Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/347

 PART IV.] LIABILITY FOR TORTS OF AGENTS. [§ 350. are bound to take what goods are offered, and transport them safely, insuring them against all loss and damage except that arising from the act of God or of the public enemy, 1 or from the inherent damnifying or perishable qualities of the goods them- selves. 2 And a common carrier of passengers is bound to use every care and precaution for the safety of passengers carried by it. 3 This duty or obligation on the part of the carrier has its to be transacted on his vehicles; e. g., he may refuse passage to an express agent who persists in transacting ex- press business on his boat. The D. R. Martin, 11 Blatch. 233; Barney v. Oyster Bay Steamboat Co., 67 N. T. 301. Railroad companies are not re- quired by usage or by common law to transport the traffic of independ- ent express companies in the manner in which such traffic is usually car- ried and handled. Express Cases, 117 U. S. 1. See §309 and notes. Compare Thurston v. Union Pac. R. R. Co., 4 Dill. 321, §348. 1 Propeller Niagara v. Cordes, 21 How. 7; Merritt v. Earle, 29 N. Y. 115; Colt v. McMechen, 6 Johns. (N. Y.) 160; Fillobrown v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 55 Me. 462; South and North Ala. R. R. Co. v. Wood, 66 Ala. 167. A carrier is bound to use due dili- gence to prevent the destruction of goods by the act of God or the public enemy; and if his negligence occa- sions the loss of goods through one of these causes he is liable. Holla- day v. Kennard, 12 Wall. 254; Micha- els v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 30 ST. Y. 564; Read v. Spalding, ib. 630; Packard ». Taylor, 35 Ark. 402; Caldwell v. Southern Express Co., 1 Flip. C. Ct. 85; Wallace v. Clayton, 42 Ga. 443. Compare Gillespie v. St. Louis, etc., R'y Co., 6 Mo. App. 554. Where liquors were shipped to Maine, and were there seized and destroyed under the Maiue laws, the carrier was not held liable. Wells v. Maine Steamship Co., 4 Cliff. C. Ct. 228. But the carrier should im- mediately notify shipper of seizure. Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. Yohe, 51 Ind. 181. 2 Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. Mc- Clellan, 54 111. 58. 8 Philadelphia* Reading R. R. Co. v. Derby, 14 How. 468; Pennsylvania Co. v. Roy, 102 U. S. 451; Warner v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 168 U. S. 339; Mc- Elroy v. N. & L. R. R. Co., 4 Cush. 400; Meier v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 64 Pa. St. 225; Louisville City R'y v. Weams, 80 Ky. 420; Brunswick, etc., R. R. Co. v. Gale, 56 Ga.322; Kansas Pac. R'y Co. v. Miller, 2 Col. 442; Sherlock v. Ailing, 44 Ind. 184; Gil- lenwater o. Madison, etc., R. R. Co., 5 Ind. 339; Indianapolis B. and W. R. Co. v. Beaver, 41 Ind. 493; Gilson v. Jackson County Horse R'y Co., 76 Mo. 282; Taylor v. Grand Trunk R'y Co., 48 N. H. 304; Chicago, B. and Q. R. R. Co. v. George, 19 111. 510; McCurrie v. So. Pac. R. R. Co., 122 Cal. 558. The railroad company re- mains liable although the car in which the plaintiff was injured be- longed to the Pullman Palace Car Co. Pennsylvania Co. v. Roy, supra. To same effect is N. Y.,etc, R. R. Co. v. Cromwell, 98 Va. 227. The care which the carrier is bound to use is not affected by the fact that the person is travelling in a cattle train. Indianapolis, etc., R. R. Co. v. Hoist, 93 U. S. 291. See Ohio & M. R. R. Co. v. Dickerson, 59 Ind. 317; Edger- 327