PART IV.] LIABILITY FOR TORTS OF AGENTS. [§ 361. goods to a succeeding carrier for further transportation, it remains liable as carrier until it has actually delivered them to the next carrier ; and its liability does not become that of a warehouseman simply because the next carrier fails for an un- reasonable time to take the goods after notice and request to do so. 1 § 361. The duty to deliver, and the duty to deliver in due time, are distinct obligations. The time of deliver} 7 D j . may be made a matter of express contract ; 2 but when transporta- this is not so, a carrier must deliver within a reason- able time, i. e., the time within which it can deliver, using all reasonable exertion, and taking all reasonable precaution to avoid delay. 3 To excuse a carrier for unusual delay in trans- porting goods, the cause of dela} T must be something which the law regards as beyond the carrier's control. 4 A strike of its on the order of the consignee. Southern Exp. Co. v. Dickson, 94 U. S. 549. So a carrier instructed to deliver only C. O. D. is liable to the shipper for damages, if it violates the in- struction. Tooker v. Gormer, 2 Hilt. (N. Y.) 71. See Rathbun v. Citizens 1 Steamboat Co., 7(5 N. Y. 376. Misdirection of goods may re- lieve carrier; see Southern Exp. Co. v. Kaufman, 12 Heisk. (Tenn.) 161. 1 Railroad Co. v. Manufacturing Co., 16 Wall. 319; Goold v. Chapin, 20 N. Y. 259; Irish v. Milwaukee, etc., R'y Co., 19 Minn. 376; see Mills ». Michigan Cent. R. R. Co., 45 N.Y. 622; Pratt v. Railway Co., 95 U. S. 43; compare Louisville, etc., R. R. Co. v. Campbell, 7 Heisk. (Tenn.) 253: Van Lindley v. Richmond, etc., R. R., 88 N. C. 547; Texas & Pac. R'y Co. v. Clayton, 173 U. S. 348. See, Tex. & Pac. R'y Co. v. Reise, 183 U. S. 621; Tex. & Pac. R'y Co. v. Callender, 183 IT. S. 632; Morande v. Tex. & Pac. R'y Co., 184 U. S. 173. 2 See Place v. Union Exp. Co., 2 Hilt. (X. Y.) 19. 3 Philadephia, W. and B. R. R. Co. v. Lehman, 56 Md. 209; Wibert ». New York and E. R. R. Co., 12 N. Y. 245; Cobb v. Illinois Central R. R. Co., 38 Iowa, 601; Rome R. R. Co. v. Sullivan, 32 Ga. 400. Similar ob- ligation exists towards passengers. Weed v. Panama R. R. Co., 17 N. Y. 362. For measure of damages for failure to deliver, see Balto. and Ohio R. R. Co. v. Pumpbrey, 59 Md. 390. 4 See Tierney v. N. Y. C. and H. R. R. R. Co., 76 N. Y. 305. But if a railroad company knows of any cause of delay on its lines beyond its control, in order to free itself from liability it must inform the sbipper and stipulate against liability from delay. Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. Cobb, 54 111. 128; Same v. Same, ib. 143; Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. Ash- mead, 58 111. 487; Cobb v. 111. Central R. R. Co., 88 111. 394. 343
