46

goods, though they employ, except as to local deliveries, the conveyances of other common carriers, usually railroads. Railroad companies are the best, as they are by far the most important, example of common carriers. Street railways" usually carry only passengers; but they may, and sometimes do, become common carriers of goods. Receivers and trustees** operating railroads are common carriers, as are also, according to the weight of authority, carriers of live stock." 49

50

A railroad company is none the less a common carrier when the shipper loads a whole car, which is made part of one of the company's trains, or even when a single shipper makes up a whole train, if such car or train is placed in the control or charge of the agents or employés of the railroad company. But when the train is chartered by the railroad company to a person who controls the train, the railroad company furnishing merely the motive power and permitting the use of its tracks, the company is then no longer a common carrier.52 Again, in the transportation under spe

Co., 23 Cal. 185, 83 Am. Dec. 89. See Roberts v. Turner, 12 Johns. (N. Y.) 232, 7 Am. Dec. 311; Hooper v. Wells, Fargo & Co., 27 Cal. 11, 85 Am. Dec. 211. 46 Memphis News Pub. Co. v. Southern Ry. Co., 110 Tenn. 684, 75 S. W. 941, 63 L. R. A. 150; Thompson-Houston Electric Co. v. Simon, 20 Or. 60, 25 Pac. 147, 10 L. R. A. 251, 23 Am. St. Rep. 86; Norway Plains Co. v. Boston & M. R. Co., 1 Gray (Mass.) 263, 61 Am. Dec. 423; Thomas v. Boston & P. R. Corp., 10 Metc. (Mass.) 472, 43 Am. Dec. 444; Root v. Great Western R. Co., 45 N. Y. 524; Fuller v. Naugatuck R. Co., 21 Conn. 557, 570; Rogers Locomotive & Machine Works v. Erie Ry. Co., 20 N. J. Eq. 379; Noyes v. Rutland & B. R. Co., 27 Vt. 110; Contra Costa Coal Mines R. Co. v. Moss, 23 Cal. 323. Railway companies are, perhaps, the most common instances of common carriers, and it would be useless to multiply citations. The railroad company is also liable as a common carrier of goods as to the baggage of its passengers. Macrow v. Railway Co., L. R. 6 Q. B. (Eng.) 612; Hannibal & St. J. R. Co. v. Swift, 12 Wall. 262, 20 L. Ed. 423.

471 Hutch. Carr. § 78; Levi v. Lynn & B. R. Co., 11 Allen (Mass.) 300, 87 Am. Dec. 713.

48 Rogers v. Wheeler, 2 Lans. (N. Y.) 486, 43 N. Y. 598; Faulkner v. Hart, 44 N. Y. Super. Ct. 471; Sprague v. Smith, 29 Vt. 421, 70 Am. Dec. 424; Beers v. Wabash, St. L. & P. R. Co. (C. C.) 34 Fed. 244; Bartlett v. Keim, 50 N. J. Law, 260, 13 Atl. 7.

49 Post, § 119.

50 Ohio & M. R. Co. v. Dunbar, 20 Ill. 623, 71 Am. Dec. 291; Central R. & Banking Co. v. Anderson, 58 Ga. 393; Fordyce v. McFlynn, 56 Ark. 424, 19 S. W. 961.

51 See, in general, as to carrier's handling a whole train, Hannibal & St. J. R. Co. v. Swift, 12 Wall. 262, 20 L. Ed. 423; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Curtis, 51 Neb. 442, 71 N. W. 42, 66 Am. St. Rep. 456; East Tennessee & G. R. Co. v. Whittle, 27 Ga. 535, 73 Am. Dec. 741.

52 East Tennessee & G. R. Co. v. Whittle, 27 Ga. 535, 73 Am. Dec. 741; Ohio & M. R. Co. v. Dunbar, 20 Ill. 624, 71 Am. Dec. 291; Kimball v. Rutland &

cial contract of special circus trains, made up of specially designed cars owned by the circus proprietor, and largely regulated by his employés, the railroad company is held not to be a common carrier. 53

The following are held not to be common carriers of goods: Sleeping and parlor car companies, since they do not control the train of which their cars are a part, but these are expressly included within the definition of common carriers under the federal Interstate Commerce Act; 55 owners of tugs and other towboats," as a rule, since they furnish only motive power and the property

B. R. Co., 26 Vt. 247, 62 Am. Dec. 567; Davis v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 45 Fed. 543; American Exp. Co. v. Ogles, 36 Tex. Civ. App. 407, 81 S. W. 1023. But see Mallory v. Tioga R. Co., 39 Barb. (N. Y.) 488; Hannibal & St. J. R. Co. v. Swift, 12 Wall. 262, 20 L. Ed. 423.

53 COUP v. WABASH, ST. L. & P. R. CO., 56 Mich. 111, 22 N. W. 215, 56 Am. Rep. 374, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 181; Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Wallace, 66 Fed. 506, 14 C. C. A. 257, 30 L. R. A. 161; Robertson v. Old Colony Ry. Co., 156 Mass. 525, 31 N. E. 650, 32 Am. St. Rep. 482. See, generally, as to the liability of a railroad hauling cars for another company, Peoria & P. Union Ry. Co. v. United States Rolling Stock Co., 136 Ill. 643, 27 N. E. 59, 29 Am. St. Rep. 348.

54 Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Smith, 73 Ill. 360, 24 Am. Rep. 258; Pullman Car Co. v. Gardner, 3 Penny. (Pa.) 78; Blum v. Southern Pullman Palace Car Co., 1 Flip. 500, Fed. Cas. No. 1,574; Woodruff Sleeping & Parlor Coach Co. v. Diehl, 84 Ind. 474, 43 Am. Rep. 102; Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Lowe, 28 Neb. 239, 44 N. W. 226, 6 L. R. A. 809, 26 Am. St. Rep. 325; Barrott v. Pullman's Palace Car Co., 51 Fed. 796; Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Freudenstein, 3 Colo. App. 540, 34 Pac. 578. See articles, 25 Am. Law Rev. 569, and 20 Am. Law Rev. 159. See "Innkeepers," ante, p. 247; "Carriers," post, p. 520.

55 Interstate Commerce Act Feb. 4, 1887, c. 104, 1, 24 Stat. 379 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3154).

56 See 1 Hutch. Carr. § 92; THE NEAFFIE, 1 Abb. (U. S.) 465, Fed. Cas. No. 10,063, 5 Myers, Fed. Dec. 19, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 179; Brown v. Clegg, 63 Pa. 51, 3 Am. Rep. 522; Hays v. Millar, 77 Pa. 238, 18 Am. Rep. 445; Leonard v. Hendrickson, 18 Pa. 40, 55 Am. Dec. 587; Hays v. Paul, 51 Pa. 134, 88 Am. Dec. 569; Wells v. Steam Nav. Co., 2 N. Y. 204, 8 N. Y. 375; Caton v. Rumney, 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 387; Alexander v. Greene, 3 Hill (N. Y.) 9; Arctic Fire Ins. Co. v. Austin, 54 Barb. (N. Y.) 559; Merrick v. Brainard, 38 Barb. (N. Y.) 574; Eastern Transp. Line v. Hope, 95 U. S. 297, 24 L. Ed. 477; The Webb, 14 Wall. 406, 20 L. Ed. 774; Varble v. Bigley, 14 Bush (Ky.) 698, 29 Am. Rep. 435; The New Philadelphia, 1 Black, 62, 17 L. Ed. 84; The Oconto, 5 Biss. 460, Fed. Cas. No. 10,421; Abbey v. The Robert L. Stevens, 22 How. Prac. (N. Y.) 78, Fed. Cas. No. 8; Wooden v. Austin, 51 Barb. (N. Y.) 9; The Margaret, 94 U. S. 494, 24 L. Ed. 146; Symonds v. Pain, 6 Hurl. & N. (Eng.) 709; The Julia, 14 Moore P. C. (Eng.) 210. But see, contra, Bussey v. Mississippi Val. Transp. Co., 24 La. Ann. 165, 13 Am. Rep. 120; Clapp v. Stanton, 20 La. Ann. 495, 96 Am. Dec. 417; Smith v. Pierce, 1 La. 349; White v. The Mary Ann, 6 Cal. 462, 65 Am. Dec. 523; Walston v. Myers, 50 N. C. 174. See, also, Ashmore v. Pennsylvania Steam Towing & Transp. Co., 28 N. J. Law, 180. In Bussey v. Mississippi Val

towed is not placed in their exclusive custody or control; telephone and telegraph companies," since they do not carry at all. So, also, log driving and booming companies 58 and agisters and drovers of cattle; postmasters, mail contractors, and carriers of the mail," their contract being with the government alone; livery stable keepers, who merely hire horses and vehicles; warehousemen and wharfingers; 2 bridge, canal, and turnpike com

62

63

64

Transp. Co., supra, it was suggested that a steam towboat might be employed in two very different ways, and that possibly this fact would explain the conflict of opinion. In the first place, it may be employed as a mere means of locomotion, under the entire control of the towed vessel, or the owner of the towed vessel and goods therein may remain in possession and control of the property thus transported, to the exclusion of the bailee, or the towing may be casual, merely, and not a regular business between fixed termini; and it might well be said that, under such circumstances, a towboat is not the common carrier. But a second and quite different method of employing a towboat is where she plies regularly between the fixed termini, towing for hire, and for all persons, barges laden with goods, and taking into her full possession and control, and out of the control of the bailor, the property thus transported. Such a case seems to satisfy every requirement in the definition of a common carrier.

57 Breese v. United States Tel. Co., 48 N. Y. 132, 8 Am. Rep. 526; Hibbard v. Western Union Tel. Co., 33 Wis. 558, 14 Am. Rep. 775; Grinnell v. Western Union Tel. Co., 113 Mass. 299, 18 Am. Rep. 485; Marr v. Western Union Tel. Co., 85 Tenn. 529, 3 S. W. 496; Fowler v. Western Union Tel. Co., 80 Me. 381, 15 Atl. 29, 6 Am. St. Rep. 211. But see Central Union Telephone Co. v. Bradbury, 106 Ind. 1, 5 N. E. 721; Gwynn v. Citizens' Tel. Co., 69 S. C. 434, 48 S. E. 460, 67 L. R. A. 111, 104 Am. St. Rep. 819; Pacific Tel. Co. v. Underwood, 37 Neb. 315, 55 N. W. 1057, 40 Am. St. Rep. 490. These are common carriers under the Interstate Commerce Act (Act Feb. 4, 1887, c. 104, 24 Stat. 379 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3154]) § 1. See Johnson on Interstate Commerce (2d Ed.) § 133.

58 Mann v. White R. L. & B. Co., 46 Mich. 38, 8 N. W. 550, 41 Am. Rep. 141. 591 Hutch. Carr. § 99; Story, Bailm. § 443.

60 Lane v. Cotton, 1 Ld. Raym. (Eng.) 646; Dunlop v. Munroe, 7 Cranch, 242, 3 L. Ed. 329; Wiggins v. Hathaway, 6 Barb. (N. Y.) 632; Schroyer v. Lynch, 8 Watts (Pa.) 453; Central R. & Banking Co. v. Lampley, 76 Ala. 357, 52 Am. Rep. 334; Boston Ins. Co. v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 118 Iowa, 423, 92 N. W. 88, 59 L. R. A. 796; BANKERS' MUT. CASUALTY CO. v. MINNEAPOLIS, ST. P. & S. S. M. R. CO., 117 Fed. 434, 54 C. C. A. 608, 65 L. R. A. 397, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 267; Id., 187 U. S. 648, 23 Sup. Ct. 847, 47 L. Ed. 348.

61 COPELAND v. DRAPER, 157 Mass. 558, 32 N. E. 944, 19 L. R. A. 283, 34 Am. St. Rep. 314, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 25; Stanley v Steele, 77 Conn. 688, 60 Atl. 640, 69 L. R. A. 561, 2 Ann. Cas. 342.

62 Chattock v. Bellamy, 64 L J. Q. B. (Eng.) 250; Schloss v. Wood, 11 Colo. 287, 17 Pac. 910; 1 Hutch. Carr. § 71.

63 Kentucky & I. Bridge Co. v. Louisville & N. R. Co. (C. C.) 37 Fed. 567, 616; Grigsby v. Chappell, 5 Rich. Law (S. C.) 443.

64 Exchange Fire Ins. Co. v. Delaware & H. Canal Co., 10 Bosw. (N. Y.) 180; Pennsylvania Canal Co. v. Burd, 90 Pa. 281; Watts v. Canal Co., 64 Ga. 88.

panies, which furnish a thoroughfare by means of which others transport goods, but which are not themselves engaged in transportation; irrigation companies, which merely furnish water for irrigation pur

poses.

65 Lake Superior & M. R. Co. v. United States, 93 U. S. 442, 444, 23 L. Ed. 965.

66 Wyatt v. Larimer & W. Irr. Co., 1 Colo. App. 480, 29 Pac. 906.

108.

109.

110. 111.

112.

113.

114.

115.

CHAPTER X

LIABILITIES OF THE COMMON CARRIER OF GOODS

Introductory Outline.

Duty to Carry for All.

Duty Coextensive with the Holding Out.

Duty Limited by the Extent of the Carrier's Facilities.
Duty Limited by the Nature or Condition of the Goods.

Duty Limited by the Carrier's Right to Demand Payment in Ad

vance.

Duty Limited to an Offer of the Goods by the Owner or His Agent. Duty to Furnish Equal Facilities to All.

116. Liability for Loss of, or Damage to, the Goods.

117.

118.

119.

Liability as Affected by the Carrier's Negligence.
Burden of Proof.

Carriers of Live Stock.

120. The Harter Act as to Carriers by Water-Limited Liability Act.
121. Carrier's Liability for Deviation and Delay-Deviation.
121.

Delay.

INTRODUCTORY OUTLINE

108. The most important liabilities imposed by law upon the common carrier of goods are:

(a) His duty to carry for all.

(b) His duty to furnish equal facilities to all.

(c) His liability for loss of, or damage to, the goods. (d) His liability for deviation and delay.

Mention has been made in several places of the common carrier of goods as one of the extraordinary bailees, and in the last chapter the nature of the relation and its distinctive features have been brought out. The rights and liabilities incident to the relation would seem to be next in order. The present chapter will be devoted solely to a discussion of the liabilities of the common carrier of goods, when these are neither enlarged nor diminished by special agreement. The common carrier's liability under special contract will be the subject of chapter XI, while chapter XII will discuss the somewhat unique rights which are possessed by the common carrier of goods as a partial return, at least, for the unusual liabilities imposed on him by the common law.