CARRYING HORSES. 257 



by the House of Lords, and in a great measure settled. 

 It is therefore unnecessary, with regard to those points 

 which it determined, to advert to the judicial decisions 

 which preceded it, and which exhibit considerable variances 

 of opinion. 



The defendants in this case had issued a notice, that 

 they would receive, forward and deliver goods solely sub- 

 ject to certain conditions, one being, "That they would 

 not be responsible for the loss or injury to any marbles, 

 &c., unless declared or insured according to their value." 

 The plaintiff's forwarding agent had knowledge of this 

 notice or condition, and on the 1st of August, 1857, by 

 letter, directed the defendants to forward the goods in 

 question (three cases of marbles), "not insured." The 

 marbles sustained injury on the journey from wet im- 

 pregnated with the rust of the nails of the cases pene- 

 trating through, and discolouring the stone, and this action 

 was brought for the damage thus occasioned against the 

 company as common carriers. 



By their fourth plea the company pleaded under 17 & 

 18 Vict. c. 31, s. 7, that the marbles were delivered to be 

 carried by them subject to a certain special contract, 

 whereby it was agreed that they should not be responsible 

 for the loss of or injury to marbles unless declared and 

 insured according to their value, and that the same were 

 not nor was any part thereof so declared or insured ; and 

 by their fifth plea, that the marbles were delivered and 

 received on the above condition ; that such condition made 

 by the defendants, and assented to by the plaintiif, was a 

 just and reasonable condition. 



It having been decided by the Exchequer Chamber (re- (feneral no- 

 versing the judgment of the Queen's Bench) that the '^^^'°™ 

 defendants were entitled to the verdict on these pleas, the 

 House of Lords reversed that decision, and afiirmed the 

 judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench, holding that no 

 general notice given by a railway company is valid in law 

 for the purpose of limiting the common law liability of the 

 company as carriers ; but that such common law liability 

 may be limited by such conditions as the Court or judge 

 shall determine to be just and reasonable. 



The majority of the Ijords present were of opinion that Couditioit 

 the condition above cited was neither just nor reasonable, nXlity. 

 as the effect of such a condition would be to exempt the 

 company from responsibiHty for injury however caused, 

 whether by their own negligence, or even by fraud or dis- 



o. s 



