NOTICE. 509 



be immediately disclosed.^^^ And where the stipulation was 

 to give notice within twenty-four hours, and at the time 

 the injury appeared slight but the animal after receiving 

 proper care proved seriously and permanently injured, shortly 

 after which the agent of the company was notified and 

 answered that the claim was being investigated and would be 

 settled on the merits, it was held that non-compliance with 

 the stipulation would not prevent recovery. ^*^ Where a 

 number of hogs died from exposure before reshipment by the 

 company over a connecting road and the shipper orally noti- 

 fied the company thereof and demanded damages before the 

 reshipment, it was held that the written notice required by 

 the shipping contract was not a condition precedent to an 

 action for damages.^^** And, in general, the company 

 may waive a provision that the claim for damages shall be 

 in writing by receiving verbal notice without objection and 

 treating the claim as pending.^^^ 



Contracts have been upheld where the stipulation was to 

 give notice of the injury within one day after delivery; ^^^ 

 within five days ^^'^ or ten days ^^* after unloading; within 

 thirty days after the accident,^^^ or delivery.^"*' But a clause 

 that an action for damages must be brought within fourteen 

 days was held to be in conflict with a statute making it un- 

 lawful to limit the time to a shorter period than two years.^^^ 



=" Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Davis (Tex. Civ. App.), 31 S. W. Rep. 308. 



'"' Harned v. Mo. Pac. R. Co., 51 Mo. App. 482. 



"» Wichita & W. R. Co. v. Koch (Kan. App.), 56 Pac. Rep. 538. 



'" Chic. & A. R. Co. V. Grimes, 71 111. App. 397- 



^^ Internat. & G. N. R. Co. v. Garrett, S Tex. Civ. App. 54o; Kan. & 

 A. V. R. Co. V. Ayers, 63 Ark. 331. 



But see Mo. Pac. R. Co. v. Paine, i Tex. Civ. App. 621. 



^" Dawson v. St. Louis, K. C. & N. R. Co., 76 Mo. S14; McBeath v. 

 Wabash, St. L. & P. R. Co., 20 Mo. App. 445; Wabash, St. L. & P. R. 

 Co. V. Black, II 111. App. ^6<:. 



'"■ Case V. Cleveland, C, C. & St. L. R. Co., 11 Ind. App. S17. 



"" Armstrong v. Chic, M. & St. P. R. Co., S3 Minn. 183. 



"= Louisville, N. A. & C. R. Co. v. Widman, 10 Ind. App. 92. 



™ St Louis S. W. R. Co. V. Williams (Tex. Civ. App.), 32 S. W. Rep. 



