Opinion of the court. evidence, but whether there is any upon which a jury can properly proceed to find a verdict for the party producing it, upon whom the onus of proof is imposed. The English cases there cited fully sustain the proposition, and the decisions of this court have generally been to the same effect. In the case of Parks v. Ross,† this court held that the practice of granting an instruction like the present had superseded the ancient practice of demurrer to evidence, and that it answered the same purpose and should be tested by the same rules; and in that case it said the question for the consideration of the court was whether the evidence submitted was sufficient to authorize the jury in finding the contract set up by plaintiff. And in Schuchardt v. Allens,‡ this case is referred to as establishing the doctrine that if the evidence be not sufficient to warrant a recovery, it is the duty of the court to instruct the jury accordingly. In the case of Pawling v. The United States,§ the court, by Marshall, C. J., said: "The general doctrine on a demurrer to evidence has been correctly stated at the bar. The party demurring admits the truth of the testimony to which he demurs, and also those conclusions of fact which a jury may fairly draw from that testimony. Forced and violent inferences he does not admit, but the testimony is to be taken most strongly against him, and such conclusions as a jury might justifiably draw the court ought to draw." It is the duty of a court in its relation to the jury to protect parties from unjust verdicts arising from ignorance of the rules of law and of evidence, from impulse of passion or prejudice, or from any other violation of his lawful rights in the conduct of a trial. This is done by making plain to them the issues they are to try, by admitting only such evidence as is proper in these issues, and rejecting all else; by *See Jewell v. Parr, 13 C. B. 916; Toomey v. L. & B. Railway Co., 8 C. B. (N. S.), 146; Ryder v. Wombwell, 4 Law Reports, Exch. 33. † 11 Howard, 362. 1 Wallace, 359. 24 Cranch, 219; see also Bank of the United States v. Smith, 11 Wheaton, 171. Opinion of the court. instructing them in the rules of law by which that evidence is to be examined and applied, and finally, when necessary, by setting aside a verdict which is unsupported by evidence or contrary to law. In the discharge of this duty it is the province of the court, either before or after the verdict, to decide whether the plaintiff has given evidence sufficient to support or justify a verdict in his favor. Not whether on all the evidence the preponderating weight is in his favor, that is the business of the jury, but conceding to all the evidence offered the greatest probative force which according to the law of evidence it is fairly entitled to, is it sufficient to justify a verdict? If it does not, then it is the duty of the court after a verdict to set it aside and grant a new trial. Must the court go through the idle ceremony in such a case of submitting to the jury the testimony on which plaintiff relies, when it is clear to the judicial mind that if the jury should find a verdict in favor of plaintiff that verdict would be set aside and a new trial had? Such a proposition is absurd, and accordingly we hold the true principle to be, that if the court is satisfied that, conceding all the inferences which the jury could justifiably draw from the testimony, the evidence is insufficient to warrant a verdict for the plaintiff, the court should say so to the jury. In such case the party can submit to a nonsuit and try his case again if he can strengthen it, except where the local law forbids a nonsuit at that stage of the trial, or if he has done his best he must abide the judgment of the court, subject to a right of review, whether he has made such a case as ought to be submitted to the jury; such a case as a jury might justifiably find for him a verdict. Tested by these principles we are of opinion the Circuit Court ruled well. If plaintiffs had secured a verdict on the testimony before us we think that court ought to have set it aside as not being warranted by the evidence. It is not possible with any just regard to the principles of law as to partnership, and the rules of evidence as applied to this tes Syllabus. timony, to come fairly and reasonably to the conclusion that Fant was Keene's partner in this transaction. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. RAILROAD COMPANY V. PRATT. 1. Though where goods received at one place are to be transported over several distinct lines of road to another and distant one, the liability of the common carrier first receiving them (where no special contract is made) is limited to his own line, yet he may subject himself by special contract to liability for them over the whole course of transit. And this is true of a railroad corporation possessed of the powers given to railroad corporations generally and subject to corresponding liabilities; such railroad corporations, ex. gr., as those incorporated under the general railroad law of New York. 2. If there is competent evidence of such a contract thus to carry, put before the jury, the weight, force, or degree of such evidence is not open for consideration by this court. 8. What amounts to competent evidence. This matter stated in a recapitulation of the evidence given in this particular case. A way-bill in which the heading spoke of the goods us goods to be transported by the first road, from the place of departure to the place at the end of the whole line, and at which the owner wished to have them delivered, held to be such evidence, whether looked upon as a contract, or as a declaration or admission. 4. Where in such a line of roads as that described in the first paragraph above, the common carrier owning the first road undertakes to carry goods over the entire line-part of the goods being put aboard the cars on his line, and a part to be put on at its termination and where the next road begins-the fare asked and agreed to be paid being, however, the fare usually asked and paid for the carriage over the whole line, and the contract being for transportation over the whole road and not for carriage to the end of the first line and then for delivering to the carrier owning the next road and for carriage by him—the fact that a part of the goods were put on the cars only where the second road begins, will not exonerate the owner of the first road from liability for their loss. 5. Where on such a line of road as that in the said first paragraph described, the second road posts its rules in the station-house of the first, a person furnishing goods for transportation "through" is not to be held as of necessity to have notice of them from the fact of such posting, and because he was often in the station-house of the first company where they were posted. Independently of which, his contract being with the first company only, and it agreeing to carfy for the whole distance, its rules are the rules that are to govern the case. Statement of the case. 6. If a common carrier by rail is negligent and careless in furnishing cars, and so furnish cars unsuitable for the case-even though they be cars for cattle, which cars the owner himself sees, and which cattle the owner himself attends the carrier is not relieved from responsibility, even though there have been an agreement that he shall not be responsible. ERROR to the Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts, in which court J. Pratt and H. Brigham, of Boston, sued, by process of attachment, the Ogdensburg and Lake Champlain Railroad Company, a corporation of New York, to recover from that company damages for the loss of certain horses which Pratt, for the two parties, had put into the company's cars on its road in the said State, and which had been burned to death, not on the said company's road, but on the Vermout Central Railroad; a road in the State of Vermont, connecting with the former, but not belonging to the same corporation, but on the contrary belonging to a different corporation; to wit, a corporation of Vermont. The case was thus: In the northeastern part of New York there exists what is known as the Ogdensburg and Lake Champlain Railroad. The road begins at Ogdensburg, about ninety miles west of Lake Champlain, and runs eastwardly through a place called Potsdam to Rouse's Point on the said lake, at which point it strikes the boundary line between the States of New York and Vermont. This Ogdensburg and Lake Champlain Railroad Company was incorporated under the general railroad law of New York, and possessed the powers possessed by railroad corporations generally, aud was subject to the same liabilities as they generally are. At Rouse's Point begins a new railroad, to wit, the Vermont Central Road; a different road, as already stated, and owned by a different corporation, one created by Vermont. The rails of the two roads, however, connect. This Vermont Central Road runs across the State of Vermont in a southeasterly direction till it comes towards the edge of Massachusetts, where it strikes a third road, which, passing through Concord in that State, enters the city of Boston. Statement of the case. At the town of Potsdam, above spoken of as near the west end of the Ogdensburg and Lake Champlain road, Pratt, already mentioned, a transporter of horses, went, in March, 1868, to one Graves, who was the station agent at Pottsdam of the Ogdensburg and Lake Champlain road, and informed him that he wished two good "stock cars" to carry certain horses for himself and Brigham to Boston. Pratt thus testified: "I have been for twenty years in the habit of buying horses (one or two hundred a year), and of transporting them over the Ogdensburg and Lake Champlain and the Vermont Central roads to Boston. I have known Graves five or six years as station agent at Potsdam. His office was in the freight-house. He always furnished me stock cars. This occurred from five to ten times a year. The cars thus furnished by him went without any change right through over these roads, and the arrangements made by him were always recognized by the roads through to Boston. A week before the horses for whose loss this suit is brought, were brought to Potsdam, Mr. Graves engaged to give me two good stock cars to carry them to Boston. He did at the time appointed give me two cars, and I took my horses to them. I objected to one of the cars. Graves said that I must take it or wait for a week, as no others than these were there. I took the car rather than wait, and repaired it as well as I could. I put in some hay-wet and rotten hay-to keep the horses from slipping. I always did that. One of the railroad hands and I put it in on this occasion; and in full view of the office. This railroad hand had been in the service of the company for three or four years. I then told Mr. Graves that I wished to put in other horses at Rouse's Point. He agreed to this. We agreed upon the price, $85 per car, through to Boston; being the same price as if all the horses had been put in at Potsdam; the horses to be transported from Potsdam; some taken on there and some at Rouse's Point. We had passes to go on the train which took our horses. I always put my horses in and go on the cars myself to take care of the horses, or else send a man. On this occasion Mr. Brigham was in charge all the way. I had no other man. You can't go in the same car with the horses. A place called a box car was furnished for us. The way-bill was thus made out: |