470 CARRIERS OF ANIMALS. 



fanciful valuations.*® Where, however, the limitation is 

 merely to restrict the carrier's liability for negligence, and not 

 a bona Ude valuation of the animal, it will not be upheld. 

 Thus, where a horse was worth $1,500, an agreement limit- 

 ing its value to $100 was not sustained.'*^ On the other 

 hand, a limitation to $50 was held reasonable if based on a 

 reduction in the charge, though the real value of the animal 

 was from $600 to $800.** Such stipulations are strictly con- 

 strued and, where the animal is described as a horse or a mule, 

 the plaintifif is not limited in the amount of his recovery for 

 damages to a jack.*® 



In some States the doctrine that a carrier may relieve him- 

 self from liability for his negligence by an agreed valuation 

 of goods carried at a lower rate, does not obtain.^" The 



"Hart V. Pa. R. Co., 112 U. S. 331; West. R. of Ala. v. Harwell, gr 

 Ala. 340, 97 id. 341 [see Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Kelsey, 89 id. 287] ; 

 St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Weakly, 50 Ark. 397; Same v. Lesser, 

 46 id. 236; Hill V. Boston, H. T. & W. R. Co., 144 Mass. 284; Alair v. 

 North. Pac. R. Co., 53 Minn. i6o [see Moulton v. St. Paul, M. & M. 

 R. Co., 31 id. 85] ; Harvey v. Terre Haute & L R. Co., 74 Mo. 538; Doan 

 V. St. Louis, K. & N. R. Co., 38 Mo. App. 408; Duntley v. Boston & M. 

 R. Co., 66 N. H. 263; Zimmer v. N. Y. Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 137 N. Y. 

 460; Johnstone v. Richm. & D. R. Co., 39 S. C. 55; Zouch v. Chesapeake 

 & O. R. Co., 36 W. Va. 524; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Sowell, 90 Tenn. 

 17; Starnes v. Louisv. & N. R. Co., 91 id. 516; Robertson i'. Gd. Trunk 

 R. Co., 24 Can. Sup. Ct. 611, 24 Ont. 75, 21 Ont. App. 204; McCance v. 

 London & North- Western R. Co., 3 H. & C. 343; Nevin v. Great South- 

 ern & W. R. Co., 30 L. R. Ir. 125; Great West. R. Co. v. McCarthy, 12 

 App. Cas. 218. 



That the value must be fixed at a specified sum which must be in con- 

 sideration of a special reduced rate, see Kellerman v. Kansas City, St. J. 

 & C. B. R. Co., 136 Mo. 177- 



" Eells V. St. Louis, K. & N. W. R. Co., 52 Fed. Rep. 903. 



And see Alair v. North. Pac. R. Co., S3 Minn. 160; Moulton i: St. Paul, 

 M. & M. R. Co., 31 id. 85; Abrams v. Milwaukee, L. S. & W. R. Co., 87 

 Wis. 485; Schwartzchild v. Nat. Steamship Co., 74 Fed. Rep. 257. 



" St. Louis, L M. & S. R. Co. v. Weakly, 50 Ark. 397. 



•• Richardson v. Chic. & A. R. Co., 62 Mo. App. i ; Same v. Same (Mo.), 

 50 S. W. Rep. 782. 



"Hart V. Chic. & N. R. Co., 69 la. 485; Kansas City, St. Jos. & C. B. 

 R. Co. V. Simpson, 30 Kan. 645; Ohio & M. R. Co. v. Tabor, 98 Ky. 503: 



