This historic book may have numerous typos, missing text or index. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. 1891. Not illustrated. Excerpt: ... Browning and others vs. The Goodrich Transportation Co. the horses, and in fact all the circumstances, in order to intelligently determine what kind of speed would be careless or reckless driving, or what want of care in keeping a lookout, or want of vigilance in stopping the car in the presence of reasonably apprehended danger, would be negligence. The car moved and the child moved, and the circumstances necessarily kept shifting and changing as they approached each other, and hence the case was peculiarly for the jury. The special findings must necessarily be considered and construed with reference to such shifting and changing circumstances. So considered and construed, we must hold that the negligence found in the first finding is not wholly eliminated by any or all the other special findings. This ruling is not, as we understand, in conflict with any of the adjudications of this court. While we may differ with the learned counsel for the defendant as to the significance of some of those cases, yet our principal difference here is as to the construction and effect of the special findings in the case at bar. By the Court.-- The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed. Browning and others, Respondents, vs. The Goodeioh Transportation Company, Appellant. December S-- December 16, 1890. Carriers; Contracts Limiting Liability, (l, 2) Failure to deliver: Burden of proof: Negligence. (S) Contract inuring to benefit ofconnecting carriers: New contract by them. (4) Evidence: Immaterial error. 1. A carrier received goods under a contract relieving it from liability "for the dangers of navigation, fire, collision, or delivery, except to land goods on dock or pier." In an action to recover the value of the goods, it appearing that they were never delivered to the cons...