order and their loss or injury makes out a prima facie case for the owner of the goods within the rule.32 Bills of ladings and baggage

done; but proof of any negligence of the defendant proximately causing the injury would be sufficient.26

§ 7706. Insufficiency of Locomotive Bell.-A person injured by a railroad train backed against him at a place which is not a public crossing has the burden of proof to show that the engine was not provided with a proper bell.27

$7707. Ejection of Passengers. In an action for wrongfully ejecting a railway passenger at a station short of her destination, proof by the plaintiff that the train sometimes stopped at her destination, makes a prima facie case that under the company's regulations the train was required to stop there, so as to cast on the company the burden to show that such stops were exceptional and made under special instructions from the company.28 And where the passenger is ejected on the ground that the ticket he presented had expired, the burden of proof is on the carrier to show that there was an express contract with the plaintiff limiting the time within which the ticket. purchased by him might be used. 20

29

§ 7708. Care as to Effects in Sleeping Car.-A sleeping car company has the burden of proving that a loss of money by a passenger while he was asleep did not occur because of failure of its employés to discharge their duty of maintaining such guard as was reasonably necessary to secure the safety of such money.

30

§ 7709. Care in the Transportation of Goods.-It may be stated, generally, that when goods in the custody of a common carrier are lost or damaged, the presumption is that the loss was occasioned by his fault, and the burden is cast upon him to prove that it arose either without negligence on his part, or from a cause for which he was not responsible. Proof of the delivery of the goods to the carrier in good

31

26 Southern Kansas R. Co. V. Cooper, 32 Tex. Civ. App. 592; s. c. 75 S. W. Rep. 328.

31 Mouton V. Louisville &c. R. Co., 128 Ala. 537; s. c. 29 South. Rep. 602; Wilson v. California &c.

27 Boyd v. Cross (Tex. Civ. App.), R. Co., 94 Cal. 166; s. c. 11 Rail. & 47 S. W. Rep. 478.

28 Sira v. Wabash R. Co., 115 Mo. 127; s. c. 21 S. W. Rep. 905.

Boyd v. Spencer, 103 Ga. 828; s. c. 30 S. E. Rep. 841; 5 Am. Neg. Rep. 619; 11 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. (N. S.) 247.

30 Kates v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 95 Ga. 810; s. c. 23 S. E. Rep. 186.

Corp. L. J. 51; 29 Pac. Rep. 861; Mears v. New York &c. R. Co., 75 Conn. 171; s. c. 52 Atl. Rep. 610; 56 L. R. A. 884; Christie v. The Craigton, 41 Fed. Rep. 62; Cummings v. Barracouta, 40 Fed. Rep. 498; Hudson River Lighterage Co. v. Wheeler Condenser &c. Co.. 93 Fed. Rep. 374; The Burgundia, 29 Fed. Rep. 607; The Giava,

order and their loss or injury makes out a prima facie case for the owner of the goods within the rule.32 Bills of ladings and baggage

56 Fed. Rep. 243; The Warren Adams, 75 Fed. Rep. 413; s. C. 38 U. S. App. 356; Western Man. Co. v. The Guiding Star, 37 Fed. Rep. 641; Central R. &c. Co. v. Hasselkus, 91 Ga. 382; s. c. 17 S. E. Rep. 838; Chapin v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 79 Iowa 582; s. c. 42 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 542; 44 N. W. Rep. 820; Chapman v. New Orleans &c. R. Co., 21 La. An. 224; Little v. Boston &c. R. Co., 66 Me. 239; Mobile &c. R. Co. v. Tupelo &c. Co., 67 Miss. 35; s. c. 42 Am, & Eng. R. Cas. 497; 7 South. Rep. 279; Southern Exp. Co. v. Seide, 67 Miss. 35; s. c. 8 Rail, & Corp. L. J. 153; 42 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 398; 7 South. Rep. 547; Costigan v. Michael &c. Co., 33 Mo. App. 269; Wheeler v. Oceanic S. Nav. Co., 125 N. Y. 155; s. c. 26 N. E. Rep. 248; 34 N. Y. St. Rep. 866; 9 Rail. & Corp. L. J. 190; 43 Alb. L. J. 129; rev'g s. c. 52 Hun (N. Y.) 75; 22 N. Y. St. Rep. 590; 5 N. Y. Supp. 101; Lichenstein v. Jarvis, 31 App. Div. (N. Y.) 33; s. c. 52 N. Y. Supp. 605; Westcott v. Fargo, 6 Lans. (N. Y.) 319; Caldwell v. Erie Transfer Co., 13 Misc. (N. Y.) 37; s. c. 67 N. Y. St. Rep. 843; 33 N. Y. Supp. 993; Weinborg v. National Steamship Co., 25 Jones & S. (N. Y.) 586; s. c. 29 N. Y. St. Rep. 219; 8 N. Y. Supp. 195; Phoenix Pot Works v. Pittsburgh &c. R. Co., 139 Pa. St. 284; s. c. 20 Atl. Rep. 1058; 27 W. N. C. (Pa.) 321; 21 Pitts. L. J. (N. S.) 380; Merchants' Dispatch Transp. Co. V. Bloch, 86 Tenn. 392; s. c. 6 S. W. Rep. 881; Inman v. South Carolina R. Co., 129 U. S. 128; s. c. 32 L. ed. 612; 5 Rail. & Corp. L. J. 271; 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 249; The Mary Washington, 1 Abb. (U. S.) 1; Day v. Ridley, 16 Vt. 48; Black v. Goodrich Transp. Co., 55 Wis. 319; Browning v. Goodrich Transp. Co., 78 Wis. 391; s. c. 47 N. W. Rep. 428; 10 L. R. A. 415; Richelieu &c. Nav. Co. v. Fortier, Montreal L. Rep. 5 Q. B. 224. In an action for damage to cargo, alleged by claimant to have been caused by the weakness of the casks in which the cargo was stowed, and alleged by libelant to have been caused by reason of bad stowage, where claimant shows that

the casks which contained the cargo
were weak, libelant has the bur-
den to show bad stowage: The Con-
naught, 32 Fed. Rep. 640. A ship
which delivers a portion of her
cargo in bad order has the burden
of showing that the damages were
the result of a sea peril: The Dun-
britton, 73 Fed. Rep. 352; s. c. 38
U. S. App. 369. The burden of
showing that a port near the water
line of a ship was tight when the
voyage commenced is on the ship-
owner, where it is found to have
leaked during the voyage to such an
extent that the cargo was damaged:
The Phoenicia, 90 Fed. Rep. 116;
The Edwin I. Morrison, 153 U. S.
199; s. c. 38 L. ed. 688.

32 Cooper v. Georgia R. Co., 92
Ala. 329; s. c. 9 South. Rep. 159;
Savannah &c. R. Co. v. Hoffmayer,
75 Ga. 410; Chicago &c. R. Co. v.
Dickinson, 74 Ill. 249; Woodbury v.
Frink, 13 Ill. 279; Little v. Bos-
ton &c. R. Co., 66 Me. 239; Bal-
timore &c. R. Co. v. Schumacher,
29 Md. 168; Boehl v. Chicago &c. R.
Co., 44 Minn. 191; s. c. 46 N. W.
Rep. 333; Buddy v. Wabash &c. R.
Co., 20 Mo. App. 206; s. c. 2 West.
Rep. 535; Nave v. Pacific Ex. Co.,
19 Mo. App. 563; s. c. 2 West. Rep.
407; Davis v. Jacksonville &c. Line,
126 Mo. 69; s. c. 28 S. W. Rep. 965;
Blum v. Monahan, 36 Misc. (N. Y.)
179; s. c. 73 N. Y. Supp. 162; Strong
v. Long Island R. Co., 91 App. Div.
(N. Y.) 442; s. c. 86 N. Y. Supp.
911; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Naive,

Tenn.; s. c. 79 S. W. Rep.
124. A bill of lading acknowledg-
ing the receipt of a trunk was evi-
dence of its delivery to the carrier:
Fasy v. International Nav. Co., 77
App. Div. (N. Y.) 469; s. c. 79 N.
Y. Supp. 1103. In an action against
an express company for the loss of
a trunk, evidence that the company
received the trunk into its custody,
and the next day received the
checks for it and undertook to de-
liver it to plaintiff, casts upon the
company the burden to explain why
the trunk was not delivered:
Aiken v. Westcott, 16 N. Y. St. Rep.
600; s. c. 9 N. Y. Supp. 481.

33 The Queen of the Pacific, 75 Fed. Rep. 74.

1

34

checks afford prima facie evidence of the delivery of property to the carrier in good order. The fact that a consignee has accepted his goods, without objection, and receipted for them as in good order, raises a presumption that they have not been damaged in the carrier's hands, but is not conclusive evidence of that fact.35

§ 7710. Care of Goods by Carrier where Warehouseman Relation has Attached.-Evidence that goods were lost while in the possession of a common carrier, after its liability as such had ceased and its liability as a warehouseman had commenced, makes a prima facie case of liability which is not overcome by mere proof of the general care with which baggage is guarded by the carrier.36

§ 7711. That Loss of Goods Resulted from a Cause Excepted in the Bill of Lading.—The carrier has the burden of proof that the loss or injury resulted from one or more of the causes excepted by the contract of shipment, and that he was without fault.37 Thus, the owner of a vessel libelled for damage to cargo will be required to show that the damage was caused by inherent defects in the goods or by sweat of the ship within exceptions for these causes in the bill of lading, where the fact of deterioration and its extent are fully shown.38 Where

Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Clayton, 78 Ill. 616; Cleveland &c. R. Co. v. Tyler, 9 Ind. App. 689; s. c. 35 N. E. Rep. 523; Atchison &c. R. Co. v. Brewer, 20 Kan. 669; Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Steear, 53 Neb. 95; s. c. 73 N. W. Rep. 466; Oakes v. Northern &c. R. Co., 20 Or. 392; s. c. 12 L. R. A. 318; 26 Pac. Rep. 230.

35 Bloomingdale v. DuRell, 1 Idaho Ter. 33.

36 Aaronson V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 23 Misc. (N. Y.) 666; s. c. 52 N. Y. Supp. 95.

37 The Jefferson, 31 Fed. Rep. 489; The Mascotte, 51 Fed. Rep. 605; s. c. 1 U. S. App. 251; 2 C. C. A. 399; Clyde Steamship Co. v. Burrows, 36 Fla. 121; s. c. 18 South. Rep. 349; Savannah &c. R. Co. v. Harris, 26 Fla. 148; s. c. 8 Rail. & Corp. L. J. 168; 42 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 457; 7 South. Rep. 544; Newport News &c. Co. v. Holmes, 14 Ky. L. Rep. 853; Shea v. Minneapolis &c. R. Co., 63 Minn. 228; s. c. 65 N. W. Rep. 458; Southard v. Minneapolis &c. R. Co., 60 MiLn. 382; s. c. 62 N. W. Rep. 442, 619; 61 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 282; Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Abels, 60 Miss. 1017; Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Moss, 60 Miss. 1003; s. c. 45 Am. Rep. 428;

Johnson v. Alabama &c. R. Co., 69 Miss. 191; s. c. 11 South. Rep. 104; Newberger Cotton Co. v. Illinois &c. R. Co., 75 Miss. 303; s. c. 1 Miss. Dec. (No. 13) 72; 10 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. (N. S.) 334; 23 South. Rep. 186; Nave v. Pacific Ex. Co., 19 Mo. App: 563; s. c. 2 West. Rep. 407, 537; Mitchell v. Carolina &c. R. Co., 124 N. C. 236; s. c. 32 S. E. Rep. 671; 44 L. R. A. 15; 13 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. (N. S.) 201; United States Ex. Co. v. Backman, 28 Ohio St. 144; Houston &c. R. Co. v. McFadden, 91 Tex. 194; s. c. 42 S. W. Rep. 593; Jones v. Minneapolis &c. R. Co., 91 Minn. 229; s. c. 97 N. W. Rep. 893; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. China Man. Co., 79 Tex. 26; s. c. 14 S. W. Rep. 785; Texas &c. R. Co. v. Payne, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 58; s. c. 38 S. W. Rep. 366; Selma &c. R. Co. v. United States, 139 U. S. 560; s. c. 35 L. ed. 266; Galveston &c. R. Co. v. Efron (Tex. Civ. App.), 38 S. W. Rep. 639 (no off. rep.); St. Louis &c. R. Co. v. Martin (Tex. Civ. App.), 35 S. W. Rep. 28 (no off. rep.).

38 The Beeche Dene, 55 Fed. Rep. 525.

this proof is made by the carrier, then the plaintiff has the burden of showing that the negligence of the carrier caused the loss or was a cooperating cause in producing it.39

§ 7712. Carrier must Explain Unreasonable Delay.—Where, on the face of the transaction, the time occupied in transportation appears to have been unreasonable, the burden rests on the carrier to account for the delay;40 and it is not material that the shipment was accepted under a contract "subject to delay": the carrier still has the burden of showing that he exercised due diligence to avoid delay.*1

§7713. Authority of Station Agent to Contract for Shipment of Goods. A carrier who seeks to avoid liability under a contract made by a station agent clothed with the power to receive and forward freight, and within the scope of his apparent authority, must show that the other party knew that the agent was in fact acting beyond his authority.*2

42

43

§ 7714. Care in the Transportation of Live Stock. Where the carrier has the sole custody of the animals, the burden of proof is on him to show that he exercised ordinary care in the carriage of the freight; in other words, that he was free from negligence which, as an efficient contributing cause, brought about the damage complained of.48 If, however, the owner accompanies the cattle, under a contract to care for them, and is given opportunity to do so, the burden is cast upon him of proving that injuries to the shipment were due to the negligence of the carrier. The carrier has the burden of proving that a car in

44

The Guy C. Goss, 53 Fed. Rep. 839; The Hindoustan, 67 Fed. Rep. 794; The Kensington, 88 Fed. Rep. 331; The Queen of the Pacific, 75 Fed. Rep. 74; The Tjomo, 115 Fed. Rep. 919; Kansas &c. Co. v. Reynolds, 8 Kan. 623; Witting v. St. Louis &c. R. Co., 101 Mo. 631; s. c. 14 S. W. Rep. 743; 10 L. R. A. 602; 45 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 369; Roth v. Hamburgh &c. Packet Co., 12 N. Y. Supp. 460; s. c. 35 N. Y. St. Rep. 89; Louisville &c. R. Co. v. Manchester Mills, 88 Tenn. 653; s. c. 8 Rail. & Corp. L. J. 302; 14 S. W. Rep. 314; The Neptune, 6 Blatchf. (U. S.) 193; Wertheimer v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 17 Blatchf. (U. S.) 421; Muddle v. Stride, 9 Car. & P. 380.

St. Clair v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 80 Iowa 304; s. c. 45 N. W. Rep. 570; 42 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 414.

41 Parker v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 133 N. C. 335; s. c. 45 S. E. Rep. 658; 63 L. R. A. 827.

42 Wilson v. Missouri &c. R. Co., 66 Mo. App. 388; s. c. 2 Mo. App. Repr. 1366.

43 Adams Exp. Co. v. Bratton, 106 Ill. 563; Chesapeake &c. R. Co. v. Radbourne, 52 Ill. App. 203; Louisville &c. R. Co. v. Harned, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 1651; s. c. 66 S. W. Rep. 25; Hance v. Pacific Ex. Co., 48 Mo. App. 179; Lachner Bros. v. Adams Exp. Co., 72 Mo. App. 13; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Scott, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 76; s. c. 26 S. W. Rep. 239; Railway Co. v. Wynn, 88 Tenn. 320; s. c. 8 Rail. & Corp. L. J. 291; 14 S. W. Rep. 311.

"St. Louis &c. R. Co. v. Weakly, 50 Ark. 397; s. c. 8 S. W. Rep. 134; 7 Am. St. Rep. 104; Terre Haute &c. R. Co. v. Sherwood, 132 Ind. 129;