any peril of the seas, but wholly through the negligence of the defendant and his servants, by reason whereof the plaintiff was damaged in the sum of $ [Concluding part.] FORM No. 886-For negligence in loading cargo. [Title of court and cause.] The plaintiff complains of the defendant, and alleges: 1. That on the , 19 at , day of the plaintiff, at defendant's request, caused to be delivered to him [describe goods] of the plaintiff of the value of $ , to be by the defendant safely , and securely loaded on board a certain vessel at for the plaintiff, for a reasonable compensation to be paid defendant therefor, and the defendant then and there received the goods for that purpose. 2. That the defendant afterwards, by himself and his servants, so carelessly and improperly conducted the loading of said goods on board the said vessel that by their negligence and improper conduct the goods were broken and injured, and a part thereof wholly destroyed, [specifying), to the damage of the plaintiff in the sum of $ [Concluding part.] FORM No. 887-For loss in unloading. [Title of court and cause.] The plaintiff complains of the defendant, and alleges: 1. [Same as paragraph 1, form No. 885.] and no , 2. That said vessel afterwards arrived safely at [excepted perils) prevented the safe carriage or delivery of the goods. 3. That the defendant did not deliver the said goods to the plaintiff, and for lack of due care in the defendant and his servants in unloading and delivering said goods from said vessel, they were wholly lost to the plaintiff, to his damage in the sum of $ [Concluding part.] FORM No. 888-For breach of contract by corporation to carry message. [Title of court and cause.] Plaintiff complains of defendant, and for cause of action alleges: 1. [Aver incorporation of defendant.] 2. That on the day of , 19 at , at , the defendant, as a common carrier, received of the plaintiff a certain message, a copy of which is as follows: (Here set forth copy); that said message was to be delivered in due course to ; and that plaintiff paid to the defendant the compensation demanded therefor. 3. That defendant neglected and failed to deliver said message [or delivered said message after great delay, stating when] to the great detriment of plaintiff, and to his damage in the sum of $ [Concluding part.] § 372. ANSWERS. FORM No. 889-Denial of contract of carriage. [Title of court and cause.] The defendant answers to the plaintiff's complaint (or petition], as follows: Denies that he ever undertook or agreed to carry said goods [or message] to that said such service. [Etc.] , or to deliver the same to , and denies ever paid him, or agreed to pay him, any reward for FORM No. 890-Denial that goods were received. [Title of court and cause.] The defendant answers to the plaintiff's complaint [or petition]: Denies that the said ever delivered to him the said goods mentioned in the complaint (or petition), or that defendant ever received the same, or any of them. FORM No. 891-Denial of loss and negligence. [Title of court and cause.] The defendant answering to the plaintiff's complaint [or petition] avers: That he has no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief whether said goods were lost to said and denies that he was negligent in and about the carriage, storing, or unloading of same. , FORM No. 892-Averment that the contract was special. [Title of court and cause.] The defendant, answering to the plaintiff's complaint [or petition] : Avers that the goods mentioned therein were delivered by the plaintiff to and received by the defendant upon a special contract between them, whereby it was expressly agreed and stipulated that [stating the terms]. FORM No. 893-Defense that defendant is not a common carrier. [Title of court and cause.] The defendant answering to the plaintiff's complaint [or petition]: Alleges that he is not now, and was not at the time mentioned in the complaint [or petition), or at any time, a common carrier. [Etc.] FORM No. 894-Defense that goods were negligently packed by the plaintiff. [Title of court and cause.] The defendant answers to the plaintiff's complaint [or petition]: 1. That the goods mentioned therein were of a fragile nature, liable to injury from slight cause, which the plaintiff well knew, but the defendant did not and could not reasonably be expected to know. 2. That said goods, when delivered to the defendant, were improperly packed [here state in what respect], whereas the usual and only safe way of packing such articles is (here state]. 3. That by reason of such defective packing, and without the fault of the defendant, said articles were injured. [Concluding part.] FORM No. 895-Defense that goods were lost by unavoidable accident, etc. [Title of court and cause.] The defendant answers to the plaintiff's complaint [or petition]: 1. That the merchandise mentioned therein was delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant, and by the defendant received on board the train [or steamer, etc.], under and in pursuance of a special contract made between them for the transportation of the same from of which the following is a copy: [Copy of con tract.] to , 2. That while said merchandise was well and properly stowed on board the said train [or steamer, etc.], and being carried pursuant Jury's Pl.-94. to said contract, and without any carelessness or misconduct of the defendant or his servants, or any defect of the said train [or steamer, etc.], or its equipments, the train [or steamer, etc.], by mere casualty and accident, took fire and was consumed, with its cargo, including the merchandise of the plaintiff [or state if loss resulted from any other unavoidable cause], and thereby, by accident and casualty of fire [or otherwise, as the case may be], and not by any negligence, misconduct, or default of the defendant, the said merchandise was lost, and was not delivered. [Concluding part.] FORM No. 896-Defense setting forth stipulation as to value of property admitted to have been lost through negligence. (In Alain v. Northern Pacific R. R. Co., 53 Minn. 160, 54 N. W. 1072; 39 Am. St. Rep. 588; 19 L. R. A. 764.) [Title of court and cause.] Defendant, for answer to the petition of plaintiff, admits the delivery and receipt of the horses for transportation, their value, and their loss through its negligence, as stated in the petition, but defendant alleges that said property was delivered and received upon a special written contract, executed by both parties, containing the terms and conditions on which defendant undertook to transport property, one of which was as follows: "It is hereby stipulated that the value of the livestock to be transported does not exceed the following-mentioned sums, to wit: Each horse, $100; each bull, $50; each cow, $30; such valuation being that whereon all compensation to this company for its services and risks connected with said property is based." [Then follows averment of a tender of the amount of loss according to said valuation, the refusal to accept the same, etc.] [Concluding part.] FORM No. 897-Counterclaim for negligence in action by carrier to recover freight money. [Title of court and cause.] [After introductory part, and such other defenses as may be set forth, allege:] The defendant, further answering said complaint [or petition], and by way of counterclaim herein alleges: That the transportation of the goods described in said complaint [or petition] was so negligently and carelessly conducted by the plaintiff, its servants and agents, the particulars whereof are hereinafter set forth, that said goods, and all thereof, were damaged by plaintiff in this, (here specify]; that said negligence and carelessness of the plaintiff consisted in this, [here specify the facts]; that by reason thereof said goods were wholly [or, if partially, so state and specify] lost to the defendant, to his damage in the sum of $ Wherefore, defendant prays that he be allowed the amount of said counterclaim as against the demand of the plaintiff herein, and furthermore that defendant be awarded his costs. [Verification.] A. B., Attorney for plaintiff. For the substance of a complaint or petition in an action to recover damages for the breach of a contract for the negligent transportation of animals resulting In their emaciation, sickness, etc., from the effect of which some of the animals died, see Chicago etc. R. Co. v. Mitchell (Okla.), 101 Pac. 850. Form of complaint in an action for damages occasioned, as alleged, by the gross and malicious negligence of the company to transmit and deliver a telegraphic message: West v. Western Union Tel. Co., 39 Kan. 93, 94, 17 Pac. 807, 808. Form of petition in an action for damages for loss occasioned by delay in delivering a telegram: Martin v. Western Union Tel. Co., 1 Tex. Civ. App. 143, 20 8. W. 860, 861. §373. ΑΝΝΟΤATIONS.-Negligence of carriers of property or messages. 1. Action by endorsee of bill of lading. 2. General allegation as to delay in transporting. 3. Tort and breach of contract.-Pleading in one count. 4. Liability imported by allegation that defendant is common carrier. 5. Contract not specifying shipping charges. - Construction of. 6. Storage not new contract requiring special pleading. 1. Action by endorsee of bill of ladIng. Where a steamshipper having the right of property endorses and delivers a bill of lading, endorsee may maintain an action in his own name for goods represented by such bill of lading: Dodge v. Meyer, 61 Cal. 405, 417. 2. General allegation as to delay In transporting.-In the absence of a special demurrer, the plaintiff is not required to specify what is a reasonable time for transportation of goods between two points, and a general allegation of failure to transport and deliver within a reasonable time is sufficient in the absence of a specific objection thereto: Palmer v. Atchison etc. R. Co., 101 Cal. 187, 189, 35 Pac. 630. 3. Tort and breach of contract.-PleadIng in one count.-Two causes, -one in tort, for the breach of the common-law obligation to transport within a reason. able time, and the other ex contractu, for a breach of the verbal contract, may not be commingled and relied upon in the same count: Burgher v. Wabash R. Co., 139 Mo. App. 62, 120 S. W. 673, 677, (for damages for breach of duty of common carrier to transport live freight). 4. Liability imported by allegation that defendant is a common carrier.-A complaint which avers that defendant is a common carrier is sufficient to impose upon defendant, if proofs be sufficient, liability as common carrier over entire route without reference to the termination of road: Wheeler v. San Francisco etc. R. Co., 31 Cal. 46, 55, 89 Am. Dec. 147. 5. Contract not specifying shipping charges. Construction of. - Where |