Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1875-07-21

Ireely conceded that had it been such 4
would have been against the policy OF
the law and imperative. Such was our
opinion In Railroad Company vs.. Lock
wood. q common carrier is always re-
/ sponsible for his negligence, no matter
what his stipulatiOns may be. But an
agreement that IN case of failure by
/ the carrier to deliver the goods claim
shall be made by the bailor or by the
| consignee within a specified period, if
that period be a reasonable one, is alto
gether ola different character. Tt con
travenes no public policy. 1t ex-
cuses no negligence. It is perfectly
consistent with holding the CIR
rier to the fullest measure of good
faith, Of diligence and of cspacitv
which the strictest rule Of common law
ever required. And it is intrinsically
Just as applied to the present gass
The defendants are an press compa.
ny. We cannot close our ewes to the
nature of their business. They carry
small parcels, easily lost or mislaid
and not easily traced. They carry
them IN great numbers. Express com.
panles are modern conveaiencies, and
VIGOROUSLY they are very largely en-
ployed. They may carTy-they often
do carTy-hundreds, even thousands.
Of packages daily. If one be lost or
alleged to be lost the difficulty of ira.
eng 1t Is increased by theIfact that 30
many are carried, and it becomes
greater the longer the search is delay
ed. If bailor may delay giving no.
tlce to them of loss, or making claim
indefinitely, they may not be able to
trace the parcels bailed and to recover
them, if accidently missent, or if they
have, IN fact, been properly delivered.
With the ballOT the hsilment is a sin
gle transaction of which he has full
knowledge; with the bailee it is one of
a multitude. There is no hardship in
requiring the bailor to give notice of
loss II any, or make claim for CON-
pensaaOn within a reasonable time af-
ter he has delivered the parcel to the
carrier. There is great hardship in
requiring the carrier to account for the
parcel long after that time, when he
had no notice of any failure of duty
on his part, and when the lapse OF
time has made it difficult, if not i'm
possible, to ascertain the actual facts,
Policies Of fire insurance, it il well
knOwa, usually contain stipulations
that the insured shall give notice of
loss, and furnish proofs thereof within
a brief period after the fire, and it is
undOubted that if such notice and
proofs have not been given in the time
designated their employers limit the
measure Of their responsibility to a
reasonable extent. Whether their rules
are reasonable or unreasonable must be
determined with reference to public
policy, precisely as in the case of a car
rler. And IN a case where one Of the |
conditions of telegraph company,
printed IN their blank forms, was that
the company would not be liable for
damages N any case where the claim
was not presented IN writing sixty DAYS
after sending the message, It was ruled
that the condition was binding on an
employer Of the company who sent his
message on the printed form.
Our conclusion, then, founded upon
the analogous decisions Of courts, as
well as upon sound reason, is that the |
express agreement between the parties !
averred IN theplea was a reasonable one, !
and hence, that it was not against the !
policy Of the law. 1t purported TO re-
neVe the defendant from no part Of the |
Of a common carrier. They |
were bound to the same diligence, fidel- |
lty and care as they would have been /,
required TO exercise if no such agree
ment had been made. All that the |
required vas that the ship 4
per, IN case the package was lost or
damaged, should assert his claim IN |
season TO enable the defendants to as
certain the facts; in other words, that |
he should assert it within ninety days. /
1t follows that the Circuit Court erred |
n sustaining the plaintiffs demurrer TO
The plea.
The second assignment Of error we
need not consider. fit is one that can
be made, which is at least |
1t is unimportant IN view of
our judgment upon the first. The /
Judgment Of the Circuit Court is re-
7ersed, and the cause Is remanded for
.urther proceedings IN conformity with
this opinion.