liability, not suit arising under Carmack Amendment, and is not removable under Judicial Code, § 24, as arising under Federal law.

Distinguished in Cleveland etc. R. Co. v. Blind, 182 Ind. 418, 427, 428, 429, 431, 105 N. E. 491, 494, 495, holdinc act of February 27, 1905, is special and is not repealed by act of February 28, 1905, as amended in 1907, and burden is upon carrier to prove contract limiting liability is reasonable and not entered into without opportunity to ship with unlimited liability; National Rice Milling Co. v. New Orleans etc. R. Co., 132 La. 648, 649, 650, Ann. Cas. 1914D, 1099, 61 South. 720, holding Carmack Amendment does not supersede provisions of State Civil Code arts. 1923, 2219, 2232 so as to shift burden on carrier alleging uncontrollable event to prove same; Varnville Furniture Co. v. Charleston etc. Ry. Co., 98 S. C. 69, 79, 82, 79 S. E. 702, 706, 707, provision of Civil Code 1912, § 2573, imposing penalty upon carriers for failure to pay claims for overcharges within specified time, is not superseded by Carmack Amendment of 1906, as applied to interstate shipment; Elliott v. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 35 S. D. 60, 61, 64, 67, 68, 69, 150 N. W. 778, 779, 780, 781, holding section 7, Carmack Amendment of 1906 to section 20, Interstate Commerce Act of 1887, does not deprive shipper of right of action against connecting carrier for injury to interstate shipment through its negligence.

No uniformity was possible until Congress dealt with subject of liability of carriers for loss or injury to interstate shipment. Some States allowed carrier to exempt itself from all or part of common-law liability, by rule, regulation, or contract, others did not, and Federal courts followed local rule; congressional action has made an end of this diversity.

Approved in Atchison etc. Ry. Co. v. Harold, 241 U. S. 378, 60 L. Ed. 1054, 36 Sup. Ct. 665, holding Carmack Amendment controls interstate shipment and application by Kansas court of local rule investing innocent holder of bill of lading with rights not available to shipper in direct conflict with general commercial law, is burden on interstate commerce and void; Southern Ry. Co. v. Prescott, 240 U. S. 640, 60 L. Ed. 840, 36 Sup. Ct. 472, measure of liability of carrier with respect to terminal services under bill of lading for interstate shipment is Federal question; New York etc. Ry. Co. v. Peninsula Produce Exchange, 240 U. S. 38, 60 L. Ed. 515, 36 Sup. Ct. 231, holding under Carmack Amendment of 1906 initial carrier is liable for delay occurring in interstate shipment on line of connecting carrier; Boston etc. R. R. Co. v. Hooker, 233 U. S. 112, 121, Ann. Cas. 1915D, 593, L. R. A. 1915B, 450, 58 L. Ed. 876, 879, 34 Sup. Ct. 526, holding provision of Carmack Amendment requiring receipt or bill of lading for interstate shipment does not require other receipt than check for passenger's baggage; Simpson v. Shepard, 230 U. S. 409, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 18, 48 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1151, 57 L. Ed. 1546, 33 Sup. Ct. 729, State may, in absence of congressional action,

regulate intrastate rates of interstate carriers, although relations between interstate and intrastate rates are thereby disturbed; Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Carl, 227 U. S. 649, 57 L. Ed. 687, 33 Sup. Ct. 391, contract between shipper and initial carrier limiting liability for interstate shipment is valid and inures to benefit of connecting carrier; Looney v. Oregon etc. R. R. Co., 271 Ill. 543, 111 N. E. 510, holding under Carmack Amendment to Hepburn Act of 1906 initial carrier only is liable for loss on interstate shipment, and denying recovery in action against connecting carrier which had issued bill of lading; New York etc. R. Co. v. Peninsula Produce Exchange, 122 Md. 221, 89 Atl. 434, holding under Carmack Amendment of 1906, shipper may recover, in action against initial carrier, for decrease in value of interstate shipment due to delay in transportation and delivery.

Distinguished in dissenting opinion in Boston etc. R. R. Co. v. Hooker 233 U. S. 153, Ann. Cas. 1915D, 593, L. R. A. 1915B, 450, 58 L. Ed. 892, 34 Sup. Ct. 526, majority holding provision of Carmack Amendment requiring receipt or bill of lading for interstate shipment does not require other receipt than check for passenger's baggage.

Dominating features of Carmack Amendment of 1906, to section 20 of Interstate Commerce Act of 1887, are that it requires initial carrier to issue bill of lading for interstate shipment, that it makes initial carrier liable for loss, damage, or injury to such property caused by it or connecting carrier, and that it may not by contract, receipt, rule, or regulation exempt itself from such liability.

Approved in Keithley v. Lusk, 190 Mo. App. 467, 177 S. W. 759, allowing recovery in action against initial carrier for injury to interstate shipment from connecting carrier's negligence, although no through bill of lading was issued as required by Carmack Amendment, where through shipment was undertaken; Thomas Bros. v. St. Louis etc. R. Co., 188 Mo. App. 33, 173 S. W. 99, upholding contract limiting liability for interstate shipment of livestock and requiring notice of claim within one day of delivery and before stock is mingled with other stock; Morrison Grain Co. v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 182 Mo. App. 347, 170 S. W. 407, holding carrier accepting car of grain for interstate shipment is liable for its loss by fire, although no bill of lading was issued; Collins v. Denver etc. Ry. Co., 181 Mo. App. 216, 167 S. W. 1179, holding proof of delivery of interstate shipment in good condition, and of receipt of same in bad condition, makes prima facie case of carrier's liability; J. T. Rather & Co. v. Nashville etc. Ry. Co., 131 Tenn. 294, 295, 174 S. W. 1114, 1115, upholding limitation of liability on interstate shipment of livestock.

Liability of initial carrier of goods under Carmack Amendment.
Note, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 81, 82, 83, 85, 87.

Intent of Congress in requiring primary carrier to issue bill of lading for interstate shipment and making such carrier liable to holder thereof

"for any loss, damages or injury to such property caused by it" or connecting carrier, was not to impose upon initial carrier liability of absolute insurer, but its liability is limited to loss, damage, or injury "caused by it" or connecting carrier, and plainly implies liability for some default in its common-law duty as carrier.

Approved in Cincinnati etc. Ry. Co. v. Rankin, 241 U. S. 326, 60 L. Ed. 1025, 36 Sup. Ct. 555, construing Carmack Amendment not to limit common-law doctrine in respect of carrier's loss occurring on its own line; New Orleans etc. R. R. Co. v. National Rice Milling Co., 234 U. S. 83, 58 L. Ed. 1225, 34 Sup. Ct. 726, dismissing writ of error to review. decision of State court in action against initial and connecting carrier basing right of recovery upon Carmack Amendment of 1906, that loss of interstate shipment was due to negligence of connecting carrier, and that two carriers were jointly liable; Collins v. Denver etc. Ry. Co.. 181 Mo. App. 217, 167 S. W. 1179, holding Carmack Amendment of 1906 did not change carrier's common-law liability, and proof of delivery of interstate shipment of fruit in good condition, and receipt of same in bad condition, is sufficient prima facie case of carrier's liability; Brinson & Kramer v. Norfolk etc. Ry. Co., 169 N. C. 427, 86 S. E. 372, holding in action against initial carrier by rail for loss of intrastate shipment of goods at sea by connecting carrier; initial carrier may avail itself of defenses open to carrier causing loss; St. Louis etc. R. Co. v. Zickafoose, 39 Okl. 306, 135 Pac. 408, 6 N. C. C. A. 723, holding Carmack Amendment, section 20 of Act of 1906, does not impose liability of insurer 'upon initial carrier, and inhibition of proviso to section 20 has reference to attempts to relieve initial carrier by contract from liability for loss caused by it or connecting carrier; Missouri etc. Ry. Co. v. Peters, 37 Okl. 193, 131 Pac. 528, holding terminal carrier is not liable for damages sustained on lines of initial carrier in absence of joint traffic agreement where terminal carrier refuses to receive shipment under initial contract, but receives it under new contract limiting liability to its own lines; dissenting opinion in National Rice Milling Co. v. New Orleans etc. R. Co. (La.), 61 South. 723, 724, 725, majority holding Carmack Amendment does not supersede provisions of State Civil Code, arts. 1923, 2219, 2232, so as to shift burden on carrier alleging uncontrollable event, to prove same.

To construe proviso to Carmack Amendment as preserving to holder of bill of lading right or remedy which he may have had under existing Federal law at time of his action, gives it more rational interpretation than one which would preserve rights and remedies under existing State laws, for the latter view would cause the proviso to destroy itself.

Approved in American Silver Mfg. Co. v. Wabash R. Co., 174 Mo. App. 192, 156 S. W. 832, following rule; Georgia etc. Ry. Co. v. Blish Milling Co., 241 U. S. 195, 60 L. Ed. 952, 36 Sup. Ct. 541, holding notice

of claim for misdelivery of interstate shipment required by bill of lading issued by initial carrier must be given before action is brought against terminal carrier for conversion of goods, but telegram to terminal carrier is sufficient notice; Charleston etc. Ry. Co. v. Varnville Furniture Co., 237 U. S. 604, Ann. Cas. 1916D, 333, 59 L. Ed. 1140, 35 Sup. Ct. 715, 100 S. C. 229, holding provision of South Carolina Civil Code, 1912, § 2573, imposing penalty on carriers for failure to settle claim for overcharges or loss within specified time is void as applied to interstate shipment, and is not saved by proviso of Carmack Amendment saving rights of holders of bills of lading under existing law; Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Mixon-McClintock Co., 107 Ark. 57, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 1247, 154 S. W. 208, holding burden of proof is upon carrier to show injury to interstate shipment is due to excepted cause; Fornell v. Florida East Coast Ry. Co., 65 Fla. 109, 61 South. 197, holding in action for damages for delay in interstate shipment, provisions of Carmack Amendment supersede Laws of Florida, c. 5618, and granting motion to strike from counts in declaration portions seeking recovery of interest and attorney's fees under provisions of chapter 5618; Southern Ry. Co. v. Bennett, 17 Ga. App. 165, 167, 86 S. E. 419, 420, holding proviso of Carmack Amendment to Hepburn Act of 1906, amending section 20 of Act to Regulate Commerce of 1887, does not preserve rights of action conferred by Civil Code, § 2752, against last of several connecting carriers, and remedy against initial carrier is exclusive; Coad v. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 171 Iowa, 754, 154 N. W. 398, allowing recovery in State court of freight charges for interstate shipment in excess of filed schedules; Conley v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 192 Mo. App. 537, 183 S. W. 1112, holding shipper may join connecting carrier and initial carrier in action for damages to interstate shipment of livestock from failure to comply with stop-over provision of cntract; Mewborn v. Louisville etc. R. Ro. Co., 170 N. C. 209, 87 S. E. 39, holding Carmack Amendment of 1906 does not abrogate rule of evidence that prima facie case of negligence is made against terminal carrier by proof of delivery of goods to initial carrier in good condition, and delivery of same in bad condition by terminal carrier; Pacific Express Co. v. Krower, 106 Tex. 220, 163 S. W. 10, holding contract for interstate shipment must be construed by proviso of Carmack Amendment that no contract shall exempt carrier from liability imposed by such amendment; Birchlmeier v. Minneapolis etc. Ry. Co., 159 Wis. 406, 150 N. W. 509, holding remedy given by Carmack Amendment, section 7 of Act of 1906, making initial carrier of interstate shipment liable for loss or injury to property on its line or that of connecting carrier does not prevent action in State court against terminal carrier for loss on its line; Siggins v. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 153 Wis. 126, 140 N. W. 1130, holding Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction of action for overcharges on interstate shipment of freight, notwithstanding pro

vision of section 22 that nothing in act shall abridge existing remedies; dissenting opinion in Boston etc. R. R. Co. v. Hooker, 233 U. S. 138, Ann. Cas. 1915D, 593, L. R. A. 1915B, 450, 58 L Ed. 886, 34 Sup. Ct. 526, majority holding limitation of liability for passenger's baggage in filed tariff schedules required by Interstate Commerce Act, is binding upon passenger accepting check and failing to declare value and to pay higher rate, regardless of actual notice or assent to limitation; dissenting opinion in Elliott v. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 35 S. D. 71, 150 N. W. 782, majority holding section 7, Carmack Amendment of 1906 to section 20 of Interstate Commerce Act of 1887, does not deprive shipper of action against connecting carrier; Glassman v. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 166 Iowa, 258, 147 N. W. 759, arguendo.

Explained in Du Pre v. Columbia etc. R. Co., 98 S. C. 470, 79 S. E. 311, and Varnville Furniture Co. v. Charleston etc. Ry. Co., 98 S. C. 82, 84, 85, 79 S. E. 707, 708, both holding Carmack Amendment does not limit remedy of shipper to action against initial carrier for injury to interstate shipment, and allowing recovery in action against terminal carrier.

Distinguished in Elliott v. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 35 S. D. 61, 66, 67, 150 N. W. 778, 780, 781, holding Carmack Amendment does not deprive shipper of right of action against connecting carrier for injury to interstate shipment through its negligence.

That no inquiry was made as to actual value of interstate shipment is not vital to fairness of agreement limiting liability of carrier, where receipt accepted showed that charge made was based upon specified valuation unless greater value was stated therein, and filed schedules showed two rates based upon valuation.

Approved in Nashville etc. Ry. Co. v. Truitt Co., 14 Ga. App. 772, 82 S. E. 468, holding provisions of Carmack Amendment of 1906 do not forbid contract limiting liability for loss of interstate shipment to agreed valuation for purpose of applying lower of two rates in filed schedule, and fact that carrier made no inquiry as to actual value is immaterial.

Knowledge of shipper that rate was based upon value is to be presumed from terms of bill of lading and of published schedules filed with Interstate Commerce Commission.

Approved in Boston etc. R. R. Co. v. Hooker, 233 U. S. 110, 112, Ann. Cas. 1915D, 593, L. R. A. 1915B, 450, 58 L. Ed. 875, 876, 34 Sup. Ct. 526, limitation of liability for passenger's baggage in filed tariff schedules, required by section 6 of Act to Regulate Commerce, as amended by section 2 of Hepburn Act of 1906, is binding upon passenger, accepting check, who fails to declare value and to pay higher rate for unlimited liability, regardless of actual notice or assent to limitation; Michelson v.