7. That all goods addressed to places within the limits of the Company's local regulations, for delivery of goods from the different stations on the railway, respecting which *no directions to the contrary shall have been received, will be delivered by the Company at those places."

10. That all goods addressed to consignees resident beyond the limits of the Company's local regulations for delivery of goods from the different stations on the railway, and respecting which no directions to the contrary shall have been received previous to arrival at the station, will be forwarded to their destination by public carrier or otherwise, as opportunity may offer; or they will, at the discretion of the Company by whom they may have been received, be suffered to remain on the Company's premises, or be placed in shed or warehouse, if there be convenience for receiving the same pending communication with the consignees, at the risk of the owners, as referred to in clause No. 4; but that the charges of such carrier will be added to those of the Company, and the delivery of the goods by the Company will be considered as complete, and the responsibility of the Company will be considered to have ceased, when such carriers shall have received the goods for further conveyance. And the Company hereby give notice, that any money which may be received by them as payments for the conveyance of goods by other carriers beyond their said limits will be so received only for the convenience of the consignors, for the purpose of being paid to such other carriers, and will not be received as a charge made by the Company upon the goods in the capacity of carriers beyond the extent of their own railway; and the Company hereby further give notice, that they will not be responsible for any loss, damage, or detention, that may happen to goods so sent by them, if such loss, damage, or detention, occur beyond their said limits."

"13. That the above conditions apply to all goods received by the above-named Company at all or any of their offices and warehouses, wherever situated; and as to all goods *entrusted to them, they will only agree to carry them subject to the above conditions, and to all other the rules and regulations of the said Company."

It was proved that it was the custom of the defendants to receive traffic, as the next carriers, from the Great Western Railway Company, and to forward it on, receiving for doing so a mileage proportion for the carriage of the same.

On the goods arriving at Bristol, which is the terminus of the Great Western Railway line, they were handed over to the defendant Company, whose line begins at Bristol and ends at

EXETER

v.

COLLINS.

Exeter, where it is joined by the line of another Company, BRISTOL AND the South Devon Railway, which runs on to Torquay. The RAILWAY CO. goods were carried on the same truck as before, and were under the care of the same guard, he being in the service of the Great Western Railway Company. They were placed for the night on a siding, in an open shed of the defendant Company, where they were destroyed by fire.

The defendants contended that the "conditions" exempted them from liability; the plaintiff insisted that these conditions applied only to the Great Western Railway Company; the learned Judge left to the jury the question of fact, whether the defendants had been guilty of negligence, and the jury found that they had not. A verdict was then entered for the plaintiff, with leave for the defendants to move to enter a nonsuit. A rule having been obtained for this purpose, it was made absolute, on the ground that there was but one contract, which was with the Great Western Company, to carry the goods from Bath to Torquay, and that that Company was, under the "conditions," expressly exempted from liability to loss by fire (1). This judgment was reversed in the Exchequer Chamber (2). The present appeal was then brought.

The rule for entering a nonsuit was in these terms: "why a nonsuit should not be entered, or why the damages should not be reduced, on the grounds that the van and goods lost or damaged were received and carried by the defendants under a contract, by the conditions of which the defendants were not liable for loss or damage by fire."

The case stated under the Common Law Procedure Act of 1854, contained the following sentence: It was agreed at the trial that no objection should be taken to the form of the contract, as set out in the declaration; but that, if necessary, the plaintiff should be at liberty to amend his declaration, so as to meet the real facts of the case.

The judges were summoned, and Mr. Justice Wightman, Mr. Justice Williams, Mr. Baron Martin, Mr. Justice Crompton, Mr. Justice Willes, Mr. Baron Watson, and Mr. Justice Byles attended.

Mr. Serjeant Kinglake and Mr. Collier, for the appellants: There is here but one contract; it is made between the Great Western Company and the plaintiff, and is to carry from the Bath station, where the goods were received, to the Torquay station, where they were to be delivered, subject to certain conditions: Muschamp v. The Lancaster and Preston (2) 1 H. & N. 517.

(1) 11 Ex. 790.

[199]

EXETER

COLLINS.

[ *200 ]

BRISTOL AND Railway Company (1) distinctly established that principle as RAILWAY CO. One which was to govern these cases; and the same principle was acted on in Scothorn v. The South Staffordshire Railway Company (2); and was also applied, though under different circumstances, in Machu v. The London and South Western Railway Company (3). The last case of this sort is that of Wilby v. The West Cornwall Railway Company (4); and the general law as to the entirety of a contract of this kind is plain. There is nothing here to raise an exception to its application. There was, consequently, no contract between the plaintiff and the defendants.

[ 201 ]

(THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Does the Company use different receipt or ticketing notes when carrying goods within the limits. of its own line alone?)

It does not. The receipt of a mileage proportion by the defendants does not affect the question; they acted as the agents of the Great Western Company to carry into effect the contract of that Company, and received payment for so doing, but did not thereby become contractors with the plaintiff.

The receipt of money for the whole distance must be coupled with the words in the 10th condition, and both together show that the Great Western Company, and no other, entered into the contract with the plaintiff. * * The 7th condition must

be read with the 10th.

Mr. M. Smith and Mr. T. W. Saunders, for the respondent: There are here three contracts. The first is that which was made by the Great Western Railway Company on its own. behalf; the other two were made by that Company acting as agent for the two Companies. The first is subject to those special exemptions from the common law liability of a carrier, which are contained in the conditions; the others are not subject. to such exemptions, but are the contracts of carriers at common law. The words of the conditions show most clearly that the Great Western Company relieved itself from all liability "beyond the limits" of its own railway. The first part of the receipt note "to be sent to Torquay station" may, perhaps, bear the interpretation put on it by the other side, but the 10th condition. is plain and unequivocal; and if any part of the note is to be rejected, it must be that part which would render the meaning equivocal, not that which is free from all doubt. The consignor may send the goods where he likes, but as to the Great Western Company, he sends them, subject to the condi(1) 58 R. R. 758 (8 M. & W. 421). (3) 76 R. R. 655 (2 Ex. 415). (4) 2 H. & N. 703.

(2) 91 R. R. 527 (8 Ex. 341).

EXETER RAILWAY CO.

COLLINS.

[ *202 ]

tions. And it should be remarked, that the general words at BRISTOL AND the top of the note are not "to carry," or *"to convey," but "to be sent to Torquay station," which, of themselves, imply, that the Great Western Company only undertook to convey a certain distance, and then to send on the goods by some other railway. This is made more plain by the declaration, that the payment for the whole distance is received by the Great Western Company merely for "the convenience of the consignor for the purpose of being paid to other carriers."

(Lord WENSLEYDALE referred to the words in the case "handed over to the Bristol and Exeter Railway Company.") That meant transferring the goods to the care and control of another Company. The receipt by the other Companies of a regulated proportion of mileage for the carriage of goods on their lines shows that they receive a consideration in virtue of which each assumes, in turn, the character, and must bear the responsibilities, of a common carrier. *

Mr. Serjeant Kinglake replied.

* * *

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord CHELMSFORD) put the following question to the Judges:

Assuming that the goods referred to in the sending note, page 11 of the printed case, were accidentally destroyed by fire after they had passed Bristol, and while they were on the Bristol and Exeter Railway, were the defendants liable for the loss occasioned by the fire?

MR. JUSTICE BYLES:

My Lords, I am of opinion that the plaintiff below is entitled to recover against the defendants below, the Bristol and Exeter Railway Company.

It is true that there was but one signed document between the plaintiff below, the consignor, and the Great Western Railway Company; but that document comprehends two contracts; the first between the consignor and the Great Western Railway Company in their capacity of common carriers, to carry the goods from Bath to Bristol; *the second, between the consignor and the Great Western Railway Company, as agents of the consignor, to forward the same goods by the Bristol and Exeter Railway for the consignor. As soon as the Great Western Railway Company have fulfilled their duty as common carriers under the first contract, and transferred the goods to the defendants under the second contract, and the defendants have accepted them to be carried for the original consignor on their own railway, a third contract arises, that is to say, a contract

[203]

June 11.

[ *204 ]

EXETER RAILWAY CO.

COLLINS.

BRISTOL AND between the plaintiff, the consignor, on the one part, and the defendants below, the Bristol and Exeter Railway Company, on the other. The liability of the defendants below to the consignor under that third contract is limited by no conditions that appear in evidence, and the accident being of a description for which common carriers are by law responsible, I think the defendants below liable.

[ *205 ]

[210]

That there were two contracts between the consignor and the Great Western Railway Company, one in their character of common carriers, and the other in their character of forwarding agents, appears from the 10th condition; for a portion of the money which was paid by the consignor at Bath was paid for the conveyance beyond Bristol, which is the limit of the Great Western Railway; and the 10th condition provides that money paid for that purpose will be received by the Great Western Railway Company for the convenience of the consignors, and for the purpose of being handed over to the farther carriers, and will not be received by the Great Western Railway Company in their capacity of common carriers.

The cases of Muschamp v. The Lancaster and Preston Railway Company (1) and Scothorn v. South Staffordshire Railway Company (2) have no bearing on the true *questions in this case. Those cases show that if a parcel is received by a Railway Company, without any protecting conditions, to be delivered by them at a place on another line, the receiving Company are, as between themselves and the consignor, primâ facie common carriers for him throughout the whole distance. In Muschamp v. The Lancaster and Preston Railway Company, Mr. Baron ROLFE expressly says that he only held at the trial "that prima facie there was an undertaking to carry to a farther place." Those expressions, so far as they assume that the responsibility of the receiving Company may be varied by conditions, are in favour of the defendants in error; but they show that these cases of Muschamp and of Scothorn do not touch the true questions of the case now under consideration, which involve merely the interpretation of the conditions, and their applicability to the defendants' contract.

My Lords, this case appears to me to depend upon the construction which is to be put upon the contract of carriage signed by the plaintiff below when he delivered the goods in question to the Great Western Railway Company. If, as contended by the defendants below, the Great Western Railway (1) 58 R. R. 758 (8 M. & W. 421), (2) 91 R. R. 527 (8 Ex. 341).