PAKT IV.] LIABILITY FOR TORTS OF AGENTS. [§ 363. only from clear and satisfactory evidence." * The same general doctrine is also clearly stated by Judge Rapallo, of the New- York Court of Appeals, in Root v. Great Western R. R. Co. 2 " The receipt of goods marked for a place beyond the terminus of the carrier's route does not import a contract to carry them to their final destination ; but, in the absence of a special con- tract, and of a partnership between the connecting lines, the carrier is only responsible to the extent of his own route, and for the safe delivery to the next succeeding carrier ; in such a case the carrier is merely a forwarder from the terminus of his own line, and where goods thus marked are delivered to a carrier, unaccompanied by any particular directions, except such as might be inferred from the marks themselves, the carrier is only bound at the terminus of his own line, to deliver them according to the established usage of the business in which he is engaged." 3 On the other hand, from the bill of lading taken in connection with the circumstances of the case, a court may allow a jury to find a contract for through transportation, which will render liable the carrier who received the goods, no matter w r here the loss occurs. 4 1 Myrick v. Michigan Central R. R. Co., 107 U. S. 102, 106. 2 45 N. Y. 524, 530. 8 Accord Van Santvoord v. St. John, 6 Hill, 158; Railroad Co. v. Pratt, 22 Wall. 123; Jenneson v. Railroad Co., 4 Am. Law Reg. 234 and note; Rome R. R. Co. v. Sulli- van, 25 Ga. 228; Piedmont M'f'g Co. v. Columbia, etc., R. R. Co., 19 S. C. 353; Brintnall v. Saratoga, etc., R. R. Co., 32 Vt. 665; Lawrence v. Winona, etc., R. R. Co., 15 Minn. 390; Irish v. Milwaukee, etc., R. R. Co., 19 Minn. 376. See Mullarkey ». P. W. and B. R. R. Co., 9 Phila. 114 (with which last case compare St. Louis and I. M. R. R. Co. v. Larned, 103 111. 293); Skinner v. Hall, 60 Me. 477; Hadd v. U. S. and Can. Exp. Co., 52 Vt. 335; Clyde v. Hubbard, 88 Pa. St. 358; Penn. R. R. Co. v. Schwarzenberger, 45 Pa. St. 208 ; Burroughs v. Nor- wich, etc., R. R. Co., 100 Mass. 26; Mitting v. Conn. River R. R. Co., 1 Gray, 502; Montgomery, etc., R. R. Co. v. Moore, 51 Ala. 394; Crawford v. Southern R. R. Ass'n, 51 Miss. 222; Gray v. Jackson, 51 N. H. 9; Darling v. Boston and Worcester R. R. Co., 11 Allen, 295; Washburn, etc., M'f'g Co. v. Providence, etc., R. R. Co., 113 Mass. 490. Compare Newell v. Smith, 49 Vt. 255 ; Goodrich v. Thompson, 44 N. Y. 324. 4 See Railroad Co. v. Pratt, 22 Wall. 123; Clyde v. Hubbard, 88 Pa. St. 358; Peet v. Chicago and N. W. Ry. Co., 19 Wis. 118; Kyle v. Lau- rens R. R. Co., 10 Rich. L. (S. C.) 3S2. Compare Insurance Co. v. Rail- road Co., 104 IT. S. 146; Philadelphia and R. R. R. Co. v. Ramsey, 89 Pa. St. 474; Washburn M'f'g Co. v. Prov- idence, etc., R. R. Co., 113 Mass. 490; Hill M'f'g Co. v. Boston and L. R. R. Co., 104 Mass. 122; Cincinnati H. and D. R. R. Co. v. Pontius, 19 O. St. 347
