(after stating the facts). The shipment was an interstate one, and the law as declared by the Supreme Court of the United States must govern. St. L. S. F. Ry. Co. v. Burford, 180 Ark. 562, 22 S. W. (2d) 378; and Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad Co. v. Thompson Mfg. Co., 270 U. S. 416, 46 S. Ct. 318. The respective theories of the parties to the suit on the question of negligence were submitted to the jury upon the principles of law decided in the cases above cited.

No objection is urged as to the instructions on the question of negligence, but it is earnestly insisted by counsel for appellant that the court erred in instructing the jury on the measure of damages. The court gave to the jury four instructions. In two of them the respective theories of the parties on the question of negligence were submitted to the jury, and the remaining two instructions given by the court related to the measure of damages in the event of a recovery by the plaintiff. It is earnestly insisted that the judgment should be reversed because the court erred in giving instruction No. 4 on the measure of damages. We need not set out the instruction because it is apparent from the record that the plaintiff was not prejudiced by the giving of the instruction whether or not it was erroneous. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant and thereby found that there was no negligence on the part of the defendant which would warrant a recovery by the plaintiff for any amount on account of the alleged negligence of the defendant. If the jury found that there was no negligence on the part of the defendant in the carriage of the goods, the plaintiff was not prejudiced by giving an erroneous instruction on the measure of damages. Therefore the judgment will be affirmed.