Odger's English Common Law

652 TORTS ARISING OUT OF CONTRACTS.
carry, whether one of those places be without the realm or
not. But neither by common law nor under the Eailway
aud Canal Traffic Act is a railway company under any
liability to carry goods otherwise than according to its
profession. 1
When a railway company undertakes to deliver goods to a
consignee beyond the limits of its own line, a special contract
declaring that it will not be responsible for any loss of or
damage done to such goods beyond those limits will relieve
the company from liability. 2 But in the absence of any such
special contract, the rule is that the company, to whom the
goods are handed and with whom the contract of carriage
was made, is liable for their non-delivery in an action brought
on the contract. The forwarding company cannot be sued in
an action of contract, and it will only be liable to an action
of tort if it can be shown that the goods were lost on its line
and through its negligence. 3 Where a company, by through
booking, contracts to carry any animals or goods from place
to place, partly by railway or canal and partly by sea, a
condition exempting the company from liability for any loss
or damage which may arise during the carriage by sea from
" the act of God, the King's enemies, fire, accidents from
machinery, boilers and steam, and all and every other dangers
and accidents of the seas, rivers and navigation of what
nature and kind soever " will, if published conspicuously in
the office where such through booking is effected, and if
legibly printed on the receipt or freight note given by the
company for the animals, luggage or goods, be valid as part
of the contract between the consignor and the company, in
like manner as if the company had signed and delivered to
the consignor a bill of lading containing such condition. 4
And where a railway company works steam vessels in connec-
tion with its land traffic, the provisions of the Eailway and
l ln re Oxlade and N. E. By. Co. (1864), 15 0. B. N. S. 680.
2 Fowles v. G. W. By. Co. (1852), 7 Exoh. 699 ; and see Foulkes v. Metropolitan
My. Co. (1880), 5 C. P. D. 157, overruling, on this point, Mytton v. Midland
By. Co. (1859), * H. & N. 615.
8 See ante, pp. 429, 430.
1 31 & 32 Vict. c. 119, s. 14. And see Carriage of Goods by Sea, post, p. 910.1