Arkansas.-Little Rock, etc., R. Co. v. Duffey, 35 4 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 637. IV Ark. 602, California.-Hogan 7. Central Pac. R. Co., 49 Cal. 128; Congrave v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 88 Cal. 360, 48 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 337. Illinois.-Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Swett, 45 Ill. 197; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Jewell, 46 Ill. 99; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Sullivan, 63 Ill. 293. Indiana.-Thayer 7. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 22 Ind. 26; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Harney, 28 Ind. 28; Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. Hammersley, 28 Ind. 371; Ohio & M. R. Co. v. Collarn, 73 Ind. 261, 5 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 554; Indiana Mfg. Co. v. Millican, 87 Ind. 87; Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Johnson, 102 Ind. 352; Evansville, etc., R. Co. 7. Guyton, 115 Ind. 450, 33 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 311. Kansas.-Dow 7. Kansas Pac. R. Co., 8 Kan. 642; Kansas Pac. R. Co. v. Salmon, 14 Kan. 512; Union Pac. R. Co. v. Young, 19 Kan. 488. Kentucky.-Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. McMannon (Ky.), 8 S. W. Rep. 18, 33 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 308. Maine.-Blake v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 70 Me. 60, reviewed in Indiana Car Co. v. Parker, 100 Ind. 181. Massachusetts.-Farwell v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 4 Met. (Mass.) 49; Cayzer v. Taylor, 10 Gray (Mass.) 274; Colton v. Richards, 123 Mass. 484; Curran v. Merchants' Mfg. Co. 130 Mass. 374 Michigan.-Marquette, etc., R. Co. v. Taft, 28 Mich. 289, 12 Am. Ry. Rep. 279; Slater v. Chapman, 67 Mich. 523; Hilts 7. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 55 Mich. 437, 17 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 628; Peterson 7. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 67 Mich. 102, 31 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 292; Lee v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 87 Mich. 574, 48 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 356. Minnesota.-McMahon v. Davidson, 12 Minn. 357. Mississippi.-New Orleans, etc., R. Co. v. Hughes, 49 Miss. 258. Missouri.-Rowland v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 20 Mo. App. 463 ; McDermott v. Pacific R. Co., 30 Mo. 115; Rohbach . Pacific R. Co., 43 Mo. 187; Harper v. Indianapolis, etc., R. Co., 47 Mo. 567; Moss 7. Pacific R. Co., 49 Mo. 167; McDermott 7. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 87 Mo. 285, 28 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 528. New York.-Keegan v. Western R. Corp., 8 N. Y. 175; Warner 7. Erie R. Co., 39 N. Y. 468, rev'g 49 Barb. (N. Y.) 558; Laning 7. New York Cent. R. Co., 49 N. Y. 521; Coppins v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 122 N. Y. 557, 44 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 618, aff'g 48 Hun (N. Y.) 292, 17 N. Y. St. Rep. 916; applied in Sutton v. New York, etc., R. Co., 50 N. Y. St. Rep. 514. North Carolina. - Hardy v. Carolina Cent. R. Co., 76 N. Car. 5, 14 Am. Rv. Rep. 309. Pevania.—Weger 7. Pennsylvania R. Co., 55 Pa. St. 460; Walker, 139 Pa. St. 42. Ross Texas. -Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Willie, 53 Tex. 318, 5 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 541; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Whitmore, 58 Tex. 276, . & Eng Cas Burnett v. Pennsylvania R. Co. 11 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 195; Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Faber, 63 Tex. 344 Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Ryan, 69 Tex. 665; Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Farmer, 73 Tex. 85, 38 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 85, quoting Wall v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 2 Tex. Unrep. Cas. 432; followed in Fort Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Wilson, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 583. Vermont.-Noyes v. Smith, 28 Vt. 59, followed in Hard v. Vermont, etc., R. Co., 32 Vt. 473; quoted in Columbus, etc., R. Co. 2. Troesch, 68 Ill. 545. England.-Hutchinson v. York, etc., R. Co., 5 Exch. 343, 19 L. J. Exch. 296, 6 Railw. Cas. 680; Wigmore v. Jay, 5 Exch. 354, 14 Jur. 837, 19 L. J. Exch. 300. 2. General Reputation for Incompetency Enough to Charge Master with Knowledge.-Evidence of general reputation is admissible to prove the unfitness of a fellow servant, and ignorance of such general reputation on the part of the master is itself negligence in a case in which proper inquiry would have obtained the necessary information, and where the duty to inquire was plainly imperative. Edwards 7. R. Co., 4 Cl. & F. 530; Tarrant v. Webb, 18 C. B. 797, 36 E. C. L. 797; Hayden 7. Smithville Mfg. Co., 29 Conn. 557; Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Stupak, 123 Ind. 210, 41 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 282; Gilman v. Eastern R. Co., 13 Allen (Mass.) 433; Summersell 2. Fish, 117 Mass. 312; Hatt 7. Nay, 144 Mass. 186; Davies v. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 20 Mich. 105; Grube v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 98 Mo. 330; Mad River, etc., R. Co. v. Barber, 5 Ohio St. 541. BURNETT V. PENNSYLVANIA R. Co. (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, May 28, 1896.) Contract of Carriage Governed by Law of Place of Performance.-A pass was issued in New Jersey by a railroad of Pennsylvania from a town in Pennsylvania to a town in New York, with the provision that the railroad company should not be held liable for any accident to the holder. The negligence of an employee of the railroad company caused the plaintiff to suffer injuries while in Pennsylvania. Held, that the contract of carriage was governed by the Pennsylvania laws. APPEAL from Philadelphia county court of common pleas. Affirmed. David W. Sellers, for appellant. 4 (N. S.) A. & E. R. Cas.-20 Burnett v. Pennsylvania R. Co. . IV FELL, J.-The refusal of the court to charge that, "as the contract for transportation was made in New Jersey, it will be enforced in this state as in that, and, as the deCase stated. fendant was released from responsibility by the free pass, the verdict must be for the defendant," raises the only question to be considered. The plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a flagman at Trenton, N. J. He applied for and was granted free transportation for himself, his wife, and daughter to Elmira, N. Y. He received two passes,one, from Trenton to Philadelphia, the terms of which do not appear in evidence; the other, an employee's trip pass from Philadelphia to Elmira, by the terms of which he assumed all risks of accident. He was injured at Harrisburg, Pa., through the admitted negligence of the defendant's employees. It was proved, at the trial, that, under the laws of New Jersey, the contract, by which the plaintiff, in consideration of free transportation, assumed the risk of accident, was valid, and that, in that state, he could not recover; and it is conceded that, in Pennsylvania, the decisions are otherwise, and that such a contract will not relieve a common carrier from responsibility for negligence. Goldey v. Railroad Co., 30 Pa. St. 242; Railroad Co. v. Henderson, 51 Pa. St. 315; Railroad Co. v. Butler, 57 Pa. St. 335; Railroad Co. v. O'Hara, 3 Penny 199. The question then is, by the laws of which state is the responsibility of the defendant to be determined? by law of place The defendant is a corporation of the state of Pennsylvania. The injury occurred in the operation of its road in this state. The passes, although issued and delivered in New Contract of car- Jersey, were for transportation from the station in riage governed Trenton directly across the Delaware river into this state. The service was to be rendered here. This was the place of performance. Generally, as to its formalities, and its interpretation, obligation, and effect, a contract is governed by the laws of the place where it is made, and if it is valid there it is valid everywhere; but when it is made in one state or country, to be performed in another state or country, its validity and effect are to be determined by the laws of the place of performance. It is to be presumed that parties enter into a contract with reference to the laws of the place of performance, and, unless it appears that the contention was otherwise, those laws determine the mode of fulfillment and obligation, and the measure of liabil . & Erg Cas ity for its breach. Daniel, Neg. Inst. 658; Byles, Bills, 586; 2 Kent, Comm. 620; Whart. Confl. Laws, $ 401; Story, Confl. Laws, 280; Scudder v. Bank, 91 U. S. 406; Brown v. Railroad Co., 83 Pa. St. 316; Bank v. Hall, 150 Pa. St. 466. The decision in Brown v. Railroad Co., supra, seems to be conclusive of this case. In that case a ticket was issued in Philadelphia by a New Jersey corporation operating a railroad in that state, and the plaintiff's trunk was delivered to the defendant in Philadelphia, and it did not appear where it had been lost. The liability being admitted, the question was whether the laws of Pennsylvania, limiting the amount of liability, applied. It was held that, as the service was to be rendered by a New Jersey corporation, in New Jersey, the laws of the place of performance controlled. It was said, in the opinion, by SHIARSWOOD, J.: "The negligence of which the defendants are presumed to have been guilty was in the course of the exercise of their franchises as a New Jersey corporation, and the extent of their liability is therefore to be determined by the laws of that state." The judgment is affirmed. NOTES Conflict of Laws.-Defendant road was chartered under the laws of New York, and constructed its road from a point in the state through New Jersey and Pennsylvania and again into the state. Plaintiff purchased, a ticket to ride between two points in New York, but which would require him to pass through the other two states named. He was injured in Pennsylvania, where a statute existed limiting the amount of damages recoverable. Held, that the damages must be ascertained according to the New York laws. Dyke v. Erie R. Co., 45 N. Y. 113. Applying Peninsular & O. S. Nav. Co. v. Shand, 3 Moo. P. C. N. S. 272. Applied in Murray v. Brooklyn City R. Co. (Brooklyn City Ct.), 27 N. Y. S. R. 280, 7 N. Y. Supp. 900. A passenger contract to be performed in another state by a railroad company incorporated by such state is governed by the laws thereof though the ticket be purchased elsewhere. Brown v. Camden, etc., R. Co., 83 Pa. St. 316. A contract for the carriage of goods which contains a stipulation releasing the carrier from liability for damages resulting from his negligence, will be enforced in an action in Pennsylvania according to the law of New York, if it was made, was to be performed, and the alleged breach occurred in, New York. Forepaugh v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. Co., 128 Pa. St. 217, 40 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 78. Gumbel v. Illinois Cent. R. Co. (N. S.) GUMBEL et al. ย. ILLINOIS CENT. R. Co. (Supreme Court of Louisiana, June 22, 1896.) Use of Proper Appliances.-Railroads using appliances in common use which have been used for a long time and found sufficient to protect their own and other property from danger, should be protected against the charge of negligence because of their use. If such appliances are used, the burden of proof is on plaintiff to show they were defective, or improperly and negligently used. APPEAL from civil district court, parish of Orleans. Affirmed. Saunders & Miller (S. S. Calhoun and Marcellus Green, of counsel), for appellants. Farrar, Jonas & Kruttschnitt and Farrar, Leake & Lemle,' for appellee. Case stated. MCENERY, J.-On April 3, 1892, the Fireproof Cotton Press was destroyed by fire in the city of New Orleans. The fire extended to the Orleans Cotton Press, which, with its contents, was also destroyed. This suit was instituted by the owners of the Orleans Press to recover the value of the cotton burned in their press. They aver that the fire originated from sparks emitted from an engine owned and controlled by defendant while passing a pile of cotton bales on the banquette alongside of the Fireproof Press; that the sparks emitted from the engine were due to the negligence of defendant in the construction and operation of the engine, and to the defectiveness of the track at the point at which the sparks were emitted from the engine. For the origin of the fire, and the defectiveness of the track upon which the engine jolted, thus, according to plaintiffs' theory, causing the sudden energy which made the engine emit the sparks, the plaintiffs rely upon the testimony of one Ballard, which, it is claimed, was corroborated by a number of wit nesses. We might, upon authority, dispose of this case by |