NATURE OF THE CONTRACT OP CARRIAGE. 469 



The fact that there is a contract will not prevent an action 

 in tort being brought for a failure to carry and deliver safely.** 



111. Restriction of liability — There are an indefinite num- 

 ber of ways in which a carrier of live-stock may restrict his 

 ordinary liability for losses. One notable qualification of this 

 principle, however, is that a carrier cannot restrict his liability 

 for injuries resulting from his own negligence or misconduct 

 or that of his employees.** But where a contract of carriage 

 is made, agreeing on the valuation of animals carried with the 

 rate of freight based on condition that the carrier assumes 

 liability only to the extent of the agreed valuation, it is held in 

 many jurisdictions that, even where the loss is caused by 

 negligence, the contract will be upheld as a proper and law- 

 ful mode of securing a due proportion between the amount 

 for which the carrier is responsible and the freight he re- 

 ceives, and of protecting himself against extravagant and 



" Clark V. St. Louis, K. C. & N. R. Co., 64 Mo. 440. And see Mo., 

 K. & T. R. Co. V. Byrne (Ind. Ty.), 49 S. W. Rep. 41; San Antonio & 

 A. P. R. Co. V. Graves (Tex. Civ. App.), Ibid. 1103. 



« N. Y. Cent. R. Co. v. Lockwood, 17 Wall. (U. S.) 357; Cent. R. & 

 Bkg. Co. V. Smitha, 85 Ala. 47; E. Tenn., V. & G. R. Co. v. Johnston, 

 75 id. 596; South & North Ala. R. Co. v. Henlein, 52 id. 606; Cent. R. 

 Co. V. Bryant, ^z Ga. 722; 111. Cent. R. Co. v. Adams, 42 111. 474; Chic. 

 & A. R. Co. V. Grimes, 71 111. App. 397; Terre Haute & L. R. Co. v. Sher- 

 wood, 132 Ind. 129; Indianapolis, P. & C. R. Co. v. Allen, 31 id. 394; St. 

 Louis, K. C. & N. R. Co. v. Piper, 13 Kan. 505; St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. 

 V. Tribbey, 6 Kan. App. 467; Louisville, Cine. & L. R. Co. v. Hedger, 



9 Bush. (Ky.) 64s; Sager v. Portsm., S. & P. & E. R. Co., 31 Me. 228; 

 Rice V. Kan. Pac. R. Co., 63 Mo. 314; Vaughn v. Wabash R. Co., 62 Mo. 

 App. 461; Potts V. Wabash, St. L. & P. R. Co., 17 id. 394; Chic, R. I. 

 & P. R. Co. V. Witty, 32 Neb. 275; Welsh v. Pittsb., F. W. & C. R. Co., 



10 O. St. 65; Cleveland, P. & A. R. Co. v. Curran, 19 id. i; Pennsylvania 

 R. Co. V. Raiordon, 119 Pa. St. 577; Mo. Pac. R. Co. v. Cornwall, 70 Tex. 

 611; Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. Amer. Exch. Bank, 92 Va. 495; Abrams 

 V. Milwaukee, L. S. & W. R. Co., 87 Wis. 485 [see Betts v. Farmers' 

 Loan & T. Co., 21 id. 80; 13 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 151 n.] ; Grand Trunk 

 R. Co. V. Vogel, II Can. Sup. Ct. 612; Leuw v. Dudgeon, L. R. 3 C. P. 

 17 n.; Ronan v. Midland R. Co., 14 L. R. Ir. 157; Tattersall v. Nat. Steam- 

 ship Co. Limd., 12 Q. B. D. 297. 



