266 



CARRYING HORSES. 



Condition as 

 to non-liabi- 

 lity beyond 

 their own 

 limits. 



If part of 

 special con- 

 tract is rea- 

 sonable, such 

 part may be 

 relied on. 



Alternative 

 rates. 



owner accepted, a free passage for a person who travelled 

 with the cattle sent. 



If carriers receive a chattel to carry to a particular 

 place, they must be said to have the carrying of it to the 

 end of the journey, whether they themselves carry it all the 

 way or not. Therefore any parties to whom they may hand 

 it over are their agents, and they are clearly liable, unless 

 the facts show that their responsibility has determined (/). 

 But a company (which is within the Railway and Canal 

 Traffic Act) may divest itself of this responsibility for goods 

 beyond its own limits, as the following conditions have been 

 held to be just and reasonable, viz., that " in respect of 

 goods destined for places beyond the limits of the company's 

 railway, the company's responsibility will cease when such 

 goods shall have been delivered over to another carrier in 

 the usual course for another conveyance." And " that any 

 money, which may be received by the company as payment 

 for the conveyance of goods beyond their own limits, will be 

 so received for the convenience of the consignors, and for the 

 purpose of being paid to the other carrier " (m). 



If a railway company puts two conditions into their 

 carrying clause, one of which is unreasonable, they may 

 rely upon tlie other, which is reasonable. So, too, if part 

 of a condition, which is severable from the rest of it, is 

 reasonable («). 



It has been said that the principle deducible from the 

 authorities is, that a contract, prima facie unreasonable, 

 becomes reasonable if an alternative rate is offered to the 

 customer, i.e., if the company have two rates, at one of 

 which, the higher, it undertakes the ordinary risk of a 

 carrier, while at the other, the reduced rate, it carries upon 

 condition of being relieved from that risk (o). It is the 

 common practice of railway companies to ofi'er alternative 

 rates, and the question of the validity of these rates has 

 frequently been the subject of judicial decision. From 

 these decisions it would appear that conditions are just and 

 reasonable if the company offer a bond fide option, and if 

 the higher rate is reasonable as well as the lower (p) . If 



(?) Muschainp v. Lancaster and 

 Trenton Junction Ha'd. Co.^ 8 M. & 

 W. 421 ; Jl'alsoii v. Aiiihrffate, Not- 

 tinqham and JBonton Jiail. Co., 15 

 Jur. 448. 



()b) Aldridge v. Great Western 

 Sail. Co., 33 L. J., C. B. 161. 



(«) M'Cance t. London and North 



Western Rail. Co., 1 H. & N. 477. 



(o) Gallafjlier v. Great Western 

 Rail. Co., Ir. E., 8 C. L. 326. 



(jo) Hodges on Railways, 7th ed.571. 

 See also Simons v. Great Western Rail. 

 Co., 18 C. B. 805; 26 L. J., C. P. 

 25 ; Harris v. Ilidland Rail. Co., 25 

 W. E. 63 ; Lewis v. Great Western 



