Texas. Eddy v. Harris, 78 Tex. 661, 22 Am. St. Rep. 88, 15 S. W. 107; Houston & T. C. Ry. Co. v. Lee, 104 Tex. 82, 133 S. W. 868.

See also, Tickets, by Joseph H. Beale, 1 Harvard Law Review, 17.

6 O'Regan v. Steamship Co., 160 Mass. 356, 39 Am. St. Rep. 484, 35 N. E. 1070; Fonseca v. Steamship Co., 153 Mass. 553, 25 Am. St. Rep. 660, 12 L. R. A. 340, 27 N. E. 665; Steers v. Steamship Co., 57 N. Y. 1, 15 Am. Rep. 453.

7 O'Regan v. Steamship Co., 160 Mass. 356, 39 Am. St. Rep. 484, 35 N. E. 1070; French v. Merchants' & Miners' Transportation Co., 199 Mass. 433, 127 Am. St. Rep. 506, 19 L. R. A (NS) 1006, 85 N. E. 424.

8 Iowa. Hanlon v. R. R., 109 la. 136, 80 N. W. 223; Trezona v. Ry. Co., 107 la. 22, 43 L. R. A. 136, 77 N. W. 486.

Louisiana. Coburn v. R. R., 105 La. Ann. 398, 83 Am. St. Rep. 242, 29 So. 882.

Pennsylvania. Bowers v. Pennsylvania Co., 158 Pa. St. 302, 27 Atl. 893.

Texas. Houston, etc., Ry. v. Arey, 18 Tex. Civ. App. 457, 44 S. W. 894.

Washington. Muldoon v. Ry. Co., 10 Wash. 311, 45 Am. St. Rep. 787, 38 Ac. 995.

9 Merchants,' etc., Co. v. Joesting, 89 111. 152; Smith v. Express Co., 108 Mich. 572, 66 N. W. 479.

(2) Even if he does not know of the nature of special terms and conditions thus offered, he is nevertheless bound if he is notified in a reasonable manner of their existence and omits to ascertain their nature.10 This rule applies whether the passenger signs the ticket,11 even if in haste,12 or whether he omits to sign it.13 The fact that the passenger or shipper is not able to read,14 or is not able to read English, in which language the ticket is printed,15 does not prevent the contract from operating, if he knows that he is entering into a contract and if the carrier is not guilty of fraud. The sale of a ticket at a reduced rate is notice of special conditions therein.16 So that a condition on the face of a ticket, sold at a reduced rate, that it should be stamped before return, is binding even on a purchaser who can not read and does not know of the conditions.17 Still more is a pass notice of a provision therein.18 Bills of lading and contracts for the transportation of baggage are subject to the same rules as tickets for transportation of passengers. The shipper is bound by terms on the face of his contract, whether read or not if he has an opportunity to read them.19 If the terms of the contract appear on the face of the bill of lading, the fact that the shipper can not read does not prevent these terms from binding him, at least if the shipper does not know of such inability.20 The fact that he executed the contract hurriedly does not relieve him from its binding effect.21 (3) Where the terms and conditions of the ticket are not actually brought to the notice of the purchaser, and no reasonable notice thereof is given to him, he is not bound thereby.22 So a notice as to excursions is not binding unless in the

10 England. Acton v. Packet Co. (Q. B.), 73 Law T. Rep. 158.

United States. BoyIan v. Ry., 132 U. S. 146, 33 L. ed. 290.

Alabama. McGhee v. Drisdale, III Ala. 597, 20 So. 301.

Iowa. Garden Grove Bank v. Ry., 67 la. 526, 25 N. W. 761; Hewett v. Ry., 63 la. 611, 19 N. W. 790; Robinson v. Transportation Co., 45 la. 470; Mulligan v. Ry., 36 la. 181, 14 Am. Rep. 514.

Kansas. Walker v. Price, 62 Kan. 327, 84 Am. St. Rep. 392, 62 Ac. 1001.

Massachusetts, Grace v. Adams, 100 Mass. 505, 1 Am. Rep. 131, 97 Am. Dec. 117.

Minnesota. Rahilly v. Ry., 66 Minn. 153, 68 N. W. 853.

Missouri. Aiken v. Ry., 80 Mo. App. 8.

New York. Zimmer v. Ry., 137 N. Y. 460, 33 N. E. 642.

Rhode Island. Ballou v. Earle, 17 R. I. 441, 33 Am. St. Rep. 881, 14 L. R. A. 433, 22 Atl. 1113.

11 Boylan v. Ry., 132 U. S. 146, 33 L. ed. 290.

12 Bethea v. Ry. Co., 26 S. Car. 91, 1 S. E. 372.

13 Fonseca v. Steamship Co., 153 Mass. 553, 25 Am. St. Rep. 660, 12 L. R. A. 340, 27 N. E. 665. (The length of the ticket does not prevent its terms from being binding if the buyer knows that the ticket contains terms and conditions.)

14 French v. Merchants' & Miners' Transportation Co., 199 Mass. 433, 127 Am. St. Rep. 506, 19 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1006, 85 N. E. 424.

15 Secoulsky v. Oceanic Steam Navigation Co., 223 Mass. 465, 112 N. E. 151. .

16 St. Louis, etc., Ry. v. Weakley, 50 Ark. 397, 7 Am. St. Rep. 104, 8 S. W. 134; Bissell v. R. R., 25 N .Y. 442, 82 Am. Dec. 369; Watson v. Ry., 104 Tenn. 194, 49 L. R. A. 454, 56 S. W. 1024; Ranchau v. R. R., 71 Vt. 142, 76 Am. St. Rep. 761, 43 Atl. 11.

17 Watson v. Ry. Co., 104 Tenn. 194, 49 L. R. A. 454, 56 S. W. 1024.

18 United States. Boering v. Ry., 193 U. S. 442, 48 L. ed. 742.

Connecticut. Griswold v. Ry., 53 Conn. 371, 55 Am. Rep. 115, 4 Atl. 261.

Illinois. Illinois Central R. R. v. Read, 37 111. 484, 87 Am. Dec. 260.

Massachusetts. Quimby v. R. R., 150 Mass. 365, 5 L. R. A. 846, 23 N. E. 205; Squire v. R. R., 98 Mass. 239, 93 Am. Dec. 162.

New York. Perkins v. R. R., 24 N. Y. 196, 82 Am. Dec. 282; Gulf, etc., Ry. v. McGown, 65 Tex. 640.

19 Cincinnati, Ham. & Dayton R. Co. v. Pontius, 19 O. S. 221.

United States. Cau v. Ry., 194 U. S. 427, 48 L. ed. 1053; Calderon v. Steamship Co., 64 Fed. 874.

Alabama. Mouton v. Ry., 128 Ala. 537, 29 So. 602.

Arkansas. St. Louis, etc.., Ry. v. Weakley, 50 Ark. 397, 7 Am. St. Rep. 104, 8 S. W. 134.

California. Michalitschke v. Wells, 118 Cal. 683, 50 Ac. 847.

Colorado. Overland Mail, etc., Co. v. Carroll, 7 Colo. 43, 1 Ac. 682.

Kansas. Pacific Express Co. v. Foley, 46 Kan. 457, 26 Am. St. Rep. 107, 26 Ac. 665.

Massachusetts. Graves v. Express Co., 176 Mass. 280, 57 N. E. 462; Cox v. Ry., 170 Mass. 129, 49 N. E. 97.

Michigan. Smith v. Express Co., 108 Mich. 572, 66 N. W. 479.

Minnesota. Christenson v. Express Co., 15 Minn. 270, 2 Am. Rep. 122.

Missouri. St. Louis, etc., Ry. v. Cleary, 77 Mo. 634, 46 Am. Rep. 13; Wyrick v. Ry., 74 Mo. App. 406; McFadden v. Ry., 92 Mo. 343, 1 Am. St. Rep. 721, 4 S. W. 689.