(JcrtifU Slam ^^11001 Slibraty Cornell University Library KF 1091.H97 1891 A treatise on the law of carriers as adm 3 1924 018 923 791 Cornell University Library The original of tliis book is in tlie Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924018923791 A TREATISE ON THE LAW OF CAEEIEES AS ADMINISTERED IN , TH-E COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES And ENGLAND BY • ROBERT HUTCHINSON SECOND EDITION BY FLOYD R. MECHEM author of ^ " Mechbm on Agency " *' Mechkm on Pdblic Officers " etc. CHICAGO CALLAGHAN AND COMPANY 1891 Bntered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1879, by CALLAGHAN AND COMPANY, In the office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1891, by CALIiAGHAN AND COMPANY, In the ofilce of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. STATE JOURNAL FEINTING COMPANY, Printers and Sibreotypebs, uaoison, wis. PUBLISHEES' NOTE TO FIRST EDITION. In 1875 it came to our knowledge that the author of this volume had been giving great attention to the subject of "Carriers," and had prepared considerable material for a treatise. "We felt confident that the legal profession were even then ready to greet a new work on this subject,, and that Mr. Htttohinspn was, by reason of his large accfoaintance with the subject and his extended studies, well fitted to re- spond to the evident want of the profession. But to our request to complete his labors, Mr. Hutchinson was unable to accede, owing to a press of professional duties requiring all his attention. In 18T7, however,- the proposition being renewed, he con- sented to prepare the manuscript, and thereafter labored un- ceasingly till the last line of the text was written. A few days after he announced to us the completion of the last chapter, and of his intention to forward it to the printers, we received the melancholy news of his death from yellow fever, near Memphis. A considerable portion of the work had been stereotyped, aU of the text was written, but neither the anal- ysis of contents, the table of cases, nor the index, was con- structed, and it was necess£),ry that the main body of the text be read, that the citations be corrected in proof, and that the last chapter be revised. This necessary work, the Hon. James O. Piekoej Judge of the Fifteenth Circuit of Tennessee, and the Hon. Ieving iv PUBLISHEES' NOTE TO FIEST EDITION. Halset, late Judge of the Second Circuit in Shelby county, Tennessee, very kindly and generously volunteered to do, in behalf of the children of the author, and these gentlemen have spared neither care nor labor in supplementing the work of the author, and superintending the passage of the' book through the press. So conscientious and accurate wiU their work be found, that we believe few books have been issued of late years containing less occasion than this for sub- sequent correction or alteration. CALLAGHAN & CO. Chicago, Oct. 8, 18T9. EDITOR'S NOTE TO SECOND EDITION. The undertaking of the editor of this edition has been to revise the text where it needed revision, to add such new matter as seemed germane to the subject, and to bring the citation of cases down to the present time. In pursuance of this undertaking, many additions have been ma(^e. to the text, either by way of new sections or the expansidn of old ones, and it is believed that all cases of importance decided by the English and American courts during the last twelve years have been cited. In addition to these, many earlier cases have also been added. The index has been extended, and, it is hoped, thereby improved. The amount of new matter added exceeds one-half, and the number of cases cited has been more than doubled. In order to preserve the benefit of the frequent citations of the work in judicial opinions, the section numbers and the arrangement of the book have remained unchanged. New sections have been designated by the preceding section num- ber with a letter added. ISTew matter in the original sections has not been distinguished from the old. In adding new matter to the text, the endeavor has been made to follow, as far as possible, the excellent method pursued by the author himself. The editor desires to make public acknowledgment to Mr. John "W. Beaumont, of the Detroit Bar, who has rendered ^ editor's note to second edition. him much aid, particularly in revising the chapters on Bag- gage and Actions against Carriers for Injuries to Goods. The editor trusts that the work done upon the second edi- tion may not be found unworthy a place beside the excellent work done upon the first. FLOYD K. MECHEm! Detroit, July 1, 1891. TABLE OF CONTENTS. CHAPTEE I. OF BAILMENTS AND CAREIEES GENERALLY. References are to sections. Bailment defined 1 Classification of bailments 3 Application of rule to carriers 3 Liability of common carrier distinguished from that of other bailees 4 Questions of negligence In law of carriers 5 Degree of diligence required depends on circumstances ... 6 Negligence in one bailee not necessarily so in another ... 7 Apportionment of diligence according to benefit .... 8 Law of bailment insufiicient to determine liability of common car- riers 9 Comparative degrees of diligence and negligence .... 10 Utility of this classification 11 Common carrier not usually agent of owner of goods ... 12 But may be agent in cases of .emergency .... .13 Bailees liable for malfeasance and fraud ; 14 '■ CHAPTEE II. OF CARRIERS WITHOUT HIRE AND PRIVATE CARRIERS, In general ........... 15 L CARRIERS WITHOUT HIRE. Who deemed to be 16 Liability for gross negligence 17 Undertaking to carry is a suflScient consideration .... 18 Carriage not gratuitous where carrier has right to demand compen- sation 19 Presumption that carriage is gratuitous 20 Not gratuitous where indirect compensation derived . . 21 Question of gross negligence one of fact ■ 23 Not Uable for loss by robbery unless negligent 23 Degree of negligence which creates liability — Instances ... 34 Same subject — Further illustrations 25 Same subject — Further illustrations 26 Same subject — Other illustrations 27 Loss of own goods at same time, pi-esumptive but not conclusive evi- dence of diUgenoe ... 38 vm TABLE OF CONTENTS. Eeferences are to sections. Same subject — Reckless exposure of own goods Same subject — Loss of bailor's goods only No presumption of negligence Question of gross negligence, how determined . Same subject — Statements of bailee, when evidence Requisites of declaration against private carrier n. PRIVATE CAERIEES FOE HLRK Who are Less numerous than formerly . Degree of diligence required Same subject — Illustrations Liability for loss by theft or robbery Private carrier may contract for non-liability Liability for injury to goods subsequently lost by accident Test.of private carrier's liability How compares with liability of common carrier Common carrier cannot become private carrier by contract Private carrier cannot become common carrier by contract Lien of private carrier on goods 39 30 SI 82 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 43 43 44 45 46 CHAPTER ni. WHO IS A COMMON CARRIER. Common carrier defined 47 Same subject — The essential characteristics 47a 1, His employment must be public in its nature .... 48 Same subject — Exceptional cases — Gordon w Hutchinson . . 49 Same subject — The rule in England 50 Same subject — The rule in Tennessee 51 Same subject — Further of the Tennessee rule 52 Same subject — These exceptional cases not elsewhere followed — Illustrations 53 Same subject — Further illustrations 53a Same subject — Other cases iEustrating general rule ... 54 Same subject — The general rule well settled 55 Same subject — How common carrier compares with innkeeper . 56 3. Goods must be of kind which he professes to carry . . . 66a 3. Must imdertake to carry by customai-y means and route . . 56b 4. Carriage must be for hire 57 5. Action must lie for refusal to carry 57a Regular trips or fixed termini not necessary 576 Kind of vessel or vehicle and distance immaterial .... 58 Hoymen, bargemen, lightermen, canal-boat men, etc., are common carriers 58a Ferry-men are common carriei's, when 58b Proprietors of land vehicles, like stage-coaches, omnibuses, carts, wagons, etc., are common carriers, when 59 TABLE OF CONTENTS. IX Beferences are to sections. Vehicles carrying passengers usually liable as common carriers only ^ to baggage \ . . 60 Proprietors of local land vehicles are common carriers ... 61 Warehousemen, wharfingers and forwarders of freight are common carriers, when . . .1 62 Same subject — When liability begins 63 Water-craft, railroads and express companies are chief carriers . 64 Owners of ships are usually common carriers ..... 65 Owners of steamboats and canal-boats are common carriers . . 66 RaUroad companies are common carriers 67 Railroad receivers, trustees, etc., are common carriers . . . 67a Street railways are common carriers . . . . ' . . 67& Sleeping and paiior-car companies not common carriers . . . 67c Express companies are common carriers 68 Same subject — Peculiarities of their business ..... 69 Same subject — Their attempts to secure exemption .... 70 Same subject — Cannot escape liability by assuming name -of for- warders .' . 71 Same subject — Nor by assuming name of "Bispatch Company," " Fast Freight Line," etc ' ... 73 Special circumstances under which carrier will not be deemed to be a common carrier .......... 73 Same subject — Illustrations 74 Whether railroad company transporting cars by contract is common carrier 75 Same subject — How when company does not own cars — Circus train 75iti Owners of canal and ferry-boats may show that they are not common earners 76 No carrier required to carry every kind of goods .... 77 Same subject — Illustrations 78 How when possession of goods not taken — Towing boats . . 79 Passenger carriers not common carriers of persons . ' . . . 80 Postmasters, mail contractors and mail carriers not common carriers 81 Telegraph and telephone companies not common carriers . . . 8la Log-driving companies not common carriers 816 Drovers and agisters not common carriers 81e Owners and managers of passenger elevators 81d Bridge, canal and turnpike companies 81e CHAPTEK ly. OF THE DELIVERY TO THE CARRIER, AND THE EVIDENCE THEREOF. In general 81/ L OF DELIVERY TO THE CARRIER. The delivei-y must be complete 83 May be made to agent of carrier 83 X TATTLE OF contents; Beferences are to -sections. But not suflScient if agent not authorized to receive . . . . 8* Delivery to carrier by agent of shipper 84a No delivery when owner retains custody 85 Same subject °" Place at which delivery must be made 87 Must be for immediate transportation 88 Samesubject— When liability begins 89 Constructive delivery — Rule as to 90 Same subject "^ Samesubject — Limitations on rule 92 Samesubject— Rule to be applied with caution .... 93 When delivery becomes complete i " ®^ Same subject — Delivery to ships and vessels 95 Same subject — Delivery to railroads and express companies . . 96 Carrier not required to stop for goods except at regular stations . 97 When carrier deemed to have accepted goods 98 Same subject 99 Same subject — Implied acceptance 99o Checking, etc., not necessary 100 Delivery to ferry-man, when complete 101 Delivery to connecting carrier to continue transportation . . . 102 Duty of first carrier to effect delivery to succeeding carHer . . 103a When liability of first carrier terminates 103 Samesubject — Duty when succeeding carrier ^gleets or refuses to receive the goods 103a Same subject — How duty affected by usage 1036 Agreement between carriers not binding on owner .... 104 Same subject — Illustrations lOS Samesubject — Cases holding delivery complete .... 106 Owner may recover for goods constructively delivered . . . 107 First carrier as forwarding agent for owner 108 Carrier cannot become warehouseman of the goods while in transit . 109 Same subject . ' 110 Of the carrier's duty to accept goods offered for carriage . . . Ill Same subject — Not obliged to accept goods of a kind he does not pro- fess to carry 113 Samesubject — Reasons which will justify refusal to accept . . 113 Same subject — Press of business 114 Same subject — Other reasons 115 Same subject — Not obliged to accept from one not authorized to de- liver — Liability if he does 115a Samesubject — Remedy for wrongful refusal 1156 Same subject — Carrier may demand prepayment of freight . . 116 Same subject — Actual acceptance may waive reasons for refusal . 117 IL THE BILL OP LADINO. No receipt, bill of lading, eta, necessary 118 Liability of carrier usually limited by contract 119 Contracts vary in form and name ....... 130 TABLE OF CONTENTS. XI Beferences are to sections. Yaviance in duplicate ^-Shipper's controls . . ■ . ' . 121 Bills of lading are both receipts and contracts 132 Liability" of carrier when goods not received but receipt given . . 123 Same subject — How, in case of ftojiajMe holder .... 124 Eecitala as to condition of goods, how far conclusive . . . 125 Conclusiveness of receipt as to weight, contents or value oif goods . 125a Same subject 1256 Same subject 125o Terms of bill of lading cannot be varied by parol .... 136 Same subject — Implied terms not to be varied by parol . . . 126a Same subject — Terms annexed by usage not to be varied by parol . 1266 Same subject — Legal import not to be varied by parol . . . 127 Same subject — How, when goods shipped under parol contract before bUl of lading delivered 128 Same subject — Damages for violation of previous contract not waived by subsequent acceptance of bill of lading 128a, Bills of lading are assignable but not negotiable .... 129 Same subject — Statutes making them negotiable .... 129a Goods must be delivered only in accordance with bUl of lading . 130 Same subject — Carrier must respect transfers 130a Same subject — Carrier's duty to ascertain if bill of lading issued . 1806 Same subject — Bill of lading to shipper's order with draft attached . 131 Same subject — Invoice alone not evidence of title .... 181a Same subject — Directions to notify certain person do not dispense with production of bill of lading • 1316 Same subject — Duplicate bills of lading — Possession of one not in- dorsed . . . 1810 Same subject — Possession of indorsed duplicate obtained by fraud . 131d Same subject — DupUcate receipts — Goods deliverable only on pro- duction of duplicate 132 Same subject — Protection'of third person paying draft for consignee's accommodation ........-;. 133 Same subject — Effect of custom on delivery without surrender of bill of lading . . ■ -i 133a When consignment may be changed by shipper . , . . . 134 Same subject — Not when goods become property of consignee on de- livery to earner 135 Same subject — Illustrations 186 Samesubject — Effect of custom . . .' . . . .137 Who may sue for breach of contract 188 Samesubject— Statutes controlUng 139 By what law the vaUdity and effect of contracts governed . . 140 Samesubject ' . . . , . 141 Same subject , 143 Same subject 143 Same subject 144 Samesubject — The true rule — Law of place where made governs unless parties had other law in view . . . . . . 144a XU TABLE OF CONTENTS. References are to sections. CHAPTER V. OF CONNECTING CARRIERS. In general . 145 Liability beyond terminus of onrrier's line must be based on contract 145a The rule of Musohamp's Case 146 This rule weU settled in England 147 English rule prevails' in many states 148 English rule denied in majority of the states . ■ . . . .149 Further of this rule 149a Liabihty beyond terminus may be excluded by contract . . . 1496 Same subject — Even where UabiUty fixed by statute . . . 149c Same subject — Other statutory provisions . ' . . . . 149d Even under through contract intermediate carrier may be held liable 150 Carrier may contract for entire transportation 151 What constitutes such a contract 153 Implied power of agents to make contracts for through caiTiage . 152a No distinction in this respect between corporations and other carriers 153 No liability for loss beyond his own line under contract to carry to end of his line and there deliver to next carrier .... 154 Same subject — Meaning of the term "to forwai-d" or "to be for- warded " ~ . . .155 Same subject 156 Same subject 157 .Who is a connecting carrier — Transfer company .... 157a Partnerships and associations between caiTiers ..... 158 Same subject 159 Same subject — Actual partnership not necessary .... 160 Same subject — Cases holding carriers jointly hable . . . .161 Same subject 162 Same subject 162a Same subject 163 Samesubject — Cases holding carriers not jointly liable . . .164 Same subject 165 , Same subject 166 Same subject 166a Same subject 167 Same subject 168 Samesubject— The rule stated 169 Partnei-ships between corporations as carriers 170 CHAPTER VI. OP THE CARRIER'S LIABILITY AND THE EXCEPTIONS THERETO BY LAW. I. IN GENERAL. The liability of the carrier by law 170a Cai-rier may by contract assume more than legal liability . . .171 TABLE OF CONTENTS. XIU Beferences are to sections. Same subject — Contract must be express 173 Purpose of this chapter 173 n. CAEBIER NOT LIABLE FOR LOSSES ARISING FROM THE ACT OF GOD. What is meant by the " act of God " 174 Same subject — Conflict in authorities 175 Same subject 176 The rule in Colt v. McMechen 177 Same subject 178 Act of God must be proximate cause of loss 179 Human agency must not have intervened 180 Same subject 180a Same subject 180& SamesuBjeot — Prudence or mistaken judgment no excuse . . 181 Xoss by fire, explosion or collision 183 Same subject 183 Same subject — Same rule applies to carriers using steam . . 184 Loss by sudden inimdation 185 Loss by earthquake 185a Loss by landslide 185& Loss by snowstorm . . . 185c Loss by wind 185d Burden of proof 185e If goods are exposed to such dangers by carrier's negligence he will be liable • . . 186 Same subject 187 Same subject 188 So if his vessel be unseaworthy 189 Or if he deviates from the usual course 190 Same subject 191 Same subject 193 "Where the loss would not have occurred but for the carrier's imrea- sonable delay 193 Same subject 194 Same subject ........... 195 Same subject — Cases holding contrary view 196 Same subject 197 Same subject ........... 198 Effect of imreasonable delay upon insurance 199 Carrier liable as in case of deviation 300 The degree of diligence to be exercised by the carrier when the goods have been overtaken by disaster 301 Same subject 303 Burden of proof as to carrier's contributory negligence . . . 303a Act of God wiU not excuse if carrier has wrongfully refused to de- liver goods 3036 IIL CARRIER NOT LIABLE FOR LOSSES ARISING FROM ACTS OF THE PUBLIC ENEMY. Exception of losses ai-ising from acts of public enemy . . . 303 Reason for this exception 304 XIV TA3LE OF CONTENTS. Beferences are to sections. Who are public enemies — Mobs, rioters, strikers, thieves,'pirates . 205 Same sub ject—Kebellion — Eevolution 20ft Same subject— Declaration of war not necessary if actual hostilities exist 207 Carrier liable for loss by pubUc enemy caused by his negligence or deviation 208- Same subject — May carrier show that loss would have happened without his negUgence or deviation 209 Same subject 210 Effect of war on contract of carriage 210a IV. CAERIER NOT T.TAHT.T?. FOH LOSSES FROM THE ACTS OF THE PUBUC AUTHORITY. Carrier protected if loss caused by pubhc authority . . . ■ . 2106 Same subject — Destruction or injury under pohce power . . . 210c Same subject — Confederate authority 210d Same subject — Seizure under legal process 210e v. CABRIER NOT LIABLE FOR LOSSES CAUSED BY ACT OF THE OWNER OF' THE GOODS. Exception to liability on the ground of the fraud of the owner of the goods 211 Same subject 212 Same subject — Neglect or failure to disclose contents or value . 21,8^ Same subject — Extent of carrier's UabiUty 214 Same subject — Illustrations 215 Exception to liability in case of loss from the intermeddling or mis- take of the owner of the goods 216 TI. CARRIER NOT T.TAT^T.F. FOE LOSSES CAUSED BY THE INHERENT NATURE OF THE GOODS. Nature of the exception 216a VIL EXCEPTION IN THE CASE OF LIVE ANIMALS. Live animals not regarded as goods . 217 Difference in liability based on inherent nature 21& Same subject 219 Same subject 220 Carrier of animals Uable as common carrier except for losses caused by their peculiar nature 221 Carrier of atnimals is common carrier and not special agent of owner 222 Duty of shipper to disclose peculiarities affecting risk . . . 223 VUL EXCEPTIONS MADE BY STATUTK Statutes limiting carrier's Uability 224 CHAPTEE VII. OF THE LIMITATION OP THE CARRIER'S XJABILITy BY CON- TRACT. Goods usually shipped under contract limiting liability . . . 225 Rigor of common-law rule relaxed 226 TABLE OF CONTENTS. XV Keferences are to sections. Eule permitting limitation of liability by contract of early origin in England 337 Same subject — Notice sufficient . 338 Same subject — Extent of limitation — Anything except gross negli- gence or misfeasance 339 Considerations leading to English Land Carriers' Acts . . , 330 Summary of act 331 Construction of act 332 Modification of Carriers' Act by Railway and Canal Traffic Act . 333 Same subject — Effect of latter act 334 Early American cases 335 Same subject 336 Carrier may limit liability by special contract 337 Same subject — Contract must be express 337a Same subject — Limitation results from shipper's waiver of common- law Uability 337& Same subject — Limitation prohibited in some states .... 387c Mere notice not sufficient — What constitutes special contract . . 338 Same subject 339 Acceptance of carrier's receipt creates contract — Failure to read no defense if no fraud practiced ....... 340 Same subject ........... 341 Form and nature of contract — Writing not necessary — Evidence to establish 343 Same subject — Parol modifications — Signing by one party . . 343 Same subject — Statutory requirements 343a Notices not intended to limit liability 844 Terms of limitation must be plain and legible 245 Receipt, to limit liability, must be given and accepted at time of ac- cepting the goods 246 Same subject — Parol agreement acted upon not limited by subse- quent receipt 347 Same subject 347a Extent to which liability may be limited 348 Carrier may stipulate for exemption in carriage of live animals . 248a Or for loss from fire 3485 Or for delay from strikes, mobs, etc. 348c Or for loss from thieves or robbers 348d Amount of damages may be limited by conti-act .... 249 Same subject — Effect of this limitation where loss caused by negli- gence . . . . . 350 Same subject — How made under English Carriers' Act . . . 351 Same subject — When shipper bound to disclose value — Limitation by notice — Regulations 353 Same subject— Illustrations 252a Same subject — Notices under English Carriers' Act .... 253 Samesubject — Weight of English cases 254 Samesubject — Notice from course of dealing 355 Xvi TABLE OF CONTENTS. References are to sectious. Same subject — Notice contained in receipt 256 Same subject ^^'^ Same subject ^^^ May limit time within which claim shall be made . . . .259 Burden of proof on carrier to show himself within exemption . . 259a Canier cannot provide by contract against liability for his negli- gence ......•••••• 260 Same subject— The contrary view held in some states . . .261 Same subject — Rule in United States supreme court . . .263 Same subject — This rule the prevailing one 263 Same subject — Contrary rule prevails in New York ... 264 Power of owner's agent to agree to limitation 365 Same subject 266 Powers of agents of carriers to bind them by contract . . . 267 Same subject — The English rule 268 Same subject — Implied authority 269 "What will be construed as a contract exempting from liability for neghgence ........... 270 How the benefit of such contracts can be claimed by connecting car- riers 271 Same subject 273 Same subject — Limitation inures to benefit of connecting carrier only where contract is for through carriage .... 373 Same subject 274 Contracts limiting liability must be construed strictiy against carrier 375 Same subject — Particular exemptions not enlarged by general lan- guage 276 Same subject — Construction of specific terms not altered to release carrier 277 Same subject — Ambiguous words construed against carrier . . 277a Same subject 2776 By what law contract is to be construed 277c The consideration necessary to uphold such contracts . . . 278 Contract must have a fair construction 279 Carrier liable notwithstanding exemption if loss be the result of his negligence ^ . 280 Or, though exemption from negligence sustained, if loss occurred through his misfeasance 380o Exceptions to habihty in bills of lading of carriers by water . . 381 Same subject — Perils of the sea — Dangers of navigation . . 282 Same subject -r- Perils of the sea, etc., not Eynonymous with act of God, etc. 388 Same subject — What included — Illustrations 384 Same subject — Jettison, when included 285 Same subject — Hidden obstructions 386 Same subject — Other perils 387 Same subject — Other perils — Kre not included . . . .388 Same subject — How question determined 889 TABLE OF CONTENTS. XVU Beferences are to sections. Same subject — Carrier liable, notwithstanding these exemptions, for loss from theft, embezzlement, robbery, etc 290 Same subject — Carrier liable notwithstanding exemption if loss caused by his negligence 390a CHAPTEE VIII. OF THE CARRIER'S DUTY AS TO THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE GOODS. In general 291 General nature of carrier's duty 291a His duty to provide sufficient means of conveyance .... 293 Same subject — Must provide safe and suitable vehicles . . . 293 Same subject — Spark-consuming engines 294 Same subject — Exposed cars 295 Same subject — Refrigerator cars / 395a Same subject — Open and closed cars . . . . . . 3955 Skme subject — How when shipper selects vehicles himself . . S95c Same subject — Stational facilities — Cattle-yards .... 2Q5d Duty of carrier to accept goods for carriage 396 He must carry for all alike, and cannot give preferences . . . 297 Same subject 298 Same subject — Duty to furnish facilities to express companies . 299 Same subject 300 Same subject — The "Express Cases" in the United States supreme court 300a Same subject — Giving preference to one shipper over another . . 301 Same subject — Discrimination in rates . . . . . . 303 Same subject — The English rule 303 Same subject — Statutory regulations — The Interstate Commerce Act 303a Same subject — State statutes 3086 General duty as to stowage on vessels 303c Same subject — Stowage under deck 304 Same subject — Stowage on deck 305 Same subject 306 Same subject — Damage from other goods stowed in hold . . 307. Same subject — Rule as to stowage in hold confined to vessels on seas and great lakes 308 Same subject — Inland vessels subject to same rule as land carriers . 309 Goods must be carried in usual maimer or according to shipper's di- rections 310 Same subject — Carrier held liable for damages from failure . , 311 Carrier's duty to transport by usual route 313 Same subject — Choice of route when one is dangerous . . . 313 Same subject — Option as to routes to be exercised with regard to shipper's interests 813a The obligation to carry in the manner provided in the contract . 314 Same subject — Carrier liable for loss if contract not observed . .315 XVlll TABLE OF CONTENTS. References are to sections. Same subject 316 Same subject ^ • • ^^^ Goods must be carried at and within time agreed .upon . . .317 Same subject — Illustrations 318 Same subject — Not excused by circumstances beyond his control . 819 Same subject — Shipper must not be in default 319a Same subject — Implied authority of agent to agree to furnish cars on given day 3196 Care to be taken of goods in case of delay or accident on the way . 320 Same subject 321 Same subject — Care to be taken of live stock ■' 322 Same subject • 322a Same subject 3226 Same subject — Duty to avoid injury 323 Same subject — The rule stated 324 Carrier not bound to suspend voyage to preserve goods ... 325 Same subject 326 Preferences may be given to perishable goods already received . . 327 Preference may be given to preservation of life .... 327a Time within which goods must be carried 328 Same subject — What time reasonable 329 How far carrier responsible for unavoidable delay .... 330 Same subject — What will excuse delay 331 Same subject — Other illustrations 382 Same subject — Circumstances may make delay a duty . . . 333 Same subject — Delay from strikes or riots 384 Carrier must coruplete carriage when cause of delay removed . . 335 Same subject 386 Power of owner to change destination — Liability for freight . S . 337 Right of owner to terminate carriage short of destination . . . 337a CHAPTEK IX. OF DELIVERY BY THE CARRIER. Last duty of carrier is delivery 888 Same subject 839 L OP DELIVERT IN GENERAI^ How made generally 340 Duty to make personal delivery except when usage othervdse . . 341 Same subject 343 Same subject — How delivery made — Degree of ililigence required . 343 Excuses for non-delivery — Neither fraud, imposition nor mistake wUl excuse deUvery to wrong person 344 Responsibility for delivery to the wrong person — Negligent delivery to person not consignee 345 Same subject 346 Same subject 347 TABLE or CONTENTS. XIX Beferences are to sections. Same subject 348 Same subject — Carrier not liable for innocent delivery to consignee though a swindler 348a Same subject — Delivery on forged order, or to unauthorized agent, no excuse 349 Same subject — How when consigned to agent of carrier . . 349a .Same subject — How when goods misdh-ected ..... 349b Same subject — Carrier not liable where wrong delivery induced or ratified by owner 349c Same subject — Doctrine of the case stated 350 Delivery by carrier holding as warehouseman subject to less stringent rules 331 Same subject 353 Same subject 353 Same subject — The rule stated 354 liability as warehouseman when goods refused or consignee cannot be found 355 Same subject ' 356 n. DEUVERT BY CAEEIEKS BY WATER ■Carriers by water not requu'ed to make personal dehvery . . . 357 Must provide suitable place and land goods at proper time — Duty if consignee refuses to accept . . 358 JIust give notice of arrival and give reasonable time for removal . 359 Notice must be actual 360 Goodsmust be put in situation for removal 361 Consignee not required to remove goods on ^uiiday or a legal holi- day on which labor is forbidden 363 Same subject — Fourth of July . . ' 363 Consignee must remove goods within reasonable time . . . 364 JDUigence required of carrier in giving notice to consignee . . 365 -Necessity of notice may be waived by usage 366 Necessity of notice may be dispensed with by contract . . . 366a At what wharf delivery shall be made 366& in. DELIVERY BY RAILROADS AS CAERIEES. Not required to make personal delivery of goods — Whether notice of arrival necessary 367 Whether railroad company bound to notify consignee of arrival of goods 368 Same subject 369 Same subject 370 Same subject 371 ■Same subject . 373 ■Same subject 373 Same subject . _ 374 Mode or place of delivery may be established by usage . . . 375 What is reasonable time for removal 376 XX TABLE OF CONTENTS. Keferences are to sections. Situation or condition of consignee immaterial 377 Liability of carrier pending removal is that of warehouseman . .' 378 Carrier must furnish reasonable opportunity and facilities for getting goods 378a IV. DELIVEET BY EXPRESS COMPANIES. Express companies required to make personal delivery • . . 379 Personal delivery excused at small stations 380 How far usage may afleot duty 381 Same subject 382: V. VARIOUS INCIDENTS OF DELIVERY. Whether carrier bound to make personal delivery must give notice of consignee's refusal of goods 383 Same subject — Who to be deemed the owner 384 Same subject — How when goods not to be delivered till paid for . 385 Same subject — How when consignee absent or not found . . 386 Same subject 38T Same subject — Duty arises only when boimd to make personal deliv- ery or give notice of arrival 388 Duty as to C. O. D. goods 889 Same subject — Must conform to instructions — Wrongful delivery ratified SSft Same subject — Duty tq require payment is based on contract . . 391 Same subject — Duty to give consignee an opportunity to pay . . 393' Same subject — Right to recover goods delivered without payment . 392a Same subject — Liability of carrier for return of money . . . 392fr Consignee's right to inspect goods 393 Consignee's right to change place of delivery 394' Same subject — Consignee cannot change destination when known to be mere agent 395 Same subject — Change cannot be made after transportation com- pleted 395(r Vl EXCtrSES FOE NON-DEMVEEY. Carrier excused when goods taken from him by legal process . .396 Same subject 397 Same subject 398 Same subject — Process must be issued against O'vraer . . .399 Same 'subject — Process must be valid 400 Same subject — Carrier must give notice of seizure to owner . . 401 Same subject — Carrier by water must defend suit till owner notified 401o Same subject — Seizure must not have been brougjht about by laches or connivance of carrier 4016- Effect of garnishment or trustee process upon property in carrier's custody 403 Same subject 403 Duty and liability of carrier when adverse claim is set up . . . 404 TABLE OF CONTENTS. XXI Seferences are to sections. Carrier cannot of his own motion set up adverse title . . . 405 Yet claim upon him by adverse claimant is sufficient . . . 406 Course to be pursued by carrier — Interpleader — Indemnity . . 407 Same subject — Carrier entitled to reasonable time to investigate title 408 Carrier not hable for not permitting goods to be seized on process not against owner 408a VIL STOPPAGE IN TRANSITU. Carrier piay show stoppage to excuse delivery 409 How right exercised . . . . ; 410 Who may exercise the right — Agent — Want of privity . . . 411 To whom notice is to be given 413 Vendee must be insolvent — What constitutes insolvency . . .413 Transfer of bill of lading to bona fide holder defeats rights . . 414 Right not defeated by attachment or garnishment by creditors of con- signee 414(x Effect of attachment of goods by vendor 4146 Goods must be in possession of some middleman .... 415 How long goods deemed to be in transit 416 Actual or constructive delivery defeats right 416a What constitutes delivery 417 When transit deemed to be ended 418 Same subject 419 Not necessary that vendor obtain actual possession of goods — Notice is sufficient 430 Duty and liability of carrier after notice 431 Course to be pursued by carrier for his own protection . . . 433 vni. carrier's right to a receipt on delivery. Carrier may demand receipt on delivery 433 But cannot require surrender of bill of lading ..... 433a CHAPTER X. OF THE RIGHTS OF THE CARRIER. In general 434 I. GENERAL EIGHTS IN RESPECT OF THE GOODS. Right of action for goods taken from him or injured . . . 435 Owner's right of action, how affected — Extent of carrier's recovery . 436 When carrier subrogated to owner's claim 437 Right of carrier to recover possession of goods from owner . . 438 His right to insure the goods 439 Same subject — Shipper cannot be required to insure for carrier's benefit 439a His authority to sell the goods 430 Same subject — Cannot sell to satisfy lien 481 Same subject — When sudden emergency will justify sale . . 432 TYli TABLE OF CONTENTS. References are to sections. Same subject — Absolute necessity will justify 433 Same subject — The rule stated 434 Same subject — What purchaser must show 435 Same subject — Sale when not necessary amounts to a conversion . 436 Same subject — What degree of necessity must be shown — Necessity for conununication with owner ....... 437 Same subject— Sale must be made where market and competition exist 438 Same subject — Cannot give away the goods 438a His right to know the character of goods and contents of packages . 439 Same subject — Shipper must make known dangerous character of goods 440 His liability for damages caused by dangerous goods ... 441 The UabUity of the shipper for iajury caused by dangerous goods . 443 n. THE CARRIER'S EIGHT TO COMPENSATION. The compensation of the carrier 443 Carrier usually entitled to freight only on goods delivered . . 444 Carrier entitled to full freight if prevented by owner from completing journey 444a Entitled to freight though goods have become worthless if they are delivered 445 Same subject . 446 The amount of carrier's compensation 447 Rights of shipper when excessive rates demanded .... 447a Whojiable for freight — Consignee prima facie liable . . . 448 Same subject — How when consignee assigns bill of lading before dehvery 449 Same subject — Presumption of consignee's liability may be rebutted 450 Same subject — Remedy against consignee not conclusive — Consignee deemed agent of shipper 451 Same subject — Agency must be known 452 The rule when freight to be paid by measurement .... 453 Must be calculated on amoiuit carried and deUvered .... 454 Freight pro rata itineris 455 Same subject — Acceptance must have been voluntary . . . 456 Same subject — How question determined 457 Same subject — Acceptance of proceeds of sale made without con- sultation with owner not an acceptance of the goods . . . 458 Same subject — How when transportation to destination impossible . 459 Same subject — How when carriage interrupted by war . . . 460 Samesubject — Rule for adjusting freight prorata . . . .461 Same subject — The application of the rule 463 Transhipment of goods when vessel delayed 463 Same subject — Payment of freight in such cases .... 464 Same subject — Difiference in rates, how adjusted .... 465 Same subject — Power of master as agent 466 No freight recoverable when ship captured by public enemy . . 467 TABLE OF CONTENTS. XXUl Beferences are to sections. Eight to freight where the goods are carried contrary to the wishes or directions of owner 488 Carrier cannot sue for freight until goods are delivered . . . 469 Wlien delivery deemed complete 470 When shipper may recover freight paid in advance .... 471 Parties may agree for prepayment 473 Consignee liable for detention of . carrier by water — Demurrage . 473 Same subject — No right to demilrrage in carriage by railroad except by contract , . 473a Same subject — Right to recover from stranger — Lien for demur- rage 474 Carrier's right of action for indemnity — Freight for goods not deliv- ered — Failure to supply cargo 475 m. THE carrier's bight of lien. Carrier has lien for freight 476 Lien usually a specific one — When general 477 What charges lien protects 478 Same subject — Lien of last of connecting carriers for freight ad- vanced to preceding carrier 478a Lien lost by unconditional surrender of goods — Waiver by conduct , 479 Lien not lost by deUvery of part of the goods 480 Lien not lost by deliveiy obtained by trick or fraud .... 481 Lien takes precedence of claims of consignee or creditors . . . 482 Lien may be waived by terms of payment ..... 483 Same subject — Waiver by taking acceptance payable after delivery 484 Same subject — What dqes not amount to waiver .... 485 Same subject — Other illustrations . 486 Same subject — Other iUustiations 487 Carrier may store goods subject to hen when consignee fails or re- fuses to pay freight 488 Same subject — Liability while so holding goods .... 488a Whether carrier has a hen upon goods wrongfully shipped by person not the owner 489 Same subject — How compares with innkeeper ..... 490 Same subject — No lien where goods received from tortious holder . 491 Same subject — Lien exists where goods received from one clothed by owner with apparent authority 491a Whether property of government subject to hen .... 4915 Lien discharged by tender 492 Lien not assignable 493 Cari-ier cannot sell goods for his charges 494 CHAPTEE XL OF CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS. L OF PASSENGER CARRIERS GENERALTjY. Distinction between common carrier and carriers of passengers . 495 Not common carrier in transportation of slaves 496 Xxiv TABLE OF CONTENTS. References are to sections. Carrier of passengers not insurer of their safety — Liable only for negligence *•" 1. Degree of care and diligence required. The degree of care and diligence required of passenger carriers . 498 Same subject ^^9 Same subject ^"^ Same subject— Bound to protect as far as human care and foresight will go 501 Same subject — Limitations of the rule 503 Degree of care required may vary with circumstances . . . 503 Risks which the passenger takes upon himself — Canier not liable for mere accident or casualty 504 2. Duty as to means of conveyance. Carrier responsible for safety of his means of conveyance . . .505 Same subject — Liability for latent defects 506 Same subject 507 Same subject — The English rule 508 Responsibility for defects in vehicles and machinery attributed to fault of manufacturer 509 Same subject 510 Same subject . 511 Same subject — Carrier responsible to passenger for negligence of manufacturer . . . ' . . . . . . . 512 Same subject — Same rule applies to bridges 512a Where injury results from contributory negligence of another . . 513 Liability of railway carriers having.running powers over other roads 514 LiabiUty of carrier for safety of intermediate agencies employed . 515 Liability for injury caused by concurrent action of two carriers / . 515a Liability of railroad company for acts of lessees, etc. . . . 615b Liabihty for injury caused by articles lawfully brought into car by other passenger 515c Duty of carriers to supply vehicles with necessary service and accom- modations 515ci Duty in respect of management and running-of trains and vehicles . 515e 3. Duty as to stational facilities. Duty of railway carriers in respect of platforms, approaches and sta- tion accommodations 516 Same subject — Liability for unsafe platforms 517 Same subject — Liability for not lighting stations . . . . . 518 Same subject — Liability for dangers in getting to and from trains . 519 Same subject — Passenger not justified in incurring danger to avoid inconvenience 530 Same subject — Not liable for not guai'ding against accidents not rea- sonably to be anticipated . . r 631 Same subject — The degree of care required 521a TABLE OF CONTENTS. XXV Beferences are to sections. Power of company to regulate admission to stations and depots . 532 Same subject — Unreasonable discriminations and preferences . . 533 4. Duty to keep roads, vehicles, etc., in repair. Duty as to road when provided by themselves 534 Same subject — Not liable for defect in road caused by unforeseen ac- cident . . . . ~ 535 Same subject — Liability for unsound rails, defective switches, etc. . 536 Same subject — No liability when injury caused by mere stranger . 537 Same subject — Liability for not discovering defect .... 528 Responsibility for not adopting useful improvements which might promote safety of passenger 539 Same subject 530 Duty as to examination of vehicles and other apparatus . . . 531 Same subject 532 5. Duty as to servants employed. Responsibility for the character of servants employed . . . 533 Same subject — Liable for their neghgence, imprudence or incompe- tence t 534 Same subject — Companies and corporations hable .... 535 Same subject — Liability for knowingly retaining unfit servants — Ratification 536 6. Duty to accept passengers. Their duty to accept as passengers those who offer themselves for car- riage 537 Same subject 538 Same subject — Right to be carried on freight trains, etc. . . 538a "What persons carrier may refuse to accept 589 Same subject 540 Same subject . . 541 Duty and liability as to carrying piisoners 541a 7. Separation of passengers for sex, color, etc. Passengers may be separated according to sex, character, etc.-^ Color discriminations 543 Same subject 7- Contract of carriage subject to such regulations . 543 8. Ejection of passengers for misconduct. When once accepted, passenger not to be ejected except for miscon- duct 544 Same subject — Not to be ejected for supposed bad character if prop- erly conducting himself 545 Same subject — Where one passenger may be ejected for misconduct of another 545a When the passenger may be ejected for improper conduct . . 546 Same subject 547 XXVi TABLE OF CONTENTS. References are to sections. 9. Duty of carrier to protect passenger. Duty of the can-ier to protect passengers 548 Same subject ^^ Same subject ^^ Same subject ^^^ Same subject . . i 551a Same subject ^53 Same subject 553a Difference between passenger and stranger or ti-espasser as to care and diligence required • • • 553 Same subject — Duty to persons coming to stations to assist passengers 553a 10. Who are passengers. Who entitled to be considered a passenger — Who is not . . .554 Samesubject — Trespassers, tramps, defranders, etc. . . .555 Same subject — Passenger by mistake on wrong train is not a tres- passer 555a Same subject — Person riding on " drover's pass " . . . . 5556 Same subject — Person may become passenger before entering vehicle 556 Same subject — Person waiting to take train entitled to protection — Person pursuing departing train — Spectator . . . 557 Same subject — May be passenger though received in vehicle before ready to start 557a Same subject — Prepayment of fare not necessary . . . .558 Same subject — Injury while waiting but before purchase of ticket . 559 Same subject — Is a passenger while coming to station on carrier's vehicle 560 Same subject — Injury to passenger on platform by objects thrown from passing train — Stick of wood — Mail-bag . . . .561 Samesubject — Continues to be passenger though temporarily absent from vehicle .......... 561a Same subject — Does not cease to be passenger by assisting carrier in emergency ........... 561& Same subject — What elements must exist 563 Same subject — Duty of protection does not depend on contract alone — Mail agent — Servant — Excm-sionist — Sunday traveler . . 563 Same subject — Duty to one not a passenger but lawfully on train — , Express messenger 564 Samesubject — Payment of fare not necessary 565 Same subject — Child or other person carried free is a passenger . 565a 11. Gratuitous passengers. Care and diligence due to gratuitous passengers .... 566 Samesubject — The rule stated 567 18. Fare and its payment, Amountof fare — State regulation— Discrimination , . . 567a Paymentof fare— How made — Making change .... 567& TABLE OF CONTENTS. XXVll References are to sections. Same subject — Who liable for fare — Adult and child . . . 567e Same subject — Paying fare or buying ticket with counterfeit money 567d 13. Tickets. The contract to carry — Tickets 568 Such tickets in universal use ........ 569 Duty to sell tickets to those applying for them 569cc Carrier may require passengers to purchase tickets and exhibit them before entering ti'ain 570 Same subject — Requiring higher fare when paid on train — Eeason- able facilities for procuring ticket must be furnished . . . 571 Same subject — Ticket must be produced when called for — Lost, mislaid or forgotten tickets 572 Same subject — Right to require surrender of ticket .... 573 Same subject 574 In absence of contract, ticket presumed to be for a continuous trip — Stop-over — Limitation as to time, how construed . . . 575 Same subject — For what time good . , 576 Rule different in case of coupon tickets 577 Coupon ticket does not usually import contract for through car- riage ... 578 Same subject — Contract for through carriage may be so made . 579 If ticket does not express entire conti-act, it may be shown by other proof . . . . ' .580 Passenger is bound by terms of ticket contract 580a Same subject — Round-trip ticket requiring identification . . . 580& Same subject — Provision that coupon shall not be good if detached . 580c Same subject — Provision that ticket shall not be ti-ansferable . . 580(Z Same subject — Provision that ticket shah not be good on certain trains , 580e Same subject — Passenger can go in that direction only which his ticket indicates 580/ Same subject — How when train does not stop at his station . . 580gr Same subject ■ — How when by mistake he is given an obviously wrong ticket 5807i, Same subject — How when ticket apparently good .... 580i Same subject — As between passenger and conductor the ticket pro- duced must govern 580j Same subject — But passenger is not without remedy . . . 580fc Right of passenger to rely on instructions given him . . . 580Z 14. Limitation of carrier's liability. Passenger carrier cannot limit his liability by mere notice or regula- tion — Conclusiveness of contract 581 Same subject — Good faith required on part of carrier . . . 583 Right of carrier to provide against hability for injury to passenger from negligence of caiTier or his servants 583 Same subject — Cases holding such conti-acts invalid . . , 584 XXviii TABLE OF CONTENTS. Keferences are to sections. Same subject— No distinction made in these cases as to degree of neg- ligence .585 Same subject — Other cases uphold such contracts — Free passes is- sued on condition of no liability 586 15. Begulations of the carrier. Passenger must conform to reasonable regulations of the carrier and may be ejected for refusal 587 Same subject ^^ Same subject ^^^ 16. Injection of passenger for breach of regulations. At What place may be ejected 590 Eight to eject must be exercised in proper manner . . . .591 Effect of tender of fare after ejection begun 591a Duty of caiTier to tender back fare received before ejection . . 5916 The right to resist ejection 592 Same subject — Resistance when rightfully on train — Resistance not necessary to preserve passenger's rights — Damages for injuries received while resisting 593 Whether due care has been used is question of fact .... 594 17. The treatment of the passenger. The treatment due the passenger 595 liability of carrier for ill-treatment of passengers — liable for as- saults by servants 596 Same subject — Other illustrations 597 Same subject — Exemplary damages allowed 598 Same subject — Not liable for assault by servant not acting in line of duty 599 Same subject — Illustrations 600 Same subject — The distinguishing test 601 Same subject — Liability for indecent assaults of servants on female passengers ........... 603 18. Duty as to beginning, continuing and ending the transportation. The time at which the carrier must commence and complete the transportation 603 Must use diUgence to conform to published schedules and notices . 604 Same subject 605 Same subject 606 Same subject 607 Liability for detention of passenger 608 Duty to stop ti'ains for passengers at stations 608a Passenger must be allowed reasonable opportunity to enter vehicle iu safety 608b Carrier must furnish sufficient room and reasonable accommoda- tions—Right of passenger to a seat before surrendering his ticket 609 TABLE OF CONTENTS. "XTTW Beferences are to sections. Same subject — Extraordinary and unexpected demand will excuse . 610 Must allow customary intervals for refreshments and give notice be- fore departure . . .611 Must carry to end of journey and give time to alight at usual stop- ping place 613 Same subject — Not liable where reasonable time and opportunity given, but passenger has delayed 613 Must give notice of arrival at stations '. 614 Must be cateful not to invite passengers to alight at improper time or place 615 Same subject — Effect of calling name of station .... 616 Same subject — Carrying passengers past platform .... 617 Helping passengers to alight 617a Awaking sleeping passenger 6176 Furnishing passengers necessary information 617c ^ IL SLEEPING AKD tAELOK-CAR COMPANIES. Sleeping-car companies not common carriers or innkeepers, but bound to use reasonable care . . . . . . . 617d Same subject ^Negligence the test of liability 617e Same subject — Limits of the liability 617/ Same rules apply to parlor-car companies 617g Railrpad company liable as common carrier to passenger in sleeping- car 617A Duty of sleeping-car company to furnish berth 617i Passenger entitled to occupy only the berth he pays for . , . 617/ Duty to waken passenger in time to aUght 617ft in. PASSENGER CARRIEES BY WATEB. Are subject to general rules regulating other carriers . . . 618 Statutory regulation 619 Same subject — Penalties imposed for dangerous practices . . 620 Same subject — Licensing officers, etc. 621 Same subject — Regulations for safety 622 Same subject — Goverameut of merchant vessels .... 623 Same subject — Regulations to prevent collisions .... 624 Same subject — Purpose of these regulations 625 These regulations do not lessen liability of carrier for safety of pas- senger 626 Duty to furnish passengers with food and other necessaries . . 627 Same subject 628 Authority of master 689 Same subject 630 Duty of master to provide for safety, health and comfort of passen- gers 631 Same subject -^Duty in respect of women and children . . . 632 Same subject — Duty to aid sick or disabled passengers . . . 632o Passenger must conduct himself properly . * . . . . 633 How far carrier by water bound by schedules as to sailing . . 634 XXX TABLE OF CONTENTS. Beferences are to sections. CHAPTER XII. THE LIABILITY OF THE CARRIER AS AFFECTED BY TETE CON- CURRING OR CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE OF THE PAS- SENGER Of contributory negligence generally ...... 635 Application of iiile to carriers 636 Difference in this respect between passenger and stranger . . .637 Contributory negligence usually a question of fact . . . .638 When it is a question of law 639 Questions of mixed law and fact 640 Getting on train while in motion 6il Same subject — What wUl excuse attempt 642 Alighting from train while in motion 643 Same subject — What wiU excuse attempt ..... 644 Same subject 645 Entering or leaving street-cars while in motion 645a Leaving or entering train elsewhere than on platform when one pro- vided 646 Same subject — Effect of carrier's acquiescence or directions . . 647 Using means for entering or leaving not intended for that purpose . 647a Alighting at usual place when train has stopped short of or overshot platform 648 Passing from car to car while in motion. . .' . . ... 649 Same subject 650 Occupying exposed position — Not a bar to recovery where it does not contribute to injury 651 Voluntarily riding on platform while train In motion ... 652 Same subject — How when car full 653 Same subject — How in case of street-cars 653a Riding in baggage or mail-car 654 Riding in stock-car 654a Riding on hand-car 6546 Interfei-ing with management of vehicle 654c Using platforms known to have been previously out of repair . . 654d Exposure of person — Passenger projecting limbs from car window . 655 Same subject — Such protrusion held negligence . . , .656 Same subject — Extent of protrusion, when material . . .657 Samesubject — The contrary view 658 Samesubject — How in case of street-cars and stage-coaches . . 658a Same subject — The true view 659 Same subject — No defense where it does not contribute to injury . 659a Standing in cars 660 Samesubject— How when riding in freight trains .... 660a Riding upon the engine or on top of cars 661 Crossing tracks to reach or leave cars 661o Crawling under tiains to reach cars 661& TABLE OF CONTENTS. XXXi Keferences are to sections. How far negligence excused by directions of carrier or his servants . 661c Where the passenger is attempting to escape peril to which carrier has exposed him 663 Same subject — Test of carrier's liability 662a Avoiding inconvenience to which carrier has exposed hipi . . 663 Neghgence on one kind of vehicle may not be such on another . 664 Degree of care required in carriage of children 665 Same subject 666 Same subject — When negligence wUl be Imputed to children . . 666a ImputabUity of the negligence of those having children and imbeciles in charge 667 Intoxication of passenger as contributory negligence . . . 668 Blind and deaf passengers 669 Sick and disabled passengers and women ...... 670 Sunday traveling 671 Same subject ........... 673 Imputability of neghgence of carrier to passenger — The English rule of Thoi-ogodd v. Bryan 673 Same subject — The EngUsh rule generally denied in the United States. • 674 Same subject — English criticism of the rule ..... 675 Same subject — Finally overthrown in England .... 676 Summary of rules of this chapter 676a CHAPTER XIII. PASSENGER'S BAGGAGE. Questions discussed in this chapter . 677 Carrier's liability for baggage 678 What is baggage 679 Same subject — Is whatever is usually carried as baggage . . 680 Same subject — Articles for personal use during, or for ultimate pur- pose of, journey 681 Same subject — As to value 681a Same subject — Various articles held.baggage 683 Same subject — Bedding 683 Same subject,— Abroad rule 684 What is not baggage .......... 685 Same subject — Massachusetts rule as to merchandise . . . 685a Baggage not limited to articles to be used on journey . . . 686 Articles appropriate or essential to purpose of journey, baggage . 687 The question of baggage, how determined 688 Implied authority of baggage-master concerning baggage . . 688a Liability when passenger retains possession of baggage . . . 689 Same subject — English cases — Must be clear that passenger assumes entire control 690 Same subject — English cases — Question of delivery to carrier . 691 Same subject — English cases — Passenger's contributory negligence 693 Xxxii TABLE OF CONTENTS. Beferences are to sedtions. Same subject — Conclusion from last decision 693 Same subject — English cases — Dissent from earlier authorities . 693a Same subject — English cases — Bergbeim v. The EaUway disap- proved 683* Samesubject — General result of American cases . . . .694 Same subject — Carrier not liable for wearing apparel in present use . 695 Same subject — No liabUity for clothing, money or jewelry in custody of passenger 693 Samesubject — Nor for any property in exclusive possession of pas- senger ""''' Samesubject — Hand-bag dropped out of car window . . . 69Ta Samesubject — Duties of carriers and innkeepers sometimes held to resemble each other 698 Samesubject — Passenger negligent, carrier not liable . . .699 Samesubject — Conclusions from the cases 700 Sleeping and parlor-car companies 700a Owner must be a passenger 701 What is contract where baggage not accompanied by owner . . 703 Baggage accompanied by a person representing the owner . . 702a Passenger and baggage passing over dififerent routes '. . . . 703 Samesubject '. . 703a Passenger need not accompany his baggage 704 Baggage carried as freight 705 Passenger lying over — Baggage going on 706 Delivery of baggage 707 Passenger allowed i-easonable time to call for baggage . . .708 What is unreasonable delay 709 What is reasonable time 710 Same subject 710a Dissent from prevailing construction of " reasonable time " . . 711 Strict liability of carrier succeeded by that of warehouseman . . 712 Liability for negligence of subsidiary carrier 713 Strict liability preserved where carrier causes unreasonable delay . 714 Passenger's right to have baggage delivered at any regular station at which train stops 714a Connecting carriers — Limiting liability 715 Liability for baggage when passenger is carried gratuitously , . 716 Baggage checks 717 \yhat a baggage check implies 718 The carrier's lien upon baggage 719 • CHAPTER XIY. OF ACTIONS AGAINST COMMON CARRIERS. I. THE PAETIES. Who may sue carrier for loss of or injury to goods . . • • TSO One having special property may sue 721 Owner may sue 723 TABLE OF CONTENTS, XXXIU Keferences are to sections. Person making contract with carrier may sue 733 Same subject — Even if plaintifiE have no interest in goods or con- trsict were by parol 784 Same subject — States following this rule 785 Same subject — Doctrine Supported by English law .... 736 Same subject — Advantage of this rule 737 Conclusions from these cases 738 Contract need not be in writing to enable shipper to sue upon it . 739 The rule of these cases stated 730 Rule that only owner can sue ........ 731 Eule that mere agent without interest cannot sue . . . . 733 When consignee may sue 733 When consignor is the proper party 734 Same subject — Where sale is void, consignor should sue . . . 735 Conclusions on this subject ........ 786 n. THE FOEM or ACTION. The form of action to be adopted 737 Original theory as to carrier's obligation 788 First recognition of can-ier's contract obligation .... 739 The action on the case ......... 740 The action in case several and not joint ...... 741 Advantage of declaring in case 743 Action in assumpsit 743 How character of action determined 744 Same subject 745 Distinction in form of action now generally unimportant . . . 746 When action should be upon the contract 747 When for breach of duty 748 IIL THE PLEADINGS. Important to determine if declaration is in case or assumpsit . . 749 What declaration must allege 750 When action is on the contract it must be set out correctly . . 751 Same subject — Example of particularity required .... 758 Same subject — Variance between declaration and proof is fatal . 753 Same subject — Whole contract must be stated 754 Reasons for requiring particularity 755 Mere collateral stipulations need not be stated 756 Pleadings in actions for statutory penalty for overcharge . . . 756a Common-law actions for excessive charge, how affected by statutory action 756b What is suflBcient averment of an overcharge at common law . . 756c Statement as to carrier's reward '. 757 The carrier's defense to the action 758 IV. THE EVIDENCE. What the plaintiff must prove 759 Plaintiff must show whose negligence caused the loss . . . 760 XXXIT TABLE OF CONTENTS. Beferences are to sections. Presumption that each of several connecting carriers received goods in same condition as when delivered to first carrier — Burden of proof to show contrary 761 Contract with carrier may be either express or implied . . . 763 Express contract not necessary — Delivery and acceptance enough . 763 Plaintiff must produce some evidence of loss 764 What the carrier may show 765 Eule that burden of proof is on carrier to show no negligence . . 766 Rule that burden of proof is on shipper to show negligence . . 767 Importance of the distinction 768 Burden of proof where freight injured is animate or subject to in- herent defects 768o V. THE MEASUEE OF DAMAGES. Difference in measure between actions on tort and- contract . . 7686 The measure for not accepting and carrying the goods . . . 768c The measure for the loss of the goods 769 Same subject — Exceptions 770 The measure for injury to goods during transportation . . . 770a Same subject — Measure when goods not intended for sale or have no market value — Family portrait — Second-hand goods — Build- ing plans 7706 Same subject — How when amount of loss limited by contract . 770c Eight of consignee to refuse to receive injured goods . . . nOd The measure for delay in the transportation and delivery . . . 771 Same subject — Loss of profits of sale agreed upon .... 772 The measure for delay in transporting article for use in business, thereby causing loss of profits 773 The measure when carrier refuses to accept and carry the goods as he agreed . 774 Delay is not a conversion of the goods 775 The measure where the goods are not for sale as merchandise . . 776 The measure for conversion of the goods — Mitigation of the damages 776a CHAPTER XV. OF ACTIONS AGAINST CARRIERS FOR INJURTES TO PASSENGERS. L COMMON-LAW ACTIONS. Actions for injuries at common law Parent's right of action Same subject — Nature and extent of recovery Husband's right of action .... Relation of servitude necessary at common law Effect of child's contributory negligence on parent's action Effect of parent's contributory negligence on his own action Effect of negligence of husband or wife on the other's action 777 778 779 780 781 781a 7816 781c TABLE OF CONTENTS. XXXV References are to sections. n. STATUTORY ACTIONS. Statutory right of action in case of death — Lord Campbell's Act Same subject — Similar acts in the United States Who may sue under these statutes . Province of jury in allowing damages Same subject Dependence for support not necessary to recovery Same subject Existence of kin must be shown Whether statute gives a new right of action Extraterritorial effect of these statutes Effect of contributory negligence of deceased . Effect of contributory neghgence of beneficiaries 783 783 783a 784 785 786 787 788 789 . 789o 7896 789c in. OF ACTIONS m general. 1. The form of actum. Form of action optional Form of action when exemplary damages are claimed Form when brought by personal representative . Eecovery must be for cause of action stated How form of action is determined .... Same subject 2. The pleadings. Special damages must be pleaded .... Same subject 3. The evidence. Proof of the carrier's negligence Presumptions as to negligence When the fact of the injury is prima facie evidence of negligence . Proof of injury usijally makes prima fade case of negligence . Contributory negligence of passenger — Burden of proving on defend- ant ' Same subject — Cases holding burden of disproving is on plaintiff To defeat a recovery plaintiff's negligence must have been proximate cause of injury How question of contributory negligence to be determined 4. The measure of damages. Measure of damages generally compensation for injuiy . Compensation for pain and suffering . * Future damages may be considered Inconvenience may be considered Sufferings must be real , . Damages must be natural and proximate result of injuiy , Same subject — The more liberal rule . . . . . Same subject^ How question determined . • . , 790 79'1 793 793 794 795 '796 797 798 799 800 801 803 803 803a 803b 804 805 806 807 808 809 809a 8096 XXXn TABLE OF CONTENTS. Beferences are to sections. Plaintiff must not needlessly aggravate injury Plaintiff cannot recover for injuries invited Effect of previous sickness or disease ...... 809e Damages in case of maltreatment 810 Exemplary or punitory damages against carriers . . . .811 On what theory allowed 813 When allowed for carrier's neglect of duty in furnishing safe vehicles, tracks, etc. 813a When allowed for negligence or recklessness of carrier's servants . 813 Same subject .^814 Same subject — Case holding carrier Uable ,' 814o When allowed for active maltreatment of passenger . . . 815 'Same subject — Cases authorizing such damages .... 815o Same subject — Evidence of authority on ratification . . . 816 Same subject — Carrier liable only when servant would be . . 817 When carrier may disprove wrongful intent 818 TABLE OF CASES. In pursuance of the plan adopted in the first edition, and now practiced by many courts, all oases in which a railroad, railway, express or insurance company was plaintiff have been arranged in this table under the heading of Railroad Company, Bailway Company, Express Company, Insurance Company, respectively, although the full corporate name was given in the citation. Beferences are to sections. Aaron v. Raihroad (2 Daly, 137), 805. Abbe v. Eaton (51 N. Y. 410), 122, 133, 448. Abbey v. Str. Stephens (33 How. Pr. 78), 79. Abbott V. Raibroad Co. (80 N.Y. 37), 515b. Abbott V. Bradstreet(55 Me. 530), 697. Abbott V. Gatch (13 Md. 314), 773, 773. Acatos V. Burns (3 Ex. Div. 283), 437. Achtenhagen v. Watertown (18 Wis. 381), 803. Ackerson v. Railway (32 N. J. 354), 813. Ackley v. KeUogg (8 Cow. 333), 63. Adams v. Haught (14 Tex. 243), 444a. Adams v. Railway Co. (100 Mo. 555), 617. Adams v. Railway (L. R 4 C. P. 739), 580,663. Adams v. Scott (104 Mass. 164), 403. ^tna Ins. Co. v. Wheeler (49 N. Y. 616), 107, 272. Agnew V. Johnson (33 Penn. St 471), 430. Aiery v. Merrill (3 Curtis^ 8), 275. Aigen v. Railroad Co. (132 Mass. 433), 170. Aiken v. Railway Ca (68 Iowa, 363), 99o. Albertson v. Railroad Co. (48 Iowa, 393), 7816. Albion V. Hetrick (90 Ind. 545), 674 Albright v. Penn (14 Tex. 290), 58. Alden v. Cai-ver (13 Iowa, 253), 488, 493. Alden v. Raih-oad (36 N. Y. 102), 507, 508, 512a. ' Alderman v. Railroad (115 Mass. 333), 131c, 133. Aldridge v. RaUway (15 C. B. (N. S.) 583), 21, 57, 334, 392a. Alexander v. Greene (3 Hill, 9), 40, 79. Alexander v. Greene (7 Hill, 533), 79. Alexander v. SOuthey (5 B. & Aid. 347), 344. Alexander v. Railway Co. (33 Up. Can. 474), 586. Alexander's Cotton (3 Wall. 404), 307. Alger V. LoweU (3 Allen, 402), 668. Allan V. Steamship Co. (8 U. Y. Suppl. 803), 832a. Allday v. Railway Co. (5 B. & S. 903), 222. Allen V. Bates (1 HUt 231), 453. Allen V. Ferry Co. (46 N. J. L. 198), 810. Allen V. Insurance Co. (44 N. Y. 437), 444a. Allen V. Mercier (1 Ash. 103), 418. Allen V. Railroad Co. (79 Me. 327), 410, 421. Allen V. Sackrider (37 N. Y. 341), 5^ 73. XXXVUl TABLE OF CASES. Beferences are to sections. Allen V. Sewall (3 Wend. 327), 762. AUen V. Williams (12 Pick. 397), 131c. Allender v. Railroad Co. (43 Iowa, 276), 5S01, 6086. Allender v. Raib oad (37 Iowa, 264). 558. AUing V. EaUroad (186 Mass. 121), 685a. Allyn *■. Willis (65 Tex. 65), 4146. Alsager v. Dock Co. (14 M. & W. 794), 483. Alston V. Herring (11 Exch. 822), 219, 440. Althorf V. Wolfe (23 N. Y. 355), 806. Am. Contract Co. v. Cross (8 Bush, 472), 682. Am. Trans. Co. v. Moore (5 Mich. 368), 183, 287, 343. Ames V. Belden (17 Barb. 515), 37, 40. Ames V. Palmer (42 Ma 197), 493. Amies v. Stevens (1 Str. 188), 178, 184 Amory v. McGregor (15 Jolms. 34), 774 Amos v.T:emperley(8 M. & W. 798), 449, 450. Amos V. Railroad Co. (63 Miss. 509), 783(1. Anchor Line V. Dater (68 la 36^), 150, 340, 760. Anchor Line v. Knowles (66 HL 150), 840. Anderson v. Clark (2 Bing. 20), 135. Anderson v. Scholey (114 Ind. 553), 654c. Andrew v. Moorhouse (5 Taunt 435), 469, 472. Andrews v. Railroad Cof (2 Mack. 137), 653a. Angelina Coming, S. B. (1 Ben. 109), 79. Angle V. Railroad (9 Iowa, 487), 14a Angle V. Railroad (18 Iowa, 555), 349. Annas v. Railroad Ca (67 Wis. 46), 784. Anniston, etc. Railroad v. Ledbetter (— Ala. — , 9 a Rep. 73), 750. Anonymous v. Jackson (Peake's Addl. Cas. 185), 288. Ansell V. Waterhouse (3 Chitty, 1), 741, Ansett V. Marshall (32 L. J. Q. B. 118), 809c. Anthony v. Mtna Ins. Co. (1 Abb. C. C. 343), 289. Anthony v. Railroad Co. (27 Fed. Eepi 724), 507. Anthony v. Slaid (11 Met. 290), 809. Apsey V. RaUroad Co. (83 Mich. 440), 8036. Arbuckle v. Thompson (37 Penn. St 170), 7.33. Arctic Ina Ca v. Austin (54 Barb, 559), 79. Arend v. Liverpool, eta Co. (64 Barb. 118), 125. Armory v. Delamirie (Smitii's Ld. Cases, 481), 406. Armour v. Railroad (65 N. T. Ill), 134. Armroyd v. Insurance Co. (3 Bin. 437), 458, 458, 459. Armstrong v. Beadle (5 Sawy. 484), 783a. Armstrong v. Railway (L. R. 10 Exch. 47), 676. Armstrong v. The Railway ( — Minn. — , 47 N. W. Rep. 459), 750. Arnold V. Halenbake (5 Wend. 33), 66. Arnold v. Potter (22 Iowa, 194), 140. Arnold v. Railroad (83 111. 373), 261, 538a. Arnold v. Steamboat Ca (29 Fed. Rep. 184), 3666. Arthur v. Schr. Cassius (8 Story, 81), 433, 774 Ash V. Putnam (1 Hill, 302X 481. Ash V. Railroad Ca (72 Md. 144X 789a. Ashbrook v. Railway Ca (18 Mo. Appi 290X 653a. Ashby V. White (Smith's Ld. Cases, 366), 675. Ashe V. De Rossett (5 Jones (N. C), 399), 773, 773. Ashford v. Thornton (1 B. & Afd. 405), 782. Ashmole v. Wainwright (2 Q. B. 837), 447. Asbmore v. Steam Towing Ca (4 Dutcher, 180), 79, 237. TABLE OF CASES. XXXIX References are to sections. Aston V. Heaven (3 Esp. 533), 49T, 799. Astrup V. Lewy (19 Fed. Rep. 536), 303e, 437. Atchison v. Eailroad Co. (80 Mo. 313), 348a, 723. Atkinson v. Ritchie (10 East, 530), 317. Atwater v. Raikoad Co. (48 N. J. L. 55), 567a, 569a, 573. Atwood V. Trans. Co. (9 Watts, 87), 375. Audenried v. Railroad Co. (68 Penn. 370), 302. Anerbaoh v. Railroad Co. (89 N. Y. 381), 575, 578. Austin V. Railway (10 C. B. 454), 233, 239. Austin V. Railway (L. R. 3 Q. B. 443), 537, 555, 565, 567. Austin V. Railway (16 Q. B. 600), 754. Australian S. N. Co. ads. Morse (L. R. 4 P. C. Cas. 322), 437. Aymar v.,Astor (6 Cow. 266), 389. Ayres v. Railroad (14 Blatchf. 9), 108. Ayres v. Railroad (5 Dutcher, 393), 370y 423. Ayi-es V. Raih-oad Co. (71 Wis. 373), 331, 293. Ayres v: Railroad Co. (75 Wis. 215), 393, 771. Babcock v. Herbert (3 Ala. 392), 58. Baboock v. Railroad (49 N. Y. 491), 272. Bacharach v. Freight Line (133 Penn. St. 414), 477, 478, 733. Backhouse v. Sneed (1 Murph. 173), 180. Bacon v. Railroad Co. ( — Penn. St. — ), 641. Bags of Linseed (1 Black, 108), 479. BaUey v. Damon (3 Gray, 92), 476. Bailey v. Quint (33 Vt. 474), '479. BaUey v. Railroad (49 N. Y. 70), 136. Bailey v. Shaw (34 N. H. 397), 430. Baker v. Bolton (1 Camp. 493), 777. Baker v. Brinson (9 Rich. 301), 766. Baker v. Railroad (10 Lea, 304), 331. Baker v. Railway Co. (34 Mo. App. 98), 149c. ' Baker v. Railway Co. (118 N, Y. 533), 613,638." Baldwin v. Express Co. (33 111. 197), 379, 380. Baldwin v. Railroad Co. (4 Gray, 333), 784, 796. Baldwin v. RaUway Co. (64 N. H. 596), 590. Baldwin v. Railway Co. (9 Q. B. Div. 583), J771. Baldwin v. Steam Co. (74 N. Y. 135), 439, 447, 447a. ■ Balf e V. West (33 Eng. L. & E. 506), 34. Ball V. Raikoad Co. (83 Mo. 574), 348a. Ball V. Liney (48 N. Y. 6), 344. Ballentine v. Railroad Co. (40 Mo. 491), 301, 331, 331. Ballon V. Famum (11 Allen, 73), 806. Balsey v. Railroad Co. ( — IlL — ), ' 5156. Baltimore, etc. Road Co. v. State (71 Md. 573), 784. Bancroft v. Railroad Co. (11 Allen," 34), 789. Bancroft v. Transportation Co. (47 Iowa, 263), 73, 373. Bank v. Express Co. (93 U. S. 174), 70, 71, 73, 337, 340, 363, 366a. Bank V. Express Co. (45 Penn. St 419), 427. Bank v. Express Co. (4 Blatchford, 445), 345. Bank V. Nantucket S. B. Co. (3 Story, 16), 57. . Bank v. PfeifEer (33 Hun, 387), 131. Bank v. Railroad Co. (106 N. Y. 195), 134. ' Bank v. Railroad (44 N. Y. 136), 1305. Bank v. Railroad (81 Ga. 331), 131. Bank v. Railroad (30 Kan. 519), 134. Bank v. Railway (35 S. C. 316), 131&. Bank v. Transportation Co. (69 N. Y. 374), 131c. Bank v. Transportation Co. (23 Vt 186), 149, 344, 355, 341, 366. Banking Co. v. Smith (138 U. S. 174), 303&, 567a. Banking Co. v. Srnitha (85 Ala. 47), 1496. Bannon v. Railroad (34 Md. 108), 805, 813. TABLE OF CASES. Befereuces are to sections. Bansemer v. Railroad (25 Ind. 434), 370. Barbee ^. Reese (60 Miss. 906), 803a. Barber v. Brace (3 Conn. 9), 126&. Barden v. Railroad (131 Mass. 436), 638, 660. Bardwell v. Express Co. (35 Minn. 344), 68. Bardwell v. Express Co. (13 Ore. 49), 339. Bardwell v. Railroad Co. (63 Miss. 374), 643, 661c. Barhydt v. EUis (45 N. Y. 107), 135a. Bai-ker v. CoflSn (31 Barb. 556), 575, 576, 580. Barker v. Havens (17 Johns. 234), 450, 451, 476. Barker v. Hodgson (3 M. & SeL 267), 222. Barker v. Railroad Co. (18 C. B. 46), 533, 533. Barker v. Railroad Co. (24 N. Y. 599), 580&, 617c. Barker v. Raiboad Co. (91 Mo. 86), 783a, 788. Barley v. Railroad Co. (4 Biss. 480), 784. Barnes v. Foley (5 Burr. 2711), 366. Barnes v. Ward (9 Com. B. 392), 78a Barnett v. Lucas (I R. 6 C. L. 347), 789. Barnett v. Railway (5 H. & N. 604), 363. Barney v. Burnstenbinder (64 Barb. 213), 443. Barney v. Steamboat Co. (67 N. Y. 301), 533, 533, 538, 546. Barret v. Railway (1 Com. B. (N. S.) 433), 533. Barrett v. Raih-oad (45 N. Y. 628), 674 Barrett v. Railway Co. (81 Cal 296), 5676. Ban-ett v. Rogers (7 Mass. 299), 125o. Barron v. Eldridge (100 Mass. 455), 63, 88, 870. Barry v. Raihroad Co. (93 N. Y. 289), 666a. Barter v. Wheeler (49 N. H. 9), 150, 168,170,715. Bartholomew v. Railroad (53 IlL 221% 712. Bartlett v. Camley (6 Duer, 194), 476. Bartlett v. Railway Co, (94 Ind 381), 136, 334. Bartlett v. Steamboat Co. (57 N. Y. Super. 348), 567&. Bartlett v. S. B. Philadelphia (32 Ma 356), 340, 341. Barton v. Curyea (40 HL 330), 139. -Barton v. Railroad Co. (53 Mo. 353), 657. Bartram v. Farebrother (4 Bing. 579), 415. Bartram v. McKee (1 Watts, 39), 443. V. Glover (63 Ga. 746), 131, 423a. V. RaUway (36 Wis. 450), 535, 542,552,591,600,815. V V. Railway (39 Wis. 686; 42 id 654), 815, 816. Bass V. Railway Ca (43 Wis. 654), 536. Bastard v. Bastard (3 Shower, 81), 116. Bates V. Stanton (1 Duer, 79), 898, 404^ 406. Bates V. Todd (1 Moa & R. 106), 122. Batson v. Donovan (4 B. & A. 21), 313, 329, 353, 254 Batteshill v. Humphreys (64 Mich. 494). 667. Batton V. Raih-oad Ca (77 Ala. 591), 549. Baxendale v. Railway (4 Com. R (N. S.) 63), 303. Baxendale v. Railway Co. (5 C. R 336), 303. Baxter v. Leiand (1 Blatch. 526), SOZc, 307. Bayles v. Railway Ca (13 CoL 181), 308. Bayley v. Railway (L. R. 7 C. P. 415), 591, 600. BeadeU, In re (3 C. B. 509), 52a Beal V. Railway (3 H. & C. 337), 334 Beale v. Thompson (3 B. & P. 405X 467. Bean v. Sturtevant (8 N. H. 146), 59. Beard v. Railroad Ca (48 Vt 101), S18, 519, 521. TABLE OF CASES. xlj Beferences are to sections. Beard v. Railway (79 Iowa, 537), 144, 291a, 295a. Beardslee v. Eichardson (11 Wend. 25), 31, 33, 766. Bearse v. Eopes (1 Sprague, 881), 807. Beauchamp v. Powley (1 M. & Rob. 38), 33. Becher v. Railway Co. (L. E. 5 Q. B; 241), 703a. Beck V. Evans (16 East, 244), 38, 820. Becker v. Railway Co. (102 Mo. 544), 674. Becker v. Hallgarten (86 N. Y. 167), 414. Beckman V. Shonse (5 Eawle, 179), 59. Beckwith v. Frisbie (32 Vt 559), 58a, 76, 328, 331. Beebe v. Ayres (28 Barb. 375), 572. Beebe v. Johnson (19 Wend. 500), 319. Beems v. Eailroad Co. (58 Iowa, 150), 784 Beeson v. Mining Co. (57 CaL 20), 784 Beisiegel v. Eailroad (40 N. Y. 9), 806. Belger v. Dinsmore (51 N. Y. 166), 126, 240, 249, SSO, 261. Belknap v. Eailroad (49 N. H. 858), 600. BeU V. Cunningham (3 Pet. 69), 774. Bell V. Drew (4 E. D. Smith, 59), 685. Bell V. Moss (5 Wharton, 189), 410, 411, 412. BeU V. Eailroad Co. (6 Mo. App. 363), 870. BeU V. Eeed (4 Binney, 137), 189. BeUsdyke Coal Co. v. Eailway Co. (3 N. & M. 105), 303. BenaUeck v. People (81 Mich. 300), 756a. ^ Benjamin v. Benjamin (15 Conn. 347), 468. Benjamin v. Stremple (ly IlL 466), 428. Benner v. Insurance Ca (6 Allen, 222), 471. Bennett v.. Byram (88 Miss. 17), 339, 331, 835. Bennett v. Button (10 N. H. 481), 498, 538. ■ Bennett v. Express Co. (— Me. — ), 40a Bennett v. Express Co. (12 Ore. 49), 68, 349a, 378. Bennett v. Filyaw (1 Fla. 403), 148. Bennett v. Peninsular St. Bt. Co. (6 Com. B. 775), 153, 537. Bennett v. Eailroad (36 N. J. 335), 673, 674. Bennett v. Eailroad (5 Hun, 599), 574. Bennett v. Railroad Co. (57 Conn. 423), 519. Benson, Ex parte (18 S. C. 38), 303. Benson v. Titcomb (73 Me. 31), 803. Benton v. Fay (64 111. 417), 776. Benton v. RaUroad (43 Iowa, 193), 803. Benton v. Railroad Co. (55 Iowa, 496), 784.. Berg V. Railroad Co. (30 Kan. 561), 149, 149a, 1496. Berg V. Steamship Co. (5 Daly, 394), 153. - Bergheim t. Railway Co.. (3 C. P. Div. 231), 693a, 6936. Berkley v. Watling (7 Ad. & E. 29), .133. Bemstlne v. Express Co. (40 Ohio St. 451), 68, 734. Beriy v. Cooper (38 Ga. 543), 360, 766. Berry v. RaUway Co. (73 Wis. 197), 500. Bethea v. RaUroad Co. (26 S. 0.^91), 5806. BetheU v. Clark (20 Q. B. Div. 615), 416. Betts V. Transportation Co. (31 Wis. 80), 316, 331, 333, 348a. Biddle v. Bond (6 Best & S. 225), 404. B gelow V. Heaton (4 Denio, 496), 479. BUlman v. Raikoad Co. (76 Ind. 166), 809, 8096. BUls V. Railroad Co. (84 K. Y. 5), 323. Binns v. Pigot (9 C. & P. 308), 489, 494. Bird V. Brown (4 Exch. 786), 411, 418. 816. Bird V. CromweU (1 Mo. 58), 330. Bird V. RaUroad Co. (73 Ga. 655), 468, 478. Birge v. Gardiner (19 Conn. 507), 803. xlii TABLE OF CASES. Beferenees are to sections. Birkett v. EaUway (4 H. & N. 730), 806. Birkett v.' Willan (3 Bam. & Aid. . 356), 239, 341. Birmingham v. Railroad Co. (14 N. Y. Suppl. 13), 514 Bishell V. Huntington (3 N. H. 143), 426. Bissell V. Railroad (25 N. Y. 443; 39 Barb. 602), 218, 364, 513, 585. Bissell V. EaUroad (23 N. Y. 258), 153. Bixby-v. Bennett (3 Daly, 225), 475. BizzeU V. Booker (16 Ark. 308), 809. Black V. Baxendale (1 Exch. 410), 338, 771, 773. Black V. Goodrich Transp. Co. (55 Wis. 319), 333, 350, 375. Black V. RaUroad Co. ( — Neb. — ), 201. Black V. Railway Co. (Ill 111. 351), 340, 259. Blackett v. Exchange Ass'n Co. (3 Cromp. & J. 344), 126&. Blackstock v. Raikoad (20 N. Y. 48), 334. Blair v. Railroad (66 N. Y. 313), 261, 563, 564. Blake v. Railway Co. (78 lo-yra, 57), 654 Blake Y. Railway (18 Q. B. 93), 788. Blakeley v. Le Due (19 Minn. 187), 101. Blanchard v. Ely (21 Wend. 343), 773. Blanchard v. Isaacs (3 Barb. 388), 59, 87, 96. Blanchard v. Page (8 Gray, 381), 129, 134, 138, 395, 451, 724 Bland v. Express Co. (1 DuvaJl, 233), 306. Bland v. Railroad Co. (55 CaL 570), 571, 591a, 5915. Bland v. Womack (2 Mui-phey, 378), 30. ,Bhtch V. Railroad Ca^(76 Ga. 833), 653. ' Blitz T. Steamboat Co. (51 Mich. 650), 813a. Bliven v. Railroad Co. (85 Barb. 191), 210c, 400, 401. Bliven v. Railroad Co. (36 N. Y. 407), 310c, 398. Block V. Bannerrnan (10 La. Ann. 1), 629. Block V. Railroad Co. (139 Mas& 308), 162a, 170. Bloomingdale v. RaUroad Co. (6 Lea, 616), 431. Blossom V. Dodd (43 N. Y. 264), 345. Blossom T. Griffin (13 N. Y. 569), 89, 10.3, 246. Blossom V. Smith (3 Blatch. 316), 358. Blower v. Railway (L. R 7 C. P. 655), 319, 223. Blowers v. Cable (19 Fed. Rep. 444), 474 Bliim V. Car Co. (1 Flip. 500), Slid, 617/. Blum V. Marks (31 La. Ann. 368), 410. Blum et ai v. The Caddo (I Woods, 64), 724, 731. Blumantle v. The Railroad (127 Mass. 333), 685a. Bradshaw v. Railway Co. (L. R 10 C. P. 189), 789. Blumenthal v. Brainerd (38 Vt 463), 67a, 370. Blumenthal v. The Raihoad (79 Ma 550), 685. Blythe v. Railway Co. (15 Colo. 333), 1806, 183, 185d, 202. Boast V. Fttth (L. R 4 C. P. 1), 319. Bodley v. Reynol(fe (8 Q. B. 779), 328.) Boehl V. Railway Ca (44 Minn. 191), 218. Boehm v. Combe (3 M. & & 172), 2776. Boggs V. Martin (13 B. Mon. 239), 480. Bohannan v. Hammond (43 Cal. 227), 216. Boice V. Railroad (61 Barb. 611), 576. Boland v. RaUroad (36 Ma 484), 666, 667. Bolton V. Railway (1 L. R C. P. 431), 417. Bomar v. MaxweU (9 Humph. 631)^ 60, 682. Bonce v. Railroad Ca (DS Iowa, 278), 59, 803. TABLE OF CASES. Keferenees are to sections, ^oner v. Steamboat Co. (1 Jones (N. C), 211), 329. Bonner v. Glenn (— Tex. — ), 653. Bonner v. Marsh (10 Smedes & M. ,: 3'7«), 135, 734. Books V. Danville (95 Penn. St. 158), 783a. Boorman v. Express Co. (31 Wis. 152), 287, 240, 249. Booth V. Terrell (16 Ga. 20), 436. Booth V. Wilson (1 B. & Aid. 59), 29. Bork V. Norton (2 McLean, 422), 233, 456. Borries v. Hutchinson (18 C. B. 445), 774. 3osch V. Eailroad Co. (44 Iowa, 403), xliii Boson T. Sandford (2 Salk. 440), 65. Boson V. Sandford (3 Shower, 478), 762. Boscowitz V. Express Co. (93 HL 533), 68, 250, 295a. Bostwick V. Champion (11 Wend. 571), 159, 169, 515. Bostwick V. Kaih-oad (45 N. Y. 712), 138, 198, 347, 270, 815. Bostworth V. Swansey (10 Met 368), 673. .Boucher and Lawson (Cas. T. Hardw. 194), 133. Bourne v. Gatliffp (3 Man. & Gran. 643), 358. Bowen v. Eailroad Co. (18 N. Y. 408), 506. Bowler v. Lane (3 Met (Ky.) 311), 789, '812, 814a. Bowles V. Railroad Co. (46 Hun, 324), 784. Bowman \. Hilton (11 Ohio, 303), 66, 168, 476. Bowman v. Teall (33 Wend. 306), S8, 58a, 66, 178, 331, 335. Bowring V. Thpbaud (43 Fed. Bep. 794), 393. Bpyce V. Anderson (3 Pet 150), 101, 217, 496, 499. Boyce v. Bayliflfe (1 Camp. 58), 680. ■Boyce v. Welch (5 La.: Ann. 623), 386. Boyd V. Dubois (3 Camp., 183), 319. Boylan v. RaUroad Co. (133 U. S. 146), 5806. Boys V. Pink (8 Car. & P. 361), 351. Bracket v. McNair (14 Johns; 170),- ■774: Bradburn v. Railway ,(L. R. 10 Exch. 1), 806.' Bradford v. Downs (126 Penn. St. 633), 666a. Bradford v. Railroad (7 Rich. 301), 148. Bradhurst v. Insurance Co. (9 Johns. 17), 444a. Bradley v. Eailroad (3 Cush. 539), 626. Bradshaw v. Railroad Co. (135 Masa 407), 5807i, 580/, 580fc, 593. Bradstreet v. Baldwm (11 Mass. 339), 444a, 475. Bradstreet v. Heran (3 Blatchf. 116), 125. Bradwell v. Eailroad Co. ( — Penn. — ), 802. Braithwaite v. Power ( — N. Dak. — ), 4Ua, 456. Branch v. Railroad Co. (88 N. C. 572), 360. Brand v. Eailroad (8 Barb. 368), 500, 553. Brandt v. Bowlby (3 B. & Ad. 933), 734, 769. Brasher v. Railway Co. (13 Colo. 384), 349c. Brass v. Maitland (6 ,EL & B. 470), 219, 440. Brassell v. Railroad Co. (84 N. Y. 341), 661a. Brawley v. Watson (3 Bond, 356), 79. Bryton v. Chase (3 Wis. 456), 7686. Brazier v. Polytechnic Inst (1- F. & F. 507), 513. Breckenfelder v. Railway Co. ( — Mich. — \ 784 Breese v. Eailroad Co. (53 N. J. L, 250), 793. Breese v. U. S. TeL Co. (48 K Y. 183), 81. Brehme v. Express Co. (35 Md. 338), 349. xliv TABLE OF CASES. Iteferences are to sections. Brehme v. Dinsmore (25 Md. 329), 350. Breen v. Railroad Co. (109 N. Y. 297), 613. Bremner v. "Williams (1 C. & P. 414), 513a, 531. Brennan v. Mill Co. (44 Fed. Rep. 795), 786. Bretherton v. Wood (3 B. & B. 54), 587, 741. Brewer v. Railroad Co. (124 N. T. 59), 564 Bricker v. Railroad Co. (132 Penn. St 1), 554, 555. Briddon v. Railway (28 L. J. Exch. 51 ; 32 L. T. 94), 339. Bridge V. Railway (3 M. & W. 344), 663. Bridger v. Railroad Co. (25 S. C.,24), '666a. Bridges v. Railway (L. R 6 Q. B. 377 ; L. R 7 H. L. App. 213), 615, 616, 638, 669. Bridges v. Stickney (38 Me. 361), 768b. Bridgman v. Steamboat Emily (18 Iowa, 509), 774. Brien v. Bennett (8 C. & P. 724), 556. Briggs V. Railroad Co. (28 Barb. 515), 771. Briggs V. Railroad' (6 Allen, 246), 63, 103a, 108, 365, 431, 478a. 491a, 494. Briggs V. Vanderbilt (19 Barb. 333), 166. Brignold v. Waterhouse (1 M. & S. 359), 253. Brind v. Dale (8 Car. & P. 307), 88, 58, 61, 82, 86, 101. Brintnall v. Railroad (32 Vt. 665), 103, 149, 761. Bristol V. Wilsmore (1 B. & Co. 514), 481. British S. Mill Co. v. Nettleship (L. R 3 C. P. 499), 773, 774. Brittan v. Barnaby (31 How. 537), 345, ' 469, 480, 488. Britton v. Railroad Co. (88 N. C. 536), 649. Broadwell v. Butler (6 McL. 396), 829, 841. Granara (10 Exch. Broadwood r. 417), 489. Bronson v. Southbury (37 Conn. 199), 667. Brooke v. Pickwick (4 Bing. 218), 60, 339, 683. Brooke v. Railroad (108 Penn. St 539), 134, 144. Brooke v. Railway (15 Mich. 382), 152, 168, 578. Brooke Iron Co. v. O'Brien (135 Mass. 443), 416a. Brooks V. Sohwerin (54 N. T. 343), 780. Brounoker v. Scott (4 Taunt 1), 473. Brousseau v. Ship Hudson (11 La. Ann. 437), 307. Brower v. Peabody (13 N. Y. 121), 139. Brown v. Clegg (63 Penn. St 51), 79. Brown v. Coal Co. (L. R 10 C. P. 563), 132. Brown v. Collins (53 N. H. 442), 809. Brown v. Comwell (1 Root, 60), 306. Brown v. Dennison (3 Wend. 593), 63. Brown v. Express Co. (15 W. Va. 812), 338, 359a, 766. Brown v. Harris (2 Gray, 359), 471. Brown v. Hodgson (4 Taunt 189), 475. Brown v. Hodgson (3 Camp. 36), 731. Brown v. Railroad Ca (51 Iowa, 335X 590. Brown v. Railroad Co. (7 Fed. Rep. 51), 545, 593. Brown v. Railroad Ca (38 Kans. 634), 571. Brown v. Railroad Ca (66 Ma 588), 591, 810. Brown v. Raikoad (11 Cush. 97), 245, 580, 583. Brown v. Railroad (83 Penn. St 316), 143, 439. Brown v. Railway (54 N. H. 535), 378. Brown v. Railway (58 Ma 384), 666, 666a, 667. Brown V. Railway Ca (49 Mick 153), 803. Brown v. Railway Co. (64 lowq, I 784 TABLE OF OASES. xlv References are to sections. Brown v. Eailway Co. (54 Wis. 342), 770d, 809a. Brown v. Sax (7 Cow. 95), 468. Brown v. Steamship Co. (147 Mass. 58), 770c. Brown v. Tanner (L. R. 3 Chan. 597), 487. Browne v. Railroad Co. ( — N. C. — ), 608a. Bfowirell v. Flaigler (5 Hill, 382), 216. Bruce v. Railroad Co. (83 Ky. 174), 783a, 789a. Brulard v. AMn (45 Fed. Rep. 766), 612. Bruty V. Railway (32 Up. Can. Q. B. 66), 682. Bryan v. Railway Co. (32 Mo. Ap. 228), 586. Bryan v. Railroad (11 Bush, 597), 145. Bryan v. Spurgin (5 Sneed, 681), 319. Bryant y. Biddeford (89 Me. 193), 672. Bryant v. Clifford (13 Mete. 138), 426. Bryant v. Insurance Co. (13 Pick. 543), 485. Bryant v. Insurance Co. (6 Pick. 131). 444a. Biyant v. Railroad Co. (68 Ga. 805), 3220. Bryant v. Rich (106 Mass. 180), 597. Bucher v. Eaikoad Co. (98 N. Y. 128), 648, 661c. Buchfer V. Railroad Co. (131 Mass. 156), 672. Buck V. Biddeford (83 Me. 433), 672. Buck T. Railway Co. (15 Daly, 550), - 552a. Buckland v. Adams Exp. Co. (97 Mass. 134), 70, 115a, 157. Buckle> V. Knoop (3 L. R. Exch, 125, 333), 458. Buckley v. Fumiss (15 Wend. 137), 416. Buckley v. EaUroad (18 Mich. 131), 374. Buckman V. Levi (3 Camp. 414), 82, 92. Buddy V. Railroad Co. (20 Mo. Ap. 206), 370. Budgett V. Binnington (35 Q. B. Div, 820), 473. Buel V. Railroad (31 N./Y. 314), 534, 662. Buffett V. Railroad (40 N. Y. 168), 153, 560, 565. BufEett V. Railroad (36 Barb. 430), 560. Buenemann v. Railway Co. (83 Minn. 390), 518. Buesching v. Gas-Light Co. (73 Mo. 320), 802. Bulkley v. Naumkeag S. C. Co. (24 How. 386), 95, 184, 288. Buller V. Fisher (3 Esp. 67), 283. Bunch V. Railway Co. (17 Q. B. Div. 315), 698&. Burbank v. Railroad Co. (43 La. Ann. 1156), 557. Burgess v. Clements (4 Maule & S. 806), 546. Burgess v. Gun (3 Har. & J. 335), 476. Burgess v. Railway (6 Com. B. (N. S.) 933), 519. Burgess v. Wickham (8 B. & S. 669, 693), 508. Burke v. Railroad Co. (34 How. Pr. 339), 781a. Burke v. Railroad (49 Barb. 529), 666. Burkholder v. Trust Co. (82 Mo. 573), 756a. Burley v. Gladstone (3 M. & S. 305) 478. Bumell V. Railroad (45 N. Y. 184), 711, 713, 713. Burnett v. Lynch (5 B. & C. 589), 795. Burnham v. Railroad Co. (63 Ma 398), 580, 5801, 5916. Burns v. Railroad Co. (50 Mo. 139), 653a. Bums V. Raihroad Co. (113 Ind. 169), 789a. Burns v. Railway (50 Mo. 139), 664. Burroughes v. Bayne (5 H. & N. 396), 405. Burroughs v. Railroad (100 Mass. 36), 103a, 149, 153a, 153, 168, 368. Burrows v. Railway (63 N. Y. 556), 643. Bm-tis V. EaUroad (24 N. Y. 269), 152, 153. xlvi TABLE OF OASES. Kefereuces are to sections. Burton v. English (13 Q. B. Div. 334), 275. Burton v. Ferry Co. (114 U. S. 474), 609, 610. Burton v. Pinkerton (L. R. 2 Ex. 340), 809. Burton v. Railroad Co. (83 N. C. 504), 784. Burton v. Wilkinson (18 Vt 186), 398. Burwell v. Railroad Co. (94 N. C. 455), , 761. Burwell v. Railroad Co. (94 N. C. 451), 2956. Bush V. Railway Co. (3 Mo. App. 63), 348a, 352. Bushel V. Wheeler (15 Q. B. 443), 135. Bussey V. Trans. Co. (24 La. Ann. 165), 71. Butcher v. Railway (16 Com. B. 18), 678, 691. Butler V. Basing (2 Car. & P. 613), 59. Butler V. Murray (30 N. Y. 88), 435. Butler V. Railroad Co. (8 Lea, 82), 370. Butler V. Railway Co. ( — Penn. St ^-), 658a. Butler V. Railway Co. (L. R. 21 Q. B. Div. 307), 590. Butler V. Wolcott (2 Bos. & P. N. R 64), 489. Butt Y. Railway (11 Com. B. 140), 229. Button V. Frink (51 Coim. 842), 808. Buxton V. Railway Co. (li. R. 8 Q. B. 549), 514. Byrne v. Boadle (2 H. & C. 733), 531. Byrne v. Railroad Co. (83 N. Y. ,620), 666a. Byrne v. Weeks (7 Bosw. 373), 125a. Cabeen v. Campbell (6 Casey, 354), 416. Oadwallader v. Railway (9 Low. Can. 169), 683. Cahill V. Railway (10 Com. B. (N. S.) 154; 13 id. 818), 681, 685. Caihff V. Danvers (1 Peake, N. P. 114), 88. Cairns v. Robins (8 M. & W. 358), 878. Calahan v. Babcook (31 Ohio St 381), 415. Caldwell v. Murphy (11 N. Y. 416), 796. CaldweU v. Murphy (1 Duer, 283), 500, 796, 806. Caldwell v. N. J. Steamboat Co. (56 Barb. 435), 184. CaldweU t. Steamboat Co. (47 N. Y. 282), 184, 500, 506, 509, 513, 5S9, 536, 626, 813, 813, 814, 815a. Callahan v. Bean (9 Allen, 401), 667. Callender v. Ins. Co. (5 Bin. 525), 456, " 458. Camden T. Co. v. Belknap (31 Wend. 354), 100. Camp V. Steamboat Co. (43 Conn. 333), 337, 360, 754 Cammell v. Sewell (3 H. & N. 617; S id. 738), 433. Campbell v. Alford.(57 Tex. 159), 129. Campbell v. Car Co. (43 Fed. Rep. 484), 602. Campbell v. Morse (1 Harper, 468), 188. Campion v. Golvin (3 Bing. N. C. 17), 485. Canal Co. v. Graham (63 Penn. St 390), 805. Candee v. Railroad (31 Wis. 583), 152, 514, 715. Candee v. Telegraph . Ca (34 Wis. 479), 768b. Candiff v. Railway Co. (43 La. Arm. — ), 538a. Canfleld v. Railroad Ca (93 N. Y. 533), 364, 370, 366a. Cannan v. Meaburn (1 Bing. 243), 433, 436. Cantu V. Bennett (89 Texas, 803), 141. Cantling v. The Railroad (54 Mo. 385), . 78, 685. Cai-d y. Ellsworth (65 Me. 547), 663. Carey v. Railroad (1 Cush. 475), 777. Cai-ey v. Raihoad (39 Barb. 35), 7ia Cargo ex Argos (L. R 5 P. C. 135), 866a. Cai-lisle v. Brisbane (118 Penn. St 544), 674. Carlisle v. Keokuk, eta Ca (82 Ma 40), 750. Carlisle v. Sheldon (38 Vt 440), 781ft TABLE OF CASES. xlvii Keferences are to sections. Carpenter v. Railway Co. (73 Me. 388), 576. Carpenter v. Railroad Co. (97 N. Y. 494), 561. Carpenter v. Railroad Co. (134 N. T. 53^ 617d, 617/. Carpue v. Railway (5 Ad. & El. (N. S.) 747), 535, 663, 800. Carr v. Railway (7 Exoh. 707), 318, 219, 221, 232, 447. Carr V. Schafer (15 Colo. 48), 395a, 295c. CaiToU V. Railroad (1 Duer, 571), 654. Carroll v. Railroad (58 N. Y. 126). 500, 508, 507, 509, 513» 563, 623, 671. Carsten v. Railroad Co. (44 Minn. 454), 580c?, 809. ' Carter v. Peck (4 Sneed, 303), 148, 158, 168, 398. Cai-ter v. Graves (9 Yerger, 446), 736. Carter v. Railroad Co. (19 S. C. 30), -802. Carter v. Railway Co. (42 Fed- Rep. 37), 507, 800. Caruthefs v. Sheddon' (6 Taunt 14), 429. Cass V. Railroad Co. (14 Allen, 448, 450), 102a. Cassedy v. Stockbridge (21 Vt 391), 668. Cassidy v. Angell (13 R. I. 44), 803. Caswell V. Railroad (98 Mass. 194), 534, 559, 663. Caton V. Rumney (13 Wend. 387), 79. Gaze V. Ins. Co.' (7 Cranch, 358), 456, 458. Central, etc. Co. v. Roach (70 Ga. 434), 783a. Certain Logs of Mahogany (3 Sumn. 589), 469, 486. ChaflFe v. Railroad (59 Miss. 182), 135. Chalk V. Railroad Co. (85 N. C. 423), 370, 375. Chamberlain v. Chandler (3 Mason, 243),*631. Chamberlain v. Williamson (3 Maule & a 408), 793. Champion V. Bostwick (18 Wend. 175), 159, 169, 515. Chance v. Railway Co. (10 Mo. App. 351), 580Z; Chandler v. Belden (18 Johns. 157), 488. 494. Chandler v. Fulton (10 Tex. 2), 411. Chapin v. Railroad Co. ( — Iowa, — ), 185e. Chapman v. Railroad (19 N. Y. 341), 674. Chapman v. Railway (26 Wis. 295), 769. Chapman v. Rothwell (EL B. & E. 168), 562. Chase v. Ins. Co. (13 Barb. 595), 429. Chase v. Ins. Co. (9 AUen, 311), 471. Chase v. Railroad Co. (77 Me. 63), 803. Chase v. Railroad (26 N. Y. 538), 571. Chase v. Westmore (5 M. & S. 180), 483. Cheney V. Railroad Co. (11 Meto. 131), 575, 576, 580/, 591&, 612. Cheesman v. Exall (6 Exch. 341), 404.'^ Chesley v. St Clair (1 N. H. 189), 436. ChevaUier v. Straham (2 Tex. 115), 53, 183. Chpviot V. Brooks (1 Johns. 364), 401a. Chicago V. Major (18 111. 349), 787, 789. Chicago V. O'Brennan (65 lU. 160), 806. Chicago V. Powers (42 IlL 169), 784. Chicago V. Starr (42 HI. 174), 667. Chicago R R. T. Thompson (19 lU. 578), 67, 214. Chiokering t. Fowler (4 Pick. 371), 357, 358. Child V. Sands (Carth. 294), 741. Chippendale v. Railway (7 Eng. L. & E. 395), 239. Cholette v. Railroad Co. (26 Neb. 159), 613. ' Chouteau v. Str. St Anthony (16 Mo. 316; 30 id. 519), 74. Chouteaux v. Leech (18 Penn. St 234), 386, 320. Christian v. Railway Co. (79 Ga 460), 600. Christenson v. American Exp. Ca (15 Miim. 270), 44^ 71, 365. xlviii TABLE OF OASES. References are to sections. Christie v. Griggs (2 Camp. 79), 500, 501. Christie v^ Railway Co. (94 Mo. 453), 303. Christie, The Craighton (41 Fed. Rep. 62), 389, 767. Christy v. Row (1 Taunt 300), 451. Churchill v. Railroad (67 IlL 390), 575. Cincinnati Mail Co. v. Coal (15 Ind. 345), 74 Citfzens' Bank v. Nantucket Steam- boat Co. (2 Story, 16), 55, 57, 66, 74, 78. City V. Kuby (8 Minn. 154), 667. City pf Ripon v. Bittel (30 Wis. 614), 806. Claflin V. Railroad (7 AUen, 341), 349. Clapp V. Stanton (30 La. Ann. 495), 79. Clare v. Steamship Co. (20 Fed. Rep. 535), 515e. Clark V. Barnwell (IS How. 379), 65, 66, 135, 125a, 138, 307, 766, 767. Clark V. Bums (118 Mass. 375), 696. Clark V. Insurance Co. (3 Pick. 104), 444a, 464. Clark V. Masters (1 Bosw. 177), 469. Clark ads. McDonald (4 McCord, 223), 101, 217. Clark V. Needles (35 Penn. St 888), 89. Clark V. Railway Co. (64 Mo. 440), 348a. Clark V. Raihoad Co. (91 N. C. 506), 56771, 591a, 810. Clark V. Raihoad (32 Barb. 657), 664. Clark V. Railroad (9 Gray, 331), 491. Clark V. Union Ferry Co. (35 N. Y. 485), 58. Clarke v. Gray (6 East, 564), 756. Clarke v. Railroad Co. (14 N. Y. 570), 218, 331, 332. Clarkson v. Edes (4 Cow. 470), 476, 485. Clay V. Raih-oad Co. (84 Ga. 845), 788o. Clay V. Willan (1 H. Bl. 297), 250, 252. Claypool V. McAllister (20 111. 504), 58. Cleghorn v. Raiboad (56 N. Y. 44), 586, 814, 816. Clemson v. Davidson (5 Bin. 892), 476. Clendaniel v. Tuckerman (17 Barb. 184), 386, 473. Cleveland v. Steamboat Co. (68 N. Y. 306), 504 Cleveland v. Steamboat Co. (89 N. Y. 637), 504 Cleveland v. Steamboat Co. (1^5 N. Y. 299), 504 Clifford V. Railroad Co. (9 Colo. 333), 809a. Chnton v. Root (58 Mich. 182), 661c. Clotworthy v. Railway Co. (80 Mo. 330), 612, 613. Cloud V. Railway Co. (14 Mo. App, 136), 5806. Clough V. Railroad Co. (L. R 7 Eich. 26), 348a. Clyde V. Hubbard (88 Penn. St 358), 149. Coal, One hundred and Fifty-one Tons of (4 Blatch. 362), 481. Coates V. Express Co. (45 Mo. 338), 715. Coates V. Railton (6 B. & C. 432), 416. Coats V. Chaplin (3 Q. B. 483), 731. Cobb V. Abbot (14 Pick. 289), 158, 161. Cobb V. Howard (3 Blatch. 524), 608, 634 Cobb T. Raiboad (48 HL 403), 403. Cochran v. Dinsmore (49 N. Y. 349), 766, 767. Cock V. Taylor (13 East, 899), 44a Cockburn v. Alexander (6 C. B. 791), 475. Cockle V. RaUway (L. R. 7 C. P. 331), 615. Cody V. Raikoad Ca (151 Mass. 462), 654 Cody V. Raih-oad Ca (4 Saw. 114), 580d Coffin V. Railroad (64 Barb. 379), 329. Coffin V. Storer (5 Mass. 352), 462. Coger V. Packet Ca (37 Iowa, 145), 542. Coggs V. Bernard (1 Sm. L. Cas. 383 ; a Ld. Raym. 909), 2, 17, 38, 83, 84, 40, 55, ■ 65, 178, 204 324, 803, 566, 788. TABLE OF OASES. yli'y References are to sections. Coggill T. Railroad (3 Gray, 545), 430. Cohen v. Frost (3 Duer, 885), 85, 86, 697, 698. Cohen v. Hume (1 McCord, 439), 58, 101. Cohn V. Davidson (3 Q. B. Div. 455), 393. Cole V. Goodwin (19 Wend. 351), 59, 60, 66, 339, 1496, 335, 355. Colegrove v. Railroad (30 N. Y. 493), 515a, 653, 674. ©oleman v. Lambert (5 M. &W. 503), 448. Coleman v. Railroad Co. (84 Ga. 1), 553a, 613. Coleman v. Riches (16 Com. B. 104), 132. Coles V. Bulman (6 Com. B. 184), 475. Colgate V. Penn. Co. (103 N. Y. 130), 130a, 133. CoUard V. RaUway (7 Hurl. & N. 79), 771. CoUender v. Dinsmore (55 N. Y. 166), 126. Collett V. Railway (16 Q. B. 984), 40, 563. Coffins V. Bums (63 N. Y. 1), 349. Collins V. Davidson (19 Fed. Rep. 83), 784. Collins V. Raih-oad (10 Gush. 506), 685, 701, 703. Collins V. Railway Co. (80 Mich. 390), 519. Collins V. Railway (11 Exch. 790), 147, 3806. Coffins V. Trans. Co. (10 Watts, 384), 451. CoUman v. Collins (3 HaU, 569), 476, 491. Colt y; MoMechen (6 Johns. 160), 177. Colton V. RaUroad (67 Penn. St. 311), 360, 766, 767. Colyai V. Taylor (1 Cold. 373), 36. Commander-in-Chief, The (1 Wall 43), 66. Commerce, Prop. (1 Black, 574), 66. Commonwealth v. Insurance Co. (133 Mass. 136), 439. Commonwealth v. Power (7 Met 596), 533, 533, 546. Commonwealth v. Railroad (108 Mass. 7), 360, 564, 565, 567. Commonwealth v. Railroad Co. (107 Mass. 336), 789. Compton V. Shaw (1 Hun, 441), 488. Conant v. GrifiSn (48 la 410), 784, 788. Condiot V. RaUway (54 N. Y. 500), 149, 149a, 183, 198, 393. Condict V. Railway (4 Lans. 106), 145. Condon v. Railroad Co. (55 Mich. 318), 103, 105. Congar v. Railroad (17 Wia 485), 131c, 731. Congar v. Railroad Co. (34 Wis. 157), 316, 3496. Conger v. Railroad (6 Duer, 375), 231, 331, 771. ' Conkey v. Railway (31 Wis. 619), 104. Connell v. Putnam (58 N. H. 534), 779. Connell v. Railroad Co. ( — Miss. — ), 588a. Connelly v. Boston (117 Mass. 64), 672. Conner v. Paul (13 Bush, 144), 789. Conner v. Railway Co. (105 Ind. 63). 645a. Conners v. Railway Co. (71 Iowa, 490), 783a. Connolly v. Warren (106 Mass. 146), 685, 688. Connors v. Railway Co. (71 Iowa, 490), 789. Conolly V. Railroad Co. (41 La. Ann. 57), 670. Contra Costa Raih-oad v. Moss (33 Cal. 334), 67. Converse v. Railroad Co. (58 N. H. 531), 349c. Converse v. Trans. Co. (33 Conn. 166), 99, 106, 153, 164. Convoy's Wheat (3 Wall 355), 103a. ConweU v. Voorhees (13 Ohio, 533), 81. Cook V. Gourdin (3 Nott & McO. 19), 58, 101. Cook V. Jennings (7 T. R 381), 456. Cook V. Navigation Co. (76 Tex. 353), 565, 1 TABLE OF CASES. Beferences are to sectiona Cook V. Railway Co. (— Iowa, — ), 303. Cook V. Railroad Co. (60 CaL 604), 784. Cooke V. Waring (3 HurL & C. 333), 799. Coombs V. Railway (3 Hurl. &N. 510), 735. Cooper V. Railroad Co. (6 Hun, 276), 661c. Cooper V. Railway Co. (66 Mich. 371), 784. Cooper V. Railway Co. (L. R. 4 Exch. Div. 88), 573. Cooper V. Railway Co. ( — Ala. — ), 764. Cooper V. Young (33 Ga. 369), 77a Cope V. Cordova (1 Rawle, 203), 357. Copper Co. v. Copper Mining Co. (33 Vt 92), 773. Copper Co. v. Insurance Co. (33 Pick. 108), 304. Coppin V. Braithwaite (8 Jurist, 875), 545, 591, 810. Corbett v. Packington (6 B. &C. 268), 744. Corcoran v. Railroad Co. (133 Mass. 507), 789, 803. Corey v. Bath (35 N. H. 530), 673. Cork Distill. Co. v. Railway Co. (L. R. 7 H. L. Cas. 369), 451. Cornman v. Railway (4 H. & N. 781), 531. Cory V. Ironworks Co. (L. R. 3 Q. B. 181), 773, 774. Cosgrove v. Ogden (49 N. Y. 355), e66a. Costello V. Railroad (65 Barb. 93), 539. Costello V. Laths (44 Fed. Rep. 105), 479. Costigan v. Transportation Co. (33 Mo. App. 369), 283. ' Costikyan v. Railroad Co. (12 N. Y. Suppl. 683). 650. Cotchett V. Railway Co. (84 Ga. 687), 515e, 649. Cotton V. Wood (8 Com. B. (N. S.) 568), 799. Coulter V. Express Co. (56 N. Y. 585), 662. Coulthurst V. Sweet (K R. 1 G. P. 649), 453. Councill V. Railroad Co. (1 Inter-St Com. 339), 542. Coup V. Railroad (56 Mich. Ill), 566, 75a. Covell V. Hitchcock (23 Wend. 611X 135, 410. Covin V. HiU (4 Denio, 333), 430. Covington Stock Yards v. Keith (139 U. S. 138), 395d. Covington Ti-ans. Co. v. Kelly (86 Ohio St. 86), 674 Coward v. Railroad Co. (16 Lea, 235), 250, 260. Cowley T. Davidson (13 Minn. 93), 774.- Cox V. Bruce (L. R. 18 Q. B. Div. 147), 122, 1256. Cox V. Burns (1 Iowa, 64), 420. Cox V. Peterson (30 Ala. 608), 183. Cox V. Railway ( — Ala. — , 8 S. Rep. 824), 750. Cox V. United States (6 Pet 172), 144a. Cox V. Vanderkleed (31 Ind. 164), 805. Coxon V. Railway (5 HurJ. & N. 274), 147, 273. Craf ter v. RaUway (L. R 1 C. P. 300), 521. Cragm v. Railroad (51 N. Y. 61), 216a, 218, 221, 3230. Craig V. Childi-ess (Peck, 270), 51. Craighead v. Raih-oad Co. (123 N. Y. 391), 504. Craker v. Railway (36 Wis. 657), 542, 552, 602, 791, 815, 816. Cram v. Raikoad Co. (112 Mass. 38), 645a. Cranston v. Marshall (5 Exch. 395), 634, 809. CranweU v. Ship Fanny Fosdick (15 La. Ann. 436), 307. Crater v. Binninger (4 Vroom, 513X 772. Crawford v. Clark (15 HL 561), 369, 866, 374 Crawford v. Paper Go. (34 Fed. Rep. 803), 47& TABL6 OF CASES. H Keferences are to sections. Crawford v. Eailroad (51 Miss. 222), 149. Crawford v. Railroad Co. (36 Ohio St. 580), 572. Crawford v. Williams, (1 Sneed, 205), A 456,464 Crawshay v. Homfray (4 B. & Aid. 50), 485. Creed v. Railroad Co. (86 Penn. St. 139), 654. Creery v. HoUy (14. Wend. 26), 1266, 305. Cresson v. Railroad Co. (11 Phila. 597), 572. Crine v. Railway Co. (84 Ga. 651), Crjssey t. Railway (75 Penn. St. 83), 665, 667. Crocker v. Railroad (24 Conn. 249), 571, 600. Croft V. Railroad (1 MaoA. 492), 168. Cirofts V. Waterhouse (8 Bing. 319 ; 11 Moore, 133), 497, 498, 533. Crommelin v. Eailroad (4 Keyes (N. Y.),90), 474, 478. Cronkite v. Wells (32 N. Y. 247), 87, 96, 115. Crosby v. Fitch (13 Conn. 410), 66, 178, 190, 199, 312, 332, 333. Crosby v. Raih'oad Co! (69 Me. 418) 580. Cross V. O'Donnell (44 N. Y. 661), 185. Cross V. Railway Co. (69 Mich. 363), 519. Crossan t. Railroad Co. (149 Mass. 196), 478. Crouch V. Eaih-oad Co. (21 S. C. 495), 802. Crouch V. Railway (7 Exch. 705), 439. Crouch V. Railway (11 Exch. 742), 774. Crouch -v. Railway (14 Com. B. 355), 55, 213, 439; Crouch V. Railway (3 HurL & N. 491 ; 3 id. 183), 147,392,405. Crouch V. Railway (3 Car. & Kir. 789), 338. Crow T. Falk (8 Q. B. Div. 467), 393. Crowley v. Cohen (3 B. & Ad. 478), 439. Crozier v. Steamboat Co. (43 How. Pr. 466), 698. Crumpley v. Railway Co. (98 Mo. 36), 789. Cuba, The (3 Ware, 360), 444, 445. Cuddy V. Horn (46 Mich. 596), 515a, 674. Cuming v. Railroad Co. (109 N. Y. 95), 779. Curl V. Railway Co. (63 Iowa, 417), 591a, 815a. Curling v. Long (1 B. &P. 634), 476. Curtis V. Railroad (18 N. Y. 584), 513, 536, 663, 799, 800, 801, 805. Curtis Y. Railroad (20 Barb. 283), 507, 526. Curtis V. Railroad (49 Barb. 148), 710. Curtis V. Railway (74 N. Y. 116), 144, 678, 682&, 686, 702a. Cutler V. Railway Co. (19 Q. B. Div. 64), 706. Cuttmg V. Railway (13 AHen, 381), 770a, 771, 774. Cutts V. Brainerd (43 Vt 566), 157. Da Costa v. Edmonds (4 Camp. 141), 306. Dahlberg v. Railway Co. (32 Minn. 404), 658a. Dakin v. Oxley (15 Com. B. (N. S.) 646), 443, 446. Dale V. Hall (1 Wil. 381), 53, 739. Daley v. Railroad (36 Conn. 591), 666, 667. Dalston v. Janson (1 Ld. Eaym. 58), 757. Dalton V. Railway Co. (4 C. B. 396), 784. 786. Damont v. Railroad (9 La. Ann. 441), 643. Daniels v. Ballantine (33 Ohio St 533), 195, 809. Daniels v. Clegg (38 Mich. 33), 666. DanyUle Turnpike Co. v. Stewart (2 Mete. (Ky.) 119), 674 Dargan v. Car Co. (3 Wils. 607), 617d Darling v. Railroad (11 Allen, 395), 149, 1496, 168. lii TABLE OF CASES. References are to sections. Dart V. Ensign (47 N. Y. jB19), 450. David V. Railroad Co. (41 Ga. 233), 806. Davidson v. Graham (3 Ohio St. 131), 44, 387, 340, 260, 764. Davis V. Eailroad Co. (1 Disney, 33), 771. Davis V. Bradley (38 Vt 118), 139. DavU V. Button (78 Cal. 347), 67. Davis V. Garrett (6 Bing. 716), 191, 199, 308, 309, 312, 828, 338. Davis V. Graham (3 Ohio St), 766. Davis V. James (5 Bun-. 3680), 451. Davis V. Pattison (34 N. Y. 317), 448. Davis V. Eailroad (22 Bl. 278), 682, 717. Davis V. Eailroad (58 Mo. 317), 609. Davis V. Raihroad (10 How. Pr. 330), 683. Davis V. Eailroad Co. (45 Fed. Eep. 543), 554. Davis V. Eailway Co. ( — Ark. — ), 788a. Davis V. Eailroad Co. (131 Mass. 134), 515&. Davis V. Eailroad Co. (148 Mass. 301), 789a. Davis V. Eaih-oad Co. (89 Mo. 840), 176, 185e, 767. Davis V. Somerville (138 Mass. 594), 672. Davis & Jordan v. James (5 Burr. 3680), 736. Davison v. City Bank (57 N. Y. 81), 448, 451, 452. Davi^es v. Peck (8 T. R 330), 135, 451, 723, 731. Dawson v. Burrus (73 Ala. Ill), 1496. Dawson v. Eailroad Co. (76 Mo. 514), 359, 3226. Dawson v. Railway (7 Hurl. & N. 1087), 800. Day V. Owen (5 Mich. 520), 543. Dealey v. Mullen (149 Mass. 433), 666a. Dean v. King (22 Ohio St 118), 13a Dean v. Vaccaro (3 Head, 488), 358, 769. De Baiy, etc. Line v. Eailway (40 Fed. Rep. 892), 750. Debevoise v. Eaili-oad Co. (98 N. Y. 377), 789a. Decan v. Shipper (35 Penn. St 239), 129. De Colange v. The Margaux (37 Fed. Eep. 157), 634. Decuir v. Benson (37 La. Atiti. 1), 543. De Forest v. Leete (16 Johns. 133), 772. De Grau v. Wilson (17 Fed. Eep. 698), 364 De Kay v. Eailway Co. (41 Minn. 178), 66ia. Delamatyr v. Eailroad (24 Wia'578), 519. Delano v. Insuj-ance Co. (10 Mass. 354), 809. De Laurans v. Eailroad (15 Minn. 49), 571. Delaware, The (14WalL 579), 65, 123, 126, 192, 343, 385, 305. De Lucas v. Eailroad Co. (88 La. A Tin. 980), 580c. Del VaUe v. Steamer Eichmond (27 La. Ann. 90), 682, 700. Deming v. Eailroad Co. (48 N. H. 455), 268, 317, 8196, 762, 771, 772. Deming v. Eailroad Ca {21 Fed. Eep. - 25), 166a. Demott V. Laraway (14 Wend. 225), 58a, 66. Dennick v. Eailroad Co. (108 U. S. 11), 788a, 789a. Dennis v. Clark (2 Cush. 347), 777, 779. Denny v. Manhattan Co. (2 Denio, 115), 334 Denny v. Eailroad Co. (13 Gray, 481), 185, 194, 196, 197, 201, 32a Dent V. Chiles (5 Stew. & P. 383), 344. Denton v. Eailway (5 EL & B. 860X 537, 606. Depp V. Eailroad Co. (— Ky. — % 647. Dermott v. Eailway Ca (— Iowa, — ),784 Derosia v. Eailroad (18 Minn. 133), 874 377. De Rothschild v. St Pkt Co. (7Exch. 734), 277. Derwort v. Loomer (21 Conq. 345)y BOO, 507. De SUvale v. Kendall (4 M. & & 87), 743. TABLE OF OASES. liii Keferences are to sections. Despatch Co. v. Cecil (113 IlL 185), 303. Detroit Daily Post v. McArthur (16 Mich. 447), 817. Devereux v. Barclay ^ B. & Aid. 703), 130, 844, 349. Devato v. Plumbago (?0 Fed. Rep. 510), 366&. DeweU v. Moxon (1 Taunt 391), 493. Dewire v. Railroad Co. (148 Mass. 843), 653. De Wolf V. Insurance Co. (30 Johns. 314), 731. Dexter v. Railroad (43 N. Y. 826), 683, 686. \ Deyo V. Railroad (34 N. Y. 9), 537, 799. Dibble V. Brown (12 Ga. 217), 60, 685. Dibble v. Railroad Co. (33 Barb. 183), 7896. Dice V. Transportation Co. (8 Ora 60), 561a. Dickerman v. Union^ Depot Co. (44 Minn. 433), 570. Dickins v. Raihroad (33 N. Y. 158), 777, 788. Bickman v. WiUiams (50 Miss. 500), 135. Dickon v. Clifton (3 Wilson, 319), 743. Dietrich v. Railway Co. (58 Md. 347), 645a. Dietrich v. Railroad Co. (71 Penn. St 433), 575, 576, 580^, 613. DiU V. Railroad (7 Rich. Law, 158), 718. Dillard v. Raihroad Co. (3 Lea, 388), 240. Dilhngham v. RusseU (73 Tex. 47), 815a, 816. Dimmey v. Railroad Co. (27 W. Va. 33), 662, 783a. Directors, eta v. Collins (7 H. L. Cas. 194), 378. Dimmitt v. Railroad Co. ( — Mo. — ), 149c. Dininny v. Railroad (49 N. Y. 546), 714 Directors, etc. v. Collins (7 H. L. Cas. 194), 273. Dixon V. Dunham (14 lU. 334), 366, 366&. Dixon V. RaUroad (74 N. C. 558), 761. Dixon V. Yates (5 B. & Ad. 340), 404 Doan V. Railway Co. (38 Mo. App. 408), 260. Doane v. Russell (3 Gray, 383), 430. Dobbin v. Railroad Co. (56 Mich. 522), 349c. Dodge V. Bartol (5 GreenL 386), 304 Dodge V. Meyer (61 CaL 405), 129. Dodge V. Steamboat Co. (148 Mass. 307), 561a, 611, 647a. Doggett V. Raihroad Co. (78 N. C. 305), 803, 803a. Don V. Lippmann (5 CI. & F. 1), 141. Donaldson v. RaUroad Co. (18 Iowa, 380), 784 806. Doolan v. Railway Co. (L, R. 3 App. Cas. 793), 222. Doorman v. Jenkins (3 A. & E. 256), 29. Doran v. Ferry Co. (3 Lans. 105), 565. DoiT V. New Jersey St. Nav. Co. (1 Ker. 485), 287. Dorrah v. Railroad Co. (65 Miss. 14), 805. Doss V. Railroad Co. (59 Mo. 27), 553a. Dougherty v. Railroad Co. (81 Mo. .330), 500. Dougherty v. Railroad Co. (97 Mo. 647), 500. Dougherty v. Railroad Co. (91 Mo. 647), 805, 806. Dow V. Beidelman (135 U. S. 680), 308&, 567a. Downey v. Hendrie (46 Mich. 498), 653a. Downey v. Railroad Co. (28 W. Va. 782), 813, 815. , Downs V. Railroad Co. (86 Conn. 287), 573, 574 580a, 5807i, 5S0j. Dows V. Bank (91 U. S. 618), 131a. Dows V. Greene (24 N. Y. 638), 129, 131c, 340. Dows V. Perrin (16 N. Y. 335), 139, 240. Dows V. Railway Co. (89 Mo. 340), 767. Doyle V. Kiser (6 Ind. 242), 682. Drake v. Railroad Co. ( — Penn. St — ), 646. Kt TABLE OF OASES. Beferences are to sections. Dresbach v. Railroad Co. (57Cal. 463), 375. Drew V. Bird (1 M. & M. 156), 451. Drew v.- RaUroad Co. (51 CaL 435), 575. Drew V. Railroad (36 N. Y. 49), 599, 7T9, 806. Drew V. Transit Co. (3 Mo. App. 495), 767. Diinkwater v. Brig Spartan (1 Ware, 145), 485. Drummond v. Railroad Co. ( — Utah, — ), 580d. Dry Hides, Nine Thousand (6 Ben. 199), 453. I Dryden v. Railroad Co. (60 Me. 512), 576. Dubuque W. & C. Ass'n v. Dubuque (30 Iowa, 176), 809. Duckworth V. Johnson (4 H. &N. 653), 787. Dudley v. Ferry Co. (45 N. J. L. 368), 803a. Dudley v. Smith (1 Camp. 167), 534^ 613. DufE V. Budd (3 B. & Bing. 177), 130, 341, 344, 351, 352, 395, 735. Duff V. RaUway Co. (L. R (Ira) 4 C. P. 178), 586. Duffy V. Tliompson (4 E. D. Smith, 178), 682. Dufour V. Railroad Co. (67 CaL 319), 638. Du Laurans v. Railroad Co. (15 Minn. 49), 571. Duling V. Railroad Co. (66 Md. 120), 580sf. Dun V. Railroad Co. (78 Va. 645), 657. Dunbar v. RaikoadCo. (110 Mass. 26), 845, 348a. Dunham v. Railroad Co. (70 Me. 164), 103a, 108, 771. Dunlap V. Hunting (2 Denio, 643), 408. Dunlap V. Raih-oad Co. (35 Minn. 203), 580a, 580&. tounlap V. Steamboat Co. (98 Mass. 371), 253, 685. Dunlap V. The Reliance (3 Fed. Rep. 349), 500. Dunlop V. Lambert (6 CI. &Fin. 600), 726, 733. Dunlop V. Munroe (7 Cranch, 242), 81. Dunn V. Railroad Co. (21 Mo. App. 205), 784. Dunn V. Railway Co. (58 Me; 187), 500, 503, 538, 538a. Dunn V. Railway Co. (68 Mo. 268), 322a. Dunn V. Railway Co. (31 Mo. App. 188), 777. Dunseth v. Wade (3 Scam. 28S), 66, 310, 766. Dunson v. Railroad (3 Lans. 265), 198. Durant v. Palmer (5 Dutch. 544), 802. Durden v. Bamett (7 Ala. 169), 779. Durgee Cement Co. v. O'Brien (123 Mass. 12), 414a. Durrell v. Johnson ( — Neb. — ), 802. Dusar v. Murgatroyd (1 Wash. 13), 769. Duthie T. Hilton (4 L. R (C. P.) l'38), 446. Dutton V. Solomonson (3 B. & P. 582), 135, 731, 733. Dwight V. Brewster (1 Pick. 50), 47, 55, 59, 96, 742. Dwinelle v. Raihoad Ca (120 N. T. 117), 597, 617c. Dwyer v. Railway Co. (69 Tex. 707), 433a. Dyer v. RaUway Co. (71 N. Y. 338), 674. Dyer v. Railway (43 Vt 441), 443. Dyke v. Railroad (45 N. Y. 113), 144, 144a. Eagle V. White (6 Whart 505), 340, 341. Earnest v. Express Co. (1 Woods, 573), 1496, 250. East India Ca v. PuLen (3 Strange, 690), 58, 86. East Line, etc. Co. v. Hall (64 Tex. 615), 93, 93. Easton v. Dudley (— Tex. — ), 3196. Easton v. Watei-s (— Tex. — , 16 S. W. Rep. 540), 571. Easton,' Ex parte (5 Otto, 75), 358. TABLE OF CASES. it Beferences are to sections. Eaton V. Cook (33 Vt 58), 311. Eaton V. Railroad Co. (11 Allen, 500), 513, 515e, 526, 537. Eaton V. Railroad Co. (57 N. Y. 383), 538, 538a, 554 Echols V. Railroad Co. ( — Ala. — ), 769. Eokerd v. Railway Co. (70 Iowa, 353), 648. Eddy V. Harris (— Tex. — ), 608. Eddy V. Rider (79 Tex. 53), 571. Eden v. Railroad Co. (14 B. Mon. 304), 777, 783. Edgar v. Castello (14 S. C. 20), 777. Edgerton v. Railroad Co. (39 N. Y. 237), 538a, 799. Edminson v. Baxter (4 Haywood, — ).— . Edmunds v. Transportation Co. (185 Mass. 383), 348a. Edsall V. RaUroad (50 N. Y. 661), 275. Edson V. Weston (7 Cow. 278), 398. Edwards v. Lord (49 Me. 379), 500, 507. Edwards v. Railway (L. R. 5 C. P. 445), 600. Edwards v. Railway Co. (81 Mich. 364), 5806. Edwards v. Sherratt (1 East, 604), 115, 212. Edwards v. Todd (1 Scammon, 463), 443. Edwards v. Transit Co. (104 Mass. 159), 399, 400. Egan V. Laths (41 Fed. Rep. 830), 479. Ehrgott V. Meyer (96 N. Y.), 346, 809e. Eldridge v. Raih-oad (1 Sand. 89), 534, , 663. Elkins V. Railroad (3 Foster, 375), 67, 538, 862. Elkms V. Railroad (19 N. H. 337), 733. Elkins V. Railroad Co. (33 N. H. 275), 538o. Elkins V. Transportation Co. (81* Penn. ^t. 315), 350. EUiott V. Railroad Co. <53 Hun, 78;, 580/1. Elliott V. Rossell (10 Johns. 1), 65. Ellis V. Turner (8 ,T. R 531), 338. Ellis V. Willard (9 N. Y. 539), 133, 139. Ellsworth V. Tartt (26 Ala. 733), 152, 167, 578. Elmore v. Railroad (33 Conn. 457), 149, 153, 578. Elmore v. Sands (54 N. Y. 613), 576, 580. Elwell V. Skiddy (77 N. Y. 383), 448. Ely V. Ehle (3 Comst. 506), 436. Ely V. Steamboat Co. (53 Barb. 307), 358, 366. Emery v. Hersey (4 Greenl. 407), 57, 393a. Emigh V. Railroad (4 Biss. 114), 794. Emma Johnson, Sch'r (1 Sprague, 527), 66. Empire T. Co. v. Oil Co. (63 Penn. St 14), 260, 292, 295. England v. Railroad Co. ( — Mass. — ), 616, 643. English V. Canal Company (66 N. Y. ■ 454), 593. Eppendorf v. Railroad Co. (69 N. Y. 195), 645a. Esoopiniche v. Stewart (3 Conn. 391), 456, 458. Esposito V. Bowden (7 EL & Bl. 763 ; 4 id. 963), 223. Estes V. Railroad Co. (7 N. Y. SuppL 863), 703a. Esteyv. Truxel (35 Mo. App. 238), 414a. Estell V. Railroad Co. (41 Fed. Rep. 849). 323, 770a. Eswin V. Railway Co. (96 Mo. 290), 666a. E. T. R. R. V. Nelson (1 Cold. 272), 67, 145, 292, 339, 731. E. T. R R. V. Whittle (37 Ga. 535), 75. Evans v. Forster (1 B. & Ad. 118), 473. Evans v. Hutton (5 Scott N. R. 670), 335. Evans v. Marlett (1 Ld. Raym. 371), 731. Evans v. Railway Co. (11 Mo. Ap. 463), 575, 809a, 815a. Evans v. Railroad Co. (Ill Mass. 142), 218, 231, 333. Evans v. Soule (3 Maule & a 1), 355. Ivi TABLE OF CASES. Beferences are to sections, Evans V. Spreokels (45 Fed. Rep. 265), Everett v. Eaflway Co. (69 Iowa, 15), 571. Everett v. Saltus (15 Wend. 474), 493, 734 Ewart V. Kerr (1 Rice, 203), 443. Ewart V. Street (2 Bailey Law, 157), 179, 180. Ewbank v. Nutting (7 Com. B. 797), 436. Ewell V. Railroad Co. (29 Fed. Rep. 57), 783a. Ewen V. Railway Co. (38 Wis. 613), 784. Ewen V. Railroad Co. (38 Wis. 614), 784. Exchange Ins. Co. v. Canal Co. (10 Bosw. 180), 81c. Exposition Cotton Mills v. Railroad Co. (— Ga. — ), 748. Express Cases (117 U. S. 1), 300a. Express Co. v. Arnistead (50 Ala. 350), 379. Express Co. v. Backman (28 Ohio St. 144), 68, 70, 766. Express Co. v. Bank (69 Penn. St 394), 260. Express Co. v. Blackman (28 Ohio St 144), 766. Express Co. v. Brunswick (4 lU. App. 606), 776a. Express Co. v. Caldwell (21 Wall 264), 259, 262, 366a. Express Co. v. Caperton (44 Ala. 101), 259. Express Co. v. Carroll (7 Colo. 43), 68. Express Co. v. Cook (44 Ala. 469), 583. Express Co. v. Craft (49 Miss. 480), 725. Express Co. v. Cressap (6 Bush, 572), 27. Express Co. v. Crook (44 Ala. 468), 68, 260. Express Co. v. Darnell (— Tex. — ), 259. Express Co. v. Darnell (63 Tex. 639), 68, 778. Express Co. v. Darnell (81 Ind.a0), 87, 886. Express Co. v. Dickson (94 TJ. S. 549), 394 Express Co. v. Everett (37 Ga. 688), 213, 214, 383. Express Co. v. Fendrick (38 Ind. 150), 337. Express Co. v. Foley ( — Kaus. — ), 249. Express Co. v. Glenn (16 Lea, 473), 68, 259. Express Co. v. Grace (100 Mass. 505), 337, 240. Express Co. v. Graham (26 Ohio St 595), 113, 260, 583, 766. Express Co. v. Greenhalgh (80 HL 68). 404 Express Co. v. Guthrie (9 Bush, 78), 237. Express Co. v. Haines (67 IlL 137), 148, 340. Express Co. v. Harris (51 Ind. 127), 259. Express Co. v. Harris (120 Ind. 73), , 260, 273, 479. Express Co. v. Haynes (42 LL 89), 237, 340, 261, 764 Express Co. v. Hess (53 Ala. 19), 150, 761. Express Co. v. Huimicutt (54 Miss. 566), 259. Express Co. v. Kaufman (12 fHeisk. 161), 349b. Express Co. v. Kountze (8 Wall 342), 190, 208, 237, 287, 310, 312, 313. Express Co. v. Keefer (59 Ind. 263), 389. Express Co. v. Lesem (39 El. 312), 389, 391. Express Ca v. Loeb (7 Bush, 501), 237. Express Ca v. McConnell (37 Kans. 238), 68, 393. Express Co. v. McVeigh (20 Grat 364), 71. Express Co. v. Milk (73 HI. 234), 349. Express Co. v. Moon (39 Miss. 832), 337, 240, 360. Express Co. v. Newby (36 Ga. 635), 68, 87. TABLE OF CASES. References are to sections, Express Co. v. Nichols (33 N. J. 434), 803. Express Co. V. Nook (3 Duvall, 563), 337, 340. Express Co. v. Ohleman, (93 Penn. St. ' 333), 379. Express Co. v. Perkins (43 IlL 458), 316. Express Co. v. Railroad Co. (57 Ma 188), 302. Express Co. v. Eailway Co. (81 Me. "•■ ' 93), 297. Express Co, v. Eeagan (39 Ind. 31), 259. Express Co. v. Robinson (73 Penn. St. 274), 379. Express Co. v. Root (47 Mich. 331), 68. Express Co. t. Rush (34 Ind. 408), 154. Express Co. v. Sands (55 Perm. St 140), 764. Express Co. v. Schier (55 IlL 140), 337, 379, 880. Express Co. v. Second Nat Bank, (69 Penn. St 394), 154. Express Co. v. Seide ( — Miss. — ), 360. Express Co. v. Shea (38 Ga. 519), 145, 148, 150. Express Co. v. Shoop (85 Penn. St 325), 478. Express Co. v. Smith (33 Ohio St 511), 68, 103a, 824, 809. Express Co. v. Spellman (90 IlL 455), 246,2470. Express Co. v. Stettaners (61 HL 184), 340, 261, 764. , Express Co. v. Van Meter (17 Fla. 783), 68, 346, 349. Express Co. v. Wilson (81 HL 339), 148. Express Co. v. Wolf (79 IlL 430), 379, 384. Express Co. v. Womack (1 Heisk, 256), 68, 198, 206, 308, 293. Fairbanks v. Kerr (70 Penn. St 90), 809. FairchUd v. Slocum (19 Wend. 829 ; 7 Hill, 293), 168, 754. Ivii Fairchild v. Stage Co. (13 Cal 599), 805. ' Fairfax v. Railroad (73 N. Y. 167), 683a. Fairfax v. Railroad (37 N. Y. S. C. 516 ; 40 id. 138 ; 67 N. Y. 11), 701, 703, 713. Faith V. East Ind. Co. (4 B. & Aid. 630), 478. FaJkner v. Eailway Co. (55 Ind. 369), 570. Fallon V. Boston (3 Allen, 88), 301. FaUon v. Railroad Co.,(64 N. Y. 13), €66a. Falvey v. Eaih-oad Co. (76 Ga. 597), 148, 149a. Farebrother v. Bartram (4 Bing. 579), 415. Parish v. Eeigle (11 Gratt 697), 500, 507, 533, 800. Farley v. Traction Co. (133 Penn. St 58), 504. Farlow v. Kelly (108 U. S. 388), 515e. Farman v. EaUroad (106 N. Y. 579), 131. Farnaers', etc. Bank v. Transportation Co. (33 Vt 186). 1496. Farmers' & M. Bank v. Champ. Trans. Co. (16 Yt 53 ; 18 id. 181 ; 33 id. 186), 149, 344, 355, 841, 866. Fai'nham v. Railroad (55 Perm. St 53), 237, 340, 260, 767. Farrant v. Barnes (11 Com. A (N. S.) 553), 440, 442. FarreU v. Raihroad Co. (102 N. C. 390), 413, 414a, 482. FarweU v. Davis (66 Barb. 78), 771. Faulkner v. Hart (44 N. Y. Super. Ct 471), 67a. Faulkner v. Hart (83 N. Y. 413), 874. Faulkner v. Wright (Rice, 107), 175. Faust V. Railroad Co. (8 S. C. 118), 399. Favre v. Railroad Co. ( — Ky. — ), 657. Fay V. Steamer New World (1 CaL . 848), 34. Feiber v. Telegraph Co. (31 Abb. N. C. 11), 81a. Iviii TABLE OF CASES. References are to sections. Feiber v. Telegraph Co. (3 N. Y. Suppl. 116), 390. Feige v. Railroad Co. (63 Mich. 1), 243a. Feinberg v. EaUroad Co. (53 N. J. L. 451), 301. Feise v. Wray (3 East, 93), 411. Feitalv. Raih-oad Co. (109 Mass. 398), 153, 673, 800. FeU V. Knight (8 M. & W. 369), 546. Fell V. Railroad Co. (44 Fed. Rep. 348)^ 580i, 591. FeU V. Railroad Co. (43 Fed. Rep. 348), 815a. Fellows V. Steamer PoweU (16 La. Ann. 316), 133. Fenkhausen v. Fellows (30 Nev. 313), 413. Fenner t. RaUroad (44 N. Y. 505), 355, 374, 383. Fernandez v. Railroad Co. (53 Cal. 45), 803a. Ferry v. Railway Co. (118 N. Y. 497), 612. Fessler v. Love (43 Penn. St 313), 773. Field V. Railroad (33 N. Y. 839), 294. Field V. Railroad (71 111. 458), 340. Fifield V. Insurance Co. (47 Penn. St 166), 306. Fflei- V. Railroad (49 N. Y. 47), 638, 645, 648, 661c, 780. Filer v. Railroad (59 N. Y. 351 ; 68 id. 134), 645, 648. Files V. Railroad Co. (149 Mass. 204), 538a, 554, 561. FiUebrown v. Railroad (55 Me. 463), 237, 360. Finn v. Railway Co. ( — Mich. — ), 612. Finn v. Railroad (112 Mass. 634), 734. 729. First National Bank v. Railroad (30 Ohio St 259), 696. First National Bank v. Shaw (61 N. Y. 283), 142. Fish V. Chapman (2 Ga 849), 47, 48, 65, 57a. Fish V. Clark (49 N. Y. 132), 54, 58a, (2 Lans. 176), 58. 66, 76. feher V. Clisbee (13 111. 344), 58. Fisher v. Geddefe, (15 La. Ann. 14), 96. Fisk V. Newton (1 Denio, 45), 341, 355, 38.3. Fitch V. Newberry (1 Doug. (Mich.) 1), 115a, 491. Fitzgerald v. Railroad Co. (50 Iowa, 79), 815a. Fitzgerald v. Railway Co. (29 Minn. 336), 667. Flaherty v. Railway Co. (39 Minn. 828), 515a, 674 Flannery v. Raih-oad Co. (4 Maokey, 111), 549. Flautt V. Lashley (36 La. Ann. 106), 53. Fleck V. Railway Co. (134 Mass. 480), 645a, 653a. Fleming v. Hammond (19 Ga. 145), 89. Fletcher v. Railroad (1 Allen, 9), 536. Flinn v. Raihoad (1 Hous. (Del) 69), 360, 583. Flint V. Transp. Co. (34 Conn. 554), 549. Flmt V. Trans. Co. (6 Blatch. 158; 34 Conn. 554), 550. Floyd V. Bovard (6 "Watts & & 75). 404. Flori V. St Louis (8 Mo. App. 331), 781c. Florida v. Car Co. (37 Mo. App. 598), 617e. Fluker v. Raih-oad Co. (81 Ga 461), 533. FoUman v. Mankato (35 Minn. 532X 674 Fonesca v. Steamship Ca( — Mass. — , 37 N. E. Rep. 665), 144a, 580ft, 581. Forbes v. Railroad Co. (133 Mass. 154), 133, 344. Ford V. Mitchell (31 Ind. 54), 84 Ford V. Monroe (20 Wend. 310), 779, 780. Ford V. Morse (20 Wend. 210), 783. Ford V. Railway (2 Fos. & Fin. 730), 294 508. Ford V. Sproule (3 A. K. Marsh. 528), 410. TABLE OF CASES. References are to sections. Fordv. Williams (21 How. 387), 733. Fordyce v. Merrill (49 Ark. 277), 518. Forks V. King (84 Penn. St. 330), 674. Forsee v. Railroad Co. (63 Miss. 66), 571, 810, 814a, 815a. Forsyth v. Railroad Co. (103 Mass. 510), 518, 531. Forth V. Simpson (13 Q. B. 689), 479. Fort Wayne v. De Witt (47 Ind. 391), 808. Forward v. Pittard (1 T. R. 37), 55, 63, 183, 337. Foss V. Railroad Co. (— N. H. — ), 648, 670. Foster v. Colby (8 Hurlstone & N. 705), 483. Foster v. Essex Bank (17 Mass. 501), 40. Foster V. Frampton (6 B. & C. 107), 395. Fowler V. Railroad Co. (18 W. Va. 579), ,661c, 802. Fowler v. Steam Co. (87 N. Y. 190), 319a. Fowler v. Telegrapji Co. (80 Me. 381), 81a. Fowles V. Railway (7 Exch. 699), 332. Fox V. Glastonbmy (39 Conn. 304), 803. Fox V. McGregor (11 Barb. 41), 491, 494 Fox V. Nott (6 H. & N. 680), 451. Fox V. Railroad Co. (148 Mass. 330), 317, 328. Foy V. Railway (18 C. B. (N. S.) 225), 519, 615, 645, 648. FralofE v. Railroad (10 Blatohf. 16), 683. Francis v. Cookrell (L. R 5 Q. B. 184), 512. Francis v. Railroad (25 Ind. 60), 370. P^-ancis v. Transfer Co. (5 Mo. App. 7), 809, 809c. Frank v. Keith (3 Bush, 123), 306. Franklin v. Road Co. (85 Cal. 63), 8036., Franklin v. Railway Co. (3 H. & N. ail), 784, 786, 787. Frazier v. Railway Co. (48 Iowa, 571), 83. Freeh v. Railroad (39 Md. 574), 803. Frederick v. Railroad (5 Cent Law Jour. 476), 574. Frederick v. Railroad Co. (37 Mich. 343), 575, 580h, 580j, 5807c. Freeman v. Birch (3 Q. B. 493), 731, 731. Freeman v. Buckingham (18 HOw. 163), 133, 134 Freem^ v. East Ind. Co. (5 B. & Aid. 617), 483, 436. Freeman v. Railroad Co. (65 Mich. 577), 608a. Fi-eer v. Cameron (4 Rich. 338), 563. French v. Transportation Co. (134 Mass. 388), 398. French v. Railroad (4 Keyes (N. Y.), 108), 361, 370. Frick V, RaUway Co. (75 Mo. 542), 779. Friedenrich v. Railroad Co. (53 Md. 201), 580ci. Friedlander v. Railway (180 U. S. 416), 134, 139. Friend v. Woods (6 Gratt. 189), 175. Frink v. Coe (4 G. Greene, 555), 59, 507,533,534, 536,814 Frink v. Potter (17 lU. 406), 507, 799. Frink v. Sohroyer (18 111. 416), 565, . 806. . Fremont v. Coupland (3 Bing. 170), 158. I Fuller V. Bradley (35 Penn. St 130), 46, 58a, 66, 476, 480. Puller V. Brown (11 Mete. 440), 319. Fuller V. Railroad (31 Conn. 557), 67, 613. Fulton V. Railroad Co. (11 U. Q Q. B. 438), 567&. Funk V. Potter (17 111. 406), 512a. Funnel v. Pettijohn (3 Harr. 48), 221. Furlong ▼. Polleys (30 Me. 491), 773. Furman v. Railroad Co. (57 Iowa, 43), 398. Furman v. Railroad Co. (63 Iowa, 395), 398. Furman v. Railroad Co. (68 Iowa, 219), 898. IX TABLE OF CASES. References are to sections, Furman v. Railroad Co. (— Iowa, — ), 898. Furman v. Railroad (106 N. Y. 579), 130, 1306, 131, 181b. Furnish v. Railway Co. ( — Mo. — ), 500, 800. Furstenheim v. Railroad (9 Heisk. 388), 153. Gage V. Tirrell (9 Allen, 399), 65, 172, 319. Gahagan v. Railroad (1 Allen, 187), 639. Gaines v. Transportation Co. (38 Ohio St. 418), 340, 346, 766. Gallin v. RaUway (L. R. 10 Q. B. 313), 585. Gait V. Express Co. (4 MacArth. 134), 68, 350, 363. Galveston v. Barbour (63 Tex. 173), 784. Ganiard V. Raiboad Co. (50 Hun, 32), 608b. Gann V. Worman (69 Ind. 458), 783a. GanneU v. Ford (5 L. T. Rep. 604), 222. Gardner v. New Haven, etc. Co. (51 Conn. 143), 555. Garnett v. Willaa (5 B. & Aid. 53), 339. Garoni v. Navigation Co. (14 N. Y. Suppl. 797), 618. Garrett v. Railway (36 Iowa, 181), 798. Garrison v. Memphis Ins. Co. (19 How. 312), 184, 283, 288, 389. Garside v. Trent Nav. Co. (4 T. R. 581), 366. Garston Co. v. Hickie (18 Q. B. Div. 17), 383. Garston Co. v. Hickie (15 Q. B. Div. 580), 473. Garton v. RaUway Co. (1 B. & S. 110), 303. Gashweiler v. Railway Co. (83 Mo. 112), 108, 165, 870. Gass V. Railroad Co. (99 Mass. 220), 170. Gasway v. Railroad Co. (58 Ga. 316), 586, 597, 600. Gates V. Ryan (37 Fed. Rep. 154), 363, 448. Gatliflfe v. Bourne (4 Bing. 314), 358, 366, 366b. Gavett V. Railroad (16 Gray, 501), 639, 643. Gaynor v. RaUway Co. (100 Mass. 308), 518, 531, 613. Gee V. RaUway Co. (6 H. & N. 211), 774. Gee V. Railway (L. R 8 Q. B. 161), 615, 660, 663. Gee V. RaUway (L. J. Exch. 11; 6 H. & N. 311), 773, 778. Geismer v. RaUway Co. (103 N. Y. 563), 305, 334. Geitz V. RaUroad Co. (72 Wis. 307), 653a, 800. Gelvin V. RaUway Ca (21 Mo. Ap. 273), 3196. George v. Skivington (SLR Exch. 1), 440. Georgia, etc Co. v. Smith (70 Qa. 694), 3036. Gerhard v. Neese (36 Tex. 635), 829. Geroux v. Graves (— Vt — ), 788. Gerstle v. Railway Co. (23 Mo. Apt 361), 649, 653, 653. Gibbon V. Paynton (4 Burr. 3298), 312, 217, 354. Gibbons v. Farwell (63 Mich. 344), 399, 400. Gibbons v. Pepper (1 Ld. Raym. 38), 809. Gibbons v. WUliams (135 Mass. 335), 667. Gibbs V. Hannibal (83 Mo. 143), 783a. Gibson v. Brown (44 Fed. Rep. 98), 444,446. Gibson v. Culver (17 Wend. 305), 1036, 341, 358, 366. Gibson v. Railroad Co! (30 Fed. Rep. 904), 567c. Gibson V. Sturge (10 Exch. 632), 44^ 453, 469. Gilbai-t V. Dale (5 Ad. & EL 543), 760. GUbert v. RaUway Ca (54 N. Y. Super. 870)i 608&k TABLE or CASES. Beferences are to sections. Giles V. Fauntleroy (13 Md. 126),, 683, 685. GUes V. EaUway (3 El. & B. 833), 600. Gillen water V. Railroad (3 Ind. 339), 512,567. " Gillespie v. McGowan (100 Penn. St. 144), 666a. Gillespie v. Railway Co. (6 Mo. Ap. 554), 176, 301. Gillespie v. Thompson (6 EL & BL 477, note), 307. Gfflett V. Ellis (11 HL 579), 285, 308. GiUingham v. Dempsey (13 Serg. & R. 183), 769. GilUgan v. Railroad Co. (1 E. D. Smith, 453), 781a, 784. Gniis V. Railroad Co. (59 Penn. St. 139), 553a. GiUis y. Telegraph Co. (61 Vt. 461), 81a. GUmore v. Carman (1 Sm. & M. 379), 66, 183. Gilpins V. Consequa (1 Peters' C. Ct. 85), 317. Gilson V. Railway Co. (76 Mo. 283), 500. Gilson V. Gwinn (107 Mass. 136), 491. Ginna v. RaUroad Co. (67 N. Y. 596), 653, 653, 664. Ginnon v. Railroad (3 Rob. (N. Y.)'25), 641. Gisbourn v. Hurst (1 Salk. 349), 47. Glassey v. Railway Go. (57 Penn. St 172), 667, 7816, 789e. Gleadell v. Thomson (56 N. Y. 194), 359, 443. Gleason v. Transportation Co. (32 Wis. 85), 682, 699. Gleeson v. Railroad Co. (5 Mackey, 356), 176, 185c. Gleeson v. Railroad Co. (140 U. S. 435), (176, 1856, 201. Glenn v. Express Co. (86 Tenn. 594), 259. Goddard v. Mallory, (53 Barb. 87), 269, 314. Goddard v. Railway (57 Me. 202), 553, 596, 815, 816. Goetter V. Pickett (61 Ala. 387), 1496. Ixi Goff V. Railway (3 El. & El 67^), 600, 815. Goins V. Railroad Coi (68 Ga. 190), 793. Gold Hunter, The (1 BL & H. 300), 390. Goldey v. Railroad (30 Penn. St 343), 360, 767. Good V. Railway Co. (—Tex. — ), 260. Goodlett V. RaUroad Co. (133 U. S. ' 391), 639. Goodman v. Hai-vey (4 Ad. & E. 870), 129a. Goodman, v. Simonds (20 How. 343), 139a. Goodrich v. Raili'oad Co. (29 Hun, 50), 652. Goodrich v. Thompson (44 N. Y. 324), 369, 3806, 314. Goodsell V. Railroad (88 Conn. 51), 789. Goodsell V. Taylor (41 Minn. 807), Sid. Goodwin v. Railroad (58 Barb. 195), 340, 361. Goodwyn v. Douglass (1 bheves, 174), 734. Goold V. Cliapin (30 N. Y. 259), 103, 103a, 378. Gordon v. Buchanan (5 Yer. 71), 51, Gordon v. Hutchinson (1 Watts & 8. 285), 47, 49, 51, 52, 55. Gordon, v. Railroad (52 N. H. 596), 607, 610. Gordon v. Railroad (40 Barb. 546), 559. Gore V. Transportation Co. (2 Daly, 254), 698, 699. Gorham Mfg. Co. v. Fargo (35 N. Y. Super. 434), 214, 439. GosUng V. Birnie (7 Bing. 339), 405. Gosling V. Higgins (1 Camp. 451), 349. Gott V. Dinsmore (111 Mass. 45), 247. Gould V. Hill (2 Hill, 633), 236, 242. Gould V. Oliver (4 Bing. N. C. 134), 306. Govett V. Radnidge (3 East, 62), 743, 743. Ixii TABLE OF CASES. Eeferences are to sections. Grace v. Adams (100 Mass. 505), 1496. Graoie v. Palmer (8 Wheat 605), 494 Gradin v. Railway Co. (30 Minn. 317), 588a. Graffam v. Railroad (67 Me. 234), 705. Graham v. Davis (4 Ohio St 362), 2806, 766. Graham v. Railroad Co. (39 Fed. Rep. 596), 647a. Graham v. Railroad Co. (66 Mo, 536)» 5556. Graham v. Railway Co. (39 Mian. 81), 800. Graham v. Railway Co. (49 Wis. 443), 7566. Graham v. Railway Co. (53 Wis. 473), 7566. Graham & Co. v. Davis & Co. (4 Ohio St 362), 240, 260, 287, 766. Grand Tower, etc. Co. v. Allman (89 IlL 244), 89. Granier v. Railroad Co. ( — La. Ann. — ), 580d. Grant v. Baker (12 Oreg. 329), 802. Grant v. Coverdale (8 Q. B. Div. 600), 473. Grant v. Coverdale (11 Q. B. Div. 543), 478. Grant v. Coverdale (9 App. Cas. 470), 473. Grant v. Norway (10 C. B. 665), 122, 124, 125a. Grant v. Raiboad Co. (108 N. C. 462), 562. 'Graves v. Railway Co. (137 Mass. 83), 250. Graves v. Ticknor (6 N. H. 587), 31. Graville v. Railroad Co. (105 N. Y. 525), 586. Gray v. Carr (L. R. 6 Q. B. 623), 478. Gray v. Jackson (51 N. H. 9), 102o, 108, 145a, 146, 149, 149a, 153, 168. Gray v. McDonald (— Mo. — ), 789. Gray -v. Missouri Packet Co. (64 Mo. 47), 19, 769. Gray v. Scott (66 Penn. St 845), 666, 666a. Gray v. Wain (2 S. & R. 239), 457. Green v. Clark (13 Barb. 57; s. c. 12 N. Y.'343), 733, 781. Green v. Dunn (3 Camp. 315), 408. Green v. Mann (11 IlL 613), 773. Green v. Railroad CO. (138 Mass. 221), 7706. Green v. Railroad (38 Iowa, 100), 91. Green v. Railroad (4 Daly, 553), 718. Green v. Railroad (41 Iowa, 410), 91. Green v. Railroad Co. (28 Bai-b. 9,- 2 Keyes, 393), 777, 783. Green v. Williams (45 HL 306), 776. Greenwood v. Cooper (10 La. Ann, 796), 95. Gregory v. Railroad Co. (10 Neb. 350), 5806. Gregory v. Railway Co. (3 H. & C, 944), 333. Gremes v. Penn Co. (36 Fed. Rep. 73), 559. Greve v. Dunham (60 Iowa, 108), 416a. Grey's Ex'r v. MobDe Co. (55 Ala. 387), 766. GrifiSn v. Colver (16 N. Y. 489), 772, 773. Griffith V. Ingledew (6 S. & R 429), 733, 736, 731. Griffith v. RaUway Ca (98 Ma 168), 615. Griffiths V. Lee (1 Car. & P. 110), 764. Griggs V. Austin (3 Pick. 20), 471. Griggsby V. Chappell (5 Rich. 443), 81a Grill V. Screw Co. (1 C. P. 600), 287. Grill V. Screw Ca (3 0. P. 476), 387. Grindle v. Express Ca (67 Me. 317), 153. Grinnell v. Telegraph Co. (113 Mas& 299), 81a. GrinneU v. Wells (7 M. & G. 1041), 777. _ Griswold v. Insurance Ca (1 Johns. 205), 444a. Griswold v. Insurance Ca (3 Johns, 821X 445, 464. Griswold V. 'Railroad Co. (53 Conn. 371), 586. TABLE OF CASES. Ixiii Keferences are to sections. Griswold v. Eailroad Co. (64 Wis. 653), 553a. Griswold v. Waddington (16 Johns. 438), 323. Griswold v. Webb (— R. I. — ), 523, 533. Grogan v. Express Co. (114 Penn. St 533), 68, 260. Grosso V. Railroad Co. (50 N. J. L. 817), 782, 783a. Grosveaor v. Railroad (39 N. Y. 34), - 82. Grote V. Rail-way Co. (2 Bx. 251), 513, 512a, 800. Grotenkemper v. Harris (35 Ohio St 510), 786. Grove v. Brien (8 How. 439), 450. Grover & Baker S. M. Co. y. Railway- Co. (70 Mo. 673), 149, 153a, 268. Gmnd v. Pendergast (58 Barb. 316), 774 Guggenheim v. Railway Co. (66 Mich. 150), 803. GuiUaume v. Hamburgh, etc. P. Co. (43 N. Y. 313), 130, 370, 349. Guillaume v. Transportation Co. (100 N. Y. 491), 128, 347, 345, 3496. Guliver v. Adams Ex. Co. (38 DL 503), 68, 380. Gunter v. Wicker (85 N. C. 810), 803a. Gurley v. Armstead (148 Mass. 367), 11,5a. Gurney v. Behrend (8 EL & BL 633, 633, 634), 129. Haas V. Railroad Co. (81 Ga. 793), 129, 176, 205, 334. Haase v. Railway Co. (19 Greg. 354), 555. Hackett v. Raih:oad (35 N. H. 890), 338, 769, 775. Hadd V. Express Co.' (52 Vt 335), 68, 149, 340. Haddow v. Parry (3 Taunt 303), 135a. Hadley v. Baxendale (9 Exch. 341), 768a, 7686, 773, 773, 774. Hadley t. Clarke (8 T. R. 359), 223, 317, 332, 444a. Hagan v. Railroad (3 R. I, 88), 813. Hagerstown Bank v. Express Co. (45 Pa. St. 419), 437. Haggerty y. Railroad Co. (59 Mich. 366), 809c. Haille v. Smith (1 B. & P. 563), 135. Haines v. Railway (39 Minn. 160), 685. Hale V. Navigation Co. (15 Conn. 538), 66, 144a, 184, 261, 288. Hale V. Penn. Co. (90 Ind. 459), 136. Hales V. RaUway Co. (4 B. & S. 66), 329. Haley v. Railroad Co. (7 Baxt 239), 784. HalflE V. Allyn (60 Tex. 378), 4146, 416a. Hall V. Cheney (36 N. H. 36), 360, 757. HaU V. De Cuir (95 U. S. 485), 542. Hall V. Dimond (63 N. H. 565), 416a. Hall V. HoUander (4 B. & C. 660), 777, 778, 781. Hall V. Insurance Co. (9 Pick. 466), 435. Hall V. Penn. Co. (90 Ind. 459), 126, 747. Hall T. RaUroad Co. (15 Fed. Rep.' 57), 593. Hall V. RaUroad Co. (89 Fed. Rep. 18), 784. Hall V. Railroad Co. (14 Phila. 414), 288. Hall V. Railway Co. (25 S. C. 564), 571. HaU V. RaUway Co. (38 S. C. 261), 590. Hall V. Railway Co. (L. R. 10 Q. B. 437), 585. HaU V. Renfro (3 Met (Ky.) 51), 58, 331. HaU V. Steamboat Co. (13 Conn. 319), 500, 307. Halliday v. Railway Co. (74 Mo. 159), 148, 150. Halsey v. Warden (25 Kans. 128), 131. Ham V. Canal Co. ( — Penn. St — ), 555a, 591a. Hamilton v. McPherson (28 N. Y. 72), 475, 773, 773. Hamilton v. Morgan's Co. (43 La. Ann. — ), 784, 814a. HamUton v. Pandorf (12 App. Cas. 518), 389. Ixiv Hamilton T. 576. Hamilton v, 817, 818. Hamilton v. Railroad (51 N. Y. 100), Railroad (53 N, Y. 35), Railroad Co. (96 N. C. 398), 128a, 774 Hamlin v. Railway Co. (1 H. & N. 408), 338, 608, 792,809. Hammack v. White (11 C. B. 588), 521, 799. Hammond v. Railroad Co. (6 S. C. 130), 555&. Hand v. Baynes (4 Whart 304), 280&, 318, 829. Hanley v. Railroad Co. (1 Edm. Ld. Cas. 359), 531. Hannay v. Eve (3 Cranch, 247), 401a. Hansen v. Railroad Co. (73 Wis. 646), 268. Hansen v. Railway Co. (73 Wis. 346), 148, 149a, 152a. Hansford v. Payne (11 Bush, 384), 789. Hanson v. Railway (63 Ma 84), 596, ■815. Hanson v. Transportation Co. (38 La. Ann. Ill), 538a, 661, 661c, 676. Hardenbergh V. Railway Co. (39 Minn. 3), 590, 609. Harding v^ Townshend (43 Vt 536), 806. Hardman v. Willcock (9 Bing. 382). 404. Hard wick v. Railroad Co. ( — Ga. — ), 799. Hai-dy v. RaUroad Co. (13 N. Y. SuppL 55), 5S01. Haring v. Railroad (13 Barb. 9), 639. Harker v. Dement (9 GiU, 7), 404, 435, 721. Harmon v. Railroad Co. (6 Mackey, 57), 645a. Harmony v. Bingham (3 Kern. 99, 1 Duer, 209); 447. Harp V. The Grand Era (1 Wood's Ct Ct R 184), 168. Harper v. Insurance Co. (17 N. Y. 194), 125a. Harper v. Raih-oad Co. (87 Conn. 373), 766. TABLE OF CASES. Keferences are to sections. Harrell v. Railroad (106 N. C. 358), 83. Harries v. Edmonds (1 C. & K. 686), 475. Harrington v. Lyles (2 Nott & McC. 88), 66. Harrington v. McShane (3 Watts, 443), 19, 57, 66, 393. Harris v. Hart (6 Duer, 606), 416, 419. Harris v. Moody (30 N. Y. 366), 308. Harris v. Pratt (17 N. Y. 349), 129, 416, 419. Hai-ris v. Railroad (30 N. Y. 332), 321, 323a. Harris v. Railway (L. R. 1 Q. B. Div. 515), 685. Harris v. Railway Co. (89 Mo. 233), 538a, 660a. Harris v. Railway Co. (15 R I 371), 149, 149a, 1496. Harris v. Rand (4 N. H. 259), 178. Harris t. Stevens (81 Vt 79), 53a Harrison v. Fink (43 Fed. Rep. 787), 591a, 809d Harrison v. Railway Co. (3 B. & & 132), 332, 334, 350. Harrison v. Railway Co. (74 Mo. 364), 317, 3196. Harrison v. Roy (39 Miss. 396), 55. Hart V. Allen (3 Watts, 114), 66, 179. Hart V. Bridge Co. (84 N. Y. 56X 80a Hart V. Hyde (5 Vt 338), 426. Hart V. Railroad (8 N. Y. 37), 153, 163, 515, 715. Hai-t V. Railroad Ca (112 U. S. 331), 221, 249, 250, 252, 254, 256, 363. Hart V. Raih-oad Ca (— S. C. — ), 8140. Hartan v. Railroad (114 Mass. 44), 152, 168, 578, Hartfleld v. Roper (21 Wend. 615), 667, 777. Hartford Co, v. Hamilton (60 Md. 840), 779. Hai-top V. Hoare (1 Wils. 8), 430. Harvey v. Railj;oad Ca (74 Mo. 538), 249, 250. Harvey v. Railroad Ca (134 Mass. 421), 772, 773, 774 TABLE OF CASES. lX¥ References are to sections. Harvey v. Railroad (116 Mass. 369), 641. Harvey v. Rose (36 Ark. 3), 58. Haslam v. Express Co. (6 Bosw. 335), 840, 380, 383. Hastings v. Pepper (11 Pick. 41), 65, 66, 135, 310. , Hathaway y. Railway (46 Ind. 351), 667. Hatten v. Railroad Co. (39 Ohio St. 375), 575. ■ ' Hause v. Judson (4 Dana, 7), 410. Havens v. Railroad (38 Conn. 69), 573. Haworoft v. Railway (8 Eng. L. & Bq. 863), 607, 610. Hawkins v. Hoffman (6 Hill, 586), 60, 130, 388, 844, 349, 680, 683, 687, 775. Hawkins v. Railroad (17 Mich. 57), 261,376. Hawkins v. Railway Co. (17 Mich. 63), 393, 395a. Hawkins v. Railway Co. (18 Mich. 437), 293, 295a. Hayes v. Campbell (63 Cal. 143), 84a. Hayes v. Wells (33 Cal. 185), 314. Hayes, In re (3 Curteis, Eo. 338), 377&. Hays V. GaUagher (73 Penn. St 136), 803. Hays V. Kennedy (41 Penn. St. 378), 175, 184, 383, 767. Hays V. MUlar (77 Penn. St 338), 79. Hays V. Paul (51 Penn. St 134), 79. Hays V. Penn. Co. (13 Fed. Rep. 309), 303. Hays V. Riddle (1 Sand. 348), 438, 481. Hays V. Stone (7 Hill, 128), 734. Hazard v. Fiske (83 N. Y. 387), 129. Hazard v. Railroad Co. (1 Biss. 503), 612. Hazard v. Railway (7 South. Rep. 380), 133, 124. Hazel V. Railroad (48 N. W. Rep. 936), 144a. Head v. Railway Co. (79 Ga. 358), 5806. Healey v. Railroad (38 Ohio St 591), 594. Heard v. Railroad Co. (3 Int St Com. Rep. Ill), 542. Heard v. Railroad Co. (1 Int St Com. Itet). 428), 542. Hearne v. Gai-ton (3 E. & E. 66), 319. Hedges v. Kansas City (18 Mo. App. 67), 781c Hedges v. The Railroad (49 N. Y. 333), 364, 374, 376, 377. Hegeman v. Railroad (13 N. Y. 9), 394, 500, 508, 506, 509, 513, 513a, 539. Hegeman v. Railroad (16 Barb. 353), 529. Heil V. Railroad Co. (16 Mo. App. 363), 149c, -767, 770a. Heinlein v. Railroad Co. (147 Mass. 136), 518, 557. Heirn V. MoCaughan (33 Miss. 17), 604, 608a, 795, 809, 809a. Heiserman v. Railway Co. (63 Iowa, 732), 756&, 756e. Helliwell v. Railway Co. (7 Fed. Rep. 76), 295a. Hellman v. HoUaday, (1 Woolw. 365), 685. Hemmingway v. Railroad Co. (73 Wis. 43), 617c, 648, 665. Hemphill v. Chenie (6 Watts & S. 63), 341. Hempstead v. Railroad (38 Barb.' .485), 168. Henderson v. Iron Ore (38 Fed. Rep. 36), 135c. Henderson v. Maid of Orleans (12 La. Ann. 353), 770a. Henderson v. Raih-oad Co. (20 Fed. Rep. 430), 697a. Henderson v. RaUroad Co. (123 U. S. 61), 697a. Henderson v. Railway Co. (86 Ky. 389), 783a. Henderson v. Stevenson (L. R. 2 H. L. Sc. 470), 580. Hendryx v. Railroad Co. ( — Kans, — ), 555. Henning v. Leather Co. ( — Ky. — ), 783a. ixvi TABLE OF CASES. References are to sections. Henry v. Railroad Co. (76 Mo. 288), 809. Henry v. Railway Co. (66 Iowa, 53), 638. Henry v. Railway Co. (49 Mich. 495), 803. Hermann v. Goodrich (31 Wis. 586), 431. Herrict v. Gallagher (60 Barb. 566), 393. Hersfleld v. Adams (19 Barb. 577), 70. Hei-sh V. Railroad Co. (74 Penn. 181), 303. Hewett V. Railway Co. (63 Iowa, 611), 395a, 338. Hewett V. Swift (3 Allen, 430), 591. Hibbard v. Railroad Co. (15 N. Y. 455), 558, 573, 591a, 599. Hibler v. McCartney (31 Ala. 50S), 183. Hickey v. RaUroad (14 Allen, 439), 652, 661e. Hickok V. Buck (33 Vt 149), 439. • Hickox V. Railroad (81 Conn. 381), 100. Hicks V. Railroad Co. (64 Mo. 430), 6e6a. Hicks V. Railroad Co. (68 Mo. 329), 538a, 580g, 810. Hicks V. Railway (4 Best & S. 403), 806. Hicks V. Shield (7 EL & B. 633), 472. HieskeU v. Bank (89 Penn. St 155), 131a. Higgins V. Railroad (38 La. Ann. 183), 361. Higgins V. The Tm-n. & Railroad Co. (46 N. y. 33), 599, 815. Higley y. Gilmer (8 Mont 98), 555. HiU V. Humphreys (5 Watts & S. 123), 340. Hill V. Leadbetter, 42 Me. 572), 443. Hill V. New Haven (37 Vt 501), 802. HUlv. Raiboad Co. (144 Mass. 284), 350. Hill V. Railroad Co. (60 Iowa, 196), 149, 153. Hill V. Railroad Co. (11 La. Ann. 393), 818. Hill V. Railroad Co. (63 N. Y. 101), 576, 580a, 580b, 590. HiU V. Sturgeon (28 Mo. 823), 388, 766. Hill V. Winsor (118 Mass. 351), 809a. Hill Mfg. Co. V. RaUroad Co. (104 Mass. 132), 153, 15a Hilhard v. Godd (34 N. H. 230), 571. Hillis V. Railway Co. (72 Iowa, 228), 617/, 617ft. Hillman V. Newington(57Cal. 56), 674. HUls V. Mackill (36 Fed. Rep. 703), 389, 303a Hinckley v. Railroad Co. (120 Masa 257), 803. Hinckley v. RaUroad (3 N. Y. S. G 281), 340. Hinckley f . RaUroad (56 N. Y. 429), 136, 136a, 313. Hinckley t. Railway (38 Wis. 194), 600. HinsdeU v. Weed (5 Denio, 172), 443, 44a Hinton v. Dibbin (2 Ad. & EL (N. S.) 646; 2Q. B. 646), 11,330. Hirsch v. Quaker City (3 Disney, 144), 370. Hh-shberg v. Dinsmore (13 Daly, 429), 359. Hoadley v. Transportation Ca (115 Mass. 304), 194, 337, 240. Hobbs V. RaUway Co. (49 Ark. 857), 538a, 590. Hobbs V. RaUway Co. (L. R. 10 Q. B. Ill), 807, 809. Hobson V. RaUroad Co. (— Ariz. — ), 803. Hocum V. Wertherick (22 Minn. 152), 802. Hodgson V. Pullarton (4 Taunt 787), 89. Hodgson V. Malcolm (5 Bos. & P. 336), 289. Hoeger v. The RaUway (63 Wis. 100), 685, 707. Hoffbauer v. Railroad Co. (52 Iowa, 848), 570, 571, 691a, 5916. Hoffman v. Noble (6 Mete. 68), 430. Hoffman v. Railroad Ca (45 Minn. 53), 580d, 815a. Hoffman v. Raih-oad Ca (75 N. Y. 605), 519. Hogue V. Railroad Ca (82 Fed. Rep. 365), 784. TA.T3LE OF CASES. Ixvii References are to sections. Holbrook v. Railroad Co. (13 N. Y. 236), 656, 657. Holbrook v. Railroad (16 Barb. 113), 507.- Holbrook v. Vose (6 Bosw. 76), 419. Holbrook v. Wight (34 Wend. 169), 135, 408. Holcorab V. Danby (51 Vt. 438), 672. Holdridge v. Railroad (56 Bavp. 191),' 710. Hole V. Digby (27 Wkly. Rep. 884), 523. Holl V. Griffin (10 Bing. 246), 405. Holladay t. Kennard (12 Wall. 254), 6, 208, 538. Holland v. Railroad Co. (144 Mass. 425), 777. Hollenbeck v. Railroad Co. (9 Cush. 478), 789. HoUister vi-TSTowlen (19 Wend. 234), 59, 60, 66, 86, 183, 239, 497. Holly V. Gas Co. (8 Gray, 138), 667. Holly V. Railroad Co. (61 Ga. 315), 500. Holmes v. Bailey (92 Penn. St 57), 131. Holmes v. Mather (L. R. 10 Ex. 361), 809. Holmes v. RaUroad Co. (94 N. C. 318), 814a, 815a. Holmes v. Railway Co. (L. R. 4 Exch. 354), 553a. Hohnes v. Wakefield (13 Allen, 580), 591. Holsapple v. Railroad Co. (3 A. & E. Ry. Cas. 487), 322. Holsapple v. Railroad Co. (86 N. Y. 375), 264, 270, 366a. Holt Y. Westcott (43 M& 445), 451. Holton V. Daly (l66 IB. 131), 784, 789. Holyoke v. Railway (48 N. H. 541), 805, 806. Holzal V. Railroad Co. (88 La. Ann. 185), 515a. Honeyman v. Railroad (13 Ore. 353), 44, 78, 56a, 685. Honegsberger v. Railroad Co. (1 Keyes, 570) 666. Hood V. Railroad (33 Conn. 503), 149, 158. Hood V. Railroad (32 Conn. 1), 153, 168, 578.' Hooper v. Railway (27 Wis. 81), 725. Hooper v. Wells (27 CaL 11), 44. Hopkins v. Railroad (36 N. H. 9), 814a, 815a. liopkins V. Westcott (6 Blatch. 64), 149, 350, 355,1683. Horn V. Bensusan (9 C. & P. 709), 473. Home V. RaUway Co. (L. R. 8' C. P. 131), 773, 774. Homthal v. Steamboat Co. (107 N. C. 76), 102a. Horsley v. Price (11 Q. B. Div. 344), 478. Hosea v. McCrory (12 Ala. 849), 74. Hostetter v. Park (187 U. S. 80), 812. Hostetter v. Railroad (11 AtL Rep. 609), 126. Hoth V. Peters (55 Wis. 405), 802. Houok T. Railway Co. (38 Fed. Rep. 689), 542. Hough V. Railroad Co. (100 U. S. 213), 803. Houghkirk t. Canal Co. (93 N. Y. 319), 784. Hover V. Railroad Co. (35 Ohio, 667), 'r89a. Howard Ex. Co. v. Wile (64 Penn. St 301), 27. Howard v. Macondray (7 Gray, 516), 485. Howard v. Railroad Co. (61 Miss. 194), 580&. Howard v. Shepherd '9 Com. B. 397), 188. Howard v. Wissman (18 How. 281), ' 216a. Howard County v. Legg (93 I^d. 523), 784. Howe V. Stewart (40 Vfc 145), 410. HoweU V. Goodrich (69 DL 556), 806. Howser v. Meloher (40 Mich, 185), 756a. Hoyt V. Hudson (41 Wis. 105), 802. Hozier v. BaUway Co. (1 N. & M. 79), 302. Ixviii TABLE OF CASES. References are to sections. Hrebrik v. Carr (39 Fed. Rep. 398), 519. Hubbard v. Express Co. (10 B. 1. 344), 767. Hubbard v. Telegraph Co. (33 Wis. 558), 81o. Hubbell V. Insurance Co. (74 N. Y. 346), 444o. Hubbersty v. Ward (8 Exch. 330), 133, 134. Hubgh V. Railroad Co. (6 La. Ann. 495), 777. Hudson V. Baxendale (3 Hurl. & N. 575), 103a, 355. Hudson V. Railway Co. (83 Mo. App. 667), 803. Hudson Canal Co. v. Coal Co. (8 WalL 376), 136a. Hudston y. Railway (L. R 4 Q. B. 366), 681, 685. Huelsencamp v. Railway (34 Mo. 45), 653. Huff V. Ames (16 Neb. 139), 667. Hufford V. Railroad Co. (53 Mich. 118), 58071, 580i, 580;; 593- Hufford V. Railroad Co. (64 Mich. 631), mOj, 580Z. Hughes V. Insurance Co. (100 N. Y. 58), 444a. Hughes V. RaUroad Co. (61 Ga. 131), 793. Hugg V. Insurance Co. (7 How. 595), 459, 464. Hugg V. The Mining, etc. Co. (35 Md. 414), 464, 466. Hughes V. Maofle (3 HurL & C. 744), 666. Hughes V. Railway (14 Com. B. 637), 339, 751. Hulbert v. Railroad Co. (40 N. Y. 145), 517, 531, 647. Hulbert v. Topeka (84 Fed. Rep. 510), 783a, 789. Hulett V. Swift (33 N. Y. 671), 699. HuU V. Railway Co. (41 Minn. 510), 318, 359a. Humphreys v. Reed (6 Whart; 485), 68a, 66, 443. Hund V, Geier (72 111. 893>, 666. Hunn V. Railroad Co. (78 Mich. 513), 784 Hunnewell v. Taber (3 Sprague, 1), 380&, 321. Hunt V. Haskell (34 Ma 339), 430, 431, 494. Hunt V. Railroad (39 La. Ann. 448), 133. Hunt V. Propeller Cleveland (6 McLean, 76), 764, 767. Hunter v. Fry (3 B. & Aid. 431)j 475. Hunter v. Potts (4 Camp. 308), 319. Hunter v. Prinsep (10 East, 378), 444a, 456, 458. Hunter v. Railroad Co. (112 N. Y. 371), 643. Hunter v. Railroad Co. (136 N. Y. 18), 661c. Hunter v. Railway Co. 76 Tex. 195), 149, 149a, 149b. Hunter v. Stewart (47 Ma 419), 796. Huntingdon v. Dinsmore (4 Hun, 66), 340. Huntley v. Dows (55 Barb. 310), 473. Huntoon v. TrumbuU (3 MeCrary, 314), 781eL Hurley v. Milward (1 Jones & C. 334), 8b8. Hurst V. Railway Co. (84 Mich. 539), 7816, 784, 789c. Hurst V. RaUway (19 C. B. (N. S.) 310), 607. Hurt V. Railroad (40 Miss. 391), 565. Hurt V. Railway Ca (94 Mo. 255), 613, 618, 614. Hurtin v. Insurance Ca (1 Wash. 530), 466, 459. Hussey v. Ryan (64 Md. 426), 779. Hussey v. The Sargossa (8 Wood% 380), 768a. Huston V. Peters (1 Met 658), 341. Hutchings v. Ladd (16 Mich. 493), 269. Hutchins v. Railway Co. (44 Minn. 5), 784. Hutchinson v. Guion (5 C. B. 149), 319. Hutchinson v. Railway Ca (37 Minn. 634), 316. Hutton V. Osborne (1 SeL N. P. 420), 18,34. TABLE OF CASES. Ixix References are to sections. Hyatt V. Adams (16 Mich. 180), 777, 780, 783. Hyde v. Railroad Co. (61 Iowa, 441), 789a. lU V. Railroad (47 N. Y. 317), 784. Illinois, etc. Co. v. Beaird (24 111. Ap. 322), 303, 750, 756c. Imhoflv. Railroad (22 Wis. 682), 613. Imhoflf V. Railway (20 Wis. 344), 613. Independence Mills Co. v. Railway Co. (73 Iowa, 535), 378a, 750. Ipdermaur v. Dames (L. R. 1 Com. P. 247; L. R 2 Com. P. Ill), 562. iQgalls V. Bills (9 Mete. 1), 498, 500, 506, 508, 512a, 531, 534, 662. Ingate v. Christie (3 Car. & Kir. 61), 61. IngersoU v. Railroad Co. (8 Allen, 438), 5156. Ingel'soU V. Van Bokkelin (7 Cow. 670), 426. Ingledew v. Railroad Co. (7 Gray, 86), 770a, 771. Inhabitants, etc. v. Hall (61 Me. 517), 149, 154. Inman v. RaUway Co. (129 U. S. 128), 262, 429a, 722. Insurance Co., Arctic, v. Austin (54 Barb. 559), 79. Insm-ance Co. v. Bonn (95 IT. S. 117), 809&. Insurance Co. v. Brame (95 U. S. 754), 782. Insurance Co. v. Brig Sarah Ann (13 Pet 387), 435. Insurance Co. v. Bryan (1 HiU, 35), 277&. Insurance Co. v. Bryan (36 Wend. 563), 3776. Insurance Co. v. Butler (30 Md. 41), 444a, 466. Insurance Co. v. Calebs (20 N. Y. 173), ' 733. Insui-ance Co. v. Catlett (13 Wheat 383), 456, 458. Insurance Co. v. Center (4 Wend. 45), 435. Insurance Co. v. Chase (1 E. D. Smith, 115), 157. Insurance Co. v. Groom (4 Bush, 389), 288. Insurance Co. v. Huth (16 Oh. Div. 474), 437. Insurance Co. v. Kountz Line (4 Woods, 368), 166a. Insurance Co. v. Lenox (1 Johns. Cas. 377; 3 id. 443), 456, 461. Insurance Co. v. Railroad Co. (104 U. S. 170), 102a, 103. Insurance Co. v. Railroad Co. (35 Conn. 365), 783. Insurance Co. v. Railway Co. (63 Tex. 475), 337c, ^39. Insurance Co. v. Railroad Co. (73 N. Y. 90), 240. Insurance Co. v. Railroad Co. (80 La. Ann. 303), 766, 767. Insurance Co. v. Railroad Co. (34 La.- Ann. 100), 766. Insurance Co. v. Railway Go. (3 Mc- Crary, 333), 3956. Insurance Co. v. Railroad (8 Barb. 268), 102a, 103. Insurance Co. v. Shillito (15 Ohio St 559), 308. Insurance Co. v. Speares (16 Ind. 53), 308. Insurance Co. v. St. Louis, etc. Co. (130 U. S. 166), 386. Insurance Co. v. Storrow (5 Paige, 385), 3776. Insurance Co. v. Transportation Co. (117 U. S. 312), 363. Insurance Co. v. Transportation Co. (130 Cr. S. 166), 176. Insurance Co. v. Tweed (7 Wall 44), 809. Insurance Co. v. Wheeler (49 N. Y. 616), 153. Interstate Com. Commission v. Rail- road Co. (43 Fed. Rep. 37), 303. Ireland v. Johnson (1 Bing. N. C. 163), 750. Irelson v. Railroad Co. ( — La. Ann. — ), 538. Irish V. Railway (19 Minn. 376), 103, 149. Irwin V. Railroad (59 N. Y. 653), 368. IxX TABLE OF CASES. Beferences are to sections Irzo V. Perkins (10 Fed. Rep. 779), 448. Iron Co. V. Brawley (83 Ala. 375), 7816. Isaacs V. Railroad (47 N. Y. 132), 599, 815. Isaacson v. Railroad Co. (25 Hun), 350), 703a. Isaacson v. Railroad Co. (94 N. T. 278), 688a, 708a, 718. Isabel V. RaUroad (60 Mo. 475), 667. Izetfc Y. Mountain (4 East, 371), 253. Jackson v. Crilly (— Colo. — ), 652. Jackson v. Isaacs (3 H. & N. 405), 473. Jackson v. Railroad (23 Cal. 268), 370. Jackson v. Railway Co. (87 Mo. 422), 541a. Jackson v. Railway (L. R. 2 Com. P. Div. 125), 529, 638. Jackson v. RaUroad (47 Ind. 454), 803. Jackson v. Raili-oad (47 N. Y. 374), 599. Jacobs V. Tutt (33 Fed. Rep. 413), 685. Jacobus V. Railway Co. (30 Minn. 125), 260, 538a, 567, 583, 654. James v. Christy (18 Mo. 162), 778. Jamison v. Railroad Co. (55 Cal. 593), 8036. Jaques v. Railroad (41 Conn. 61), 806. Jardine v. Cornell (50 N. J. L. 485), 591, 810. Jarrett v. Railway Co. (83 Ga. 347), 643. Jeffrey v. Bigelow (13 Wend. 518), 443. Jellett V. Railway Co. (30 Minn. 265), 776a. Jencks v. Coleman (2 Sumn. 221), 66, 538, 539, 546. Jenkins v. Motlow (1 Sneed, 348), 25. Jenkyns v. Usborne (7 M. & G. 678), 411. Jennings v. Railway (53 Hun, 237), . 84a. Jerome v. Smith et al. (48 Vt 230), 573. Jessel V. Bath (L. R. 2 Ex. 267), 133, 135a, 135c, 138. Jesson V. Solly (4 Taunt 52), 448. Jewell V. RaUway Ca (54 Wis. 610), 643. Jewell V. Railroad (55 N. H. 84), 340. Jobbitt v. Goundry (29 Barb. 509), 451. John V. Bacon (L. R. 5 C. P. 437), 515. Johnson v. Friar (4 Yer. 47), 51, 286. Johnson v. Hill (3 Starkie, 172), 489. Johnson v. Railroad Co. (125 Mass. 77), 561o. Johnson v. Railroad Co. (63 Md. 106), 575. Johnson v. Railroad Co. (16 Fla. 633), 302, 567a. Johnson v. Railway Ca (18 Neb. 690), 072. Johnson v. Railroad (11 Minn. 296), 500. Johnson v. Railroad (70 Peim. St. 357), 638, 641, 642. Johnson t. Raih-oad (38 N. Y. 610X 311, 314. Johnson v. Railroad (46 N. H. 213), 580, 612. Johnson v. Railroad (5 Duer, 21 ; 20 N. Y. 65), 802. Johnson v. Stone (11 Humph. 419), 682. Johnston v. Davis (60 Mich. 56), 3666, 476. JoUet V. Weston (123 HL 641), 784 Jones, In re (8 C. R (N. S.) 718), 302. Jones V. Boyce (1 Stark. 493), 534, 662. Jones V. Earl (37 CaL 630), 410. Jones V. Pearls (1 Strange, 556), 494 Jones V. Pitcher (3 Stew. & P. 135), 66. Jones V. RaUi-oad Co. (89 Ala. 376), 1496, 340. Jones V. Railway Ca (1 N. & McN. 45), 303. Jones T. Railway Ca (42 Mum. 183), 661c Jones V. Railway Co. (17 Mo. Ap. 158), 570. Jones V. Railway Co. (81 Ma Ap. 614), 612. Jones V. Railroad (29 Bai-b. 633X 771. Jones V. Railroad (27 Vt 399), 67. TABLE or CASES. Ixxi Sefetences are to sections. Jones V. Transportation Co. (50 Barb. 193), 710. Jones V. Voorhies (10 Ohio, 145), 260, 683. Jordan v. Hyatt (4 Gratt 151), 8095. Jordan v. Insurance Co. (1 Story, 343), 444a, 459. Jordan v. James (5 Ham. 88), 430. Jordan v. Railway Co. ( — Ky. — ), 783a. Jordan v. Railroad (5 Cusli. 69), 683. Joseph V. Knox (8 Camp. 830), 736. Joslyn V. Railway (51 Vt. 92), 139, 180, 131, 1316, 133. Joy V. Winnissimet Co. (114 Mass. 63), 799. Jucker v. RaUway Co. (53 Wis. 150), 809e. Judson V. Railroad Co. (6 Allen, 486), 115a, 237. Judson V. Railroad Co. (4 AUen, 530), 186. Julia, The (14 Moore P. C. 310), 79. June V. Railroad Co. ( — Mass. — ), 557, 563. Kalamazoo Hack Co. v. Sootsma (84 Mich. 194), 533, 523. KaUman v. Kxpress Co. (3 Kan. 305), 237, 240, 349, 767. Karr v. Parks (40 Cal. 188), 666. Karr v. Parks (44 Cal. 46), 779. Kaskaskia Bridge Co. v. Shannon, (1 Oilman, 15), 443. Kay V. Field (8 Q. B. Div. 594), 473. Kay V. Field (10 Q. B. Div. 241), 473. Kay V. Railroad Co. (65 Penn. St 269), 688, 666a, 667. Kearney V. Railroad Co. (9 Cush. 108), 777, 789. Keating v. RaOroad (49 N. Y. 678), 647. Keefe v. Railroad Co. (143 Mass. 351), 519. Keeley v. Railroad Co. (67 Me. 163), 580/. Keene v. Lizardi (5 La. 431), 680. Keeneyv. RaUroad Co. (125 N. Y. 433), 564. Keeney v. Railroad Go- (47 N. Y. 535), 3806, 301. Keith V. Amende (1 Bush, 455), 125. Keith Y. Pmkham (43 Me. 501), 651. Kelham v. The Kensington (24 La. Ann. 100), 767. KeU V. Anderson (10 M. & "W. 498), 478. Kellen v. Raiboad Co. (27 Minn. 178), 613, 614. Kelley v. Hendrie (36 Mich. 355), 7896. Kelley v. Railroad Co. (5 McCrarj', 653), 784. Kelley v. Railroad Co. (135 Mass. 448). 789. Kellogg V. Railroad Co. (100 N. C. 158), 97. KeUogg V. Railway Co. (36 Wis. 333), 809a. Kellogg V. Railroad Co. (79 N. Y. 73), 784, 806. Kellow V. RaUway Co. (68 Iowa, 470), 515e. Kelly V. Railroad Co. (89 Hun, 486), 519. KeUy V. Railway Co. (109 N. Y. 44), 519. Kelly V. Railroad Co. (113 N. Y. 443), 531a. Kelly V. Railroad Co. (70 Mo. 609), 500, 613, 613. KeUy Y. RaUway Co. (14 Daly, 418), 784. Kemp V. Clark (13 Q. B. 647), 448. Kemp V. Coughtiy (11 Johns. 107), • 19, 57, 393. KeudaU v. Boston (118 Mass. 334), 799. KendaU v. Brown (74 111. 283), 301. KendaU v. RaUway Co. (L. R 7 Ex. 373), 216a, 220. Kennard v. Burton (25 Me. 39), 778, 781a. Kennedy v. Refinery (125 Mass. 90). 789. Kennedy v. RaUroad Co. (74 Ala. 480), 378. Kenney v. RaUroad Co. (135 N. Y. 422), 586. Kent V. RaUroad (33 Barb. 278), 771. Kentucky Bridge Co. v. Raih-oad Co. (87 Fed. Rep. 616), 81c. Ixxii TABLE OF CASES. References are to sections, Keokuk Packet Co. v. True (88 111. 608), 561a. Keokuk Packet Co. v. Hemy (50 111, 460), 643. Ker y. Mountain (1 Esp. 27), 613. Kerrigan v. Railroad Co. (81 Cal 348), 578. Kerwhaoker v. Railroad (3 Ohio St 173), 673. Kessler v. Railroad (7 Lans. 63), 152, 578. Kessler v. Railroad (61 N. Y. 538), .579. Ketchum v. Express Co. (53 Mo. 390), 349, 360. Kidd V. Pearson (128 U. S. 1), 310c. Kieran v. Sandare (6 Ad. & El. 515), 405. Kiff V. Railroad (117 Mass. 591), 399. Kiffi V. Railroad Co. (32 Kan. 263), 273. Kiley v. Telegraph Co. (109 N. Y. 231), 81a. Killett V. Railroad Co. (22 Mo. App. 856), 815a. Killmer v. Railroad Co. (100 N. Y. 395), 303, 447. Kilpatrick v. Railroad Co. ( — Penn. — ), 643. Kimball v. Railroad (26 Vt. 249), 44, 45, 56a, 75, 331, 237, 261. King V. Pippett (1 T. R 235), 751. King V. Richards (6 Whart 418), 404, 491. King V. Railway Co. (23 Fed, Rep. 413),, 548. King V. Shepherd (3 Story, 349), 65, 179, 202, 290. King V. Woodbridge (34 Vt 565), 240, 771. Kinney v. Crocker (18 Wis. 74), 796. Kinney v. Railroad (82 N. J, Law, 407), 261, 586. Kinnick v. Railway Co. (69 Iowa, Kinsley v. Railroad Co. (125 Mass. 54), 617/1. Kinsley v. Railroad Co. (87 Fed. Rep. 181), 302. Kinsman v. Insurance Co. (5 Bosw. 460), 473. Kipperley v, Ramsden (83 IlL 854), 803, Kirby v. Adams Ex. Co. (3 St L. App, 369), 44 Kirby v. RaUway (18 L. T. (N. S.) 658)^ 284. Kirk V. Folsom (23 La, Ann, 584), 767, Kirk V. RaUway Co. (97 N. C. 82), 638. Kirkland v. Dinsmore (63 N. Y. 171), 340, 341. Kirkland v. Leary (2 Sweeney, 677), 771. Ku-kman v. Shawcross (6 T. R. 14), 477. Kirkpatrick v. Railway Co. (86 Mo. 841), 788. Kirtland v. Montgomery (3 Swan, 453), 19, 57, 66, 74. Kitchell V. Vanadar (1 Blackf. 856), 480. Klauber v. Express Co. (21 Wis. 31), 216. Klein v. Fischer (30 Ma App. 568), 416a. Klein v. Packet Co. (8 Daly, 390), 710. Kline v. Railroad (37 CaJ. 400), 591. Klingman v. Holmes (54 Mo. 304), 779. Knapp V. Express Co. (55 N. IL 348), 152. Knight V. Bean (22 Me. 531), 319. Knight V. Railroad Ca (13 R. 1 672). 149, 149b, 478a. Knight T. Raih-oad Co. (108 Penn. St 250), 789a. Knight V. Railway Co. (33 La. Ann. 462), 676. Knight V. Railroad (56 Me 284), 152, 517, 578, 641, Knights V. Quarles (2 Brod. & Bing, 102), 790, 792. Knightstown v. Musgrove (116 Ind, 121), 674. Knott V. Raihroad Co. (98 N. C. 78). 149. Knowles v. Railroad Co. (102 N. a 59), 572, 591, 810, 814a, TABLE OF OASES. Ixxiii References are to sections. Knowles v. Eaili-oad (38 Me. 55), 30, 33. Knowlton v: Railroad (19 Ohio St 260), 260. Knowlton v. Eailway Co. (59 Wis. 278), 672. Knox V.' Rivers (14 Ala. 249), "57. Kohler v. Railroad Co. ( — Penn. St. — ), 661a. Kohn V. Packard (3 La. 225), 360. Kramer y. Railroad Co. (25 Cal. 484), 782. Kremer v. Express Co. (6 Cold. 356), 355, 383. Krom V. Levy (48 N. Y. 679), 772. Krulder v. Ellison (47 N. Y. 87), 131c, 726, 731, 733, 735. Kunz V. Troy (104 N. Y. 844), 666a. Kuttner v. Railway Dp. (29 Mo. App. 502), 800. Kyle V. Railroad (10 Rich. 382), 148. La Blanche v. Eailway Co. (L. R. 1 C. P. Div. 286), 774. Laclouch V. Towle (3 Esp. 114), 405. Ladd V. Foster (31.Fed. Rep. 827), 784 Lafitte V. Railroad Co. (42 La. Ann. — ), 600. Laflain v. RaUroad Co. (106 N. Y. 136), 518, 521a. LaSrey v. Grummond (74 Mich. 186), 706. Laing v. Colder (8 Pa. St. 479), 500, 534. 655, 796, 797, 800, 801. Lake v. Milliken (62 Me. 240), 819. Lakeman v. Grrinnell (5 Bosw. 625), 769. Lakeman v. PoUai-d (43 Me. 463), 319. Lamar v. Micou (114 U. S. 218), 144a. Lamb v. Parkman (1 Sprague, 343), 73, 304. Lamb v. Railroad (46 N. Y. 271), 270, 280, 767, 768. Lamb v. Railroad (46 N. Y. 271), 102a, 152, 766. Lambert v. Robinson (1 Esp. 119), 478. Lambeth v. Raih-oad (66 N. C. 494), 600, 643. Lampley V. Scott (24 Miss. 528), 83. Land v. EaUroad (104 N. C. 48), 97. Lane v. Atlantic Works (111 Mass. 136), 809. Lane v. Cotton (1 Salk. 143), 47. Lane v. Cotton (1 Ld. Raym. 646), 55, 81, 115. ' Lane v. Penniman (4 Mass. 91), 469. Lane v. Railroad (14 Gray, 143), 480. La:;ie v. Railroad Co. (5 Lea, 124), 570. Langstaff v. Stix (64 Miss. 171'), 416a. Lapointe v. Railroad Co. (144 Mass. , 18), 660. Larrison v. Railway Co. (1 Interstate Com. Rep. 147), 569a. Latham v. Eutley (2 Barn. & C. 20), 754. Laubheim v. Steamship Co. (107 N. Y. 228), 632a. Laugher v. Pointer (5 B. & C. 547), 158. Laughlin v. Eailway (28 Wis. 204), . 761. Laurent v. Vaughn (30 Vt. 90), 769, 771. Laurie v. Douglass (15 M. & W. 746), 287. Laveroni v. Drury (8 Exch. 166 : 16 Eng. L. & Eq. 510), 65, 281. Law v. Hatcher (4 Blackf. 364), 781. Law V. Railroad (32 Iowa, 534), 591. Lawrence v. Car Co. (144 Mass. 1), 617i. Lawrence v. Denbreens (1 Black, 170), 216a. Lawrence v. Green (70 Cal! 417), 662, 800. Lawrence v. Minturn (17 How. 100), 130, 131e., 285. Lawrence v. Raiboad (29 Conn. 390), 805. Lawrence v. Railroad (36 Conn. 63), 261. Lawson v. Railway Co. (64 Wis. 447), 269, 5556, 654a. Lawson v. Worms (6 Cal. 365), 471. Layng v. Stewart (1 W. & S. 222), 450. Leavenworth Co. v. Miller (7 Kan. 524, 535), 221.. Ixxiv TABLE OF CASES. References are to sections. Leavitt v. Railway Co. (64 Wis. 328), 638. Le Barron v. FeiTy Co. (11 Allen, 312), 530, 799. Lebeau v. Navigation Co. (L. R. 8 C. P. 88), 125a Le Blanche v. Railway Co. (1 C. P. Div. 286), 606. Leckey v. McDermott (8 S. & R 500), 430. Le Conteur v. Railway (L. R 1 Q. B. 54;6Best&S. 961), 690. Lee V. Burgess (9 Bush, 652), 74. Lee V. Gas Co. (98 N. Y. 115), 803. Lee V. Kimball (45 Me. 172), 395. Lee V. Railroad (72 N. C. 236), 216, 231. Lee V. Railway Co. (58 N. Y. Super. 260), 6086. Leech v. Baldwin (5 Watts, 446), 443. Leeds v. Insurance Co. (84 N. Y. 551), 125a. Leeson v. Holt (1 Stark. 186), 339. Leggett V. Railway Co. (1 Q. B. Div. 599), 789. Leggett V. Railroad Co. ( — Penn. St — ), 643. Lehr v. Raikoad Co. (118 N. Y. 556), 653o, Leigh V. Smith (1 Car. & P. 638), 83, 84. Leighton v. Shapley (8 N. H. 359), 344. Lemke v. Railroad (39 Wis. 449), 370, 376, 377. Lemon v. Chanslor (68 Mo. 340), 500. Lemon v. Walker (9 Mass. 404), 401a, Lemont v. Lord (52 Me. 365), 466. Lemont v. Railroad Co. (1 Maokey, 180), 670. Lemont V. Railroad Ca (38 Fed. Rep. 920), 398. Lempriere v. Paaley (3 T. R 485), 493. Lenox v. Insurance Co. (8 Johns. Cas. 178), 126. Lent V. Railroad Co. (54 N. Y. Super. 317), 515e. Lent V. Railroad Co. (120 N. Y. 467), 515e, 649gf, 661c. Leonard v. Hendricksoft (18 Penn. St 40), 79. Leonard v. Navigation Co. (84 N. Y. 48), 789a. Leonard v. Telegraph Co. (41 N. Y. 544), 81. Leonard v. Tidd (8 Mete. 6), 115a. Leslie v. Lewiston (62 Me. 468), 667. Leslie v. Raih-oad Co. (88 Mo. 55), 500. Lesinsky v. Gr. W. Despatch (10 Mo. App. 134), 103, 103a. Levering v. Transportation Co. (42 Mo. 88), 240, 348a. Levi V. Railroad Co. (11 Allen, 300), 59, 60, 67b. Levy V. Express Co. (4 Rich. S. C. (N. S.) 334), 349. Lewis V. Ludwiok (6 Cold. 368), 206. Lewis V. Railway Co. (54 Mich. 55), 809. Lewis V. Railroad (11 Met 509), 340. Lewis V. Railroad (38 Md. 588), 641. Lewis V. RaUway (L. R 9 Q. B. 66), 615. Lewis V. Railway (5 H. & N. 867), 84a, 334,359. Lewis V. Sleeping-car Ca (143 Mass. 367), 617d, 617/. Lewis V. Smith (107 Mass. 334), 586. Libby v. IngaUs (124 Mass. 503), 130, 131, 1316. License Cases (5 How. 504), 210c. Lickbarrow v. Mason (2 T. R 63; 6 East, 21 ; 1 Smith Ld. Gas. 896), 129, 131c 414, 430, 476. Liddard v. Lopes (10 East, 526), 45a Lillis V. Railway Co. (64 Mo. 464), 58o, 5806, 590. LiUy V. Railroad Ca (— S. G — ), 788. • Iiimburger v. Westcott (49 Barb. 283), 245. Limpus V. Omnibus Ca (1 H. & C. 526), 815. Lincoln v. Railroad (33 Wend. 425), 806. Lincobi v. Walker (18 Neb. 244), 803. Lindley v. Dempsey (45 Ind. 246), 773. TABLE OF OASBSl Ixxv References are to sections. Lindley v. RaUroad Co. (88 N. C. 547), 168. Lindsey v. Railway Co. (64 Iowa, 407), 643, 661c. Lindsley v. Railway Co. (36 Minn, 539), 218, 331, 768a. Lisoomb v. Railroad & Trans. Co. (6 Lans. 75), 517. Litchfield Coal Co. v. Taylor (81 111. 590), 639. Litt V. Cowley (7 Taunton, 169), 410, : 413, 430. Little V. Fossett (34 Me. 545), 439, 731. Little V. Haokett (116 U. S. 366), 674. Little V. Railroad (66 Me. 339), 764. Litilejohn v. Jones (3 McMuUan, 865), 58. Littlejohn v. Railroad Co. (148 Mass. 478), 515b, 565, 567. Littlewood v. New York (89 N. Y. 34), 7896. ^/ Liver Alkali Co. v. Johnson (L. R. 7 Ex. 367; id. 838), 57b, 65. Liverpool, etc. Steam Co. v. Insurance Co. £129 U. S. 397), 65, 144a. 387. Liverpool, etc. S. Co. v. Snitter (17 Fed. Rep. 695), 364. Livie V, Janson (12 East, 648), 809. Livingston v. Railroad (5 Hun, 563), 381. Lock Co. V. Railroad (48 N. H. 339), 148, 157, 168. Lockhart v. Lichtenthaler (46 Penn, St 151), 676. Lockier v. Patterson (1 Car. & Kir. 271), 793. Loeb V. Peters (63 Ala. 348), 129, 413, 414. Loeffler v. Packet Go. (7 Mo. Ap. 185), 776a. Logan V. Railroad Co. (77 Mo. 668), 538a, 580sr. Logan V. Railway (11 Rob. (La.) 34), 706. Logwood V. Railroad Co. (38 Fed. Rep. 310), 543. London v. Raili-oad (7 H. & N. 600), 84a. Long V. Morrison (14 Ind. 595), 780,; 783. Long V. RaUroad (50 N. Y. 76), 136, 346. Longmeid v. Holliday (6 Exch. 761), 512. Longmore v. Railway (19 Com. B. (N. S.) 183), 519. Lopez V. Mining Co. (1 Ariz. 464), 802. Loring v. Mulcahy (3 AUen, 575)' 115a. Losee v. Buchanan (51 N. Y. 476), 809. Louisiana Bank v. Laveille (52 Mo. 380), 133. Louisville Canal Co. v. Murphy (9 Bush, 522), 667. Louisville, etc. Co. v. Telegraph Co. (34 Am. L. Reg. 579), 81a. Lovejoy v. Murray (8 Wall. 1), 426. Loveland v. Burke (120 Mass. 139), 841, 366. Lovell V. Iron Co. (—Ala — ),.788a.. Lovett V. Hobbs (3 Shower, 427), 114. Lovett V. Railroad (9 Allen, 557), 594. Lowe V. Moss (12 111. 477), 335. Lowell Wire Fence Co. v. Sargent (8 Allen, 189), 153, 168. Lowremore v. Berry (19 Ala. 130), 404. Loyd V. Railroad (53 Mo. 509), 644 Lubbock V. Inglis (1 Stark. 104), 849. Lucas V. Nockells (4 Bing. 729), 483. Lucas V. Penn. Co. (120 Ind. 205), 517. Lucas V. Railroad Co. (6 Gray, 64), 648, 670. Lucas V. Railway Co. (33 Wis. 53\ 538a. Ludlow V. Bowne (1 Johns. 1), 784. Luke V. Lyde (3 Burr. 882), 444a, 446, 456, 461. Lundy V. Railroad Co. (66 CaL 191), 575. Lusby T. Railway Co. (41 Fed. Rep. 181), 538a. Lygo V. Newbold (9 Exch. 302), 538, 555, 666. Lyle V. Barker (5 Bin. 457), 436. Ixxvi TABLE OF CASES. References are to sections. Lynch v. Davis (la How. Pr. 333), 783. Lynch v. Smith (104 Mass. 52), 666, 666o, 667. Lyon, The (1 Brown Adm. 59), 79. Lyon V. Mells (5 East, 438), 393. Lyon V. Smith (1 Iowa, 184), 56. Lyons v. Hoffnung (15 A pp. Cas. 391), 416. Lyons v. Hill (46 N. H. 49), 393. Lyons v. Railroad Co. (10 N. Y. Suppl. 337), 597. Lyons t. Railroad Co. (101 Ind. 419), 803. Lyons t. Rosenthal (11 Hun, 46), 798. Lyons v. Woodward (49 Me. 39), 777. Mackay v. Railroad Co. (— W. Va. — ), 5807i, 580/ Maciin v. The New Jersey St Bt Co. 7 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 229), 698. Mackoy v. Railway Co. (18 Fed. Rep. 236), 500. Macrow v. Railway (L R. 6 Q. B. 612), 678, 681, 685, 687. Madan v. Sherard (73 N. Y. 329), 245. Magee t. Holland (8 Dutcher, 86), 779. Maghee v. Raihroad Co. (45 N. Y. 514), 340, 271, 280&, 310, 315. Magnin v. Dinsmore (70 N. Y. 410), 214, 250, 256, 380. Magnin v. Dinsmore (63 N. Y. 35), ^ 300, 314, 350, 356, 770. Magnin v. Dinsmore (56 N. Y. 168), 300, 314, 337, 250, 261, 364, 370. Maguire v. Railroad Co. (115 Mass. 339), 645a, 653a, 668. Maher v. Railroad (67 N. Y. 53), 638, 665. Mahon v. Blake (135 Mass. 477), 3496. Mahoney v. Railroad Co. (63 Me. 68), 515b. Maignan v. Railroad (24 La. Ann. 333), 370. Malcolm v. Railroad Co. (106 N. C. 63), 611, 652. Mallory v. Railroad Co. (39 Barb. 488), 75. Malmster v. Railroad Ca (49 Midi. 94), 674 Malone v. Railroad Co. (12 Gray, 388), 245, 580. Mangam v. Railway Co. (38 N. Y. 455), 666a. Mangan v. Atterton (L R. 1 BxcL 239), 667. Manhattan Oil Co. v. Railroad (54 N. Y. 197), 273. Manly v. Railroad Co. (74 N. C. 655), 666a, 803. Mann v. Birchard (40 Vt 336), 361, 766. Mann v. White River, etc. Co. (46 Mich. 38), 816. Manning v. HoUenbeok (27 Wis. 202), 491. Manser v. Railway Co. (3 L. T. 585), 513, 513a. Mansfield, etc. Co. v. McEnery (91 Penn. St 185), 784. Manson v. Railroad Ca (31 Fed. Rep. 397), 473. Majiufg. Co. V. Railroad (104 Mass. 122), 152, 153. Manufg. Co., Washburn, v. Railroad (113 Mass. 490), 168. Maples V. RaUroad (38 Conn. 557), 572, 590. Margaret, The (94 U. S. 494), 79. Mariott, In re (1 C. B. 499), 523. Markham v. Brown (8 N. H. 533), 533. Marks v. HamUton(7 Exch. 323), 439. Maroney v. Railway Ca (106 Mass. 153), 580, 580/ 586. Marquette v. Railroad (33 Iowa, 563), 650, 652. Marr v. Telegi-aph Co. (85 Tenn, 529), 81a. Mai-s V. Canal Ca (54 Hun, 635), 597. Marsh v. Railway Co. (3 McCrary, 236), 478a. Mai-sh ads. Blyth, 1 Nott & McCord, 170), 289. Marshall v. Express Co. (7 Wis. 1), 379, 383, 386. Mai-shall v. Railroad Ca (48 N. Y. 660), 336. Marshall v. Railroad Ca(78 Ma 610), 538a, 580g(, 580/ 6086. TABLE OF OASES. Ixxvii References are to sections. Marshall v. Railroad (45 Barb. 503), 337. Marshall v. Railway (11 Com. B. 655 ; 7 Eng.'Law & Eq. 519), 537, 563, 678, 744, 763. Mai-shall v. Welwood (38 N. J. L. 339), 809. Maitin v. McLaughlin (5 Colo. 387), 750. Martin v. McLaughlin (9 Colo. 153), 494 Martin v. Porter (5 M. & W. 351), 468. Martin v. Railway (16 Com. B. 179), 518. Martinsdale t. Smith (1 Q. B. 389), 493. Mashiter v. Buller (1 Camp. 84), 469, 473. Maslin v. Railroad Co. (14 W. Va 180), 555b, 583. Mason v. Railway Co. (35 Mo. App. 473), 393, 835d. Masser v. Railway Co. (68 Iowa, 603), 666a. Mastereon v. Short (33 How. Pr. 481), 533. Masierton v. Mayor of Brooklyn (7 Hill, 61), 773. Mather v. Express Co. (9 Biss. 393), 337c. Mather v. Express Co. (138 Mass. 55), 68,7706. Matteson v. Railroad Co. (76 N. Y. 381), 717. Matthews v. Gibbs (3 El. & EI. 383), 464, 466. Matthews v. Poythress (4 Ga. 387), 139a. Matthews v. Railway Co. (36 Mo. App. 75), 639, 777, 779, 784. Mattison v. Railroad (57 N. Y. 553), 713, 713, Mathiessen Co. v. Gusi (39 Fed. Rep. 794), 135c, 389. Mauran v. Insurance Co. (6 Wall. 1), 306. Mauritz v. The Railroad (33 Fed. Rep. 765), 6836,- 685. Maury v. Talmadge (3 McLean, 157), 500, 507, 534. Maverick v. RaOroad (36 N. Y. 378), 600. Maving v. Todd (1 Stark. 73), 339, 350. Max Y. Roberts (13 East, 89), 750. May V. Hanson (5 Cal. 360), 58. Mayell v. Potter (3 Johns. Cases, 371), 358, 383. Mayhew v. Boyce (1 Stark. 433), 534. Mayhew v. Fames (3 B. & C. 601), 339. Mayo V. Railroad (104 Mass. 137), 803. Mayor v. Humphries (1 C. & F. 351), 534, 793. McAbsher v. Railroad (13 S. E. Rep. 893), 138a. McAlister v. Raiboad Co. (74 Mo. 3S1), 333, 398, 400. McAndrew v. Whitlock (53 N. Y. 40), 336, 359, 366a. McArthur v. Sears (31 Wend. 190), 66, 180, 181, 383,384,389.. McAunich v. Railroad Co. (80 Iowa, 358), 803a. McBeath v. Railway Co. (30 Mo. App. 445), '767. McBride v. Insm-ance Co. (5 Johns. 399), 333. McCahan v. Hirst (7 Watts, 175), 742. MoCall V. Brock (5 Strob. Law, 119), 388. McCance v. Railway Co. (7 H. & N. 477), 333, 334. McCance v. Railway (3 H. & C. 343), 351. McCann v. RaUroad (30 Md. 303), 337. McCarthy v. Railroad Co. (18 Kans. 46), 7*89, 789a. McCarthy v. RaUroad (30 Penn. St, 347), 370. McCarty v. Railway Co. (— Tex. — ), 3196. McCauley v. Davidson (10 Minn. 418), 34. McCawley v. Railway (L. R 8 Q. B. 57), 586. McClary v. Railroad Co. (8 Neb. 44), 606, 809. Ixxviii TABLE OF CASES. Eeferences are to sections. McClelland v. Eaflway Co. (94 Ind. 276), 668. McClure v. Hammond (1 Bay, 99), 66. McClure v. Railroad Co. (34 Md. 533), 575, 580/, 590. McClure v. Eichardson (Rice, 315), 53. McCombie v. Davies (6 East, 538), 430. McConnell v. Railroad Co. (— Va. — ), 149, 149a, 1496. McCormick v. Railroad (4 E. D. Smith, 181), 683. McCoy V. Railroad (44 Iowa, 434), 331. McCuUoch V. McDonald (91 Ind. 240), 344. McCuUough V. HeUweg (66 Md. 269), 866&, 476. McCuUough V. Railway Co. (34 Mo. App. 23), 89, 128, 360, 295d McCune v. Railroad Co. (53 Iowa, 600), 223. McDaniel v. RaUroad Co. ( — Ala. — ), 649. McDaniel v. Railway Co. (24 Iowa, 412), 140, 144a. McDaniels v. Robinson (36 Vt 316), 766. McDonald v. Mallory (77 N. Y. 546), , 783o, 789a. McDonald v. Railroad Co. (116 N. Y. 546), 612. McDonald v. Eailrbad (34 N. Y. 497), 103, 105, 109, 374. McDonald v. Railroad (36 Iowa, 134), 516, 663. McDonnell v. Railroad (115 Mass. 564), 672. McDonough v. Railroad Co. (137 Mass. 210), 645a. McDougall V. :^ilroad Co. (63 CaL 431), 803. McDuffee v. Railroad Co. (53 N. H. 430), 299, 803, 567a. McElroy v. Eailroad Co. (4 Cush. 400), 515, 515e, 524, 526, 537. McEntee v. Steamboat Co. (45 N. Y. 84), 130, 844. McEwen v. Eailroad (38 Ind. 368), 183. McFadden v. Eailway Co. (92 Mo. 843), 331, 2486, 260, 750. McFadden v. Railway Cb. (87 CaL 464), 781c. McFarlaiid v. Wheeler (26 Wend. 467), 477. McFetridge v. Piper (40 Iowa, 637), 410, 415. , McGaw V. Insurance (28 Pick. 104), 444a, 456. McGaw V. Ocean Co. (33 Pi6k. 405), 445, 459. McGee v. Railroad Co. (92 Mo. 308), 538o. McGill V. Rowand (3 Barr, 451), 60, 683. McGoflSn V. Railway Co. (103 Mo. 540), 563, 654, 800. McGovern v. Lewis (56 Penn. St 231), 774 McGowen v. Railroad Co. (41 La. Ann. 782), 571. McGraw v. Railroad Co. (18 W. Va 861), 338, 339. McGregor v. Kilgore (6 Ohio, 858), 66, 769. McGregor v. Eailroad Co. (35 N. J. L 8£!), 447a. McGurnn v. Forbes (37 Fed. Eepi 639), 542. McGuire v. The Golden Gate (1 McAllister, 104), 51g. McHeniy v. Eailroad (4 Harr. 448), 59, 61. Mcintosh V. Eailway Ca ( — Ma — ), 788. Mclntyre v. Eailroad (37 N. Y. 287), 645, 649, 785, 806. Mclntyre v. Eaihx)ad (43 Barb. 533), 649. Mclntyre v. Esulroad (47 Barb. 515), 806. McKay v. Eaikoad (50 Hun, 563), 103O, 103. McKean v. Mclvor (L. R 6 Exch. 36), 845, 348a. McKee v. Garcelon (60 Ma 167), 139. McKee v. Owen (15 Mich. 115), 700. McKeon v. Eailway (43 Mo. 79), 813. McKeon v. See (4 Rob. (N. Y.) 449), 860, 366. TABLE OF CASES. Ixxix References are to sections. McKernan v. Railway Co. (54 N. Y. Super. 354), 597. McEitnble v. Eailroatl Co. (139 Mass. 542), 517, 565, 608b. McKinley v. Railway Co. (44 Iowa, 314), 597, 600. McKinney v. Jewett (90 N. Y. 267), 374. McKinney v. Neil (1 McLean, 540), 500, 504, 507, 588. McKnight v. Eatoliffe (44 Penn. St. 156), 773. McKone v. Railroad Co. (51 Mich. 601), 518, 553a. McLaren v. Railroad Co. (-^ Ga. — ), 553(1. McLean v. Burbank (11 Minn. 277), 515. McLean v. Fleming (L. R. 2 H. L. Sc. 128), 122. McLean v. i^utherford (8 Mo. 109), 29. McMahon v. Mayor (33 N. Y. 642), 666a. McManns v. Railway Co. (4 H. & N. 327), 218, 222, 234, 764. McManus v. RaUway (2 H. & N. 702), 221. McMasters v. Railroad (69 Penn. St 374), 366, 375. McMillan v. Railroad Co. (16 Mich. 79), 149, 237, 2376, 240, 245, 374. McMurtry v. Railway Co. (67 Miss. 601), 639, 642. McNees v. Railway 06. (22 Mo. App. 224), 802. McNulta V. Ensch (— 111. — ), 616. McPadden v. Railroad (44 N. Y. 478), 500, 507, 512, 528. MoPherson v. Railroad Co. (97 Mo. 253), 784. McQuade v. RaUway Co. (53 N. Y. Super. 91), 6086. McQuilken v. Railroad Co. (64 Cal, 463), bs, 646. McRae v; Railroad Co. (88 N. C. 526), 580e. McVeety v. Railway Co. (45 Minn. 268), 555. Meade y. Rutledge (11 Texas, 44), 773. Medeiros v. HiU (8 Bing. 231), 318. Medler v. Railroad Co. (12 N. Y. Suppl. 930), 612. Meesel v. Railroad Co. (8 Allen, 234), 645a, 664. Meier v. Railroad (64 Pa. St 225), SOO, 51^,539. Melbourne v. Railroad Co. (88 Ala. 443), 18, 337, 395. Mellor V. Railway Co. (— Mo. — ), 563. Menacho v. Ward (27 Fed. Rep. 529), 302. Mendesohn v. Anaheim Lighter Co. (40 Cal. 657), 813. Menzell v. Railroad (1 Dillon, 531), 276. Merchants' Dispatch Co. v. BoUes (80 111 473), 78, 272. Merchants' Dispatch v. Comforth (8 Col. 280), 72, 246, 247a, 295a, 583. Merchants' Dispatch Co. v. Hallock (64 111. 284), 870, 888. Merchailts' Dispatch Co. v. Joestipg (89 111. 152), 72, 240. Merchants' Dispatch Co. v. Kahn (76 111. 520), 103, 312. Merchants' Dispatch Co. v. Leysor (89 IlL 43), 73, 340. Merchants', etc. Ass'n v. Wood (64 Miss. 661), 672. M. & T. Bank v. Gordon (5 La. Ann. 64), 682. Merian v. Funck (4 Denio, 110), 448. Merriam v. Raili-oad (30 Conn. 854), 90. Merrick v. Brainard (38 Barb. 574), 79, 425. Merrick v. WebsteT (3 Mich. 260), 816. Merrill v. Express Co. (62 N. H. 514), 240, 259. MerriU v. Grinnell (80 N. Y. 594), 681. Merrill V. Railroad Co. (139 Mass. 238), 652. Merrimac, The (2 Sawyer, 586), 79. Merritt v. Earle (39 N. Y. 115; 81 Barb. 88), 180, 672. Merritt v. Railroad (11 AUen, 80), 98, IXXX TABLE OF CASES. References are to sections, Mershon v. Hobensack (3 Zab. 373), 180, 183, 184, 538. Mervin v. Butler (17 Coan. 138), 358. Messenger v. Dennie (137 Mass. 197), 667. Messenger v. Dennie (141 Mass. 335), 666a. Messenger v. Railroad Co., (86 N^ J. L. 407), 303. ■ Messenger v. Eailroad (7 Vroom, 407), 301. Metallic Compress Co. v. Eailroad Co. (109 Mass. 377), 809. Metoalf V. McLaughlin (133 Mass. 84), 115a. Metcalfe v. Railway (4 Com. B. (N. S.) 301y, 351, 353, 858. Mettlestadt v. Eailroad (4 Eob. (N. Y.) 377), 641. Meyer v. Dresser (16 Com. B. (N. S.) 646), 133. , Meyer v. Lenicke (31 Ind. 308), 390. Meyer v. Peck (38 N. Y. 590), 133, 135a. Meyer v. Eailroad (41 La. Annu 639), 90, 97. Meyer v. EaUroad (40 Mo. 151), 668. Meyerstein v. Barber (L. R 3 C. P. 43), 139. Michigan Railroad v. Shurtz (7 Mich. 515), 63, 89. Michaels v. The Eailroad (30 N. Y. 564), 103, 196. Middleton v. Fowler (1 Salk. 383), 60, 678. Midland Eailroad v. Bromley (17 C. B. 373 ; 33 Eng. L. & E. 335), 58, 760. Mierson v. Hope (3 Sweeney, 561), Miles V. James (1 McCord, 157). 101. Millard v. Brown (35 N. Y. 397), 813. Miller v. Navigation Co. (10 N. Y. 431), 103a. Miller v. Pendleton (8 Gray, 547), 58. Miller v. Race (1 Barr, 453). 139a. Miller v. Railroad (90 N. Y. 430), 133. MiUer t. Eailroad (34 Hun, 601), 135a. Miller v. Eailroad Co. (— S. G. — ), 149d Miller v. Eailroad Co. (5 Mo. App, 471), 658a. Miller v. St. Nav. Co. (10 N. Y. 431; 13 Barb. 861), 103, 188. Miller v. Steamboat Co. (13 K Y. SuppL 301), 543. Miller v. Steamship Co. (118 N. Y. 300), 500, 51 5e. MiUiman v. Eaibroad (66 N. Y. 642), 541, 668. Mills V. Armstrong (13 App. Caa. 1), ■ 676. Mills V. BaU (3 Bos. & P. 457), 410, 430. Mills V. Railroad (45 N. lY. 633), 103, 104, 365. Milne v. Douglas (4 McCrary, 368), 166a. Milnor v. Eailroad (53 N. Y. 363), 152, 1^8, 579, 718. Miltenberger v. Beacom (9 Penn. St 198), 439. Miltimore v. Eaih-oad (37 Wis. 190), 316. THilward v. Hibbert (3 Ad. & EL (N. S.) 130), 306. Mina v. Steamship Co. (33 Fed. Eep. 913), 328. Miner v. Eailroad (33 Conn. 91), 450, 451. Minnehaha, The (1 Lush. 335), 79. Minter v. The Eaih-oad (41 Mo. 503), 685. Missouri Coal Co. v. Eailroad (35 Mo. 84), 87, 96. Missouri Furnace Ca v. Abend (107 111. 44), 8oa Mitchel V. Ede (11 Ad. & EL 888), 134, 395, 734. Mitchell V. Clinton (99 Ma 153), 802. Mitchell V. Express Co. (46 Iowa, 214), 767. ' Mitchell V. Eailroad Co. (87 Cal 62), 515e, 653, 800. Mitchell V. Eailway Co. (51 Mich. 236), 616, 803. Mitchell V. The Eailroad (68 Ga. 644), 348a, 748, 749. MitcheU v. Railroad (80 Ga. 23), 611. TABLE OF CASES. ixxxi Beferences are to sections. Mitchell V. EaUway (L. R 10 Q. B. 256), 374, 378. Mitehell v. United States (31 Wall. 350), 223. Moakler v. Railway Co. (18 Ore. 189), 651, 659a. Moeller v. Young (5 El. & B. 755), 448. Mohney v. Cook (36 Penn. St. 343), 672. Mohr V. Railway (40 Iowa, 579), 370. Montagu v. Janverin (3 Taunt 443), 39. Montgomery v. United States (15 Wall. 395), 333. Moore v. Am. Trans. Co. (34 How. 1), 224. Moore v. Hill (38 Fed. Rep. 330), 437. Moore v. Railroad (4 Gray, 465), 571, 591. Moore v. Raih-oad (8 Mich. 23), 183. Moore v. Railway (L. E. 8 Q. B. 36), 600. Moore v. Railway Co. (L. R 10 Ir. Com. L. 65), 333., Moore v. Railway Co. (69 Iowa, 491), 500. Moore v. Shreveport (3 La. Ann. 645), 803. Moore et aL v. Wilson (1 Term, 659), 726. Moran v. HoUings (135 Mass. 93), 789. More V. Lott (18 Nev. 376), 416a. Morel V. Insurance Co. (4 Bush, 586), 657. Mpreland v. Railroad Co. (141 Mass. 31), 531a. Morgan v. Durf ee (69 Mo. 469), 784. Morgan v. Ide (8 Cush. 430), 436. Morgan v. Railroad Co. ( — Penri. — ), 646. Morgan v. Railroad Co. (53 N. J. L. 60, 588), 5676. Morgan v. Railroad (3 Woods, 344), 144a. Moriarty v. Express Co. (1 Daly, 227), 365. Morison v. Railroad Co. (8. N. Y. Suppl. 436), 6086, Morley v. Hay (3 M. & RyL 396), 483. Morris v. Piatt (33 Conn. 75), 809. Morris v. Railway Co. (65 Iowa, 737), 789a. Morris v. Railroad Co. ( — Ky. — ), 788a. Morris v. RaUroad Co. (116 N. Y. 552), 586. Morris v. Raiboad Co. (106 N. Y. 678), 515c, 552a. Morrison v. (construction Co. (44 Wis. 405), 222, 340, 348a. Morrison v. Davis (30 Penn. St 171), 201, 172, 185, 193, 196, 197, 301. Morrison v. Railroad Co. (56 N. Y. 367), 653, 653. Morrison v. Railway (56 N. Y^. 302), 638, 648, 667. Morse t. Evans (14 Barb. 524), 237. Morse v. Pesant (3 Keyes, 16), 473. Morse v. Railroad (10 Barb. 631), 805. Morse v. Slue (1 Ventris, 190), 65, 305, 227. Morville v. Railway (10 Eng. L. & E. 366), 339. Mosely v. Lord (3 Conn. 889), 57. Moses V. Norris (8 N. H. 8q4), 52. Moses V. Raikoad (34 N. H. 71), 61, 68, 344, 255. Moses V. Railroad (83 N. H. 523), 369, 377. Moses V. Railroad Co. (78 Ga. 356), 5806. Moses V. Railx'oad Co. (39 La. Ann. 649),. 518. Mosher v. Express Co. (38 Ga. 37), 148, 150. Mosher v. Railroad Co. (137 U. S. 390), 5806. Moss v. Bettis (4 Heisk. 661), 51, 53. Mote V. Railroad (27 Iowa, 22), 712. Moulton V. Railway Co. (31 Minn. 85), 318, 221, 323, 348a, 350. Mount V. Larkins (8 Bing. 108), 199. Mt Vernon Co. v. Railroad (8 S. Rep, 687), 88. Mowrey v. Railway (51 N. Y. 666), 666. Moynahan v. Moore (9 Mich. 9), 493. Muddle V. Stride (9 C. & P. 380), 767, 768, Ixxxii TABLE OF CASES. References are to sections. Mudgett V. Steamboat Co. (1 Daly, 151), 698, 699. Muelhausen v. Eailroad Co. (91 Mo. 332), 538a. Mugler V. Kansas (123 IT. 8. 623), 310c. Mulcahey v. Wheel Co. (145 Mass. 281), 789. Mulcairns v. Janesville (67 Wis. 34), 784. Mulhado v. Eailroad (30 N. Y. 370), 613. Mulligan v. Curtis (100 Mass. 513), 666a. Mulligan v. Eailway (36 Iowa, 181), 148, 237, 240. Mumf ord v. Insurance Co. (5 Jolin. 363), 467. Munn V. Baker (3 Starkie, 355), 275. Munn V. Illinois (94 V. S. 113), 303&, 567a. Munro v. Pacific Co. (84 Cal. 515), 784. Murch V. Eailroad Co. (39 N. H. 9), 515, 531, 538, 538a. Murdock V. Eailroad Co. (137 Mass. 293), 580i, 5S0j, 580fc, 5801 Murphy v. Coffin (13 Q. B. Div. 87), 473. Mui-phy V. Eailroad Co. (33 Fed. Rep. 637), 543. Murphy v. Eailroad Co. (45 Iowa, 661), 803. Mui-phy V. Eaih-oad Co. (88 N. Y. 445), 784. Murphy v. Eailroad (39 Conn. 496), 789. Murphy v. Eailway Co. (118 Mass. 338), 645a, 547, 593, 594. Murray v. Insurance Co. (4 Biss. 417), 444a. Murray v. Lardner (2 Wall 110), 139a. Murray v. Railroad Co. (93 N. C. 93), 666a. Murray v. Railway Co. (101 Mo. 236), 803. Murray v. Usher (117 N. Y. 542), 784. Murray v. Warner (55 N. H. 546), 390. Murrell v. Express Co. (— Ark. — ), 771, 772. Muschamp v. Eailway (8 M &W. 421), 146, 149. Muser v. Express Co. (1 Fed. Rep. 383), 356. Muser v. Holland (17 Blatch. 412), 350. Myers v. Baymore (10 Penn. St 114), 435, 436. Myers v. Railway Co. (90 Mo. 98), 348a. Mykleby v. Railway Co. (39 Minn. 54), 591, 810. Mynard v. Railroad Co. (71 N. Y. 180), 337a,^ 364, 266a, 370. Mynard v. Railroad (7 Hun, 309), 264 Myrick V. Railroad Co. (107 U. S. 103), 1316, 149, 149a, 1496, 151, 154 Mytton V. Railway (4 HurL & N. 615), 147, 273, 715. Nagle V. Railroad Co. (— Cal— ), 648. Naglee v. Eaihroad Ca (83 Va. 707), 5156. Nance v. Eaikoad Co. (94 N. C. 619), 613. Nanson v. Jacob (12 Mo. App. 125), 157a. Nash V. Tousley (28 Minn. 5), 783a. Nathan Bros. v.-Shivers (71 Ala. 117), 494. National Bank v. Eailroad Co. (46 N. W. Eep. 343X 134. National Bank v. Walbridge (19 Ohio St 419), 133. National Steamship Co. v. Smart (107 Penn. 492), 370, 37a Navigation Co. v. Bank (6 How 344), 287, 366a. Navigation Ca v. Marshall (48Ind. 596), 384. Navigation Ca ads. Morse (L. R 4 P. C. 223), 437. Navigation Ca v. Wood (3 Esp. 127), 66, 180. Naylor v. Dennie (8 Pick. 199), 139. Neaffle, The (1 Abb. U. & 465), 79. Neal V. Gillette (23 Conn. 436), 201. Neal V. Eaih-oad (8 Jones (Law), 482), 855, 370, 388. Nebenzahl v. Fargo (3 N. Y. Suppl. 939), 344. Nebraska City v, Campbell (3 Black, 590), 806. Needham v. Railway Co. (88 Vt. 294), 789, 789a. Needham v. -Railroad Co. (37 Cal. 410),803&. Nehi-bas v. Raibroad Co. (63 Cat 330), 784, 803. Neilsen v. Jesup (30 Fed. Eep. 138), 448. Neish V. Graham (8 EL & B. 505), 485. Nellis V. Railroad (80 N. Y. 505), 571. Nelson v. Mackintosh (1^ Starkie, 337), 33, 34. Nelson v. Raih-oad (48 N. Y. 498), 84a. Nelson v. Raiboad Co. (36 Vt. 717), 514, 5156. Nelson v. Raibroad Co. (68 Mo. 593), 643. Nelson v. Railroad Co. (78 Tex. 631), 783o. Nelson v. Railroad (7 Hun, 140), 589, 590. Nelson v. Raili-oad (48 N. Y. 498), 108, 265, 278. Nelson t. Woodruff (1 Black, 156), 135. Nesbit V. Gamer (75 Iowa, 314), 674 Nesbitt V. Lushington (4 Term, 783), 306., Nevin v. Car Co. (106 IlL 333), 617i Neyins v. Bay State Steamboat Co. (4Bosw. 335), 580,685. Newoomb v. Railroad (115 Mass. 330), 133. Newburger v. Howard (6 Phila. 174), 250. Newbury v. Railroad Co. (35 Vt 377), 780. Newell V. Smith (49 Vt 355), 145, 771. Newhall v. Raibroad (51 CaL 845), 410, 414. Newhall v. Vargas (13 Me. 93), 410, 411, 419, 430. K J. Nav. Co. V. Merchants' Bank (6 How. 344), 70,, 184, 237, 365, 380, 388, 733, 767. TABLE OF CASES. IxXXiii Beferences are to sections. New Orleans Ins. Co. v. Railroad (20 , La. Ann. 303), 237. New Philadelphia, Steamer (1 Black, 62), 79. New World v. King (15 How. 469), 11, 337, 500, 567. New York, etc. Railway v. Gallaher (— Tex. — , 15 S. W. Rep. 694), 750. Niagara, Propeller, v. Cordes (21 How. 7), 65, 66, 202, 293, 333. Niblo V. Binsse (44 Barb. 54), 183. Nicholas v. Railroad Co. (89 N. Y. 370), 337a, 264, 370. Nichols V. Railway Co. (68 Iowa, 732), 643. Nichols V. RaUroad (38 N. Y. 131), 613. Nichols V. Smith (115 Mass. 332), 67a. Nicholson v. Railway (5 C. B. 366), 302. Nicholson v. Railway (3 H. & C. 534), 518. Nicholson v. Willan (5 East, 507), 328, 253. Nickerson v. Harriman (38 Ma 377), '782. Nickey v. Railway Co. (35 Mo. App. 79), 399. NichoUs V. Bastard (2 Cromp. M. & R 659), 722. Nielson v. Wait (16 Q. B. Div. 67), 473. Nieto V. Clark (1 Cliff. 145), 542, 631. NiU V. Sturgeon (28 Mo. 338), 383. Nine Thousand Dry Hides (6 Ben. 199), 453. Noden v. Johnson (16 Q. B. 218), 633. Nolan V. Railroad Co. (87 N. Y. 63), 653, 653, 653a. Nolton V. Railroad (15 N. Y. 444), 537, 563, 567. Nordemeyer v. Loesoher (1 Hilt. 499), 478a. Norman v. Binnington (25 Q. B. Div. 475), 275, 290a. Norris v. Litchfield (35 N. H. 271), 673. Norris v. Railway Co. (33 Fla. 183), J 176, 185. Ixxxiv TABLE OF OASES. Eeferences are to sections. (146 North V. Transportation Co. Mass. 316), 102a. North German Lloyd v. Heule (44 Fed. Eep. 100), 448. Northern v. Williams (6 La. Ann. 578), 358. Northern Line Packet Co. v. Shearer (61 111. 263), 726. Northey v. Field (2 Esp. 613), 420. Norway Plains Co. v. Railroad (1 i Gray, 263), 67, 366, 367. Norwich Co. v. Wright (13 Wall. 104), 234. Notava v. Henderson (L. E. 5 Q. B. 346 ; L. R 7 Q. B. 225), 321, 434. Nourse v. Packard (138 Mass. 307), 789. Noyes v. Railroad (37 Vt. 110), 67, 145, 153. Nudd V. Wells (11 Wis. 407), 339. Nugent V. RaUroad Co. (80 Me. 62), 515b. Nugent V. Smith (L. R. 1 C. P. Div. 19, 423), 48, 57a, 180, 203. Nunn V. Railroad Co. (71 Ga. 710), 6176. Nutting V. Railroad Co. (1 Gray, 502), 1496. Oakes v. Railroad Co. ( — Ore. — ), 685. Cakes v. Richardson (2 Lowell's Dec. 173), 774. pakey v. Russell (18 Mar. (La.) 58), 65. Oakley v. Packet Co. (11 Exch. 618), 40. Oates V. Railway Co. ( — Mo. — ), 789a. O'Bannon v. Express Co. (51 Ala. 481), 93. Ober V. Railroad Co. (13 Ma App. 81), 721. O'Brien v. Norris (16 Md. 122), 129, 410. O'Brien v. Railroad Co. (16 Gray, 20), 555, 589, 590. O'Brien v. Railroad Co. (80 N. Y. 236), 591a. O'Callahan v. Bode (84 Cal. 489), 784. O'CarroU v. The Havre (45 Fed. Rep. 764), 636. O'Connor v. Foster (10 Watts, 418), 774. O'Donnell v. Railroad Co. (59 Pena St. 239), 534, 564, 654 O'Dougherty v. Railroad (1 Thompi & C. 477), 130. Ogden V. Marshall <8 N. T. 340), 774 Ogle V. Lane (L. R. 3 Q. B. 373), 773. O'Hanlon v. Railway (6 Best & & 484), 769. Ohrloffl V. BriscaU (L. R. 1 P. C. 231), 767. Oldfield V. Railroad (14 N. Y. 310), 803. Olmstead v. Burke (25 HL 86), 773. Olson V. Railroad Co. (45 Minn. 536), 580Z. OlweU V. Express Co. (1 C. L. J. 186), 237. Onderdonk v. Bank (119 N. Y. 263), 33. One Hundred and Fifty Tons of Coal (4 Blatchf. 368), 479. O'NeU V. Garrett (6 Iowa, 480), 420. O'NeU V. Railroad (60 N. Y. 138), 63, 88, 310, 735. Ontario Bank v. Hanlon (23 Hvm, 283), 121. Ontario Bank v. Steamboat Ca (59 N. Y. 510), 137. Oppenheim v. Russell (3 Bos. & P. 43), 483. Oppenheimer v. Express Co. (69 IlL 63), 214 249, 250, 255, 356. Orange Co. Bank v. Brown (9 Wend. 115), 350. Orange Co. Bank v. Brown (3 Weni 158), 741, 763, 763. Orange Co. Bank v. Brown (9 Wend. 85), 213, 215, 244, 255, 681. Orcutt V. Railway Ca (85 Cal. 391), 8036. Ormsby v. Railway Ca (3 McCrary, 48), 292. Orndorfif V. Express Ca (3 Bush, 194X 237, 260. O'Rourke v. Raihoad Ca (44 Iowa, 526), 3496. Orr V. Railroad Ca (21 Ma App. 336), 149a TABLE OF OASES. Ixxxv References are to sections. Ortt V. Railway Co. (36 Minn. 896), 149a, 149&. Ostrander v. Brown (15 Johns. 39), 858, 866. Otis V. Thorn (33 Ala. 469), 674. Ouimit V. Henshaw (35 Vt. 605), 88, 110, 370, 688, 684, 707, 710. Overby V. McGee(15Ark. 459), 430. Oviatt V. Eailway Co. (43 Minn. 300), 539. Owen V. Brockschmidt (54 Mo. 385), 779. Owen V. Railroad (3 Bosw. 374), 641. Owens V. Raih-oad Co. (88 N. C. 503), 808. Owens V. Railroad Co. ( — Mo. — ), 613. Oxlade v. Railway Co. (1 N. & M. 73), 803. Oxlade v. Railway (1 C. B. (N. S.) 454), 803. Oxlade v. Railway (15 Cora. B. (N. S.) 680), 331. Oxley V. Railway Ca (65 Mo. 639), 348a. Packard v. Earle (118 Mass. 380), 379, 381. Packard v. Getman (6 Cow. 757), 93. Packard v. Getman (4 Wend. 613), 775. Packard v. Taylor (35 Ark. 402), 1496, 150, 176, 180a. Packet Co. v. Henry (50 HL 460), 643. Packet Co. v. Shearer (61 IlL 263), 726. Paddock v. Railroad Co. (37 Fed. Rep. 841), 617A. Page V. Munro (1 Holmes, 233), 443. Page V. Smith (99 Mass. 395), 67a. Painter, In re (3 C. B. 703), 523. Painter, Ex parte (2 Com. B. (N. S.) 703), 533. Palfrey v. Raib-oad (4 Allen, 55), 777. Palm V. Railroad (18 111. 217), 773. Pahner v. Canal Co.' (130 N. Y. 170), 500, 506, 507. Palmer v. Lorillard (16 Johns. 348), 444a. Palmer v. Pennsylvania Co. (Ill N. Y. 488), 531a Palmer v. Railroad Co. (56 Mich. 1), 638. Palmer v. G. J. Railway (4 M. & W. 749), 55, 231, 333, 239, 240. Palmer v. Lorillard (16 Johns. 348), , 383. Palmer v. Railroad (3 Rich. S. C. ,(N. S.) 380), 573. Palmeter t. Wagner (11 Alb. L. Jour. 149), 60, 617d, 617/. Palyo V. Railroad Co. (30 N. J. Eq. 604), 803a. Paradine v. Jane (Aleyn, 26), 460. Paramore v. Railway Co. (53 Ga 885), 295a. Pardee v. Drew (35 Wend. 459), 66, 218, 685. Pardington v. So. Wales Railway (1 ■fi. & N. 392; 38 Eng. L. & E. 433), 218, 221, 334. Park V. Preston (108 N. Y. 484), 259a. Parker v. Flagg (36 Me. 181), 66. Parker v. James (4 Camp. llS), 191, 308. Parker v. Railway (7 M. & Gran. 358), 303. Parker v. Railway (5 Hun, 57), 599. Parker v. Railway (6 Exch. 702 ; 6 El. & B. 77), 447. Parmalee v. Wilks (33 Barb. 539), 199. Parmelee v. Fischer (33 111. 313), 684. Parmelee v. McNulty (19 IlL 556), 60. Parmelee v. Lowitz (74 IE 116), 59. Pan-ott V. Wells (15 WaU. 534), 809. Parsons v. Hardy (14 Wend. 215), 58a, 66, 178, 329, 331. Parsons v. Monteath (13 Barb. 358), 237, 388. Parsons v. Railroad Co. (87 Hun, 128), 661a. Parsons v. Railroad Co. (113 N. Y. 355), 561a, 661a. Parsons v. Railroad Co. (94 Mo. 286), 783a, 803. PaschaU v. Owen (— Tex — ), 784. Passenger Tariffs, In re (3 Interstate Com. Rep. 649), 569a. Paterson v. Railroad Co. ( — Ga. — ), 643, 803. TABLE OF CASES. Eeferenoes are to sections. Patry v. Railway Co. (77 Wis. 318), 5o5a, 816. Patschgider v. Railway Co. (L. R. 3 Ex. Div. 1.13), 707, 708. Patten v. RaOway Co. (39 Fed Rep. 590), 491a. Patten v. Railroad (33 Wis. 534; 36 Wis. 418), 531. Patterson v. Clyde (67 Penn. St 500), 766, 767. Patterson v. Railroad Co. ( — Ala. — ), 814a. Pattison v. Blanchard (5 1^. Y. 186), 159, 169. Patton V. Magrath (Dudley, 159), 184 Patton V. MoGrath (1 Rice, 163), 748. Paturzo V. Company (31 Fed. Rep. 611), 390a. Paulitseh v. Railroad Co. (103 N.' Y. 380), 6086. Paulmier v. Railroad (5 Vroom, 151), 786. Paxton V. Boyer (67 HL 133). 809. Paynter v. James (L. R. 3 C. P. 848), 480. Peabody v. Railway Co. ( — Oreg. — ), 580A, 580/ Pearce v. Railroad (31 How. 441), 170. Pearse v. Steamship Co. (34 Fed. Rep. 385), 349. Pearson v. Duane (4 Wall 605), 538, 541. Pease v. Railroad Co. (101 N. Y. 367), 580/, 5910. Peayy V. Railroad Co. (81 Ga. 485), 547. Peck V. Neil (3 McLean, 33), 507. peck T. Railroad Co. (70 N. Y. 587), 543. Peck V. Railroad Co. (50 Conn. 379), 781c. Peck V. Weeks (34 Conn. 145), 103o, 361, 330. Peek V. Railway (10 H. L. Cas. 473), 334. Peeples v. Railroad Co. (68 Ga. 381), 600. Peet V. Railway (19 Wis. 118), 145. Peet V. RaUway (30 Wis. 594), H4, 837, 771. Peik V. Railroad Co. (94 U. S. 164), 3086, 567a. Peixotti V. McLaughlin (1 Strob. 468), 59. PeUy y. Royal, etc. Ass. Co. (1 Burr. 341), 310. Pelton T. Railroad (54 N. Y. 314), 374. Pender v. Robbins (6 Jones (Law)> 307), 37. Pendergast v. Express Co. (101 Mass. 130), 158, 154. Pendleton v. Kinsley (3 ClifE. 416), 500, 513, 597, 631. Peniston v. Railway Co. (34 La. Ann. 777), 518, 561, 6*11. Penn v. Railroad Co. (49 N. Y. 304), 218, 331. Pennewell v. Cullan (5 Harr. (DeL) 338), 36, 37, 576. Pennington v. Railroad Co. (63 Md. 95), 575, 580, 5806, 591a. Pennsylvania Co. v. Bray (135 Ind. 339), 580c, 580/, 580;, 580ifc, 810. Pennsylvania Co. v. Clark (— Ind. — , 37 N. E. Rep. 586), 750. Pennsylvania Co. v. Fairchild (69 m. 360), 144a. Pennsylvania Co. v. Hine (41 Ohio St 376), 575. Pennsylvania Co. v. Hoagland (78 Ind. 203), 580, 661c 809. Pennsylvania Ca v. Holderman (69 Ind. 18), 731, 75a Pennsylvania Co. v. Langdon (92 Penn. St 31), 654. Pennsylvania Co. v. LoDy (73 Ind. 354), 784. Pennsylvania Ca v. Marion (133 Ind. 415), 517, 643, 654a. Pennsylvania Co. v. Miller (35 Ohio St 541), 685. Pennsylvania Ca v. Poor (108 Ind. 553), 731, 750. Pennsylvania Co. v. Railroad Ca (118 U. S. 390), 5156. Pennsylvania Ca v. Roy (103 TJ. S. 451), 500, 506, 597, 617. Pennsylvania Co. v. Wentz (37 Ohio; St. 383), 580^. TABLE OF CASES, Ixxxvii Beferences are to sections. Pennsylvania Co. v. White (88 Penn. St. 337), 661a. Pennsylvania Canal Co. v. Bentley (66 Penn. St 30), 638. Pennsylvania Nav. Co. v. Dandridge (8 GiU & J. 348), 79. Penny v. Porter (8 East, 2), 753. Penoyer v. Hallett (15 Johns. 333), 458. , Peacock v. Rhodes (3 Doug. 633), 139a. People v. Babcock (16 Hun, 313), •- 115&. People V. Haynes (14 Wend. 546), 733. People V. McKay (46 Mich. 439), 522. People V. Eailroad (33 Hun, 5,33), 1156. People V. Sal m (30 Mich. 452), 331. Peoria Bank v. EaUroad (58 N. H. 203), 130. Peoria Bridge Ass. v. Loomis (30 IlL 335), 813. Pereira v. Railroad Co. (66 Cal. 93), 148, 317, 338. Perkins v. Railroad Co. (55 Mo. 301), 536. Perkins V. Railroad (24 N. Y. 196), 567, 586. Perkins v. Railroad (47 Me. 573), 149, 153, 769. Perry v. Banking Co. ( — Ga. — ), 784 Perry v. Carmiehael (95 111. 519), 783a. Perry v. Eailroad Co. (66 Ga. 746), 557. Peny v. Thompson (98 Mass. 249), 237, 245. Peters v. Railroad Co. (42 Ohio St. 375), 447a. Peters v. Eylands (30 Penn. St. 497), 515, 515&. Peterson v. Case (31 Fed. Rep. 885), 103a. Peterson v. Railway Co. (-X*Iowa, 31), 169. Petrie v. Railroa,d Co. (43 N. J. L. 449), 5S0J. 575. Pettigrew v. Bamum (11 Md. 434), 683, 685. Petty V. RaUway (L. R, 5 O. P. 461), 531. Pf aetzer v. Car Co. (4 Wk. Notes, 340), 60, 617d, 617/. Pfister V. Railroad Co. (70 CaL 169), 677, 685, 697a. Pharr v. Collins (35 La. Ann. 939), 478. Phelan v. Moss (67 Penn. St. 59), 129a. Phelps V. Railroad (94 IlL 548), 115. Phelps V. Railw^ay, (19 C. B. N. S. 331), 681, 685. Phelps V. WiUiamson (5 Sand. 578), 471. Phifer v. Railroad Co. (89 N. C. 311), 168. PhllUps V. Brigham (26 Ga. 617), 313. Phillips V. Earle (8 Pick. 182), 87, 313. Phillips V. Railroad Co. (78 N. C. 294), 149, 168. Phillips V. RaUroad (57 Barb. 644), 531. Phillips V. RaUroad (49 N. Y. 177), 641. Phillips V. Eodie (15 East, 547), 478. Phillpot V. RaUway Co. (85 Mo. 164), 783a. Pickens v. Railroad Co. (104 N. C. 313), 591a. Pickering v. Barkley (Style, 133), 305, 381, 389. Pickering v. Busk (15 East. 38), 430. Pickford v. Railway (8 M. & W. 872), 116, 757. Pickford v. Railway (12 M. & W. 766), 115, 117, 368. Pickford v. RaUway (10 M. & W. 422), 803. Piedmont Mfg. Co. v. Railroad Co. (19 S. C. 353), 36, 57a, 145a, 149o, 153. Pier V. Finch (34 Barb. 514), 576. - Pierce v. Railway (33 Wis. 387), 31, 57, 893. Pierce v. Winsor (3 Sprague, 85), 443. Pike V. Polytechnic Inst. (1 F. & F. 712), 512. PindeU V. Railway Co. (34 Ma App. 675), 370, 375. Pilngree v. RaUroad Co. (66 Mich. 143), 310e, 398. Ixxxviii TABLE OF CASES. Eeferencea are to sections. Pinney v. Eaih-oad (19 Minn. 251), 374 ' ' Pinney v. Wells (10 Conn. 104), 483, 485. Pitcher V. Railway Co. (8 N. Y. SuppL 889), 611. Pitlock V. WeUs, Fargo & Co. (109 Mass. 452), 5C6, 115. Pittman v. Hooper [3 Sumn. 50), 471. Pittsburgh v. Grier (22 Penn. St 54), 662. Pitzner v. Shinnick (39 Wis. 129), 803a. Place V. Union Ex. Co. (2 Hilton, 19), 70, 292, 317. Plaisted v. Navigation Co. (S7 Me. 132), 184. Plantation, Inhabitants of, v. Hall (61 Me. 517), 149, 154. Piatt V. Hibbard (7 Cow. 497), 63, 283. Platzv. Cohoes (24 Hun, 101; 89 N. Y. 219), 672, 781c. Player v. Railway Co. (62 Iowa, 723), 647a. Plott V. Railroad Co. (63 Wis. 511), Plumley v. Birge (124 Mass. 57), 666a. Plummer v. State (4 Tex. App. 310), 809. Pollard V. Vinton (105 U. S. 7), 122, 123, 124, 129. Pomeroy v. Donaldson (5 Mo. 36), 58. Pool V. Raili-oad Co. (23 S. C. 286), 410. Pool V. Railroad Co. ( — Utah, — ), 784. Pool V. Railway Co. (53 Wis. 657), 661c. Poole V. RaUway Co. (58 Tex. 134), 412, 421. Poole V. Railway Ca (66 Wis. 227), 661c. Poole V. Railroad (8 Jones (Law), 840), 669. Poole V. Raihoad Co. (16 Oi-e. 261), 570, 571. Pope V. Nickei-son (3 Story, 465), 144a. Porcher v. Railroad (14 Rich. (Law) 181), 117, 292, 483. Porter v. Hildebrand (14 Penn. St 129), 682. Porter v. Railway Co. (81 Mich. 156J 648. Porter v. Railroad (20 IlL 407), 370, 371, 374 Porter v. Railroad (34 Barb. 853), 571. Porter v. Railroad Co. (13 N. Y. Suppl. 491), 555&. Porter v. St Bt New England (17 Mo. 290), 774 Porterfleld v. Humphreys (8 Humplt 497), 66. Post V. Jones (19 How. 150), 433, 438. Post V. Raikoad Ca (14 Neb. 110), 580* Potter V. Lansing (1 Johns. 215), 726, 731. Potter V. RaUway (21 Wis. 372), 784, 788, 806. Potts V. Railway Co. (17 Ma App; 394), 293. Potts V. Railroad Ca (131 Mass. 455X 480, 482. Poucher v. Railroad (49 N. Y. 263), 264 557, 586. Poulin V. Raikoad (34 N. Y. Sup. Ct 296), 519. Poulton V. RaUway (L. R. 2 Q. B. 584), 600, 601, 815. Powell V. Buck (4 Strob. (Law),437X 430. PoweU V. Mills (30 Miss. 231), 59. PoweU V. Mills (37 Miss. 691), 5a Powell V. Myers (26 Wend. 591X 66, 844, 349, 712. PoweU V. Railroad Ca (25 Ohio St 70), 580a, 580&. Powers V. Davenport (7 Blackf. 497), 53, 61, 190, 813. Powei-s V. Mitchell (3 HiU, 545), 41. Powers V. Railroad Ca ( — Mass. — ), 538a. Pozzi V. Shipton (8 Ad. & El. 963), 741, 743, 745, 76a Prager v. Railway (L, R 6 U P. 466), 615. Pratt V. Railroad Ca (42 Me. 579), 5156. Pratt V. Railway (95 U. S. 48), 106. Prendergast v. Compton (8 C. & P. 464), 547, 68a TABLE OF 0ASE9. Beferences aro to sections. Price V. Hartshorn (44 Barb. 655 ; 44 N. Y. 94), 172, 444. Price V. Livingstone (9 Q, B. Div. 679), 473. Price V. PoweU (3 N. Y. 323), 358, 859, 360, 731. Price V. Railroad Co. (118 U. S. 318), 563, 654 Price V. Railroad Co. (13 Colo. 403), 491a. Price V. Ship Uriel (10 La. Ann. 413), 769. Prickett V. Anchor Line (13 Mo. App. 436), 710a. Priestly v. Raihroad (36 DL 305), 773, 776. Prmce v. Railway Co. (64 Tex. 146), 555, 567. Prince George County v. Burgess "(61 Md. 39), 802. Prmceton, The (3 Blatch. 54), 79. Pritchard v. Nwixju (106 U. S. 134), 144a. Proctor V. Railroad Co. (64 Mo. 113), 789. Proctor V. Nicholson (7 C. & P. 67), 489. Propeller Commerce (1 Black, 574), 66. Propeller Mohawk (8 "Wall. 153), 340, 433. Propeller Niagara v. Cordes (31 How. 7), 65, 66, 303, 393, 333. Pruitt V. Railroad Co. (62 Mo. 537), 198, 301, 346, 3196. Pullman Car Co. v. Bales (—Tex. — ). 617/ Pullman Car Co. v. Barker (4 Col. 344), 809. Pullman Car Co. v. Gardner (3 Pinney, 78), 617d Pullman Car Co. v. Gay lord (33 Am. L, Reg. 788), 617d, 617/. Pullman Car Co. v. Gaylord (36 Am. . L. Reg. 512), 617d, 617/. Pullman Car Co. v. Lowe (28 Neb. ^— ), 617d. Pullman Car Co. v. Matthews (74 Tex. 654), 617a. Ixxxix • Tex. Pullman Car Co. v. Pollock 130), 617d Pullman Car Co. v. Reed (75 Dl. 135), 571, 574, 580h, 593. Pullman Car Co. v. Smith ( — Tex. — ), 617fc. ' Pullman Car Co. v. Smith (73 HI 360), 60, 617A Purcell V. Railroad Co. (— N. C. — ), 608a. ■ Piurvis V. Coleman (31 N. Y. Ill), 698, 699. Putnam v. Railroad Co. (55 N. Y, 108), 541, 547, 550, 553, 553a, 668. Pym V. RaUway (4 Best & S. ^96), 785, 787. Pym V. Railway (3 F. & F. 619),- 513. Pyman v. Dreyfus (34 Q. B. Div. 153), 473. Quackenbush v. Railroad Co. (71 Wis. 473), 783a. Quaife v. Railway Co. (48 Wis. 513), 518. Querini v. StamphaUa (19 Fed. Rep. 133), 444 Quigley v. Railroad Co. (11 Nev. 850), 813, 815, 815a. Quimby v. Raihoad Co. (150 Masg. 365), 586. Quimby v. Vanderbilt (17 N. Y. 806), 145, 153, 579, 580, 608. Quin v. Moore (15 N. Y. 433), 786, 789. Quincy Coal Co. v. Hood (77 HI. 68), 789. Quinn v. Railroad Co. (7 S. E. Rep. 614), 657. Quinn v. Raih:oad Co. (34 Hun, 381), 805. Quinn V. Railway Co. (29 S. C, 381), .814a. Quinn v. Railroad (51 lU. 496), 653. Raben v. Railway Co. (73 Iowa, 579), 613, 614 6170. Raben v. Railway Co. (74 Iowa, 733), - 617a, 644 Ragan v. Aiken (9 Lea, 609), 303. Railroad Co. See Railway Co. V. Able (59 IlL 131), 617, 643, 644. xe TABLE OF CASES. Eeferences are to sections. Eailroad Co. v. Abels (60 Miss. 1017), 221, 250, 776. V. Ackley (94 U. S. 179), 3036, 567o. V. Adams (55 Penn. St 499), 782. V. Adams (42 HI. 474), 332, 333a. V. Addizoat (17 IlL App. 632), 708. V. Afcers (4 Kans. 458), 770a. V. AUbritton (38 Miss. 242), 600. V. Allen (53 Penn. St 276), 805. V. Allen (31 Ind. 394), 337. V. Allison (59 Tex. 198), 280&. V. Anderson (6 A. & Eng. E. Cas. 407), 201. V.Anderson (72 Md. 519), 616, 661a. T. Andrews (39 Md. 329), 639, 656, 657. V. Androscoggin Mills (22 WaU. 594), 152, 240. V. Apperson (49 HI. 480), 526. V. Applewhite (52 Ind. 540), 580sr. V. Arms (91 U. S. 489), 810, 815a. V. Arnold (80 Ala. 600), 518, 638, 8096. V. Ashby (79 Va. 130), 580gr. V. Ashmead (58 DL 487), 97, 115. V. Aspell (33 Penn. St 147), 534, 643. V. Baches (55 111. 379), 787, 788. V. Bailey (40. Miss. 395), 813, 815a. V. Baldauf (16 Penn. St 67), 337, 245, 360. V. Ball (— N. J. L. — ), 654 V. Ballard (85 Ky. 307), 603, 810. V. Bank (128 U. S. 727), 130, 1316. V. Bank (10 Neb. 556), 124. V. Bank (30 Wis. 130), 149a. V. Bantom (54 Penn. St 495), 786. V. Barnard (3 Ben. 39), 448. V. Barnes (104 N. C. 35), 392a. V. Barron (5 Wall. 90), 515, 786. V. Bartram (11 Ohio St 457), 570, 575, 613. V. Beatie (66 Ga. 438), 348a. V. Beggs (Sup. Ct 111., 5 C. L. J. 198), 555. V. Bell (70 HL 103), 668. V. Bell (133 Penn. St 58), 661a. Railroad Co. v. Bensley (69 HL 630), 371. V. Benson (85 Tenn. 637), 543, 609. V. Benson (— Ga. — ), 2036. V. Berry (68 Penn. St 273), 145. V. Biddle (— Penn. St — ), 594 V. Bigelow (68 Ga. 319), 575. V. Bigger (66 Miss. 319), 216a, 318. V. Bills (118 Ind. 231), 580ji V. Bimey (71 III. 392), 809(j. V. Blocher (27 Md. 277), 600, 815. V. Bonaud (58 Ga. 180), 606. V. Books (57 Penn. St 339), 536, 554 V. Boring (51 Ga. 583), 515e. V. Bowen (40 Ind. 545), 667. V. Boyce (73 EL 510), 685. V. Boyd (91 HL 268), 246, 247a. V. Boyer (97 Penn. St 91), 674 V. Bradford (86 Ala 574), 783o. V. Brady (33 Md. 333), 261. V. Brazzill (— Tex. -r— ), 814a, Y. Brelsford (13 HL Ap. 251), 316a, 318. V. Bromley (17 C. B. 373), 58, 760. V. Brooks (81 DL 245), 555. V. Brooks (83 Ky. 129). 784. V. Brown (133 IlL 162), 5556. V. Brown (26 Kans. 443), 784 V. Brown (17 Wall. 450), 5156, 542. V. Brownlee (14 Bush, 590), 240. V. Bryan (— Ga. — ), 600. V. Bryan (90 El. 126), 815a. V. Bryant (73 Ga. 722), 248a. V. Buck (96 Ind. 346X 612, 616, 809e. V. Buekner (28 IlL 299X 669. V. Burke (55 Tex. 833), 314 237c. V. Burke (53 Miss. 200), 536, 549, 551, 816. V. Burke (6 Cold. 45), 777. V, Burke (13 Wend. 611), 293, 497. V. Burns (60 111. 284), 292, 301, 327. V. Burns (51 N. J. L. 340), 565. V. BuiTOWs (33 Mich. 6), 195, 293, 337, 331. V. Butler (112 Ind. 598), 612. T. Butler (103 Ind. 31), 803. V. Button Ca (34 Conn. 468), 153. TABLE OF CASES. XC} Heferences are to sections. ■Eiiilroad Co. v. Calderwood (89 Ala. 347), 613, 638, 803, 803a. V. Oampau (35 Mich. 468), 7896. V. Campbell (7 Heisk. 358), 103^ 103a, 148. V. CampbeU (138 Mass. 104), 480. V. Campbell (36 Ohio St. 647), 148, 578. V. Ganti-ell (37 Ark. 519), 661c. V. Carey (56 Ind. 396), 808. V. Carmichael (— Ala. — ), 580i!. Y. Carper (113 Ind. 36), 580^, 661c. V. Carr (71 Md. 135), 538. V. Carroll (6 Heisk. 347), 515. T. CaiTow (78 lU. 348), 685. V. Case (9 Bush, 738), 674, 784. V. Casey (53 Tex. 113), 590. V. Cason (73 Md. 377), 653, 653a. V. Chambers (71 111. 519), 617, 641. V. Chastine (54 Miss. 503), 567d. Y. Chester (57 Ind. 397), 780. V. Chipman (146 Mass. 107), 580e. V. Clayton (78 111. 616), 717. V. Cleary (77 Mo. 634), 136. V. Clemmons (55 Tex. 88), 654. T. Cleveland (3 Bush, 468), '870. V. Cobb (64 111. 138), 115, 393. V. Cobb (48 III 403), 403. V. Cole (68 Ga. 638), 103a. V. Coleman (38 Mich. 440), 517, 641, 646. V. CoUins (3 Duvall, 114), 535. V. CoUms (56 111. 313), 683, 685. V. Compton (75 Tex. 667), 784 ,v. Condor (75 Ga. 51), 815a. y. Conklin (83 Kan. 55), 685. V. ConneU (113 HL 395), 578, 580ft, 580j", 598. T. Conroy (68 111. 560), 539. V. Cook (68 Miss. 38), 779. V. Cooper (130 Ind. 469), 547, 668, 670. -r. Copeland (63 Ala. 319)j 148, 149o, 1496. V. Copeland (34 111. 333), 145, 148, 153, 683, 715. 718. V. Coppage (— Ky. — ), 783a. V, Corcoran (40 Ark. 375), 767. Railroad Co. v. Cotton Mills (81 Ga. 533), 378, 141, 143, 150, 157a. V. Cowles (33 111. 116), 150. V. Cowser (57 Tex. 293), 803. V. Coyle (55 Penn. St 396), 806. V. Cragin (71 111. 177), 798. V. Crenshaw (6.5 Ala. 566), 803. V. Crockett (17 Neb. 570), 788. V. Crunk (119 Ind. 543), 670. V. Cunningham (67 111. 316), 571. V. Curran (19 Ohio St 1), 360, 5556, 583. V. Curtis (80 IlL 334), 198. V. Dalby (19 IlL 353), 571. V. Daughtry (88 Tenn. 731), 784. V. David (6 Heisk. 361), 102a, 185, ■ 201. Day (30 111. 875), 339, 337. Delaney (83 111. 198), 784. Derby (14 How. 468), 337, 500, 503, 585, 566, 567, 600, 654 V. Dewey (36 EL 355), 531. V. Dewin (86 IE 396), 567c. v. Dills (4 Bush, 593), 813. Dorman (73 111. 504), 331. Dorough (73 Tex. 108), 661c. Dougherty (— Ga. — ), 580/ Doyle (60 Miss. 977), 789a. Dunbar (30 IlL 638), 75, 331. Duncan (38 Ind. 441), 643. Dunden (37 Kans. 1), 788a, 784 Dunn (19 Ohio St 163), 815a. V. Dunham (68 Tex. 331), 5156. V. Dwelle ( — Kans. — ), 591a. V. Eadie (43 Ohio St 91), 674 V. Eakin (6 Cold. 582), 789a. V. Eaton (94 Ind. 474), 809a. Eckford (71 Tex. 374), 616. Edelstein (— Penn. — ), 616. Edmonds (41 Ala. 667), 360, 380. Eininger (114 IlL 79), 666a. Elliott (1 Cold. 611), 510, 539. Ellison (117 Ind. 334), 654c. Emrich (34 111. Ap. 245), 148, 735. V. Enches (127 Penn. St. 316), 643. V. Eskew (— Ga, — ), 617. V. Estes (10 Lea, 747), 310d. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V.' V. V. V. V. . V. V. xcu TABLE OF CASKS. Eeferences are to sections Railroad Co. v, Eswin (118 lU. 350), Eailroarl Co. 303. V. Fagan (— Tex — ), 350. V. Fairclough (53 111. 106), 706, 713. V. Faler (58 Miss. 911), 360. V. Fay (16 111. 558), 507, 538a, 803. V. Faylor (— Ind. — ), 800. V. Felder (46 Ga. 433), 870. V. Ferguson '(79 Va. 241), 654. V. Fielding (48 Penn. St 330), 534. Y. Finney (10 Wis. 888), 813. V. Fitchburg Eailroad (14 Allen, 463), 439. V. Fite (67 Miss. 373),' 643. V. Fitzpatriok (35 Md. 46), 654. V. Fix (88 Ind. 381), 580/, 580^ 580A!, 661c. V. Flagg (43 111. 364), 538a, 571, 810. V. Flannagan (38 IH App. 489), 488a. V. Fleming (14 Lea, 138), 573, 580j, 670, 809, 809c. V. Flexman (103 IlL 646), 597. V. Flinn (34 Kan. 639), 565. T. Forsyth (61 Penn. St 81), 153, 149. V. Ford (53 Tex. 364), 580c. V. FoUiard (66 Tex. 603), 617. V. Fraloff (100 XT. S. 34), 353, 681a, 683&. V. Fi-ame (6 Colo. 383), 721, 733, - 7706. V. Frankenberg (54 IlL 88), 148, 1496, 337, 240, 715. V. Frazier (— Ala. — ), 591. V. Freed (38 Ark. 614), 411. V. Fries (87 Penn. St 334), 183, 837a. V. Fryer (30 Md. 47), 789c. V. Gage (13 Gray, 893), 303. V. Gann (68 Ga 350), 338. V. Garrett (8 Lea, 488), 570, 591a V. Gidlow (L R. 7 H. L. Caa. 517), 447a. V. Gill (66 Miss. 39), 613. V. Gilmer (89 Ala. 584), 875, 769. V, Gilmore (— Ina — ), 591. Gladmon (15 Wall. 401), 666, 666a, 803. V. Glidewell (39 Ark. 487), 67. V. Goetz (79 Ky. 443), 803. V. Goodman (53 Penn. St 339), 806. V. Goodykoontz (119 Ind. Ill), 788a. V. Grable (88 IlL 443), 667. V. Graham (46 Ind. 339), 600. V. Grate Co. (81 Ga. 602), 148, 753, 771. V. Green (86 Penn. St 431), 543. V, Green (52 Miss. 779), 813. V. Green (81 HI. 19), 639. V. Griffen (68 HL 499), 580^ 593. v. Gregory (58 HL 336), 668. T. Griffin (68 EL 499), 553, 574. V. Grush (67 111. 362), 517. V. Guinan (11 Lea, 98), 815a. V. Gunn (68 Ga. 350), 33a V. Hale (6 Mich. 343), 2376, 335. V. Hale (85 Tenn. 69), 331, 771. V. Hall (58 HL 409), 221, 393. V. Hamilton (76 IlL 393), 321,322. V. Hammer (72 HL 347), 814 V. Hammond (83 Ind. 379), 682. V. Handy (63 Miss. 609), 617/. V. Hanna (6 Gray, 589), 63, 89, lea V. Harney (38 Ind. 38), 781a. V. Harris (9 Lea, 180), 580c 591a. V. Harwood (80 IlL 88), 784, 788. V. Hatton (5 C. L. J. 889), 612. V. HasseU (63 Tex. 256), 580sf, 643, 661a V. Hawk (72 Ala. 112), 653. V. Hawkins ( — Ala. — ), 547. V. Hawkins (18 Mich. 427), 261, 293. V. Hayden (71 Ga. 518), 809. V. Haynes (64 Miss. 604), 771. V. Hazen (84 lU. 36), 205, 334. V. Hazzard (26 la 373), 538a. V. Heaton (87 Ind. 448), 237, 260, V. Hedger (9 Bush, 645), 231. V. Henderson (51 Penn. 315X 260, 517,5556,567,583,784. V. Hendricks (88 Tenru 710), 784. TABLE OF OASES. xcm References are to sections. Railroad Co. v. Hendricks (36 Ind. 233), 500, 613, 617a. V. Hendricks (41 Ind. 69), ei7a, 787, 788. V. Henlein (53 Ala. 606), 231, 349, 250, 360, 333. V. Henlein (56 Ala. 368), 349, 250. V. Hennigh (39 Ind. 509), 573. V. Herndon (81 HI 143), 431. V. Herndon (— Va. — ), 518, 617a. V. Hewitt (67 Tex. 473), 553. V. Hiatt (17 Ind. 102), 803. V. Higgins (85 Tenn. 620), 783a. V. HiU (— Ala. — ), 814a. Y. Hinds (.53 Penn. St. 513), 497, 543, 549, 552tt. V. Hines (19 Ga. 208), 89. V. Hodapp (83 Penn. St. 22), 316, 3496. V. Hoeflich (62 Md. 800), 567c, 810. ' V. Hoehl (13 Bush, 41), 666, 803. V. Hogeland (66 Md. 149), 674. V. Holdridge (118 Ind. 381), 580c. V. Holland (— Miss. — ), 375. V. HoUoway (9 Baxt 188), 359. V. Hollowell(65 Ind. 188), 205, 831 T. Holmes (5 Col. 197), 638. V. Hoist (93 U. S. 291), 803. V. Homer (73 Ga. 351), ,815a, 818. V. Hoosey (99 Penn. St 493), 609. T. Hopkins (41 Ala. 486), 360, 583. V. Hornberger (77 111. 457), 97, 115. V. Horst (93 IT. S. 391), 500, 503, 661, 661c. V. Howe (53 Miss. 303), 515c. V. Hudgins (42 Ark. 485), 759. V. Hunt (15 Lea, 261), 378a, 447a, 478. V. Hunter (11 Wis. 160), 803. V. Huntley (38 Mich. 545), 524. V. Hurst (36 Miss. 660), 537, 617. 795, 813. V. Husen (95 U. S. 465), 310e. V. Insurance Co. (98 Mass. 420), 429. V. Iowa (94 U. S. 155), 303b, 567a. V.Jackson (6 Heisk. 271), 185, 231, 337, 370. Railroad Co. v. Jageman (115 IlL 407), 148. V. Jarboe (41 Ala. 644), 270, 766. V. Johnson (38 Ga. 409), 806. V. Johnson (34 IlL 389), 145, 148. V. Johnson (67 111. 312), 571. V. Johnston (75 Ala. 596), 248a. V. Jones (83 Ala. 376), 800. V. Jones (9 Heisk. 37), 511. V. Jurey (8 111. App. 160), 331. V. Kane (69 Md. 11), 608a, 608&, 647, 654, 661c. V. Katzenbach(118Ind. 174), 770c. V. Katzenberger (16 Lea, 380), 617/1. V. Keeley (33 Ind. 133), 788. V. Keller (67 Penn. Si 300), 786. V. KeUey (31 Penn. St. 873), 667, 779. V. Kellogg (94 U. S. 475), 303, 809. V. Kelly (93 Ind. 371), 649, 661a V. Kelly (1 Head, 158), 731. V. Kelsey (— Ala. — ), 769. V. Kendriok (40 Miss. 374), 614, 617. V. Kennard (31 Penn. St. 303), 500, 657. V.Kennedy (41 Miss. 671), 683, 685, 791. V. Kennedy (77 Ind. 507), 538a, 570. V. Kennedy (3 A. & E. E. Cas. 467), 580/ V. Kerr (— Miss. — ), 153. V. Kidd (35 Ala. 309), 349a, 370, 371, 378, 386. V. Kilgore (32 Perm. St 292), 612, 644. V. Killian (78 Ga. 749), 515&. V. Kindred (57 Tex. 491), 784. V. King (6 Heisk. 269), 185. V. Kirk (90 Penn. St 15), 784, 806. V. Kirkbride (79 Tex. 457), 536, 591, 600, 816. V. Kirkwood (45 Mich. 51), 108. V. Kuehn (70 Tex. 583), 783a. V. Lacy (49 Ga. 106), 783. V.' Lacy (43 Ga. 461), 789a. XCIV TABLE OF CASES. References are to sections. EaUroad Co. v. Lampley (76 Ala. 357), 44, 57, 78, 80, 568. V. Langdon (93 Penn. St. 27), 654. V. Langlois (9 Mont 419), 533, 523. V. Larkin (47 Md. 155), 591, 810. V. Larned (108 lU. 293), 124, 344 V. Latimer (128 IlL 163), 590. V. Ledbetter (— Ala. — ), 750. V. Le Gierse (51 Tex. 187), 783fl!. V. Lehman (56 Md. 209), 328, 330. V. Leigh (45 Ark. 368), 609. V. Letcher (69 Ala. 106), 553a, 648. V. LiddeU (— Ga. — ), 5156, 617, 814a. V. LiUy (8 S. Eep. 644), 97. V. Lindley (43 Kans. 714), 661. V. Little (71 Ala 611), 250, 259a, 766. V. Lockhart (79 Ala. 315), 617, 807, 8095. V. Lockhart (71 Dl. 627), 293. V. Lookridge (93 Ind. 191), 803. V. Lookwood (17 Wall. 357), 44, 1496, 229, 255, 263, 3e6a, 567, 584. V. Lookwood (38 Ohio St 358), 380. V. Long (75 Penn. St 257), 667. V. Love (— Ala. — ), 800. V. Lumber Co. (15 Neb. 390), 473a. V. Lyons (129 Penn. St 114), 613. V. Mackinney (124 Penn. St 463), 799. V. McArthnr (43 Miss. 180), 617, 809, 809a V. licClellan (54 IlL 58), 97, 115. V. McClosky (33 Penn. St 526), 786. V. McClurg (56 Penn. St 294), 639, 655, 656, 657. V. McCool (26 Ind. 140), 370. V. MoCormick (124 Penn. St 427), 615, 618. V. MoCurdy (45 Ga. 388), 617. V. McDonald (68 Ind. 816), 547. V. McDonald (75 Tex. 41), 784. V. McDonough (21 Mich. 165), 218, 321, 832, 763. Kailroad Co. v. McEnery (91 Penn. 185), 784 V. McElwee (6 Heisk. 208), 148. V. McGuire (79 Ala. 395), 370. V. McKean (40 IlL 318), 669. V. McLendon (63 Ala. 366), 814a. V. Mahan (8 Bush, 184), 710. V. Maloy (77 Ga. 237), 783a. V. Manchester Mills (88 Tenn. 653), 2486. 259a, 722, 767. V. Manufacturing Co. (16 WalL 318), 103, 110, 149, 340, 345. V. Marcus (38 HL 219), 685. V. Maris (6 Kan. 333), 370, 377. T. Martin (111 HL 219), 515, 515e, 557. V. Martin (41 Mich. 667), 553a. V. Mask (64 Miss. 738), 614 V. Mason (51 Miss. 234), 80a V. MassengiU (15 Lea, 338), 64a V. Maugans-(61 Md. 61), 654 V. Maybin<66 Miss. 83), 545a, 572. V. Mayes (49 Ga. 355), 515& V. Meador (65 Ga. 705), 416a. V. Mehlsack (131 111. 61), 553, 555. V. Merrill (48 ILL 425), 391. V. Merriwether( — Ky. — ), 783a. V. Messino (1 Sneed, 220), 526, 539. V. Meyer (78 Ala. 597), 148, W96, 340,247a. V. Michie (83 HL 427), 588a, 555, 661. V. Miles (— Ala. — ), 653. V. Miles (88 Ala. 356), 643. V. Miles (55 Penn. St 309), 543. V. Miller (25 Mich. 374), 80a V. Miller (133 U. S. 75), 3036. v.. Miller (16 Neb. 661), 447, 447fl. V. Miller (87 Penn. St 395), 767. V. Minogue (— Ky. — ), 806. V. Montgomery (39 HL 335), 89. V. Moore (51 Ala. 394), 1496, 167, 764 V. Moore (40 Miss. 39), 791. V. Mooro (59 Tex. 64i 666a. V. Moore (61 Ga. 151), 784 V. Miorris (67 Tex. 692), 5156. V. Morris (68 Tex. 49), 750, 757. TABLE OF CASES. XCV Beferences are to sections. Railroad Co. v. Morris (31 Gratt 200), 643. v. Morris (36 HI. 400), 788, 789. V. Morrison (19 III. 136), 237, 242. V. Morrison, (34 Kan. 503). 688, 682a. V. Morton (61 Ind. 539), 566. V. Moss (60 Miss. 1003), ?60, 766. V. Moss (23 Cal. B34), 67. V. Mower Co. (76 Me. 251), 721. V. Mowery (36 Ohio St. 418), 663. V. Mt Vernon Co. (84 Ala. 174), 103, 1496. V. Muhling (30 El. 9),. 538a, 565, 590. V. Mundy (31 Ind 48), 585. V. Murden (— Ga. — ), 5806. V. Murphy (46 Tex. 356), 638, 642. V. Mux-ray (— Ga — ), 478, 488a. V. Murray (71 HI. 601), 666. V. Myrtle (51 Ind. 566), 571. V.Nelson (1 Cold. 272), 67, 145, 292,829,731. ' V. Nelson (59 HI. 110), 570, 571. V. Nelson (51 Ind. 150), 513. V. Nichols (9 Kans. 335), 331. V. Nickless (71 Ind. 371), 5556. V. Nix (68 Ga. 572), 591a. V. Noell (32 Gratt. 394), 784 V. O'Connell (— Kans. — ), 784. V. Oden (80 Ala. 38), 249, 360, 378, 570, 766. V. Oehm (56 lU. 293), 685. V. Ogier (35 Penn. St. 60), 802. V. Oil Works (126 Penn. St. 485), 477, 483. V. Olds (77 Ga. 678), 580h, 580J, , 580A;, 815a. V. Ormsby (27 Gratt 455), 667. V. Ordway (140 Mass. 510), 760. V. Orr(— Ala. — ^), 784 V. Painter (15 Neb. 394), 414a. V. Page (32 Barb. 130), 578, 580. V. Parks (18 111. 460), 571, 590. V. Parmalee (51 Ind. 43), 613. V. Patterson (68 111. 304), 571. V. Pattison (41 Ind. 313), 447a. V. Patton (31 Miss. 156), 818. V. Paulk (34 Ga. 356), 663. Railroad Co. v. Payne (— Va. — ), 380. V. People (67 111. 11), 303, 8086. V. People (121 HL 304), 802, 8036. V. People (56 Dl. 365), 148, 301. V. People (67 III 1), 301. Y. People (Ohio, 1877), (6 C. L. J. 436), 790. V.Perkins (35 Mich. 829), 221, 233. T. Perry (58 Ga. 461), 557, 559. T. Peters (116 Penn. St. 206). 613. V. PhiUibert (25 Kan. 583), 803. V. PhUlips (64 Miss. 693), 783a, 789. V. Phillips (60 m. 198), 139, V. Phillips (49 DL 334), 512. V. Pickard (8 Col. 163), 641, V. Pickleseimer (85 Va. 798), 689, 643. V. PiUow (76 Penn. St. 510), 549. V. Pillsbury (128 111. 9), 551a. V. Piper (13 Kan. 505), 145, 157. V. Pondrom (51 lU. 333),, 658. V. Pontius (19 Ohio St. 221), 149a, 240, 260, 715. V. Pratt (22 Waa 128), 149, 153, 153, 262, 395a. V. Prewitt (46 Ala. 63), ■349a, 870. V. Price (96 Penn. St 386), 554 563, 654 V. Prince (3 Heisk. 580), 789, 792. V. Proctor (1 Allen,, 367), 575, 612. V. Pumphrey (59 Md. 390), 344, 769, 770a, 773, 773, 776a. V. Eae (18 111. 488), 478a. V. Ragsdale (46 Miss. 458), 338, 839, 331, 335, 771, 772, 773. V. Railroad (14AUen, 462), 429. V. Raiordon (119 Penn. St 577), 248a, 768a, 801. V. Randall (79 Ga. 304), 613, 800. V. Randolph (53 111. 510), 580gr. V. Rathbone (1 W. Va. 87), 270. V. Read (87 111. 484), 261, 586. V. Reeves (10 Wall. 176), 185, 195, 301, 280, 767. V. Reisner (18 Kan. 458), 661c. V. Remmy (13 Ind. 518), 747. V. Renz (55 Ga. 136), 664, 673. xevi TABLE OJ" CASES. Eailroad Co. v. Eeynolds (8 Kan. 633), 231. V. Eeynolds (17 Kan. 251), 360. V. Rhodes (35 Fla. 40), 580A, 586, 590. V. Bice (38 Kan. 398), 810. V. Rice (64 Md. 63), 580i, 580^, 580fc, 580Z. V. Riegel (73 Penn. St 73), 391. V. Riley (39 Ind. 568), 561, 561a, 611. V. Riley (47 Ul 514), 668. V. Rinard (46 Ind. 293), 538, 571. V. Ritter (85 Ky. 368), 800. V. Roach (35 Kan. 740), 578. V. Robeits (40 111. 503), 571. V. Robinson (44 Penn. St 175), 803. V. Rodebaugh (38 Kan. 45), 260. V. Rogers (6 Heisk. 143), 148, 157. V. Rogers (38 Ind. 1), 571. V. Rose (11 Neb. 177), 538a. V. Rowan (66 Penn. St 393), 802. V. Ruby (38 Ind. 294), 535. V. Eumbold (40 El. 143), 514 T. Rutherford (39 Ind. 82), 656, 657. V. Rouse (77 Ga. 393), 784. V. Sage (35 Hun, 95), 479. V. Sanger (15 Gratt 330), 524, 553. V. Sargeant (19 Ohio St 438), 340, 349c. V. Sayers (36 Gratt 338), 337, 360. V. Scharzenberger (45 Penn. St 308), 678. V. Schaufler (75 Ala. 136), 643, 661c. V. Schiebe (44 HL 460), 648. V. Schumaker (39 Md. 168), 149. V. Schwartz (13 111. App. 490), 735, 727. V. Scott (43 111. 133), 870, 374. V. Selby (47 Ind. 471), 360, 5556, 567,583. V. Sellers (— Ala. — ), 617. V. Shaoklet (105 111. 864), 674 V. Shanly (107 Mass. 568), 440. V. Shannon (43 HI. 488), 784 V. Shea (66 111. 471), 814 References are to sections. Railroad Co. v. Sheehan (39 IlL App. 90), 597. V. Sherrod (84 Ala. 178), 1496, 250. V. Shipley (31 Md. 368), 639. V. Shiirtz (7 Mich, 515), 63, 89. V. Sickings (5 Bush, 1), 656, 657. V. Simms (18 lU. App. 68), 259. V.Sims (37 Ind. 59), 610. V. Simpson (30 Kan. 645), 331, 250. V. Singleton (66 Ga. 253), 538a. V. Singleton (67 Ga. 306), 661c. V. SkiUie (— Ga. — ), 771. T. Skeels (3 W. Va. 556), 337. V. Skillman (39 Ohio St 444), 591a, 571. V. Slatton (54 lU. 133), 641. V. Slusser (19 Ohio St 157), 815a. V. Smith (— Tex. — ), 616. V. Smith (— Ala. — ), 616, 8036, V. Smith (3 Duvall, 556), 812. V. Smith (6 Heisk. 174), 802. V. Smitha (85 Ala. 47), 331. V. Smuck (49 Ind. 302), 375. V. Smyser (38 111. 354), 99. V. Snyder (18 Ohio St 399), 666, 667. V. Snyder (24 Ohio St 670), 667. V. Snyder (117 Ind. 435), 800. V. South (43 111. 176), 571, 6086. V. Sowell (— Tenn. — ), 350. V. Spearen (47 Penn. St 300), 667. V. Spears (66 Ga. 485), 248a. V. Spicker (105 Penn. St 143), 680, 586. V. Spickier (61 Tex. 427), 803. V. Spratt (3 Duvall, 4), 162. V. SpraybeiTy (9 Heisk. 863), 152, 57& V. Stanley (61 Md. 366), 515d,66a V. Starnes (9 Heisk. 53), 816. V. State (73 Md. 36), 654 V. State (54 Md. 655), 654 V. State (60 Md. 449), 661a, 783a. V. State (63 Md. 136), 661a. V. State (29 Md. 353), 639. V. State (33 Md. 543), 806. V. Statham (42 Miss. 607), 670, 813. V. Steinbruner (47 N. J. L. 161). 674 TABLE OF CASES. xcvn Beferences are to sections. Railroad Co. v. Stern (119 Perm. St. 34), 130, 131. V. Stringfellow (44 Ai-k. 332), 643. V. Stoat (53 Ind. 148), 663. V. Stout (17 Wall 657), 666a. V. Strong (58 Ga 461), 789a. V. Sjifern (139 IlL 374), 301. V. SulUvan (59 Ala. 373), 783a. V. Sullivan (81 Ky. 634), 590, 668. V. Sutton (53 lU. 397), 538, 670. V. Sutton (L. R. 4 H. L. Cas. 336), 447a. ■V. Swett (45 lU. 205), 784 V. Swift (13 WaU. 363), 75, 117, 538, 683, 685. V. Taffey (38 N. J. L. 537), 803. V. Taylor (69 Til. 461), 536. • V. Teny (8 Ohio St 570), 669. V. Tisdale (74 Tex. 8), 150, 153. V. Tisdale (— Tex. — ), 334. V. Theobald (51 Ind. 346), 600. v. Thomas (42 Ala. 673), 507. V. Thomas (— Ala. — ), 311. V. Thomas (83 Ala. 343), 149&. V. Thomas (79 Ky. 160), 654, 803. V. Thompson (76 Ga. .770), 647, 784. V. Thompson (19 111. 578), 67, 214. T. Thompson (56 IlL 138), 503, 534. V.Thompson (71 UL 434), 321, 332. V. Thra;pp (5 III. App. 502), 317. V. Tindall (13 Ind 366), 777, 786, 788. T. Towboat Co. (23 How. 209), 672. V. Trafton (151 Mass. 339), 576. V. Trautwein (— N. J. — ), 519. V. Ti-ipp (147 Mass. 35), 533, 533. V. Trippe (42 Ark. 465), 170. V. Tronstine (64 Miss. 834), 701. V. Trotter (60 Miss. 443), 504. V. Turner (73 Ga. 393), 597, 600. V. Turpelo, etc., Co. ( — Miss. — ), 761. V. United States (93 U. S. 444), 81c. T. Usiy (83 Ga. 54), 648, 809c Railroad Co. v. Vanatta (31 IlL 188), 590. V. Vandever (36 Perm. St 398), 788. V. Vandiver (42 Perm. St 365), 591. V. Van Dresar (33 Wis. 511), 223. V. Van Horn (38 N. J. Law, 133), 616. V. Van Patten (64 lU. 510), 639. V. Van Steinburg (17 Mich. 99), 80S. Y. Venable (67 (Ja. 697), 784 V. Venable (65 Ga. 55), 783a. V. Vibbard (114 Mass. 447), 480. V. Wainwright (— Ky. ), 783a. V. Walrath (38 Ohio St 461), 617/1. - V. Walsh (47 N. J. L. 548), 810. V. Walsh (— Kan. — ), 800. V. Ward (47 N. J. L. 560), 638. V. Ward — lU. — ), 517. V. Warren (16 IlL 502), 374 V. Washburn (5 Neb. 117), 260. V. Waters (41 111. 73), 393. V. Weakly (50 Ark. 397), 350. V. Weaver (16 Kan. 456), 600. V. Weber (33 Kan. 543), 547, 688, 784 V. Weber (76 Penn. 157), 803. v. Webster (35 Fla. 394), 654a. V. WeiUer (— Penn. — ), 260. V. Weiner (49 Miss. 735), 337, 360. V. Weldon (53 m. 290), 785, 787, 806. V. WeUs (85 Tenn. 613), 543. V. Wetmore (19 Ohio St 110), 388, 600, 809d V. Wheeler (35 Kan. 185), 538a. V. Whitacre (35 Ohio St 637), 803. V. Whitoher (1 AUen, 497), 450. V. Whitfield (44 Miss. 466), 521, 617, 617a. V. Whitman (79 Ala. 328), 815a. V. Whittemore (43 lU. ^20), 590. V. Whittle (27 Ga. 535), 75. V. WUoox (48 Ga. 433), 398, 400. V. Wilkens (44 Md. 11), 133, 168. XCVIU TABLE or OASES. Beferences are to sections. EaUroad Co. v. "Wilkes (68 Tex. 617), 573. V. Williams (55 LL 185), 543, 553. V. Wilson (119 Ind. 353), 447. V. Wimberly (75 Ga. 316), 703. v. "Winans (17 How. 30), 5156. V. Wireman (88 Penn. St 364), 134. V. Woife (80 Ky. 83), 803a. V. Wood (73 Ala. 451), 731, 771. V. Wood (66 Ala. 167), 375. V. Worland (50 Ind. 339), 747. V. Wortham (73 Tex. 37), 617a. V. Worthington (31 Md. 375), 536. V. Wright (68 Ind. 586), 590. T. Wright (76 Ga. 533), 38k V. Wynn (88 Tenm. 830), 301, 360, 768a. V. Wysor (83 Va. 350), 580c, 793. V. Yarwood (15 DL 468), 538. V. Yohe (51 Ind. 181), 398, 401. V. Young (38 Ind. 616), 331, 337. V. Young (81 Ga. 397), 666a. V. Zebe (33 Penn. St. 318J, 531, 643, 646, 784, 788. V. Zebe (37 Penn. St 430), 646. Railway Co. See Railroad Co. V. Acres (108 Ind. 548), 538. V. Adams (78 Tex. 373), 359. V. Adams (— Tex. — ), 1496, 761 V. Adams (49 Tex. 748), 344, 346 V. Adams (— Ky. — ), 783a. V. Adcox (53 Ark. 406), 580gr. V. Anthony (43 Ind. 183), 600. V. Applewhite (53 Ind. 540), 613. V. Arms (91 U. S. 439), 813. V. Atchison (47 Ark. 74), 580^. V. Atkins (46 Ark. 433), 643. V. Baddeley (54 HI. 19), 806. V. Bagge (15 Q. B. Div. 636), 451. V. Baird (75 Tex. 356), 169. V. Baker (57 Tex. 419), 784. T. Ball (— Tex — ), 359, 770. V. Bangs (47 Mich. 470), 643. V. Bank (133 U. 8. 737), 131. V. Barber (— Kan. — ), 78a V. Barker (83 Ark. 860), 784. V. Barker (39 Ark. 491), 784. RaUway Co. v. Bartlett (7 a & N. 400), 394, 395, 418. ~ V. Bayfield (37 Mich. 306), 784, 786. V. Beaver (41 Ind. 493), 538a. V. Beeson (30 Kan. 298), 247. V. Beggs (85 m. 80), 513. V. Bennett (76 Tex. 151), 781 V. Bennett (89 Ind. 457), 205, 334, 747. ' V. Bimey (71 BL 391X608a, 809. - V. Blake (7 H. & N. 987), 514 V. Bohn (37 Mich. 503), 665. V. Bolton (43 Oliio St 334), 6616. V. Bond (62 Tex. 443), 591o. V. Booton (— Tex. — ), 337c, 770d, 775. V. Boudron (93 Perm. St 475), 651, 663. V. Braid (1 Moore P. C. (N. S.) 101), 635. V. Brauss (70 Ga. 368), 600. V. Brauss (75 Ga. 61), 816a. V. Breeding (— Tex. — ), 761, 770a. V. Brisbane (34 El. App. 663), 571. V. Bromley (17 Com. B. 375), 58, 760. V. Broom (6 Ex. 336), 816. V. Brooks (81111 245), 538a. V. Brophy (105 Penn. St 38), 658a. V. Brown (— Tex. — ), 518. V. Brown (50 L. T. Rep. 281), 222. V. Bunch (13 App. Caa. 31), 6936. V. Bush (101 Ind. 583), 806. V. Campbell (76 Tex. 174), 638a, 555. V. Canti-ell (37 Ark. 526), 643. V. Carl (38 Kan. 622), 6156. V. Case (123 Ind. 310), 338. V. Chapman (— HI. — ), 36a V. China Mfg. Co. (— Tex. — ), 766. V. Chisholm (79 HI. 584), 810. V. Clark (73 Penn. St 231), 575. V. Closser (136 Ind. 348), 30a V. Cole (— Tex. — ), 773. V. Cole (66 Tex. 563), 617, 809ft V, Cole (39 Ohio St 126), 809(i TABLE OF CASES. XCLX References are to sections. Railway Co. v. Collins (7 H. L. Cas. 194), 153a. V. Cowser (57 Tex. 293), 784. V. Crenshaw (65 Ala. 566), 666a. V. Crisp (14 Com. B. 527), 340, 754. V. Crispi (78 Tex. 236), 617. V. Crouch (3 H. & N. 183), 147, 393, 405. v. Culberson (68 Tex. 664), 783a. T. Culver (75 Ala. 587), 1496, 761. V. Daniels (49 Ark. 353), 2486. V. Davidson (68 Tex. 370), 643. v. Dean (43 Ark. 539), 575, 578. V. Dickerson (59 Md. 317), 538a. V. Dickinson (74 III 349), 764 T. Doane (115 Ind. 485), 617. T. Donahue (70 Penn. St. 119), 806. V. Dorough (72 Tex. 108), 638, 642. V. Dunn (19 Ohio St 163), 813. V. Dwyer (75 Tex. 573), 3036. V. Edwards (— Tex. — , 14 S. W. Rep. 607), 750., V. EUiott (76 111. 67), 303. V. Evans (71 Tex. 361), 547, 668. V. Bvershed (L. R. 3 App. Cas. 1029), 447. T, FarreU (31 Ind. 408), 616, 648. v. Fennell (15 S. W. Rep. 693), 134. V. Felton (125 III 458), 662a. V. Findley (76 Ga. 311), 500, 613, 800. V. Fmley (79 Tex. 85), 670. V. Finley (— Tex. — ), 613, 617a. V. Flanagan (113 Ind. 488), 97. V. Flournoy (75 Ga 745), 771. V. FoUiard (66 Tex 603), 682. V. Foreman (78 Tex. 311), 611. V. Foster (104 Ind. 298), 688a, 717. V. Frawley (110 Ind. 18), 673. V. Fulgham (8 S. Rep. 803), 136. V. Freeman (36 Ai-k. 41), 784. V. Freeman (— Tex. — ), 344. V. Gallagher (108 Penn. St 534), 653a. V. Gallaher (—Tex. — ), 750. V. Gastka (138 111. 613), 600. V. Gatewood (79 Tex. 89), 348c, 359. Railway Co. v. Geis (31 Md. 357), 803. V. Gill (— Ark. — ), 567a. V. Gillam (37 111. App. 386), 784. V. Glidewell (39 Ark. 487), 344 V. Glynn (1 EL & EL 653), 489. V. Goodman (13 Com. B. 313), 678. V. Graves (— Tex. — ), 3196. V. Green (56 Md. 84), 653a. V. Greenwood (79 Penn. St 373), 570. V. Hale (— Ala. — ), 800. V. Hale (— Ala. — ), 613. V. Hale (83 111. 360), 773, 773. V. Hall (106 111. 371), 515e. V. Hall (64 Tex. 615), 94 97. V. Hardway (17 Brad. (IlL) 321), 685. v. Harmon (13 lU. Ap. 54), 318. V. Harper (44 Ark. 308), 767). v. Harris (— Fla. — ), 149, 761. V. Harris (67 Tex. 166), 231. V. Harris (133 IT.' S. 597), 809e. V. Harrison (10 Bxch. 376), 555, 567. V. Harwell (— Ala. — ), 240, 766. V. Hassard (75 Penn. St 367), 665. V. Hatton (60 Ind. 12), 580?. V. Hea(f (— Tex. — ), 617, 809c. V. Hecht (115 Ind. 443), 809e. V. Heggie (— Ga. — ), 3326. V. Henlein (52 Ala. 606), 766. V. Hemy (75 Tex. 220), 783a, 784 V. Herring (57 IlL 59), 571. V. Hess (— Wash. — ), 802. V. Higgs (38 Kan. 375), 653a. V. Hill (13 Colo. 35), 491a. V. Hinsdale (38 Kan. 507), 571. V. Holcomb ( — Kan. — ), 538a. V. Hook (60 Tex. 403), 783a. V. Howerton (137 Ind. 336), 574 V. Hughart (— Ala. — ), 350, 770c. V. Hunter (43 Ark. 300), 83, 701. V. Insurance Co. ( — U. S. — ), 83. V. Ii-vine (64 Tex 539), 538a. V. Ivy (71 Tex 409), 5556. V. Jackson (— Tex — ), 770d, 775. TA3LE OF CASES. Beferences are to sections. RaUway Co. v. Jackson (63 Tex. 309) 771. V. Jaggerman (115 IlL 407), 148. V. Jarrard (65 Tex. 560), 806. V. Jenkins (103 HI. 588), 473a. T. Johnson (— Tex. — ), 384, 784, 813a. V. Johnson (75 Tex. 158), 815a. V. Jones (108 Ind. 551), 515e. V. Joy (15 S. W. Rep. 693), 134. V. juray (111 U. S. 584), 733, 739, 769. V. KeUogg (94 U. S. 469), 809a. V. Kennedy (78 Ga. 646), 768a, 786a. V. Keys (9 H. L. C. 556), 681. V. KoU (73 Ala 396), 90. V. Knight (122 U. S. 79), 88, 133, 124, 135&. V. Kuenhle (— Tex. — ), 591. V. Kuhn (86 Ky. 578), 515a, 800. V. Kutac (72 Tex. 643), 67f V. Kutac (76 Tex. 473), 784. V. Lee (50 N. J. L. 435), 653a. V. Lehmberg (75 Tex. 61), 784. V. Leslie (57 Tex. 83), 643, 809e. T. Lesser (46 Ark. 336), 348a. V. Lester (75 Tex. 56),"784 V. Levi (— Tex. — ), 334. V. Lucas (119 Ind. 583), 515a, 615. V. Lynch (13 IlL Ap. 365), 773. V. Lyon (138 Penn. St. 140), 714a. V. McCJanahan (66 Tex. 530), 571. V. McDonald (75 Tex. 46), 536. V. McDonneU (43 Md. 534), 667. V. McDonqugh (58 Ind. 389), 810. V. McGown (65 Tex. 640), 588, 586. V. McKenzie (43 Mich. 609), 149, 149&, 154. V. Mackie (71 Tex. 491), 5S0Jc. V. Maddox (75 Tex 300), 350, 260, 265. V, Mallette (— Ala. — ), 800. V. Manning (23 Neb. 553), 766. V. Mfg. Co. (79 Tex. 26), 259a. V. Marston (— Neb. — ), 347a. V. Marville (7 Rail. Caa. 880), 233. V. Matula (— Tex. — ), 784. V. Mayes (— Tex. — ), 809a. Railway Co. v. -Merrinian (53 lU. 133), 715. V. MUes (40 Ark. 398), 5556, 661c. V. MiUer (25 Mich. 374), 674 V. Miller (19 Mich. 305), 590, 815, 817. V. Miller (— Tex. — ), 613, 617a. V. Mills (105 IlL 68), 612. V. Minnesota (13A U. S. 418), 8036, 567a. V. Montgomery ( — Tex. — ), 3336. V. Moore (59 Tex. 64), 667. V. Moore (49 Tex. 31), 783a. v. Moore (88 Ga. 453), 565, 665. V. Moranda (98 IlL 303), 784. V. Mowrey (51 N. T. 666), 666. V. Mozely (79 Ga. 468), 613. V. Mudf ord (48 Ark. 50), 772. V. Mudf ord (44 Ark. 489), 775. V. Mundy (31 Ind. 48), 588. V. Murphy (46 Tex. 856), 641. • V. Neiswanger (41 Kans. 631), 518. V. Nevin (31 Kan. 885), 750, 773. V. Nichols (9 Kan. 253, 258), 63. V. Nichols (8 Kan. 505), 587, 555, 568. V. Nicholson- (61 Tex. 491), 118, 729. V. Nicholson (61 Tex. 550), 7706l V. Northwestern, etc., Ca (31 Fed. Rep. 653), 302. V. Nuzum (50 Ind. 141), 5809-, 613. V. Ormond (64 Tex. 485), 688. V. Orr (46 Ark. 182), 519. V. Packet Co. (70 HL 217), 150, 760. V. Peacock (69 Md. 257), 600. V. Pearson (73 Penn. St 169), 667. V. PeUetier (— la — ), 547. V. People (56 IlL 365), 303. V. Person (49 Ark. 996X 643. V. Phelps (46 Aik. 485), 771. V. Pierce (47 Mich. 377), 575, SSOg, 580t V. Pitzer (109 Ind. 179), 809e. T. Pointer (14 Kan. 38), 803. V. Pointer (9 Kan., 620), 806. V. Pratt (15 IlL Ap 111), 332&. TABLE OF CASES. ci. Beferences are to sections. EaUway Co. v. Prince (77 Tex. 560), 6546, 800. V. Pritehard (77 Ga, 412), 773. V. Propst (83 Ala. 535), 788a. V. Railroad Co. (36 Fed. Rep. 879), 641. V. Railway (84 Fed. Rep. 481), 1156. V. Railway Co. (34 Fed. Rep. 93), 641. V. -Railway Co. (68 Wis. 98), 377. V. Eedmayne (L. R. 1 C. P. 329), 774, 793, 778. V. Remmy (13 Ind. 518), 136. V. Reynolds (8 Kan. 633), 767. V. Rinard (46 Ind. 293), 571. v. Rice (38 Kan. 898), 580J, 580fc, 593. V. Riley (— Miss. — ), 5S0J. T. Roberts (71 111 540), 774. V. Robbins (— Tex. — ), 350. V. Robinson ( — Tex. ), 504. V. RosenbeiTy (45 Ark. 256), 643. v.'Rosenzweig (113Penn. St 519), 555a, 580e, 809e, 815a. V. Salinger (46 Ark. 528), 652. V. Sayers (26 Gratt. 328), 583. V. Schroeder (18 111 App. 838), 777. V. Schuster (113 Penn. St 413), 667. V. Scott (86 Va. 903), 615. V. Shacklett (19 IlL App. 145), 515a. V. Shepherd (8 Exch. 30), 681, 685, 691. V. Shuford (73 Tex. 165), 814a. V. Simpson (60 Tex. 108), 666a. V. Slatton (54 m. 133), 612. V. Smith (— Md. — ), 6086. V. Smith (46 Mich. 504), 666a, 803. V. Smith (38 Kan. 543), 667. V. Smith (65 Tex. 167), 784. V. Smith (63 Tex. 323), 397, 774. V. Snyder (117 Ind. 435), 809e. V. Snyder (34 Ohio St 670), 7816, 789c. V. Snyder (117,Ind. 434), 513a. V. Splcker (61 Tex. 427), 788a. Railway Co. v. Stacey ( — Misa — -), 516. V. Stanbro (87 HI. 195), 771. V. Stark (38 Mich. 714), 6086. V. State (66 Miss. 662), 543, V. Steiner (61 'Ala. 559), 447a. V. Stevens (95 U. S. 658), 583. V. Stevens (95 U. S. 655), 363, 566. V. Stewart (— Ala. — ), 661c. V. Stratton (78 111. 88), 641. V. StringMlow (44 Ark. 323), 616. V. Stutter (54 Penn. St 375), 613. V. Sue (35 Neb. 773), 517, 647. V. Suggs (63 Tex. 323), 513a. V. Sutton (4 H. L. 388), 803. V. Swarthout (67 Ind. 567), 58O9. V. Swift (7 Fed. Rep. 76), 395d. V. Talbot (89 Ark. 533), 259a, 275. V. Tankersley (63 Tqx. 57), 769. V. Tankersly (— Ark. — ), 643. V. Terry (63 Tex. 880), 617. V. Thompson (71 111. 434), 332a. V. Thompson (56 IlL 138), 500, 534, 806. V. Trawick (15 S. W. Rep. 568), 89. V. Trawick (68 Tex. 314), 359. V. Trawick (— Tex. — ), 359. V. Trimble (— Ark. — ), 809d. V. Twiname (111 Ind. 587), 676. V. Underwood (90 Ala. 49), 657. V. United States (3 Wyo. 170), 4916. V. United States (117 U. S. 356), 303. V. VaUrius (56 Ind. 511), 538a. V. Valleley (32 Ohio St 345), 668. V. Vandeventer ( — Neb. — ), 237c. V. Vining (27 Ind. 513), 789c, 666. V. Wallen (65 Tex. 568), 662a. V. Walling (97 Penn. St. 55), 653a. V. Watts (83 Ga. 329), 643. V.Watson (73 Tex. 631), 608a, 6086, 647, 809c. V. Weaver (35 Kan. 413), 803. V. Weir (37 Mich. Ill), 385, 567, 716, 748. V. Wilcox (84 la 239), 3496, cU TABLE OF CASES. References are to sections. Wilcox (9 C. L. N. Kajlway Co. v. ■ 178), 148. V. Wilhelm (— Tex. — ), 322a. V. Wilhelm (— Tex. — , 16 S. W. Eep. 189). 750. V. Williams (77" Tex. 121), 169. V. Williams (70 Tex. 159), 613. V. Wilson (— Tex. — ), 563. T. Wilson (79 Tex. 371), 654 V. Wilson (— Tex. — ), 800. V. Wolfe (— Ind. — ), 593. V. Wood (113 Ind. 544), 597,.809e. V. Wortham (73 Tex. 35), 517. V. Wright (68 Ind. 586), 570. V. Yocum (34 Ark. 493), 783a. Rains v. Railway Co. (71 Mo. 164), 784. Eajnowski v. Railroad Co. (74 Mich. 20), 783a. ' Ramsdell v. Railroad Co. ( — Mass. — ), 78Ba. Eamsden v. Railroad (104 Mass. 117). 553, 600, 719. lEUind V. Ti-ansportation Co. (59 N. H. 363), 348b. Randall v. Railroad Co. (— N. C. — ), ,443. Randall v. Transportation Co. (54 Wis. 147), 802. Randolph v. Railroad Co. (18 Mo. . App. 609), 810. Rankin v. Railroad Co. (55 Mo. 168), 370.' Rankin v. Packet Co. (9 Heisk. 564), 430, 431, 433, 494. Ransom v. Railroad Co. (15 N. Y. 415), 805. Ransome v. Railway Co. (1 C. B. 437), 302. Ransome, In re (1 C. B. 437), 803. Raphael v. Pickford (5 M. & G. 551), 339. Rathbone v. Railroad Co. (13 R. I. 709), 645a. Rathbun v. Steamboat Co. (76 N. Y. 876), 390. Rauoh V. Lloyd (31 Penn. St. 858), 6616, 666. Rawitzky v. Railroad Co. (40 La. Ann. 47), 576. Rawson v. Holland (59 N. Y. 611),, 103a, 103&, 108, 266. Rawson v. Johnson (1 East, 208), 757. Rawson v. Railroad (48 N. Y. 318), 580. Raymond v. Railway Co. (65 Iowa, 153), 500. Raymond v. Tyson (17 How. 33), 48a Read v. Railroad Co. (60 Mo. 199), 185e, 198, 387, 360, 334, 766, 767. Read v. Railroad Co. (140 Mass. 199), 673. Read v. Railway Co. (L. R 3 Q. B. 555), 789, 7896. Read v. Spalding (30 N. Y. 630), 185, 197. Read v. Spalding (5 Bosw. 395), 71, 72. Readhead v. Eiailway (L. R 3 Q. R 413; L. R 4 Q. B. 379), 497, 508, 513. Reary v. Railway Ca (40 La. A Tin. 33), 538a, 555. Reber v. Bond (38 Fed. Rep. 822), 538a Reddington v. Traction Co. (132 Peim. St 154), 688, 641, 645a. Redmond v. Steamboat Ca (66 Barb. 820), 35& Redmond v. Steamboat Ca (46 N. Y. 578), 358, 859, 366a. Redpath v. Vaughan (58 Barbi 489). 173, 386. Reed v. Express Ca (48 N. Y. 462), 156. Reed v. RaUroad Ca (84 Va. 331), 518. Reed v. Eaihoad (56 Barb. 483), 536. Reed v. Weld (6 Fed. Rep^ 304), 44a Reese v. Pennsylvania Ca (131 Penn. St 433), 570, 571. Regan v. Railway (61 N. K 579X 102a, 103, 108a. Eeid V. Hoskins (5 E. & R 729), 223. Reid V. Hoskins (6 R & B 953), 223. Eeineman v. Railroad Ca (51 Iowa, 888), 479. R E. Lee, The (3 Abbott (U. S.). 49), 697. TABI8a Shriver v. Railroad Co. (Sj4 Minn. 507), 218, 360, 766. Silsbury v. McCoon (6 Hill, 435; 4 Denio, 333), 46a Silsbuiy v. McCoon (3 N. Y. 379), 46a Silver v. Frazier (3 Allen, 382), 809. Silver v. Hale (2 St Louis Ct. App. 557), 331. Simkins v. Steamboat Co. (11 Cush. 103), 136a, 813. Simmons v. McConnell ( — Va. — ), 784 Simmons v, St. Bt. Co. (97 Mass. 361), 6S6. Simon v. Miller (7 La. Ann. 860), 683. Simon v. The Fung Shuey (31 La. Ann. 868), 237. Simons v. Railway (3 Com. B. (N. S.) 630), 754. Simons v. Railway (18 Com. B. 805), 334. Simpson v. Dufour ( — Ind. — ), 408a. Simpson v. Railway (L. R. 1 Q. B. Div. 274), ,773. Sims V. Bond (5 B. & Ad. 389), 733. Siner v. Railway (L. R. 3 Exch. 150), 519, 68a 645, 64a Siner v. Railway (L. R. 4 Exoh. 117), 519, 615, 617, 63a Singleton v. HiUiard (1 Strob. 208), 184, 38a , Singleton v. Railway (7 C. B. (N. S.) 387), 667. Singleton v. Railroad Co. (70 Ga, 464), 515&. Siordet v. Hall (4 Bing. 607), 179. Sisson V. Railroad (14 Mich. 489), 771. SkiUing v. Ballman (73 Mo. 663), 129., Skinner v. Hall (60 Me. 477), 149, 16a Skinner v. Railroad Co. (39 Fed. Rep. 188), 504: Skinner v. Railroad Co. (1 Cush. 475), 782. Skinner v. Railroad (13 Iowa, 191), 42a Skinner v. Railway (5 Exch. 787), 563, 800. Skinner v. Upshaw (2 Ld. Raym. 752), 476. Skoglund V. Railway Co. ( — Mian. — ), 780. Slater v. Railway Co. (39 S. C. 96), 176, 185a, 185e, 766. Sleade v. Payne (14 La. Ann. 453), 366. Sleat V. Fagg (5 B. & Aid. 343), 339, 280&, 310, 316. Sleeper v. Railroad Co. (100 Penn. St. 259), 580d Sleeper v. Sandown (53. N. H. 344), 669. Sleeping Car Co. v. Drehl (84 Ind. 474), 69a Slim V. Railway (14 Com. B. 647), 751. Sloan V. Railroad (1 Hun, 540), 780. Sloan V. Railway Co. (58 Mo. 330), 298. ovm Slosson V. Railroad Co. (51 Iowa, 394), 803. Smith V. Dearlove (6 Com. B. 133), 489. Smith V. Dinsmore (9 Daly, 188), 359. Smith V. Findley (34 Kan. 316), 447. Smith V. Holcomb (99 Mqss. 553), 805. Smith V. Home (8 Taunt 144), 337, 339. Smith V. Martin (6 Binney, 263), 436. Smith V. Overby (30 Ga. 241), 805. Smith V. Packet Co. (86 N. Y. 408), 633a, 809. Smith V. Pierce (1 La. 350), 79. Smith V. Pekin (Gilp. 303), 377&. Smith V. Railroad Co. (64 N. C. 335), 337, 360, 767. Smith V. RaUroad Co. (35 N. H. 366), 803. Smith T. Railroad Co. (55 Iowa, 33), 6616. Smith V. Raih-oad Co. (99 N. C. 341), 660a. Smith V. Railroad Co. (46 N, J. L. 1), 673. Smith V. Railroad Co. (1 Interetate Com. Rep. 308), 569a. Smith V. Railroad Co. (13 Allen, 531), 318, 331, 770a. Smith V. Railway Co. (88 Ala. 538), 185, 303, 616. Smith V. Railroad (43 Barb. 335), 761. Smith V. Railroad (37 Mo. 387), 802. Smith V. Railroad (19 N. Y. 137 ; 6 Duer, 335), 539. Smith V. Railroad (34 N. Y. 233), 364. Smith V. Railroad (44 N. H. 335), 685. Smith V. Railway (L. R 3 C. P. 4), 531. Smith V. Railway (23 Ohio St 10), 805, 810. Smith V. Railway Co. (92 Penn. St 450), 667. Smith V. Railway Co. (33 Minn. 1), 657.. Smith V. Railway Co. (49 Wis 448) 7566. " Smith V. Seward (3 Penn, St 843), 58, 744. Smith T. Smith (8 Pick. 631), 816. TABLE OF CASES. Beferences are to sections. Smith V. Weaver (Taylor, 58), 783. Smith V. Whitman (13 Mo. 353), 312. Smith V. Wilson (31 How. Ft. 372), 633. Smitha v. Railroad Ca (86 Tenn. 198), 331. Smotherman v. Railway Co. (29 Mo. App. 365), 658. Smurthwaite v. Wilkins (11 Com. B. (N. S.) 842), 138. Smyrl v. Nolan (3 Bail. 431), 175, 386. Smyth V. Wright (15 Barb. 51), 457, 461. Snead v. Watkins (1 Com. B. (N. S.) 267), 489. Snell V. Smith (78 Ga. 355), 783a. 'SneUing v. Ferry Co. (13 N. Y. Suppl 396), 515e. Snider v. Express Co. (63 Mo. 376), 337, 340, 349, 260. Snow V. Carruth (1 Sprague, 324), 95, 443. Snow V. Railroad Co. (136 Mass. 552), 561. Snow V. Railway Co. (109 Ind. 422), 103a, 136, 126a. Snowden v. Railroad Co. {l6l Mass. 230), 649. Snowdon v. Davis (1 Tamit 359), 447a. Soblomsten, The (L. E. 1 Adm. 293X 465. Solomon v. Steamboat Co. (2 Daly, 104), 360. Solomon v. Railway Ca (103 N. Y. 437), 638, 643, 64a Solomons v. Dawes (1 Esp. 83), 40& Sonier v. Railroad Co. (141 Mass. 10), 638. Sorrell v. Raihx)ad Co. (75 Ga. 509), 756a. Soule V. Raiboad (34 Conn. 575), 777. Southern Ex. Ca v. Crook (4i Ala. 468), 68, 860. Southern Ex. Ca v. Hess (53 Ala. 19), 150, 761. Southern Ex. Ca v. McVeigh (20 Gratt 364), 71. TABLE OF OASES. CIX References are to sections: Southern Ex. Co. v. Moon (39 Miss. 823), 237, 240, 260. Southern Ex. Co. t. Newby (36 Ga. 635), 68, 87. Southern Ex. Co. v. Shea (38 Ga. 519), 145, 148, 150. Southern Ex. Co. v. Womack (1 Heisk. 256), 68, 198, 206, 208, 292. Southoote's Case (4 Coke, 84), 40, 337. Southoote V. Stanley (1 Hurl. & N. 247), 562. Spafford v. Railroad Co. (128 Mass. 336), 569a. Sparks V. Railroad Co. (31 Mo. App. Ill), 788. Spears v. Railroad Co. (11 S. C. 158), 370. Spence v. Chadwick (10 Q.B. 517), 317. Spenoe v. Mitchell (9 Ala. 744), 436. Spencer v. Daggett (2 Vfe 93), 66. Spencer v. Railroad Co. (17 Wis. 487), 688, 657, 658. Spencer v. White (1 Iredell (Law), 236), 450. Spicer v. Railroad Co: (149 Mass. 207), 617. Spinetti v. Steamship Co. (14 Hun, 100), 277b. Spinetti V. Steamship Co. (80 N. Y. 71), 2776. Spofford V. Railroad Co. (128 Mass. 326), 303, 567a. Spohn V. iiailway Co. (87 Mo. 77), 549. Spohn V. Railway Co. (101 Mo. 417), 549. Sprague v. Railway Co. (34 Kan. 347), 259. Sprague v. Raiboad (53 N. Y. 637), 374. Sprague V. Smith (39 Vt 431), 67a, 152, 515, 578. Sprague v. West (Abb. Adm. 548), 448. Spring V. HaskeU (4 Allen, 112), 769. Springer Transp. Co. v. Smith (16 Lea; 498), 597. Sproat V. Donnell (26 Me. 185), 136, 304. Sproulv. Hemmingvfay (14 Pick. 1), 79. Sprowl V. KeUar (4 Stew. & P. 382), 66. Squire v. Railroad (98 Mass. 240), 84a, 108, 221, 340, 350, 365. Staal V. Railroad Co. (107 N. Y. 625), 784. Staal V. Railroad Co. (57 Mich. 239), -784. Stadhecker v. Combs (9 Rich. Law (1st ser,), 193), 68. Stager v. Railway Co. (119 Penn. St. 70), 645a, 800. Standish v. S. S. Co. (Ill Mass. 513), 572, 719. Stannard v. Prince (64 N. Y. 300), 63. Stant V. Kendrick (131 Ind. 236), 683a. Stanton v. Eager (16 Pick. 467), 135. Stanton v. Railroad (14 Allen, 485), 672. State V. Campbell (32 N. J. L. 307), 591a State V. CampbeU (3 Vroom, 309), 589. State V. Chovin (7 Iowa, 204), 571. State V. Goold (53 Me. 279), 871. State V. Hungerford (39 Minn. 6), 571. State V. Kinney (34 Minn. 311), 591, 810. State V. Overton (34 N. J. L. 485), 543, 575. State V. Liquoi-s ( — Me. — ), 435. State V. Railroad Co. (60 Me. 490), 789. State V. Railroad Co. (33 Neb. 813), 3036. State y. Railroad Co: (45 Md. 41), 789a. State V. Railroad Co. (76 Me. 357), 803. State V. Railroad (34 Md. 84), 786, 788. State V. Raibroad Co. (58 Md. 488). 803. State V. Railroad Co. (81 Me. 84), 649. State V. RaUway Co. (58 Me. 176), 561a, 611. State V. RaUway Co. (47 Ohio St. 180\ 303. State V. Railway Co. (61 Me. 114), 789. State V. Ross (3 Butcher, 224), 591. ex TABLE OF CASES. Beferenees are to sections. State V. Thompson (20 N. H. 350), 573, 589. State V. Telephone Co, (17 Neb. 136), 81a. Steamboat Angelina Coming (1 Ben. 109), 79. Steamboat Crystal Palace v. Vander- pool (16 B. Mon. 303), 695. . Steamboat Farmer v. McCraw (36 Ala, 189), 436, 733, Steamboat Lynx v. King (13 Mo, 373), 335, ■Steamboat New World v. King (16 How, 469), 11, 237, 500, 567, Steamboat Sultana v. Chapman (5 Wis, 454), 366&, Steamboat Virginia v, Kraft (35 Mo, 76), 478a. Steamboat Co. v. Atkins (33 Penn. St. 523), 435, Steamboat Co. v. Bason (1 Harper, 363), 187, 383. Steamboat Co. v. Brockett (131 TJ, S, 637), 591, 810. Steamboat Co. v. Brown (54 Penn. St, 77), 145, 153. Steamboat Co. v. Knapp.(73 111. 506), 365. ' Steamboat Co. v. Railroad (24 Conn. 40), 815. Steamer New Philadelphia (1 Black, 63), 79. Steamer Webb (14 Wall. 406), 79. Steamship America (8 Bened. 491), 768a. , Steamship Co. v. Bryan (88 Penn. St 446), 697. Steamship Co. v. Insurance Co. (139 U. S. 397), 262. Stearns v. Railroad Ca (46 Me. 95), 515b. Stedman v. Transportation Co. (48 Barb. 97), 337. Steel V. Kurtz (28 Ohio St 191), 786, 788. Steele v. Townsend (87 Ala. 247), 1496, 240, 359a. 360, 766. Steelman v, Taylor (3 Ware, 52), 444, 445. Steers v. Steamship Co, (57 N, T, 1\ 340, 361, 568, 715, 766, 767. Steinman v. Wilkins (7 Watts & S. 466), 50. Steinweg v. Railway (43 N. Y. 12a), 370, 380, 394, 395a, 539. Stephen v. Smith (39 Vt 160), 571, 572. Stephenson v. Hart (4 Bing. 476), 735. Stephenson v. Railroad Co, (2 Duer, 341), 661. Stern v. Railroad Co, (76 Mich, 591), 799, Stevelis V, Navigation Co, (39 Fed. Rep. 562), 290a. Stevens v. Railroad (8 Gray, 262), 491. Stewart v. Despatch Co, (47 Iowa, 239), 72, 260, Stewart v, Machias Port (48 Me, 477^ 668, Stewart v, RaUroad Co, (90 N, T, 388), 597, 599. Stewart v. Railroad Co. (100 Ind, 44), 788, Stewart v, RaUroad Co. (83 Ala. 493), 783a. Stewart v. Railroad Co. (146 Mass. 605), 649. Stewart v. Railroad Co, (38 N, J. L. 505), 302. Stewart v. Railroad Ca (53 Tex. 289), 518. Stewart v. Railroad Co. (1 McCrary, 312), 149, 1496. Stewart v, RaQway (3 H, & C. 135), 340, 678. Stewart v. Transportation Co. (47 Iowa, 339), 316a. Stickney v. Allen (10 Gray, 353), 7706. Stiles V, Davis (1 Black, 101), 397, Stiles V, Raita)ad Co, (65 Ga, 310), 558a, Stillson V, Railway Co. (67 Mo. 674), 667. Stilwell V. Staples (19 N. T. 401), 429. Stimson v. Jackson (58 N. H. 138), 3496, 383. Stimson v. Railroad (98 Mass, 83), 152, 685, 71& Stimson v. Railway Co. (75 Wis. 381), 515c. Stock V. Wood (136 Ma^s. 353), 803. Stockton V. Fi-ey (4 GiU, 406), 500, 507, 806. Stoddard v. Railroad (5 Sand. 180), 337. Stokes V. Saltonstall (13 Pet. 181), 497, 499, 500, 533, 534, 663. Stokes V. Railway Co. (3 F. & F. 691), 513a. Stokes V. Railroad Co. (— N. O. — ), 517. Stollenwerck v. Thatcher (115 Mass. 334), 139, 131a. Stone V. Hays (3 Denio, 575), 734. Stone V. Knowlton (8 Wend. 374), 751. Stone V. Railroad (Iowa), (5 Cent. Law Jour. 477 ; 10 C. L. K 78), 589. Stone V. Railway Co. (66 Mich. 77), 648. Stone V. Railroad Co. ai5 N. Y. 104), 666a. Stone V. Railway Co. (47 Iowa, 83), 565, 591ffl. Stone V. Railroad Co. (63 Miss. 607), 803&. Stone V. Rice (58 Ala. 95), 366, 375. Stone V. Swift (4 Pick. 389), 129. Stone V. Trust Co. (116 tJ. S. 307), 3036, 567a. Stoneman v. Railway (53 N. Y. 439), 685. Storer v. Gowen (18 Me. 174), 32. Ston- V. Crowley (McCleL & Y. 139), 341, 393. Stowe V. Railroad (113 Mass. 531), 370. Straiten v. Railroad (3 E. D. Smith, 184), 168. Strand v. Railway Co. (64 Mich. 216), 663, 663a. Strand v. RaUway Co. (67 Mich. 380), 547, 668. Stranger, The (1 Brown Adm. 381), 79. Straus V. Railroad Co. (75 Mo. 185), 6ia TABLE OF CASES. CXI References are to sections. Straus V. The Martha (35 Fed. Rep. 313), 337a. Streeter v. Horlock (1 Bing. 34), 310. Strickland v. Barrett (30 Pick. 415), 115a. Stringer v. Railway Co. (96 Mo. 299), 554, 661. Strohn v. Railroad (33 Wis. 126), 173, 368. Strong V. Adams (30 Vt 331), 428. Strong V. Hart (6 B. & C. 160), 451. Strouss V. Railway Co. (17 Fed. Rep. 209), 176, 685. Stubbs V. Lund (7 Mass. 453), 419. Stump V. Hutchinson (11 Penn. St 533), 754. Sturgeon v. Railway Co. (65 Mo. 569), 348a. Sturgess v. Bissell (46 N. Y. 463), 769. Sturgis V. Fi-ost (56 Ga 188), 806. Sturgis V. Railway Co. (73 Mich. 619), 519. Stutmuller v. Cloughly (58 Iowa, 738), 784. Sullivan v. Raikoad Co. (3 Dill. 334), 783. Sullivan v. Railroad (30 Penn. St 234), 500. Sullivan v. Railroad Co. (12 Ore. 392), 815. Sullivan v. Railroad Co. (148 Mass. 119), 547. Sullivan v. Railroad Co. (82 Me. 196), 672. Summers v. Railroad Co. (84 La. Ann. 139), 658a. SuUivan v. Thompson (99 Mass. 259), 379, 381. Summitt v. State (8 Lea, 413), 523. Sumner v. CasweE (30 Fed. Rep. 349), 53, 393. Sunbolf V. Alf ord (3 M. & W. 348), 489. Sutherland v. Bank (78 Ky. 350), 134. Sutherland v. Sutherland (69 111. 481), 816. Sutro V. Fargo (41 N. Y. Super. 231), 767. Sutton V. Wauwatosa (29 Wis. 21), 673. cxu TABLE OF CASES. Eeferences are to sections. Swain v. Shepherd (1 Moody & R 333), 734. Swan V. RaUroad Co. (133 Mass. 116), 570, 571, 591a, 6086. Swarthout v. Steamboat Co. (48 N. T. 309; 46 Barb. 333), 805. Sweeney v. Eailroad (10 Allen, 368), 563. Sweet V. Barney (33 N. Y. 335), 130, 340, 387, 395, 731. Swetland v. Eailroad Co. (103 Mass. 376^ 301, 316a. Swift V. Mosely (10 Vt 308), 430. Swift V. Steamship Co. (106 N. Y. 306), 138, 153. 166, 170, 347. Swigert v. Eailroad Co. (75 Mo. 475), 638, 641. Swindler v. Hilliard (3 Eioh. (S. C.) 386), 66, 184, 337, 340, 360, 388, 766. Sword V. Young ( — Tenn. — ), 345. Sykes v. Lawlor (49 Cal. 336), 779. Symonds v. Pain (6 H. & N. 709), 79. Taber v. Railroad Co. (71 N. Y. 493), 648. Talbot V. Merchants' Trans. Co. (41 Iowa, 347), 140. Talley v. Railway (L. R. 6 C. P. 44), 681, 693. Tamvaco v. Simpson (19 Com. B. (N. S.) 453 ; L. R 1 C. P. 868), 483, 487. Tangier, The (33 Fed. Rep. 330), 444. Tanner v. Eailroad (53 Penn. St. 411), 374. Tapley v. Martens (8 T. R. 451), 451. TarbeUv. Shipping Co. (110 N. Y. 170), 378. Tarbell v. RaUroad (34 Cal. 616), 538, 565. Tate V. Hyslop (15 Q. B. Biv. 368), 356. Tate V. Meek (8 Taunt. 380), 487. Tattan v. Railway (3 El. & EL 844), 741. Tattersall v. Steam Co. (12 Q. B. Div. 397), 390a. Taylor v. Coal Co. (94 N. C. 535), 788a. Taylor v. Day (16 Vt 566), 536. Taylor v. Monroe (43 ComL 43), 784 Taylor v. Penn. Co. (78 Ky. § 789a. Taylor v. Railroad Co. (39 Ai-k. 148), 373. Taylor v. Railroad Co. (99 N. C. 185), 5806. Taylor v. Railway (L. R. 1 C. P. 385), 330, 331. Taylor v. Railway (48 N. B. 304), 509, Taylor v. Steam Co. (L. E. 9 Q. B. 5 375, 377a. Taylor v. Wells (3 Watts, 65), 392a. Taylor v. Wells (3 Saund. 74), 757. Teall V. Sears (9 Barb. 317), 63. Teasdale v. Insurance Co. (3 Brev. 190), 456. Telephone Co. v. Bradbury (106 Ind. 1), 81a. Telephone Co. v. Telegraph Ca (66 Md. 399), 81a. Telegraph Co. v. Carew (15 Mich. 535), 81a. Telegraph Co. v. Griswold (37 Ohio St 301), 81a. Telegraph Co. v. Mumf ord (87 Tenn. 190), 81a. Telegraph Co. v. Reynolds (77 Va. 173), 81a. Telegraph Ca v. Texas (105 U. R 460), 81a Teller V. Railroad Co. (30 N. J. L 188), 668, 779, 784, 788. Terry v. Jewett (78 N. Y. 338), 661a. Thames St Bt Co. v. Raili-oad (24 Conn. 40), 815. Thayer v. Raihroad (33 Ind 36), 500. The Aberfoyle (1 Blatch. 860), 628, 807. The Albany (44 Fed. Rep. 431), 438o The Aline (35 Fed. Rep. 563), 366o. The Amiable Nancy (3 Wheat 546), 8ia The Angelina Coming (1 Ben. 109), 79. The ApoUon (9 Wheat 368), 474 The Australian S. N. Ca ads. Morae (L. R 4 P. C. Cas. 333), 437. TABLE OF CASES. cxm References are to sections. The Bark Cheshire (3 Sprague, 28), 307. The Bark Col, Ledyard (1 Sprague, 530), 307. The Bark Edwin (1 Sprague, 477), 95, 184> The Ban-acouta (39 Fed. Eep. 288), 388. The Ben Adams (2 Ben. 445), 349. 361. The Bermuda (27 Fed. Rep. 476), S49. The Bemina (12 Prob. Div. 58), 676. The Bergenseren (36 Fed. Eep. 700), 285, 290a. The Bird of Paradise (5 WaU. 545), 471, 484, 485. . The Bitterne (35 F^d. Eep. 937), 288. The Black Warrior (1 MoAJl. 181), 767. The Blue Jacket (10 Ben. 248), 289. TheBoskenna Bay (23 Fed. Eep. 667), 366a. The Boskenna Bay (40 Fed. Eep. 91), 366a. The Boston (1 Low. 464), 366&. The Brig CoUenberg (1 Black, 170), 444. The Britannia (34 Fed. Eep. 906), 288. The Caledonia (43 Fed. Eep. 681), 293.^ The Captain John (33 Fed. Eep. 937); 358. The Chasca (33 Fed. Rep. 156), 289. ' The Cito (7 P. Div. 5), 444 The City of Austin (3 Fed. Eep. 413), . 366a. The City of Lincoln (25 Fed. Eep. 839), 366a. The C. J. Willard (88 Fed. Eep. 759), 289. The Colon (9 Ben. 354), 290a. The Commander-in-Chief (1 WalL 48), 66. The Commerce (1 Black, 574), 66. The Cuba (3 Ware, 260), 444, 445. The David (5 Blatch. 266), 117. The Davis (10 WalL 15), 491&. The Delaware (14 Wall. 579), 65, 123, 126, 1-93, 343, 285, 304, 305. The Denmark (27 Fed. Eep, 141), 356. The D. R Martin (11 Blatch. 333), 546. The Drew (15 Fed. Eep. 826), 348a. The Eddy (5. Wall. 481), 358, 361, 384, 469, 479, 488, 488. The Edwin (1 Sprague, 477), 95, 184. The Elvira Harbeok (2 Blatch. 336), 70L The Egypt (35 Fed. Rep. 330), 388, 366a. The E. H. Pray (37 Fed. Eep. 474), 431. The Emily v. Carney (5 Kan. 645), 767. The Emma Johnson (1 Sprague, 537), 66. The Ethel (5 Ben. 154), 289. The Eugene Vesta (28 Fed. Eep. 763), 293. The Excellent (16 Fed. Rep. 148), 303c. The Favorite (3 Biss. 503), 386. - The Fittler (1 Low. 114), 366&. Tbe Fred H. Eice (40 Fed. Eep. 690), 290a. The Fumessia (35 Fed. Rep. 798), 618. The Gazelle (138 U. S. 474), 444a. The Geiser(l9 Fed. Eep. 877), 303c. The Generous (2 Dodson, 324), 202. The Gen. MoCullom (9 Ben. 31), 425. Tbe Giglio (31 Fed. Eep. 432), 290a. The Glenfruin i(10 Prob. Div. 108), '. 298. The Gold Hunter (1 BL & H. 300), 390. Th'e Grafton (Olcott, 42), 358. The Grafton (1 Blatchf. 173), 366a. The Gran Canaria (16 Fed. Rep. 868), 305. The Gratitudine (3 Rob. Adm. 240), 2776, 433, 459. The Hadji (18 Fed. Eep. 459), 249, 256, 366a. The Hardy (1 Dili 460), 393. The Hammonia (10 Bene. 512), 680. The Hermitage (4 Blatchf. 474), 474. The Hyperion's Cargo (2 Low. 98), 474. The Idaho (29 Fed. Rep. 187), 631. The Idaho (98 U. S. 575 ; 11 Blatch. 218), 398, 404, 405. cxiv TABLE OF CASES. Beferenees are to sections. The Ionic (5 Blatoh. 538), 213. The Isabella (8 Ben. 139), 289. The Ismaele (14 Fed. Eep, 491 ; 23 id. 559), 125c. The Jane and Matilda (1 Hagg. 187), 2776. The Jefferson (31 Fed. Eep. 489), 288, , 289. The John P. Best (14 Phila. 527), 308c. The Julia (14 Moore, P. C. 310), 79. The Julia Blake (107 V. 8. 418), 487. The Juniata Paton (1 Biss. 15), 285. The Kate (12 Fed. Eep. 881), 366a. The Keystone (31 Fed. Eep. 412), 288, 390a. The Kimball (3 Wall. 37), 471, 486. The Lady Franklin (8 WaU. 335), 133. The Live Yankee (Deady, 430), 764. The Logs of Mahogany (3 Sumn. 589), 469, 486. The Loon (7 Blatch. 344), 133. The Lyon (1 Brown Adm. 59), 79. TheLydian Monarch (33 Fed. Eep. , 398), 249, 389. The Maggie Hammond (9 Wall. 435), 65. The Maggie M. (30 Fed. Eep. 693), 303e. The Margaret (94 U. S. 494), 79. TheMarinin S. (38 Fed. Eep. 664), 303c. TheMarmm S. (33 Fed. Eep. 918), 303c. The Mary Ann Guest (1 Blatolif . 358), 401a. The Merrimao (2 Sawyer, 586), 79. The Merrimack (8 Cranch, 317), 734 The Mill Boy (4 McO. 383), 375. The Minnehaha (1 Lush. 335), 79. The M. M. Chase (87 Fed. Eep. 708), 401a. The Mohawk (8 WaU. 163), 184, 288, 340, 433, 456, 457, 461. The Morning Mail (17 Fed. Eep. 545), 289. The Natchez (31 Fed. Eep. 615), 416a. The Nathaniel Hooper (11 Mass. 239), 444a, The Natll. Hooper (3 Sumn. 543), 459. The Neaffie (1 Abb. U. S. 465), 79. The Nederland (14 Fed. Eep. 63), 618. The Netherland (14 Phila. 601), 507. The New Orlean-s (36 Fed. Eep. 44), 305, 306, 310. The New Philadelphia (1 Blac^ 62), 79. The New World v. King (16 How. 469), 11, 337, 500, 567. The Nine Thousand Dry Hides (6 Ben. 199), 453. The Nith (36 Fed. Eep. 86), 113. The Nith (36 Fed. Eep. 383), 308a The Nitro-Glycerine Case (15 WalL 524), 113, 396, 439, 440. The Northern Belle (9 WalL 536), 184, 393. The Norway (3 Moore, P. C. 345), 444. The Oconto (5 Biss. 460), 79. The Olbers (3 Ben. 148), 135. The Oregon (Deady, 179), 95. The Oriflamme (1 Sawyer, 176), 125. The Oriflamme (3 Sawyer, 397), 500, 796. The Paragon (1 Ware, 332), 304 305- The Parana (2 P. Div. 118), 771. The Peter der Grosse (L. R 1 P. & D. 414), 135c. The Peytona (1 Ware, 541), 358. The Peytona (2 Curtis, 21), SSa The Pilot Boy (33 Fed. Eep. 108), 618. The Polynesia (16 Fed. Eep. 703), 289. The Pope Catlm (31 Fed. Eep. 408), 631. The Port Adelaide (38 Fed. Eep. 753), 366&. The Portsmouth (9 WaU. 682), 385. The Portuense (35 Fed. Eep. 670), 28a The Princeton (3 Blatch. 54), 79. The Pi-inz Georg (33 Fed. Eep. 906), 626. The Pi-ize Cases (3 Black, 635), 206, 207, 323. The PropeUer Commerce (1 Black, 674), 66. The Propeller Mohawk (8 Wall. 153), 184, 388, 340, 433, 456, 457, 461. The PropeUer Niagara v. Cordes (21 How. 7), 65, 66, 203, 293, 333. TABLE OF OASES. CXV References are to sections. The Quickstep (9 Wall 665), 79. The Race Horse (3 Rob. Adm. 101), 467. The Rebecca (1 "Ware, 187), 304. The E. K Lee (2 Abb. (N. S.) 49), 697. The Sabioncello (7 Ben. 357), 303c. The Santee (3 Ben. 519), 366a. The Saratoga (30 Fed. Rep. 869), 348d The Schooner Emma , Johnson (1 Sprague, 527), 66. The Schooner Freeman v. Bucking- ham (18 How. 182), 133, 124. The Schooner Reeside (2 Sum. 567), 66, 283, 289. The Schooner Volunteer (1 Sum. 551), 483, 485. The Ship Nathaniel Hooper (8 Sum. 543), 459. The Sinnickson (34 Fed. Rep. 304), 389. The Su-en (7 WaU. 153), 4916. The Soblomsten (L. R. 1 Adm. 393), 465. The Spartan (35 Fed, Rep. 44), 366a. The Stevenson (17 Fed. Rep. 54p), 389. , The Stranger (6 Brown Adm. 381), 79. The Success (7 Blatoh. 551), 443. The Sue (23 Fed. Rep. 843), 543. The Surrey (36 Fed. Rep. 791), 358, The Swallow (30 Fed. Rep. 204), 473. The Tanbark Case (1 Brown Adm. 151), 479. The Tangier (33 Fed. Rep. 330), 443. The Teutonia (L. R. 3 Adm. 394), 223, 456, 460. , The Thames (14 Wall. 98), 131, 131. The Tommy (16 Fed. Rep. 601), 303c. The Tribune (3 Sum. 144), 774. The Thos. Melville (31 Fed. Rep. 486), 289, 303c. The Vidette (34 Fed. Rep. 896), 421. The Velona (3 Ware, 139), 433. The Volunteer (1 Sumn. 551), 483, 485. The Waldo (Davies, 161), 1266, 305. The Webb (14 Wall 406), 79. The Xantho (12 App. Cas. 503), 383, 287. The Zenobia (Abbott's Adm. 48), 774. Thomas v. Bost R. R. (10 Met 473), 67, 367. Thomas v. Black (— Del — ), 810. Thomas v. Day (4 Esp. 262), 98. Thomas v. Railroad Co. (101 U. S. 71), 5156. Thomas v. Railway Co. (72 Mich. 855), 538a, 580/ Thomas, etc. Co. v. Railway Co. (63 Wis. 642), 770d, 773. Thomas v. Snyder (39 Penn. St 317), 451. Thomas v. Winchester (6 N. Y. 897), 442. Thompson v. Dominy (14 M. & W. 403), 138. Thompson v. F^rgo (49 N. Y. 188), 895, 732. Thompson y. RaUroad (38 Md. 396), 410. Thompson v. Railroad Co. ( — Ala. — ), 784. Thompson v. Railroad Co. (51 Mo. 190), 802. Thompson v. Railroad Co. (54 Gra. 509), 802. Thompson v. Small (1 Com. B. 338, 354), 337, 476. Thompson v. Trail (3 Car. & P. 334), 134, 476. Thorington v. Smith (8 Wall. 1), 306. Thorne v. Deas (4 Johns. 84), 34. Thorogood v. Bryan (8 Com. B. 115), 673. Thorp V. Brookfield (36 Conn. 320), 668. Thorp V. RaUroad Co. (61 Vt 378), 580c. Thorpe v. Railroad Co. (76 N. Y. 402), 543, 6177^. Thrift V. Youle (3 C. P. Div. 434), 288. Thurber v. Railroad (60- N. Y. 326), 638, 666. Thm-ston v. Railroad Co. (4 Dill. 331), 540, 547. Tibby v. Railway Co. (82 Mo. 392), 661. CXVl TABLE OE CASES. Beferences are to sections. Tiedeman v. Knox (51 Md. 613), 139, 139a. Tierney v. Railroad Co. (76 N. Y. 305), 336. Tierney v. Eailroad Co. (10 Hun, 569), 337. Tilley v. Railroad (34 N. Y. 471 ; 9 N. Y. 353), 785. Tilden v. Minor (45 Vt. 196), 139. Tilson V. Hovyard (57 Ga. 410), 139. Tiramons v. Railroad Co. (6 Ohio St. 105), 641. Tindall v. Taylor (38 Eng. L. & Eq. 310), 731. Tindall v. Taylor (4 El. & B. 319), 138, 476. Tirrell v. Gage (4 Allen, 345), 467. Tirrell v. Gage (9 Allen, 399), 65, 173, 319. Tisdale v. Norton (8 Mete. 388), 809. Tobin V. Crawford (9 M. & W. 716), 449. Tobin V. Crawford (5 M. & W. 235), 449. Tobin V. Eailroad Co. (59 Me. 183), 533, 553a. Todd V. Railroad Co. (3 Allen, 18), 567, 656, 657, 65a Todd V. Railroad Co. (7 AUen, 207), 567, 650, 657, 658. Tolman v. Abbott (— Wis. — ), 149b. Tolman v. Railroad Co. (98 N. Y. 198), 803. Tolson V. Coasting Co. (6 Mack. 37), 803. Tomlinson v. Derby (43 Conn. 563), 784. Tompkins v. RaUroad Co. (66 Cal. |63), 515a, 674. Tompkins v. Saltmarsh (14 8. & R 375), 33. Tons (151) of Coal (4 Blatch. 862), 481. Toomey v. Railway (8 C. B. (N. S.) 146), 799. Torpey t. Williams (8 Daly, 163), 683, 710. ToiTsy V. Railroad Co. (147 Mass. 412), 653. Tower v. Utica Railroad (7 Hill, 47), 58, 85, 695. Townsend v. Eaili-oad Co. (56 N. Y. 395), 574, 575, 580^; 580k, 593, 817. Towler v. Railroad Co. (18 W. Va. 579), 803a, Tracy v. Car Co. (67 How. Pr. 154), 617/. Tx-acy v. Wood (3 Mason, 133), 39, 3a Transfer Co. v. Neiswanger (18 Mo. App. 103), 370. Ti-ansportation Co. v. Barber (56 N. Y. 544), 404, 405, 431, 488, 493. Transportation Co. v. BoUes (80 HL 473), 439. Transportation Co. v. Block (86 Tenn. 393), 70, 73. Transpoi'tation Co. v. Comforth (8 Colo. 380), 395a. Transportation Co. v. Downer (11 Wall, 139), 2.59a, 387, 766, 767, Transportation Co, v, Hawley (1 Daly, 327), 358, Transportation Co, v. Hoyt (69 N. Y. 330), 456. Transportation Co, v. McClary (66 IlL 238), 769, Transportation Co, v, Moore (5 Mich, 368), 183, 237. Transpcwtation Co. v. Newhall (34 EL 466), 108, 287, 255, 261. Transportation Co. v. Oil Ca (63 Penn, St 14), 260, 293, 295, 583, Transportation Co, v, Sweetzer (35 W, Va. 434), 3036, Transportatioii Co, v. Wallace (68 Penn, St 803), 112a, 312, 333, Ti-ansportation Line v, Hope (95 U, S. 397), 79. Travis v. Thompson (87 Barb. 236), 478a, 491, Treadwell v. Aydlett (9 Heisk. 388), 414. Treadwell v. Insurance Co. (6 Cow. 370), 444a. Trent Nav. Co. v. Wood (3 Esp. 137), 66, 180. Trotlinger v. Railroad Co. (11 Lea, 538), 575, TABLE OF CASES. References are to sections. cxvu Trow V. Railroad (24 Vt 487), 639. Trowbridge v. Ohapin (33 Conn. 595), 84. Tucker v. Cracklin (3 Stark. 385), 764. Tucker v. EaEway Co. (54 Mo. 179), 661c. Tuller V. Talbot (33 lU. 857), 500, 503, 533. Tully V. Eailroad Co. (134 Mass. 499), 789. Turner v. Liverpool Docks Trustees (6 Exch. 543), 419. Turner v. Eailroad (84 Cal. 594), 818. Turner v. Eailroad Co. (37 La Ann. 648), 317. Turner v. Eailroad Co. (30 Mo. App. 633), 136, 153a, 268. Tuj-ney v. Wilson (7 Yerg. 339), 51, 286. Turnpike Co. v. Stewart (3 Met (Ky.) 119), 674. Turrill v. Crawley (13 Q. B. 197), 489. Tuteur v. Eailroad Co. ( — Wis, — ), 784 Twist V. Eaiiroad Co. (89 Minn. 164), Tyler v. Freeman (3 Cush. 861), 731. Tyler v. W. U. Tel. Co. (60 III. 431), 81. TyiTell V. Eailroad Co. (Ill Mass. 546), ■ 515e. Udell V. Eailroad Co. (13 Mo. Ap. 354), 395a. Ulrich V. Eailroad Co. (108 N. Y. 80), 566. Unger v. Eailroad (51 N. Y. 497), 539. CJnion Ins. Co. v. Groom (4 Bush, 389), 288. Union Steanaboat Co. v. Knapp (73 IlL 506), 357, 365. United States v. Grossmayer (9 Wall. 73), 333. United States v. Lapene (17 Wall. 601), 333. United States v. Pacific Ex. Co. (15 Fed. Rep. 867), 68. United States v. Palmer (3 Wheat 610), 306. United States v. Power (6 Mont 371), 40. United States v. Wilder (3 Sumner, 808), 491&. tTnited States, etc. Co. v. Oliver (16 Neb. 613), 413. United States Ex. Co. v. Backman (38 Ohio St 144), 68, 70, 766. United States Ex. Co. v. Root (47 Mich. 281), 809. United States Ex: Co. v. Rush (24 Ind. 403), 154. Upshare v. Aidee (1 Comyns, 35), 60, 678. Upham v. Eailway Co. ( — Mich. — ), 653. Usher v. Eailroad Co. (136 Perm. St 307), 789a. Valentev. Gibbs (6 C. B. 370), 393. Valentine v. Railroad Co. (133 Penn. St 154), 645a. Van Baalen v. Dean (37 Mich. 104), 438. Van Brunt v. Eailroad Co. (78 Mich. 580), 784 Van Buskirk v. Purinton (3 Hall, 561), 476, 491. Van Buskirk v. Roberts (31 N. Y. 661), 145, 608. Van Casteel v. Booker (3 Ex. 691), 419. Vanderbilt v. Turnpike Co. (3 N. Y. 479), 815. Van de Venter v. Railway Co. (36 Fed. Rep. 33), 500. Van Gent v. Railway Co. ( — Iowa, — ), 784 Van Horn v. Kermit ( 4 E. D. Smith, 453), 698, 710. Van Natta v. Insurance Co, (3 Sandf. 490), 429. Van Nostrand v. Moore (53 N. Y. 12), 135a. Van Ostran v. Railroad Co. (35 Hun, 590), 646, 517. Van Ostran v. Eaihroad Co. (104 N. Y. 683), 646, 517. Van Santvoord v. St John (6 Hill, 160), 47, 103a, 103&, 104, 149, 341, 366. Van Shaack v. N. T. Co. (3 Bias. 394), 340. CXVlll TABLE OF CASES. References are to sections. Van Winkle v. Steamship Co. (37 Barb. 133), 398. Van Winkle v. Eailroad Co. (46 Hun, 564) 515e. Varble v. Bigley (14 Bush (Ky.), 698), 37, 47, 79. Vaughan v. Railroad Co. (13 E. I. 578), 4910. Vaughn v. Casks of Wine (7 Ben. 506), 125a. Vawter v. Eaih-oad Co. (84 Mo. 679), 789a. Vemer v. Sweitzer (33 Penn. St 208), 60, 237, 245. Verrall v. Robinson (5 Tyrwhitt's Exch. 1069; 4 Dowling 343), 397. Vicksburgh v. Hennessey (54 Miss. 391), 808. Vicksburg v. McLain ( — Miss. — ), 784. Vimont v. Railroad Co. (71 Iowa, 58), 643, 661a Vincent v. RaUi-oad Co. (49 lU. 33), 302. Vincent v. Stinehour (7 Vt 62), 809. Viner v. Steamship Co. (50 N. Y. 23), 349. Vinton v. Railroad (11 Allen, 304), 547. Violett V. Stettinius (5 Cranch C. Ct 559), 337, 485. Vlierboom v. Chapmaii (13 M. & W. 280), 488, 459. Volunteer, Schooner (1 Sumn. 551), 483, 485. Vose V. AUen (8 Blatch. 289), 35& Vredenburgh v. Railroad Co. (12 N. Y. Suppl. 18), 612. Wade V. Leroy (20 How. 34), 806. Wade V. Wheeler (47 N. Y. 658), 89. Wagner v. Railroad Co. (97 Mo. 512), 538a, 672. Wahl V. Holt (26 Wis. 703), 145. Waits V. Gilbert (10 Cush. 177), 771. Waite V. Railway (El. B. & EL 719), 667. Walcott V. Canfleld (8 Conn. 194), 743. Waldron v. Railroad Co. (1 Dak. 836), 685, 717. Waldron v. Romaine, (22 N. Y, 368), 135. Walker v. Railway (2 E. & B. 750), 232. Walker v. Railway Ca (15 Mo. App 333), 575, 580d. Walker v. RaUroad Co. (41 La. Aiit), 795), 643. Walker v. Railroad (49 Mich. 446), 130a. Walker y. Railway Co. (63 Barb. 260), 796. Walker v. Skipwith (Meigs, 502), 52, 59. Walker v. Westfleld (89 Vt. 248), 802. Wall V. Cameron (6 Cola 275), 814a. Wallace v. Clayton (43 Ga. 443), 185. Wallace v. Navigation Co. (134 Mass. 95), 672. Wallace v. Railroad Co. (98 N. C. 494), 660a. Wallace v. Railroad Ca (— DeL — \ 618, 519. Wallace v. Woodgate (Eyan & It 193X 481. WaUey v. Montgomery (3 East, 585), 135. WaUingford v. Eaih-oad Co. (26 S. C. 258), 185e, 360. Walsh V. Blakely (6 Mont 194), 4ia Walsh V. Eailroad Ca (43 Wis. 23), 540, 791, 809. Walston V. Myers (5 Jones (N. C), 174), 79. Walters v. Eailroad Ca (41 Iowa, 71), 669. Walton V. Raihroad Ca (107 Mass. 108), 538a. Wai-d V. Felton (1 East, 507), 450. Ward V. Raih-oad Co. (56 Hun, 268), 591a. Ward V. Raih-oad (47 N. Y. 29), 771. Warden v. Greer (6 Watts, 434), 66, 316a. Wardrobe v. Stage Ca (7 Gal. 118), 813. Ward's Lake Ca v. Elkins (34 Mich. 439), 771, 774. Ware v. Gay (11 Pick. 106), 531, 800. TABLE OF CASES. Beferences are to sections. cxix Waring v. Insurance Co. (45 N. Y. 606), 439. Warner v. EaUroad Co. (94 N. C. 350), 788. Warner v. Railroad (32 Iowa, 166), 704 Warner v. Transportation Co. {5 Rob. 490), 256. Warner v. W. T. Co. (5 Rob. (N. Y.) 490), 313. Warren v. Railroad Co. (8 AUen, 327), 515e, 517, 521, 557. Washburn v. Railroad <3 Head, 638), 535, 567, 654. Washburn Man. Co. v. Railroad (113 Mass. 490), 168. Washington Ins. Co. v. Reed (20 OKio, 199), 387. Waters v. Insurance Co. (5 EL & B. 870), 429. Waters v. Towers (8 Exch. 401), 774. Watson V. Duykinck (8 Johns. 335), 471. Watson V. Hoosac 'Tunnel Line (13 Mo. App. 263), 130. Watson V. Railroad Co. ( — Ala. — ), 561a. Watson V. Railway Co. (15 Jur. 448), 147. Wateon v. Railway Co. (66 Iowa, 164), 638. Watson V. Railway Co. (81 Ga. 476), 648. Watt V. Potter (2 Mason, 77), 344. Watts V. earners (115 U. S. 362), 144a. Way V. Railway Co. (64 Iowa, 48), 555, 580a. Weaver v. Ward (Hob. 134), 809. Webb, Str. (14 Wall. 406), 79. Webber v. RaUway Co. (3 H. & C. 771), 147. Weber v. Railway Co. (100 Mo. 194), 643. Webster v. Railroad Co. (115 N. Y. 112), 654. Webster v. Railroad (88 N. Y. 260), 674. Wedikind v. Railway Co. ( — Nev. — ), 800. Weed V. Barney (45 N. Y. 344), 355, 878, 385, 888. Weed V. Railroad Co. (17 N. Y. 862), 384, 599, 608, 809, 809a. Weed V. Railroad (19 Wend. 584), 148, 515, 683, 715, 743, 752. Weeks v. Raih-oad Co. (40 La. Ann. 800), 661a. Weeks v. Railway Co. (52 Cal. 603), 667. Weeks v. Railroad (72 N. Y. 50), 696. Weeks v. Railroad (9 Hun, 669), 696. Weems v. Mathieson (4 Macq. H. L. Cas. 215), 786. Wegener v. Smith (15 Com. B. 285), 448. Weil V. Railroad Co. (119 N. Y. 147), 667. Weinberg v. Steamship Co. (57 N. Y. Super. 586), 360. Weir V. Express Co. (5Phila. 355), 359. Weisenberg v. City of Appleton (36 Wis. 56), 806. Welch V. Car Co. (16 Abb. Pr. 353), 617d, 617/. Welch V. Hicks (6 Cow. 504), 456. Welch V. PuUman C. Co. (16 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 353; 43 N. Y. Supr. Ct 457), 60. Welfare v. Railway (L. R. 4 Q. B. 693), 531. Weller v. Railway (L. R. 9 C. P. 136), 615. Wellmau v. Railway Co. (83 Mich. 593), 303&, 567a. Wells V. Express Co. (55 Wis. 33), 68, 404, 405, 406, 407. Wells V. Railroad Co. (67 Miss. 24), 580^, 5802. Wells V. RaUroad (6 Jones L. 47), 89, 97. Wells V. Railroad (36 Barb. 641 ; 24 N. Y. 181), 586. Wells V. Stm. Nav. Co. (2 N. Y. 304), 14, 40, 45, 79. Wells V. Stm. Nav. Co. (8 N. Y. 375), 14, 79. Wells V. Steamship Co. (4 Cliff. 338), 210c, 398. cxx TABLE OF CASES. References are to sections. Wells V. Thomas (27 Mo. 17), 478. Welsh V. Bailroad (10 Ohio St. 65), 331, 340, 3610. Welty V. Railroad Co. (105 Ind. 55), 668. WendeU v. Eailroad Co. (91 N. Y. 430), 666a. Wentworth v. Outhwaite (10 M. & W. 436), 417, 430. Wentz V. Railway (5 Thomp. & C. 556; 3 Hun, 341), 575. Werle v. Railroad Co. (98 N. Y. 650), 653, 653. Wemwag v. Bailroad Co. (117 Penn. . St. 46), 349c. Wertheimer v. Railroad Co. (17 Blatchf. 431), 889a. West V. Forrest (32 Mo. 344), 805. West V. Steamboat (3 Clark, 533), 125a. Westbrook v. Railroad Co. (66 Miss. 560), 666a. Westoott V. Fargo (63 Barb. 358), 337. Westcott V. Fargo (61 N. Y. 543), 387, 237a, 350, 259, 361, 364, 767. Western Ti-ans. Co. v. Barber (56 N. Y. 544), 404, 405, 431, 488, 493. Western Transportation Co. v. Haw- ley (1 Daly, 337), 358. Western Transportation Co. v. New- hall (34 m. 466), 108, 387, 355, 361. Weston V. Railroad Co. (73 N. Y. 595), 531a. Weston V. Railway (54 Me. 876), 771. Wetzel V. Power (5 Mont 314), 730. Wetzell V. Railroad Co. (13 Mo. App. 599), 295a. Weyand v. RaUway Co. (39 N. W. Rep. 899), 131c, 133. Weyland v. Elkins (Holt N. P. 227;, 158. Whalen v. Railway (60 Mo. 333), 668. Whalley v. Wray (8 Esp. 74), 38. Whalon v. Aldrich (8 Minn. 846), 771. Wheeler v. Railroad Co. (115 U. S. 39), 138, 247. Wheelwright v. Beers (2 Hall, 391), 769. Wheelwright v. Railroad Co. (135 Mass. 235), 803. Whelan v. Railroad Co. (84 Ga. 506), 643. Whipple V. Railway Co. (11 PhiL 345), 660. Whirley v. Whiteman (1 Head, 610), 666, 667. Whitaker v. Railroad (51 N. Y. 295), 599. Whitaker v. Railway (L. R 5 C. P. 464), 615. Whitaker v. Warren (60 N. H. 30), 779. Wliite V. Ashton (51 N. Y. 280), 126o, 313. White V. Bascom (28 Vt 368), 87, 425, 721. White T. Boulton (Peake's Cases, 113), 498. White V. Humphrey (11 Q. B. 43), 378. White V. Mary Ann (6 CaL 462),79. White V. Maxcy (64 Mo. 553), 789. White V. Raikoad Ca (19 Mo. App. 400), lo2a, 268. White V. Railroad Co. (30 N. H. 307), 803. White V. Railroad Co. (136 Mass. 321), 515e. White V. Railway Co. (86 W. Va. 800), 567&, 571. White V. Railway (3 Com. R (N. S.) 7 ; 40 Eng. L. & Eq. 255), 334, 754, White V. Vann (6 Hun, 70), 47a White V. Webb (15 Conn. 302), 428, 430. White V. Welsh (38 Penn. St. 396, 420. White V. Winnisimmet Ca (7 Cush. 155), 58, 101, 216. Whiteliead v. Anderson (9 M. & W. 518), 410, 412, 417, 418. Whitehead v. Railway Co. (99 Ma 263), 588a. Whitesides v. Russell (8 Watts & S. 44), 764, 766. Whitesides v. Thurlkill (13 Sm. & M. 599), 360, 388. Whitford v. Railroad Co. (38 N. Y. 465), 777, 789a, l-ABLE OF OASES. CXXl Bowman (4 Greene, B. Caroline (30 Mo. Whitmore v. 148), 58. Whitmore v. S. 513), 74. Whitney v. Beckford (105 Mass. 267), 491a. Whitney v. Car Co. (143 Mass. 348), 617e, 617/, 617gr. Whitney v. Insurance Co. (18 Johns. 308), 445. Whitney y. Eailway (37 "Wis. 337), 713, 769. Whitwoith V. Eailway Co. (45 N. Y. ■ Super. 602), 767. Whitworth v. Railroad (83 N. Y. 413), 102a, 108, 373. Wibert v. Railroad (19 Barb. 36), 771. Wibert V. Railroad (13 N. Y. (3 Ker.) 245), 393, 301, 339, 331. Wiggins V. Hathaway (6 Barb. 633), 81. Wightman v. Railroad Co. (73 Wis. 169), 580c. Wilburn v. Railway Co. (36 Mo. Ap. 303), 613. Wilby V. Railway (3 Hurl. & N. 703), 147, 153, 273. Wilcox V. Parmelee (3 Sand. 610), 157, 314, 316. Wilcox V. Railroad Co. (34 Minn. 369), 349. Wilde V. Transportation Co. (47 Iowa, 347), 73, 128, 247. Wilds V. Railroad (34 N. Y. 430), 803. Willard V. Bridge (4 Barb. 361), 349. Willard v. Don- (3 Mason, 166), 401a. Willetts V. Railroad (14 Barb. 585), 802. Williams v. Branson (1 Murphey, 417), 66, 388. Williams v. East Ind. Co. (3 East, 193), 440. Williams V. Grant (1 Conn. 487), 175, 192, 289, 736. WiUiams v. Railroad (93 N. C. 43), 134. Williams v. The Railroad (9 W. Va 83), 750. Williams v. Railroad Co. (— Ala. — ), 781a, 7816. Beferences are to sections. Williams v. Railroad Co. (60 Tex 305), 789c. Williams v. Railway Co. (40 La. Ann. 417), 597. Williams v. Smith (3 Caines, 13), 456. Williams v. Taylor (4 Port. 334), 317. Williams v. Vanderbilt (38 N. Y. 217), 145, 515, 608, 809, 809a. Williamson v. Stage Co. (24 Iowa, 171), 813. WiUis V. Railroad (34 N. Y. 670; 32 Barb. 898), 653, 653, 660. Willis V. Railway Co. (61 Tex. 433), 789a. , Willis V. Railroad (62 Me. 488), 260. WiUmott V. Railway Co. (— Mo. — ), 652. Willoughby v. Horridge (74 Eng. C. L. R 742; 13 C. B. 743; 16 Eng. L. & E. 437), 58, 86. Wills V. Railroad Co. (139 Mass. 351), 645a, 653o. Wilmshurst v. Bowker (5 Bing. N. C. 541), 734. Wilsey v. Railroad Co. (83 Ky. 511), 571, 575, 580Z, 603. Wilson V. Bank of Victoria (L. R. 2 Q. B. 203), 466. ' Wilson V. Barker (4 B. & Ad. 371), 816. Wilson V. Brett (11 M. & W. 113), 7, 11. Wilson V. Bumstead (13 Neb. 1), 783a.' Wilson V. Dickson (2 B. & Aid. 3), 436. Wilson V. Dock Co. (L. R. 1 Ex. 177), 774 Wilson V. Express Co. (27 Mo. App. 360), 348a, 353. Wilson T. Hamilton (4 Ohio St 733), 58, 316, 221, 360. Wilson V. Kymer (1 M. & S, 157), 448, 485. Wilson T. Miller (2 Starkie, 1); 435. Wilson V. Newport Dock Co. (L. E. 1 Exch. 177), 773, 773. Wilson V. Railroad (31 Gratt 654), 168, 715. cxxu TABLE OE CASKS. Beferenees are to sections. •Wilson V. Eailroad (56 Me. 60), 476. Wilson V. Railroad Co. (26 Minn. 278), 661c, 663, 662a. Wilson V. Eailroad Co. (33 Mo. App. 682), 617/. Wilson V. Railroad Co. (— Minn, — ), 500; 617. Wilson V. Eailroad Co. (97 N. Y. 87), 360. Wilson V. Railway Co. (18 Eng. L. & Eq. 557), 152a. Wilson V. Railway Co. (82 Ga. 386), 83, 89. Wilson V. Railway (18 Eng. L. & Eq. 557), 368. Wilson V. Railway (57 Me. 138), 705. Wilson V. RaUway (9 Com. B. (N. S.) 632), 771. Wilson V. Shipping Co. (24 Fed. Rep. 815), 358. Wilson V. Wilson (26 Penn. St 393), 734. Wilson S. Mach. Co. v. Railroad Co. (71 Mo. 203), 349, 370. Wilton V. Railroad Co. (135 Mass. 130), 565. Wilton V. Railroad Co. (107 Mass. 108), 565, 5,67, 664, 665. Wilton V. S. Nav. Co. (10 0. B. (N. S.) 453), 568. Wing V. Eailwj),y Co. (1 HUt 341), S95a. Wingard v. Banning (39 CaL 543), 425. Winkler v. Railway Co. (31 Mo. App. 99), 617. Winne v. Railroad Co. (31 Iowa, 583), 770a. Winnegar v. Railroad Co. (85 Ky. 547)^7830. Winnt V. Railroad Co. (74 Tex. 33), 783o, 786. Winslow V. Railroad (43 Vt 700), 370. Winters v. Railway Co. (99 Mo. 509), 667. Wise V. Railway (1 H. & N. 63), 234. Witbeck v. Holland (45 N. Y. 18), 89, 310, 343, 379. Witbeck v. Schuyler (44 Barb. 469), 87. Withers v. N. J. etc. Co. (48 Barb. 455), 358. Withers v. Railway (37 U J. ExcL' 417; 1 F. & F. 165), 525. Witting V. Eailroad Co. (38 Mo. App. 103), 767. Witting V. Railroad Co. (— Mo. — ), 767. Wolcott V. Insurance Co. (4 Pick. 439), 304. Wolf V. Am. Exp. Co. (43 Mo. 431), 185e, 186, 198, 237, 260, 767. Wolf V. Hough (22 Kan. 659), 478. Wolf V. Summers (3 Camp. 631), 678, 719. Wolfe V. Railway Co. (97 Mo. 473), 404. Wolff V, Homcastle (1 B. & P. 316), 429. Wolff V. The Vaderland (18 Fed. Rep. 739), 288, 390a. Wolf ord V. Mining Co. (63 CaL 483), 784. Wood V. Crocker (18 Wis. 345), 370, 377. Wood V. Railroad Co. (— Ga. — )M5d. Wood V. Railway Co. (68 Iowa, 491), 3196. Wood V. Railroad Co. (59 Iowa, 196), 3196. Wood V. Railway Co. (49 Mich. 370), 612, 616, 648. Wood V. Railway (27 Wis. 541), 104 Woodburn v. Railway Co. (40 Fed. Rep. 731), 249. Woodbury v. Frink (14 IlL 379), 764. Wooden v. Austin (51 Barb. 9), 79. Wooden v. Raih-oad Co. (— N. Y. — ), 789a. Woodger v. Railway Co. (L. R 3 C. P. 318), 761, 773, 774, 809. Woodleif e and Curties (1 Eolle Abr. 2), 47a Woodley v. Michell (11 Q. B. Div. 47), 288. Woodman v. Nottingham (49 N. H. 387), 426. Woodruff V. Noyes (15 Conn. 335), 4146. Woodruff Sleeping Car Ca v. Diehl (84 Ind. 474), 617d, 617/. TABLE OF CASES. cxxm Eeferences are to sections. Woods V. Devin (13 111. 746), 100, 682. Woodward v. Railroad Co. (10 Ohio ■St 121), 789a. Woodward v. Railroad (1 Biss. 403), 152. Woolery y. Railway Co. (107 Ind. 381), 662a. Wooster v. Tarr (8 Allen, 370), 451. Worden v. Railroad Co. (72 Iowa, 201), 783a. Wylde V. fiailroad Co. (53 N. Y. 156), 170,660. Wyman v. Railroad (46 Me. 163), 514. Work V. Leathers (97 U. S. 103), 393. Worley v. Railroad Co. (1 Handy, 481), 783. Wormsdorf v. Railway Co. (75 Mich. 472), 529. Wright Y. Caldwell (3 Mich. 51), 92, 100. Wright T. Compton (53 Ind. 337), 805. Wright V. Railroad Co. (4 Allen, 289), 7816, 789c; Wright V. Railway Co. (78 Cal. 360), 580e, 590, 809c. Wright Y. Snell (5 B. & Aid. 350), 477. WyckoflE V. Ferry Co. (53 N. Y. 83), 58, 101. Wyld Y. Pickford (8 M. & W. 443), 11, 229, 253, 743. Wyman v. Railroad Co. (34 Minn. 310), 575. Wyman v. Railroad Co. (4 Mo. App. 35), 163a. Wymore y. Mahaska (78 Iowa, 398), 667. Wynn v. Railroad Co. (14 N. Y. Suppl. 173), 506. Yahn v. Ottumwa (60 Iowa, 429), 781c. Yate V. Willan(3 Kast, 128), 253, 753. Yates V. Duff (5 Car. & P. 369), 634. Yates V. Railroad. (67 N. Y. 100), 818. Yeomans v. Nav. Co. (44 Cal. 71), 564. York Co. V. Railroad Co. (3 Wall. 107), 84a, 108, 182, 237, 349, 363, 378, 280, 586, 766. Yorke v. Grenaugh (2 Ld. Raym. 866), 489, 490. Yorton v. Railway Co. (54 Wis. 234), 580;. Young V. Fewson (8 Car. & P. 55), 628, 808. Young V. Kimball (33 Penn. St. 193), 428. Young V. Railway Co. (80 Ala. 100), 404. Young V. Railway Co. (33 Mo. App. 509), 7566. Young V. Railroad Co. (115 Penn. St. 112), 578. Youqua v. Nixon (1 Petei-s' C. Ct 221), 317. Zabriskie v. Smith (13 N. Y. 322), 792. Zemp Y. Railroad (9 Rich. (Law), 84), 638. Zinn V. Steamboat Co. (49 N. Y. 443)^ 343, 365, 383. Zollinger v. Str. Emma (8 C. L. J. 385), 392a. Zunz V. Railway (L. R. 4 Q. B. 589), 240. Zwilchenbart v. Henderson (9 Exch. 732), 448. THE LAW OF GAERIERS. THE LAW OF CARRIERS. CHAPTER I. OF BAILMENTS AND CARRIERS Gli^ERALLT. § 1. Bailment defined. 3. Classification of bailments. 3. Application of rule to carriers. 4 liability of common carrier distinguished from that of other bailees. 5. Questions of negligence inlaw of carriers. 6. Degree of diligence required depends on circumstances. 7. Negligence in one bailee not necessarily so in another. 8. Apportionment of diligence ac- cording to laenefit §9. 11. 13. m 14. La^ of bailment insufficient to determine liability of com- mon carriers. Comparative degTces of dili- gence and negligence. tJtili 2 Bos. & 2 Story on Bail. § 89. P 416. 8 Wells V. Steam Nav. Co., 2 Coma. '4 Rep. 84 204; Alexander v. Green, 3 Hill, 9. 80 PEIVATE OAEEIEKS FOE HIEE. [§40. defendant to lay the goods down safely introduced a special term into his contract which increased his liability. But even an express undertaking by a private carrier to carry goods safely and securely is but an undertaking to carry them safely and securely, free from any negligence of himself or his serv- ants. In othfer words, it is a mere contract for. the observance of due care, and does not insure the safety of the goods against losses by thieves, by robbery or by unavoidable accidents ; ' and does not give rise to that extraordinary liability which belongs to the common carrier. The private carrier may, however, by express terms warrant the safety of the goods and thus become liable to the same extent as the common car- rier, as every bailee to whom goods are intrusted may un- doubtedly for a consideration insure their safety. But an express warranty as to a particular risk will not be extended to a different one ; as where the carrier expressly assumes the risk of breakage, he will not be liable fof a loss by accidental fire.^ itfor will an express exclusion of a certain risk be con- strued as an assumption of all risks not excluded.' But all the 1 Story on BaiL § 457 ; Oakley v. Packet Co., 11 Exoh. 618 ; CoUett v. The Railway Co., 16 Q. B. 984. " An express provision in a contract of bailment for hire to keep the subject of the trust safely will not enlarge the common-law liability of the bailee. That is an obligation which the law impUes, that is to keep as safely as an ordinarily prudent man would his own goods. 3 Blacks. Com. 453. Such a provision -will not constitute the bailee an insurer of the safety of the thing bailed ; and should it be destroyed by inevitable casualty, or stolen without the fault of the bailee, he wiU not be responsible. Foster v. Essex Bank, 17 Mass. 501. In that case Chief Justice Parker, in remarking upon the agreement to keep the money deposited safely, as imposing no greater duty than the exercise of ordinary care, says : 'Any- thing more than this would amount to an insura,nce of the. goods, which cannot be presumed to be intended, unless there be an express agreement and an adequate consideration there- for.' " Hubbard, J., in Ames v. Belden, 17 Barb. (N. Y.) 517. ^ Scaif e v. Farrant, L. R. 10 Exc. 358 ; Ames v. Belden, 17 Barb. 513. 8 United States v. Power, 6 Mont. 271. In this case a private carrier had undertaken to carry supplies for the government, and the contract contained these words : " AU raU to Missouri river ; during navigation, on Missouri river. No river risk on the part of the contractor for unavoid- able accidents. Land haul only when ground is frozen." While certain of . the goods were being transported by steamer up the Missouri river, they and the steamer were burned by an accidental fire. It was admitted that the carrier used " the best care and precautions," but it was sought to hold him as an insurer. It was contended by the attorney for th6 31 §§ 41, 42.] THE LAW OF CABEIEES. contracts, either to increase or lessen the responsibility of the bailee, must be clear and explicit ; for extraordinary liabilities wiU not be imposed upon him, nor will he be released from his legal and reasonable obligations to the prejudice of the bailor, by mere inference. So his liability may be modified by the previous course of dealing between the parties, or by the usages of the carrier in his business ; but customs and usages, to be available for the exoneration of the carrier, must have existed for such a length of time as to have become known and established.' § 41. Liability for injury to goods subsequently lost by acci- dent. — If the goods are injured by the negligence of the bailee, he will be responsible to the owner to the extent of the dam- age, notwithstanding a subsequent destruction of them while in the bailee's possession by an accident for which he was not responsible. This was held where goods were deposited in a warehouse for custody, and while there were injured through the carelesshess of the warehouseman ; but before they were taken away by the owner they were destroyed by a sudden freshet, which caused the water of the river near to which the warehouse stood to rise and overflow the room in which the goods were deposited. Every exertion possible had been made by the warehouseman and his servants to save them, and he was therefore clearly not liable for their loss^ biit it was held that their destruction did not release him from liability for the previous injury which they had sustained through his negligence. The cause of action, it was said, existed before and at the time of their destruction, and there was no princi- ple which would enable the defendant to plead the flood or the consequent destruction of the goods in bar to an action for his previous wrong.^ § 42. Test of "private carriers liability. — The test of the proper performance of his duty by the private carrier for hire United States that the language used the respondent was liable for a loss excluding river risks was equivalent by flre occurring on the river though , to saying " unavoidable accidents on it was entirely unavoidabla The account of river risks excepted," and court, however, held the carrier not that such unavoidable accidents as liable, arose from river risks being alone i Story on Bail. § 543. excepted, all other unavoidable ac- 2 Powers v. Mitchel, 3 Hill, 545; cidents were included j and that thus Story on Bail. § 414. PRIVATE OAERIBES FOE HIEE. [§ 43. is, in almost every case, the extent of the diligence and care ■which have . been exercised ,by. him ; 'and the question of his liability, when the loss has not arisen from his malfeasance, turns upon the inquiry vi^hether or not he has been guilty of negligence, in the omission of care and diligence, to that de- gree which the law denominates gross or ordinary. But, as we have seen, in dealing with the subject of the liability of the public or common carrier, when it has not been limited by his contract, questions of diligence and negligence are gener- ally impertinent, because they are regarded as insurers of the safety of the goods against all losses except such as arise from the acts of God or of the public enemy. But since the law has been modified, as it has been universally, so that they may limit their liability almost to the same extent as private car- riers for hire, the comnaon-law liability is rarely assumed by the more important and extensively employed public carriers ; and when they have limited or qualified it, as they are now permitted to do, the question of their liability when the goods have been lost or injured is generally purely one of negligence, as it is in the case of the private carrier. For, when it has been agreed by the parties to the contract of affreightment that the carrier shall not be held liable for losses occurring from certain accidents or causes, it may still be shown that, notwithstanding the loss or injury arose from one of the ex- cepted causes, it would not have occurred but for the negli^ genoe of the carrier or his servants, or might have been avoided by the use of proper diligence ; which, if successfully proven, will deprive the carrier of aU the benefit of his contract in that regard. If, for instance, it be agreed that the carrier shall not be held liable for losses by fire, the construction put upon the contract will be that only fire which was not attrib- utable to his fault or negligence was contemplated or intended, and if it can be shown that the fire which caused the loss originated from his carelessness, or that he could have escaped from it without the loss by the use of diligence, he wiU be held responsible to the same extent as if he had been a carrier without any contract whatever as to his liability. , § 43. Sow compares with liabUity of common carriers.— Thus the common carrier in many instances has come to stand upon the same footing as the private carrier for hire, the lia- 3 m S 44.] THE LAW OF CAEEIEES, bility of both very often depending upon questions of diligence and negligence, which in their application to the two classes of carriers mean the same thing, that being diligence ov its apposite in the case of private carriers for hire- which is so as to the common carrier. A great part of the law which affects the public carrier, therefore, as it is now understood and ap- plied, is equally applicable in cases which arise as to the liability of those who carry privately for reward ; and it will be found that most of the questions which can occur in reference to the duties and obligations of the latter can be solved upon prin- ciples which now form perhaps the most important portion of the law relating to common carriers. Much of the law, there- fore, which will hereafter be stated in reference to the respon- sibility of the common carrier for his negligence will be equally applicable to the case of the private carrier for hire. § 44. Common carrier cannot iecome private carrier hj con- tract. — It is, however, by no means to be understood that -the common carrier can by his contract or in other mode become, as to the carriage of particular goods, merely a private carrier for hire whilst he is in fact a common carrier of such goods generally. If he could do this, he could, of course, provide by contract against liability for losses occurring from the neg- ligence of himself or his servants, which, as we have seen, it is competent for the private carrier to do. But according to the weight of authority, at least in this country, as we shall hereafter see,' common carriers wiU not be permitted, under any circumstances or in any manner, to protect themselves against the consequences of their own negligence in the car- riage of either goods or passengers. They may become the carriers of goods gratuitously, and the law will then hold them liable only as mandataries ; that is, only for losses occurring through gross negligence. But so long as they are compen- sated for the carriage they are common cai'riers, contract or no contract.' A common carrier may, however, undoubtedly become a private carrier or a bailee for hire, when, as a matter 1 See post, § 248. Am. Ex. Ca, 15 Minn. 270 ; Bank ol 2 Davidson v. Graham, 3 Ohio St Kentucky v. The Adama Ex. Co., 3 140 ; Railroad Co. v. Lockwood, 17 Otto, 180 ; Kirby ti. Adams Ex; Ckx, 3 Wall. 357 ; Hooper v. Wells, Fargo . ^puHer u Bradley, 35 Penn. St 120. 36 CHAPTER III. WHO IS A COMMON CARRIER. § 47. Common carrier defined. 47a. Same subject — The essential characteristics. 48. 1. His employment must be public in its nature. 49. Same subject — Exceptional cases — Gordon v. Hutchin- son. 50. Same subject -r- The rule in England. 51. Same subject — The rule in Tennessee. 53. Same subject — Further of the Tennessee rule. 53. Same subject — These excep- tional cases not elsewhere followed — Illustrations. 53a. Same subject — Fui-ther illus- trations. 54. Same subject — Other oases il- lustrating general mle. 55. Same subject — The general rule well settled. 56. Same subject — How common carrier compares with inn- keeper. ' 56a. 3. Goods must be of iiind which he professes to carry. 56&. 3. Must undertake to carry by customary means and route. 57. 4 Carriage must be for hire. ' 57a. 5. Action must lie for refusal to carry. 57b. Regular trips or fixed termini not necessary. 58. Kind of vessel or vehicle and distance immaterial 58a. Hoymen, bargemen, lighter- men, canal-boat men, etc., are common caniers. i 586. Ferrymen are common car- riers, when. 59. Proprietors of land vehicles, like stage coaches, omni- buses, carts, wagons, etc., are common carriers, when. 60. Vehicles carrying passengers usually liable as common carriers only as to baggage. 61. Proprietors of local land vehi- cles are common carriers. 63. Warehousemen, wharfingers and forwarders of freight are common carriers, when. 63. Same subject — When liability begins. 64. Water-craft, railroads and ex- press companies are chief carriers. 65. Ownei-s of ships are usually common carriers. 66. Owners of steamboats and canal-boats are common caiTiers. 67. Railroad companies are com- mon cax'riers. 67a. Railroad receivers, trustees, etc., are common earners, 676. Street railways are common carriers. 67c. Sleeping and parlor-car com- panies not common carri- ers. 68. Express companies are com- mon carriers. 69. Same subject — Peculiarities of their business. 70. Same subject — Their at- tempts to secure exemp- tion. m §47.] THE LA"W OF CAEEIEES. § 71. Same subject — Cannot escape liability by assuming name of forwarders. 72. Same subject — Nor by as- suming name of " Bispatch Company," "Fast Freight , Line," etc. 73. Special circumstances under which carrier will not be deemed to be a common carrier. 74. Same subject — Illustrations. 75. Whether railroad company transporting cars by con- tract is common carrier. 75a. Same subject — How when company does not own care — Circus train. 76. Owners of canal and ferry- boats may show that they are not common carriers. § 77. No carrier required to carry every kind of goods. 78. Same subject — IHustrations. 79. How when possession of goods not taken — Towing boats. 80. Passenger carriers not com- mon carriers of persons. 81. Postmasters, -mail contractors and maU carriers not com- mon carriers. 81a. Telegraph and telephone com- panies not common carri- ers. 81b. Log-driving companies not common carriers. 81c. Drovers and agisters not com- mon carriers. 81d. Owners and managers of pas- senger elevators. 81& Bridge, canal and turnpike companies. § 47. Common ca/rrier defined. — A common or public carrier is one who undertakes as a business, for hire or reward, to carry from one place to another the goods of all persons who may apply for such carriage, provided the goods be of the Mnd which he professes to carry, and the person so applying will agree to have them carried upon the lawful terms prescribed by the carrier; and who, if he refuses to carry such goods for those who are willing to comply with his terms, becomes liable to an action by the aggrieved party for such refusal.^ ' The deiinition of a common car- rier most usually adopted in this country is that of C. J. Parker, in Dwight V. Brewster, 1 Pick. 50. He is there defined to be "one who "undertakes for hire to transport the goods of such as choose to employ him, from place to placa" In Gis- "boum V. Hurst, 1 Salk. 349, he is said to be "any man undertaking for hire to carry the goods of aU persons indifferently." And this is said by C. J. Gibson, in Gordon v. Hutchin- son, 1 Watts & S. 285, to be "the best definition of a common carrier in (its 88 appUcation to the business of this country." The case of Gisboum t'. Hurst was one of trover for goods which had been put with the carrier's wagon into a bam and taken as dis- tress for the rent due by the tenant The carrier had been in the habit of carrying cheese to London and load- ing back with goods for aU persons indifferently, and the court held that he was to be considered a common carrier and in tlie exerciseof a public employment, and the goods therefore privileged from distress. In Ghitty on Cai-riers, the common WttO IS A COMMON CABEIEE. [§47». § 4:7a. Same subject — The essential cha/racteristics. — To bring a person, therefore, within the description of a common carrier the following characteristics must appear : 1. He must be engaged in the business of carrying goods for others as a public employment, and must hold himself out as ready to en- gage in the transportation of goods for persons generally as a business, and not as a casual occupation. 2. He must under- take to carry goods of the kind to which his busmess is con- fined. 3. He must undertake to carry by the methods by which his business is conducted and over his established road. carrier is defined to be one who, by the ancient law, held as it were a public office and was bound to the public, and who, to become liable as a common carrier, must exercise the business of canying as a public em- ployment, and must undertake to carry goods for aU persons iadis- oriminately and hold himself out as ready to engage in the transportation of goods for hire as a business, and not as a casual occupation. " Common carriers," says Chancel- lor Kent, " undertake generally, and not as a casual occupation, and for all people indifferently, to convey goods and deliver them at a place appointed, for hire, as a business, and with or without a special agreement as to price." 2 Com. 598. " To bring a person," says Judge Story, " within the description of a common carrier, he must exercise it as a pubUc employment; he must undertake to carry goods for persons generally, and he must hold himself out as ready to engage in the trans- portation of goods for hire, as a busi- ness, not as a casual occupation pro hoe vice. A common carrier has therefore been defined to be one who undertakes for hire or reward to transport the goods of such as choose to employ him, from place to place." Story on Bail. § 495. These definitions are substantially the same and are adopted and used indifferently. The one given in the text is made somewhat less general by confining the obligation to the carriage of such goods as the carrier professes to carry, and by adding the requirement on the part of the bailor of a compliance or a readiness to comply with the lawful terms pre- scribed by the earner, and his liabil- ity to an action for a refusal to carry according to the course of his em- ployment No carrier imdertakes to carry all sorts of goods, but only such as are of the description he pro- fesses to carry, and even these he is not compelled to carry unless their owner will comply with his terms, in prescribing which he is allowed considerable latitude, as we shaJl see. The obligation by law to carry is essential to constitute the vocation of the common carrier, and the ha- bility to an action for a refusal to carry is said by Nesbit, J., in Fish v. Chapman, 3 Ga. 349, to be perhaps the safest criterion of the character of the carrier. But a refusal to carry cannot be made the ground for an action without a comphance or offer to comply with such terms of the carrier as he may lawfully impose as the condition of the service. See, also, Varble v. Bigley, 14 Bush, 698 ; Schloss V. Wood, 11 CoL 287. 39 § 48.] THE LAW OF CAEEIEES. 4. The transportation must be for hire. 6. An action mast lie against him, if he refuses without sufficient reason to carry such goods for those who are willing to comply with his terms. And this duty or obligation to the public by reason of the pub- lic nature of the employment and the increased resp'onsibihty imposed upon him by the law upon the grounds of public policy,' mainly distinguish the common from the mere private carrier for hire. Each of these characteristics will now be separately considered. § 48. 1. His employment must he public in its nature.-^ What circumstances will be sufficient to invest the employ- ment of the carrier in particular cases with the character of a public one, and what professions or course of deahng on his part will be considered as enough to constitute him a com- mon carrier instead of a private carrier for hire, is, however, sometimes a question of no little difficulty, and has given rise to considerable diversity of opinion and controversy. The criterion by which it is to be determined whether he belongs to the one class or the other is generally considered to be, whether he has held himself out or has advertised himself in his dealings or course of business with the public as being ready and willing, for hire, to carry particular classes of goods for all those who may desire the transportation of such goods between the places between which he professes in this manner iThe rule rendering common car- his hire; for other bailees for hire riers liable for every loss, except that and private carriers for Mre are not which is caused by the act of God or liable in the same manner and to the the king's enemies, was not apart of same extent" Per Bockee, Sea., in the ancient common law. It is a com- Van Santvoord v. St John, 6 Hill, paratively modern innovation, inti-o- 157. But per Holt, C. J., in Lane u duced in consequence of the growing Cotton, 1 Salt 143 :" A carrier is lia- commercial relations of the country, ble in respect of his reward, and not an imperfect police, imperfect pro- of the hundreds being answerable tection from the government, and over to him; for the hundred is lia- frequent losses by robbery. " The ble by the statute of Winchester, but fii-st case in which the principle was he was so at common law ; and the recognized and settled is that of reason why robbery did not excuse Woodliefe and Curtis in the thirty- him was, because it might be by con- eighth year of the reign of Elizabeth, sent and combination carried on in And the reason of the rule is not, as such a manner that no proof could be sUted by Sir Edwai-d Coke, solely or had of it" principally because the carrier hath 40 ■WHO IS A COMMON CAEEIEE, [§4&. his readiness and willingness to carry. If he has done so, he is of course to be regarded as a common carrier; but if not, he will be treated only as a private carrier for hire.' § 49. Saim subject — JExceptional cases — Gordon v. Hutclv- inson. — This, however, seems not to be the universal test; and some of the cases upon this subject in this country have denied the necessity for any public profession or undertaking, in order to impose upon the carrier the character and the con- sequent liability of the common carrier, and have held that one who has never assumed the character of' a public carrier, and although his contract to carry may be confined to the one particular instance or pro hao vice, as it is termed, may assume, thereby, aU the responsibility of the common carrier, if he and the class of carriers to which he belongs have been in the occasional habit of accepting the goods of others for trans- portation for hire. The leading case upon this theory of the responsibility incurred by such carriers is that of Gordon v. ' In Nugent v. Smith, L. E. 1, Com- mon Pleas Div. 19 and 433 (1875), which is the latest English case we have upon this subject, it was con- siderably discussed in both the com- mon pleas court and in the court of appeal, to which the case was car- ried. In the former court, Brett, J.i after referring to the case of Fish v. Chapman, supra, as " a powerful and business-like judgment," proceeded to say that " the real test whether a man Is a common carrier, whether by land or water, therefore, really is, whether he has held out that he will, so long as he has room, carry for hire the goods of every person who wiU bring goods to him to be carried. The test is not whether he is carry- ing as a public employment or whether he carries to a fixed place, but whether he holds out, either ex- pressly or by a course of conduct, that he will carry for hire, so long as he has room, the goods of aU persons indifferently who send him goods to be carried. If he does this, his first 41 responsibility naturally is that he is bound by a promise, implied by law, to receive and carry for a reasonable price the goods sent to hinx upon such an invitation. This responsi- bility is not one adopted from the Roman law on grounds of policy ; it arises according to the general prin- ciples which govern all implied promises. And his second responsi- bility, which arises upon reasons of policy, is that he carries the goods upon a contract of insurance. This policy has fixed the latter liability upon common carriers by land and water, not because they hold them- selves out to carry for aU persons in- differently; if that were all, there would be no ground for the policy ; it would be without reason; many other persons hold themselves out to act in their trade or business for all persons indifferently who wUl em- ploy them, and the policy in ques- tion is not applied to such trades; the policy is applied to the trade of common carriers, because when th^ ^,50.] THE LAW OF CAEEIEES. Hutchinson,' which tearries the great weight of the authority of C. J. Gibson, who delivered the opinion of the court in favor of that view of the question under the circumstances of .diflBculty which then existed in the carrying business of this country. In this case, the defendant, who was a farmer, ap- plied at the store of the plaintiflF, to be employed to haul a load of goods for him, from Lewistown to Bellefonte, on his return from the former place, to which he was going with a load of iron. He received an order from the plaintiff and loaded the goods upon his wagon for his return trip. On the way, the head came out of a hogshead of molasses and it was wholly lost. An action was brought against the carrier for its value, and it was held that the farmer, under the circum- stances,, had made himself in this service a common carrier and was hable as such. § 50. Srnne subject — The rule in England. — It was, how- ever, admitted that the rule was different in England, and the decision was rested entirely upon the difference in the occu- pations of the people and in the means of ' transportation. " Eiiles," it is said, " which have received their form from the business of a people whose occupations are definite, regular and fixed, must be applied with much caution and no httle qualification to the business of a people whose occupations are vagtie, desultory and irregular. In England, one who holds himsalf out as a general carrier is bound to take employment at the current prices, but it will not be thought that he is bound to do so here. In England, the obligation to carry at request, upon the carrier's particular route, is the criterion of the profession ; but it is certainly not so with us. . . . The defendant is a farmer, but has occasionally done jobs as a carrier. That, however, is immaterial. He applied for the transportation of these goods as a matter of business, and conseqi^ently on the usual conditions. His agency was not sought m consequence of a special confidence reposed in him. There was nothing special in the case. On the contrary, the employment was sought by himself, and there is nothing to common law adopted that policy conditions which called for the adop- the business of common carriers in tion of that policy." England was exercised in a particu- » 1 Watts & S. 385. lar manner and suhjact to particular 43 ■WpO IS A COMMON CABKIBE. [§§ 51, 53. show that it was given on terms of diminished responsibility." And the same judge, in the case of Steinman v. Wilkins,^ speak- ing of the common carrier, observed that in England he was bound by the custom of the realm to carry for all employers, " but it is by no means certain," said he, " that our ancestors brought the principle with them from the parent country as one suited to their condition in a wilderness. We have no trace of an action for refusing to carry, and it is notorious that the wagoners, who were formerly the carriers between Phila" delphia and Pittsburg, frequently refused to load at the cur- rent price." § 5L Same subject — TJieruJe in Tennessee. — In the recent case of Moss v. Bettis,' the facts were that the defendant was a farmer, but " after his crops were laid by," he ^ould run boats for himself or any one else who would employ Mm. He had built a flat-boat to transport to market a cargo of his own staves, but, at the instance of the plaintiff,' abandoned that project and loaded his own and another boat furnished by the plaintiff with the plaintiff's lumber, and undertook to carry it by river to market. The boats struck some obstruction in the river and were sunk, occasioning the loss of some of the lumber; and it was held in the action against him by the plaintiff to recover its value, that he was a common carrier in the performance of the service for the plaintiff, and was liable as such. The decision was based mainly upon several pre- vious Tennessee cases,* which were supposed to sustain the conclusion of the court. § 52. Same subject — Further of the Tennessee rule. — But this exception by the Tennessee courts to the common law, which has brought into the family ©f common carriers a class which does not properly belong there, seems to be confined to carriers by river craft, and to have been first made because 1 7 Watts & S. 466. be noticed that great importance ''i Heisk. 661. seemed to be given to the fact that 'In this case it was said by the the defendant had applied for em- comi} that the liability of the defend- ployment to the plaintiflE. ant did not in any degree depend * Craig v. Childress, Peck, 270; upon the fact that the appUcation for Johnson v. Friar, 4 Yer. 48 ; Gordon his employment in the service had v. Buchanan, 5 id. 71; Turney v. come from the plaintiflE. But in Wilson, 7 id. 340. Gordon v. Hutchinson, supra, it will 43 fi 52.1 THE LAW 01" CAREIEE8. the prevalence of this mode of transpprtation seemed to make it necessary that such carriers should be held to a stricter ac' countabihty than mere private carriers. To this extent it is still adhered to as established by precedent, although it may now and then occasion a hardship to the accommodating car- rier, even when he is not to blame, as it seems to have done in the case last stated. As to carriers by land, the rule seems to be as at common law.' And although the Pennsylvania cases, which extend the exception to carriers by land, are often -referred to as authority of weight for rigidly including in the class of common carriers all who legitimately belong there, the opinion expressed in them, that the common-law definition of a common carrier is inapt and inappropriate in a new country, and was not brought to this country with the great body of the law from the mother country, has received judi- cial sanction in no other state except Tennessee.^ 1 Walker v. Skipwith, Meigs, 503. ■2 Several cases in other states are uniformly cited in connection with that of Gordon v. Hutchinson as giv- ing support to the position there taken, that one may become a com- mon carrier from a casual em;^loy- ment pro hac vice. But they will he found upon examination to add but little if any weight to that view of the question. Powers v. Davenport, 7 Blackf. 497, was the case of a wagoner, who undertook to carry goods for the plaintiff from Cincin- nati to CrawfordsviUe, under a writ- ten contract to deliver them in good order and condition. It was proven that the defendajit, in order to visit his house, deviated from the direct and customary route, and while so doing a bridge over which he was passing broke down and the goods were thereby injured. He was sued upon his special undertaking, and the court expressly declined to consider the question whether he was liable as a common cai-rier, . saying that the question whether he was carrying the goods in that capacity was imma- terial But he was held hable upon his special undertaking. He would have been unquestionably liable aside from his contract, even as a private carrier for hira He had no legal excuse for the deviation, and when he made it for his own convenience or pleasure, he of course took upon himself the risk of the consequences from any accident which would not have occurred upon the direct route which it was a plain violation of his duty not to keep, and in not keeping it he was guilty of at least ordinary negligenca In McClure v. Richard- son, Rice, 215, defendant was sued as the owner of a boat of which one Howzer was the patroon or captain, and on which the defendant used to cai-ry his own cotton to market, occa- sionally, however, taking cotton for his neighbors when he did not have a load of his own, for which he charged them. "While the boat was on its way, having on board the cot- ton of the defendant and of seveitil of his neighbors, the plaintiffapplied U WHO IS A COMMON CAEEIEE. [§ 53. § 53. Same subject — These exceptional cases not elsewhere followed — Illustrations. — Elsewhere no such exception has been made, and the carrier has been subjected to the extraor- dinary liability of the common carrier only when it has been shown that by his professions, or previous course of business, he has held himself out as such a carrier, or when it must .be so presumed from the very nature of his employment. to the patroon to take some of his on hoard, which the latter agreed to do for an agreed freight. A part of this cotton was, while upon the boat, de- stroyed by fire, and the plaintiff sued to recover his loss from the owner of the boat The defense was that the patroon had no authority to take on board the plaintiff's cotton, or to make the contract to carry ifc But it was held that under all the circum- stances he did have such authority, and that the defendant was liable for the cotton as a common carrier. "If the defendant,'' said the court, "had previously employed his boat for his own purposes exclusively, it could not have been fairly inf eiTed that the agent could do what his employer never had done; but his employer had used his boat in some measure for the community in which he lived, and, from his coutse of dealing with it, had held himself out as a common carrier." The liability as common carrier was thus rested expressly upon the ground of the holdmg out to the community. But the case seems to lack one necessary element to complete the character of common carrier, and that is, the obhgation to carry for those who might apply and theUability to an action for a refusal, and in this respect it agrees witii Gordon v. Hutchinson. In Moses- w Norris, 4 N. H. 304, de- cided in 1838, the action was against the defendant for the loss of some bars of iron which he had under- taken to carry from Portsmouth to Exeter in a sled, which on the way broke down. Nothing is said in the report of the case about the nature of the employment of the defendant further than j;hat he was a carrier for hire ; whether he was a carrier for all who appUed, or held himself out as such or not, does not appear. But he was held liable, Richardson, C. J., saying : " It seems to be well settled that all persons cariying goods for hire come under the denomination of common caniers." But an assertion so broad, if understood without quali- fication, is wholly untenable accord- ing to aU the authorities, even those which are cited for it in the case (BuUer's N. P. 70; Eogers v. Head, Cro. J. 262 ; Dale v. Hall, 1 Wa 281 ; 1 SeL N. P. 240) ; and considering that it was said before the law upon the subject had received any investigar tion in this country, it is entitled to but little weight. In Chevallier v. Straham, 3 Tex. 115, the defendant's principal business was farming, but at a certain season of the year known as the hauling season, he engaged in. the carrying business, and ran his wagon wherever he could procure employment iu that way. Under these circumstances, he was held lia- ble as a common carrier, the court saying that there were no grounds iu reason why the occasional • carrier, who periodically, in every recurring year, abandons his other pursuits and assumes that of ti-ansporting goods for the pubUc, should be exempted from any of the risks incurred by 46 g 53.^ THE LAW OF CAEEIEE8. Thns, in Samms v. Stewart,^ a case was presented which was very similar to that of Gordon v. Hutchinson. In this case it appeared that Samms was a farmer, living at or near New Hope, in the vicinity of Cincinnati, and had been in the habit for many years of carrying marketing from New Hope to Cincinnati, and that, when about going to the latter city with marketing, he frequently asked the merchants of New Hope for return loads of goods. On one such occasion he received from Stewart & McKibben a box of goods to be carried from Cincinnati to New Hope in his wagon. The box was stolen from his wagon on the way, and the action was brought to charge him, with tlie value of the goods as a common carrier; The court below, relying on Gordon v. Hutchinson, held him so liable, but the supreme court reversed the judgment^ hold- ing that case to be opposed to the current of authorities. "We see no reason," said the court, "why the law apphcable to a common carrier should be applied to a farmer who makes a personal application to a merchant for a load of goods on his return trip from market. The merchant has it in his power to make such special bargain as he chooses as to what shall be the liability of the farmer in case the goods are lost. The farmer has assumed no character to the community entitling him to peculiar confidence, and the merchant is left, as in or- dinary cases, to an inquiry as to his character and qualifica- tions. Nor do we suppose it would make any difference how many applications of this kind had been made by the party thus carrying, or to how many different persons they may have been made, they would still remain so many special and individual transactions." So in Fish v. Clark,^ the facts were very nearly the same as in the foregoing case of Moss i). Bettis. The defendants, one of whom was a manufacturer of staves and the other a cooper, owned a boat in common for the purpose of transporting their staves and barrels to market. Wanting employment for their those who make the carrying busi- ously, and whether he might not be" ness their constant or principal ocou- come one by so holding himself out pation. The only question, therefore, during a certain period of the year, in this case, was, whether, to consti- • 20 Ohio, 69. tute one a common cai-rier, he should ' 3 Lans. 176 ; S. C. 49 N. Y. 123. hold himself out aa such contiuu- 46 WHO IS A COMMON CAEEIER. [§ 53a. boat, one of them applied to the plaintiffs for a load of freight to New York, which was given them. Defendants furnished hands, and one of them commanded the boat, plaintiffs only furnishing the freight. On the trip, by. a breakage in the canal, and without fault or negligence of the defendants, the boat was sunk. It was proven that on one or more occasions during the previous year the defendants had carried for the plaintiffs in the same way. The question was, whether, under these circumstances, the defendants were common carriers, and it was held that they were UQt. " According to all the authorities," say the court, "it is an essential characteristic of the common, carrier that he hold himself out as such to the world ; that he undertake generally, and for all persons indif- ferently,, to carry goods and deliver them for hire, and that his public profession of his employment be such that, if he. refuse without some just ground to carry goods for any one in the course of his employment, and for a reasonable and customary price, he is liable to an action." By this test it seemed clear that the defendants had not performed the serv- ice for the plaintiffs , in the character of common carriers ; and it was further considered that the fact that the defendants had applied for the employment could not affect the question of their liability or of the capacity in which they had been employed. ' § 53a. Same subject — Further illustrations. — So in Steele v. McTyer,' it appeared that a custom existed in Alabama to build flat boats, load them with cotton of any person having cotton for transportation, and of then running the boats down the river to Mobile, where the boats, when unloaded, were sold for wood or lumber, without making any further trips. In accordance with this custom, defendants had had a flat boat con- structed, and, after taking on board the cotton o'f the plaintiff and three other persons at their respective landings, had ' 31 Ala, 667. rier, cannot be declared to be such at A boat used by its owners and the instance of such agreeing parties, managers for their own purposes and Flautt v. Lashley, 36 La. "Ann. 106. those of othere who agree to pay cer- A vessel chartered to transport a tain rates .for the transportation of specific cargo only is not a common their goods from one point to an- carrier. The Dan, 40 Fed. Eep. 691 ; other, and which is not shown to Sumner v. Caswell, 30 Fed. Rep, 249. have been held out as a common car- 47 § 54.] THE LAW OF CAEEIEES. started down tlie rirer to Mobile. On the way the boat was! sunk, and the cotton of the plaintifif was lost, and an action was brought to charge the defendants as common carriers. "If the appellants (the defendants) built or procured a flat boat," said Walker, J., " with which to carry cotton down the Cababa river and thence to Mobile, though only for a single trip, and held themselves out as ready and willing to carry cot1,on on their boat for the people generally who wished to send their cotton to Mobile, then they would be common carriers, and those who placed cotton upon the boat could not be affected by any private instructions which might have been given to the master of the boat as to the point on the river above which he was to take on no cotton. On the contrary, if the appellants did not hold themselves out as ready and wiUing to carry cotton for the public generally, to the extent of a proper load of the boat, or, in other words, did not constitute themselves the servants of the public in that business, but only proposed to take the cotton of some particular persons with whom engagements were made, they were not common car- riers. If the appellants, having engaged a part of the loading for the boat, held themselves out as ready to carry for any person or persons to the extent of the remaining capacity of the boat, then they would be liable as common carriers to such persons as availed themselves of such offer of their services to the public generally as carriers. These questions, under the proof, should have been left to the jury. . . . The evi- dence that the defendants had been in former years engaged for the public generally in the transportation of cotton to Mobile on flat boats, would be proper for the consideration of the jury in determining the question whether they were common carriers ; but it would not necessarily be conclusive. It might be that, notwithstanding they had previously acted as common carriers, they had abandoned the service of the public, and were simply engaged in the execution of special contracts. To constitute them common carriers, they must be engage'd in the service of the public." § 54. Same subject— Other cases illustrating general rule.— The question of his liability had been previously determmed in favor of the carrier by the New York court and upon the same 4S WHO IS A COMMON CAEEIEE. [§ 55. ground in Allen v. Saolirider/ in which the facts were similar. The defendants being the owners of a sloop, but not engaged with it in the business of carrying goods generally, and not holding themselves out to the world as carriers generally, were applied to by the plaintiffs to make a trip for them and bring back goods, as they had done on a previous occasion for them. On her return the sloop was driven ashore and her cargo in- jured, for which the plaintiffs sued. The liabihty of the de- fendants turned entirely on the question whethei^ they were common carriers in the undertaking for the plaintiffs, and it was held that such casual use of the sloop did not make its owner a common carrier. § 55. Swme subject — The general rule well settled. — These cases undoubtedly state the law as it is settled in England and generally understood in this country ; and it would seem clear that no one should be treated as a common carrier unless he has in some way held himself out to the public as a carrier, in such manner as to render him liable to an action if he should refuse to carry for any one who wished to employ him in the particular kind of service which he thus proposes to under- take. Otherwise he does not come within the description, nor can he be subjected to the liability of the common carrier when the goods have been lost without negligence.^ 137 N. Y. 341. See, also, Fish v. ing, are referred to. But as the opin- Clark, 49 N. Y. 122. ion of Nesbit, J., in Fish v. Chapman, 2 Story on BaiL 495 ; 2 Kent's Com, 2 Ga. 353, expresses the law upon the 598 ; Satterlee v. Groat, 1 Wend. 272 ; subject with great force, and, as gen- Citizens' Bank i>. Nantucket S.B. Co., erally admitted, with accuracy, we 2 Story, 17 ; Dwight v. Brewster, 1 append a portion of it. This, like the Pick. 50; Forward uPittard,! Term, Pennsylvania case of Gordon v. 37 ; Palmer v. G. J. Railway, 4 M. & Hutchinson, ante, was the case of the W. 749 ; Eiley v. Home, 5 Bing. 317 ; employment of a farmer who, never Lane v. Cotton, 1 Ld. Raym. 646 ; having held himself out as a carrier Crouch V. Railway Co., 14 Com. B. generally, was employed by the 255; Coggs v. Bernard, 1 Smith's plaintiff to cany goods, which, in Lead. Cas. 283 and notes. crossing a stream upon the way, It would be useless to multiply the were injured by the upsetting of the citation of authorities upon a propo- wagon. After giving the definitions sition which has become one of the Of a common carrier from Kent's elementary principles of the law in Com. and Story on Bail, {ante, § 47, n.) reference to carriers. Only a few, and stating that he was obhged to therefore, of the cases upon the sub- receive and carry for all who offered jectj which may be considered lead- their goods, and could not either by 4 49 §56.] THE IvAW OF CAUEIEES. § 56. Same suhject— How common carrier compares with innkeeper. — There is the same diflf erence between the common or public carrier for hire as between the innkeeper and th& man who occasionally, and not as a public business, entertains contract or notice lessen the liability which the law imposes upon him, the learned judge proceeded : " It is from these definitions and the two propo- sitions stated, that we are to deter- mine what constitutes a person a common carrier. I infer, then, that the business must be habitual and not casual An occasional undertak- ing to carry goods will not make a person a common carrier ; if it did, then it is hard to determine who, in a planting and commercial commu- nity like ours, is not ona There are few planters ill our state owning a wagon and team who dq not occa- sionally contract to carry goods. It would be contrary to reason and ex- cessively burdensome, nay, enor- mously oppressive, to subject a man to the responsibihties of a common carrier who might, once a year or of tener at long intervals, contract to haul goods from one point in the state to another. Such a rule would be exceedingly inconvenient to the whole community ; for if established, it might become difiacult in certain districts of our state to procure trans- portation. " The undertaking must be general and for all people indifferently. The undertaking may be evidenced by the carrier's own notice or practically by a series of acts, by his known habitual continuance in this line of business. He must thus assume to be the serv- ant of the public ; he must undertake for all people. A special undertak- ing for one man does not make a wagoner or anybody else a common carrier. I am very well awai-e of the importance of holding wagonera in this country to a rigid accountability f they are from necessity greatly trusted; valuable interests are com- mitted to them, and they are not al- ways of the most careful, sober and responsible class of our citizens. Still the necessity of an inflexible adherence to general iiiles we cannot and wish not to escape from. To guard this poinl^ therefore, we say that he who follows wagoning for a livelihood, or he who gives out to the world in any intelligible way that lie will take goods or other things for transportation from place to place, whether for a year, a season or less time, is a common carrier and subject to all his liabilities. " One of the obUgations of a com- mon carrier, as we have seen, is to carry the goods of any person offer- ing to pay his hire : with certain spe- cific limitations, this is the rule. If he refuse to carry, he is liable to be sued and to respond in damages to the person aggrieved, and this is per- haps the safest test of his character. By this test, was Mr. Fish a common carrier? There is no evidence to make him one but his contract with Chapman & Boss. Suppose, after executing this contract, another ap- plication had been made to him to carry goods, which he refused, could he be made liable in damages for such refusal upon this evidence? Clearly not There is not a casp in the books but one to which I shall presently advert, which would make him hable upon proof of a single carrying operation. , . , In con- flict with these views, it has been held in Pennsylvania that ' a wagoner 50 WHO IS A COMMON CAEEIEE. [§ 56«. travelers ; and the test for determining whether he who car- ries is to be regarded as a common carrier is the same as that which must be applied when the question is whether he who entertains travelers or strangers is an- innkeeper. There should be the same necessity in both cases for a public profession, or a course of dealing which will be equivalent to a profession of being engaged in the business for the accommodation of the general public, and there must be the same obligation to re- ceive and become accountable for the goods of all who apply ; and to make one liable as an innkeeper there can be no ques- tion, upon the authorities, but that there must be such an as- sumption of the character or "public holding out " in the busi- ness as will put the party under legal compulsion to entertain the traveling public. " To render a person liable as a common innkeeper," says the court in Lyon i). Smith,' "it is not suffi- cient to show that he occasionally entertains travelers. . . . The person who occasionally entertains others for a reason- able compensation is no more subject to the extraordinary responsibi^ty of an innkeeper than is he liable as a common carrier who, in certain special cases, carries the property of others from one place to another for hire." § 56a. £. Goods must he of land he professes to carry. — In the second place, in order to charge One as a common carrier of goods, the goods in question must be of the kind to which his business is confined. 'No carrier undertakes to carry all kinds of goods, but only such as are of the description which he professes to carry. A common carrier is, therefore, not who carries goods for hire is a com- of the common law, and its rule mon carrier, whether transportation wholly inexpedient" And in Har- be his principal and direct business lison v. Roy, 39 Miss. 396, it was said or an occasional incidental employ- that while, under the circumstances ment' Gibson, 0. J., in Gordon v. of that case, the wagoner had made Hutchinson, 1 W. & S. 285. This de- himself liable as a common carrier, cision no doubt contemplates an if the transaction had been a mere undertaking to carry generally with- isolated undertaking, such as he had out a special contract, and does not not been in the habit of engaging in, deny to the undertaker the right to and which was foreign to his regular define his liability. There are cases and usual business, there would have in Tennessee and New Hampshire been force in the position that he which favor the Pennsylvania rule, could not be so held, but there can be but little doubt that • 1 Iowa, *184. that case is opposed to the principles 51 §§ 56J, 67.] THE LAW OF CAEEIEES. liable as such -where, by special engagement or as a matter of accommodation merely, he undertakes to carry a class of goods which it is not his business to carry.* Illustrations of this rule wiU be given in a subsequent section.^ § 565. S. Must undertake to cmry hy customary means and route. — Common carriers of goods do not undertake to carry by any or all means, but only by those means and methods' and over the route * to which their business is confined. Thus common carriers by wagon cannot be required to carry by railroad, nor can carriers by water be required to carry by land, nor can a carrier be required to carry to a point or by a route to which his business does not extend. And even if a carrier should, in a particular instance, undertsike by a special contract to, carry goods by unusual and exceptional methods or routed, his liability would be based upon his contract and not by the ordinary rules governing common carriers. § 57. 4- Carriage must iefor hire. — In the fourth place, com- pensation to the carrier in some form, either by the payment of his price, or a promise, express or implied, to pay it,* or a 1 See ante, § 44 ; Kimball v. Railroad, 26 Vt 349; Honeyman v. Bailroad Company, 13 Oreg. 352 ; Central Rail- road, etc. Co. V. lampley, 76 Ala. 357. 2 See post, §§ 77, 78. ' Coup V. Wabash Ry. Co., 56 Mich. 111. 4 Pitlock V. Wells, Fargo & Co., 109 Mass. 452; Pittsburg, etc. R. Ca v. Morton, 61 Ind. 539. 5 In Citizens' Bank v. The Nan- tucket 8. B. Co., 3 Story, 16, Judge Story disposes of the question of com- pensation to the carrier in the follow- ing language : " In the next place, I take it to be exceedingly clear that no pei-son is a common carrier in the sense of the law who is not a carrier for hire ; that is, who does not receive or is not entitled to receive any rec- ompense for his services. The known definition of a common carrier in all our books fully establishes this result. If no hire or recompense is payable ex debito juatitioe, but something is bestowed as a gratuity or voluntary gift, then, although the party may transport either x>ersons or property, he is not in the sense of the law a common carrier, but he is a mere mandatary or gratuitous bailee, and of course his rights, duties and lia- bilities are of a very different nature and character from those of a com- mon carrier. In the present case, therefore, it is an important inquiiy whether, in point of fact, the respond- ents were common carriers of money and bank notes and checks for hire or recompense or not I agree that it is not necessary that the compensa- tion should be a fixed sum or known as freight, for it will be sufficient if a hire or recompense is to be paid for the service in the nature of a quan- tum meruit, to or for the benefit of the company. And I further agree that it is by no means necessary thatj if hire or freight is to be paid, the goods or merchandise or money or 63 WHO IS A COMMON OAEEIEE. [§ 57a. payment or promise to pay for something which will include the carriage as an incident thereto, is essential to constitute him a common carrier; for if, as we have seen,' he receives no hire, he is merely a gratuitous bailee or mandata,ry and can be held liable only for gross negligence.^ But, though he has re- ceived no direct compensation for the particular service and would not be entitled to recover for it eo nomine, and even though by his express contract he was to receive nothing for it, yet if, when all the circumstances are taken together, it appears that the compensation was paid or promised for the entire service, he wiU not be considered as a gratuitous bailee as to any part of it. As where grain was shipped in sacks, and the agreement was that the carrier was not to charge for re- turning the empty sacks, it was held that he was not a gra- tuitous carrier in bringing back the sacks, the compensation paid nominally for the carriage of the grain covering also the service as to the empty sacks.' So where the carrier was to sell the goods and return the proceeds, the freight .paid upon the goods would also be regarded as compensation for bring- ing back the proceeds.* § 57a. 5. Action must lie for refusal to carry. — Lastly, the party must be under such a legal obligation to carry that an ac- tion will lie against him for a refusal without sufficient excuse.' other property should be entered Public policy operates on those only upon any freight list, or the contract who transport for reward or hire, be verified by any written memoran- Where there is no right to remunera- dum. But the existence or non-exist- tion, the party who carries incurs no ence of such circumstances may liability other than that of a gratui- nevertheless be important in ascer- tons bailee." In Central Bailroad, talning what the true understanding etc. Co. v. Lampley, 76 Ala. 357, cit- of the parties is as to the character of ing Citizens' Bank v. Nantjacket S. B. the bailment." And see to the same Co., 3 Story, 16 ; Knox v. Rives, 14 purport, Kirtland v, Montgomery, 1 Ala. 249. Swan, 453. a Pierce v. The Railroad, 33 Wis. ^Ante,%t6. 387; Aldridge v. The Railway, 15 2 " To originate the exceptional liar Com. B. K. S. 583. bility of the common carrier," says *Kemp v. Coughtry, 11 Johns. 107 ; Clopton, J., "although founded on Harrington v. McShane, 3 Watts, reasons of public policy, and to create 443 ; Emery v. Hersey, 4 GreenL 407 ; the relation, there must exist privity Mosely v. Lord, 3 Conn. 389. See, of contract, express or implied, and a also, post, § 566. title to compensation for the services. " Fish u Chapman, 2 Ga. 349 ; Nu- 53 §§ 57b-S>8a.] the law of caeeiees. " The true test of the character of a party, as to the fact whether he is a common carrier or not," says Chief Justice Simpson, "is his legal duty and obligation with reference to transportation. Is it optional with him whether he will or wiU not carry, or must he carry for all? If it is his legal duty to carry for all alike who comply with the terms as to freight, etc., then he is a common carrier, and is subject to aU those stringent rules which, for wise ends, have long since been adopted and uniformly enforced, both in England and in all the states, upon common carriers. If, on the contrary, he may carry or not as he deems best, he is but a private indi- vidual, and is invested, like all other private persons, with the right to make his own contracts, and when made to stand upon them." 1 " One of the obligations of a common carrier," says Nisbet, J., " is to carry the goods of any person offering to pay his hire ; with certain specific limitations this is the rule. If he refuse to carry, he is liable to be sued, and to respond in damages to the person aggrieved, and this is perhaps the safest test of his character." ^ § 575. Regula/r tri/ps or fixed termini not necessary. — It is not necessary, where the other elements exist, that the carrier should make regular trips " or travel only between fixed ter- mini.^ § 58. Kind of vessel or vehicle and distance immaterial.— So it is wholly immaterial in what kind of vessel or vehicle or for what distance the carrying is done. Thus — § 58a. Hoymen, bargemen, lightermen; caiml-loatmen, etc., are common carriers. — Hoymen, bargemen, hghtermen, and, in short, boatmen of every description upon rivers, canak, lakes or the sea, come within the denomination of common carriers if they engage in the business of carrying or trans- porting goods indifferently for aU who may employ them.* gent V. Smith, L. R. 1 C. P. Div. 19, < Liver Alkali Co. v. Johnson, L, JJ. 483; Piedmont Manuf. Co. v. The 7 Ex. 267 ; 9 id. 338. Railroad, 19 S. C. 853. "Canal-boatmen are common car- 1 In Piedmont Manuf. Co. v. The riers under ordinary cii-cumstanoes. Railroad, supra. Bowman r. Teall, 23 Wend. 309 ; Par- 2 In Fish V. Chapman, suprcu sons v. Hardy, 14 Wend. 215 ; DeMott 8Pennewilli). Cullen, 5 Harr. 238. u Laraway, 14 Wend. 225; Hum- 54 WHO IS A COMMON OAEBIEK. [§ 585. § 685. Ferrymen are common carriers when, — So ferrymen are common carriers as to the baggage of their passengers and as to all goods or chattels which they make it their busi- ness to transport ; or if they hold themselves out to the public as engaged in the business of ferrying goods or property, either generally or of a particular kind.^ But the nature of a ferry depends in a great measure upon, the character of the Toad of which it forms a part. If the road is a footpath, the ferry may be for foot passengers only. If it be an ordinary highroad, the ferry will be not merely for foot passengers and their baggage, but for horses and carriages and all goods which iaay be carried upon the road.^ And one who keeps a ferry, not for public accommodation, but simply for the convenience ■of the customers of his miU, and charges no ferriage, is not a common carrier, no matter what advantage he may derive from it incidentally;' and even though compensation may sometimes be made, not as a charge, but as a gratuity.* phreys v. Eeed, 6 Whart. 435 ; Fuller «. Bradley, 35 Penn. St 130. But not where they are not public carriers. Fish V. Clark, 49 N. Y. 133 ; Beckwith V. Frisbie, 33 Vt. 559. 1 Lewis V. Smith, 107 Mass. 334; "White V. Winnissimmet, 7 Cush. 156 ; ■Sanders v. Young, 1 Head, 219 ; Fisher m. Clisbee, 12 111. 344 ; Wilson v. Ham- ilton, 4 Ohio St 722 ; Harvey v. Kose, ■26 Ark. 3 ; PoweU v. Mills, 37 Miss. «91; Griffith v. Cave, 33 CaL 535; Hall V. Renfro, 3 Met (Ky.) 51 ; Self V. Dunn, 43 Ga. 528 ; Cook v. Gour- din, 3 Nott & McC. 19 ; Rutherford v. McGowen, 1 id. 17 ; May v. Hanson, 5 Cal. 360 ; Whitmore v. Bowman, 4 ■Greene (Iowa), 148 ; Babcock v. Her^ bert, 3 Ala. 393 ; Miller v. Pendleton, 8 Gray, 547; Claypool v. McAlister, 20 III 504; Albright v. Penn, 14 Tex. :290; Smith v. Seward, 3 Bgrr, 343; Pomeroy v. Donaldson, 5 Mo. 36; Cohen v. Hume, 1 McCord, 439 ; Lit- tlejohn V. Jones, 2 McMullan, '365; Clark V. Union Ferry Co., 35 N. Y. 485 ; Le Barron v. Ferry Co., 11 Allen, 313. ^Willoughby v. Homdge, 16 Eng. L. & Eq. 437. 3 Self V. T>imn, 43 Ga. 538. ^Littlejohnw Jones, 3 McMullan, 366. While none of the oases deny that a ferryman who carries for hire is a common carrier, there is consider- able diversity of opinion as to the ex- tent of the liability assumed by him. In some of the cases it is held that as soon as the passenger comes with his property upon the ferryman's boat,^ the property which he brings with him, whether inanimate or live stock, is put ipso facto absolutely into the custody of the ferrypian, and if the owner continues his control over it to any extent, he does so as the agent of the ferryman, and the absolute re- sponsibility of the ferryman as a com- mon carrier at once commences. Fisher v. Clisbee, Powell v. Mills, Wilson ■;;. Hamilton, supra. 55 §59.] THE LAW OF CAEEIEES. 59. Proprietors of land vehicles like stage-coaches, omm- cwrts, wagons, etc., are common ca/rriers when.— The proprietors of land vehicles of every kind, such as stage aud La others it -is said that the pre- sumption is, that the property goes into the ferryman'scustody as a com- mon carrier, and that the burden is upon him of showing that he did not have such control over it as invested him with the character of common carrier in respect to itj and that a prima facie case is established against him if it be shown that the ferry was a public one and that the property was put upon the boat And in Wyckoffi v. The Ferry Co., 53 N. Y. 32, where the owner of a horse and wagon drove upon a ferry- boat, and, remaining in the wagon, kept control of the vehicle and horse until the accident happened, the law as to the liability of the ferryman as a common carrier was thus qualified by Allen, JT. : "A ferryman," said he, " is not a common carrier of the prop- erty retained by a passenger in his own custody and under his own control, and liable as such for all losses and injuries except those caused by the act of God or the public enemies. The cases which go the length of holding that the ferryman is chargeable as a common carrier for the absolute safety of property' thus carried, and that the owner, in taking care of the property during the passage of the boat, may be re- garded as agent of the ferryman, do not stand upon any just principle, and are not within the reasons of public policy upon which the extreme liability of common carriers rests. . . • WhUe ferrymen, by reason of tte nature of the franchise they ex- ercise and the character of the services they render to the public, are held to extreme dihgence and care and to a stringent liability for any neglect or omission of duty, they do not assume all the responsibilities of common carriers. Property car- ried upon a f eiTyboat in the custody and control of the owner, a passenger, is not at the sole risk of either the feiTyman or the owner. If lost or damaged by the act or neglect of the ferryman, he must respond to the owner. The ordinary rules govern- ing in actions for negligence apply; and a plaintiff cannot recover if he is guilty of negligence on his part, con- tributing to the loss. The liability of a common carrier, in all its extent, only attaches when there is an actual bailment, and the party sought to be- charged has the exclusive custody and control of property for carriage^ A ferryman does not undertake absolutely for the safety of goods carried with and under the control of the owner ; but he does undertake, for their safety as against the defects and insufficiencies of his boat and other appliances for the performance- of the service, and for the neglect or want of skill of himself and his serv- ants. At the same time, the owner of the property, retaining the custody of it, is bound to use ordinary care- and diligence to prevent loss or injury." Fisher v. Clisbee; Powell V. MiUs; and Wilson v. Hamilton, supra, were disapproved. This qualification of the liability of the ferrymen certainly seems reason- able when the owner retains the cus- tody and management of the prop- erty, and corresponds with the law in reference to carriers of other kinds, which requires a complete delivery and an exclusive conta-ol of the goods- in order to impose upon them the ab- solute responsibility of the common 56 WHO IS A. COMMON OAEEIBE. [§59. hackney coaoh.es,' omnibuses,^ cabs; drays, carts, wagons, sleds,' and street cars,* who make it a business to carry for hire the goods of such as choose to employ them, even though it may be within the limits of the same town or city, are reckoned as common carriers and held liable as such. Stage-coaches are employed principally for the carrying of passengers, and were formerly very extensively used for that purpose. The car- riage of goods, except the luggage of passengers, is not strictly their business; but in practice they generally combine the car- riage of light packages with their passenger traffic, and there is no doubt but that whenever they are so in the habit of carrying goods for hire, or are so advertised or held out, their proprietors are common carriers as to such goods.' But where no such usage exists, and the proprietor holds himself out to the pub- lic as engaged only in the carriage of passengers, he cannot be held liable as a common carrier, although it may have been the practice of the driver of the coach, without the knowledge of the proprietor, to carry parcels for a compensaition. But if such practice is known, and is submitted to by the proprietor carrier for their safety. Tower v. The Utica Railroad, 7 Hill, 47 ; Rich- ards V. The RaUway, 7 Com. B. 839 ; Midland Railroad v. Bromley, 17 C. B. (O. S.) 372 ; Brind w. Dale, 8 Car. & P. 307 ; East India Co. v. Pullen, 3 Strange, 690. The same view of the liability of the ferryman is taken by Dewey, J., in White v. Winnissimmet Co., 7 Cush. 155. lAs to hackney coaches, Bonce v. Dubuque, etc. Co., 53 Iowa, 378. 2 As to omnibuses, Parmelee v. Lowitz, 74 111 116 ; Dibble v. Brown, 12 Ga. 317; Parmelee v. McNulty, 19 111. 556. In the last case, it was said that "the court was authorized to take notice that the owner of an omnibus line is a common carrier just as much as the owner of a rail- road or a line of steamboats. The court will take notice of the general meaning of words, and we know that an omnibus line means a line of coaches for the carriage of passen- gers and their baggage." « See post, % 61. * As to street cars, Levi w R. R. Co., 11 Allen, 300. s Hollister v. Nowlen, 19 Wend. 234 ; Cole V. Goodwin, 19 Wend. 251; Walker v. Skipwith, Meigs, 503; Peixotti V. McLaughUn, 1 Strob, 468 ; Dwight V. Brewster, 1 Pick. 50 ; Mc- Henry v. The Railroad Co., 4 Har. (Del) 448 ; Frink v. Coe, 4 G. Gi-eene, 555 ; Sales v. Western Stage Co., 4 Iowa, 547. Prima fade, the proprietors of stage-coaches, used for carrying the mails, passengers and their baggage, are not to be considered common car- riers as to articles not strictly within their line of business, in the technical sense of that term. They may, how- ever, make themselves such by special contract in a particular case, or by their general course of business. Powell V. Mills, 30 Miss. 231. 57 § 60.] THE LAW OF CAEEIEES. as a part of the compensation of the driver, the rule would be different, unless the owner of the package, being informed of the fact that it. was not a part of the customary business of the coach to carry packages, contracts with the driver, trust- ing solely to his responsibility.' And it has been held that where the confidence, under such circumstances, is reposed in the driver alone, he cannot be held to the responsibility of a common carrier, but only to that of an ordinary bailee for hire.^ Stage proprietors, however, who carry passengers, are liable as common carriers for their baggage, as we shall here- after see. § 60. Yeliicles carrying passengers nsuaUy liable as common carriers only as to baggage. — As hacks, omnibuses, cabs, street cars and the like vehicles are employed almost exclusively for the conveyance of passengers in a city or its vicinity, a case which would make their proprietors liable as common carriers, except for the baggage of their passengers, would be excep- tional ; but such cases may and undoubtedly do occur. As to such baggage they are unquestionably liable as common car- riers, in common with all other passenger carriers, though this 1 Dwight V. Brewster, supra; Beck- ages as a public employmenii be- man •;;. Shouse, 5 Rawle, 179 : Butler v. cause his public employment was Basing, 2 Car. & P. 613 ; Blanchardu that of a driver of a stage-coach, in Isaacs, 3 Barb. 383. See, also, § 78. the employ of others. It does not 2 Bean v. Sturtevant, 8 N. H. 146. show that he ever undertook to carry In Sheldon v. Robinson, 7 N. H. 157, goods or money for persons generally, it appeared that the defendant was in although he may, in fact, have taken the employment of a stage company all that was offered, as a matter of as a driver, and that the drivers of convenience ; or that he ever held the stage-coaches were generally in himself out as ready to engage in the the habit of carrying packages of transportation of whatever was re- money for an insignificant compen- quested, notwithstanding it may have sation, being the same, whether the been unusual for him and otlier package contained more or less. This drivers (to refuse) to carry it This compensation was received by the was not his general employment, and drivers to their own use. It did not there is nothing to show that he appear that defendant had ever ad- would have been liable had he re- vertised or in any way held himself fused to take this money, especially out as ready to carry, farther than by as he was in the service of another, this habit of receiving what was and, as such servant, might have had offered for cai-riage. Parker, J., said: duties to perform inconsistent with " This does not show him to have ex- the duty of a common carrier." ercised the business of carrying pack- 58 WHO IS A COMMON CAEEIBE. £§ 61, was long since disputed, unless a price distinct from the fare of the passenger was paid for its carriage.' But this author- ity has been disregarded, and the rule may be. said to be now settled that all kinds of passenger carriers by receiving, in their vehicles or upon their vessels, passengers and their baggage^ subject themselves to the responsibility of common carriers of goods in general as to such baggage ; and they become to this extent common carriers, although' only the ordinary fare for the trip has been paid by the passenger, and even, indeed, when no fare is shown to have been paid, the passenger being liable therefor if not paid.^ § 61. Proprietors of local land vehicles a/re common car- riers. — On the other hand, the proprietors of»land vehicles which are not employed upon any regular line of transporta- tion, but are used exclusively for the carriage of the goods of others for hire to places in the same town, city or neighbor- hood to which the owners of such goods may desire them to be conveyed, and who may be said to engage in a sort of job- bing business as carriers, such as drays, carts, express or de- livery wagons, sleds and trucks, are, according to a number of authorities in this country, strictly common carriers as to such goods.' Where the defendant, in the course of his em- ployment, had undertaken to haul upon a sled, drawn by oxen, a hogshead of sugar from the river landing to the store of the plaintiifs, and the hogshead rolled from the sled into the river and was damaged, he was held liable as a common carrier. "Every one," said the court, "who pursues the business of transporting goods for hire for the public generally, is a com- mon carrier, i . . , Draymen, cartmen and porters, who undertake tO/ carry goods for hire as a common employment from one part of a town to another, come within the definition. So also does the driver of a slide with an ox team. The mode iMiddleton v. Fowler, 1 Salk. 283; Com. 598, n. City express companies Upshare v. Aides, 1 Comyns, 25. engaged in carrying the baggage of 2 McGili V. Eowand, 3 Barr, 451 ; travelers from one depot to another, Hollister v. Nowlen, 19 Wend. 234 ; or to hotels, are, as to such baggage. Cole V. Goodwin, id. 251; Bomar u common carriers. Richards u West- Maxwell, 9 Humph. 631 ; Hawkins v. cott, 3 Bosw. 589 ; Verner v. Sweitzer, HofCman, 6 Hill, 586 ; Brooke v. Pick- 83 Penn. St. 308. Draymen, cartmen, wick, 4"Bing. 318. etc., are. Eobertson v. Kennedy, 3 2 Story on Bail. § 496; 3 Kent's Dana, 481; Powers v. Davenport, 1' 59 § 62.] THE LA.W OF CAEEIEES. of transporting is immaterial;" ' So where the defendant was a lighterman, who carried goods between wharves and ships for any persons who chose to employ him, he was held liable as a common carrier.^ ' § 62. Wa/rehousemm, wharfingers cmd forwarders of freight, when common carriers.— "Warehousemen, wharfingers and for- warders of freight, so long as they confine themselves to the business which their names import, cannot be held liable as common carriers. If goods are deposited with them merely as the initiatory step towards starting them m itinere, they having undertaken to do no more than to safely keep them a,nd forward them when the opportunity offers, and being in no wise interested in their carriage after delivery to the car- rier, it would be contrary to the well-settled principles of the law to hold them to the responsibilities of common carriers. But if they combine the two characters, treating the deposit with them as being merely for the convenience of further car- riage or to encourage or promote their business as common carriers, they will be held to a strict liability as such from the time of the delivery to them. In such cases the deposit is a mere accessary to the carriage, and for the purpose of facih- Blackf. 497 ; McHenry v. Railroad for the lost package, was not, in per- Co., 4 HaiT. 448. forming the service of carriage under •Robertson v. Kennedy, 3 Dana, the circumstances, a common earner. 430. - Of this case Judge Story remarks: ^Ingate v. Christie, 3 Car. & Kir. "What substantial distinction is there 61. But in Brind v. Dale, 8 Car. & P. in the case of parties who ply for hire 307, it appeared that the defendant in the carriage of goods for all per- was the owner of a number of carts sons indififerently, whether the goods which were kept ready to be hired by are carried from one town to another, any personwho chose to employ them, or from one place to another in the eitherbythehour, day or job, defend- same town? Is there any substantial ant, being what was called- a town difference whetlier the parties have carman. One of these carts was em- fixed termini of their business or not, ployedby the plaintiff to carry certain if they hold themselves out as ready packages a short distance. The cart and wiUing to carry goods for any was driven by the defendant, plaintiff persons whatsoever, to or from any agreeing to go along with it and keep places in the same town or in differ- watoh upon the goods. At the end ent towns?" Story on Bail § 496, n. of the trip it was found that one of But see what is said on this sub- the packages was missing. Lord Ab- ject by Perley, J., in Moses v. The inger instructed the jury that, in his Railroad, 24 N. H. 71, who treats the opinion, the defendant, who was sued question as doubtful, upon principle. 60 WHO IS A COMMON CAEEIEE. [§ 63. tating it, and the liability as carrier begins with the receipt of the goods.^ - § 63. Same subject — When liability begins. — But if a per- son who is at the same time both a warehouseman and a for- warding merchant receive goods on deposit to be forwarded by his line according to tl^e future orders of the owner, or if anything is still to be done by the owner to put them in readi- ness for shipment, he is not chargeable as a carrier, but merely as a warehouseman, until such orders are given or until they are put in condition for carriage ; as where the goods are de- posited without instructions as to their place of destination, . either by marks or otherwise, or to await orders,^ or until the charges for the transportation are paid, if that is required by the carrier ; or if anything remains to be done or any expense to be incurred to put them in a condition to bear transporta- tion.' But if the warehouseman is also to be the carrier. or is interested in the carriage, as soon as the orders are given to forward the goods, or other conditions performed upon which their transportation was suspended, he holds the goods for immediate shipment, and his liability as a common carrier at once commences. But if the warehouseman or .forwarding agent have no interest in the vessel or vehicles by which the goods are to be transported and no interest in the freight to be earned, he will not be liable as a common carrier, although he take upon himself to pay the expenses of the transportation for which he is to receive compensation from the owner of the goods.* 1 Story on Bail. § 536 ; Forward v. public. Railway Co. v. Nichols, 9 Kttard, 1 T. R 37 ; post, % 88 ; Schloss Kans. 253, 253. Were the appellees V. Wood, 11 Colo. 387. In this case acting in the premises as common the court cite this section with ap- carriers or forwarders merely? This proval, and say : " Whether a person question should have been submitted is a common carrier depends wholly to the jury with proper insti-uctions." upon whether he holds himself out 2 Michigan Eaikoad v. Shurtz, 7 to the world as such, and he can Mich. 515; Moses u- The Railroad, 4 hold himself out as a common car- Foster, 71 ; Rogers v. Wheeler, 52 rier by engaging in the business gen- N. Y. 362 ; O'NeU v. The Railroad, 60 erally, or by announcing or proclaim- N. Y. 138 ; Fitchburg, eta Railroad v. jug it by cards, advertisements, or by Hanna,, 6 Gray, 539; Barron v. El- any other means that would let the diidge, 100 Mass. 455. See, also, § 88. public know that he intended to be a ^ Wade v. Wheeler, 8 Lans. 301. common or general carrier for the * Story on Bail § 503; Briggs v. 61 §§ 6i, 65. j THE LAW OF CAERIEES. § 64. Water- 1 The weight of authority is very decidedly in favor of the law as thus stated. There are, however, cases in which a different view is taken of the character of the towing vessel. In Pennsylvania and New York, the .cases are numerous and uniform to the effect that towing vessels are not common carriers as to the tow, but. incur only the responsibility of ordi- nary bailees for hira Hayes v. Mil- lar, 77 Penn. St 238 ; Brown v. Clegg, 63 id. 51 ; Leonard v. Henrickson, 18 id. 40; Hayes v. Paul, 51 id. 134; Merrick v. Brainard, 38 Barb. 574; The Arctic Fire Ins. Co. v. Austin, 54 id. 559 ; Alexander v. Green, 3 Hill, 9; 7 id. 533; Caton v. Eumney, 13 Wend. 387; Wells v. Steam Nav. Co., 2 Com. 204; 4 Seld. 375. This position is sustained by many afithorities elsewhere. Varble v. Big- ley, 14 Bush, 698; Transportation Line v. Hope, 95 U. S. 297; The Steamer New Philadelphia, 1 Black, 62 ; The Steamer Webb, 14 Wall. 406 ; The Lyon, 1 Brown's Adm. 59 ; The Stranger, id. 281; The ©conto, 5 Biss. 460 ; The Merrimao, 2 Sawyer, 586; Sproul v. Hemmingway, 14 Pick. 1 ; The Pennsylvania, etc. Nav. Co. V. Dandridge, 8 Gill & J. 248 ; The Steamboat Angelina Corning, 1 Ben. 109; The Princeton, 3 Blatch. 54; Abbey v. Str. Stephens, 22 How. Pr. 78; The Neaffie, 1 Abb. TJ. S. Eep. 465 ; Brawley v. Watson, 2 Bond, 356 ; Stoiy on Bail. § 496 ; The Quickstep, 9 Wall. 665 ; Wooden v. Austin, 51 Barb. 9 ; The Margaret. 94 TJ. S. 494. This is also the law of the English courts. Symonds v. Pain, 6 Hurl & N. 709 ; The Minnehaha, 1 Lush. 335 ; The Julia, 14 Moore P. C. 210. But the question has been settled the other way in Louisiana. Bussey V. The Trans. Co., 24 La. Ann. 165 ; Clapp V. Stanton, 20 La. Ann. 495; Smith V. Pierce, 1 La. 350. And opinions favorable to this view of it have been expressed in White v. Mary, 6 CaL 462 ; Walston v. Myers, 5 Jones, N. C. 174 ; and by Chancellor Kent in 2 Com. 599. In Ashmore v. The Steam Towing Co., 4 Dutcher, 180, the court wa^di- vided upon the question. Where the employment consists in towing for short distances without taking the exclusive control or pos- session of the tow, it would seem to be plain that it could not have en- tered into the contemplation of the parties that such an extraordinary liability as that of the common cai^ rier should attach to the towing ves- sel But where the absolute control and management of the tow is given to it, especially if for a long voyage, as is frequently the case with barges and other river ci'af t upon our west- ern rivers, the towing steamer being in such a case solely responsible for the management of its tow, it would 77 §§ SO-Sla.] THE LAW OF CAERIEES. § 80. Passenger ca/rriers not common carriers of persons.— For obvious reasons which will be hereafter stated, carriers of passengers are not common carriers as to the persons of those whom they carry. But the two employments of carry- ing passengers and goods are almost universally combined or engaged in by the same carriers ; and, as we have already seen, carriers of passengers become common carriers as to the baggage of their passengers. So that it may be said that no carrier is exclusively a carrier of passengers, the carriage of the passenger necessarily implying the carriage of his bag- gage, as to which the carrier incurs the liability of the com- mon carrier.^ § 81. Postmasters, mail contractors and carriers not com- mon carriers. — Postmasters, mail contractors and mail car- riers, as has been often decided, are not common carriers as to such things as may be sent and carried through the mails. Their contracts are with the government, and not with the individuals who derive the benefit of their services. They act in the character of public agents, and not as carriers for hire, and it has been said that there is no analogy between such agents and the common carrier.^ So a I'ailroad company car- rying mail in pursuance of a contract with the government is not a common carrier as to such mail.' § 81a. Telegraph and telephone companies not common car- riers. — Nor by the weight of authority can telegraph and telephone companies be considered as common carriers, al- though the attempt has been repeatedly made to put them upon the same footing as to liability for miscarriage.* Some seem to be a question of considerable away, 6 BaTb. 633 ; Lane v. Cotton, 1 doubt whether the towing vessel Ld. Eaym. 646. should not be held hable as a com- ' Central Railroad v. Lampley, 76 mon carrier. This distinction was Ala. 357. noticed in Bussey v. The Ti'ans. Co., * Leonard v. The Telegraph Co., 41 and in Ashmore v. The Trans. Co., N. Y. 544 ; Tyler v. The West U. Tel. supra. Co., 60 111. 421 ; Breese v. The U. S. ' See ante, § 60. Tel. Co., 48 N. Y. 133 ; Western Union 2 Story on Bail. § 403 ; Schroyer v. Tel. Co. v. Carew, 16 Mich. 525 ; Tel- Lynch, 8 Watts, 453 ; Dunlop v. Mun- egraph Co. v. Grlswold, 37 Ohio St. roe, 7 Cranch, 342 ; Conwell v. Voor- 301 ; Hibbard v. Telegraph Ca, 33 hees, 13 Ohio, 523 ; Wiggins v. Hath- Wis. 558 ; Western U. Tel. Co. v. Eey- 78 WHO IS A COMMON CAEEIEE. [§§ 815-816?. cases have, however, termed them common carriers of mes- sages and common carriers of intelligence,' and in a recent case,^ in the United States supreme court. Chief Justice "Waite said : " A telegraph company occupies the same relation to commerce as a carrier of messages that a railroad company does as a carrier of goods." , And, certainly, though they can- not be regarded strictly as common carriers in the sense which the phrase " common carrier " had previously juridically ac- quired, yet in their relations to the public, in their duty to serve all impartially, in their duty to avoid discrimination, if not in their responsibility for accurate transmission of mes- sages, they occupy a position very closely analogous to that of common carriers. § 81&. Log-driving companies not common carriers. — So log- driving and booming companies organized for the purpose of driving, running, rafting and booming logs are not common carriers of the logs delivered to them for that purpose." § 81c. Drovers and agisters not common carriers. — For like reasons, drovers and agisters employed to drive cattle and other animals are held not to be common carriers.* § 81d Owners and managers of passenger elevators. — In a recent case ^ in Minnesota, Gilfillan, C. J., says : " The relation between the owner and manager of an elevator for passengers and those carried in it is similar to that between an ordinary common carrier of passengers and those carried by him. The same reason exists fot requiring on the part of the owner the utmost human care and foresight, and for making him respon- sible for the slightest degree of negligence, and also, in case of nolds, 77 Va, 173 ; Kiley v. Tdegraph TeL Co. v. Telegraph Co., 66 Md. 399 ; Co., 109 K. Y. 231 ; Grinnell v. Tel- State v. Telephone Co., — Fed. Eep. egraph Co., 118 Mass. 399 ; Western — ; Louisville, etc. Co. v. Telegraph U. Tel. Co. V. Munford, 87 Tenn. 190; Co., 34 Am. L. Keg. 579; Shearman Marr v. Telegraph Co., 85 Tenn. 539 ; , & Redfleld on NegUgence, sees. 534, Gillis V. Telegraph Co., 61 Vt 461 ; 535. Fowler v. Telegraph Co., 80 Me. 881. 2 Telegi-aph Co. v. Texas, 105 TJ. S. Telegraph messenger company is not 460. a common carrier. Feiber v. Tel. Co., ' Mann v. White River, etc. Co., 46' 31 Abb. N. C. 11. Mich. 8k 'Central Telephone Co. v. 'Brad- ^Angell on Carriers, §§ 24, 53; bury, 106 Ind. 1 ; State v. Telephone Story on Bailments, § 448. Co., 17 Neb. 136 ; Chesapeake, etc. > Goodsell v. Taylor, 41 Minn. 207. 79 § 81e.-] THE LAW OF CAEEIEES. injury by the breaking or giving way of the elevator, for put- ting on him the onus of proving that it was through no fault or neglect of his." § 81e. Bridge, canal and turmpihe coxntfpanies. — Bridge/ canal * and turnpike ^ companies organized merely for the pur- pose of furnishing a thoroughfare over which others may trans- port goods, but not engaged in such transportation themselves, are not common carriers. 1 Kentucky, etc. Bridge Co. v. Rail- 2 Exchange Ins. Co. v. Canal Co., roadCo.,,37 Fed. Eep. 616; Grigsby 10 Bosw. 180. V. Chappell, 5 Eich. 443. 3 Lake Superior, etc. R Co. v. United States, 93 U. S. 444. 80 CHAPTER IV. OF THE DELIVERY TO THE CARRIER, AND THE EVI- DENCE THEREOF. ^ 81/. In generaL L OF DELIVEET TO THE CAEEIER. 82. The delivery must be com- plete. 83. May be made to agent of car- rier. 84 But not sufficient if agent not authorized to receive. .84a. Delivery to carrier by agent of shipper. 85. No delivery when owner re- tains custody. 86. Same subject 87. Place at which delivery must be mada 88. Must be for immediate trans- portation. S9. Same subject — When liabil- ity begins. 90. Constructive delivery — Rule as to. 91. Same subject. 93. Same subject — Limitations on rule. '93. Same subject — Rule to be appUed with caution. 84. When delivery becomes com- plete. ■95. Same subject — Delivery to ships and vessels. '96. Same subject — Delivery to railroads and express com- panies. 97. Carrier not required to stop for goods except at regular stations. 98. When carrier deemed to have accepted goods. 6 81 § 99. Same subject. 99a. Same subject — Implied ac- ceptance. 100. Checking, etc., not neces- sary. 101. Delivery to ferr^-man, when complete. 102. Deliveiy to connecting car- rier to continue transporta- tion. 102a. Duty of first carrier to effect delivery to succeeding car- rier. 103. When liability of first carrier terminates. 103a. Same subject — Duty when succeeding carrier neglects or refuses to receive the goods. 1035. Same subject — How duty af- fected by usage. 104 Agreement between carriers not binding on owner. 105. Same subject — : Illustrations. 106. Same subject — Cases holding deUvery coihplete. 107. Owner may recover for goods consti-uctively delivered. 108. First earner as foi-warding agent for owner. 109. Can-ier cannot become ware- houseman of the goods while in transit. 110. Same subject 111. Of the carrier's duty to accept goods offered for carriage. 112. Same subject — Not obliged to accept goods of a kind he does not profess to caiTy. THE LAW OF CAEEIEKS. § 113. Same subject — Reasons which will justify refusal to accept 111 Same subject — Press of busi- ness. 115. Same subject — Other rea- sons. 115a. Same subject — Not obliged to accept from one not au- thorized to deliver — Liar biUty if he does. 1156. Same subject — Remedy for wrongful refusal. 116. Same subject — Carrier may demand prepayment of freight 117. Same subject — Actual ac- ceptance may waive rear sons for refusal n. THE BILL OF LADING. 118. No receipt, bill of lading, etc., necessary. 119. Liability of carrier usually limited by contract 120. Contracts vary in form and name. 131. Variance in duplicate — Ship- ' per's controls. 132. Bills of lading are both re- ceipts and contracts. 133. Liability of carrier when goods not received but re- ceipt given. 134. Same subject — How, in case of bona fide holder. 125. Recitals as to condition of goods, how far conclusive. 135o. Conclusiveness lOf receipt as to weight contents or value of goods. 1356. Same subject 135c. Same subject 136. Terms of biU of lading can- not be varied by parol 126a. Same subject — Implied terms not to be vai-ied by parol. § 1266. 127. 128. 138a. 129. 139a. 130. 130a. 1306. 131. 131a. 1316. 181c. 131d 132. 183. Same subject — Terms an- nexed by usage not to be varied by parol Same subject — Legal import not to be varied by parol. Same subject — How, when goods shipped under parol contract before bill of lad- ing delivered. Same subject — Damages for violation of previous con- tract not waived by subse- quent acceptance of bill of lading. Bills of lading are assignable but not negotiabla Same subject — Statutes making them negotiable Goods must be delivered only in accordance with bill of lading. Same subject — Carrier must respect transfers. Same subject — Carrier's duty to ascertain if bill of lading issued. Same subject — BiU of lading to shipper's order with draft attached. Same subject — Invoice alone not evidence of title Same subject — Directions to notify certain person do not dispense with produc- tion of bin of lading. Same subject — Duplicate biUs of lading — Possession of one not indorsed. Same subject— Possession of indorsed duplicate obtained by fraud. Same subject— Duplicate re- ceipts—Goods deliverable only on production of du- plicate. Same subject — Protection of third person paying draft for consignee's accommo- dation. 88 DELIVEEY TO THE OAEEIEE. [§§ 81/, 82. 133a. Same subject^ Effect of cus- tom on delivery without sun-ender of bill of lading. When consignment may be changed by shipper. Same subject — Not when goods become pi-operty of consignee on delivery to carrier. Same subject — Illustrations. Same subject — Effect of custom. Who may sue for breach of contract 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. § 139. Same subject — C ^atutes con- trolling. By what law the validity a,nd effect of contracts gov- erned. Same subject Same subject. Same subject Same subject 144a. Same subject — The toue rule — Law of place where made governs unless par- ties had other law in view. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. § 81/. In general. — In considering the question of the car- rier's liability in relation to the goods, two questions become important at the outset : (1) Have the goods been delivered to the carrier for transportation ; and (2) What evidence, re- ceipt or contract exists or is necessary in regard to such de- livery. These two questions form the subject of the present chapter and will be separately considered. I. OF DELIVERY TO THE CAERIEE. § 82. The delivery must he complete. — The duties and obli- gations of the common carrier with respect to the goods com- mence with their delivery to him ; and this delivery must be complete, so as to put upon him the exclusive duty of seeing to theit safety. The law will not divide the duty or the obliga^ tion between the carrier and the owner of the goods.^ It must rest entirely upon the one or the other ; and until it has be- come imposed upon the carrier by a delivery and acceptailce, he cannot be held responsible for them. They must be deliv- ered to the carrier himself, or to some agent of his, authorized to receive them oh his behalf. The mere deposit of them in the yard of an inn from which the carrier starts, without leav- ing them in charge. of some servant of the carrier, is not suflB- cient.^ Nor will it be enough for the owner to put them, into the carrier's vehicle without his knowledge." They must be put into the actual custody of the carrier or of his servants. 1 Brind v. Dale, 8 Car. & P. 307. » Leigh v. Smith, 1 Car. & P. 638. 2 Selway v. HoUoway, 1 Ld. Raym. 46 ; Buckman v. Levi, 3 Camp. 414. 83 § 82.] THE LAW OF CAKEIEES. Thus, where the owner of the goods, having previously given notice to a railroad agent of his intention to send the goods and having paid him the freight, sent them by his servant to the depot, where they were put upon the railroad platform and the attention of the baggageman called to them, but no notice given to the freight agent, it was held that there had been no de- livery, and that the railroad company was not liable for dam- age done to them by a passing train.' So where a person intending to take the train, if certain funds arrived in time, went to the depot and deposited her trunk and box on the platform, but, when the train arrived, instructed the com- pany's servants not to put them on the train as she did not intend to take it, and w^nt away after asking permission to leave the things there tiE she got ready to go, it was held that the trunk and box had not been delivered to the railroad company for oairriage, and that the company was therefore not liable as a common carrier for their loss.^ So where hogs which the owner desired to have transported were, when the train arrived by which he wished them to go, still in a private yard and had yet to be loaded, counted and receipted for, they were held not to be so far delivered to the railroad com- pany as to make it liable for delay in shipping.' So goods stored along the line awaiting shipment, where the owner is to load them when he can get the necessary cars, are not com- pletely delivered to the railroad company until they are so loaded n,nd ready for shipment.* And cotton, still in the pos- session of a compress company, for which the railroad com- pany has as yet given no bUl of lading, and of which it has neither the actual or constructive possession nor the custody or control, is not yet delivered to the railroad company for carriage, and the latter is not liable as a carrier to the owner for its loss, though it has not furnished cars for its transpor- tation as rapidly as it had agreed with the compress company to do.° iGrosvenor v. The Railroad, 39 « Wilson v. Railroad Co., 83 Ga. N. Y. 34. 386. - Little Rock, etc. R'y Co. v. Hunter, s St Louis, etc. R'y Co. v. Insurance 43 Ark. 300. Co., — U. & — ; 11 & Ct Rep. 554. » Frazier v. Railroad Co., 48 Iowa, 571. 84 DELITEEY TO THE OAEEIEE. [§§ 83, 84. § 83. But may le to agent, who acts ly the authority of the carrier. — But in Rogers v. The Eailroad,' the owner of a trunk sent it to the defendants' depot by an expressman, who placed it within the inclosure of the depot beside the baggage crate, which was locked, and then went into the ticket-office and informed the ticket agent of the fact, who replied " all right ; " and it was held that the case should have gone to the jurj'' upon tbe question of delivery, the court saying that it was enough to establish a delivery, in the first instance, to prove that a person, acting as the agent of the company, re- ceived and accepted the property fbr transportation, even if there should be, in fact, another person having charge of the business of receiving freight. "The ticket a,gent," said the court, " was apparently in charge of the depot. The company which sanctions his employment and thus holds him out to the world as its agent is not at liberty to repudiate his acts." ^ § 84. Not sufficient when made to agent not authorized to receive it. — Delivery to one of the crew or deck hands of a steamboat is, not good delivery although made upon the boat, and will not bind the owner of the boat as a carrier. Wh^re the goods were taken, on board and put down by a porter in a certain spot by direction of one who was a deck hand em- ployed to sweep the deck, and it was proven that the clerk of the boat was the only authorized person to receive freight and give receipts for it, a majority of the court were of the opinion that, as the deck hand was not the agent of the boat for the purpose of receiving freight, the owners had incurred no lia- bility. But some of the judges were of a different opinion, upon the ground that the porter had a right to presume that the deck hand had been left in charge by the proper officers of the boat.' And, in another case, it was held that to make a delivery to a deck hand good as against the owners of a 1 2 Lans. 369. ployed in a freight office, who re- 2 A passenger upon a railroad train oeives and receipts for the goods in is justified in regarding the man the presence and with the knowledge whom he sees handling the baggage of the agent, who does not object, is as the agent of the company and in a good delivery to the carrier. Har- giving him directions as to the dispo- rell v. Railroad, 106 N. C. 258. sition to be made of his baggage. ^ Trowbridge v, Chapin, 33 Conn. Ouimit V. Henshaw, 35 Vt 605. So a 595. delivery to a person apparently em- 85 §§ Sia, 85.] THE LAW OF CAEEIEES. boat, it must be shown that he was authorized to receive freight or that it was delivered to him in pursuance of some special contract or usage.' § 84«. Delivery to carrier Tyy agent of shipper. — The dehv- ery to the carrier or his agent may be made not only by the shipper in person, but also by his authorized agent. Where the owner of goods places them in the hands of an agent to secure their transportation by a carrier, the latter, in the ab- sence of a known limitation upon the agent's authority, is jus- tified in considering the agent authorized to exercise aU the powers necessary to effect the purpose of the agency," and the acts of the agent in that respect will be binding upon the principal, as in giving directions as to the time or manner of shipment or the terms and conditions upon which the trans- portation is to be undertaken.' § 85. No deWvery when owner retains custody — Passenger retaining custod/y of iaggage, — If the owner, traveling as the carrier's passenger, retain the custody of his baggage instead of delivering it to the carrier or his servant, he thereby as- sumes the responsibility and cannot hold the carrier hable for the loss of it, unless the loss should occur from the neghgence or fault of the carrier ; in which event he would be hable, not as a common carrier, but as an ordinary bailee for hire. As where the passenger placed his overcoat upon his seat in the cars instead of delivering it to a servant of the company, and for- got to take it with him when he left the car, and it was stolen, it was held that the railway company was not liable for the loss.* Or if, being a passenger upon a steamboat, he retain the possession of his baggage, the carrier cannot be made re- sponsible for the loss.* 1 Ford V. Mitchell, 31 Ind. 54 And it is held that knowledge on the part see Leigh v. Smith, 1 Car. & P. 638, of the carrier that the pereon efleot- and post, §§ 90-93. ing the carriage was but an agent for 2 See Mechem on Agency, § 311. others was suflScient to put the car- 8 See pos<,§ 265; Nelson r. Railroad, rier on inquiry in' ascertaining the 48 N. Y. 498; London v. Railway, 7 extent of the agent's powers, and that H. & N. 600 ; Lewis v. Railway, 5 the owners could not be bound by a H. & N. 867 ; Squire v. Railroad, 98 rate agi-eed upon with the agent in Mass. 339 ; York Co. v. Railroad, 3 excess of his authority. Wall. 113; Jennings v. Railway, 63 < Tower v. The Railroad, 7 Hill, 47. Hun, 327. s Cohen v. Frost, 3 Duer, 335. In Hayes v. Campbell, 63 Cal. 143, This subject of the liability of the 86 DELIVEEY TO THE CAEEIEE. [§§ 86, 87. § 86. Same subject. — In such cases the owner, so far from having made delivery to the carrier, has purposely withheld it. He has not trusted the carrier ; and where there has been no trust reposed there can be no liability, for trust is the very basis of the liability ; and it has been expressly held that if the owner of the goods especially undertake to watch them, and, refusing to place confidence in the carrier, send his own servant along in charge of them, and the carrier is thereby induced to neglect his usual precaution, this negatives a bail- ment and no liability will exist.' But the owner may accom- pany the goods and have an eye upon them, or he may send his servant with them to look after them ; but the carrier must have the entire custody and control of them. Otherwise he will not be liable for their safety.^ § 87. Place at which delivery must le made. — But it is not necessary in all cases to make the delivery to the carrier at the 3)lace appointed by him, or at his office or place of business, provided the delivery be made to a person who is authorized to receive the. goods. Delivery to the agent of a stage com- pany has, conseqiuently, been held good although not made at the office of the company.' But delivery to the driver, not at the company's office and without notice to it and without its assent, has been held not to be a good delivery, the driver not being the authorized servant of the company for that purpose.* It may be shown, however, that such was the usage known to the company and recognized by it.' And the driver of a coach may make the .company liable as a common carrier for the baggage of a passenger taken on anywhere upon the route. And where the company is a carrier of goods as well as of passengers, he may receive such goods for carriage at any point upon the route at which there is no office or agent ; for, in the absence of express directions to the contrary known to the owner of the goods, the law will imply the authority. But ■carrier for the passenger's baggage 334 ; Willoughby v. Horridge, 74 Eng. will be more particularly treated of C. L. R. 743 ; Brind v. Dale, 8 Car. hereafter. CSiapter XIII. & P. 307 ; Cohen v. Frost, 3 Duer, 1 East India Company v. PuIIen, 3 335. Strange, 690. 3 Phillips v. Earle, 8 Pick. 183. 2 Eobinson v. Dunmore, 3 Bos. & P. * Blanchard v. Isaacs, 8 Barb. 388. 416; HoUister v. Nowlen, 19 Wend. ^ See post, §90. 87 § 88.] THE LAW OF CAEEIEES. the delivery, if made away from the office or plaice of business of an express. company, must be made to an agent and not to an agent's assistant or clerk temporarily appointed by him. Such an assistant, it is said, may officiate for the agent at his office, and his receipt wiU be valid even in the absence of the agent, because that would be a delivery at the offl^ce or at th& appointed place of business of the principal ; but such a deliv- ery out of the office or away from it would be unauthorized and would not bind the principal.^ § 88. Must lefor immediate transportation. — The delivery must be to the carrier or his agent for immediate transporta- tion ; for, if the goods are dehvered to him to be stored by him for a certain time, or until the happening of a certain event, or until something further is done to prepare them for trans- portation, or until further orders are received from the owner, the carrier becomes a mere depositary or bailee until the ap- pointed time has expired or the other contingency happened upon which the carriage is to commence, or until further orders have been given, as the case maybe; for nothing could be more unjust than to permit the owner of the goods to im- pose upon a mere depositary or warehouseman", whether he has yet become related to the goods as carrier or not, the ex- tremely hazardous responsibility of the common carrier sa long as it might suit his interest or convenience to do so.* 1 Cronkite v. Wells, 32 N. Y. 347. which the principal allows him to. And see Southern Ex. Co. v. Newby, assume. 36 Ga. 685. Where, however, a shipment was But in Whitbeck v. Schuyler, 44 made upon a steamboat to be carried Barb. 469, deUvery of a trunk to the to the terminus of a distant railroad captain of a steamboat was held suf- for further transportation, and it was flcient, although the company to lost by the steamboat, it was held in which the boat belonged had an a suit against the road that the claim agent in the same place, whose busi- that tlie boat was the agent of the ness it was to make contracts for road must be distinctly proven, and freight, and although it was shown it was intimated that it was doubtful that the captain was only to navigate whether the road could constitute an the boat, it not appearing that the agency so foreign to the purposes of shipper had knowledge of such an its incorporation. Missouri Coal Co. arrangement; and the decision was v. The Han. etc R E., 35 Mo. 84 put upon the ground that the princi- 2M,i Vernon Co. v. Eaihoad Ca,— pal should be held responsible for the Ala. — . 8 S. Rep. 687; Bairon v. acts of his agent performed within Eldredge, 100 Mass. 455; O'Neill v. the scope of the apparent authority Railroad Ca, 60 N. Y. ISa ThuSv 88 DELIVERY TO THE OAEEIEE. [§ 89. But the moment such orders are given, or such other condi- tions are fulfilled, the carrier having accepted them with that understanding, his duties and responsibilities as carrier begin.' § 89. 8ame subject — When liability iegins. — But if the de- livery be made at the warehouse or other place of business of the carrier for as early transportation as can be made in the course of the carrier's business, and subject only to such de- lays as may necessarily occur in awaiting the departure of trains, vessels, or other vehicles of transportation, or from the performance of prior engagements by him, he becomes, the moment the delivery is made, a carrier as to the goods, and his responsibility as such at once attaches.^ And the general and well-settled rule is, that the liability of the common car- rier commences whenever and as soon as the goods have been delivered to and accepted by him solely for transportation, although they may not be put immediately in itinere, but are, at first, for his own convenience and preparatory 'to the voy- age or journey for which they are intended, temporarily de- posited in his wharf or storeroom. In such caseSj the deposit is a mere accessary to the carriage, and does not postpone his liability as common carrier to the time when they shall be actually put in motion towards their place of destination.' where an initial carrier places a 2 Clark v. Needles, 25 Pa. St 338 ; loaded car on the side-track of a con- Blossom v. Griffin, 3 Kem. 569 ; Wade necting carrier, without notice to the v. Wheeler, 47 N. Y. 658 ; Michigan latter, and without any mark of the R R u Shurtz, 7 Mich. 515. name and address of the consignee, Tims, where goods are delivered to or any way-bill or shipping direo- a railroad company for transporta- tions, the connecting cai'iier is only tion at its earliest convenience, noth- a bailee of the car, and its stringent ing fui'ther remaining to be done in liabiUty as a common carrier does reference to them by the owner, the not attach until such way-biU or di- company is liable as a common car- rections are given, or until it is rier if the goods are burned before informed to what place the car is to shipment. Grand Tower, etc. Co. v. be forwarded and to whom delivered. UUman, 89 IlL 344. Mt Vernon Go. u Railroad Co., stipra. Where cattle have been put into So where the goods are yet to be the carrier's pen for immediate ship- graded, classified, mai'ked or set ment, and their loading has begun, apart from others by the shipper, be- the carrier is liable as such. Gulf, fore they are ready for shipment, etc. E'y Co. v. Trawick, 80 Tex. - — ; they cannot be deemed to be deliv- McCulloughuRyCo., 34Mo. App. 23. ered to the carrier for carriage. Iron ' Fitchburg, etc. R R «. Hanna, 6 Mt. By. Co. V. Knight, 122 U. S. 79. Gray, 539 ; Story on BaU. §§ 534, 586 ; 1 See ante, § 63. Rogers v. Wheeler, 52 N. Y. 262. 89 § 90.] taE LAW OF CAKKIEKS. And a delivery to the carrier with the name and address of the consignee marked upon the goods is, in the absence of some directions or agreement otherwise, equivalent to an ex- press direction to transport them to such consignee at once, and the reception of the goods under such circumstances im- poses upon him, immediately, the obligation to forward forth- with, and the responsibility of a common carrier,' unless the habitual course of dealing between the parties has been other- wise. And so, after the relation of carrier to the goods has become established by their delivery to him for immediate transportation, it may be changed to that of warehouseman by subsequent orders by the owner to delay the forwarding of them. Thus, where the goods had been delivered to the rail- road company for shipment, and they were loaded upon its cars for that purpose and were about to be started, but the company ^vas then requested by the owner to wait until he could see the party to whom he had sold them, which request was complied with; and the next day the goods, while be- ing so detained, caught fire and were damaged, it was held that from the moment the request was made to detain the goods the . liability ' of the company was as warehousemen only.^ § 90. Constructive delivery — Place fixed iy agreement or usage. — But, while it is the undoubted general rule that the delivery, to bind the carrier, must be made either to him or to some one with authority from him, or who may be right- fully presumed to have such authority, it is not to be under- stood that it is not subject to such conventional arrangements between the parties as they may choose to make in regard to the mode of delivery, or that it may not be varied by usage, or by a particular course of dealing between them. They may make such stipulations upon the subject as they see fit, and when such stipulations are made, they, and not the gen- 1 Whitbeck v. Holland, 45 N. T. 13 ; when he could get the cars, is not Shelton v. Merchants' Des. Trans. Co., completely delivered to the company. 36 N. Y. S. C. 527; S. c, 59 N. Y. 258. Wilson v. Railway Ca, 83 Ga. 386, 2 St Louis, etc. R. R. v. Montgom- citing Wells v. Raih-oad Co., 6 Jones' efy, 39 111. 885. L. 47, and distinguishing Central E. Wood piled up along a railroad R v. Hmes, 19 Ga. 203; Fleming v. track, to be loaded by the owner Hammond, 19 Ga. 145. 90 DELIVEEY TO THE CAEEIER. [§ 91. / eral law, are to govern. If, therefore, the parties agree that the goods may be deposited for transportation at any particu- lar place and without an express notice to the carrier, such de- posit will be a sufficient delivery; and proof of a constant and habitual practice and usage of the carrier to receive the goods- when they are deposited for him in a particular place, with- out special notice of such deposit, is sufficient to show a pub- lic offer by the carrier to receive goods in that mode, and to constitute an agreement between the parties, by which the gOiods, when so deposited, shall be considered as delivered to him, without any further notice. Such a practice and usage are tantamount to an open declaration, a public advertisement by the carrier, that such a delivery should, of itself, be deemed an acceptance by him ; and to permit him to set up, against those who had been thereby induced to omit it, the want of the formality of an express notice, which had been thus waived, would be sanctioning injustice and fraud. As where, for in- stance, the dehvery was upon a private wharf or dock, used exclusively by the carrier, and upon which it had been its custom and constant usage to receive goods left there for trans- portation by it, such a deposit, in the usual and accustomed manner, would be constructive notice, and would be regarded as a sufficient delivery, though the goods were not left in charge of any of its servants.^ § 91. Same subject. — And so, where the plaintiff sent her trunk, properly labeled with her name and destination, to the depot of the company, during business hours in the even- ing, intending to take passage on its train the next morning, and the company's employees being at supper, the drayman put the trunk down in the waiting-room without notice to any ' Merriam v. The Eailroad, 20 Conn, by fire caugTit from sparks from the 354 ; Converse v. Trans. Co., 33 Conn, company's engines, the company is 166. liable for the loss. Meyer v. Vicks- Where a railroad company erects burg R. R Co., 41 La. Ann. 689. a platform for the purpose of ship- A deposit of cotton in the street ping cotton, and its course of busi- along side of the railroad platform ness is such as to induce parties to or in the raih-oad cotton-yard, in pur- store cotton on it for shipment by suance of a custom to deposit it there' next freight train, and a party does for shipment, is sufficient. Mont- so store it there for shipment, but the gomery, etc. R'y Co. v. Kolb, 73 Ala. ferain passes and neglects to take it on, 396, approving text, and it is destroyed during the delay 91 § 92.] THIS LAW OF CAEEIEES. of tHem, as he had often done before, which was proven to have been a custom with passengers intending to leave by the morning trains, it was held that when the trunk was thus de- posited it was at the risk of the company, and, it having been burned during the night, the company was held liable. " That the delivery may be made at the proper place of receiving such baggage, under the express assent or authority of the carrier, without notice to its employees, will not, we presume, be dis- puted," said the court. " It is equally clear, upon principle, that this assent may be presumed from the course of business or the custom of the carrier. Upon evidence of this character, contracts based upon business transactions are constantly established. . . ■ . There was evidence tending to show a course of business on the part of the defendant, a custom to receive baggage left at the station-house, as in this case, with- out notice to defendants' servants. Upon evidence of this character, it was proper that the facts should have been left to the determination of the jury, whether there had been a delivery of the property within the rules above announced, — whether a course of business, a custom, had been established, to the effect that a delivfery of baggage at the station-house, without notice, was regarded by defendant as a delivery to its servants, and whether plaintiff's trunk was received under this custom." * And upon a second appeal to the same court, in the same case, from a verdict and judgment in the inferior court in favor of the plaintiff for the value of her trunk, after the case had been sent back for a retrial upon this view of the law, the court held that the jury was fully justified in finding that there was a delivery of the trunk to the company and an acceptance by it, and the judgment was affirmed.^ § 92. Same subject — Limitations on rule. — But where the proof was of delivery upon a boat of his trunk by one intend- ing to become a passenger, and it was shown that this was the customary mode for the delivery of the baggage of passen- gers, but that this usage existed only as to baggage and not as to ordinary freight, it was held that the plaintiff could not recover for the loss of his trunk from the owners of the boat, inasmuch as he had not accompanied it upon the boat as a 1 Green V. The Railroad, 38 Iowa, 2 Green v. The Railroad, 41 Iowa, 100. 410. 93 DELIVEET TO THE CAEEIEE. [§ 93. passenger and had not become under the circumstances the boat's passenger at all. And while it was admitted that a constructive delivery Without notice might bind the carrier as to both baggage and freight when the usage was clearly- proven, no such usage being shown in this case as to freight, which the trunk without its owner was to be considered, there had been no delivery and the owners of the boat were conse- quently not responsible.' But it was decided in a leading case upon this branch of the law, that although, according to the usual custom and understanding of the parties, delivery on the dock by or near the boat might be sufficient, it must, in order to bind the carrier and make him responsible for them, be ac- companied by express notice to him ; and the defendant being informed that there were four boxes only, which he took on board, could not be held responsible for more, although five boxes had been really deposited on the dock for his boat, he having been informed that there were only four.^ § 93. Same stibject — Bule to ie applied with caution. — ^And it must be admitted that the doctrine of constructive delivery without notice to the carrier is one which should be applied with great caution. It is undoubtedly competent for him to /bind himself by such a delivery either by bis express agree- ment that a deposit of goods at a particular place shall be a vahd delivery to him, or by so advertising it to the public, or by a well known and established custom to receive the goods in that way, which would perhaps be as binding upon him as to persons who have acted upon the notice or the usage as an express agreement; and cases may arise in which the usage and course of dealing between the parties should undoubtedly have that effect. But, certainly, to do so they should be shown to have existed and to have been uniformly acted upon by the parties, by the most satisfactory proof and for a suffi- cient length of time to have become an established usage, tan- tamount to an agreement to that effect, or to a declaration to the public that a delivery in accordance with the usage will be deemed an acceptance by him for the purpose of the trans- portation ; and perhaps it should be shown that a reliance 1 Wright V. Caldwell, 3 Mich. 51. em Express Company, 51 Ala. 481 ; 2 Packard v. Getman, 6 Cowen, 757. Buckman v. tevi, 3 Camp. 414. Aud see also O'Bannon v. The South- 98 §§ 94, 95.] THE LAW OF CAEEIEES. upon the previous course of dealing or the usaige or the notice had controlled the action of the shipper in the particular in- stance. But few cases are to be found in which the rule has been applied, and it is to be presumed that such instances wiU not be of frequent occurrence. § 94. When the deli/very lecomes complete. — The entire re- sponsibility for the safety of the goods being shifted from the owner to the common carrier as soon as the delivery is made, it frequently becomes a question of the greatest importance and of great nicety to determine at what instant of time such delivery becomes complete ; for, as we have seen, until the en- tire and exclusive custody of them has been given to the carrier, no responsibility rests upon him in that character. The most that can be said generally upon this subject is, that a tender of the goods being made to the carrier, his habihty for their safety as carrier arises eo insianti with his acceptance of them.' The difficulty lies in applying the law in such cases and not in its statement ; that is, in determining in the par- ticular instance exactly at what time the circumstances show the acceptance to have -taken place. To effect a delivery to the carrier there must be, either actually or in legal effect, a complete surrender to him of possession and custody, and, as a consequence, all control over the goods must be abandoned by the owner until the purpose of the bailment has been accom- plished ; and until this has been done it cannot be said that the carrier has assumed any responsibility for them as carrier. § 95. Same subject — Delivery to ships and vessels. — Deliv- ery to a ship or vessel is complete as soon as the master, mate or any other agent of the owner receives the goods ; and they may be received upon the ship, on the wharf, on the beach or at a warehouse, or at any other place at which an agent duly authorized may agree to receive them ; and in all such cases the liability of the master and owners as carriers commences at the moment of such acceptance.^ It has been decided in a 1 The delivery is complete when the come liable before if the goods have goods are accepted for carriage, and been actually deUvered and accepted though the statute provides that by him. Eastj etc. R'y Co. v. Hall, 64 transportation shall be deemed to Tex. 615. have commenced when the bill of 2 Story on Bail. § 534 ; Abbott on lading is signed, the carrier may be- Shipping, ch. 3, § 8. 94 DBLIVBEY TO THE OAEEIEE. [§ 96, greaf number of cases that it is not necessary that the goods should be taken on board in order to fix the liability of com- mon carriers upon the owners. Where a receipt had been given, and, before the goods had been put on board, a violent storm arose causing the tide to rise to an unusual height so as to flood the warehouse in which they had been placed, whereby they were damaged, and it was held that, " after the defend- ants had receipted for the merchandise, it was as much at their risk as if it had been on board the vessel." ' And tak- ing them upon a barge or lighter by direction of the ship's agent to be conveyed to the ship constitutes a good delivery to the ship. "Where a vessel drawing so much water that it could not come to the wharf to take on cotton which it had contracted to carry was obliged to employ a lighterman to convey the cotton to her, who gave his own receipt for it, it was held that the liability of the ship and owners attached as soon as the cotton was loaded upon the lighter.^ And where an ocean steamer could not reach the port to take passengers and freight on , board, and her agent at the port eniployed a steamboat to take them down the river to the steamer, it was held that the freight was delivered to the steamer as soon as it was put on board the steamboat or delivered to its agents for the purpose of being conveyed to the steamer.' And the ship and owners become responsible for the freight from the time of its delivery, although no receipt or biU of lading be made out or signed for it until after the loss has occurred.* § 96. Sa/me subject — Delivery to railroad and express com- panies. — Delivery of freight is usually made to railroads and express companies at offices, warehouses or stations which they have established for that purpose. And except in rare cases, resting upon peculiar and exceptional grounds as we have seen, notice must be given to the proper servant or agent of the company before the delivery will be complete. But if siich agent become informed of the fact in any way, such knowledge wiU be as effectual tp bind the company as express 1 Greenwood v. Cooper, 10 La. Ann. ' The Oregon, Deady R. 179. 796. 4 Snow v. Caruth, 1 Sprague's Dec 2Bulkley v. The Naumkeag, etc. 334 Company, 24 How. 386 : The Bark Edwin, 1 Sprague's Dec. 477. 95 § 9Y.] THE LAW OF CAEKIEK8. notice to Mm. Nor is it always essential, as has been shown, that the notice should be given to one who is an actual' agent for the purpose of accepting the goods. For if the notice is given to one who is placed by the carrier in such a situation that those who come to deliver their goods for carriage have a right to presume that he is such an agent or has authority to accept them, on behalf of the carrier, it is sufficient. Kor, as we have also seen,' is it always necessary that the dehvery should be made at the office, warehouse, station or other place appointed or designed for the delivery of goods and generally used for that purpose ; but it may be made wherever the proper agent may agree to accept it. The agent may, however, refuse to accept the goods at unusual places or away from the office or station appointed for the purpose ; but if he do accept, no matter where, his company will become liable unless it be done under such circumstances as would implicate the shipper in an attempt to defraud it.^ And such acceptance away from the usual place for receiving goods for carriage, or at any unusual place, must be by some agent" whose business it is to receive the goods for that purpose, and not by one who is employed for an entirely different object ; ' and must be consistent with the general objects and business of the company.* § 97. Carriers not required to stop for goods except at regu- lar stations. — JS"or can the owner of the goods require such carriers to stop anywhere except at their regular offices or stations ^ or other usual or designated place * to take on his 1 See ante § 90, and note. the transportation of the property re- 2Cronkite v. Wells, 32 N. Y. 347. lieves the owner from making any 3 Blanchard v. Isaacs, 3 Barb. 388. further delivery or offer to deliver. Fisher v. Geddes, 15 La. Ann. 14 ; Louisville, etc. R'y Ca v. Flanagan, Dwight V. Brewster, 1 Pick. 50. 113 Ind." 488. < Missouri, etc. Co. v. The Railroad, A house and platform on the side 35 Mo. 84. of a track at which freight is ooca- 5 A carrier is not liable for not ac- sionally received and discharged, but cepting goods unless they are offered at which no agent's oflSce or books at a regular depot or otlier usual' or are kept or bills of lading or receipts designated place for receiving freight ; given, is not a " regular depot or sta- but when the goods ai-e placed at a tion" within the meaning of a stat- station upon the line of the road to ute imposing a penalty for refusing to be transported, the refusal of the car- receive freight at such depots or sta- rier upon de mand to furnish oars for tions. Kellogg r. Eaihoad Co., 100 6 As to what will constitute a stopping place by usage, see ante, § 90. 96 DELIVEEY TO ^IHE CAEEIEE. [§ 97. goods ; and even when the conductor of a freight train had promised to stop his train and take on the plaintiff's goods, relying on which promise he had deposited them upon the roadside and they were lost in consequence of the failure to stop the train as had been promised, it was held that the com- pany was not liable ; ' and it was said that if goods be put upon the platform at a regular station or depot, with the knowledge of the agent, it would be a good delivery and acceptance, and it would not be necessary that they should be entered on a way-bill or that any written memorandum should be made ; ' for the liability commences whenever the owner relinquishes his control over the goods and they are received for the pur- pose of being carried, and exists to the same extent as when they are put upon the train ; but that all " way-side deposits " made for the purpose of saving the trouble of hauling to the regular depot are at the risk of the owner until the goods are put upon the cars." So where the goods were stored in the warehouse or upon the platform of a railroad company with the permission of its agent, with the understanding that they should be shipped as soon as cars could be had to transport them and the permission of the military authorities which then had control of the road could be obtained, it was held that this did not constitute such a delivery to the road as a carrier as to make the company responsible in that character for the loss of the goods, but that they had incurred liability only as warehousemen. . It would have been different, how- ever, it was said, had the agent given a shipping receipt or entered into an express contract to transport the goods un- conditionally.* N. C. 158. See, also, Land v. Railroad the goods are actually accepted for Co., 104 N. C. 48. carriage, and the carrier may become A mere switch at which there is liable then without giving a bill of neither agent, station nor platform is lading, even though a statute pro- not a depot at which delivery may be vides that transportation shall be made to the carrier. Kansas City, deemgd to have commenced when etc. R. Co. V. Lilly, — Miss. — , 8 S. the bill of lading is signed. East Rep. 644. Line, etc. E'y Co. v. Hall, 64 Tex. 615. 1 Wells V. Railroad Co., 6 Jones' L. ■' See ante, § 90 and notes. , 47. See Meyer v. Vicksburg^ R. E. « IlL Can. R R. u Ashmead, 58 HI Co., 41 La. Ann. 639, cited in note to 487 ; Same v. McClellan, 54 id. 58 ; § 90. Same v. Homberger, 77 id. 457. 2 The delivery is complete when 7 97 §§ 98, 99.] THE LAW OF CAEEIEES. § 98. When carrier deemed to have accepted goods. — The long-established and familiar rule ' as to the warehouseman, that his liability commences as soon as the goods arrive at his warehouse and the crane of the warehouse has been applied to them to raise them into the warehouse, has been apphed to the common carrier under similar circumstances, and the de- livery to him and his acceptance of the goods held to com- mence from the moment he or his servants undertake to load them from the conveyance of another carrier upon his own and for that purpose have attached his tackle to them. And where an engine was sent by a truckman to the depot of a railroad company for shipment, the delivery to the road was held to be complete and its liability to have commenced as soon as the work of transferring the engine from the truck to the company's car had been commenced by means of a derrick, the agent of the company being present, superintending and directing the work, and the case was said to be the same in principle as that of the warehouseman. As soon, therefore, as the work of transferring the engine was commenced under the superintendence of the road, the liability of the truckman as carrier ceased and that of the company commenced.- § 99. 8ame subject. — When the owner of the goods has done all in his power and all that he is required to do by his under- standing with the carrier or the usage of the business to fur- ther the shipment, and it becomes then the duty of the carrier to do whatever else is necessary to put them in transitu, the delivery and acceptance will be considered as complete from the time the carrier is informed that they are ready for him. As where it was the course of business for a railroad company, when required to do so, to send its cars upon a side track at the place ' of shipment to receive cotton for transportation, and for the shipper there to load upon them the freight, make out a manifest and leave it with the agent of the company, who then had the bales counted, signed bills of lading, and sent locomotives to remove the cars thus loaded and place them in the train destined to the point to which the shipments were to be made, it was held that the delivery was complete 1 Thomas u Day, 4 Esp. 363. « Merritt v. The Raih-oad, 11 AUen, 80. 98 DELIVEET TO THE CAEEIEE. [§§ 99a, 100, as soon as the cotton was put upon the company's cars in this manner by the shipper and the company's agent informed of the fact.' § 99a. Same subject — Implied acceptance. — So where the carrier has actually accepted the goods and undertaken their carriage, evidence of a formal or express acceptance is unnec- essary. Thus where property was placed by the owner in a car for transportation without express authority from any authorized agent, but an agent having authority to receive thp property for transportation knew that it w^,s so placed there, and for what purpose, and did not object but permitted it to go forward, it was held that there was an implied under- taking on the part of the company to carry, and on the part of the owner to pay a reasonable compensation therefor.^ § 100. ChecJdng, m,emorandum or entry on way-Mil not nec- essa/ry to complete delivery. — It has been often determined that no checking, written memorandum or entry upon a way- bill is necessary to complete the delivery. All that is neces- sary is a deposit of the gopds with the carrier for the purpose of transportation ; and if they be accepted by him to be sent forward in the ordinary course of his business, whether they are to be accompanied by their owner or not, the full respon- sibility of the carrier at once begins. Thus where the plaint- iff, who intended to leave upon an afternoon train, carried his trunk to the depot in the forenoon, but was told by the agent of the road that it did not check baggage until within a few minutes before the train was to start, M^hereupon the plaintiff left his trunk in the care of the agent, and during the day, and after its delivery to the agent, it was broken open and rifled, it was held that the custom of checking could have no effect upon the character of the delivery, and that the company held the trunk from the first as a common carrier.' And it may be stated generally that the baggage of a passenger deposited with the carrier or left with his agent at the usual place for delivering baggage, the passenger intending to proceed with it in the next train, boat or other conveyance, is in the custody of the carrier as carrier and not as warehouseman or ordinary •DL Cen. R. R. u. Smyser, 38 111. 2 Aiken v. Railway Co., 68 Iowa, 8H See a«fe, § 90 and oases cited. 363. s Hickox V. The E. R, 31 Conn. 381. 99 § 101.] THE LAW OF OAUEIEES. bailee.' And where the owner of a carpet-bag, who had en- gaged but had not paid for his passage upon a boat, left it on the boat and temporarily absented himself, during which time ij; was stolen, in consequence of which he did not proceed upon his intended trip, it was held that he was entitled to recover for his loss.^ But where the owner of a trunk deposited it on the boat in the usual place for baggage and then left the boat without giving any notice of his intention to become a pas- senger, it was held that he could not recover for its loss during his absence, upon the ground that not having engaged his pas- sage or given any notice of his intention to do so, the boat was not bound to treat his trunk as the baggage of a pas- senger but merely as ordinary freight ; and that as he had given no notice to any of the officers of the boat, there had been no valid delivery, though it had been deposited in the usual place for baggage.' As has been seen, the carrier is not liable until there has been a complete delivery.* § 101. Delivery to ferry^men, when complete. — Ferry-men, it has been held, become responsible for the property which thej transport as common carriers as soon as it has been brought Upon the drop or sUp of the boat,' and even before it has been completely put upon the ferry-bo&t and before it is put actu- ally into the charge of the ferry-man.« But the better opinion would seem to be that the ferry-man should have been put into the custody of the property before the absolute liabihty of the common carrier of goods should be imposed upon him. When the owner of the property retains its custody and keeps it under his own control, there has not been, it is said, such a delivery as is necessary to subject the ferry-man to the rigorous liabihty of an insurer, and he should be considered in such cases as un- dertaking for its safety only against defects in his boat and other apphances for the performance of the service, and for the neglect or want of skill of himself or his servants.' 1 Camden T. Co. v. Belknap, 31 6 Blakely v. Le Due, 19 Minn. 187. ^^°^- 354- 7 Wyckof v. The Ferry Ca, 52 N. Y. 2 Woods V. Devin, 18 111. 746. 82 ; White v. TheWinnissimmettCo;, 3 Wright w Caldwell, 3 Mich. 51. 7 Cush. 155. «See ante, § 82. The opinion of the court in this 'Cohen v. Hume, 1 MoCord, 439; case, not only aa it respects thelia- Miles V. James, id. 157 ; Cook w Gour- bility of ferry-men, but of cairiera din,. 8 Nott & McCord, 19. generaUy, is so appropriate and in- IQO DELIVEEY TO THB OAEEIEE. [§ 102. § 102. Deli/very to connecUng carriers to complete the trans- portation. — The question as to whether, under the circum- stances, a delivery has been made by one of several connecting hnes of carriers to another to which a delivery was neces- structive that we append so much of it as relates to this subject Dewey, J. : " To a certain extent, persons keeping and naalntaining a ferry are common carriers. It would be so if a bale of goods or an ai-ticle of merchandise was delivered by the owner to the agent of a ferry com- pany to be carried from one place to another for hira Upon receiving Buch goods for ti-ansportation the ferry company stipulate to carry them safely, and subject themsel\ies to a strict liability for the safe car- riage and delivery of such goods, being only exempted for losses occa- sioned by those acts which .are de- nominated ' acts of God or of a public enemy.' The principle above stated would embrace the case of a horse and wagon received by a ferry-man to be transported by him on a feiTy- boat, the ferry-man accepting the ex- clusive custody of the same for such purpose, and the owner having, for the time being, surrendered the pos- session to the ferry-man. " But if the traveler uses the ferry- boat as he would a toU-bridge, per- sonally driving his horse upon the boat, selecting his position on the same, and himself remalDing on the boat, neither putting his horse into the care and custody of the ferry- man, nor signifying to him or his servants any wish or purpose to do so ; and the only possession and cus- tody by the ferry man of the horse and vehicle to which he is attached, is that which necessarily results from the traveler's driving his horse and wagon or other vehicle on board the boat and paying the ordinary toll for a passage; in such case the ferry company would not be chargeable Y.'ith the full liabilities of- common earners of merchandise. The lia- bility in this case would be one of a different character; and if the pro- prietors of the ferry were chargeable for loss or damage to the property, it would be upon different principles. In reference to persons thus using the ferry, the company have respon- sible duties to perform, the neglect of which may charge them for the loss of goods and property placed on board then- boat, when the loss has been occasioned by their default. It is the duty of a ferry company to provide a good and safe boat, suitable for the business in which they are engaged, and they are required to have all suitable and requisite ac- commodations for the entry upon, the safe transportation while on board, and the departure from, the boat, of all horses and vehicles pass- ing over such ferry. They ai'e re- quired to be provided with all proper and necessary servants and agents requisite for the safe and proper con- ducting of the business of the ferry, and with all proper and suitable guards and barriers on the boat, and to prevent damage from such casual- ties as it would naturally be exposed to, though there was ordinary care on the part of the traveler. For neg- lect of duty in these respects they may be charged, but the liability is different from that of common car- riers. The case of such a traveler, though not entirely similar, much more resembles that of a traveler upon a toll-bridge or turnpike road, 101 § 102.] THE LAW OF CAEKIEES. sary in order to complete the transportation of the goods, becomes frequently one of very great importance not only to the owner of the goods but to the connecting carriers them- selves ; for in many such cases the liability of the one or the who, while he uses the easement of band, by their own volimtarj-acts,of another, yet retains the possession and ojistody of his horse and wagon. The party thus driving his own horse upon the boat, and retaining the cus- tody of him, is bound, like the trav- eler on the toU-bridge or turnpike road, to use ordinary care and over- sight in respect to his horse while on the boat, and if he does not use such Ordinary care and oversight in re- spect to him, and for the want thereof the horse leaps overboard, or receives on the boat some injury, all of which might and would have been avoided if the party had used proper care and diligence, such party would himself bear the loss which has thus been occasioned by his own neglect " In deciding upon the nature and extent of the liability of ferry-men, and how far they are to be charged as common carriers, regard is to be had to the nature of the employment, and especially to the thing to be trans- ported. This principle is practically applied in the well-known distinction relating to the liability of the propri- etors of stage-coaches and other vehi- cles, as to the carriage of pereon-s. No person thus can-ied in a public vehicle can recover damages for an injury to his person if his want of ordinary care contributed to the in- jury. Such carriers are not common caiTiers, with all the liabilities as such. One reason for the distinction is, that the persons thus carried are not, and cannot be placed, under the same custody and conti-ol as bales of goods. Being intelligent beings, and haying the power of locomotion, and having the opportunity on the one exposing themselves to greater haz- ard, and on the other of guarding, to some extent, against perils, the law properly requires a person thus car- ried to exercise the ordinary care and vigilance to avoid exposure to dan- ger, and if this is not exercised, and an injury is sustained, the carrier is not liable therefor. " The same principle is further il- lustrated in the various decisions of tbe courts in cases of actions insti- tuted for the purpose of charging the carriers of slaves as common carriers of merchandisa It was successfully and certainly most properly con- tended as to the carriage of slaves, that in those states where slavery is allowed by law, and where slaves are to some purposes treated as chattels, yet as they are human beings and cannot and ought not to be stowed away and confined like bales of goods, and placed under the absolute control of the carrier, the principle of the common law applicable to common carriers of merchandise could not be applied to the carriers of slaves. This was so held in Boyce V. Anderson, 3 Pet 150 ; Clark v. Mc- Donald, 4 McCord, 233. '■ As having some bearing also on this question, we may allude to the modification of the principle of gen- ei'al liability as common carriers, in those cases where the owner of the goods accompanies them in their transit, retaining a certain control over them, as in Brind v. Dale, 8 Car. & P. 207, where it was held that if the owner of the goods accompanies them, to take care of tliem, and is 103 DELIVEET TO THE OAKEIEE. [§ 102. other will depend entirely upon the question of delivery ; and without determining this question the owner cannot know against which of them to seek his remedy in case of loss when there is no partnership or joint liability, the rule being well settled that the obligation of the first or any preceding car- rier is discharged when he has safely delivered the goods to the next succeeding carrier to whom such delivery is required in order to complete the transportation, whenever he has not bound himself to carry to destination, or has not assumed re- SDonsibility, for those who connect with him.' himself guilty of negligence, lie is not entitled to recover. This case also affirms as a rule of law a principle often found elsewhere, and which bears directly, as we think, upon the case before us, ' that a party cannot recover if his own negligence "was as much the cause of the loss as that of the defendant.' "Thus we perceive that a modifi- cation of the liability attached to common carriers occurs, as the nat- ure of the thing to be carried, and the extent of the custody and control over it by the carrier, varies. We think that the propriety of such mod- ification of what is certainly a very stringent rule of Uability, in refer- ence to cases where the entire cus- tody and control of the property is not with the carrier, is quite obvious. " The case of a traveler conveyed by means of a ferry-boat, where the traveler enters upon the boat driv- ing his.horse, attached to a wagon or other vehicle, selecting his own place upon the boat, and continuing to retain under his own custody his horse and wagon, neither commit- ting it to the care of Ijhe ferry-man or his servants, nor signifying any wish or pm-pose so to do, presents another instance where the liability of the carrier must be considered as of a restricted character; and as in the case of the carrier of persons, duties devolve upon the traveler, and he is bound to use ordinary care and dili- gence in respect to his horse and ve- hicle, in order to prevent, as far as he can by such care; any injury occur- ring from fright or from other cause, immediately resultingf rom the move- ments of the horse. When such horse or other animal is surrendered into the custody of the ferry-man, the driver is bound to do all that can be effected by reasonable diligence and supervision to prevent a loss of his property occasioned by his horse becoming restless or affrighted. If the traveler whoUy neglects his duty in this respect, leaving his horse without any oversight, and the horse, with- out fault of the feriy-man, becomes affrighted and throws himself and the vehicle to which he is attached overboard, when by proper care and attention of the driver this casualty would In all reasonable probability have been avoided, the loss must fall upon the traveler." A different conclusion h^, how- ever, as we have seen, been reached in other cases, and some of them have even gone so far as to hold that the custody of the owner is the cus- tody of thefeiTy-man.the former be- coming the agent of the latter for taking care of the property. Ante, § 58, n. 1 This subject is fully discussed in 103 § 102«.] THE LAW OF CAEEIEES. § 102a. Duty of first carrier to effect delivery to succeeding ca/rrier. — It is the duty of the first of two connecting carriers, upon the arrival of the goods at the point of connection with the succeeding carrier, if he knows where and to whom thej are to be delivered, to use reasonable diligence to deliver the goods to the Succeeding carrier, and, at aU events, to make a tender of delivery, and to stand ready to dehver them in ac- cordance with the tender.' If any particular carrier has been designated as the succeeding carrier, the goods must be de- livered to him if he will accept them,^ and for a failure so to deliver them the first carrier wiU be liable as for a conversion.' If there is but one connecting carrier, it will be presumed that he was intended ; if there be more than one but none desig- nated, then the first carrier will perform his duty if he delivers them to be forwarded in the usual and customary way.* When the succeeding carrier has been designated, but, for any reason, as the sudden cessation of his operations, he cannot take the goods, the first carrier will perform his duty, where the goods are perishable, if he forward them by the best means reasonably to be had,' and he is not liable if they perish the following chapter, where a full are to be forwarded is designated in citation of authorities will be found the biU of lading. In such a case, 1 Regan v. Eailway Co., 61 N. H. the bill of lading being silent in re- 579 r McKay v. Railroad Co., 50 Hun, spect to the line by which the goods 563 ; Insurance Co; v. Railroad Co., are to be forwarded, its effect is the 8 Baxt 268 ; Whitworth v. Railroad, same as if a provision were therein 87 N. Y. 413 ; Rawson v. Holland, 59 inserted that the carrier should have N. Y. 611 ; Burroughs v. RaUroad Co., the right to select at his discretion 100 Mass. 26 ; Dunham v. Railroad any customary or usual route which Co., 70 Me. 164 was regarded as safe and reasonabla" 2 Rawson v. Holland, 59 N. Y. 611. Snow v. Railway Co., 109 Ind. 432. 3 Georgia R Co. v. Cole, 68 Ga. 623. 5 In Regan v. Railway Co., 61 N. H. iRawBoni;. Holland, 59 N.Y. 611; 579, perishable goods had been Lamb V. Raihroad, 46 N. Y. 271 ; Van shipped by defendants' railway to its Santvoord v. St John, 6 Hill, 160. terminus at Portland, whence they '•A shipper, who receives a bill of were to be shipped by boat to Boston, lading for goods consigned to a point The goods reached Portland in due beyond the terminus of the initial course on Saturday after the boat caiTier's line, authorizes the initial had gone. Sunday no boat ran. and carriers to select any usual or reason- on Monday the boat agent notified ably direct and safe route by which defendants' agent that on account of to forward after the goods reach the a severe storm raging no boat would eaA of his line, unless the particular run that day, and that he did not Ime by which the goods consigned know when it would run again as it 104 DELIVEET TO THE OAEEIEE. [§ 102a. without his fault before he can forward them.* If the goods have come into the hands of the first carrier with instructions or conditions as to their ultimate delivery or disposition, it is the duty of the first carrier to see that the same instructions looked like a long storm. Defend- ant's agent therefore sent the goods on that day to Boston by railroad, but did, not notify consignee of the changa The train got off the track owing to the storm and was delayed, so that when the goods reached Bos- ton they were damaged. Said the court: "The defendants' undertak- ing was to carry the plaintiff's goods from Groveton to Portland, and de- liver them to the boat for transporta- tion to the consignee at Boston. When they had carried the goods to the terminus of their line in Port- land, and had notified the agent of the boat line that they were ready to deliver the goods for further convey- ance, they had done all that was re- quired by the terms of their contract ; and if the ordinary running of the boat had not been interrupted, they would have been relieved from further Uability. Gray v. Jackson, 51 N. H. 9 ; Insurance Co. v. Railroad, 104 TJ. S. 146. By" an unforeseen event, for which the defendants were not responsible, it was impossi- ble to forward the goods by the con- veyance specified. The failure of the boat to run as usual did not im- pose upon them the duty of trans- porting the goods from Portland to Boston. That duty they had never assumed, and no change of circum- stances could subject them to the extraordinary responsibilities of car- riers beyond the termination of their route. But, although they owed no duty of further transportatiouj the defendants were bound to the exer- cise of reasonable care, si^A to so conduct in relation to the plaintiff's goods that he should suffer no un- necessary loss or damage. Though no longer liable as common carriers, they were liable as depositaries, and required to exei-cise ordinary care in the custody of the goods. In cases of accident or emergency, it some- times happens, although the transit is at an end, that the duty is cast on the carrier of taking such reasonable care of the property as a reasonable owner would take of his own goods. Railway Co. v. Swaffield, L. R 9 Ex. 132. And a carrier is bound to use all reasonable means, such as a pru- dent owner being present would take, to save the property from loss by natural causes. , Edward's BaU., sec. 598; Peck v. Weeks, 34 Conii. 145; American Express Co. v. Smith, 83 Ohio St. 511 ; S. C, 31 Am. Rep. 561, and notes, 567; Empire Transporta- tion Co. V. Wallace, 68 Pa. St 302 ; N. & C. R. R Co. V. David, 6 Heisk. 361. What constitutes such reason- able care and diligence is a question of fact to be determined with refer- ence to aU circumstances of the casa Cass w B. & L. R. R, 14 Allen, 448, 450. The defendants' agent learning that the boAt would be prevented from running on account of the storm, and knowing the perishable character of the goods, forwarded them the same afternoon by the 'As where goods are to be for- warded by steamboat but boats can- not run because of low water, and before goods can be forwai-ded they are burned in the warehouse by ac- cidental fire. Homthal v. Steamboat Co., 107 N. C. 76. 105 §103.] THE LAW OF OABEIEES. and conditions are transmitted to the succeeding carrier, and if he fails to do so and the goods are thereby lost he will be liable.' § 103. Wlien liability of first carrier terminates. — But the responsibility for the safety of the goods can only be shifted when there has been such a change in the possession of them from the one to the other as wiU be tantamount to a delivery to the latter or succeeding carrier ; ^ or, in case the succeeding Eastern Railroad; and the referee finds that in so doing he exercised due care and prudence, but that he was negligent in not notifying the consignee of the change of route. He also finds that such notice would not have avoided the loss, and that the plaintiff suffered no injury by reason of the negUgence of the de- fendants' agent Upon these facts the plaintiff's action cannot be main- tained. After the termination of the defendants' liability as common car- rier, they were answerable only for injuries happening in consequence of their own negligence. They were not responsible for losses which they could not have prevented by the ex- ercise of due care. Sh. & Red. Neg., sec 8." 'North V. Transportation Co., 146 Mass. 315. 2 Reynolds v. RaUroad Co., 121 Mass. 291 ; Insurance Co. v. Railroad Co., 8 Baxt 268 ; Leginsky v. Great Western Dispatch, 10 Mo. App. 134 ; Gray v. Jackson, 51 N. H. 9 ; Insur- ance Company v. Railroad Co., 104 U. S. 146 ; Regan v. RaUway, 61 N. H. 579 ; McKay v. Railroad Co., 50 Hun, 563. Where cotton shipped by one rail- road arrived at the point of connec- tion with the succeeding railroad in the eveniQg, and next morning tile car was placed on the switch or " Y " which connected the two tracks, but the car had not been hauled to the transfer platform of the second road, nor had the cotton been examined or checked off the bill of lading, and the cotton was burned after standing for three hours on the switch, it was held that the delivery was not com- plete, and that the first company was stUl liable. Insurance Co. v. Railroad Co., 8 Baxt. 268. For a similar case, see, also, Alabama, etc. R. R. u Mt Vernon Co., 84 Ala. 173. And to constitute a delivery, either actual or constructive, even as be- tween the connecting carriers them- selves, the goods must have been at least removed from the conveyance on which they have been transported to the point of connection for further shipment Where a steamboat and a railroad formed by agreement a continuous line, and the steamboat arrived at a wharf owned by the i-aUroad com- pany, upon which the goods had to be unloaded for the railroad, where- upon the employees of both the boat and the railroad commenced unload- ing the goods by hand and in trucks,' and carrying them across the wharf to the cars, no account being kept of the goods taken from the boat or to the railroad or put upon the wharf, and while they were thus engaged, and before the goods had been re- moved from the boat, the wharf, boat and goods took flre and were burned, it was held that the railroad was not liable for the goods whidi had not been removed from the boat having neither actual nor construct- 106 DELIVERY TO THE OAEEIEE. [§ 103. carrier neglects or refuses, after notice of their arrival and a tender of delivery, to receive the goods, then, when the first carrier, after notice of all these facts to the consignor or con- signee, has used reasonable diligence to store and care for the goods, and has renounced his relation of carrier to them,^ He certainly cannot relieve himself from his liability as an in- surer of the goods by simply unloading them at the end of his route and' storing them in a warehouse, without delivery to the connecting carrier in the route or an attempt to de- Uver to him.^ ive possession of them, and that there had been no dehvevy even of the goods which had been taken in charge for the purpose of removal by its own servants or employees if not actually removed from the boat. Grass V. N. Y. etc. Railroad, 99 Mass. 220. iLesinsky v. Great Western Dis- patch, 10 Mo. App. 134; Regan v. Railway, 61 N. H. 579; McKay v. Railroad Co., 50 Hun, 563; Whit- worth V. Railroad, 87 N. Y. 413 ; Con- don V. Railroad Co., 55 Mich. 318. InWhitworth v. Railroad, supra, plaintiff had sl:(ipped cotton from Memphis for Liverpool. It was con- tracted to be carried to New York by a dispatch company which conducted its operations over a number of suc- cessive railroads of which the defend- ant was the last, its terminus being in Jersey City. Defendjant carried the cotton to Jersey City, where a portion of it, then in defendant's warehouse, was destroyed by fire, without any negligence on defend- aift's part. It appeared that the way- bills of the dispatch company con- signed the property to its agents in New York. The uniform course of business between defendant and the dispatch Company had been for de- fendant, on arrival of property, to give notice thereof to the agent named in the way-bill, whose duty it then was to obtain a permit f I'om the steamship company for delivery to the latter and to give the permit to defendant ; and on receipt of it the defendant would deliver the goods on lighters to the proper v^sel. On ar- rival of the cotton in question, prompt notice was given to the proper agent, but permits were not obtained, and defendant, although persistently urg- ing said agent to obtain the permits, was unable to get rid of the cotton. Held that, assuming that there was unreasonable detentioii of the cotton, defendant was not responsible for the delay in deUvery ; that it had fully discharged its duty when it gave prompt notice of the arrival and held itself ready to deUver as soon as the permits were obtained. 2 Railroad Co. v. Manufacturing Co., 16 WalL 818 ; Irish v. The Rail- way, 19 Minn. 376 ; Gass v. The RaU- road, 99 Mass. 220 ; West Trans. Co. V. Newhall, 34 HI. 477 ; Mer. Bes. Co. V. Kahn, 76 id. 520 ; L. & N. R R u Campbell, 7 Heisk. 253 ; BrintnaU v. The Railroad, 32 Vt. 665 ; Blossom v. Griffin, 3 Kern. 569; Mills v. The Railroad, 45 N. Y. 622 ; Root v. The Railroad, id. 524; Michaels v. The Railroad, 80 id. 564 ; Condiot v. Rail- way Co., 54 id. 500; McDonald v. Railroad, 84 id. 497 ; Ayies v. Rail- road, 14 Blatchf. 9. 107 § 103a.] THE LAW OF CAEEIEES. §103a. Same siibject — Duty when succeeding carrierneg- lects or refuses to receive the goods. — Where the succeeding carrier neglects or refuses for any reason or is unable to re- ceive the goods, the first carrier must use reasonable dihgence to notify the consignor or consignee, and to take reasonable care to preserve the goods from injury while awaiting instruc- tions as to their disposition. If he fails to use reasonable dili- gence to notify the consignor or consignee,' or if he leaves the goods exposed to danger,^ he will be liable for their loss or in- jury. In either case his hability as carrier is not terminated. Thus, where a succeeding carrier refused to accept goods in- tended for him, and the first carrier stored them in his ware- house, but did not give either the consignor or the consignee notice of the second carrier's refusal of them until about three months after they were shipped and six weeks after their non- arrival had been reported to him, after which time the con- signee refused to accept them as the season for their salabihty had passed, and they had greatly declined in value, it was held that the first carrier was liable for the injury so occasioned.' Failure to give such notice, however, will not be a ground for the recovery of damages when notice would not have averted the loss, and parties suffered no injury by reason of the failure to give it.* So where goods were delivered to a common carrier by water to be forwarded over several connecting lines, and at the end of its own route it deposited them upon a float of its own, lying in a basin, which was prepared and kept by it for the purpose of delivering freight to the connecting car- rier, and though it gave notice to such connecting carrier on three successive days that the goods were on the float for it, accompanied by a request to come and take them away, yet permitted the goods to remain for three days on the float, and on the afternoon of the third day the float and goods were destroyed by fire not attributable to the negligence of the carrier, it was held that his liability as common carrier still continued when the goods were burned.' 1 Petersen v. Case, 21 Fed. Rep. 885 ; s Lesinsky v. WestefOi Dispatch, 10 Lesinsky v. Great Western Dispatch, Mo. App. 13 1. 10 Mo. App. 1.34. 4 Regan v. Railway Ca, 61 N. H. 2Goold V. Chapin, 20 N. Y. 259; 579. Miller V. Navigation Co., 10 N. Y. 481. ^Goold v. Chapin, 20 N. Y. 359; 108 DELIVEET TO THE CAEEIEE. [§ 1035. § 1035. Same subject — How duty affected iy usage. — "It is said in Van Santvoord v. St. John,' that a carrier who receives a box marked in a particular way, without any directions ex- cept such as may be inferred from the marks themselves, has Miller v. Navigation Co., 10 N. Y. 431. In Lesinsky v. Western Dispatch, 10 Mo. App. 134, supra, Thompson, J., says: "By accepting the plaintiff's goods, directed to a point beyond the termination of its own line, and con- signed to the care of a carrier whose line connected with its line, the de- fendant assumed the duty of deliver- ing them to such connecting carrier. Eawson v. Holland, 59 N. Y. 611. De- livery, to the connecting carrier in this case being impossible by reason of the fact that such carrier refused to receive the goods, did the defend- ant incur liability to the plaintiff for failing to give notice of that fact? " It is familiar law.that the liability of a carrier does not cease till he has delivered the goods to the consignee, or made a reasonable attempt to de- liver them. "Where his own route extends to the place of ultimate destination of the goods, and the consignee refuses to receive the goods, he ordinarily dis- charges himself from liability by stor- ing the goods safely without giving notice to the consignor, although there are some cases which hold that such notice must be given. The rea- son why such notice is not ordinarily required seems to be that the con- signee is presumptively the owner of the goods, the consignor the agent of the owner for the purpose of ship- ment, and the carrier, in like manner, the agent of the owner. Hutch, on Car. § 108; Briggs v. Railroad Co., 6 Allen, 246. It is, therefore, a case where am agent tenders performance of his contract to his principal, and the latter refuses, in which case there seems to be no good reason why the agent should be held bound to notify a third person of that fact. But the reason of this rule does not apply to the case where the earner undertakes to transport goods over his own line and deliver them to a connecting carrier to complete the transit. Here, the goods having passed wholly out of sight of both the consignor and consignee, if, from any circumstance, delivery to the succeeding carrier be- comes impossible, the former carrier is under an obvious duty to notify either the consignor or the consignee, unless it is impracticable to do so. Where notice may be readily sent by letter or by telegram, he is, on prin- ciple, guilty of a clear breach of duty if he neglects to send it, and there are cases which so hold. Convoy's Wheat, 3 Wall. 225 ; Railroad Co. v. CampbeU, 7 Heisk. 258, 261. " In all of these cases the carrier is bound to do what, under the circum- stances, is reasonable. Hudson v. Baxendale, 2 Hurl. & N. 575. Where, as in this case, the goods have passed out of the hands and out of the sight bot^ of the consignor and the con- signee, and are interrupted in their transit by a circumstance unknown to either, but known to the carrier, it cannot for a moment be argued that the carrier does what is reason- able by housing the goods, giving notice to no one, and losing all knowl- edge of them himself. No more con- vincing argument against such a con- clusion could be suggested than the 16 Hill, 160. 109 § 103&.] THE LAW OF CAEKIEES. a right to presume that the consignor intends that he shall transport and dispose of them in the usual and customary way. That was the case of a carrier by tow-boats on the Hud- son river who received a package marked ' J. Petrie, Little Falls, Herkimer county,' and it was held that the first carrier was justified in delivering it at the end of his route to a suc- ceeding carrier by canal, and was discharged thereby from further responsibility ; it being shown that there was a gen- eral, established and uniform usage in the business that such delivery might be made ; and it was also held that the con- signor was bound by it whether he knew it or not. And in Gibson v. Culver ' it was held that the general obligation created by law in respect to the mode of delivery by a car- rier may be controlled by a uniform usage and course of the business in which he is engaged." ^ But a custom of a partic- ular road that goods destined to points on another which con- nected with it should be detained until notice was given to the consignees and their direction taken as to sending them by that road will ,not relieve the first road from its obligation to deliver, and it will be liable if the goods are lost during the delay. " The proof," says Andrews, J., " falls far short of es- tablishing a custom superseding the general obligation of the defendant to make delivery of the goods to the next carrier. At most it was a usage recently established and confined to the particular business of the defendant at a particular place, not known to the plaintiffs, and which they were not bound to ascertain. The usage relied upon in this case lacks the essen- tial elements of a valid usage. It is neither general, estab- circumBtances of this case. Here for this reason, greatly depreciated were goods of the value of several in value. This seems to make out a hundred dollars, interrupted in their clear case for the recovery of dam- ti-ansit at a point remote from con- ages. But if, in addition to this, the signor and consignea A postal circumstances which obstructed the card costing a cent, and a few goods in their transit existed for six scratches of a pen by a clerk, would days only after they arrived at the have notified either of this fact For end of its line, and the defendant nearly three months a knowledge of knew of the fact of the obstruction their whereabouts was completely being removed, then the failure of lost to the consignor, the consignee duty on its part is still more clear." and the defendant In the meantime > 17 Wend. 805. the season during which they were 2 Per Andrews, J., in Eawson v. salable had passed, and they were, Holland, 59 N. Y. 6ia 110 DELIVEET TO THE CAEEIEE. [•§ 104. lished, uniform or continuous. It would be unreasonable to give it effect in this case to defeat a recovery by the plaintiffs. The parties did not make their contract in reference to it, and cannot be presumed to have done so. It is the general rule that a local usage must be shown to have been known to a party before he will be held to be bou'nd by'it." ' § 104. Agreements hetween ca/rriers not MncUng on owner. — As between the connecting carriers themselves it is undoubt- edly true that by express agreement, by usage and custom in a particular trade, or from the course of dealing between the particular carriers, the responsibility may be changed from one to another by what is known as constructive delivery, which implies no actual or manual transfer of the possession of the goods. But as to the owner of the goods the doctrine of constructive delivery can have no application, and he can be required to look for the reparation of his loss only to the car- rier in the actual possession when.it occurred; and the carrier whose duty it was to make the delivery to the succeeding one will be presumed to have still had the possession until it be shown that it had been actually transferred to another. In Conkey v. The Eailway,^ the defendant carried the goods to the end of its own route and deposited them in a part of its warehouse appropriated to freight going to the point to which the goods in question were consigned, and it was proven to have been the course of business between the defendant and the connecting line that when goods were so deposited they were taken by the latter without further notice, and that it had had in this instance ample time and opportunity to re- move the goods after thiey had been so deposited. The con- tention, therefore, was that the plaintiff's recourse was upon the connecting carrier which was thus shown to have been in fault, and not upon the defendant. But the court, in an able opinion by Dixon, C. J., held that the rights of the owner of the goods could not be affected by a delivery by usage and notice, as was claimed, when it was to be made by one carrier to another for the purpose of continuing the transportation; and that in an action to recover for the loss in such cases, proof of the actual possession by the defendant is conclusive 1 See, also, Dunham v. E. R. Co., 70 Me. 164 « 31 Wis. 619. Ill § 10&.] THE LAW OF CAEEIEES. against him. But (t was said that as between the carriers themselves the loss should be borne by the one in fault, and that there could be no doubt that if the one not in fault be compelled to account to the owner for the loss, he could com- pel an adjustment by the other by the proper legal remedy. The owner can tiever know where the fault lay; nor is it in his power in many cases to ascertain whether a delivery from one to the other has been made or not, if such delivery is made to depend upon circumstances other than an actual change of possession. As between the carriers themselves, however, it would of course be generally known who was in fault; and whether known or not, it would be more consistent with jus- tice that they should settle between themselves upon whom the loss should fall, than that the owner who had sustained the loss should be put to the diflBcult task of finding out the truth, at the risk of being defeated in his suit. He is there- fore required to look no further than the actual possession at the time of the loss ; otherwise he might be the victim of a usage or a notice of which he had never heard.' § 105. Same subject — Illustrations. — So in the case of McDonald v. The Eailroad Corporation,^ the carrier took the goods to the end of its own route and there deposited them in 1 This case overruled the previous ered, it seems, as contracting in ref- case of Wood v. The Railway, in the erence to them, and will he held to same com-t, 27 Wis. 541, in which it have agi-eed with the carrier, where liad bgen held, under the same facts, there is no express contract, for the that the carrier had exonerated him- transportation and disposal of his ^elf from liability to the owner by goods in the way usual and custom- the constructive delivery, by usage ary with him. Van Santvoord v. St and notice, upon the ground that the John, 6 Hill, 157; Mills v. The Eail- shipper was bound to know the road, 45 N. Y. 62a Still, in that usages and general com-se of business state, no case is to be found, out of between the carrier to whom he in- the many decided upon the subject, trusted his goods and the succeed- in which the carrier whose duty i* ing carrier, as to the manner of deliv- was to deliver the goods to the con- ery for further carriage from one to necting carrier has been exonerated the other, and was, therefore, bound from Uability to the owner upon the by them. That the owner of the ground of a delivery to such connect- goods is bound to take notice of such ing carrier constructively, although customary courses of dealing be- it might have been the customary tween connecting lines of carriers mode of deliverj- between the two seems also to be the rule of the New carriers. York courts, and he is there consid- 2 34 N. Y. 497 112 DELIVEET TO THE CAEEIBE. [§ 105. its own warehouse, from which it was proven the succeeding carrier was accustomed to take them without further notice, but that in this instance he neglected to do so for some two weeks, at the end of which time they were destroyed by an accidental fire while they still remained in the defendant's warehouse. In the meantime the defendant had made no request of the succeeding carrier to take the goods, nor had it in any way attempted to divest itself of the liability of a com- mon carrier by renouncing that relation, as, it was said, it per- haps might have done. It was contended that under these circumstances the defendant had done all that it could be re- quired to do as carrier, and that its liability at the time of the loss was, at most, only that of warehouseman ; but it was held that it had done nothing which changed its responsibility as carrier to the owner of the goods, and that it was therefore liable to him for the loss. So in Condon v. Eailroad Company,^ the defendant had received from the preceding carrier goods which had come over a number of lines from 'Sew York. Defendant carried them to the end of its line and deposited them in its warehouse. Erom its terminus the goods were to be forwarded by an overland transportation company to their destination. It appeared that it was the customary mode of business for the receipts of goods to be entered at the ware- house upon books of the defendant which were open to inspec- tion by the tra.nsportation company and which were regularly inspected by the agent of that company to ascertain what goods were to be taken by it. The transportation company was then accustomed to take all goods found consigned to places on its line, load them at the warehouse on its vehicles and rpceipt for them to the defendant. When the goods in question arrived no notice was given to the transportation company nor was the attention of the agent called to them, or any re- "quest made for their removal. They simply remained in the warehouse, where they were destroyed by accidental fire a week after their arrival. The action was brought to charge defendant as a common carrier, and it was resisted upon the ground that defendant's liability as a carrier had terminated. The court, however, held otherwise. " The connecting carriers !f55 Mich. 318. ^ 113 I 106.] THE LAW or CAERIEES. in this case," said Cooley, 0. J., " appear to have estabhshed a custom of their own, under which actual delivery of the goods or notice to take them was dispensed with, and the one was to ascertain from the books of the other what goods were ready for reception and further carriage. This, as between themselves, was well enough while it worked well ; but it was an arrangement to which the plaintiff was not a party, and the defendant could not by means of it relieve itself of any hability which duty to the plaintiff imposed. And it was clearly its duty to the plaintiff, as we think, to relieve itself of the re- sponsibility of the goods remaining for an unreasonable time in its warehouse ; and to do this, it was necessary that the re- sponsibility be transferred to the carrier next in line. But the mere permission to inspect its books and take whatever was ready for carriage would not do this ; there should have been distinct notice which would apprise the other carrier that de- fendant expected the removal of the goods. In this case there were no facts indicating a renunciation, as to these goods, of the liability of common carrier by the defendant, or that it was supposed by the agents of the defendant that that character had been exchanged for any other. If it ever was, it must have been at the moment the goods were received : for nothing took place afterwards to change the relation of the defendant to the goods until the fire took place. But we are not ready to assent to the doctrine that a railroad company, as to goods transported by it, ceases to be carrier the moment the goods are received at its warehouse. We do not think that is law or that it ought to be." § 106. Same suhjecl — Cases holding delivery eomplete. — But in Converse v. The Transportation Company,* where it appeared that the carrier by whom the transportation was to be continued and the incoming carrier used the same depot, and that when the latter brought in freight for further trans- portation by the former, it was, by usage and the mutual understanding of the carriers, deposited upon a particular plat- form in the depot at the side of the track of the connecting carrier, which was considered and treated as a delivery to it, and that this was done in this instance by the defendant as 183 Conn. 160. 114 DELIVERY TO THE CAEEIEK. [§§ 107, 108. soon as it arrived witli the freight, it was held that this vras such a delivery as to shift the liability for the further safety of the goods from the defendant which had thus deposited the goods, and that it could not therefore be made to account to the owner for their subsequent loss by fire. And in Pratt v. The Eailway Company ,i in which the facts were similar, the same conclusion was reached by the supreme court of the United States. But in both these cases the circumstances seemed to be regarded as .constituting an actual delivery to the succeeding carrier, the agent of such carrier in the latter case having actual knowledge of the arrival of goods and of their having been deposited in the depot for furtheT carriage by his road. § 107. Owner may recover for goods constructwely deliv- ered. — But it by no means follows that the owner of the goods may not recover for the loss from the connecting car- rier to whom they have been only constructively delivered. He is not obliged to look to him, and may pursue another in whom I was the last actual possession. But if, as between the carriers themselves, the one to whom delivery has been con- structively made for further carriage is the responsible party, there is no reason why he should not be liable also to th« owner of the goods. Thus where goods were carried to the end of the first carrier's route and there placed in a warehouse to be farther transported by the defendants, to whom notice was given of the arrival of the goods and by whom they were entered upon their books for transportation, it being the course of business for the defendants to take goods de'posited in the warehouse for them with notice without further delivery, it was held that they had become liable for the loss of the goods by an accidental fire after they had remained in the ware- house eight days awaiting removal. " In the present case," said the court, " the flour was not only deposited in the usual place, but notice was given to the defendants, who entered it upon their books. From this time it must be held to have been m the possession of the defendants as common carriers." '' § 108. First carrier as forwa/rding agent for owner. — When goods are delivered to the carrier for the purpose of being 195U. S. 43. 2^tna Ins. Co. v. Wheeler, 49 N. Y. .616. 115 8 108.] THE LAW OF CABEIEES. carried to a point beyond the terminus of its route, and for that purpose to be delivered by him to a connecting carrier in order to continue the carriage, or where it becomes necessary for that purpose to make successive deliveries from one to another upon a continuous line or succession of carriers, the first and each succeeding carrier becomes the agent of the owner of the goods to make delivery to the next carrier; and it is incumbent upon him to do so not only to relieve himseU from further liability, but because it is. a duty which he owes to the owner, and which he has assumed with the acceptance of the goods. He is the party in charge of them, and the only one with whom the succeeding carrier can make the nec- essary arrangements, and stands towards them for this pur- pose in the position of an owner.' Therefore, where there was a failure to deliver to such succeeding carrier, because one of his rules was that he would not receive goods for carriage without a written contract restricting his liability, which the carrier having the goods in possession did not feel authorized to accept, and therefore kept ^^hem in his warehouse for twenty days without offering them to the next carrier, or giv- ing him notice of their arrival, and whilst he awaited direc- tions from the consignee who had been informed of the fact, the goods were destroyed by fire, it was held that he should have tendered them to the next succeeding carrier, and that he would have been justified in delivering the goods and ac- cepting on behalf of their owners the usual terms required by the succeeding carrier ; and that not having done so, he con- tinued to hold the goods as a carrier, and was liable for their loss.^ In such cases, it is said that the owner constitutes the carrier his forwarding a,gent to deliver to the succeeding car- rier, and becomes himself responsible for his acts in the execu- tion of the agency 4_ 1 Nelson v. The EaUroad, 48 N. Y. each exercises an independent em- 507 : Squire v. The Railroad, 98 Mass. ployment as a contiactor with the 240 ; York Co. v. Centi-al R. R., 3 owner, and is responsible for its own Wall 113. negligence, but it cannot make the SRawson v. Holland, 59 N. Y. 611. owner responsible for the negligence ' Briggs V. The Railroad, 6 Allen, of a connecting road. To hke effect^ 246. In Sherman v. Hudson R. R. see Dunham v. Boston, etc. R. Ca, 70 Co., 64 N. Y. 255, it is said that neither Ma 164. A carrier acts as agent of company is an agent of the owner; the owner in turning tlie goods over 116 DELIVEEY TO THE CAEEIEK. [§§ 109, 110. § 109. Carrier cannot lecome wareliouseman of the goods while they are in transit. — ITo higher degree of responsibility, of course, rests upon the carrier while the goods are en route than when they have arrived at destination, so long as he stands to them in the relation of carrier. But when the ques- tion occurs whether by his course of dealing with them he has divested himself of that responsible relation, somewhat differ- ent consideration arises and somewhat different rules are to be applied when the goods are in itinere, from those which govern when the transit is brought to an end by their arrival at des- tination. As has been said, "the owner loses sight of his goods when he delivers them to the first carrier and has no means of learning their whereabouts till he or the consignee is informed of their arrival at destination. At each successive point of transfer from one carrier to another they are liable to be placed in warehouses, there perhaps to be delayed by the accumulation of freight or other causes and exposed to loss by fire or theft, without fault on the part of the carrier or his agent. Superadded to these risks are the dangers of loss by collusion, quite as imminent while the goods are thus stored at some point unknown to the owner as while they are in actual transit. As a general rule the storing of the goods under such circumstances should be held to be a mere acces- sory to the transportation, and they should be under the protection of the rule which makes the carrier liable as an in- surer from the time the owner transfers their possession to the first carrier until they are delivered to him at the end of the route." ' But when they have reached their destination, nothing more generally remains to be done by the carrier after storing them and giving notice of their arrival to the consignee, and after allowing a reasonable time for their re- moval he becomes a mere warehouseman; and if after that they a,re destroyed without his carelessness or neghgence, the loss must be borne, as in equity it should be, by the owner. § 110. Same subject. — This distinction has been expressly recognized and asserted by the supreme court of the United States in the case of The Eailroad Company v. The Manuf act- to the connecting carrier, and not as i McDonald v. The Bailroad, supra. agent of the latter. Marquette E. E. V. Kirkwood, 45 Mich. 51, 117 § 111-J THE LAW OF OAEEIEES. Bring Co.,' in which it is said that " there is a clear distinctioD, in our opinion, between property in a situation to be delivered over to the consignee on demand and property on its way to a distant point to be taken thence by a connecting carrier. In the former case it may be said to be awaiting delivery; in the latter to be awaiting transportation." And the same principle may be said to be indirectly recognized in most of the cases in which the duty of deKvery to the connecting car- riers has been discussed.^ § 111. Of the carrier's duty to accept and carry the goods.-^ It has been already stated in giving the definition of a com- il6WalL337. 2 The case of Ouimit v. Henshaw, 85 Vt 605, is an instructive case upon the subject of the duties of carriers in making delivery of goods to con- necting carriers for further carriage ; and though in relation to the bag- gage of a passenger, the same rea- sons apply more forcibly to goods in the hands of the common carrier. In this case it was known to the in- coming road that the baggage was to be forwarded upon another, which did not immediately connect with it however, either in time or place. The baggage was therefore stored by the agent of the first road untU the next morning, the time for the starting of the connecting train, according to the custom of the road and at the request of the passenger, who was as- sured that it would be safa In the m.orning the baggage could not be found and the road was held liable. It was said by the court that in such cases whenever the two roads con- nected in the same depot and the de- parture of the succeeding train was contemporaneous with the arrival of the incoming one, it was the duty of the latter to transfer the baggage to the outgoing train if so directed by the owner, or if it were known to its agent that the transportation was to be continued upon that train ; and that if there was not a close connec- tion between them, and a necessary detention for a short time, the cus- tody of the first road must be held to continue, unless otherwise desired by the passenger, until the time for the departure of the second; nor would the relation of the carrier, it was said, be changed by the fact that the baggage was stored by it in its store-room while awaiting the de- parture of another train. And it was stated as one of the reasons for this conclusion that what would con- stitute a delivery when the goods had arrived at destination would not nec- essarily do so when the baggage was stiU in transit, and tliat although the circumstances might have been held to amount to a delivery and to have changed the relation of the road to that of warehouseman, if it had not been known that the baggage was to be forwarded, it did not do so when this fact was known to the agent of the road. It should be observed in reference to this subject that the English cases throw no light upon it, inasmuch as tliere, what is known as the rule of Muschamp's Case, which makes the first or contracting carrier solely re- sponsible for the goods to the end of the transit, and which will be here- after explained, prevails. 118 DELIVEET TO THE GAEEIEE. [§ 11^, mon carrier that the obligation to accept the goods when they are tendered to him for carriage is an essential elenaent of his ■character, and that if there be no such obligation he is not a common carrier although he may carry for hire. But this is only a general statement of the law. There are goods which he is not bound to carry at all, and there may be circum- stances which will excuse him from carrying goods even of the kind which he is engaged generally in carrying and which generally he is bound to carry. He may therefore sometimes lawfully refuse to accept the goods ; and as the de- livery to him necessarily implies his acceptance, it involves the inquiry when such acceptance may be refused by him with- out subjecting himself to an action for so doing. § 112. Same subject — Not obliged to accept goods of a Mnd lie does not profess to carry. — It has been already observed "that no common carrier is a carrier of all kinds or classes of goods.' This would be impossible. Therefore before he can be made liable to damages for a refusal to carry such as are offered to him for that purpose, it must be jnade to ap- pear that they were of the kind which he usually carried, or which, by his public profession, he was bound to accppt for that purpose. The law will only impose the obligation upon him in this respect co-extensive with the public expectations which he has created by his course of business or the invita- tions he has publicly held out to those who may solicit his services. But it being a matter of universal knowledge that certain classes of carriers engaged generally in the carriage of certain kinds of gocids, when the kind of carrier and the nat- ure of the goods are designated, notice will in most cases be judicially taken whether the particular goods are of the kind which those of the class to which the carrier belongs usually ■carry ; and if they be, the presumption at once arises that he was under a legal obligation to accept and carry them. But still there may be many cases in which it cannot be known from common experience nor from the character of the busi- ness in which the carrier is engaged whether the particular goods are such that he, as a common carrier, is under a legal ■obligation to accept them for carriage, and in such cases it 1 See ante, §§ 56a, 77. 119 §§ 113, Hi.] THE LAW OF CAEEIEES, would devolve upon the party who insisted upon his liability for the refusal, to show from the nature of the employment, or from the usage of others similarly engaged, or from the pre- vious practice or course of business of the particular carrier himself, that the duty to accept was incumbent upon him. And even when from public notoriety or from the evidence which may be adduced, the presumption arises that the car- rier has unlawfully refused to accept or to carry the goods, it is still competent for him to show that although the goods are of the kind which carriers like himself are usually bound to carry, he has exonerated himself from the obligation to do so by pubUc notice or by his previous conduct in his business. § 113. Reasons which will justify refusal to accept. — So he may show other reasons for his refusal which will legally ex- cuse him. He may, for instance, lawfully refuse to receive them if they are improperly packed, or if they are otherwise in an unfit condition for carriage.' Or he may show that the goods offered were of a dangerous character, which might sub- ject him or his vehicle, or strangers or his passengers, or his other freight, to the risk of injury.^ And he may even refuse packages offered to him without being made acquainted with their contents, when there is good ground for believing that they are of a dangerous character.' But he would have no right, unless from the appearance of the package or from other circumstances his suspicions are reasonably aroused as to its contents, to require the owner who offered it for car- riage to disclose their nature. But when such is the case, it would not only be his right but his duty to ascertain the truth, and if they proved to be of such a dangerous character to refuse them.* § 114. Same subject — Press of business may justify refusal. He may also legally refuse to carry the goods or to accept them for carriage, if having provided himself with equipments and facilities for doing such an amount of business as, from 1 Union Ex. Co. v. Graham, 36 Ohio carriage. The Nith, 36 Fed. Eep 86 j St 595. 2 Pars. Cont 174. 2 The carrier is not bound to accept ' The Nitro-glycerine Case, 15 WalL for carriage goods which are likely 524. to injure goods already received for