Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/361

 PART IV.] LIABILITY FOR TORTS OF AGENTS. [§ 360. back of a passenger ticket is not effectual to limit the value of the baggage for which the carrier will be liable ; at least in the absence of proof that the passenger's attention was called to it ; and reading such a notice after he has entered on his jour- ney does not affect his rights. 1 § 360. The liability of a common carrier, as such, begins as soon as goods are delivered to it for transportation ; nothing remaining to be done on the part of the rier's liabn- shipper. Under such circumstances the carrier's lia- JSd^fases. bility is not that of a warehouseman while the goods are waiting in his depot before transportation. 2 The carrier's liability, as such, continues until he has performed his duties as carrier, which, in the case of railroad companies, are to carry the goods to the point on the road to which the goods are directed, 3 then to deliver them to the consignee if he is present, or notify him of their arrival if he is absent and his address is known ; and if the consignee is not ready to accept the goods, to warehouse them in a proper warehouse. Thus, the liability of the railroad company becomes that of a warehouseman as soon as the consignee has had reasonable time and opportunity to remove the goods. 4 In Massachusetts the liability of a rail- Little, 71 Ala. 611 ; United States Exp. Co. v. Backman, 28 O. St. 144; Bos- cowitz v. Adams Exp. Co., 93 111. 523; Kansas City, St. Jo., etc., R. R. Co. v. Simpson, 30 Kan. 645. 1 Rawson v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 48 N. Y. 212; see Li m burger v. Westcott, 49 Barb. 283; Sunderland v. Westcott, 40 How. Pr. ( N. Y. ) 468; Brown v. Eastern R, R. Co., 11 Cush. 97; Malone v. Boston, etc., R. R. Co., 12 Gray, 388. Compare Cam- den and Amboy R. R. Co. v. Baldauf, 16 Pa. St. 67. 2 Grand Trunk M'f'g, etc., Co. v. Ullman, 89 111. 244; Clark v. Needles, 25 Pa. St. 338; O'Neill v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 60 N. Y. 138; Pitts- burgh, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Barrett, 36 O. St. 448. See Grosvenor v. N. Y. C. R. R. Co., 39 N. Y. 34; Baron v. Eldredge, 100 Mass. 455; Judson v. Western R. R. Co., 4 Allen, 520; St. Louis, A. & T. H. R. R. Co. v. Montgomery, 39 111. 335. 3 Railroad companies are not held to make a personal delivery. South & North Ala. R. R. Co. v. Woods, 66 Ala. 167; Norway Plains Co. v. Bos- ton & M. R. R. Co., 1 Gray (Mass.), 263. Otherwise as to express com- panies. American Un. Exp. Co. v. Robinson, 72 Pa. St. 274. In the absence of provision in the bill of lading, the usage and custom at the port of delivery will control the mode of delivery of goods carried by water. Richmond v. Union Steam- boat Co., 87 N. Y. 240. As to a rail- road company's duties respecting the delivery of live stock carried by it, see Covington Stockyards Co. v. Keith, 139 U. S. 128. 4 Fenner v. Buffalo, etc., R. R. Co., 841