HART V. IENNBYiYAjNIA E- CO. 631 �the carrier assumes a liabilily on the stock to the extent of ihe folloving agreed valuation: If horses, * * * not exceeding $200 each; * * * if a chartered car, on the stock and cojUents in same, not exceeding $1,200 for the ca/r load," The bill of lading was signed by both plaintifE and defendant. The horses were not shipped in a chartered car. Tbrough defendant's gross negligence, one of the horses, alleged to h^ve been of the value of $15,000, was killed, the others injured, and the saddles, etc., lost, while being trans- ported to their destination. This suit was brought to reoover $25,000 damages from defendant, alleged to have been suf- fered by plaintiff in the manner above stated. The question in thia suit is as to whether or not the plaintiff 's recovery should be limited by said condition in the bill of lading and the agreement therein as to th© value of the horses. The case was tried before a jury. �Defendant objected, upon the trial, to the introduction of any testimony tending to show that the horses were worth more than $200 each. �Geo. M. Stewart, for plaintiff. �Pattison d Crane, for defendant. �McCrary, C J., in ruling upon the objection, said: "The question raised as to the construction of this bill of lading we have considered as well as we could, in the very brief time we had for the purpose. It is a question of considera- ble importance, and it is to be regretted that we have not had more opportunity for its examination. The doctrine, of course, is well settled, in the federal courts at ieast, that a common carrier cannot relieve himself from the consequences of his own fraud by any stipulation inserted in the bill of lading; and I think I may go further, and say that it is very well settled that this cannot be done even by a contract signed by both parties. I think it is agreed, even if the shipper and the railroad company enter into an agreement that the company shall not be liable for its own negligence, in so many words, that it would be a void agreement. No court would enforce it. It would be contrary to public pol- icy, and it would not be upheld. But the courts certainly ��� �
