that the common carrier need not contract to carry beyond its own line, but may there deliver to the next succeeding carrier and thus end its responsibility, and charge its local rate for the transportation. If it agree to transport beyond its own line, it may do so by such lines as it chooses. Atchison, &c., R. R. Co. v. Denver, &c., R. R. Co., 110 U. S. 667; Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. West Coast Naval Stores, &c., Co., 198 U. S. 483. This right has not been held to depend upon whether the original carrier agreed to be liable for the default of the connecting carrier after the goods are delivered to such connecting carrier. As the carrier is not bound to make a through contract, it can do so upon such terms as it may agree upon, at least so long as they are reasonable and do not otherwise violate the law. In this case the initial carrier guarantees the through rate, but only on condition that it has the routing. It was stated by the late Mr. Justice Jackson, of this court, when Circuit Judge, in the case of Texas, &c., R. R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 43 Fed. Rep. 37, as follows: "Subject to the two leading prohibitions that their charges shall not be unjust or unreasonable, and that they shall not unjustly discriminate, so as to give undue preference or disadvantage to persons or traffic similarly circumstanced, the act to regulate commerce leaves common carriers as they were at the common law, free to make special contracts looking to the increase of their business, to classify their traffic, to adjust and apportion their rate so as to meet the necessities of commerce, and generally to manage their important interests upon the same principles which are regarded as sound, and adopted in other trades and pursuits." This statement was approved by this court in Cincinnati, &c., R. R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 162 U. S. 184, 197. Having this right to agree on a joint through tariff on terms mutually satisfactory, we cannot find anything in the Commerce Act which forbids the agreement with such condition therein as to routing. It is said that the sixth section, properly construed, prohibits such condition. We confess our inability to find anything in that section which does so.

CHAPTER IV.

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT.

Service Demanded at Proper Time.

FRAZIER & COOPER v. KANSAS CITY, ST. JOSEPH & COUNCIL BLUFFS RAILWAY COMPANY.

48 Iowa 571. 1878.

DAY, J. (after reciting the special findings of the jury). From these special findings it appears that the plaintiffs came to Watson on the same train on which they expected to ship their hogs. The hogs to be shipped were not in the yards or on the depot grounds of the defendant when the train arrived at Watson, but were in a private yard in no way controlled or used by defendant. They had not been given into the control of any authorized agent of defendant. Defendant had not been notified to what particular station the hogs were to be shipped. Cars were placed at the yards of defendant, the night previous, in a suitable condition to be loaded, and they could have been loaded without the aid of a locomotive. Under such circumstances the plaintiffs had no right to demand or expect that the defendant's train should delay at the station until the hogs should be driven into the defendant's stock yards, loaded, waybills made out, contract of shipment signed, and the cars placed in the train. If such delay could be demanded at one station, it could be demanded at every station on defendant's road. Both humanity and interest require that stock trains shall go forward with all reasonable dispatch.

The plaintiffs should have left some one at Watson in charge of their hogs, and had them loaded and ready for shipment when the train arrived. Each train must be moved with reference to all the other trains on the road. A delay of a few minutes at one station might occasion a corresponding delay of every train on the line of road, and even result in accidents, destructive of property and life. No person desiring to become a passen

ger upon a train could rightfully demand a delay of one minute. to enable him to reach the train and get on board. Upon what principle, then, can these plaintiffs demand damages because the defendant's train did not wait until they could drive their hogs into defendant's yard, load four cars, count them, have way-bill made out, shipping contract signed, and the cars placed in the train? But plaintiffs say the yards of defendant were not in suitable condition, and hence they were not required to have their hogs in defendant's yards. The special findings show the yards of defendant were not in suitable condition for keeping plaintiff's stock, not being supplied with water. The special findings further show that the yards of defendant were in a suitable condition from which to load hogs. There is nothing shown to excuse plaintiffs from driving their hogs to defendant's yards, and having them loaded in time for the train. Judgment for defendant affirmed.

Service Demanded at Proper Place.

GEORGIA SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO. v. MARSHMAN. 121 Ga. 235. 1904.

COBB, J.

When the plaintiff came to this place with the cottonseed, and notified the master of trains that no cars were there, and was instructed by him to continue to haul the seed, this was in effect an agreement to receive the seed alongside the track to await cars that would be sent there to receive them. A railroad company is not generally bound to receive freight except at its stations; but it may by custom bind itself to receive it at other points, and certainly it may do this by express contract. See Fleming v. Hammond, 19 Ga. 145. Parties having freight to be transported by rail cannot make a good delivery to the railway company by simply depositing the goods along the line anywhere and everywhere. Central R. Co. v. Hines, 19 Ga. 209. But where by agreement freight is deposited at a given point on the line of railway for the purpose of immediate transportation, there seems to be no good reason why such deposit should not constitute delivery to the carrier, whose liability would commence from the time the goods were deposited at the place agreed on. See Wilson v. Railway

Co., 82 Ga. 388 et seq.; Southern Express Company v. Newby, 36 Ga. 635. There was no error in overruling the motion for a nonsuit.

Application in Proper Form.

WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. v. DOZIER.

67 Miss. 288, 37 So. 325. 1889.

CAMPBELL, J., delivered the opinion of the court:

The verdict is contrary to the law and evidence, and should have been set aside. There is no warrant in the evidence, in any view of the law, for a recovery of any actual damage, for none is shown, it not appearing that Dr. Dozier sustained any by reason of the non-receipt of a message requesting his services. The truth appears to be that no message was sent to Dr. Dozier, but that, an ineffectual effort having been made to get Dr. Walker at Nicholson, and Dr. Watkins at Hattiesburg, the operator at Poplarville inquired of the operator at Hattiesburg if Dr. Dozier was in the town and was informed in reply that he had removed to Gulf-Port, and this being supposed to be true, no message was sent to Dr. Dozier. It is certain that no message to him was charged for or paid for, and therefore nothing was received by the company on this account. It appears that the operator, Mr. Atkins, was in full sympathy with those trying to procure a physician, and at his own instance, and free of cost to them, wired to Ellisville for the purpose of getting a physician known to him, who lived there, and this suggests the improbability that he should have failed to transmit any message delivered to him to be sent to Dr. Dozier.

The only messages actually written for transmission were to Dr. Walker at Nicholson, and to Dr. Watkins at Hattiesburg, and they were transmitted. If it be true that Stewart and Flanagan or either told the operator to wire Dr. Dozier, the question is, whether that was the delivery of a message, within the meaning of the law, for the non-transmission and delivery of which liability would be incurred by the company. In the absence of satisfactory evidence of a known course of business by the telegraph company to receive verbal messages orally delivered to operators for transmission, we are not willing to sanction the proposition that failure to transmit such a mes

sage is a ground for recovery against the company, either by statute or common law. It is common knowledge that messages are required to be written, and upon the blanks of the company, and it would be hazardous to pursue any other course. The very expression as to a message delivered to be sent, carries with it the idea of a written or printed message, and it would seem, that for one to talk to the operator as to the message he desired to send could not, in view of the course of business of telegraph companies, impose any liability on such company. Reversed and remanded.

Reasonable Conditions May Be Imposed.

SNELL v. CLINTON ELECTRIC LIGHT, HEAT AND

POWER COMPANY.

196 Ill. 626, 63 N. E. 1082. 1902.

CARTER, J., delivered the opinion of the court:

The trial court evidently held that the law applicable to the facts as found by the jury justified the awarding of the writ, for it refused to hold the proposition of law submitted on that question by appellee, while the Appellate Court was of the contrary opinion, for it made no finding of facts different from those found by the jury and the court below. The only question here is, therefore, whether or not, upon the evidence as found, the appellee made an unjust discrimination against appellant in charging him for a transformer in addition to the regular rates for electric lighting. A

transformer or converter is described by counsel as a coil of copper wire contained in a sheet-iron box, and is usually placed on a pole outside of the building. Its office is to reduce the current from the main line, or, rather, to induce a lesser current in the wire leading to the house for house use. In this case the voltage would have been reduced from one thousand volts to fifty or a hundred volts. It appears that without the use of a converter the effect of turning this large voltage into a house would be to burn up the wires, and in the formation of short circuits there would be a great danger of fire, and that the object of the converter is the protection of the house. It is a necessary appliance for the safe lighting of houses. The