Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/365

 PART IV.] LIABILITY FOR TORTS OF AGENTS. [§ 363. § 362. Prima facie a railroad company or other carrier is responsible only for the negligence and misfeasance. , of its own servants, and consequently is liable only liability for „ . . . . ., , losses on for losses or injuries occurring on its own road, or on connecting a road which it leases or otherwise controls. 1 But it mes " may contract to transport passengers or goods to a point be- yond its terminus, 2 and having made such a contract will be liable as carrier for the whole trip, whether the loss occur on its own or on a connecting line. 3 § 363. So far the authorities may be regarded as unanimous. But in regard to the evidence from which a jury may be allowed to infer a contract on the part of the carrier to transport be- yond its terminus, there is a difference of judicial opinion. 4 In England and a few of the states, it is held that from the mere receipt of goods directed to a point beyond its own line, a con- tract to carry the whole distance may be inferred. 5 This is not, 1 Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Jones, 155 U. S. 333. Cf. Nashville, etc., R. R. Co. v. Carroll, 6 Heisk. (Tenn.) 347; Mallory v. Tioga R. R. Co., 39 Barb. 488; De Mott v. Laraway, 14 Wend. 225; Macon, etc., R. R. Co. v. Mayes, 49 Ga. 355; Illinois Central R. R. Co. t>. Kanouse, 39 111. 272, and §170. 2 This proposition is universally accepted in the United States. Rail- road Co. ». Pratt, 22 Wall. 123; Wheeler v. San Francisco, etc., R. R. Co., 31 Cal. 46; Peet v. Chicago and N. W. Ry. Co., 19 Wis. 118; Kyle v. Laurens R. R. Co., 10 Rich. L. (S. C.) 3S2; Baltimore, etc., Steamboat Co. v. Brown, 54 Pa. St. 77; St. Louis and I. M. R. R. Co. v. Larned, 103 111. 293. Unless perhaps in Connecti- cut. See Hood v. X. Y. and N. H. R. R. Co., 22 Conn. 502. 3 Railway Co. v. McCarthy, 90 U. S. 258; Railroad Co. v. Androscoggin, Mills, 22 Wall. 594. Cases in the following notes. Compare Wilson v. Harry, 32 Pa. St. 270; Germain Fruit Co. v. Cal. So. R. R. Co., 133 Cal. 426. A railroad company is lia- ble as a common carrier to anotber railroad company for a car of the lat- ter, and the contents hauled by the former over its road. Peoria and P. V. Ry. Co. v. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co., 109 111. 135; Same v. United States Rolling S'k Co., 136 111. 643. 4 When a carrier receives express goods, the question whether he con- tracts to carry them to their destina- tion, or only to deliver safely to the next carrier, is one of fact for the jury, dependent on the circumstan- ces. Phila. and Reading R. R. Co. v. Ramsey, 89 Pa. St. 474. Compare Penn. R. R. Co. v. Berry, 68 Pa. St. 272; see, also, Talcott v. Wabash R. R. Co., 159 N. Y. 461; Kimball v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co., 162 N. Y. 84; Lissard v. B. & M. R. R. Co., 69 N. H. 648. 5 Muschamp v. Lancaster Ry. Co., 8 M. & W. 421; Webber v. Great Western Ry. Co., 3 H. & C. 771; Wa- bash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co. v. Jagger- man, 115 111. 407; Mobile and Girard R. R. Co. v. Copeland, 63 Ala. 219; 345