printed in the bill of lading, even though the shipper's attention was not called to it, if it appears that he had previously shipped like articles and taken like bills of lading.1 When the bill of lading says: "The company will not be responsible for any goods missent, unless they are consigned to a station on the railway," the company are not liable for any loss beyond, if they have duly forwarded from their own terminus.2 The liability of a railroad company is effectually limited to its own line by stipulating, that when goods are directed to consignees beyond its line, delivery by it shall be complete and its responsibility cease, when the subsequent carriers receive notice that it is ready to deliver the goods to them for further conveyance.3 In Wisconsin a company may limit its liability to its own line of road by express contract and so exonerate itself from the default or negligence of other carriers on the route. This may be accomplished by conditions printed on the back of the bill of lading and referred to on the face thus: "Subject to their tariff and under the conditions stated on the other side." A carrier in Massachusetts may effectually limit his liability to his own route by stipulating that delivering to other parties to complete the transportation should terminate all liability of the carrier himself for the property intrusted to him. In Kansas a carrier may provide by contract that his liability shall not extend beyond his own line. The Supreme Court of Illinois says, that while it is true that a railroad may restrict its liability to its own line, it cannot be denied that it may extend its liability beyond its own line." § 341. In England, the first carrier, in order to claim exemption under a contract limiting his liability to his own line, must show that the goods were delivered uninjured into the hands of another carrier. 1 E. T., Va. & Ga. R. R. Co. v. Brumley, 5 Lea (Tenn.), 401; Louisville, etc., R. R. v. Meyer, 78 Ala. 597. Chartier v. G. T. Ry. Co., 17 Low. Can. Jur. 26. 5 Pendergast v. Adams Exp. Co., 101 Mass. 120. Berg v. A. T. & St. F. R. R. Co., 30 Kans. 561. 7 St. L. & I. M. R. R. Co. v. 3 Rennie v. Northern Ry. Co., 27 Larned, 103 Ill. 293. U. C. C. P. 153. 8 Kent v. Midland R. Co., 10 Q. 4 D. & M. R. R. Co. v. F. & M. B. 1. Bank, 20 Wis. 122. CHAPTER XXIV. LIABILITY OF INTERMEDIATE CARRIERS UNDER A "THROUGH" BILL OF LADING. An intermediate carrier must deliver to the next succeeding carrier, § 342. The carrier in possession of the goods when destroyed is liable to the shipper, § 343. Such a carrier may show in defence the misconduct of the preceding carrier, § 344. Effect of several carriers being associated for through transportation, $345. To hold final carrier for injury to goods shipped, delivery to first car- Goods shipped in good condition are § 342. In the absence of any special agreement or custom which enters into the contract, where goods are delivered to the carrier for transportation directed to a point beyond the terminus of his route, between which and the place of destination of the goods there are other succeeding connecting lines of transportation, the intermediate carrier is bound to transport the goods safely to the end of his route and deliver them to the next carrier on the route beyond. In such case he is not relieved from his liability as insurer of the goods by simply unloading them at the end of his route and storing them in a warehouse, without delivery or notice or any attempt to deliver to the next carrier. In Ladue v. Griffith, Mr. Justice SMITH said: "While goods are in the process of transportation from the place of their receipt to the place of destination it will never do in this country, in my opinion, to subject them in the hands of any carrier, or by his act or order, to the responsibilities of a mere warehouseman." In Sherman v. Hudson Irish v. M. & St. P. R. R. Co., 2 11 Smith (25 N. Y.), 364. 19 Minn. 376. River R. Co.,1 Mr. Justice EARL, said: "In the case of transportation of property over several railroads constituting a continuous line, none of the roads can be said to be agents of the owner. Each is exercising an independent employment and is contractor - with the owner, the contract being either express or such as the law implies. Each is responsible for its own negligence." § 343. The general rule may therefore be stated to be that when goods are shipped to be transferred to successive carriers, the carrier in whose possession they are when destroyed or injured is liable to the owner or consignee for the loss and in the absence of custom or contract to the contrary, an intermediate carrier is not liable for the injuries received before or after the goods were in his possession.2 § 344. A carrier may show, in defence to an action for a loss of goods, any injury, loss, fraud, or deceit occasioned or practised by any previous carrier or by the shipper of the goods.3 Thus proof of negligent delay by the second carrier, without which the injury would not have happened, would be a complete defence in an action for damages arising from alleged delay of the first carrier when the delay happened after 164 N. Y. 254. 2 Packard v. Taylor, 35 Ark. 402; Conkey v. Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co., 31 Wisc. 619; Hooper v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 27 ib. 81; Lowenburg v. Jones, 56 Miss. 688; Sumner v. Southern R. R. Assn., 7 Baxter (Tenn.), 345; E. Tenn. & Ga. R. R. v. Nelson, 1 Coldwell (Tenn.), 272; Rome R. R. Co. v. Sullivan, 25 Ga. 228; Bryant v. Southwestern R. R. Co., 68 ib. 805; South. Exp. Co. v. Thornton, 41 Miss. 216; The Convoy's Wheat, 3 Wallace, 225; Lesinsky v. Great Western Dispatch, 10 Mo. App. Rep. 134; Carson v. Harris, 4 Greene (Iowa), 516; Hill v. B. C. R. & N. R. Co., 60 Iowa, 196; Bissel v. Price, 16 Ill. 408; Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Cowles, 32 ib. 116; McMillian v. M. S. & N. I. R. R. Co., 16 Mich. 79; Rogers v. Wheeler, 6 Lansing (N. Y.), 420; Babcock v. L. S. M. S. R. R. Co., 49 N. Y. 491; Goold v. Chapin, 10 Barb. (N. Y.) 612; Northrop v. S. B. & N. Y. R. R. Co., 3 Abb. Dec. 386; Rawson v. Holland, 59 N. Y. 611; Canfield v. Northern R. R. Co., 18 Barb. (N. Y.) 586; Root v. Grt. Western R. R. Co., 45 N. Y. 525; Smith v. N. Y. C. R. R. Co., 43 Barb. (N.Y.) 225; Packard v. Taylor, 35 Ark. 402; Knott v. Raleigh, etc., R. Co., 98 N. C. 73; Wallingford v. Columbia, etc., R. Co., 26 S. Car. 258; Wernwag v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 117 Pa. St. 46; Independence Mills Co. v. Burlington, etc., R. Co., 72 Iowa, 535; Harris v. Grand Trunk Ry., 15 R. I. 371. 3 G. W. R. R. Co. v. McDonald, 18 Ill. 172; Hill v. B. C. R. & N. R. R. Co., 60 Iowa, 196. delivery to the second. So where goods were carried first by a steamship company and then by a railroad company and the latter was sued for damage to the goods, it was held that if the jury were satisfied that there was no connection between the railroad company and the steamship company and that the goods were damaged by the latter and not by the former, the former was not liable. In Southern Express Co. v. Urquharts goods were lost by the second carrier. There was no proof of the terms on which they were carried either by the first or by the second carrier. It was held that the owner might adopt the act of the first carrier, treat his delivery of the goods as authorized and sue the second carrier on his implied undertaking as a common carrier,—his liability as such being presumed in the absence of proof to the contrary. In Wright v. N. C. R. R. Co., a second carrier on receiving goods, omitted certain directions from its manifest and the goods were lost. The company was held liable for its mistake. Where, however, goods are damaged in the hands of the first carrier and the second carrier, knowing this fact and intending to aid in concealing it, gives the first carrier a clean bill of lading, he will not be allowed to show that they were damaged when he received them in order to avoid the payment of the damages. § 345. Where several common carriers are associated to form a continuous line and each is empowered to contract for freight and passengers for the whole line and to receive pay for the same, which is to be divided in prescribed proportions, they are jointly liable for losses upon any part of the line Mich. 6. 1 M. C. R. R. Co. v. Burrows, 33 Freight Line, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 1; F. & W. R. R. Co. v. Hanna, 6 Gray (72 Mass.), 539; Baltimore, etc., Steamboat Co. v. Brown, 54 Pa. · 77; Railroad Co. v. Androscoggin 2 M. & W. R. R. Co. v. Moore, 51 Ala. 394. 3 52 Ga. 142. 8 Phila. 19; O'Rourke v. The C. Mills, 22 Wall. 594; Railroad Co. v. B. & Q. R. Co., 44 Iowa, 526. Bowman v. Kennedy (S. C. of Pa.), 1 Am. Law Reg. (O. S.) 119. • Barter v. Wheeler, 10 Am. Law Reg. (N. S.) 194; 49 N. H. 9; Block v. Erie & North Shore Despatch Fast Pratt, ib. 123; Citizens Insurance Co. v. The Kountz Line, 4 Wood's Rep. 268; Bostwick v. Champion, 11 Wend. (N. Y.) 571; Champion v. Bostwick, 18 ib. 175; Briggs v. Vanderbilt, 19 Barb. (N. Y.) 222; Hart v. Rens and if an association of common carriers agrees to guarantee all the bills of lading, each company is bound by a bill of lading issued by any one of them.1 § 346. Where goods are delivered to a common carrier to be carried by a series of connecting lines to the point of destination and the goods are delivered in a damaged condition to the consignee, the shipper must show in an action against the last carrier that the goods were delivered in good condition to the first carrier. The last carrier must then show affirmatively that the goods were not injured on his line. The presumption is that the goods continue in the condition in which they were when the shipper parted with them." § 347. In Shriver v. S. C. & St. P. R. R. Co., it appeared that two slabs of marble carried over four railroads arrived broken and the owner sued the last road. The court held that "where goods pass over a line of several different carriers, the jury, there being no direct evidence to the contrary, may presume that they reached the last carrier in the same condition as when delivered to the first." In Laughlin v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co., certain boxes of goods were transported by three successive carriers and on final delivery it was found that one had been broken open and part of the contents stolen. Suit was brought against the last carrier. The court held that the jury might presume, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the boxes remained unopened until they came into the possession of the last carrier and that the loss happened selaer, etc., R. R. Co., 8 N. Y. 37; Gass v. New York, etc., R. R. Co., 99 Mass. 220; Converse v. Norwich, etc., Transp. Co., 33 Conn. 166; Ellsworth v. Tartt, 26 Ala. 733; Montgomery, etc., R. R. v. Moore, 51 ib. 394; Wilson v. Chesapeake, etc., R., 21 Gratt. (Va.) 654; Schulter v. Adams Exp. Co., 6 Cent. L. J. 175; Gill v. Manchester, etc., Ry., L. R. 8 Q. B. 186. 1 Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Wilkens, 44 Md. 11. 2 Smith v. N. Y. C. R. R. Co., 43 Barbour (N. Y.), 225; Livingston v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co., 5 Hun (N. Y.), 562; Harp v. The Grand Era, 1 Wood's Rep. 185; Georgia R. R. Co. v. Gann, 68 Ga. 350; M. & W. P. R. R. Co. v. Moore, 51 Ala. 394; Southern Exp. Co. v. Hess, 53 ib. 19; Leo v. St. P. M. & M. Ry. Co., 30 Minn. 438; Brintnall ». Saratoga & W. R. R. Co., 32 Vt. 665. 24 Minn. 506. |