ject, however, is our Interstate Commerce Act, enacted in 1887, amended with more and more strict provisions, until it now insists upon absolute equality of all rates to shippers." What this act has done in the field of interstate commerce, state statutes have done for intrastate commerce." Commissions, too, have been created to enforce the provisions of these statutes, which have been rigidly enforced. The expediency, the necessity, and the innate justice of these statutes have been amply proved by experience.

THE CARRIER'S LIEN

149. A common carrier has a lien for his proper charges on goods received from one who had authority to deliver them for transportation.

In General

Since the common carrier of goods, like the innkeeper, must serve all persons who apply, the carrier is given adequate methods of insuring the payment of his charges. Accordingly, as in the case of the innkeeper, the carrier may demand payment in advance (as we have seen),67 and he has also a lien on the goods carried to secure the payment of his compensation. This lien is governed by

65 See particularly sections 2 and 3 of the act (Act Feb. 4, 1887, c. 104, 24 Stat. 379, 380 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3155]). For brief résumé of the provisions of these sections, see Supplement, post, p. 687. For discussions of section 2 of the act, see 2 Hutch. Carr. §§ 535-550; Judson on Interstate Commerce (2d Ed.) §§ 192-226. As to section 3 of the act, see 2 Hutch. Carr. $$ 551-568; Judson on Interstate Commerce, §§ 227-287.

66 See, on this subject, 2 Hutch. on Carr. §§ 574-601. Such state legislation is, of course, limited to shipments wholly within the state. Wabash, St. L. & P. R. Co. v Illinois, 118 U. S. 557, 7 Sup. Ct. 4, 30 L. Ed. 244; Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, 154 U. S. 457, 155 U. S. 3, 14 Sup. Ct. 1125, 15 Sup. Ct. 19, 38 L. Ed. 1047, 39 L. Ed. 49; Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co. v. Minnesota ex rel. Railroad & W. Commission, 186 U. S. 257, 22 Sup. Ct. 900, 46 L. Ed. 1151. State statutes can prevent discrimination, not only as to persons but as to localities within the same state. Cohn v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co., 181 Mo. 30, 79 S. W. 961. For instructive cases dealing with the construction of state statutes regulating rates, see Railroad Commission of Texas v. Weld, 95 Tex. 278, 66 S. W. 1095; McGrew v Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 114 Mo. 210, 21 S. W. 463; Conn v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 51 S. W. 617, 21 Ky. Law Rep. 469; Corporation Commission v. Seaboard Air Line System, 127 N. C. 283, 37 S. E. 266; State ex rel. Attorney General v. Pensacola & A. R. Co., 27 Fla. 403, 9 South. 89.

67 Ante, §§ 113, 147.

68 Skinner v. Upshaw, 2 Ld. Raym. (Eng.) 752; Lambert v. Robinson, 1 Esp. (Eng.) 119; Galena & C. U. R. Co. v. Rae, 18 Ill. 488, 68 Am. Dec. 574;

the same principles applicable to liens in general, and, for the reasons just indicated, it is even more similar to the lien of the innkeeper.

Like other liens, the lien of the carrier is a personal privilege, and therefore it cannot be assigned to another person." The lien is not lost, however, by the carrier's turning the goods over to a warehouseman to be stored, until the carrying charges are paid.70 For, in such cases, the warehouseman is merely the agent of the carrier, and his possession is treated as the possession of the carrier.

71

The carrier's lien is a special lien, and not a general lien, in the absence of an express contract, long-continued usage, or statute to that effect. The lien, therefore, covers only the carrier's charges on the goods to which the lien attaches. The carrier cannot hold the goods to enforce the payment of a general balance arising out of a series of similar shipments.

The special lien of the carrier for transportation charges on the specific articles to which it attaches is prior to the rights of either the buyer or seller, or the creditors of either.72 The carrier therefore may, as against any of these, insist upon retaining possession of the goods until those charges are paid."3 But a sheriff, holding

Wilson v. Grand Trunk Ry. of Canada, 56 Me. 60, 96 Am. Dec. 435; Miami Powder Co. v. Port Royal & W. C. Ry. Co., 38 S. C. 78, 16 S. E. 339, 21 L. R. A. 123; Warehouse & Builders' Supply Co. v. Galvin, 96 Wis. 523, 71 N. W. 804, 65 Am. St. Rep. 57; Kawcabany v. Boston & M. R. R., 199 Mass. 586, 85 N. E. 846; BOGGS v. MARTIN, 13 B. Mon. (Ky.) 239, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 260. The right and title of a shipper of goods is subordinate to the carrier's lien for its charges. Watson & Pittinger v. Hoboken Planing Mills Co., 156 App. Div. 8, 140 N. Y. Supp. 822.

69 Lempriere v. Pasley, 2 Term R. (Eng.) 485; Dewell v. Moxon, 1 Taunt. (Eng.) 391. Ames v. Palmer, 42 Me. 197, 66 Am. Dec. 271; Everett v. Saltus, 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 474; Rosencranz v. Swofford Bros. Dry Goods Co., 175 Mo. 518, 75 S. W. 445, 97 Am. St. Rep. 609.

70 Western Transp. Co. v. Barber, 56 N. Y. 544; Compton v. Shaw, 1 Hun (N. Y.) 441; Alden v. Carver, 13 Iowa, 253, 81 Am. Dec. 430; Brittan v. Barnaby, 21 How. 527, 16 L. Ed. 177; The Eddy, 5 Wall. 481, 18 L. Ed. 486.

71 Leonard's Ex'rs v. Winslow, 2 Grant Cas. (Pa.) 139; Bacharach v. Chester Freight Line, 133 Pa. 414, 19 Atl. 409; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. American Oil Works, 126 Pa. 485, 17 Atl. 671, 12 Am. St. Rep. 885; Bartlett v. Carnley, 6 Duer (N. Y.) 194; Rushforth v. Hadfield, 6 East (Eng.) 519; Butler v. Woolcott, 2 Bos. & P. N. R. (Eng.) 64; Richardson v. Goss, 3 Bos. & P. (Eng.) 119; Atlas S. S. Co. v. Columbian Land Co., 102 Fed. 358, 42 C. C. A. 398; Farrell v. Richmond & D. R. Co., 102 N. C. 390, 9 S. E. 302, 3 L. R. A. 647, 11 Am. St. Rep. 760.

72 Santa Fé Pac. R. Co. v. Bossut, 10 N. M. 322, 62 Pac. 977; Cooley v. Minnesota Transfer Ry. Co., 53 Minn. 327, 55 N. W. 141, 39 Am. St. Rep. 609; Campbell v. Conner, 70 N. Y. 424; Watson & Pittinger v. Hoboken Planing Mills Co., 156 App. Div. 8, 140 N. Y. Supp. 822.

78 Pennsylvania R. Co. v. American Oil Works, 126 Pa. 485, 17 Atl. 671,

an execution against the buyer, may lawfully advance these charges to the carrier on taking possession of the goods, and, having so advanced them, is substituted to all the carrier's rights of possession as security therefor." The carrier's lien likewise is paramount to the seller's right of stoppage in transitu, and the seller, exercising this right, must, before he can take possession of the goods, pay the carrier his charges secured by the lien."

The whole lien attaches to each and every part of the goods subject to it. If not discharged or waived, it remains attached, as security for the carrier's unpaid charges, to whatever part of the goods may remain within the possession of the carrier." If, however, goods belonging to different owners are shipped by one bill of lading, the carrier cannot hold the goods of one for the charges upon the goods of the other. Each owner is entitled to his goods on the payment of the charges for the transportation of the goods of which he is the owner."

On What Goods

A common carrier's lien will attach to all kinds of goods that are carried. Thus, the carrier of passengers being responsible, as a common carrier of goods, for the baggage of a passenger, and the transportation of the baggage being a part of the service for which the fare is charged, the carrier has a lien on this baggage." But this lien does not extend to the clothing or other personal articles of the passenger, in his immediate use or actual possession." 12 Am. St. Rep. 885; Potts v. New York & N. E. R. Co., 131 Mass. 455, 41 Am. Rep. 247; Rucker v. Donovan, 13 Kan. 251, 19 Am. Rep. 84; Newhall v. Vargas, 15 Me. 314, 33 Am. Dec. 617; Oppenheim v. Russell, 3 Bos. & P. (Eng.) 42; Morley v. Hay, 3 Man. & R. (Eng.) 396; Pennsylvania Steel Co. v. Georgia Railroad & Banking Co., 94 Ga. 636, 21 S. E. 577.

74 Rucker v. Donovan, 13 Kan. 251, 19 Am. Rep. 84; Potts v. New York & N. E. R. Co., 131 Mass. 455, 41 Am. Rep. 247.

75 Hays v. Mouille, 14 Pa. 48; Potts v. New York & N. E. R. Co., 131 Mass. 455, 41 Am. Rep. 247; Pennsylvania Steel Co. v. Georgia Railroad & Banking Co., 94 Ga. 636, 21 S. E. 577; Oppenheim v. Russell, 3 Bos. & P. (Eng.) 42.

76 Ware River R. Co. v. Vibbard, 114 Mass. 447; Lane v. Old Colony & F. R. R. Co., 14 Gray (Mass.) 143; New Haven & Northampton Co. v. Campbell, 128 Mass. 104, 35 Am. Rep. 360; Potts v. New York & N. E. R. Co., 131 Mass. 455, 41 Am. Rep. 247; New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. v. Davis, 158 N. Y. 674, 52 N. E. 1125; Jeffris v. Fitchburg R. Co., 93 Wis. 250, 67 N. W. 424, 33 L. R. A. 351, 57 Am. St. Rep. 919; BOGGS v. MARTIN, 13 B. Mon. (Ky.) 239, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 260; Dixon v. Central of Georgia Ry. Co., 110 Ga. 173, 35 S. E. 369.

77 Hale v. Barrett, 26 Ill. 195, 79 Am. Dec. 367.

78 Angell, Carr. § 375; 3 Hutch. Carr. § 1303; Wolf v. Summers, 2 Camp. (Eng.) 631; Roberts v. Koehler (C. C.) 30 Fed. 94.

79 Ramsden v. Boston & A. R. Co., 104 Mass. 117, 121, 6 Am. Rep. 200; Roberts v. Koehler (C. C.) 30 Fed. 94.

A carrier has a lien for his charges even on property of the United States, as well as on the property of an individual.80

No Lien When Goods are Received from One Having No Authority to Ship Them

To justify a lien upon goods for their freight, the relation of debtor and creditor must exist between the owner and the carrier, so that an action at law might be maintained for the payment of the debt secured by the lien. When, however, the owner has, by his own voluntary acts, clothed the sender with an apparent authority to act for him, then the doctrine of authority by estoppel applies, and the carrier can look to the owner for his reasonable charges, and he has, further, a lien on the goods to secure the payment of these charges.82 The carrier, in proving the authority of the person offering the goods for shipment, may make use of such evidence as is usually applied to cases of agency generally.""

84

Although the rule seems to be otherwise in England, in this country a carrier has no lien on goods delivered for transportation by one who is a wrongdoer, and who has no authority to deliver the goods to the carrier." This works no great hardship on the common carrier, since he is bound to receive and carry goods only when offered for carriage by their owner or his authorized agent, and

80 Union Pac. R. Co. v. U. S., 2 Wyo. 170; United States v. Wilder, 3 Sumn. 308; Fed. Cas. No. 16,694; The Davis, 10 Wall. 15, 19 L. Ed. 875.

81 Fitch v. Newberry, 1 Doug. (Mich.) 1, 40 Am. Dec. 33. This follows, since the lien is merely coextensive with the carrier's right to recover the charges which the lien secures.

822 Hutch. Carr. § 885; Vaughan v. Providence & W. R. Co., 13 R. I. 578; Hahl v. Laux, 42 Tex. Civ. App. 182, 93 S. W. 1080. See, also, Hoffman v. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co., 125 Mich. 201, 84 N. W. 55.

83 Vaughan v. Providence & W. R. Co., 13 R. I. 578; Schneider v. Evans, 25 Wis. 241, 265, 3 Am. Rep. 56; Mallory `v. Burrett, 1 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 234. See, also, York Mfg. Co. v. Illinois C. R. Co., 3 Wall. 107, 18 L. Ed. 170. 84 Yorke v. Grenaugh, 2 Ld. Raym. 866, 867; 4 Halsbury, Laws of England, § 154, p. 92.

85 Savannah, F. & W. R. Co. v. Talbot, 123 Ga. 378, 51 S. E. 401, 3 Ann. Cas. 1092; Van Buskirk v. Purinton, 2 Hall (N. Y.) 601; Collman v. Collins, 2 Hall. (N. Y.) 609; Fitch v. Newberry, 1 Doug. (Mich.) 1, 40 Am. Dec. 33; Robinson v. Baker, 5 Cush. (Mass.) 137, 51 Am. Dec. 54; Stevens v. Boston & W. R. Corp., 8 Gray (Mass.) 262; Clark v. Lowell & L. R. Co., 9 Gray (Mass.) 231; Gilson v. Gwinn, 107 Mass. 126, 9 Am. Rep. 13; Bassett v. Spofford, 45 N. Y. 387, 6 Am. Rep. 101; Marsh v. Union Pac. R. Co. (C. C.) 3 McCrary, 236, 9 Fed. 873. Common carrier, taking property from person not authorized to direct its shipment, has no lien thereon for his services, and no right to retain the property. Pingree v. Detroit, L. & N. R. Co., 66 Mich. 143, 33 N. W. 298, 11 Am. St. Rep. 479. One who carries property for the convenience and at the request of a bailee thereof has no lien thereon for services, as against owner. Gilson v. Gwinn, 107 Mass. 126, 9 Am. Rep. 13.

he can always insist on payment for the carriage of the goods in advance. What has already been said, in discussing the innkeeper's lien, of the spirit of our jurisprudence as prohibiting the creation of hostile rights in the property of an owner, without his consent, express or implied, is equally applicable here."

For What Charges

A carrier's lien covers all charges rightfully due for transportation of the goods to which the lien attaches. 87 It covers also charges for freight which the carrier holding the goods has advanced to preceding carriers, unless the last of the connecting carriers had notice from the bill of lading, or otherwise, that the other carriers had been prepaid. A carrier's lien on baggage is held to cover charges for carrying the owner as a passenger.” On these points there is general agreement among the authorities. The earlier cases favored the limitation of the carrier's lien strict

se Ante, p. 288. See, also, 2 Hutch. Carr. §§ 883, 884.

87 Barker v. Havens, 17 Johns. (N. Y.) 234, 8 Am. Dec. 393; Clarkson v. Edes, 4 Cow. (N. Y.) 470; Langworthy v. New York & H. R. R. Co., 2 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 195; Western Transp. Co. v. Hoyt, 69 N. Y. 230, 25 Am. Rep. 175; Bowman v. Hilton, 11 Ohio, 303; Wilson v. Grand Trunk Ry. of Canada, 56 Me. 60, 96 Am. Dec. 435; Lickbarrow v. Mason, 2 Term R. (Eng.) 63. And see Bacharach v. Chester Freight Line, 133 Pa. 414, 19 Atl. 409; Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Shackelford, 5 Ga. App. 395, 63 S. E. 252; Kawcabany v. Boston & M. R. R., 199 Mass. 586, 85 N. E. 846.

88 Potts v. New York & N. E. R. Co., 131 Mass. 455, 41 Am. Rep. 247; Briggs v. Boston & L. R. Co., 6 Allen (Mass.) 246, 83 Am. Dec. 626; Crossan v. New York & N. E. R. Co., 149 Mass. 196, 21 N. E. 367, 3 L. R. A. 766, 14 Am. St. Rep. 408; Galena & C. U. R. Co. v. Rae, 18 Ill. 488, 68 Am. Dec. 574; Union Exp. Co. v. Shoop, 85 Pa. 325; Schneider v. Evans, 25 Wis. 241, 3 Am. Rep. 56; White v. Vann, 6 Humph. (Tenn.) 70, 44 Am. Dec. 294; Wells v. Thomas, 27 Mo. 17, 72 Am. Dec. 228; Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. v. Murrah, 85 Ga. 343, 11 S. E. 779; Bird v. Georgia R. R., 72 Ga. 655; Knight v. Providence & W. R. Co., 13 R. I. 572, 43 Am. Rep. 46; Wolf v. Hough, 22 Kan. 659; Travis v. Thompson, 37 Barb. (N. Y.) 236; Hoffman v. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co., 125 Mich. 201, 84 N. W. 55; Thomas v. Frankfort & C. R. Co., 116 Ky. 879. 76 S. W. 1093, 25 Ky. Law Rep. 1051; THE VIRGINIA v. KRAFT, 25 Mo. 76, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 262. See, also, Caye v. Pool's Assignee, 108 Ky. 124, 55 S. W. 887, 49 L. R. A. 251, 94 Am. St. Rep. 348.

89 Marsh v. Union Pac. R. Co. (C. C.) 3 McCrary, 236, 9 Fed. 873; Converse Bridge Co. v. Collins, 119 Ala. 534, 24 South. 561. A railroad company receiving goods from a connecting line has a lien for the freight charges, but only to the extent of the contract price as set forth in the bill of lading; and, if it claims a lien for a larger sum, it does so at its own peril. Beasley v. Baltimore & P. R. Co., 27 App. D. C. 595, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1048. Nor is the lien of the last carrier lost, owing to the default of the previous carrier. Thomas v. Frankfort & C. R. Co., 116 Ky. 879, 76 S. W. 1093, 25 Ky. Law Rep. 1051. 90 See ante, note 78.