1 Hyde v. Trent & Mersey Navigation Co., 5 T. R. 389.

2 Duff v. Budd, 3 Br. & B. 177; Bodenham v. Bennett, 4 Price, 34; Birkett v. Willan, 2 B. & Al. 356; Storr v. Crowley, M'Clel. & Y. 129, 138; Stephenson v. Hart, 4 Bing. 476; Gibson v. Culver, 17 Wend. 305; Eagle v. White, 6 Whart. 505; Chickering v. Fowler, 4 Pick. 373; Story on Bailm. § 543. See McAndrew v. Whitlock, 52 N. Y. 40 (1873).

3 Farmers1, etc, Bank v. Charaplain Trans. Co., 16 Vt. 52; 18 Vt. 131; Chickering v. Fowler, 4 Pick. 373; South Western R. Co. v. Felder, 46 Ga. 433 (1872).

As to notice of delivery to a connecting line, see Mills v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 45 N. Y. 622 (1871).

4 Northrop v. Syracuse, etc, Railroad, 5 Abb. Pr. (n. s.) 425 (1867).

5 Ostrander v. Brown, 15 Johns. 39; Fisk v. Newton, 1 Denio, 45; Smith v. Nashua & Lowell R.R. Co., 7 Fost. 93; Clendaniel v. Tuckerman, 17 Barb. 184; Witbeck p. Holland, 45 N. Y. 13 (1871). When the consignee is unknown to the carrier, a due effort to find him and notify him of the arrival of the goods must be made before he can store them in a warehouse. Zinn v. New Jersey Steamb. Co., 49 N. Y. 442; Witbeck v. Holland, supra. See Pinney v. First Div. St, Paul & P. R. Co., 19 Minn. 251 (1872). See post, § 759 d.

6 Kremer v. Southern Express Co., 6 Cold. 356 (1869).

1 Crouch v. Great Western Railway Co., 2 H. & N. 491; 3 H. & N. 183; Hudson v. Baxendale, 2 H. & N. 575.

2 Humphreys v. Reed, 6 Whart. 435; Hemphill v. Chenie, 6 Watts & Serg. 62.

3 Delivery on a wharf, with notice to the consignee, is sufficient. The Eddy, 5 Wall. 495 (1866); The Ship Middlesex, 21 Law R. 14. As to the necessity of notice, see Kohn v. Packard, 3 La. 224; Price v. Powell, 3 Comst. 322; Michigan Central Railroad Co. v. Ward, 2 Mich. 538; Hermann v. Goodrich, 21 Wis. 536, an important case as to the necessity of giving notice of goods waterborne.

4 Thomas v. Boston & Providence Railroad Corp., 10 Met. 472; Garside v. Trent & Mersey Nav. Co., 4 T. R. 581; Story on Bailm. § 543; In the matter of Webb, 8 Taunt. 443; 2 Kent, Comm. 604. See also Ostrander v. Brown, 15 Johns. 39; Gibson v. Culver, 17 Wend. 305; Blin v. Mayo, 10 Vt. 56; Van Santvoord v. St. John, 6 Hill, 158; Angell on Carriers, § 304; Storr v. Crowley, M'Clel. & Y. 136; Chickering v. Fowler, 4 Pick. 371.

5 See Dixon v. Dunham, 14.I11. 324.

1 Garside v. Trent & Mersey Nav. Co., 4 T. R. 581. See also Farmers' & Mechanics' Bank v. Champlain Trans. Co., 16 Vt. 60; 18 Vt. 131.

2 Thomas v. Boston & Providence Railroad Corp., 10 Met. 472. In this important case, Mr. Justice Hubbard, in delivering the judgment of the court, fully considers this question. He says: "The important question presented for the consideration of the court is, whether the defendants are common carriers of the goods and merchandise intrusted to their care; and if they are, how long this relation continues. The charge on this part of the case was, that the jury, from all the evidence in the case, were to ascertain what was the contract between the parties; and if, from the evidence, they were satisfied that it was the usage and practice of the defendants, not only to transport goods over their road, but also to deposit them in their warehouses, without charge, until the owner of the goods should have reasonable time to remove them, and that they did provide warehouses or depots for the purpose of so storing the goods, then this usage and conduct would be sufficient evidence for the jury to find that it was a part of the contract that the defendants should so store and keep goods delivered to them for

But if the company be guilty of negligence in not delivering the goods to the consignee on demand, they are liable as waretransportation; and that, if such was the contract, their liabilities as common carriers would continue while the goods were so stored in the depot."

"There is a material distinction between common carriers and other bail ees of goods, as to the extent of their liability in the event of loss of the goods, or damage happening to them. The former are liable, as before remarked, in all cases, with certain precise exceptions; while the latter are only liable for want of proper care and reasonable diligence, according to the character of the bailment. And the question in the present case is, whether the defendants are liable as common carriers, after the goods are safely stored in their merchandise depot or warehouse.

"The transportation of goods and the storage of goods are contracts of a different character; and though one person or company may render both services, yet the two contracts are not to be confounded or blended; because the legal liabilities attending the two are different. The proprietors of a railroad transport merchandise over their road, receiving it at one depot or place of deposit, and delivering it at another, agreeably to the direction of the owner or consignor. But from the very nature and peculiar construction of the road, the proprietors cannot deliver merchandise at the warehouse of the owner, when situated off the line of the road, as a common wagoner can do. To make such a delivery, a distinct species of transportation would be required, and would be the subject of a distinct contract. They can deliver it only at the terminus of the road, or at the given depot, where goods can be safely unladed and put into a place of safety. After such delivery at a depot, the carriage is completed. But, owing to the great amount of goods transported and belonging to so many different persons, and in consequence of the different hours of arrival, by night as well as by day, it becomes equally convenient and necessary, both for the proprietors of the road and the owners of the goods, that they should be unladed and deposited in a safe place, protected from the weather and from exposure to thieves and pilferers. And where such suitable warehouses are provided, and the goods which are not called for on their arrival at the places of destination are unladed and separated from the goods of other persons, and stored safely in such warehouses or depots, the duty of the proprietors as common carriers is, in our judgment, terminated. They have done all they agreed to do; they have received the goods, have transported them safely to the place of delivery, and, the consignee not being present to receive them, have unladed them, and have put them in a safe and proper place for the consignee to take them away; and he can take them at any reasonable time. The liability of common carriers being ended, the proprietors are, by force of law, depositaries of the goods, and are bound to reasonable diligence in the custody of them, and consequently are only liable to the owners in case of a want of ordinary care.