JUST AND REASONABLE CONTRACT. 243 



goods conveyed at special or mileage rate, the company will not be 

 resj)onsible for any loss or damage, however caused (ib.). But a condi- 

 tion that the company will not be accountable for the loss, detention, 

 or damage of any package insufficiently or improperly packed, is unjust 

 and unreasonable {ib.). In The London, and North Western Railway 

 Company (appellants) v. Dunliam (respondent), where the respondent 

 had sustained considerable injury, owing to his meat not having been 

 forwarded and delivered in London in time, and the risk note which 

 was signed by him when he delivered the meat at the railway contained 

 this notice — " Hay and straw, furnifure, glass, marble, china, castings, 

 and other brittle and hazardous articles, &c., conveyed at the risJc of 

 the oicners" — the Court held that as the circumstances under which 

 the contract was made, or the nature or reason of the particular risk 

 were not disclosed, they could not come to any conclusion as to whether 

 or not the contract was ''just and reasonable " under the statute. 



Andjw Jcrvis C.J. : "The result seems to be this : A general notice 

 is void, but the company may make special contracts with their cus- 

 tomers, provided they are just and reasonable, and signed ; and whereas 

 the monopoly created by railway companies compels the public to employ 

 them in the conveyance of their goods, the legislature have thought fit 

 to impose the further security, that the Court shall see that the condi- 

 tion or special contract is just and reasonable." 



In Pcalce v. The North Staffordshire Railway Company, the Court of 

 Queen's Bench had to decide on the construction of the 7th section. 

 The plaintiff sued for the loss of his goods, which were delivered to the 

 defendants to carry. The defendants pleaded fifthly, that the goods 

 were delivered and received under and subject to a certain just and 

 reasonable condition, made by the defendants, and assented to by the 

 plaintiffs with respect to the receiving, forwarding, and delivering the 

 said goods (viz., that they would not be responsible for loss or injury to 

 them unless declared and insured according to their value), and went on 

 to set out the condition, and to aver that the state of things had arisen, 

 Avhich by that condition exempted them from liability, in respect of the 

 loss of the goods. There was no allegation that the assent of the 

 plaintiff was in writing. The jury, in answer to questions from Erie J., 

 found that there had been no wilful default or neglect on the part of the 

 defendants, and that there had been no negligence if the goods had been 

 of an ordinary kind, such as granite and not marble chimney-pieces ; 

 and on this finding the learned judge held that the condition was 

 reasonable, and directed the verdict to be entered for the defendants, on 

 the fourth and fifth pleas, with leave to move for judgment non obstante 

 veredicto on both pleas. The Court was divided in opinion. Lord 



