Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/391

IIUSER V. AMERICAN BXFREiSS CO. 3S3 �The question now is, whether the defendant îa relieved from the responsibility by reason of the stipillations in the receipt, or, if not wholly absolved, whether it is iiable for more than f 50. �It will not be proetabl<» to review the authoritîes whîoh con- Bider the right of oommon carriers to limit or modify their eommon law liabilities by notices or special contracts. It is the settled law in the federal courts that eommon carriers can- not reliere themselves from liability for negligence either by notice or by special contraet.thaugh they may, by oontraot -with ihe shipper, stipulate for sach a reasosable modification of their eommon law liability as is not inoonsistent with their essen- tial duties to the publie. They cannot, therefore, exonerate themselves from liability for the negligence of their own agents, but may from the acts or miseonduct of persons over whom they have no authority or control, aetual or legal. York Co. T. Central R, 3 Wall. 107; B. Go. v. Lockwood, 17 Wall. 367; Bank of Kentucky v. Adam» Exp. Co. 93 U. S. 174. �The plaintifïs' property was destroyed by the negligence of ihe railroad company, the agent of the defendant, and the defendant is, therefore, Iiable, notwithstanding the stipula- tion against liability for fire. �The precise question presented under the stipulation limit- ing the defendant's liability to $50, in the absence of a state- ment of the real value in the reeeipt, was decided in Berry v. Dinsmore, where at niai prius I held suoh a stipulation valid. after a more careful consideration of the question than I was able to give I am confiimed in the conclusion then reached. The case of Hopkin» v. Wetcott, 6 Blatoh. 64, which was not then called to my attention, is a controlling authority in this circuit, and decides that such a limitation is binding upon the shipper. To the same effect are Belger v. Dinsmore, 51 N. Y. 166 ; KitkUnd v. Dinsmore 62 N. Y. 85; Wagntr v. Dinsmore, 62 N. Y. 171 and 70 N. Y. 410. �The rigLt of a carrier to exact fair information as to the value of property confided to his care has always been recog- niî'.ed. He has the right to insist that his compensation be measured by his risk, and, obviously, the degree of care which ��� �