Scope and meaning of act. provisions, under a construction which would render the defendant liable in this case. In order to determine whether it is obnoxious to any constitutional inhibitions, state or national, it becomes necessary, first, to ascertain its true scope and meaning. At the time of its enactment the law was well settled as now that a common carrier may contract to carry to a place beyond the terminus of his route, and thereby render himself liable as such for the whole distance, but that he is not required by law to transport beyond his own line, and therefore may stipulate that he shall not be liable except for such loss or damage as may occur on his own route. While there was a universal consensus of opinion upon these propositions, there was a diversity of opinion as to what should be evidence of a contract for through carriage when no special contract was made. The English and the courts of some of the states holding that where a common carrier takes into his care a parcel directed to a particular place, and does not by positive agreement limit his responsibility to a part only of the distance, it is prima facie evidence of an undertaking on his part to carry that parcel to the place to which it is directed, "although such place was beyond the terminus of his own route." Lawson. Carr. 239. The majority of the American courts, however, holding that when a carrier receives goods marked for a particular destination beyond the route for which he professes to carry, and beyond the terminus of his road, he is only bound to transport and deliver them according to the established usage of his business, and is not liable for losses beyond his own line." Id. 240. In 1870 this court, in the case of Coates v. United States Express Co., 45 Mo. 238, adopted what may be called the "American doctrine "on this subject, quoting with approval the language following of Prof. Parsons, formulating the rule: "The prevailing rule in this country may now be said to cast upon the carrier no responsibil ity as carrier beyond his own route, unless the usage of the business or of the carrier, or his conduct or language, show that he takes the parcel as carrier for the whole route." 2 Pars. Cont. (7th Ed.) 227. This ruling was followed in Snider 7. Adams Express Co., 63 Mo. 376, decided in 1876. The consideration given by the supreme court to this question, and the conclusion reached by it so recently before this enactment, when taken in connection with the terms employed in the statute itself, leaves little room for doubt that the purpose of the legislature was to prescribe a definite rule of liability for negligence of a common carrier in harmony with what has been denominated the "English rule" upon the subject. whereby such carrier, when he receives a parcel to be trans ported to a place beyond the terminus of his route, is to be held liable as such to the place of destination, in the absence of a specific contract to carry such parcel only to the termi nus of his own route, or limiting his liability to loss or damage occurring on his own route. The enactment as Act a mere rule of evidence and not thus construed becomes a rule of evidence by which to determine what the contract of the carrier is in the absence of a specific one in a given case, oper- invalid. ates with no undue hardship upon the carrier, and is violative of none of his rights, constitutional or otherwise. By its provisions the act of acceptance by a common carrier of property to be transferred to a place beyond the terminus of its route is evidence of a contract to carry such property to the place of its destination. The act of issuing a receipt or bill of lading for property to be transferred to a place beyond the terminus of the route of a common carrier is evidence of a contract by such carrier to carry such property to the place of its destination. This prima facie case the statute makes for the plaintiff on the facts stated. In order to defeat it, the defendant must show that by specific agreement it only contracted to carry the property to the terminus of its own line, or, what is equivalent, that there was a specific agreement that it was to be liable only for loss or damage occurring on its own line. The evidence in the case fails to show any such specific agreement. On the face of the whole transaction it was evidently a through shipment from St. Joseph, Mo., to Deadwood, D. T., and was so regarded by both parties. Under the statute the receipt of the goods and the issuance of the bill of lading concludes all questions as to the authority of the agent to contract for the delivery of the goods at the point of destination. The goods were lost to the plaintiff by the negligence of the Chicago & Northwestern Railroad Company, the defendant's agent, to whom it intrusted the goods to be transported and delivered under the bill of lading to Dougherty & Co., at Ft. Pierre, and we do not find in the case any valid constitutional objection to a recovery against the defendant for such negligence. The judgment of the circuit court of Buchanan county is therefore affirmed. SHERWOOD, C. J., and BLACK and BARCLAY, JJ., concur. STATE ex rel ATTORNEY GENERAL V. PENSACOLA & ATLANTIC R. Co. (Florida Supreme Court, March 14, 1891.) Carriers Posting Rates and Regulations-What is Sufficient.-General rule 4, adopted by the railroad commission September 23, 1889, and requiring each railroad company to post in a conspicuous place, and keep continuously posted in each of its stations, a copy of the schedule of its freight and passenger rates, revised and adopted by the commission for the use of the company, rules and regulations, official classifications, and table of distances, means that the publication shall be in placard or bill form, and that the placards shall be so attached to something in a conspicuous place in each station that they can in the position in which they are placed, or without being removed, be read conveniently by the public, and that they shall be kept posted in this manner continuously. Nailing up by one corner in a conspicuous place in a station, and in such manner as to be accessible to every one, a pamphlet of about II printed pages, containing the rules and regulations governing the transportation of passengers and freight, or a similar pamphlet containing the classifications, is not a posting within the meaning of the rule, nor is the binding of these pamphlets and the schedules of freight and passenger rates together, and placing them conspicuously upon a conspicuous shelf desk in the station agent's office, such a posting. Sufficiency of Schedule of Passenger Rates. Where a schedule of passenger rates is headed "Pensacola and Atlantic Railroad Ticket Rates," and it states the full sum charged as fare from each station to any other station, that half rates will be charged for children between designated ages, travelling with parents or guardian, and that no charge will be made for those under a specified age travelling in the same manner, and gives the extra charge to be collected of passengers who omit to purchase tickets, and it is not denied that the charges correspond in amount with the passenger rates revised and adopted by the railroad commission for the use of the company, and it does not appear that passenger rates have ever been prescribed or adopted by the commission in any other form for the company, the schedule will be held sufficient as to its contents, and the company cannot be required, in a proceeding by mandamus, to state in such schedule the rate per mile, or the distances betweeen stations, in the absence of any law or any rule of the commission requiring it. Same-Distances between Stations.-General rule 4, adopted by the railroad commission September 23, 1889, does not require that the schedule of passenger rates shall state the distances between stations. Sufficiency of Table of Distances between Stations.-A table which does not of itself, or upon its face, give the distance between any two stations on a railroad, is not a table of distances within the meaning intended by general rule 4 of the railroad commission. It is not sufficient if the schedule merely supply data for computing these distances between stations. Schedule in Two Parts.-The fact that a schedule of passenger rates is in two parts, or on two cards instead of one, is not, where the two cards may be posted together, and, so posted, read as one, of itself a violation of the rule requiring the schedule to be posted. Size of Type for Schedules-Mandamus.-In the absence of a rule of the railroad commission, or a law, prescribing the size of type in which a schedule of passenger rates or table of distances shall be printed for posting, a court cannot, by mandamus, direct what size type they shall be printed in. Rules Applicable to Defendant-Posting.-Passenger rule 6, and freight rules 3 and 11, of the rules adopted by the railroad commission September 23, 1889, are not inapplicable to the Pensacola & Atlantic Railroad Company. They should be posted as other rules applicable to it. Duty to Post Special Rates.-Where a railroad company has, under freight rule 3 of the railroad commission, the right to make, at its discretion, special rates, reduced below commission rates, for particular persons and places for temporary use, such special rates need not be posted under the requirements of general rule 4 of the railroad commission. Duty to Keep Rates Continuously Posted-Posters Furnished Agents. It is the duty of railroad companies not only to post, but to keep continuously posted, as provided by general rule 4, whatever falls within its provisions. Furnishing the posters to agents, with instructions to post, does not answer the public duty imposed upon the companies. Application for writ of mandamus. William B. Lamar, Atty. Gen., for the State. Provisions of Rule 4. RANEY, C. J.-This is a proceeding in mandamus, instituted before this court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. 1. Among the rules and regulations prescribed by the railroad commission is one adopted September 23, 1889, and known as "Rule 4," which was published as a part of "Circular No. 23," and went into effect October 15, 1889, and reads as follows: "Each railroad company shall post in a conspicuous place, and keep the same continuously posted, in each of its stations, a copy of the schedule of freight and passenger rates revised and adopted for the use of such company by the commission, a copy of all the rules and regulations prescribed by the commission for the government of the transportation of freight and passengers applicable to its line of road, and a copy of the official classification; also copies of all changes made, whether the same shall be made by such railroad company or by the commission; also a table of distances between each station." sued by commissioners. On the 16th day of December, 1889, the commission issued "Circular No. 24," addressed "To the railroad companies doing business in Florida," in which it is stated. and called to the attention of these companies that Circular isthe commissioners had lately visited a number of stations and offices, and upon investigation discovered that the above rule had not been fully complied with; that "at no place were the rules and regulations of the commission, nor the classification of freights, posted as the rules and regulations prescribed by the commission direct. In fact some of the agents alleged that rules and regulations as 46 A. & E. R. Cas-45 embraced in circular No. 23 had not been furnished them at all. In most cases, but not all, of the few instances where any effort was made to do so, they were hung on a nail, in a pamphlet form. This last is not a posting, and is not in compliance with the rules. They should be posted as are the freight and passenger schedules, in placard or poster form. Section 6, Railroad Commission Laws. The schedules of passenger and freight rates were found to have been posted in very few instances, and then very often not in a conspicuous place, as the law directs. In some instances they were said to have been torn down, but there was no evidence of any effort to replace them, and thus to keep them continuously posted." This circular 24 also states that the commission have, instead of multiplying formal orders, adopted it as a means of calling the attention of the railroad companies to especially the posting, and that after January 1, 1890, the commissioners will visit the different stations and offices of cach railroad doing business in the state, and hope to find that this suggestion has prompted the careful posting in the manner indicated, appropriately in the freight and ticket offices, of the several documents referred to in general rule No. 4. Complaint against respondent. The complaint made against the respondent, who is alleged to have had due notice of such rule 4, and of the subsequent circular 24, is as follows: That at its station at Marianna the respondent has made no attempt to comply with the requirements of said rule, and at another station, Milton, has not in full complied with the requirements of the rule. That at other important stations, viz., River Junction, Chipley, and De Funiak Springs, and at all other stations along the line of its road where much business, passenger and freight, is being done, no pretense is made of complying with the requirements of said rule 4, but the company has neg. lected and refused, and still neglects and refuses, to post, and keep continuously posted, with exceptions stated, in a conspicuous place in each of its stations: (1) A copy of the schedule of freight and passenger rates revised and adopted for the use of this company. (2) A copy of all the rules and regulations prescribed by the commission for the government of the transportation of freight and passengers applicable to said line of road. (3) A copy of the official classification. (4) Copies of all changes, whether the same shall be made by the railroad company or the commission. (5) A table of distances between each station. That in many cases where such posting had been made or |