THROUGH BOOKING. 131 



or, if necessary, to some otlier carrier to complete the tran- 

 sit, (a) or to the consignor stopping it in transitu ; (h) and in 

 the absence of any direction as to delivery, a carrier may 

 deliver to a named consignee at a different place from that 

 to which he contracted to carry it. (c) Accordingly, the 

 carrier is not discharged of his hability until delivery to the 

 consignee or his assignee, or until a reasonable time has 

 elapsed after the consignee has notice of arrival for him to 

 come and take delivery : (c?) but if the consignee delays 

 taking delivery within a reasonable time, the liability of 

 the carrier is reduced to that of an ordinary custodier, (e) 

 Where express directions are given as to deliver}', railway com- 

 panies are bound to follow them ; and if, in doing so, they 

 observe their usual course of business, they are not liable if 

 they deliver to a person the consignor did not intend. (/) 

 If there be no one to receive a horse at the end of its journey, 

 the company may put it into a livery stable, and recover 

 livery charges from the consignee, (g) 



105. Of Through Booking — Where a horse is received by 

 a railway company for transmission to a place beyond the 

 terminus of its own lines, in the absence of special conditions 

 the company is liable for its safe carriage during the whole 

 of the transit ; (/i) the persons to whom they hand it over 

 being considered their agents for delivery, (^) unless there is 

 evidence by special contract (j) to show that their responsi- 



(a) See § 105. 

 (6) B. Pr. 168. 



(c) Cork Distillery Co. v. G. <L- S.-W. Ry. Co., 1874, L.R. 7 H.L. 269 (Ireland) ; 

 L. ib N.-W. Ry. Co. v. Bartlett, 1861, 7 H. and IST. 400. 



(d) Bourne v. (iatUf, 1844, 11 C. and F. 45. 



(e) Chapman v. G. W. Ry. Co., 1880, 5 Q.B.D. 278 ; see also Martin, B., in 

 IJeurjh V. L. d: N.-W. Ry. Co., 1870, L.R. 5 Ex. 51, 57. 



(/) Martin, B., in M'Kcan v. Mlvor, 1870, L.R. 6 Ex. 36. 



(fj) G. N. Ry. Co. V. Swaffield, 1874, 4.3 L.J., Ex..89. As to the company's duty 

 when the consignee refuses to take delivery, see G. W. Ry. Co. v. Crouch, 1858, 

 3 H. and N. 183 ; also Hudson v. Baxendale, 1857, 2 H. and N. 575, 



(h) Caledonian Ry. Co. v. Hunter, 1858, 20 D. 1097. 



{i) Muschamp v. L. li- P. Ry. Co., 1841, 8 M. and W. 421. 



(;■) Foivles v. G. W. Ry. Co., 1852, 22 L.J., Ex. 76. 



