The question, when the carrier is liable beyond his own route, has been recently much considered, and is not yet quite settled. If carriers for different routes, which connect together, associate for the purpose of carrying parcels through the whole line, and share the profits, they are undoubtedly partners, and each is liable in solido for the loss or injury of goods which he undertakes to carry, in whatever part of the line it may have happened. (q) 1 So if they connect temporarily, as for an excursion party. (qq) And a railroad thus connected with other railroads is a common carrier as to passengers beyond its own limits, and is bound to receive any who offer. (qr) There can be no doubt that a carrier may agree to carry beyond his own regular route; and then, however the agreement be evidenced, the carrier is liable to the point of ultimate destination. (qs) If the carriers be not distinctly associated, but *are so far connected that they undertake, or authorize the public to suppose that they undertake, for the whole line, they should be responsible as before. (r) But undoubtedly a carrier may receive a parcel to carry as far as he goes, and then to send it further by another carrier. And where this is clearly the case, his responsibilities as carrier and as forwarder are entirely distinct. (s) The difficulty is in determining between these cases; the weight of authority, until recently, seemed to be in favor of the rule, that a carrier who knowingly received a parcel directed or consigned to any particular place, undertook to carry it there himself, unless he made known a different purpose and undertaking to the owner. (ss) 1 This is still the English doctrine, and in conformity therewith it has been decided that the owner has no contract with the second carrier, and cannot recover of him for damage done on his part of the route. (t) But the American decisions have importantly qualified, if they have not overthrown, the English authorities. The prevailing rule in this country may now be said to cast upon the carrier no responsibility as a carrier beyond his own route (requiring, of course, due care in forwarding the parcel) unless the usage of the business, or of the carrier, or his conduct or language, shows that he takes the parcel, as carrier, for the whole route. (u) 2 And his receipt of payment

(p) See ante, p. * 181, note (a).

(q) Thus, where A and B were jointly interested in the profits of a common stage-wagon, but, by a private agreement between themselves, each undertook the conducting and management of the wagon, and his own drivers and horses, for specified distances; it was held, notwithstanding this private agreement, that they were jointly responsible to third persons for the negligence of their drivers throughout the whole distance. Waland v. Elkins, 1 Stark. 272; s. c. nom. Weyland v. Elkins, Holt, 227. See also Fromont v. Coupland, 2 Bing. 170; Helsby v. Mean, 5 B. & C. 504; Collins v. B. & E. R. Co. 1 Hurl. & N. 517; Wilby v. W. C. R. Co. 2 Hurl. & N. 703. So where an association was formed between shippers on Lake Ontario, and the owners of canal boats on the Erie canal, for the transportation of goods and merchandise between the city of New York and the ports and places on Lake Ontario and the river St. Lawrence, and a contract was entered into by the agent of such association, for the transportation of goods from the city of New York to Og-densburg, on the river St. Lawrence, and the goods were lost on Lake Ontario; it was held, that all the defendants were answerable for the loss, although some of them had no interest in the vessel navigating the lake, in which the goods were shipped. Fairchild v. Slocnm, 19 Wend. 329; s. c. 7 Hill (N. Y.), 292; Cincinnati, Ac. R. R. Co. v. Spratt, 2 Duvall, 41.

(qq) Najac v. Boston, etc. R. R. Co. 7 Allen, 329.

(qr) Wheeler v. San Francisco R. R. Co. 31 Cal. 46.

(qs) Morse v. Brainard, 41 Vt 550; Mosner v. Southern Express Co. 38 Ga.

1 But where goods arrived in a damaged condition, and the carrier, on delivering the goods to the owner, presented a bill for freight and back charges, under a usage by which each one of successive carriers paid all back charges, it was held, that in the absence of evidence as to how or where the injury occurred, and the carrier having no connection with any other roads, that the owner could not recoup the damages. Knight v. Prov. etc. R. Co. 13 R. I. 572. See Marquette R. Co. v. Kirkwood, 45 Mich. 51; Detroit, Ac R. Co. v. McKenzie, 43 Mich. 609.

37; Tuckerman v. Stevens, etc. Transportation Co. 3 Vroom, 320; Southern Express Co. v. Shea, 38 Ga. 519. (r) Weed v. The S. & S. Railroad Co. 19 Wend. 534; Peet v. Chicago, etc R. R. Co. 20 Wis. 594.

(s) Garside v. Trent & Mersey Navigation Co. 4 T. R. 581; Acklev v. Kellogg, 8 Cowen, 223; Pennsylvania, etc R. K. Co. v. Schwarzenberger, 45 Penn. St. 208; Lowell Wire Fence Co. p. Sargent, 8 Allen, 189.

(ss) So held in Illinois, etc. R. R. Co. p. Johnson, 34 Ill. 389.

(t) Coxon v. Great Western Railway Co. 5 H. & N. 274. See also directors of B. & E. Railway Co. v. Collins, 5 H. & N. 969, where the House of Lords sustain this doctrine.

(u) The leading English case upon this point is Muschamp v. The L. & P. Junction Railway Co. 8 M. & W. 421. The defendants were the proprietors of the Lancaster and Preston Junction Railway,

1 It is still the rule in Illinois, that a carrier receiving goods for full compensation to carry to a certain place, without any contract limiting its liability, and the goods are delivered to another carrier in good order at its terminus, is responsible for delivery at that place, although it is beyond its terminus. Adams Ex. Co. v. Wilson, 81 111. 339. So in Missouri. Halliday v. St Louis, etc. R. Co. 74 Mo. 159.

2 The liability of an intermediate common carrier for the safety of goods delivered to him for carriage is discharged by their delivery to and acceptance by a succeeding carrier or his authorized agent, Pratt v. Railway Co. 95 U. S. 43; Washburn, 4c. Co. v. Pror. etc R. Co. 113 Mass. 490; and he is not relieved of responsibility by storing them in a warehouse at the terminus of his route, Bancroft v. Merchants' Despatch Co. 47 Ia. 262. See also Root v. Great Western R. Co. 45 N. Y. 524; Skinner v. Hall, 60 Me. 477; Hadd v. U. S., etc. Co. 52 Vr. 835; Ill.. Cent R. Co. v. Frankenberg, 54 Ill. 88; Chicago, etc R. Co. v. Montfort, 60 Ill. 175; St. Louis, etc. R. Co. v. Larned, 103 01. 293.