Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/613

 006 FKD£BAL BEPOBT£B. �exact any such knowledge on the part of the carrier, nor per- mit him, in cases free from suspicion, to require information as to the contents of the packages offered. " The charges for carriage should be in proportion to the responsibility that the carrier is required to assume, and he may, therefore, inquire of the shipper the value of the package offered, and, if the îatter declines to give the information asked for, the carrier can fix the value to suit himself, and thus limit his risk. If the shipper of diamonds or other articles of value, in answer to an inquiry of the carrier, fixes an inadequate value upon them, and they are afterwards lost, the liability of the carrier cannot exceed the valuation thus made, Persons who wish to ship articles of great value, such as money or jewels, and hold the carrier accountable for the loss of them, must not purposely keep him in ignorance of the value of the articles entrusted to his care. �In lOM. &W. 397, a number of small parcels belonging to different owners were united in one large package, and di- rected to one person as consignee, and it was held that the carrier was bound to take the package, charging for it as if each parcel belonged to one person, and that there was no right to charge upon each separate parcel, as if it had been fihipped by itself. �The defendant's refusai to carry the express company's safes and chests unless it was allowed to open the same and inspect their contents, or unless it was furnished by the ex- press Company with an inventory of the contents, with the understanding that whenever the defendant saw fit it might open the safes and chests and inspect their contents, and also unless it was permitted to collect the freights on each separate article or parcel as if it had been shipped by itself, was ail in violation of the express company's rights as a shipper, and in violation of the injunction order. �It is asserted by the express company, and not denied by the defendant, that at the time the original biU was filed it was the intention of the Iatter company to exclude from its road ail other express companies, and to allow the Union Ex- press Company the exclusive privilege of doing express busi- ����