NATURE OF THE CONTKACT OP CARRIAGE. 465 



in a majority of the States. ^° Where a company contracted 

 to "forward" cattle to a certain point beyond its own line 

 and that it and the connecting lines should be liable only for 

 gross negligence, it was held to be liable for the ordinary 

 negligence of itself or any one of the connecting carriers. ^^ 

 A carrier making a through contract for the shipment of 

 stock over its own and a connecting line may make an ex- 

 press contract limiting its liability to its own line.^^ This 

 limitation enures to the benefit of each of the connecting- 

 carriers and confines its liability to its own line.^^ Where the 

 liability is limited to the delivery of the stock to a connecting 

 line and it is delivered to a stock-yards company to be re- 

 delivered to the other line, the original carrier is liable for 

 injuries received while the stock is in the hands of the stock- 

 yards company.^* A connecting carrier receiving horses, 

 though with notice that the shipper attempted to prepay 

 freight but had not paid in full according to its tariff, has a 



" Hutchinson Carriers § 149; McCarn v. Internat. & G. N. R. Co., 84 

 Tex. 352; Ortt V. Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co., 36 Minn. 396. 

 "' St. Louis, K. C. & N. R. Co. v. Piper, 13 Kan. 505. 

 As to the meaning of the term "to forward," see Hutchinson Carriers 



§§ iSS. 156. 



"^Hutchinson Carriers § 149 b-; Ortt v. Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co., 

 supra; McCarn v. Inte.nat. & G. N. R. Co., 84 Tex. 352; Gulf, C. & S. 

 F. R. Co. V. Thompson (Tex. Civ. App.), 21 S. W. Rep. 186; Gulf, W. T. 

 & P. R. Co. V. Griffith (Tex. Civ. App.), 24 id. 362. 



Some of the Texas Court of Appeal cases are opposed to this. See 

 Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. V. Vaughn, 4 Tex. App. (Civ. Cas.) 269; Tex. & 

 Pac. R. Co. V. Scrivener, 2 id. 284. But the former case is expressly dis- 

 approved of in McCarn v. Internat. & G. N. R. Co., supra. 



See, however, where the companies are partners, Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. 

 V. Wilson, 7 Tex. Civ. App. 128; Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. v. Houston 

 (Tex. Civ. App.), 40 S. W. Rep. 842; Hutchinson Carriers §§ 158-170. 



And see as to an interstate shipment, Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. 

 V. Armstrong (Tex. Civ. App.), 43 S. W. Rep. 614. 



"^ Ft. Worth & D. C. R. Co. v. Williams, 77 Tex. 121 ; Internat. & G. 

 N. R. Co. V. Mahula, i Tex. Civ. App. 182. 



^'Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. V. Eddins, 7 Tex. Civ. App. 116; Larimore 

 V. Chic. & A. R. Co., 6s Mo. App. 167. 

 30 



