Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/368

§ 364.] THE LAW OF PRIVATE COUP ORATION 8. [CHAP. VII. § 364. And it has been also held, though with some adverse judicial opinion, that where several carriers owning connecting lines make general agreements, under which they act in con- cert and as each other's agents in receiving and carrying freight and passengers, any one of them over whose route have been transported the goods which are lost or damaged, may be held liable ; or they may all be sued jointly. 1 221; Clyde v. Hubbard, 88 Pa. St. 358; Baltimore and P. Steamboat Co. v. Brown, 54 Pa. St. 77; Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Berry, 68 Pa. St. 272. But compare Converse v. Norwicb, etc., Trans. Co., 33 Conn. 166; El- more ». Naugatuck R. R. Co., 23 Conn. 457; Lawrence v. New York, etc., R. R. Co., 36 Conn. 63. The way-bill also is admissible as evi- dence of a through contract. Rail- road Co. v. Androscoggin Mills, 22 Wall. 594. The doctrine of a num- ber of cases is that the acceptance of goods for carriage marked for a point beyond the terminus of the carrier's line, is prima facie evidence of a contract for through transporta- tion; but the carrier may limit its responsibility to its own line; e. gr., by a clause in the receipt given for the goods, although not signed by the shipper. Erie Ry. Co. b. Wilcox, 84 111. 239; Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. Frankenberg, 54 111. 88; Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. Johnson, 34 111. 389; Field v. Chicago and R. I. R. R. Co., 71 111. 458; Adams Exp. Co. v. Wilsou, 81 111. 339; Mulligan v. Illi- nois Central Ry. Co., 36 Iowa, 181; Angle u. Mississippi, etc., R. R. Co., 9 Iowa, 487. Compare Merchants' Despatch Trans. Co. v. Moore, 88 111. 136; Berg v. Atchison, etc., R. R. Co., 30 Kan. 561. 1 Barter v. Wheeler, 49 N. H. 9 ; Wyman v. Chicago and Alton R. R. Co., 4 Mo. App. 35 ; Hart v. Rensse- laer, etc., R. R. Co., 8 N. Y. 37 ; Monell v. Northern Central R. R. Co., 348 67 Barb. 531. See Quimby v. Van- derbilt, 17 N. Y. 306 ; Nashua Lock Co. v. Worcester, etc., R. R. Co., 48 N. H. 339 (contains review of author- ities by Judge Perley); Cincinnati, H. and D. R. R. Co. v. Spratt,2 Duv. ( Ky. ) 4. But compare Insurance Co. v. Railroad Co., 104 U. S. 146; Milnor v. N. Y. and N. H. R. R. Co., 53 N. Y. 363; Ricketts v. Bait, and O. R. R. Co., 59 N. Y. 637 ; Shiff v. N. Y. C. and H. R. R. R. Co., 16 Hun, 278 ; Darling v. Boston and Worcester R. R. Co., 11 Alleu, 295; Railroad Co. v. Brumley, 5 Lea (Tenn.), 401; Gass v. New York, etc., R. R. Co., 99 Mass. 220 ; Ellsworth v. Tartt, 26 Ala. 733 ; Coates v. United States Exp. Co., 45 Mo. 238 ; Hot Springs R. R. v. Trippe, 42 Ark. 4G5. Where the combination extends through sev- eral states, the law of the state where the loss occurred is applicable. Bar- ter v. Wheeler, 49 N. H. 9. Com- pare Hale v. N. J. Steam Nav. Co., 15 Conn. 539. The law of the state where the contract for carriage be- yond the state is made must control as to the nature, interpretation, and effect of the contract. Michigan Central R. R. Co. v. Boyd, 91 111. 268 ; McDaniel v. Chicago and N. W. R'y Co., 24 Iowa, 412. But see Cur- tis v. Delaware, etc., R. R. Co., 74 N. Y. 116. It is only where the con- tract is for through transportation that the succeeding carriers will be entitled to the benefits and exemp- tions of the contract between the shipper and the first carrier. Mer-