Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/236

228 FEDERAL REPORTER. �had conaucted it there left it, and a "strike" of ail the reg- ular train hands of the defendant occurred on that day, in consequence of a refusai by the defendant to accede to their demand for an increase of wages. �7. On the nineteenth of July there were standing on the track in the depôt yard at Pittsburgh a number of cars laden with petroleum,' about 150 yards distant from the cars which contained the plaintiff's goods. They were in the same rela- tive position on the day when the fire occurred, The oil cars were kept in place by ordinary brakes. The grade of the road was descending towards the freight cars, so that the oU cars would run towards the former by their own gravity. At or before the occurrence of the fire the oil cars were caused to move down the grade until they came in contact with the freight cars, and they were ail burned up together. �8. On the nineteenth, twentieth and twenty-first of July, freight trains continued to be brought into the depôt yard of the defendant, at Pittsburgh, both from the east and west, ta the regular course of transit, and were there stopped, so that there was an unusual accumulation of trains at that point. �The court is respectfuUy requested by plaintif to firid, as matters of law : �1. That defendant's duty as common carriers was to carry plaintiff's goods from the several points of shipment to * * Philadelphia, the point of delivery of ail, without any unusual or avoidable delay, and, apart from the special conditions in the bill of lading, defendant is liable for loss from any cause save the acts of God or a public enemy. �2. That defendant did not cease to be common carriers by reason of the conditions in the bill of lading, but continued subject to ail liabilities of common carriers, except for losses happening for causes enumerated in said conditions, without default or negligence on the part of defendant's servants or employes, while defendant was actually discharging its duties of carrying the goods from the point of shipment in the uBual and proper manner. �3. That the interruption of the transit by reason of the refusai of the servants of the defendant, in charge of the ��� �