fore, any general stipulation inserted in a carrier's bill of lading or receipt, by which the consignor is made to take upon himself the risks of conveyance, or any special risks like those of fire, will be read with an implied exception of injuries for the want of ordinary care on the part of the carrier himself or his servants.1 Carriers of passengers, it is also held, cannot [*686] relieve themselves from the *obligation to observe ordi Car. R R. Co., 64 N. C. 235; Great West. R. Co. v. Hawkins, 18 Mich. 427; S. C. 17 Mich. 57; Steele v. Burgess, 37 Ala. 247; Mobile, &c., R. R. Co. v. Hopkins, 41 Ala. 486; Sou. Exp. Co. v. Crook, 44 Ala. 468; South, &c., R. R. Co. v. Henlein, 52 Ala 606; Hooper v. Wells, 27 Cal. 11; Sager v. Portsmouth, &c., R. R. Co., 31 Me 228; Indianapolis, &c., R. R. Co. v. Allen, 31 Ind. 394; Michigan, &c.. R. R. Co. v. Heaton, 37 Ind. 448; Virginia, &c., R. R. Co. v. Sayers, 26 Grat.328; Graham v. Davis, 4 Ohio, (N. 8.) 362; Gaines v. Union Trans. Co., 28 Ohio, (N. s.) 418; Adams Exp. Co. v. Stettaners, 61 Ill. 184; Levering v. Union Trans. Co., 42 Mo. 88; Sturgeon v. St. Louis, &c., R. R. Co., 65 Mo. 569; Swindler v. Hilliard, 2 Rich. 286; Berry v. Cooper, 28 Geo. 543; Georgia R R. Co. v. Gann, 68 Geo. 350; Whitesides v. Thurlkill, 20 Miss. 599; Sou. Exp. Co. v. Moon, 39 Miss. 822; Chicago, &c., Ry Co. v. Abels, 60 Miss. 1017; Welch . Boston, &c., R. R. Co., 41 Conn. 333; Kansas City, &c., Co. v. Simpson, 30 Kan. 645; Moulton v. St. Paul, &c., Co., 31 Minn 85; Black v. Goodrich Tr. Co., 55 Wis. 319; Cream City, &c., Co. v. Chicago, &c., Ry Co., 63 Wis. 93. 'New Jersey, &c., Co. v. Merchants' Bank, 6 How. 344; York Co. v. Central R. R. Co., 3 Wall. 107; School Dist. v. Boston, &c., R. R. Co., 102 Mass. 552; Condict v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 54 N. Y. 500; Powell v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 32 Penn. St. 414; Delaware, &c., R. R. Co. v. Starrs, 69 Penn. St. 36; Mo. Val. R. R. Co. v. Caldwell, 8 Kan 244; N. O. Ins. Co. t. New Orleans, &c., R. R. Co., 20 La. Ann. 302; Erie, &c., Tr. Co. v. Dater, 91 Ill. 195; Merch. Desp. Tr. Co. v. Leysor, 89 Ill. 43; McFadden Miss. Pac. Ry Co, 92 Mo. 343. See Mitchell v. Georgia R. R. Co., 68 Geo. 644. Leaving cattle to die of neglect, is not negligence, but an abandonment of the contract of carriage, and the carrier is responsible on that ground. Keeney v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 59 Barb. 104; S. C. 47 N. Y. 525. Though the bill of lading provides that in case of loss of goods the carrier shall be liable for a certain amount only, yet if the sum named was understood at the time not to be the real value, he will be liable for the full value if lost through his negligence. U. S. Express Co. Backman, 28 Ohio, (N. 8.) 144. But if a reduced rate is given in consideration of which the liability is limited and the contract is fairly made, only the agreed amount can be recovered even if the injury is caused by negli gence. Hart o. Penn. Co., 112 U. S. 331; Graves v. Lake Shore, &c., Co., 137 Mass. 33; Hill v. Boston, &c., Co., 144 Mass. 284; Elkins v. Empire Tr. Co., 81* Penn. St. 315; Louisville, &c., R. R. Co. v. Sherrod, 4 South. Rep 29 (Ala.); Centr. R. R &c., Co. v. Smitha, Id. 708 (Ala.); St. Louis, &c., Co. Weakly, 8S W. Rep. 134 (Ark.). See Rosenfeld v. Decatur, &c., Ry Co., 103 Ind. 121. nary care by any contract whatsoever, even in the case of "drover's passes," which are given without charge to those who accompany consignments of cattle,' or in cases where free passage is given as mere matter of courtesy or favor." In New York and New Jersey, however, it is held to be entirely competent to contract against liability for any negligence but the personal negligence of the carrier himself; which, in the case of corporations, would embrace any negligence of their servants, and of all but the managing board. The weight of authority, 1 Flinn v. Philadelphia, &c., R. R. Co., 1 Hout. 469; Cleveland, &c., R. R. Co. v. Curran, 19 Ohio, (N. 8.) 1; Ohio, &c., R. R. Co. Selby, 47 Ind. 471; Carroll r. Miss. Pac. Ry Co., 88 Mo 239; Miss. Pac. Ry Co. v. Cornwall, 8 S. W. Rep. 312 (Tex.) See Lawson v. Chicago, &c., Ry Co., 64 Wis. 447. Compare Gardner v. New Haven, &c., R. R. Co. 51 Conn. 143. 2 Philadelphia, &c., R. R. Co. v. Derby, 14 How. 468; Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. McCloskey, 23 Penn. St. 526; Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Butler, 57 Penn. St. 335; Ind. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Mundy, 31 Ind. 48; Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Read, 37 Ill 484; Gulf &c., Ry Co. a. McGown, 65 Tex. 640. See, also, Waterbury v. New York &c., Co., 17 Fed. Rep. 671 and note; Prince. International, &c., R. R. Co., 64 Tex. 144; Sherman v. Hannibal, &c., R. R. Co., 72 Mo. 62; Gradin v. St. Paul, &c., Co., 30 Minn. 217. So a servant carried free on his own business is a passenger, State v. Western Md. R. R. Co., 63 Md. 433; otherwise if so carried to his work as part of his contract of service. Vick v. New York, &c., R. R. Co., 95 N. Y. 267. Bissell . N. Y. Cent. R. R. Co., 25 N. Y. 442; Wells v. N. Y. Cent. R. R Co., 24 N. Y. 181; Perkins v. N. Y. Cent. R. R. Co., 24 N. Y. 196; Smith v. N. Y. Cent. R. R. Co., 24 N. Y. 222; Poucher v. N. Y. Cent. R. R. Co., 49 N. Y. 263; Wilson v. New York, &c., Co., 97 N. Y. 87; Kinney v. Cent. R. R. Co., 32 N. J. 407; S. C. 34 N. J., 513. See Knowlton, v. Erie R. Co., 19 Ohio, (N. s.) 260. But there must be an express contract to that effect. Holsapple v. Rome, &c., Co., 86 N. Y. 275. Shipping at "owner's risk" will not excuse gross negligence, Canfield v. Balt. &c., Co., 93 N. Y. 532. That one riding in a parlor car and paying for that privilege does not abrogate his agreement in his railroad pass against liability for negligence of the railroad company, see Ulrich v. New York, &c., R. R. Co., 15 N. E. Rep. 60 (N. Y.). The carrier does not escape liability to a U. S. mail agent for negligence, by which he is injured in the course of his duty, because he has a pass with an exemption clause endorsed on it. Seybolt v. New York, &c., Co., 95 N. Y. 562; and see cases in note to this case, 18 A. & E. R. R. Cas. 169. Under Penn, statutes such agent is not entitled to the care due a passenger. Penn. R. R. Co. v. Price, 96 Penn. St. 256. In Massachusetts an express messenger riding under a release contract in a baggage car is held bound by the contract if injured there. Bates v. Old Colony R. R. Co., 17 N. E. Rep. 633. however, is most distinctly the other way, both in this country and in England.1 [*687] *Restrictions of Liability by Telegraph Companies. It is customary for telegraph companies to send messages subject to a condition that they shall not be responsible for errors or delays, unless the message is repeated at the sender's cost. Such conditions have frequently been supported as reasonable. But the condition to be available must be brought to the The subject is exhaustively considered by Mr. Justice BRADLEY, in Railroad Company v. Lockwood, 17 Wall. 357, which was the case of a drover's pass. The authorities are all examined with care, and the principle of the decision is that carefulness and fidelity are essential duties of the carrier's employment, which cannot be abdicated. It was recog nized in that case, as it has been generally, that a drover's pass is not in reality gratuitous, but must be considered as taken into account in paying for the transportation of stock. Whether in the case of a strictly gratuitous carriage the carrier might stipulate against liability, the court was not called upon to decide. See, also, Railway Company v. Stevens, 95 U. S. 655. In Jacobus d. St. Paul, &c, R. R. Co., 20 Minn. 125, it was said that the carrier is held to the same extreme care in such cases as in others, but in Illinois where comparative negligence is recognized, the court say of a stipulation against liability for negligence in the case of a gratuitous carriage, "While we hold this agreement did not exempt the railroad company from the gross negligence of its employees, we are free to say that it does exempt it from all other species or degrees of negligence not denominated gross, or which might have the character of recklessness." Ill. Cent, R. R. Co. v. Read, 37 Ill. 484. In Wisconsin if a strictly gratuitous pass is given upon an agreement endorsed thereon to release from liability for negligence, there can be no recovery except for recklessness or such carelessness as is made a crime by statute. Annas o. Milwaukee, &c., Co., 67 Wis. 46. In Connecticut in such case there can be no recovery. Griswold New York, &c., R. R. Co., 53 Cona. 371. The English law is affected by statute, which leaves the court to determine the reasonableness of exemptions in carrier's contracts; but the courts hold contracts for exemp tion from liability for negligence in the transportation of goods unreasonable. Peek . N. Stafford R. Co., 10 H. L. Cas. 473. They however hold that carriers of passengers may stipulate in passes to drovers that the carrier shall not be responsible for any risks. McCawley . Furness, L R. 8 Q. B. 57. McAndrew o. Elec. Tel. Co., 17 C. B. 3; Ellis v. Am. Tel. Co., 13 Allen, 226; Grinnell v. West. U. Tel. Co., 113 Mass. 299; 8. C. 18 Am. Rep. 485; Clement v. West. U. Tel. Co., 137 Mass. 463; Young West. U. Tel. Co., 65 N. Y. 163; Camp v. West. U. Tel. Co., 1 Met. (Ky.) 164; West. U. Tel. Co. v. Carew, 15 Mich. 525; De Rutte . N. Y., &c., Tel. Co., 1 Daly 547; Breese v. U. S. Tel. Co., 45 Barb. 274; S. C. 48 N. Y. 132; Birney knowledge of the party interested in the message, sender or receiver,' and in the absence of a provision requiring the message to be repeated, it would be 'void as an attempt by the company to relieve itself of the consequences of its own fault." The cases of carriers and telegraph companies have been specifically mentioned, because it is chiefly in these cases that such contracts are met with. But although the reasons which forbid such contracts have special force in the business of carrying persons and goods, and of sending messages, they apply universally, and should be held to defeat all contracts by which a party undertakes to put another at the mercy of his own faulty conduct. v. N. Y., &c., Tel. Co., 18 Md. 341; Passmore v. W. U. Tel. Co., 78 Penn. St. 238; Wann v. West. U. Tel. Co., 37 Mo. 472; West. U. Tel. Co. v. Edsall, 63 Tex. 668. But such conditions are held void in Maine. Ayer v. West. U. Tel. Co., 10 Atl. Rep. 495. May limit its liability for error in unrepeated message where it is not guilty of gross negligence. Hart v. West. U. Tel. Co., 66 Cal. 579; Becker v. West. U. Tel. Co., 11 Neb. 87; Kiley v. West. U. Tel. Co. 16 N. E. Rep. 75 (N. Y.). See Thompson v. West. U. Tel. Co., 61 Wis. 531. IN. Y., &c., Tel. Co. v. Dryburg, 35 Penn. St. 298. Compare Ellis v. Am. Tel. Co., 13 Allen, 226. In Louisiana it is said it can be available, if at all, only against the sender. LaGrange v. Sou. West. Tel. Co., 25 La. Ann. 383. True . Int. Tel. Co., 60 Me. 9. In Illinois the force of the condition seems to be restricted to errors arising from causes beyond the company's control. Tyler v. West. U. Tel. Co., 60 Ill. 421; 8. C. 14 Am. Rep. 38; West. U. Tel. Co. v. Tyler, 74 Ill. 168. And see Sweatland v. Ill., &c., Tel. Co., 27 Iowa, 432; Candee v. West. U. Tel. Co., 34 Wis. 471. In Missouri it is denied that telegraph companies can contract not to be responsible for their own carelessness. Wann v. West. U. Tel. Co., 37 Mo. 472. See West. U. Tel. Co. v. Harris, 19 Ill. App. 347; West. U. Tel. Co. v. Shotter, 71 Geo. 760; West. U. Tel. Co. v. Crall, 17 Pac. Rep. 309 (Kan.). In Colorado and Texas it is held that the condition not to be responsible for unrepeated messages is no defense to an action for failure to deliver. West. U. Tel. Co. v. Graham, 1 Col. 230; Gulf, &c., Co. v. Miller, 7 S. W. Rep. 653 (Tex.). In Maine and Wisconsin, it is decided that a condition in sending a night message that the company shall be liable for errors or delay only to the extent of what is received for sending the message is void, as contrary to public policy. Bartlett v. West. U. Tel. Co., 62 Me. 209; Hibbard v. West. U. Tel. Co., 33 Wis. 559. Nor can it limit the damage to ten times the price. Marr v. West. U. Tel. Co., 3 S. W. Rep. 496 (Tenn.); West. U. Tel. Co. v. Shotter, 71 Geo. 760; West. U. Tel. Co. v. Harris, 19 Ill. App. 347. And, see Sweatland v. Illinois, &c., Tel. Co., 27 Iowa, 433; West. U. Tel. Co. v. Fenton, 52 Ind. 1; West. U. Tel. Co. v. Meek, 49 Ind. 53; Birney . N.. Y., &c., Tel. Co., 18 Md. 341. [*688] *CHAPTER XXII. THE PLACE OF EVIL MOTIVE IN THE LAW OF TORTS. When a bad Motive Important. In the course of the preceding pages it has been made very manifest that when the question at issue is, whether one person has suffered legal wrong at the hands of another, the good or bad motive which influenced the action complained of is generally of no importance whatever. What was said in the opening chapter of the work, that the exercise by one man of his legal right cannot be a legal wrong to another, has been abundantly shown to be justified by the authorities, even if it were not in itself a mere truism. "An act which does not amount to a legal injury cannot be actionable because it is done with a bad intent." "Any transaction which would be lawful and proper, if the parties were friends, cannot be made the foundation of an action merely because they happened to be enemies. As long as a man keeps himself within the law by doing no act which violates it, we must leave his motives to HIM who searches the heart." To state the point in a few words, whatever one has a right to do another can have no right to complain of. Damage at the hands of Government. It has been shown, also, that when a government official assumes an authority which the law does not warrant him in exercising, he is personally responsible, whatever may have been his motive. The discussions in Milligan's case cover this point very fully.' But if the 1 PARKE, B., in Stevenson v. Newnham, 13 C. B. 285, 297. See Floyd v. Barber, 12 Co. 23; Stowball v. Ansell, Comb. 11; Tayler v. Henniker, 12 Ad. & El. 488; Heald v. Carey, 11 C. B. 977. 2 BLACK, J., in Jenkins v. Fowler, 24 Penn. St. 308, 310. See Fowler v. Jenkins, 28 Penn. St. 176; Covanhovan v. Hart, 21 Penn. St. 495; Clin ton v. Myers, 46 N. Y. 511; Frazier . ⚫. Brown, 12 Ohio, (N. 8.) 294; Thom. asson v. Agnew, 24 Miss. 93; McMil lin v. Staples, 36 Iowa, 532; Brothers v. Morris, 49 Vt. 460; Kiff v. Youmans, 86 N. Y, 324; Estey v. Smith, 45 Mich. 402. See cases infra 832 et seq. • Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 3. See Planters' Bank . Union Bank, 16 |
