Thomas Johnson Michie.

A treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) online

. (page 29 of 214)
Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 29 of 214)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

ment to transport to point of destination.
— The defendants, who were common
carriers between Lewiston and Niagara
Falls, received from the plaintiffs two
casks of brandy at the former place, to
be forwarded to different points on the
Michigan Central Railroad. Goods des-
tined for such points were, in the usual
course of the business, shipped at Buf-
falo for Detroit, and this usage, as well
as the fact that the defendants had no
interest in or connection with any of the
carrying business or companies beyond
the Falls, was known to the plaintiffs.
The defendants gave a receipt as follows:

"Received, Lewiston, etc., the follow-
ing packages of goods on board the Iv. &
B. R. line, in good order, to be delivered
in like good condition:
Israel Kellogg, 'i -, r\ n ^ t> j

Kalamazoo, Mich. '( ^ Q""' ^ask Brandy.
M. C. R. R.

"Also for
McCrea & Morton, K ^ r^ , t, ,
Battle Creek, Mich. \ ^ Q"' ^""^^ Brandy.
M. C. R. R.

"R. H. Boughton."

The plaintiffs delivered to the defend-
ants shipping bills as follows:

"Shipped, Lewiston, etc., one qr. cask
brandy, marked 'Israel Kellogg, Kalama-
zoo.' " etc.

"Shipped, Lewiston, etc., one qr. cask
brandy, marked 'McCrea & Morton, Bat-
tle Creek, ^Michigan,'" etc.

The brandy was lost on the lake be-
tween Buffalo and Detroit. Held, that
the receipt did not contain any implied
agreement to transport the brandy to
Kalamazoo or Battle Creek, the address
being only incorporated in the instru-
ment for the purpose of identification;
and that this construction of the con-
tract was further fortified by the use of
the word "marked" in the shipping bills.
Wright z: Boughton (N. Y.), 22 Barb.

44. Contract to deliver to connecting
carrier at most convenient point. — Plan-
tation Xo. 4 z: Hall, 61 .Me. 517.

45. Agreement to "forward" goods to
place on connecting line. — A contract to
carry goods beyond its own line will not
be implied from a receipt for the goods

given bj' the carrier, specifying that the
goods were "to be forwarded" to a place
beyond its line. Crawford v. Southern R.
Ass'n, 51 Miss. 222, 24 Am. Rep. 626.

A carrier, undertaking to convey goods
to a certain point, and forward them
thence to the place of destination, is a
carrier to that point, and beyond it
merely a forwarder, who is only liable
for ordinary care in procuring a proper
conveyance. Devillers z: The John Bell,
6 La. Ann. 544.

A transportation company took goods
"to be forwarded" to points beyond their
own route. Held, that they were not H;i-
l)le for loss of the goods after duly de-
livering them to a carrier on a connect-
ing line. Weil z'. Merchants', etc., Transo.
Co. (N. Y.), 7 Daly 456.

Common carriers doing business be-
tween certain points, and not undertak-
ing personally for the carriage of goods
to any further points, but merely engag-
ing to forward them to their destination
through the established lines of trans-
portation beyond, are not liable upon
their receipt for a bill of goods "for col-
lection" from a person beyond the ter-
mination of their route, in the absence of
any special contract creating an addi-
tional obligation for the failure of other
carriers, to whom in the ordniary course
of their business the bill was intrusted
for collection, to pay over the amount
received by them upon the same. Low-
ell Wire Fence Co. v. Sargent (]\Iass.),
8 Allen 189.

46. By a contract of shipment of goods
consigned to New York, "passenger
train service," made upon a printed form
apparently used in all shipments, irre-
spective of destination, the carrier
agreed to "forward" the freight to Og-
den station, there to be delivered to a
connecting carrier, and agreed to "for-
ward" subject to the conditions indorsed
on the contract. By such conditions the
carrier agreed to "forward" the freight
to its place of destination, but provided
that its "responsibility as a common car-
rier should cease at the station where
the property was to be delivered to con-
necting carriers." Held, that the word
"forward," being used in the first two
clauses in the sense of "carry," the same
meaning would be given it when used
in the third clause, and that the contract




Liability "as Forwarders Only." — An express company, giving the con-
signor, on receipt of goods, notice of liability "as forwarders only," are liable as
carriers only to the end of their route, and afterwards, as forwarders, are re-
sponsible only for reasonable care and diligence in selecting proper carriers."*"

Offer to "Take" Carload Lots of Goods from One Point to Another at
Specified Rate. — An offer by a carrier to "take" carload lots of goods from one
point to another at a specified rate is not an oft'er to "carry" the entire distance,
but only to take the goods for carriage to the end of the carrier's route, and then
deliver to the next carrier to forward, and the first carrier is not liable for non-
delivery by the final carrier."*""^

Receiving Goods Destined to Point beyond Line. — In some jurisdictions
it has been held that, in the absence of an express agreement to the contrary,^^
or a contrary custom or usage known to the shipper at the time of shipment, ^'^ if
a carrier receives goods delivered to it for transportation, marked and destined
to a point beyond its own line, the law implies an agreement to carry to and de-
liver at destination,'''^ and to be responsible for loss or injury occurring on the

was, hence, for passenger train service
through to destination, and therefore
mere delivery to a connecting carrier
with request for such service was not
sufficient. Colfax Mountain Fruit Co. t'.
Southern Pac. Co., 50 Pac. 775, 118 Cal.
648, 40 L. R. A. 78. See, also, St. Louis,
etc., R. Co. V. Piper, 13 Kan. 505.

Though a through bill of lading for
the carriage of goods from San Fran-
cisco to New York provided for ship-
ment to Panama, "thence to be for-
warded across the Isthmus and reshipped
to New York," the carrier was liable as
carrier for the loss of the goods while
crossing the Isthmus. Simmons v. Law,
4 Abb. Dec. 241, 42 N. Y. 217, affirming
21 N. Y. Super. Ct. 213.

47. Liability "as forwarders only." —
American Exp. Co. v. Second Nat. Bank,
60 Pa. :\'.)A. 8 .\m. Rep. 2G8.

48. Offer to "take" car load lots of
goods from one point to another at spe-
cified rate. — Harris v. Grand Trunk R.
Co., 15 R. I. H71, 5 .\t\. .305.

49. Effect of carrier receiving goods
destined to a point beyond its line. —
Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Cotton. 87 Ark.
339, 112 S. W. 742; East Tennessee, etc.,
R. Co. V. Rogers, 53 Tenn. (6 Ileisk.)
143, 19 .\m. Rep. 589; Louisville, etc., R.
Co. V. Weaver, 77 Tcnn. (9 Lea) 38, 42
.'\m. Rep. 654; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v.
Campbell, 54 Tenn. (7 Heisk.) 253;
Western, etc.. Railroad v. McElwec, 53
Tenn. (c, Mcisk.) 208; Memphis, etc., R.
Co. V. Stockard, 58 Tenn. (11 Heisk.)

50. .Mulligan r. Illinois Cent. K. Co., 3r.
Iowa 181, 14 ;\m. Rep. 514.

61. Arkansas. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v.
Cotton, «7 .^rk. 339, 112 S. W. 712.

Georgia. — Rome R. Co. v. Sullivan, etc.,
Co.. 32 Ga. 400; Southern Exp. Co. 7'.
Ncwby, 36 Ga. 035, 91 .Am. Dec. 783;
Southern Exp. Co. v. Purcoll, 37 Ga. 103,
92 Am. Dec. .13; .Moshcr & Co. :-. South-
ern Exp. Co., 38 Ga. 37; Southern ICxp.
Co. V. Shea, 38 Ga. 519; Cf>licn 7-. South-

ern Exp. Co., 45 Ga. 148; Falvey v. Geor-
gia Railroad, 76 Ga. 597, 2 Am. St. Rep.
58; East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. John-
son, 85 Ga. 497, 11 S. E. 809; Coles v.
Central R., etc., Co., 86 Ga. 251, 12 S. E.
749; Central R., etc., Co. v. Skellie, 86
Ga. 686, 12 S. E. 1017; Central R., etc.,
Co. X'. Georgia Fruit, etc., Exch., 91 Ga.
389. 17 S. E. 904; Savannah, etc., R. Co.
V. Commercial Guano Co., 103 Ga. 590,
30 S. E. 555; State v. Wrightsville, etc., R.
Co., 104 Ga. 437, 30 S. E. 891; Central,
etc., R. Co. V. Murphey, IK) Ga. 863. 43
S. E. 265.

Illinois. — Judgment 122 111. App. 569, af-
firmed in Wabash R. Co. z'. Thomas, 78
N. E. 777, 222 111. 337, 7 L. R. A., N. S.,
1041; Chicago, etc., R. Co. z\ Simon, 160
111. 648, 43 N. E. .596; Coats v. Chicago,
etc., R. Co., 239 111. 154, 87 N. E. 929.

loiva. — Mulligan v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.,
36 Iowa 181, 14 Am. Rep. 514.

Nezv York. — Foy v. Troy, etc., R. Co.,
24 Barb. 382.

Tennessee. — East Tennessee, etc., R.
Co. V. Rogers, 53 Tenn. (6 Heisk.) 143,
19 Am. Rep. 589; Louisville, etc., R. Co.
T'. Weaver, 77 Tenn. (9 Lea) 38, 42 \m.
Rep. 654; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Camp-
bell, 54 Tenn. (7 Heisk.) 253; Western,
etc.. Railroad v. McElwee, 53 Tenn. (6
Heisk.) 208; Memphis, etc., R. Co. v.
Stockard, 58 Tenn. (11 Heisk.) 568.

The acceptance by a common carrier
for transportation of freight to a place
beyond the terminus of its own line, and
its receipt given for the same, constitute
a ])rima facie contract to carry and de-
liver such freight to the place of its des-
tination. Elgin, etc., R. Co. 7'. Bates
.Mach. Co.. 9S 111. .App. 311, afiirmcd in
66 N. E. 326, 200 111. 636, 93 Am. St. Rop.
218; Lehigh Vallev Transj). Co. v. Pills-
I)ury-Wasliliurn I'lour .Mills Co., 92 111.
A lip. 628.

Wliere a carrier received coal fur
transportation beyond its own line, it
was bound to carry tlie coal without un-
reasonable delay to the terminus of its

§ 3604



line of the connecting carrier ; ■'''- and it is no excuse for not doing so, that the
connecting road refuses to receive the freight and advance the charges due and
paid by the initial carrier. ^^ But in other jurisdiction it has been held that such
receipt of goods by a carrier does not raise an implied contract to convey them
beyond its line, but only binds it to carry them over its own line and deliver them
safely to the next carrier.^^

own line, and there deliver it to a con-
necting carrier, within a reasonable
time. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. O'Gara,
etc., Co., 139 S. W. 803, 144 _Ky. 561.

In pursuance of an inquiry from a
shipper, a railroad company informed
him of the through rates of transporta-
tion for certain goods to a point beyond
its own line. The goods were subse-
quently delivered to the company, and
received by it addressed to such point,
which the company could reach by means
of connecting railroads. Held, in an ac-
tion for the nondelivery of some of the
goods and delay in delivering others,
that these facts were sufficient to sustain
a finding that the company had agreed
to transport the goods beyond its own
line to the place which the}' were con-
signed. Jennings v. Grand Trunk R.
Co., 127 N. Y. 438, 28 N. E. 394, affirm-
ing 52 Hun 227, 5 N. Y. S. 140, 23 N. Y.
St. Rep. 15.

52. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Cotton, 87
Ark. 339. 112 S. W. 742. See post, "In
General," § 3641.

The acceptance by a carrier of a car
load of freight for delivery beyond its
own line constitutes a prima facie con-
tract to carry and deliver to the point of
destination with the liabilities of a' car-
rier. Illinois Match Co. v. Chicago, etc.,
R. Co., 95 N. E. 492, 250 111. 396, revers-
ing judgment 153 111. App. 568.

The acceptance by a railroad company
in Illinois of goods marked for trans-
portation to a point beyond its terminus
establishes, prima facie, under the law
of that state, a contract to transport such
goods to their destination, and renders
it liable for injury to the goods by con-
necting lines. Beard v. St. Louis, etc., R.
Co., 79 Iowa 527, 44 N. W. 803.

53. Memphis, etc., R. Co. v. Stockard,
58 Tenn. (n Heisk.) 568.

54. United States. — Railroad Co. v. Man-
ufacturing Co., 16 Wall. 318, 21 L. Ed.
297; Insurance Co. v. Railroad Co., 104
U. S. M6, 26 L. Ed. 679; Myrick v. Mich-
igan Cent. R. Co., 107 U. S. 102, 27 L.
Ed. 325, 1 S. Ct. 425; Railroad Co. v.
Pratt, 22 Wall. 123, 22 L. Ed. 827, 49
How. Prac. 84; Pennsylvania R. Co. v.
Jones, 155 U. S. 333, 39 L. Ed. 176, 15 S.
Ct. 136; Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Ameri-
can Trading Co., 195 U. S. 439, 49 L. Ed.
269, 25 S. Ct. 84; North Pennsylvania R.
Co. V. Commercial Nat. Bank, 123 U. S.
727, 31 L. Ed. 287, 8 S. Ct. 266; Texas,
etc.. R. Co. 7'. Reiss, 183 U. S. 621. 46 L.
Ed. 358, 22 S. Ct. 253; Southern Pac. Co.

r. Interstate Commerce Comm., 200 U.
S. 536, 50 L. Ed. 585, 26 S. Ct. 330; Atchi-
son, etc., R. Co. V. Denver, etc., R. Co.,
110 U. S. 667, 28 L. Ed. 291, 4 S. Ct. 185;
Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. West Coast Na-
val Stores Co., 198 U. S. 483, 49 L. Ed.
1135, 25 S. Ct. 745; Powhatan Steam-
boat Co. V. Appomattox R. Co., 24 How.
247. 16 L. Ed. 682.

Connecticut. — Elmore v. Naugatuck R.
Co., 23 Conn. 457, 63 Am. Dec. 143.

Michigan. — Detroit, etc., R. Co. v. Mc-
Kenzie, 43 Mich. 609, 5 N. W. 1031.

Minnesota. — Ortt v. Minneapolis, etc.,
R. Co.. 36 Minn. 396. 31 N. W. 519.

Mississippi. — Crawford v. Southern R.
Ass'n. 51 Miss. 222. 24 Am. Rep. 626.

West Virginia. — Roy v. Chesapeake, etc.,
R. Co., 61 W. Va'. 616, 57 S. E. 39, 31 L.
R. A., N. S., 1.

The implied obligation of a common
carrier, arising from its relation to the
public, is limited by the termini of its
own route; and the fact that it has con-
nections with other routes, extending be-
yond its own termini, which it does not
operate, control, or own, does not, in
the absence of a special contract so to
do, make it liable as a common carrier
for a failure to carry, or to furnish means
to carry, merchandise over such other
routes. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Mor-
ton. 61 Ind. 539, 28 Am. Rep. 682; Peet
V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 20 Wis. 594, 91
Am. Dec. 446.

In the absence of a special contract,
where it is necessary for a carrier to de-
liver the shipment to another carrier be-
fore the point of destination is reached,
the liability of the first carrier ceases
when it has safely carried and delivered
the shipment to the second without un-
reasonable delay. Chicago, etc., R. Co.
V. Woodward, 72 N. E. 558, 73 N. E. 810,
164 Ind. 360.

In the absence of a special contract
to the contrary, a carrier's duty is com-
pletely discharged by a safe carriage to
the end of its own line, where a connect-
ing carrier may be ready to continue the
transportation on the designated route.
Howard z'. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 11
App. D. C. 300.

Where a common carrier accepts
freight for a place beyond his usual
route, he must, unless he stipulates oth-
erwise, deliver it at the end of his route
to some other competent carrier carry-
ing to the place of address, or connected
with those who thus carry, and his lia-
bility ceases on such delivery. St. Louis,



§ 3604

Designation in Bill of Lading of Point of Destination. — In absence of
statute or act of congress, the mere designation in the bill of lading of a point in
another state as the point of destination does not make the contract one for
through transportation, where the other provisions indicate limitation of the ini-
tial carrier's liability to damages occurring on its Own line.^-^

Taking of Through Fare on Receipt of Goods. — In some states it has been
held that a contract whereby liability of a carrier is sought to be sustained be-
yond carriage and delivery to a connecting line will not be inferred from the tak-
ing of through fare on receipt of the goods/''^ But in New York it has been held
that a carrier who receives goods for transportation, addressed to a point on the
line of a connecting carrier, and charges and receives a price for the entire dis-
tance, contracts that the goods shall be carried through for the price paid, and is
bound for the risks of a common carrier to the place of destination.^'

etc.. R. Co. z: McGivney, 91 Pac. 693, 19
Okla. 361.

The law is well settled in Massachu-
setts that a corporation established for
the transportation of goods for hire be-
tween certain points, and receiving goods
directed to a more distant place, is not
responsible beyond the end of its own
line as a common carrier, but only as
a forwarder, unless it makes a positive
agreement extending its liability. Nut-
ting V. Connecticut River R. Co. (Mass.),

I Gray 502; Judson v. Western R. Corp.
(Mass.), 4 Allen 520, 81 Am. Dec. 718;
Darling v. Boston, etc., R. Corp. (Mass.),

II Allen 295; Burroughs v. Norwich, etc.,
R. Co., 100 Mass. 26, 1 Am. Rep. 78.

A railroad corporation, receiving goods
for transportation to a place, situated
beyond the line of their road, on another
railroad, which connects with theirs, but
with the proprietors of which they have
no connection in business, and taking
pay for the transportation over their
own road only, are not liable, in the ab-
sence of any special contract, for the
loss of the goods, after their delivery to
the proprietors of the other railroad.
Nutting V. Connecticut River R. Co.
(Mass.), 1 Gray 502.

Where goods are delivered to a rail-
road company for transportation, though
marked to a place beyond its terminus,
it discharged its duty by safely convey-
ing over its own road, and delivering
to the next connecting road, in the us-
ual line of carriage, towards the point of
destination; there having been no spe-
cial contract binding it to deliver the
goods to such destination, nor transpor-
tation agreement between the two con-
necting carriers. Phillips v. North Car-
olina K. Co., 78 N. C. 294.

The liability of an intermediate com-
mon carrier for tiie safety of goods dc-
livcnd lo him for carriage is discliargi-d
by their delivery to and acceptance l)y a
succeeding carrier or his authorized
agent. Pratt 7: Railway Co.. 95 U. S.
4:i, 24 L. ICd. rtitr,; 1 1 muting I'Uevator Co.
V. Bosworth, 179 U. S. 415, 45 L. Kd. 250,
21 S. Ct. IS.J; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v.
Bosworth. 179 U. S. 442, 45 L. Kd. 207,
21 S. Ct. 18:i; Rau v. Bosworth, 179 U. S.

443, 45 L. Ed. 268, 21 S. Ct. 194; Bos-
worth V. Carr, etc., Co., 179 U. S. 444, 45
L. Ed. 268, 21 S. Ct. 194.

An intermediate connecting carrier is
bound to safely carry, with reasonable
dispatch, the shipment over its own
road, and to safely and promptly deliver
it to the next connecting carrier, and the
acceptance of goods directed to a point
of¥ the carrier's line is not a sufBcient
basis for the implicaton of a contract ex-
tending its liability beyond its terminals.
Shockley v. Pennsylvania R. Co.. 109
Md. 123, 71 Atl. 437.

55. Designation in bill of lading of
point of destination. — Reid v. Southern
R. Co., fiOS. E. 618, 153 N. C. 490.

56. Taking of through fare on receipt
of goods. — \\'ashburn, etc., ^Nlfg. Co. v.
Providence, etc., R. Co., 113 Mass. 490;
Roy v. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 61 W.
Va. 610, 57 S. E. 39, 31 L. R. A., N. S., 1.

A railroad company, liable as a com-
mon carrier within the termini of its own
line, is not liable as such beyond its own
line, unless it has assumed such liability
by special contract, notwithstanding the
payment to it of through freight. Pied-
mont Mfg. Co. z'. Columbia, etc., R. Co.,
19 S. C. 353.

In case for money delivered to an ex-
press company to be sent beyond its
route, it appeared plaintiff paid charges
through and received a receipt for the
money to be sent and for the payment.
The express agent told plaintiff he could
not bill beyond a certain point, and,
when plaintifif insisted on paying through,
tlie agent estimated the cost for carriage
on the connecting line, and told him if
it should 1)C more he would have to pay
it. Held, that there was not a special
contract to carry to destination. Iladd
?'. United vStatcs, etc., I\xp. Co., 52 Vt.
:!35, 30 Am. Rep. 757.

57. Condict z: Grand 'IVunk R. Co. (N.
^■.l. t I.ans. 100. allirmed in 54 N. Y. 500.

Ill such case the carrier in the absence
of proof of its authority to coiUract as
agent for the connecting linos, nuist be
presumed to contract for the whole dis-
tance on its own accouiU. Condict v.
Grand Trunk R. Co. (N. Y.), 4 Lans.
100, affirmed in 54 N. Y. 500.

§§ 3604-3605 carriers. 3260

Requiring Guaranty of Payment of Through Freight. — In Georgia it has
been held that where goods are shipped under a through bih of lading, the initial
line taking from the shippers a guaranty of the freight charges for the entire
route, the contract constitutes a through contract of shipment. ^^ But in Mis-
sissippi it has been held that the fact that a carrier requires from the shipper a
guaranty of payment of through freight is not conclusive that it imdertakes the
responsibility of delivering the goods at the point of destination.-''^

Notice of Through Rates Posted in Station of Initial Carrier. — A con-
tract for through carriage is not to be inferred from the fact that the charges for
through transportation are posted in the station of the initial carrier.^*^'

Provision in Shipping Receipt for Exchange for Through Bill of Lad-
ing. — A contract for through carriage is not to be inferred from a notice on the
margin of a shipping receipt that it may be exchanged for a through bill of lad-

Waybill. — W'here a waybill speaks of goods as to be transported over the
whole route by the initial carrier, this is evidence, whether looked upon as a con-
tract or a declaration or admission, from which the jury may infer a contract for
through carriage.*^" But an undertaking by a carrier to transport beyond the
terminus of its line can not be implied from the mere fact that a waybill on its
face indicates that the goods were consigned to parties beyond the carrier's termi-
nus. ^'^ The fact that a car is waybilled to a particular place is no evidence of a
contract of through transportation, but merely shows the destination of the car.®"*
Waybills issued to a shipper which contain separately entered charges for trans-
portation from the point of shipment to the terminus of the carrier, and from
such terminus, over a connecting line, to the place of destination of the ship-
ment, do not constitute an express contract on the part of the carrier to carry
the property from the point of shipment to the place of destination, which will
render it liable for losses occurring beyond its line.*^^

Traffic Arrangements between Carriers.— See ante, "Construction," §

§ 3605. Effect of Contract and Liability for Breach Thereof. — Lia-
ability for Default of Connecting Carriers. — Where a carrier contracts to
carry to some point beyond the end of its route, all connecting lines are its
agents, for whose default it is responsible.*'*^

58. Requiring guaranty of payment of 61. Provision in shipping receipt for
through freight. — Central R., etc., Co. v. exchange for through bill of lading. — •
Georgia Fruit, etc., Exch., 91 Ga. 389, 17 Myrick 7-. Alichigan Cent. R. Co., 107 U.
S. E. 904. S. 102, 27 L. Ed. 325, 1 S. Ct. 425.

59. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Kerr, 68 62. Waybill. — Railroad Co. v. Pratt
Miss. 14, 8 So. 330. (U. S.\ 22 Wall. 123, 22 L. Ed. 827, 49

60. Notice of through rates posted in How. Prac. 84.

station of initial carrier. — ]\lyrick v. Defendant receiv-ed a car load of stock

Michigan Cent. R. Co., 107 U. S. 102, 27 destined to a point beyond its lines. The

L. Ed. 325, 1 S. Ct. 425. waybill recited that the stock was re-

"Such notices are usually found in sta- ceived for transportation to that point,

tions on lines which connect with other and plaintifif received a free drover's pass

lines, and they furnish important infer- thereto. Held, that there was an implied

mation to shippers, who naturally de- contract to deliver the property at such

sire to know what the charges are for point, making defendant liable for losses

through freight as well as for those over occurring on a connecting line. Morse

2i single line. It would be unfortunate z'. Brainerd, 41 Vt. 550.

if this information could not be given 63. St. Louis Ins. Co. v. St. Louis, etc.,

by a public notice in the station of a R. Co., 104 U. S. 146, 26 L. Ed. 679.

company without subjecting that com- 64. Herring zk Chesapeake, etc., R. Co.,

pany, if freight is taken by it, to respon- 45 S. K. 322, 101 Va. 778.

sibility for the manner in which it is 65. Taylor v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 87

carried on intermediate and connecting Me. 299, 32 Atl. 905.

lines to the end of the route." Myrick 66. Liability for default of connecting

V. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 107 U. S. 102, carriers. — Schwartz ?'. Panama R. Co.,

27 L. Ed. 325, 1 S. Ct. 425. 155 Cal. 742, 103 Pac. 196.


Acceptance of Goods for Through Transportation without Prepay-
ment of Charges. — A carrier, by accepting goods for through transportation

Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 29 of 214)