himself from liability for delay in forwarding, or failure to forward, by pleading increased expense of carriage either on account of increased freight demanded by the connecting carriers, or on account of unforeseen difficulty of transportation.1

§ 326. The right to make a contract for a through rate beyond the terminus of his line carries with it also the right to limit the liability on freight so transported also beyond the first carrier's line. So where a through contract contained a clause exempting the first carrier from liability for loss by fire, the exemption was held to apply to the whole route and he was held not liable for a loss by fire on the line of a connecting carrier. The first carrier cannot, however, exempt himself from losses arising from negligence while goods are not upon his own line. This is as much against public policy as if the transportation were all upon his own road.

Clyde v. Hubbard, 7 Norris (Pa.), 358; Hill Mfg. Co. v. Boston & L. R. Co., 104 Mass. 122; Cutts v. Brainard, 42 Vt. 566; Newell v. Smith, 49 ib. 255; R. R. Co. v. Pratt, 22 Wall. 123; Lock Co. v. R. R. Co., 48 N. H. 339; Baltimore Steamboat Co. v. Brown, 54 Pa. St. 77; R. R. Co. v. Androscoggin Mills, 22 Wall. 594; Collins v. B. & E. Ry. Co., 11 Ex. 790; Coxon v. G. W. R. Co., 5 H. & N. 274; Scothorn v. S. S. Ry. Co., 8 Ex. 341; Crouch v. G. W. R. Ca., 2 H. & N. 491; Muschamp v. Lancaster R., 8 M. & W. 421; Wilby v. W. C. R. Co., 2 H. & N. 703; Root v. G. W. R. R. Co., 45 N. Y. 525; G. W. R. R. Co. v. Crouch, 3 H. & N. 183; Watts v. The Saxon, 11 La. Ann. Rep. 43; Weed v. S. & S. R. R. Co., 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 534; Mytton v. Midland Ry. Co., 4 H. & N. 615; Coxon v. G. W. Ry. Co., 5 ib. 274; Collins v. Bristol, etc., Ry. Co., 11 Exch. 790; 1 H. & N. 517; 7 H. of L. Cases, 194; Swift v. Pac. Mail, etc., Co., 106 N. Y. 206; Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Young, 25 Neb. 651;

Fox v. Boston, etc., Ry. Co., 148
Mass. 220.

1 Condict v. G. T. R. R. Co., 54 N. Y. 500.

2 Watts v. The Saxon, 11 La. Ann. Rép. 43.

3 E. & C. R. R. Co. v. Androscoggin Mills (U. S. S. C.), 32 Leg. Int. 355; Directors B. & E. Ry. Co." v. Collins, 7 H. L. Cas. 194; T. P. & W. R. R. Co. v. Merriman, 52 Ill. 123. Where there was a contract for freight, and the bill of lading said: "The responsibility of this company as a common carrier under this bill of lading . . . . to terminate when (the goods are) unloaded from the cars at the place of delivery," and it appeared that through freight was never unloaded by the company at its terminus, but proceeded on to its destination in the cars in which it was received; and an action for non-delivery held that upon their own showing the company were liable beyond their terminus. T. P. & W. R. R. Co. v. Merriman, 52 Ill. 123.

4 C. H. & D. and D. & M. B. R.

327. The contract to carry beyond the terminus of the line may be either expressed or implied. Whether or not such a contract was made is a question of fact for the jury to decide from all the circumstances of the case. The bill of lading may be the proof of the contract, either alone or in connection with other evidence. The receipt by the first carrier of freight for the entire distance,1 statements of the agents of the carrier made when the bill of lading was given, or any understanding between the parties at the time the goods were shipped, may all be evidence."

§ 328. Upon the question of the mere receipt of goods marked for a destination which is beyond the terminus of his own route and to reach which it is necessary to pass over other lines than those of the carrier to whom the goods are delivered, the rule in regard to the latter's liability for loss occurring on other lines than his own is different in the several States. In the United States Courts, in Pennsylvania, New York, Maine,

Co. v. Pontius, 19 Ohio St. 221; Condict v. G. T. R. Co., 54 N. Y. 500.

P. & R. R. R. Co. v. Ramsey, 8 Norris (Pa.), 474.

2 Bryan v. M. & P. R. R., 11 Bush (Ky.), 597; Ill Cent. R. R. Co. v. Johnson, 34 Ill. 389; Clyde v. Hubbard, 7 Norris (Pa.), 358; Crawford v. S. R. Assn., 51 Miss. 222; Morse v. Brainerd, 8 Am. Law Reg. N. S. 604; St. John v. Express Co., 1 Wood (U. S. C. C.), 612.

3 Clyde v. Hubbard, 7 Norris (Pa.), 358; R. R. Co. v. Pratt, 22 Wall. 123; E. Tenn. R. R. Co. v. Rogers, 6 Heisk. (Tenn.) 143.

4 Weed v. S. R. R. Co., 19 Wed. 534; Candee v. P. R. R. Co., 21 Wis. 582; St. John v. Exp. Co., 1 Woods's Rep. 612; R. R. Co. v. Androscoggin Mills, 22 Wall. 594.

612; Robinson v. M. D. T. Co., 45 Iowa, 470; Root v. G. W. R. Co., 45 N. Y. 524; R. R. Co. v. Pratt, 22 Wall. 123; Hill Mfg. Co. v. B. L. R. R. Co., 104 Mass. 122; Quimby v. Vanderbilt, 17 N. Y. 306; Coal and Oil Co. v. H. & St. J. R. R. Co, 35 Mo. 84; P. & R. R. Co. v. Berry, 18 P. F. Sm. (Pa.) 272; Rome R. R. v. Sloan, 39 Ga. 636.

6 Railroad Co. v. Pratt, 22 Wall. 129; R. R. Co. v. Mfg. Co., 16 ib. 318; contra, St. John v. The Exp. Co., 1 Woods's Rep. (C. C.) 612.

Jenneson v. C. & A. R. R. Co., 5 Clark (D.C. of Phila.), 409; Mullarkey v. P. W. & B. R. R. Co., 9 Phila. (D. C. of Phila.) 114; Clyde v. Hubbard, 7 Norris (Pa.), 358; Camden & A. R. R. Co. v. Forsyth, 61 Pa. St. 81. 8 Isaacsen v. N. Y: C. & H. R. R.

5 St. John v. Exp. Co., 1 Woods, Co., 25 Hun (N. Y.), 350; Rawson

9 Skinner v. Hall, 60 Me. 477; Inhabitants v. Hall, 61 ib. 517; Perkins v. Portland & C. R. R. Co., 47 ib.

573; Hadd v. U. S. & E. Express Co., 52 Vt. 335; Morse v. Brainerd, 41 ib. 550.

Vermont, Massachusetts, Maryland, North Carolina, Connecticut, Indiana, Missouri, Minnesota, Mississippi, Michigan, and Virginia," the carrier may by special contract extend his liability to the final destination; but in the absence of such contract or of a partnership relation existing between carriers on the line, a carrier is only liable for losses occurring on his own line and is responsible only for the safe and seasonable delivery of the goods to the succeeding carrier in the direction of the transportation. The simple receipt of goods directed to a point beyond the carrier's route does not create a special con

tract to carry them to the destination, nor does giving the shipper a through rate. It is presumed when a carrier receives goods marked to a point beyond its own line that he is to carry the goods to the end of his own route, and from that point to act merely as a forwarder, to deliver them to the succeeding carrier in the line of transportation. If the second carrier refuses or neglects to receive them, the first carrier may store the goods. The nature of the bailment then changes and he becomes liable only as a warehouseman.2

§ 329. Where, however, several carriers are associated in a continuous line of transportation and in the course of business goods are carried through the connected lines for one price, under an agreement by which freight-money is divided among the associated carriers in proportions.fixed by their agreement; in short, where there is a partnership of carriers, if the carrier at one end of the line receives the goods to be transported through, marked for a consignee at the other end of the line and on the delivery of the goods takes pay for the transportation of the goods through, the carrier who receives the goods is bound to carry them, or see that they are carried, to their final destination and is liable for an accidental loss happening on any part of the line. The latter rule has been adopted in England, Illinois,"

1 McCarthy v. T. H. I. R. R. Co., 9 Mo. Ap. 159; Converse v. N. H. Y. Trans. Co. (S. C. of Conn.), 6 Am. Law Reg. N. S. 214; Stewart v. T. H. I, R. R. Co., 3 Fed. Rep. (U. S. C. C. Dist. Mo.) 768.

2 Rawson v. Holland, 59 N. Y. 611.

3 Coates v. U. S. Express Co., 45 Mo. 238; Mo. Coal and Oil Co. v. H. & St. J. R. R. Co., 35 ib. 84; Free burg Coal Co. v. Union Ry. Transit Co., 10 Mo. App. 596; Schutter v. Adams Exp. Co., 5 ib. 316; Barrett v. I. & St. L. R. R. Co., .9 Mo. 226; Wyman v. C. & A. R. R. Co., 4 Mo. App. 35; Cramer v. Am. M. U. Exp. Co. and M. D. Co., 56 Mo. 524; Nashua Lock Co. v. W.

8 M. & W. 421; E. T. & Va. R. R. Co. v. Rogers, 6 Heiskell (Tenn.), 143.

5 Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Copeland, 24 Ill. 332; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. People, 56 ib. 365; U. S. Exp. Co. v. Haines, 67 ib. 137; Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Cowles, 32 ib. 116; Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Johnson, 34 ib. 389; Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Frankenberg, 54 ib. 88; C. & M. W. Ry. Co. v. Montfort, 60 ib. 175; Field v. C. & R. G. R. R. Co., 71 ib. 458; T. W. W. Ry. Co. v. Lockhart, 71 ib. 627; M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Smith, 74 ib. 197; Ohio & M. R. Co. v. Emrich,

3

5

Georgia, Wisconsin, Tennessee, Iowa, Alabama, Kansas," Florida, and New Hampshire, even where no partnership relations exist between the carriers. In these jurisdictions while he may.by special contract limit his liability to his own line, yet where a common carrier receives goods marked to a particular place, he is bound prima facie, under an implied agreement from the mark or direction, to deliver at such place, though it be beyond his own route. If damage or loss occur, the carrier who received the goods in the first instauce must account to the owner, whether the loss occurred on his own line, or that of some other carrier in the line of transit. The contract of the shipper is with the carrier to whom he intrusted the goods. A fortiori, therefore, the carrier is liable to deliver at final destination when the agreement to do so is express. This is a liability which arises out of a contract which is implied from the receipt of the goods marked to a particular destination. If the carrier, then, can show a uniform usage, known to the shipper, to undertake for its own line alone and if he received freight from the shipper for this service alone,

24 Ill. App. 245; Adams Exp. Co. v.
Wilson, 81 Ill. 339; Erie Ry. Co. v.
Wilcox, 84 ib. 239; Merchants Disp.
Trans. Co. v. Moore, 88 ib. 136;
Pennsylvania Co. v. Fairchild, 69 ib.

260.

1 Rome R. R. v. Sullivan, 25 Ga. 228; Southern Exp. Co. v. Shea, 38 ib. 519; Cohen v. Southern Exp. Co., 45 ib. 148; Mosher v. South. Exp. Co., 38 ib. 37; Falvey v. Georgia R. Co., 76 ib. 597.

2 Wahl v. Holt, 26 Wis. 703; Hooper v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co., 27 ib. 81; Parmelee v. W. Trans. Co., 26 ib. 439; Congar v. C. & G. R. R. Co., 17 ib. 477; Hermann v. Jordrich, 21 ib. 536; Hansen v. Flint, 73 ib. 346.

3 L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Campbell, 7 Heiskell (Tenn.), 253; M. C. R. R.

Co. v. Stockard, 11 ib. 568; E. T. & Va. R. R. Co. v. Rogers, 6 ib. 143; Western, etc., R. R. Co. v. McElwee, 6 ib. 208; Carter v. Peck, 4 Sneed (Tenn.), 203; E. T. R. R. Co. v. Nelson, 1 Cold. (Tenn.) 272.

Mulligan v. Ill. Cent. R. R. Co., 36 Iowa, 181; Augle v. Miss. & Mo. R. R. Co., 9 ib. 487.

5 M. & G. R. R. Co. v. Copeland, 63 Ala. 219; Logan v. Mobile Trade Co., 46 ib. 514; Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. Thomas, 83 ib. 343.

St. L., K. C. N. R. Co. v. Piper, 13 Kansas, 505.

7 Bennet v. Filyaw, 1 Fla. 403. Gray v. Jackson, 51 N. H. 9; Lock Co. v. R. R., 48 ib. 339. 9 Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Johnson, 34 Ill. 389.