Reversed and remanded for new trial. See, also, 56 Okla. 519, 156 P. 359; 58 Okla. 585, 160 P. 610. W.F. Evans, R.A. Kleinschmidt, and E.H. Foster, for plaintiff in error.

Nor was there anything to show that the contract was not fairly entered into. It is true that there was testimony on behalf of the plaintiff that the conditions of the bill of lading were not read by, or called to the attention of, the shipper before it was signed, but it was established without contradiction that the shipper had pads of these bills of lading in his own possession; that as a general rule he made out the bill of lading himself, taking it to the agent to be signed, and that to the best of his recollection that was the course of procedure in the instant case. No circumstances of fraud or oppression on behalf of the railway company were shown. The fact that he did not read the bill of lading, when he had ample opportunity to do so, could not excuse him. St. L. S. F. R. Co. v. Ladd, 33 Okla. 162, 124 P. 461; St. L. S. F. R. Co. v. Taliaferro, 56 Okla. 519, 156 P. 359. Upon the undisputed evidence in the case (and it might here be noted that all the testimony offered was on behalf of the plaintiff, the defendant having offered none), we are of the opinion that the stipulation above set out in the bill of lading was valid and binding on the plaintiff; that under the circumstances of this case it was reasonable; that it, was not complied with, and that no such circumstances of fraud or oppression on behalf of the railway company were shown as to avoid its effect; and that therefore, having failed to comply with its provisions, the plaintiff could not recover. He is in the same unfortunate position as one whose claim is barred by the statute of limitations; he has had a right to recover which he has lost by his own laches.