CARRYING HORSES. 259 



m the same position as though he had signed it himself 

 without reading it (o). 



It was also decided, in the case of M'Manus v. Lama- As to reason- 

 sJiire ami Yorkshire Railway Company (p), that the 17 & 18 crarUo 

 Vict. c. 31, s. 7, gave power to the Court or judge trying decide. 

 the cause to decide upon the justice and reasonableness of 

 conditions in a special contract for the carriage of animals 

 or goods on a railway ; and the Court expressed their con- 

 currence with the opinion pronounced by Jervis, C.J., in 

 Simons v. Great Western Raihvay Company (q), that " the 

 company may make special contracts with their customers, 

 provided they are just and reasonable, and signed; and 

 that, whereas the monopoly created by railways compels the 

 public to employ them in the conveyance of their goods, the 

 Legislature have thought fit to impose the further security, 

 that the Court shall see that the condition or special con- 

 tract is just and reasonable." 



Thus then the effect of the 7th section of the Eailway General effect 

 and Canal Traffic Act (r) has been determined by the fore- 5* *.''^^® 



• • • - , •^ , dBClSlOllS 



gomg decisions to be this : — First, to make general notices 

 given by companies under this statute, for the purpose of 

 limiting their common law liability as carriers, invalid; and, 

 secondly, to make the words " special contract " and " con- 

 dition " in the 7th section synonjonous terms, to the extent 

 of permitting the common law liability of such companies 

 to be limited by such conditions, or such special contract, 

 signed by the owner or his agent for delivering the goods, 

 as the Court or judge shall determine to be just and reason- 

 able. 



It is therefore important to consider what conditions Whatcondi- 

 have been held to be just and reasonable, and what have twas are just 

 been held not to be so. For no rule of universal appHca- able.'^and 

 tion can be laid down with respect to what is a mixed whatnot. 

 question of law and fact, inasmuch as a reasonable con- 

 dition may be applied to a state of facts which makes it 

 unreasonable (s). 



In the case of Fardington v. South Western Eailway ?" ^^ fr^g^.^ 

 Company (t), a person sending cattle by railway signed a j^ respect of 



(o) Foreman y. Great Western West Midland Rail. Co., 33 L. J"., 



Rail. Co., 38 L. T., N. S. 351. Ex. 155. 



{p) See note [h), ante. {t) Fardington v. South Western 



(q) Simons V. Great Western Rail. Rail. Co., 1 H. & N. 392. And see 



Co., 26 L. J., C. P. 25. W^ise v. Great Western Rail. Co., 1 



{r) 17 & 18 Vict. c. 31, s. 7. H. & N. 63 ; 25 L. J., Ex. 258. 



(s) Per Martin, B., in Gregory v. 



s 2 



