Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/57

 SO FEDEBAIi BEPORTBB. �<îominon carrier from limiting its liability. I do not think, in the first place, that this case cornes within that provision, because this was a contract of carriage made in the state of Georgia, and the parties could make any contract which the laws of the state of Georgia permitted them to make, and the laws of that state allowed a carrier to limit his liability. Wallace v. Superinteiident, 39 Ga. 617. But, waiving the ■question as to whether this contract is to be construed by the laws of Georgia or Illinois, I do not think that the Btatute of minois intended that a common carrier should be prevented from limiting its liability where it asked for the value of the commodity of -which ît undertook the trans- portation, and the information requested is withheld. It eeem^ to me that is one of those reasonable precautions ■which a common carrier bas a right to demand ; and ■where a sealed or closed package is presented, and the value ia asked, and the consignor refuses to disclose it, the carrier has a right, it seems to me, to limit its liability to a fixed sum, and say that it will undertake the transportation on the assumption that it is not worth over a certain sum. It seems to me competent for a common carrier, under the lUi- nois statute, to require a shipper of goods to state. the value ■which he puts upon them, and to stipulate that in case of loss the liability of the carrier shall not exceed the amount Bo fixed ; and if this can be done, I can see no good reason •why the carrier may not say that when the shipper refuses to dieclose the value the liability of the carrier should not exceed a certain amount. This is equivalent to a special agreement bet^ween the parties that, for the purpose of the contract of «arriage, the value of the goods is fixed at $50. The facts in this case show that the sender of the package was in the habit of shipping packages by the Southern Express Company, and this clause restricting liability to $50, where the value was noi disclosed, was in ail their receipts given for packages taken for shipment, and must bave been known to him. The con- tract which was given to him by the agent stated that the value was asked but not given. �It ia true the package was marked "watches," but the ����