1 Ante, § 751.

Chapman, 2 Kelly, 355; Shelden v. Robinson, 7 N. H. 157; Story on Bailin. § 501; Bean v. Sturtevant, 8 N. H. 146.

1 Crouch v. Great Northern Railway Co., 9 Exch. 556; 25 Eng. Law & Eq. 4-19; Parker v. Great Western Railway Co., 11 C. B. 545; 8 Eng. Law & Eq. 420 and 447; Crouch v. Great Northern Railway Co., 11 Exch. 742; 34 Eng. Law & Eq. 576.

2 Fitchburg Railroad Co. v. Gage, 12 Gray, 393; Great Western Railway Co. v. Sutton, Law R. 4 H. L. 237; Baxendale v. Eastern Counties Railway Co., 4 C. B. (n. s.) 78, Byles, J.; Branley v. South Eastern Railway Co., 12 C. B. (n. s.) 74, Willes, J.

3 See Holford v. Adams, 2 Duer, 471.

4 Gordon v. Hutchinson, 1 Watts & Serg. 285; Riley v. Horn, 5 Bing. 217; Steinman v. Wilkins, 7 Watts & Serg. 466; Hollister v. Nowlen, 19 Wend. 239, 241; Tyly v. Morrice, Carth. 486; Shelden v. Robinson, 7 N. H. 157; Orange Co. Bank v. Brown, 9 Wend. 114.

5 Lane v. Cotton, 1 Ld. Raym. 652; 1 Com. 105.

6 A carrier must provide suitable carriages, or vehicles; and if they are so coupled that they cannot be easily separated in case of fire, he is responsible. Empire Transp. Co. v. Wamsutta Oil Co., 63 Penn. St. 14 (1869). And see New Jersey Railroad Co. v. Kennard, 21 Penn. St. 204. And a contract exempting a carrier from all liability "in loading, unloading, conveyance, and otherwise,'1" does not release him from the duty of providing suitable cars: and for an injury received in conveyance, from want of such cars, he continues liable. Hawkins v. Great Western Railroad Co., 17 Mich. 57 (1868).

7 As to delays in transportation, see Wibert v. N. Y. & E. Railroad, 19 Barb. 36.

8 Powers v. Davenport, 7 Blackf. 497; Hales v. London & North Western Railway Co., 4 B. & S. 66; Donohoe v. London & North Western Railway Co., Irish R. 1 C. L. 304.

§ 934. Again, a carrier is bound to carry the goods to their destination without unreasonable 4 delay.5 Yet it would seem that he would not be responsible for any reasonable delay occasioned by an unusual amount of freight, beyond the capacity of the road to carry.6 And it is clear that delay in itself would not operate as a conversion, so as to make the carrier liable for the whole value of the goods intrusted to him; but it would only render him responsible for the actual damages caused thereby.1 If the delay be caused by freshet, and the carrier be guilty of no negligence, he would not be responsible for damages resulting therefrom, if there were an exception to his liability for losses from "perils of the sea." 2

1 Story on Bailm. § 509, and cases cited; Streeter v. Horlock, 1 Bing. 34; 7 Moore, 283.

2 Hastings v. Pepper, 11 Pick. 41; Camoys v. Scurr, 9 C. & P. 383; Humphreys v. Reed, 6 Whart. 435; Clark v. Spence, 10 Watts, 336; Hol-lingworth v. Brodrick, 7 Ad. & El. 40; Davis v. Garrett, 6 Bing. 716; Maghee v. Camden & A. R. Co., 45 N. Y. 514 (1871).

3 Scothorn v. South Staffordshire Railway Co., 8 Exch. 341.

4 See Taylor v. Great Northern Railway Co., Law R. 1 C. P. 385; Mathews v. Dublin & Drogheda Railway Co., 17 Irish C. L. 87; Briddon v. Great Northern Railway Co., 28 Law J. (N. S.) Exch. 51; 4 H. & N. 847 (Am. ed.); Fenwick v. Schmalz, Law R. 3 C. P. 313 (1868). As to failures by railway carriers to carry by the published time-tables, see post, § 970.

5 Bourne v. Gatliff, 11 CI. & Finn. 45, 70: Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Owens, 53 I11. 391 (1870); Rome Railroad Co. v. Sullivan, 14 Ga. 277. See Keeney v. Grand Trunk Railway Co., 49 N. Y. 525 (1872). If the carrier refuses to carry according to his contract, the owner should forward by another conveyance, if practicable, and the difference he is thereby obliged to pay is the rule of damages. Grund v. Pendergast, 58 Barb. 216 (1870).

6 Wibert v. New York & Erie R. R. Co., 2 Kern. 245; Hand, J., dissented. See also Parsons v. Hardy, 14 Wend. 215; Galena & Chicago Railroad Co. v. Rae, 18 111. 488; Ward v. New York Cent. R. Co., 49 N. Y. 29 (1871).