Copyright
Thomas Johnson Michie.

A treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) online

. (page 173 of 214)
Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 173 of 214)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


diligence to make the vessel seaworthy, is void, as against public policy. -

Operation — Exception of Restraints of Rulers, etc. — Quarantine. — The
provision in a contract for ocean transportation that the carrier will not be
liable for delay from "restraints of princes, rulers, and peoples" does not
exempt the carrier from liability for negligence in failing to furnish sufficient
and suitable food and lodging, which it undertook to furnish, during a Cjuar-
antine required by the government."

§§ 4482-4493. Liability for Passenger's Effects— §§ 4482-4487.
Validity, Form and Requisites — § 4482. Stipulation That Landing Not
Part of Voyage. — A provision in a contract between a ship and its passengers
that the landing shall not be deemed a part of the voyage is contrary to public
policy and void, and does not relieve the carrier from liability for loss of bag-
gage or delay in delivery.'*

§§ 4483-4487. Stipulation Limiting Liability to Stated Sum— § 4483.
Validity Generally. — A condition in a steamship ticket limiting the liability
of the carrier for loss of baggage to a stated sum, will not be enforced where
the sum named bears such relation to the quantity of the baggage and the sum
paid for its carriage as to render the limitation manifestly unreasonable.^ The

The PhcEiiicia, 90 Fed. 116, affirmed in ?,54, 53 L. Ed. 546, 29 S. Ct. 363, 15 Am.

40 C. C. A. 221, 99 Fed. 1005; Insurance & Eng. Ann. Cas. 748.

Co. V. Easton, etc., Transp. Co., 97 Fed. 2. Validity of provision in passenger

653; The Presque Isle, 140 Fed. 202." tickets.— The Oregon, 133 Fed. 609, 68

The Folmina, 212 U. S. 354, 53 L. Ed. CCA 603

546. 29 S. Ct. 363, 15 Am. & Eng. Ann. '^ Restraint of rulers-Quarantine-

L^as. (48. T .. Aii„„ T :., „ Ct ,„:,:„ n^



98.



^,' , T3 11 /TT c \ ir. -LT Larscn 7'. Allan Line Steamship Co., 80

Clark j;. Barnwell (U. S.), 12 How. p^^ ,«, o^w.^ln r^r,.



Pac. 181, 37 Wash. 555.



272, 13 L. Ed. 985; Rich v. Lambert (U.

S.). 12 How. 347, 13 L. Ed. 1017; Trans- 4. Stipulation that landing not part of

portation Co. v. Downer (U. S.), 11 Wall. voyage.— The Valencia, 110 Fed 221, af-

129. 20 L. Ed. 160. hrmed in 117 Fed. 68, 54 C. C. A. 454.

Where injury to cargo resulted from 5. Validity generally. — La Bourgogne,

a cause excepted in the bill of lading, 144 Fed. 7Sl. 75 C. C. A. 647, affirmed

the carrier can not be held responsible, in 28 S. Ct. 664, 210 U. S. 95, 52 L. Ed.

unless his negligence is affirmatively 973.

shown. The St. Quentin, 162 Fed. 883, A provision in a passenger ticket that

89 C. C. A. 573. neither the ship, the shipowner, nor the

99. Seaworthiness of vessel. — The Ed- agent is responsible, beyond the amount

win I. Morrison, 153 U. S. 199, 38 L. of $100, for loss of or injury to passen-

Ed. 688, 14 S. Ct. 823; Liverpool, etc., Co. gers arising from latent defects in the

V. Phenix Ins. Co., 129 U. S. 397, 32 L. steamer, or default or negligence of the

Ed. 788, 9 S. Ct. 469. shipowner's servants, is unreasonable and

1. Loss from shipping order or condi- invalid. Moses v. Hamburg-American

tion of goods.— Tlic i'olmina, 212 U. S. Packet Co., 88 Fed. 329.



§§ 4483-4485



CARRIERS.



4032



passenger must have the right to increase the amount by payment of a reason-
able charge,*' and can not be compelled to subject it to the provisions of the
Harter ActJ

Ticket Valid in Country Where Issued. — Restrictions of the liability of a
steamship company for its own negligence or failure of duty toward a passen-
ger, being against the public policy enforced by the courts of the United States,
will not be upheld, though the ticket was issued and accepted in a foreign coun-
try and contained a condition making it subject to the law thereof, which
sustains such stipulations.*^

§§ 4484-4487. Form and Requisites— § 4484. Meeting of Minds of
Parties Generally. — In order that a provision in a passenger's contract ticket
limiting the liability of a carrier by water to a reasonable stated sum may be
valid, it is essential that the minds of the parties meet in respect thereto.^

§ 4485. Knowledge and Acceptance. — A limitation in a ticket sold by a
steamship company of the recovery of damage to passenger's baggage to a rea-
sonable stated sum is valid,^*^ where it is clearly expressed in legible type of a
fair size, and only carelessness or indifference on the passenger's part prevents
him from protecting himself in a proper manner if he did not wish to encounter
the risk of loss.^^ The general rule is that a clause of a passenger's ticket is-
sued by a water carrier, limiting its liability to a stated sum, must be read by
the passenger or its contents made known to him in order for it to bind him.^^
But the court of New York ^^ held that there is a just and logical distinction



6. Right to increase amount by pay-
ment of a reasonable sum. — An arbitrary
limitation of 2r)0 francs for the baggage
of any steamship passenger, unaccompa-
nied by any right to increase the amount
by adequate and reasonable proportional
payment, is void as against public policy.
Decree, 94 Fed. 885, 36 C. C. A. 533, re-
versed in The Kensington, 22 S. Ct. 102,
183 U. S. 2f.3, 46 L. Ed. 190.

7. Subjecting to provisions of Harter
Act. — A stipulation in a steamship pas-
senger's ticket, which compels him to
value his baggage at a certain sum, far
less than it is worth, or, in order to have
a higher value put upon it, to subject
it to the provisions of the Harter act, by
which the carrier would be exempted
from all liability therefor from errors in
navigation or management of the vessel
or other negligence, is unreasonable and
in conflict with public policy. Decree,
94 Fed. 885, 36 C. C. A. 533, reversed in
The Kensington, 22 S. Ct. 102, 183 U.
S. 263, 46 L. Ed. 190.

8. Ticket valid in country where issued.
—The Kensington, 22 S. Ct. 102, 183 U.
S. 263, 46 L. Ed. 190, affirming 94 Fed.
885, 36 C. C. A. 533.

9. Meetings of minds of parties gener-
ally. — ^Wood V. Cunard Steamship Co.,
192 Fed. 293, 112 C. C. A. 551, 41 L. R.
A.. N. S., 371.

10. Knowledge and acceptance. — The
Morro Castle, 168 Fed. 555.

11. Signed agreement. — Bachman v.
Clyde Steamship Co., 152 Fed. 403, 81 C.
C. A. 529.

12. A provision printed in a steamship
ticket for the carriage of six passengers.



limiting the lial)ility of the carrier for
loss or damage to baggage to $100, not
read by nor called to the attention of the
passengers, is unreasonable and void.
Weinberger v. Compagnie Generale
Transatlantique, 146 Fed. 516.

The fact that the ticket containing such
provisions was handed to the passenger,
who filled in some blank spaces under a
caption, "Passengers will please fill in
the following information required for
United States authorities," disclosing cer-
tain particulars relating to herself and
traveling companion, did not render such
provisions binding on her, it appearing
that she never read nor adopted them.
The Minnetonka, 132 Fed. 52, decree af-
firmed in 146 Fed. 509, 77 C. C. A. 217.

A clause of a steamship ticket headed
"Notice," limiting the liability of the ves-
sel or owners to $100 for loss of the pas-
senger's personal effects, is not a part
of the contract, and does not relieve the
owner from full liability, where it was
not read by or made known to the pas-
senger. Smith V. North German Lloyd
Steamship Co., 142 Fed. 1032, affirmed in
151 Fed. 222, 80 C. C. A. 574.

13. New York. — Sterling Amusement
Co. V. La Compagnie Generale Transat-
lantique, 113 N. Y. S. 1032, 61 Misc. Rep.
603; Tewes v. North German Lloyd
Steamship Co., 186 N. Y. 151, 78 N. E.
864, 8 L. R. A., N. S., 199; Steers v. Liv-
erpool, etc., Steamship Co., 57 N. Y. 1,
15 Am. Rep. 453; Belger v. Dinsmore, 51
N. Y. 166, 10 Am. Rep. 575; Wheeler v.
Oceanic Steam Nav. Co., 72 Hun 5, 25
N. Y. S. 578, 55 N. Y. St. Rep. 715, af-
firmed in 149- N. Y. 576, 43 N. E. 990.



4033



LIMITATIONS OF I.IABILITY.



§ 4485



between an ordinary railroad ticket, which may often be regarded as a mere
token, and a passage ticket for an ocean voyage, the sale and purchase of which
is usually conducted with such caution and deliberation as to invest the trans-
action with the elements of a contract, the terms of which the purchaser has
ample opportunity to ascertain and understand, and that, therefore, a passen-
ger is bound by a limitation of damages for loss of baggage in his ticket, though
the terms were not directly brought to his attention. i'*

Notice Broug-ht to Knowledge of Passenger. — Even in the case of a mere
notice it is undoubtedly competent for carriers of passengers, by specific reg-
ulations, distinctly brought to the knowledge of the passenger, which are rea-
sonable in their character and not inconsistent with any statute or their duties
to the public, to protect themselves against liability, as insurers, for baggage
exceeding a fixed amount in value, except upon additional compensation, pro-
portioned to the risk. ^5

Inconspicuously Printed Conditions. — Conditions printed inconspicuously
upon a steamship ticket, providing that the shipowner shall not be liable for
any loss of the passenger's baggage through theft, or any act, neglect, or de-
fault of the shipowner's servants or others, which were not known to the pas-
senger nor called to his attention are invalid and constitute no defense to an
action by the passenger to recover for the loss of jewelry stolen by one of the
ship's employees. 1.^

Clause Printed on Margin of Ticket. — A clause printed on the margin of a
steamship ticket, headed "Notice," limiting the liability of the vessel or own-
ers to $100 for loss of the passenger's personal effects, is not a part of the
contract, and does not relieve the owners from full liability, where it was not
read by or made known to the passenger. ^"^

Memoranda on Back of Ticket. — A notice or memorandum printed on the
back of a steamship ticket purporting to limit the liability of the carrier for loss
of baggage, not referred to in the body of the ticket nor called to the attention
of the purchaser, is simply a notice, and forms no part of the contract. ^^
Where a passenger by water waives a breach of the contract of passage instead
of rescinding it, he is bound by a limitation of the value of his baggage con-
tained therein. ^^



14. Darnana v. La Ccmpagnie Gener-
ale Transatlantique, 114 N. Y. S. 118.

A passage ticket for an ocean voyage
is a contract, and not a mere token, and
hence the mere fact that the purchaser
did not notice a clause therein limiting
the steamship's liability for loss or dam-
age to baggage to $50, unless the full
value was disclosed and freight paid, did
not exempt the passenger from enforce-
ment thereof. Judgment, 93 N. Y. S.
1149, 104 App. Div. 619, reversed in
Tewes V. North German Lloyd Steamship
Co., 78 N. E. 864, 186 N. Y. 151, 8 L. R.
A., N. S., 199; S. C, 78 N. E. 1113, 186
N. Y. 525; Brinck v. North German Lloyd
Steamship Co., 78 N. E. 1100, 186 N. Y.
525.

Plaintiff purchased a steamship ticket,
which contained a clause providing that
the company's liability for loss or dam-
age of baggage should be limited to $100,
unless the passenger had the full value
insured. No such insurance was taken
out. Plaintiff's agent, who purchased the
tickets, testified that he could not speak
or read the language in wiiich the tickets
were printed. Held, that the plaintiff is



bound by the limitation of liability. Ster-
ling Amusement Co. v. La Compagnie
Generale Transatlantique, 113 N. Y. S.
1032, 61 Misc. Rep. 603, judgment affirmed
on rehearing 113 N. Y. S. 1151.

15. Notice brought to knowledge of
passenger. — The Morro Castle, 168 Fed.
555, 558; Bachman v. Clyde Steamship
Co.. 152 Fed. 403, 81 C. C. A. 529. _ _

16. Inconspicuously printed conditions.
—The Minnetonka, 146 Fed. 509, 77 C.
C. A. 217, affirmed decree, 132 Fed. 52.

17. Clause printed on margin or ticket.
— Smith 7'. North German Lloyd Steam-
ship Co., 151 Fed. 222, SO C. C. A. 574,
affirmed decree, 142 Fed. 1032. _

18. Memoranda on back of ticket. — La
Bourgogne, 144 Fed. 781. 75 C. C. A. 647,
affirmed in 2S S. Ct. 664, 210 U. S. 95,
52 L. Ed. 973.

19. Plaintiff engaged passage on de-
fendant's l)oat; the contract limiting de-
fendant's lialiility for loss of baggage.
On the day of sailing defendant refused
plaintiff passage on its boat, but engaged
for him passage on another, which plain-
tiff accepted; but his baggage went on
the first boat. Held tliat, i)laintiff having



§§ 4485-4490 carriers. 4034

Baggage Checked on Return Portion of Ticket. — Where plaintiff bought
a round-trip steamship ticket which hmited the carrier's HabiHty for loss of
baggage to $100, and, months after the purchase, had a trunk checked on the
return portion of the ticket, and the trunk was lost through the carrier's neg-
ligence, the carrier was entitled to insist on the limitation of liability, ^"^ because
under the circumstances of the case there was a contract between the parties
limiting the carrier's liability.

Weight of Evidence of Knowledge. — On libel by a steamship passenger for
loss of a trunk, the testimony of the libelant that he had no distinct recollec-
tion of having examined a notice on the back of the ticket to which attention
was called by the words "see back" on the face of the ticket, but felt sure it
done so, which statement he immediately qualified by saying that he did not
know that there was any limitation of liability contained in the notice, is in-
sufficient to show the agreement limiting the steamship company's liability.
The only fair interpretation of this testimony is that, although without distinct
recollection, he had examined the notice in a general way, but did not know
that there was any limitation in it. It is not satisfactory proof of any such
meeting of the minds of the parties as would constitute an agreement materially
to modify the obligation to the carrier.^i

§ 4486. Type or Printing. — See ante, "Knowledge and Acceptance," § 4485.

§ 4487. Conditions Printed on Margin on Back of Ticket.— See ante,
"Knowledge and Acceptance," § 4485.

§ 4488. Interpretation. — In determining whether a passenger had a cause
of action for damage to baggage, the contract must be construed as a whole.-^

§§ 4489-4492. Operation and Effect— § 4489. Stipulation That
Landing Not Part of Voyage. — Even if a provision in a contract between a
ship and its passengers that the landing shall not be deemed a part of the voy-
age, is enforceable within reasonable limits, it can not exonerate the ship from
loss of baggage or delay which was due to some extent at least to the fact that
the vessel was unnecessarily overloaded. ^^

§§ 4490-4492. Stipulation Limiting Liability to Stated Sum— § 4490.
Losses Covered.— Loss Result of Ordinary Negligence.— A provision in
an ocean steamship ticket that in no event should the steamship be liable for

waived defendants' breach of contract by Francisco to Nome in the spring of 1900.

accepting passage on the other boat in- There was no landing place at Nome,

stead of rescinding the contract, as he and all landing had to be done by means

could have done, he is bound by the limi- of lighters. The tickets provided that the

tation as to the loss of his baggage in voyage should end at the place of an-

the original contract. Eggermont v. Cun- chorage, and that the landing was no

ard Steamship Co.. 119 N. Y. S. 1110. part of the contract. After they were

20. Baggage checked on return portion put on shore libelants were compelled to
of ticket. — Steers v. Liverpool, etc., wait in some cases 10 days, and until the
Steamship Co., 57 N. Y. 1, 15 Am. Rep. ship had been to other ports and re-
453; Lindsey v. Maine Steamship Co., 88 turned, before receiving their baggage,
N. Y. S. 371. effects, and freight, by reason of which

21. Weight of evidence of knowledge. they suffered exposure, expense, and loss
—Wood V. Cunard Steamship Co.. 192 on account of the delay, which was due,
Ted. 293, 112 C. C. A. 551, 41 L. R. A., to some extent at least, to the fact that
jyf_ S. 371. ^he ship was unnecessarily overloaded.

22. ' Interpretation.— Sterling Amuse- Held, that the stipulation in the contracts
ment Co. v. La Compagnie Generale did not exonerate the ship from liability
Transatlantique, 113 N. Y. S. 1032, 61 in damages under the circumstances
Misc. Rep. 603. shown, even if enforceable within reason-

23. Stipulation that landing not part of able limits, owing to the condition of
voyage.— Libelants contracted for the the port and the prevailing custom. De-
carriage of themselves and their baggage cree, The Valencia, 110 Fed. 221, affirmed
and effects by a steamship from San in 117 Fed. 68, 54 C. C. A. 454.



4035 LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY. §§ 4490-4494

loss of baggage for an amount exceeding $50, unless the value of the baggage
in excess of that sum be declared at or before the issuance of the contract or
at or before the delivery of the luggage to the ship, and freight at current rates
for every kind of property paid thereon is effective to limit the carrier's liabil-
ity in case of loss of baggage to the amount specified, though the loss was the
result of the carrier's ordinary negligence.-'^

§ 4491. Baggage to Which Applicable. — Hand Baggage. — A condition
in a steamship ticket limiting the liability of the carrier for loss of baggage to
a stated sum unless the same, in excess of that sum, be declared before the is-
sue of the contract or delivery of the effects to the ship and payment of freight
at current rates thereon ; does not apply to hand baggage delivered to the com-
pany's baggage master on his statement that it would be sent to the passenger's
room.-"'

Application to Extra Baggage. — A condition in a steamship ticket limiting
the liability of the carrier for loss of baggage to a stated sum, does not apply
to extra baggage taken and paid for as such under a subsequent agreement.^^

§ 4492. Tickets as Evidence. — In an action against a steamship company
for damage to baggage, the printed passage ticket containing the terms of the
contract is admissible under the general denial.-'''

§ 4493. Compliance with Stipulation for Notice of Loss. — Where a
steamship was docked on completion of her voyage at 2 p. m., a notice of loss
of eft'ects by theft, mailed by a passenger at the same place at 5 :30 p. m. on
the second day thereafter, was a substantial compliance with a condition of the
ticket requiring notice of claim to be given within 48 hours, especially where
the facts of the loss were fully known to the offfcers of the vessel before the
termination of the voyage.-^

§§ 4494-4576. Limitation of Vessel Owner's Liability by Acts of
Congress— §§ 4494-4530. Limited Liability Act— §§ 4494-4497. Gen-
eral Consideration — § 4494. History and Object. — The law on this subject
is now embodied in §§ 2943, 2944, U. S. Comp. Stat., 1901, pp. 2943, 2944.
These sections are a substantial reenactment of the act of March 3, 1851, 9
v^tat. at L., p. r>35, chap. 43, U. vS. Comp. Stat., 1901, p. 2943.20

Object of Law. — The object of the law was to encourage ship building and

24. Loss result of ordinary negligence. the- passenger at the time of delivery to
— Judgment, 93 N. Y. S. 1149, 104 App. declare the value thereof or pay excess
Div. 619, reversed in Tewes v. North freight thereon; such requirement not ap-
German Lloyd Steamship Co., 78 N. E. plying to hand baggage. Judgment, 90 N.
864, 186 N. Y. 151, 8 L. R. A., N. S.. 199; Y. S. 834, 100 App. Div. 36, affirmed in
S. C., 78 N. E. ni3, 186 N. Y. 525; Brinck Holmes v. North German Lloyd Steani-
V. North German Lloyd Steamship Co., ship Co., 77 N. E. 21, 184 N. Y. 2S0, 5
78 N. E. 1100, 186 N. Y. 525. L. R. A., N. S., 650.

25. Hand baggage.— A steamship com- 26. Application to extra baggage.— La
pany issued a passage ticket limiting its Bourgogne, 144 Fed. 781, 75 C. C. A.
Hal)ility for loss of personal effect of pas- 047^ affirmed in 28 S. Ct. 664, 210 U. S.
sengers to $100, unless the value of the 95 53 j^ pf] 973

same, in excess of that sum, be declared '\^^ Tickets as evidence. — Sterling

before t'le issue of the contract or de- Amusement Co. v. La Compagnie Gen-

hvery of the effects to the ship and pay- ^^^j^ Transatlantique, 113 N. Y. S. 1032,

ment of freight at current rates thereon. „^ T\/r,v . t?„.. m^t

TT 1 1 11- 1 i ii 61 Misc. Kcp. oU.i.

Hand baggage was delivered to the com- ^ '. .,.,..

pany's baggage master at liis direction, . 28. Compliance with stipulation for no-

and on his statement that it would be t^ce of loss.— fhe Minnetonka 146 Fed.

sent to the passenger's room, but it was 509 77 C. C. A. 217, affirming decree, 132

never delivered. Held, that the loss, if Fed. 52. ^

unexplained, established a prima facie 29. History and object. — La Bour-

case of negligence for whicli the company gognc, 210 U. S. 95, 52 L. Ed. 973, 28 S.

-was liable, notwithstanding the f.Tilurc of Ct. 664.

4 Car— 59



§§ 4494-4497



CARRIERS.



4036



to induce capitalists to invest money in this branch of industry. ^"^ Section 6
of the act (now § 4287 of the Revised Statutes) shows that it was the purpose
of the preceding sections to release the owner from some liability for negli-
gence and fraud of the master and other agents of the owner, for which those
persons are themselves liable and were to remain so.^^

§ 4495. Constitutionality. — Congress had power to pass the Limited Lia-
bility Act of 1851 and it is therefore constitutional. ^-

§ 4496. Part of Maritime Law. — The act of congress which limits the lia-
bility of shipowners was passed in amendment of or as a part of the maritime law
of the country. 32 But, whilst the rule adopted by congress is the same as the
rule of the general maritime law, its efficacy as a rule depends upon the stat-
ute, and not upon any inherent force of the maritime law.^*

§ 4497. Effect of Subsequent Acts. — The statute relating to limitation of
liability of shipowners is not repealed by the Act of February 28, 1871, entitled



30. Object of law. — Richardson v. Har-
mon, 222 U. S. 96. 56 L. Ed. 110, 32 S.
Ct. 27, following Butler v. Boston, etc.,
Steamship Co., 130 U. S. 527, 32 L. Ed.
1017, 9 S. Ct. 612; Norwich Co. v.
Wright (U. S.), 13 Wall. 104, 20 L. Ed.
585; Providence, etc., Steamship Co. v.
Hill Mfg. Co.. 109 U. S. 578, 27 L. Ed.
1038, 3 S. Ct. 379. 617.

"The purpose of the act of 1851, in ac-
cording to shipowners the right to limit
their liability in whole or in part, and
the meaning of that act, as well as the
purpose and meaning of the sections of
the Revised Statutes embodying the pro-
visions of the Act of 1851, have been
often before the Supreme Court of the
United States and have been conclusively
adjudicated. Moore v. American Transp.
Co. (U. S.), 24 How. 1, 16 L. Ed. 674;
Norwich Co. v. Wright (U. S.), 13 Wall.
104, 20 L. Ed. 585; The Benefactor, 103
U. S. 239, 26 L. Ed. 351; The Scotland,
105 U. S. 24, 26 L. Ed. 1001; The North
Star, 106 U. S. 17, 27 L. Ed. 91, 1 S.
Ct. 41; Providence, etc.. Steamship Co.
V. Hill Mfg. Co., 109 U. S. 578, 27 L.
Ed. 1038, 3 S. Ct. 379, 617; The City of
Norwich, 118 U. S. 468, 30 L. Ed. 134, 6
S. Ct. 1150; Butler v. Boston, etc., Steam-
ship Co., 130 U. S. 527, 32 L. Ed. 1017,
9 S. Ct. 612." La Bourgogne, 210 U. S.
95, 52 L. Ed. 973, 28 S. Ct. 664.

"In Moore v. American Transp. Co. (U.
S.), 24 How. 1, 16 L. Ed. 674, Mr. Jus-
tice Nelson, delivering the opinion of the
court, thus stated the purpose of the lim-
itation of liability which the act granted:
'The act was designed to promote the
building of ships, and to encourage per-
sons engaged in the business of naviga-
tion, and to place that of this country
upon a footing with England and on the
continent of Europe.' " La Bourgogne,
210 U. S. 95, 52 L. Ed. 973, 28 S. Ct. 664.

31. Craig v. Continental Ins. Co., 141
U. S. 638, 35 L. Ed. 886, 12 S. Ct. 97;
Walker v. Transportation Co. (U. S.), 3
Wall. 150, 18 L. Ed. 172.



32. Constitutionality. — The Benefactor,
103 U. S. 239, 26 L. Ed. 351; Providence,
etc.. Steamship Co. v. Hill Mfg. Co., 109
U. S. 578, 27 L. Ed. 1038, 3 S. Ct. 379,
617; Lord v. Steamship Co., 102 U. S.
541, 26 L. Ed. 224; Norwich Co. v.
Wright (U. S.), 13 Wall. 104, 20 L. Ed.
585; In re Garnett, 141 U. S. 1, 35 L.
Ed. 631, 11 S. Ct. 840; The City of Nor-
wich, 118 U. S. 468, 30 L Ed. 134, 6 S. Ct.



Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 173 of 214)