Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. Brady

Brent, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. There is no doubt that a common carrier, by an express contract with his employer, may limit his ordinary responsibilities. Where indemnity from loss is claimed by virtue of such a contract, the burden of proof to establish it is upon the carrier. In this case, a special contract was attempted to be set up by showing, that the appellee paid for the transportation of his stock at a tariff of charges under which, by the printed table, the company assumed no responsibility for loss, damage or delay of stock.

This alone was not sufficient. It was necessary to show that the owner of the cattle had notice' or actual knowledge of these terms at the time or before the ³³⁹ delivery of the stock by him to the company, to be transported, and that they were assented to on his part. 2 Redfield on R. W., 80. This was the only question in the case. It was one of fact for the jury upon all the evidence, and was properly submitted to them.

(Decided 10th March, 1870.) There was no written contract offered which the Court was called upon to construe, and although the appellee may have paid the special rates, it docs not follow, as a conclusion of law, that he had notice of the terms upon which they were charged, or that he assented to the same. The weight of