Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/56

 HA.THEB V. AMERICAN SXPBESS 00. 49 �Matheb V. American Expeess Uo. �■{Circuit Court, N. D. Illinois. , 1880.) �CoMMON Carbier— Limitation pi' Liability— Refusai, to Disclosb Value op Goods. — A statute of the state of Illinois, which proliibits a commun carrier from limiting its comraon law liability, does not pre- veut such carrier from limiting its liability where the sliipper ref used to inform the carrier of the value of the goods at the time they were shipped. �Blodgett, D. J. This case was tried by the court without a jury, upon an agreed state of facts, the facts being, in sub- stance, that a package containing two gold watches and five gold chains, and worth something over $500, was delivered to the agent of the Southern Express Company, at Bethany, Georgia, directed to the plaintiff in this city. The Southern Express Company accepted the package and forwarded it to Cairo, in this state, where it was delivered to the American Express Company, who undertook its transportation to this city, the Southern Express Company not running to this point. �No value was marked upon the package. The receipt given to the consignor stated, "Value asked but not given." The package was lost after arriving in this city, by theft, by reason of its not having been treated as a valuable package and placed in the safe where it would bave been placed if its true value had been marked upon it. �Suit is brought by the plaintiff, and the question is as to the extent of the recovery to which he is entitled. The defendant admits that it is liable to the amount of $50, there being a provision in the receipt given for this package that where the value of a package is not stated or disclosed to the Company the liability should be limited to $50. The plain- tiff insists that the case comes within the provisions of the aet of 187e* of the legislature of Illinois, which prohibits any �*"Whenever any property is receivedïy a lommon carrier to be trans- ported from one place to another, within or without this state, it shall not be lawful for such carrier to limit his common law liability safely to deliver such property at the place to which the same is to be transported by any stipulation or limitation expi'cssed in the receipt given for such property." Rev. St. of 111. (1874) c. 27, p. 268. v.2,no.l — i ����