The  effect  of  the  plea  in  the  present
case  is  simply  a  prayer  on  the  de-
fendant's part  that  he  be  allowed  to
consumnate  this  same  end  through
the  offices  of  the  court  which  the
plaintiff  has  first  invoked.' "

We  still  cannot  see  any  reason  to
relinquish  our  previous  theory,  (espe-
cially since  it  has  subsequently  been
arrived  at  by  able  judges),  to  the  ef-
fect that  such  a  counterclaim  is  per-
fectly permissible  Also  see  P.  R.  R.
V.  Bellinger,  166  N.  Y.  S.  652.
70.  Presley  Fruit  Co.  v.  St.  Louis.
I.  M.  &  S.  Ry.  Co.  (Minn.  1915),  153
N.  W.  115.  Also  see  Nat'l  El.  Co.  v.
G.  R.  R.  R.  (Minn  1917),  163  N.  W.
164.
Under  the  Carmack  Amendment  in
an  action  against  initial  earner  for
loss  of  poultry  occurring  on  a  con-
necting line,  the  burden  of  proof  is
not  on  the  shipper  to  show  that  loss
was  "caused  by"  the  connecting  line,
and  not  the  military  authorities  in  a
flood  district  under  martial  law,
which  confiscated  the  poultry  for
benefirt  of  sufferers.  Chicago  &  E.
I.  R.  Co.  V.  Collins  Produce  Co.,  39
Sup.  Ct.  189.
528


THE  LAW  OF  LOSS  AND  DAMAGE  CLAIMS


The  receipt  of  goods  in  a  damaged
condition  raises  a  presumption  that
the  carrier  was  negligent.  St  Louis
I.  M.  &  S.  R.  Co.  V.  Hudgins  Prod-
uce Co.  (Ark.  1915),  177  S.  W.  400;
C  R.  I.  &  G.  Ry.  V.  Scott  (Tex,
1912),  156  S.  W.  294,  297.
