The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1882-04-20
Commissioners of Appeals,
Austin Term, 1882.

W. A. Ryan VS.. Missouri, Kansas anC
Texas railroad company; appeal from
Grayson cOunty.-Common carriers oil
goods in this state cannot limit their La
bIlity as at common law by special
agreement in bill of Iading, or In
any way whatever r. S. 27S.
Such statutory limitations applica
BILE only to those which confine theil
operations entirely within the state
8 Whitney, 1876; Is Howard, 421 | Con
tracts generally about power of attorney
to be determined as to their validity by
the law of the place where made, the
modes of proof and forms of action being
governed by the law of the place where
the suit is brought Schedules on Bail
ments Guiding Crs. page 5S7. If per
mlssible in the stale where done, the
liability is restricted as to force, the bur
den is on the plaintiff to show negligence
by the railway company. [20 Texas, 40.
| Common carrier cannot be restricted
from full measure of responsibility at.
tending his occupation without bis EN-.
ployer's explicit stipulation; and then
even the court must have such stipula-
ton reasonable. [21 Wallace, 246-7. |
Any device on the part of the carrier to
deceive the customer, to the latter's dis
| advantage, such as printing the
usual stipulations in large, ana
the special restrictions IN small
letters, should be discountenanced 1893
Mass. 249,l The consignee being pre-
sumptive owner of goods, the shipping
agent, in absence of express authority or
usuage, can only contract with reference
| to freight, ETC., upon basis of common
law liability of the carrier; and the &C.
ceptance of bill of lading by the con-
| signOr is not sufficient to:limit such abil-
lty. Reversed and rendered. Watts, G.
Missouri Pacific railroad company VS.
Jerome Harris appeal from Tarrant
county. Suit for damages for injury
sustained In transportation, by railroad
companies, of cattle shipped from Fort
Worth to Chicago, occasioned by DELAY
on the trip. ID Tense, special contract
with the owner, by the terms of which
the latter waived claim of damages for
all delays, unless Occasioned by the will
full negligence of the railroads agents,
and STIMULATING as condition precedent
to any right of recovery that the owner
shall give notice of his claim for dam
ages at the terminus of his voyage, which
defendant alleges was not given.
Held, That such special contract so far
as it exonerated the railroad from liza
billty for delay, was invalid and const-
tuted no answer to the plaintiffs action.
That such provision contravened the
statute of the state Rev. Stat, art. 2781.
which forbids The making of special
agreement restri citing the liability of
railroad companies, as it exists at COM
mon law.
Held, That railroad companies are
common carriers, with the legal incidents
of that relation, as to live sto k as we'll as
of other inanimate properly accustomed
to be carried by them.
That the people of The state, under the
legislation which has aided and fosteIed
their creation and existence and under
the constitution and laws, which declare
them to be public highways, and the
railroad companies to be common car
riers that they cannot, as a private
person, common carrier, might do, re-
strict the subjects and objects for trans
portation.
They are the common carriers of all
such property as railroads may be
adapted TO transport, including live
stock as well.
Held, That it was competent for the
railroad company to make the special
contract relied upon to the extent of pro-
viding upon the special facts of the case,
that the owner who accompanied the
stock. in consideration of certain advan-
tages and terms extended under the con-
tract to him, should, as condition
precedent to recovery for dam
ages, give the notice to the COM
pany of claim for damages be-
fore the stock became mingled |
with other stock. (Goggan VS.. Kansas
Pacific R r Co. ~ Kansas, 416 4; Rice
VS. X. P. r. R. Co. So Missouri, 3l4
Betz VS.. Farmers Loan Co. 81 Wiscon-
sin, SO Express Co. VS.. Caldwell, 81
Wallace, 266. i
Our statute forbidding restrictions of !
carriers, common law liability, does not !
extend to contracts for transportation
beyond the state. II. & T. c. X. X.
Co. VS.. Park, decided by the court of |
appeals at.Austin opinion book No, 1,
page 47O.1 Reversed and remanded. |
Opinion by R. S. Walker, P. j.