Copyright
Thomas Johnson Michie.

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

. (page 52 of 214)
Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 52 of 214)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


chock baggage over the entire line, an should receive 50 ])er cent, of the freight
action for loss or injury to baggage lies nnd passage money, whereas it had be-
againsl cither com])any, regardless of a fore been agreed C. should receive 45 per
stipulation limiting liability to own line. cent, thereof, and T. the rest. Kirk v.

Kimball Co., 152 Cal. 180, 92 Pac. 84.



§§ zyyo-iyyc) carriers. 3374

§ 3770. Ticket Agent Acting as Agent for Connecting Carrier. —

Where the contract sued on Hmited a connecting railroad's liability to injuries re-
sulting on its own line, it was not liable for injuries to baggage caused by other
carriers, although the agent of the initial carrier, who made the contract with the
passenger, may have also been the agent of such connecting road.^'^

§ 3771. Mode, Form and Requisites. — Stipulation in Through Ticket.

— A railroad company which sells and issues tickets to passengers over its own
lines of road of other companies (known as through tickets), is liable for the
sure and safe transportation of such passengers to the point of destination, not-
withstanding there may be indorsed or pointed on the tickets so sold and issued
a notice that the company issuing and selling such tickets shall not be liable, ex-
cept as to its own lines of roads. ^^

Stipulation in Coupon Ticket. — A railway company which sells a limited
coupon ticket or an excursion ticket to be used within a certain time, although it
must see that the time agreed upon is reasonable, from the standpoint of the
then-existing circumstances and conditions, and that the passenger, by the ex-
ercise of reasonable diligence, may complete his journey within the time agreed
upon, may limit its liability to its own line by the terms of the ticket.-"

Conditions in Mileage Tickets. — Plaintiff, buying a 1000-mile ticket, was
bound by express condition on the ticket that the seller assumes no responsibility
beyond its own lines. -^

Contract for Live Stock Shipment as Including Drover's Pass. — Where
a railroad company makes a contract to transport live stock over its own and a
connecting line, by the terms of which its liability for damage to the stock is
limited to its own line, and at the same time, as incident to such contract, issues
to the shipper a drover's pass to and from the point of destination of such stock,
the liability of the contracting company for a wrongful ejection of the shipper is
not limited to its own line, in the absence of an express limitation to that effect. -

§§ 3772-3775. Operation and Effect— § 3772. In General.— Bag-
gage. — Where the initial carrier limits its liability for injury to the passenger or
his baggage or for the loss thereof to its own line, the passenger must look to the
connecting line to recover for injuries or losses occurring on such connecting
line.2- A railroad company which sells a coupon ticket over its own and con-
necting lines, containing the condition, referred to in each coupon, that the com-
pany, in issuing the ticket, acted for itself over its own line, and as agent of the
connecting lines, but assumed no responsibility beyond its own line, and would
not permit stop-over privileges, is not liable for injuries received by the holder
while riding on the connecting line.^^

§§ 3773-3774. Injuries Covered— § 3773. Injuries to Persons.—
Ticket Limited as to Time.— Where a ticket limited as to time shows a joint
undertaking between several lines to transport passenger to a certain point, the
carrier refusing to take the ticket after expiration of the stated time is liable in
damages, where the delay was caused by one carrier party to agreement. ^^

18. Ticket agent acting as agent for including drover's pass. — Gull, etc., R.
connecting carriers. — A?kew v. Gulf, etc., Co. v. Cole, 8 Tex. Civ. App. GP>5, 28 S.
R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.). 73 S. W. S46. W. 391, distinguishing Gulf, etc., R. Co.

19. Stipulation in through ticket.— Cen- v. Ions, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 619, 22 S. W.
tral R. Co. v. Combs, 70 Ga. 533, 48 Am. iOll.

Rep. 582. 23. Baggage. — Southern R. Co. v. White,

20. Stipulation in coupon ticket 108 Ga. 201, 33 S. E. 952.

Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Wright, 2 Tex. Civ. 24. Kerrigan v. Southern Pac. R. Co.,

App. 4r53, 21 S. \V. 399. 81 Cal. 248, 22 Pac. 677.

21. Conditions in mileage tickets. — 25. Ticket limited as to time. — Gulf,
Spiess V. Erie R. Co., 71 N. J. L. 90, 58 etc., R. Co. v. Looney, 85 Tex. 158, 19 S.
Atl. 116. W. 1039, 34 Am. St. Rep. 787, 16 L. R.

22. Contract for live stock shipment as A. 471.



3375 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. §§ Z77Z-Z77D

Where a railroad company sells plaintiff a first-class railroad ticket over its own
and other lines, containing a provision that in selling the ticket the company acted
only as agent, and was not responsible, beyond its own lines, plaintiff' can not re-
cover against snch company for being ejected from a train -*^ or being ejected
from the first-class car-' on a road other than its own.

No Change of Cars — Failure to Use Heating Appliances. — Where a car-
rier advertised to run an excursion without change of cars from a point on its
own line over the lines of connecting carriers to a certain destination, and the
transportation contract provided that the initial carrier acted only as agent for
the connecting carriers, and was not responsible beyond its own line, if such ini-
tial carrier provided a car intended to be transported through to the destination,
which was properly equipped with heating appliances, such initial carrier was
not liable for the negligence of connecting carriers in failing to use the highest
degree of care to properly use such appliances in order to preserve the comfort
of the passengers while passing over such connecting lines. ^^

Delay Occasioning Expiration of Limited Coupon Ticket. — Where a
coupon ticket, issued by a certain carrier for limited passage over its own and
other lines, expressly provides that the issuing carrier acts only as agent of the
others, and is not to be responsible beyond its own line, each coupon becomes the
separate contract of the company for which it is issued, and a purchaser who
misses his connection through fault of one of the carriers, and does not present
himself for transportation to the succeeding carrier until after the time limited,
is not entitled to transportation by that carrier, but can only claim against the
carrier occasioning the delay. -^

§ 3774. Injuries to Baggage. — A connecting railroad is not liable for in-
juries to baggage caused by other carriers, where the contract sued on limited
its liability to injuries on its own line.^'^

§ 3775. Termination of Liability. — Where a railway company sells to a
passenger a through ticket over its own and connecting lines, stipulating that it
acts only as agent for the other lines, its contract of carriage is complete when it
has safely transported the passenger and delivered him at its depot at the point
of connection with the next line, and it can not, after a reasonable time has been
allowed the passenger for departing from the depot, be held liable on its con-
tract of carriage for any act occurring thereafter.^^

Initial Carrier Operating Part of Connecting Line. — A railroad company
which sold a ticket for itself and as agent of a connecting line, limiting its liabil-

26. International, etc., R. Co. v. Camp- souri, etc., R. Co. v. Foster, 80 S. W.
bell. 1 Tex. Civ. App. 500, 20 S. W. 845, ^97, 97 Tex. 618. reversing judgment 78
following Hams v. Howe, 74 Tex. 534, 3 \y 1134
12 S. W. 224, 15 Am. St. Rep. 862, 5 L. R.
A. 777; Gulf. otc. R. Co. v. Baird, 75 Tex.



29, Delay occasioning expiration of



;,:V'Vo Q Av „r^ limited coupon ticket.— Gulf, etc., R. Co



27. Ejection from first class car.



r. Looney, So Tex. 158, 19 S. W. 1039. 34



Where defendant sells plaintiff a' first- ^" V ^t Rep. 787, 16 L R. A 471. See

class railroad ticket over its own and ?"'^' f '• ?, S°-.Yr rnJ^'"^ T'"^' ^o'^.-

other lines, containing- a provision that ^PP' ^ ^^ S. W. 501, affirmed in 93

in selling the ticket defendant acted only J^f^" ,^f\ "° ^P^i- ^'"1^' ^tc- R. Co. r.

as agent, and was not responsible, be- ^},'['-'^^' "^ ^^^- C'^'" ^^PP" '^«^' ^^ S. W.

yond its own lines, plaintiff can not re- "" ' '

cover against defendant for being ejected 30. Injury to baggage.— Pennsylvania

from a first-class car, and being com- Cent. R. Co. v. Scluvarzenberger, 45 Pa.

polled to travel in a smoking Cc:r, on one 208, 84 Am. Dec. 490; Harris v. Howe, 74

of the other lines. Harris v. Howe, 74 1'ex. 534, 12 S. W. 224, 5 L. R. A. 777, 15

Tex, 5:!4. 12 S W 224 15 !\m St Rep ^"i- St. Rep. 8G2; Askew v. Gulf, etc., R.
^')2. 5 [,.' R. a' 777. ' ' ' ' 'Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 73 S. W. 840.

28. No change of cars — Failure to use 31. Termination of liability. — Davis v.

heating appliances.— Missouri, etc., R. Co. Houston, etc., R. Co., 25 Tex. Civ. App.

'•■ ilnrri^oii, v() s. W. 1139. 97 Tex. 611, 8. 59 S. W. 844, affirmed in 94 Tex. 690,

rc'.crsing judgmcnl 77 S. W. 1036; Mis- no op.



§§ ?)77S-377'^ CARRIERS. 3376

ity for any injury to a passenger to its own line, is responsible to a passenger for
an injury caused by negligence on a track of a connecting line, over which it was
accustomed to run its cars for a short distance before turning them over to the
connecting line.^-

§ 3776. Modification or Rescission. — Charging for Excess of Bag-
gage. — When a passenger buys a ticket from a carrier to a point beyond its line,
which limits the carrier's liability to its own line, and the passenger procures her
baggage to be checked, and pays for the excessive w^eight the carrier is not lia-
ble for property stolen from the baggage before reaching its destination, but
while on a connecting line. All tickets for baggage on railroads are bought with
the knowledge that, the railroad company has the right to be paid for extra
weight of baggage and a demand for and the receipt of pay for extra baggage is
neither a violation, change, nor substitute for the original contract made in the
purchase of the ticket."'""'

Modification of Contract between Carriers. — See ante, "Lines under One
Management, "' § 3769.

§ 3777. Enforcement. — Instructions. — In an action to recover for dis-
comfort, fright and exposure, where a passenger on a through ticket after ar-
rival at defendant's depot, where he was informed he would have to wait until
morning for a train of the connecting carrier, was several hours thereafter
placed on one of defendant's trains by defendant's depot master, it was
proper to apply the rule of ordinary care to the act of defendant's depot
master, since the relation of carrier and passenger had ceased at the time
of such act.-^^ An instruction that the contract of carriage by defendant was
complete when it had safely transported plaintiff to its depot, and it could not be
held liable on its contract of carriage for any act occurring thereafter, was
proper, since, after a reasonable time for departure from the depot, the relation
of carrier and passenger had ceased. ^-"^ And it was not error to refuse an in-
struction that defendant was bound to exercise towards plaintiff' the duty of a
carrier to a passenger from the time they boarded its train until it had delivered
them to its connecting line, and so long as its servants and employees exercised
control of them, since he had been delivered to the connecting carrier before the
act complaind of occurred, and defendant's servants, as such, had no care or con-
trol over them, the requested charge was not applicable to the facts. -^'^

§§ 3778-3786. Right of Subsequent Carrier to Benefit of Limita-
tions by First Carrier— §§ 3778-3785. Contract for Through Shipment
— § 3778. General Rule.-^The general rule is that a carrier, o\er whose road
the freight has to be carried in order to reach the point of destination, is entitled
to the benefits of a contract, stipulating for immunity from liability in general
terms, entered into by the carrier receiving the freight for through transportation
over connecting lines to a point beyond its own terminus, or when, by the con-
tract, the compensation for the entire distance is fixed by authority of the car-
riers over whose roads the freight has to be transported, and the contract has
respect to and provides for such other carriers. This is the rule although such
contract is silent on the subject of the connecting carrier's liability, or does not
expressly deprive it of the advantage of conditions limiting the initial carrier's
liability. This doctrine prevails in the United States courts^"^ and in the courts

32. Initial carrier operating part of 36. Davis v. Houston, etc., R. Co., 59
connecting line. — Oliver v. Columbia, etc., S. W. 844, 25 Tex. Civ. App. 8.

R. Co., G.". S. C. 1, 4.3 S. E. 307. 37. General rule. — Deming v. Norfolk,

33. Charging for excess of baggage. — etc., R. Co., 21 Fed. 25, 16 Am. & Eng. R.
Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Ions, 3 Tex. Civ. Cas. 232; Evansville, etc., R. Co. v. An-
App. 619, 22 S. W. lOil. droscogRin Mills (U. S.), 22 Wall. 594. 22

34. Instructions. — Davis v. Houston, L Ed. 724; Fairbanks & Co. v. Cincinnati,
etc., R. Co., 25 Tex. Civ. App. 8, 59 ?, W. etc., R. Co., 66 Fed. 471; Woodward v.^
844. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 1 Biss. 447, Fed. Cas..

35. Davis v. Houston, etc., R. Co., 25 No. 18,007.
Tex. Civ. App. 8, 59 S. W. 844.



3377



LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.



§ 7>77'&



of Alabama/"'''^ Arkansas, ^^ Georgia,-*'^ Kansas,-*^ Indiana, Missouri, ^2 Xew
York,^-"^ Pennsylvania,^^ South Carolina,^^ Tennessee,-**^ Texas,^^ and other
states. But in Iowa,'*'' Michigan,^'* and Wisconsin, ^^ it is held that where the



38. Jones 7'. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 39
Ala. 376, 8 So. 61, 45 Am. & Eng. R. Cas.
321; Western R. Co. v. Harwell, 91 Ala.
340, 8 So. 649.

39. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Lesser, 46
Ark. 2.'36; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v.
Weakly, 50 Ark. 397, 8 S. W. 134, 35 Am.
& Eng. R. Cas. 635, 7 Am. St. Rep. 104;
Taylor & Co. v. Little Rock, etc., R. Co.,
39 Ark. 148, 18 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 590.

A railroad company which takes freight
from another company for transporta-
tion over its line, under an agreement be-
tween the latter road and the consignor,
is liable to the consignor for failure to
perform the contract so far as its line is
concerned, and is entitled to the benefit
of any limitation of liability contained
therein. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v.
Weakly, 50 Ark. 397, 8 S. W. 134, 7 Am.
St. Rep. 104, 35 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 635.

40. Susong V. Florida, etc., R. Co., 115
Ga. 361, 41 S. E. 566; Central R. Co. v.
Bryant, 73 Ga. 722; Southern Exp. Co. v.
Palmer, 48 Ga. 85; Western, etc., R. Co.
V. Exposition Cotton Mills, 81 Ga. 522, 7
S. E. 916, 2 L. R. A. 102.

41. Kifif V. Atchison, etc.. R. Co., 32
Kan. 203, 4 Pac. 401, 18 Am. & Eng. R.
Cas. 618.

42. A connecting carrier may avail it-
self of a Hmited liability contract entered
into by the initial carrier. Adams Exp.
Co. V. Byers, 177 Ind. 33, 95 N. E. 513;
Halliday v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 74 Mo.
159, 41 Am. Rep. 309, 6 Am. & Eng. R.
Cas. 433.

A connecting carrier, receiving prop-
erty for transportation from the first car-
rier, the original contract contemplating
such employment, is entitled to all lim-
itations in the original contract. Halli-
day V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 74 Mo. 159,
41 Am. Rep. 309, 6 Am. & Eng. R. Cas.
43:;.

43. Maghee v. Camden, etc., Transp.
Co.. 45 N. Y. 514, 6 Am. Rep. 124; Man-
hattan Oil Co. V. Camden, etc., Transp.
Co., 54 N. Y. 197; Ricketts v. Baltimore,
etc.. R. Co., 61 Barb. 18, 4 Lans. 446; Roli-
inson v. New York, etc., Co., 75 App.
Div. 431, 78 N. Y. S. 359; Schifif v. New
York, etc., R. Co., 52 How. Prac. 91;
White V. Weir, 33 App. Div. 145, 53 N. Y.
S. 465; Whitworth v. Erie R. Co., 87 N.
^'. 413, Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 349; Man-
hattan Oil Co. V. Camden, etc., Transp.
Co., 52 Barb. 72. 5 Abb. IVac, N. S., 289;
Lamb v. Camden, etc., Transp. Co., 2
Daly 454; S. C, 46 N. Y. 271, 7 Am. Rep.
327.

44. Fairchild v. Philadcli-bia, etc., R.
Co., 14H Pa. 527, 24 Atl. 79.

45. Levy V. Southern Exp. Co., 4 S. C.
234; Ilarby v. Southern R. Co., 75 S. C.
3^1. 55 S. E. 760.



46. Memphis, etc., R. Co. v. Holloway,
68 Tenn. (9 Baxt.) 188.

Where a contract of shipment is for
through transportation over a designated
route, and beyond the lines of the initial
carrier, each of the companies on that
route accepting the freight under the
contract becomes subject to the initial
carrier's liabilities, and entitled to its
legal exemptions under the contract.
Bird V. Railroads, 42 S. W. 451, 99 Tenn
(15 Pickle) 719, 63 Am. St. Rep. 856.

47. Te.xas, etc., R. Co. v. Adams, 78
Tex. 372, 14 S. W. 666, 22 Am. St. Rep.
56; International, etc., R. Co. v. Mahula,
1 Tex. Civ. App. 182, 20 S. W. 1002, citing-
McCarn v. International, etc., R. Co 84
Tex. 352, 19 S. W. 547, 31 Am. St. Rep.
51. 16 L. R. A. 39; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v.
Baird, 75 Tex. 256, 12 S. W. 530.

A connecting carrier receiving a ship-
ment is entitled to the benefits of the
original contract, if its terms can be
given legal effect. Liternational, etc., R.
Co. 7'. Vandeventer, 107 S. W. 560, 48
Tex. Civ. App. 366.

48. Bancroft & Co. v. Merchants' De-
spatch Transp. Co., 47 Iowa 262, 29 x\m.
Rep. 482.

A carrier, receiving goods from a con-
necting line, is not entitled to any limita-
tion upon its common-law liability con-
tained in the contract between the ship-
per and the line from which the goods
are received, entered into for the sole
protection of the latter line. Bancroft &
Co. V. Merchants' Despatch Transp. Co.,
47 Iowa 262, 29 Am. Rep. 482.

Goods marked to indicate that they
were to be carried by the H. Co. to New
York, thence by the M. Co. to Chicago,
and there delivered to the C. Co. to be
carried to San Francisco, were delivered
to the H. Co. at Springfield, Mass., the
H. Co. stipulating not to be liable beyond
its own line, nor for injury from acci-
dents, or "frost, heat, or the elements."
The M. Co. carried the goods from New
York to Chicago, but. instead of deliver-
ing them to the C. Co., placed them in a
warehouse, and they were burned in the
great fire of 1871. Held, in an action
by the consignee against the M. Co., that
the M. Co. was bound to deliver the
goods to the C. Co., and was not re-
lieved from liability by storing them.
Bancroft & Co. v. Merchants' Despatch
Transp. Co., 47 Iowa 262, 29 Km. Rep.
482.

49. McMillan v. Michigan, etc., R. Co.,
16 Mich. 79, 93 Am. Dec. 208.

A second carrier is not exempted from

50. Limiting value of express package.

— .Martin v. American l'",.\]). Co., 19 Wis.
330.



§§ ?)77^-Z7^2 CARRIERS. 3378

contract limits the liability of the initial carrier, but is silent on the subject of the
liability of any connecting carrier, no connecting carrier is entitled to the benefit
of the restrictive clause of such contract.

§ 3779. What Law Governs. — The company on whose road the loss oc-
curred, when sued for damages, must allege and prove, in order to get the benefit
of an exemption from liability in the bill of lading given by a different company
and in a dift'erent state, that the exemption is allowed by the law of the state
where the goods were shipped. ^^

§ 3780. Contract on Behalf of Connecting Line. — Specific exemptions
in a contract for carriage -enures to the benefit of connecting lines when the initial
carrier, while limiting its liability to its own road, contracts also for its "connect-
ing lines," and it is declared that the exemptions shall inure to the benefit of the
connecting lines, "unless they shall otherwise stipulate on receiving the goods. ''5-
If a connecting railroad company, is designated as such in the initial carrier's bill
of lading, or if the bill provides that all stipulations shall inure to the benefit of
all the carriers, then, having accepted the goods thereunder, without any separate
agreement, it becomes virtually a party to the contract, bound by the undertaking
therein, and benefited by the limitations.-^^ A bill of lading may provide that its
stipulations^ shall extend to and inure to the benefit of each and every company
or person to whom the carrier issuing it may intrust or deliver the property, in
which case its terms will define and limit the liability of every succeeding car-
rier. ^•^

§ 3781. Invalidity of Condition Apparent on Its Face. — Where a bill
of lading shows upon its face the invalidity of clauses purporting to limit the car-
rier's liability, a connecting carrier can claim no more under it than the carrier
who issued it.^^

§ 3782. What Constitutes a Through Contract, Form and Requisites.
— Contract Must Make Intermediate or Terminal Carrier Agent of Ini-
tial Carrier. — To entitle a connecting carrier to the benefit of a special contract
between the shipper and the receiving carrier limiting liability in case of loss, it
must appear that the contract was such as to bind the receiving carrier for full
performance, so as to make the connecting carrier its agent, unless the reduced

liability to a shipper for damages to Loss by frost, heat or elements. —
goods in transit by the fact that the first Goods were shipped under a' bill of lad-
carrier had an agreement with the ship- ing providing that the first carrier should
per by which it was exempted from such not be liable for injury or loss occasioned
loss, in the absence of authority in the by "frost, heat, or the elements," but
first carrier to make such agreement. after delivery to a connecting carrier the
IMcMillan v. Michigan, etc., R. Co., 16 goods were frozen. Held, that the con-
Mich. 79, 93 Am. Dec. 208. tract with the first carrier was not avail-
Bill of lading issued at Cincinnati con- able as a defense in an action against
ditioned to deliver at "Toledo for De- the second carrier to recover for the loss.
trcit." — Where a bill of lading was issued Burroughs v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 67
at Cincinnati conditioned to deliver cer- Mich. 351, 34 N. W. 87.5.
tain goods "at Toledo for Detroit," the 51. Laws governing — Burden of proof
contract was to carry to Toledo and for- of legality. — International, etc., R. Co. v.
ward from there to Detroit, and when bloody, 71 Tex. 614, 9 S. W. 465.
the defendant railroad company received 52. Contract on behalf of connecting
the goods at Toledo they received them, line. — Western R. Co. v. Harwell, 91
in the absence of any clause limiting the Ala'. 340, 8 So. 649.

liabilities beyond that point, under its 53. Bird v. Railroads, 99 Tenn. (15

common-law liability, irrespective of the Pickle) 719, 42 S. W. 451, 63 Am. St. Rep.

terms of the bills of lading applicable 856.

during the transit from the initial point 54. Lawrence on Con. Cars., § 243; Bird

to Toledo, except that it would not be v. Railroads, 99 Tenn. (15 Pickle) 719, 42

authorized to collect of plaintiffs any S. W. 451, 63 Am. St. Rep. 856.

larger freights than the sum specified. 55. Invalidity of condition apparent on

McMillan v. Michigan, etc., R. Co., 16 its face. — St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Spann,

Mich. 79, 93 Am. Dec. 208. 57 Ark. 127, 20 S. W. 914.



5379



LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.



§ 3782



rate forming the consideration of the special contract was not confined to the hne
of the receiving carrier, but extended and apphed to the connecting Hne also.^*^

Bill of Lading Regulating Entire Transportation. — Where a bill of lad-
ing by its terms regulates the entire transportation, and is not limited to the first
carrier, the succeeding and last carrier is entitled to the benefit of its terms limit-
ing liability.'"

Connecting Carrier Not Specially Named or Designated. — The limita-
tion of the liability of the carrier for the loss of or injury to freight shipped un-
der a through bill enures to the benefit of a connecting line, even though the con-
necting line is not mentioned in the bill,'^^ particularly where the contract stipu-
lates that no carrier shall be liable for damage not due to its own negligence. ^^*
But where a railway company, having printed blanks for receipts for transport-
ing goods over its road, and by other companies, to one place, received goods to
be carried to a diiferent place, and at its terminus to be delivered to a dift'er-
ent company, receipted for the goods, and, without erasing the names of the other
companies, used words of exemption from liability, they being, "between the



Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 52 of 214)