the defendants, as such common carriers, and the defendants received from the said Messrs. F. & M. ten hampers of cod, to house, or receiving house of such common carrier, or to his book-keeper, coachman, or other servant, for the purpose of being carried or of accompanying the person of any passenger, the value and nature of such articles shall have been declared by the person sending or delivering the same, and the increased charge hereinafter mentioned, or an engagement to pay the same, be accepted by the person receiving such parcel or package. Sect. 2 authorises the demand of an increased rate of charge for such articles, notified by a notice publicly affixed in the carrier's office, which all persons sending parcels are to be bound by without further proof of the same having come to their knowledge. Sect. 3 provides "That when the value shall have been so declared, and the increased rate of charge paid, or an engagement to pay the same shall have been accepted, as hereinbefore mentioned, the person receiving such increased rate of charge or accepting such agreement, shall, if thereto required, sign a receipt for the package or parcel acknowledging the same to have been insured, which receipt shall not be liable to any stamp duty, and if such receipt shall not be given when required, or such notice as aforesaid shall not have been affixed, the " carrier "shall not have or be entitled to any benefit or advantage under this Act, but shall be liable and responsible as at the common law, and be liable to refund the increased rate of charge." By sect. 4, no public notice or declaration heretofore made, or hereafter to be made, shall be deemed or construed to limit or in anywise affect the liability at common law of any such public common carriers in respect of any articles of goods to be carried by them; but all such common carriers shall be liable, as at the common law, to answer for the loss of or injury to any articles and goods in respect whereof they may not be entitled to the benefit of the Act, any public notice or declaration by them made and given contrary thereto, or in anywise limiting such liability, notwithstanding. By sect. 5, for the purposes of the Act, every office, warehouse, or receiving house, used or appointed by such common carrier, for receiving parcels shall be taken to be the receiving house or office of such carrier; and any one or more carriers may be sued without joining their coproprietors. By sect. 6, nothing in the Act shall be construed to annul or affect any special contract between such common carrier and any other parties for the conveyance of goods and merchandises. By sect. 7, a person who has insured, as above, may recover back the extra charge as well as the value of the goods lost or damaged. By sect. 8, nothing in the Act shall be deemed to protect any common carrier for hire from liability to answer for loss or injury to any goods whatsoever arising from the felonious acts of any coachman, guard, bookkeeper, porter, or other servant in his employ, nor to protect any such coachman, &c., from liability for any loss or injury occasioned by his own personal neglect or misconduct. By sect. 9, common carriers shall be liable to pay only the actual value, as proved, not exceeding the declared value, together with the increased charges paid by the owner. Contracts to carry partly by land and partly by sea are divisible, and as to the land journey, the carrier is within the protection of the above Act. (Le Conteur v. London and South-Western Railw. Co., L. R. 1 Q. B. 54; Baxendale v. Great Eastern Railw. Co., L. R. 4 Q. B. 244, Ex. Ch.) be by them safely and securely carried to M., and there, within Against a reasonable time, delivered to the plaintiff. It was held that a packed waggon sent for carriage by the defendants is a parcel or package under the 1st section of the above Act. (Whaite v. Lancashire & Yorkshire Railw. Co., L. R. 9 Ex. 67.) So the frame of a picture as being accessory to the picture itself. (Henderson v. London and South Western Railn. Co., L. R. 5 Ex. 90.) Where a packing case contains articles some within the statute and some not, the value of the case and of the articles not within the statute may be recovered, though the statute has not been complied with as regards the articles within the statute. (Treadwin v. Great Eastern Railw. Co., L. R. 3 C. P. 308.) Where the plaintiff sent a valuable picture by railway and declared its nature and value at the time of its delivery for carriage, and the company did not demand any increased rate to which they were entitled under section 2 of the above Act, and only the ordinary charge was paid, the carrier was held not protected by the statute for an injury to the picture during the journey. (Behrens v. Great Northern Railw. Co., 7 H. & N. 950, 953; 31 L. J. Ex. 299, 300.) The fact of a thing having been long delayed but not lost is not within the statute, and therefore such delay occasioning damage is actionable, though the things are not sent pursuant to the statute. (Hearn v. London and South Western Railw. Co., 10 Ex. 793; 24 L. J. Ex. 180.) Since the passing of this Act, if articles mentioned in section 1 are sent without declaring their value, carriers who have complied with the requirements of the Act, are not liable for a loss even though occasioned by gross negligence on the part of their servants, or semble of themselves. (Hinton v. Debbin, 2 Q. B. 646.) Wilful misfeasance would however render them liable (ibid). carrier for nondelivery and late delivery. What articles are and what are not within the Act. Carriers not protected where delay ground of action. In an action against carriers for loss, where the value has not been Evidence declared, on the ground that the goods were stolen by the carrier's ser- of loss by vants, it is not necessary that the plaintiff should prove that any par- felonious ticular servant had stolen them. (Vaughton v. London & North-Western act. Rail. Co., L. R. 9 Ex. 93; see also Kirkstale Brewery Co. v. Furness Rail. Co., L. R. 9 Q. B. 468. beyond specified sums for certain animals unless value declared Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 17 & 18 Vict. c. 31.-The 7th section Railway provides that every railway or canal company shall be liable for loss of companies, or injury done to any horses, cattle, or other animals, or to any articles, &c., not goods, or things, in the receiving, forwarding, or delivering thereof, liable occasioned by the neglect or default of the company or its servants, notwithstanding any notice, condition, or declaration made and given by such company contrary thereto, or in any wise limiting such liability ; and every such notice, condition, or declaration is declared to be null and void. Provided that nothing therein shall be construed to prevent such companies from making such conditions with respect to receiving, forwarding, and delivering such animals, articles, &c., as shall be adjudged by the Court or judge before whom any question relating thereto shall be tried, to be just and reasonable. The section further provides creased certain limits to damages recoverable for loss or injury to any of such animals (namely, a horse, £50; neat cattle, £15 cach; sheep and pigs, paid. £2 each), unless the person sending or delivering the same to the company shall, at the time of delivery, have declared them to be of higher value, in which case the company may charge a reasonable percentage on the excess of value above the limited sum, to be paid in addition to the ordinary charge, such percentage to be notified in the manner prescribed by the Carriers' Act, (s. 2), and to be binding on the company as S and in charge Against common carrier for nondelivery, &c. No special contract binding unless signed by the party. Section only applies to carriage over lines 3. The defendants did not safely and securely carry the said goods, nor deliver them, or any of them, to the plaintiff, within a reasonable time. therein mentioned. Proof of the value and amount of injury to lie on the claimant. No special contract between the company and the other parties respecting the receiving, forwarding, or delivering of any goods, &c., shall be binding on or affect such party, unless it be signed by him or the person delivering the goods for carriage. Nothing in the Act is to alter or affect the rights or liabilities of the company under the Carriers' Act. with respect to the articles mentioned in that Act. It has been held that this section only applies to carriage of goods over lines which the company are working themselves, and not to contracts by the company to carry over other lines. (Zunz v. South Eastern Rail. Co., L. R. 4 Q. B. 539.) But where the company contract to carry over their own as well as other lines, they must prove that the loss did worked by not occur on their line in order to avail themselves of a condition of noncompany. liability. (Kent v. Midland Rail. Co., L. R. 10 Q B. 1.) Test for determining reasonable ness of condition. Company not exempt by reason of consignor not having signed special agree ment. If journey at sea, if office, is binding. As to what are reasonable conditions, see cases referred to in Peek v. Staffordshire Rail. Co., 10 H. L. C. 473; 32 L. J. Q. B. 241. It may be stated as a general principle to be kept in view in determining whether conditions are reasonable, whether they leave any reasonable alternative open to the customer. as of sending at a reasonably higher rate without such conditions. (Ib.) A condition as to the risk of passengers' luggage is not within the above provision, viz., sect. 7. (Stewart v. London & North-Western Rail. Co., 33 L. J. Ex. 199). Nor does the section apply to goods received not in the capacity of carriers, as goods left in the cloak-room after the journey. (Van Toll v. South Eastern Rail. Co. 31 L. J. C. P. 241.) A railway company cannot exempt themselves from liability on the ground that the consignor has not signed the special contract, as the proviso of sect. 7 only applies to cases where carriers seek to relieve themselves from liability by reason of a special contract. (Baxendale v. Great Eastern Rail. Co., L. R. 4 Q. B. 244.) Regulation of Railways Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Vict. c. 119.) The Act applies to the owners, whether companies, or individuals, of the whole or any part of a railway or tramway, whether worked by steam or otherwise. (Sect. 2.) By sect. 14 where a company, by through booking, contracts to carry any animals, luggage, or goods from place to place, partly by railway and partly by sea, or partly by canal and partly by sea, a condition exempting the company from liability for any loss or damage which may arise during the carriage of such animals, &c., by sea, from the act of God, the king's enemies, fire, accidents from machinery, boilers and steam, and all and every other dangers and accidents of the seas, rivers, and navigation, of whatever nature and kind soever, shall. if published in a conspicuous manner in the office where such through booking is effected, and if printed in a legible manner on the receipt or freight note which the company gives for such animals, &c., be valid as part of the contract between the consignor of such animals, &c., and the company, in the same manner as if the company had signed and delivered to the consignor a bill of lading containing such condition. For the purposes of this section the word "company includes the owners, lessees, or managers of any canal or other inland navigation. The 34 & 35 Vict. c. 78, enacts (sect. 12), that where railway companies under contract to carry passengers or goods by sea procure the same to be carried in a vessel not belonging to them, they are liable for 4. On the 4th of February, 1875, that is to say, two days Against after the said goods ought to have been delivered, the de- common loss or damage to the same extent as though the vessel belonged to them. carrier for non delivery, &c. Decisions as to what amounts to delivery to carrier. What is sufficient delivery to carrier.]-In the case of shipowners, a delivery of goods at the wharf or quay to some person accredited for the purpose, binds the shipowner. (British Columbia, &c., Co. v. Nettleship, L. R. 3 C. P. 499.) A delivery to the driver of a stage-coach is sufficient to make the proprietor liable. Where the ordinary course of business at a railway office was to accept goods with a special limitation of liability in writing, and this was known to the plaintiff, who nevertheless caused his goods to be left with a railway porter at the station without complying with the regular course, and they were lost, it was held that the company was not liable as on contract, the delivery not being in due course, and there being no evidence that the porter had or professed to have power to contract with the plaintiff otherwise than in the ordinary course. (Slim v. Great Northern Rail. Co., 23 L. J. C. P. 166.) Non-delivery by carrier.]-In the absence of any express agreement Where the or usage, carriers by land are bound to deliver to or at the residence of the consignee; and with regard to carriers by sea, it seems to be sufficient if the captain deposits the goods in some place of safety, and gives notice to the consignee. (Hyde v. Trent & Mersey Navigation Co., 5 I. R. 397.) Though the consignor directs goods to be delivered at a particular place, the carrier may deliver them at another place agreed on between him and the consignee. (London & North Western Rail. Co. v. Bartlett, 31 L. J. Ex. 92; and Cork Distilleries Co. v. Great Southern & Western Rail. Co., L. R. 7 H. L. 269). It was, however, intimated in the last case that if there had been a special contract between the consignor and the carrier, it would have been different. If the carrier delivers at the place directed in accordance with the ordinary usage, he is not liable, though he delivers them to a person the consignor did not name. (McKean v. McIvor, L. R. 6 Ex. 36.) Where there has been a delivery, actual or constructive, though the goods remain on the carrier's premises, he is no longer liable as a carrier, but only as a warehouseman, or on any special terms he may think proper to impose on the customer, and the contract is not affected by any of the statutes relating to carriers. (Shepherd v. Bristol & Exeter Rail. Co., L. R. 3 Ex. 189.) If at the consignee's address there is a refusal to accept them, the carrier becomes an involuntary bailee of them, and is only bound to act with reasonable care with reference to their custody. (Heugh v. London & North Western Rail. Co., L. R. 5 Ex. 51.) And if such refusal is authorised by the consignee, the carrier may recover from him the expenses reasonably incurred in taking care of the goods. (Great Northern Rail. Co. v. Swaffield, L. R. 9 Ex. 132.) Measure of damages.]—The plaintiff is entitled where goods are lost or destroyed to recover their market value at the place and time at which they ought to have been delivered, as distinguished from that at which they were delivered to the carrier; if there is no market for the sale of such goods at that place, the jury must ascertain their value by taking their price at the place of manufacture together with the cost of carriage, and allowing a reasonable sum for importer's profits. (Rice v. Baxendale, 30 L. J. Ex. 371 (H. of L.); O'Hanlan v. Great Western Rail. Co., 34 L. J. Q. B. 154.) carrier should de liver. Carrier not liable as such for safety of goods after constructive delivery. Measure of damage where goods lost or destroyed. Measure of In cases of delay in the transmission, the plaintiff may recover the difference between the market price of goods on the day when they damage ought to have been delivered, and the price when they were available where $ 2 goods delayed. Against common carrier for nondelivery and late delivery. Delay in the transmission. When value of contract lost by negligence of carrier can be recovered. What damage cannot be recovered. Remoteness. Consignee generally the party to sue. fendants delivered to the plaintiff six of the said hampers of cod; but the remaining four hampers of cod have never been delivered to the plaintiff. for sale owing to delay and damage caused by the defendants. (Collard v. South Eastern Rail. Co., 7 H. & N. 79; 30 L. J. Ex. 393.) Where owing to the delay of a month in the delivery of cloth which the plaintiff wanted immediately to make into caps, he lost the season, it was held that he could not recover the loss of profits he would have made on the caps, but that he could recover the amount of depreciation in the value of the cloth on account of the lapse of the season. (Wilson v. Lancashire Rail. Co., 30 L. J. C. P. 232; and see Great Western Rail. Co. v. Redmayne, L. R. 1 C. P. 329.) In order to recover damages for non-sale owing to delay by the carrier, there must be an actual contract to buy for a fixed price. (Hart v. Baxendale, 16 L. T. N. S. 390, per Martin, B.) In the case of refusal to carry the same rule applies, as applies to cases where there is such delay that the consignor has to seek other means of transit. The rule is the same with regard to losses occasioned by delay in the actual transit with this addition, that in the former cases the plaintiff may recover the extra expense, if any, occasioned by having to employ other means. (Prior v. Wilson, 8 W. R. 260.) Notice of prospective profit or loss.]—It is necessary to enable a consignor to recover for the loss of a beneficial sub-contract or other calculated source of profit, that the carrier should have notice of the special terms of such contract or source of profit at the time the goods are delivered to him for carriage (Horne v. Midland Rail. Co., L. R. 7 C. P. 583, affirmed Ex. Ch. L. R. 8 C. P. 131), and semble a mere notice of a sub-contract will not be sufficient unless so given as to make it a term in the contract with the carrier that the latter will on breach be liable for loss of contract. (S. C. L. R. 8 C. P. 139, 141, 145.) The same rule holds with regard to other losses from missing arranged or reason-ably anticipated sources of profit, as for instance the loss of the hire of goods sent for hire. (Hales v. London & North Western Rail. Co., 32 L. J. Q. B. 292.) Remoteness of damage.]-Whether on account of loss or non-delivery, delay or refusal to carry, a carrier who uses the railway for the transmission of his parcels is injured in his business as a carrier, he cannot recover for such injury. (Crouch v. Great Northern Rail. Co., 25 L. J. Ex. 137.) But of course where such a carrier is compelled to pay damages occasioned by such loss or delay, he will have an action over against the carrier employed by him. But where on such a carrier being sued he gave notice to the carrier by whose default a loss was occasioned, and the latter declined to interfere, the former was held not entitled to recover his costs as well as the damages in such action. (Baxendale v. London, Chatham, & Dover Rail. Co., L. R. 10 Ex. 35 (Ex. Ch.).) Where a commercial traveller was put to hotel expenses in having to wait the arrival of goods which were improperly delayed in transit, a claim for such expenses against the carrier was held too remote. (Woodger v. Great Western Rail. Co., L. R. 2 C. P. 318.) Who entitled to sue.]-The person in whom the property was vested when it was lost or damaged is the person entitled to sue. As the delivery of goods to the carrier usually vests the property therein in the consignee, the latter is the person who generally speaking should sue. Exceptions. (Dunlop v. Lambert, 6 Cl. & F. 600.) But where there is a special contract between consignor and carrier, or the property has not vested in the consignee, as where goods are sent on approval, the consignor should |