A railroad is certainly liable for losses to persons or goods in the cars of other railroads which it receives and transports on its own. (y) And it has been held in Massachusetts, that a railroad corporation, chartered by the laws of that Commonwealth, and leasing a branch of their railroad to a railroad corporation out of the State, is still liable as a common carrier for goods lost on that branch. (z) In New York, where one railroad company allowed another railroad company to run its cars over the road

Button Co. 24 Conn. 468. In this last case, the court held, that a railroad company could not contract to carry beyond its own limits. But see Noyes v. K. & B. R. R. Co. 1 Williams, 110; Hart v. R. & 8. R. R. Co. 4 Seld. 37 ; Kyle v. L. R. R. Co. 10 Rich. L. 382. It may be added, that the case of Muschamp v. L. & P. R. Co., and Scotthorn v. S. S. R. Co. 8 Exch. 341, are confirmed in the case of Crouch v. G. W. R. Co. 2 Hurl. & N. 491,3 id. 183. And see also Willey v. West. C. R. Co. Exchequer Chamber, 1858, 21 Law Rep. 872; Northern R. R. Co. v. Fitchburg R. R. Co. 6 Allen, 254; Simmons v. Law, 8 Bosw. 213; McCann v. Baltimore R. R. Co. 20 Md. 202.

(w) Where a plaintiff had bought in Washington a through ticket for Cincinnati, and brought an action for loss of baggage against the Little Miami Railroad Company, alleging that the defendants had united with four other companies in a partnership, for the purpose of furnishing through-tickets, and had a common agent in Washington; the action was sustained by the Superior Court in Cincinnati, Spencer, J., giving a very able and elaborate opinion, 7 Am. Law Reg. 427.

(x) Goold v. Chapin, 20 N. Y. 259.

(xx) Smith v. N. Y., etc. R. R. Co. 43 Barb. 226.

(y) Schopman v. B. & W. R. R. Co. 9 Cush. 24. But Bee Cozon v. Great Western Railway Co. 6 H. & N. 274.

(z) Langley v. B. & M. R. R. Co. 10 Gray, 108.

1 Railroad Co. v. Campbell, 86 Ohio St 647, declared that a carrier, receiving pay for through transportation over several connecting lines, was liable for the negligence of any one of them, and that a restriction of the amount of liability printed on the ticket would not excuse, in the absence of proof by the carrier of an agreement to that effect.

2 Hooper v. Chicago, etc. R. Co. 27 Wis. 81. If the next carrier is not ready to receive the goods, and the first carrier stores them in a warehouse, his liability will not be changed to that of warehouseman. Ill. Cent. Railroad v. Mitchell, 68 IIl. 471. citing Michigan, etc. R. Co. v. Mineral Springs Manuf. Co. 16 Wall. 318.

of the first, and a passenger being injured brought an action against both companies, the joinder was sustained. (a)

How far the carrier can lessen his responsibility by his own acts, and especially by notices defining or entirely withdrawing his liability, has been much disputed. As the greater part of the cases in which this question occurs, or is likely to occur, relate to the property of passengers, we will consider this question under the next topic. (aa)