CARRIERS. Upon a total failure to deliver goods, the carrier is liable for the value of the goods at their place of destination, with interest from the time they should have been delivered, deducting the freight ; Gillingham v. Dempsey, 12 S. & R. (Pa.) 186 ; Bailey v. Shaw, 24 N. H. 297, 55 Am. Dec. 241; gess v. Bissell, 46 N. Y. 462 ; Erie Ry. Co. v.
I. J. Lockwood & Son, 28 Ohio St. 358 ; Chi cago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Stanbro, 87 Ill. 195 ; Gray v. Packet Co., 64 Mo. 47 ; Whitney v. Ry. Co., 27 Wis. 327 ; Cushing v. Wells, Far go & Co., 98 Mass. 550 ; Mississippi Cent. R. Co. v. Kennedy, 41 Miss. 671; Taylor v. Col lier, 26 Ga. 122 ; Cole v. Rankin (Tenn.) 42 S. W. 72. Upon a failure to receive the goods at all for transportation, he is liable for the difference between the value at the place of shipment and at the place of destination, less his freight ; or, if another conveyance can be found, the difference between the freight agreed on with defendant and the sum (if greater) which the shipper would be compelled to pay another carrier; Grund v. Pendergast, 58 Barb. (N. Y.) 216 ; McGovern v. Lewis, 56 Pa. 231, 94 Am. Dec. 60 ; Ward's Cent. & P. Lake Co. v. Elkins, 64 Mich. 439, 22 Am. 'Rep. 544. Upon a delay in delivering the goods, the plaintiff is entitled to an in demnity for his loss incurred by the delay, taking into account any fall in the market occurring between the time when the prop erty should have been delivered by the car rier and the time when it actually was; Ill inois Cent. R. Co. v. Cobb, 64 Ill. 143 ; Peet v. R. Co., 20 Wis. 594, 91 Am. Dec. 446 ; Scott v. Steamship Co., 106 Mass. 468 ; Deming v.
R. Co., 48 N. H. 455, 2 Am. Rep. 267 ; Ward v. R. Co., 47 N. Y. 29, 7 AM. Rep. 405 ; New ell v. Smith, 49 Vt. 255 ; or, in some cases, the additional price paid for goods required by him to take the place of the delayed goods ; Palmer v. Lumbering Ass'n, 90 Me. 193, 38 Atl. 108 ; New York, L. E. & W. R. Co: v. Estill, 147 U. S. 591, 13 Sup. Ct. 444, 37 L. Ed. 292; in case of property for tion at a museum, the probable net profits ; Yoakum v. Dunn, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 524, 21 S.
W. 411; or in case of stock injured, the de preciation measured by market value at the place of destination ; St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Deshong, 63 Ark. 443, 39 S. W. 260; Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Avery (Tex.) 33 S. W. 704.
A carrier who fails to deliver goods prompt ly, knowing that the shipper had contracted to re-deliver on a specified date or forfeit a certain sum, is liable for the loss sustained by the shipper under the penalty clause of his contract ; Illinois Cent R. Co. v. Cabinet .Co.,
104 Tenn. 568, 58 S. W. 303, 50 L. R. A. 729, 78 Am. St. Rep. 933 ; contra, Coal Co. v. R. Co., 226 Pa. 391, 75 Atl. 596, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1191; Goodin v. R. Co., 125 Ga. 630, 54 S. E. 720, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1054, 5 Ann. Cas. 573, where it appeared that the carrier had no knowledge of the collateral contract of the shipper. Delay in the transportation of scenery renders a carrier liable for the reasonable rental value of the property ; Wes ton v. Boston & M. R. R., 190 Mass. 298, 76 N. E. 1050, 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 569, 112 Am, St. Rep. 330, 5 Ann. Cas. 825. The value of dam aged goods may properly be determined by their sale at auction by the owner ; The Queen, 78 Fed. 155.
The measure of damages for a breach of a contract to transport freight by vessel, is the difference between the contract and the actual price of freight paid ; The Oregon, 55 Fed. 666, 5 C. C. A. 229, 6 U. S. App. 581.
In general in actions against a carrier for delay the measure of damages will include loss of profits ; Hillsdale Coal & Coke Co. v.
R. Co., 229 Pa: 61, 78 Atl. 28, 140 Am. St. Rep. 700; Paxton Tie Co. v. R. Co., 10 Inters. Com. Rep. 422. The measure of damages for failure to furnish cars to transport coal from a mine, is the difference between the reason able selling price and the cost of mining and placing the coal on the market, plus its value in the mine ; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Coke Co.,.150 Ky. 489, 150 S. W. 641, 44 L. R. A. (N. S.) 643, and note id. 654.
In modern times, the conditions which led to the adoption of the common law rule mak ing a carrier an insurer having changed, it is very common to limit, by contract, the amount of the shipper's recovery. The effect of such contracts is to fix a valuation on the goods which shall be the measure of damages in case of loss, and to this the shipper is held ; Hart v. R. Co., 112 U. S. 332, 5 Sup. Ct. 151, 28 L. Ed. 717 ; Magnin v. Dinsmore, 70 N. Y. 410, 26 Am. Rep. 608 ; Elkins v. Transp. Co., *81 Pa. 315 ; Graves v. R. Co., 137 Mass. 33, 50 Am. Rep. 282. Some courts, however, hold such contracts invalid ; Lou isville & N. R. Co. v. Wynn, 88 Tenn. 320, 14 S. W. 311; upon the theory that it is in fact an exemption from liability for negligence which is not permitted; New York C. R. Co. v. Lockwood, 17 Wall. (U. S.) 357, 21 L. Ed. 627. It is suggested that the true doctrine is that the carrier cannot himself limit the dam ages, but that a contract to do so, fairly made by both parties to it, should be sustained ; Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Hale, 6 Mich. 243.