(l) Garside v. Trent and Mersey Navigation Co. 4 T. R. 681. In this case the defendants, being common carriers between Stourport and Manchester, received goods from the plaintiff at Stourport, to be carried to Manchester, and to be forwarded from the latter place to Stockport. The defendants carried the goods to Manchester, and there put them in their warehouse, in which they were destroyed by an accidental fire before they had an opportunity of forwarding them. The court held, that they were not answerable for the loss. See also Brown p. Denison, 2 Wend. 698; Ackley v. Kellogg, 8 Cowen, 223.

(m) See Garside v. Trent and Mersey Navigation Co. 4 T.R. 681.

(n) Forward v. Pittard, 1 T. R. 27.

(o) Hyde v. Trent and Mersey Navigation Co. 5 T. R. 389.

(p) Webb, in re,8 Taunt 448. In this cue. A, B, C, and D, in a partnership as carriers, agreed with S. & Co., of Frome, to carry goods from London to Frome, where they were to be deposited in a warehouse belonging to the partnership at Frome, where A resided, without any charge for the warehouse-room, till it should be convenient for S. & Co. to take the goods home. Goods of S. & Co., carried by the partners from London to Frome, under this agreement, were deposited in the warehouse at the latter place, and destroyed by fire. It was held, that the partners were not liable to S. & Co. for the value of the goods burnt So in the case of Thomas v. Boston & P. R. R. Co. 10 Met. 472, it was held, that the proprietors of a railroad, who transport goods over their road, and deposit them in their warehouse without charge, until the owner or consignee has a reasonable time to take them away, are not liable, as common carriers, for the loss of the goods from the warehouse, but are liable as depositaries, only for want of ordinary care.

(q) Thus, where common carriers received goods on board their sloop, to transport from New York to Troy, where they transferred them on board of a canal-boat bound to the north, pursuant to the bailor's instructions; receiving no reward for the transfer or further transportation; and the goods were lost by the upsetting of the canal-boat; it was held, that their character of common carriers ceased at Troy; and having exercised ordinary care in seeing the goods placed on board a safe boat, they were not responsible for the loss. Ackley v. Kellogg, 8 Cowen, 228.

(r) Platt v. Hibbard, 7 Cowen, 407. In White v. Humphrey, 11 Q. B. 43, where the plaintiff deposited hops in the defendant's warehouse, to be conveyed to London in the barges of the defendant (who was also a carrier), whenever the plaintiff should direct, and in the mean time to be kept by the defendant without charge for warehousing, it was held by the judge at nisi prius, that the advantage of carrying the hops for hire might be considered as payment for the warehousing, and that the defendant was not, therefore, a gratuitous bailee, and so liable only for gross negligence; and the Court of Queen's Bench refused to grant a new trial on the ground of misdirection.

(rr) Jeffersonville R. R. Co. v. White, 6 Bush, 251.

1 A stipulation in a bill of lading that "the goods will be deposited at the expense of the consignee, and at his risk of fire, loss, or injury, in the warehouse provided for that purpose, etc.," does not exempt a carrier from liability as a warehouseman for a negligent delivery of goods stored in a warehouse under his control. Collins v. Bums, 63 N. Y. 1; Merchants, etc. Co. v. Story, 50 Md. 4. - A package of goods was delivered to a common carrier, a railroad, addressed to the plaintiff, "to be left till called for." It arrived on March 25th, and was placed in the station warehouse to await being called for, the address of the plaintiff, who travelled about with drapery goods, not being known. The package had not been called for, when, on the morning of March 27th, a fire accidentally broke out, the warehouse was burned down, and the package consumed. The plaintiff later on the same day called for the goods. Held, that, after the interval of time which the plaintiff had suffered to elapse since the

It is not necessary that the goods be housed, to affect the bailee with the liabilities of a warehouseman. It is enough if they are actually within his charge and custody for the purpose of being housed. (s)

As to the obligation of the warehouseman to deliver the goods to the consignee, or to redeliver them to the consignor, in the case where they are claimed by another as the proper owner who forbids such delivery, there seems to be some uncertainty. (t) We take the law to be, however, that he must decide for himself which is the better right, and is exposed to loss if he decide wrongly. But if he in good faith deliver the goods to the original bailor, or his consignee, the true owner should not recover damages from him by merely proving his ownership and a notice to the warehouseman; and not unless he exhibited to the warehouseman in due season such proofs as might reasonably be required of his ownership. And if on such evidence recovery to the strictest compensation, if the warehouseman could show that he acted on evidence which would satisfy a cautious and honest man. In practice, it is usual in such cases to demand and receive an indemnity from the party put in possession of the goods.

the warehouseman did deliver the goods to the person claiming to be owner, and it appeared afterwards that the claim was unfounded, the original bailor should be limited in his arrival of the goods, the liability of the railroad as a common carrier in respect of the package had ceased, and it had become a mere warehouseman. Chapman v. Great Western R. Co. 5 Q. B. D. 278.

(s) Thus it has been decided, that as soon as the goods arrive, and the crane of the warehouse is applied to raise them into the warehouse, the liability of the warehouseman commences; and it is no defence that they are afterwards injured by falling into the street from the breaking of the tackle, even if the carman who brought them has refused the offer of slings for further security. Thomas v. Day, 4 Esp. 262.