Copyright
Thomas Johnson Michie.

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

. (page 64 of 214)
Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 64 of 214)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


(4) Posting Schedule of Rates, § 3874.

(5) Sale and Redemption of Tickets, § 3875.
(fi) Commutation Tickets, § 3876.

(7) Mileage Tickets, § 3877.

(8) Limitation of Charges to Amount Specified in Bill of Lading, § 3878.

(9) Ferriage Charges, § 3879.
(10) Demurrage Charges, § 3880.

g. Regulations to Prevent Injuries to Passengers, § 3881.

h. Regulating Relation of Master and Servant, §§ 3882-3887.

(1) In General, § 3882.

(2) Number and Character of Employees, § 3883.

(3) Safety Appliance Acts, § 3884.

(4) Employers' Liability Act, § 3885.

(5) Hours of Service, § 3886.

(6) Fellow Servant Doctrine, § 3887.

i. Regulating Rights and Privileges of Passengers, § 3888.

j. Regulating Speed of Running Trains, § 3889.

k. Running Trains on Sunday, § 3890.

1. Heating of Passenger Cars, § 3891.

m. Requiring Trains to Stop at Certain Stations, § 3892.

n. Regulating Duty to Accept Goods, § 3893.

o. Regulating Time, Place and Manner of Delivery, § 3894.

p. Care for Live Stock, § 3895.

q. Routing Goods, § 3896.

r. Cartage and Drayage, § 3897.

s. Compelling Railroad to Elevate Bridge, § 3898.

t. Collection of Purchase Price for Consignor, § 3899.

u. Regulations with Respect to Limitation of Liability of Carriers, § 390(T,

v. Regulating Liability for Delay, § 3901. ,

w. System of Bookkeeping. § 3902.

X. Reports, § 3903.

y. Regulations as to Crossing, § 3904,

z. As to Liability of Officers and Agents, § 3905.
G. Street and Electric Railways, § 3906.
H. Express Companies, § 3907.
T. Sleeping Cars, § 3908.
J. Warehouses and Elevators, § 3909.
K. Packing Houses, § 3910.
L. Wharves, § 3911.
M. Pipe Lines, § 3912.
N. Levees, § 3913.

O. Terminals and Stockyards, § 3914.
P. Navigable Waters, § 3915.
Q. Connecting Carriers, § 3916.
R. Particular Articles of Commerce, § 3917.
S. Particular Regulations, §§ 3918-3923.

a. Charges, § 3918.

b. Discrimination, § 3919.

c. Bills of Lading, § 3920.

d. Description of Goods, § 3921.



3439 REGULATION AND CONTROL. § 3829

e. Disposal of Freight Refused by Consignee, § 3922.

f. Reshipment of Goods, § 3923.

T. Regulation of Relation of Consignor and Consignee, § 3924.
U. As to Remedies, §§ 3925-3937.

a. Prerequisites to Bringing Suit, § 3925.

b. Jurisdiction and Venue of Suits, § 3926.

c. Parties to Suits, § 3927.

d. Summons and Process, § 3928.

e. Evidence, § 3929.

f. Proceeding by Attachment and Garnishment, § 3930.

g. Removal of Cause to Federal Court, § 3931.

h. Equitable Remedies, § 3932.

i. Requiring Claim for Damages to Be Made in Prescribed Time, § 3933.

j. Requiring Payment of Damages in Prescribed Time, § 3934.

k. Lien on Vessel for Services and Material, § 3935.

1. Seizure for Taxes, § 3936.

m. Entry of Satisfaction of Mortgage.

§§ 3829-3859. Power of Congress— § 3829. In General.— Congress

has been expressly given power by the constitution to regulate commerce with
foreign nations and among the several states, and to make all laws necessary and
proper for carrying that power into execution. ^ The clause, giving congress the
power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, was among the most important
of the subjects which prompted the formation of the constitution. ^ But a car-
rier, by engaging in interstate commerce, does not thereby submit all its business
affairs to the regulating power of congress.^

The object of vesting in congress the power to regulate commerce with
foreign nations and among the several states was to insure equality and freedom
in commercial intercourse and uniformity of regulation against conflicting and
discriminating state legislation.'* The conflict between the commercial regulations
of the several states was destructive to their harmony and fatal to their com-
mercial interests abroad, and this was the mischief intended to be obviated by
the grant to the congress of the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations
and among the states.^

Exclusive Power of Congress. — Railroads engaged in interstate commerce
are subjects of such commerce, national in their character, and the power of con-
gress over the same is exclusive, and may be exercised to the utmost extent, and
the sovereignty of congress, though limited to specific objects, is plenary as to
such objects, and the power over commerce among the several states is vested in
congress as absolutely as it w^ould be in a single government having in its con-
stitution the same restrictions on the exercise of the power as are found in the
constitution of the United vStates.*^ Though the act of congress of June 29, 15^06,

1. Regulation and control.— United Ogden (U. S.), 9 Wheat. 1, 189, 6. L.
States Const., art. 1, § 8; Interstate Com- Ed. 23.

merce Comm. v. Brimson, 154 U. S. 447, 3. Judgments Brooks v. Southern Pac.

38 L. Ed. 1047, 14 S. Ct. 1125; Fairbank Co., 148 Fed. 986, and Howard v. Illi-

V. United States, 181 U. S. 283, 45 L. Ed. nois Cent. R. Co., 148 Fed. 997, affirmed

802, 21 S. Ct. 648; United States v. Arj- in Employers' Liability Cases, 207 U. S.

ona, 120 U. S. 479, 30 L. Ed. 728, 7 S. Ct. 403, 52 L. Ed. 297, 28 S. Ct. 141.

W 'n ^v^T« I Philadelphia (U. S.), 3 ^^ ^ ^^ ^j^,^;,^ ,^, Ki.nball, 102 U.

\aJ k' I ; ^ P r TU- • 11« S. 691, 26 L. Ed. 238.

2. Wabash, etc., R. Co. v. Illinois, 118 ' ^ . , 7l .. ^ -r. 1
U. S. 557, 30 L. Ed. 244, 7 S. Ct. 4; Bow- 5- Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Pennsyl-
man v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 125 U. S. ^^^ma, 145 U. S. 192, 36 L. ImI. 672, 12 S.
465, 31 L. Ed. 700, 8 S. Ct. 689, 1062; Ct. 806.

Cook V. Pennsylvania, 97 U. S. 566, 24 L. 6. Exclusive power of congress. —

Ed. 1015; Brown v. Maryland (U. S.), 12 United States 7'. Soiuhern R. Co., 164
Wheat. 419, 6 L. Ed. 678; Gibbons v. Fed. 347.



§ 3829 CARRIERS. 3440

fixing the liability of the initial carrier to the shipper, expressly preserves in his
favor all remedies and rights of action otherwise existing, yet, where the terms of
a statute are directly applicable, they become the paramoimt law, and all state
laws to the contrary are superseded/ Congress has exclusive power to fix the
time when an interstate shipment of intoxicating liquor loses its interstate char-
acter and becomes subject to state control.-^

Shipments between Foreign Countries. — The Elkins Act of Feb. 19, 1903,
concerning interstate commerce, does not apply to a cargo shipped from Ham-
burg, Germany, destined, as stated in the bill of lading, to Philadelphia, for trans-
portation in bond to Alberta, Canada, and taken to its destination by continuous
and uninterrupted transportation at the hands of successive carriers ; there being
no delivery or change of title, but the difi^erent carriers merely assisting in a con-
tinuous transportation from one foreign country to another.^ Transportation of
passengers between Europe and the United States constitutes a part of the com-
merce of the United States with foreign nations, and congress has power to pro-
hibit all contracts, combinations, and conspiracies in restraint of such commerce. ^"^

Power over Interstate and Foreign Commerce Compared. — The power
of congress to regulate interstate commerce is as absolute as is its power to regu-
late commerce with foreign nations. The power conferred upon congress to
regulate commerce among the states is contained in the same clause of the con-
stitution which confers upon it power to regulate commerce with foreign nations.
The grant is conceived in the same terms, and the two powers are undoubtedly
of the same class and character and equally extensive. ^^

Territorial Extent of Power. — The power of congress over commerce with
foreign nations and among the several states is broad and comprehensive. It
does not stop at the external boundary or jurisdictional lines of the several states,
but reaches the interior of every state of the Union, so far as it may be neces-
sary to regulate and protect such commerce.^ ^

Limitations on Powers of Congress. — The power conferred upon congress
to regulate foreign and interstate commerce, like all other powers vested in con-
gress, is absolute and complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent and
is subject to no limitations other than are prescribed in the constitution. ^^ This

7. Southern Pac. Co. v. Crenshaw, 5 6 L. Ed. 23; Oilman v. Philadelphia (U.
Ga. App. 675, 63 S. E. 865. S.), 3_Wall. 713, IS L. Ed. 96; The Dan-

A petition against a carrier for dam- iel Ball (U. S.), 10 Wall. 557, 19 L. Ed.
age to an interstate shipment sets out a 999; Guy z'. Baltimore, 100 U. S. 434, 25
cause of action, though the bill of lading L. Ed. 743; Brown v. Maryland (U. S.),
attached contains provisions which but 12 Wheat. 419, 6 L. Ed. 678; Leisy v.
for Act Cong. June 29, 1906, c. 3591, 34 Hardin, 135 U. S. 100, 34 L. Ed. 128, 10
Stat. 584 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907 p. S. Ct. 681; Brennan v. Titusville, 153 U.
892), the Hepburn Act, would exempt S. 289, 38 L. Ed. 719, 14 S. Ct. 829; Schol-
the carrier from- liability, for the regula- lenberger v. Pennsylvania, 171 U. S. 1,
tions of congress on the subject are 43 L. Ed. 49, 18 S. Ct. 767; Kidd v. Pear-
paramount and supersede all state laws. son, 128 U. S. 1, 16. 32 L. Ed. 346, 9 S.
Southern Pac. Co. v. Crenshaw, 5 Ga. Ct. 6; Scranton v. Wheeler, 179 U. S.
App. 675, 63 S. E. 865. 141, 45 L. Ed. 126, 21 S. Ct. 48; In re

8. AlcCord V. State, 2 Okla. Cr. App. Debs, 158 U. S. 564, 39 L. Ed. 1092. 15 S.
214, 101 Fac. 280 Ct. 900; Wabash, etc., R. Co. v. Illinois,

9. Shipments between foreign coun- 118 U. S. 557, 30 L. Ed. 244, 7 S. Ct. 4.
tries. — United States v. Philadelphia, etc., 13. Limitations on powers of congress.
R. Co., 188 Fed. 484.- —Gibbons v. Ogden (U. S.). 9 Wheat. 1,

10. United States v. H^amburg-Ameri- 196, 6 L. Ed. 23; Brown v. Maryland (U.
kanische, etc., Gesellschaft, 200 Fed. 806. S.), 12 Wheat. 419, 6 L. Ed. 678; Kidd v.

11. Power over interstate and foreign Pearson, 128 U. S. 1, 32 L. Ed. 346, 9
commerce compared. — Bowman v. Chi- S. Ct. 6; Interstate Commerce Comm. v.
cago, etc., R. Co., 125 U. S. 465, 31 L. Ed. Brimson, 154 U. S. 447, 38 L. Ed. 1047,
700, 8 S. Ct. 689, 1062; Pittsburg, etc., 14 S. Ct. 1125; Brennan v. Titusville, 153
Coal Co. V. Bates, 156 U. S. 577, 39 L. U. S. 289, 38 L. Ed. 719, 14 S. Ct. 829;
Ed. 538, 15 S. Ct. 415. Leisy V. Hardin. 135 U. S. 100, 34 L. Ed.

12. Territorial extent of power. — Gib- 128, 10 S. Ct. 681; United States v. Joint
bons V. Ogden (U. S.), 9 Wheat. 1, 196, Traffic Ass'n, 171 U. S. 505, 43 L. Ed.



3441



rKguIvAtion and control.



§§ 3829-3830



power over commerce among the states, so conferred upon congress, is complete
in itself, extends incidentally to every instrument and agent by which such com-
merce is carried on, may be exerted to its utmost extent over every part of such
commerce, and is subject to no limitations save such as are prescribed in the con-
stitution. But, of course, it does not extend to any matter or thing which does
not have a real or substantial relation to some part of such commerce. i*

The principles of the common law are operative upon all interstate com-
mercial transactions except so far as they are modified by congressional enact-
ment, i'""^ But in the absence of legislation by congress, there is no common law
of the United States which prohibits obstructions and nuisances in navigable
waters. I*'

White Slave Act. — Transportation of persons as well as of property is
"commerce," and congress may regulate their interstate transportation.^'^ The
act of June 25, 1910, commonly known as the White Slave Act, which forbids
the inducing of a person to come into a state with unlawful purpose by the in-
ducer and in aid of such unlawful purpose, is not unconstitutional as an invasion
of the police power of the state.^^

Compelling Carriers to Make Reports.— Congress did not exceed its pow-
ers under the commerce clause by compelling carriers by water in the Great
Lakes engaged in transportation of passengers and property, partly by water un-
der a joint arrangement for continuous carriage, to make annual reports embrac-
ing joint rail and water business and other business of the carriers as well.i^

§ 3830. As to Charges. — The constitutional power of congress to regulate
commerce among the several states includes the power to regulate freight rates
by requiring that they shall be uniform to all shippers, and in construing statutes
enacted to that end freight rates should be construed to mean the net cost to the
shipper of the transportation of his property, and such regulations may lawfully
apply, not only to common carriers, but to all persons and corporation occupying

259, 19 S. Ct. 25; Monongahela Nav. Co.
V. United States, 148 U. S. 312, 37 L. Ed.
463, 13 S. Ct. 622; Lottery Case, 188 U.
S. 321, 47 L. Ed. 492, 23 S. Ct. 321; Butt-
field V. Stranahan, 192 U. S. 470, 48 L.
Ed. 525, 24 S. Ct. 349; Addyston Pipe,
etc., Co. V. United States, 175 U. S. 211,
44 L. Ed. 136, 20 S. Ct. 96; Louisiana v.
Texas, 176 U. S. 1, 44 L. Ed. 347, 20 S.
Ct. 251; Scranton v. Wheeler, 179 U. S.
141, 45 L. Ed. 126, 21 S. Ct. 48; Compag-
nie Francaise, etc., Vapeur v. Louisiana
State Board, 186 U. S. 380, 46 L. Ed.
1209, 22 S. Ct. 811; Northern Securities
Co. V. United States, 193 U. S. 197, 48 L.
Ed. 679, 24 S. Ct. 436.

14. Mondou v. New York, etc., R. Co.,
223 U. S. 1, 56 L. Ed. 327, 32 S. Ct. 169,
38 L. R. A., N. S., 44.

A carrier, by engaging in interstate
commerce, does not thereby submit all
its business affairs to the regulating
power of congress. Judgments Brooks
V. Southern Pac. Co., 148 Fed. 986, and
Howard f. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 148 Fed.
997, affirmed in Employers' Liability
Cases, 207 U. S. 403, 52 L. Ed. 297, 28 S.
Ct. 141.

15. Application of common-law princi-
ples. — Western Union Tel. Co. v. Call
Pub. Co., 181 U. S. 92, 45 L. Ed. 705, 21
S. Ct. 561.

16. Willamette Iron Bridge Co. v.



Hatch, 125 U. S. 1, 31 L. Ed. 629, 8 S. Ct,
811.

17. White Slave Act.— Bennett v. United
States, 194 Fed. 630, 114 C. C. A. 402.

18. Bennett v. United States, 194 Fed.
630, 114 C. C. A. 402.

Congress had power to enact White
Slave Act June 25, 1910, making criminal
the transportation of women in interstate
commerce for purposes of prostitution.
Hoke 7'. United States, 227 U. S. 308, 33
S. Ct. 281, Ann. Cas. 1913E, 905, affirm-
ing judgment 187 Fed. 992; Athanasaw
V. United States, 227 U. S. 326, :i3 S. Ct.
285, Ann. Cas. 1913E, 911; Bennett v.
United States, 227 U. S. 333, 33 S. Ct.
288, affirming judgment 114 C. C. A. 402,
194 Fed. 630; Harris v. United States,
227 U. S. 340, 33 S. Ct. 289, affirming
judgment 114 C. C. A. 406, 194 Fed. 634.

Act June 25, 1910, commonly known
as the White Slavery Traffic Act, held
within the power of congress to regulate
interstate commerce. Kalen v. United
States, 116 C. C. A. 450, 196 Fed. 888;
Pauslen v. United States, 118 C. C. A. 97,
190 Fed. 423.

19. Compelling carriers to make re-
ports. — Interstate Commerce Comm. z'.
Goodrich Trans. Co., 224 U. S. 104, 56
L. Ed. 729, 32 S. Ct. 436, reversing judg-
ment 190 Fed. 043.



§ 3830 CARRIERS. 3442

such relation to transportation that the conduct of their husiness may operate to
impair uniformity of rates. ^^

Railroad Wholly Within State. — Where the hue of the defendant's railroad
is entirely within the state, but the defendant is engaged in the transportation of
property moving wholly by railroad from one state to another, it is as much sub-
ject to the act of Feb. 4, 1887, regulating railroad rates, as it would be if operated
with a railway connecting points within diiTerent states.-^

Collection of Charges. — An action by an initial carrier against the consignor
of an interstate shipment to recover part of the freight charges which its agent
through mistake failed to collect did not relate to interstate commerce, so as to
be governed by the Interstate Commerce Act, so as to give the interstate com-
merce commission or the federal courts jurisdiction thereof to the exclusion of
the state courts, §§8 and 9 making a common carrier liable for damages where it
permits any prohibited act, or omits to do anything required by the act, not ap-
plying to such an action. -

Rebates. — Neither the Interstate Commerce Act of Feb. 4, 1887, nor the
amendatory act of Feb. 19, 1903, is unconstitutional on the ground that, in mak-
ing it a criminal act for the shipper to accept rebates, congress exceeded its power
under the commerce clause of the constitution. 2-

Rebate by Connecting Carrier. — The fact that a concession from the pub-
lished and filed through rate on an interstate shipment over the lines of connect-
ing carriers was given entirely by the initial carrier for transportation over its
own line wholly within one state does not relieve the shipper receiving such con-
cession from liability to prosecution.-^

Printing and Posting Rates. — The Interstate Commerce Act of June 29,
1906, declares that the act shall apply to any carrier engaged in the transportation
of passengers or property wholly by railroad or partly by railroad and partly by
w^ater, when both are used under a common control, management, or arrange-
ment for a continuous carriage or shipment, and to the transportation in like man-
ner of property shipped from a foreign country to any place in the United States,
and carried to such place from a port of entry either in the United States or in
an adjacent foreign country. A shipment made from a foreign country to a
place in the United States was subject to the terms of the act relating to the post-
ing and publishing of schedules of rates as declared by § 2.^^

20. Charges. — Interstate Commerce on shipments intended for export, in
Comm. V. Reichmann, 145 Fed. 235. which order the railroads acquiesced,

21. Railroad wholly within state. and also delivered shipments for export

United States v. Illinois Terminal R. at ship's side free of charge for switch-
Co., 168 Fed. 546. '"§• Certain shipments were delivered

22. Collection of charges.— St. Louis, ^^ complainants from points in Louisi-
etc, R. Co. V. Gramling, 97 Ark. 353, 133 ^"^, ^^^ carnage to New Orleans on bills
S W ll^'O ladmg of substantially the local form,

' - -D u TT ■ 1 f^ r^ 1 and on their arrival the consignees de-

23. Rebates.— United S^tates v. Stand- manded and received the free storage ac-
ard ()il Co., l.)5 hed. 30d. ^ corded export shipments and free deliv-

24. Rebate by connecting carrier. — ery to the vessel carrier; the shipments
United States v. Vacuum Oil Co., 158 Fed being delivered by complainants di-
536. _ _ ^ rectly from their cars to such carrier, as

25. Printing and posting rates. — Fisher was intended by the owner when it was
V. Great Northern R. Co., 49 Wash. 205, shipped. Held that, notwithstanding the
95 Pac. 77. use of the local bills of lading, the con-
Complainant railroad companies filed tract between the shippers and complain-

with the interstate commerce commission ants was one for an export shipment,
a schedule of rates from points in Louis- over which the Louisiana Railroad Com-
iana to New Orleans for export ship- mission had no jurisdiction, and that
ments. The railroad commission of complainants were entitled, and even re-
Louisiana had also fixed a schedule of quired, to charge the rates on such ship-
dififerent and lower rates on local ship- ments fixed by their schedules filed with
ments between the same points. It also the interstate commerce commission,
by an order allowed four days free stor- Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Railroad Comm.,
age on local shipments and twenty days 183 Fed. 1005.



3443 REGULATION AND CONTROI,. §§ 3830-3833

Preference of Ports of One State over Ports of Another. — Preference is
not given to the ports of one state over those of another by applying to articles
intended for foreign export the provisions of the act of Feb. 19, 1903, making it
an offense against the United States to accept transportation of goods in inter-
state or foreign commerce at less than the carrier's published rates. ^^

§ 3831. As to Transportation of Live Stock. — Congress has exercised
the power granted in respect to interstate commerce by regulating the transporta-
tion of live stock over interstate railroads, and has prohibited interstate transpor-
tation by railroads of live stock affected with any contagious or infectious dis-
ease.^"

§ 3832. As to Transportation of Goods Manufactured by Carrier. —

Congress could properly enact, as a regulation of commerce, so much of the
Hepburn Act June 29, 1906, as forbids a carrier from transporting articles or
commodities in interstate commerce when they have been manufactured, mined,
■or produced by the carrier, or under its authority, and, at the time of transporta-
tion, such carrier has not, in good faith, before the act of transportation, dis-
sociated itself therefrom, or when the carrier owns the article or commodity to
be transported, in whole or in part, or when the carrier, at the time of transporta-
tion, has an interest therein, direct or indirect, in a legal or equitable sense, al-
though, by existing state legislation, such carrier may have a lawful right of
ownership of or association with the articles or commodities upon which these
provisions operate. ^^

§ 3833. As to Limitation of Liability by Carrier. — It seems that under
the broad power conferred upon congress over interstate commerce, it would be
lawful for that body to prescribe the measure of liability of interstate carriers
for loss resulting from their negligence, and to make provision as to contracts for
interstate carriage, permitting the carrier to limit its liability to a particular
sum in consideration of lower freight rates for transportation.-"-* It is within the
power of congress to impose upon an interstate carrier voluntarily receiving prop-
erty for transportation from a point in one state to a point in another state, lia-
bility to the holder of the bill of lading for a loss anywhere en route, with a right
of recovery over against the carrier actually causing the loss, and to invalidate

26. Preference of ports of one state of agreements of this character limiting

over ports of another.— Armour Packing 'ts liabilities to stipulated valuations un-

Co. V. United States, 209 U. S. 56, 52 L. til congress shall legislate upon it there

Ed. 681, 28 S. Ct. 428. Affirming judg- 'S no valid objection to a state enforcing

ment 82 C. C. A. 135, 153 Fed. 1; Chi- its regulations _ upon the subject, prohib-

cago, etc., R. Co. v. United States. 209 'ting such hmitation although it may to

U. S. 90, 52 I.. Ed. 698, 28 S. Ct. 439, af- this extent indirectly affect interstate

firming judgment 157 Fed. 830. commerce contracts of carriage Penn-

„,. %, ^ ^. r 1- ^1 A i. sylvania R. Co. v. Hughes, 191 U. S. 477,

2/ Transportation of live stock.-Act ^^ ^_ ^^_ 2^ g ^t. 132.

of Alarch -i. 18*3, ch. 2o2 17 Stat. 584 ^ ^jjj ^ ^^^. ^^^ j^,^,, ;„ ^j^^ ^tate

(Rev. Stat §§ 4386 to 4389); Act of May ^ ^ York for transporting stock to a

??'k'''.';«'t-T '?' 11' -^ f'^V I'^rfo" ^i" ? P-^"t in Pennsylvania, containing a clause
Debs 158 U. S. 504, 39 E. Ed. 1092, 15 S. {i,^,iti„g th^ carrier's liability for negli-

■^t- 900. gcnce. Held, a state has a right to pro-

28. Transportation of goods manufac- mote the welfare and safety of those
tared by carrier. — Judgment 164 Fed. within its jurisdiction by requiring com-
215, reversed in United States v. Dela- ji-,on carriers to be responsible to the full
ware, etc., Co., 213 U. S. 366, 53 E. Ed. measure of the loss resulting from their
•836, 29 S. Ct. 527. See post "Interstate negligence, a contract to the contrary
Commerce Act" chapter 36. notwithstanding, and such requirement

29. As to limitation of liability by car- is held not to be an unlawful attempt to
rier. — lUit the legislation (jf congress to regulate interstate commerce in the ab-
regulate interstate commerce, as found sence of congressional action providing
i-i 24 Stat, at L. 379, 382; 25 U. S. Stat. a different measure of liability. Penn-
at E. 855, does not make such i)rovision, sylvania R. Co. v. Hughes, 191 U. S. 477,
and there being no sanction by congress 48 E. Ed. 268, 24 S. Ct. 132.

4 Car— 22



§ 3833



CARRIERS.



3444



any agreement or stipulation, limiting the liability of the initial carrier to losses
occurring on its own line.^" Such a statute is not unconstitutional, either as tak-
ing the property of the initial carrier to pay the debt of an independent connect-



Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 64 of 214)