Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/725

 OiJMSBT 17. U. P. B. 00. 711 �the use of the stock, and shall see to loading and unloading. and ail those particulars, I think it is a valid contract ; but, as to these particulars, there is no particular conflict in this case. There is appended to this contract a printed state- ment, which is headed "Eules and regulations for the trans- portation of live stock," and in that statement there is a pro- vision that in case damages occur in the transportation of live stock, for which the company may be liable, the value at the place and date of shipment shall govern the settlement, in which the amount claimed shall not exceed |200 for a. stallion; $100 for a horse; mule, $65; cattle, $50, and other animais, $20. And also another provision, that blooded animais, or animais deemed especially valuable, will be carried only on special contract, and agents are not allowed to re- ceive and ship such animais until a proper contract is made between the owner or consignee and the general freight agent. That, gentlemen, is not in the contract which the plaintiff signed. It is in a print which is on the same sheet of paper with the contract. It has been held by the supreme court of the United States that the shipper is only bound by the stip- ulation contained in the contract itself ; or, in other words, that the. railway company that proposes to exempt itself from any of its obligations as a common carrier, cannot do it by mere notice, or by printing which is appended to or indorsed upon the contract which is executed, but must do it, in sofar as it is lawful to do it at ail, by a stipulation in the body of the instrument, to whieh the shipper assauts by his signature Upon this subject I charge you in the language of the supreme court in the case of the B, Co. v. Manuf'g Co., reported in 16 Wallace's Keports, 328, 329, as follows: "Whether a carrier, when charged upon his common-law responaibil- ity, can discharge himself from it by special contract, as- sented to by the owner, is not an open question in this court since the cases of N. J. Steam Nav. Co. v. Merchants' Bank, 6 How. 344, and York Company v. Central Eailroad, 3 Wall. 107. In both these cases the right of the carrier to restrict or diminish his liability by special contract, which does not cover losses by negligence or misconduct, received the sanc- ����