contact with an electric wire in use there under a contract between the
company and his mother. Judgment appealed from, 14 B.C.R. 223, 10
Can. Ry. Cas. 256, reversed, Davies and Idington, J-J_ dissenting.
British Columbia Elec. Ry. Co. v. Crompton, 10 Can. Ry. Cas. 266. 43
Can. S.C.B. 1_
SHEET RAILWAY ACCIDENTS Cotusiox.
The limitation period for commencing an action for dimigr* to* per-
sonal injury against the owners of a motor vehicle by collision with the
motor vehicle is six years from the time when the cause of action arose,
under 10 Edw. VII. (Out.) c. 34. s. 49 (gl as an action -upon tike case.'"
[Peterborough v. Edwards (1880), 31 CJ. 231; Thomson T. Lord Clan-
morris, [1900] 1 Ch- 718, referred to.]
Oakland v. UaeKenzie and Toronto By. Cos * D-LR- 336, 4 O.W.N.
109.
[Affirmed in 13 DJ-R. 129.]
MUNICIPAL STKEET KAILWAT XEdjccxT coxsnrcnox AXD OTEKATIOX.
The limitations of time for bringing actions against a municipality for
its negligent construction or operation of a street railway, are governed
by tike Ontario Railway Act, R&O. 1914, e. 185, s. 265; and the Municipal
Act, RSLO. 1914, c. 192, the Public Utilities Act BJS.O. 1914, e_ 204. and
tike Public Authorities Protection Act. B.S.O. 1914, e. 89, have no applica-
tion in this lespect-
Knusmo T. Port Arthur. 20 Can. Ry. Cas. 335, 37 OXJL 146. 31 DJLB.
70.
OXEAKIO fcATLWAT ACT ~Fo DAMAGE OK rSfTVf ST5TAIXED BT KEASOX OF
A RAn-WAT. 8 *
The provisions of the Ontario Railway Act, 1906. 6 Edw. VEL e. 30. &
223. whereby actions for damage or injury sustained by reason of a rail-
506 LIMITATION OF ACTIONS.
way under that Act, must be brought within one year, are in effect incor-
porated with the special Act 36 Viet. (Ont.), c. 99 (under which the
London Street Ry. Co. was incorporated) and the limitation of one year
substituted for that of six months under the Railway Act, C.S.C., c. 66, s.
83, which by the special Act were declared to be incorporated therewith.
[Re Wood's Estate, 31 Ch. D. 607; Clarke v. Bradlaugh, 8 Q.B.D. 63, and
.Metropolitan v. Sharpe, 5 A.C. 425, referred to.]
Kilgour v. London Street Ry. Co., 19 D.L.R. 827.
DIFFERING PERIODS OF LIMITATION GENERAL LIMITATION UNDER PROVINCIAL
RAILWAY ACT LONGER PERIOD UNDER LORD CAMPBELL'S ACT (B.C.)
ACTION AGAINST RAILWAY FOR CAUSING DEATH.
[Green v. B.C. Elec. Ry. Co., 12 B.C.R. 199, followed.]
Gentile v. British Columbia Elec. R. Co., 15 D.L.R. 384.
C. Foreclosure Proceedings.
INTEREST COUPONS REAL PROPERTY LIMITATION ACT.
The restrictions placed upon the right to recover arrears of interest
charged upon land imposed by ss. 17, 24 of the Real Property Limitation
Act, R.S.O. 1897, c. 133, are not applicable to the case of coupons for the
payment of interest on railway mortgage bonds, which are secured by
mortgage deeds of trusts. The coupons are, in effect, documents under
seal the bond under seal containing a covenant for payment of the cou-
pons and they, therefore, partake of the nature of a specialty, and are
good for at least twenty years.
Toronto General Trusts Corp. v. Central Ontario Ry. Co., 3 Can. Ry.
Gas. 339, 6 O.L.R. 534.
[Affirmed in 8 O.L.R. 604, 4 Can. Ry. Cas. 70.]
LIMITATION OF ACTIONS.
Bonds under seal issued by a railway company contained a covenant to
pay half yearly instalments of interest evidenced by attached coupons,
and payment of principal and interest was secured by a mortgage of the
undertaking, which also contained a covenant to pay: Held, in foreclos-
ure proceedings upon this mortgage, that the interest being a specialty
debt and the mortgaged undertaking consisting in part of realty and in
part of personalty not subject to division, the holders of coupons, whether
attached to the bonds or detached therefrom, were entitled to rank for all
instalments which had fallen due within twenty years, and not merely
for those which had fallen due within six years. Judgment of Boyd, C.,
6 O.L.R. 534, 3 Can. Ry. Cas. 339, affirmed: Held, also, that even if
the case were dealt with upon the footing of the mortgage being one of
realty only, there was the right to rank, for there were no subsequent en-
cumbrancers, and there had been shortly before the claims were filed a
valid acknowledgment by the company of liability for all the interest in
question.
Toronto General Trusts Corporation v. Central Ontario Ry. Co., 4 Can.
Ry. Cas. 70, 8 O.L.R. 604.
Annotations.
Connecting lines as affected by conditions in bill of lading limiting
liability. 2 Can. Ry. Cas. 117.
Government regulation of railway companies respecting agreements ex-
empting liability for negligence. 5 Can. Ry. Cas. 15.
LDHTATIOX OF LIABILITY. 507
Liability of carriers for the loss of goods notwithstanding special con-
tract limiting liability. 5 Can. By. Cas. 399.
Limitation of liability bj express companies for losses of or damage to
goods. 6 Can. By. Gu. 318.
Limitation of liability to person in charge of live stock. 19 Can. By
Cas. 44.
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.
A. Loss or Damage to Goods.
B. Lire Stock; Persons in Charge.
C. Loss of Baggage.
D. Express Companies.
Exoneration from liability of master to servant, see Employees.
Limitation of liability to employee traveling on free pass, see Em-
ployees.
Constitutionality of statute regulating agreements limiting for negli-
gence, see Constitutional Law.
A. Loss or Damage to Goods.
CAKKIAGE OF PETKOLEI-M LIABILITY CONDITIONS "AT OWNER'S KISK.~
The respondents sued the appellants' railway company for breach of
contract to carry petroleum in covered cars from L. to EL. alleging that
they negligently carried the same upon open platform cars, whereby the
barrels in which the oil was were exposed to the sun and weather and
were destroyed. At the trial a verbal contract between plaintiffs and
defendants' agent at L. was proved, that the defendants would carry tha
oil in covered cars with despatch. The oil was forwarded in open cars and
delayed in different places, and. in consequence, a large quantity was
lost. On the shipment of the oil a receipt note was given which said
nothing about covered cars, and which stated that the goods were sub-
ject to conditions endorsed thereon, one of which was "that the defend-
ants would not be liable for leakage or delays, and that the oil was
carried at the owner's risk": Held, per Ritchie. C.J.. and Fonrnier and
Henry, JJ., that the loss did not result from any risks by the contract
imposed on the owners, but that it arose from the wrongful act of the
defendants in placing the oil on open cars, which act was inconsistent
with the contract they had entered into, and in contravention as well of
the undertaking as of their duty as carriers. Per Strong. Fournier.
Hauj and Gwynne, JJ.: The evidence was admissible to prove a verbal
contract to carry in covered cars, which contract the agent at L. wa,s
authorized to enter into, and which must be incorporated with the writ-
ing, so as to make the whole contract one for carriage in covered ears,
and that noneompliance with the provision as to carriage in covered cars
prevented the appellants setting up the condition that "oil was carried
at the owner's risk" as exempting them from liability. Judgment in 27
U.C.C.P. 528, 28 U.C.CJP. 586, and 4 AJL (Ont- 601." affirmed.
Grand Trunk By. Co. v. Fitzgerald, 5 Can. S.C JL 204.
[See Bicknell T. Grand Trunk By. Co.. 26 A.B. (Ont. i 431; commented
on in Grand Trunk By. Co. v. McMillan. 16 Can. S.C.R. 557; discussed
in Mayer T. Grand Trunk By. Co., 31 U.C.C.P. 248; McXeeley T. Me Wil-
liams, 9 OJL 728; referred to in DLxon T. Richelieu Navigation Co.. 15
A.B. (Ont.1 647; Ellis v. Abeil, 10 A-B. (Ont.i 226; relied on in Dyment
r. Northern 4 X.W. By. Co., 11 O.B. 343: Grand Trunk By. Co. v. Yogel.
11 Can. S.C.B. 626; McMillan T. Grand Trunk By. Co., 15 A.B. (Ont.j
508 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.
14; McNeely v. McWilliams, 13 A.R. (Ont.) 324; Robertson v. Grand
Trunk Ry. Co., 24 O.R. 75, 21 A.R. (Ont.) 204; Stafford v. Bell, 31 U.C.C.P.
77; St. Mary's Creamery v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 5 O.L.R. 742.]
CONTRACT BY ONE FOE SEVERAL CUSTODY OF GOODS DELIVERY NEGLI-
GENCE.
The M.D.T. Co., through one B., contracted with H. to carry a quantity
of butter from London, Ontario, to England, and the bills of lading were
signed by B., describing himself as agent severally, but not jointly, for
the G. W.* Ry. Co., the M.D.T. Co. and the G.W.S.S. Co. named as carriers
therein. The G.W. Ry. Co. were to carry the goods from London to the
Suspension Bridge, the M.D.T. Co. from the Suspension Bridge to New
York, and it was then to be delivered to the S.S. Co. for carriage to
England. It was provided by one clause in the bill of lading that if
damage was caused to the goods during transit the sole liability was to
be on the company having the custody thereof at the time of such damage
occurring. The butter was carried to New York, where it was taken
from the car and placed in lighters owned by the M.D.T. company to be
conveyed to the steamer "Dorset" belonging to the S.S. Co. On arriving
at the pier where the steamer lay, the lighter could not get near enough
to unload, and the stevedore in charge of the steamer had it towed across
the river with instructions for it to remain until sent for. The "Dorset"
sailed without the butter, which was sent by another steamer of the S.S.
Co. some five days later. The butter was damaged by heat while in the
lighter: Held, affirming the judgment of the Court below, that the
M.D.T. Co., having made a through contract for the carriage of the goods,
they were liable to H. for the damage, and even under the bill of lading
were not relieved from liability, as the butter was never delivered to, and
received by, the S.S. Co., but was in the custody of the M.D.T, Co. when
the damage occurred. 12 A.R. (Ont.) 201, 4 O.R. 723, affirmed.
Merchants' Despatch Transportation Co. v. Hately, 14 Can. S.C.R. 572.
SHIPMENT OF GOODS TO A POINT BEYOND DEFENDANTS' LINE NEGLIGENCE
CONSTRUCTION OF CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT.
Action for damages for the loss of goods carried by the defendants from
Toronto to McGregor station, on the C.P.R. in Manitoba, and for delay
in transport. The defendants' road extended as far as Fort Gratiot, Mich.,
and the goods were carried the rest of the way by other companies, and
were damaged by the negligence of one or more of such companies. The
defendants set up the 10th condition indorsed on the receipt given to the
plaintiff for the amount paid for carriage, which was as follows: "Goods
addressed to consignees at points beyond the places at which the com-
pany has stations, . . . will be forwarded to their destination by pub-
lic carrier or otherwise." Held, that the contract of the defendants was
to carry the goods to McGregor station; and the 10th condition applied
only to the forwarding of the goods from the place to which the defend-
ants had contracted to carry them, whether that was a place on the line
of the defendants' or a connecting railway, and had not the effect of
limiting the liability of the defendants to matters occurring on their own
line only. [Collins v. Bristol & Exeter R. Co., 7 ILL. Cas. 194, followed.]
Held, also, that s. 104 of the Railway Act, 1886, which precludes a rail-
way company from relieving itself from liability by any notice, condition,
or declaration, if the damage arises from any negligence, omission, or mis-
conduct of the company or its servants, do not apply to a contract to
carry goods over other lines, even though such are within the territorial
jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada. [.Judgment of Q.B.D. (12 O.R.
i03) affirmed, but on different grounds.]
McMillan v. G.T.R. Co., 15 A.R. (Ont.) 14.
LEMITATIOX OF LIABILITY. 500
BETOXD TEXMIXTS OF LTXE STAIITOBT IIABIUTT JOTVT TOKT-
Where a railway company undertakes to carry goods to a point beyond
the terminus of its on line it* contract is for carriage of the goods over
the whole transit, and the other companies over whose lines they must
pass are merely agents of the contracting company for such carriage, and
in no pririty of contract with the shipper. [Bristol Jt Exeter Ry. Co.
T. Collins (7 HJ_ Cas. 1SU. followed.] Such a contract bring one which
a railway company might refuse to enter into, s. 104 of the Railway Act.
1886. e, 109. does not prevent it from restricting its liability for negli-
gence as carriers or otherwise in respect to the goods to be carried after
they had left its own line. The decision in Vogel v. G.T.R. Co_ 11 Can.
S-C-R. 61*. does not govern such a contract. One of the conditions in a
contract by the G.T. Ry. Co. to carry goods from Toronto to Portage la
Prairie. Han., a place beyond the terminus of their line, provided that
the company "should not be responsible for any loss, misdelivery, damage
or detention that might happen to goods sent by them, if such loss, mis-
delivery, damage, or detention occurred after said goods arrived at the
stations or places on their line nearest to the points or places which they
were consigned to. or beyond their said limits": Held, that this condi-
tion would not relieve the company from liability for loss or damage
occurring during the transit even if such loss oecuiied beyond the limits
of the company's own line: Held, per Strong; and Tasehereau. -M_. that
the loss having occurred after the transit was over, and the goods de-
livered at Portage la Prairie, and the liability of the company as carriers
having teased, this condition reduced the contract to one of mere bailment
as soon as the goods were delivered, and also exempted the company
from liability as warehousemen, and the goods were from that time in cus-
tody of the company on whose line Portage la Prairie was situate, as bail-
ees for the shipper. Foamier and Gwynne. -I-T_ dissenting. Another condi-
tion of the contract provided that no claim for damage to, loss of, or
detention of goods should be allowed unless notice in writing, with par-
ticulars. was given to the station agent at or nearest to the puce of
delivery within thirty-six hours after delivery of the goods in respect to
which the claim was made: Held, per Strong, J., that a plea setting
up aoneomplianre with this condition having been demurred to. and the
plaintiff not having appealed against a judgment overruling the demurrer.
the question as to the sufficiency in law of the defence was res jndicata :
Held. also, per Strong. -J.. Gwynne. J.. contra, that part of the consign-
ment having been lost, such notice must be given in respect to the same
within thirty -six hours after the delivery of those which arrive safely.
Quaere In the present state of the law is a release to. or satisfaction
from, one of several joint tort-feaaors, a bar to an action against the
others? Judgment in 12 O.R. 103 and l- A.R. (Ont-]| 14. reversed.
O.T. Ry. Co. v. McMillan. 16 Can. S.C.R. 43.
[In this case application was made to the Privy Council for leave to
appeal, but was refused on the ground that the case admittedly did not
affect property of considerable amount, nor could it well be described as
being of a very substantial character, the sum at stake being reduced to
something under 230 stg.: and the judgment of the Supreme Court did
not determine a question of great public interest, or an important ques-
tion of law. Gagon v. Prince. 8 App. Cas. 103. approved. May 17th.
"> :
[Discussed in Richardson v. Can. Pat. Ry. Co.. 19 O.R. 369: referred
to in Bate T. Can. Pae, Ry. Co, 14 O.R. 625; Cobban v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co.,
510 LLM1TAT1OX OF LIABILITY.
23 A. II. (Out.) 115; Ferris v. Can. Northern Ry. Co., 15 Man. L.R. 144,
1 \\.L.R. 177; McKenzie v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co., 43 N.S.R. 460; Robertson
v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 21 A.R. (Ont.) 204, 24 O.R. 75; Tolmie v.
Michigan Central Ry. Co., 19 O.L.R. 26, followed in Lockshin v. Can.
.Northern Ry. Co., 24 Can. Ry. Cas. 362, 47 D.L.R. 510.]
CONNECTING LINES Loss BY FIBE IN WAREHOUSE.
In an action by S., a merchant at Merlin, Ont., against the L. E. &
D.R. Ry. Co., the statement of claim alleged that S. had purchased goods
from parties in Toronto and elsewhere to be delivered, some to the G.T.R.
Co., and the rest to the C.P.R. and other companies, by the said several
companies to be, and the same were, transferred to the L.E. etc., Co., for
carriage to Merlin, and that on receipt by the L.E. Co. of the goods it
became their duty to carry them safely to Merlin, and deliver them to
S. There was also an allegation of a contract by the L.E. Co. for storage
of the goods and delivery to S., when requested, and of lack of proper
care whereby the goods were lost. The goods were destroyed by fire while
stored in a building owned by the L.E. Co., at Merlin: Held, reversing
the decision of the Court of Appeal, that as to the goods delivered to the
G.T.R. Co. to be transferred to the L.E. Co. as alleged, if the cause of
action stated was one arising ex delicto it must fail, as the evidence
showed that the goods were received from the G.T.R. Co. for carriage
under the terms of a special contract contained in the bill of lading and
shipping note given by the G.T.R. Co. to the consignors, and if it was a
cause of action founded on contract it must also fail as the contract
under which the goods were received by the G.T.R. Co. provided, among
other things, that the company would not be liable for the loss of goods
by lire; that goods stored should be at sole risk of the owners; and that
the provisions should apply to and for the benefit of every carrier:
Held, further, that as to the goods delivered to the companies, other than
the G.T.R. Co., to be delivered to the L.E. Co., the latter company was
liable under the contract for storage; that the goods were in its posses-
sion as warehousemen, and the bills of lading contained no clause, as did
those of the G.T.R. Co., giving subsequent carriers the benefit of their
provisions; and that the two Courts below had held that the loss was
caused by the negligence of servants of the L.E. Co., and such find ing
should not be interfered with: Held, also, that as to goods carried OH
a bill of lading issued by the L.E. Co., there was an express provision
therein that owners should incur all risk of loss of goods in charge of the
company, as warehousemen; and that such condition was a reasonable
one, as the company only undertakes to warehouse goods of necessity and
for convenience of shippers. 17 P.R. (Ont.) 224. reversed.
Lake Erie & Detroit River Ry. Co. v. Sales, 26 Can. S.C.R. 663.
[See Richardson v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co., 19 O.R. 360; referred in Elmsley
v. Harrison, 17 P.R. (Ont.) 425; ' Hunter v. Boyd, 6 O.L.R. 639; applied
Neil v. American Express Co., 20 Que. S.C. 258; approved Laurie v. Can.
Northern Ry. Co., 21 O.L.R. 178; distinguished Allen v. Can. Pac. Ry.
Co., 19 O.L.R. 510, 21 O.L.R. 416.]
MARINE RAILWAY CONTRACT FOR HAULING VESSEL.
Defendants took charge of plaintiffs' vessel for the purpose of hauling
it out on defendants' marine railway and making certain repairs. While
the work of hauling out was proceeding the vessel fell over and was in-
jured. In an action claiming damages defendants relied upon a written
contract containing the following provision: "The company give distinct
notice to all parties intending to use or using the railway and it shall
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. 511
be held to be pout of their contract with such parties that the company
win not be liable for aay injury or dama-r by accident . . . which
vessek or their *aroe* or machinery may snstaia OB tbe railway or whilst
Via- atoved there or beiag launched therefrom". Held, that sack provi-
sioa did sot IB any way limit the responsibility of the company for acts
of well eatabfohed negligence. Farther, that it was Bot accessary to
ptaiBtdSV right to recover that som* specific act of negligence OB their
part should he established, bat that such negligence might he inferred
from the facts proved.
Gorton-Pew Fisheries Co. T. North Sydney Marine Ry. Co_ 44 X^R.
493.
LOSS 4V WHEAT l3TOCNtSm2CT OF BILL OF LAOESC.
WheB it dearly appears that the loos of poods shipped by railway amst
have heeB caused by the BeligeBce or oouBEioB of the railway CDatpaay
or its serraat*. the cooipaBy i* pretloded by $ob& 3 of & 246 of the Bail-
way Ad, 1S&8, froBi reiyiBw OB a eoaditioB of the bin of ladiBg exeaiptiB^
it fraoi Kahflity for aay dgfaieBcy ia we^ht or BwasomBeBt. |< The
certifiate of a*wvi*hBU$ter OBdrr & 9 of the Maahoba Grata Art. 1900.
baa* oaly priau fairie eridcvee of the wei*fct of graia ia a car, may he
rebutted." (3) The iBdorstBBCBt of a bill of ladia* to a bask for coUee-
taooL though it passes the property in the good*, does aot prercst the
shipper from briagia*: an artioa ia respect of the la** of the goods, if he
still has aa iaterest ia theat. (4) SL 1 of the Weight* aad Measure*
Jkrt. B^&CL, c. 104, does aot apply to a coBtract for earryiBg wheat by the
carload, although the amber of hutbfls ia the car had beeB ascertaiacd
hj bag Bwassmewt.
Ferris T. Caa. Xorthen Ry. COL, 13 Maa. L.R. 134.
[Followed ia RaadaO et al T. Caa. Xorthera Ry. Co^ IS Caa. Ry. Cas.
343, 21 D.LJL 437: Scaalia T. Caa. Pae. Ry. Col iJ'Caa. Ry. Cak 336;
Clgihie Flour Mills Co. T. Caa. Pae. Ry. Co.. 47 D1.R. 22C.
OF fcOOBS Nonet >TtmATIXC FOB
A carrier caaaot stipulate that by reason of tbe reduced charge for
carriage of goods he will not be liable for injury thereto even if caused
by the fauh or negligence of his employees: but when such stipulation
has been mad* the owner of the goods damaged must prove that it waa
caused by such fault or negligence.
DraiBvffle T. CLPJL Co^ 22 Qne. S.C. 4 Cir. CtLH.
DAMAGE TO OOOBS COSTBACT uoomc UABUJTT NECUCEXCE FBACD
GOOBS BEroSTTEB DC CUSTOMS WAaEBOirSE.
NormaadiB r. National Express COL. 4 E.L.R. 338. (Que.).
SHTJTIXC CEXtm LIMITED LIAKILJTT SBCOVD CABBIEK,
Mackenzie T. CPJL. 7 EX-R. 26 (XJS.K.
rawncE or OOOBS Loss BT PTEE Nonce OF AKBIVAT.
A railway compaay BUT. by condition, relieve itself from liability for
to goods ia transportation caused by fire, where euch fire does
not orcur through the negligeace or OBUsnoa of the coatpaBy or its erv-
aata, It is aot aeeessary by the law of Canada that such a condition
*bould he ~jnt and reasonable." GaaAs arrived at the railway statioa to
which they were destined and aotice of the arrival was given the SBBM? day
to the consignee who. however, did not remove them and they were de-
stroyed by fire at the station five days afterwards: HeJd. oa the evi-
512 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.
dence, that the notice given was sufficient, and that the consignee had had
a reasonable time within which to remove the goods.
McMorrin v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co., 1 Can. Ry. Cas. 217, 1 O.L.R. 561.
BILL OF LADING CONDITION REQUIRING INSURANCE BREACH OF Loss OF
GOODS.
Under s. 246 of the Railway Act, 1888, a railway company is precluded
from setting up a condition endorsed on a bill of lading relieving the com-
pany from liability for damage sustained to goods while in transit, where
the damage is occasioned through negligence. Consignors, by their own
shipping bill, agreed to insure the goods to be shipped, the railway com-
pany being thereby subrogated to consignors' rights in case of loss, and
a condition of the bill of lading given by the railway company on the
shipment of goods, required the consignor to effect an insurance thereon,
which, in case of loss or damage, the company were to have the benefit
of. The consignors insured the goods, but afterwards countermanded the
insurance: Held, that the bill of lading superseded the shipping bill
and formed the contract between the parties, and that the railway com-
pany under the above section were precluded from setting up the breach
of such conditions as a ground for relief from liability, where the damage
to the goods had been occasioned through negligence.
St. Mary's Creamery Co. v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 2 Can. Ry. Cas. 122,
5 O.L.R. 742.
[Affirmed in 8 O.L.R. 1, 3 Can. Ry. Cas. 447; distinguished in Mercer
v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co., 17 O.L.R. 585, 8 Can. Ry. Cas. 372; Sutherland v.
Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 8 Can. Ry. Cas. 389, 18 O.L.R. 139.]
BILL OF LADING CONDITION REQUIRING INSURANCE BREACH OF Loss or
GOODS.
Under s. 246 of the Railway Act, 1888, a railway company is precluded
from setting up a condition endorsed on a bill of lading relieving the com-
pany from liability for damage sustained to goods while in transit, where
damage is occasioned through negligence. Consignors, by their shipping
bill, agreed to insure the goods to be shipped, the railway company, being