Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/612

 WNSMOBE; V, L., N. A. & 0. E. CO. 605 �As bet^yee» the parties, the express company was a Bhip- per and the railroad company was a carrier. Unless the carrier has reason to suspect, from the condition of the pack- age offered, or from some other circumstance, that the con- tents are of a dangerous character, he is bound to receive and transport it to the consignee. This rule, however, is limited to carriers who, by their general business, are engaged in the transportation of articles which are not in themselves dan- gerous to life and property^ If goods properly packed are offered for shipment, the carrier cannot refuse to receive them, unless he be first permitted to open the package and inspect the contents. In the Nitro-Glycerine Case, 15 Wall. 524, WeUs, Fargo & Co, received at New York a box contain- ing nitro-glycerine, to be carried to San Francisco by the isthmus of Panama. There was nothing in the appearance of the box indicating the character of its contents, and it wa? received without information as to its contents being asked or given. On its arrivai at San Francisco the box was taken to the premises occupied by the carrier as a place of business. It was leaking, and while the servants of the carrier were att&mpting to open it the nttro-glycerine exploded, killing a number of persons, and injuringthe premises occupied by the carrier, and the adjacent premises. The carrier had no knowledge or reason to suspect the dangerous character of the contents. Suit was brought against the carrier for the damage caused by the accident to the premises occupied by other parties. In deciding the case, Field, J., said : "If ex- press carriers are thus chargeable with notice of the contents of packages carried by them, they must have the right to refuse to receive packages offered for carriage without a knowl- edge of their contents. It would, in that case, be unreason- able to require them to accept as oonelusive, in every instance, the information given by the owner. They must be at liberty, whenever in doubt, to require for their satisfaction an in- spection even of the contents, as a condition of carrying the packages. This doctrine would be attended, in practice, with great inconvenience, and would seldom lead to any good. Fortunately, the law is not so unreasonable. It does not ����