§ 412. Same subject-Parol modi- | § 426. Same subject 415. Terms of limitation must be embodied in the contract-Must be plain and easily legible. 416. Receipt to be effectual in limiting liability must be given to and accepted by the shipper at the time of the receipt of the goods. 417. Same subject-Parol agreement acted upon cannot be limited by receipt subsequently delivered. 418. Extent to which carrier may limit his liability. 419. Carrier may stipulate for exemption from liability for certain losses in carriage of live stock. 420. Carrier may stipulate for exemption in case of loss by fire. 421. Carrier may stipulate for exemption in case of loss caused by strikes, mobs, etc. 422. Carrier may stipulate for exemption in case of loss by thieves or robbers. 423. Carrier may stipulate for exemption where goods of a dangerous character are accepted for carriage. 424. Carrier may stipulate for liability of warehouseman while goods are awaiting further conveyance. 425. Contracts limiting the amount of damages recoverable. limiting recovery agreed value of goods. 427. Same subject Valuation agreement must be bona 428. Same subject must be Execution of contracts limiting re covery to agreed value of goods-Construction. 429. Same subject-Measure of recovery where loss is only partial. 430. Same subject Contracts limiting recovery to value of goods at time and place of shipment. 431. Same subject Contracts limiting liability to fixed amount without regard to value. 432. Same subject-Effect of de livery, after notice given to stop goods in transit, upon agreement limiting recovery to stated value of goods-Conversion. 433. Notice contained in receipt that unless informed of value of goods carrier will be liable only to limited amount. 434. Same subject. 435. Same subject-But carrier may waive requirement that, unless value of goods is stated, he will be liable only to limited amount. 436. Same subject-How under English Land Carriers' Act. 437. Same subject-When shipper bound to disclose value. 438. Same subject tions. Illustra limiting time within which claim shall be made must be reasonable. 444. Same subject-Carrier may waive benefit of such conditions. 445. Same subject-How where damage has resulted from carrier's delay-Effect of failure to make delivery— Conversion. 446. Same subject-How where carrier is holding goods in the character of a warehouseman. 447. Same subject Burden of proof. 448. Carrier may limit time within which suit shall be commenced. 449. Where liability is limited by contract, burden of proof is upon the carrier to show himself within the exception. 450. Carrier cannot provide by contract against liability for negligence. $ 455. Same subject-Rule in Illinois. 456. Same subject-Stipulation as to amount of proof required. 457. Power of an agent to bind the owner of goods to limitation. 458. Same subject. 459. Same subject-How where carrier has notice that authority of agent is restricted. 460. Powers of agents of carriers to bind them by contract. 461. Same subject-The English rule. 462. Same subject-Implied authority. 463. What will be construed as a contract exempting from liability for negligence-Language must be clear. 464. Contracts limiting liability must be construed strictly against the carrier. 465. Same subject - Particular exemptions not enlarged by general language. 466. Same subject-Construction of specific terms not altered to release carrier. 467. Same subject. 468. Same subject - Ambiguous words construed against carrier. 469. Same subject. 470. How the benefit of such contracts can be claimed by connecting carriers. 471. Same subject. 472. Same subject-Limitation inures to benefit of connecting carrier only when contract for through carriage exists. Sec. 388. (225.) Goods usually shipped under contracts limiting liability.-The bill of lading or receipt of the carrier, so far as it is a mere acknowledgment of the delivery of the goods and a contract to carry them, has already been treated of. But this instrument is made use of to serve another purpose. We have already seen that carriers are now allowed to contract with their employers so as very greatly to qualify and diminish the liability imposed upon them by the common law. Goods are in fact now but rarely accepted by them without an agreement or contract for such limitation; and, it being important that such contracts should be reduced to writing, no more natural or convenient place can be found for them than in the same instrument which evidences their receipt and the contract to transport them. Hence it has become the universal practice for carriers, both by land and water, to include in their bills of lading the terms as to liability upon which they accept the goods, which, when accepted by the shipper, are the conditions. upon which the carrying is to be done, and are binding upon both parties, provided they are such as can be lawfully agreed upon. And such contracts are not to be regarded as made solely in the interest or for the exclusive benefit of the carrier, though they universally qualify and moderate the harsh terms. imposed upon him by the law when no express contract is made with his employer. It is supposed, however the fact may be, that, the liability of the carrier being lessened, terms correspondingly favorable have been gained by the shipper, and that thus the advantage from such contracts is to some extent mutual. It often happens that the shipper may desire by contract to vary the terms upon which alone the carrier could be compelled to receive and carry his goods, as, for instance, to bind him by what is known as a through contract, where they must necessarily be passed over several lines of connecting carriers to reach their destination. In such cases, as we have seen, the law generally in this country binds the carrier to convey only to the end of his own route and there deliver to the next succeeding carrier; but still it is perfectly competent for the carrier who first receives the goods to bind himself for the entire transportation and to be responsible for the safety of the goods until they reach their destination; and in such cases if they be lost the owner may look to him to be made whole, without undertaking the difficult task of ascertaining where the fault was or of resorting to his legal remedy in a distant state. So it frequently happens that, by entering into a contract with the carrier limiting his liability, the shipper may obtain transportation at greatly reduced rates, which he may regard as a matter of more importance to him than the liability of the carrier. Other instances might be given, but these are sufficient to show that such contracts are not always and altogether for the benefit of the carrier. Sec. 389. ($226.) Rigor of common-law rule relaxed.These considerations, together with the further fact that, owing to the improved state of society and the rapidity and comparative safety of modern modes of carriage, there is not now the same necessity as formerly existed for holding carriers to the rigorous accountability of insurers against all losses except those caused by the act of God or of the public enemy, have induced the courts of many of the states of this country to relax the rigor of this rule at least in so far as to permit the carrier to qualify this liability by express contract with his employer.1 Sec. 390. (§ 227.) Rule permitting limitation of liability by contract of early origin in England.-In England it has been from very early times the law that such contracts might be entered into not only expressly but by notice to the owner of the goods. The first reference to the subject is to be found in a note to Southcote's Case, in which Lord Coke says that, if goods are delivered to one person to be delivered over to another, it is good policy for him to provide for himself in special manner for doubt of being charged with his general acceptance;" and this language has been generally understood as having reference to the carrier as bailee; but this seems to be uncertain. In Morse v. Slue.3 it was said by Lord Hale that the 1. Since the duties of a common carrier are public in their nature, the tendency of the courts formerly was to hold that it was against public policy, or as other wise expressed, not just and reasonable to permit a common car rier to stipulate for any modifica tion of his common law liability even by special contract with his customer. But in course of time the improved state of society, the introduction of better and safer modes of transportation, the diminished opportunities for collusion and bad faith on the part of the carrier, and other considerations, rendered less imperative the rig orous application of the iron rule of the common law. The result has been that the courts now up- |