trailer moving at the rate of from three to seven miles an hour. He is required to exercise such care and caution as might reasonably be expected from one of his age, experience, and intelligence.^ And where a young man, able7bodied and unincumbered, having mo- tioned for an open car tg stop upon a crosswalk, when it had nearly stopped put his foot on the step on the side of and near the middle- of the car and took hold of the stanchion, and after the car had moved six or seven feet, he was struck by the wheel of a truck which was standing in the street, it was held that it was plaintiff's- duty to see before getting on the car, that there was no obstacle outside the car which would make it dangerous for him to attempt to get on board; and that if the injury was attributable to any neghgence, it was, in part at least, that of the plaintiff." It is not necessarily negligent for a passenger to board a street car knowing that the track is being repaired, and that there are iron poles in close proximity to the track on the side of the car on which he is about to enter." But where the plaintiff testified that he signaled the company's motorman to stop ; that the car was stopped, and as he stepped on the running board the car was sud- denly started, and he was carried about fifteen feet, and struck by a pillar of an elevated road. He was facing in the direction in which the ear moved. Several witnesses testified that the plain- tiff jumped on the car while in motion, and swung himself along the running board, and that the conductor warned him when he boarded the car to look out for the pillar. It was held that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.-^^ The controversy being whether defendant's street railway, which ran over plain- tifi's intestate as he attempted to board it, was moving slowly, as testified by plaintiff's witnesses, or rapidly, as testified by defend- ant's witnesses, plaintiff cannot show that it was defendant's cus- tom to stop its cars near the point of the accident to take on passen- gers; this not being competent to corroborate plaintiff's evidence, 12. Sly V. Union Depot K. Co., 134 14. Citizens St. Ry. Co. v. Merl Mo. 681, 36 S. W. 235. (Ind. App.), 59 N. E. 491. 13. Moylan v. Second Ave. E. Co., 15. Cassio v. Brooklyn H. R. Co., 128 N. Y. 583, 37 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 59 App. Div. (N. Y.) 617, 69 N. Y^ 871, 27 N. E. 977. But see San An- Supp. 208. tonio Tract. Co. v. Bryant (Tex.), 70 S. W. 1015. 842 The La.w of Caeeiees. and furnishing no excuse for attempting to mount a rapidly mov- ing street car." Where plaintiff boarded one of defendant's street cars at the front platform, and stood there because, accord- ing to his testimony, he could not open the door, and when the car ran on a curve he wsls thrown off and injured, an instruction that it was the duty of the plaintiff to get on the car by the rear platform, and seat himself if he could by reasonable effort, and that his failure to do go was negligence, was erroneous; there being no notice forbidding entrance at the front platform, or ap- parent danger in so doing, though he apparently might have en- tered by the rear door." 16. West Chicago St. Ry. Co. v. Torpe, 187 111. 610, 58 N. E. 607. 17. Townsend v. Binghamton B. Co., 57 App. Div. (N. Y.) 234, 68 N. Y. Supp. 121. Passengers injured In board- ing street cars. — Gleason t. Metro- politan St. Ey. Co., 3 St. Ey. Eep. 709, 99 App. Div. (N. Y.) 209, 90 N. Y. Supp. 1025; Ward v. Metropoli- tan St. Ry. Co., 3 St. Ry. Rep. 710, 99 App. Div. (N. Y.) 126, 90 N. Y. Supp. 897; Wagner v. Brooklyn H. R. Co., 3 St. Ry. Rep. 710, 95 App. Div. (N. Y.) 219, 88 N. Y. Supp. 791; Spencer v. St. Louis Transit Co., 3 St. Ry. Rep. 554, 111 Mo. App. 653, 86 S. W. 593; Lehner v. Metro- politan St. Ry. Co., 3 St. Ry. Rep. 655, 110 Mo. App. 215, 85 S. W. 110; Kaiser t. St. Louis Transit Co., 3 St. Ry. Rep. 555, 108 Mo. App. 708, 84 S. W. 199; McKee v. St. Louis Tran- sit Co., 3 St. Ry. Rep. 555, 108 Mo. App. 470, 83 S. W. 1013; Shanahan v. St. Louis Transit Co., 3 St. Ry. Rep. 556, 109 Mo. App. 228, 83 o= W. 784; Maggioli v. St. Louis Tran- sit Co., 3 St. Ry. Rep. 556, 108 Mo. App. 416, 83 S. W. 1026; Eikenberry V. St. Louis Transit Co., 3 St. Ry. Rep. 557, 103 Mo. App. 442, 80 S. W. 360; McNamara v. St. Louis Transit Co., 3 St. Ry. Rep. 558, 106 Mo. App. 349, 80 S. W. 303; Leu v. St. Louis Transit Co., 3 St. By. Hep. 558 (Mo. App.), 80 S. W. 273, 86 S. W. 137 ; Murphy v. North Jersey St. Ry. Co., 3 St. Ry. Rep. 652 (N. J. L.), 58 Atl. 1018; Schmidt v. North Jer- sey St. Ry. Co., 3 St. Ry. Rep. 652 (N. J. L.), 58 Atl. 72; Jacques v. Sioux City Tract. Co., 3 St. Ry. Eep. 249, 124 Iowa, 257, 99 N. W. 1069, as to contributory negligence of pas- senger in mounting car with an arm- ful of packages. See also as to com- mencement of relationship of passen- ger and carrier, O'Mara v. St. Louis Transit Co. (Mo.), 2 St. Ry. Eep. 627, 76 S. W. 680; Citizens' St. Ey. Co. V. Jolly (Ind.), 1 St. Ey. Eep. 157, 67 N. E. 935; inference to be drawn by passenger from fact that motorman lessened speed of car. Mul- ligan V. Met. St. Ry. Co., 2 St. Ey. Rep. 787, 87 App. Div. (N. Y.) 320, 84 N. Y. Supp. 366; it is not con- tributory negligence as a matter of law to get upon a street car while in motion, Clinton v. Brooklyn Hts. E. Co., 2 St. Ry. Rep. 791, 91 App. Div. (N. Y.) 374, 86 N. Y. Supp. 932; in- jured in attempting to board a slowly moving car by sudden start of car, Maguire v. St. Louis Transit Co. (Mo.), 2 St. Ry. Eep. 629, 78 S. W. 838; injured while boarding car b^ CONTEIBUTOBY NEGLIGEWOa 843 § 13. Place of entering cars or trains. — Ordinarily, tihe place to board a train, and the sole place, is that provided by the carrier for that purpose, and it is contributory negligence to enter a train at a place where the carrier is not accustomed to receive passen- gers." But it is not contributory negligence for a passenger to get on a train at a place where the carrier is in the habit of receiving passengers, although not the regular depot provided for that pur- pose." It is not negligence per se to board a passenger train at a point elsewhere than at a depot platform,^" but if a railroad com- pany designates and sets apart a platform as the place where it requires all passengers to enter the cars, and this is known to the passenger, and, in disregard of this regulation, the passenger seeks to enter the cars at another place, he is guilty of contributory negligence.^^ § 14. Leaving conveyance. — A passenger cannot recover from & carrier for personal injuries occasdoned by his neglect to exercise proper care in alighting from the conveyance and to avail himself of the suitable place for landing and means of ingress to and egress from the cars or trains provided by the carrier.^^ But it has been sudden start, Plum v. Metropolitan etc., Co., 19 Or. 354, 44 Am. & Eng. St. Ey. Co., 2 St. Ry. Rep. 792, 91 R. Cas. 360. App. Div. (N. Y.) 420, 86 N. Y. 19. Keating v. New York Cent., Supp. 827; Northington v. Norfolk etc., R. Co., 3 Lans. (N. Y'.) 469, Ey. & L. Co., 2 St. Ry. Rep. 932, 102 affd. 49 N. Y. 673. Va. 446, 46 S. E. 475 ; evidence as to 20. Stoner v. Pennsylvania Co., 98 rule requiring car to stop, Nassau Ind. 384, 49 Am. Rep. 764; Curtis v. Elec. Ey. Co. v. Corliss, 2 St. Ey. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 27 Wis. 158; Eep. 999, 126 Fed. 355; safety of Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Long, 94 passengers embarking. Leveret v. Ky. 410. Shreveport Belt Line Co. (La.), 1 21. McDonald v. Chicago, etc., R. St. Ey. Eep. 253, 34 So. 570; to step Co., 26 Iowa, 124, 96 Am. Dec. 114. on or off a moving car is per se neg- ZZ. Drake v. Pennsylvania E. Co., ligence, and the burden is upon the 137 Pa. St. 352, 21 Am. St. Rep. 883 ; plaintiff to clearly demonstrate to Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Zebe, 33 Pa. the court why his case should go to St. 318, 37 Pa. St. 420; Chicago, etc., the jury as a rare exception to this E. Co. v. Dingman, 1 111. App. 164; rule, Hunterson v. Union Tract. Co. Graham v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 39 (Pa.), 1 St. Ey. Eep. 697, 55 Atl. 543. Fed. 596, leaving ferryboat by gang- 18. Phillips V. Northern R. Co., way intended for teams; Keokuk 62 Hun (N. Y.), 233, 16 N. Y. Supp. Packet Co. v. Henry, 50 111. 264, 909; Central R., etc., Co. v. Perry, jumping from steamboat because of 68 6a. 461; Haase v. Oregon R., want of proper time and facilities for 844 The Law of Caeeiees. held that, under the circumstances of the case, a passenger was not under the imputation of negligence and could not be charged with contributory negligence, when alighting, for failure to retain hold of the railing, if it were practicable to do so, at the moment he was about to step from the car to the platform of the station;^ nor for placing his hand on the brake wheel in leaving the train f* nor for getting off the train steps upon a connecting link between two ears when the train had halted at a station f^ nor for passing over flat cars under the direction of a brakeman in order to reach a place for alighting,^^ nor for passing from a boat by a way upon a ferry bridge provided for animals and vehicles, upon invitation of the employes in charge of the bridge, where he received an injury from a cause not arising from or attendant upon his use of the bridge but from a cause ah extra that use.^' A passenger has been held guilty of contributory n^ligence in leaving a train at a depot on the sfide opposite the platform provided for suoh purpose, where there was no paramount necessity for so doing and the platform was not unsafe;^* in alighting on the track side at a place where there was no platform ;^' and in alighting from a rap- idly moving cable car on the side next to a parallel track.^ Otber courts have held that it was not contributory negligence per se for a passenger to alight at a depot on the side of the train away from the depot and platform, but that the question as to whether the pas- senger's manner of alighting was negligent under the circum- stances was one that should be submitted to the jury.'^ Proof that the passenger violated the regulations of the carrier, in leaving a landing; Dodge v. Boston, etc., 24. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Mc- Steamship Co., 148 Mass. 207, 12 Am. Henry, 47 111. App. 301. St. Rep. 541, 37 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 25. Johnson v. Winona, etc., E. 67, leaving boat at place not intended Co., 11 Minn. 296, 88 Am. Dee. 83. for the use of passengers and in vio- 26. Hartzig v. Lehigh Valley R. lation of notice; Scully v. New York, Co., 154 Pa. St. 364. etc., R. Co., 80 Hun (N. Y.), 197, 30 27. Watson v. Camden, etc., E. N. Y. Supp. 61, jumping from train Co., 55 N. J. L. 125. which the conductor had neglected to 28. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Rick- stop at the passenger's destination. etts, 93 Ky. 116. 23. McDonald v. Long Island R. 29. Morgan v. Camden, etc., E. Co., 116 N. Y. 546, 15 Am. St. Rep. Co. (Pa.), 16 Atl. 353. 437 ; Martin v. Second Ave. R. Co., 3 30. Weber v. Kansas City Cable E. App. Div. (N. Y.) 448, 38 N. Y. Co., 100 Mo. 194, 18 Am. St. Eep. Supp. 220. See also Dslamatyr v. 541, 41 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 117. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co., 24 Wis. 578. 31. Goldberg v. New York Cent., CONTEIBUTOEY NeGLIGENCH. 845 car on the wrong side, even without the excuse of a cogent neces- sity will not as a matter of law debar him from a recovery.'^ It has been held that if a passenger is injured by alighting of his own accord from the rear end of a car at a place where there is no platform, when by passing forward, he could alight with safety on the platform, he is guilty of contributory negligence f^ but not so when there was no light at that point,'* or when the passenger, who ■was a lady, could alight on the platform only by going forward through the smoker.'^ The passenger is under no obligation to be on the lookout to avoid danger from defects in the carrier's ap- pliances or means of ingress or egress, and is not negligent unless he fails to use ordinary care after knowledge of a def jct or peril is thrust upon him.'' § 15, Alighting at improper place or in improper manner. — A passenger endeavoring to alight from a train is bound to use due care to ascertain whether the train has reached the place designed for passengers to alight, and has no right to assume it simply because the brakeman has announced the station, and the train has stopped ; and he is guilty of contributory negligence if, by reason of a failure to use such care, he is injured by alighting at an improper place." But where the appearances and circum- «tc., E. Co., 133 N. Y. 561, 30 K E. 70 Iowa, 353. See also Chicago, etc., 697, 54 St. Eep. (N. Y.) 90, 24 N. Y. R. Co. v. Dingman, 1 111. App. 164. Supp. 1143; Onderdonk v. New York, 34. McDonald v. Illinois Cent. R. «tc., R. Co., 74 Hun (N. Y.), 42, 26 Co., 88 Iowa, 345, 55 N. W. 102, 58 N. Y. Supp. 310; Plopper v. New Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 263. York Cent. R. Co., 13 Hun (N. Y.), 35. Cartwright v. Chicago, etc., R. 625; Dickens v. New York Cent. R. Co., 52 Mich. 606, 50 Am. Rep. 274, ■Co., 1 Abb. App. Dec. (N. Y.) 504; 16 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 321. Eobostelli v. New York, etc., R. Co., 36. Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. Stans- 33 Ted. 796; McQuilken v. Central berry, 132 Ind. 533, defective plat- Pae. R. Co., 64 Cal. 463, 16 Am. & form; McDermott v. Chicago, etc., R. Ing.E. Caa. 353; Boss V. Providence, Co., 82 Wis. 246, movable bench ■etc., E. Co., 15 R. I. 149, 21 Am. ■& which was not a reasonably safe ap- Eng. E. Caa. 364; Missouri Pae. R. plianee; Bethman v. Old Colony R. Co. V. Long, 81 Tex. 253, 26 Am. St. Co., 155 Mass. 352, passenger passing Eep. 811. over a movable truck which ob- 32. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Lowell, structed the way to the station plat- 151 U. S. 209, 38 L. Ed. 131, 14 S. form. C- 281. 37. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Sattler 33. Eckerd v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., (Neb.), 90 N. W. 649, 57 L. R. A. 846 The Law of Caeeiees. stances are such as to reasonably indicate to the passenger that the train has stopped at the depot or for the purpose of discharg- ing passengers, it is not negligent for the passenger to alight" Persons alighting from railway trains upon the express or implied invitation of the officers in charge are justified in assuming that the officers have taken proper precautions to insure their safety.* And if the passenger is invited or requested by the conductor or other agent of the caxrier to leave the car at an improper or dangerous place, he will not be chargeable with contributory negli- gence in alighting there unless the danger is obvious.** The an- nouncement of the name of the station is not of itself an invita- 890; Barry v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 172 Mass. 109, 51 N. E. 518, 12 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. N. S. 245; Dunn v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 20 Phlla. (Pa.) 258; Nagle v. California Southern R. Co., 88 Cal. 86, train halting for a moment upon a trestle; Brockway v. Lascala, 1 Edm. Sel. Cas. (N. Y.) 135; State v. Tom, 8 Or. 177, step- ping off boat before it had lauded; Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. Schiebe, 44 III. 460, where a passenger train had run on a side track to allow a freight train to pass; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Green, 81 111. 19, 25 Am. Rep. 255, train stopping at bridge to take water; Siner v. Great Western R. Co., L. R. 4 Exch. 117; Georgia, etc., R. Co. V. Murray, 113 Ga. 1021, 39 S. E. 427, momentary stopping of train to allow switch to be set. A passenger negligently car- ried beyond his station and forced to get off at a place other than the station was not guilty of contribu- tory negligence in returning by way of the track, when that was the most natural course. New York, etc., R. Co. V. Doane, 115 Ind. 435, 7 Am. St. Rep. 451. But if, after alighting under such circumstances, he at- tempts to do an act obviously dan- gerous, he is guilty of contributory negligence. International, etc., R. Co. V. FoUiard, 66 Tex. 603, 27 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 280. So, where he was himself negligent in not getting off at the station and the train was stopped at his request and he alighted at another place, Wilson v. TSew Orleans, etc., R. Co., 68 Miss. 9. 38. McAlan v. Trustees Uew York, etc.. Bridge, 43 App. Div. (N. T.) 374, 60 N. Y. Supp. 176; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Farr, 70 Ark. 264, 68 S. W. 243. 39. Leveret v. Shreveport Belt Ey. Co. (La.), 34 So. 579. See also note on Acts constituting invitation to alight and cases cited, 3 St. Ry. Bep. 840. 40. Hulbert v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 40 N. Y. 145; Bellmatt V. New York Cent., etc., E. Co., 42 Hun (N. Y), 130, 122 N. Y. 671; Hickey v. Railroad Co., 14 Allen (Mass.), 429; Sweeny v. Railroad Co., 10 Allen (Mass.), 368; Dola- matyr v. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co., 24 Wis. 578; Gadsden, etc., E. Co. v. Causler, 97 Ala. 235; Baltimore, etc, R. Co. T. Leapley, 65 Md. 571, where a pregnant woman was directed to jump from the train which had stopped at a point distant from the platform; Georgia, etc., E. Co. v. Usry, 82 Ga. 64, 14 Am. St. Eep. 140, whether a pregnant woman could avoid CONTEIBUTOSY NeGLIGENCB. 847 tion to alight f- but if the train soon thereafter is brought to a full • stop in the absence of notice that the train has not come to a final stop for the discharge of passengers, a passenger is justified in supposing that the train has arrived at the station announced and that he can safely alight, and is not guilty of contributory negligence in attempting to do so, in the absence of circumstance* and conditions which would obviously show to a reasonably pru- dent and careful person that the train had not arrived at the sta- tion or proper landing place for passengers.*^ The question as to whether the passenger was induced by the announcement to be- lieve that his destination had. been reached is usually one for the jury, and the fact that the act of alighting, under such circumh stances occurred on a dark night will be evidence tending to show such belief.*' § 16. Alighting from train or car in motion It is presump- tively a negligent act for a passenger to attempt to alight from a moving train;** and it is not sufficient to rebut the presumption the consequences to herself of such negligent act of the carrier by the use of ordinary care was a questipn for the jury. 41. Gonzales v. New York, etc., E. Co., 33 N. Y. Super. Ct. 57; East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. Holmes, 97 Ala. 332, 58 Am. & Eng. E. Cas 252; Memphis, etc., E. Co. v. Stringfellow, 44 Ark. 322, 51 Am. Eep. 598 ; East Tennessee, etc., E. Co. v. Connor, 15 Lea (Tenn.), 254; Bridges v. North London R. Co., L. E. 7 H. L. 213. 42. Taber v. Delaware, etc., E. Co., 71 N. Y. 489; Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Arnold, 144 111. 261; McNulta v. Ensch, 134 111. 46; Central E. Co. v. Van Horn, 38 N. J. L. 133; Pennsyl- vania Co. V. Hoagland', 78 Ind. 203, 3 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 436; Terre Haute, etc., E. Co. v. Buck, 96 Ind. 346, 49 Am. Eep. 168; Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, 92 Ala. 237; Smith V. Georgia Pae. R. Co., 88 Ala. 538, 16 Am. St. Rep. 63; Mitchell v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 51 Mich. 236, 47 Am. Eep. 566; McGee v. Missouri Pae. R. Co., 92 Mo. 208, 1 Am. St. Rep. 706; Southern Kansas E. Co. v. Pavey, 48 Kan. 452. 43. See cases cited in last preced- ing note. 44. Soloman v. Manhattan R. Co., 103 N. Y. 437, 57 Am. Rep. 760, 27 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 155; Burrows v. Erie E. Co., 63 N. Y. 556; Morrison V. Erie E. Co., 56 N. Y. 302 ; Geogagn V. New York, etc., E. Co., 10 App. Div. (N. Y.) 454, 42 N. Y. Supp. 205; Eedmond v. Eome, etc., R Co,, 16 N» Y. Supp. 330. Ga. — ^Atlanta, etc., R. Co. v. Dick- erson, 89 Ga. 455; Whelan v. Georgia,, etc., R. Co., 84 Ga. 506. Ind. — ^Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Crunk, 119 Ind. 542, 12 Am. St. Rep. 443; Jeffersonville R. Co. v. Hen- dricks, 26 Ind. 228. Me. — Shannon v. Boston, etc., H.^ Co., 78 Me. 52. M8 The Law of Caeeiees. that the trainman acquiesced in the action of the passenger, or that the company violated its duty or contract in not stopping the traini, or that to remain on the train would subject the passenger to trouble or inconvenience, but to excuse such an act and free the passenger from the charge of contributory negligence there must be a coercion of circumstances which did not leave the passenger in the free and untrammeled possession of his faculties and judg- ment.^' In a number of cases it has been held that alighting vol- untarily from a train in motion is negligence per se.*' But many other authorities sustain the rule that alighting voluntarily from a train in motion is not contributory negligence per se. While, as a general proposition, it is conceded that it is imprudent and a want of ordinary care to alight from a train while it is in motion, whether it was so in a particular case must depend upon the cir- cumstances under which the attempt was made, and, ordinarily, is a question for the jury." Whether such an act was culpable Mich. — Cousins v. Lake Shore, etc., K. Co., 96 Mich. 386. Pa. — Pennsylvania E. Co. v. Lyons, 129 Pa. St. 113, 15 Am. St. Rep. 701; New York, etc., R. Co. v. Enches, 127 Pa. St. 316, 14 Am. St. Rep. 848; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Aspell, 23 Pa. St. 147, 62 Am. Dec. 323; Clintock v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 21 W. N. C. (Pa.) 133. Wis. — Brown v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 80 Wis. 162; Hemmingway v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 72 Wis. 42, 7 Am. St. Rep. 823. Mass. — Gavett v. Manchester, etc., R. Co., 16 Gray (Mass.), 501, 77 Am. Dec. 422; Lucas v. New Bedford', €tc., R. Co., 6 Gray (Mass.), 64, 66 Am. Dec. 406, in the absence of any- thing to create excitement or cause alarm; Brooks v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 135 Mass. 21, but not where plaintiff did not in fact know that the train was moving. 45. See New York cases cited in last preceding note. 46. Secor v. Toledo, etc., E. Co., 10 Fed. 16. III. — It is negligence, which pre- cludes a recovery to get off of a train of which the motive power is eteam while it is still in motion. Illinois Cent. E. Co. v. Cunningham, 102 HI. App. 206; Louisville, etc., E. Co. T. Johnson, 44 111. App. 56; Dougherty V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 86 111. 467; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Lutz, 84 111. 598 ; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Slatton, 54 III. 135, 5 Am. Rep. 109; Ohio, etc., R. Co. V. Stratton, 78 III. 88. Compare Illinois Cent. E, Co. v. Able, 59 111. 131. La. — Walker v. Vieksburg, etc., E. Co., 41 La. Ann. 795, 17 Am. St. Eep. 417 ; Damont v. New Orleans, etc., E. Co., 9 La. Ann. 441, 61 Am. Dec. 214. N. C. — ^Morrow v. Atlanta, etc.. Air Line E. Co. (N. C), 46 S. E. 12. Wis. — Walters v. Chicago, etc., R. Co. (Wis.), 89 N. W. 140, where plaintiff knowingly and unnecessarily steps from a train in motion. 47. N. r.— Bucher v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 98 N. Y. 128. AZo.— Central R., etc., Co. v Miles, 88 Ala. 256. CONTEIBUTORT NeGLIGENCH. 849 or excusable has been held in many instances to depend upon all the facts and circumstances, such as the rapidity of motion of the train, the fact whether it was in the daytime or at night, the dis- tance from the car to the ground or other surface upon which the passenger proposed to alight, the age and vigor of the party, and whether he took the risk by the command or encouragement of the carrier's agents in charge of the train, or to escape a greater peril.*' It is not contributory negligence per se, or as a matter of law, for a passenger to alight from a very slowly moving train, but the question is one for the jury to decide from all the attend- ant circumstances.*' But there are cases where the undisputed Xrk.—%i. Louis, etc., E. Co. v. Per- son, 49 Ark. 182; Little Koek, etc., E. Co. V. Atkins, 46 Ark. 423. < Cal. — Carr v. Eel River, etc., Co., 93 Cal. 366. Colo. — Posten v. Denver Consol. Tramway Co., 3 St. Ry. Rep. 37 /Colo. App.), 78 Pac. 1067. 6a. — Covington v. Western, etc., R. Co., 81 Ga. 275; West End, etc., St. E. Co. V. Mozely, 79 Ga. 463. Ind. — Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Gray (Ind. App.), 59 N. E. 1000; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Crunk, 119 Ind. 542, 12 Am. St. Rep. 443; Penn- sylvania E. Co. V. Marion, 123 Ind. 415, 18 Am. St. Rep. 330. Iowa. — Rabcn v. Central Iowa E. Co., 74 Iowa, 732. MA. — Cumberland Valley R. Co. v. Maugans, 61 Md. 53, 48 Am. Rep. 88. Mich. — Cousins v. Lake Shore, etc., E. Co., 96 Mich. 386. Mo. — ^Madden v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 50 Mo. App. 664. Jfe6.— Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Win- frey (Neb.), 93 N. W. 526; Chicago, etc., R. Co. V. Landauer, 36 Neb. 642. Pa. — ^Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Peters, 116 Pa. St. 206 ; Pennsylvania R. Co. V. Kilgore, 32 Pa. St. 292, 72 Am. Dec. 787. Tea!.— International, etc., R. Co. v Satterwhite, 15 Tex. Civ. x\pp. 102, 54 38 S. W. 401 ; Galveston, etc., R. Co. V. Smith, 59 Tex. 406. Wis. — Hemmingway v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 72 Wis. 42, 7 Am. St. Rep. 823. Can. — Edgar v. Northern E. Co., 11 Ont. App. 452. 48. Bucher v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 98 N. Y. 128; Filer v. New York Cent. R. Co., 42 N. Y. 47, 10 Am. Rep. 327; Morrison v. Erie R. Co., 56 N. Y. 202; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Cantrell, 37 Ark. 526; Little Eoek, etc., E. Co. v. Atkins, 46 Ark. 423; Cumberland Valley E. Co. V. Maugans, 61 Md. 53, 48 Am. Eep. 88; Pennsylvania E. Co. v. Kilgore, 32 Pa. St. 292; Wyatt v. Citizens E. Co., 62 Mo. 408; Georgia Pac. E. Co. V. West, 66 Miss. 310; Hemming- way v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 72 Wis. 42, 7 Am. St. Eep. 823; Brooks v. Boston, etc., E. Co., 135 Mass. 21; Leggett V. Western New York, etc., R. Co., 143 Pa. St. 39. 49. McAlan v. Trustees New York, etc., Bridge, 43 App. Div. (N. Y.) 374, 60 N. Y. Supp. 176; Distler v. Long Island R. Co., 151 N. Y. 424, 45 N. E. 937, 35 L. R. A. 762 ; Penn- sylvania Co. V. Marion, 123 Ind. 415, 18 Am. St. Eep. 330, train moving at speed of two miles an hour; Central E. Co. V. Miles, 88 Ala. 256, at speed 850 The Law of Caeeiees. facts liave been such that the courts have held the question of con- tributory negligence not to be one of fact for the jury, or of fact and law to be given to the jury with instruction, but one of law for the decision of the court For example, where the act of the paa- senger was obviousily dangerous and without reasonable necessity and done with a full consciousness of danger and foolish rashness which showed complete absence of ordinary care and prudenes*" as alighting from a rapidly moving train," or alighting when in an enfeebled and weak condition,^^ or when encumbered with luggage of three miles an hour; Louisville, etc., R. Co. V. Crunk, 119 Ind. 542, 12 Am. St. Eep. 443, at speed of four and a half miles an hour; New York, etc., E.Co. V. Coulbourn, 69 Md. 361, 9 Am. St. Kep. 430, at speed of five miles an hour; Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. V. Bangs, 47 Mich. 470, at speed of six miles an hour; Nance v. Caro- lina Cent. K. Co., 94 N. C. 619; Lam- beth V. North Carolina K. Co., 66 N. C. 494, 8 Am. Eep. 508; Georgia Pac. E. Co. V. West, 66 Miss. 310; Shan- non V. Boston, etc., E. Co., 78 Me. 52; Straus V. Kansas City, etc., E. Co., 75 Me. 185, 6 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 384; Price v. St. Louis, etc., E. Co., 72 Mo. 414; Taylor v. Missouri Pac. E. Co., 26 Mo. App. 336; Kelly v. Hannibal, etc., E. Co., 7(J Mo. 607; Lloyd V. Hannibal, etc., E. Co., 53 Mo. 509; Leslie v. Wabash, etc., E. Co. 88 Mo. 50; Eiehmond v. Quincy, etc., E. Co., 49 Mo. App. 104. 50. N. T. — Morrison v. Erie E. Co., 56 N. Y. 302. Ala. — East Tennessee, etc., E. Co. V. Holmes, 97 Ala. 332; Central, etc.-, E. Co. V. Miles, 88 Ala, 261; Eicketts V. Birmingham St. E. Co., 85 Ala. 600. Ind. — Toledo, etc., E. Co. v. Win- gate (Ind.), 37 N. E. 274; Woolery V. Louisville, etc., E. Co., 107 Ind. 381, 57 Am. Eep. 114, 27 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 210. Ky. — Peak's Admtr. v. Louisville & N. E. Co., 23 Ky. L. Eep. 2157, 66 S. W. 995. Me. — Shannon v. Boston, etc., E. Co.,. 78 Me. 52. Mass. — ^La Pointe v. Boston & M. E. Co., 182 Mass. 227, 65 N. E. 44; England v. Boston, etc., E. Co., 153 Mass. 490. Mo. — Tabler v. Hannibal, etc., E. Co., 93 Mo. 79; Clotworthy v. Hanni- bal, etc., E. Co., 80 Mo. 220; Nelson V. Atlantic, etc., E. Co.. 68 Mo. 593; Wyatt V. Citizens E. Co., 62 Mo. 408; Doss V. Missouri, etc., E. Co., 69 Mo. 27, 21 Am. Eep. 371. Tex. — Houston, etc., E. Co. v. Les- lie, 57 Tex. 83. 51. Ga. — ^McLarin v. Atlanta, etc., E. Co., 85 Ga. 504; Watson v. Georgia Pac. E. Co., 81 Ga. 476; Jar- rett V. Atlanta, etc., E. Co., 83 Ga. 347, train moving at twenty-five miles an hour. Ind. — Woolery v. Louisville, etc., E. Co., 107 Ind. 381, 57 Am. Eep. 114, 27 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 210, train moving at fifteen miles an hour. Mo. — Leslie v. Wabash, etc., E. Co., 88 Mo. 50. And see cases cited under last preceding note. Neb. — Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Mar- telle (Neb.), 91 N. W. 364. 52. Louisville, etc., E. Co. v. Lee, 97 Ala. 325. CONTElBtTTOKY NEGLIGENCE, 851 80 as to be deprived of the ability to properly protect himself,^ or alighting in the dark from a train known to be in motion." But where the danger was so sudden and unexpected as to leave' no time for the passenger to deliberate and he acted according to his best judgment under the circumstances, as where the injury occurred because tha carrier did not give the passenger a reason- able opportunity to leave the train before it started, and the train started just as he was about to step from the car to the station platform, or had partly descended the steps for the purpose of alighting, the presumption of negligence is rebutted and the ques- tion of contributory negligence is for the jury.^' Where a passen- ger is induced, permitted, or directed, by the advice, permission, or order of an authorized servant of the carrier to attempt to leave a train while in motion, and thus put to a choice, without any fault on his part, whether to obey the advice, suggestion or order of the ear-" rier's servant, and risk the danger of alighting, or remain aboard and suffer the inconveniences of being carried on, it is not an act of negligence per se, if alighting under such circumstances would not be obviously dangerous, as where the train is moving s'lowly ; but whether it is imprudent and careless to make the attempt de- pends upon the circumstances, and it is a proper question for the jury whether his act is one of ordinary care and prudence under the circumstances or a raah and reckless exposure to peril and hazard.^' But if the cars axe going at a rapid rate and the danger of being injured by jumping from them is obvious, the attempt to 53. Morrison v. Erie E. Co., 56 N. Leggett v. Western New York, etc., K. Y. 302; Ricketts v. Birmingham St. Co., 143 Pa. St. 39. E. Co., 85 Ala. 600; Toledo, etc., R. 56. Bueher v. New York Cent., Co. V. Wingate (Ind.), 37 N. E. 274. etc., E. Co., 98 N. Y. 128; Filer v. 54. Morrison v. Erie E. . Co., 56 N. New York Cent. E. Co., 49 N. Y. 47, Y. 302; England v. Boston, etc., E. 10 Am. Eep. 327, 68 N. Y. 124; Co., 153 Mass. 490; East Tennessee, Schurr v. Houston, 10 St. Rep. \TS. etc., R. Co. V. Holmes, 97 Ala. 332; Y.) 262; Quin v. Manhattan R. Co., Central R., etc., Co. v. Latcher, 69 7 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 252: South, etc., Ala. 106, 44 Am. Rep. 505; Rich- Alabama R. Co. v. Schaufler, 75 Ala. mond, etc., E. Co. v. Morris, 31 142; Highland Ave., etc., R. Co. v. Gratt. (Va.) 200. Winn, 93 Ala. 309; Georgia, etc., R. 55. Murphy v. Rome, etc., R. Co., Co. v. McCurdy, 45 Ga. 288; St. 32 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 381, 10 N. Y. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Person, 49 Ark. Supp. 354; Nicholas v. Dubuque, 182; Gallaway v. Chicago, etc., R. etc., R. Co., 68, Iowa, 732; Loyd v. Co., 87 Iowa, 458; Raben v. Central Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 53 Mo. 509; Iowa R. Co., 74 Iowa, 732; McCaslin 852 The Law of Caeeiees. leave the cars under such circumstances, even, at the instance of the carrier's servants, would be a negligent act, as matter of law, and no recovery could be had against the carrier." A passenger who attempts to alight from a moving train, without necessity, in spite of warnings by the company's servants,°^ or by a fellow pas- senger,^' or in direct violation of a regulation of the defendant brought to his knowledge before the occurrence,*" is guilty of con- tributory negligence. V. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 93 Mich. 553; Pittsburgh, etc., K. Co. v. Krouse, 30 Ohio St. 222; Western, etc., R. Co. V. Young, 51 Ga. 489; Pennsylvania E. Co. v. Kilgore, 32 Pa. St. 292; Delaware, etc., Canal Co. V. Webster (Pa.), 6 Atl. 841, 27 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 160; England v. Boston, etc., E. Co., 153 Mass. 490; Louisville, etc., E. Co. v. Stacker, 86 Tenn. 343; Edger v. Northern E. Co.. 11 Ont. App. 452. 57. Filer T. New York Cent. R. Co., 49 N. Y. 47, 10 Am. Rep. 327; Whitlock V. Corner, 57 Fed. 565; East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. Hughes, 92 Ga. 388 ; Jeffersonville, etc., R. Co. V. Swift, 26 Ind. 459; Bardwell v. Mobile, etc., R. Co., 63 Miss. 574, 56 Am. Rep. 842; Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. V. Krouse, 30 Ohio St. 222; Vi- mont V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 71 Iowa, 58. 28 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 210; Maa- terson v. Macon City, etc., R. Co., 88 Ga. 436. But see Southwestern E. Co. V. Singleton, 66 Ga. 252; Jones V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 42 Minn. 183 ; Wyatt V. Citizens R. Co., 55 Mo. 485. 58. New York, etc., R. Co. v. Enches, 127 Pa. St. 316; Pennsyl- vania E. Co. V. Aspell, 23 Pa. St. 147; Jewell v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 54 Wis. 610, 41 Am. Eep. 63, 6 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 379; Ohio, etc., E. Co. V. Schiebe, 44 111. 460. 59. Kilpatrick v. Pennsylvania E. Co., 140 Pa. St. 502. 60. Burrows v. Erie E. Co., 63 N. Y. 556. Passengers injured while aligbting from street cars. — ^As to alighting from car at a dangerous place. Fort Wayne Tract. Co. v. Mor- vilius (Ind.), 2 St. Ey. Eep. 221, 88 N. E. 304 ; as to failure to notify con- ductor of intention to alight, Spauld- ing V. Quincy & B. St. Ey. Co., 2 St. Ey. Eep. 441, 184 Mass. 470, 69 N. E. 217; as to injury while alighting by the sudden start of car, Meade v. Boston Elev. Ey. Co. (Mass.), 2 St. Ey. Eep. 456, 70 N. E. 197; as to burden of proof in an injury while alighting. Peck v. St. Louis Transit Co., 2 St. Ey. Eep. 508, 178 Mo. 617, 77 S. W. 736; as to amount of care to avoid injury to alighting passen- ger, Eichmond Tract, Co. v. Williams, 2 St. Ey. Eep. 927, 102 Va. 253, 46 S. E. 292; as to contributory negli- gence upon the part of a passenger attempting to alight, Eichmond Tract. Co. v. Williams, supra; a rea- sonable time is to be allowed to pas- senger for alighting from ear, Han- non V. St. Louis Transit Co. (Mo.), 2 St. Ry, Eep. 624, 77 S. W. 158; as to injury caused by attempting to alight from car which had slowed down in response to plaintiff's signal, by sudden start of car, Dawson v. St, Louis Transit Co. (Mo.), 2 St. Ey. Rep. 625, 76 S. W. 689; as to bemg injured while attempting to aligW CONTEIBUTOBY NeGLIGENCB. 853 8 17. Riding in dangerous position — A passenger who, with- out any reasonable cause or excuse, assumes a dangerous position on the platform or steps or in the car of a railroad train while it while ear was still in motion by sud- den acceleration of speed, Duffy v. St. Louis Transit Co. (Mo.), 2 St. Ry. Kep. 626, 78 S. W. 831 ; as to injury caused by attempting to alight while car was in motion, Champane v. La Crosse City By. Co. (Wis.), 2 St. Ey. Eep. 988, 99 N. W. 334; as to injury by sudden start of car while alighting, Hastings v. Boland (Mich.), 2 St. Ry. Rep. 503, 98 N. W. 1017 ; Brazie v. St. Louis Transit Co. (Mo.), 2 St. Ry. Rep. 624, 76 S. W. 708; Seannell v. St. Louis Tran- sit Co. (Mo.), 2 St. Ry. Rep. 626, 76 S. W. 660; Paganini v. North Jersey St. Ey. Co. (N. J.), 2 St. Ry. Rep. 731, 67 Atl. 128; San Antonio Tract. Co. V. Welter (Tex.), 2 St. Ry. Rep. 800, 77 S. W. 414; as to injury to passenger alighting from car, Boone V. Oakland Transit Co. (Cal.), 1 St. Ey. Rep. 14, 73 Pac. 243; Denver Consol. Tramway Co. v. Rush (Col.), 1 St. Ry. Rep. 30, 73 Pac. 664; Hen- ning V. Louisville Ry. Co., 1 St. Ry. Eep. 238, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 2419, 74 S. W. 209; Lee v. Elizabeth, P. & C. J. Ry. Co. (N. J.), 1 St. Ry. Rep. 539, 55 Atl. 106; Koues v. Metropolitan St. Ey. Co., 1 St. Ry. Rep. 602, 86 App. Div. (N. Y.) 611, 83 N. Y. Supp. 380; Gillespie v. Yonkers R. Co., 1 St. Ry. Rep. 644, 87 App. Div. (N. Y.) 38, 83 N. Y. Supp. 1043; Fuller V. Dennison & Sherman Ry. Co. (Tex.), 1 St. Ry. Rep. 780, 74 S, W. 940. See also note, passengers injured while alighting, 2 St. Ry. Rep. 988, 3 St. Ry. Rep. 715; note. Invitation to board car, 3 St. Ry. Rep. 913. Other recent cases in regard to passengers injured while alighting from street cars are as follows: Dambman v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 3 St. Ry. Rep. 663, 180 N. Y. 384, 73 N. E. 59; Murnahan v. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 3 St. Ey. Rep. 267 and notes (Ky. L. Rep.), 86 S. W. 688; Macon Ry. & L. Co. v. Vining, 3 St. Ry. Rep. 83, 120 Ga. 511, 48 S. E. 232; Houghton v. Louisville Ry. Co., 3 St. Ey. Rep. 282, 26 Ky. L. Rep. 393, 81 S. W. 695; Posten v. Denver Consol. Tramway Co., 1 St. Ry. Rep. 37 and notes (Colo. App.), 78 Pac. 1067 ; Topp v. United Rya. & Elec. Co., 3 St. Ey. Rep. 332 and notes, 99 Md. 630, 59 Atl. 52; John- son V. Yonkers R. Co., 3 St. Ry. Eep. 715, 101 App. Div. (N. Y.) 65, 91 N. Y. Supp. 508; Maloney v. Metropoli- tan St. E. Co., 3 St. Ey. Eep. 716, 95 App. Div. (N. Y.) 393, 88 N. Y. Supp. 638; McDonough v. Third Ave. E. Co., 3 St. Ey. Eep. 716, 95 App. Div. (N. Y.) 311, 88 N. Y. Supp. 609. See also Notes on passenger alighting in unsafe place, 2 St. Ey. Eep. 221, 997; note on safe place for alighting, 1 St. Ey. Eep. 255; Senf V. St. Louis & Sub. Ey. Co., 3 St. Ey. Eep. 559, 112 Mo. App. 74, 86 S. W. 887; MaeDonald v. St. Louis Transit Co., 3 St. Ey. Eep. 559, lOS Mo. App. 374, 83 S. W. lOOl; Kroner V. St. Louis Transit Co., 3 St. Ey. Eep. 560, 107 Mo. App. 41, 80 S. W. 915; Pirn v. St. Louis Transit Co., 3 St. Ey. Eep. 560, 108 Mo. App. 713, 84 S. W. 155; Parker v. St. Louis Transit Co., 3 St. Ey. Eep. 561, l08 Mo. App. 465, 83 S. W. 1016; Me- Kinstry v. St. Louis Trans. Co., 3 St. Ey. Eep. 561, 108 Mo. App. 12, 82 854 The Law of Caeeiees. is in motion, or in any place not designed for the carriage of pas- sengers is guilty of contributory negligence which may bar his recovery of damages for an injury resulting from the concurring negligence of the carrier.^^ But while he incurs the risks arising from his exposed situation, he does not assume those which are. not inherent in or do not arise in consequence of the position he occu- pies, but result from the negligence of the carrier to which his negligence in no way contributed.^^ A passenger who leaves his proper position in the car and takes a place on the engine without being assigned to such place by any authorized servant of the car- rier,^' or an employe unnecessarily riding on the pilot of the en- S. W. 1108; Cody v. Duluth St. Ey. Co., 3 St. Ry. Rep. 452 (Minn.), 102 N. W. 201. 61. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Left- wich, 117 Fed. 127, 54 C. C. A. 1; Kerr v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 100 111. App. 148 ; Myers v. Nashville, etc., R. Co., (Tenn.), 72 S. W. 114; Little Rock, etc., R. Co. v. Miles, 40 Ark. 298, 48 Am. Rep. 10, 13 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 10, riding on top of a cattle car; Jackson v. Crilly, 16 Colo. 103, sitting on railing of open car; Hickey V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 14 Allen (Mass.) 429; Carroll v. Inter-State Rap. T. Co., 107 Mo. 653, 52 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 273; Ashbrook v. Fred- erick Ave. R. Co., 18 Mo. App. 290; Tuley v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 41 Mo. App. 432, riding on top of caboose of a freight train; Higgins v. Cherokee E. Co., 73 Ga. 149, riding in open flat car; Smith v. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 99 N. C. 241, 34 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 557, sitting on arm of seat in car of a train used partly for freight; Free- man v. Pere Marquette R. Co., 9 Det. L. N. 436, 91 N. W. 1021; Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Ferguson, 79 Va. 241, sitting in chair instead of stationery seat provided for passenger. See also Beidler v. Branshaw, 200 111. 425, 65 N. E. 1086, as to riding on an eleva- tor; Bard v. Pennsylvania Tract Co., 6 Am. Electl. Cas. 444, 76 Pa. St. 97, 34 Atl. 953. See also Grieve v. New Jersey St. Ry. Co., 64 N. J. L. 409, 47 Atl. 427. But it has been held not to be contribntory negligence, under certain circumstances, to occupy a chair instead of a stationery seat, Quackenbush v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 73 Iowa 458; or to ride in an open flat car, Wagner v. Missouri Pac. E. Co., 97 Mo. 512; or to ride on the running board of an excursion train, Dickinson v. Port Huron, etc., R. Co., 53 Mich. 43; or in the carriage way of a ferry boat when crowded out of the passenger way, Cleveland v. New Jersey Steam-boat Co., 68 N. Y. 306; Hazman v. Hoboken Land, etc., Co., 2 Daly (N. Y.) 130; or to stand on the stairway of a ferry boat at the time of landing, Bartlett v. New York, etc., Ferry, etc., Co., 57 N. Y. Super. Ct. 348, 130 N. Y. 659. 62. Paquin v. St. Louis & S. Ky. Co., 90 Mo. App. 118; New York, etc., R. Co., V. Ball, 53 N. J. L. 283, 21 Atl. 1052; Keith v. Pinkham, 43 Me. 501, 69 Am. Dec. 80; Hanson v. Mans- field R., etc., Co., 38 La. 'Ann. Ill, 58 Am. Rep. 162; Kentucky Cent. E. Co. V. Thomas, 79 Ky. 166, 42 Am. Rep. 208. 63. Radley v. Columbia Southern R. Co. (Or.), 75 Pac. 212; Files v.' CONTEIBUTOEY NeGLIGENCB. 855 ffine or on the platform at the end of the tender, even with the inowledge of the conductor or trainmen/* and, by reason of being there is injured, is guilty of contributory negligence which will prevent his recovery, unless his injury is due to the want9n or intentional negligence or misconduct of the carrier or its servants, or such reckless misconduct as is the equivalent thereof.^' If a passenger on a train, without the direction of or in violation of the rules of the carrier, leaves his seat in a passenger coach and goes into the baggage or express car, and is injured, it has been Md that he is guilty of contributory negligence, particularly ■where he would not have been injured had he remained in another car.'" But if his injury could not be traced to his presence in the baggage car, or it was no more dangeroug a place than the passenger coach or was a safer place,*' or he entered the baggage car for safety, in apprehension of a collision,*^ the question of contributory negligence may properly be submitted to the jury. If the passenger is riding in the baggage car by invitation or per- mission of the conductor and is injured in consequence of a col- lision, being lawfully there, he is nob guilty of contributory neghgence.® Boston, etc., R. Co., 149 Mass. 204, 14 111. 448 ; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Lang- Am, St. Rep. 411; Brown v. Scarboro, don, 92 Pa. St. 28, 37 Am. Rep. 651; 91 Ala. 316; Virginia Midland E. Kentucky Cent. R. Co. v. Thomas, 79 Co. V. Roach, 83 Va. 375; Lake Shore, Ky. 165, 42 Am. Eep. 208; Houston, etc., R. Co. V. Brown, 123 111. 162, 5 etc., R. Co. v. Clemmons, 55 Tex. 88, Am. St. Eep. 510, a question of fact 40 Am. Rep. 799; New York, etc., E. for the jury, where directed or Inyit- Co. v. Ball, 53 N. J. L. 283 ; Florida ed by those in charge of the engine. Southern E. Co. v. Hirst, 30 Fla. 1, See Hanson v. Mansfield R., etc., Co., 32 Am. St. Rep. 17 ; Jones v. Chicago, 38 La. Ann. Ill, 58 Am. Rep. 162, not etc., R. Co., 20 Minn. 125, 18 Am. negligent per se where invited by ron- Rep. 360. ■ductor. 67. Webster v. Rome, etc., R. Co., 64. Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Grei- 115 N. Y. 112. ner, 113 Pa. St. 600; Downey v. 68. Cody v. New York, etc., R. Co., ke, etc., R. Co., 28 W. Va. 151 Mass. 462. 732; Shuler v. Chesapeake, etc., R. 69. Carroll v. New York, etc., E. Co., 81 Va. 188. Co., 1 Duer (N. Y.) 584, 11 N. Y. 65. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Brown, Leg. Obs. 144; Washburn v. Nash- 77 Miss. 338, 28 So. 949; Grieve v. ville, etc., R. Co., 3 Head (Tenn.) ^orth Jersey St. Ry. Co. (N. J.), 47 644, 75 Am. Dec. 784. See also -itl. 427. Spooner v. Brooklyn City R. Co., 54 66. Peoiia, etc., R. Co. v. Lane, 83 N. Y. 230. 856 The Law of Oaeeiees. § 18. Riding on platform, running board or steps. — ^Riding on the platform or steps of a steam railroad car wlien the toain is. oBder full headway or moving rapidly is prima facie negligence oa the part of a passenger and will bar his recovery for injuries sus- tained, in the absence of affirmative proof excusing such act.™ A passenger who voluntarily and unnecessarily takes a position on the platform or steps of a steam railroad car while it is in motion, and is injured, is guilty of contributory negligence whch will, prevent his recovery for such injury ;" for example, where he has been requested or warned to enter the car,™ or is so riding in vio- lation of the carrier's rulee,'^ or when be knows that the train is about to be started,'* or the cars to be switched,'^ or coupled,'^ or when there is room and unoccupied seats within the car." But when there are no vacant seats within the car, the 'New York and. Illinois courts have establisihed the rule that the passenger is not guilty of contributory negligence, either under the statute or inde- pendently of statute, for riding on the platform, steps or running board of a car while the train or car is in motion." But tha 70. Hicks V. Georgia, etc., H. Co., 108 Ga. 304, 32 S. E. 880, 14 Am. & Eng. K. Cas. N. S. 279; Goodwin v. Boston, etc., R. Co., S4 Me. 203, 24 Atl. 816; Hickey V. Boston, etc., E. Co., 14 Al- len (Mass.) 429; Worthington v. Central Vermont E. Co., 64 Vt. 107, 23 Atl. 590, 45 Alb. L. J. 299, 15 L. E. A. 326, 52 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 384. 71.Bliteh v. Central E. Co., 76 Ga. 333; Ohio, etc., E. Co. v. Allender, 47 111. App. 484; Lindsey v. Chicago, etc., E. CO., 64 Iowa, 407. 72. Graville v. Manhattan E. Co., 105 N. Y. 525, 59 Am. Eep. 516, 34 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 375; Louisville, etc., E. Co. V. Biseh, 120 Ind. 549; Fisher v. West Virginia, etc., E. Co., 39 W. Va. 366, 58 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 337. 73. Higgins v. New York, etc., E. Co., 2 Bosw. (N. Y.) 132; Mitchell v. Southern Pac. E. Co., 87 Cal. 62; Alabama G. S. E. Co. v. Hawk, 72 Ala. 112, 47 Am. Eep. 403, 18 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 194; Zemp v. Wilming- ton, etc., E. Co., 9 Eich. L. (S. C.) 84, 64 Am. Dee. 763. 74. Eockford, etc., R. Co. v. Coul- tas, 67 111. 398; Torrey v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 147 Mass. 412; Malcom V. Richmond, etc. R. Co., 106 N.C. 63. 75. Smotherman v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 29 Mo. App. 265. 76. De Mahy v. Morgan's Louisi- ana E., etc., Co., 45 La. Ann. 1329, 58. Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 448. 77. Goodrich v. Pennsylvania, etc.,. Canal, etc., Co., 29 Hun (N. T.) 50; Memphis, etc., R. Co. v. Salinger, 46 Ark. 528; Kentucky, etc., Bridge Co. V. Quinkert, 2 Ind. App. 244. 78. Werle v. Long Island K. Co., 98 N. Y. 650, 21 Am. & Eng. K. Cas. 429; Willis v. Long Island E. Co., 34 N. Y. 675 ; Morris v. Eighth Ave. R. Co., 68 Hun (N. Y.) 39, 22 N. Y. Supp. 666; Bruno v. Brooklyn City R. Co., 5 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 327, 25 N. Y. Supp. 507; North Chicago St.. R Co. V. Cotton, 140 111. 486, 52 Am. CONTEIBtJTOKY NeGLIGBNCB. S'S? courts of other States maintain the rule that the passenger isi guilty of contributory negligence for so riding, where there are no unoccupied seats in the car, unless it is shown that there was no standing room in the car." But standing or riding on the plat- form or steps of a steam railroad car is generally held not to be contributory negligence per se, but to be ordinarily a question for the jury under all the circumstances of the case.*" The law of negligence governing the standing on a platform of an interurban electric car outside of a city is the siame as in case of steam cars, and where a rule prohibits passengers from standing on the plat- form, and on request they refuse to enter the car, there being vacant seats, they remain on the platform at their own risk.*^ It is not contributory negligence per se for a passenger on a street car to ride on the platform, running board, or steps of the car, in the absence of special circumstances, showing it to be such.*^ The rule applicable to street railroad cars is different from & Eng. E. Cas. 238. But it is the duty of the passenger to seek a seat when other passengers leave the train. Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Fisher, 141 III. 614 J Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Car- roll, 5 111. App. 201. 79. Eolette v. Great Northern E. Co. (Minn.), 97 N. W. 431; Goodwin T. Boston, etc., E. Co., 84 Me. 203; Oliver v. Louisville, etc., E. Co., 43 La. Ann. 804, 47 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 576; Camden, etc., E. Co. v. Hoosey, 99 Pa. St. 492, 44 Am. Eep. 120, 6 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 454; Worthing- ton V. Central Vermont E. Co., 64 Vt. 107, 52 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 384. 80. Werle v. Long Island E. Co., 98 N. Y. 650; Merwin v. Manhattan K. Co., 48 Hun (N. Y.) 608, 1 N. Y. Supp. 267; Augusta Southern E. Co. T. Snider, 118 Ga. 146, 44 S. E. 1005; Mitchell V. Southern Pac. E. Co., 87 Cal. 62; Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Fish- er, 141 111. 614; Gerstle v. Union Pac. R. Co., 23 Mo. App. 361 ; Zemp v. Wil- mington, etc., E. Co. 9 Eich. L. (S. C-) 84, 64 Am. Dec. 763; Woods v. Southern Pac. E. Co., 9 Utah 146. 81. Cincinnati, etc., E. Co. v. Lohe (Ohio), 67 N. E. 161. 82. North Chicago St. E.y. Co. v. Baur, 179 111. 126, 53 N. E. 568, 45 L. E. A. 108; Brainard v. Nassau Elee. E. Co., 44 App. Div. (N. Y.) 613, 61 N. Y. Supp. 74; Scott v. Ber- gen Co. Tract. Co., 63 N. J. L. 407, 48 Atl. 113; West Chicago St. E.Co. v. Marks, 82 111. App. 185, affd. 182 111. 15, 55 N. E. 67; Pray v. Omaha St. Ey. Co., 5 Am. Electl. Cas. 407, 44 Nebr. 167, 62 N. W. 447, 11 Am. E. Corp. Eep. 522, 48 Am. St. Eep. 717; North Chicago St. Ey. Co. v. Wil- liams 140 111. 275, 29 N. E. 672, affg. 40 111. App. 590; Watson v. Port- land, etc., E. Co., 91 Me. 584, 40 Atl. 699, 44 L. K. A. 157; Upham v. De- troit Citizens E. Co., 85 Mich. 12, 12 L. E. A. 129, 48 N. W. 190; Sandford V. Hestonville, etc., E. Co., 136 Pa. St. 84, 26 N. W. C. 401, 20 Atl. 799; Harbinson v. Metropolitan E. Co., 24 Wash. L. Eep. 438, 9 App. D. C. 60; Doolittle V. Southern Ey. Co., 62 S. C. 130, 40 S. E. 133; Geitz v. Milwau- kee City E. Co., 72 Wis. 307, 39 N, 858 The Law of Caeeiees. ithat applied to a train drawn by steam power. It is well known that street railroad companies whose cars are propelled by elec- W. 866 ; Willmott v. Corrigan Consol. St. R. Co., 106 Mo. 534, 17 S. W. 490; Townsend v. Binghamton R. Co., 57 App. Div. (N. Y.) 234, 58 N. Y. Supp. 121 ; McGrath v. Brooklyn, etc., R. Co., 5 Am. Electl. Cas. 422, 87 Hun (N. Y.) 310; Marion St. Ry. Go. V. Shaflfer, 4 Am. Electl. Cas. 458, 9 Ind. App. 486, 36 N. E. 861; Bailey V. Tacoma Tract. Co., 16 Wash. 48, 47 Pac. 241; Adams v. Washington & G. R. Co., 9 App. D. C. 25, 24 Wash. L. Rep. 364; Dillon v. Forty-second St., etc., R. Co., 28 App. Div. (N. Y.) 404, 51 N. Y. Supp. 145; Gumming v. Worcester L. & S. St. Ry. Co., 166 Mass. 220, 44 N. E. 125; Hassen v. Nassau Elec. Ey. Co., 34 App. Div. (N. Y.) 71, 53 N. Y. Supp. 1069; Muldoon V. Seattle City R. Co., 7 Wash. 528, 35 Pac. 422, 22 L. R. A. 794; Augusta, etc., E. Co. v. Renz, 55 Ga. 126; Seigel v. Eisen, 41 Gal. 109; Meesel v. Lynn, etc., R. Co., 8 Allen (Mass.) 234; Nolan v. Brook- lyn City, etc., R. Co., 87 N. Y. 63, 41 Am. Rep. 345; Maher v. Central Park, etc., R. Co., 39 N. Y. Super. Gt. 155; Zemp v. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 9 Rich. (S. C.) 84, 64 Am. Dec. 763; Hastings v. Central Grosstown R. Co., 7 App. Div. N. Y. 312, 40 N. Y. Supp. 93; Archer v. Fort Wayne, etc., R. Co., 87 Mich. 101, 48 Am. & Eng. Cas. 50; Thirteenth, etc., St. Pass. R. Co. V. Boudrou, 92 Pa. St. 475, 2 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 30, 37 Am. Eep. 707, vrhere a passenger riding on the rear platform of a car, leaning back against the dasher, was struck and injured by the pole of a following car, he was allowed to recover. In such case, " his position was a condi- tion, but not a cause of his injury. It neither lessened the speed of the car he was on nor increased that of the other; his presence was not the cause of the broken chain and reckless driv- ing of the rear car; his place was an incident of an overcrowded car, whose conductor had left the platform to give him standing room, and had not given him a seat or requested him to enter the car." The rule is true even where there is plenty of room inside; Maguire v. Middlesex R. Co., 115 Mass. 239, where plaintiff was intoxicated; Burns v. Bellefontaine, etc., E. Co., 50 Burns v. Bellefontaine, etc., R. Co., iiO Mo. 139, where plaintiff was a free passenger; Nolan v. Brooklyn City, etc., E. Co., 87 N. Y. 63, 41 Am. Eep. 345, where plaintiff went out on platform to smoke; Matz v. St. Paul City R. Go. (Minn.) 53 N. W. 1071; Brusch V. St. Paul City E. Co. (Minn.) 55 N. W. 57. Compare Ash- brook V. Frederick Ave. R. Co., 18 Mo. App. 290; Downey v. Hendriok, 46 Mich. 498; Chicago W. D. Ry. Co. V Klauber, 9 III. App. 613. In Missouri it was held that it was error to instruct the jury that if the plaintiff was riding on the foot- board of a grip car when it was run- ning at its usual speed, he was guilty of contributory negligence, unless lie was a passenger, since his status as a passenger cannot affect the question of his negligence. Raming v. Metro- politan St. Ry. Co., 157 Mo. 477, 57 S. W. 268. The passenger's negli- gence in riding on the platform will not prevent a recovery for his death, if the injuries could have been in- flicted upon him in the same manner had he ridden elsewhere upon the car. Birmingham Ry. & E. Co. v. James, 121 Ala. 120, 25 So. 847. CONTEIBUTOBY iN'EGLIGENCE. 859 tricity constantly expect and invite passengers to ride upon, the platforms of their cars when there is no room inside, and that persons having occasion to use such cars are often glad for even a foothold upon the platform, step or footboard. Ifeither the car- rier not the public have regarded the street car platform as a known place of danger, and the courts have, therefore, held that a passenger who rides thereon is not guilty of such contributory negligence, as a matter of law, as will prevent his recovery for an injury sustained through the fault of an employe of the company. It is a circumstance, however, to be submitted to and determined by the jury.*^ The question of contributory negligence under the particular circumstances of a case is one to be submitted to the jury, whenever there is reasonable doubt.** It cannot be said to be negligence as a matter of law, under all circumstances, for the carrier of passengers to permit a passenger to stand upon the run- ning board ; but if no seat is furnished and the carrier permit a passenger to ride in that way, the carrier assumes the duty of ex- ercising the care demanded by the circumstances.*^ It is not con- tributory negligence, as a matter of law, to stand on the step along the side of an open car if the car is crowded.** But a pas- 83. Watsoa v. Portland & C. E. 225, 67 N. E. 793; North Chicago St. Ey. Co., 91 Me. 584, 40 Atl. 699, 64 Ry. Co. v. Willlama, 140 111. 275, 29 Am. St. Eep. 268, 44 L. R. A. 157; N. E. 672, affg. 40 111. App. 590. Seller v. Market St. Ry. Co., 1 St. Ey. 86. Bruno v. Brooklyn City R. Co., Eep. 8, (Cal.) 72 Pao. 1006; Puring- 5 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 327, 25 N. Y. ton-Kimball Brick Co. v. Eckman, 102 Supp. 507 ; Cummings v. Worcester, III. App. 183. etc., St. R. Co., 166 Mass. 220, 44 N. 84. Meesel y. Lynn & B. R. Co., 8 E. 126 ; Wilde v. Lynn & B. R. Co., Allen (Mass.) 234; City R. Co. v. 163 Mass. 533, 40 N. E. 851, where Lee, 50 N. J. L. 438, 34 Am. & Eng. plaintiff rode on the footboard of a S. Cas. 568; Topeka City R. Co. v. crowded car without objection on the Higgs, 38 Kan. 389, 34 Am. & Eng. part of those having charge of the K. Cas. 544; Flick v. Union R. Co., ear, it was held proper to submit the 134 Mass. 481, 16 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. question of his contributory negli- 372 J Huelsenkamp v. Citizens' R. Co., gence to the jury. 34 Mc. 45, 37 Mo. 537, 90 Am. Dec. Where a boy of sisteen years 399; Burns v. Belief ontaine, etc., R. was a passenger on a crowded train, Co., 50 Mo. 139; Germantown Pass, whereby he was compelled to stand on R. Co. V. Walling, 97 Pa. St. 55, 2 the platform, and leaned out slightly, Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 20, 37 Am. Rep. when his head came in contact with 796; Geitz v. Milwaukee City R. Co., an iron post and he was killed, ha 72 Wis. 307. was guilty of such contributory neg- 85. North Chicago St. Ry. Co. v. ligence as to prevent his recovery. Polkey, 1 St. Ry. Rep. 94, 203 111. Though a carrier of passengers must 860 The Law op Caeeiees. senger occupying such a position must exercise reasonable care ii looking out for and protecting himself against vehicles of trave met or overtaken by the car, and objects along the track, and h has a right to assume in taking such a position by the invitation o: consent of the company, that the company will exercise some de gree of care to avoid doing anything that might injure him, am it is the legal duty of the company so to do." The seats in streei cars are provided for passengers to occupy, and if there is rooa to be seated inside the car and no special reason exists why tht passenger should not occupy it, he is negligent as a matter of law in remaining on the platform, and, if without reasonable cause he leaves the car or places himself on the outside of it while in mo- tion, he assumes the hazard of so doing.*' The cause which may justify a passenger, without the imputation of fault on his part, as against the carrier, in leaving his seat and going outside the car, and occupying temporarily or otherwise, a position there while provide a safe place within its cars for its passengers to ride, yet, when such duty has been performed, a pas- senger has no right to extend his per- son beyond the line of the car or ride on the platform thereof. Benedict v. Minneapolis & St. P. R. Co., 90 N. W. 360, 86 Minn. 224, 57 L. E. A. 639. A passenger standing on the side steps of an open street car, when there is room inside, assumes the risk, so that there can be no recovery for his being struck by a pole sup- porting the electric wires. Woodroffe V. Roxborough, etc., Ey. Co., 201 Pa. 521, 51 Atl. 394. 87. Seller v. Market St. Ry. Co., 1 St. Ry. Rep. 9, (Cal.) 72 Pac. 1006; Bumbear v. United Tract. Co., 198 Pa. 198, 47 Atl. 961; Moser v. South Covington & C. St. Ry. Co., 1 St. Ry. Rep. 240, 25 Hy. L. Rep. 154, 74 S. W. 1090; Gelley v. New Orleans City & L. R. Co., 49 La. Ann. 588, 21 So. 851. See also Padgitt v. Moll, 159 Mo. 143. 60 S. W. 121, case of news- boy boarding the ear to sell papers. 88. Thane v. Scranton Tract. Co., 191 Pa. 249, 43 Atl. 136, 6 Am, Neg. Rep. 185, 4 Chic. L. J. Wkly. 260; Bradley v. Second Ave. R. Co., 9ft Hun (N. Y.) 419, 70 St. Rep. (N.Y.) 622, 35 N. Y. Supp. 918; Coleman v. Second Ave. R. Co., 114 N. Y. 612, 21 N. E. 1064; Mann v. Philadelphia Tract. Co., 175 Pa. St. 122, 34 Atl. 572; Clark v. Eighth Ave. E. Co., 36 N. Y. 135, 93 Am. Dec. 495; Guina V. Second Ave. R. Co., 67 N. Y. 596; Dixon V. Brooklyn City & N. E. Co., 100 N. y. 171; Todd v. Old Colony, etc., R. Co., 3 Allen (Mass.) 18, 80 Am. Dec. 49, 7 Allen (Mass.) 207, 83 Am. Dec. 679 ; Hickey v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 14 Allen (Mass.) 429; Torrey V- Boston, etc., E. Co., 147 Mass. 412; Pittsburgh, etc., E. Co. v. McClurg, 56 Pa. St. 294; Indianapolis, etc., E. V. Eutherford, 29 Ind. 82, 92 Am. Dec. 336; Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. V. Andrews, 39 Md. 329, 17 Am. Eep. 568; Dun v. Seaboard, etc., E. Co., 78 Va. 645, 49 Am. Eep. 388; Moody v. Springfield St. Ey. Co. (Mass.), 65 N. E. 29. CONTEIBITTOEY NeGLIGENCB. g61 in motion, must be dependent upon the occasion and circumstancea which induce or impel him to do so, as, for example, Where it becomeiJ necessary for his comfort because of the crowded condi- tion of the car, to do so.*^ If a passenger is unnecessarily and Toluntarilj in a place of danger, his negligence is presumed, and puts the burden of proof upon the plaintiff to show that his riding in that position did not contribute to his injury.^" It is the duty of a passenger to go inside the car or train, if there is standing room inside, although there are no vacant seats. Tlie fact that the passenger has a well founded ground of complaint against the company for not providing adequate accommodations does not re- lease him from the duty of leaving the platform and entering the car.'^ If the car is so crowded that there is no room except upon the platform, and the conductor stops and allows the passenger to get on, the presumption of the passenger's negligence does not exist; the company must assume all risks where it requires its passengers to ride in such a place; nor can negligence be im- puted to a passenger who boards a car under such circumstances.'^ 89. Coleman ease, supra; Wood'v. Brooklyn City R. Co., 5 App. Div. (N. Y.) 492; Tanner v. Buffalo Ry. Co., 72 Hun (N. Y.) 465; Martin v. Sec- ond Ave. R. Co., 3 App. Div. (N. Y.) 448, 38 N. Y. Supp. 220. 90. Solomon v. Central Park, etc., E. Co., 31 N. Y. Super. Ct. 138; Brad- ley V. Second Ave. R. Co., 90 Hun (N. Y.) 419, 35 N. Y. Supp. ,918; Ward V. Central Park, etc., R. Co., 11 Abb. Pr. N. S. (N. Y.) 411, 42 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 289; Willis v. Lynn, etc., K. Co.. 129 Mass. 351, 2 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 27, where a passenger was riding on the platform in spite of a rule of the company and the driver's warning; Downey v. Hendric, 46 Mich. 468, 41 Am. Rep. 177, such rid- ing bars recovery when there is room inside, even when it is done at the invitation of the driver; Archer v. Fort Wayne, etc., E. Co., 87 Mich. 101, 48 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 50; Ma- guire V. Middlesex R. Co., 115 Mass. 239; Butler v. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co., 139 Pa. St. 195; Ashbrook v. Frederick Ave. R. Co., 18 Mo. App. 290. 91. Graville v. Manhattan R. Co., 105 N. Y. 525, 34 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 375, 59 Am. Rep. 516. as to whether the brakeman or conductor might in such a case force the passenger to enter the car is a question which the courts have not as yet determined. 92. Sheridan v. Brooklyn, etc., K. Co., 36 N. Y. 39, 93 Am. Dec. 490; Werle v. Long Island R. Co., 98 N. Y. 650, 21 Am. & Eng. E. Cas 429; Wil- lis V. Long Island R. Co., 34 N. Y. 670, aflfg. 32 Barb. (N.Y.) 398; Clark v. Eighth Ave. R. Co., 36 N. Y. 135, 93 Am. Dec. 495; Guina v. Second Ave. E. Co., 8 Hun (N. Y.) 494, affd. 67 N. Y. 596, passenger not negligent in failing to take hold of handrail; Thirteenth St., etc., Pass. R. Co. V. Boudrou, 92 Pa. St. 475, 2 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 30, 37 Am. Dec. 707; West Phila. Pass. R. Co. V. Gallagher, 108 Pa. St. 524, 862 The Law of Caeeiees. One riding on the platform of a street car, at the invitation of the conductor as a passenger without hire, and injured -without faulj on his part through the negligence of the driver in the course oi his employment, may recover of the company.'' Likewise one whc is riding there without objection on the part of the conductor, there being no notice or warning prohibiting such riding.** A pas- senger may go out of the car as it approaches his destination, and he is not necessarily negligent in preparing to leave the car. He has no right to leave the car to jump from it while in motion, but he has a perfect and unquestionable right to prepare to leave after notice given, and particularly after he has received intimationa from the company's servants that his notice is understood. Ihere is no rule of law which requires him to keep his seat until the very moment that the car has actually stopped. He has a right to start to leave when' he has notified the driver or conductor, and unless he is careless and negligent in so doing he is not guilty of contributory negligence, and does not lose his right to recover damages for an injury received through the negligence of the carrier.'^ But, if he thus voluntarily places himself upon the 27 Am & Eng. R. Cas. 201 ; German- town Pass. E. Co. V. Walling, 97 Pa. St. 55, 2 Am. & Eng. K. Cas. 20, 39 Am. Rep. 796; Walling v. Railway Co., 12 Phila. (Pa.) 309; People's Pass. R. Co. V. Green, 56 Md. 84, 6 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 168; Topeka City R. Co. V. Higgs, 38 Kans. 375, 34 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 529, passenger riding on sideboard of the car ; Geitz v. Mil- waukee City R. Co., 72 Wis. 307; City R. Co. V. Lee, 50 N. J. L. 435, 34 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 566, riding on running board ; Lapointe v. Middlesex R. Co., 144 Mass. 18, 28 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 198, woman injured while standing inside, there being no vacant seats. Gatens v. Metropolitan St. Ey. Co., 85 N. Y. Supp. 967, where a crowded car was driven around a curve without slackening speed, in violation of a rule of the company, the company was liable. 93. Wilton V. Middlesex R. Co., 107 Mrs«, 108; Philndelphia, etc., R. Co. V. Derby, 14 How. (TJ. S.) 468. But one directed by the conductor to ride on the front platform, who is in- jured by being kicked by one of the horses after it had fallen and efforts were being made to release it, was held not entitled to recover, as the driver's negligence was not the proxi- mate cause of the accident. Roedeck- er V. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 87 App. Div. (N. y.) 227, 84 N. Y. Supp. 300. 94. Nolan v. Brooklyn City, etc., R. Co., 87 N. Y. 63, 41 Am. Rep. 345 ; Day v. Brooklyn City R. Co., 12 Hun (N. Y.) 435; East Saginaw City R. Co. V. Bohn, 27 Mich. 503, 33 Mich. 259 ; Brennan v. Fair Haven, etc., E. Co., 45 Conn. 284; Pittsburgh, etc. Pass. Co. V. Caldwell, 74 Pa. St. 421; Phila. City Pass R. Co. v. Hassard, 75 Pa. St. 367. 95. Nichols v. Sixth Ave. K. Co., 38 N. Y. 131, 97 Am. Dee. 780; Losee v. Watervliet Tump., etc., R. Co., 63 CONTMBUTOBT NEGLIGEWCa 863^ platform or steps of the car while it is in motion and is thrown ofE by the increase of the speed of the car, which happens before he has indicated to any one of the agents of the company that he intends to alight, such an increase of speed, unaccompanied by any other fact, cannot be the foundation of a charge against the com- pany of negligence.^^ A pas:senger is not necessarily negligent, if, under the direction of the conductor of the rear car, he attempts- to go to the rear car just as the train starts, but he is not justified in attempting to pass from one footboard to another while the train is in motion f and he is guilty of contributory negligence in. riding upon the rear platform when there is ample standing room inside the car in which there are straps unto which he may cling while standing, if an injury result to him, which would not have occurred had he been inside the car.'* But a woman's want of reasonable care in getting upon a crowded street car and attempt- ing to ride, upon the platform because she is unable to get inside lie car, will not relieve the street car company from liability for injuries due to her being thrown from the platform, if, knowing her situation and consequent exposure to danger, it might, by the exercise of reasonable care, under the circumstances, have pre- Hun (N. Y.) 404; Colwell v. Manhat- risk of his position. Bainbridge v. tan R. Co., 57 Hun (N. Y.) 542; Union Tract. Co.,. 206 Pa. St. 71, 55- Fleck V. Union E. Co., 134 Mass. 480, Atl. 836. Where plaintiff elected to> 16 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 372; North ride on the step of a. crowded street Chicago St. R. Co. v. Baur, 179 111. car and was thrown off by the oscil- 126, 53 N. E. 568, 45 L. R. A. 108, lation or "greyhound motion" of the where passenger about to alight stood ear as it was running at the usual on the platform with his back against rate of speed, and there was no evi- the dashboard, and by a sudden jerk dence of any unusual or abnormal mo- of the car was thrown into the street; tion due to any unusual condition of Conner v. Citizens St. Ry. Co., 105 the car, rails, roadbed, or manage- Ind. 62, 55 Am. Rep. 177 ; Wylde v. ment, plaintiff assumed the risk of Northern R. of N. J., 53 N. Y. an injury so occasioned. Moskowitz. 156; Poulin V. Broadway, etc., Ey. v. Brooklyn H. R. Co., 85 N. Y. 960. Co., 61 N. Y. 621 ; Morrison v. Erie 97. Eickhof v. Chicago, N. S. R. Co.^ Ey. Co., 56 N. Y. 310. 74 111. App. 196. . 96. Sims V. Metropolitan St. E. 98. Ward v. Central Park R. Co.,. Co., 65 App. Div. (N. Y.) 270, 72 N. 11 Abb. Pr. N. S. (N. Y.) 411; Aikin. Y. Supp. 835. A passenger on an elec- v. Frankford, etc., R. Co., 142 Pa.. trie street car, leaving his seat and St. 47, 21 Atl. 781; Andrews v. Cap- stepping onto the running board of ital City, etc., E. Co., 2 Mackay (D. the car while in motion, assumes the C.) 137. 864 The Law op Caeeiees. vented injury to her." "Where it is customary for the passengers, with the consent of the carrier to use the running board of an open street car, not only as a means of ingress and egress, but also tc pass from one part of the car to another, the question of negh gence in case of accident cannot be properly answered without con- sidering this circumstance. Standing upon the running board, the passenger must take reasonable care to avoid accident, and i1 can not certainly be said that the carrier is negligent in permit- ting the passenger to use the running board as a standing place; the question of the carrier's negligence and of the passenger's con- tributory negligence, are, therefore, for the jury.^ The fact thai a passenger on a cable car is standing on the running board where passengers are accustomed to ride does not, however, absolve tht railroad company from its duty toward him as a passenger, although his position may be unsafe;^ and a street railway com pany is not, as matter of law, free from negligence in permitting a passenger, without warning, to stand on the footboard at tlie aids of a car while crossing a viaduct on which are posts so near as to strike one riding on such footboard, unless he inclines his bodj toward the car;' or where the conductor of an open car did noi stop it although he knew a passing truck on the street was dan gerously close, and that the plaintiff, a passenger, was on the sid( step of the car.* Courts will not draw distinctions between foot boards and seats upon a street car as places of relative danga and safety, in view of the general custom of street car carriers o: persons.^ If a street railway be built along a causeway whicl 99. Metropolitan St. U. Co. v. coin Transit Co., 36 Neb. 890, 55 N Shashall (D. C. App.), 22 Wash. L. W. 270, 22 L. R. A. 316; McLean v Eep. 377. Burbank, 11 Minn. 277 ; Dahl v. Rail 1. Citizens St. E. Co. v. Hoffbauer, way Co., 62 Wis. 655, 22 N. W. 755 23 Ind. App. 614, 56 N. E. 54, citing Watkins v. El. Co. (Ala.), 24 Sc Cogswell V. West Side, etc., K. Co., 5 392, 43 L. R. A. 297. Wash. 46, 31 Pac. 411; Railway Co. 2. Sweeney v. Kansas City Cable I V. Scott, 86 Va. 902, 11 S. E. 404; Co., 150 Mo. 385, 51 S. W. 682. RailwayCo. V. Rude, 62 111. App. 550; 3. West Chicago St. R. Co. t Railroad Co. v. Cook, 145 111. 551, 33 iMarks, 82 111. App. 185, affd. 182 II N. E. 958 ; EIHott v. Newport, etc., 15, 55 N. E. 67. R. Co., 18 R. I. 707, 28 Atl. 331, SI 4. Fa/is v. Brooklyn City & N. I Atl. 694,23 L. E.A.208; Railway Co. Co., 46 App. Div. (N. Y.) 231, 61 5 V. MeCleave (Ky.), 38 S. W. 1055; Y. Supp. 670. Topeka City R. Co. v. Higgs, 38 Kan. 5. West Chicago St. R. Co. i 375, 16 Pac. 667 ; Spellman v. Lin- titiver, 69 III. App. 625 ; Lake v. Oil CONTEIBUTORY NeGLIGENCEI. 865 necessitated placing trolley poles near the track, and the plaintiff who had knowledge of the situation, be riding on the footboard next to the trolley poles and refuses to step on the platform at the invitation of the conductor, but leans back to allow him to pass by, and thereby his head is brought in contact with a trolley pole, he is guilty of contributory negligence.' A passenger upon a cable street railway is not guilty of negligence in taking a seat provided for passengers upon the outside of the grip car instead of on the inside of the trailer.' The provisions of the New York Eailroad Law that " in case any passenger on any railroad shall be injured while on the platform of a car, in violation of the printed regulations of the company posted up at the time in a con- spicuous place inside of its passenger cars then in the train, such company shall not be liable for the injury; provided said com- pany at the time furnished room inside its passenger cars suffi- cient for the proper accommodation of the passengers " do not a,pply to street railroad companies.' cinnati Inc. P. R. Co., 13 Ohio C. C. 494; East Omaha St. K. Co. v. Godola, 50 Nebr. 906, 70 N. W. 491, 7 Am. & Eng. K. Cas. N. S. 300; Cleveland, etc., R. Co. V. Moneyhun, 146 Ind. 147, 34 L. R. A. 141, 44 N. E. 1106, 5 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. N. S. 632. 6. Nugent v. Fair Haven & W. St. Ey. Co., 73 Conn. 139, 46 Atl. 875. And see Caspers v. Dry Dock, etc., E. Co., 22 App. Div. (N". Y.) 156, 47 N. Y. Supp, 961; Vrooman v. Houston, etc., R, Co., 7 Mise. Rep. (N. Y.) 234, 58 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 23, 27 N. Y. Supp. 287; Tanner v. Buffalo E. Co., 72 Hun (N. Y.) 465, 54 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 776, 25 N. Y. Supp. 242; Littman v. Dry Dock, etc., R. Co., 6 Mise. Rep. (N. Y.) 34, 55 St. Rep (N. Y.) 514, 25 N. Y. Supp. 1002; Pomaski v. Grant, 119 Mich. 657, 78 N. W. 891, 6 Det. Leg. N. 43; Mal- pass V. Hestonville, etc., R. Co., 129 Pa. St. 599, 42 Atl. 291, 5 Am. Neg. Rep. 471. 55 7. Hawkins v. Front St. Cable R. Co., 3 Wash. 592, 28 Pao. 1021. 8. Vail v. Broadway R. Co., 147 N. Y. 377, 70 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 33, "In the very nature of things," said the court in its opinion, " a provision of this character, intended primarily to prevent accidents and injuries to passengers on trains operated by steam and running at a high rate of speed, is not applicable to a street railroad, the cars of which are drawn through city streets at the rate of a few miles per hour. The danger to passengers standing upon the plat- forms of steam cars when in motion is great and obvious, while that of pas- sengers on the platforms of street cars is almost nothing, as is fully demonstrated by the practice of the general public and the companies themselves." (p. 381.) Lax v. Forty Second St., etc., R. Co., 46 N. Y. Super. Ct. 448 ; Hayes v. Forty-Sec- ond St., etc., R. Co., 97 N. Y. 259. , 866 The Liaw of Caeeiees. § 19. Standing up in car. — A contract requiring a railroad cor- poration to furnisih a passenger a seat does not, as matter of law, oblige him to keep it from the time lie first takes it until the train has come to a final stop at the place of his destination.' It can- not therefore be held, as a matter of law, that a passenger in a crowded railroad car, by surrendering his seat to one less able to stand than himself," or who temporarily leaves his seat for a legitimate reason and is compelled to stand in the aisle because, when he returns, the seat is occupied,^^ is guilty of negligence which precludes his recovery for an injury received through the negli- gence of the carrier, although such injury would not have been received had he retained his seat. Jf or a passenger who left his seat in the car to pick up a package belonging to him,^^ or the overcoat of a fellow passenger,^' and was thrown down and in- jured. But standing near an open side door of a car when the train is starting or in motion," or while the train is stopped, standing by the door of the ear, the door shutter being open, with his hand resting on the door frame against which the shutter is closed,*^ or standing up in a freight train where he could have known by the exercise of ordinary care, that the train had stopped to do switching, and that part of the train was likely to be backed against the part to which the caboose was attached, which would probably produce concussion in the caboose," has been held to be contributory negligence which would bar a passenger's recovery for injury. Where a passenger was standing at the rear door of a coach, viewing the scenery, his left hand resting on the water closet door to brace himself, and the conductor, approaching from behind opened the closet door and shut it quickly, catching and crushing the passenger's little finger, which had slipped into the 9. Bard'en v. Boston, etc., R. Co., Co., L. R. 8 Q. B. 161 ; Warburton v. 121 Mass. 426. Midland E. Co., 21 L. T. N. S. 836, 10. Trumbull v. Eriekson, 97 Fed. holding it to be a question for the 891, 38 C. C. A. 536. jury. 11. Holland v. St. Louis, etc., R. 15. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Overall, Co., 105 Mo App 117, 79 S. W. 508. 82 Tex. 247; Richardson v. Metro- 12. Condy v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., politan R. Co., 37 L. J. C. P. 300, 13 Mo. App. 587, 85 Mo. 79. 16. Harris v. Hannibal, etc., K. 13. Wallace v. Western North Car- Co., 89 Mo. 233, 58 Am. Rep. Ill, 27 olina R. Co., 101 N. C. 454, 37 Am. a Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 216; Koumm v. Eng. R. Cas. 159. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. (Ark.), 76 14. Thompson v. Duncan, 76 Ala. S. W. 1076, passenger standing up to 334. See also Gee v. Metiopolitan R. get a drink. CONTEIBUTOEY l^BGLIGENCK 867 crevice witliout his knowledge; the passenger testified that the conductor said he saw him there, and ought to have spoken to him, and that he did not hear the conductor ajpproaching, it waa held that the questions of the defendant's negligence and the plain- tiff's contributory negligence were for the jury." The New York courts hold that where a passenger leaves his seat with a view of leaving the car as soon as the train stops, as passengers usually do, he has a right to assume that the train will be stopped in the usual manner, and he is not chargeable with contributory negligence, if injured by a sudden jerk of the car, although it is probable that if he had retained his seat he would not have been injured.^' But in Pennsylvania such an act has been held to be contributory neg- ligence," and also in Kentucky, where the passenger leaves his seat and stands by the door before the train stops, if injuries are sus- tained by a fall caused by the stopping of the train with no more jerk than incident to its stoppage in the exercise of the proper oare.^" In other cases it has been held that whether a passenger, in leaving his seat and making his way to the door of the dar in order to get off at a station which a train is approaching, exercised due care and whether the carrier negligently and improperly man- aged its trains under the circumstances, should be submitted to the jury.^' It has been held that a passenger boarding a mixed train composed of freight and passenger cars, the starting of which in- volves jerking and jostling endangering the safety of unseated pas- sengers, is bound to exercise ordinary care in obtaining a seat, and is guilty of contributory negligence in failing to do so.^^ And so, 17. Somine v. Evansville, etc., R. 19. Dunn v. Pennsylvania E. Co., Co. (Ind. App.), 56 N. E. 245, citing 20 Phila. (Pa.) 258. Thurber v.Hariem Bridge, etc., R. Co., 20. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Jolly, 60 N. Y. 326; Wylde v. Northern R. 25 Ky. L. Rep. 1735, 78 S. W. 476. Co., 53 N. Y. 156; Baker v. Manhat- 21. Treat v. Boston, etc., R. Co., tan R. Co., 118' N. Y. 533, 23 N. E. 131 Mass. 371, 3 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 885, and other cases. See also Brin- 423; Barden v. Boston, etc., R. Co., eger v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 24 12 L Mass. 426; Morgan v. Southern Ky. L. Rep. 1973, 72 S. W. 783. Pac. R. Co., 95 Cal. 501 ; New Jer- 18. Bartholomew v. New York sey R. Co. v. Pollard, 22 Wall. (U. Cent., etc., R. Co., 102 N. Y. 716, 27 S.) 341. Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 154; Wylde v. 22. Macon, etc., R. Co. v. Moore, Northern R. Co., 53 N. Y. 156; Nich- 108 Ga. 84, 33 S. E. 889, 6 Anii olas V. Sixth Ave. R. Co., 38 N. Y. Neg. Rep. 451, 15 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 131, 97 Am. Dec. 780; Willis v. Long N. S. 842. Island R. Co., 3'4 N. Y. 670. 868 The Law of Caeeiees. where a passenger, entering a passenger train whicJi hasi stopped a reasonable time for passengers to enter and be seated in the cars, fails to take a seat and is thrown down and injured by the starting of the train.^^ But where a passenger enters a car and finds no seat vacant and isi injured while searching for a seat,^* or while standing in the car, after having looked through several cars for a seat and abandoned the search,^^ he is not guilty of contributory negligence, although there were vacant seats in another part of the train. He is not guilty of negligence per se in not taking the first seat and in not looking to see whether other cars are backing towards a car which he has been invited to enter.^' A man who surrenders his seat on a crowded street car to a woman, and stands on the running board of the car, is not, as a matter of law, negligent." One who boarded an open, crowded electric car stopping for passengers, and was injured, while stand- ing on the running board, facing the inside of the car, looking for a seat, as the car was passing a van, was not guilty of contribu- tory negligence as a matter of law, since whether, when the car passed the van, reasonable care required that he should observe the side of the street, rather than to see if there was a vacant place within the car, was a question for the jury.^ § 20. Passing from one car to another. — It is not negligence per se for a passenger to attempt to pass from one car to another of a moving train, but he assumes the risks incideoit to such an undertaking from ordinary, natural causes, and is bound to exer- cise due oare in doing so.^' If it appears that the passenger incurs additional risk by leaving his seat, or if he selects a time for doing so when there is necessarily increased violence in the movement of the train, then he is under a duty to use such care for his safety as a prudent person would under the circumstances, and failure 23. International, etc., R. Co. v. Co., 44 App. Div. (N. Y.) 613, 61 N. Copeland, 60 Tex. 325. Y. Supp. 74. 24 Pollard v. New York, etc., R. 28. Henderson v. Nassau Electric Co., 7 Bosw. (N. Y.) 437. R. Co., 46 App. Div. (N. Y.) 280, 61 25. Farnon v. Boston & A. R. Co., N. Y. Supp. 690. 180 Mass. 212, 62 N. E. 254. 29- Lent v. New York Cent., etc., 26. Moore v. Saginaw, etc., R. Co., R. Co., 120 N. Y. 467; San Antanio, 119 Mich. 613, 78 N. W. 666, 5 Det. etc., R. Co. v. Choate, 22 Tex. Civ. L. N. 936, 6 Am. Nag. Rep. 89. App. 618, 56 S. W. 214; Sickles v. 27. Brainard v. Nassau Electric R. CONTEIBUTOET NEGLIGENCE. 869 to do SO would charge Mm with contributory negligence.'" Where a passenger voluntarily attempted to pass from onecar to another while the train was running at a high rate of speed around a curve, and fell from the train/^ and where a pergon in charge of live stock, while the train was in motion, without due care, at- tempted to pass from the stock cars to the caboose over the tops of the intermediate cars while the train was passing through snow sheds in a severe storm,^^ he has been held guilty of contributory iiegligence precluding recovery. So, where a passenger went from a caboose to an engine of a rapidly moving train when neither necessity nor duty called him.'' And where a passenger, in mak- ing her passage from one car to another, without looking, and without necessity for so doing, stepped upon the buffers between the platforms as they separated with the movement of the train.'* Where the passenger acts under the direction or at the command of the conductor or other servant of the carrier the courts have held that he was warranted in supposing that the conditions were such as to enable him to pass in safety and that he was, therefore, not guilty of contributory negligence." But usually the question has been held to be one for the jury to determine under all the facts of the case whether it was negligent for the passenger to follow the direction or order of a servant of the carrier.'* Missouri, etc., B. Co., 13 Tex. Civ. 33. McDaniel v. Highland Ave., App. 434, 35 S. W. 493; Cleveland; etc., K. Co., 90 Ala. 64. etc., R. Co. V. Manson, 30 Ohio St. 34. Snowden v. Boston, etc., E. Co., 451; Davis v. Louisville, etc., E,. Co., 151 Mass. 220. 136; Galveston, etc., E,. Co. 35. Lent v. New York Cent., etc., v. Morris (Tex.), 61 S. W. 709. R. Co., 120 N. Y. 467; Hannibal, etc., 30. Burr v. Pennsylvania R. Co., E. Co. v. Martin, HI 111. 219; Louia- (N. J.) 44 Atl. 845. ville, etc., R. Co. v. Kelly, 92 Ind. 31. Dougherty v. Yazoo, etc., E. 371, 47 Am. Rep. 149; Davis v. Co. (Miss.), 36 So. 699. See, how- Louisville, etc., R. Co., 69 Miss. 136. ever, Louisville & N. E. Co. v. Berg, But the suggestion of a conductor has 17 Ky. L. Eep. 1105, 32 S. W. 616; been held not to be a command or di- Chesapeake & 0. E. Co. v. Clowes, 93 rection, and a passenger, acting vol- Va. 189, 24 S. B. 833. untarily, was held to have assumed 38. Nelson v. Southern Pac. Co., the risk. Stewart v. Boston, etc., E. 15 Utah 325, 49 Pac. 644. See also Co., 146 Mass. 605. Neville v. St. Louis, etc., E. Co., 36. Mclntyre v. New York Cent., 158 Mo. 293, 59 S. W. 123. etc., E. Co., 37 N. Y. 287, and other cases cited under this section. 870 The Law of Caeeiees. § 21. Riding with part of person projecting from window, — A passenger on a railway train is not guilty of negligence in sit- ting by an open window.^' It has been held in most of the re- ported oases, contributory negligence per se, or as matter of law, for a passenger on railroads operated by steam consciously or unconsciously to protrude his arm, head, elbow, hand or any part of his person through the window beyond the outer surface of the side of the car or outer edge of the window, barring a recovery for an injury which would not have been sustained but for such negli- gence f^ while in a few others it has been held that whether it is contributory negligence is a question of fact for the determination of the jury under all the circumstances of the case.^' The question does not seem to have been determined definitely in the appellate courts of New York,*" although the judgment in one case was to the effect that whether the plaintiff was negligent in riding with her arm out of the window was not a question of law, but of fact,*' and in three other cases the records show that the jury in each case was instructed that if they found that the plaintiff was riding with his arm protruding from the open window, it was contributory negligence, and no recovery could be had, but the validity of the in- 37. O'Donnell v. Louisville & N. R. 90 Ala. 49; Indianapolis, etc., E. Co. Co., 19 Ky. L. Kep. 1005, 42 S. W. v. Rutherford, 29 Ind. 82; Pittsburg, 846. etc., R. Go. v. Andrews, 39 Md. 329, 38. Knauss v. Lake Erie & W. R. 17 Am. Rep. 568; Pittsburg, etc., E. Co. (Ind. App.), 64 N. E. 95; Union Co. v. MeClurg, 56 Pa. St. 294; Pac. R. Co. V. Roeser (Neb.), 95 N. Laiug v. Colder, 8 Pa. St. 479, 49 W. 68; Clarke v. Louisville & N. R. Am. Dec. 533; Dun v. Seaboard, etc., Co., 101 Ky. 34, 18 Ky. L. Rep. 1082, R. Co., 78 Va. 645, 49 Am. Rep. 388; 36 L. R. A. 123, 8 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. Todd v. Old Colony, etc., R. Co., 7 N. S. 355, 2 Am. Neg. Rep. 360, 39 S. Allen (Mass.), 207, 83 Am. Dec. 679. W. 840, where elbow protruded inad- 39. McCord v. Atlanta, etc, R. j vertently and did not extend more Co. (N. C), 45 S. E. 1031; Chicago, , than one and a half inches beyond etc., R. Co. v. Pondrom, 51 111. 333, the outer surface of the side of the •? Am. Rep. 306; Spencer v. Milwau- car; Shelton v. Louisville & N. R. kee, etc., R. Co., 17 Wis. 487, 84 Am. Co., 19 Ky. L. Rep. 215, 39 S. W. Dec. 758; Quinn v. South Carolina 842 ; Richmond & D. R. Co. v. Scott, R. Co., 29 S. C. 381. 88 Va. 958, 14 S. E. 763, 16 L. R. A. 40. Francis v. New York Steam 91; Cummings v. Worcester, etc., St. Co., 114 N. Y. 385. R. Co., 166 Mass. 220, 44 N. E. 126; 41. Holbrook v. Utica, etc., R. Co., Carrico v. West Virginia, etc., R. 12 N. Y. 244, 64 Am. Deo. 502, 16 Co., 35 W. Va. 389, 14 S. E. 12; Barb. (N. Y.) 113. Georgia, Pac. R. Co. v. Underwood, OONTEIBUTOEY NEGLIGENCE. 871 structions was not considered in tlie higher courts/^ In one of thai cases cited the court also charged that if the passenger's arm, while resting on the sill, was thrown out by a sudden lurch of the car, that fact would not defeat his right to recover.*' And it has been so held in other States where the passenger's arm was not protruding beyond the car but was thrown outside the ear by the force of a coUision." It has been held to be contributory negligence in a passenger on an elevated railroad to place his hand on the sill under the window, without looking to see that the window was raised to the proper height to be held by the latch if in proper order. *^ In reference to street railroad cases the New York courts have held that a general rule applicable to all cases cannot be laid down as to whether a passenger upon a street car was negligent in riding with his arm out of the window, and that whether the €[uestion is one of law or fact must be determined by the circum- stances of each case, inasmuch as street railroads are operated under such widely different circumstances', some in the crowded thoroughfares of large cities and others in streets little used in suburban districts and villages.*^ But it has been held that the fact that a street car passenger, sitting beside an open window reading, with his arm resting on the sill, extended his arm not more than three inches outside the car, did not constitute con- tributory negligence, as a matter of law, precluding recovery for an injury to such arm caused by another oar passing on a switch/'' It has been held in other States, under similar circumstances, to be a question of f act.^ And in Missouri it is held a question not to be determined by any arbitrary rule, the court saying that " it does not necessarily follow, however, that because the exposure of the person from the vfindow of an ordinary railroad carriage pioved by 4sZ. Breen v. New York Cent., etc., N. Y. Supp. 775. But the contrary R. Co., 109 N. Y. 297, 4 Am. St. Rep. has been held in Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. 450; Hallahan v. New York, etc., R. Killebrew (Tex.), 20 S. W. 182. Co., 102 N. Y. 194; Dale V. Delaware, 46. Francis v. New York Steam «te., E. Co., 73 N. Y. 468. Co., 114 N. Y. 385. 43. Dale v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 47. Tucker v. Buffalo Ry. Co., 53 73 N. Y. 468. App. Div. (N. Y.) 571, 65 N. Y. 44. Farlow v. Kelly, 108 U. S. Supp. 989. 288; Winters v. Hannibal, etc., R. 48. Dahlberg v, Minnesota St. R. Co., 39 Mo. 468; Carrico v. West Co., 32 Minn. 404, 50 Am. Rep. 585; Virginia, etc., R. Co., 35 W. Va. 389. Summers v. Crescent city R. Co., 34 45. Voorhees v. Kings County EI. La. Ann. 139, 44 Am. Rep. 419. E. Co., 3 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.)' 18, 21 1 872 The La.w of Caebiebs. steam is negligence, that the same exposure from the window of a street car is so. The motive power is much more under control in one case than t!he other, whether we speak of the carriage in which the passenger is or of anything likely to approach it from a pariallel track, and the speed is less."" § 22. Awaiting and seeking transportation — ^Passengers must use the ways and means of going to and from trains provided at stations for that purpose.^" They may lawfully use the platforms and premises provided for the use of passengers for any lawful purpose connected with their journey, and have a right to assume that they may he there without being exposed to imnecessary hazard or danger, but their use thereof must be limited to the pur- poses for which they were manifestly adapted.'^ They are not chargeable with contributory negli^nce, as a matter of law, if in- jured while, in the exercise of due care and prudence, they are making use of the platforms and premises and other ways and means provided for their use while awaiting and seeking transpor- tation.^^ But for a failure to use ordinary care and prudence in 49. Miller v. St. Louis E. Co., 5 203; Weston v. New York Elev. E. Mo. App. 471. Co., 73 N. Y. 595; Dotson v. Erie R. Projection of body from mov- Co. (N. J.), 54 Atl. 827, and while lug ear. — ^As to injury by being trains are passing a platfrom at a struck by trolley pole at the side of station, or are likely to pass, wait- a car, Huber v. Cedar Eapids, etc., E. ing passengers must keep such a dis- Co., 3 St. Ey. Eep. 245, 124 Iowa, 556, tance from the edge of the platform 100 N. W. 478; Cummings v. Wichita next to the rail that they will not be E. & L. Co. (Kan.), 2 St. Ey. Rep. struck by such projections as usually 278, 74 Pac. 1104; injury to passeur attach to ordinary trains, ger where his arm was protruding, Bnt tbat one is gnilty of con- see Zeliff y. North Jersey St. Ey. Co. tribntory negligence in placing (N. J.), 1 St. Ey. Eep. 541, 55 Atl. himself in a dangerous position on a 95; see note on collisions with o5- railroad platform, will not prevent a stacles near track, 2 St. Ey. Rep. recovery from the railroad company 278. Fort Wayne Tract. Co. v. Har- for an injury inflicted by an ap- dendorf, 3 St. Ey. Eep. 164 (Ind.), preaching train, if the employees of 72 N. E. 593 and notes. such train saw him in his dangerous 50. Cleveland, etc., E. Co. v. position, or, by the exercise of rea- ,Wade, 18 Ind. App. 346, 48 N. E. 12; Sonable care, might have discovered Cincinnati, etc., E. Co. v. Wagner, 15 the situation in time to have averted Ohio C. C. 395 ; Anderson v. Grand the danger. Zumault v. Kansas City, Trunk E. Co., 24 Ont. App. 672. etc.. Air Line, 71 Mo. App. 670. 51. Dobiecki v. Sharp, 88 N. Y. 52. Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Wool- CONTEIBUTOEY NEGLIGENCE. 873 such use they are guilty of contributory negligence.^ But the question of the passenger's contributory negligence as well as that of the carrier's negligence may be for the jury, as where a pas- senger standing on a depot platform was struck by a passing train," or where a passenger tripped over a box upon the station platform, when running to catch a train a little distance away, in front of the freight station, and which the company's employes had signaled to the passenger was about to start,^^ or where the passenger fell over certain iron left on the station platform and there was a reasonable amount of room left for passengers to walk in boarding or leaving the carsr.^^ A person going to a depot to be- come a passenger has a right to presume that the platforms are safe, and is not bound to keep a lookout,, other than such as ordi- nary prudence might require." The use by a passenger, in going ridge, 32 111. App. 237; Caswell v. Boston, etc., R. Corp., 98 Mass. 194, 93 Am. Deci 151 ; Eenneker v. South Carolina R. Co., 20 S. C. 219, 18 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 149; Hartwig, v. Chi- cago, etc., R. Co., 49 Wis. 358 ; Texas, etc., E. Co. V. Brown, 78 Tex. 401; Missouri -Pac. E. Co. v. Neiswanger, 41 Kan. 621, 13 Am. St. Rep. 304; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Coulson, 8 Kan. App. , 54 Pac. 2, 4 Am. Neg. Eep. 629; Railroad Co. v. Aller, 56 Ohio St. 754, 49 N. E. 1114. 53. Bennett v. New York, etc., R. Co., 57 Conn. 422, descending from platform by unlighted instead of a lighted stairway; Forsyth v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 103 Mass. 510, stepping off platform into cattle guard; Mis- souri, etc., E. Co. V. Turley, 85 Fed. 369, 56 U. S. App. 1, 29 C. C. A. 196, stepping off an unrailed platform in the darkness for the purpose of sit- ting down on its edge, assuming with- out inquiring or examination that the ground is level with the platform as at the place where she enters upon it; Eeed v. Axtell, 84 Va. 231; Gulf, etc., E. Co. V. Hodges (Tex. Civ. App.), 24 S. W. 563; Chewning v. Ensley E. Co., 100 Ala. 493, 14 So. 204; Rail- road Co. v. Aller, 56 Ohio St. 754, 49 N. E. 1114; Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Dewey, 26 111. 255, 79 Am. Dec. 374, passing between cars of a freight train about to move; Smith v. Chi- cago, etc., E. Co., 55 Iowa, 33, pass- ing under one of a train of freight cars. 54. Dobiecki v. Sharp, 88 N. Y. 203. 55. Maclennan v. Long Island E. Co., 52 N. Y. Super. Ct. 22, 107 N. Y. 623. 56. Mathieson v. Burlington, etc., E. Co. (Iowa), 100 N. W. 51. 57. Barker v. Ohio Eiver R. Co., 51 W. Va. 423, 41 S. E. 148, and where a, person, while trying to get her children on to the platform of the depot, steps back into a hole in the platform, she is not guilty of contrib- utory negligence, though, if she had been walking face forward in the di- rection of the hole, she easily could have seen it. But one -nrlio, in entering a railroad depot, passed over a place made unsafe by an accumulation of ice and knew of its dangerous condi- 874 The Law of Oaeeiees. to get checks for baggage, of a way commonly used between the ticket office and the baggage room, if no danger is apparent, will not be negligence, if the passenger is injured, although he could have used a different way safely.^' One is not, as a matter of law, guilty of contributory negligence in attempting to use the ap- proach to a platform of a railroad depot, precluding recovery for injuries due to the steepness of the incline, by the fact that he was acquainted with the conditions and had frequently used the approach.^' § 23. Standing near or between tracks and crossing interven- ing tracks. — An intending passenger who leaves a position of safety and takes one of manifest danger between two tracks, upon one of which his train is expected, and stands so near an ap- proaching train that he is struck by a car,'" or who, instead of oc- cupying the premises and platforms provided by the railroad com- pany for the use of passengers, chooses, without necessity, to stand between a baggage platform and the track, in a space not wide enough to protect him from the train which strikes "him,*^ is guilty of negligence which will prevent his recovery for injuries sus- tained thereby. A passenger is not in the exercise of due care who goes unnecessarily upon the track of a railroad, over which frequent trains are passing, and at a point where intervening ob- jects obstruct a view of the track, although he has just alighted from a train, near a station where there is nothing to indicate to him any other mode of egress f^ nor one who, in daylight, attempts to cross the tracks at a station in front of an approaching train which she saw and which was so near that when she fell the engine tion, yet who soon thereafter, while 60. McGeehan v. Lehigh Valley R. watching upon the platform for the Co., 149 Pa. St. 188, 24 Atl. 205, 30 incoming train, stepped backward W. N. C. 140, 1 Pa. Adv. E. 704. upon the ice without looking or tak- 61. Little Rock, etc., E. Co. v. ing any precautions for his safety, Cavenesse, 48 Ark. 106. whereby he fell to his injury, is 62. Bancroft v. Boston, etc., E. guilty of contributory negligence. Co., 97 Mass. 275; Illinois Cent. E. Waterbury v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., Co. v. Strauss, 75 Miss. 367, 22 So. 104 Iowa, 32, 73 N. W. 341. 822, nor one who attempted to pass 58. Exton V. Central R. Co., 62 N. through a small opening between the J. L. 7, 42 Atl. 486, 5 Am. Neg. Rep. rear end of two trains, there being 675. no necessity for him to do so. 59. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Evans, 52 Neb. 50, 71 N. W. 1062. Contributory Negligencb. 875 struck her before she could recover herself, there being no need far her to cross the tracks, as she might have learned on inquiry which she had ample opportunity to make, the railroad company holding out no invitation for her to cross f nor one who was not merely crossing but standing on a track in full view of an ap- proaching train, which, under the circumstances, he might and should have seen, and whose signals he might and should have heard. ** But whether a passenger was negligent in crossing a track in accordance with a custom acquiesced in by the carrier, instead of taking an unlighted street which passed under the track is a question for the jury.*^ A passenger, when taking or leaving a railroad car or train at a station, has a right to assume that the company vdll not expos© him to unnecessary danger by passing trains ; while he himself must exercise reasonable care, his watchfulness is naturally diminished by his reliance upon the discharge by the company of its duty to passengers to provide them a safe passage to and from the train. The general rule which obtains in case of a person crossing a railroad track that a failure to stop to look, and listen will constitute contributory neg- ligence per se, does not apply to a passenger so alighting from or hoarding a train, although the failure to do so may be a, material and important fact to be considered by the jury upon the c[uestion of contributory negligence.** But it is the duty of a rail- 63. Young V. Old Colony R. Co., Co. v. Johnson, 59 Ark. 122; Frank- 156 Mass. 178, 30 N. E. 560. See lin v. Southern California Motor also Wright v. Great Northern B. Koad Co., 85 Cal. 63; Atchison, etc., Co., L. R. 8 Ir. 257. E. Co. v. Shean, 18 Colo. 368; Penn- 64. Weeks v. New Orleans, etc., R. sylvania Co. v. McCaffrey, 173 111. Co., 40 La. Ann. 800. 169, 3 Chic. L. J. Wkly. 399, 50 N. IE' 65. Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Lowell, 713; Pennsylvania Co. v. Kean, 41 151 U. S. 209. So where an obstruc- 111. App. 317; Philadelphia, etc., R. tion placed in his way by the carrier Co. v. Anderson, 72 Md. 519, 20 Am. aecessitated the passenger's stepping St. Rep. 483; Burbridge v. Kansas on a side track on leaving the sta- City Cable R. Co., 36 Mo. App. 669; tion. Sanchez v. Sau Antonio, etc., Atlantic City R. Co. v. Goodin, 62 N. E. Co., 3 Tex. Civ. App. 89. J. L. 394, 42 Atl. 333, 5 Am. Neg. 66. Bucher v. Long Island R. Co., Rep. 407; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. 161 N. Y. 222, 55 N. E. 899; Terry White, 88 Pa. St. 327; Brown v. V. Jewett, 78 N. Y. 338; Graven v. Great Western R. Co., 52 L. T. N. 8. Mac Leod, 92 Fed. 846, 35 C. C. A. 47, 622 ; Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Cog- 14 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. N. S. 305; gins, 88 Fed. 455, 60 U. S. App. 140; Brassell v. New York Cent., etc., R. Weeks v. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., Co., 84 N. Y. 241; St. Louis, etc., R. 40 La. Ann. 800; Jewett v. Klein, 27 876 The Law of Cabeiebs. road passenger, on alighting, knowing tliat a train is just due, to look in the direction from which it should come, before attemptr ing to cross the railroad track, and if he omits to do so, he is gdlty of contributory negligenca" And so where he leaves the train before it is stopped and before any invitation or notice to leave the train has been given, and attempts to cross the intervening tracks,^' or crosses another track after alighting from a cable car at his destination,*' he is bound to use the same care as would be required of a person attempting to cross a railroad track upon a highway. The same rule has been applied, in Minnesota, wher^ a passenger left his train, which was side tracked at an intermedi- ate station to allow a train from the opposite direction to pass, and attempted to cross the track for the purpose of re-entering;™ but in New York such an act is held not to be contributory negligence, as matter of law.''^ In Massachusetts it has been held that- the mere fact that a passenger began to cross a railroad track at a time when her view along the tracks was obstrud«d by a depart- ing train,'^ or that she did not at the instant of stepping on the track, look to ascertain whether a train was approaching,™ was not conclusive of a want of due care, and that whether there was due care on the part of the passenger was a question for the jury.'* But in a later case it was held that a pasisenger could not recover for personal injuries sustained by being struck by a train passing on another track, where he got off his train between the two tracks and attempted to cross when he could easily have seen the approaching train had he looked before attempting to cross." Where the railroad track is the usual and only practicable route by which a passenger may go from the station to his train, the railroad company will not be heard to say that a passenger, by N. J. Eq. 550; Wamer v. Baltimore 71. Wandell v. Corbin, 38 Hun (N. & O. R. Co., 168 U. S. 339, 42 L. Ed. Y.), 391, 17 St. Eep. (N. Y.) 718. 491. 72. Mayo v. Boston, etc., K. Co., 67. Gonzales v. New York, etc., R. 104 Mass. 137. Co., 38 N. Y. 440, 98 Am. Dec. 58. 73. Chaffee v. Boston, etc., E. 68. Parsons v. New York Cent,, Corp., 104 Mass. 108. etc., R. Co., 37 Hun (N. Y.), 128. 74. Gaynor v. Old Colony, etc., E. 69. Buzby v. Philadelphia Trac- Co., 100 Mass. 208, 97 Am. Dec. 96. tjon Co., 126 Pa. St. 559, 42 Am. & 75. Connolly v. New York, etc., E. Eng. E. Cas. 144. Co., 158 Mass. 8. See also Debbins v. 70. De Kay v. Chicago, etc., E. Old Colony E. Co., 154 Mass. 402, 47 Co., 41 Minn. 178, 16 Am. St. Rep. Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 531, 28 N. E. 687. 274. CONTEIBUTOBY NeGLIGEWCB. 877 taking such route, becomes guilty of negligence.™ One who, aftef signaling an approaching street car which isi about to round a curve, places himself in such close proximity to the track that he will be inevitably struck by the overhang of the car when it rounds the curve, assumes the risk incident to the dangerous posi- tion which he has taken, and cannot hold the street railroad com- pany liable for hisi injuries." But one who took a position which ■was safe with reference to the ordinary cars wMch the street railroad used, and with which he was familiar, having no notice up to the time he was struck by it that an approaching ear was of greater width than the ordinary cars, did not assume the risk and was not guilty of contributory negligence.'' A pedestrian who, 76. Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Lager- krans (Neb.), 91 N. W. 385. 77. Gravey v. Rhode Island Co., 26 E. I. 80, 58 Atl. 456. 78. Denison & S. Ey. Co. v. Craig (Tex. Civ. App.), 80 S. W. 86S. 79. Copeland v. Metropolitan, St. E. Co., 177 N. Y. 570, 69 N. E. 1121, affg. 78 App. Div. (N. Y.) 418, 79 N. y. Supp. 1054. Street railway cases: Passenger passing hack of standing car onto parallel track and in front of ap- proaching car. Metropolitan St. Ey. Co. T, Ryan, 3 St. Ey. Eep. 259, 69 Kan. 538, 77 Pae. 267 ; failure of pas- senger on alighting from ear to look out for an approaching car upon a parallel track before crossing it, Cleveland Elee. Ey. Co. v. Wads- worth, 2 St. Ey. Eep. 818, 25 Ohio Cir. Ct. 376; as to duty to look and listen, Indianapolis St. Ey. Co. v. Tenner (Ind.), 1 St. Ey. Eep. 179, 67 N. E. 1044; passing from behind ob- structions upon track, Ames v. Waterloo & Cedar Falls Eapid Tran- sit Co. (Iowa), 1 St. Ey. Eep. 199, 95 N. W. 161, 79 S. W. 999; see also note, 2 St. Ey. Eep. 433 ; as to injury caused by the burning out of a fuse, Cassady v. Old Colony St. Ey. Co. L), 1 St. Ey. Eep. 330, 68 N. E. 10; as to use of effective brakes, Mack V. Los Angeles Tract. Co. (Cal.), 1 St. Ey. Eep. 19, 73 Pao. 455; duty of company as to appli- ances. Leveret v. Shreveport Belt Line Co. (La.), 1 St. Ey. Eep. 254, 34 So. 579; as to how the liability of the company is to be determined', Zimmerman v. Denver Consol. Tram- way Co. (Colo.), 1 St. Ey. Eep. 21, 72 Pac. 807; see note 1 St. Ey. Eep. 331; note on appliances for protec- tion of passengers, 1 St. Ey. Eep. 20; note on injuries from electricity, 1 St. Ey. Eep. 639. Collision vitli persons xrho have alighted from cars. — A street railway company running a car past another, which is standing still, receiving or discharging passengers at the intersection of streets, must not unnecessarily expose pedestrians to the danger of collision. Consol. Tract. Co. v. Scott, 58 N. J. L. 682, 34 Atl. 1094, 33 L. E. A. 122, 55 Am. St. Rep. 620; Scott v. Third Ave. R. Co., 16 N. Y. Supp. 350; Driscoll v. Market St. E. Co., 97 Cal. 553. Where a person starts to cross the track as soon as the car from which he had alighted has passed him, with- out turning his head in either direc- tion to see if any train is coming, 878 The Law of Caeeiees. after signaling an approaching car about half a block away to stop at a customary place for taking passengers, proceeds diagonally across the tracks to such place, assuming that the motonnan, as the car approachesi the stopping place, will use reasonable care to per- mit her to cross in safety, is not negligent, as a matter of law, for failing to look behind her after she started in her diagonal course across the tracks." and regardless of a caution given him by the conductor, he is guill^ of con- tributory negligence, and no recovery for his death can be had of the com- pany. Meserole v. Brootlyn City R. Co., 57 Hun, 591, 10 N. Y. Supp. 813. Where a person had alighted from a street car and was injured as he passed around behind the car from which he alighted, by the car on the other track, he ceased to be a passen- ger when he had safely reached the street and the company was not under the high degree of care due a pas- senger to protect him. Chattanooga Elec. Ry. Co. v. Koddy, 105 Tenn. 666, 58 S. W. 646, 51 L..R. A. 885. One who steps from a street rail- way car to the street is not upon the premises of the railway company, but upon a public place where he has the same rights as every other pedes- trian, and over which the company has no control. His rights are then those of the traveler upon the high- way and not those of the passenger. Creamer v. West End St. Ry. Co., 4 Am. Elec. Cas. 476, 156 Mass. 320, 31 N. E. 391. After a person haa alighted from a car and starts to cross a parallel track, it is his duty to look for an approaching car upon that track, and he is guilty of con- tributory negligence if he steps upon the track in front of an approaching car without- so looking. Landrigan v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 32 App. Div. 43, 48 N. Y. Supp. 454. The cir- cumstances, however, may be such as to relieve such a. person from liability for his negligence. Wise v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 46 App. Div. 246, 61 N. Y. Supp. 530. It has been held that the stopping of the car and the invitation to alight upon the side of the car next to the parallel track given by the company's employees, may be regarded as an assurance of the absence of danger. Schneider v. Market St. Ry. Co. (Cal.), 66 Pac. 734. CHAPTER XXVI. Damages. EliOIloN 1. CompenBation is the general rule as to measure of d'amageB. 2. Injury aggravated by passenger's negligence or imprudence. 3. Injury aggravated by existing disease or injury. 4. Damages for failure to carry. 5. Damages for setting down passenger at place other thau des- tination. 6. Damages for ejection or assault of passenger. 7. Damages for personal injuries. 8. Mental suffering as distinct cause of action or element- of damage. 9. Exemplary damages. — ^Malice or wilfulness. 10. Exemplary damages. — Gross negligence. 11. Exemplary damages for carrier's acts. 12. Exemplary damages for acts of servants. 13. Elements affecting the amount of damages. 14. Excessive or inadequate damages. § 1. Compensation is the general rule .as to measure of dam> ages. — In an action for breach, of contract the damages recover- able are only such as the parties may be reasonably supposed to have contemplated as a probable result from sucb breach, while the damages recoverable for a tort are not limited to such, as the tort feasor and person injured may have contemplated, but include all which naturally and proximately flow from the injury.-^ Non- feasance or the refusal or neglect to perform any duty on the part of a carrier, misfeasance or the negligent performance of any duty, or any breach of duty, have been generally held by the courts to furnish a ground of action in tort against the carrier, and„ unless expressly brought on the contract, actions of tbis character are usually keld to be actions in tort, regardless of the form of tbe declaration, and the damages recoverable to be sucb as are recover- 1. Cowan V. Western Union Tel. 51 Ga. 582; Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Co. (Iowa), 98 N. W. 281; Brown v. Eaton, 94 Ind. 474, 48 Am. Rep. 179; Chicago, etc., R. Co., 54 Wis. 342, Cobb v. Great Western R. Co., 1 Q. 41 Am. Rep. 41; Georgia R. Co. v. B. 469, 58 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 169; Hayden, 71 Ga. 518, 51 Am. Rep. 274; International, etc., R. Co. v. Harder Montgomery^ etc., R. Co. v. Boring, (Tex. Civ. App.), 81 S. W. 356. (879) 880 The Law of Cabeieks. able in an action of tort.^ Generally, the rule as to the measure of damages in actions of passengers against carriers for loss or injury occasioned by the carrier's negligence, or any breach of its gen- eral duty as a carrier, or for torts committed by the carrier through mistake, ignorance, or mere neglect, ia that the passenger is entitled to compensatory damages or such damages as vidll fully or reasonably compensate him for the actual injury or loss sus- tained.' The carrier is liable for the natural and proximate dam- ages resulting from its negligence, both direct and consequential, but the damages must be certain, both in their nature, and as to the cause from which they proceed.* For example, if one of the 2. Baltimore, etc., E. Co. v. Carr, 71 Md. 135; Evans v. St. Louis, etc., E. Co., 11 Mo. App. 463; Pittsburgh, etc., E. Co. V. Lyon, 123 Pa. St. 140, 10 Am. St. Eep. 517; New Orleans, etc. E. Co. V. Hurst, 36 Miss. 660, 74 Am. Dee. 785; Burnett v. Lynch, 5 B. & C. 589, 12 E. C. L. 327. 3. N. T. — ^Parker v. Long Island E. Co., 13 Hun (N. Y.), 319; Morse v. Auburn, etc., E. Co., 10 Barb. (N. Y.) 625. Cal. — Sloane v. Southern California E. Co., Ill Cal. 668; Morgan v. Southern Pac. E. Co., 95 Cal. 501, 29 Am. St. Eep. 143. Colo. — Wall V. Cameron, 6 Colo. 275. Del. — ^Wallace v. Wilmington, etc., E. Co., 8 Houst. (Del.) 529. Ga. — Goins v. Western E. Co., 68 Ga. 190; Hughes v. Western E. Co., 61 Ga. 131. III. — niinois Cent. E. Co. v. Nel- son, 59 111. 110. Ky. — Louisville, etc., E. Co. v. Wil- sey (Ky.), 12 S. W. 275, 39 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 418. La. — Hill V. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 11 La. Ann. 292. Md. — Philadelphia, etc., E. Co. v. Hoeflich, 62 Md. 300, 50 Am. Eep. 223. Miss. — Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Seurr, 59 Miss. 456, 42 Am. Eep, 373; Memphis, etc., E. Co. v. Whit- field, 44 Miss. 466, 7 Am. Eep. 699; Dorrah v. Illinois Cent. E. Co., 65 Miss. 14, 7 Am. St. Eep. 629. Mo. — Trigg V. St. Louia^ etc., E. Co., 74 Mo. 147, 14 Am. Eep. 305, 6 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 345. Nev. — Quigley v. Central Pac. R. Co., 11 Nev. 350, 21 Am. Eep. 757; Johnson v. Wells, 6 Nev. 224, 3 Am. Eep. 245. N. G. — ^Wallace v. Western North Carolina E. Co., 104 N. C. 442. Pa. — ^Pittsburgh, etc., E. Co. v. Lyon, 123 Pa. St. 140, 10 Am. St. Eep. 517; Pennsylvania E. Co. v. Books, 57 Pa. St. 339, 98 Am. Dec 229. Term. — ^Louisville, etc., E. Co, v. Fleming, 14 Lea (Tenn.), 128. Tew. — Texas, etc., E. Co. v. Pollard, 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. § 481. Wis. — Spicer v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 29 Wis. 580. Wy. — ^Union Pac. E. Co. v. Hause, 1 Wy. 27. U. S. — Mackoy v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 5 McCrary (U. S.), 538. Enff. — Young v. Fewson, 8 C. & P. 55, 34 E. C. L. 289. 4. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Moore (Tex. Civ. App.), 83 S. W. 362; East Ten- nessee, etc., E. Co. V. Lockhart, 79 Damages. 881 passenger's limbs are broken, he may recover for the expenses of the sickness occasioned, and for the consequent lossi of time, and also compensation for the bodily pain and suffering caused by such injury.^ And where a passenger, by reason of the car- rier's failure to carry him as agreed, was detained in an un- healthy place, by reason of which he became sick after his return, he was held entitled to recover for his loss of health and loss of time, and his expenses during his Efickness, and the expenses of his return home.* And where one was ejected from a street car, the compensatory damages was held to embrace loss of time, fare on another car, and injury to feelings because of indignities suffered.' But where the injury or lossi is not the natural or probable conse- quences of the carrier's iiegligenee, or the injury is not a direct result or natural concomitant of the wrongful act, or damages are produced by agencies other than those causing the injury, or by agencies remotely connected with those causing the injury, or are speculative or contingent, the damages sustained are too remote to entitle a recovery against the carrier.^ The New York courts have held that where the action is presented and tried as an action for ihreach of contract the plaintiff is entitled to recover substantial Ala. 315; Pennsylvania R. Co. t. Aspell, 23 Pa. St. 147, 62 Am. Dea. 323; Smith v. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., 30 Minn. 169, 9 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. :262. 5. Curtis V. Rochester, etc., R. Co., 18 N. Y. 534; Ransom v. New York, etc., R. Co., 15 N. Y. 415. 6. Williams v. Vanderbilt, 28 N. T. 217, 84 Am. Dec. 333; Weed v. Panama R. Co., 17 N. Y. 362, 72 Am. Deo. 474; Heirn v. McCaughan, .32 Miss. 17, 66 Am. Dec. 588; Texas, etc., R. Co. V. Mayes (Tex. App.), 15 S. W. 43. See also Cincinnati, etc., E. Co. V. Eaton, 94 Ind. 474, 48 Am. Rep. 179; Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Barker, 4 Colo. 344, 34 Am. Rep. 89 ; Smith V. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., 30 Mimi. 169, 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 262. 7. Jacobs V. Third Ave. R. Co., 71 App. Div. (N. Y.) 199, 10 N. Y. Ann. •Cas. 462, 75 N. Y. Supp. 679; Hamil- 56 ton v. Third Ave. R. Co., 53 N. Y. 25 ; Ray V. Cortland, etc., R. Co., 19 App. Div. (N. Y.) 530, 46 N. Y. Supp. 521. 8. Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Birney, 71 111. 391; Alabama, etc., R. Co. V. Arnold, 80 Ala. 600; Georgia R. Co. V. Hayden, 71 Ga. 518, 51 Am. Rep. 274, loss of theatrical manager's engagement; Hamlin v. Great Nor- thern R. Co., 1 H. & N. 408; Yongo V. Pacific Mail Steamship Co., 1 Cal. 353, loss of possible wages; Francis V. St. Louis Trans. Co., 5 Mo. App. 7 ; Trigg v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 74 Mo. 147, 41 Am. Rep. 305; Hoffman v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 45 Minn. 53 ; McClary v. Sioux City, etc., R. Co., 3 Neb. 44, 19 Am. Rep. 631; Scheffer v. Washington City, etc., R. Co., 105 U. S. 249; Cobb v. Great Western R. Co., 1 Q. B. 459, 58 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 169, loss from robbery on 882 The Law of Caeeiees. damages sufficient to make good the pecuniary loss which he has actually suffered by reason of such breacli of contract, but not damages for mere inconvenience, annoyance, and delay, in the ab- sence of proof of actual pbysdcal or mental injury, but tlie rule i» otherwise when the action is one of tort.' § 2. Injury aggravated by passenger's negligence or impru- dence. — A passenger, when injured, is bound by law to use ordi- nary care to render the injury no greater than necessary under the circumstances." The carrier is liable to a passenger injured through its negligence for the damages sustained by the passenger at the time the injury was inflicted and for those directly and proximately resulting subsequently therefrom, but it is not liable for any aggravation of those injuries by the passenger's own acts, or for the damages resulting from such aggravation, or for conse- quences wbich were avoidable by care on the part of the passen- ger." A passenger cannot recover for pain or suffering, either physical or mental, which he may have sustained by reason of hia failure to use ordinary care in having himself treated or operated upon by physicians. ^^ But where he has used ordinary care in the selection of a physician of ordinary skill, any injury or pain re- sulting from the manner in which the injury was treated or the operation performed is properly regarded as within and a part of the result of which the injury, occasioned by the negligence of the over-crowded train; Texas, etc., R. Indianapolis, etc., E. Co. v. Bimey, Co. V. Eea (Tex. Civ. App.), 65 S. W. 71 111. 391; Klutts v. St. Louis, etc., 1115, damages for injury in holding E. Co., 75 Mo. 642; Le Blanche v. child of another in an overcrowded London, etc., E. Co., 1 C. P. Div. 286, train. 11. Benson v. New Jersey E., etc. 9. Miller v. Baltimore, etc., E. Co., Co., 9 Bosw. (N. Y.) 412, unreason- 89 App. Div. (N. Y.) 457, 85 N. Y. able expense incurred by a passenger Supp. 883; Miller v. King, 166 N. Y. who had been delayed; Owens v. Bal- 394, 59 N. E. 1114, 32 App. Div. (N. timore, etc., E. Co., 35 Fed. 715; Se Y.) 389, 53 N. Y. Supp. 123, 21 App. cord v. St. Paul, etc., E. Co., 5 Me- Div. (N. Y.) 192, 47 N. Y. Supp. 534, Crary (U. S.), 515; Klutts v. St 88 Hun (N. Y.), 181, 34 N. Y. Supp. Louis, etc., E. Co., supra, but aggra 425, 84 Hun (N. Y.), 308, 32 N. Y. vation of an injury, due to a cursory Supp. 332. See also cases cited note examination of the injured passenget 7, ante. by the carrier's surgeon, cannot be 10. Pullman Palace Car Co. v. imputed to the passenger's negligence, Bluhm, 109 111. 20, 50 Am. Rep. 601, 12. Texas, etc., E. Co. v. Whitci 18 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 87; Hannibal, 101 Fed. 928, 42 C. C. A. 86. etc., E. Co. V. Martin, 111 111. 219; Damages. 883 carrier, was the proximate cause, and the carrier liable therefor,'' But the same rule has been applied in- favor of the carrier and it ihas been held that the duty of a railway company assuming to furnish a surgeon to a passenger injured by a collision is dis- charged when it provides one possessing ordinary skill. Such sur- geon is liable for any damage caused by his negligence." A pas- senger cannot recover for injuries caused by his resistance to the conductor who lawfully ejected him,'^ or who unlawfully ejected kim, unless the expulsion was malicious or wanton." § 3. Injury aggravated by existing disease or injury. — ^Where an injury to a passenger resulting from the carrier's negligence, or physical or mental suffering caused thereby, is increased, inten- sified, or aggravated by the physical condition of the passenger or by an existing disease, or injury, the passenger is entitled to re- cover oompenisatory damages therefor, whether such fact was known to the carrier," or was not known and could not have been foreseen by the carrier. '* The carrier is presumed to know and to contemplate all the natural and proximate consequences, as! well 13. Eickenbottom v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 122 N. Y. 91, competent to show that, after amputation of plaintiff's arm, he experiences pain seemingly in the amputated member; Pullman Palace Car Co. t. Bluhm, tupra, where the bones of a broken arm failed to unite, thereby making a false joint. 14. Secord v. St. Paul, etc., E. Co., supra. 15. Wright V. California Cent. E. Co., 78 Cal. 360. 16. Pennsylvania E. Co. v. Connell, 112 111. 295, 54 Am. Eep. 238, 127 111. 419; Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Griffin, B8 111. 499; Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Wilson, 23 111. App. 63. But see Louisville, etc., E. Co. v. Wolfe, 128 Ind. 347, 25 Am. St. Rep. 436. 17. Texas, etc., E. Co. v. Lynch (Tex. Civ. App.), 73 S. W. 65. 18. Fell V. Northern Pac. E. Co., 44 Fed. 248; Montgomery, etc., E. Co. V. Mallette, 92 Ala. 209; East Tea- nessee, etc., E. Co. v. Lockhart, 79 Ala. 315; Louisville, etc., E. Co. v. Jones, 83 Ala. 376; Louisville, etc., E. Co. V. Miller, 141 Ind. 533; Louis- ville, etc., E. Co. v. Snyder, 117 Ind. 435, 10 Am. St. Rep. 60; Ohio, etc., R. Co. V. Hecht, 115 Ind. 443; Louisville, etc., E. Co. v. Wood, 113 Ind. 544; Dawson v. Louisville, etc., E. Co. (Ky.), 11 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 134; Brown v. Hannibal, etc., E. Co., 66 Mo. 588. Damages for a miscarriage and the suffering incident thereto have been held proper where a pregnant woman was put oS the cars at a place other than her destination and compelled to walk home, the walk and exposure resulting in a miscarriage. Brown v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 54 Wis. 342, 41 Am. Eep. 41; Augusta, etc., R. Co. V. Eandall, 79 Ga. 304, 34 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 439. 884 The Law of Caeeiees. those that probably may, as those that certainly will, flow from its wrongful act, and, therefore, a predisposition or tendency of an injured passenger to certain diseases will not relieve the' carrier from consequences therefrom." But it has been held that the increased risk arising from conditions of health affecting the fitness of a passenger to travel, certainly where such conditions are unknown to the carrier, must be assumed by the passenger.^ § 4. Damages for failure to carry. — The measure of damages for the failure or refusal of a carrier to carry a passenger, or for delay in carrying a passenger, is, ordinarily, the necessarily in- creased expensesi while awaiting the arrival of the conveyance, the expense of reaching his destination by another means, and the loss, or injury actually sustained in his business as the direct and necessary consequences of the failure to carry or delay in carry^ ing.^* Loss of time/^ or earnings,^ personal inconvenience,^ and 19. Baltimore City Pass. E. Co. v. Kemp, 61 Md. 74, 47 Am. Rep. 381; Sloane v. Southern California R. Co., Ill Cal. 668; Wallace v. Wilming- ton, etc., R. Co., 8 Houst. (Del.) 529. 20. Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Barker, 4 Colo. 344, 34 Am. Rep. 89, and where a sleeping car caught fire through the carrier's negligence, and' a woman who was " unwell " was thereby compelled to leave the car half clad, and caught cold, resulting in the suppression of her menses, this was held to be a remote and not the proximate result of the carrier's neg- ligence, and not to be considered in reckoning the damages. 21. Schmidt v. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 25 Ky. L. Rep. 11, 74 S. W. 674; Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Birney, 71 III. 391; Morse V. Duncan, 14 Fed. 396; The Zenobia, Abb. Adm. 80; Northern Cent. R. Co. v. O'Conner, 76 Md. 207, 35 Am. St. Rep. 422, 52 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 176; Baltimore, etc., E. Co. V. Carr, 71 Md. 135; Francis vS St. Louis Transfer Co., .-) Mo. App. 7; Hamlin v. Great Nor- thern R. Co., 1 H. & N. 408, 2 Jur. N. S. 1122, 26 L. J. Exch. 20; Crans- ton V. Marshall, 5 Exch. 395. Special iiutanceB. — The sale of a passage ticket, by a certain steamer, does not constitute an agreement to carry a person buying such ticket un- conditionally and at all hazards, but only gives him a right to passage on that steamer; and if, at the time of such sale, and unknown to both par- ties to the transaction, the steamer had been lost at sea, the holder of the ticket can recover only the amount he paid for the same, with interest, there being no obligation on the part of the carrier to provide substitute passage. Bonsteel v. Vanderbilt, 21 Barb. (N. Y.) 26; Briggs v. Vander- bilt, 19 Barb. (N. Y.) 346. But trhere passage was guar- anteed and the passenger had taken part of the trip, if there were other routes open, the passenger might re- cover the cost of reaching his desti- nation by the other route, including reasonable pay for delay and special damages sustained by reason of the Damages. 885 sickness resulting proximately from the carrier's negligence,^' and suffering from being compelled to remain over night in, an un- heated and unlighted station^* have also been held to be elements of damage for failure or delay in carriage. Inconvenience is an element vphen capable of being stated in- a tangible form and assessed at a money value. ^^ But disappointment occasioned by delay; or, if there was no, other route open, the measure of damages would be the expenses back, expenses while at the place where his trip was interrupted, necessary expenses on the road, and loss of time in making the passage there and back. Central R. Co. V. Combs, 70 Ga. 533, 18 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 298. 82. Cooley v. Pennsylvania E. Co., 40 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 239, 81 N. Y. Supp. 692; Mobile & O. R. Co. v. Eeeves, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 2236, 80 S. W. 471; Miller v. Southern Ry. Co., 69 S. C. 116, 48 S. W. 99, but a pas- senger is not entitled to damages lor inconvenience, loss of time, or fatigue caused by the delay of a train, unless it has produced some pecuniary dam- ages or personal loss resulting. See also Bullock v. White Star S. S. Co., 30 Wash. 448, 70 Pac. 1106. A lawyer can recover merely the value of his time, based on the average of his earnings for the year preceding, in the absence of no- tice to the carrier of special circum- stances requiring him to arrive on schedule time. Cooley v. Pennsyl- vania R. Co., supra. 23. Stewart v. Baltimore & 0. R. Co., 88 N. Y. Supp. 377, where a pas- senger suffered no loss of earnings, by reason of three hours' delay, caused by his ticket having been taken away and not returned, and incurred no expense to which he would not have been put had ho reached his destination, he was not entitled to any damages except the price of the ticket. Cost of price of ticket has been held the only proximate damages for breach of contract of carrier in De Leon v. McKernan, 25 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 182, 54 N. Y. Supp. 167, delay in delivery of a passenger's trunk; Rose V. King, 76 App. Div. (N. Y.) 308, ,78 N. Y. Supp. 419, the complaint not having asked for special damages, and no circumstances of humility or indignity having been shown; Miller V. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 89 App. Div. (N. Y.) 457, 85 N. Y. Supp. 883, not entitled to recover for mere in- convenience, annoyance, and delay, in the absence of proof of actual physi- cal or mental injury. Iiiving expenses, irages, and cost of ontfit for plaintiff and his workmen, held proper elements^ of damages. Bullock v. White Star S. S. Co., 30 Wash. 448, 70 Pae. 1106. 24. Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. Reeves, supra; Southern Ry. Co. v. Marshall, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 813, 64 S. W. 418. 25. Williams v. Vanderbilt, 28 N". Y. 217, 84 Am. Dec. 333; Heim v. McCaughan, 32 Miss. 17, 66 Am. Dee. 588. But not when caused by the passenger's negligence or imprudence. Morse v. Duncan, 14 Fed. 396; In- dianapolis, etc., R. Co. V. Birney, 71 111. 391; Francis v. St. Louis Trans- fer Co., 5 Mo. App. 7. 26. Brown v. Georgia, etc., R. Co., 119 Ga. 88, 46 S. E. 71. 27. Northern Cent. R. Co. v. O'Con^ 886 The Law of Caeeiees. the delay or failure to reach destination has been held not to be a proper element of damage, at least in an action for breach of con- tract,^* although damages for disappointment, sense of wrong, or injured feelings might be recoverable in an action of tort.^' Where the engineer and fireman in charge of a train, through no fault of their own, fail to see or obey a signal to stop at a flag station, the company will not be liable for failure to stop the train ; while, if they fail to see the signal because of negligence on their part, the person damaged is entitled to recover compensatory damages; and if the signal is seen and understood by them, and their action in not stopping the train is malicious, wanton, or capricious, then punitive damages may be recovered.'" § 5. Damages far setting down passenger at place other than destination. — Where in violation of the carrier's contract, a pas- senger has been set down by the carrier before reaching his des- tination, he may recover for the inconvenience of having to walk to his destination,'^ or the cost of conveyance to his destination by another means,'^ and for sickness resulting from having to walk to his destination.'' But where he has been carried beyond his destination, the carrier is responsible in damages for the discom- fort and inconvenience in getting back to his destination,'* for sick- ness resulting from walking back where unable to procure a Con- ner, supra; Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. v. White (Miss.), 33 So. 970; Yazoo, Carr, supra; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. etc., R. Co. v. Faust (Miss.), 32 So. 9. Berry, 4 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. § 166. 31. Walsh v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 28. Bonsteel v. Vanderbilt, supra; 42 Wis. 23, 24 Am. Rep. 376; Hobba Briggs V. Vanderbilt, supra. But see v. London, etc., R. Co., L. R. 10 Q. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Berry, supra, B. HI. holding that damages for annoyance, 32. Francis v. St. Louis Transfer vexation, and trouble occasioned by Co., 5 Mo. App. 7. delay are recoverable. 33. Brown v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 29. Walsh V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 54 Wis. 342, 41 Am. Rep. 41. 42 Wis. 23, 24 Am. Rep. 376, 15 Am. 34. Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Sel- Ry. Rep. 71. Or for mental anguish lers, 93 Ala. 9, 30 Am. St. Rep. 17; suffered by a wife's being separated East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. Lock- from her children because of failure hart, 79 Ala. 315; Cincinnati, etc., E. of the train to stop long enough for Co. v. Eaton, 94 Ind. 474, 48 Am. her to board it. International, etc.. Rep. 179 ; Trigg v. St. Louis, etc., E. R. Co. V. Anchonda, (Tex. Civ. App.), Co., 74 Mo. 147, 41 Am. Sep. 305, 6 68 S. W. 743. Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 345; Pennayl- 30. Southern R. Co. v. Lanning vania R. Co. v. Aspell, 23 Pa. St. 147, rMiss.K 35 So. 417: Southern R. Co. 62 Am. Dec. 323. Damages. 887 veyance and acting witli care and prudence,'^ for any personal in- jury sustained by reason of dangers encountered in walking to his destination known to the carrier, and the proximate result of the carrier's wrong, and not attributable to his own negligence or other independent cause,^^ and for the expenses of conveyance and other charges shown to have been the direct, natural, and proximate re- sult of the breach of contract." But no recovery can be had for mental suffering unaccompanied by physical injury.^^ Some of the cases hold that damages for fright is recoverable f^ others that they are not.*" § 6. Damages for ejection or assault of passenger. — Where a passenger has been wrongfully and unlawfully expelled or ejected by the carrier from a train or car, he may recover in an action against the carrier the amount of the fare to the place to which he 35. Cincinnati, etc., E. Co. v. Eaton, supra; East Tennessee, etc., E. Co. V. Lockhart, supra; Mobile, etc., E. Co. V. McArthur, 43 Miss. 180; International, etc., E. Co. v. Terry, 62 Tex. 380, 50 Am. Eep. 529. But the carrier is not liable for sickness resulting from the pas- senger's own negligence or impru- dence in walking without first trying to find shelter, or where the walk was unnecessarily taken. Ohio, etc., E. Co.-v. Burrows, 32 111. App. 161; Gulf, etc., E. Co. V. Head (Tex. Civ. App.), 15 S. W. 504; Texas, etc., E. Co. V. Cole, 66 Tex. 562. 36. Eawlings v. Wabash E. Co., 97 Mo. App. 515, 71 S. W. 535; Evans V. St. Louis, etc., E. Co., 11 Mo. App. 463 J Winkler v. St. Louis, etc., E. Co., 21 Mo. App. 99; Kreuziger v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 73 Wis. 158; Stutz V. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 73 Wis. 147, 9 Am. St. Eep. 769. Bat the carrier is not liable for injury caused by the passenger's own negligence or imprudence. Lewis V. Flint, etc., E. Co., 54 Mich. 55, 52 Am. Eep. 790; Henry v. St. Louis, etc., E. Co., 76 Mo. 288, 43 Am. Eep. 762. 37. International, etc., E. Co. v. Terry, 62 Tex. 380, 50 Am. Eep. 529, 21 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 323; Ala- bama G. S. E. Co. V. Sellers, supra. 38. Kansas City, etc., E. Co. v. Dalton, 65 Kan. 661, 70 Pac. 645; Trigg V. St. Louis, etc., E. Co., 74 Mo. 147, 41 Am. Eep. 305, 6 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 345; Dorrah v. Illinois Cent. E. Co., 65 Miss. 14, 7 Am. St. Eep. 629, 30 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 576. 39. East Tennessee, etc., E. Co. v. Lockhart, 79 Ala. 315; Cincinnati, etc., E. Co. v. Eaton, 94 Ind. 474, where the fright was directly pro- duced by the wrongful act. 40. Eawlings v. Wabash E. Co., 97 Mo. App. 511, 71 S. W. 534, damages for sickness owing to having fallen down in the mud and become wet and frightened held not recoverable; Georgia E. Co. v. Dorsey, 116 Ga. 719, 42 S. E. 1024, fright from hearing loud voices not recoverable unless tha locality was known to the carrier to be one in which such occasion of fright was likely to occur. 888 The Law of Caeeiees. was entitled to be carried, damages for the loss of time occasioDeH by the delay, and any other pecuniary loss necessarily caused thereby and proven to be a proximate result of the ejection, and a reasonable compensation for the indignity, humiliation, wounded pride, and mental suffering involved in and resulting from such wrongful expulsion." He may recover for such indignity and humiliation, whether the act was wanton, malicious, or wilful, or merely negligent , or mistaken -^ whether forcibly ejected,*' or fol-ced to leave because of threatened violence -^ or where he pays an illegally exacted fare to avoid ejection ;^ and although he, may 41. Kansas City, etc., E. Co. v. Little, 66 Kan. 378, 71 Pac. 820, 61 L. R. A. 122; Choctaw, etc., R. Co. v. Hill (Tenn.), 75 S. W. 983; Penn- sylvania E. Co. V. Connell, 127 HI. 419, 112 111. 295, 54 Am. Eep. 238; Delaware, etc., E. Co. v. Walch, 47 N. J. L. 548; Allen v. Camden, etc.. Ferry Co., 46 N. J. L. 198; Balti- more, etc.. Turnpike Road v. Boono, 45 Md. 344; McGinnis v. Missouri Pac. E. Co., 21 Mo. App. 399; Will- son V. Northern Pac. E. Co., 5 Wash. 621. But see Gorman v. Southern Pac. E. Co., 93 Cal. 1, 33 Am. St. Eep. 157, holding that compensatory damages for indignity and humiliation are only recoverable where the expul- sion is accompanied by imdue vio- lence, or by insult and abuse. See also N. Y. cases, note 7, § 1, ante. Iioss of time. — Proof in a passen- ger's action for wrongful expulsion that he was a lawyer of prominence, ttiat his time was of value, and that he lost one day, there being no proof as to what the value of his time was, is insu£Scient to warrant the jury to award damages for loss of time. Pennsylvania Co. v. Seofield, 121 Fed. 814, 58 C. C. A. 176; Gulf, etc., E. Co. V. Daniels (Tex. Civ. App.), 29 S. W. 426. 42. Coine v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 123 Iowa, 458, 99 N. W. 134; St. Louis, etc., E. Co. v. Trimble, 54 Ark. 354; Lake Erie etc., E. Co. v. Christison, 39 111. App. 495; Toledo, etc., E. Co. V. Kid, 29 111. App. 353; Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Flagg, 43 111. 364, 92 him. Dec. 133; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Holdridge, 118 Ind. 281; Louisville, etc., E. Co. v. Wilsey (Ky.), 12 S. W. 275, 39 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 418; Philadelphia, etc., E. Co. V. Hoeflich, 62 Md. 300, 50 Am. Eep. 223; Smith v. Pittsburgh, .etc., E. Co., 23 Ohio St. 11. But" see Ma- lott V. Woods, 109 111. App. 512, hold- ing that a passenger , required to leave a train at a station short of her destination, cannot recover for the humiliation and indignity, in the absence of proof of any actual malice or wantonness on the part of the con- ductor, 43. Allen v. Camden, etc., Ferry Co., 46 N. J. L. 198; Georgia R. Co. V. Olds, 77 Ga. 673; City, etc., E. Co. V. Brauss, 70 Ga. 380. 44. Delaware, etc., E. Co. v. Walsh, 47 N. J. L. 548. 45. Pennsylvania Co. v. Bray, 125 Ind. 229; Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Conley, 6 Ind. App. 9; Hoffman v. Northern Pac. E. Co., 45 Minn. 53; Willson V. Northern Pac. ,E. Co., 5 Wash. 621. Damages. 88& not have received any physical injury,^* or suffered any pecuniary loss." The passenger may also recover for any personal injury and consequent physical pain and s'uffering, though slight, and mental distijsss naturally resulting from the wrongful ejection,^ and for inconvenience," annoyances, vexation and risk, to which he may have been subjected by reason of being compelled to walk to another station or place. ^^ But he cannot recover for injuries Caused by his forcible resistance to the efforts to eject him, unless the ejection is malicious or wanton.'^ If, in lawfully ejecting a passenger, unnecessary force or violence is used,^^ or if the ejection 46. Georgia E., etc., Co. v. Baker, 120 Ga. 991, 48 S. E. 355; Chicago, etc. E, Co. V. Chisholm, 79 111. 584; Missouri, etc., E. Co. v. Tarwater (Tex. Civ. App.), 75 S. W. 937; Mabry v. City Electric E. Co., 116 Ga. 624, 42 S. E. 1025, 59 L. E. A. 690. 47. Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Flagg, 43 111. 364, 92 Am. Dec. 133. Evidence of abusive and in- inlting conduct and contemptn- oui manner of the carrier's serv- ants while unlawfully expelling a passenger is admissible to enhance the damages. Sloane v. Southern California E. Co., Ill Cal. 668; Chi- cago, etc., E. Co. V. Williams, 55 111. 185, 8 Am. Eep. 641; McGinnis v. Missouri Pac. E. Co., 21 Mo. App. 399; Toledo, etc., E. Co. v. McDon- ough, 53 Md. 289; International, etc., R. Co, V. Gilbert, 64 Tex. 536; Coppin V. Braithwaite, 8 Jur. 875. The honest expression of opinion, however, by a conductor that money offered to him for fare is counterfeit, and his refusal to accept it on that account, he not charging that the passenger knew it was coun- terfeit, is not a tort, or an element of damages. Breen v. St. Louis Transit Co., 102 Mo. App. 479. 48. Breen v. St. Louis Transit Co., 102 Mo. App. 479, 77 S. W. 78; Houston, etc., E. Co. v. McNeel (Tex. Civ. App.), 76 S. W. 206; Smith v. Pittsburg, etc., E. Co., 23 Ohio St. 11, injurious consequences of expos- ure held to be a proper element 'of damages. See also Sloane v. South- ern California E. Co., Ill Cal. 668; Ohio, etc., E. Co. v. Burrow, 32 111. App. 161; Evans v. St. Louis, etc., E. Co., 11 Mo. App. 463; Louisville, etc., R. Co. V. Fleming, 14 Lea (Tenn.), 128; International, etc., E. Co. V. Gilbert, 64 Tex. 541. 49. Central R., etc., Co. v. Strick- land, 90 Ga. 562; Georgia E. Co. v. Olds, 77 Ga. 673; City, etc., E. Co. V. Brauss, 70 Ga. 380. 50. Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Flagg, 43 111. 364, 92 Am. Dec. 133; New York, etc., E. Co. v. Willing, 24 Ohio Cir. Ct. Eep. 74. 51. Pennsylvania E. Co. v. Con- nell, 112 111. 295, 54 Am. Eep. 238, 127 111. 419; Chicago, etc., E. Co. t. Griffin, 68 111. 499; Chicago, etc., E. Co. V. Wilson, 23 111. App. 63. Con- tra: Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. "Wolfe, 128 Ind. 347, 25 Am. St. Rep. 436. 52. Jardine v. Cornell, 50 N. J. L. 485; Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. Larkin, 47 Md. 155, 28 Am. Eep. 442 ; Mykleby v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 39 Minn. 54; Brown v. Hannibal, etc., E. Co., 66 Mo. 588; Chicago, etc., R. Co. V. Herring, 57 111. 59. 890 The Law of Caeeiees. is made at an improper time, as from a moving train/' or at any improper place instead of a regular station," the carrier will be liable for damages resulting therefrom, including compensation for the mortification and indignity suffered.^' A passenger ille- gally arrested by the carrier's servants,'* or wrongfully assaulted by the carrier's servants," or by fellow passengers in the pres- ence of the employes of the carrier and without interference by them to protect him,^* may recover of the carrier for the physi- cal injury inflicted, pain and suffering, and for the mental suffer- ing and disgrace and humiliation to which he was subjected by the arrest or assault. Compensatory damages, which may be recov- ered for the wrongful act of a conductor in expelling a passen- ger, are not subject to mitigation, nor is the liability of the prin- cipal for such damages defeated, by proof that the act which caused the injury was provoked by abusive language. In an action for wrongful ejectment and assault on a passenger, words of provocation may be considered in mitigation of punitive, but not of compensatory damages.^' But only actual damages and 53. Sanford v. Eighth Ave. E. Co., 23 N. Y. 343, 80 Am. Dee. 286. 54. Toledo, etc., E. Co. v. Patter- son, 63 111. 304. 55. New Jersey Steamboat Co. v. Brochett, 121 U. S. 637; Philadel- phia, etc., R. Co. v. Larkin, 47 Md. 155, 28 Am. Eep. 442. 56. Lake Shore, etc., B. Co. v. Prentice, 147 U. S. 101; Fisher v. Metropolitan Elev. K. Co., 34 Hun (N. Y.),433. 57. Niendorf v. Manhattan R. Co., 4 App. Div. (N. Y.) 46; East Ten- nessee, etc., E. Co. V. Hyde, 89 Ga. 721; Sherley v. Billings, 8 Bush (Ky.) 147, 8 Am. Eep. 451; Ean- dolph V. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 18 Mo. App. 609 ; Craker v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 36 Wis. 657; Missouri Pac. R. Co. V. Martino, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 634; O'Donnel v. St. Iiouis Transit Co. (Mo. App.), 80 S. W. 315. 58. International, etc., E. Co. v. Giesen (Tex. Civ. App.), 69 S. W. 653; Richmond', etc., R. Co. v. Jef- ferson, 89 Ga. S54; Xew Orleans, etc., R. Co. v. Burke, 53 Miss. 200, 24 Am. Eep. 689. 59. Mahoning Valley E. Co. v. De Pascale, 70 Ohio St. 179, 71 N. E. 633. But see Harrison v. Fink, 42 Fed. 787, holding that a passenger could not recover for a conductor's acts or words in ejecting him, hav- ing provoked them by resisting, the ejection. Also Terre Haute, etc., E. Co. V. Vanatta, 21 111. 188, 74 Am. Dec. 96, holding that a passenger's attempt to impose upon a carrier by offering a void ticket may be shown to mitigate damages. See also Hous- ton, etc., E. Co. V. Batchler (Tex. Civ. App.), 73 S. W. 981. 60. St. Louis, etc., E. Co. v. Trim- ble, 54 Ark. 354; Cincinnati, etc., E. Co. V. Cole, 29 Ohio St. 126, 23 Am Rep. 729 ; Holmes v. Carolina Cent. K, Co., 94 N. C. 318, 26 Am. & Eng. K, Cas. 190. Damages, 891 nothing for wounded feelings or pain of mind, can be recovered by a passenger wber© be enters a car or train for tbe purpose of being ejected in order to bring an action for damages.'" § 7. Damages for personal injuries. — Damages for personal injuries sustained by a passenger tbrougb tbe negligence of a car- rier should consist of reasonable compensation for tbe injuries received, the sufferings experienced, and tbe consequent loss sus- tained by tbe passenger.^ Not only tbe direct pecuniary expenses incurred by tb,e injured person, and loss of time, tbe bodily and mental suffering, expense of cure, and incurable burt caused by tbe injury, but also sucb future damages as may result from tbe loss of health, time, and use of limbs, bodily and mental pain and suffering, having in view tbe effect of the injury upon bis ability to labor and attend to bis business, are proper elements of damage for the consideration of the jury.*^ Loss of time after tbe injury during which the passenger is disabled from attending to bis busi- ness or profession as well as actual and reasonable expenses for medical attendance, medicines and nursing are recoverable. '' 61. Williams v. Vanderbjlt, 28 N. Y. 217, 84 Am. Dec. 333; Morse v. Auburn, etc., E. Co., 10 Barb. (N. Y.) 621; Storrs v. Los Angeles Tract. Co., 134 Cal. 91, 66 Pac. 72; Railroad v. Myers, 87 Fed. 149, 58 U. S. App. 131, 32 C. C. A. 19; Rutherford v. Shreveport, etc., R. Co., 41 La. Ann. 893, 41 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 129; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Books, 37 Pa. St. 339, 98 Am. Dec. 229; Ohio, etc., R. Co. V. Dickerson, 59 Ind. 317 ; Wallace v. Wilmington, etc., E. Co., 8 Houst. (Del.) 529; International, etc., E. Co. V. Irvine (Tex.), 18 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 294. 62. Curtis v. Rochester, etc., R. Co., 18 N. Y. 534, 20 Barb. (N. Y.) 282; Brignoli v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 4 Daly (N. Y.) 182; The Oriflame, 3 Sawy. (U. S.) 397; Secord v. St. Paul, etc., E. Co., 5 MeCrary (U. S.) 515, 18 Fed. 221; Mackoy v. Mis- souri Pac. E. Co., 5 MoCrary (U, S.) 538; Seymour v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 3 Biss. (U. S.) 43; Wall v. Cameron, 6 Colo. 276; St. Louis, etc., E. Co. v. Cantrell, 37 Ark. 519, 40 Am. Eep. 105, 3 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 198; Hill V. New Orleans, etc., E. Co., 11 La. Ann. 292; Klutts v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 75 Mo. 642; Whalen v. St. Louis, etc., E. Co., 60 Mo. 323, 9 Am. Ry. Rep. 224; Laing v. Colder, 8 Pa. St. 479, 49 Am. Dec. 533; Memphis, etc., E. Co. V. Whitfield, 44 Miss. 466, 7 Am. Eep. 699; Texas, etc., R. Co. V. Pollard, 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. § 424; Spicer v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 29 Wis. 580; Southern Kansas R. Co. V. Walsh, 45 Kan. 653; Wallace v. Western North Carolina R. Co., 104 N. C. 442 ; Phillips v. London, etc., R. Co., 5 Q. B. Div. 78. 63. See cases cited in preceding notes to this section. Also Pennsyl- vania Co. V. Marion, 104 Ind. 239, re- covery for nursing although grata- 892 The Law of Caeeiees. Although no precise and accurate estimate of physical and mental suffering is possible, the jury may allow such an amount as, in the exercise of a sound discretion, tiiey deem reasonable for the phy- sical pain, and mental suffering accompanying and resulting from such physical pain, which are the proximate results of the injury caused by the negligence of the carrier." Damages are allowable for future or prospective, as well as past, physical and mental suf- fering and loss of time, and other pecuniary loss f^ but such dam- ages must be such as are reasonably certain to result,'^ and itous allowed; Hopkins v. Atlantic, etc., E. Co., 36 N. H. 9, 72 Am. Dee. 287, husband may recover for past and prospective loss of wife's ser- vices and expenses of medical treat- ment; Ohio, etc., E. Co. v. Crosby, 107 Ind. 32, but wife cannot so re- cover in absence of circumstances to rebut presumption of husband's right; Ohio, etc., E. Co. v. Diekerson, 59 Ind. 3l7; Missouri Pac. E. Co. v. Jarrard, 65 Tex. 560, actual deduction Irom salary for time lost not essen- tial; Montgomery, etc., R. Co. v. Mal- lette, 92 Ala. 209, no recovery for loss of time unless compensation was iu fact stopped or diminished; Gulf, etc., E. Co. V. Wilson, 79 Tex. 371, 23 Am. St. Bep. 345, loss of time and loss of wages are the same; Galveston, etc., R. Co. V. Thornsberry (Tex.), 17 S. W. 521, amount of expenses for medical treatment and value of loss of time must be shown, 64. Hickenbottom v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 122 N. Y. 91; Eansom v. New York, etc., R. Co., 15 N. Y. 415; Harding v. New York Cent., etc., E. Co., 36 Hun (N. Y.) 72; Quinn v. Long Island R. Co., 34 Hun (N. Y.) 331; Walker v. Erie E. Co., 63 Barb. (N. Y.) 260; Morgan v. Southern Pac. E. Co., 95 Cal. 501, 29 Am. St. Rep. 143; Hannibal, etc., R. Co. v. Martin, 111 111. 219; Illinois Cent. R. Co. V. Robinson, 58 HI. App. 181; Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Baddeley, 54 111. 19, 5 Am. Rep. 71; Dawson v. Louisville, etc., R. Co. (Ky.), 11 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 134; Quigley v. Cen- tral Pac. E. Co., 11 Nev. 350, 21 'Am. Rep. 757; Pennsylvania, etc., R. Co. V. Allen, 53 Pa. St. 276; Interna- tional, etc., R. Co. V. Kentle, 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. § 303, 10 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 337. See also cases generally cited in preceding notes to this sec- tion. 65. Nash v. Sharp, 19 Hun (N.Y.) 365; Matteson v. New York Cent. E. Co., 62 Barb. (N. Y.) 364; Washing- ton, etc., R. Co. V. Harmon, 147 D. S. 571; Johnson v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 47 Minn. 430; Stutz v. Chicago, etc, E. Co., 73 Wis. 147, 9 Am. Sep. 769. See also cases cited in notes 62 and 63, ante. 66. DiflFenbaeh v. New York, etc., R. Co., 5 App. Div. (N. Y.) 91, 38 N. Y. Supp. 788; Koetter v. Manhat- tan R. Co., 13 N. Y. Supp. 458; Cur- tis V. Rochester, etc., R. Co., 18 N. Y. 534; Washington, etc., R. Co. v. Har- mon, 147 U. S. 571; Louisville, etc., R. Co. V. Wood, 113 Ind. 544; Louis- ville, etc., R. Co. V. Minogue, 90 Ky. 369, 29 Am. St. Rep. 378; Stutz v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 73 Wis. 147, 9 Am. St. Rep. 769; Spicer v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 29 Wis. 580. Damages. 893 not such as may possibly result." A passenger is entitled to re- cover compensation for permanent injuries caused by the carrier's negligence, or such, as are reasonably certain to prove so, as well as for temporary injuries, and to compensation for pain and suf- fering and for loss sustained by reason of such permanent injuries or disabilities.*' Included in permanent injuries are permanent reduction of the power or ability or diminished capacity to earn money,'' inability to perform work,"* or to continue professional practice," disfigurement,'^ impairment of mental faculties,'' diminished capacity for mental and physical development,'* in- juries rendering one a physical wreck and hopeless invalid, in- capacitated to enjoy the pleasures of life, whether or not a wage earner." The rule is well settled that the plaintiff can only be 67. Strohm v. New York, etc., E. Co., 96 N. Y. 305; Ohio, etc., E. Co. T, Wood, 107 Ind. 32. 68. Dale v. Brooklyn City, etc., E. Go., 1 Hun (N. Y.) 146; Southern Pae. E. Co. v. Eauh, 49 Fed. 696; Frink y. Sehroyer, 18 111. 416 ; Louis- ville, etc., E. Co. V. Miller, 141 Ind. 533; Maysville, etc., E. Co. v. Her- riok, 13 Bush. (Ky.) 122; Louisville, etc., R. Co. V. Thompson, 64 Miss. 584, 30 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 541; Iiaing V. Colder, 8 Pa. St. 479, 49 Am. ,Dee. 533; International, etc., E. Co. V. Brazzil, 78 Tex. 314, 44 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 437; Farish v. Eeigle, 11 Gratt. (Va.) 697, 62 Am. Dee. 666; Quaife v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 48 Wis. 513, 33 Am. Eep. 821. 69. Hegcman v. Western E. Corp., 16 Barb. (N. Y.) 353; Mooney v. Hudson River E. Co., 1 Sweeny (N. Y.) 325; Lowry v. Mt. Adams, etc., R. Co., 68 Fed. 827; Boyce v. Cali- fornia Stage Co., 25 Cal. 460; Wall V. Cameron, 6 Colo. 275; North Chi- cago St. E. Co. ^f. Broma, 62 111. App. 127; Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Meech, 59 111. App. 69; Louisville, etc., E. Co. V. Miller, supra; Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. V. Andrews, 39 Md. 329, 17 Am. Rep. 668, 10 Am. Ey. Rep. 485 ; Whalen v. St. Louis, etc., E. Co., supra; Wedekind v. Southern Pac. E. Co., 20 Nev. 292; Houston, etc., E. Co. v. Boehm, 57 Tex. 152, 9 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 366; Sears v. Seattle Consol. St. E. Co., 6 Wash. 227; Cogsville v. West St., etc., Eleo. E. Co., 5 Wash. 46. 70. Stutz V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 73 Wis. 147, 9 Am. St. Eep. 769, 37 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 137. 71. Walker v. Erie E. Co., 63 Barb. (N. Y.) 260; Phillips v. London, etc., E. Co., 5 C. P. Div. 280, 49 L. J. C. P. Div. 233, 42 L. T. N. S. 6. 72. Heddles v. Eailroad Co., 77 Wis. 228, 46 N. W. 115. The Ori- flamme, 3 Sawy. (U. S.) 397; Texas, etc., E. Co. V. Pollard, 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas., § 481. 73. Toledo, etc., E. Co. v. Bad- deley, 54 111. 19, 5 Am. Eep. 71. 74. Houston, etc., E. Co. v. Boehm, 57 Tex. 152. 75. Tu thill v. Long Island E. Co., 81 Hun. (N. Y.) 616, 30 N. Y. Supp. 959; Koetter v. Manhattan R. Co., 13 N. Y. Supp. 458; The Washington, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 513; Howland v. Oakland Consol. St. E. Co., 110 Cal. 513; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Eobin- son 58 111. App. 181; Southern Kan- 894 The Law of Caeeiees. allowed to recover for such, permanent injuries as in the ordinary course of nature, are reasonably certain to ensue. Expert witnesses may state what, in their judgment, is reasonably certain to be the future course of the disability, considering the nature of the in- jury, the extent, rapidity or slowness of the recovery, the constitu- tion of the man, and all those other conditions upon which a judg- ment of a physician is ordinarily based. It is then for the jury upon that testimony, in connection with the physical condition of tlie plaintiff, to say whether a permanent disability is reasonably certain to ensue, and, if not so, then how long it is probable that the plaintiff will suffer from the injuries, and to award the amount of damages necessary to compensate him for his future suffering.'* But evidence of experts as to future consequences which are con- tingent, speculative, or merely possible, is incompetent" Where the proximate cause of a disease was an injury received in an acci- dent, or there is a progressive, complete connection between any disease and the injury inflicted, such disease may be taken into consideration by the jury as an element of damages for which a recovery may be had, even tliough it was not discovered until some time after the accident." § 8. Mental suffering as distinct cause of action or element of damage. — Mental suffering or distress of mind, or injured feelings, when connected with bodily injury, are the subject of damages, but they must be connected in order to be included, unless the injury is accompanied by circumstances of malice, insult, or inhumanity." There can be no recovery for sas R. Co. V. Walsh 45 Kan. 653 ; 01- 78. Wood v. New York Cent., etc., son V. St. Paul, etc., E. Co., 45 Minn. E. Co., 83 App. Div. (N. Y.) 604, 82 536, 22 Am. St. Rep. 749; Missouri N. Y. Supp. 160; Louisville, etc., R, Pac. R. Co. V. Mitchell, 72 Tex. 171. Co. v. Falvey, 104 Ind. 409, 3 N. E. 76. DiflFenbaeh v. New York, etc., 389, 4 N. E. 908 ; Baltimore City Pass. R. Co., 5 App. Div. (N. Y.) 91, 38 R. Co. v. Kemp, 61 Md. 74, 619, 48 N. Y. Supp. 788; Clapp v. Hudson Am. Rep. 134; McGarrahan v. New River R. Co., 19 Barb. (N. Y.) 461; York, etc., R. Co., 171 Mass. 211, 5» And see Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. N. E. 610; Dickson v. Hbllister, 123 Snyder, 117 Ind. 435, 10 Am. St. Rep. Pa. 421, 16 Atl. 484; Houston, etc., 60; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Aiken, 71 R. Co. v. Leslie, 57 Tex. 83. Tex. 373; and the cases cited in notes 79. Rawlings v. Wabash R. Co., 68, 69 and 73 to this section. 97 Mo. App. 515, 71 S. W. 535; 77. Strohm v. New York, etc., R. Morse v. Duncan, 14 Fed. 396; Daw- Co., 96 N. Y. 305. son v. Louisville, etc., R. Co. (Ky.), Damages. 895 fright -whicli results in physdcal injuries or mental distress, in the absence of contemporaneous injury to plaintiff/" unless the fright is the proximate result of a legal wrong against plaintiff by de- fendant." But fright,*^ or terror/^ or mental anguish caused by impending peril,^ and mental suffering or nervous shock gener- ally/* have been held to be proper elements of compensatory dam- ages, -whether connected ■with physical suffering or not, whenever they were the natural and proximate result of the wrong done, if such wrong gave the injured party a cause of action, though not of themselves a sufficient cause of action. § 9. Exemplary damages. — Malice or wilfulness. — r To authorize tbe giving of exemplary, punitive, or vindictive dam» ages', it must appear that there was an intentional violation of another's rights, or a malicious intent to injure another in per- son or property, or that a proper act was don© with an excess of force and violence, or that there was such, a degree of negligence as indicates a wanton and reckless indifference to consequenoes.** 11 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 134; Dorrah v. Illinois Cent. E. Co., 65 Miss. 14 7 Am. St. Rep. 629; Spohn v. Mis- souri Pac. E. Co., 116 Mo. 617; Trigg V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 74 Mo. 147, 41 Am. Rep. 305; Winkler V. St. Louis, etc., E. Co., 21 Mo. App. 99; Randolph v. Hannibal, etc., E. Co., 18 Mo. App. 609; Johnson v. Wells, 6 Nev. 224, 3 Am. Rep. 245. 80. Ohliger v. Toledo Traction Co., 23 Ohio Cir. Ct. Eep. 65. 81. Sanderson v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 88 Minn. 162, 92 N. W. 542, 60 L. E. A. 403. 82. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. Lockhart, 79 Ala. 315; Stutz t. Chi- cago, etc., E. Co., 73 Wis. 147, 9 Am. St. Eep. 769, 37 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 187; Kreuziger v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 73 Wis. 158. 83. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Whitman, 79 Ala. 328. 84. Harding v. New York, etc., R. Ck)., 36 Hun (N. Y.), 72; Quinn v. Long Island E. Co., 34 Hun {N. Y.), 331; Fell V. Northern Pac. E. Co., 44 Fed. 252; Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Flagg, 43 111. 364, 92 Am. Dee. 133. 85. Gillespie v. Brooklyn Heights E. Co., 178 N. Y. 347; Shepard v. Chi- cago, etc., E. Co., 77 Iowa, 54; Lake Erie, etc., E. Co. v. Fix, 88 Ind. 381, 45 Am. Rep. 464; Illinois Cent. R. Co. V. Latimer, 28 111. App. 552; South- ern Kansas R. Co. v. Hinsdale, 33 Kan. 507; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Kaiser, 82 Tex. 144; Stutz v. Chica- go, etc., R. Co., 73 Wis. 147, 9 Am. St. Rep. 769. 86. Peek v. New York Cent.^R. Co., 6 Sup. Ct. (N. Y.) 409, note; Par- ker V. Long Island R. Co., 13 Hun (N. Y.), 319; Kansas City, etc., R. Co. V. Little, 66 Kan. 378, 71 Pac. 820, 61 L. R. A. 122 ; Oliver v. Columbia, etc., R. Co., 65 S. C. 1, 43 S. E. 307 ; Grif- fin v. Southern Ry. Co., 65 S. C. 122, 43 S. E. 445; Louisville, etc., R. Co. V. Wurl, 62 111. App. 381; Northern Cent. E. Co. v. O'Conner, 76 Md. 207, 35 Am. St. Eep. 422; Baltimore, etc., E. Co. v. Carr, 71 Md. 135; Chicago, etc., R. Co. V. Scurr, 59 Miss. 456, 896 The Law of Caeeiees. Exemplary, punitive, or vindictive damages, each meaning the same thing, is something beyond actual compensation, something not given as due the injured person, but is awarded, regardless of the amount of damages actually sustained, upon public consid- erations, as a punishment of the defendant for the wrong inflicted, and for the protection of the public against the repetition of simi- lar acts. In such cases the law uses the suit of a private party as an instrument of public protection, not for the sake of the suitor, but for that of the public. It is not the form of the action, but the moral culpability of the defendant, that confers the right to give punitory damages, and they are given in actions ex delicto, as a punishment of the defendant and admonition to others, for the prevention of fraud, malice, and oppression. They are not allowed where there has been no intentional offense, and defendant has done what he honestly believed to be his duty, but only where the wrong is done with evil intent, malice, wilfulness, or in wan- ton indifference to the rights of others." It is not necessary that 42 Am. Eep. 373, 6 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 341; Memphis, etc., E. Co. v Whitfield, 44 Miss. 466, 7 Am. Eep. 699; Knowles v. Norfolk Southern R. Co., 102 N. C. 59; Rose v. Wil- mington, etc., R. Co., 106 N. C. 168; Holmes v. Carolina Cent. R. Co., 94 N. C. 318; Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Lyon, 123 Pa. St. 140, 10 Am. St. Rep. 517; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Fleming, 14 Lea (Tenn.), 128; Ap- pleby V. South Carolina, etc., R. Co., 60 S. C. 48, 38 S. E. 237. Tbe right to give exemplary damages in, any case has been cinestioned. — Wardrobe v. Califor- nia Stage Co., 7 Cal. 119, 68 Am. Dec. 231; Fay v. Parker, 53 N. H. 342, 16 Am. Rep. 270; McKeon v. Citi- zens E. Co., 42 Mo. 79; Quigley v. Central Pac. R. Co., 11 Nev. 350, 21 Am. Rep. 757. 87. Hamilton v. Tliird Ave. R. Co., 53 N. Y. 25. See also Alabama G. S. R. Co. V. Sellers, 93 Ala. 9, 30 Am. St. Rep. 17; Denver Tramway Co. v. Cloud, 6 Colo. App. 445; Georgia, etc., E. Co. v. Eskew, 86 Ga. 641. 22 Am. St. Rep. 490, 47 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 635; Pullnian Palace Car Co. V. Reed, 75 III. 125, 20 Am. Rep. 232; Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. Hoeflich, 62 Md. 300, 50 Am. Rep. 223; Hoff- man V. Northern Pac. R. Co., 45 Minn. 53; Vicksburg, etc., E. Co. v. Scanlan, 63 Miss. 413; and cases cited in note 86, ante. Wanton and ivilfnl ezpnlsion of a passenger entitles him to re- cover punitive damages: Dagnall v. Southern Ry. Co., 69 S. C. 110, 48 S. E. 97; Story v. Norfolk, etc., E. Co., 133 N.C.59,45 S. E. 349; Lake Erie, etc., R. Co., Christison, 39 111. App. 495; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Wolfe, 128 Ind. 347, 25 Am. St. Eep. 436; Gorman v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 97 Cal. 1, 33 Am. St. Rep. 157. A brnsqne or dictatorial man- ner is not an insult which justifies punitive damages: Northern Cent. R. Co. V. Newman (Md.), 56 Atl. Damages. 897 liarsii and unnecessary means be used in doing an act to show malice. It may be inferred from circumstances of time and •973; Louisville, etc., E. Co. v. Bal- lard, 85 Ky. 307, 7 Ain. St. Rep. 600, 28 Am. & Eng. R. Caa. 135. In action for ejection the pas- senger is not entitled to exemplary damages where he limits his claim ior recovery to breach of contract. Moon V. Interurban St. Ry. Co., 85 N. Y. Supp. 363; Eddy v. Syracuse, «tc., E. Co., 50 App. Div. (N. Y.) 109, 63 N. Y. Supp. 645; Monnier v. New York, etc., E. Co., 175 N. Y. 281, ■67 N. E. 569; Carleton v. Lombard, Ayres & Co., 19 App. Div. (N. Y.) 297, 46 N. Y. Supp. 120; Fink v. Albany, etc., E. Co., 4 Lans. (N. Y.) 147; Brown v. Rapid Ry. Co. (Mich.), 90 N. W. 290, 9 Det. L. N. 127. Insult and -rillification accom- panying ejection entitles to exem- plary damages. Georgia R. Co. v. •Olds, 77 Ga. 673; Louisville, etc., E. Co. V. Ballard, 88 Ky. 159. Intent to injure, degrade, or oppress passenger by wrongfully expelling him held to justify exem- plary damEiges. Palmer v. Charlotte, etc., E. Co., 3 S. C. 580. Wilful refusal to carry entitles to exemplary damages. Memphis, etc., R. Co. V. Green, 52 Miss. 779; Heirn v. M'Caughan, 32 Miss. 17, 66 Am. Dec. 588. Ejection of passenger from moving train a cause for exemplary damages. Galena v. Hot Springs R. Co., 4 McCrary (U. S.) 371. Lawful ejection but in a wan" ton manner and with, unneces- sary force will entitle a passenger to punitive damages. Philadelphia, «tc., R. Co. V. Larkin, 47 Md. 155, 28 -Am. Rep. 442; Tomlinson v. Wilming- 57 ton, etc., R. Co., 107 N. C. 327, 47 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 620. A malicious assault by a can> ductor on a passenger entitles a recovery for punitive damages. Lex- ington Ry. Co. V. Cozine, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 1137, 64 S. W. 848; Atlantic, etc., R. Co. V. Condor, 75 Ga. 51. Gross neglect causing a collision entitles to award of punitive dam- ages. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Ma- Clain, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 1878, 66 S. W. 391. Delay in transportation dne to carrier's negligence entitles only to actual and not to exemplary dam- ages. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Pearson, (Miss.) 31 So. 435. Ejection of a passenger else- -wliere than at a station does not justify exemplary damages, in the absence of improper conduct. Chi- cago, etc., R. Co. V. Parks, 18 111. 460, 68 Am. Deo. 562; Chicago, etc., R. Co. V. Wilson, 23 111. App. 63. Failure to protect passengers from assault or insult does not entitle to punitive damages, unless there has been a wilful refusal or failure to do so when called upon, or the injury occurs in the employe's presence. New Orleans, etc., R. Co. v. Burke, 53 Miss. 200, 24 Am. Rep. 689, 9 Am. Ry. Rep. 308. 'Wantonly carrying passenger beyond destination entitles to punitive damages. Birmingham Ry., etc., Co. V. Nolan (Ala.), 32 So. 715; Samuels v. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 35 S. C. 493, 28 Am. St. Rep. 883, 52 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 315; Packet Co. V. Nagle, 97 Ky. 9, 29 S. W. 743; Higgins V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 64 898 The La.w of Gaeeiees. place and the existing conditions that the act "was done in a spirit of malice or wantonness.'* § 10. Exemplary damages. — Gross negligence. — ^In some of the authorities it is held tliat negligence of a carrier which is gross and wanton, or gross neglect of the carrier's employes^ is sufficient to entitle the injured person to punitive or exemplary damages.*' But more generally the rule held seems to be that ex- emplary damages may be awarded for negligence which is so gross as to evince an entire want of care and is sufficient to raise a pre- sumption of conscious indifference to consequences, or so gross as to be equivalent to positive misconduct.'" A neglect of duty not Miss. 80; Vicksburg, etc., R. Co. v. Scanlan, 63 Miss. 413; Dawson y. Louisville, etc., R. Co. (Ky.), 11 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 134; Hall v. South Carolina R. Co., 28 S. C. 261. Bnt failure to carry to desti- nation, there being no proof of will- fulness, wantonness, or rudeness, does not entitle to exemplary dam- ages. Fort V. Southern Ry. Co. (S. Co.), 42 S. E. 196; Alabama, etc., R. Co. V. Purnell, 69 Miss. 652; 'Loms- ville, etc., R. Co. v. Champion, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 87, 68 S. W. 143. And carrying beyond station, in the absence of malice, insult or wilful wrong, does not entitle to ex- emplary damages. Kansas City, etc., R. Co. V. Fite, 67 Miss. 373. Evidence of conductor as to his intent and honest belief in eject- ing a passenger is proper upon the question of exemplary damages, though not material as to compensa- tory damages. Yates v. New York Cent, etc., R. Co., 67 N. Y. 100; Hamilton v. Third Ave. R. Co., 53 N. Y. 25; Georgia R. Co. v. Homer, 73 Ga. 251. See Hendricks v. Sixth Ave. R. Co., 44 N. Y. Super. Ct. 11. 88. Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Sel- lers, 93 Ala. 9, 30 Am. St. Rep. 17; City, etc., R. Co. v. Brauss, 70 Ga. 368; Jeffersonville R. Co. v. Rogers, 33 Ind. 116, 10 Am. Rep. 103; New Orleans, etc., R. Co. v. Hurst, 36 Miss. 661, 74 Am. Dec. 85; Evans v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 11 Mo. App. 463. 89. Kansas Pacific R. Co. v. Kess- ler, 18 Kan. 523; Frink v. Coe, 4 Green (Iowa), 555, 61 Am. Dec. 141; Louisville Southern R. Co. v. Min- ogue, 90 Ky. 369, 29 Am. St. Eep. 378; Taylor v. Grand Trunk E. Co., 48 N. H. 304, 2 Am. Eep. 229; Hop- kins V. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 36 N. H. 9, 72 Am. Dec. 287; Maysville, etc., R. Co. V. Herrick, 13 Bush (Ky.) 122; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Mc- Coy, 81 Ky. 403, absence of slight care is gross negligence. 90. Fisher v. Metropolitan Elev.. R. Co. 34 Hun (N. Y.), 433; Mil- waukee, etc., R. Co. V. Arms, 91 XJ. S. 489, 6 Am.,Ry. Rep. 512; Eich- mond, etc., R. Co. v. Greenwood, 99 Ala. 501; Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Hill, 93 Ala. 514, 30 Am. St. Eep. 65; Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. Vance, 93 Ala. 144, 30 Am'. St. Eep. 41; Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Arnold, 80 Ala. 600; Chattanooga, etc., E. Co. V. Liddle, 85 Ga. 482, 21 Am. St. Rep. 169; Augusta, etc., R. Co. v. Randall, 79 Ga. 304, 34 Am. & Eng. Damages. 899 attended with any circumstances of in^alt, aggravation of feel- ings, of injury to the person or his property, or of bodily or men- tal suffering, would not amount to gross negligence and justify the imposition of exemplary damages.'^ § 11. Exemplary damages for carrier's acts The carrier, whether a corporation or a private person, is liable in exemplary damages for acts of a reckless and criminal nature, or so gross and culpable as to evince utter recklessness; for instance, know- ingly and wantonly employing an incompetent servant, or retain- ing him in its employ after knowledge of his incompetency or un- fitness,'^ or wilfully, maliciously, or so negligently as to indicate a wanton disregard of the rights of others, enforcing arbitrary, un- reasonable and illegal regulations,"' or wilfully and knowingly failing to provide safe appliances or to construct and keep its road and machinery in proper and safe condition.'* For the purpose of R. Cas. 439, the facts need not show criminal liability; Rutherford v. Shrcveport, etc., K. Co., 41 La. Ann. 793; Memphis, etc., E. Co. v. Whit- field, 44 Miss. 466, 7 Am. Rep. 699; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Mitchell, 72 Tex. 171; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Shepherd, 72 Tex. 165, 37 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 194; Union Pac. R. Co. v. Hause, 1 Wyoming, 27. 91. Southern R. Co. v. Kendrick, 40 Miss. 374, 90 Am. Dec. 332; Chi- cago, etc., R. Co. V. Scurr, 59 Miss. 456, 42 Am. Rep. 373, holding that the dicta, in New Orleans, etc., R. Co. V. Bailey, 40 Miss. 395, that any negligence of a railroad company op- erated by steam is gross, and, in Memphis, etc., R. Co. v. Green, 52 Miss. 779, that punitive damages may be inflicted on a carrier for mere omission of duty, are incorrect. See also Spicer v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 29 Wis. 580; Seymour v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 3 Biss. (U. S.) 43; Ken- tucky Cent. R. Co. v. Dills, 4 Bush (Ky.), 593. 92. Cleghorn v. New York Cent., etc.R. Co., 56 N. Y. 44, 15 Am. Rep. 375; Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Pren- tice, 147 U. S. 101 ; Porter v. Erie R. Co., 32 N. J. L. 261 ; Ackerson v. Erie R. Co., 32 N. J. L. 254; Sullivan v. Oregon R., etc., Co., 12 Or. 392, 53 Am. Rep. 364; Hagan v. Providence, etc., R. Co., 3 R. I. 88, 62 Am. Dec. 377; Texas Trunk R. Co. v. Johnson, 75 Tex. 158; Dillingham v. Russell, 73 Tex. 47, 15 Am. Rep. 753; Gal- veston, etc., R. Co. V. Donahoe, 56 Tex. 162; Hays v. Houston, etc., R. Co., 46 Tex. 272; Frink v. Coe, 4 Green (Iowa), 555, 61 Am. Dec. 141. 93. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. John- son, 67 111. 312; Illinois Cent. R. Co. V. Cunningham, 67 111. 316; Pitts- burgh, etc., R. Co. V. Lyon, 123 Pa. St. 140, 10 Am. St. Rep. 517, 37 Am. & Eng. R. Caa. 231. 94. Caldwell v. New Jersey Steam- boat Co., 47 N. Y. 282; Alabama G. S. R. Co. V. Hill, 93 Ala. 514, 30 Am. St. Rep. 65, 90 Ala. 71, 24 Am. St. Rep. 764; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Shuford, 72 Tex. 165, 37 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 194; Taylor v. Grand Trunk 900 The Law of Caeeiees. fixing such liability on the corporation a superintending agent with power to employ and discharge men may be deemed the cor- poration itself,'^ or, as to passengers on the train, the conductors in charge,^* although it has been held that only the president and general manager, or in his absence the vice-president, actually wielding the executive power, may be treated as the corporation, but not the conductor or other subordinate or servant." § 12. Exemplary damages for acts of servants. — ^For injuries by the negligence of a servant while engaged in the business of the carrier, within the scope of his employment, the latter is liable for compensatory damages; but it is not liable in puni- tive damages for such negligence, however wilful or ma- licious, gross or culpable, unless it is also chargeable with gross misconduct. Such misconduct on the part of the carrier may be established by showing that the act of the servant was authorized or ratified, or that the carrier employed or retained the servant, knowing that he was incompetent, or, from bad habits, unfit for the position he occupied.'* This rule has been maintained in many cases and applied, to cases of gross negli- gence of servants in the running of trains,'' unlawful ejection,' R. Co., 48 N. H. 304, 2 Am. Rep. »7. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. 229; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Mlt- Prentice, 147 U. S. 101. chell, 72 Tex. 171. But for eases 98. Cleghoru v. New York Cent., where the facts were held not to jus- etc., R. Co., 56 N. Y. 4'4, 15 Am. Rep. tify exemplary damages, see Chatta- 375. nooga, etc., R. Co. v. Liddell, 88 Ga. 99. Ackerson v. Erie R. Co., 32 N. 482, 21 Am. St. Rep. 169; Ruther- J. L. 254; Porter v. Erie R. Co., 32 ford V. Shreveport, etc., R. Co., 41 N. J. L. 261; Wardrobe v. California La. Ann. 793; International, etc., R. Stage Co., 7 Cal. 118, 68 Am. Dec. Co. V. Brazzil, 78 Tex. 314; Union 231; Texas Trunk R. Co. v. John- Pae. R. Co. v. Hause, 1 Wyoming, 27 ; son, 75 Tex. 158. Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. Vance, 93 1. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Ala. 144, 30 Am. St. Rep. 41, knowl- Russ, 57 Ted. 822; Sullivan v. Ore- edge of defect held essential to re- gon R., etc., Co., 12 Or. 392, 53 Am. covery. Rep. 364, 21 Am. & Eng. R. Gas. 95. Cleghorn v. New York Cent., 391; Hagan v. Providence, etc., R. etc., R. Co., 56 N. Y. 44, 15 Am. Rep. Co., 3 R. I. 88, 62 Am. Dee. 377; 375. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Donahoe, 56 96. Bass V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., Tex. 162; Hays v. Houston, etc., R. 42 Wis. 654, 24 Am. Rep. 437, 15 Am. Co., 46 Tex. 272; Bass v. Chicago, Ry. Rep. 45. etc., R. Co., 42 Wis. 054, 24 Am. Kep. Damages. 901 assaults by employes,^ and wrongfully procuring the arrest of a passenger.^ The rule more generally followed, however, both in cases where any distinction between the acts of the carrier and those of its servants is rejected as unjust, and those which do not refer to such a distinction, is that exemplary damages should be awarded against the carrier for the malicious act or gross negli- geBce of its servants, or where the injury complained of was accompanied by unnecessary force and was inflicted by a servant of the carrier in the line of his duty, vnthout reference to any express or implied participation in the tort by the carrier, by authorizing it before or approving it after its commission.^ And it has been held that there is no class of cases where the rule can be more beneficially applied than to railroad corporations in their capacity of common carriers of passengers, and that it might as well not be applied to them at all as to limit its application to cases where the servant is directed or impliedly commanded by the corporation to maltreat and insult a passenger, or to cases ■where such an act is directly or impliedly ratified ; for such cases will never occur.^ 437; Milwaukee, etc., R. Co. v. Fin- ney, 10 Wis. 388. 2. Randolph v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 18 Mo. App. 609; Dillingham v. Russell, 73 Tex. 47, 15 Am. St. Rep. 753; Ricketts v. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 33 W. Va. 433, 25 Am. St. Rep. 901; Craker v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 36 Wis. 659. 3. Fisher v. Metropolitan EI. R. Co., 34 Hun (N. Y.), 433; Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Prentice, 147 U. S. 101. 4. Cages holding the rule of the text and rejecting the dis- tinction between the act of the carrier and that of its servants. —Pell v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 44 Ted. 249; Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Blocher, 27 Md. 277; Quigley v. Cen- tral Pae. R. Co., 11 Nev. 250, 21 Am. Rep. 757; Spellman v. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 35 S. C. 475, 28 Am. St. Rep. 858; Samuels v. Richmond, etc.. R. Co., 35 S. C. 495, 28 Am. St. Rep. 883; Quinn v. South Carolina R. Co'., 29 S. C. 381, 37 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 166; Springer Transp. Co. v. Smith, 16 Lea (Tenn.), 498. Cases maintaining the rnle of the text -crithont reference to the distinction. — See cases cited generally in notes to § 9, am,te, from the following States: Alabama, Cali- fornia, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Miss- issippi, Missouri and Tennessee. 5. Goddard v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 57 Me. 202, 2 Am. Rep. 39. See also Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. Sanders, 98 Ala. 293; Jeffersonville R. Co. v. Rogers, 38 Ind. 116, 10 Am. Rep. 103; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Bal- lard, 85 Ky. 307, 7 Am. St. Rep. 600, 28 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 135; Hanson V. European, etc., R. Co., 62 Me. 84, 16 Am. Rep. 404; Taylor v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 48 N. H. 304, 2 Am, 902 The Law of Caeeiees. § 13. Elements affecting the amount of damages. — The rule by which damages are to be estimated, where they are such as are not capable of direct proof and asfsessment, and what elements are to be considered and within what limits the damages may be esti- mated, are as a general principle, matters of law for the court to determine and instruct the jury for their guidance. The amount of compensation to be awarded for physical disability and physi- cal and mental pain and suffering, and the future consequences reasonably certain to result from a personal injury, are not cap- able of exact proofs, or accurate measurement, and no precise rule exists or is capable of being applied by which the extent of the recovery can be prescribed. Accordingly, in this class of cases, the law commits to the determination of the jury, under proper ^^ instructiona from the court as to the elements to be considered, the amount of damages to be awarded, and the jury, in estimating them, may consider the facts and circumstances, in connection with their knowledge, observation and experience in the affairs of life, and award such an amount as will reasonably compensate for the injuries received according to the evidence in the case.' The elements proper to be taken into consideration by the jury to en- able it to ascertain and fix the amount of damages have been held by the courts to be a consideration of the injured person's position, condition, and circumstances in life,' the business or profession Rep. 229; Hopkins v. Atlantic, etc., E. Co., 21 Mo. App. 99; Pennsyl R. Co., 36 N. H. 9, 72 Am. Dec. 287; vania R. Co. v. Allen, 53 Pa. St. 276 Atlantic, etc., R. Co. v. Dunn, 19 Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Head (Tex. Ohio St. 162, 2 Am. Rep. 382; Pal- App.), 15 S. W. 504; Abbot v. Toli- mer v. Charlotte, etc., E. Co., 3 S. C. ver, 71 Wis. 64; Blanchard v. Wind- 580. sor, etc., R. Co., 10 Nova Scotia, 8 6. Walker v. Erie R. Co., 63 Barb. Phillips v. London, etc., R. Co.. 5 Q. (N. Y.) 360; Hill v. Union Ry. Co., B. Div. 78. 25 R. I. 565, 57 Atl. 374; North Chi- 7. Mackoy v. Missouri Pae. E. Co., cago St. R. Co. V. Fitzgibbons, 180 5 McCrary (U. S.), 538; The Ori- 111. 466, 54 N. E. 483, 79 111. App. flamme, 3 Sawy. (U. S.) 397; Brig- 632; Washington & G. R. Co. v. Pat- noli v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 4 Daly terson, 9 App. D. C. 423, 25 Wash. (N. Y.), 182; Macon, etc., E. Co. v. L. Rep. 36; Morgan v. Southern Pao. Johnson, 38 Ga. 409; Louisville, etc., R. Co., 95 Cal. 501, 29 Am. St. Rep. R. Co. v. Miller, 141 Ind. 533; South- 143 ; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Hold- ern R. Co. v. Kendrick, 40 Miss. 374, ridge, 118 Ind. 281; Hill v. New 90 Am. Dec. 332; Whalen v. St. Orleans, etc., R. Co., 11 La. Ann. 292; Louis, etc., E. Co., 60 Mo. 323. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Carr, 71 Evidence of character.— Com- Md. 135; Winkler v. Missouri, etc., pensatory damages for physical pain Damages. &03 in which he is engaged and the extent and amount of hia ordinary business,' the means at his disposal and ability and capacity to earn money,' and the extent to which they are injured or impaired by reason of the injuries sustained." Ihe injured passenger can- not show the number of his family and their dependence on him for support for the purpose of increasing the damages." Nor can the carrier sbow a life or accident policy or the payment and receipt of moneys thereon in mitigation of damages.^ and suffering cannot be diminished by showing that plaintiff is an obscure man, a bartender, a professional gambler, or even a vagrant. Hardy V. Minneapolis, etc., E. Co., 56 Fed. 657; Brown v. Memphis, etc., R. Co., 4 Fed. 51, 5 Fed. 499 ; Boyle v. Case, 18 Fed. 880. But evidence that a man \ra,a an haUtnal drnnkard is compe- tent on the question of his ability to earn full wages. Cleveland, etc., E. Co. V. Sutherland, 19 Ohio St. 151. And evidence that a female is of nnchaste character is compe- tent upon the question of her ability to earn money or take care of a fam- ily. Abbot V. Tolliver, 71 Wis. 64. 8. Wade v. Leroy, 20 How. (U. S.) 34; Eio Grande Western E. Co. v. Eubenstein, 5 Colo. App. 121; Ohio, etc., E. Co. V. Hecht, 115 Ind. 443; Wallace v. Western North Carolina R. Co., 104 N. C. 442, 41 Am. & Eng. E. Cas. 212. 9. San Antonio, etc., E. Co. v. Turney (Tex. Civ. App.), 78 S. W. 256. Decrease in earning capacity may be shown by proving what the business was worth for the year pre- ceding the accident and after the acci- dent. Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Meech, 59 111. App. 69; Galveston, etc., E. Co. v. Cooper, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 42. Amonnt of earnings at hia trade, immediately before the acci- dent, is admissible on the question of damages. Mclntyre v. New York Cent. E. Co., 37 N. Y. 287; Beisiegel V. New York Cent. E. Co., 40 N. Y. 9. Past earnings of a profes- sional man are competent on the question of damages. Simonin v. New York, etc., E. Co., 36 Hun (N. Y.), 214; Nash v. Sharpe, 19 Hun (N. Y.), 365; Walker v. Erie E. Co., 63 Barb. (N. Y.) 260; Phillips v. London, etc., E. Co., 5 Q. B. Div. 78. 10. Expectation of life may be shotm, where the injury is per- manent, and' standard life tables may be introduced for this purpose, so as to estimate the damage or loss sus- tained as nearly as possible. Macon, etc., E. Co. v. Jolinson, 38 Ga. 409; Louisville, etc., E. Co. v. Miller, 141 Ind. 533; Galveston, etc., E. Co. v. Cooper, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 42. Bnt such evidence is not es- sential. — Houston, etc., E. Co. v. Boehm, 57 Tex. 152, 9 Am. & Eng. B. Cas. 366. H. Southern Pac. E. Co. v. Eauh, 49 Fed. 696; Pennsylvania E. Co. v. Books, 57 Pa. St. 339, 98 Am. Dec. 229; Laing v. Colder, 8 Pa. St. 479, 49 Am. Dee. 533; Kreuziger v. Chi- cago, etc., E. Co., 73 Wis. 158. 12. Kellogg V. New York Cent.; etc., E. Co., 79 N. Y. 72; Althorf v. Wolfe, 22 N. Y. 355; Missouri, etc., E. Co. V. Flood (Tex. Civ. App.), 79 S. W. 1106; Pittsburg, etc., E. Co. v. Thompson, 56 111. 138, 3 Am. Ey. Eep. 454; North Pennsylvania E. Co. 904 The Law of Caeeiees. § 14. Excessive or inadequate damages. — ^Where the damages awarded by the jury are either so large or so small as to be so obviously disproportionate to the injury proved as to force upon the mind the conviction that the jury have acted under the influ- ence of a perverted judgment, or have been influenced by par- tiality or prejudice, or misled by a mistaken view of the merits of the case, it is the duty of the court to set aside the verdict as excessive or inadequate and grant a new trial ; but when it is not thus obviously excessive or inadequate the verdict of the jury should be sustained. This rule is generally observed both as to compensatory and exemplary damages.^' V. Kirk, 90 Pa. St. 15; Harding v. Townshend, 43 Vt. 536, 5 Am. Eep. 304; Bradbum v. Great Western K. Co., L. R. 10 Exeh. 1. 13. Clapp V. Hudson River R. Co., 19 Barb. (N. Y.) 461; Tinney v. New Jersey Steamboat Co., 5 Lans. (N. Y.) 507, 12 Abb. Pr. N. S. (N. Y.) 1; Mullady v. Brooklyn H. R. Co., 65 App. Div. (N. Y.) 549, 72 N. Y. Supp. 911; Sullivan v. Metropol- itan St. Ry. Co., 54 App. Div. (N. Y.) 632, 66 N. Y. Supp. 609. V. 8. — Fell V. Northern Pae. E. Co., 44 Fed. 248. Cal. — ^Morgan v. Southern Pac. E. Co., 95 Cal. 501, 29 Am. St. Rep. 143. Qa. — ^Atlantic, etc., R. Co. v. Con- dor, 75 Ga. 51. III. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Chis- holm, 79 III. 584. Kam,. — Union Pac. R. Co. v. Hand', 7 Kan. 380. Ky. — ^Louisville Southern E. Co. v. Minogue, 90 Ky. 369, 29 Am. St. Eep. 378. 3?. J. — ^Hanley v. North Jersey St. R. Co., (N. J. Sup.) 47 Atl. 445. Tex. — International, etc., R. Co. v. Brazzil, 78 Tex. 314. Fo. — Parish v. Reigle, 11 Gratt (Va.) 697, 62 Am. Dec. 666. Wis. — Stutz V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 73 Wis. 147, 9 Am. St. Rep. 769. See also Nellis' Street Railroad Ac- cident Law, 609-630, and cases there cited. CHAPTER XXVII. IWTEESTATE TeANSPOETATION. Eeotion 1. Eegulation of interstate transportation. 2. The Interstate Commerce Act. 3. Carriers subject to the act. 4. Charges must be just and reasonable. 5. Unjust discrimination. 6. Unjust discrimination in specific cases. 7. Undue or unreasonable preference or advantage. ' 8. Undue preference in particular cases. 9. Equal facilities for interchange of traffic. 10. Charges for long and short hauls. 11. Schedules of rates, fares, and charges. 12. Pooling or dividing freights or earnings. 13. Interruption of continuous carriage. 14. Mileage, excursion, or commutation tickets. 15. Enforcement of the act. 16. Railroad rate legislation, § 1. Regulation of interstate transportation. — The commerce dause of the Constitution ^provides that Congress shall have power " to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States and with the Indian tribes."^ It is weU settled that under thia clause the power to regulate interstate commerce is vested exclusively in Congress.^ InterSitate commerce, or com- merce among the several States of the union, consists in intercourse- and traffic, including navigation and the transportation and tran- sit of persons and property, as well as the purchase, sale, and ex- change of commodities.^ Transportation is the means by which commerce is carried on,* and is a constituent part of commerce 1. Const. U. S. art. 1, § 8, cl. 3. States v. Joint Traffic Assoc, 171 U> 2. Hannibal, etc., R. Co. v. Husen, S. 505; Hooper v. California, 155 U. 95 U. S. 469; Brown v. Houston, 114 S. 648; Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Penn- U. S. 622; Cruteher V. Kentucky, 141 sylvania, 114 U. S. 196; Welton v. U. S. 57; State Freight Tax Case, 15 Missouri, 91 U. S. 280; Gibbons v.. Wall. (U. S.) 232. Ogden, 9 Wheat. (U. S.) 194. 3. Henderson v. New York, 92 U. 4. Council Bluffs v. Kansas City^ S. 259; Addyston Pipe, etc., Co. v. etc., R. Co., 45 Iowa, 338, 24 Am> United States, 175 U. S. 211; United Rep. 773. (905) 906 The Law of Caehiees. itself.^ The transportation of freight or passengers from one State to another, or through more than one State, either hy land or water, constitutes interstate commerce, regardless of the distance from which it comes or to which it is bound before or after cross- ing a State line.* The means of transportation and the time of transit are immaterial. The business of receiving and landing passengers and freight is incident to their transportation and con- stitutes a part of interstate commerce.' § 2. The Interstate Commerce Act. — Bj the Interstate Com- merce act of 1887, Congress, in pursuance of its constitutional power to regulate commerce among the States, assumed control of the interstate railway traffic of the country The principle objects of that act were " to secure just and reasonable charges for transpor- tation ; to prohibit unjust discriminations in the rendition of like services under similar conditions and circumstances; to prevent undue and unreasonable preferences to persons, corporations, or localities; to inhibit greater compensation for a shorter than for a longer distance over the same line; and to abolish combinations for the pooling of freights."^ To secure these ends certain, regu- lations applicable to railway- carriers engaged in interstate trans- portation were established, and a commission created charged with the administration and enforcement of the act. The act has been held to be constitutional,* and to be liberally construed so as to promote and facilitate commerce, and not to hamper or destroy it, and not so as to abridge or take away the conmion law right 5. Hopkins v. United States, 171 W. 704; Fargo v. Michigan, 121 U. tJ. S. 578; Bowman v. Chicago, etc., S. 230; Covington, etc., Bridge Co. v. E. Co., 125 U. S. 479 ; Kaeiser v. Illi- Kentucky, 154 U. S. 204. nois Cent. E. Co., 18 Fed. 151 ; Chi- 7. Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsyl- cago, etc., E. Co. v. Fuller, 17 Wall, vania, 114 U. S. 196. (U. S.) 660. 8. Interstate Commerce Com. v, 6. Philadelphia, etc., Steamship Cincinnati, etc., E. Co., 167 U. S. Co. V. Pennsylvania, 122 U. S. 326; 510; Texas, etc., E. Co. v. Interstate Ehodes v. Iowa, 170 U. S. 412; North Commerce Com., 162 V. S. 197; In- Eiver Steamboat Co. v. Livingston, li terstatc Commerce Com. v. Baltimore, Cow. (N. Y.) 713; People v. Bay- etc., E. Co., 145 U. S. 263; United mond, 34 Cal. 492; Fry v. State, 63 States v. Missouri Pac. E. Co., 65 Ind. 562; Bennett v. American Ex- Fed. 905. press Co., 83 Me. 236 ; State v. Carri- 9. Interstate Commerce Com. v. gan, 39 N. J. L. 35; Texas, etc., E. Brimson, 154 U. S. 448; BuUard V Co. v. Avery (Tex. Civ. App.), 33 S. Northern Pac. E. Co., 10 Mont. 168. Interstate Teansportation. 907 of the carrier to make contracts, and adopt proper business methods, further than its terms and recognized purposes required. The act was intended primarily for the benefit of interstate traffic and not for the benefit of the carriers." The interstate commerce commission has no legislative powers. It is not a court, and kas no judicial power, although it has and exercises a quasi judicial power. It is an administrative board exercising administrative powers." Th© powers and duties of the commission are to some extent defined by the act. Generally, it is authorized to inquire into the management of the business of all common carriers sub- ject to the provisions of the act, and to demand from such car- riers full and complete information necessary to enable the com- mission to perform its. duties, and it has power to execute and enforce the provisions of the act. Tbe act provides for complaints, investigations, reports, and orders as to alleged violations." It is not within the scope of this work to treat of these subjects in de- tail. The commission bas no power to fix or establish rates for the future, either maximum or minimum,^^ or to require the adoption 10. Interstate Commerce Com. v. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co., 85 Fed. 107; Interstate Commerce Com. v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 73 Fed. 409; Little Rock, etc., R. Co. v. St. Loufa, etc., E. Co., 63 Fed. 775; Chicago, etc., E. Co. V. Osborne, 52 Fed. 914; Kentucky, etc., Bridge Co. v. Louis- ville, etc., R. Co., 37 Fed. 567. See also eases cited in preceding notes to this section. 11. See cases in preceding notes to this section. Interstate Commerce Com. V. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 76 Fed. 183, 64 Fed. 981; Cincinnati, etc., E. Co. V. Interstate Commerce Com., 162 U. S. 184; Maximum Rate Case, 167 U. S. 479. "It is one thing to inquire whether the rates which have been charged and col- lected' are reasonable — ^that is a ju- dicial act; but an entirely different thing to prescribe rates which shall ,be charged in the future— that is a legislative act. The power to pre- scribe a tariff of rates for carriage by a common carrier is a legislative and not an administrative or judi- cial function, and having respect to the large amount of property in- vested in railroads, the various com- panies engaged therein, the thou- sands of miles of road, and the mill- ions of tons of freight carried, the varying and diverse conditions at- tached to such carriage, is a power of supreme delicacy and importance." Maximum Rate Case, 167 U. S. 479. 12. See cases cited in note 1 to this section. 13. Southern Pae. R. Co. v. Colo- rado Fuel & Iron Co., 101 Fed. 779, 42 C. C. A. 12; Interstate Commerce Com. V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 94 Fed. 272; Interstate Commerce Com. v. Northeastern R. Co., 83 Fed. 611; Farmers L. & T. Co. v. Northern Pac. K. Co., 83 Fed. 249; Shinkle, etc., R. Go. V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 76 ,Fed. 1007; Interstate Commerce Com. v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 74 Fed. 784; Interstate Commerce Com. v. Ala- 908 The Law of Caeeiees. of rates on an equal and uniform mileage basis," or to raise rates,^ or to establish through rates between connecting lines." Neither have the courts power to fix rates." The authority of the com- mission and the courts is limited to determining whether the rates fixed by the carriers are for any reason in violation of the statute." A common carrier is prohibited by the common law from making any unjust and unreasonable charges, and this common law pro- hibition has been reinforced by the interstate commerce act as to all interstate rates of railway companies." The legislature of a State can regulate the charges of railway companies for the trans- portation of passengers and freight wholly within the State,* but a State cannot regulate the charges in respect to interstate com- merce.^^ The power of a State to regulate the charges of railway companies in respect of transportation wholly within the State is subject to the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and a State statute, or a regulation made under authority of a State statute, limiting or fixing the rates of a rail- way company within the State in such a manner as to deprive the company of reasonable compensation, would be in violation of the Constitution.^^ While Congress can prohibit railway com- panies from charging more than reasonable compensation for the bama M. K. Co., 69 Fed. 227, 74 Fed. 231; Interstate Commerce Com. v. 715; Interstate Commerce Com. v. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 56 Fed. 925. Western, etc., R. Co., 93 Fed. 83; 16. Kentucky, etc., Bridge Co. v. Thatcher v. Delaware, etc.. Canal Louisville, etc., E. Co., 37 Fed. 567. Co., 1 Int. Com. C. Rep. 152; That- 17. Interstate Commerce Com. v. cher V. Fitchburg E. Co., 1 Int. Com. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co., 85 Fed. Rep. 356. See also cases cited in pre- 107. vious notes to this section. 18. Thatcher v. Delaware, etc., Ca- See also Act to Regulate Com- nal Co., 1 Int. Com. C. Rep. 152; merce, approved February 4, 1887, as Coxe v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 3 Int. amended by act approved March 2, Com. Rep. 460, 4 Int. Com. C. Eep. 1889 ( act approved February 10, 535. 1891, act approved February 8, 1895, 19. Maximum Rate Case, 167 U. and act approved February 19, 1903. S. 479; Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. In- 14. LaCrosse Mfrs., etc.. Union v. terstate Commerce Com., 162 U. S. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 184. 9, 1 Int. Com. C. Eep. 629. 20. Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113; 15. Foughkeepsie Iron Co. v. New Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. v. Iowa, 94 U. York Cent., etc., R. Co., 3 Int. Com. S. 155. Rep. 248, 4 Int. Com. C. Rep. 195; 21. Hanley v. Kansas City S. By. Matter of Chicago, etc., R. Co., 2 Int. Co., 187 U. S. 617. Com. Rep. 137, 2 Int. Com. C. Rep. 22. Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466. Interstate Teansportation. 909 services rendered by them in interstate transportation, it has not tmlimited power to interfere witih. them in their interstate trans- portation, or to exercise unlimited control over interstate railway companies in the use of their property, or in the transaction of their business. It is well settled that the Fifth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment not only prevent Congress and the several States from actually confiscating property or destroying ita value, but also protect their liberty of contract and the liberty of the owner of property in its use and enjoyment.^' Rates can be fixed by Congress', or a commission created by Congress, only on the basis of allowing the carrier to charge in each case reasonable ■compensation for the services rendered. Whether the rate charged by the carrier requires the payment of more than reasonable com- pensation for the services rendered is the question in each in- stance.^ It has been held that " the basis of all calculations as to the reasonableness of rates to be charged by a corporation main- taining a highway under legislative sanction must be the fair value of the property being used by it for the convenience of the public. "^^ But this may not necessarily confine such rates to a reasonable net return on the original cost, or the cost of reproduc- tion, of the property. Other elements may be taken into consider- ation in determining whether rates will pay a railway company a reasonable compensation for its services.^' The commission has no authority to esitablish through routes by requiring connecting ■carriers to make a joint tariff for through routing and billing. ^^ § 3. Carriers subject to the act. — The carriers subject to the Interstate Commerce Act are those engaged in the transportation •of passengers or prpperty wholly by railroad, or partly by railroad and partly by water when both are used,^^ under a common control, 23. Lake Shore, etc., K. Co. v. tional City, 174 U. S. 754. See alao Smith, 173 U. S. 684; Allgeyer v. cases cited last two preceding notes. Louisiana, 165 U. S. 578; Lochner v. 27. New York, etc., E. Co. v. New York, 25 S. Ct. 539, Adv. S. U. Piatt, 7 Int. Com. Rep. 323 ; Gulf, S. 539. etc., R. Co. v. Miami Steamship Co., 24. Getting v. Stock Yards Co., 86 Fed. 407. See also cases cited 183 U. S. 79; Canada Southern Ry. note 60, § 9, post. Co. V. International Bridge Co., 8 28. United States v. Morsman, 42 -App. Gas. 723. Fed. 448, only railway carriers are 25. Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466. included. 26. San Diego Land Co. v. Na- Where commerce is carried by 910 The Law of Caesiees. management, or arrangement, for a continuous carriage or ship- ment,^ from one State or territory of the United States, or the District of Columbia, to any other State or territory of the United States, or the District of Columbia, or from any place in the United States through a foreign country to any other place in the United States, and also in the transportation in like manner of property shipped from any place in the United States to a foreign country and carried from such place to a port of trans-shipment, or shipped from a foreign country to any place in the United States and carried to such place from a port of entry either in the United States or an adjacent foreign country.'" The act is intended to regulate all the commerce subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States', including the agents and instru- mentalities employed and the commodities carried, with only the limitations provided in the act itself.^^ It has no applica- tion to the transportation of passengers or property, or to the receiving, delivering, storing or handling of property, wholly within one State, and not shipped to a foreign country from any State or territory or from a foreign country to any State or terri- tory.'^ It does not apply to any water craft unless it is used in ■way of the high seas, though from napolis, etc., E. Co., 1 Int Com. Sep. one point in a State to another in the 315; Chicago, etc., E. Co. v. Osborne, same State, it is under federal con- 52 Fed. 912. trol. Lord v. Steamship Co., 102 U. 30. Interstate Commerce Act, §1; S. 541. But see New Orleans Exch. v. Texas, etc., E. Co. v. Interstate Com- Ey. Co., 2 Int. Com. C. Eep. 375; merce Com., 162 U. S. 197, carriage State V. Ey. Co. (Minn.), 41 N. W. through foreign country; Interstate 1047. Commerce Com. v. Brimson, 154 U. Carrying passengers on a S. 457. steamboat is not interstate com- 31. Mattingly v. Pennsylvania Co., merce, although the boat may touch 2 Int. Com. Eep. 806, 3 Int. Com. C. the shores of different States. State Eep. 592; Savery v. New York Cent., V. Seagraves (Mo.), 85 S. W. 925. etc., E. Co., 2 Int. Com. Eep. 210, 2 29. Cincinnati, etc., E. Co. v. In- Int. Com. C. Eep. 338, the act does terstate Commerce Com., 162 U. S. not extend to immigrants arriving al 184; Trammell v. Clyde Steamship the port of New York for interioj Co., 5 Int. Com. C. Eep. 324; Boston points. Fruit, etc., Exch. v. New York, etc., li. 32. New Jersey Fruit Exch. v Co., 3 Int. Com. Eep. 493, 4 Int. Com. Central E. Co., 2 Int. Com. Eep. 84 C. Eep. 664; Ex parte Koehler, 30 2 Int. Com. C. Eep. 142; Missouri Fed. 867; Interstate Commerce Com. etc., Co. v. Cape Girardeau, etc., E V. Cincinnati, etc., E. Co., 56 Fed. Co., 1 Int. Com. Eep. 607, 1 Int. Com 925; Ft. Worth, etc., E. Co. v. White- C. Eep. 30. See also cases cited ii head, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 595 ; Re An- preceding notes to this section. InteIestate Teaitspoetation. 911 connection with a railway for transportation between iihe places, in the manner, and by the carriers described in th© act.^' The act does not apply to transfer and switching companies,'* or express companies,'^ or bridge or ferry companies,'" or stock yards companies," not operating railway lines. But a railroad company conducting the express business is subject to the act.'' § 4. Charges must be reasonable and just Section one of the Interstate Commerce Act provides that all charges made for any services rendered or to be rendered in the transportation of pas- sengers or of property or in connection therewith, or for the receiv- ing, delivering, storage, or handling of such property, shall bs reasonable and just, and every unjust and un- reasonable charge for such services is prohibited and de- clared to be unlawful." This has been held to be an express adoption by the national legislature of the principles of the common law.*" In determining the reasonableness of rates the legitimate interests of carrying companies', as well as of trad- ers and shippers, should be considered, whether they afford the carrier a proper return for the service rendered, as well as the result of the business to the shipper or producer of the traffic." Common carriers may under this act make special contracts look- ing to the increase of their business, classify their traffic, adjust 33. Re Joint Water, etc., Lines, 2 479j Interstate Commerce Com. v. Int. Com. Rep. 486, 2 Int. Com. C. Brimson, 154 U. S. 447. Eep. 645. 40. Tift v. Southern R. Co., 123 34. Kentucky, etc.. Bridge Co. v. Fed. 789. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 37 Fed. 567. 41. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Inter- 35. Southern Indiana Express Co. state Commerce Com., 162 U. S. 197; V. United States Express Co., 92 Fed. Loud v. South Carolina, etc., R, Co., 1022, 88 Fed. 659. 4 Int. Com. Rep. 205; Interstate 36. Kentucky, etc.. Bridge "Co. v. Commerce Com. v. Alabama Midland Louisville, etc., R. Co., 37 Fed. 567, R. Co., 74 Fed. 715; Proctor v. Cin- but a lailway company using a brfdge cinnati, etc., R. Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. is subject to the act. 131, 4 Int. Com. C. Rep. 87; Bu- 37. Cotting V. Kansas City Stock chanan v. Northern Pae. R. Co., 3 Yards Co., 82 Fed. 839. Int. Com. Rep. 655, 5 Int. Com. C. 38. Pacific Express Co. v. Seibert, Rep. 7; Martin v. Southern Pae. R. 44 Fed. 310; United States v. Mors- Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 1, 2 Int. Com. Ban, 42 Fed. 448 ; Re Express Co., 1 C. Rep. 1 ; Rice v. Western New Int. Com. Rep. 677. York, etc., R. Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 39. Interstate Commerce Com. v. 298, 2 Int. Com. C. Rep. 389; Hurl- Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 167 U. S. hurt v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 2 Int. 912 The Law of Caeeiees. and apportion their rates so as to meet the necessities of commerce, and generally manage their important interests on the same prin- ciples which are recognized as sound in other trades and pursuits, subject to the prohibition that their charges shall not be unjust or unreasonable, and that they shall not unjustly discriminate so as to give undue preference or advantage, or subject to undue preju- dice or disadvantage, persons or traffic similarly circumstanced.^' Whether their charges are reasonable or unreasonable is a question of fact.*' The rate may be unreasonable because it is too low as well as because it is too high. In the one case it would be unjust to thie stockholders, in the other to the shippers." Interstate car- riers have power to make commodity class rates and special class rates to meet the circumstances and conditions of traffic along their lines, and the market value of the commodities, the shipper's representations to the public as to their character, the volume of traffic, the special services by a carrier, such as the transportation of perishable freight, in fact, the interests of the carrier, the ship- per and the general public, are to be considered.*' Competition Com. Rep. 81, 2 Int. Com. C. Rep. 122; Potter Mfg. Co. v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 5 Int. Com. C. Rep. 514; Squire v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 4 Int. Com. C. Rep. 611. Keasonableness affected by distance carried, — Manufacturers, etc.. Union v. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 115, 4 Int. Com. C. Rep. 79; Lincoln Board of Trade V. Burlington, etc., R. Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 95, 2 Int. Com. C. Rep. 147; Business Men's Assoc, v. Chi- cago, etc., R. Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 41, 2 Int. Com. C. Rep. S2. Classification of freigbts. — Thurber v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 742, 3 Int. Com. C. Rep. 473; Harvard Co. v. Pennsyl- vania Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 257, 4 Int. Com. C. Rep. 212; Myers v. Pennsylvania Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 403, 2 Int. Com. C. Rep. 573; New Orleans Cotton Exch. v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 777, 3 Int. Com. C. Rep. 534. Tbrongh and local rates. — Brady v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 78, 2 Int. Com. 0. Rep. 131; Re Passenger Tariffs, 2 Int. Com. Rep. 445, 2 Int. Com. C. Rep. 649. 42. Interstate Commerce Com. v. Alabama M. R. Co., 69 Fed. 227. 43. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. In- terstate Commerce Com., 162 U. S. 184; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Com., 162 U. S. 197. 44. Interstate Commerce Com. v. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 167 U. S. 511. 45. New York Board of Trade v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 417, 4 Int. Com. C. Rep. 447; Warner v. New York, etc., R. Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 74, 4 Int. Com. C. Rep. 32; Delaware State Grange, etc., V. New York, etc., R. Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 554, 4 Int. Com. C. Rep. S88; Covington, etc., R. Co. v. Sandford, 164 U. S. 578;* Perry v. Florida Cent., etc.j R. Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 740, 5 Int Com. C. Rep. 97; Howell v. New Interstate Tkanspoetation. 913 that affects rates should be considered as well in cases of traffic originating in foreign ports/' as in tlie case of traffic originating wiAin the limits of the United States," and in deciding whether rates and charges made at a low rate to secure freights, which would otherwise go by other competitive routes, are or are not ub"- due and unjust, the fair interests of the carrier companies, and the welfare of the community, which is to receive and consume the commodities, are to be considered. For a special service by the carrier requiring quick movement, prompt delivery at destination, special fitting up of cars, their withdrawal from other service, and their return empty on fast time, a higher rate than for the car- riage of ordinary freight is reasonable and just, but it should bear a just relation to the value of the service to the traffic, and is not wholly in the discretion of the carrier.''* So, carriers may charge lower rates under special conditionsi, as for carrying coal in sum- mer months in order to keep its coal cars and coal crews employed,*' or for the transportation of ten or more persons from the samie place on " party rate tickets " at a rate less than that charged an individual for a like transportation,^" provided such rates are offered in good faith to all persons upon equal terms. Equality of rates is the general policy of the law. In determining whether rates are just and reasonable in themselves, a comparison may be made between the particular rates charged and those accepted else- York, etc., E. Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. v. Western, etc., R. Co., 93 Fed. 84. 162, 2 Int. Com. C. Rep. 272; Riddle 48. Delaware State Grange, etc., V. New York, etc., R. Co., 1 Int. Com. Co. v. New York, etc., E. Co., 3 Int. Rep. 787, 1 Int. Com. C. Rep. 594, Com. Rep. 561, 4 Int. Com. C. Rep. failure of shipper to secure profit not 605 ; Boston Fruit, etc., Exch. v. conclusive that rate is unreasonable; New York, etc., R. Co., 3 Int. Com. Eeagan v. Farmers L. & T. Co., 154 Rep. 493, 4 Int. Com. Rep. 664; Loud U. S. 162, failure of carrier to secure v. South Carolina K. Co., 5 Int. Com. profit is not conclusive that rate ia 0. Rep. 529. unjust and unreasonable. 49. Interstate Commerce Com. v. 46. Interstate Commerce Com. v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 73 Fed. 409. Southern E. Co., 105 Fed. 703. See Interstate Commerce Com. v. Le- 47. Squire v. Michigan Cent. R. high Valley R. Co., 74 Fed. 784, as to Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 515, 4 Int. Com. comparison of average cost of ear'ri- C. Eep. 611; La Crosse Manufactu- age on entire system with that on a lers', etc., Union v. Chicago, etc., R. particular line or part of the system. Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 9; Business 50. Interstate Commerce Com. v. Men's Assoc, v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., Alabama Midland R. Co., 168 U. S. 2 Int. Com. Rep. 41, 2 Int. Com. C. 165. And see cases cited note 8, § 6, Eep. 52; Interstate Commerce Com. post. 58 914; The Law or Cae£Iebs. wtere for similar services, as for a longer and a shorter haul/' but the rates to other points are only circumstances to be consid- ered in connection with other proof.^^ A finding that the rates charged by railroads for shipment to a particular point are un- reasonable in themselves, cannot properly be based on evidence which only tends to show that they are too high as compared with the rates charged between the initial points and one or two othei points.^' A reduction in rates does not necessarily imply that for- mer rates were unreasonable, as increase in volume of traffic and decrease in cost of transportation may account tterefor.^ So, an advance in rates may be satisfactorily accounted for, but it may be held unjust where rates which have long been maintained are advanced where the traffic affected is large, important, and con- stantly increasing. ^^ The fact that a railroad line operated as a part of a great railway system, considered as a separate road, fails to pay expenses, does not justify the charging of unjust and un- reasonable rates nor undue discrimination in rates.^° § 5. Unjust discrimination. — Section two of the Interstate Commerce Act provides in substance that if any common carrier subject to its provisions shall directly or indirectly, by any special rate, rebate, drawback, or other device, charge, demand, collect or receive from any person or persons a greater or less compensation for any service rendered, or to be rendered, in the transportation oi passengers or property, than it charges, demands, collects, or re ceives from any other person or persons for doing for him or then! a like and contemporaneous service in the transportation of a like kind of traffic under substantially similar circumstances and condl 51. Interstate Commerce Com. v. 414, 5 Int. Com. C. Rep. 13; Coxe v East Tennessee, etc., R. Co., 85 Fed. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 3 Int. Com 107. Rep. 460, 4 Int. Com. C. Rep. 535. 52. Interstate Commerce Com. v. 56. Interstate Commerce Com. v Louisville, etc., R. Co., 73 Fed. 409; Louisville & N. R. Co., 118 Fed. 613 Interstate Commerce Com. v. West- The making of a throngH rati ern, etc., R. Co., 88 Fed. 186. on shipments by the joint action o 53. Interstate Commerce Com. v. connecting railroads is the act o Nashville, etc., R. Co., 120 Fed. 934, each, and brings each within tb 57 C. C. A. 224. scope of the interstate commerce act 54. Loud V. South Carolina R. Co., and renders it responsible for suol 5 Int. Com. C. Rep. 529. rate, without regard to the propor 55. Railroad Commission v. Savan- tion thereof received for its owi nah, etc., R. Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. service. Id. IlTTEESTATE TuANSPOETATIOIir. 915 tions, such common carrier shall be deemed guilty of unjust dis- crimination, which is thereby prohibited and declared to be unlaw- ful." This section was modeled on the " Equality Clause " of the English Railway act,^ and its purpose is to enforce equality as to rates between shippers over the same line under substantially the same circumstances and conditions.^' It does not include unjust discriminations as to conveniences and facilities, which is pro- vided for in section three,*" or discrimination as between locali- ties.'' One act of the carrier may, however, violate each of the first four sections of the act.*^ A shipper has, by the common law, a right of action for unjust discrimination in freight charges**' But mere inequality of rates, the charges of transportation being reasonable, did not constitute unjust discrimination under the com- mon law,** as the rule is now under the Interstate Commerce Act, when the transportfition is under substantially similar circum- stances and conditions.*^ Actual discrimination in rates charged is necessary to constitute a violation of the Interstate Commerce Act ; and the mere making or offering of a discriminating rate, un- der which it is not shown that any shipment was ever made, con- stitutes no legal injury to a shipper who is charged with a higher 57. Interstate Commerce Com. v. 61. Interstate Commerce Com. v. Brimson, 154 U. S. 447; Mattingly Western, etc., K. Co., 88 Fed. 186. V. Pennsylvania Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 62. Phillips v. Louisville & N. R. 806, 3 Int. Com. C. Rep. 592; Inter- Co., 8 Int. Com. Rep. 93; Interstate state Commerce Com. v. Texas, etc.. Commerce Com. v. Western, etc., R. E. Co., 52 Fed. 187 ; Cutting v. Co., 93 Fed. 83, 35 C. C. A. 217. Florida R., etc., Co., 30 Fed. 663 ; 63. Murray v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., United States v. Egan, 47 Fed. 112; 92 Fed. 868, 35 C. C. A. 62; State v. Re Uuderbilling, 1 Int. Com. Kep. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 47 Ohio St. 813, 1 Int. Com. C. Rep. 633; Heck 130; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Wil- v. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co., 1 Int. son, 132 Ind. 517; Fitzgerald v. Com. Eep. 775, 1 Int. Com. C. Rep. ■ Grand Trunk R. Co., 63 Vt. 169; 495. ' Cook V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 81 58. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Interstate Iowa, 551. Commerce Com., 162 U. S. 197. 64. Interstate Commerce Com. v. 59. Interstate Commerce Com. v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 145 U. S. Alabama Midland R. Co., 168 U. S. 263; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Texas, 144; Wight v. United States, 167 U. etc., R. Co., 30 Fed. 2. S. 512. 65. United States v. Delaware, 60. United States v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 40 Fed. 101. See also etc., R. Co., 40 Fed. 101, section Great Western R. Co. v. Sutton, L. tliree includes every form of unjust R. 4 H. L. 226. discrimination, including rates. 916 1 The Law of Cabeiees. rate.*' Only unjust and unreasonable discriminationa are illega and where there is an adequate consideration for reduced rate« such rates are not an unjust discrimination.*' It is not necessar; that a preference in rates should be brought about by means o some " device " to render it illegal/* but where a mere device i used to cover an intentional giving of a lees rate it will render thi transaction unlawful.*' The burden is on the shipper to prov unjust discrimination where the rates are equal;™ but the.burdei is on the carrier to justify the rates where they are unequaL'^ Tin proportion in which freight earned by two connecting railroad under a joint-tariff schedule is divided between them is a matte: for their consideration alone, and cannot be taken cognizance o: by a court for the purpose of determining that the share receivec by one constitutes an unjust and discriminative rate.'^ The classi fication of freights is not unlawful unless it is used as a device t( cover unjust discrimination. '' Freights are generally and properh classified according to expense of carriage, volume of business weight, bulk, value, risk, competition, and other considerations al fecting the cost and value of the transportation, and goods whid are as matter of fact in the same class should be carried at the sami rate.'* Goods classified improperly as compared with the classifica 66. Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Board of Trade v. Pennsylvania H Eainey, 112 Fed. 487. Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 417, 4 Int. Con 67. Interstate Commerce Com. v. C. Rep. 447; Coxe v. Lehigh Valle; Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 145 U. S. R. Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 460, 4 Ini 281; Interstate Commerce Com. v. Com. C. Rep. 535; Brownell v. Cc Texas, etc., R. Co., 52 Fed. 187. lumbus, etc., E. Co., 4 Int. Com. Eej 68. Seofield v. Lake Shore, etc., E. 285, 5 Int. Com. C. Rep. 638. Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 67, 2 Int. Com. 74. Independent Refiners Assoc. \ C. Rep. 90. Western New York, etc., R. Co., 4 Ini 69. Interstate Commerce Com. v. Com. Rep. 162, 5 Int. Com. C. Eej Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., 128 Fed. 59. 415; Board of Trade v. Chicago, etc 70. Brownell v. Columbus, etc., R. E. Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 233, 4 Im Co., 4 Int. Com. Rep. 285, 5 Int. Com. Com. C. Rep. 158; Anthony Salt C( C. Rep. 638. v. Missouri Pac. E. Co., 4 Int. Con 71. McMorran v. Grand Trunk E. Rep. 33, 5 Int. Com. C. Rep. 299 Co., 2 Int. Com. Eep. 604, 3 Int. Com. Martin v. Southern Pac. E. Co., C. Eep. 254. Int. Com. Eep. 1, 2 Int. Com. C. Eei 72. Allen & Lewis v. Oregon R. & 1; Bates v. Pennsylvania R. Co., Nav. Co., 98 Fed. 16. Int. Com. Rep. 715, 3 Int. Com. C 73. Warner v. New York Cent., Eep. 535; Pyle v. East Tennessei etc., R. Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 74, 4 etc., R. Co., 1 Int. Com. Rep. 767, Int. Com. C. Eep. 32; New York Int. Com. C. Hep. 465; New Yorl iNTEtESTATE TeANSPORTATION. 917 tion of ^nalogoua goods constitutes unlawful discrimination.™ Rail'Way companies subject to the provisions of the Interstate Com- merce Act are only bound to give equal rates to all persons for a like and contemporaneous service in the transportation of a like kind of traffic under substantially similar circumstances and con- ditions, and inequality of conditions or difference in circumstances justifies an equality of rates.'* It devolves upon the carrier to de- termine in the first instance, in fixing and adjusting rates, vyhether substantially similar circumstances and conditions exist or the reverse," and its action is subject to revision by the commission, and ultimately by the courts.'^ A difference in the cost or char- acter of the service may justify a difference in rates," but no de- vice, such as payment of unreasonable rent for use of cars fur- nished by shippers, can be practiced to evade the duty of equal of Trade v. Pennsylvania E. Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 417, 4 Int. Com. C. Eep. 447; Andrews Soap Co. v. Pittsburgh, etc., E. Co., 3 Int. Com. Eep. 77, 4 Int. Com. C. Rep. 41; Beaver v. Pittsburg, etc., E. Co., 3 Int. Com. Eep. 564, 4 Int. Com. C. Eep. 733, soaps used for like pur- poses should receive the same classi- fication and rates; McMorran v. Grand Trunk E. Co., 2 Int. Com. Eep. 604, 3 Int. Com. C. Eep. 252, grain and grain products should be classi- fied the same; Kauffman Milling Co. V. Missouri Pac. E. Co., 3 Int. Com. Eep. 400, 4 Int. Com. C. Eep. 417, wheat and wheat flour belong to the same class; Eice v. Western New York, etc., R. Co., 3 Int. Com. Eep. 162, 4 Int. Com. C. Eep. 131, oil and its products belong to the same class ; Reynolds v. Western New York, etc., E. Co., 1 Int. Com. Rep. 685, 1 Int. Com. C. Eep. 393, railroad ties and lumber should be classed the same. 75. Browuell v. Columbus, etc., E. Co., 4 Int. Com. Rep. 285, 5 Int. Com. C. Rep. 638; Reynolds v. Western New York, etc., E. Co., supra,. 76. Atchison, etc., E. Co. v. Den- ver, etc., R. Co., 110 U. S. 667; Gulf, etc., E. Co. V. Miami Steamship Co., 86 Fed. 407; Interstate Commerce Com. V. Louisville, etc., E. Co., 73 Fed. 409; Burton Stock Car Co. v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 1 Int. Com. Rep. 329, 1 Int. Com. C. Eep. 132; Larrison v. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 1 Int. Com. Eep. 369, 1 Int. Com. C. Eep. 147; United States v. Tozer, 39 Fed. 369; Cowan v. Bond, 39 Fed. 54. See also eases cited notes 58, 59 and 75 to this section. Whether circumstances and conditions are snbstanticlly similar is a question of fact. De- troit, etc., R. Co. V. Interstate Com- merce Com., 74 Fed. 803, 43 U. S. App. 308. 77. Interstate Commerce Com. v. Alabama Midland E. Co., 168 U. S. 169. 78. Louisville, etc., E. Co. v. Behl- mer, 175 U. S. 648; Interstate Com- merce Com. v. East Tennessee, etc., E. Co., 85 Fed. 107. 79. Interstate Commerce Com. v. Texas, etc., E. Co., 52 Fed. 187; United States v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 40 Fed. 101. 918 The Law of Cakeieks. charges for equal service,*" In deciding as to the lawfulness of lower rates to import traffic than to domestic traffic, in order to secure foreign freights which would otherwise go by otter com- petitive routes, the fair interests of the carrier companies and the welfare of the community which« is to receive and consume the the commodities are to be considered. Ocean competition may constitute a dissimilar condition, and circumstances and conditions which exist beyond the: siaaboard of the United States can be legiti- mately regarded for the purpose of justifying a difference in rates charged by railroads between import and domestic traffic.'^ But competition between rival routes is a condition to' be considered in reference to the phrase " under substantially similar conditions and circumstances," in the third and fourth sections relative to undue preferences and long and short hauls, rather than as used in this section, where it refers to the matter of carriage merely.*^ The term " a like kind of traffic," as used in this section^ does not mean traffic that is identical, but traffic that is of " a' like kind " with other freight in the elements of a fair and just classification for the purpose of arriving at a just and reasonable rate and a rate that will avoid unjust discrimination and unla^vful preference.^ § 6. Unjust discrimination is specific cases. — A railroad com- pany is not required by the interstate commerce act to give the same carload rates on interstate shipments to forwarding agents who solicit property for shipment from different owners, each having less than a carload, and combine it into carload lots, that i1) makes on carload shipments by a single owner;** nor the same rates on quantities less than carloads that it does on carload lots ;'' but an excessive difference in such rates which would destroy com- 80. Rice V. Western New York, Hays v. Pennsylvania Co., 12 Fed. etc., E. Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 162, 4 309. Int. Com. C. Rep. 131; Re Relative 82. Wight v. United States, 167 Tank, etc.. Rates on Oil, 2 Int. Com. U. S. 512; Interstate Commerce Eep. 245, 2 Int. Com. C. Rep. 365. Com. v. Alabama Midland R. Co., 168 81. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Inter- U. S. 144. state Commerce Com., 162 U. S. 197. 83. New York Board of Trade v. But see Interstate Commerce Com. v. Pennsylvania E. Co., 3 Int. Com. Texas, etc., R. Co., 52 Fed. 189. Com- Eep. 417, 4 Int. Com. C. Rep. 447. pare Burlington, etc., R. Co. v. 84. Lundquist v. Grand Trunk Northwestern Fuel Co., 31 Fed. 652; Western Ry. Co., 121 Fed. 915. Interstate TEANSPOETATioif. 919 petition between large and small dealers is an unla-wiful discrim- ination.*' IHscounts from schedule rates for large shipments con- stitute unjust discrimination/' but a guarantee of large quantities and full train loads at regular periods justifies a reduced rate, where the object of the carrier is to obtain a greater remunerative profit by the diminished cost of carriage.^* Excessive mileage paid for the use of the shipper's cars amounts to a rebate and is an unjust discrimination, but a compensation for the use or rent of such cars, which will not put others at a disadvantage, is lawful.*' An arbitrary manufacturer's rate to some persons and not to others is unlawful.'" Group rates on shipments from all points withini a certain territory do not, however, constitute unjust discrimina- tion in favor of the more distant shippers as against those nearer the common terminus.'^ The doctrine that an estimated prppor- tion of a through rate must not be less according to distance than the local rate from an intermediate point to another point named in the line covered by the through rate is untenable,'^ provided 85. Murphy v. Wabash R. Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 725, 5 Int. Com. C. Eep. 122; Brownell v. Columbus, etc., R. Co., 4 Int. Com. Kep. 285, 5 Int. Com. C. Rep. 638; Thurber v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 742, 3 Int. Com. C. Rep. 473. 86. See cases cited in last preced- ing note. 87. Providence Coal Co. v. Provi- dence, etc., R. Co., 1 Int. Com. Rep. 363, 1 Int. Com. C. Rep. 107; United States V. Tozer, 39 Fed. 369. 88. Interstate Commerce Com. v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 52 Fed. 187. 89. Independent Refiners' Assoc, v. Western New York, etc., R. Co., 4 Int. Com. Rep. 162, 5 Int. Com. C. Eep. 415; Rice v. Western New York, etc., R.. Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 162, 4 Int. Com. C. Rep. 131; Seo- field V. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 67, 2 Int. Com. C. Eep. 90; Shamberg v. Delaware, etc., E. Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 502, 4 Int. Com. C. Rep. 630; Rice v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 1 Int. Com. Rep. 722, 1 Int. Com. C. Rep. 503. 90. Matter of Louisville, etc., R. Co., 5 Int. Com. C. Rep. 466. 91. Howell v. New York, etc., R. Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 162, 2 Int. Com. C. Rep. 272 ; Rend v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 313, 2 Int. Com. C. Rep. 540; Imperial Coal Co. V. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 436, 2 Int. "Com. C. Rep. 618. 92. Poughkeepsie Iron Co. v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 248, 4 Int. Com. C. Rep. 195; Coxe V. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 460, 4 Int. Com. C. Rep. 535;Interstate Commerce Co. v. Bal- timore, etc., R. Co., 145 U. S. 281, 43 Fed. 37 ; Milwaukee Chamber of Com- merce V. Flint, etc., R. Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 393, 2 Int. Com. C. Rep. 553; Parsons v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 63 Fed. 903, 167 U. S. 447; Chicago, etc., E. Co. V. Osborne, 52 Fed. 912, rule applied to connecting lines. 920 The Law of Caeeiees. that the local rate is reasonable -when compared with the through rate,'^ and that the provisions of section four as to long and shorti hauls is not violated.^* The service rendered by a railroad com- pany in transporting local passengers or freight from one point to another on its line is not identical with the service rendered in transporting through passengers or freight over the same rails, and the circumstances and conditions of carriage are substantially dis- similar. °^ Giving a rebate to a shipper which is denied to other shippers under similar conditions,^^ paying expenses of cartage to its station for one shipper and refusing to do so for others,'' mak- ing an allowance to certain shippers for leakage and waste and denying it to others under similar circumstances,'* giving lower rates for goods intended for re-shipment beyond the point of desti- nation,'' and underbilling of goods generally, where the favored shipper pays less than is charged to others for the same service,* is an unjust discrimination within the meaning of the act The issuing of a free pass for transportation from one State to another to a person not in the excepted class mentioned in section twenty- two,^ selling mileage tickets for use by commercial travelers only 93. Lippman v. Illinois Cent. E. Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 414, 2 Int. Com. C. Rep. 584. 94. Kentucky, etc.. Bridge Co. v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 47 Fed. 567. 95. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Inter- state Commerce Com., 162 U. S. 197; Union Pae. R. Co. v. United States, 117 U. S. 355; United States v. Tozer, 39 Fed. 369. 96. Interstate Commerce Com. v. Alabama M. R. Co., 168 U. S. 144; Wight V. United States, 167 U. S. 512; Willoughby v. Chicago Junction E., etc., Co., 50 N. J. Eq. 656; Mat- ter of Louisville, etc., R. Co., 5 Int. Com. C. Rep. 466; Matter of Grand Trunk R. Co. 2 Int. Com. Rep. 496, 3 Int. Com. C. Rep. 89; Bullard v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 10 Mont. 168, 45 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 234. 97. Hezel Milling Co. v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 701, 5 Int. Com. C. Rep. 57; Wight v. United States, 167 U. S. 512; Stone V. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 60, 3 Int. Com. C. Rep. 613. But see Detroit, etc., R. Co. v. Inter- state Commerce Com., 74 Fed. 803. 98. Rice v. Western New York, etc., R. Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 162, 4 Int. Com. C. Rep. 131; Rice v. Cin- cinnati, etc., E. Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 841, 5 Int. Com. C. Rep. 193. 99. Northwestern Iowa Grain, etc., Assoc. V. Chicago, etc., E. Co., 2 Int. Com. Eep. 431, 2 Int. Com. C. Eep. 604. 1. Re Underbilling, 1 Int. Com. Eep. 813, 1 Int. Com. C. Rep. 633. 2. Matter of Boston, etc., E. Co., 5 Int. Com. C. Rep. 69; Harvey v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 3 Int. Coni. Eep. 793, 5 Int. Com. C. Eep. 153; Slater v. Northern Pac. E. Co., 2 Int. Com. Eep. 243, 2 Int. Com. C. Eep. 359; Griffee v. Burlington, etc., E. Co., 2 Int. Com. Eep. 194, 2 Int. Com. Intbestate Teaksportation. 921 and refusing them to other travelers at the same rate,' selling passenger tickets at reduced rates through brokers or " scalpers " under pretence of paying a commission/ and giving special rates to certain points to immigrants which are less than half the rates charged the public generally for the same service,' has been held to constitute an unjust discrimination. But a class rate may be made for immigrants which is denied to others, where the accom- modations provided are different from those provided for other travelers.' Selling a round-trip ticket for a less rate than a one- way ticket is not an unjust and unreasonable diserimination.' The sale of party-rate tickets for the transportation of ten or more per^ sons at a reduced rate from that charged an individual for a like transportation on the same trip is not an unjust discrimination, provided such tickets are offered to the public generally and the rate charged single passengers is reasonable, the transportation in the two cases not being substantially identical.' The refusal to give to the government of the United States, in buying transpor- tation on a railroad for its soldiers, in lots of ten or more, a re- duced ten-party rate given by the railroad company's schedule to "theatrical, operatic, or concert companies, hunting and fishing parties, glee dubs, brass and string bands, boat, base ball, polo or tennis clubs, football teams, and other parties of like character," did not constitute an unjust discrimination againet it, or subject it to undue prejudice or disadvantage, in violation of the Inter- state Commerce Act, where it is shown that the purpose an Eate Act. 955 ticular instances or by a general order applicable to special or peculiar. circumstancesi or conditions.-'^ " The names of the several carriers which are parties to any- joint tariff shall be specified therein, and each of the parties thereto, other than the one filing the same, shall file -with the Commission such evidence of concurrence therein or acceptance thereof as may be required or approved by the Commission, and •where such evidence of concurrence or acceptance ia filed it shall not be necessary for the carriers filing the same to also file copies of the tariffs in vs^hich they are named as parties.'^ " Every common carrier subject to this Act shall also file with said Commission copies of all contracts, agreements, or arrange- ments with other common carriers in relation to any traffic af- fected by the provisions of this Act to which, it may be a party. " The Commission may determine and prescribe the form in which the schedules required by this section to be kept open to public inspection shall be prepared and arranged and may change the form from time to time as shall be found expedient." " ITo carrier, unless otherwise provided by this Act, shall en- gage or participate in the transportation of passengers or prop-- erty, as defined in this Act, unless the rates, fares, and charges upon which the same are transiported by said carrier have been filed and published in accordance with the provisions of this Act ; nor shall any carrier charge or demand or collect or receive a greater or less or different compensation for such transportation of passengers or property, or for any service in connection there- with, between the points named in such tariffs than the rates, fares, and charges which are specified in the tariff filed and in effect at the time; nor shall any carrier refund or remit in any manner or by any device any portion of the rates, fares, and charges so specified, nor extend to any shipper or person any privileges or facilities in the transportation of passengers or property, except such as are specified in such tariifs: Provided, 15. The former law required 10 changes on less notice, or modiflca- days' notice of advances in rates, tion of the Commission's require- fares, and charges and 3 days' notice ments, in the discretion of the Com- of reductions. Under the present act mission, is new. See Chap. 27, § 16, 30 days' public notice must be given as to objects of these amendments, of any changes in rates, fares, and 16. New. The provision allowing 17. New. 956 The Law of Caeeiees. That wherever the word ' carrier ' occurs in this Act it shall be held to mean ' common carrier.'** " That in time of war or threatened war preference and prece- dence shall, upon the demand of the President of the United States, be given, over all otber traflBc, to the transportation of troops and material of war, and carriers shall adopt every means within their control to facilitate and expedite the military traffic.'"' That section one of the Act entitled " An Act to further regu- late commerce with foreign nations and among the States," ap- proved February nineteenth, nineteen hundred and three, be amended so as to read as follows: " That anything done or omitted to be done by a corporation common carrier, subject to the Act to regulate commerce and tte Acta amendatory thereof, which, if done or omitted to be done by any director or officer thereof, or any receiver, trustee, lessee, agent, or person acting for or employed by such corporation, would constitute a misdemeanor under said Acts or under this Act, shall also be held to be a misdemeanor committed by such corporation, and upon conviction thereof it shall be sub- ject to like penalties as are prescribed in said Acts or by this Act with reference to such persons, except as such penalties are herein changed. The willful failure upon the part of any carrier sub- ject to said Acts to file and publish the tariffs or rates and diarges as required by said Acts, or strictly to observe such tariffs until changed according to law, shall be a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof the corporation offending shall be subject to a fine of not less than one thousand dollars nor more than twenty thousand dollars for each offense; and it shall be unlawful for any person, persons, or corporation to offer, grant, or give, or to solicit, accept, or receive any rebate, concession, or discrimination in respect to the transportation of any property in interstate or foreign commerce by any common carrier subject to said Act to regulate commerce and the Acts amendatory thereof, whereby any such property shall by any device whatever be transported at a less rate than 'that named in the tariffs published and filed by such carrier, as is required by said Act to regulate com- 18. Substantially new. 19. New. The Eaileoad Eate Act. 957; merce and the Acts amendatory thereof, or wkereby any other advantage is given or discrimination is practiced. Every person or corporation, whether carrier or shipper, who shall, knowingly, offer, grant, or give, or solicit, accept, or receive any such rebates, concession, or discrimination shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not less than one thousand dollars nor more than twenty thousand dollars: Provided, That any person, or any officer or director of any corporation subject to the provisions of this Act, or the Act to regulate commerce and the Acts amendatory thereof, or any receiver, trustee, lessee, agent, or person acting for or em- ployed by any such corporation, who shall be convicted as afore- said, shall, in addition to the fine herein provided for, be liable to imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of not exceeding two years, or both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court. Every violation of this section shall be prosecuted in any court of the United States having, jurisdiction of crimes within the district in which such violation was committed, or through which the transportation may have been conducted; and whenever the offense is begun in one jurisdiction and completed in another it may be dealt with, inquired of, tried, determined, and punished in either jurisdiction in the same manner as if the offense had been actually and wholly committed therein-^ " In construing and enforcing the provisions of this section, the act, omission, or failure of any officer, agent, or other person act- ing for or employed by any common carrier, or shipper, acting within the scope of his employment, shall in ©very case be also deemed to be the act., omission, or failure of such carrier or shipper as well as that of the person. Whenever any carrier files with the Interstate Commerce Commission or publishes a partic- ular rate under the provisions of the Act to regulate commerce or Acts amendatory thereof, or participates in any rates so filed or pubhshed, that rate as against such carrier, its oiEeers or agenta, in any prosecution begun under this Act shall be conclusively deemed to be the legal rate, and any departure from such rate, or any offer to depart therefrom, shall be deemed to be an offense under this section of this Act. ZO. The amendments make the provide for imprisonment in addition provisions of this section applicable to fine, upon conviction, in the discre- te shippers as well as carriers and« — tion of the court. 958 The Law of Caeeiees. " Any person, corporation, or company who ihaR deliver prop- erty for interstate transportation to any common carrier, subject to the provisions of this Act, or for whom as consignor or consignee, any such carrier shall transport property from one State, Terri- ory, or the District of Columbia to any other State, Territory, or the District of Columbia, or foreign country, who shall know- ingly by employee, agent, officer, or otherwise, directly or indi- rectly, by or through any means or device whatsoever, receive or accept from such common carrier any sum of money or any other valuable consideration as a rebate or offse* against the regular charges for transportation of such property, as fixed by the sched- ules of rates provided for in this Act, shall in addition to any penalty provided by this Act forfeit to the United States a sum of money three times the amount of money so received or accepted and three times the value of any other consideration so received or accepted, to be ascertained by the trial court; and the Attorney- General of the United States is authorized and directed, when- ever he has reasonable grounds to beUeve tiiat any such person, corporation, or company has knowingly received or accepted from any such common carrier any sum of money or other valuable consideration as a rebate or offset as aforesaid, to institute in any court of the United States of competent jurisdiction, a civil action to collect the said sum or sums so forfeited as aforesaid ; and in the trial of said action all such rebates or other considerations so received or accepted for a period of six years prior to thle com- mencement of the action, may be included therein, and the amount recovered shall be three times the total amount of money, or three times the total value of such consideration, so received or accepted, or both, as the case may be."^^ Sec. 3. That section fourteen of said Act, as amend^gd March second, eighteen hundred and eighty-nine, be amended so as to read as follows: " Sec. 14. That whenever an investigation shall be made by said Commission, it shall be its duty to make a report in writing in respect thereto, which shall state the conclusions of the Oomnus- sion, together with its decision, order, or requirement in the prem- 21. New. The Eailboad Kate Act. 959 ises; and in case damages are awarded such report shall include the findings of fact on which the award is made.^^ "All reports of investigations made by the Commission shall be entered of record, and a copy thereof shall be furnished to the party who may have complained, and to any common carrier that may have been complained of. "The Commission may provide for the publication of its re- ports and decisions in such form and manner as may be beet adapted for public information and use, and such authorized pub- lications shall be competent evidence of the reports and decisions of the Commission therein contained in all courts of the United States and of the several States without any furtheor proof or au- thentication thjereof. The Commission may also cause to be printed for early distribution its annual reports." Sec. 4. That section fifteen of said Act be amended so as to read as follows: " Sec. 15. That the Commission is authorized and empowered, and it shall be its duty, whenever, after full hearing upon a com- plaint made asi provided in section thirteen of this Act, or upon complaint of any common carrier, it shall be of the opinion that any of the rates, or charges whatsoever, demanded, charged, or collected by any common carrier or carriers, subject to the pro- visions of this Act, for the transportation of persons or property as defined in the first section of this Act, or that any regulations or practices whatsoever of such carrier or carriers affecting such rates, are unjust or unreasonable, or unjustly discriminatory, or unduly preferential or prejudicial, or otherwise in violation of any of the provisions of this Act, to determine and prescribe what will be the just and reasonable rate or rates, charge or charges, to be thereafter observed in such case as the maximum to be charged ; and what regulation or practice in respect to such trans- portation is just, fair, and reasonable to be thereafter followed; and to make an order that the carrier shall cease and desist from such violation, to the extent to which the Commission find the same to exist, and shall not thereafter publish, demand, or collect 182. This clause materially changes the provisions of the former act. See Chap. 27, § 16. 960 The Law of Caeeieks. any rate or charge for such transportation in excess of £he maxi- mum rate or charge so prescribed, and shall conform to the regu- lation or practice so prescribed. All orders of the Coromiseion, except orders for the payment of money, shall take effect within such reasonable time, not less than thirty daysi, and shall continue in force for such period of time, not exceeding two years, as shall be prescribed in the order of the Commission, unless the same shall be suspended or modified or set aside by the Commisision or be suspended or set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction. Whenever the carrier or carriers, in obedience to such order of the C'ommission or otherwise, in respect to joint rates, fares, or charges, shall fail to agree among themselves upon th.e apportion- ment or division thereof, the Commission may after hearing mate a supplemental order prescribing the just and reasonable propor- tion of such joint rate to be received by each carrier party thereto, which order shall take effect as a part of the original order.^* " The Commission may also, after hearing on a complaint, es- tablish through routes and joint rates as the maximum to be charged and prescribe the division of sudi rates as hereinbefore provided, and the terms and conditions under whidi such through routes shall be operated, when that may be necessary to give effect to any provision of this Act, and the carriers complained of have refused or neglected to voluntarily esta:blish such through routes and joint rates, provided no reasonable or satisfactory through route exists, and this provision shaU apply when one of the con- necting carriers is a water line. " If the owner of property transported under this Act directly or indirectly renders any service connected with such transporta- tion, or furnishes any instrumentality used therein, the charge and allowance therefor shall be no more than is just and reason- able, and the Commission may, after hearing on a complaint, determine what is a reasonable charge as the maximum to be paid by the carrier or carriers for the services so rendered or for the use of the insitumentality so furnished, and fix the same by appropriate order, which order shall have the same force and effect and be 23. Seption 15 of the former act is proceedings to enforce the provisions so amended as to be practically a. of the former act. See Chap. 27, § new section. See Chap. 27, §§ 1, 2 16, as to questions raised concerning and 15, and cases there cited, as to certain provisions of this section. The Eaileoad Rate Act. 961 enforced in like manneT as the orders above provided for in this section. "Tte foregoing enumeration of powers shall not exclude any power which the Commission would otherwise have in the making of an order under the provisions of this Act." Sec. 5. That section sixteen of said Act, as amended March second, eighteen hundred and eighity-nine, be: amended so as to read as follows: " Sec. 16. That if, after hearing on a complaint made as pro- vided in section thirteen of this Act, the Commission shall de- termine that any party complainant is entitled to an award of damages under the provisions of this Act for a violation thereof, the Commission shall make an order directing the carrier to pay to the complainant the sum to which he is entitled on or before a day named.^* " If a carrier does not comply with an order for the payment of money within the time limit in such order, the complainant, or any person for whose benefit such order was made, may file in the Circuit Court of the United States for the district in which he resides or in which is located the principal operating office of the carrier, or lihrough which the road of the carrier runs, a peti- tion setting forth briefly the causes for which he claims damages, and the order of the Commission in the premises. Such suit shall proceed in all respects like other civil suits, for damages, except that on the trial of such suit the findings and order of the Com- mission shall be prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated, and except that the petitioner shall not be liable for costs in the Circuit Cburt nor for costs at any subsequent stage of the pro- ceedings unless they accrue upon his appeal. If the petitioner shall finally prevail he shall be allowed a reasonable attorney's fee, to be taxed and collected as a part of the costs of the siuit. AU complaints for the recovery of damages shall be filed with the Commission within two years from the time the cause of action accrues, and not after, and a petition for the enforcement of an order for the payment of money shall be filed in the Circuit 24. The changes made in § 16 of the former act make it practically a new section. See Chap. 27, § 16. 962 The Law of Oaeeiees. Court within one year from the date of the order, and not after: Provided, That claims accrued prior to the passage of this Act may be presented within one year. " In such, suits all partiesi in whose favor the Commission may have made an award for damages by a single order may be joined as plaintiffs, and all of the carriers parties to such order awarding such, damages may be joined as defendants, and such suit may be maintained by such joint plaintiffs and against such, joint de- fendants in any district where any one of such joint plaintiffs could maintain such suit against any one of such joint defendants ; and service of process against any one of such, defendants as may noli be found in the district where the suit ig brought may be made in any district where such defendant carrier has its prin- cipal operating office. In case of such joint suit the recovery, if any, may be by judgment in favor of any one of such, plaintiffs, against the defendant found to be liable to siich plaintiff. " Every order of the Commission shall be forthwith served by mailing to any one of the principal officers or a^nts of the carrier at his usual place of business a copy thereof; and the registry mail receipt shall be prima facie evidence of the receipt of such order by the carrier in due course of mail. " The Commission shall be authorized to suspend or modify its orders upon such notice and in such manner as it shall deem proper. " It shall be the duty of every common carrier, its agents and employees, to observe and comply with such orders so long as the same shall remain in effect. " Any carrier, any officer, representative, or agent of a carrier, or any receiver, trustee, lessee, or agent of either of them, who knowingly fails or neglects to obey any order made under the provisions of section fifteen of this Act, shall forfeit to the United States the sum of five thousand dollars for each offense. Every distinct violation shall be a separate offense, and in case of a con- tinuing violation each day shall be deemed a separate offense. " The forfeiture provided for in this Act shall be payable into the Treasury of the United States, and shall be recoverable in a civil suit in the name of the United States, brought in tiie district where the carrier has its principal operating office, or in any dis- trict through which the road of the carrier runs. The Eaileoad Rate Act. " It shall be the duty of the various district attorneys, under the direction of the Attorney-General of tha United States, to prosecute for thei recovery of forfeitures. The costs and expenses of such prosecution shall be paid out of the appropriation for the expenses of the courts of the United States. The Commission may, with the consent of the Attorney-General, employ special counsel in any proceeding under this Act, paying the expenses of such employment out of its own appropriation. " If any carrier fails or neglects to obey any order of the Com- mission, other than for the payment of money, while the same is in effect, any party injured thereby, or the Commission in its own name, may apply to the Circuit Court in the district where such carrier has its principal operating office, or in which the vio- lation or disobedience of such order sihall happen, for an enforce- meat of such order. Such application shall be by petition, which shall state the substance of the order and the respect in which the carrier has failed of obedience, and shall be served upon the carrier in such manner as the court may direct, and the court shall prosecute such inquiries and make such investigations, through such means as it shall deem needful in the ascertainment of the facts at issue or which may arise upon the hearing of such petition. If, upon such hearing as the court may determine to be necessary, it appears that the order was regularly made and duly served, and that the carrier is in disobedienoe of the same, the court shall enforce obedience to such order by a writ of in- junction, or other proper process, mandatory or otherwise, to restrain such carrier, its officers, agents, or representatives:, from further disobedience of such order, or to enjoin upon it, or them, obedience to the same ; and in the enforcement of such process the court shall have those powers ordinarily exercised by it in com- pelling obedience to its writs of injunction and mandamus. " From any action upon such petition an appeal shall lie by either party to the Supreme Court of the United States, and in such court the case shall tave priority in hearing and determina- tion over all other causes except criminal causes, but such appeal shall not vacate or suspend the order appealed from. " The venue of suits brou^t in any of the Circuit CWrts of the United States against the Commission to enjoin, set aside, annul, or suspend any order or requirement of the Commission shaU be in the district where the carrier against whom such order 964 The Law op Caeeiees. or requirement may liave been made lias its principal operating oflS.oe, and may be brougbt at any time after such order is pro- mulgated. And if the order or requirement lias been made against two or more carriers then in the district where any one of said carriers has its principal operating office, and if the carrier has its principal operating office in the District of Columbia then the venue sihall be in the district where said carrier has its prin- cipal office; and jurisdiction to hear and determine such suits is hereby vested in such courts. The provisions of ' An Act to ex- pedite the hearing and determination of suits in equity, and so forth,' approved February eleventh, nineteen hundred and three, siiall be, and are hereby, made applicable to all such suits, includ- ing the bearing on an application for a preliminary injunction, and are also made applicable to any proceeding in equity to en- force any order or requirement of the Commission, or any of the provisions of the Act to regulate commerce approved February fourth, eighteen hundred and eighty-seven, and all Acts amenda- tory thereof or supplemental thereto. It shall be the duty of the Attorney-General in every such case to file the certificate provided for in said expediting Act of February eleventh, nineteen hun- dred and three, as necessary to the application of the provisions thereof, and upon appeal as therein authorized to the Supreme Court of the United States, the case shall have in such court priority in hearing and determination over all other causes except criminal causes: Provided, That no injunction, interlocutory order or decree suspending or restraining the enforcement of an order of the Commission sball be granted except on hearing after not less than five days' notice to the Commission. An appeal may be taken from any interlocutory order or decree granting or con- tinuing an injunction in any suit, but shall lie only to the Su- preme Court of the United States: Provided further. That the appeal must be taken within thirty days from the entry of such order or decree and it shall take precedence in the appellate court over all other causes, except causes of like character and criminal causes. " The copies of schedules and tariffs of rates, fares, and charges, and of all contracts, agreements, or arrangements between com- mon carriers filed with the Commission as herein provided, and the statistics, tables, and figures contained in the annual reports of carriers made to the Commission, as required by the pro- The Kailboad Eate Act. 965 visiong of this Act, shall be preserved as public records in th© cus- tody of the secretary of the Commission, and shall be received as prima facie evidence of what they purport to be for the purpose of investigations by the Commission and in all judicial proceedings ; and copies of or extracts from any of said schedules', tariffs, con- tracts, agreements, arrangements, or reports made public records as aforesaid, certified by the secretary under its seal, shall be received in evidence with like effect as the originals." Sec. 6. That a new section be added to said Act immediately after section sixteen, to be numbered as section sixteen a, as f oUows : " Sec. 16a. That after a decision, order, or requirement has been made by the Commission in any proceeding any party thereto may at any time make application for rehearing of the same, or any matter determined therein, and it shall be lawful for the Com- mission in its discretion to grant such a rehearing if sufficient reason therefor be made to appear. Applications for rehear- . ing shall be governed by such general rules as the Commis- sion may establish. No such application shall excuse any carrier from complying, with or obeying any decision, order, or requirement of the Commission, or operate in any manner to stay or postpone the enforcement thereof, without the special order of the Commission. In case a rehearing is granted the proceedings thereupon shall conform as nearly as may be to the proceedings in an original hearing, except as the Commission may otherwise direct ; and if, in its. judgment, after such rehearing and the consideration of all facts, including those arising since the former hearing, it shall appear that the original decision, order, or req|uirement is in any respect unjust or unwarranted, the Com- mission may reverse, change, or modify the same accordingly. Any decision, order, or requirement made after such rehearing, reversing, changing or modifying the original determination shall be subject to the same provisions as an original order.^^ Sec. 7. That section twenty of said Act be amended so as to read as follows: 25. A new section. TkE Law of Cabeibes. " Sec. 20. Tliat the Commission, is hereby authorized to re- quire aimual reports from all common carriers subject to the provisions of this Act, and from the owners of all railroads en- gaged in inters'tate commerce as defined in this Act, to prescribe the manner in which such reports shall be made, and to require from such carriers specific answers to all questions upon which the Commission may need information. Such annual reports shall show in detail the amount of capital stock issued, the amounts paid therefor, and the manner of payment for the same ; the divi- dends paid, the surplus fund, if any, and the number of stock- holders; the funded and floating debts and the interest paid thereon; the cost and value of the carrier's property, franchises, and equipments; the number of employees and the salaries paid each class; the accidents to passengers, employees, and other per- sons, and the causes thereof; the amounts expended for im- provements each year, bow expended, and the character of such improvements ; the earnings and receipts from each branch of business and from all sources; the operating and other expenses; the balances of profit and loss; and a complete exhibit of the financial operations of the carrier each year, in- cluding an annual balance sheet. Sucb reports shall also contain such information in relation to rates or regulations concemiag fares or freights, or agreements, arrangements, or contracts af- fecting the same as the Commission may require; and the Cbm- mission may, in its discretion, for the purpose of enabling it the better to carry out the purposes of this Act, prescribe a period of time within which all common carriers subject to the provisions of this Act shall have, as near as may be, a uniform system of accounts, and the manner in which such accounts shall be kept.'*® " Said detailed reports shall contain all the required statistics for the period of twelve months ending on the thirtieth day of June in each year, and shall be made out under oath and filed with the Commission, at its office in Wasbington, on or before the thirtieth day of September then next following, unless additional time be granted in any case by the Commission; and if any carrier, person, or corporation subject to the provisions of lius 26. The foregoing provisions of law to be reported. The rest of the this section require additional de- section is entirely new. tails to those specified in the former The Raileoad Eate Act. 967 Act aball fail to make and file said annual reports within tke time above specified, or within the time extended by the Com- mission for making and filing the same, or shall fail to make specific answer to any question authorized by the provisions of this section within thirty days from the time it is lawfully re- quired so to do, such parties shall forfeit to the United States the sum of one hundred dollars for each and every day it shall con- tinue to be in default with respect thereto. The Commission shall also have authority to require said carriers to file monthly reports of earnings and expenses or special reports within a speci- fied period, and if any suA carrier shall fail to file such reports within the time fixed by the Commission it shall be subject to the forfeitures last above provided. " Such forfeitures shall be recovered in the manner provided for the recovery of forfeitures under the provisions of this Act. " The oath required by this section may be taken before any person authorized to administer an oath by the laws of the State in which the same is taken. " The Com mission may, in its discretion, prescribe the forms of any and all accounts, records, and memoranda to be kept by carriers subject to the provisions of this Act, including the ac- counts, records, and memoranda of the movement of traffic as wen as the receipts and expenditures of moneys. The Commis- sion shall at all times have access to all accounts, records, and memoranda kept by carriers subject to this Act, and it shall be unlawful for such carriers to keep any other accounts, records, or memoranda than those prescribed or approved by the Commis- sion, and it may employ special agents or examiners, who shall have authority under the order of the Commission to inspect and examine any and all accounts, records, and memoranda kept by such carriers. This provision shall apply to receivers of carriers and operating trustees. " In case of failure or refusal on the part of any such carrier, receiver, or trustee to keep such accounts, records, and memor- anda on the books and in the manner prescribed by the Com- mission, or to submit such accounts, records, and memoranda as are kept to the inspection of the Conimission or any of its authorized agents or examiners, such carrier, receiver, or trustee shall forfeit to the United States the sum of five hundred dollars for each such ofitense and for each and every day of the eontin- 968 The La.w of Cabeiees. uance of suck offense, such forfeitures to be recoverable in the same manner as other forfeitures provided for in this Act. " Any peirson who shall -willfully make any false entry in. the accounts of any book of accounts or in any record or memoranda kept by a carrier, or who shall willfully destroy, mutilate, alter, or by any other means or device falsify the record of any such account, record, or memoranda, or who shall willfully neglect or fail to make full, true, and correct entries in such accounts, re- .cords, or memoranda of all facts and transactiona appertaining to the carrier's business, or shall keep any other accounts, records, or memoranda than those prescribed or approved by the Com- mission, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be subject, upon conviction in any court of the United States of ciompetent jurisdiction, to a fine of not less than one thousand dollars nor more than five tiiousand dollars, or imprisonment for a term not less than one year nor more than three years, or botk such fine and imprisonment. " Any examiner who divulges any fact or information which may come to his knowledge during the course of such examina- tion, except in so far as he may be directed by the Commission or by a court or judge thereof, shall be subject, upon conviction in any court of the United States of competent jurisdiction, to a fine of not more than five thousand dollars or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or both. " That the Circuit and District Courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction, upon the application of the Attorney-Gen- eral of the United States at the request of the Commission, alleg- ing a failure to comply with or a violation of any of iJie provisions of said Act to regulate commerce or of any Act supplementary thereto or amendatory thereof by any common carrier, to issue a writ or writs of mandamus commanding such common carrier to comply with the provisions of said Acts, or any of them. " And to carry out and give effect to the provisions of said Acts; or any of them, the Commission is hereby authorized to employ special agents or examiners who shall have power to administer oaths, examine witnesses:, and receive evidence. " That any common carrier, railroad, or transportation com- \ pany receiving property for transportation from a point in one State to a point in another Sitate shall issue a receipt or bill of The Eaileoad Rate Act. 969 lading therefor and shall be liable to the lawful holder thereof for any loss, damage, or injury to such, property caused by it or by any common carrier, railroad, or transportation company to ■which STich property may be delivered or over whose line or lines such property may pass, and no contract, receipt, rule, or regu- lation sihall exem.pt such common carrier, railroad, or transporta- tion company from the liability hereby imposed : Provided),, That nothing in this section shall deprive any holder of such receipt or bill of lading of any remedy or right of action which he has under existing law. " That the common carrier, railroad, or transportation com- pany issuing such receipt or bill of lading shall be entitled to recover from the coctmnon carrier, railroad, or transportation company on whose line the, loss, damage or injury shall have been sustained the amount of such loss, damage or injury as it may be required to pay to the owners of such property, as may be evi- denced by any receipt, judgment, or transcript tliereof." Sec. 8. That a new section be added to said Act at the end thereof, to be numbered as section twenty-four, as follows: " Sec. 24. That the Interstate Commerce Commission is hereby enlarged so as to consist of seven members with terms of seven years, and each shall receive ten thousand dollars compensation annually. The qualifications of the Commissioners and the manner of the payment of their salaries shall be as already provided by law. Such enlargement of the Commission shall be accomplished througjh appointment by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, of two additional Interstate Commerce Com- missioners, one for a term expiring December thirty-first, nineteen hundred and eleven, one for a term expiring December thirty-first, nineteen hundred and twelve. The terms of the present Commis- sioners, or of any successor appointed to fill a vacancy caused by the death or resignation of any of the present Commissioners, shall expire as heretofore provided by law. Their successors and the successors of the additional Commissioners herein provided for shall be appointed for tbe full term of seven years, except that any person appointed to fill a vacancy shall be appointed only for the unexpired term of the Commissioner whom he shall 970 The Law of Oaeeiees. auoceed. Not more than four Cammissioiiers shall be appointed from the same political party." ^^ Sec. 9. That all existing laws relating to the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence and the compelling of testimony under the Act to regulate commerce and all Acts amendatory thereof shall apply to any and all proceedings and hearings under this Act. Sec. 10. That all laws and parts of laws in conflict with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed, but the amendments herein provided for shall not affect causes now pending in courts of the United States, but such causes shall be prosecuted to a conclusion in the manner heretofore pfovided by law. Sec. II. That this Act shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage.^* 27. A new section. 28. Changed by eoncoirrent resolu- tion to 60 days after its passage. INDEX TO RAILROAD RATE ACT OF 1906. (For General Index see page 985.) A. Accounts: Page. eommiaaion may prescribe forms of, to be kept by carriers 967 commission shall have access to, of carriers 967 forfeiture for refusal of carrier to keep or submit for inspection such . 967 falsifying or altering, or records a misdemeanor 968 special agents or examiners to inspect 967 examiner divulging information of, subject to fine and imprisonment.. 968 Aoti to what common carriers, applies 949, 950 amendatory of what acts 949 what existing laws are applicable to proceedings under this . . 952, 964, 970 laws in conflict with, repealed 970 provisions of, does not affect pending causes 970 when, takes effect 970 Agent: of carrier excepted from free pass provision 951 of a carrier failing or neglecting to obey order subject to forfeit 962 acts of, of carrier, deemed acts of carrier 957 Agreements: copy of, with other carriers to be filed with commission 955 copies of, filed with commission prima fade evidence 964, 965 Amend: act is to, " An act to regulate commerce " approved 1887 , . 949 Annual Reports: printing and distribution of, of commission 959 statistics, tables, and figures in, of carrier prima facie evidence 964 commission may require, from all common carriers 966 what, of carriers shall show 966 forfeiture for each day's default in filing 967 Appeal: to Supreme Court from Circuit Court 963 priority of cases on, over all others except criminal causes 964 shall not vacate or suspend order appealed from 963 (971) 972 The Law of Caeeiees. (For General Index see page 985.) Apply — ^Application: Taee. to whom the provisions of this act 949 950 when party to whom money is ordered to be paid may, to court 961 when party injured may, to court to enforce order of commission. . . . 963 when commission may, to court to enforce its order 963 for rehearing of matter before commission 965 rules governing, for rehearing 965 Arrangements : copy of, with other carriers to be filed with commission 955 copies of, filed with commission, prima facie evidence 965 Attorney's Fee: reasonable, allowed to petitioner, if he prevails . , 901 B. Brancb Lines: carriers must provide and maintain switches to 952 Bridges: used or operated in connection with any railroad included in the the term " railroad " 950 C. Carriage: See Continuous Carriage. Carriers: affected by the act 949 duties of, as to schedhile of rates, fares and charges 953 transportation by, without filing tariff schedules, forbidden 955 copies of reports to be furnished to 958 willful failure of, to publish schedules is misdemeanor 956 determination of just and reasonable rates or charges of 959 giving rebates by, is a misdemeanor 957 suits against, for recovery of damages awarded against 961 or agents failing or neglecting to obey order subject to forfeit 962 acts of ofBcers or agents of, deemed acts of 957 Cars: included in term " transportation " 950 Certificate: of Attorney General to expedite trial of cases 964 Changes: thirty days' notice to commission of, in tariffs required 954 thirty days' notice to commission of, in joint tariffs required 954 commission may allow, on less notice 954 Cbarges: all, for any service must be just and reasonable 951 unjust and unreasonable, prohibited and declared unlawful 951 schedules must state separately icing 953 schedules must state separately terminal 953 schedules must state separately all other, which commission require. 953 Index to Eaileoad Kate Aot. 973 (For General Index see page 985.) Charges— (Continued) : Page. schedules showing, must be printed and posted 954 changes in, must be published and thirty days' notice given 954 less notice of changes in, in discretion of commission 954 thirty days' notice to commission of changes in, or joint charges required 954 commission may allow changes in, upon less notice 954 unlawful to receive greater or less, than schedule specifies 955 commission may determine just and reasonable maximum 959 commission may, by order, enforce just and reasonable maximum. . . 959 order for, to go into efifeet after 30 days' notice 960 when commission may apportion 960 when commission may establish and enforce joint maximum 960 commission may determine reasonable maximum joint, for any service or instrumentality 960 Classification : schedules must contain, of freight in force 953 Collect: unlawful to, greater or less compensation than published schedule. . 955 Comiuission: all charges which, may reqmre to be separately stated 953 may allow changes in schedules upon less than 30 days' notice 954 may modify requirements as to publishing, posting, and filing schedules 954 schedules of tariffs to be filed with 953 copies of contracts, agreements, or arrangements with other carriers to be filed with 955 copies of all rates, fares and charges to be filed with 953 copies of joint tariffs to be filed with 953 thirty days' notice to, of changes in rates or joint tariffs required .... 954 when, may allow less notice 954 evidence of concurrence or acceptance of joint tariffs to be filed with. 955 greater or less joint tariffs than schedule filed with, unlawful 955 may prescribe form in which schedules shall be kept for public in- spection 955 transportation forbidden unless schedules are filed with 955 rate filed with, is to be deemed the legal rate 957 to make written report of investigation 958 report of, to state conclusions, decision, order, or requirement 958 damages awarded by, shall include findings of fact on which award is made 958 reports of, to be recorded and copies furnished 958 publication of reports and decisions of 958 authorized publications of, competent evidence 958 may, after hearing, determine just and reasonable maximum rate or charge 959 may, after hearing, determine just and reasonable regulation or practice 959 ■974 The Law of Caeeiees. (For General Index see page 985.) CommissiozL — (Continued) : Page, may, by order, require carriers to conform thereto, after 30 days' notice 960 order of, may be suspended or set aside, by, or courts 960 may establish through routes and joint maximum rates 960 may prescribe division of joint rates 960 may prescribe terms and conditions for operation of through routes. 960 may determine reasonable maximum charge for any service or instru- mentality. 960 enumeration of powers of, shall not exclude any other power 961 shall order damages payable on or before a certain 'day 961 such order enforceable like civil suit for damages 961 findings and order of, prima facie evidence of facts 961 complaints must be filed with, within two years 961 petition for enforcement of order for payment of money, within one year 961 parties to suits to enforce awards of 962 service of orders of, may be by mail 962 order of, to take effect in 30 days unless suspended, modified or set aside by, or suspended or set aside by court 960 penalty for failure to comply with order of 962 forfeiture recoverable by civil suit 9B2 district attorneys to prosecute for recovery of forfeitures 963 costs and expenses of such prosecution 963 special counsel may be empployed 963 orders of, enforced by courts by mandamus or injunction 963 venue of suits in the circuit courts to enforce orders of 963 measures to expedite suits to enforce orders of 964 notice to, of application for injunction or interlocutory order 964 public records of, prima facie evidence of what they purport to be . . . 965 may grant rehearing of decision, order, or requirement 965 may establish rules for rehearings 965 application for rehearing by, does not operate as a stay 965 may revise, change, or modify original determination 965 enlarged to seven members 969 qualification of members of 969 how, shall be enlarged 969 terms of office of members of 969 Commodities : railroads forbidden to transport, manufactured, mined, or produced by it other than timber, etc 952 or which it owns or has any interest in 952 "Common CarrierB: See Carriers. act applies to, wholly by railroad or partly by railroad and partly by water 9*^ or partly by pipe line and partly by water 9*9 corporation, liable for acts the same as their officers or agents. 956 Index to Kaileoad Eate Act. 975 (For General Indes see page 985.) Common Control: Page. of railroad and water transportation when essential to bring within provisions of the act 949 Compensation: unlawful to charge greater or less, than published schedule of rates, fares, and charges 955 Continuous Carriage: or shipment, when essential to bring within the provisions of the act. 949 Contracts: copy of, with other carriers to be filed with conunission 955 copies of, filed with commission prima facie evidence 965 Corporations : violating the law guilty of misdemeanor 956 Costs: petitioner not liable for, in Circuit Court 961 petitioner only liable for, which accrue upon his appeal 961 of prosecuting for forfeitures payable by Government 963 Custom Duties: chargeable on freight shipped through a foreign country when through rate is not made public 954 D. Decision: report of commission shall contain 958 authorized published, of commission competent evidence 959 rehearing of, and rules governing the same 965 Definition: "railroad" 950 " transportation " 950 " common carrier " 949, 950, 956 Delivering — Delivery : act does not apply to, of property wholly within one State 950 of property transported included in term " transportation " 950 Demand! unlawful to, greater or less compensation than published schedule. . . 955 Depot: copy schedules must be posted in every 954 freight, included within term " railroad " 950 Discriminations : offering or accepting, a misdemeanor 957 E. Elevation : of property transported included in term "transportation" 950 Employes: of carrier, and their families may be transported free 951 interchange of passes for, of carriers not prohibited 951 of sleeping cars, express companies, telegraph and telephone com- panies may be carried free 951 9Y6 The Law of Caeeiees. (For General Index eee page 93S.) Employes^ (Continued) : Page. acts of, of carrier are to be deemed acts of the carrier 957 carriers held liable for acts which if done by, would constitute mis- . demeanor 956 acts of, of shippers are deemed acts of the shipper 957 Evidence : authorized publications competent, of reports and decisions of the commission 959 copies of schedules, tariffs of rates, fares and charges, contracts, agreements, or arrangements between carriers, statistics, tables, and figures in carriers' annual reports, are prima fade 964 registry mail receipt prima facie, of receipt of order 962 existing laws relating to production of, shall apply to all proceed- ings and hearings under this act 970 Expenses: of prosecuting for recovery of forfeitures payable by Government. . 963 of employment of special counsel payable by commission 963 Express Companies: the term " Common Carrier " includes 950 passes may be granted to employes of 951 F. Facilities : all, of shipment or carriage included in term " transportation " 950 Families: of carriers may be transported free 951 interchange of passes to, of carriers not prohibited 951 Fares: schedules showing, must be filed, printed and posted 953, 954 changes in, must be published and thirty days' notice given 954 less notice of changes of, in discretion of commission 934 greater or less, than published schedule unlawful 955 copies of tariffs of, prima facie evidence 964 Ferries: used or operated in connection with any railroad included in the term " railroad " 950 Findings: report of commission shall contain, of fact on which award is made. 959 of commission prima facie evidence of facts therein stated 961 Foreign Country: when act applies to shipments from or to 950 Forfeitures : for knowingly failing or neglecting to obey commission's order 962 recoverable by civil suit 902 payable to United States treasury 9^2 venue of suits for 962 for refusal of carrier to keep or permit examination of records 967 Index to Eaileoad Kate Act. 977 (For Oeneral Index see page 985.) Free Ticket, Pass, or Transportation: issue or giving of any interstate, forbidden 951 except to employes and other specified persons 951 carrier violating provision guilty of misdemeanor 952 person who uses, guilty of misdemeanor 952 Freight: schedules must contain classification of, in force 953 schedules must show through, rates beyond a foreign country 954 subject to customs duties where through rate is not made public 954 Freight Depots: included in term " railroad " 950 G. Gronnds: used or necessary in the transportation or delivery of property in- cluded in term " railroad " 950 H. Handling: act does not apply to, of property wholly within one State 950 of property transported included in term "transportation" 950 I. Icing: of property transported included in term " transportation " 950 schedules must state separately, charges 953 Injunction: by court to restrain carrier from disobedience to order of commission. 963 power of court to compel obedience to its writs of 963 notice to commission of, restraining enforcement of order 964 Inspection: schedules of rates, fares, and charges must be kept open to public . . . 953 schedules must be posted' conveniently for public 954 Instrnmentalities : all, of shipment or carriage included in term " transportation " 950 International : act applies to, transportation or shipments 950 Interstate: act applies to, transportation or shipments 950 Investigations: See Commission. procedure of commission on 959 978 The Law oe Oaebiees. (For General Index see page 98S.) J. Joint Bates: See Joint Tariffs. Joint Tariffs : Page. copy of, to be filed with commission 953 thirty days' notice to commission of changes in, required 954 unlawful to charge greater or less, than schedule specifies 955 when commission may establish just and reasonable maximum 960 Just: See Charges; Hates; Unjust. and reasonable through rates must be established upon reasonable request 951 all charges for any service must be, and reasonable 951 when commission may establish, and reasonable maximum rates 959 L. Ie Alighting; Carrier; Crowding Cars; Passengers; Eegulation; Street Cars. carriers must provide safe facilities for passengers 613 Leaving Conveyance: contributory negligence of passengers in 843 alighting at improper place or in improper manner in 845 alighting from train or ear in motion 847 street car passengers injured while 852 Legal Holiday: delivery may be made on, unless made unlawful by statute 192 1018 The Law of Oabeiees. Iiegal Process: Page. seizure of goods under, attachment 229 seizure of goods under, garnishment 232 seizure of goods under, police regulations 233 Legal Tender: See Tender. notes are sufScient in payment of fare S53 riability: commencement of, of carrier of goods 130 termination of, of carriers of goods /. 146 of carrier of goods for loss or damage 219 of carrier of goods for delay in transportation 238-256 carrier's, as warehouseman 258-285 of carrier may be changed to that of warehouseman by acts of the parties 268 of connecting carriers 4S7-494 of carriers of live stock 509-538 of carriers of passengers 593-768 Iiicensee : relation of carrier of passengers and 544 Iiien: See Common Carrier j Innkeeper. of the private carrier 14 of carrier for charges 428 for general balance due 431 what carriers are entitled to 432 what property, applies to 433 when it attaches 435 delivery of goods and payment of freight 435 when consignee fails or refuses to receive 436 of the last of connecting carriers 437 priority of carrier's, over other liens 439 how lost, satisfied, or discharged 441 waiver of, by express agreement or inconsistent stipulation 445 how enforced 445 Iiights: See Headlights. Umit: carriers may fix, of time within which ticket may be used 563 when, of time ia not waived 566 Limitation: in bill of lading of time in which to bring suit 331 Limitation of Liability: See Carriers of Goods; Carriers of Fassengrs. special contracts for 13 of carrier of goods for delay 255 of carrier of goods generally 286-362 of connecting carriers 479-487 of carriers of live stock 522-531 of carriers of passengers 752-768 Live Stock: See Cariers of Live Stock. Living Animals: See Animals. Index. 101& Loading Oars: Page. when duty devolves on carrier and shipper 143 contributory negligence of shipper in improperly 382 improperly, liability of carrier of live stock 536 Loan: underwriter entitled to recover from carrier money advanced on insurance policy as a 373 Local Agents: power and authority of carrier's 367 Locomotives : safety of, must be established by . proper testa 600 Locomotive Ste'am Foiver: See Engine. Log-carrying or Log-driving Companies: are not common carriers 72 Look: See Contributory Negligence; Negligence. Lookout: See Motormen; Negligence. Loss: of good's, measure of damages for 398 where intended for a specific purpose 424 Low Water: or freezing of water-way as excuse for delay 253 Luggage; See Baggage. Lunatics: duty of carrier in carriage of 621 M. Machinery; See Appliances; Cars; Contributory Negligence; Negli- gence; Master and Servant. defective 594 Mail Agents: See Postmasters, are not common carriers 71 relation of, to carriers 577 Mail Carriers: are not common carriers 71 Mail Clerks: relation of, to carriers 577 Mail Contractors: are not common carriers 71 Maine: rule in, as to limitation of carrier's liability by public notice. . . . 293 rule in, as to burden of proving contributory negligence 796 rule in, as to traveling in violation of statute 831 Malicious Acts: See Willful Acts. Malicious Prosecution: arrest must be followed by judicial proceeding to constitute 641 Management : when carrier liable for injury caused by, of conveyance , 660 Mandamus : carrier compellable by, to carry freight and passengers 96 1020 The Law of Oaeeiees. Mandatary: Page. liable only for gross negligence 5 private carrier without hire liable only as 4 MaAdatnm; See Bailment. gratuitous carriage of goods or baggage is 2 Manner: of ejection of passengers 747 Mannfactnre— Manufacturer s : liability of carrier for negligence of persons engaged' in 608 employment of reputable, will not excuse for discoverable defects 608 Market Value: what is 398 evidence of 401, 409, 413 damages where goods have no 420 Massaobusetts : carrier not liable in, where negligent delay is not proximate cause of injury 257 rule as to carrier's liability as warehouseman as to goods awaiting delivery. 261 notice to consignee of arrival of goods not essential where, rule prevails 272 statute as to ejection of child for refusal to pay fare 732 rule in, as to traveling in violation of statute 831 Master and Servant: responsibilities attaching to relation of, applied to carriers 627, 641 Master of Vessel: See Common Carrier. liability of, commences with acceptance of goods 131 must safely store goods, on refusal of consignee to accept them .... 237 lien of, for freight 435 Materials: carrier's duty in disposing of, brought upon its grounds or removed by it 598 Means: duty of carriers to provide safe, for receipt and discharge of pas- sengers 612 Measure of Care: See Care. Measure of Damages: See Damages. stipulations that invoice or market value shall be 349 contract of sale as 423 Menagerie: railroad company transporting, not common carrier 79 Mental Suffering: damages for 421 as a distinct cause of action or element of damage 894 Merchandise: See Goods. Minnesota: rule in, as to stipulations as to measure of damages 350 rule as to contributory negligence in crossing track 876 Minor: See Children; Infants. Index. 1021 Miscarriage: Page, liability of connecting carriers for, of goods 469 Misdelivery: carrier's liability for 178 through mistake 179 through fraud and misrepresentation 180 by carrier is conversion 211 damages for 419 Misfeasance : carrier may not limit its liability for willful 314, 328 Mississippi: rule in, as to interest as part of damages 405 Mis'sonri: rule in, as to interest as part of damages 405 rule in, as to contributory negligence in riding on foot board 858 Mistake: innocent mistake will not excuse carrier for misdelivery 178, 179 carrier's liability for losses by, is as an insurer 347 Mitigation of Damages: provocation for assault as 635 Mobs: losses J)y 225 not public enemies 227 duty of carrier when goods endangered by acts of 237 Money: See Baggage. distinction between, as baggage and as freight 357 Mortgagee : when carrier not liable for delivery to a 216 when refusal to deliver goods demanded by, is not conversion 232 Motive Fover: in use of, of dangerous possibilities, a high degree of care is required. 657 in use to be considered on question of degree of care 658 Motor: See Motive Power. Motorman: See Employes; Contributory Negligence; Negligence. Moving Car: See Alighting; Entering Car; Passengers. N. Natnre — Natural Laws: loss or injury from inherent, of goods 235 Negligence: See Bailment; Carrier; Carrier Without Hire; Common Carriers; Carriers of Goods; Carriers of Live Stock; Carriers of Passengers. foundation of bailee's liability 2 liability of common carrier not based on 3 liability of carriers of passengers generally based on 3 liability of private carriers determined by degree of 4 distinctions in degrees of, impracticable 5 essentially always a question of fact 7 1022 The Law of Oaeeiees. Jfegligence — (Continued) : Page. carrier liable for, in loading goods 144 carrier liable for, in unloading goods 151 carrier's liability as warehouseman for 281 carrier cannot limit its liability for delay due to 256 carrier cannot limit its liability for 287, 313, 328 the New York rule as to limitation of liability for 320 limitation of amount of liability not enforceable where loss results from 343 carrier is answerable as an ordinary bailee for 347 what is wanton or willful 375 carrier is always liable for loss resulting from its own 391 carriers of passengers are not insurers, but responsible for 542 general rule of liability of carrier of goods for 374 must have been proximate cause of injury 377 in stowage of goods 378 loss or injury due to, of carrier of live stock 529 carrier's liability for, of persons engaged in construction or manu- facture 608 limitation of liability of carriers of passengers for 759 the New York rule 763 the English rule 765 as to particular classes of passengers 765 presumption and burden of proof as to 769-800 ITegligence, Contributory: See Contributory Negligence. Negligence of the Carrier: must be shown to render it liable as warehouseman 272 Negligence of Passengers: See Contributory Negligence; Passengers. Negroes: See Carriers of Passengers; Discrimination. Nenr Hampshire: rule as to carrier's liability as warehouseman as to goods awaiting delivery 263 notice of arrival of goods necessary where, rule prevails 273 New Jersey: rule as to limitation of liability for negligence 764 Se\r York: rule in, as to limitation of liability for negligence 319 statute as to delivery of goods by carrier 163, 166 rule as to effect of bill of lading as an estoppel 173 rule in, as to delay caused by strikers 227 statute as to delivery of perishable freight 246 when public notice will not operate as a limitation of liability in. . . . 291 limitation of carrier's liability by special contract in 294 rule in, as to limitation of time in which to present claims 333 rule in, as to interest as part of damages 404 rule in, as to passenger stopping over at intermediate station 558 rule as to liability of carrier for acts of its servants 630 rule as to limitation of carrier's liability 763 Index. 1023 New York Railroad. Iiaw: Page. definition of common carrier 20 repealing provision as to delivery of perishable freight 246 duty of carrier to receive and discharge passengers at usual stopping places 685 Non-acoeptance of Goods: notice to consignor of 275 Non-delivery of Goods: See Conversion; Delivery. Non-feasance : carrier not liable in conversion for 217 Non-payment of Fare. See Payment of Fare. Non Sui Juris: when children are 822 Non-repair: See Kepair. North. Carolina: statute for prompt forwarding of freight 246 rule in, as to limitation of carrier's liability by public notice 293 rule in, as to stopping trains at stations 668 rule in, as to burden of proving freedom from contributory negli- gence 790 Notice: to proper person necessary to constitute 132 actual, of deposit necessary, in absence of agreement or usage 138 to consignor upon refusal of carrier to receive goods 148 duty of carrier to give, of obstruction to traffic 251 to connecting carrier that goods are ready for delivery 260 to consignee of arrival of goods held not essential 272 necessity of, maintained 273 sufficiency of 275 to consignor of non-acceptance of goods 275 limitation of liability of carrier of goods by public 290 when public, will operate as a limitation In New York 291 carriers by water must give reasonable, of landing of goods 195 to consignor and consignee of attachment discharges carrier 231 of loss or presentation of claim 333 perishable goods or baggage may be sold without 446 failure to give, of approaching train, when negligence 693 limitation of liability of carriers of passengers by 752 by connecting carrier to succeeding carrier of arrival of goods.. 45 3, 488 Notify: effect of the word, in a bill of lading 170 O. Obscene Language: See Indecent Language. Obstruction: as excuse for delay t 240, 25t on or near track, liability of carrier for 598 Occupying Cars: See Boarding Cars; Carriers of Passengers; Crowd- ing Cars; Regulation; Street Cars. 1024 The Law of Oaeelebs. Offset! Page. damages for breach of contract or loss of goods are, to freigHt charges 125 Ohio: express assent of shipper to limitation of liability must be shown in. 297 rule in, as to passenger stopping oyer at intermediate station 558 Omnibns: proprietors of, are common carriers 54, 540 Onus Proband! : See Burden of Proof; Evidence. Open Car: See Contributory Negligence; Crowding Cars. not contributory negligence to stand 'on steps of a crowded 859 Opinion Evidence: See Evidence. of witness is admissible as to extent of injury, but not as to amount. 402 Option: carrier which has an, as to mode of shipment must exercise it rea- sonably 237 Oral Contract: not merged in written contract, after breach 110 conflict of, and written contract 300 Ordinary Care: See Oare. Ordinary Negligence: See Negligence. Oimer: delivery of goods may always be made to the true 155 right of, to change place of delivery 186 P. Packages: See Parcels. when carrier may demand examination of 100 carrier not liable as warehouseman for loss by explosion of 283 Palace Car Companies: when liable as common carriers and when not 55, 540 duties and liabilities of 55-61 and their employes servants of railroad company 610 Parallel Tracks: dangerous proximity of, carrier's liability for 598 Parcels: See Packages. forcible removal of, from a passenger, is a conversion 218 carrier may not be responsible for falling of, from rack 693 Parent and Child: See Children; Parents. Parents : contributory negligence of 828 Particular or Specific Iiien: See Lien. Partners — Partnership : connecting lines as 491 proof insufficient to show 728 Passenger Carriers: See Carriers of Passengers. Passenger Elevators: courts differ as to status and character of 82, 540 Passenger Bates: See Rates. Indbs. 1026 Passengers: See Carriers of Passengers. Page. relation between carrier and passenger 541 ■who are 643 commencement of relation 545 purchase of ticket 548 entry into vehicle of carrier 549 payment of fare 552 termination of relation 554 may forfeit their rights as passengers 555 leaving vehicle of carrier 556 after leaving vehicle of carrier 556 stop-overs on continuous passage tickets 558 who are not ' 560 limited and unlimited tickets 563 non-transferable tickets 567 persons riding gratuitously 568 persons riding on passes 570 person riding on drover's pass 571 persons riding on trains not generally used for passengers 574 persons riding on engine 575 persons riding on hand cars 577 employes of others carried under contract — ^mail clerks 577 employes of others carried under contract — express messengers 579 persons riding on freight trains 581 persons accompanying passengers 584 employes of carrier as 586 rules and regulations of the carrier 588 rules and regulations of street railways 592 care required of carriers of 594 as to obstructions on or near track 598 as to fencing tracks 599 as to locomotives, cars, and appliances 600 as to improved appliances and methods 603 as to inspection of cars, appliances, etc 605 liability of carriers of, for latent defects 606 for negligence of persons engaged in construction or manufacture. 608 for leased lines and cars of another carrier 609 for injuries caused by inevitable accident 610 for safe means and appliances for receiving 612 liability of carriers by stage coach 615 liability of carriers by water 615 liability of carriers of, as to employment of servants 616 in receiving and transporting 619 who may be refused transportation 621 when refusal must be made 624 when must be carried on freight and special trains 624 when carrier's duty to protect 625 liability of carriers of, for acts and omissions of employes 627 New York rule of liability for wrongful acts of servants 630 liability of carriers of, for assault by servants 631 1026 The Law op Oaeeiees. Passengers — (Continued): Page. for insult and abuse by servants 636 for expulsion by servants 637 for false arrest of passenger 638 liability of carriers of, for acta of fellow passengers or others 641 for assaults by passengers or others 644 for indecent language or conduct of fellow passenger or others . . . 647 for acts of drunken passengers : 647 duty of carrier to sick passengers 649 protection of, from accidental injuries 650 care of carrier, in carriage of 651 in management of conveyance — sudden jerks and jolts 660 duty of carrier to announce stations to 664 to stop at stations for 666 to warn, of departure of trains 669 to provide safe means of ingress and egress for 670 to give reasonable time for ingress and egress by 674 to warn, instruct, and inform 679 to assist, aged, infirm, or helpless 682 to carry to point of destination of 685 not to carry beyond destination of 687 to carry promptly 690 as to safety of, generally 692 on freight and other trains 694 to provide seats for 695 liability of carrier, for injuries caused by collision 696 for safety of sick passenger 700 articles constituting personal baggage of 700 duty of carrier to carry baggage of 709 liability for loss or injury of baggage of 712 limitation of liability for such loss or injury 716 baggage cheeks merely receipts or vouchers 721 commencement and termination of liability for baggage of 722 liability as warehouseman for baggage of 726 liability of connecting carrier for baggage of 727 ejection of, for failure or refusal to procure ticket or pay fare 731 ejection of, from street railroads 732 entitled to reasonable time to pay fare or produce ticket 733 ejection of, for refusal to pay extra fare in train 733 tender or payment of fare by, to avoid ejection 735 ejection of intoxicated 736 ejection of disorderly 739 ejection for violation of reasonable rules of the carrier 740 ejection of, for tendering invalid ticket or transfer 742 manner of ejection of 747 place of ejection of 749 limitation of liability of carriers of 752-768 burden of proof as to contributory negligence of 795 presumptions and burden of proof in actions by 769-800 evidence in actions by 801-813 Index. 1027 Passengers — (Continued) : Page. contributory negligence of, must be proximate cause of injury 814 acts in disregard of warning or disobedience of carrier's rules 815 acts by permission or direction of carrier's employes 817 acts in emergency — sudden peril 818 children §22 aged or infirm persons 825 parents, guardians, or custodians 828 intoxication as evidence of 228 as a question of law or fact 829 traveling in ^aolation of statute is not 830 entering conveyance 832 boarding train or car in motion 836 place of entering cars or train 842 leaving conveyance 843 alighting at improper place or in improper manner 845 alighting from trains or cars in motion 847 alighting from street cars 852 riding in dangerous position 853 riding on platform, steps, or running board 856 standing up in car 866 passing from one car to another 868 riding with part of person projecting from window 870 awaiting and seeking transportation 872 standing near or between tracks 874 crossing intervening tracks 874 damages in actions by 879-904 interstate transportation of 905-940 Passes: See Free Passengers; Gratuitous Passengers. persons riding on < 570 persons riding on drover's 571 Passing from One Car to Another: when contributory negligence 868 Payment of Fare: See Fare; Rates. creates relation of carrier and passenger 552 may be demanded in advance 552 ejection for refusal of 731, 733 or tender to avoid ejection 735 Payment of Freight: charges by consignee after notice amounts to delivery 150 Penalty; damages under, contracts 412 Pennsylvania : canal company not liable as common carrier or insurer 66 carrier not liable in, where negligent delay is not proximate cause of injury 257 rule in, as to presumption arising from instinct of self-preservation. . 791 Peril: acts of passengers in sudden, not contributory negligence 818 limitation of liability for loss from, of sea 353 1028 The Law of C^iEEiEEs. Perishable Goods: Page. when carrier may refuse to receive 101 duty of carrier to furnish refrigerator cars for 115 delay in delivering 246 limitations of liability for losses on 354 goods or baggage may be sold without notice 446 Persons: See Passengers. who are not passengers 560 riding on trains not generally used for passengers 574 riding gratuitously 568 accompanying passengers 584 riding on passes 570 who may be refused transportation 621 riding on drover's pass 571 when refusal to transport, must be made 624 riding on engine 575 liability of carrier for acts of third 641 riding on hand car i 577 liability of carrier for assaults by third 644 riding on freight trains 581 liability of carrier for negligence of, engaged in construction or manu- facture 608 ejection of, riding on freight trains 746 Personal Delivery: when required 192 railroads are excepted from the duty of 193 carriers by water are excepted from the duty of 193 Petition: See Pleading. Phrases: See Definition. Physical Disabilities: See Aged and Infirm Persons; Blind Persons; Intoxication. Physician: carriers not liable for negligence of 618 carriers must employ a reasonably competent 618 Pipe liine: for carrying oil, declared common carrier 61 Pirates: the common enemy of mankind 225 confederates not, but public enemies 226 Placards: See iC^otice. Place: See Alighting. of ejection of passengers 749 of delivery of goods by carrier 183 right of owner or consignee to change, of delivery 186 delivery when, of destination is not on carrier's line 190 carrier must provide safe, for entering and leaving cars 613 of entering cars or train 843 Platform: riding on, when contributory negligence 856 Index. 1029 Platforms or Stations: Page. carrier must provide reasonably safe 613 liability of carrier for defects in 695 613 carrier must provide safe, for entering and leaving cars 613 Platform Guards or Gates: carrier must provide safe and proper 601 Pleading: in actions for refusal to carry goods 102 where limitation of liability is ground of defense 338 Police Po-nrer — Police Begnlation: statutes to compel railroads to deliver freight promptly is valid exercise of 205 seizure of goods under 233 of conductors or other servants of carriers 641, 739 Porters : are common carriers 63 Position of Apparent Peril: See Peril. Possession : change of, from shipper to carrier, necessary to complete delivery.. 133 receiving goods from one in, is not conversion 216 Postal Service— Post Office Department: See Mail Agents; Mail Carriers, organization of, and character of officials 71 Postmasters : are not liable as common carriers 71 Power; See Motive Power; Police Power. Precaution: See Care. evidence of subsequeilt 805 Preference : undue or unreasonable, unlawful 922 undue, in particular eases 926 Pregnant Woman: See Miscarriage. injury to, by collision 685 Prepayment of Charges : carrier of goods may demand 101 ■ carrier of passengers may demand 552 Preponderance: See Evidence. Presumptions : no, as to existence of special contracts limiting liability 298 where limitation of liability is a ground of defense 338 generally 386 as to state of goods when received 391 where goods lost consist of several kinds 392 where there is a loss by fire under contract limiting liability 395 when carrier is merely a warehouseman 396 in actions against connecting carriers 490 in actions against carriers of live stock 531 as to negligence from mere proof of injury 769 from acts of servants and defects in instrumentalities 774 arising from collisions 777 1030 The Law of Caeeiees. Presumptions — (Continued) : Page. arising from derailment of train or car 778 arising from defects in means of transportation 780 of negligence as to injuries to persons other than passengers 782 reasons for, of negligence 786 rebutting 787 other 788 as to contributory negligence 789 arising from instinct of self-preservation 791 as to person being a passenger or trespasser 545 Prima Facie: bill of lading is, evidence of delivery 142 shipping receipts are, evidence of facts recited therein. 145 Principal and Agent: responsibilities attaching to relation of, applied to carriers 627, 641 Prior Negligence of Plaintiff: See Contribubtory Negligence. Private Carriers: not subject to duties and liabilities of common carriers 3 duties and liabilities of 4 when compensation may be implied 9 lien of 14 Private Carriers for Hire: when compensation may be implied 9 definition of 10 who are 11 common carrier may by special contract become 11 liability of 12 special contracts of, increasing or diminishing liability 13 lien of 14 Private Carriers W^ithont Hire: are gratuitous bailees or mandataries 4 when transportation is gratuitous 7 when compensation may be implied 9 proof of negligence of 9 Profanity: See Disorderly Passengers. Projection: riding with part of body projecting from window 870 of body from moving car 872 Proof: See Evidence; Pleading. Pro Rata: when consignee liable for freight 126 Protection: duty of carrier as to, of goods from injury 237 Prospective Damages: See Damages. Provocation: as mitigation of damages for assault by employes 635 Proximate pause: refusal or failure to carry must be shown to have been 94 of loss or injury 118, 224 delay must have been, of injury 248 Index. 1031 Froxiiaate Cause — (Continued) : Page. where delay is not, but is a concurring cause 256 negligence must have been 377 question of, is generally for the jury 378 whether negligence of shipper or carrier was, of loss is a question for the jury 381 contributory negligence of passenger must be, of injury 814 Fnblic Enemy: See Common Carriers. loss or damage by, excuses carrier 219 loss or injury by 225 Pnnitive Damages: See Exemplary Damages. are recoverable for wilful misdelivery 184 Fnrchase of Tickets: See Tickets; Payment of Fare; Tender. as creating relation of carrier and passenger 548 Q- Qnestions for the Court: as to delivery to the carrier, where facts are admitted 135 what is reasonable time for removal of goods, when there is no dis- pute as to the facts 267 reasonableness of rules and regulations of carrier when 588-590 contributory negligence when the facts are undisputed 829 Questions for the Jury: as to delivery to carrier, where evidence is conflicting 135 whether loss of goods is due to inevitable necessity 225 whether goods are delivered within a reasonable time 191 what is a reasonable time for the removal of goods, when there is a conflict of evidence 268 what is a reasonable time within which delivery should be made .... 241 what is unreasonable delay in transportation 241 whether a delay of three days was cause of loss of perishable goods . . 249 reasonableness of time limit to presentation of claims 335 whether or not loss or damage is the result of carrier's negligence. . . 376 whether negligence was the proximate cause 378 what will or will not constitute negligent stowage 378 whether negligence of shipper or carrier was proximate cause of loss 381 whether negligence of shipper in packing or marking contributed to loss 382 the amount of loss or damage 402 what is sufficient to establish a through contract : . 473 reasonableness of rules and regulations of carrier, when 590 what is reasonable amount of money for passenger's traveling ex- penses 705 whether regulations as to baggage are reasonable 718 what is reasonable time to produce ticket or pay fare 733 whether or not death or injury was due to wrongful ejection 737 contributory negligence where the facts are disputed 829 whether rates are reasonable or unreasonable 912 1032 The Law of Cabeiees. K. Page. Railroad Companies: See Common Carriers; Carriers of Goods. are common carriers and liable as such 37, 540 liability of, for baggage of passengers 39, 342 receivers and assignees of, when common carriers 40 bound' to have all reasonable and necessary facilities lOS not bound to be prepared for unusual contingencies 105 loading goods on cars is generally the duty of 143 are excepted from the duty of personal delivery 193 statute making, liable for losses by fire 285 duty of, to fence tracks 599 duty of, in providing locomotives, cars and appliances 600 power and authority of general freight agents of 364 power and authority of station agents of 367 power of congress to regulate rates of 940 See Railroad Rate Act of 1906, in Appendix, 949-970. Railroad ContTactors: relation of carrier of passengers to employes of 544 Rails: See Tracks. carrier must provide sound 597 must be safely spiked or fastened 597 Rate of Speed: See Speed. high, is not per se negligence 699 Rates : carriers liable for unreasonable discrimination in 93, 119 carriers not required to give the same, to all 122 neither Interstate Commerce Commission nor courts can fix 907 must be just and reasonable 911 reasonableness of, as affected by distance 912 through and local 912 unjust discrimination in 914-922 undue preference in 923-928 for long and short hauls 932 schedules of 935 legislation as to 940 See Railroad Rate Act of 1906, in Appendix, 949-970. Ratification: of unauthorized delivery by consignee is a waiver of right of action . . 208 Rear Platform: See Platform. Reasonable : evidence of title to goods may be required by carrier before delivery. 181 carrier must deliver goods within, time 240 time, what is, and how determined 240, 241 time, what is for removal of goods generally 267, 270 what is not 271 time, to procure ticket or pay fare, passenger entitled to 733 rules of carrier, ejection for violation of 740 Rebates: are unjust discrimination and unlawful 920 IWDES. 1033 Seoeipt: See Baggage Checks; Carriers of Goods; Carriers of Passengers; Tickets. for goods implies agreement to carry 93 means and appliances for, of passengers 612 tickets are in the nature of, for passage money 806 Receivers: of railroad companies when common carriers 40 Refusal: to deliver goods held under carrier's lien, is not a conversion 218 to carry goods, damages for 417 to deliver goods, damages for 419 to procure ticket, ejection for 731 Begulations: See Carriers of Goods; Carriers of Passengers; Carriers of Live Stock; Common Carriers; Kules. failure to comply with, may justify rescinding contract of carriage 555 carriers of passengers may make and enforce reasonable 588 of street railways 592 Begnlar Station: See Station. what is, or depot 137 effect of deposit of goods elsewhere than at 137 Regular Stopping Place: See Platforms; Stations; Stopping Place. Remote Canse: See Proximate Cause. Bemote Damages: See Damages. Remote Negligence: See Negligence; Contributory Negligence; Prox- imate Cause. Bepair: duty of carrier to make reasonable effort to, injury 234, 236 Bepairs: evidence of subsequent 805 Kes Gestae: when declarations or admissions are admissible as 807-813 when evidence of conduct of third persons is admissible as 812 Res Ipsa Iioqnitnr: sudden and violent lurch or jerk of street car, maxim applied 663 injury from explosion of a fuse, principle applied 650 cases where the rule of, applies 769-786 reasons for the rule 773, 786 Besponsibility of Carrier: See Carriers of Goods; Carriers of Pas- sengers; Carriers of Live Stock; Common Carriers; Private Car- riers Without Hire; Private Carriers for Hire. Resistance: to expulsion, by passenger rightfully on train 749 Respondeat Snperior: See Master and Servant; Principal and Agent. doctrine of, held to be unimportant in its application to carriers . . 628 principle of, does not make carrier liable for acts of disorderly pas- senger g41 1034 The Law of CAHErEEs. Biding: Page. in dangerous position is contributory negligence 853 on platform, running board or steps 856 with part of person projecting from window 870 Bights and Liabilities: See Kesponsibility of Carrier. Biots : losses by 225- Boadbed: defective 59i Bobbery: losses by 225 Budeness: carrier not liable for mere, of fellow passengers or strangers 642 Bales: See Regulations. must be reasonable and made in good faith 94, 99 carriers of passengers may make and enforce reasonable 588 of street railways 592 ejection of passengers for violation of reasonable, of carrier 740' acts of passengers in disobedience of carrier's, contributory negligence 815 Bnnning-Boar ds : See Platform; Open Cars. riding on, when contributory uegligeence 856-864 S. Safeguards: See Guards. Safety: See Appliances; Fuse. of the vehicle is always guaranteed by the common carrier 598 beams which are safe and proper must be provided 601 duty of carriers as to, of passengers 692 of passengers on freights and other trains 694 Sale — Sales : carriers cannot make, of good's so as to divert the title of the con- signee 362 carriers may make, of perishable goods 362 carriers may make, of goods under their lien for charges 362 carriers may regulate, of books, papers, etc., on vehicles 622 carriers may exclude third persons from carrying on such 622. Satchel: See Packages. Satisfaction: of carrier's lien for charges 441 Schedule : carrier liable for negligence in not running trains on time 690' Seats: carrier must provide safe and proper 601 duty of carrier to provide passengers with 695' duty of passenger to go inside although there are no vacant 861 courts will not draw distinctions between footboard's and, as places of relative danger and safety 864 Seairorthy — Seaworthiness : carriers by water must provide, boats and ships 615. Index. 1035 Seizure: Page. of goods under legal process, attachment 229, 237 of goods under legal process, garnishment 232 of goods under police regulations 233 SeU-Def en.se: carrier not liable for injury done by employe in 635 Servants: See Carriers of Passengers; Employes; Motormen; Master and Servant. liability of carriers of passengers in employment of 616 carriers must employ suflBcient suitable and competent 618 carriers need not employ sufficient, to act as a police force 619 police powers of carrier's 641 evidence as to authority, competency, and negligence of 801 Ship-Owner : and master are common carriers 65 Shipper : See Consignor. loading of goods on cars by 143 liability of carrier where there are special instructions by 245 not bound by special contract limiting liability obtained by fraud.. 297 need not sign special contract unless statute requires 299 fraudulent concealment or misrepresentation of value by 355 carrier's duty to inquire of, as to value of property 358 duty of, to state value and character of goods 359 contributory negligence of 380-385 relation of connecting carriers to 449 knowledge of, of defects in cars 502 assuming duty of caring for stock 505 stipulations that, will accompany stock, load and unload 523 report condition of stock 530 relation of carriers of passengers to employes of 544 Shipping Beceipt: See Bill of Lading. is prima facie evidence of facts recited therein 145 as mode or form of limiting carrier's liability 329 where, and release limiting liability are separate contracts 299 Sick Passengers : duty of carrier to 649, 684, 700 Side Track: delivery of freight destined to 184 Signals — Signal Iiights: carrier must provide safe and proper 602 Skill: See Care. Slaves: liability of carrier in the carriage of 28 Sleeping Car Companies: when liable as common carriers and when not 55, 540 duties and liabilities of 56, 61 and their employes, servants of railroad company 610 relation of carriers of passengers to employes of 544 1036 The Law of Oaeeeees. Page. Slight Negligence: See Bailment; Negligence; Contributory Negli- gence; Proximate Cause. bailee liable for, when 4 what is, determined by circumstances 6 Snow: storm of violence will excuse carrier for loss or damage 221 storm as excuse for delay 251 Sonth Carolina: railroad company in, liable as common carrier only over its own line SO Spark Arresters: carrier must provide safe and proper 602 Special Act; See Statute. Special Contract: See Bill of Lading; Limitation of Liability. increasing or diminishing liability 13 need not be alleged or proved in action for refusal to carry 93 for means of transportation 108 existence of, determined by circumstances 110 delivery may be sufficient when pursuant to 139 liability for delay where there is a 242 eSect of, on rule as to carrier's liability as warehouseman 278 limitation of liability of carrier of goods by 294 must be express and will not be presumed : 298 need not be signed by shipper unless statute requires 299 when there are two, limiting liability 299 conflict of oral and written 300 must have been fairly entered into 302 necessity of consideration for 302 when signed by shipper without examination 305 must have been made at time of shipment 306 must be legible and intelligible 307 by what law validity of, is determined 308 who may make 312 carrier may not limit liability for negligence by 313 New York rule 319 the Illinois and Wisconsin rule 322 the English and Canadian rule 323 reasons upon which rules are based 325 liabilities subject to limitation by 327 mode or form of limitation by, bill of lading or shipping receipt.. 329 limitation of time in which to bring suit 331 requirement of notice of loss or presentation of . claim 333 to what damages stipulation does not apply 336 limitations of liability as ground of defense, pleading 338 presumptions and burden of proof 338 stipulation requiring claims to be made before removal of goods . . 339 limitation of liability to forwarder or warehouseman 340 limitation of amount of liability 341 stipulations that invoice or market value shall be measure of damages 349 construction of 351 Index. . 1037 Special Contract— ( Continued ) : Page. when stipulations of become inoperative 355 fraudulent concealment or misrepresentation of value by shipper.. 355 carrier's duty to inquire as to value of property 358 shipper's duty to state value and character of goods 359 general lien can only exist by 431 carrier not bound to carry beyond' its own line in absence of • 450 for through transportation by connecting carriers 471 what is sufficient to establish a through 473-479 Special Damages: See Damages. Special Deposit: See Deposit. Special Trains: duty to carry passengers on 624 Specnlative Damages: See Damages. Speed: See Rate of Speed. care required as affected by, of vehicles 658 high rate of, not per se negligence 699 Stage Coaches: See Omnibus. proprietors of, are common carriers 55, 540 when delivery to driver of, is insufficient 139 liabilities of proprietors of, for injuries to passengers 615 Stair-ways: carrier bound only to ordinary care as to 595 care required of carrier as to slippery steps of 602 liability of carrier for defects in 613 Standing in Car: when contributory negligence 866 Standing Near or Betireen Tracks: when contributory negligence 874 Station Agent: has authority to make special contract for oars 110 when presumed to have authority to receive goods 140 powers and authority of 367 Stations: See Depot. may refuse to carry goods not offered at regular 99 deposit of goods elsewhere than at regular 137 must be maintained for safety and convenience of passengers. . . .595, 614 carrier may exclude hackmen and cabmen from 614 duty of carrier to announce 664 duty of carrier to stop at 666 duty of carrier to warn of departure of trains from 669 duty of carrier to provide safe ingress and egress at 670 duty of carrier to give reasonable time for ingress and egress at. . . . 674 relation of passenger continues until passenger has left 554 Station Platforms: care required of carrier as to 595, 602 Statutes: compelling railroads to deliver freight promptly 205 liability of carrier imder, requiring prompt forwarding of freight. . . 245 as to notice to consignee of arrival of goods 273 1038 The Law of Caeeiees. Statutes — (Continued) : Page. making railroad companies liable for losses by fire 285 limiting confinement of cattle 508 traveling in violation of, not , contributory negligence 830 prohibiting ejection of passengers at other than usual stopping places 750 Steamboats^Steamboat Companies: masters and owners of, are common carriers 65, 540 duties and libilities of carriers of passengers by 615 Steam Railroads: See Kailroads. bound to construct roadway and track with all possible care 598 bound to employ competent and skillful servants 598 Steps: See Crowding Car; Front Platform; Eear Platform. care required of carrier as to slippery, to elevated trains 602 care required as to icy car 602 riding on, when contributory negligence 856 Stock Pens and Yards: See Carriers of Live Stock. duties of carriers of live stock as to 500 Stop: duty of carrier to, at stations 660 Stop-overs : on continuous passage tickets 558 under contract permitting them does not terminate relation of pas- senger 559 Stopping Place: See Platform; Stations. duty of carrier to receive and discharge passengers at 685 Stoppage in Transitu: See Carriers of Goods. as a defense for failure to deliver 169 not necessary to recovery for delivery to wrong consignee 182 carrier's lien for freight charges is superior to consignor's right of . . 440 Storage: See Bill of Lading; Carriers of Goods; Common Carriers. unloading and, when constitutes delivery 149 duty of carrier as warehouseman to provide safe 280 Storms : unusual, and floods as excuse for delay 251 Stoves: carrier must provide safe and proper 602 Stourage: See Bill of Lading; Carrier of Goods; Common Carriers. negligence in, liability of carrier for 378 limitation of liability for losses from 353 Street Cars: passengers injured in entering 842 passengers injured while alighting from 852, 853 Street Crossings: See Crossings. Street Railroad Companies: are common carriers and liable as such 44, 540 rules and regulations of 592 care of, at crossings 595 are bound to use reasonable care 629 when not guilty of negligence in attempting to operate cars during a strike 642 IlfDEX. 1039 strikers — Strikes: See Carriers of Goods. Page. do not excuse failure of carrier to perform its duties 97 carriers not liable for acts of 228 duty of carrier when goods endangered by acts of 237 by employes as excuse for delay 254 attempt of street railroad to operate ears during 642 Structures : dangerous proximity of, to tracks ,. . . . 598 Sudden Jerks and Jolts: when carrier liable for injury caused by 660 street railway not liable for injury caused by, unless unusual 661 Sudden Peril: acts of passengers in, not contributory negligence 818 Sufficiency of Evidence: See Declarations; Evidence. Sui Juris: when children are 822 Sunday: contract made on, when not invalid 118 delivery may be made on, in absence of statute 192 violation of, statute does not relieve carrier from its duty 376 traveling on, not contributory negligence 831 traveling on, does not affect relation of carrier and passenger 555 Surgeon: carriers must employ reasonably competent. 618 carrier not liable for negligence of 618 Switchmen: must be careful, skillful, competent and sober 598, 616 Switches: discontinuance of connection to 92 must not be defective or out of repair 597 delivery of freight destined to 184 T. Teamsters: are common carriers 63 Telegraph Companies: held not liable as common carriers 73 held liable as common carriers 75 duties and liabilities of 76 Telegraph Messenger Companies: are common carriers 86 Telephone Companies: are not common carriers 78 Tender : and refusal to carry must be shown 93 of freight charges in action for refusal to carry 102 of goods by shipper • •' 116 acceptance may be implied from proper 135 of goods must be made at accustomed place 136 1040 The Law of Oaeeieks. Tender— (Continued) : Page. of goods must be made at reasonable time, place, etc 191 of fare to avoid ejection 735 of invalid or defective ticket, ejection for '. . . . 742 of amount of charges justly due discharges carrier's lien 443 Termination : of liability of carrier of goods 146 of relation of passenger 554 Testimony: See Evidence; Witness. Texas: statute limiting time in which to bring suit , 332 statute prohibiting carriers to limit common law liability 337 rule in, as to stipulation as to measure of damages 350 Thief —Thieves : losses by 225 limitation of liability for losses by 352 Third Persons: carrier liable for delivery of goods to 152, 153 liability of carrier for acts of 641 liability of carrier for assaults by 644 fraud or deceit of, vrill not excuse carrier for misdelivery 179 Through Transportation: carrier may make contracts for 449 neither commission nor courts can compel contracts for 449 special contracts by railroad corporations for, are not ultra vires.. 471 what is sufficient to establish a contract for 473 charging and collecting entire freight charges for, in advance 475 collection of entire charges for, by terminal carrier 476 accepting goods to be transported to or delivered at a certain point . . 477 where carrier acts as forwarder or warehouseman 478 limitation of carrier's liability to its own line 479 when connecting carriers entitled to benefit of limitation 484 Tickets: See Carriers of Passengers. purchase of, creates relation of carrier and passenger 548 stop-overs on continuous passage 558 limited and unlimited 563 non-transferable 567 ejection for refusal to procure 731 ejection for tendering defective or invalid 742 excursion 565 conductors' checks 566 round-trip 566 commutation 567 as evidence of contract of transportation 806 Ties: carrier must provide sound 597 Time: of delivery of goods 191 carrier must deliver goods within reasonable 240 what is reasonable, and how determined 240, 241 Index. 1041 Time — (Continued) : Page. what is reasonable, for removal of goods generally 269, 270, 271 extended by failure or refusal to deliver 271 limitation in bill of lading of, in which to bring suit 331 Time Table: carrier liable for negligence in not running trains according to 691 Tools: See Appliances. Toll Bridge: owners of, are not common carriers 66 Torts: carrier may not limit its liability for 314 Tow-boats — Owners of Tow-boats: on Mississippi, are common carriers 48 generally, are not common carriers 49 Tracks: obstruction on or near 598 standing near or between, when contributory negligence 874 crossing interi'ening, when contributory negligence 874 delivery of freight destined to side 184 Tramp : when not a passenger 560 Transfer — Transfers : ejection for tendering defective or invalid 742 negligence in the issue of 746 Transfer Companies: are common carriers 89 Transportation: See Carriers of Goods; Carriers of Passengers; In- terstate Transportation; Passengers. when it i? gratuitous 7 when compensation implied 9 contributory negligence in awaiting and seeking 872 Transportation Companies: are common carriers 47 Trespassers: relation of carrier of passengers to 544 the burden is on the carrier to show that a person on its conveyance is a 545 persons refusing to pay fare become 553 are not passengers 560 when persons riding are not 583 manner of ejection of '47 place of ejection of 749 Trestle: care required in running trains over 630 Trees: See Obstructions. Trolley: See Appliances. Trolley Wires: See Electrical Appliances. Trover; See Conversion. Truckmen : are common carriers 63 1042 The Law of Caebiees. Trustees : Page. of railroads when common carriers 42 Turnouts: See Switches. U. Ultra Vires: special contracts by railroads for through transportation are not. . 471 a, corporation may be liable as a common carrier, although its con- tracts were 540 breach of, city ordinances, as evidence of negligence 785 by carriers, forbidden 110 Undue Preference: See Interstate Transportation. Unloading: of goods, when constitutes delivery 149 liability for injury while goods are being 151 constituting negligence of shipper in 383 is ordinarily the carrier's duty 269 Unreasonable: See Heasonable. Unusual Floods and Storms: as excuses for delay 251 Use: liability of carrier while in, of cars of another carrier 609 liability of carrier while in, of State canal bridges 609 Usage : is not a good defense for adoption of unsafe method 116 eflfeet of, on rule as to carrier's' liability as warehouseman 278 may establish constructive delivery 137 Usage of Trade: See Custom. delivery may be sufficient when pursuant to , 139 in delivery of goods 154 will not excuse carrier for misdelivery 180 Usual Stopping Places: duty to receive and discharge passengers at 685 ejection of passengers at other than, prohibited by statute 750 V. Value : fraudulent concealment or misrepresentation of, by shipper 356 carrier's duty to inquire as to, of property 358 shipper's duty to state, of property 359 Vehicle— Vehicles. when entry into, creates relation of carrier and' passenger 549 leaving, of the carrier, rights of passenger 556 after leaving, of the carrier, rights of passengers 556 Vermont: rule in, as to travelling in violation of statute 831 Vessels: See Steamboats. Vestibule: See Door; Hall. carrier must provide . safe and proper, doors 602 Index. 1043 Vigilance: See Care. Page. Violence: See Ejection. duty of carrier to protect passengers from, of employes and others 626, 638 Vis Major: loss or damage by 220 must be proximate cause 224 seizure of goods in carrier's hands under legal process is 229 Vouchers : tickets are in the nature of, for passage money 806 W. ViTagon: See Vehicles. Wagoners : are common carriers 61 when delivery to, is not sufficient 139 Waiver : what is not a, of prepayment of freight charges 102 of right of action for wrongful delivery 208 of right of action for delay 249 of time limit, on presentation of claims 335 of carrier's lien by express agreement or inconsistent stipulation. . 445 what is not, of time limit in ticket 566 of rules and regulations of carrier '. 591 Walls: carrier must provide safe and properly constructed 597 Wantonness: See Exemplary Damages; Wilful Acts. Warehonse : delivery of goods where there is no 184 Wareboniemen : lien of 14, 15, 16 are not common carriers 69 when carrier is liable only as 130, 131 carrier responsible as, only for negligence 181 liability of carrier as, before transportation 258 during transportation 260 as to goods awaiting delivery 261 Massachusetts rule 261 New Hampshire rule 263 English rule 264 origin of different rules 265 conflict of laws 266 what is reasonable time for removal of goods 267 time extended by failure or refusal to deliver 271 notice to consignee held not essential 272 necessity of notice maintained 273 sufficiency of notice 275 notice to consignor ^' " liability of connecting carriers 277 1044 The Law of Caeeiees. Warehousemen — (Continued) : Page. the burden of proof 777 effect of special contract or usage on rvde 278 duty of carrier as warehouseman to store safely 280 liability for negligence 281 statute making railroad liable for losses by fire 285 limitation of liability to that of 340 carrier's liability as, for baggage 726 Warning: See Lookout; Signals. acts by passengers in disregard of, contributory negligence S15 IVasliont: relation of passenger does not terminate where transit is inter- rupted by 559 Waterway: freezing of waterway will excuse delay 253 Wharf: responsibility for loss by fire of goods placed on 132 landing of goods upon, and reasonable notice completes delivery 194 Wharfingers : lien of 14, 15, 16 are not common carriers 69 delivery to, in accordance with usage 154 Wheels: carrier must provide safe and proper car 601 Willful Acts: carrier may not limit its liabbility for 314, 328 carriers of passengers arp responsible for, of employes 543 duty of carrier to protect passengers from, of employes 626 Wind: fall of sign in a not unusual, is not an act of Gtod 221 Windoirt carrier must provide safe and proper barriers or guards 601 riding with part of person projecting from 870 Wisconsin: statute requiring carriers to furnish suitable cars 112 rule in, as to limitation of liability for negligence 322 Workmen: See Employes. Wreck: relation of passenger does not terminate when transit is inter- rupted by 559 (Whole number of pages, 1171.) ■'I'iilli:- ll^M': 'mM^