Express Companies

Companies organized to carry small and valuable packages expeditiously in such manner as not to subject them to the danger of loss and damage which to a greater or less degree attends the transportation of heavy or bulky articles of commerce. Southern Express Co. v. R. Co., 10 Fed. 213. A common carrier that carries at regular and stated times, over fixed and regular routes, money and other valuable packages, which cannot be conveniently or safely carried as common freight; and also other articles and packages of any description which the shipper desires or the nature of the article requires should have safe and rapid transit and quick delivery, transporting the same in the immediate charge of its own messenger on passenger steamers and express and passenger railway trains, which it does not own or operate, but with the owners of which it contracts for the carriage of its messengers and freights; and within cities and towns or other defined limits, it collects from the consignors and delivers to the consignees at other places of business the goods which it carries. Pacific Exp. Co. v. Seibert, 44 Fed. 310. The right to use the facilities afforded by a railroad depends entirely on contract; St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Express Co., 117 U. S. 3, 6 Sup. Ct. 542, 628, 29 L. Ed. 791. In St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Express Co., 117 U. S. 1, 6 Sup. Ct. 542, 628, 29 L. Ed. 791; it was held that a railroad company might make an exclusive contract with a single express company, and this has been followed by many state courts; but it is held that under the anti-trust laws such exclusive contract is not valid; State v. R. Co., 99 Tex. 516, 91 S. W. 214, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 783, 13 Ann. Cas. 1072. They are common carriers; Southern Express Co. v. Crook, 44 Ala. 468, 4 Am. Rep. 140; U. S. Express Co. v. Backman, 28 Ohio St. 144; notwithstanding a declaration in their bill of lading that they are not to be so considered; Bank of Kentucky v. Express Co., 93 U. S. 174, 23 L. Ed. 872; Christenson v. Express Co., 15 Minn. 270 (Gil. 208), 2 Am. Rep. 122. In section 1 of the Railroad Rate Act (June 29, 1906), it is provided that the term "common carrier" in that act should include express companies; State v. Express Co., 171 Ind. 138, 85 N. E. 337, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 93, where it was said that congress has assumed jurisdiction over interstate traffic by express down to the point where the transit is entirely at an end; and a state statute requiring such companies to make free deliveries of parcels committed to their care was held void. carrier" as used in the act shall include express companies; U. S. Comp. St. Stat Supp. 1911, 1285; and in an indictment of express companies under that act it was held that where a joint stock company did a general interstate express business and had filed a schedule of its rates with the Interstate Commerce Commission it was a quasi corporation and subject to indictment as a legal entity; U. S. v. Am. Express Co., 199 Fed. 321. See Common Carriers. Like all other common carriers they must receive all goods offered for transportation, on being paid or tendered the proper charge; Jordan v. R. Co., 5 Gush. (Mass.) 69, 51 Am. Dec. 44; and if they cannot transport them within a reasonable time, must refuse them or be responsible for loss caused by the delay; Condict v. R. Co., 54 N. Y. 500; Tierney v. R. Co., 70 N. Y. 305; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Cobb, 64 Illi 128. They may also refuse to receive dangerous articles for transportation; Parrot v. Wells, 15 Wall. (U. S.) 524, 21 L. Ed. 206; Boston & A. R. Co. v. Shanly, 107 Mass. 568. An express company insures the safe delivery of goods received at the destination, if on its own route; if not, safe delivery at the end of its route to the next carrier; and will be relieved only by act of God or of the public enemy; Stephens & C. Transp. Co. v. Tuckerman, Milligan & Co., 33 N. J. L. 543; U. S. Exp. Co. v. Hutchins, 5S 111. 44; Southern Exp. Co. v. Craft, 49 Miss. 480, 19 Am. Rep. 4; Babcock v. Ry. Co., 49 N. Y. 491; American Exp. Co. v. Bank, 69 Pa. 394, 8 Am. Rep. 268; Hadd v. Exp. Co., 52 Vt 335, 36 Am. Rep. 757. An express company may by special contract limit its liability for the value of goods lost; Oppenheimer v. Exp. Co., 69 111. 62, 18 Am. Rep. 596; Magnin v. Dinsmore, 62 N. Y. 35, 20 Am. Rep. 442; Baldwin v. Steamship Co., 74 N. Y. 125, 30 Am. Rep. 277; U. S. Exp. Co. v. Backman, 28 Ohio St. 144; except for losses due to its own negligence or misconduct; Bank of Kentucky v. Exp. Co., 93 U. S. 174, 23 L. Ed. 872; Boscowitz v. Exp. Co., 93 111. 523, 34 Am. Rep. 191; Harvey v. R. Co., 74 Mo. 53S; Whitworth v. Ry. Co., 87 N. Y. 413. A contract between an express company and its messenger exempting it from liability for injury to him by the negligence of the carrier, is valid and may extend so far as to authorize the express company to contract with the carrier against liability to the messenger; but such contract will not enure to the benefit of the carrier having no knowledge of it or not having availed itself of it by contracting with the express company; Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co. v. Keefer, 146 Ind. 21, 44 X. E. 796, 3S L. R. A. 93, 58 Am. St. Rep. 348. An express company is liable for damages 40; but a delay, to create a liability, must be "an unreasonable delay which is such as involves some want of ordinary care or diligence"; Adams Exp. Co. v. Bratton, 106 111. App. 563. Where it was a habit to carry large sums of money for hire and keep the same for several hours after its transportation before called for, the liability for it warehouseman and not as a common carrier; President, etc., of Conway Lank v. Ex: 8 Allen (Mass.) 512. The liability of an express company as a common carrier terminates on the safe carriage of the goods to their destination and notice to the consignee; Hasse v. Exp. Co., 94 Mich. 133, 53 N. W. 918, 34 Am. St. Rep. 328; and where goods are sent C. O. D., and the consignee n to accept them, and the shipper on notice directs the company to hold them until called for, its liability is only that of a wanhouseman; Byrne v. Fargo, 36 Misc. 54::. 73 N. Y. Supp. 943; but it is held that in the absence of a special contract the duty of the company is not completed on the arrival of the goods, but includes delivery; Burr v. Exp. Co., 71 N. J. L. 263, 58 At" 609; or constructive delivery by notice to the consignee; Rogers v. Fargo, 47 Misc. 155, 93 N. Y. Supp. 550; where there is such local usage; Hutchinson v. Exp. Co., 03 W. Va. 128, 59 S. E. 949, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 393, and note on delivery. An express company is not denied the equal protection of the laws by classifying it with railroad and telegraph companii subject to the unit rule of taxation, which estimates the value of the whole plant, though situated in different states, as an entirety, for the purpose of determining the value of the property in one state; Adams Exp. Co. v. Ohio State Auditor, 165 U. S. 194, 17 Sup. Ct 305, 41 L. Ed. 683; id., U. S. 1S5, 17 Sup. Ct. 604, 41 L. and a state statute, requiring foreign express companies to file a statement before doing business and an agreement in reference to suits brought against them, did ii"t give them a vested right bo carry on business subject to the then existing laws or exempt them from future legislative control: Adams Exp. Co. v. State, 161 Ind. 328, 67 N. E. 1033. Under a state statute providing that one who offers to carry persons, property or mesis a common carrier of what he thus offers to carry, an express company offering to carry money for hire is a common carrier f; Piatt v. Le Cocq, 150 Fed where it was held that the railroad commissioners' order requiring it to receive money, of which it held itself out to be a common carrier, at all reasonable business hours preceding the departure of trains, was reasonable. A state statute regulating express companies by requiring equal terms to all, stitution; Am. Express Co. v. Express Co., 1G7 Ind. 292, 78 N. E. 1021. In some states statutes relating to the transportation of property by railroad companies are applicable to express companies; Mac MiUan v. Express Co., 123 la. 236, 98 N. W. 629; but a statute prescribing the duties of railroads with reference to intersecting lines relates to the mere physical connection of the tracks and has no application to express companies; Southern Ind. Express Co. v. Ex. Co., 92 Fed. 1022, 35 C. C. A. 172. See an epitome of the law on this subject at that date by Judge Redfield in 5 Am. Law Reg. N. S. 1; and three articles on express companies as common carriers; id. 449, 513, 648. See Railroad; Common Carriers.