take care of the business properly. The making and changing of schedules are problems of management, properly belonging to the company in the first instance; and the court should make every presumption in favor of these schedules. Moreover, power to supervise schedules and order changes has recently been given to the regulating commissions; and their commands must be obeyed unless unreasonable. Two recent cases in the United States Supreme Court will serve to bring out the fundamental inquiry. In one case it was held that a commission could in revising time-tables have in mind the making of connections between intersecting roads for the convenience of the whole community, and that in the particular case it was sufficiently plain that it was not unreasonable to make the order revising the schedules.3 In the other 1 United States.-Atlantic C. L. R. R. Co. v. North Carolina Corp. Comm., 206 U. S. 1 (1906). Indiana.-Ohio & M. R. W. Co. v. Swarthout, 67 Ind. 567, 33 Am. Rep. 104 (1869). Kansas.-Atchison, T. & S. F. R. R. Co. v. Gants, 38 Kan. 608, 5 Am. St. Rep. 780, 17 Pac. 54 (1888). North Carolina.-Hutchinson Railroad Co., 140 N. C. 123, 52 S. E. 263 (1905). V. Oklahoma.-Noble v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 4 Okla. 534, 46 Pac. 483 (1896). Texas. St. Louis, S. W. Ry. Co. v. McCullough, 18 Tex. Civ. App. 534, 45 S. W. 324 (1898); Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. White (Tex. Civ. App.), 17 S. W. 419 (1891); Albin v. Gulf C. & S. F. Ry. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 95 S. W. 589 (1906). * Arkansas.-St. Louis & S. F. R. R. Co. v. Vaughan, 84 Ark. 311, 105 S. W. 573 (1907). Delaware.-Truax V. Philadelphia, W. & B. R. R. Co., 3 Houst. 233 (1864). Georgia.-Riley v. Wrightsville & T. R. R. Co., 133 Ga. 413, 65 S. E. 890, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 379 (1909). Indiana. Ohio & Mississippi R. W. Co. v. Hatton, 60 Ind. 12 (1877). Michigan.-Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. v. Pierce, 47 Mich. 277, 11 N. W. 157 (1882); Van Camp v. Michigan Central Ry. Co., 137 Mich. 467, 100 N. W. 771 (1904). New Hampshire.-Gordon v. Manchester & L. Ry. Co., 52 N. H. 596 (1873). Ireland.-Tobin v. London & N. W. R. R. Co., 2 Ir. 22 (1895). 3 Atlantic C. L. Ry. Co. v. North Carolina Corp. Comm., 206 U. S. 1, 51 L. ed. 933 (1906). See also Southern Ry. Co. v. Commonwealth, 98 Va. 758, 37 S. E. 294 (1900). case it was held that a State commission had jurisdiction to order the stopping of through trains although interstate, when such stoppage would be consistent with the proper rights of the through business, but that in the particular case the locality complaining was sufficiently served by the local trains, so that there would be no need for converting the high speed through trains into local trains.1 Once the time-table is established the railroad is liable for damage caused by failure to make its trains run in accordance with the schedule. But its liability in this regard is only for negligence in failing to perform its undertaking, and there are many cases where the railroad is held not blameworthy under the circumstances.3 1 Atlantic C. L. Ry. Co. v. Wharton, 207 U. S. 328, 52 L. ed. 230 (1907). See also Riley v. Wrightsville & T. Ry. Co., 133 Ga. 413, 65 S. E. 890, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 379 (1909). 2 Delaware.-Reed V. Philadelphia, W. & B. R. R. Co., 3 Houst. 176 (1872). Florida. Florida So. R. R. Co. v. Katz, 23 Fla. 139, 1 So. 473 (1887). Georgia.-Savannah, S. & S. R. R. Co. v. Bonand, 58 Ga. 180 (1877). Indiana.-Pittsburg, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Nuzum, 50 Ind. 141, 19 Am. Rep. 703 (1875). Maryland.-Duling v. Philadelphia, W. & B. R. R. Co., 66 Md. 120 (1886). Massachusetts.-Sears V. Eastern R. R. Co., 14 Allen, 433, 92 Am. Dec. 780 (1867). Mississippi.-Wilson v. New Orleans & N. E. R. R. Co., 63 Miss. 352 (1885). New York.-Weed V. Panama R. R. Co., 17 N. Y. 362, 72 Am. North Carolina.-Hansley v. Texas.-Eddy v. Harris, 78 Tex. 661, 15 S. W. 107, 22 Am. St. Rep. 88 (1890). 3 Alabama.-Louisville & NR. R. Co. v. Dancy, 97 Ala. 338, 11 So. 796 (1892). Michigan.-Reed v. Duluth S. S. & A. Ry. Co., 100 Mich. 507, 59 N. W. 144 (1894). New Hampshire.-Gordon v. Manchester & L. R. R. Co., 52 N. H. 596, 13 Am. Rep. 97 (1873). South Carolina.-See Martin v. Columbia & G. R. R. Co., 32 S. C. 592, 10 S. E. 960 (1890). As has been seen, a time-table cannot be changed without due and reasonable notice. Sears v. Eastern R. R. Co., 14 Allen (Mass.), 433, 92 Am. Dec. 780 (1867); Geer v. Michigan Central Ry. Co., 142 Mich. 511, 106 N. W. 72 (1905). §873. Waiting rooms. In many public businesses there are either premises maintained for the use of the public in the course of the service, or offices established for the convenience of the public dealing with the company. It is true as a general theory that the public have the right of access at all times; but as a matter of practice reasonable hours may be established. A railroad may certainly by proper regulations close its stations for certain periods. It is usually enough if they are opened a reasonable time before and after the departure of trains. Thus it will be sufficient in the smaller stations, at least, to keep the waiting room open for a comparatively short time before and after the departure of trains. Similarly the ticket offices need only be open a reasonable time before the departure In England it is apparently necessary to make a statement upon the time-table that the company will not hold itself liable for failure to meet the time-table liability except for negligence. Prevost v. Gt. Eastern Ry. Co., 13 L. T. (N. S.) 20 (1865); Thompson v. Midland Ry. Co., 34 L. T. (N. S.) 34 (1875). But the company cannot thus absolve itself from liability for negligence. Denton v. Gt. Northern Ry. Co., 5 El. & Bl. 860 (1856); Buckmaster v. Gt. Eastern Ry. Co., 23 L. T. (N. S.) 471 (1870). A carrier of live stock need not run a special train with a car of stock of a shipper. Berry v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. (S. D.), 124 N. W. 859 (1910). But if an express company has agreed to ship goods by a certain train and failed to do so the company is liable. Cantwell v. Pacific 1 Express Co., 58 Ark. 487, 25 S. W. 503 (1894). 1 United States.-Grimes v. Pennsylvania Ry. Co., 36 Fed. 72 (1888), need not be open six hours before train time at night. Alabama.-Alabama Gt. So. Ry. Co. v. Arnold, 84 Ala. 159, 4 So. 359, 5 Am. St. Rep. 354 (1888), short time before and after train arrival at night. Indiana.-Draper v. Evansville & T. H. R. R. Co., 165 Ind. 117, 74 N. E. 889 (1905), reasonable time before and after the departure of trains. North Carolina.-Phillips v. Southern Ry. Co., 124 N. C. 123, 32 S. E. 388, 45 L. R. A. 163 (1899), regulation that thirty minutes before and after arrival of trains. Oregon.-Abbot v. Oregon Ry. & Nav. Co., 46 Oreg. 549, 80 Pac. 1012, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 851 (1905), reasonable time before and after of trains so as to give fair opportunity to purchase tickets.1 And in the small places they may be closed for a short time before the departure of trains, in order to give the employé opportunity to attend to other duties. On the other hand in great cities the station and its office ought to be open from the time of the first arrival to the last departure. 874. Office hours. These principles as to established hours are of general train time, a question of fact for the jury. If train is delayed station should be kept open for waiting passenger. Texas & P. R. R. Co. v. Cornelius, 10 Tex. Civ. App. 125, 30 S. W. 720 (1895). But if one is left at a station by a train failing to stop for him the agent is not bound to keep the station open for him all night. Brown v. Georgia C. & N. Ry. Co., 119 Ga. 88; 46 S. E. 71 (1903). Intending passengers getting into a lighted car on a siding long before its departure are owed no protection. Archer v. Union Pacific Ry. Co., 110 Mo. App. 349, 85 S. W. 934 (1904). Rule for closing a station does not justify putting a sick woman out into a storm. Texas Midland Ry. Co. v. Geraldon (Tex.), 128 S. W. 611 (1910). 1 Alabama.-Evans v. Memphis & C. R. R. Co., 56 Ala. 246, 28 Am. Rep. 771 (1876). Georgia. Cent. Railroad & Banking Co. v. Strickland, 90 Ga. 562, 16 S. E. 352 (1892). Illinois. St. Louis, A. & T. H. R. R. Co. v. South, 43 Ill. 176, 92 Iowa.-Everett v. Chicago, R. Massachusetts.-Swan v. Manchester & L. R. R. Co., 132 Mass. 116, 42 Am. Rep. 432 (1882). New York.-Nellis v. New York Central R. R. Co., 30 N. Y. 505 (1864). In small communities the railroad may close its stations altogether at night. Indiana.-Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co. v. Wright, 18 Ind. App. 125, 47 N. E. 491 (1897). Kentucky.-Louisville & N. R. R. Co. v. Commonwealth, 102 Ky. 300, 19 Ky. L. Rep. 1462, 43 S. W. 458, 53 L. R. A. 149 (1897). At small stations where the station agent has many duties it is not to be expected that he will be in the ticket office every minute up to the time of the actual departure of the train. Illinois. St. Louis, A. & T. H. New York.-Bordeaux V. Erie application. But there is so sizeable a body of law as to the office hours of telegraph companies as to require separate treatment. The telegraph companies also may establish reasonable hours. If, however, the office is actually open at any time, messages should be received." What is reasonable depends ultimately upon the demands of the community. Thus in most cities they should be opened from early in the morning until late at night; indeed, in the largest cities the central stations should be open all the time. In smaller places shorter hours are permissible; but still the telegraph business would require generally that the office should be open during most of the hours of the business day, even if there were a small amount of business. On Sundays and holidays West Virginia.-Davis v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 46 W. Va. 48, 32 S. E. 1026 (1899). 1 United States.-Winters Cowen, 90 Fed. 99 (1898). V. Arkansas.-Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Love Banks Co., 73 Ark. 205, 83 S. W. 949 (1904). Indiana.-Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Harding, 103 Ind. 505, 3 N. E. 172 (1885). Kentucky.-Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Fisher, 21 Ky. Law Rep. 1293, 54 S. W. 830 (1900). North Carolina.-Carter v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 141 N. C. 374, 54 S. E. 274 (1906). South Carolina.-Bonner v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 71 S. C. 303, 51 S. E. 117 (1904). Teras.-Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Wingate, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 394, 21 S. W. 439 (1894); Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Rawls (Tex. Civ. App.), 62 S. W. 136 (1901); Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Gibson (Tex. Civ. App.), 53 S. W. 712 (1899); Western Union Tel. Co. v. Hill (Tex. Civ. App.), 26 S. W. 252 (1894). 3 2 Kentucky.-Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Crider, 107 Ky. 600, 21 Ky. L. Rep. 1336, 54 S. W. 963 (1900). North Carolina.-Bright v. Western Union Telegraph Co. 132 N. C. 317, 43 S. E. 841 (1903). But even if a message is actually taken by an operator at the receiving office after hours, if no messengers are then available there is an excuse for not delivering it. Tennessee.-McCaul v. Telegraph Co., 114 Tenn. 661, 88 S. W. 325 (1905). Texas.-Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Neel, 86 Tex. 368, 25 S. W. 15, 40 Am. St. Rep. 847 (1894). 3 Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Crider, 107 Ky. 600, 54 S. W. 963, 21 Ky. Law Rep. 1336 (190); Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Van Cleave, 107 Ky. 464, 54 S. W. |