The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-03-08

NdniaS GONbIOOTs
The Law as to Common Carriers.
A CASE of considerable interest to shippers of
freight was recently argued before the Su-
preme Court of this State, at Nisi Prius. 1t
appears that firm in this city delivered to
the Camden and Amboy Railroad Company,
in July, 1854, twenty-four bales Of goods,
weighing 1920 pounds, and valued at $677S24,
to be transported to New York, end delivered
to a consignee OF the firm in that city. While
yet in the possession of the railway company,
on their wharf In New York, and before
plaintiffs had notice of their arrival, or op-
portunity to remove them, the goods were de-
stroyed by fire. The plaintiffs claim the full
value of the goods, with interest, from the
defendants. The latter deny that they are
responsible for the goods, except to the extent
Of 800 per 100 pounds, and base that denial
on the fact that on the day the goods were
delivered to them for transportation there was
placed in a conspicuous position, in their re-
ceiving offices at New York, Camden. and
intervening points, notice of which the
following is COPY
"NoTCE.-R Responsibility of the Company as
Carriers linlited TO 800 per 100 pOunds.-rhe
Camden and Amboy Railroad and TranspOrta-
ton Company hereby give notice, in pursuance of
law. that they have limited, and do hereby limit,
their responsibility as carriers of goods so as not
to exceed one hundred dollars for every one
hundred pounds weight thereof and at that rate
for greater or less quantity; but will insure
goods, il desired at the rate OF eight cents per
ton per mile for the distance carried, for every
two hundred dollars insured on one hundred
pounds OF goods, and at that rate for greater
1zaa 1,. rsN1 MA,.v V..-
to Philadelphia, or from Philadelphia to New
York, will be insured If desired, al the rate of
sixteen cents tor every one hundred dollars
insured"
The case, as thus stated, involves the right
of a common carrier to limit his liability.
That liability, under the common law of Eng
land and Of this country, regards him as in
the nature Of an insurer, and makes him
answerable for all losses which do Lot fall
within the excepted cases of the act Of God
(meaning inevitable accident, without the
Intervention Of man) and public enemies.
This settled rule, we are told by the highest
legal authorities, is intended to guard against
fraud and collusion, and is founded on the
same broad principles of public policy and
convenience which govern the case of inn
keepers. Chancellor KENT says :-"Common
carriers undertake generally, and not as
casual occupation, and for all people indiffer-
emily, to carry goods and deliver them at
places appointed, for hire as business, and
with or without special agreement as to
price. AS they hold themselves to the world
as common carriers for reasonable compen-
sation, they assume to do and are bound to
do what is required of them in the course Of
their employment, if they have the requisite
convenience to carry, and are offered rea-
sonable or customary price,"
1t is this general liability which common
carriers in this country and elsewhere have
been trying to limit, by notice in their bills
of lading and otherwise that they will be re-
sponsible for injury to or total loss OF freight
only to a certain extent, and on certain con-
ditions which they alone choose to prescribe.
Whether they have or should have the right
to do this, is not yet determined by uniform
judicial decision, though in view of the great
commercial interests involved, the law on
this point should not be allowed to remain
uncertain ard conflicting. Those cases which
have, however slightly and cautiously, recog-
nized the doctrine that the common carrier
may limit his general responsibility, are
clearly encroachments on the common law
rule, and transgressive of the sound reasons
of public policy on which twas founded; and
the courts should, as speedily as possible, re-
trace the steps they have taken in wrong
direction, and establish, firmly and positively,
the Just and wholesome principle from which
they have departed.
The English judges are said to have thought
that the doctrine of exempting carriers from
liability by notice has been carried too far,
and its introduction into Westminster Hall
has been much lamented and the late Chief
Justice GIBSON, in case decided by him in
our own Supreme Court questioned the policy
of the new rule that the carrier may lessen his
common law responsibility by a special agree
ment, and held that exceptions to the common
rule were to be strictly construed. 1t would
seem to be in conformity with this view of
Judge GIBSON that both English and
American Courts have held that a
carrier cannot restrict his common law
liability by a general notice, such as that
above quoted, even though that notice be
brought home to the knowledge of the ship
per, and that the restriction can only be by
cypress contract. This rule makes it optional
with the shipper whether he will surrender
his own common law rights, and release the
carrier from his common law obligations, and
ocoanf othar conditions nv nrivata and ana-