L.R A

316; Harrell v. Ellsworth, 17 Ala. 584; City of Newport v. Taylor’s Ex’rs, 16 B. Monr. (Ky.) 699; Taylor v. R. Co., 49 N. C. 277; Long v. Beard, 7 N. C. 57; but he may transport his own goods in his own boats where another has an exclusive right of ferry; Alexandria, W. & K. Ferry Co. v. Wisch, 73 Mo. 655, 39 Am. Rep. 535; Capital City Ferry Co. v. Transp. Co., 61 Mo. App. 228; Tugwell V. Ferry Co., 74 Tex. 480, 9 S. W. 120, 13 S. W. 654. He may not, however, offer the free use of his boats to his customers as an inducement to secure their trade where he thereby diverts their patronage from a lawfully established ferry; Inhabitants of Peru & Dixfleld v. Barrett, 100 Me. 213, 60 Atl. 968, 70 L. R. A. 567, 109 Am. St. Rep. 494. The grant to a city by the legislature of the right of licensing ferries, does not empower the city to grant exclusive ferry privileges; Carroll v. Campbell, 108 Mo. 550, 17 S. W. 884. The franchise of a ferry Is an incorporeal hereditament, and as such it descends to heirs, is subject to dower, may be leased, sold, and assigned; 5 Com. Dig. 291; 12 East 334; Bowman v. Wathen, 2 Mc Lean, 370, Fed. Cas. No. 1,740; Stark v. Miller, 3 Mo. 470; Garrett v. Ricketts, 9 Ala. 529; Capital City Ferry Co. v. Tran.sp. Co., 51 Mo. App. 228; Mc Ckjarly v. Swayze, 65 Miss. 351, 3 South. 657; and when created by act of the legislature can be conveyed only by deed; Gunterman v. People, 138 111. 518, 28 N. E. 1067; but, nevertheless, being a franchise in which the public have rights and interests, it is subject to legislative regulation for the enforcement and protection of such rights and interests; Cooley, Const Llm. 732; Benson V. Mayor, etc., 10 Barb. (N. Y.) 22^; Chosen Freeholders of Hudson Co. v. State, 24 N. J. L. 718; City of New Newport v. Taylor’s Heirs, 11 B. Monr. (Ky.) 361. The owners of ferries are common carriers, and liable as such for the carriage of the goods and persons which they receive upon their boats. They are bound to have their ferries furnished with suitable boats, and to be In readiness at all proper times to transport all who apply for a passage; Ang. High. 437; Wallen v. Mc Henry, 3 Humphr. (Tenn.) 245; Pomeroy v. Donaldson, 5 Mo. 36; Fisher v. Clisbee, 12 111. 344; May V. Hanson, 6 Cal. 360, 63 Am. Dec. 135; 10 M. & W. 161; Evans v. Rudy, 34 Ark. 383; Koretke v. Irwin, 100 Ala. 323, 13 South. 943, 21 L. R. A. 787. They must have their flats so made and so guarded velth railings that all drivers with horses and carriages may slips of the flat, and during their transportation, although driven by the owner or his servant, they are in the possession of the ferryman, and the owners of the ferry are answerable for the loss or injury of the same unless occasioned by the fault of the I driver; Cohen v. Hume, 1 Mc Cord (S. C.) 439; 16 E. Lk & Eq. 437; Albright v. Penn, 14 Tex. 290; Richards v. Fuqua’s Adm’rs, 28 Miss. 792, 64 Am. Dec. 121; Wilson v. Hamilton, 4 Ohio St. 722; White v. Winnislmmet Co., 7 Cush. (Mass.) 155; they are not required to have railings at the end of their toats when not in actual use, so as to prevent runaway teams from entering and passing over the same to the river; Evans v. Goodrich, 46 Minn. 388, 49 N. W. 188; see Nexjugence; but it is also well settled that if the owner retains control of the property himself and does not surrender the charge to the ferryman, such strict liability does not attach, and he Is only responsible for actual negligence; Harvey v. Rose, 26 Ark. 3, 7 Am. Rep. 595; Wyckoff v. Ferry Co., 62 N. Y. 32, 11 Am. Rep. 650; 10 M. & W. 546; 36 Am. Rep. 604, n. See Printup v. Patton, 91 Ga. 422, 18 S. E. 311. If the ferry be rented, the tenant and not the owner is subject to these liabilities, because such tenant is pro hac vice the owner; Biggs v. Ferrell, 34 N. C. 1; Norton v. Wiswall, 26 Barb. (N. Y.) 618; Felton V. Deall, 22 Vt. 170, 54 Am. Dec. 61. See article in 4 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 617; 19 id. 148; Washb. Easements; Ang. Water Courses.' See Commeece; Taxation; Rates.