Thomas Johnson Michie.

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

. (page 42 of 214)
Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 42 of 214)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

directed tlieir passengers by printed sign best route.— Judgment, 86 S. W 71, _re-
to use the wharf as a passageway to the versed in St. Louis, etc., R. Co. z-. AVhite,
boat, and it was so used; and that de- 99 Tex. 359, 89 S. W. 746, 2 L. R. A., N.
fendants made the wharf subsidiary and S., 110, 122 Am. St. Rep. 631.
necessary to the proper use and enjoy- 54. Injuries resulting from negligence
ment of their road, in an action by the of a subordinate earner.- Lehigh Valley
plaintiff' to recover for an injury upon the R. Co. z: Dupont, 64 C. C. A. 478, 128
v.-harf, held, that the defendants were Fed. 840.

bound to exercise the same degree of



§ 3686

of another carrier, it will be liable for an injury to the passenger caused by the
negligence of the connecting carrier.s-^ Where a railroad company sells a through
ticket over its own road and the road of another railroad company, and the
passenger is conveyed over the entire route in the train of the initial carrier,
such carrier will be liable for an injury to the passenger on the line of the con-
necting carrier, caused by the negligence of those in charge of the train.^s If a
street railway company sells a return ticket to a point on another railway with
which it connects and runs a car operated by its own crew to the point in ques-
tion, it will be liable to the purchaser of the ticket injured by the negligence of
its employees while the car is running on the connecting line/''^ \Miere an initial

55. Liability for injury caused by neg-
ligence of connecting carrier. — Texas
Cent. R. Co. r. Marrs. 100 Tex. 530, 101
S. W. 1177.

56. Liability where through ticket is
sold by initial carrier. — ChoUette v.
Omaha, etc., R. Co., 26 Neb. 159, 41 N.
W. 1106, 4 L. R. A. 135.

It seems that a railroad company in
one state which sells a through ticket to
a point in a different state, over a speci-
fied route, by an arrangement with the
other railroad companies whose lines
make up the route in the other states, is
bound to carry the passenger and his
baggage safely to such place of destina-
tion, and is liable for any injury to his
person or baggage occurring on any of
the lines of the connecting roads. Can-
dee V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 21 Wis. 582,
94 Am. Dec. 566.

Plaintiff applied to an agent in the
ticket office at the station at W., on de-
fendant's road, for a ticket to E., on the
U. P. Railroad, a number of miles east
of the eastern terminus of defendant's
road, which was operated by the U. P.
Railroad, and by such agent was fur-
nished a single local ticket from W. to
E. By direction of the agents in charge
of the train she took her seat in the car,
in which she was carried to the junction
of the two roads, and on to E., without
change. At E. plaintifif was injured,
while alighting from the train, by the
negligence of those in charge of the train.
Held, that defendant was liable under
Comp. St. c. 72, art. 1, § 3, making every
railroad company liable for personal in-
juries to passengers while lieing trans-
ported over its road, unless caused by
the criminal negligence of the passengers
or violation of some express rule actu-
ally brought to their notice. ChoUette v.
Omaha, etc., R. Co., 26 Neb. 159, 41 N.
W. 1106. .1 [,. k. A. 135.

But in Tennessee it has been held that
where a passenger purcliases tickets of
an agent of a railroad company for car-
riajjc over the railroa<l line and a con-
necting stcambriat line, the passenger can
not sue* the railroad cf)ini)any for inju-
ries occurring on the steanil)oat, unless
he can show a |)artner«hi)> between the
railroad and stcanil)oat lines, .\ashville,

etc.. R. Co. V. Sprayberry, 67 Tenn. (8
Baxt.) 341, 35 Am. Rep. 705.

But in this same state it has been held
that where two lines of a stage route
were owned by different persons, be-
tween whom there was an arrangement
that passengers at either end might pur-
chase of their respective agents through
tickets which would entitle them to trans-
portation to the other end of the route,
a passenger so purchasing through
tickets, who is hindered or detained in
his journey by the fault of the owners of
the connecting line, may recover dam-
ages from the party of whom such tickets
were purchased; and his right in this re-
spect is in no way impaired by his pre-
vious knowledge of such distinct owner-
ship and the arrangement between said
owners. Carter v. Peck, 36 Tenn. (4
Sneed) 203. 67 Am. Dec. 604.

Facts not proving a special contract to
carry beyond carrier's line. — The de-
fendants, at the time specified in the dec-
laration, were running their cars, as com-
mon carriers, from N. H. to P., five miles
short of C.. their liability ending at P.,
except as resulting from stage carriage
beyond P. They had given public no-
tice, by advertisement in the newspapers,
that the cars on their road from N. H.
would arrive at P., and stages would
leave P. for C. at the time specified in
such notice. The plaintifif bought of the
defendants a ticket for the fare from N.
H. to C. The injury complained of hap-
pened in the stage between P. and C.
The defendants did not own or control
the stage, nor participate in the profits
of its use. In an action founded on a
special contract to carry the plaintilT
safely from N. H. to C, by railroad and
stage, it was held that the advertisement
im])lied no liability of the defendants Uc-
yond the line of their road, and the
ticket showed only the receipt of so much
money paid by the plaintiff, which was
all that he was to pay previous to his ar-
rival at C. and, consequently, the under-
taking alleged was not proved; therefore,
a vcrdi'-t for the plaintiff was set 'iside
as against the evidence. Hood t. New
York, etc.. R. Co., 22 Conn. 1.

57. Liability of street railway company
selling return ticket to point on another
railway. — .Moss t. Lancaster, etc., St. R.
Co., 218 Pa. CO I, 07 ;\tl. 869.

§§ 3686-3689 carriers. 3322

•arrier contracts for throug-h transportation over the lines of connecting carriers
:n a car furnished by such initial carrier, it is liable for injuries to passengers
Dccasioned by its furnishing a car which is not capable of being made comfort-
ably warm, without regard to whether the injuries occur on its own line or on
;he line of a connecting carrier.^s Where a passenger train passes from one road
to another, and the original company has assumed the liability for the safe car-
riage of passengers beyond its own line, such liability is not affected by the fact
that on the connecting road the general control over the train is exercised by the
officers of that road, who become pro hac vice those of the company which con-
tracted to transport safely over that road beyond its own line.^^

§ 3687. Effect of Sale of Coupon Ticket. — The sale by a railroad company
:>f a coupon ticket for transportation of a passenger over its own and a connect-
ing line, does not import an undertaking on the part of the company to be re-
5ponsible for the safety of the passenger beyond its own line,*^^ qj- render it liable
to him for an injury^ received upon the connecting road.*^^ But a company selling
5uch a ticket may by contract make itself responsible for the safe carriage of the
passenger over the entire route covered by the ticket.'^^

§ 3688. Liability for Accident Happening on a Special Excursion
Train. — A railroad company which advertises an excursion over its road on a
day named, by special train, to a certain city, and return, and does not in such
advertisements limit its responsibility for the excursion from first to last, but
treats the city as one of the stations of its road in the time-table for the special
train, and sells the excursion tickets over its own and a terminal association's
line, to which the entire train, except the engine, is transferred, for the purpose
of being drawn into and out of the city, is responsible for an accident resulting
fiom an overcrowded condition of the cars, though such accident happen on the
terminal association's line.*'^

§ 3689. Liability for Assault by Employee of a Connecting Carrier.—

Where a railroad company which has sold a ticket for a continuous passage over
connecting lines fails to notify the gatekeeper of a connecting line to permit the
passenger to ride on a later train than the one called for by the ticket, or to cor-
rect the passenger's ticket, the passenger having failed to make connections, due
lo the contracting company's fault, it is liable for an assault by the gatekeeper
made on the passenger to prevent his taking such later train.*'* But the conductor
of a railroad train has no authority to bind the company, by allowing a stop-over,
so as to make the company liable, where a connecting road ejected the passenger
because the ticket provided for a continuous trip on the two roads.'^^

58. Liability for injuries occasioned by connecting roads of different corpora-
condition of car furnished by initial car- tions, does not render the selling corpo-
rier. — Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Harrison, ration liable to the purchaser for an in-
80 S. W. 1139, 97 Tex. 611, reversing jury received upon a connecting road.
judgment 77 S. W. 1036; Missouri, etc., Hartan v. Eastern R. Co., 114 Mass. 44.
R. Co. V. Foster, 80 S. W. 1197, 97 Tex. 62. Pennsylvania Co. v. Loftis, 72 O.
618. reversing judgment 78 S. W. 113 1. gt. 288, 74 N. E. 179, 106 Am. St. Rep.

59. Initial carrier's liability not affected 597; g C., 72 O. St. 300, 74 N. E. 182.

by fact that train is controlled by officers gg Liability for accident happening on

of connecting carrier.— Jones r.Pennsyl- ^ spcciai excursion train.— Chicago, etc.,

vama R- Co., 8 Mackey (19 D. C.) 1<8. j, ^^ ,., Dun^ger, 161 111. 190, 43 N. E.

60. Effect of sale of coupon ticket. - ggg_ affirming 60 III. App. 93. See, also.
See aiite. What Constitutes a Contract Washington v. Raleigh, etc., R. Co., 101
for Through Transportation— Effect of j^^ ^ 230, 7 S. E. 789. 1 L. R. A. 830.

^Tll'The sll?1or one sum of a railroad 64. Liability for. assault by employee of

ticket, composed of coupons invalid if ^ ,^^""^^tm?^ '^^"f ^.T^^^^^;"* f; ^rTX

detached, and each bearing the name of sylvania R. Co., 10 Mackey (21 D. CO L

the railroad corporation selling it, em- 65. International, etc., R. Co. v. Best,

powering the purchaser to pass over the 55 S. W. 315, 93 Tex. 344.


§ 3690. Effect of Agreements between Connecting Carriers and Joint
Liability. — Connecting carriers may by contract between tbem render themselves
jointly liable for injuries to passengers occurring on either line.*^*^ If several
connecting carriers, by agreement among themselves, appoint a common agent at
each end of the route to receive the fares and give through tickets, this does not
of itself constitute them partners as to passengers so as to render each one liable
for personal injuries occurring upon any portion of the line.^''' The sale of a
through ticket over the route formed by the connecting lines of several railroad
companies, and the checking of baggage to the end of the route, without other
evidence of the relations between the companies, or the basis upon which through
business is done by them, fails to show such a community of interest as will
make them partners inter sese, or as to third persons ; nor will such action alone
make the last carrier liable for the negligence of the contracting carrier, or of
any other carrier in the combination.*^ ^ But where a railroad company operating
a connecting line agrees with the initial carrier that a ticket issued by the latter
shall entitle the purchaser to carriage over both roads, the rights of the passen-
ger and the liabilities of the connecting line for personal injuries to him are the
same as if the ticket had been bought at a station on its own line to any other
station thereon. '^'^ An agreement betv/een railroad corporations operating con-
necting lines as to the division of through-ticket money and as to the sale of
through tickets, does not render the selling corporation liable to the purchaser
for an injury received upon a connecting road.'^^ Where a railroad company and
an omnibus driver enter into an agreement for the transportation by the latter
cf passengers from the station, the company selling a ticket for the purpose, the
company is not liable to a passenger on the omnibus for an injury caused by
the driver's negligence.'^ ^

66. Contract creating a joint liability. — defendant, a rental for its car. with the

Defendant operated an electric railway privilege of through service. Richard v.

connecting with another line, and had a Detroit, etc., Railway, 89 N. W. 53, 129

contract with the latter whereby through Mich. 458.

cars were run by both lines between 67. Agreement appointing common
their respective terminals. The agree- agent to receive fares and give through
ment provided that each company should tickets. — Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Spray-
have full control of the cars while on its berry, 56 Tenn. (9 Heisk.) 852. See, also,
tracks, and that the _ ownership of the Ellsworth v. Tartt, 26 Ala. 733, 62 Am.
tracks should determine their responsi- Dec. 749.

bility to the public, etc.; that each com- 68. Sale of through ticket and checking

pany should receive a rental for the use of baggage to end of route.— Atchison,

of Its cars by the other; and that the etc., R. Co. v. Roach, 35 Kan. 740, 12 Pac.

tares should belong to the company own- 93^ 57 y\j^ Rep. 199.

ing the tracks over which they were col- on a \ u '^

lected. Plaintifif boarded one of defend- ,:1^- ^^'^T^k ^^•^^f'' earners as to

ant's cars while on the tracks of the *'*^^^* '^f ^? ^^^ /"^^'^^ r^"'■"^^T^''^°^'n

other company, and paid her fare to the '''^'\ '\!^ ".'}''''' ''^'i:: R- Corp. (Mass.), 9

terminus of the latter's line. She was in- ^"''^- "^' ''^ ^'"- ^^^- ^^■

jurcd while alighting as the car was '^0. Agreement as to division of

al)out to turn onto defendant's track, and through-ticket money and sale of through

after the switch had been thrown. She tickets.— Harlan ;■. J^istcrn R. Co., 114

was entitled, for the fare paid, to ride at ^lass. 44.

least a block further, and over a portion 71. Agreement between railroad com-

of defendant's road. Held, that the com- pany and omnibus driver for transporta-

panies were jointly lialile for tlic injury, tion of passengers from station. — Poole

each receiving a consideration for her v. Delaware, etc., R. Co. (N. Y.), 35

ride — the other company, the fare; and Hun 29.

Limitation of Liabiuty.

I. Carriers of Goods and Live Stock, §§ 3691-3767.

A. Limitations to Carrier's Own Line or to Carrier Having Custody of Property,
§§ 3691-3755.
a. Power to Limit and Validity, §§ 3691-3720.

(1) Carrier Receiving Consignment to Point Beyond Its Own Line, §§ 3691-


(a) Power to Limit in General, § 3691.

(b) American Rule as to Eflfect of Receipt of Goods, § 3692.

(c) English Rule as to Efifect of Receipt of Goods, § 3693.

(2) Carrier Contracting to Carry Beyond Its Own Line, §§ 3694-3711.

(a) In General, § 3694.

(b) Effect of Federal Statutes, §§ 3695-3696.
aa. Prior to Hepburn Act, § 3695.

bb. Under Hepburn Act, § 3696.

(c) Effect of State Statutes, §§ 3697-3705.
aa. In General, § 3697.

bb. Georgia, § 3698.
cc. Illinois, § 3699.
dd. Iowa, § 3700.
ee. Missouri, 3701.

ff. Nebraska, § 3702.

gg. South Carolina, § 3703.

hh. Texas, § 3704.

ii. Virginia, § 3705.

(d) What Amounts to Contract to Carry Beyond Carrier's Own Line, §§

aa. In General, § 3706.
bb. Collection of Charge for Entire Distance, §§ 3707-3708.

(aa) By Initial Carrier, § 3707.

(bb) By Succeeding Carrier, § 3708.
cc. Agreement to Forward Car to Destination, § 3709.

dd. Car Forwarded Over Connecting Line by Order of Consignee, § 3710.
ee. Effect of Through Waybill, § 3711.

(3) Losses Which May Be Limited, § 3712.

(4) Carriers Which May Contract, §§ 3713-3720.

(a) Connecting Carriers Which Are Partners, § 371:^.

(b) Initial Carrier Lessee of Connecting Road, § 3714.

(c) Right of Initial Carrier to Stipulate on Behalf of Succeeding Carrier,

§ 3715.

(d) Power of Initial Carrier to Make Contract Limiting Liability of Suc-

ceeding Carrier, §§ 3716-3717.
aa. In General, § 3716.
bb. Driver of Local Transfer Company, § 3717.

(e) Intermediate or Terminal Carrier, § 3718.

(f) Power of Intermediate Forwarder to Bind Initial Carrier, § 3719.

(g) Express Company, § 3720.
b. Manner of Limiting, §§ 3721-3724.

(1) General Notice, § 3721.

(2) Usage or Custom, § 3722.


(3) Stipulation in Bill of Lading or Receipt, § 3723.

(4) Express Contract, § 3724.

c. Form and Requisites, Contents and Legibility, §§ 3725-3730.

(1) Legibility, § 3725.

(2) Reasonableness, § 3726.

(3) Consideration, § 3727.

(4) Time of Contract, § 3728.

(5) Choice between Full and Limited Liability Contract, § 3729.

(6) Knowledge and Assent of Shipper, § 3730.

d. Construction, Operation and Effect, §§ 3731-3743.

(1) Construction of Words and Phrases, § 3731.

(2) What Law Governs, § 3732.

(3) Effect of Stipulation as to Character of Train Service, § 3733.

(4) Carriers Entitled to Benefit, §§ 3734-3736.

(a) Liability Limited to Carrier's Own Line, § 3734.

(b) Liability Limited to Line Having Custody of Goods, § 3735.

(c) Enurement to Benefit of Subsequent Carrier, § 3736.

(5) Losses Covered, § 3737.

(6) Effect of Specific Exceptions to General Exemptions, § 3738.

(7) Liability of Succeeding Carrier, § 3739.

(8) Termination of Liability of Initial or Prior Carrier, §§ 3740-3743.

(a) Delivery to Succeeding Carrier, § 3740.

(b) Refusal of Succeeding Carrier to Receive Shipment, § 3741.

(c) Delivering Stock to Stockyard Company, § 3742.

(d) Duty to Notify Shipper of Inability to Deliver, § 3743.

e. Breach of Contract by Initial Carrier, § 3744.

f. Modification or Rescission, § 3745.

g. Merger of Verbal Contract by Subsequent Written Agreement, § 3746.
h. Parol Evidence to Explain Ambiguity, § 3747.

i. Waiver and Estoppel, § 3748.
j. Enforcement, §§ 3749-3754.

(1) Plea or Answer, § 3749.

(2) Nonsuit, § 3750.

(3) Presumption and Burden of Proof, § 3751.

(4) Weight and Sufficiency, § 3752.

(5) Questions for Jury, § 3753.

(6) Instructions, § 3754.
k. Damages, § 3755.

B. Limiting Liability to That of Forwarder or Warehouseman, §§ 3756-37G0.

a. Power to Limit and Validity, §§ 3756-3757.

(1) In General, § 3756.

(2) Carriers Which May Limit, § 3757.

b. What Constitutes an Agreement "to Forward," § 3758.

c. Nature and Extent of Liability as Forwarder, § 3759.

d. Termination of Liability, § 3760.

C. Goods Carried at Owner's Risk, § 3761.

D. Exemption from Loss by Delay, § 3762.

E. Exemption from Liability for Insufficient or Defective Car, § 3763.

F. Stipulation against Loss by Suffocation, § 3764.

G. Limiting Amount of Liability, § 3765.

H. Condition as to Filing Claims or Giving Notice of Loss, § 3766.
I. Conditions as to Time of Bringitig Suit, § 3767.
II. Carriers <.f Passengers, §§ 3768-3777.
A. Power to Limit. §§ 3768-3770.
a. In General, § 3708.

§§ 3691-3692 carriers. 3326

. b. Lines under One Management, § 3769.
c. Ticket Agent Acting as Agent for Connecting Carrier, § 3770.

B. Mode, Form and Requisites, § 3771.

C. Operation and Effect, §§ 3772-3775.

a. In General, § 3772.

b. Injuries Covered, §§ 3773-3774.

(1) Injuries to Persons, § 3773.

(2) Injuries to Baggage, § 3774.

c. Termination of Liability, § 3775.

D. Modification or Rescission, § 3776.

E. Enforcement, § 3777.

III. Right of Subsequent Carrier to Benefit of Limitations liy First Carrier, §§ 3778-

A. Contract for Through Shipment, §§ 3778-3785.

a. General Rule, § 3778.

b. What Law Governs, § 3779.

c. Contract on Behalf of Connecting Line, § 3780.

d. Invalidity of Condition Apparent on Its Face, § 3781.

e. What Constitutes a Through Contract, Form and Requisites, § 3782.
f. Instances of Particular Limitations, § 3783.

g. Refusal of Subsequent Carrier to Perform Contract, § 3784.
h. Pleading and Proof, § 3785.

B. Contract Not for Through Shipment, § 3786.

§§ 3691-3767. Carriers of Goods and Live Stock— §§ 3691-3755.
Limitations to Carrier's Own Line or to Carrier Having Custody of Prop-
erty— §§ 3691-3720. Power to Limit and Validity— §§ 3691-3693.
Carrier Receiving Consignment to Point Beyond Its Own Line — § 3691.
Power to Limit in General. — An initial carrier receiving goods consigned to-
a point beyond the end of its route may limit its liability to loss or injury oc-
curring on its own route. ^

§ 3692. American Rule as to Effect of Receipt of Goods. — The law

applicable to the simple receipt or acceptance of goods by common carriers,
directed or consigned beyond the line of the carrier, by the conceded weight of
American authority requires them to be transported to the terminus of its lines,
and there delivered to a connecting carrier to be forwarded to their destination,
and with this the responsibility ceases. This is the doctrine of the supreme
court of the United States - and a large majority of the state courts, among

1. Power to limit in general. — Georgia. Missouri. — Snider v. Adams Exp. Co.„

—Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. Shomo, 90 63 Mo. 376.
Ga. 496. 16 S. E. 220. Tennessee. — East Tennessee, etc., R.

///j;/(iw.— Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Fran- Co. v. Brumley, 73 Tenn. (5 Lea) 401, <>

kenberg, 54 111. 88, 5 Am. Rep. 92; Chi- Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 356; Deming v. Mer-

cago, etc.. R. Co. ?'. Montford, 60 111.175; chants', etc.. Storage Co., 90 Tenn. (6

Field V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 71 111. 458; Tickle) 306, 17 S. W. 89, 13 L. R. A. 518.
Coles & Co. T. Louisville, etc., R. Co., Te.vas. — Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Park,

41 111. Aop. 607; Michigan Cent. R. Co. 1 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 332; Interna-

V. Chicago Elect. Vehicle Co., 124 111. tional, etc., R. Co. v. Thornton, 3 Tex.

App. 158; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, Civ. App. 197, 22 S. W. 67; Gulf, etc., R.

81 111. App. 364. Co. V. Clarke, 5 Tex. Civ. App. 547, 24 S.

lozva. — McManus v. Chicago, etc., R. W. 355; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Smith

Co., 138 Iowa 150, 115 N. W. 919. (Tex. Civ. App.), 24 S. W. 565; Rogers z/.

Kansas. — Hofifman v. Union Pac. .R. Missouri, etc., R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.),

Co., 8 Kan. App. 379, 56 Pac. 331. 28 S. W. 1024; International, etc., R. Co.

Kentucky. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. v. Welbourne (Tex. Civ. App.), 113 S.

Bourne, 15 Ky. L. Rep. 445. W. 780.

Michigan. — Smith v. American Exp. 2. American rule as to effect of receipt

Co., 108 Mich. 572, 66 N. W. 479. of goods.— Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Min-




which are Connecticut,^ Indiana/ Kansas,^ Kentucky,*^ Maine/ Maryland,^
Massachusetts,'* Michigan,"* ^^linnesota,^^ New Hampshire,^^ North Carolina,^^
New York,^-^ Oregon,i^ South Carolina,!*^ Texas, i' Vermont,is West Virginia,!^
and Wisconsin.-"

Stipulation Declaratory of Common Law. — A stipulation in a hill of lading
of the initial carrier, limiting its liability to loss occurring while the property is
in its possession, is simply declaratory of the common law,'^ for where the con-
tract is not for through transportation, and is silent on the subject, the initial
carrier is not liable for any loss or damage which occurs after the freight has

eral Springs Mfg. Co. (U. S.), 16 Wall.
318, 21 L. Ed. 297; vSt. Louis Ins. Co. v.
St Louis, etc., R. Co., 104 U. S. 146, 26
L. Ed. 679; Myrick v. Michigan Cent. R.
Co., 107 U. S. 102, 27 L. Ed. 325, 1 S.
Ct. 425.

3. Where goods are delivered to a
carrier marked for a particular desti-
nation, without any directions as to
their transportation and delivery, the car-
rier is bound to transport them merely
to the end of his line if such has been the
custom, though the consignor was igno-
rant of the custom. Hood v. New York,
etc.. R. Co., 22 Conn. 1.

4. Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. v. Bryant, 36
Ind. App. 340, 75 X. E. 829.

5. Where it is apparent, from the bill
of lading, that the carrier assumed the
responsibility of delivering the goods to
a connecting line, and of safe transporta-
tion over its own road only, no further
responsibility is incurred. Berg v. At-
chison, etc., R. Co., 30 Kan. 561, 2 Pac.

Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 42 of 214)