"That defendant is now and during all the dates hereinafter mentioned has been, a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Oregon, with its principal office and place of business in the City of Portland, State of Oregon, and was engaged, at the times herein named, in the operation of a line of railroad extending from Portland, in the State of Oregon, to Spokane, in the State of Washington, and elsewhere, and was engaged in interstate commerce, and subject to all the provisions and terms of an act of Congress, approved February 4, 1887, entitled 'An act to regulate commerce' and acts amendatory thereof. That heretofore, and on or about the twenty-second day of January, 1913, at Spokane, Washington, Otto Grice and Florence Grice, plaintiffs herein, acting by and through one Pacific Transfer Company, which was then and there in possession of the goods hereinafter set forth, caused to be delivered to the defendant a shipment of freight, to wit, two boxes, one trunk, one cedar chest, and one barrel, which said boxes, trunk, cedar chest, and barrel, contained household goods, silverware, and cut glass, weight being 1,280 pounds, prepaying the charges thereon in the sum of $12.70, with instructions to transport said goods by freight over its line of railroad from Spokane, Washington, to East Portland, Oregon, and there deliver said shipment to Otto Grice. That the plaintiffs instructed the said Pacific Transfer Company to deliver the shipment above mentioned to the defendant, for shipment from Spokane, Washington, to East Portland, Oregon, and said plaintiff gave the Pacific Transfer Company no other or further instructions whatsoever. That defendant, Oregon-Washington Railroad & Navigation Company, at all times mentioned, had in force and effect a rate. covering the said shipment, where the same was released to a valuation of $10 per hundredweight, and which rate was and is less than the rate charged for shipments not released to $10 per hundredweight, which rate was duly filed, posted and published as required by the interstate commerce law. That a bill of lading was issued for said shipment of freight as herein referred to, and was given to Pacific Transfer Company and by it sent to plaintiffs at City of Portland, Oregon, at which place plaintiffs were at the time said goods were delivered to defendant. That a copy of said bill of lading as so issued is hereto attached, marked 'Exhibit A,' and made a part of this stipulation. That the agent of said defendant company, who received said shipment at Spokane, Washington, did not inform the Pacific Transfer Company of a valuation having been placed on said shipment, nor of a difference of freight rates for shipments so taken at an agreed valuation and shipments taken without an agreed valuation, and that defendant made no inquiry as to the value of the goods. That while in transit over the line of defendant the goods shipped were lost by theft, and damaged by thieves, as of the agreed loss and damage of $545.52, which has been demanded of defendant and payment refused. That said goods so lost and damaged belonged to the plaintiffs. That the portion of the shipment which was lost or damaged, as herein mentioned, weighed 670 pounds, and under the released valuation of $10 per hundredweight the valuation of said portion of said shipment so lost and damaged was and is $67. That the prepaid charges on 25 pounds, being the portion of said shipment lost or stolen, at the rate of 99 cents per hundredweight, amounting to the sum of 24 cents, making a total due under said released valuation of $67.24. That defendant, prior to the commencement of this action, tendered to the plaintiffs, in full settlement of all liability arising out of the alleged loss, the sum of $67.24, but plaintiffs refused to accept the AFFIRMED. same.' For appellant there was a brief over the names of Mr. John P. Hannon, Mr. Arthur C. Spencer and Mr. Charles E. Cochran, with an oral argument by Mr. Hannon. For respondents there was a brief and an oral argument by Mr. Lotus L. Langley. MR. JUSTICE BURNETT delivered the opinion of the court. 1. It is insisted by the plaintiffs that, according to the bill of exceptions, no exception appears to have been taken to the decision of the Circuit Court, and hence nothing is here presented for our consideration. It is said in Section 172, L. O. L.: "No exception need be taken or allowed to any decision upon a matter of law, when the same is entered in the journal, or made wholly upon matters in writing and on file in the court." The parties agreed upon the facts involved in this litigation. To all intents and purposes their agreement constituted a verdict or declaration of the truth concerning the matters in controversy. It was filed in the court as part of its record, and was binding upon their tribunal, as well as upon its makers; consequently, in the language of the statute referred to, no exception was necessary. The whole question is whether the circuit court reached the proper conclusion from the facts and pleadings submitted to it by the parties. 2-4. On inspecting "A" attached to the bill of exceptions, almost the first language that meets the eye is this: "This memorandum is an acknowledgment that a bill of lading has been issued, and is not the original bill of lading, nor a copy or duplicate, covering the property named herein, and is intended solely for filing or record." We may well doubt if this is a sufficient bill to present the question raised. Omitting, however, the quoted memorandum, the document contains this matter: "Oregon-Washington Railroad & Navigation Company. "Received, subject to the classifications and tariffs in effect on the date of the receipt by the carrier of the property described in the original bill of lading, at Spokane, 1/21/1913, from Pacific Trans. Co., the property described below, in apparent good order, except as noted (contents and condition of contents of packages unknown), marked, consigned and destined as indicated below, which said company agrees to carry to its usual place of delivery at said destination, if on its road, otherwise to deliver to another carrier on the route to said destination. It is mutually agreed, as to each carrier of all or any of said property over all or any portion of said route to destination, and as to each party at any time interested in all or any of said. property, that every service to be performed hereunder shall be subject to all the conditions, whether printed or written, herein contained (including conditions on back hereof) and which are agreed to by the shipper and accepted for himself and his assigns. The surrender of the original order bill of lading properly indorsed shall be required before the delivery of the property. Inspection of property covered by the bill of lading will not be permitted, unless provided by law or unless permission is indorsed on the original bill of lading or given in writing by the shipper. "Consigned to order of Pacific Trans. Co. "Destination, East Portland, State of Ore. ** "Notify Otto Grice. "At East Portland, State of Ore. **" Under head of "Description of Articles and Special Marks" appear these items: "2 Box H. H. Goods. ""1 " Trunk. "1 crt. cedar chest. "1 bbl. and contents. "Declared valuation, $10.00 "Accomplished 1/ 28/ 13. "J. B. GLOVER. "Spokane 1098 1/22/13 Pro. 2986 1/28/13.” The weight is given at 1,280, presumably in pounds. The following names appear at the end of the docu ment: "Pacific Trans. Co. Shipper. "Per Coker. "J. C. MAYO, Agent, "Per On the back of this exhibit among others, appear the conditions quoted in the defendant's answer. In our judgment there is nothing in the interstate commerce law that forbids a common carrier from assuming the common-law liability in the carriage of goods from one state to another. The design of the national legislation on this subject was to extirpate preferences and advantages given by transportation companies to favored shippers, and to compel interstate carriers to treat all alike under the same circumstances. Subject to that congressional statute and the authority of the Interstate Commerce Commission, the carrier is permitted to make reasonable contracts limiting its liability to more favorable terms than the stringent rules of the common law. In the instant case the plaintiffs seek to recover the full value of the goods lost on the hypothesis that they were intrusted to the carrier for shipment and that it has failed to deliver them, and if nothing else is shown that would be the measure of damages. If it would escape responsibility for this amount, the |