478 CARRIERS OF ANIMALS. 



the train does not show a waiver of this part of the con- 

 tract." 



A contract hmiting the carrier's hability signed under 

 duress after the animals are on board the train is not bind- 

 ing-.*^ Such a contract, however, in the absence of fraud or 

 misrepresentation, will bind the shipper though he has not 

 read it.^® And it was held in a Missouri case that a prior 

 verbal understanding cannot be proved against a written bill 

 of lading, in the absence of fraud or mistake, though it con- 

 tains conditions limiting the carrier's liability and is presented 

 to him for signature after the stock are loaded and when he 

 has no time to examine it sufficiently before the departure of 

 the train.®" But in Texas a verbal contract has been upheld 

 under such circumstances, the subsequent written contract 

 being held to be without consideration.®^ And where a 

 shipper pays freight charges and receives a paper that he 

 thinks is a receipt but which contains stipulations exempting 

 the carrier from liability for a failure to carry promptly, the 

 shipper may show by parol a contract to carry with special 

 despatch.®^ 



" Chic. & N. R. Co. V. Van Dresar, 22 Wis. 511. 



''Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Dill, 48 Kan. 210; Kan. Pac. R. Co. 

 V. Reynolds, 17 id. 251; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Mason, 4 Kan. App. 

 391; German v. Chic. & N. R. Co., 38 la. 127; Wabash R. Co. v. Lannum, 

 71 111. App. 84; Mo., K. & T. R. Co. V. Carter, g Tex. Civ. App. (,-jt. Gulf, 

 C. & S. F. R. Co. V. Wood (Tex. Civ. App.), 30 S. W. Rep. 715; Tex. 

 & Pac. R. Co. V. Avery (Tex. Civ. App.), 46 id, 897. 



As to when the restriction goes into effect, see Hodgman v. West Mid- 

 land R. Co., 5 B. & S. 173, 35 L. J. Q. B. 85. 



And see, as to the acceptance of a drover's pass, Hastings i;. N. Y , 

 O. & W. R. Co., 6 N. Y. Suppt. 836. 



'"West. Ry. of Ala. v. Harwell, 91 Ala. 340; Stewart v. Cleveland, C, 

 C. & St. L. R. Co., 21 Ind. App. 218; O'Rorke v. Gt. West. R. Co 23 

 U. C. Q. B. 427. 



'° St. Louis, K. C. & N. R. Co. v. Cleary, 77 Mo. 634. 



Where the defendant relies on the written contract, he should be re- 

 quired, on motion, to file it: Caldwell v. Felton (Ky.), 51 S. W. Rep. 575. 



"'San Antonio & A. P. R. Co. v. Wright (Tex. Civ. App.), 49 S W 

 Rep. 147- 



" King V. Woodbridge, 34 Vt. 565. 



