carrier may by contract secure immunity from liability for loss caused by mobs, strikes or violence to persons or property.32

Sec. 422. (§ 248d.) Carrier may stipulate for exemption in case of loss by thieves or robbers. So the carrier may, by special contract, secure exemption from liability for losses by thieves or robbers where his own negligence has not given opportunity or occasion for the loss.33

Sec. 423. Carrier may stipulate for exemption where goods of a dangerous character are accepted for carriage. It being optional with the carrier whether he will accept for carriage goods of a dangerous character, he may, it is held, if he chooses to accept them at all, impose such restrictions or limitations upon his common law liability as he sees fit.34

Sec. 424. Carrier may stipulate for liability of warehouseman while goods are awaiting further conveyance.-While the carrier, as has been seen, 35 is not permitted to become a warehouseman of the goods, before their arrival at destination, by simply storing them at some intermediate point, he may, by a special contract to that effect, provide that he will be liable as a warehouseman only in case the goods are delayed while awaiting further conveyance by another carrier, and such provision will be enforced. Thus where the carrier's bill of lading provided that no carrier in the route should be liable in any other respect than as a warehouseman while the goods shipped under it were awaiting further conveyance, and while awaiting delivery to a connecting carrier the warehouse in which they were stored was destroyed by fire without fault on the part of the carrier, it was held that the limitation was valid and that the goods having been destroyed while awaiting further conveyance within the clause of the bill of lading, the carrier was not liable.36

32. Gulf, etc., Ry. Co. v. Gatewood, 79 Tex. 89, 14 S. W. Rep. 913.

33. The Saratoga, 20 Fed. 869. 34. California Powder Works v.

The Railroad, 113 Cal. 329, 45 Pac.
Rep. 691, 36 L. R. A. 648.

35. See ante, § 141.

36. Courteen v. Kanawha Dis patch, 110 Wis. 610, 86 N. W. Rep. 176, 55 L. R. A. 182.

Sec. 425. Contracts limiting the amount of damages recoverable.-Conditions are frequently to be found in carrier's receipts to the effect that in case of loss the carrier will be liable only to the extent of a certain sum. If the sum thus named is fixed without any regard to the real value of the goods, the limitation will be considered as an attempt by the carrier to secure a partial exemption from liability, and, in so far as its validity is concerned, it will stand on the same footing as any other condition intended to secure immunity from the consequences of negligence. By the great weight of authority, as we shall see,37 the carrier is not permitted to relieve himself by contract from liability for losses occasioned by his negligence. If, therefore, a loss occurs which is attributable to the carrier's negligence, a condition by which it is attempted to fix the amount recoverable at a certain sum, irrespective of the real value of the goods, cannot avail the carrier, and the owner may recover to the full extent of his actual loss.38 But if the loss or injury result from causes for which the carrier is in no manner responsible, a contract founded upon an adequate consideration limiting the amount recoverable to a designated sum will be valid and conclusive between the parties, and the owner will be limited in his recovery to the sum named.39

37. See post, § 450.

38. Everett §. Railroad Co., 138 N. Car. 68, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 985; Southern Ex. Co. v. Marks, etc.

Co.,

Miss. , 40 So. Rep.

65; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Abels, 60 Miss. 1017; Black v. Transportation Co., 55 Wis. 319; Southern Exp. Co. v. Moon, 39 Miss. 822; United States Exp. Co. v. Backman, 28 Ohio St. 144; Kansas City, etc. R. Co. v. Simpson, 30 Kan. 645; Moulton v. Railroad Co., 31 Minn. 85; Railroad Co. v. Little, 71 Ala. 611; Louisville, etc. Co. v. Wynn, 88 Tenn. 320, 14 S. W. Rep. 311; Magnin v. Dinsmore, 56 N. Y. 168; Westcott v. Fargo, 61

N. Y. 542; Rowan v. Exp. Co., 80
N. Y. Supp. 226, 80 App. Div. 31;
Bernstein v. Weir, 83 N. Y. Supp.
48, 40 Misc. 635; Woodburn v.
Railway Co., 40 Fed: 731; Railroad
Co. v. Keener, 93 Ga. 808, 21 S. E.
Rep. 287, 44 Am. St. Rep. 197.
39. Chesapeake, etc. R'y Co. v.
Beasley,
Va.
52 S. E.
Rep. 566; Express Co. v. Foley
(Kan.) 26 Pac. Rep. 665; Kall
man v. Express Co., 3 Kan. 205;
Hopkins v. Westcott, 6 Blatch. 64;
Brehme v. Adams Ex. Co., 25 Md.
328; Boorman . Express Co., 21
Wis. 152; Oppenheimer v. United
States Ex. Co., 69 Ill. 62; Levy v.
Southern Ex. Co., 4 Rich. S. C.

Sec. 426. Same subject-Contracts limiting recovery to agreed value of goods.-The rule is well settled that the carrier, in order that he may exercise a degree of care and attention commensurate with the risk assumed, is entitled to be informed of the value of the goods intrusted to him for transportation. For the purpose, therefore, of securing such information and of establishing a basis upon which to compute his charges, the carrier may, by a contract fairly and honestly entered into with the owner of the goods, stipulate either that the goods are of a certain value,40 or that their value does not exceed a certain sum11 and that, in the event of loss, his liability shall not exceed the sum at which the goods are valued; and when fairly entered into with a view to placing a bona fide value on the goods, the contract will be conclusive on the owner, and the carrier will not be liable for a greater sum than that at which the goods are valued although his own misconduct has caused their loss.42 And it has been held that where no men

(N. S.) 234; Snider v. Adams Express Co., 63 Mo. 376; Ketchum v. American Ex. Co. 52 id. 390; Harvey v. Railroad Co., 74 Mo. 538; Louisville, etc. R. Co. v. Oden, 80 Ala. 38; South, etc. R. Co. v. Henlein, 52 Ala. 606, 56 Ala. 368; Hart v. Railroad Co., 112 U. S. 331; The Bermuda, 27 Fed. Rep. 476.

40. The following cases involve contracts where the value was fixed: Brehme v. Dinsmore, 25 Md. 328; Graves v. Railroad Co., 137 Mass. 33, 50 Am. Rep. 282; Hill v. Railroad Co., 144 Mass. 284, 10 N. E. Rep. 836; Zimmer v. Railroad Co., 137 N. Y. 460, 33 N. E. Rep. 642; Coupland v. Rail road Co., 61 Conn. 531, 23 Atl. Rep. 870, 15 L. R. A. 534.

41. For cases where a maximum value was agreed upon, see Hart v The Railroad, 112 U. S. 331,

28 L. Ed. 177, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 151; Durgin v. Express Co., 66 N. H. 277, 20 Atl. Rep. 328, 9 L. R. A. 453; Alair v. Railroad Co., 53 Minn. 160, 54 N. W. Rep. 1072, 39 Am. St. Rep. 588, 19 L. R. A. 764; Douglas Co. v. Transportation Co., 62 Minn. 288, 64 N. W. Rep. 899, 30 L. R. A. 860; Railroad Co., v. Payne, 86 Va. 481, 10 S. E. Rep. 749, 6 L. R. A. 849; Ballou v. Earle, 17 R. I. 441, 22 Atl. Rep. 1113, 33 Am. St. Rep. 881, 14 L. R. A. 433.

42. United States: Hart v. The Railroad, 112 U. S. 331, 28 L. Ed. 177, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 151; Jennings v. Smith, 106 Fed. 139, 45 C. C. A. 249; Metropolitan Trust Co. v. Railroad Co., 107 Fed. 628; Doyle v. Railroad Co., 126 Fed. 841; Macfarlane v. Express Co., 137 Fed. 982; Hopkins v. Westcott, 6 Blatch. 64; Earnest v. Ex

tion is made in the contract as to the effect upon the carrier's liability of inserting the sum at which the goods are valued, the carrier, in the event of loss, will be liable only to the extent

Ohio: Railroad Co. v. Hubbard, may often depend largely upon 72 Ohio, 302, 74 N. E. Rep. 214. value. We see nothing, however, Oregon: Normile v. Railroad & in this contract which can be reNavigation Co., 41 Or. 177, 69 Pac. garded as having been intended or Rep. 928. calling for such a disclosure on the part of the plaintiffs, or as estopping them from claiming a recovery, upon the ground of the carrier's negligence, of the actual value of the horses."

Rhode Island: Ballou v. Earle, 17 R. I. 441, 22 Atl. Rep. 1113, 33 Am. St. Rep. 881, 14 L. R. A. 433.

South Carolina: Johnstone v. Railroad Co., 39 S. Car. 55, 17 S. E. Rep. 512.

Tennessee: Louisville, etc. R. Co. v. Lowell, 90 Tenn. 17, 15 S. W. Rep. 837; Louisville, etc. R. Co. v. Wynn, 88 Tenn. 320; Starnes v. Railroad Co., 91 Tenn. 516, 19 S. W. Rep. 675.

Washington: Hill v. Railway Co., 33 Wash. 697, 74 Pac. Rep. 1054. Words "Released value" must be construed to embrace real value.

West Virginia: Zouch v. Railway Co., 36 W. Va. 524, 15 S. E. Rep. 185, 17 L. R. A. 116. Will not release from liability where negligence is gross, wanton or willful.

It is often a question whether an amount stated in a contract of shipment limiting the carrier's liability is inserted merely for the purpose of restricting such liability, or for the purpose of measuring the carrier's responsibility by the actual value of the property. When the words of the contract clearly indicate an intention to fix a value upon which the carrier may gauge his charges, and the contract was fairly entered into, it is almost universally recognized that the limitation is binding on the shipper; and in case of loss his recovery will be limited to the sum agreed upon. Ullman v. Railway Co., 112 Wis. 168, 88 N. W. Rep. 41, 88 Am. St. Rep. 949, 56 L. R. A. 246.

Wisconsin: Loeser v. The Railway, 94 Wis. 571, 69 N. W. Rep. 372; Ullman v. Railway Co., 112 Wis. 150, 88 N. W. Rep. 41, 88 Am. St. Rep. 949, 56 L. R. A. 246. In Moulton v. Railway Co., 31 Minn. 85, cited above, it is said: "We do not question the right of a carrier to require the disclosure, by the consignor, of the value of the property presented for transportation where its value is not apparent and well known. This is reasonable, both to the end that proper care may be taken of the property while it is in the hands of the carrier, and because the proper charges for transportation of the carrier, and the plaintiff

In Alair v. The Railroad Co., 53 Minn. 160, 54 N. W. Rep. 1072, 39 Am. St. Rep. 588, 19 L. R. A. 764, it appeared that the plaintiff delivered to the defendant for transportation seven horses of the value of $2,100. In the contract of shipment was a provision that the value of the horses did not exceed the sum of $100 each, which value was declared to be the value upon which the rate of compensation for the carrier's services was based. The horses were lost while in transit through the negligence