The validity of a contract with a common carrier relieving him from his Common-Law liability has been held to be controlled by the law of the state where the property was to be delivered.1 In other jurisdictions, such a contract is held to be governed by the law of the place where it is made, unless it clearly appears that it was made in view of another system of law.2 A statute forbidding carriers to limit their Common-Law liability has been held applicable only to shipments beginning and ending within that state.3 Hence such statute has been held inapplicable to a through shipment into another state, even if the first carrier limited his liability to his own line.4 In other jurisdictions the law of the forum seems to have been applied on the ground of public policy.5 Another view expressed is that such a provision, if contrary to the law of the forum, will not be enforced, since it is contrary to the public policy of such jurisdictions.6 It has also been held that the law of the state where the loss occurs and the suit is brought should control.7

5 Sullivan v. Bank, - Colo. App. -; 70 Pac. 162.

6 Alexander v. Barker, 64 Kan. 396; 67 Pac. 829. (Land in the Cherokee Nation.)

7 Ivey v. Lalland, 42 Miss. 444; 2 Am. Rep. 606; 97 Am. Dec. 475.

8 Swedish - American National Bank v. Bank, 89 Minn. 98; 94 N.

W. 218. (Hence if the warehouses are in different states, some of the contracts of pledge may be valid; others not.)

9 Wood v. Wood's Estate, 137 Cal. 148; 69 Pac. 981.

10 Akers v. Demond. 103 Mass. 318; Winward v. Lincoln, 23 R. I. 476; 64 L. R. A. 160; 51 Atl. 106.