Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/352

§ 353.] THE LAW OF PRIVATE CORPORATIONS. [CHAP. VII. § 353. With one or two exceptions, the reasoning in Rail- road Company v. Lockwood has been followed in every state where decisions conformable to the principles therein stated had not previously been rendered. Tlie authorities for the propo- sition that a common carrier cannot validly stipulate for ex- emption from liability for its negligence and that of its servants are given in the note. 1 pany. Bait. & O., S. W. Ry. Co. v. Voight, 176 U. S. 498. But the doc- trine of the case of R. R. Co. v. Lockwood has no application to a stipulation in a lease given by the railroad, releasing it from the lia- bility imposed by statute for dam- ages caused by fires. Hartford Ins. Co. v. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co., 175 U. S. 91. 1 Alabama: Alabama Gt. Southern R. R. Co. v. Thomas, 89 Ala. 294; South and North Ala. R. R. Co. v. Henlein, 52 Ala. 606; Southern Ex- press Co. v. Crook, 44 Ala. 468; Mo- bile and Ohio R. R. Co. v. Hopkins, 41 Ala. 486; Steele v. Townsend, 37 Ala. 247. Arkansas: Taylor & Co. v. Little Rock, etc., R. R. Co., 39 Ark. 148; Little Rock, etc., R'y Co. v. Talbot, id. 523. California: Pierce v. So. Pac. R. R. Co., 120 Cal. 156. Colorado: Merchants' Despatch Trans. Co. v. Cornforth, 3 Col. 280. Connecticut: Welch v. Boston & Al- bany R. R. Co., 41 Conn. 333. See Camp v. Hartford, etc., Steamboat Co., 43 Conn. 333. Delaware: See Flinn v. Phila., W. and B. R. R. Co., 1 Houston, 472. Georgia: Borry v. Cooper, 28 Ga. 543; Purcell v. South- ern Exp. Co., 34 Ga. 315; Georgia R. R. Co. v. Gann, 68 Ga. 350. Indi- ana: Indianapolis, etc., R. R. Co. v. Allen, 31 Ind. 394; Ohio and Miss. R. Co. v. Selby, 47 Ind. 471; Michigan Southern, etc., R. R. Co. v. Heaton, 37 Ind. 448; Rosenfeld v. Peoria, etc., Ry. Co., 103 Ind. 121. (Earlier Indi- 332 ana cases holding contrary doctrines overruled. ) A carrier may, however, limit his extreme common law lia- bility. Adams Express Co. v. Fen- drick, 38 Ind. 150; provided the limi- tation is reasonable. Adams Express Co. v. Reagan, 29 Ind. 21. See Evansville, etc., R. R. Co. v. Young, 28 Ind. 516. Iowa: Rose v. Des Moines Valley R. R. Co., 39 Iowa, 246. Kansas: St. Louis, K. C. & N. R'y Co. v. Piper, 13 Kan. 505. See Kansas Pac. R. R. Co. v. Reynolds, 8 Kan. 623, 641. Kentucky: Orndorff v. Adams Express Co., 3 Bush, 194; Louisville, etc., R. R. Co. v. Brown- lee, 14 Bush, 590. Maine: Willis v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 62 Me. 488; Sager v. Portsmouth, etc., R. R. Co., 31 Me. 228. Massachusetts: See Commonwealth v. Vermont, etc., R. R. Co., 108 Mass. 7; School District v. Boston, Hartford and E. R. R. Co., 102 Mass. 552. Minnesota: Shriver v. Sioux City, etc., R. R. Co., 24 Minn. 506; Christenson v. American Express Co., 15 Minn. 270; Jacobus v. St. Paul, etc., R'y Co., 20 Minn. 125. Mississippi: Mobile and Ohio R. R. Co. v. Weiner, 49 Miss. 725; Southern Express Co. v. Moon, 39 Miss. 822. Missouri: Clark v. St. Louis, etc., R'y Co., 64 Mo. 440; Reed v. Same, 60 Mo. 199; Ketchum v. American Merch. Union Exp. Co., 52 Mo. 390; Lupe v. Atlantic, etc., R. R. Co., 3 Mo. App. 77. Nebraska: Atchison and Neb. R. R. Co. v. Wash- burn, 5 Neb. 117. New Hampshire: