Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/362

 § 360.] THE LAW OF PRIVATE CORPORATIONS. [CHAP. VII. road company as a common carrier is held to cease as soon as the transportation is accomplished and the goods have been stored by the railroad company, although the consignee may have had no notice of their arrival, nor opportunity to remove them. 1 Delivery of the goods to a person other than the consignee or owner is a conversion, for which, as a general rule, the carrier will be liable. 2 Where, however, the carrier is to deliver the 44 N. Y. 505; Roth i>. Buffalo, etc., R. R. Co., 34 N. Y. 548 ; McKinney v. Jewett, 90 N. Y. 267; Hedges v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 49 N. Y. 223; Sprague v. New York Central R. R. Co., 52 N. Y. 637; Pelton v. Rensselaer, etc., R. R. Co., 54 N. Y. 214; Welsh v. Concord R. R. Co., 68 N. H. 206; Berry v. W. Va. & P. R. Co., 44 W. Va. 538. Compare Buck- ley v. Great Western Ry. Co., 18 Mich. 121; L. L. & G. R. R. Co. v. Maris, 16 Kan. 333; Culbreth v. Phila., W. & B. R. R. Co., 3 Houston (Del.), 392; Hirshfield v. Central Pac. R. R. Co., 56 Cal. 484; Jeffer- sonville R. R. Co. v. Cleveland, 2 Bush (Ky.), 468; Louisville, C. & L. R. R. Co. v. Mahan, 8 Bush (Ky.), 184; Graves v. Hartford, etc., Steam- boat Co., 38 Conn. 143; Alabama & Tennessee Rivers R. R. Co. v. Kidd, 35 Ala. 209; Mobile, etc., R. R. Co. v. Prewitt, 46 Ala. 63; South & North Ala. R R. Co. v. Woods, 66 Ala. 167; Butler v. Railroad Co., 8 Lea (Tenn.), 32; Blumen- thal v. Brainerd, 38 Vt. 402; Derosia v. Winona, etc., R. R. Co., 18 Minn. 133; Pinney v. First Division St. P., etc., R. R. Co., 19 Minn. 251. 1 Norway Plains Co. v. Boston & M. R. R., 1 Gray (Mass.), 263; Rice v. Boston & W. R. R. Co., 98 Mass. 212; Thomas v. Boston & P. R. R. Co., 10 Met. (Mass.) 472; Rice v. Hart, 118 Mass. 201; compare Ste- vens v. Boston & M. R. R., 1 Gray 342 (Mass.), 277. In Illinois the rule is the same as in Massachusetts. Chi- cago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Beusley, 69 111. 630; Cahn v. Michigan Central R. R. Co., 71 111. 96; Rothschild v. Michigan Central R. R. Co., 69 111. 164; Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. Friend, 64 111. 303; Porter v. Chicago & R. I. R. R. Co., 20 111. 407. See, also, Bansemer v. Toledo, etc., R. R. Co., 25 Ind. 434; Chicago & C. A. L. R. R. Co. v. McCool, 26 Ind. 140; Pittsburgh, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Nash, 43 Ind. 423; Francis v. Du- buque, etc., R. R. Co., 25 Iowa, 69; Moln o. C. & N. W. R. R. Co., 40 Iowa, 579; Southwestern R. R. Co. v. Felder, 46 Ga. 433. 2 Forbes v. Boston and Lowell R. R. Co., 133 Mass. 154; Winslow v. Vermont, etc., R. R. Co., 42 Vt. 700; Viner v. N. Y., etc., Steamship Co., 50 N. Y. 23; Price v. Oswego, etc., R. R. Co., ib. 213; Scheuu. Erie R'y Co., 10 Hun, 498; Little Rock, etc., R'y Co. v. Glidewell, 39 Ark. 487; Balto. and Ohio R. R. Co. v. Pumphrey, 59 Md. 390. See Jellett v. St. Paul, etc., R'y Co., 30 Minn. 265. Carrier is liable for a delivery on a forged or- der. American Merchants' Un. Exp. Co. v. Milk, 73 111. 224; Southern Exp. Co. v. Van Meter, 17 Fla. 783. When the carrier knows the goods to be the property of shipper, it is liable to him for their value, when without his knowledge it delivers them at the place of shipment to a third person