CARRYING HORSES. 271 



delivery of live stock, where tlie owner has, ia defiance of pHance with 

 the known course of business of the company, permitted receipt*'' *" 

 them to be delivered at one of the company's stations with- 

 out an acknowledgment from the proper officer of their 

 receipt for the purpose of their being carried, although they 

 are proved to have been delivered to an officer in the com- 

 pany's employ (l). 



Where one railway company undertakes to carry goods Through car- 

 from a station on their railway to a place on another distinct ^^^S^ on rail- 

 railway, with which it communicates, this is evidence of a ^3:1^7 ^ 

 contract with them for the whole distance, and the other liable, 

 company will be regarded simply as their agents (m). But 

 the first company might by a special contract restrain their 

 Kability to the limits of their own rail, where they expressly 

 act as agents for the other company («). And the question 

 as to which company is liable will depend on the terms of 

 the special contract in each individual case. Thus, in 

 Coxon V. Great Western Railicay Comjiany (o), the plaintiff 

 delivered cattle at a station of the Shrewsbury and Hereford 

 Railway Company, to be conveyed to Birmingham, and 

 signed a contract- note with that company, one of the terms 

 of which was, that the company would not be subject to 

 liability for any damage arising on other railways. The 

 cattle were placed on a truck of the defendants lying at the 

 station, and were conveyed in it along the Shrewsbury and 

 Hereford Railway to Shrewsbury, and then on the defen- 

 dants' line to Birmingham. Between Shrewsbury and 

 Birmingham the cattle were injured by the floor of the 

 truck giving way ; and it was held that, as the contract of 

 carriage was with the Shrewsbury and Hereford Com- 

 pany for the entire journey, the defendants were not 

 liable. 



In GUIy. Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway Giiiv. Man- 

 Company (p), the Great Northern Railway Company and "hesier^-c, 

 the Manchester Railway Company had agreed that a 

 complete and full system of interchange of traffic should be 

 established from all parts of one company and beyond its 

 limits, to all parts of the other company and beyond its 

 limits, with through tickets, through rates and invoices, 



(D Slim v. Great Northern Rail. Co., 22 L. J., Ex. 76 ; 7 Exch. 699. 



Co.,U C. B. 647. (o) 29 L. J., Ex. 165 ; 5 H. & 



Im) Muschamp T. Lancaster, §€., N. 274. 



Mail. Co., 8 U.&W.i21; 3 H. & (;>) L. E., 8 Q. B. 186 ; 42 L. J., 



C. 771 ; i H. & C. 582, Exch. Ch. Q. B. 89 ; 28 L. T., N. S. 587. 



(«) Foivlesy. Great Western Mail. 



