the law of the place of contract, valid by the law of the place of destination, and invalid by the law of the forum, the ordinary presumption that the law of the place of contract applies would govern, and that law will be enforced unless a clear intention of the parties is shown to the contrary.4

Sec. 220. Enforcement of limitation invalid at place of contract, valid at destination, and valid at forum.-Where a stipulation as to limitation of liability would be invalid by the law of the place of contract, valid by the law of the place of destination and valid by the law of the forum, the two presumptions that the law of the place of contract should apply in the absence of evidence of the intention of the parties to the contrary and that the parties intended to make a valid contract counterbalance each other. The court should rest its decision, therefore, entirely on extrinsic evidence such as has already been suggested,5 and such a stipulation would necessarily be held invalid in some cases and valid in others, depending on the evidence.

4. In Knowlton v. Railroad, 19 Ohio St. 260, 2 Am. Rep. 395, a stipulation was valid by the law of New York, the place of contract and also destination, and invalid by the law of Ohio, the forum. The stipulation was held enforceable.

was English, that her owners were English, that England was the destination of the goods, that the bill of lading was in the English form, and that the contract was such as the English law approved, conclusive evidence that the parties had the English law

This rule would also govern in in view.
Kentucky. Tecumseh Mills v.
Railroad, 108 Ky. 572, 22 Ky. L.
Rep. 264, 57 S. W. Rep. 9, 49 L.
R. A. 557.

5. See ante, sec. 214.

6. Extrinsic evidence was resorted to in In re Missouri Steamship Co., 42 Ch. D. 321. In that case the stipulation in question was invalid by the law of Massachusetts, the place of contract, and valid by the law of England, the place of destination and the forum. The stipulation was held enforceable. The court unanimously found in the facts that the ship

Extrinsic evidence was also re sorted to in Grand v. Livingston, 4 App. Div. 589, 38 N. Y. Supp. 490, affirmed, 158 N. Y. 688, 53 N. E. Rep. 1125. In that case, a stipulation was invalid by the law of Massachusetts, the place of contract, and valid by the law of New York, the place of destination and the forum. The stipulation was held invalid.

See also Railroad v. Beebe, 174 Ill. 13, 50 N. E. Rep. 1019, 43 L. R. A. 210, 66 Am. St. Rep. 253, affirming 69 Ill. App. 363. (Stipulation held invalid according to Iowa law

Sec. 221. Enforcement of limitation invalid at place of contract, invalid at destination and valid at forum. Where a stipulation as to limitation of the carrier's liability would be invalid by the law of the place of contract, invalid by the law of the place of destination, and valid by the law of the forum, there can be no question about its enforcement. The court of the forum would always hold the stipulation invalid and unenforceable.

Sec. 222. Enforcement of limitation invalid at place of contract, valid at destination, and invalid at forum.-Where a stipulation as to limitation of the carrier's liability would be invalid by the law of the place of contract, valid by the law of the place of destination, and invalid by the law of the forum, the two presumptions that the law of the place of contract should apply in the absence of evidence of the intention of the parties to the contrary and that the parties intended to make a valid contract, counterbalance each other. The court of the forum should rest its decision, therefore, entirely on extrinsic evidence such as has already been suggested, and such a stipulation would. necessarily be held invalid in some cases and valid in others, depending on the evidence.8

v.

Sec. 223. Enforcement of limitation invalid at place of contract, invalid at destination and invalid at forum.-Where a which governed); Barnes v. Rail- of destination, and invalid in road Co., 93 N. Y. Supp. 616. Iowa, the forum. The stipulation (Kentucky law held applicable and was held invalid. stipulation void); Brockway Express Co., 171 Mass. 158, 50 N. E. Rep. 626; s. c. 168 Mass. 257, 47 N. E. Rep. 87. (Place of contract, Illinois, where stipulation would be invalid, destination New York, where it would be valid, forum Massachusetts. Illinois law applied.)

7. See ante, sec. 214.

8. In McDaniel . Railway Co., 24 Iowa 412, a stipulation was invalid in Iowa, the place of contract, valid in Illinois, the place

See also Davis v. Railroad Co., 93 Wis. 470, 67 N. W. Rep. 16, 33 L. R. A. 654, 57 Am. St. Rep. 935. (Held invalid.)

In Kentucky, as the courts held the contract divisible, if any of the performance is to be had in Kentucky, and the contract is made in Kentucky, the stipulation against the carrier's liability will be held invalid. Railroad Co. v. Taber, 98 Ky. 503, 36 S. W. Rep. 18, 34 L. R. A. 685.

stipulation as to limitation of the carrier's liability would be invalid by the law of the place of contract, invalid by the law of the place of destination and invalid by the law of the forum, it certainly could not be enforced.

Sec. 224. Proof must be made of what foreign law is.-In all the cases above-mentioned proof must be made in the court of the forum of what the foreign law is. In the absence of such proof of the foreign law the same rule governs as in the case of stipulations other than those limiting the carrier's liability.9

9. See ante, sec. 207.

CHAPTER V.

OF CONNECTING CARRIERS.

Sec. 225. (§ 145.) In general.-Carriers may frequently become merely forwarders when the goods are consigned to points beyond the termini of their own lines; and it frequently becomes difficult to determine whether, under the particular circumstances of the case, they should be held liable for the safety of the goods throughout the whole line of transit to destination, though extending beyond the termination of their routes; or whether having transported them as far as their routes extend and there having safely delivered them to another connecting carrier to complete the transportation they are not to be considered as having acted as forwarding agents merely as to such further carriage and therefore no longer responsible.

Sec. 226. Carrier not bound to assume liability beyond terminus of his own line.-While the carrier cannot refuse to accept and carry the goods to the terminus of his own line and there deliver them to a connecting carrier with whom he has an established connection,1 he is not bound by law to assume responsibility for their safe carriage further than the terminus of his own line, and if in any case, therefore, he is to become liable as a common carrier beyond such terminus, his liability must be based upon some further obligation than that created by law.2 It is well settled, however, that the carrier may contract to carry to a point beyond the terminus of his own line so as to be liable. for the delivery at such point, and that the liability thus attaching at the commencement will continue throughout the whole transit. And when he has thus undertaken for the transporta

1. Inman V. Railroad Co., 14 Tex. Civ. App. 39, 37 S. W. Rep. 37; Seasongood v. Transportation Co., 21 Ky. Law Rep. 1142, 54 S. W. Rep. 193, 49 L. R. A. 270.

2. See Miller, etc., Elevator Co. v. Railway Co., 138 Mo. 658, 40 S. W. Rep. 894, citing Hutchinson on

Carr; Post v. Railway Co., 103
Tenn. 184, 52 S. W. Rep. 301, 55
L. R. A. 481, 16 Am. & Eng. Rd.
Cas. (N. S.) 201; Griffith v. Rail-
way Co.,
Mo. App.
90
S. W. Rep. 408.

3. Railway Co. v. Reiss, 183 U. S. 621; s. c. 98 Fed. 533, 39 C. C.