71 Fed. 136; Maine v. Railroad Co., 109 Iowa, 260, 70 N. W. 630, 80 N. W. 315; Pittsburg, C, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Cox, 55 Ohio, 497, 45 N. E. 641, 35 L. R. A. 507; Eckman v. Railroad Co., 169 I11. 312, 48 N. E. 496, 38 L. R. A. 750; Pittsburg, C, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Moore, 152 Ind. 345, 53 N. E. 290, 44 L. R. A. 638; Hamilton v. Railroad Co. (C. C.) 118 Fed. 92; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Beazley, 54 Fla. 311, 45 South. 761 (collecting and discussing cases). See "Master and Servant," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 100; Cent. Dig. §§ 166-170.

72 Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. v. Spangler, 44 Ohio St. 471, 8 N. E. 467, 58 Am. Rep. 833; Johnson's Adm'x v. Railroad Co., 86 Va. 975, 11 S. E. 829; Hissong v. Railroad Co., 91 Ala. 514, 8 South. 776; JAMES QUIRK MILLING CO. v. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. R. CO., 98 Minn. 22, 107 N. W. 742, 116 Am. St Rep. 336, Throckmorton Cas. Contracts, 286. Contra, Western & A. R. Co. v. Bishop, 50 Ga. 465 (holding such a contract valid so far as it does not waive any criminal neglect of the company or its principal officers; but this case expressly declares that contracts contravening public policy will not be enforced). See "Master and Servant," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 100; Cent. Dig. §§ 166-110.

73 New York Cent R. Co. v. Lockwood, 17 Wall. 357, 21 L. Ed. 627; Armstrong v. Express Co., 159 Pa. 640, 28 Atl. 448; Abrams v. Railway Co., 87 Wis. 485, 58 N. W. 780, 41 Am. St. Rep. 55; Schulze-Berge v. The Guildhall (D. C.) 58 Fed. 796; Monroe v. The Iowa (D. C.) 50 Fed. 561; Johnson v. Railway Co., 69 Miss. 191, 11 South. 104, 30 Am. St Rep. 534; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Grant, 99 Ala. 325, 13 South. 599; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Ed-dins, 7 Tex. Civ. App. 116, 26 S. W. 161; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Dies, 91 Tenn. 177, 18 S. W. 266, 30 Am. St. Rep. 871; Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Rainey, 19 Colo. 225, 34 Pac. 986; The Hugo (D. C.) 57 Fed. 403; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Lawler, 40 Neb. 356, 58 N. W. 968; St. Joseph & G. I. R. Co. v. Palmer, 38 Neb. 463, 56 N. W. 957, 22 L. R. A. 335. See "Carriers." Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 147; Cent. Dig. §§ 637, 642.

74 Indianapolis, D. & W. R. Co. v. Forsythe, 4 Ind. App. 326, 29 N. E. 1138;

As to the validity of stipulations in contracts with telegraph companies for the transmission of messages, there is a direct conflict. Many cases hold that a stipulation providing that the liability of the company for any mistake or delay in the transmission and delivery of a message, or for not delivering the same, shall not extend beyond the sum received for sending it unless the sender orders the message to be repeated by sending it back to the office which first received it, and pays half the regular rate additional, is a reasonable precaution to be taken by the company, and not against public policy, except in so far as it would exempt the company from liability for willful misconduct or gross negligence.75 Another class of cases holds that there can be no consideration for such a stipulation on the part of the sender of the message, and, furthermore, that it is contrary to public policy.76 Still another class of cases, while upholding such a stipulation in part, hold that it cannot exonerate the company from liability for damages caused by defective instruments, or a want of skill or ordinary care on the part of its operators.77

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Davis v. Railroad Co., 66 Vt. 290, 29 Atl. 313, 44 Am. St Rep. 852; Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Railroad Co., 175 U. S. 91, 20 Sup. Ct 33, 44 L. Ed. 84. It may limit its liability to injuries received on its own line, Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Smith (Tex. Civ. App.) 24 S. W. 565; Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. v. Short (Tex. Civ. App.) 25 S. W. 142; McCann v. Eddy (Mo.) 27 S. W. 541; McEacheran v. Railroad Co., 101 Mich. 264, 59 N. W. 612; Coles v. Railroad Co., 41 I11. App. 607; Dunbar v. Railway Co., 36 S. C. 110, 15 S. E. 357, 31 Am. St. Rep. 860; but not when it is a partner with the connecting line, Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Wilbanks, 7 Tex. Civ. App. 489, 27 S. W. 302. It may exempt itself from liability after unloading, where it provides a covered warehouse into which the cargo is discharged, and the time and place of discharge are easily ascertainable by the consignees. Constable v. Steamship Co., 154 U. S. 51, 14 Sup. Ct. 1062, 38 L. Ed. 903. Express messenger, accompanying express car in pursuance of contract between railroad company and express company, held not a passenger, and cannot recover from railroad company for injuries in collision where contract between companies exempts from such liability and his own contract of employment assumes such risk. Baltimore & O. S. W. R. Co. v. Voight, 176 U. S. 498, 20 Sup. Ct 3S5, 44 L. Ed. 560. See "Carriers," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) | 147; Cent. Dig. §§ 637, 642.

75 Riley v. Telegraph Co., 6 Misc. Rep. 221, 26 N. Y. Supp. 532; Primrose v. Telegraph Co., 154 U. S. 1, 14 Sup. Ct 1098, 38 L. Ed. 883; Grinnell v. Telegraph Co., 113 Mass. 299, 18 Am. Rep. 485; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Carew, 15 Mich. 525; Camp v. Telegraph Co., 1 Metc. (Ky.) 164, 71 Am. Dec. 461; Breese v. Telegraph Co., 48 N. Y. 132, 8 Am. Rep. 526; Passmore v. Telegraph Co., 78 Pa. 238; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Blahchard, 68 Ga. 299 (45 Am. Rep. 486, note, collecting cases); Coit v. Telegraph Co., 130 Cal. 657, 63 Pac. 83, 53 L. R. A. 678, 80 Am. St Rep. 153. See "Telegraphs and Telephones;' Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 54; Cent. Dig. §§ 39-47.

76 Brown v. Telegraph Co., Ill N. C. 187, 16 S. E. 179, 17 L. R. A. 648, 32 Am. St Rep. 793; Tyler v. Telegraph Co., 60 I11. 421, 14 Am. Rep. 38; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Tyler, 74 I11. 168, 24 Am. Rep. 279; Wertz v. Telegraph Co., 8 Utah, 499, 33 Pac. 136; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Linn, 87 Tex. 7, 26 S. W. 490, 47 Am. St. Rep. 58; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Cook, 61 Fed. 624, 9 C. C. A. 680; Candee v. Telegraph Co., 34 Wis.