Odger's English Common Law

CARRIERS OF GOODS. 649
The articles specified in this section are money,
jewellery, 2 bills, bank-notes, securities for the payment of
money, 3 pictures, 4 plate, china, silks, 5 furs or lace 6—all articles,
it will be observed, of little bulk but of considerable value.
The Act only applies to carriers by land; but where one
entire contract is made to carry goods over both land and sea,
the contract is divisible and the carrier will be protected so
far as the journey by land is concerned. 7
By section 2 the carrier is entitled to charge at an increased
rate for the carriage of a parcel containing any of the above-
mentioned articles. 8 A notice specifying such increased rate
of charge must be fixed in a conspicuous part of the office or
receiving house of the carrier. 9
If this be done, the consignor
will be bound by the notice without any further proof being
given of its having come to his knowledge. By section 3 the
carrier must (if required so to do) give a receipt to the sender
for the amount paid for carriage of any article the value of
which has been declared as above mentioned. If he omits
to give such receipt or set up such notice, he will not be
entitled to any benefit under the Act, but will be responsible
as at common law and liable to refund to his customer the
increased rate of charge paid by him. And in every case in
which an increased rate has been paid for the carriage of a
parcel, the contents of which have been properly declared,
the consignor may, if the parcel be lost or damaged, recover
the increased charge in addition to the value of the parcel. 10
A common carrier still remains liable as at common law
for the loss of or damage to any goods to which the Act
does not apply ; and a notice purporting to limit his liability
in respect of any such articles is invalid. But the carrier
may limit his liability as to these goods by making a special
1 Doey v. L. $ X. W. Ry. Go., [19191 l K. B. 623.
* See Bernstein v. Baxendale (1859), 6 C. B. N. S. 251.
» See Stoessiger v. S. E. Ry. Co. (1854), 3 E. & B. 549.
* See Woodward v. L. # N. W. Ry. Co. (1878), 3 Ex. D. 121.
s See Brunt v. Midland Ry. Co. (1864), 2 H. & C. 889.
> This word does not include machine-made lace : 28 & 29 Vict. c. 94, s. 1.
1 Le Conteur v. L. % S. W. Ry. Co. (1865), L. R. 1 Q. B. 54.
* It is incumbent on the carrier to demand—not on the customer to tender
increased charge : G. N. Ry. Co. v. Behrens (1862), 7 H. & K. 950.
the
» S. 5.
10 S. 7 ; see further as to the measure of damages in such an action, s.
Mttlen v. Brasch (1882), 10 Q. B. I>. 142.
9, and
—