which will bind the shipper and control the amount 70 N. J. L. 442, 57 A 139; Lewis v. Wis.-Morrison V. Phillips, etc., Constr. Co., 44 Wis. 405, 28 AmR 599; Betts v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 21 Wis. 80, 91 AmD 460. See also supra § 107. or [a] Effect of constitutional statutory prohibitions against limitations of liability.-As heretofore shown, notwithstanding constitutional and statutory provisions prohibiting a common carrier from limiting its common-law liability, the weight of authority is to the effect that such provisions do not prevent carriers from making special contracts with shippers to care for, water, and feed their stock during transportation, although there is some authority which is apparently to the contrary. See supra 112. 72. Bowring v. Wabash R. Co., 77 Mo. A. 250. And see infra § 211 et seq. 73. See supra § 149. Construction of contracts limiting liability as to value see infra § 237. 75. See infra § 218. 76. U. S.-Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Carl, 227 U. S. 639, 33 SCt 391, 57 L. ed. 683; Wells v. NeimanMarcus Co., 227 U. S. 469, 33 SCt 267, 57 L. ed. 600; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Latta, 226 U. S. 519, 33 SCt 155, 57 L. ed. 328; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Miller, 226 U. S. 513, 33 SCt 155, 57 L. ed. 323; Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U. S. 491, 33 SCt 148, 57 L. ed. 314, 44 LRANS 257; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Hughes, 191 U. S. 477, 485, 24 SCt 132, 48 L. ed. 268; Primrose v. Western Union Tel. Co.. 154 U. S. 1, 14 SCt 1098, 38 L. ed. 883; New York, etc., R. Co. v. Estill, 147 U. S. 591, 619, 13 SCt 444, 37 L. ed. 292; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Erie, etc., Transp. Co., 117 U. S. 312, 6 SCt 750, 1176. 29 L. ed. 873; Hart v. Pennsylvanía R. Co., 112 U. S. 331, 5 SCt 151, 28 L. ed. 717; Reid v. Fargo, 213 Fed. 771, 130 CCA 285; Webster v. Union Pac. R. Co.. 200 Fed. 597; George N. Pierce Co. v. Wells, 189 Fed. 561, 110 CCA 645 [aff 236 U. S. 278, 35 SCt 351, 59 L. ed. 576]; Blackwell v. Southern Pac. Co., 184 Fed. 489: Missouri, etc.. R. Co. v. Patrick, 144 Fed. 632, 75 CCA 434 [mod 5 Ind. T. 742. 88 SW 330]: Metropolitan Trust Co. v. Toledo, etc., R. Co., 107 Fed. 628; Jennings v. Smith, 106 Fed. 139, 45 CCA 249: The Lydian Monarch, 23 Fed. 298; Hart v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 7 Fed. 630, 2 McCrary 333 Taff 112 U. S. 331, 5 SCt 151, 28 L. ed. 717]. Ala.-Central of Georgia R. Co. v. Broda, 190 Ala. 266, 67 S 437; Great Southern R. Co. v. Knox, 184 Ala. 485, 63 S 538. 49 LRANS 411; Broadwood v. Southern Express Co., 148 Ala. 17, 41 S 769; Southern R. Co. v. Jones, 132 Ala. 437, 31 S 501; Western R. Co. v. Harwell, 91 Ala. 340, 8 S 649; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Sherrod, 84 Ala. 178, 4 S 29: South. etc., Alabama R. Co. v. Henlein, 52 Ala. 606, 23 AmR 578, 56 Ala. 368; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Jones, 12 Ala. A. 347, 67 S 621. But see Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. Little, 71 Ala. 611 (which is not easily reconcilable with the above decisions). Ark. Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. Oakley. 115 Ark. 20, 170 SW 565; U. S. Express Co. v. Cohn, 108 Ark. 115, 157 SW 144; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Weakly, 50 Ark. 397, 8 SW 134, 7 AmSR 104. Cal. Mering v. Southern Pac. Co., is that contracts of carriage providing that the carrier's liability for loss or injury to goods intrusted to it for shipment shall not exceed an agreed valuation, when they are fair, open, and reasonable, and made for the purpose of furnishing the basis of the liability assumed, and the rates to be charged for the transportation are valid and will be sustained, whether or not the loss or injury is due to the carrier's negligence." While it is 161 Cal. 297, 119 P 80; Donlon v. Southern Pac. Co., 151 Cal. 763, 91 P 603. 11 LRANS 811. 12 AnnCas 1118; Michalitschke v. Wells, 118 Cal. 683, 50 P 847; Pierce v. Southern Pac. Co., 47 P 874; Reeder v. Wells, 14 Cal. A. 790, 113 P 342. Colo.-Colorado, etc., R. Co. v. Manatt, 21 Colo. A. 593, 121 P 1012. But see Overland Mail, etc., Co. v. Carroll, 7 Colo. 43, 48, 1 P 682 (where, speaking of an express carrier, the court said: "Appellant could not make a binding contract with the owner, whereby it should be released from all liability in case of loss through its negligence. Upon the same principle it could not make a binding contract with him, limiting its liability for loss occasioned by its negligence to fifty dollars, or to any other sum short of the actual value of the goods shipped, provided, of course, that it had notice of such actual value when it received them"). Conn.-Coupland v. Housatonic R. Co., 61 Conn. 531, 23 A 870, 873, 874, 15 LRA 534. Del-Klair v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 25 Del. 274, 78 A 1085; Carpenter v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 22 Del. 15, 64 A 252. Fla.-Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Coachman, 59 Fla. 130, 52 S 377, 20 AnnCas 1047; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Dexter, 50 Fla. 180, 39 S 634, 111 AmSR 116. Ga.-Southern Express Co. v. Hanaw, 134 Ga. 445, 67 SE 944, 137 AmSR 227; Central of Georgia R. Co. v. Hall, 124 Ga. 322. 52 SE 679, 110 AmSR 170, 4 LRANS 898, 4 AnnCas 128; Central of Georgia R. Co. v. Murphey, 113 Ga. 514, 38 SE 970, 53 LRA 720; Georgia R.. etc., Co. v. Keener, 93 Ga. 808, 21 SE 287, 44 AmSR 197; Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. C. V. Truitt Co., 17 Ga. A. 236, 86 SE 421; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Tharpe, 11 Ga. A. 465, 75 SE 677. Hawaii.-Honolulu Rapid Transit, etc., Co. v. American-Hawaiian SS. Co., 3 Hawaii Fed. 11. Ind.-Cleveland, etc., R. Co. V. Blind, 182 Ind. 398, 105 NE 483; Adams Express Co. v. Byers, 177 Ind. 33, 95 NE 513; U. S. Express Co. v. Joyce, 72 NE 865; Rosenfeld v. Peoria, etc., R. Co., 103 Ind. 121, 2 NE 344, 53 AmR 500; Adams Express Co. v. Welborn, 59 Ind. A. 330, 108 NE 163, 109 NE 420; Adams Express Co. v. Carnahan, 29 Ind. A. 606. 63 NE 245, 247, 64 NE 647, 94 AmSR 279; Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Ragsdale, 14 Ind. A. 406, 42 NE 1106. Ind. T.-St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Sharrock, 6 Ind. T. 458, 98 SW 158. Iowa. Heilman v. Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 167 Iowa 313, 149 NW 436. Kan.-Christl v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 92 Kan. 580, 141 P 587. Mass.-McKinney v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 217 Mass. 274, 104 NE 446; Johnson V. New York, etc., R. Co., 217 Mass. 203, 104 NE 445; John Hood Co. v. American Pneumatic Service Co.. 191 Mass. 27, 77 NE 638; Hill v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 144 Mass. 284, 10 NE 836; Graves v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 137 Mass. 33, 50 AmR 282: Squire v. New York Cent. R. Co., 98 Mass. 239, 93 AmD 162. V. Mich.-Harrison Granite Co. Grand Trunk R. System, 175 Mich. 144. 141 NW 642. Minn. O'Connor v. Great Northern R. Co., 120 Minn. 359, 139 NW 618; Cole v. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 117 Minn. 33, 134 NW 296; Ostroot v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 111 Minn. 504, 127 NW 177; O'Malley v. Great Northern R. Co., 86 Minn. 380, 90 NW 974; Douglas Co. v. Minnesota Transfer R. 76 Co., 62 Minn. 288, 64 NW 899, 30 LRA 860; Alair v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 53 Minn. 160, 54 NW 1072. 39 AmSR 588, 19 LRA 764; Moulton v. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., 31 Minn. 85, 16 NW 497, 47 AmR 781. Mo.-McFadden v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 92 Mo. 343, 4 SW 689, 1 AmSR 721; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Cleary, 77 Mo. 634, 46 AmR 13; Harvey v. Terre Haute, etc., R. Co., 74 Mo. 538; Snider v. Adams Express Co., 63 Mo. 376; Ketchum v. American Merchants' Union Express Co., 52 Mo. 390; Townsend, etc., Dry Goods Co. v. U S. Express Co., 133 Mo. A. 683, 113 SW 1161: Duvenick v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 57 Mo. A. 550; Rogan v. Wabash R. Co., 51 Mo. A. 665; Conover v. Pacific Express Co., 40 Mo. A. 31; Brown v. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 18 Mo. A. 568. Mont.-Nelson v. Great Northern R. Co.. 28 Mont. 297, 72 P 642. N. H.-Duntley v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 66 N. H. 263, 20 A 327, 49 AmSR 610, 9 LRA 449. York N. J.-Atkinson V. New Transfer Co., 76 N. J. L. 608, 71 A 278. Compare Paul v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 70 N. J. L. 442, 57 A 139 (where the court found it unnecessary to express any opinion upon the right of the shipper and carrier to agree upon a value for the goods carried and to limit the right of recovery to the value agreed upon"). N. M.-Enderstein v. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 21 N. M. 548, 157 P 670. N. Y.-Boyle v. Bush Terminal R. Co., 210 N. Y. 389, 104 NE 933 [rev 151 App. Div. 551, 136 NYS 355, and overr Bermel v. New York, etc., R. Co., 62 App. Div. 389, 70 NYS 804 (aff 172 N. Y. 639 mem, 65 NE 1113 mem)]; Tewes V. North German Lloyd SS. Co.. 186 N. Y. 151. 78 NE 864, 8 LRANS 199, 9 AnnCas 909 (where it was said that Westcott v. Fargo, 61 N. Y. 542, 19 AmR 306, was distinctly overruled on the second appeal in the Magnin Case [Magnin v. Dinsmore, 62 N. Y. 35, 20 AmR 442], and has never been followed since then); Rosenthal v. Weir, 170 N. Y. 148, 63 NE 65, 57 LRA 527; Zimmer v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 137 N. Y. 460, 33 NE 642; De Rochemont v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 262, App. Div. 157 NYS 177; United Lead Co. v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 156 App. Div. 525, 141 NYS 310 [aff 215 N. Y. 751 mem, 109 NE 1094 mem]; Carleton v. Union Transfer, etc., Co., 137 App. Div. 225. 121 NYS 997 [aff 64 Misc. 51, 117 NYS 1021]; Pastore v. American Express Co., 138 NYS 316. 171 N. D.-Hanson v. Great Northern R. Co., 18 N. D. 324, 121 NW 78, 138 AmSR 768. Oh.-Baltimore, etc.. R. Co. v. Hubbard, 72 Oh. St. 302. 74 NE 214 [foll Hart v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 112 U. S. 331, 5 SCt 151, 28 L. ed. 717, and dist U. S. Express Co. v. Backman, 28 Oh. St. 144. This case also refers to Adams Express Co. v. Schwab, 53 Oh. St. 659, 44 NE 1135, an unreported case affirming the lower court, and states that it is not clear on what ground the judgment was affirmed, and that the court was not at liberty to speculate on the reasons for the affirmance. It also adverts to the conflict of decision in the lower courts as shown by the decisions of Pennsylvania Co. v. Yoder, 25 Oh. Cir. Ct. 32, and C. C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Simon, 15 Oh. Cir. Ct. 123. 8 Oh. Cir. Dec. 540. and compare Jacobson v. Adams Express Co., 1 Oh. Cir. Ct. 381, 1 Oh. Cir. Dec. 212, frequently stated that a consideration is necessary to sustain a contract of this nature," there is a just and reasonable consideration moving to both the carrier and the shipper in such cases,' 78 the consideration for the shipper being the opportunity to ship at a lower rate than that called for by the unrestricted basis of shipment.79 [§ 212] (b) Considerations on Which Rule Based. Where the foregoing view prevails, it is very generally considered that limitations of this character do not in any respect exempt the carrier from lia which is in line with U. S. Express Co. v. Bachman, supra]. Okl.-St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Mounts, 44 Okl. 359, 144 P 1036; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Porter, 41 Okl. 702, 139 P 954; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. McLaughlin, 29 Okl. 345, 116 P 811; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Hancock, 26 Okl. 254, 109 P 220: Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Wehrman, 25 Okl. 147, 105 P 328 (all of these cases were decided prior to the constitutional provision prohibiting carriers from limiting their common-law liability). Or.-Normile v. Oregon Nav. Co., 41 Or. 177, 69 P 928. Pa. Trexler v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 28 Pa. Super. 207 (construing West Virginia law). R. I.-Ballou v. Earle, 17 R. I. 441, 22 A 1113, 33 AmSR 881, 14 LRA 433. S. C.-Irby v. Southern Express Co., 96 S. C. 354, 80 SE 613; Black v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 82 S. C. 478, 64 SE 418; Faulk v. Columbia, etc., R. Co., 82 S. C. 369, 64 SE 383; Terry v. Southern R. Co., 81 S. C. 279, 62 SE 249, 18 LRANS 295; Winslow v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 79 S. C. 344, 60 SE 709; Johnstone v. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 39 S. C. 55, 17 SE 512. Tenn.-Louisville, etc., R. Co. V. Sowell, 90 Tenn. 17, 15 SW 837 [dist Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Wynne, 88 Tenn. 320, 14 SW 311. in which a contrary view is expressed]. Utah.-Larsen V. Oregon Short Line R. Co., 38 Utah 130, 110 P 983. Wash.-Carstens Packing Co. V. Northern Pac. R. Co., 64 Wash. 256, 116 P 625; Pierson v. Northern Pac. R. Co.. 61 Wash. 450, 112 P 509; Windmiller v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 52 Wash. 613, 101 P 225; Hill v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 33 Wash. 697, 74 P 1054. W. Va.-Fielder v. Adams Express Co., 69 W. Va. 138, 71 SE 99; Zouch v. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 36 W. Va. 524, 15 SE 185, 17 LRA 116. Wis.-Ullman v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 112 Wis. 150. 88 NW 41; Loeser v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 94 Wis. 571, 69 NW 372. Can.-Robertson v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 24 Can. S. C. 611. Ont. Sutherland v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 18 Ont. L. 139, 13 OntWR 321; Mercer v. Canadian Pac. R. Co.. 17 Ont. L. 585; Costello v. Trunk R. Co., 7 OntWR 846. Grand For analogous decisions holding that provisions in a shipping contract requiring notice of loss or injury at a designated time are not stipulations that the carrier shall be exempt from the effect of its negligence see infra § 449. 77. Evansville, etc., R. Co. V. Kevekordes. (Ind. A.) 69 NE 1022: George v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 214 Mo. 551, 113 SW 1099, 127 AmSR 690; Kellerman v. Kansas City, etc.. R. Co., 136 Mo. 177. 34 SW 41. 37 SW 828; McFadden v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 92 Mo. 343, 4 SW 689, 1 Am SR 721; Leas v. Quincy, etc., R. Co., 157 Mo. A. 455, 136 SW 963: Burns v. Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 151 Mo. A. 573. 132 SW 1; Van Buskirk v. Quincy. etc., R. Co., 143 Mo. A. 707, 128 SW 216; Holland v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 139 Mo. A. 702. 123 SW 987; Wilcox v. Chicago Great Western R. Co., 135 Mo. A. 193, 115 SW 1061; Mires v. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co.. 134 Mo. A. 379, 114 SW 1052; Ficklin v. Wabash R. Co., 117 Mo. A. 221, 93 SW 847; Keyes-Marshall Bros. Livery Co. v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 113 Mo. A. 144, 87 SW 553. 78. Donlon v. Southern Pac. Co., 151 Cal. 763, 91 P 603, 11 LRANS 811, 12 AnnCas 1118. 79. Hart v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 112 U. S. 331, 5 SCt 151, 28 L. ed. 717; Harrison Granite Co. v. Grand Trunk R. System, 175 Mich. 144, 141 NW 642. 80. U. S.-Hart v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 112 U. S. 331, 5 SCt 151, 28 L. ed. 717; Blackwell v. Southern Pac. Co., 184 Fed. 489; Jennings v. Smith, 106 Fed. 139, 45 CCA 249. Ala.-Louisville, etc., R. Co. V. Sherrod, 84 Ala. 178, 4 S 29; South, etc., Alabama R. Co. v. Henlein, 52 Ala. 606, 23 AmR 578. Cal.-Donlon v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 151 Cal. 763, 91 P 603, 11 LRANS 811. 12 AnnCas 1118; Michalitschke v. Wells, 118 Cal. 683, 50 P 847. Conn.-Coupland v. Housatonic R. Co., 61 Conn. 531, 23 A 870, 15 LRA 534. Mass.-Bernard v. Adams Express Co., 205 Mass. 254, 91 NE 325, 28 LRANS 293, 18 AnnCas 351; Graves v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 137 Mass. 33. 50 AmR 282. Mich.-Harrison Granite Co. V. Grand Trunk R. System, 175 Mich. 144. 141 NW 642. Minn. Alair v. Northern Pac. R. Co.. 53 Minn. 160, 54 NW 1072, 39 AmSR 588. 19 LRA 764. Mo.-McFadden v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 92 Mo. 343, 4 SW 689, 1 AmSR 721; Harvey v. Terre Haute, etc., R. Co., 74 Mo. 538; Mires v. St. Louis. etc., R. Co., 134 Mo. A. 379, 114 SW 1052. N. H.-Duntley v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 66 N. H. 263, 20 A 326, 49 AmSR 610, 9 LRA 449. N. J.-Atkinson V. New York Transfer Co., 76 N. J. L. 608, 71 A 278. N. D.-Hanson v. Great Northern R. Co., 18 N. D. 324, 121 NW 78, 138 AmSR 768. Oh.-Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Hubbard. 72 Oh. St. 302, 74 NE 214. 82 Adams Express Co., 77 N. J. L. 19, 22. 71 A 683 [rev on other grounds 78 N. J. L. 333, 74 A 674]. Such a contract "is not an exemption from liability for negligence in the management of property, within the meaning of the statute. It is a contract as to what the property is, in reference to its value. The purpose of it is not to change the nature of the undertaking of the common carrier, or limit his obligation in the care and management of that which is entrusted to him. It is to describe and define the subject matter of the contract, so far as the parties care to define it, for the purpose of showing of what value that is which comes into the carrier's possession, and for which he must account in the performance of his duty as a carrier. It is not in any proper sense a contract exempting him from liability for the loss, damage or injury to the property, as the shipper describes it in stating its value for the purpose of determining for what the carrier shall be accountable upon his undertaking, and what price the shipper shall pay for the service and for the risk of loss which the carrier assumes." Bernard v. Adams Express Co., 205 Mass. 254, 259, 91 NE 325, 28 LRANS 293, 18 AnnCas 351. "Looking at the matter practically, everybody knows that the charges of a carrier must be fixed with reference to all the risks of the carriage, including the risk of loss from the negligence of servants. In the course of time, such negligence is inevitable, and the business of a carrier could not be carried on unless he includes this risk in fixing his rates of compensation. When the parties in this case made their contract, it is fair to assume that both had in mind all the usual risks of the carriage. It savors of refinement to suppose that they understood that the valuation of the goods was to be deemed to be fixed if a loss occurred from some causes, but not fixed if it occurred from the negligence of the servants of the carrier." Graves v. Lake Shore, etc.. R. Co., 137 Mass. 33, 34, 50 AmR 282. 81. Hanson v. Great Northern R. Co., 18 N. D. 324, 121 NW 78, 138 AmSR 768. Okl. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Porter, 41 Okl. 702, 139 P 954; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Rinkle, 37 Okl 631, 133 P 199; Missouri. etc.. R. Co. v. Hancock, 26 Okl. 254, 109 P 220; Chi-ity.-"If the purpose of the stipulacago, etc., R. Co. v. Wehrman, 25 Okl. 147. 105 P 328. Or.-Normile v. Oregon Nav. Co., 41 Or. 177. 69 P 928. Tenn.-Louisville, etc., R. Co. V. Sowell, 90 Tenn. 17, 15 SW 837. Wis.-Willard v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 150 Wis. 234, 136 NW 646; U11man v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 112 Wis. 150, 88 NW 41. 88 AmSR 949. Ont.-Costello v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 7 OntWR 846; Booth v. Canadian Pac. R. Co.. 7 OntWR 593. "The validity of such contracts does not rest upon the right of the carrier to bargain for an exemption from the result of its own negligence, but upon its rights to stipulate with the shipper as to the value of the latter's property and to predicate upon such valuation both the rate of carriage to be charged the shipper and the amount of the carrier's liability in the event of loss. Atkinson v. New York Transfer Co.. 76 N. J. L. 608, 71 A 278." Hill v. [a] Incidental limitation of liabiltion is a lawful and proper one, the mere fact that it may incidentally have the effect of limiting the amount of the carrier's liability in case of loss caused by negligence will not render it invalid." Alair v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 53 Minn. 160, 166, 54 NW 1072. 39 AmSR 588, 19 LRA 764. 82. U. S.-Hart v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 112 U. S. 331, 5 SCt 151. 28 L. ed. 717. Conn.-Coupland v. Housatonic R. Co., 61 Conn. 531, 23 A 870, 15 LRA 534. Fla.-Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Coachman, 59 Fla. 130, 52 S 377, 20 AnnCas 1047. Mass.-Graves v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 137 Mass. 33, 50 AmR 282. Minn. O'Malley v. Great Northern R. Co., 86 Minn. 380, 90 NW 974: Alair V. Northern Pac. R. Co., 53 Minn. 160. 54 NW 1072, 39 AmSR 588, 19 LRA 764. N. J.-Atkinson V. New York Transfer Co., 76 N. J. L. 608, 610, tion of public policy;83 on the contrary it is said that it would be unjust and unreasonable and repugnant to the soundest principle of fair dealing and of freedom in contracting, and thus in conflict with public policy, if the shipper should be allowed to reap the benefit of the contract if there is no loss, and to repudiate it in case of loss.84 The shipper should not be permitted to impose on the carrier the obligations of a contract different from that into which it has entered.85 Estoppel. It is also assigned as a reason for upholding the stipulation of value that the shipper is estopped to claim a greater value than that fixed.86 89 91 93 gross, although this proposition has been denied.00 So it has been held that the limitation applies, although the goods were stolen by the carrier's employees. It has also been held that the shipper will not be relieved from the limitation by the fact that injury to the consignment was caused by the carrier's violation of a federal statute prohibiting the confinement of cattle in a car for more than twenty-eight hours.92 The general rule as stated is not affected by a statute which declares the measure of damages to be the market value at destination," nor by a statute providing that no contract in any receipt shall exempt" any common carrier from liability for loss.94 The rule applies notwithstanding the provisions of a statute that any person aggrieved by any neglect shall have an action therefor against the company, from which action the company shall not be relieved by any notice, condition, or declaration, if the damage arises from any negligence or omission of the company or its servants.9 95 On the other hand, stipulations limiting Conn.-Coupland v. Housatonic R. Co., 61 Conn. 531, 23 A 870, 15 LRA 534. [213] (c) Extent and Limits of Rule-aa. In General.87 The fact that no express limitation against liability for negligence is contained in the contract does not in any way affect the operation of the rule; the limitation nevertheless applies to losses by reason of the carrier's negligence.88 It has further been held that on principle it can make no difference whether the negligence is ordinary or 71 A 278 [cit Cyc]. N. D.-Hanson v. Great Northern R. Co., 18 N. D. 324, 121 NW 78, 138 AmSR 768. Okl.-St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v: Rinkle, 37 Okl. 631, 133 P 199; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Wehrman, 25 Okl. 147, 105 P 328. Wash.-Windmiller V. Northern Pac. R. Co., 52 Wash. 613, 101 P 225. As stated by Mr. Justice Lurton, the fact that the carrier "might fix his charges somewhat in proportion to the value of the property is quite as reasonable and just as a rate measured by the character of the shipment. The principle is that the charge should bear some reasonable relation to the responsibility, and that the care to be exercised shall be in some degree measured by the bulk, weight, character and value of the property carried." Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U. S. 491, 510. 33 SCt 148, 57 L. ed. 314, 44 LRANS 257. [a] Liquidation of damages. "Such special contract is in the nature of an agreement to liquidate the damages, proportionately to the compensation received for the carriage, and the responsibility of safely carrying and delivering. In many cases, the carrier does not know, and has not the means to ascertain the real value of articles offered for shipment. An agreement as to the valuation may be a reasonable and proper mode of adjusting the measure of lability to the amount of freight paid by shipper, who thereby receives the benefit of a reduced rate. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Sherrod, 84 Ala. 178, 181, 4 S 29. 83. U. S.-Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U. S. 491, 33 SCt 148, 57 L. ed. 314, 44 LRANS 257; Hart V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 112 U. S. 331, 5 SCt 151, 28 L. ed. 717; Jennings v. Smith, 106 Fed. 139, 45 CCA 249. Conn.-Coupland v. Housatonic R. Co., 61 Conn. 531, 23 A 870, 15 LRA 534. Mass.-Graves v. Lake Shore. etc.. P. Co., 137 Mass. 33, 50 AmD 282. Minn. Moulton v. St. Paul, etc.. R. Co., 31 Minn. 85, 16 NW 497, 47 AmR 781. N. J.-Atkinson V. New York Transfer Co., 76 N. J. L. 608, 71 A 278. See also generally cases supra this section. 84. U. S.-Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U. S. 491, 33 SCt 148, 57 L. ed. 314, 44 LRANS 257; Hart v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 112 U. S. 331, 5 SCt 151, 28 L. ed. 717; Blackwell v. Southern Pac. Co., 184 Fed. 489. Ala.-Louisville, etc., R. Co. Sherrod, 84 Ala. 178, 4 S 29. Cal-Donlan v. Southern Pac. Co.. 151 Cal. 763, 91 P 603, 11 LRANS 811, 12 AnnCas 1118. V. It Oh.-Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Hubbard, 72 Oh. St. 302, 74 NE 217. Wash.-Windmiller V. Northern Pac. R. Co., 52 Wash. 613, 101 P 225. [a] Reasons for rule.-(1) "This qualification of the liability of the carrier is reasonable, and is as important as the rule which it qualifies. There is no justice in allowing the shipper to be paid a large value for an article which he had induced the carrier to take at a low rate of freight on the assertion and agreement that its value is a less sum than that claimed after a loss. is just to hold the shipper to his agreement, fairly made, as to value. even where the loss or injury has occurred through the negligence of the carrier. The effect of the agreement is to cheapen the freight and secure the carriage, if there is no loss; and the effect of disregarding the agreement, after a loss, is to expose the carrier to a greater risk than the parties intended he should assume. The agreement as to value, in this case. stands as if the carrier had asked the value of the horses, and had been told by the plaintiff the sum inserted in the contract." Blackwell v. Southern Pac. Co., 184 Fed. 489, 491. (2) "The limitation clause, in one of its aspects, is necessary to the protection of common carriers. In an action for loss, damage or injury, when no agreement has been made respecting the value of property, the carrier is at a great disadvantage in respect to the evidence of value. The shipper occupies a superior ground. Carriers have just and reasonable ground for requiring a specification of value. setting a limit beyond which no damages can be claimed, as a measure of protection against exorbitant and unjust demands. On the other hand, a shipper seeking or obtaining a valuation, below the actual value of the property for the purpose of obtaining a low rate. is guilty of an act of misrepresentation. Hence there is no hardship nor injustice in holding him bound by his representation or agreement as to the value. This contract of limitation, therefore, rests upon good solid reasons and just considerations." Fielder v. Adams Express Co.. 69 W. Va. 138. 143. 71 SE 99. 85. Graves v. Lake Shore. etc.. R. Co.. 137 Mass. 33, 50 AmR 282; Windmiller v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 52 Wash. 613. 101 P 225. 86. U. S.-Missouri, etc.. R. Co. v. Harriman, 227 U. S. 657, 33 SCt 397, 57 L. ed. 690: Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Carl. 227 U. S. 639. 33 SCt 391, 57 L. ed. 683; Hart v. Pennsylvania R. Co.. 112 U. S. 331, 5 SCt 151, 28 L. ed. 717; Blackwell v. Southern Pac. Co., 184 Fed. 489. Cal.-Donlon v. Southern Pac. Co., 151 Cal. 763, 91 P 603, 11 LRANS 811, 12 AnnCas 1118; Reeder v. Wells, 14 Cal. A. 790, 113 P 342. Mass.-Graves v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 137 Mass. 33, 50 AmR 282. Oh.-Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Hubbard, 72 Oh. St. 302, 74 NE 217. S. C.-Winslow v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 79 S. C. 344, 60 SE 709; Johnstone v. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 39 S. C. 55, 17 SE 512. "The general ground upon which the shipper is limited to the valuation he has declared or agreed upon is that of estoppel, which is based upon the supposition that the particular valuation was made for the purpose of attaining the lower of two available rates based on valuation.' Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Porter, 41 Okl 702, 704, 139 P 954. 87. See also infra § 237. 88. Gardiner v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co.. 201 N. Y. 387, 94 NE 876, 34 LRANS 826, AnnCas1912B 281 [lim Bermel V. New York, etc., R. Co., 172 N. Y. 639 mem, 65 NE 1113 mem (aff 62 App. Div. 389, 70 NYS 804)]; Tewes v. North German Lloyd SS. Co., 186 N. Y. 151, 78 NE 864, 8 LRANS 199, 9 AnnCas 909; Magnin v. Dinsmore, 70 N. Y. 410, 26 AmR 608, 62 N. Y. 35, 20 AmR 442, 56 N. Y. 168 [overr Wescott v. Fargo, 61 N. Y. 542, 19 AmR 300, as stated in Tewes v. North German Lloyd SS. Co., supra]. Contra Blum v. Monahan. 36 Misc. 179. 73 NYS 162 [foll overruled case of Wescott v. Fargo, supra]. 89. Donlon v. Southern Pac. Co., 151 Cal. 763, 91 P 603, 11 LRANS 811, 12 AnnCas 1118. See also Calderon v. Atlas SS. Co., 69 Fed. 574. 578, 16 CCA 332 [rev on other grounds 170 U. S. 272, 18 SCt 588, 42 L. ed. 1033] (where it was said: "Such a valuation would necessarily, in the absence of fraud, conclude both the shipper and the carrier upon any inquiry as to the amount of damages arising from a loss, and the contract would therefore extend to any kind of a liability"). 90. Georgia Pac. R. Co. v. Hughart, 90 Ala. 36, 8 S 62; Geyer v. U. S. Express Co., 50 Pa. Super. 301; Zouch v. Chesapeake, etc.. R. Co., 36 W. Va. 524, 15 SE 185, 17 LRA 116. And see Harrison Granite Co. V. Grand Trunk R. System, 175 Mich. 144, 141 NW 642 (which contains an intimation that the limitation would be inoperative if the goods were lost through the "gross" negligence of the carrier). 91. See infra § 237. 92. Pierson v. Northern Pac. R. Co.. 61 Wash. 450. 112 P 509. 93. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Kilgore, 12 Ala. A. 358, 67 S 707. 94. Jones v. Wells, 83 Misc. 508, 145 NYS 601. 95. Robertson v. Grand Trunk R. 97 the carrier's liability for loss or injury to an agreed valuation have no application in case of a conversion of the goods by the carrier,96 or in case of injury caused by delay, or in case of loss or injury caused by the carrier's delivery of the goods after notice of the shipper to stop them in transitu, which it agreed to do,98 or in case of negligence in the delivery of goods.99 [214] bb. Arbitrary Valuation-(aa) Statement of Doctrine. A very generally recognized limitation of the principle under discussion is that, if the purpose of the contract is merely to place an arbitrary valuation on the amount for which the carrier will be liable for loss or damage, and not to fix a reasonable valuation with reference to which the charges and the responsibilities of the carrier are to be proportioned, the contract is not just or reasonable and is not binding on the shipper. Such a contract, it is said, is nothing more than a cloak for a limitation of the carrier's liability [215] (bb) Distinction between Limitation to Maximum Value and Value Fixed by Agreement. Some courts draw a distinction between stipulations which merely fix the maximum value of property, limiting recovery in case of loss or injury, to a sum not exceeding such amount, and a stipulation by which the parties expressly agree to a certain fixed valuation. The latter stipulation, according to their view, is valid, while the former is void as a mere arbitrary attempt to limit the carrier's liability for loss or injury due to its negligence.5 Other decisions, among them being decisions of the 500; Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Ragsdale, 14 Ind. A. 406, 42 NE 1106. Iowa.-Blair v. Wells. 155 Iowa 190, 135 NW 615 (construing Missouri law). NW 497, 47 AmR 781. Co., 24 Can. S. C. 611 (following Hart | Co., 103 Ind. 121, 2 NE 344, 53 AmR | St. Paul, etc., R. Co., 31 Minn. 85, 16 v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 112 U. S. 331, 5 SCt 151, 28 L. ed. 717, and distinguishing Vogel v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 11 Can. S. C. 612, on the ground that the question in that case was as to exemption from all liability, and that nothing there decided tended to establish that it was not competent for a carrier and a shipper to enter into an agreement for preascertained damages or for limited liability). 96. Georgia Southern, etc., R. Co. v. Johnson, 121 Ga. 231, 233, 48 SE 807 (where it was said: "In an action of trover or damages for conversion the tort feasor could not take advantage of his own wrong. nor lessen the measure of his liability, by invoking an agreed valuation which the plaintiff may have made for the purpose of reducing the freight rate or securing like collateral advantage. Savannah. etc.. R. Co. v. Sloat. 93 Ga. 803, 20 SE 219"). 97. See infra § 237. 98. See infra § 237. 99. See infra § 237. 1. U. S.-Eells v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 52 Fed. 903; Scruggs v. Baltimore, etc.. R. Co., 18 Fed. 318, 5 McCrary 590. Ala.-Louisville, etc.. R. Co. V. Jones, 192 Ala. 532. 68 S 871; Alabama | Great Southern R. Co. v. Knox, 184 Ala. 485, 63 S 538. 49 LRANS 411; Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. McCleskey. 160 Ala. 630, 49 S 433; Southern Express Co. v. Gibbs, 155 Ala. 303, 46 S 465, 130 AmSR 24, 18 LRANS 874; Southern Express Co. v. Owens, 146 Ala. 412, 41 S 752, 119 AmSR 41, 8 LRANS 369, 9 AnnCas 1143; Southern R. Co. v. Jones, 132 Ala. 437. 31 S 501: Western R. Co. v. Harwell. 91 Ala. 340. 8 S 649; Georgia Pac. R. Co. v. Hughart. 90 Ala. 36. 8 S 62: South, etc.. R. Co. v. Henlein, 52 Ala. 606, 23 AmR 578, 56 Ala. 368; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Risenstein, (A.) 69 S 243; Louisville. etc., R. Co. v. Jones. 12 Ala. A. 347, 67 S 621. Colo.-Union Pac. R. Co. v. Stupeck, 50 Colo. 151, 114 P 646. Ga. Southern Express Co. v. Hanaw. 134 Ga. 445, 67 SE 944, 137 AmSR 227; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Venable, 132 Ga. 501, 64 SE 466; Central of Georgia R. Co. v. Hall, 124 Ga. 322. 52 SE 679, 110 AmSR 170, 4 LRANS 898: Georgia Southern, etc.. R. Co. v. Johnson, 121 Ga. 231, 48 SE 807; Central of Georgia R. Co. v. Murphey, 113 Ga. 514, 38 SE 970. 53 LRA 720: Wood v. Southern Express Co.. 95 Ga. 451, 22 SE 535; Georgia R.. etc., Co. v. Keener, 93 Ga. 808, 21 SE 287. 44 AmSR 197: Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Tharpe, 11 Ga. A. 465, 75 SE 677; Central of Georgia R. Co. v. Butler Marble, etc.. Co., 8 Ga. A. 1, 68 SE 775; Louisville, etc.. R. Co. v. Warfield, 6 Ga. A. 550, 65 SE 308. Ind.-Rosenfield v. Peoria, etc., R. Ky-Southern Express Co. v. Fox, 131 Ky. 257, 115 SW 184, 117 SW 270, 133 AmSR 241. La.-Kember v. Southern Express Co., 22 La. Ann. 158, 2 AmR 719. Minn.-Porteous v. Adams Express Co., 112 Minn. 31, 127 NW 429; Ostroot v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 111 Minn. 504, 127 NW 177; Murphy v. Wells-Fargo, 99 Minn. 230, 108 NW 1070; O'Malley v. Great Northern R. Co., 86 Minn. 380, 90 NW 974; Alair v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 53 Minn. 160, 54 NW 1072, 39 AmSR 588, 19 LRA 764; Moulton v. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., 31 Minn. 85, 16 NW 497. 47 AmR 781. Mo.-McFadden v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 92 Mo. 343, 4 SW 689, 1 AmSR 721; McElvain v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 151 Mo. A. 126, 131 SW 736. N. C.-Everett v. Norfolk, etc., R. Co., 138 N. C. 68, 50 SE 557, 1 LRANS 985. N. D.-Hanson v. Great Northern R. Co., 18 N. D. 324, 121 NW 78, 138 AmSR 768. Oh.-Baltimore. etc., R. Co. v. Hubbard, 72 Oh. St. 302. 74 NE 217. Or.-Lacey v. Oregon R., etc., Co., 63 Or. 596. 128 P 999. S. D.-Berry v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 24 S. D. 611, 124 NW 859. V. Tenn.-Louisville. etc.. R. Co. Smith, 123 Tenn. 678, 134 SW 866; Nashville. etc., R. Co. v. Stone, 122 Tenn. 348, 79 SW 1031. 105 AmSR 955; Louisville, etc.. R. Co. v. Wynn, 88 Tenn. 320, 14 SW 311. W. Va.-Bosley v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 54 W. Va. 563, 570, 46 SE 613, 66 LRA 871 [eit Cyc]. Wis.-Ullman v. Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 112 Wis. 150, 88 NW 41; Abrams v. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co., 87 Wis. 485, 58 NW 780. 41 AmSR 55; Black v. Goodrich Transp. Co., 55 Wis. 319, 13 NW 244, 42 AmR 713. [a] Reason for rule.-The same reasons which forbid that a common carrier should, even by express contract, be absolved from liability for its own negligence stand also in the way of any arbitrary preadjustment of the measure of damages, where the carrier is partially relieved from such liability. It would indeed be absurd to say that the requirement of the law as to such responsibility of the carrier is absolute and cannot be laid aside even by the agreement of the parties, but that one half or three fourths of this burden which the law compels the carrier to bear may be laid aside by means of a contract limiting the recovery of damages to one half or one fourth of the known value of the property. This would be mere evasion which would not be tolerated. Moulton v. [b] Illustration.-A provision in a contract of shipment of cattle that, in the event of delay caused by negligence of the carrier, the shipper would accept as full compensation the amount expended by him in purchasing food and water is invalid. Bosley v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 54 W. Va. 563, 46 SE 613, 66 LRA 871. [c] Effect of state statutes fixing rates. It has been held in Alabama that the rule stated in the text is not affected by the Commodity Act (Gen. Acts [1907] p 209 and Gen. Acts [Spec. Sess. 1907] p 128), fixing rates to be charged by railroads. Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. McCleskey, 160 Ala. 630, 49 S 433. 2. Eells v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 52 Fed. 903; Union Pac. R. Co. v. Stupeck, 50 Colo. 151, 114 P 646: Southern Express Co. v. Hanaw, 134 Ga. 445, 67 SE 944, 137 AmSR 227; Georgia Southern, etc., R. Co. v. Johnson, 121 Ga. 231, 48 SE 807; Central of Georgia R. Co. v. Murphey, 113 Ga. 514, 38 SE 970, 53 LRA 720. 3. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Stupeck, 50 Colo. 151, 114 P 646. 4. Hanson v. Great Northern R. Co., 18 N. D. 324, 121 NW 78, 138 AmSR 768 (where it was said that the facts in each case must be looked to to determine whether the object of the stipulation was merely to place a limit on the carrier's liability, and therefore invalid, or whether the object was to fix fairly and honestly a basis of the carrier's charges and responsibility, and hence valid as a reasonable mode of securing a due proportion between the amount for which the carrier may be responsible and the freight it receives, and of protecting itself against extravagant and fanciful valuations). 5. Eells v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 52 Fed. 903; Kellerman v. Kansas City, etc.. R. Co.. 68 Mo. A. 255; Conover v. Pacific Express Co., 40 Mo. A. 31 (where a limitation of the first kind was condemned, and it was further held that the limitation would not apply, although the shipper, on demand made by the carrier, refused to state the amount of its value, and although a greater charge would have been made for its carriage, and it would have been differently carried if such value had been disclosed); Kirby v. Adams Express Co., 2 Mo. A. 369; Nashville, etc.. R. Co. v. Stone, 112 Tenn. 348, 79 SW 1031, 105 AmSR 955; Starnes v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 91 Tenn. 516, 518, 19 SW 675 (where the following stipulation was held valid: "And it is further agreed that should damage occur for which the said party of the first part may be liable, the value at the place and date of shipment shall govern the settlement, in which the amount claimed shall not exceed, for a stal United States supreme court, repudiate this doctrine and hold that, on principle, there can be no difference between a case where the stipulation is that the value of the property does not exceed a specified sum and one by which the value is agreed to be a specified sum.6 In either case, it is said, it becomes a part of the contract on which the minds of the parties meet and on which they act. And so far as interstate shipments are concerned, the decisions of the United States supreme court on this question are of course binding on the state courts.8 [§ 216] (cc) Distinction between Valuation Fixed by Shipper and Valuation Acquiesced in by Him. In a number of decisions a distinction is made between contracts in which the valuation inserted in the contract is one designated by the shipper on request of the carrier, and contracts in which the valuation is inserted in the contract without being named by the shipper, or in other words a general limitation of actual value. According to some decisions the latter class of contracts is invalid. This, however, is not the view of the United States supreme court or of some other courts in which the question has been raised. No difference in principle, it is held, exists between the two classes of contracts; when the latter class is acquiesced in by the shipper there is an "agreed" valuation as much as in the first class.10 This principle is borne out by the great weight of authority as to what constitutes a contract limiting liability, for, as heretofore shown, where a limitation of liability is embodied in a receipt or bill of lading which is accepted by the shipper, he will in most jurisdictions be presumed to have acquiesced in such limitation, even without any formal assent thereto, in the absence of fraud or imposition.11 [§ 217] (dd) Disproportion between Actual and Fixed Value. In Alabama the doctrine is well settled that, where a contract limits the liability of the carrier to an agreed valuation, on a consideration of reduced charges for carriage of goods, and such agreed valuation is largely disproportionate to the value of the goods, it is violative of publie policy, as far as it limits the carrier's liability for loss or injury caused by the negligence of itself or its servants, and that too, although the value of the goods shipped is not disclosed to the carrier.12 This principle seems to be borne out by a number of negligence." Doan v. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co.. supra. ity, it was not error for the court to cases). lion or jack, $200; for a horse or 6. U. S.-Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Carl, 227 U. S. 639, 642, 33 SCt 391. 57 L. ed. 683 (where the following clause was sustained: "In consideration of the price I, the consignor, hereby release the said company, and all other railroad and transportation companies, over whose lines the above property may pass to destination, from all liability from any loss or damage said property may sustain in excess of $5.00 per 100 lbs."); Wells v. Nelman-Marcus Co., 227 U. S. 469, 33 SCt 267, 57 L. ed. 600; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Miller, 226 U. S. 513, 33 SCt 155, 57 L. ed. 323. Ala-Southern R. Co. v. Jones, 132 Ala. 437, 31 S 501; Western R. Co. v. Harwell, 97 Ala. 341, 11 S 781. Minn. Alair v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 53 Minn. 160, 54 NW 1072, 39 AmSR 588. 19 LRA 764. N. H.-Durgin v. American Express Co, 66 N. H. 277, 20 A 328, 9 LRA 453. N. Y.-Zimmer v. New York Cent., etc.. R. Co., 137 N. Y. 460, 33 NE 642. But see Marquis v. Wood, 29 Misc. 590, 592, 61 NYS 251 [aff 30 Misc. 770 mem. 62 NYS 526 mem] (where the court said: "In the case at bar, the contract provided that said express company shall not be liable for any loss or damage to said property, exceeding the sum of fifty dollars, and the courts in a number of instances have held that the carrier did not, by this attempt to limit his liability, relieve himself from a loss occasioned by his own negligence, nor would that appear to be the full limit intended to be fixed by the company in the present case; for the receipt also contained the words, 'nor in any event shall said company be liable for more than the true value of the property.' Judged, therefore, by the light of the foregoing author Va.-Richmond, etc.. R. Co. V. Wis.-Ullman v. Chicago, etc., R. 7. Alair v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 8. See supra § 172. 9. Central of Georgia R. Co. v. "A mere general limitation as to "A distinction is taken under the decisions in this state, between a contract imposed by a common carrier on a shipper which contains a general limitation of value, and a contract between the carrier and the shipper in which the value of the thing shipped is agreed upon so that in case of loss the damages become liquidated by the contract of the parties. In the former case, the general stipulation is inoperative in reducing the damages which the plaintiff recovers in the event of loss by negligence. In the latter case the effect of the contract is to liquidate the damages, although the loss may have been the result of negligence. This distinction will be seen by comparing the two decisions of our supreme court in Harvey V. Terre Haute, etc., R. Co., 74 Mo. 538, and McFadden v. Missouri Pac. R. Co.. 92 Mo. 343, 352, 4 SW 689. 1 AmSR 721. This case, then, is not like the case of Harvey v. Terre Haute. etc., R. Co., supra, where the agent of the defendant asked the agent of the plaintiff the value of the horse. and was told that its value was one hundred dollars. But it is like the case of McFadden v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., supra, where it was held that the limitation as to value did not operate to reduce the damages to which the plaintiff was entitled in the case 10. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Harriman, 227 U. S. 657, 33 SCt 397, 57 L. ed. 690; Hart v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 112 U. S. 331, 337. 5 SCt 151, 28 L. ed. 717; Alair v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 53 Minn. 160, 54 NW 1072, 39 AmSR 588, 19 LRA 764. "A distinction is sought to be drawn between a case where a shipper, on requirement, states the value of the property, and a rate of freight is fixed accordingly, and the present case. It is said, that, while in the former case the shipper may be confined to the value he so fixed, in the event of a loss by negligence, the same rule does not apply to a case where the valuation inserted in the contract is not a valuation previously named by the shipper. Eut we see no sound reason for this distinction. The valuation named was the 'agreed valuation,' the one on which the minds of the parties met, however it came to be fixed, and the rate of freight was based on that valuation, and was fixed on condition that such was the valuation, and that the liability should go to that extent and no further." Hart v. Pennsylvania R. Co., supra. 11. See supra §§ 178, 182. 12. Southern Express Co. v. Gibbs, 155 Ala. 303, 46 S 465, 130 AmSR 24, 18 LRANS 874; Broadwood v. Southern Express Co., 148 Ala. 17, 41 S 769; Southern Express Co. v. Owens, 146 Ala. 412, 41 S 752, 119 AmSR 41. 8 LRANS 369, 9 AnnCas 1143; Southern Express Co. v. Jones, 132 Ala. 437, 31 S 501; Moulton v. Louisville, etc.. R. Co., 128 Ala. 537, 29 S 602: Alabama Great Southern R. Co. Little, 71 Ala. 611; South, etc., Alabama R. Co. v. Henlein, 52 Ala. 606, 23 AmR 578; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Jones, 12 Ala. A. 347, 67 S 621. V. "If the limit to the liability appears greatly disproportionate to the real value of the animal and the amount of freight charged, it will be pronounced unjust and unreasonable; but, if it seems to have been intended to adjust the extent of liability to the reduced rate of freight charged, and to secure the carrier against exaggerated or fanciful valuations, it fixes the measure of the carrier's liability. South, etc., Alabama R. Co. v. Henlein, 52 Ala. 606, 23 AmR 578, 56 Ala. 368." Western R. Co. v. Harwell, 91 Ala. 340, 348, 8 S 649. [a] Reason for rule.-"In determining whether a stipulation is void as being against public policy there is no room for inquiry into the knowledge, information or intention of the parties. The question is not |