Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/392

 384 FEDERAL RBPOETEK. �he ■wîll exercise will measurably depend upon the extent of the responsibility he may incur. While it is not primarily the dnty of the shipper to inform the carrier of the nature or value of the contenta of the parcel sent, the carrier has the right to make inquiry and receive a true answer, and any concealment on the part of the ehipper, intended to mislead the carrier as to the character or value of the property, aaid vrhich doe* mislead, is a fraud which absolves the carrier from responsibility. Sewell v.'Allen, 6 Wend. 347; Vhïllipa V. Earle, 8 Pick. 182; Brooke v. Pickwick, 4 Bing. E. 218; Riley v. Borner, 5 Bing. 217; SUat v. Flagg, 5 B. & A. 342; Crouch V. L. d N. M, R. 14 C. B. 255. �The question has generally arisen in cases where the car- rier sought to protect himself under the ternis of a general notice or regulation requiring the shipper to state the value or character of the property, and when the notice or regula- tion was brought to the knowledge of the shipper the carrier was protected by it. How much stronger is the case when, as here, the shipper enters into a contract by which he agrees that the property shall be valued at $50 in the absence of specifie statement of the real value. �In Express Co. v. Caldwell, 21 Wall. 264, a clause in a con- tract relieving the carrier from liability for any loss or dam- age to a package whatever, unless claim should be made therefor within a limited time, was austained as a reasonable condition. �The stipulation in the present case is plainly as reasonable as was that in Express Co. v. Caldivell. In effect it exacts from the shipper only that fair information of the extent of the carrier's risk to which he is entitled. �Upon the argument it was contended that the stipulation could not sûield the carrier from the consequences of his own misfeasance. Undoubtedly a carrier may so conduct him- self with property entrusted to him as to divest himself of the character of a carrier. In such case his contract would not protect him. This is not such a case. Judgment is ren- dered for plaintiff for $50, with interest from January 3, 1879. ��� �