Common Carriers

Such as carry goods for hire indifferently for all persons. The definition includes carriers by land and water. One who plies between certain termini, and openly professes to carry for hire the ^oods of all such persons as may choose to employ him. Redf. Carr. 1. One undertaking to carry for hire the goods of all persons indifferently. 3 Wend. (N. Y.) 161; 22 N. J. Law, 372. "The test [of whether one is a common carrier] is not whether he is carrying as a public employment, or whether he carries to a fixed place, but whether he holds out, either expressly or by a course of conduct, that he will carry for hire, so long as he has room, the goods of all persons, indifferently, who send him goods to be carried." L. R. 1 C. P. 19, 423. Common Carriers of Passengers. Such as carry persons for hire, and are bound to carry all who offer. 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 239; 10 N. H. 486; 16 111. 472; 2 Sumn. (U. S.) 221; 3 Brod. & B. 54; 9 Price, 408.

One whose business, occupation, or regular calling it is to carry chattels for all persons who may choose to employ and remunerate him. Dwight v. Brewster, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 50, 11 Am. Dec. 133; Fish v. Chapman, 2 Ga. 353, 46 Am. Dec. 393; Schoul. Bailm. § 345; Naugatuck 'R. Co. v. Button Co., 24 Conn. 479. The definition includes carriers by land and water. They are, on the one hand, stagecoach and omnibus proprietors, railroad and street railway companies: Spellman v. Transit Co., 36 Neb. S90, 55 N. W. 270, 20 L. R. A. 316, 38 Am. St. Rep. 7."::; truckmen, wagoners, and teamsters, carmen and porters; and express companies, whether such persons undertake to carry goods from one portion of the same town to another, or through the whole extent of the country, or even from one state or kingdom to another. And, on the other hand, this term includes the owners and masters of every kind of vessel or water-craft who set themselves before the public as the carriers of freight of any kind for all who choose to employ them, whether the extent of their navigation be from one continent to another or only in the coasting trade or in river or lake transportation, or whether employed in lading or unlading goods or in ferrying, with whatever mode of motive power they may adopt; Story, Bailm. § 491: 2 Kent 598, 599; Redf. Railw. 8 124; 1 Salk. 249; Fish v. Chapman, 2 Ga. 349, 46 Am. Dec. 393; Knox v. Rives, 14 Ala. 2G1, 48 Am. Dec. 97; Liverpool & G. W. Steam Co. v. Ins. Co., 129 TJ. S. 397, 9 Sup. Ct 469. 32 L. Ed 788; Robertson v. Kennedy, 2 Dana (Ky.) 431, 26 Am. Dec. 466; Dibble v. Giflin v. Pipe Lines, 172 Pa. 5S0, 33 Atl. 578. General truckman are com: riers; Jackson Architectural Iron \ Hurlbut, 158 N. Y.: Rep. 432. Telegraph or te nies formerly were held i;"t to: carriers; Tyler v. Telegraph i 11 Am. Rep. 38; Leonard v. h Co., 41 N. Y. 544, 1 Am. Rep. 44C: Passmore v. Telegraph Co., 78 Pa. Z graph Co., 46 Barb. iX. Y.i 274; W< Union Tel. Co. v. Fontah* 433; but were subject to the rules governing common carriers and others engaged in like public employment; Delaware & A. Telegraph & Telephone Co. v. Delaware, 50 Fed. 077, 2 C. C. A. 1; Primrose v. Telegraph Co., 154 U. S. 1, 14 Sup. Ct 109S, 3S L. Ed. 883. The term "common carrier," as used in the Interstate Commerce Act and its amendments, includes express and sleeping car companies, telegraph, telephone and cable companies (both wire and wireless), and pipe lines. See Telegraph Compani. hone Companies. The liability of the owner of a tug-boat to his tow is not that of a common carrier; Hays v. Millar, 77 Ta. 238, IS Am. Rep. 445; Caton v. Runiney, 13 Wend. (N. Y.i 387; The New Philadelphia, 1 Black (1 17 I.. Ed. 84; White v. The Mary Ann. 6 OaL 4«;j. 65 Am. Dec. 523. And although the carrier receives the goods as a forwarder only, yet if his contract is to transport and to deliver tbem at a specified address, he is liable as a common carrier: Nashua Lock Co. v. R. Co., 48 N. H. 339, 2 Am. Rep. 242. Common carriers are responsible for all loss or damage during transportation, from whatever cause, except the act of God or the public enemy; 2 Ld. Raym. 1 Salk. 18 and cases cited: 26 B. L. & Eq. 595; 2 Kent 507. 598; Turney v. "Wilson. 7 Yerg. (Tenn.i 340, 27 Am. Dec. 515; Murphy v. Staton, ?, Munf. (Va.) 239; M.Arthur v. Sears, 21 Wend. (N. Y.) L90; Mc Call v. Brock, 5 Strob. (S. C.) 119; Faulkner v. Wright, Rice (S. C.) 10S: New Brunswick Steamboat Co. v. Tiers, 24 N. J. 1 Am. Dec. 394; Harris v. Rand. 4 N. i. 17 Am. Dec. 421; Christenson v. Express Co., 15 Minn. 279 (Gil. 208), -' Am. Rep. 122; South & X. A. R. Co. v. Wood, <;'•• Ala. 167, 41 Am. Rep. 749; Inman & Co. v. R. Co., 159 Fed. 960. The act of God is held to extend only to such inevitable accidents as occur without the intervention of man's agency; Mc Arthur v. Sears, L'l Wend. (N. Y.) 190; which could not be avoided by the exercise of due skill and care; Hart v. Allen, 2 Watts (Pa.) 114; Memphis & C. R. Co. v. Reeves, 10 Wall. (U. S.) 176, 19 L. Ed. 909; but where freight cars are stopped by or insurrection; Lang v. R. Co., 154 Pa. 342. See Act of Gon. The carrier is not responsible for losses occurring from natural causes, such as frost, fermentation, evaporation, or natural decay of perishable articles, or the natural and necessary wear in the course of transportation, or the shipper's carelessness, provided the carrier exercises all reasonable care to have the loss or deterioration as little as practicable; Bull. N. P. 69; 2 Kent 299; Story, Bailm. § 492 a; Warden v. Greer, 6 Watts (Pa.) 424; Redf. Railw. § 141; Jordan v. Exp. Co., 86 Me. 225, 29 Atl. 980; The Guidiug Star, 53 Fed. 936; International &