Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/776

 STKWAET V. T. H. & I. E. CO. 769 �■were ehipping at that time, and could take the cattle ; and, in answer to an inquiry by the plaintiff, informed him that the through rate to Bufifalo was $70 par car. Th« plaintiff thereupon agreed to ship over defendant's road, and did so. The freight was paid, at the end of the route, to the last ship- per, as was customary in such cases, and eaoh of the Unes over which the shipment passed received its proportion, the defendant receiving payment only for the carriage to Indiam apolis. There was no written contraet, but a memorandum was made by the defendant's agent showing the number of the cars on which the cattle were shipped, the name of the shipper, the number of cattle, the names of the consignees, and the destination. �Plaintiff had been in the habit of shipping over defendant's line to points beyond its terminus; and the arrangements made in this case were similar to the previous transactions. Does this evidence establish a special contraet on the part of the defendant to carry through to Buffalo? The supreme court of the United States has twice laid down the rule that in the absence of a special contraet the carrier in such a case is liable only to the extent of his own route, and for the safe storage and delivery to the next carrier. Railroad Co. v. Man- ufactwring Co. 16 Wall. 318; Railroad Co. V. Pratt, 22 Wall. 123. And the same doctrine prevails in most of the states, as will be seen by reference to the following, among other cases : Darling v. Railroad, 11 Allen, 295 ; Notting v. Railroad Co. 1 Gray, 502; Burroughs v. Railroad Co. 100 Mass. 26; Railroad Co. v. Beiry, 68 Pa. St. 272; Root v. Railroad Co. 45 N. Y. 524; Babcock v. Railroad Co. 49 N. Y. 491; Converse v. Traiis. Co. 33 Conn. 166; Perkins v. Railroad Co. 47 Me. 573; Bank v. Trans. Co. 23 Vt. 209; Bimtuall v. Railroad Co. 32 Vt. 673 ; Express Co. v. Rush, 24 Ind. 403 ; McMillan v. Rail- road Co. 10 Mich. 119 ; Hoagland v. Railroad Co. 39 Mo. 451; and Coates v. Exjiress Co. 45 Mo. 238. �It is clear that the first carrier may, by special contraet, bind himself to carry freight over his own and other lines to its final destination; but upon the question, what will amount to proof Bufïïeient to establish such a contraet ? there is more �v.3,no.l3— 49 ����