A petition to recover the penalty under Sayles' Rev. Civ. St. 1897, art. 326, for failure of carrier to feed and water stock, should allege that the statutory duty was not waived by special contract.-Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Brown (Tex. Civ. App.) 44.

Supplemental petition held to sufficiently negative the existence of a special contract excusing the carrier from the duty of feeding and watering stock under Sayles' Rev. Civ. St. 1897, art. 326.-Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Brown (Tex. Civ. App.) 44.

Sayles' Rev. Civ. St. 1897, art. 326, requiring common carriers to feed and water stock in transit, does not authorize a recovery for the failure or refusal of the carrier to permit the shipper to feed and water the_stock.Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Brown (Tex. Ciy, App.) 44.

In an action against a railroad company, plaintiff held not entitled to recover for damages to the goods on a connecting line.-Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Dishman & Tribble (Tex. Civ. App.) 319.

In an action against a railroad for damage to goods in transit, held proper not to permit plaintiff to show the market value where the damage occurred.-Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Dishman & Tribble (Tex. Civ. App.) 319.

Delivery of goods to the carrier, and their loss or destruction while in its possession, makes a prima facie case against it.-Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Roberts (Tex. Civ. App.) 479.

of goods by a common carrier is the market valThe general measure of damage for the loss the time they should have been delivered.-Gulf, ue of the goods at the place of destination at C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Roberts (Tex. Civ. App.) 479.

Evidence by plaintiff of the market value of goods destroyed in transit at their destination held sufficient to support a finding in accordance with such evidence.-Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Roberts (Tex. Civ. App.) 479.

Under Rev. St. 1895, art. 3258, and Interstate Commerce Act, $§ 1, 2, 8, 9, and 22 (Act Feb. 4, 1887, c. 104, 24 Stat. 379, 382, 387 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, pp. 3154, 3155, 3159, 3170]), held, that a shipper, in a case of interstate carriage, may, in a state court, under the common law, be accorded relief from unjust freight rates, notwithstanding such unreasonable rates have been filed and promulgated by the carrier under the provisions of the interstate commerce act.-Abilene Cotton Oil Co. v. Texas & P. Ry. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 1052.

§ 2. Carriage of goods.

A carrier held required to have notice of special circumstances at or before the making of the contract of carriage to be liable for special damages for delay.-Crutcher v. Choctaw, O. & G. R. Co. (Ark.) 770.

A shipper held entitled at least to nominal damages and costs for breach of contract by delay of carrier in transportation.-Crutcher v. Choctaw, O. & G. R. Co. (Ark.) 770.

A bill of lading requiring notice of damages within five days held not to apply to damages sustained by decline in market value of the goods during the delay in delivery.-Loeb v. Wabash Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 118.

The contract of a carrier is not complied with until the goods are delivered at the station or warehouse where such goods are usually unloaded and delivered.-Loeb v. Wabash Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 118.

Sufficiency of pleas of privilege to the jurisdiction of the court, under Laws 1899, p. 214, c. 125, relating to the jurisdiction of connecting carriers, held dependent on their denial of the allegation of the complaint.-San An tonio & A. P. Ry. Co. v. Dolan (Tex. Civ. App.) 302.

A common carrier cannot contract against its own negligence, nor place unreasonable restrictions on its common-law liability, even though the contract be for the interstate shipment of goods.-San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co. v. Dolan (Tex. Civ. App.) 302.

A variance between allegations of the common-law liability of a carrier of property and its liability as shown under a written contract held not fatal.-San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co. v. Dolan (Tex. Civ. App.) 302.

Equipment of engine with best spark arresters held not to affect the carrier's liability for loss of goods by fire, where the contract of shipment did not limit the carrier's common-law liability.-Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Roberts (Tex. Civ. App.) 479..

In the absence of restrictions in the contract, a common carrier is an insurer against loss, except in specified cases. Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Roberts (Tex. Civ. App.) 479.

In an action for damage to goods in transit, held that the market value at the proper place of destination was to be considered in determining the damages against the initial carrier.Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Tracy (Tex. Civ. App.) 833.

On interstate shipments the initial carrier may limit the liability to damage occurring on its own line.-Gulf, W. T. & P. Ry. Co. v. MeCampbell (Tex. Civ. App.) 1158.

§ 3. Carriage of live stock.

A finding held to dispose of the issue raised in an action against a carrier for injuries to a shipment of live stock.-Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Mitchell (Tex. Civ. App.) 286.

A stipulation in a contract of shipment of live stock held not to relieve a carrier from liability for its own negligence.-Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Mitchell (Tex. Civ. App.) 286.

A stipulation in a contract of shipment of live stock with reference to giving notice of injury held invalid, because in conflict with the statutes.-Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Mitchell (Tex. Civ. App.) 286.

It is prima facie negligence for a carrier of live stock to give the stock alkaline water.Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Mitchell (Tex. Civ. App.) 286.

furnish suitable water for the stock.-Chicago, It is the duty of a carrier of live stock to R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Mitchell (Tex. Civ. App.) 286.

In an action for the damage of property by carriers, an instruction as to the effect of defendant's negligence held sufficiently specific. San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co. v. Dolan (Tex. Civ. App.) 302.

It is the province of the jury to apportion among connecting carriers the liability of each

for total damages found to have been suffer ed by stock in transit.-San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co. v. Dolan (Tex. Civ. App.) 302.

Statement of rule as to measure of damages by a carrier to a shipment of live stock.-San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co. v. Dolan (Tex. Civ. App.) 302.

A petition examined, and held to state a case within the purview of Laws 1899, p. 214, c. 125, providing for a joint action against connecting carriers in a court situated on the line of any one of them.-San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co. v. Dolan (Tex. Civ. App.) 302.

A provision in a contract of shipment of live stock as to the care of the property held inapplicable under the circumstances.-San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co. v. Dolan (Tex. Civ. App.) 302.

A provision in a contract of shipment of live stock, as to the acceptance by the shipper of the cars, held not to release the carrier from liability for defects therein.-San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co. v. Dolan (Tex. Civ. App.) 302.

In an action against a carrier for damage to animals in transit from fire, held, that the burden was on defendant to show the damages not due to its negligence.-Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Dishman & Tribble (Tex. Civ. App.) 319.

In an action against railroad companies for injuries to a shipment of cattle, evidence held to justify submission to the jury of the issue whether defendants had negligently left the cars containing plaintiff's cattle stationary upon the tracks, sidetracks, and other places.Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Gray (Tex. Civ. App.) 838.

In an action against a railroad company for negligently injuring a shipment of cattle, definitions of negligence and of ordinary care held not accurate, but not reversible error.-Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Gray (Tex. Civ. App.) 838.

In an action against connecting carriers for injuries to a shipment of cattle, an instruction, considered in connection with other instructions, held not to allow a recovery against one defendant for the negligence of the other.-Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Gray (Tex. Civ. App.) 838.

An action for damages to cattle shipped against two of three connecting carriers held not maintainable in a county through which the line of the initial carrier only ran, under Laws 1899, p. 214, c. 125, such initial carrier being neither sued nor liable.-Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Bumpas (Tex. Civ. App.) 1046.

In action for negligent delay in shipment and delivery of cattle, mingling and selling two shipments together held not prejudicial to defendant.-Gulf, W. T. & P. Ry. Co. v. McCampbell (Tex. Civ. App.) 1158.

In action for negligent delay in shipment of cattle, certain testimony held admissible to show market value.-Gulf, W. T. & P. Ry. Co. v. McCampbell (Tex. Civ. App.) 1158.

§ 4. Carriage of passengers - Relation between carrier and passenger. Plaintiff held, under the circumstances, not passenger.-Archer v. Union Pac. R. Co. (Mo. App.) 934. § 5.

a

Fares, tickets, and special con

tracts.

In an action for injuries sustained by a pas senger in a collision, a statement on plaintiff's ticket held not to justify an inference that the train was in charge of another than defendant. -Estes v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 627.

A passenger held to have a right to return on a round trip ticket, though the agent had refused to stamp and sign the ticket as re85 S. W.-77

In an action for injuries to a passenger, instructions for defendant held not erroneous in view of those for plaintiff.-Barringer v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. (Ark.) 94.

In an action against a carrier for injuries to a passenger by the starting of the train while he was alighting, a modification of an instruction so as to require the carrier to give a sufficient opportunity to alight held not error. -Barringer v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. (Ark.) 94.

In an action for injuries to a passenger, held, that the injuries constituted a prima facie case of negligence, under Kirby's Dig. § 6773.Barringer v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. (Ark.) 94.

A carrier held bound to allow a passenger such time to get off as one of ordinary care should be allowed to take.-Barringer v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. (Ark.) 94.

Where a woman passenger, with her children, was frightened by drunken men while on the platform of defendant's car, whether defendant used proper care for her protection was for the jury.-Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P Ry. Co. v. Taylor (Ky.) 168.

Where a woman passenger was frightened by drunken men while on the platform of defendant's car, a verdict for $900 held not so excessive as to indicate passion or prejudice.Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co. v. Taylo. (Ky.) 168.

In an action against a street railway for injuries to a passenger, refusal to give certain requests of defendant as asked held error, although the requests were properly given as modified.-Behen v. St. Louis Transit Co. (Mo. Sup.) 346.

Plaintiff held not entitled to avail himself of defendants' testimony to make out his case, where to do so it would be necessary for him to repudiate his own pleadings and evidence.Behen v. St. Louis Transit Co. (Mo. Sup.) 346.

Street car conductor held not entitled to start the car while he sees a passenger alighting, although such passenger has been unduly slow in so doing.-Behen v. St. Louis Transit Co. (Mo. Sup.) 346.

street railway company for injuries held not to Evidence of plaintiff in an action against a constitute such a variance as to preclude her from recovery.-Lehner v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 110.

The starting of a street car before a passenger has landed securely on the platform is negligence.-Lehner v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 110.

cise toward passengers the utmost care and diliA street railway company is required to exergence of very cautious persons while such passengers are boarding and alighting from its cars. Lehner v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 110.

A passenger, caused by fright to leave her car after a collision, held entitled to recover for inivy while away from the car.-Estes v. Missouri juries resulting from being poisoned by poison Pac. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 627.

In an action for injuries to a passenger, the petition held to allege defendant's negligence with sufficient definiteness.-Estes v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 627.

In an action for injuries sustained in a collision, in which defendant denied that plaintiff was injured, evidence as to the number of persons killed in the collision was admissible to

1135.

A railroad held liable for conduct of baggage master in assisting an officer in unlawfully arresting a passenger.-Texas Midland R. R. v. Dean (Tex. Sup.) 1135.

A railroad company held liable for an injury to servant of an express company, owing to the railroad's failure to light its station grounds.Texas Cent. R. Co. v. Harbison (Tex. Sup.) 1138.

In an action against a carrier, held, under the evidence, a question for the jury whether plaintiff suffered mental anguish from the conduct of defendant's conductor when refusing her ticket.-Ft. Worth & R. G. Ry. Co. v. Jones (Tex. Civ. App.) 37.

In an action against an electric railroad for injuries to a passenger, refusal to charge that circumstances must have been such as to frighten person of ordinary prudence held not error.-Denison & S. Ry. Co. v. Freeman (Tex. Civ. App.) 55.

In an action against an electric railroad for injuries to a passenger, a charge defining negligence held correct.-Denison & S. Ry. Co. v. Freeman (Tex. Civ. App.) 55.

In an action against an electric railroad for injuries to a passenger, a charge held not justified by the pleadings.-Denison & S. Ry. Co. v. Freeman (Tex. Civ. App.) 55.

A petition in an action for injuries to a passenger held not demurrable, though alleging that the train was in motion when she attempted to alight.-San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co. v. Jackson (Tex. Civ. App.) 445.

A passenger, who is injured while alighting at a crossing, cannot complain of failure to bring the train to a full stop, as required by Rev. St. 1895, art. 4507.-Mercher v. Texas Midland R. R. (Tex. Civ. App.) 468.

In an action for injuries sustained by a passenger in leaving a moving train in the belief that it had arrived at his destination, evidence held sufficient to require a submission of plaintiff's case to the jury.-Long v. Red River, T. & S. Ry. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 1048.

In an action for injuries to a passenger alighting from a moving train, evidence as to certain conduct of the brakeman, in making way for plaintiff to alight, held admissible.-Long v. Red River, T. & S. Ry. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 1048.

Contributory negligence of person injured.

evidence held to warrant a finding that he was In an action for injuries to a passenger, guilty of contributory negligence.-Barringer v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. (Ark.) 94.

Whether plaintiff in an action against a while attempting to board a car was guilty of street railroad for injuries received by him contributory negligence held question for jury. -Leu v. St. Louis Transit Co. (Mo. App.) 137.

In an action for injuries to a passenger on a street car, the court held justified in submitting the issue whether plaintiff alighted before the car stopped.-San Antonio Traction Co. v. Warren (Tex. Civ. App.) 26.

Whether it was negligence for a passenger to alight from a train after it had started held for the jury. San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co. v. Jackson (Tex. Civ. App.) 445.

An instruction, in an action for injuries to a passenger, on the issue of her negligence in alighting after the train had started, held propSan Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co. v. Jackson (Tex. Civ. App.) 445.

ing train at a crossing, held not relieved from A passenger, attempting to alight from a movthe effect of his own contributory negligence.Mercher v. Texas Midland R. R. (Tex. Civ. App.) 468.

8.

Ejection of passengers and intruders.

A passenger, purchasing a ticket to a station. held not entitled to take passage on a train not scheduled to stop at that point.-Hancock v. Louisville & N. R. Co. (Ky.) 210.

The motorman of a street car, whose only duty is to operate the machinery, is not within the scope of his employment in ejecting a boy who was trying to ride on the running board of the car.-Drolshagen v. Union Depot R. Co. (Mo. Sup.) 344.

In an action for wrongful ejection from a train, a verdict for $400 held excessive to the extent of $200.-Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Russell (Tex. Civ. App.) 299.

The conductor of a Pullman car held not the servant of the railroad company, on whose train the car is, in the ejection of a trespasser. -Blake v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 430.

Receiving carrier held liable for loss of baggage by connecting carrier checked through to destination of passenger on connecting line.— Kansas City, Ft. S. & M. R. Co. v. Washington (Ark.) 406.

A passenger, who accepts a ticket and baggage check without any knowledge of a condition on the back of the ticket limiting the car rier's liability to its own line, is not bound thereby.-Little Rock & H. S. W. Ry. Co. v. Record (Ark.) 421.

Initial carrier held liable to a passenger for a loss of baggage occurring on the line of a connecting carrier. Little Rock & H. S. W. Ry. Co. v. Record (Ark.) 421.

Charge held to properly submit to the jury whether shotguns carried by a passenger in his valise were baggage.-Little Rock & H. S. W. Ry. Co. v. Record (Ark.) 421.

CARRYING WEAPONS.

See "Weapons."

CHAMPERTY AND MAINTENANCE.

Champertous conveyance as protection to de-
fendant in replevin for timber, see "Replev-
in," § 1.

A petition held to state a cause of action for
maintenance. Breeden v. Frankfort Marine,
Accident & Plate Glass Ins. Co. (Mo. App.)
930.

An insurance company, having indemnified
an employer from liability for injuries to an
employé, held not liable for maintenance in de-
fending an action for such injuries.-Breeden
v. Frankfort Marine, Accident & Plate Glass
Ins. Co. (Mo. App.) 930.

See "Equity."

CHANCERY.

CHANGE OF POSSESSION.

Necessity as against creditors of grantor, see
"Fraudulent Conveyances," § 1.

CHANGE OF VENUE.

Of civil actions, see "Venue." § 3.

CHEAT.

CHECKS.

Payment by, see "Payment," § 2.

CHILD.

See "Bastards"; "Guardian and Ward"; "In-
fants."

CHOSE IN ACTION.

Assignment, see "Assignments."

CHURCH.

See "Religious Societies."

See "Courts," § 2.

CIRCUIT COURTS.

CITATION.

See "Process."

CITIES.

See "Municipal Corporations."

CITIZENS.

Privileges and immunities, see "Constitutional
Law," § 2.

CIVIL RIGHTS.

See "Constitutional Law," § 2.

CLAIM AND DELIVERY.

See "Replevin."

CLAIMS.

Against estate assigned for creditors, see "As-
signments for Benefit of Creditors," § 1.
Against estate of bankrupt, see "Bankruptcy,"
§ 1.

CHARACTER.

Of accused in criminal prosecutions, see "Crim-
inal Law," § 7.

Of witness, see "Witnesses," § 3.
Relevancy of evidence, see "Evidence," § 2.

CHARGE.

Corporations," § 10.

Mining claims, see "Mines and Minerals," § 1.
To property levied on, see "Attachment," § 2.

CLERKS OF COURTS.

Right of on revocation of letters of administra-
tion before payment of fees of clerk, see "Ex-
ecutors and Administrators," § 1.

CLOUD ON TITLE.

CHARTER.

Forfeiture by corporation, see "Corporations,"
§ 8.

Of municipal corporation, see "Municipal Cor-
porations," §§ 1, 5.

COLLATERAL ATTACK.

On execution sale, see "Execution," § 3.
On judgment, see "Judgment," §§ 4, 6, 8.
On judgment directing execution of administra-
tor's deed, see "Executors and Administra-
tors," § 3.