NATURE OF THE CONTRACT OP CARRIAGE. 467 



of only by him. Another person who assists him and claims 

 an interest in the stock cannot claim such rights as a free 

 passenger.^^ A passenger on a drover's pass is a passenger 

 for hire and his rights and obligations are similar to those 

 of an ordinary passenger who has bought a ticket.^^ But 

 this does not mean that he is entitled to all of such rights: 

 there is an implied condition that he will submit to whatever 

 inconveniences are necessarily incident to the undertaking.^* 

 "This principle by no means implies that a passenger upon 

 a freight train, having in charge live-stock for transportation, 

 is entitled to the same facilities for getting on and ofif the 

 cars that persons have upon strictly passenger trains where 

 stations and platforms are usually provided. No negligence 

 can be imputed to the defendant by an omission to erect such 

 stations or platforms." ^^ But a company cannot stipulate 

 against liability for an injury to such a passenger caused by 

 its negligence any more than in the case of an ordinary 

 passenger for hire.^'^ If he fails to remain in the caboose 

 car, however, as he had contracted to do, the company will 

 not be liable for an injury received by him while voluntarily 



'' Richmond & D. R. Co. v. Burnsed, 70 Miss. 437. 



That a statute requiring railway companies to furnish free transportation 

 to shippers of live-stoclc did not apply to interstate shipments, see State 

 V. Otis (Kan.), 56 Pac. Rep. 14. 



'" Little Rock & Ft. S. R. Co. v. Miles, 40 Ark. 298; Pa. Co. v. Greso, 

 79 111. App. 127; Rested V. Great Northern R. Co. (Minn.), 78 N. W. 

 Rep. 971; Saunders v. South. Pac, Co., 13 Utah 275; Louisv. & N. R. Co. 

 V. Bell, 100 Ky. 203. See, also, 8 Am. Eng. R. R. Cas., N. S., 419 n.; 

 61 Am. St. Rep. 89 n. 



'•" Omaha & R. V. R. Co. v. Crow, 47 Neb. 84. And see Mo. Pac. R. 

 Co. V. Tietken, 49 id. 130; Heyward v. Boston & A. R. Co., 169 Mass. 466. 



== Pitcher V. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co., 8 N. Y. Suppt. 389. 



'=' Carroll v. Mo. Pac. R. Co., 88 Mo. 239; N. Y. Cent. R. Co. v. Lock- 

 wood, 17 Wall. (U. S.) 357; Cleveland, P. & A. R. Co. v. Curran, 19 O. 

 St. i; 111. Cent. R. Co. v. Beebe, 174 111. 13; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Hen- 

 derson, SI Pa. St. 31S; Smith v. New York Cent. R. Co., 24 N. Y. 222; 

 Porter v. N. Y., L. E. & W. R. Co., 59 Hun (N. Y.) 177; St. Louis S. 

 W. R. Co. V. Nelson (Tex. Civ. App.), 44 S. W. Rep. 179. 



