Notices of reasonable regulations, which for the reasons just stated are valid without assent, and notices limiting liability, which are not valid without assent, are severable; and, though contained in the same paper, the latter may be rejected and the former enforced. 33

Regulations Requiring Shipper to Disclose the Value of the Goods Shipped

Among the regulations of the carrier which have been most frequently before the courts are those in various forms requiring the shipper to reveal the value of the goods shipped. If the shipper does nothing to mislead the carrier, and the latter makes no inquiries, the shipper is not bound to state the character or value of the goods. But, if the carrier inquires, the shipper must answer truly.35 The carrier may make such an inquiry in the case of each individual shipper, or the carrier may by means of public notices dispense with the necessity of such special inquiries.8

34

Thus a regulation of the carrier may provide that the goods are accepted as not exceeding in value a specific amount unless the shipper discloses a value in excess of such amount. The carrier has a right to graduate his charges according to the value of the goods, which value largely determines the measure of the carrier's risk, as well as the nature of the precautions the carrier must take to deliver the goods safely." If the shipper, with full knowledge of such regulation, is silent as to the value of the goods, the shipper would be bound by the terms of such notice and could not recover an amount in excess of that fixed in the notice.88

83 Oppenheimer v. United States Express Co., 69 Ill. 62, 18 Am. Rep. 596; Moses v. Boston & M. R. R., 24 N. H. 71, 55 Am. Dec. 222; The Majestic, 9 C. C. A. 161, 60 Fed. 624, 23 L. R. A. 746.

84 Faulk v. Columbia, N. & L. Ry. Co., 82 S. C. 369, 64 S. E. 383; NEW YORK C. & H. R. R. CO. v. FRALOFF, 100 U. S. 24, 25 L. Ed. 531, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 364; Southern Exp. Co. v. Crook, 44 Ala. 468, 4 Am. Rep. 140; Camden & A. R. Co. v. Baldauf, 16 Pa. 67, 55 Am. Dec. 481. ante, p. 335.

See

85 Phillips v. Earle, 8 Pick. 182. See ante, p. 336. 86 Batson v. Donovan, 4 Barn. & Ald. (Eng.) 21, 28. 87 Gibbon v. Paynton, 4 Burrows (Eng.) 2298 (per Lord Mansfield, and Astor, J.); Tyly v. Morrice, Carth. (Eng.) 485 (per Holt, C. J.); Southern Exp. Co. v. Newby, 36 Ga. 635, 91 Am. Dec. 783; Batson v. Donovan, 4 Barn. & Ald. (Eng.) 21.

* Orange County Bank v. Brown, 9 Wend. (N. Y.) 85, 115, 24 Am. Dec. 129.

SAME-FORM OF THE CONTRACT

125. While the limitation of the carrier's liability must be by contract, it is not essential that this contract should be in any special form.

Acceptance by the shipper of a bill of lading, or similar instrument purporting generally to contain the contract between

the carrier and shipper, creates a contract binding on both parties.

While the carrier's limitation of liability must be made through a contract, and not merely by notice brought home to the shipper, this contract requires no special form." It can be made in any way in which contracts are usually made. Such contracts may be oral or written, express or implied, and the general rules as to the formation of contracts are applicable."

Bills of Lading

In the overwhelming majority of cases, the contract between the shipper and carrier is contained in the bill of lading. This wellknown instrument, by its very character, gives notice to the shipper or other person dealing with it that, besides being a receipt for the goods delivered, it is a contract embodying the stipulations and terms under which the carrying of the goods is undertaken."1 Per

See, also, Fish v. Chapman, 2 Ga. 349, 46 Am. Dec. 393; Cole v. Goodwin, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 251, 32 Am. Dec. 470; Judson v. Western R. Corp., 6 Allen (Mass.) 486, 83 Am. Dec. 646; Magnin v. Dinsmore, 62 N. Y. 35, 20 Am. Rep. 442; Hopkins v. Westcott, 6 Blatchf. 64. Fed. Cas. No. 6,692; New Jersey Steam Nav. Co. v. Merchants' Bank, 6 How. 344, 12 L. Ed. 465; Farmers' & Mechanics' Bank v. Champlain Transp. Co., 23 Vt. 186, 56 Am. Dec. 68. Where the effect of failure to inform the bailee of the contents of sealed packages is to prevent him from exercising the care he would otherwise have given, the bailee is liable only for positive misfeasance. Gibbon v. Paynton, 4 Burrows (Eng.) 2298.

89 The shipper's assent must be clear, however, and the burden of proving this rests on the carrier. Coats v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 134 Ill. App. 217; Adams Express Co. v. Adams, 29 App. D. C. 250; MURPHY v. WELLS FARGO & CO. EXPRESS, 99 Minn. 230, 108 N. W. 1070, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 218; Central of Georgia R. Co. v. City Mills Co., 128 Ga. 841, 58 S. E. 197.

40 American Transp. Co. v. Moore, 5 Mich. 368; Bates v. Weir, 121 App. Div. 275, 105 N. Y. Supp. 785; Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Patrick, 144 Fed. 632, 75 C. C. A. 434.

41 BLOSSOM v. DODD, 43 N. Y. 264, 3 Am. Rep. 701, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 208; Piedmont Mfg. Co. v. Columbia & G. R. Co., 19 S. C. 353; Wells, Fargo & Co.'s Express Co. v. Fuller, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 213, 23 S. W. 412; McMillan v. Michigan S. & N. I. R. Co., 16 Mich. 79, 93 Am. Dec. 208;

sons receiving these instruments, and others of like character and tenor, are therefore presumed by law to know that they do contain the terms upon which the goods are to be carried.2

If, therefore, at the time the goods are delivered to the carrier, the shipper accepts a bill of lading from the carrier, then the law presumes, in the absence of fraud or deception on the part of the carrier, the assent of the shipper to the terms, conditions, and restrictions contained in the bill of lading." Though the bill of lading is signed only by the carrier, it becomes binding on the shipper without any signature or further assent on his part other than that implied from his receiving it and acting upon it."

The bill of lading is binding in such cases, not only without the signature or other express assent to the terms therein contained, but even though the shipper has neither read nor understood the terms of the bill of lading." For the reasons indicated in the pre

Montague v. The Henry B. Hyde (D. C.) 82 Fed. 681; Cox v. Central Vermont R. Co., 170 Mass. 129, 49 N. E. 97; Schaller v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 97 Wis. 31, 71 N. W. 1042.

42 Courteen v. Kanawha Dispatch, 110 Wis. 610, 86 N. W. 176, 55 L. R. A. 182; Davis v. Central Vermont R. Co., 66 Vt. 290, 29 Atl. 313, 44 Am. St. Rep. 852; Merrill v. American Exp. Co., 62 N. H. 514; Graves v. Adams Exp. Co., 176 Mass. 280, 57 N. E. 462; Pacific Exp. Co. v. Foley, 46 Kan. 457, 26 Pac. 665, 12 L. R. A. 799, 26 Am. St. Rep. 107; Mouton v. Louisville, etc., Ry. Co., 128 Ala. 537, 29 South. 602.

48 Kirkland v. Dinsmore, 62 N. Y. 171, 20 Am. Rep. 475; Mulligan v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 36 Iowa, 181, 14 Am. Rep. 514; Grace v. Adams, 100 Mass. 505, 97 Am. Dec. 117, 1 Am. Rep. 131; Inman & Co. v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co. (C. C.) 159 Fed. 960; Central of Georgia R. Co. v. City Mills Co., 128 Ga. 841, 58 S. E. 197; Lansing v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 52 Misc. Rep. 334, 102 N. Y. S. 1092; Smith v. American Exp. Co., 108 Mich. 572, 66 N. W. 479; Michalitschke Bros. & Co. v. Wells, Fargo & Co., 118 Cal. 683, 50 Pac. 847; Lawrence v. New York, P. & B. R. Co., 36 Conn. 63; Cau v. Texas & P. R. Co., 194 U. S. 427, 24 Sup. Ct. 663, 48 L. Ed. 1053; Ballou v. Earle, 17 R. I. 441, 22 Atl. 1113, 14 L. R. A. 433, 33 Am. St. Rep. 881; Merchants' D. T. Co. v. Bloch, 86 Tenn. 392, 6 S. W. 881, 6 Am. St. Rep. 847; Pacific Exp. Co. v. Foley, 46 Kan. 457, 26 Pac. 665, 12 L. R. A. 799, 26 Am. St. Rep. 107; Pacific Exp. Co. v. Ross (Tex. Civ. App.) 154 S. W. 340. In Illinois and Ohio, the contrary view has been held. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Calumet Stock Farm, 194 Ill. 9, 61 N. E. 1095, 88 Am. St. Rep. 68; Wabash Ry. Co. v. Thomas, 222 Ill. 337, 78 N. E. 777, 7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1041; Illinois Match Co. v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 250 Ill. 396, 95 N. E. 492; Gaines v. Union Transp. & Ins. Co., 28 Ohio St. 418; Delta Bag Co. v. Frederick Leyland & Co., 173 Ill. App. 38.

44 Inman & Co. v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co. (C. C.) 159 Fed. 960; Steele v. Townsend, 37 Ala. 247, 79 Am. Dec. 49; Kallman v. United States Exp. Co., 3 Kan. 205; Hengstler v. Flint & P. M. R. Co., 125 Mich. 530, 84 N. W. 1067. See, also, cases cited in preceding note.

45 Davis v. Central Vermont R. Co., 66 Vt. 290, 29 Atl. 313, 44 Am. St. Rep. 852; McMillan v. Michigan S. & N. I. R. Co., 16 Mich. 79, 93 Am. Dec. 208; Mc

ceding paragraphs, the law, in the absence of fraud or deception, presumes that the contract is binding on the shipper either because he has read it, or otherwise learned the nature of its contents, or because, in the absence of either of these, he is willing to consent to its terms. Ignorance of the stipulations in the bill of lading or failure to read it is therefore no defense to its binding force, under such circumstances, as a contract. It has even been held that the bill of lading was binding on the shipper, though, through illiteracy or ignorance of the English language, he was unable to read the bill of lading, when this inability was not known by the carrier.""

In order that the bill of lading may have this effect, and be binding owing to its mere acceptance by the shipper, the bill of lading must have been delivered to the shipper at the time of, or before, the shipment of the goods." When the carrier accepts the goods without limiting his liability, the shipper's consent to limitations will not be presumed merely from his acceptance of a bill of lading subsequently delivered to him by the carrier. The rule as to merging all prior oral negotiations in the written contract has plainly no application in such a case. Acceptance of the subsequent bill of lading would, however, be binding on the shipper, if, at the time the goods are accepted by the carrier, there was then an understanding between the parties, express or implied, that the shipment was to be governed by the terms of the bill of lading which the carrier was to deliver later.1o

Fadden v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 92 Mo. 343, 4 S. W. 689, 1 Am. St. Rep. 721; Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Dill, 48 Kan. 210, 29 Pac. 148; Hill v. Syracuse, B. & N. Y. R. Co., 73 N. Y. 351, 29 Am. Rep. 163; St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Weakly, 50 Ark. 397, 8 S. W. 134, 7 Am. St. Rep. 104.

46 Jones v. Cincinnati, S. & M. R. Co., 89 Ala. 376, 8 South. 61; Fibel v. Livingston, 64 Barb. (N. Y.) 179.

47 Gage v. Tirrell, 9 Allen (Mass.) 299; Southard v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 60 Minn. 382, 62 N. W. 442, 619; Harris v. Great Northern R. Co., 48 Wash. 437, 93 Pac. 908, 96 Pac. 224; McGregor v. Oregon R. & Nav. Co., 50 Or. 527, 93 Pac. 465, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 668; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Craig, 102 Tenn. 298, 52 S. W. 164; The Arctic Bird (D. C.) 109 Fed. 167; Farnsworth v. National Exp. Co., 166 Mich. 676, 132 N. W. 441.

48 Wilde v. Merchants' Despatch Transp. Co., 47 Iowa, 247, 29 Am. Rep. 479; Pruitt v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., 62 Mo. 527; Merchants' Dispatch & Transp. Co. v. Cornforth, 3 Colo. 280, 25 Am. Rep. 757; Union P. Ry. Co., v. Marston, 30 Neb. 241, 46 N. W. 485; Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Botts, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 609, 55 S. W. 514; Central R. R. v. Dwight Mfg. Co. 75 Ga. 609.

49 Shelton v. Merchants' Dispatch Transp. Co., 59 N. Y. 258; Leitch v. Union R. Transp. Co., Fed. Cas. No. 8,224; Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Beardwell, 79 Kan. 40, 99 Pac. 214; Richmond, N., I. & B. R. Co. v. Richardson, 66 S. W. 1035, 23 Ky. Law Rep. 2234.

Where it was disputed whether the goods in controversy had been carried

Again, this presumption of assent by the shipper to the stipulations contained in the bill of lading does not attach, unless it is clear that the particular stipulation was so arranged as clearly to form a part of the contract which the bill of lading is presumed to embody Thus, mere acceptance alone does not import assent on the part of a shipper to stipulations printed on the back of a bill of lading, or stipulations so covered by stamps as to make them illegible."1

50

Express Receipts

Express receipts stand upon the same general footing as bills of lading. When accepted without objection, they, too, constitute the contract between the parties."2 In some of the earlier cases, it

under an original agreement between the consignee and the carrier, or whether such alleged agreement was a mere preliminary negotiation, and that the actual shipping agreement was between the defendant and the consignors, that question was for the jury. Henry J. Perkins Co. v. American Exp. Co., 199 Mass. 561, 85 N. E. 895.

50 Inman & Co. v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co. (C. C.) 159 Fed. 960; Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Mineral Springs Mfg. Co., 16 Wall. (U. S.) 318, 21 L. Ed. 297; Newell v. Smith, 49 Vt. 255; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Doyle, 142 Fed. 669, 74 C. C. A. 245; St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Tribbey, 6 Kan. App. 467, 50 Pac. 458; Merchants' Despatch Transp. Co. v. Furthmann, 149 Ill. 66, 36 N. E. 624, 41 Am. St. Rep. 265.

51 Perry v. Thompson, 98 Mass. 249.

52 Huntington v. Dinsmore, 4 Hun (N. Y.) 66; Id., 6 Thomp. & C. (N. Y.) 195; Snider v. Adams Exp. Co., 63 Mo. 376; Soumet v. National Exp. Co., 66 Barb. (N. Y.) 284; Brehme v. Dinsmore, 25 Md. 328; Christenson v. American Exp. Co., 15 Minn. 270 (Gil. 208), 2 Am. Rep. 122; Kirkland v. Dinsmore, 62 N. Y. 171, 20 Am. Rep. 475; Belger v. Dinsmore, 51 N. Y. 166, 10 Am. Rep. 575; Magnin v. Dinsmore, 56 N. Y. 168; Westcott v. Fargo, 61 N. Y. 542, 19 Am. Rep. 300; Adams Exp. Co. v. Haynes, 42 Ill. 89; Merchants' Despatch Transp. Co. v. Leysor, 89 Ill. 43; Grace v. Adams, 100 Mass. 505, 97 Am. Dec. 117, 1 Am. Rep. 131; Boorman v. American Exp. Co., 21 Wis. 152. But see Adams Exp. Co. v. Stettaners, 61 Ill. 184, 14 Am. Rep. 57; American Merchants' Union Exp. Co. v Schier, 55 Ill. 140; Bennett v. Virginia Transfer Co., 80 Misc. Rep. 222, 140 N. Y. Supp. 1055; Jonasson v. Weir, 130 App. Div. 528, 115 N. Y. Supp. 6; Wells, Fargo & Co. v. Neiman-Martus Co., 227 U. S. 469, 33 Sup. Ct. 267, 57 L. Ed. 600. Where a person delivers a package to an express company and accepts a receipt, it is presumed to contain the terms of the contract, and if he desires to avoid such terms the burden is on the person accepting the receipt to show that he was misled by misrepresentations or fraud, and mere failure to examine the receipt is not sufficient. Porteous v. Adams Exp. Co., 115 Minn. 281, 132 N. W. 296. Delivery by an express company to a shipper, and his acceptance without dissent, of a shipping receipt containing a clause of limited liability, raises a presumption that the shipper knew of the restriction and would be bound thereby; but such presumption may be rebutted by evidence negativing knowledge and assent. Hill v. Adams Exp. Co., 80 N. J. Law, 604, 77 Atl. 1073. Plaintiff, a guest at a hotel, gave a bell boy a package addressed to plaintiff in another city, instruct