A common carrier cannot divest itself of its common law liability as such, not even by exceptions in the bill of lading.-Bank of Kentucky v. Adams Exp. Co., 93 U. S. 174, revg. s. c. Fed. Cases, No. 889.

A contract by bill of lading, by which the liability of a carrier for loss of goods in shipment is limited to an agreed value per hundred pounds, in consideration of a reduced rate given the shipper, is valid.— Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Patrick, 144 Fed. 632.

A carrier cannot limit its liability by a stipulation not known to the shipper, nor expressly or impliedly assented to by him.- Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Doyle, 142 Fed. 669.

A stipulation in a bill of lading that "the ship-owner is not to be liable for any damage to the goods * in any case for more than

*

*

the invoice or declared value of the goods, whichever shall be the least," is reasonable. The Lydian Monarch, 23 Fed. 298; The Hadji, 18 Fed. 459; affd. 20 Fed. 875.

If the consignor, before shipment, accepts from the carrier, without objection, a bill of lading, he is chargeable with notice of its contents and is bound by its terms.— Hill v. Syracuse, B. & N. Y. R. Co., 73 N. Y. 351, revg. s. c. 8 Hun (N. Y.), 296, distinguishing Bostwick v. B. & O. R. Co., 45 N. Y. 712.

Where a bill of lading contains a clause exempting the carrier from loss by fire, there is no liability for such loss, unless occasioned by the negligence of the carrier.- Germania Ins. Co. v. Memphis & C. R. R. Co., 72 N. Y. 90, affg. s. c. 7 Hun (N. Y.), 233.

In the absence of proof of fraud, concealment or improper practice. it will be presumed that the limitation of a carrier's common-law liability, in a receipt for freight, was known and assented by the party receiving it, whether such limitation is from loss from specified causes, or to a fixed amount stated as the value of the property.- Belger v. Dinsmore, 51 N. Y. 166, revg. s. c. 51 Barb. (N. Y.), 69, 34 How. Pr. (N. Y.), 421.

Unless a special consideration is recited therefor, a provision in the contract of shipment that the damages for delay or injury, shall be measured by the market value at the place of shipment, instead of the place of delivery, is invalid.- St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Marshall, 74 Ark. 597, 86 S. W. 802; St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Coolidge, 73 Ark. 112, 83 S. W. 333, 67 L. R. A. 555.

A clause in a receipt or bill of lading exempting a carrier from a common-law liability is not binding on the shipper unless it appears that he knew of and assented to the exemption, and this is a question of fact, to be determined on the trial.- Merchants' D. Transp. Co. v. Thielbar, 86 Ill. 71.

In a bill of lading under which the freight paid was $330, and the value of the goods $2,000, the shipper agreed to limit the carrier's liability to $50.— Held, that in the absence of an affirmative showing that this limitation was reasonable, it is void.- Murphy v. Wells Fargo & Co., 99 Minn. 230, 108 N. W. 1070.

A provision in a contract of carriage, limiting the carrier's liability to a specified amount, is against public policy.- Southern Exp. Co. v. Rothenberg, 87 Miss. 656, 40 So. 65.

A proviso of a bill of lading exempting the carrier from liability for all loss by fire is valid if a consideration is allowed the shipper for the exemption.- Scott Co. v. St. L. I. M. & S. R. Co., Mo. App. -, 104 S. W. 924.

-

Where a contract of shipment does not set forth an agreed valuation of the property, and the limitation as to value is merely as to the amount of recovery for damages caused by the carrier's negligence, the contract is invalid as an attempt by the carrier to relieve itself from liability for negligence.-Abrams v. Milwaukee L. S. & W. R. Co., 87 Wis. 485, 58 N. W. 780.

[20] - By general notice.

Limitation of liability as to baggage by general notice,- see post, note [43].

The carrier's common-law liability cannot be limited by a general notice.- Kirkland v. Dinsmore, 62 N. Y. 171, revg. s. c. 2 Hun (N. Y.), 46.

A notice, even though brought to the knowledge of the shipper, will not suffice to limit the common-law liability of the carrier, which can be done only by express contract.- Blossom v. Dodd, 43 N. Y. 264; Dorr v. N. J. Steam Nav. Co., 11 N. Y. 485; Bissell v. N. Y. C. R. Co., 25 N. Y. 442; French v. Buffalo, N. Y. & E. R. Co., 4 Keyes (N. Y.),

108.

A carrier may not limit its liability by a general notice but may by special contract.- Steele v. Townsend, 37 Ala. 247.

Neither notice nor special agreement can be permitted to restrict the common-law liability of the carrier.-Jones v. Voorhees, 10 Oh. 145.

[21]

Agreed valuations or liquidated damages.

Effect of undervaluation or failure to disclose real value of goods,-see post, note [26].

The limitation of a carrier's liability for loss of goods to an agreed value per hundred pounds, in consideration of a reduced rate given the shipper, is valid.— Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Patrick, 144 Fed. 632.

A receipt issued by a carrier which states that it is "agreed that the liability of Monahan's Express will not exceed $50 unless a greater value is stated or receipted for," in no way relieves the carrier from its own negligence.- Blum v. Monahan, 36 Misc. (N. Y.) 179, 73 N. Y. Supp. 162.

A receipt for goods provided that "In consideration of the rate charged for carrying said property, which is regulated by the value thereof and is based upon a valuation of not exceeding $50, unless a greater value is declared, the shipper agrees that the value of said property is not more than $50, unless a greater value is stated herein, and that the company shall not be liable * * for more than $50, if no value is stated herein."- Held, that the shipper was estopped from asserting that the property was worth more than the sum stated. Bates v. Weir, 121 App. Div. (N. Y.) 275, 105 N. Y. Supp. 785.

*

A bill of lading contained the following provision: "nor, in any event, shall the holder hereof demand beyond the sum of $50, at which the article forwarded is hereby valued, unless otherwise expressed." The shipper was familiar with the terms of similar receipts.— Held, that there could be no recovery in excess of $50, even though there was negligence on the part of the carrier.- Ghormley v. Dinsmore, 53 N. Y. Super. 36, revg. s. c. 51 N. Y. Super. 196.

Limitation of liability for loss of a carload of mules, to $100, is reasonable, where the shipper got reduced rates.-Western R. Co. v. Harwell, 91 Ala. 340, 8 So. 649.

The bill of lading gave $100 as the value of a mare. The shipper as plaintiff showed she was worth $2,000.-Held, he could recover only $100.- Coupland v. Housatonic R. Co., 61 Conn. 531, 23 Atl. 870.

There is a distinction between shipping property on an agreed valuation and shipping it under an agreement that in case of loss "the amount claimed should not exceed" a given sum. The Kentucky rule is that an agreement of the latter sort does not prevent full recovery where the loss results from negligence.- Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Owen, 93 Ky. 201, 14 Ky. L. R. 118, 19 S. W. 590.

Limitation of recovery for loss to an agreed valuation, which represents a fair average value of the loss of property, will be sustained, though the loss was due to the carrier's negligence.- Alair v. No. Pac. R. Co., 53 Minn. 160, 54 N. W. 1072, 19 L. R. A. 764.

If a contract of shipment is governed by the posted schedules as to rates, but declares that the value of the shipment does not exceed a stated amount, the shipper is not estopped by this declaration of value, which is void because without consideration.- Kellerman v. Kansas City, St. J. & C. B. R. Co., 136 Mo. 177, 34 S. W. 41.

Common carriers cannot, as liquidated damages, where it is understood by the parties that the sum agreed upon is less than the value of the goods, determine in advance the quantum of damages for loss occasioned by negligence.-U. S. Exp. Co. v. Backman, 28 Oh. St. 144.

Where, for a special consideration, a shipper consents to a limitation of carriers' liability to a liquidated amount, the sum so agreed upon is the maximum amount recoverable only in case of loss through some other cause than negligence.-U. S. Exp. Co. v. Backman, 28 Oh. St. 144.

A stipulation in a bill of lading fixing the value of the property is valid if fair and reasonable in itself, based on a sufficient consideration, freely and understandingly acquiesced in by shipper, even though such values are much less than the actual values.- Starnes v. R. Co., 91 Tenn. 516, 19 S. W. 675.

A carrier cannot by contract exempt itself from liability for the consequences of its negligence, but it is proper to fix in the contract the agreed value of the property shipped beyond which value the carrier shall not be liable.- Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Sowell, 90 Tenn. 17, 15 S. W. 837.

An agreement between a carrier and a shipper, liquidating loss or damage by negligence in advance upon an actual or maximum basis fairly agreed upon and stated in the contract, is valid.- Ullman v. Ch. & N. W. R. Co., 112 Wis. 150, 88 N. W. 41, 56 L. R. A. 246; Ulman v. Ch. & N. W. R Co., 112 Wis. 168, 88 N. W. 1103.

A contract between a carrier and shipper limiting the liability of the former for loss or damage to the subject of carriage to an arbitrary sum of money not fixed with reference to the agreed actual or maximum value of the property is not a lawful limitation of liability.— Ullman v. Ch. & N. W. R. Co., 112 Wis. 150, 88 N. W. 41, 56 L. R. A. 246.

If a shipper accepts a bill of lading liquidating the damages for loss at a specified sum, he thereby assents to the terms thereof as to such value.- Ullman v. Ch. & N. W. R. Co., 112 Wis. 150, 88 N. W. 41, 56 L. R. A. 246.

Express provisions in a contract of carriage by which the carrier assumes liability only to the extent of an agreed valuation are valid, even though the loss or damage be through the negligence of the carrier.Loeser v. Ch. M. & St. P. R. Co., 94 Wis. 571, 69 N. W. 372.

A stipulation by an express company that it will not be liable for any loss of a package, unless the claim is presented within 90 days, is valid, where the time required for transit is short.-Express Co. v. Caldwell, 21 Wall (U. S.), 264.

A carrier may stipulate in the bill of lading a reasonable time within which notice of claim for loss or damage shall be presented, and the manner of giving it, as a condition of liability. If such time is not reasonable as applied to a given case, however, it will not bar recovery. - Jennings v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 127 N. Y. 438, 28 N. E. 394, affg. s. c. 52 Hun (N. Y.), 227, 5 N. Y. Supp. 140.

Authority to a corporation commission to make just and reasonable rates for freight, gives no power to change the law, and it is beyond the power of the commission to permit carriers to limit their liability for loss caused by negligence, to a certain fixed amount.- Everett v. Norfolk & S. R. Co., 138 N. C. 68, 50 S. E. 557.

That in consideration of the shippers agreeing to a limitation of the carrier's liability wholly, or to a given amount, the carrier transported the goods at a specially reduced rate, does not alter or affect the rule of damages for loss.-U. S. Exp. Co. v. Backman, 28 Oh. St. 144.

The limitation on a carrier's liability contained in a receipt or bill of lading, is not in the nature of a condition precedent to the shipper's right to recover, but must be pleaded in the answer to be taken advantage of.— Westcott v. Fargo, 61 N. Y. 542.

[26] Effect of undervaluation or failure to disclose real value.

If the freight is of unusual value, a stipulation that the carrier will not be liable for loss unless the true nature and value of the property be disclosed and extra freight paid, will operate to exempt the carrier from liability even for its own negligence, unless the stipulation was complied with.- Rathbone v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co., 140 N. Y. 48, 35 N. E. 418, revg. s. c. 23 N. Y. Supp. 1148.

The receipt given by a carrier provided that "If the value of the property above described is not stated by the shipper, the holder hereof will not demand of the Adams Express Company a sum exceeding $50" for the loss of or injury to the goods. The goods were never delivered to the consignees. The goods were of a value in excess of $50, but the shipper failed to state the fact to the carrier.-Held, that the omission of the shipper to state or disclose the value of the property was a fraud upon the carrier, exempting the latter from liability in excess of the limitations of the contract.- Magnin v. Dinsmore, 70 N. Y. 410.

At common law, a shipper who falsely undervalues his goods cannot, if they are lost in the hands of the carrier, recover from the latter their