
    TENNESSEE AND PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. v. ROGERS.
    Nashville,
    December Term, 1886.
    1. RAILROAD. May contract, against liability after delivery to connecting lines.
    A clause in a bill of lading- limiting the liability of a railroad common ’ carrier, and providing- that its liability shall cease upon delivery to- the consignee or carrier over whose connecting line the freight is to be shipped, is' valid.
    
      2. SAME. Same. Reversible error not to so charge.
    The failure of the circuit judge to instruct the jury as to the effect of the clause in the bill of lading providing against the liability of the defendant railroad company after delivery to a connecting line, is error for which a judgment ag-ainst the railroad company will be reversed, and the case remanded for a new trial.
    Appeal from circuit court of Wilson county.
    East & Eogg and C. I). Porter, for railroad company; «Tobn 0. Earr, for Kogers.
   Snodgrass, J.,

delivered tbe opinion of tbe court:

In this case tbe contract in controversy expressed in the bill of lading contained a clause limiting tbe liability of tbe defendant company, and providing tbat its liability shall cease upon delivery to tbe consignee or carrier over whose connecting line tbe freight was to be shipped. This provision was valid. Tbe circuit judge failed to instruct tbe jury as to tbe effect of such limitation of tbe liability of defendant, and for this error tbe judgment must be reversed, and the case remanded for a new trial. Tbe cost of this appeal will be paid by defendant in error.  