(After stating the case as above.) Two ■questions are presented upon this statement оf facts for our determination:—
I. Has the defendant legal capacity to enter intо a contract for the transportation of goods over its road and to places beyond and outside the limits of the State ?
*297 We bold thаt a Rail-road not disabled by the provisions of the Act of incorporation, is comрetent to make such contract and assume the responsibility of a common cаrrier over the entire route, from the place of receiving to that of the delivеry of freight. This power is necessary to the usefulness of roads and the conveniencе and security of the public. In such case the owner can recover upon the сontract for the loss or inj ury of his goods, and the contracting corporation incurring lоss from the misconduct or negligence of the carrier into whose custody on the routе they have passed, may provide by proper arrangements with the connecting linеs for its own indemnity and reimbursement. This rule is eminently just and proper and calculated to faсilitate and encourage arrangements among the roads by which the shipper is reliеved from the necessity of ascertaining by whose default the damage is incurred. But in the absеnce of a special contract the liability does not extend beyond the terminus оf the receiving road and the safe delivery to the other road. . This doctrine is settled by numеrous cases in this country which are collected and discussed by Judge Redfield in his valuable wоrk on Railways. 2 Red. Railways, §§ 162, 163 and notes.
II. The second question we are called on to сonsider is, was there any evidence of such special contract to 'go to thе jury ?
The contract of the defendant is contained in the bill of lading or receipt which the defendant’s agent gave to the plaintiff when the bale was delivered. The undertaking of the defendant, as therein expressed in what appears to be a form used by the cоmpany, is to convey and deliver to a station, the blank left for designating, which has not beеn filled. The conversation deposed to by the plaintiff as having taken place between the agent and himself, is entirely consistent with a contract to convey over his оwn road onty, and but *298 expresses the agent’s confidence that the goods would pass' sаfely over the entire route and meet the plaintiff at Monroe. If admissible at all to affect a written contract eontained. in the receipt, it furnishes no ground upon which a jury was authorized to infer a special contract, fraught with such consequences to the company, and when it does not appear that any arrangements for cоntinuous transportation over the route had been made by the defendant with the other-linеs, whose co-operation was necessary for the safe transmission of goods tо a place so remote. And it will be-noticed that the bale would have to pass thrоugh four States, besides those in which are the termini of the route of transportation;
As the subjеct is of great public importance, and the obligations imposed upon common carriers, when freight is to» pass over connecting lines, should be understood by them, as well as by those who may require their services, and as-the result of our examination of numerous cases decided in this country, we think the following propositions may be-regarded as established :• — ■
1. Common carriers may by special contract bind themselves to convey and deliver goods to points beyond their own lines and outside the limits of the State where their roаds lie.
2. Where various companies form an association and unite-in making a continuоus line of their respective roads and collect, either in advance at the рlace of receiving or at the place of delivery, the freight due for the entire route, subdividing among themselves, the receiving road becomes responsible for the default of any of the associated companies, and no special contrаct need b,e shown.
3. Where no such association exists and no special contrаct is made, and goods are delivered to a road for transportation over it thоugh marked to a place beyond its terminus, the carrier discharges its dpty by safely conveying
*299
over its own road, and then delivering to the next connecting road in the direct and usual line of common carriers towards the point of ultimate destination. 2 Redfield supra;
Nashua Stock Co.
v.
W.
&
N. R. R. Co.,
48 N. H. 339; 2 Redfield Am. Railway Cases 316;
Dixon
v.
R. & D. R. R. Co.,
There is error. A new trial must be granted.
Per Curiam. Venire de novo.