§ 356.] THE LAW OF PRIVATE CORPORATIONS. [CHAP. VII. Limita- tions of carrier's liability in amount. § 356. Just as carriers of passengers may place a limit on the value of baggage for which they will be liable, unless the value is disclosed and additional compensation paid, so carriers of goods may limit their liability in the same respect. And when the value of goods is agreed on, the railroad company is not liable above that amount even when the loss is caused by its negligence. " Where a con- tract of this kind, signed by the shipper, is fairly made agree- ing on the valuation of the property carried, with the rate of freight based on the condition that the carrier assumes liability only to the extent of the agreed valuation, even in cases of loss or damage by the negligence of the carrier, the contract will be upheld as a proper and lawful mode of securing a due propor- tion between the amount for which the carrier may be respon- sible and the freight he receives, and of protecting himself against extravagant and fanciful valuations." x When, however, there is no notice of such limitation, a person delivering goods to a carrier is not bound to state their value. 2 Restrictions as Orange County Bank v. Brown, 9 Wend. 85; Hawkins v. Hoffman, 6 Hill (N. Y.), 586; Doyle v. Kiser, 6 Ind. 242; Toledo, W. and W. R. R. Co. v. Hammond, 33 Ind. 379. A carrier is not liable as such for sixteen thousand dollars' worth of bonds violently taken from the per- son of a passenger. Weeks v. N. Y., N. H. and H. It. R. Co., 72 N. Y. 50; nor for thirty thousand dollars' worth of jewelry in baggage. Mich- igan Central R. R. Co. u. Carrow, 73 111. 348. See Humphreys v. Perry, 148 U. S. 627. Nor for a loss of mer- chandise carried as baggage. Stim- son v. Connecticut River R. R. Co., 98 Mass. 83; Ailing v. Boston and Albany R. R. Co., 126 Mass. 121; Pardee u. Drew, 25 Wend. 459. Un- less, having been advised of the merchandise, it charges and receives a sum in addition to the passenger's fare for the extra weight. Perley v. N. Y. C. and H. R. R. R. Co., 65 N. Y. 374. 336 1 Hart v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 112 U. S. 331, 343; op'n of court per Blatchford, J. ; Graves v. Lake Shore, etc., R. R. Co., 137 Mass. 33; Graves v. Adams Express Co., 170 Mass. 280; Harvey v. Terre Haute, etc., R. R. Co., 74 Mo. 538; Magnin v. Dinsmore, 70 N. Y. 410; S. C, 62 N. Y. 65; Con- tra, Chicago, St. L. & N. O. R. R. Co. v. Abels, 60 Miss. 1017; Pierce v. So. Pac. R. R. Co., 120 Cal. 156. But a clause limiting liability will not hold good after the carrier has disregarded the shipper's order to stop the goods in transit. Rosenthal v. Weir, 170 N. Y. 148. 2 Little v. Boston and Maine R. R., 66 Me. 239; Phillips v. Earle, 8 Pick. 182; see, also, Chicago and Alton R. R. Co. v. Shea, 66 111. 471; Houston, etc., R. R. Co. v. Burke, 55 Tex. 323. But the carrier may inquire as to value, and the shipper is bound by his answer. Same cases. i
