The filed tariff of the defendant express company provided that packages containing money would be received only when delivered at the office of the express company. It was the custom of the defendant. contrary to the tariff provisions, to send a special truck to the office of the shippers when notified that money was to be transported. A shipment oi the plaintiff was thus called for, and the money lost when the truck was held up on the way to the express office. Defendant contended that the service was in violation of the tariff, and that no recovery could be had by the plaintiff because of the illegality of the contract. Held, the arrangement was unenforcible because illegal, but that the defendant, having accepted custody oi the money, was liable under the common law as an insurer. Am. Trust Co. v. Am. Ry. Express Co. (Indiana, June 1930) 42 F. (2d) 272.