Judgment of the Court
KING J.-Any arrangement made at Victoria, B.C., was made with Evans, who was treated as the'intended consignee, and his letter of directions to plaintiffs assumes that the latter, as vendor, is to deliver the goods at Ingersoll, Ontario.
He accordingly specifies (as proposed by defendants) the route by which they are to be sent, viz., via 0Grand Trunk and Chicago and N. W. R. R. care Northern Pacific R. R. St. Pauls. This letter of direction was transmitted through defendants' contracting freight agent at Toronto to the plaintiffs with a letter in which the defendants are made in effect to say :
" Ship your goods as requested to our care, St. Pauls vid our connecting lines, and we will trace and hurry them through and advise you of delivery to consignee." They thus recognize that while Evans may be the consignee, the shipper may have rights in respect the goods which would give him an interest in their prompt and safe carriage and delivery.
Under English law (differing in this respect from American law) a company receiving goods for carriage to a point beyond its line primd facie contracts for the entire carriage.
But it may limit its responsibility to acts or defaults occurring upon its own line, and where this is done it and each carrier in succession comes under an obligation to deliver goods so received to the next carrier.
An intending shipper might well feel concerned at being put (as has been expressed) " to the difficult task of ascertaining where any fault of carriage cr was or of resorting to his legal remedy in a distant state." This would naturally work to the disadvantage
J. of such a route in competition with one on which through contracts are made.
As if recognizing this, defendants as an inducement to the shipper, say: "Send your goods by our connecting lines to our care St. Pauls and we will trace the shipment, expedite the carriage and advise of delivery."
This certainly seems to imply some control over the carriage and delivery, at least after the goods reach the company at St. Pauls.
The plaintiffs did not ship goods in pursuance
Evans's direction, but shipped them to be carried as suggested, deliverable however to their own order at
Victoria.
The shipping papers contained certain conditions limiting the responsibility of the Grand Trunk Railway, which it is assumed had the effect of confining the responsibility of that company to its own line.
From the correspondence between plaintiffs and
Belcher on the day of the shipment, and upon the next day, and from Belcher's letter to the general freight agent, I think it appears that the shipment as made was treated as though Belcher's letter of 18th June was applicable to it.
Now limiting our view to what would take place when the goods reached St. Pauls; would the defendant company be then free to refuse to receive the goods or to delay in receiving them ? It seems to me that what took place at Ingersoll bound the company promptly to receive the goods, and to hurry them through and advise of delivery.
More than that, I think that the facts show a contract upon shipment at Ingersoll that when the goods so shipped should reach St. Pauls, in ordinary course, they would continue in The route tags were put into the hands of their con- J. tracting freight agents by the company to use in the diversion of traffic to their road, and the fair representation involved in them was that their company was the only one concerned in the carriage from St. Pauls onward.
This is strengthened by the undertaking to advise of delivery to consignee.
I am, therefore, opinion that in the circumstances, the defendants are responsible for misdelivery.
As to Belcher's authority, it seems to me that if his office of contracting freight agent for Ontario had any significance at all, he could make contracts of this sort. Shippers in Ontario would not be apt to be concerned about local freight rates from St. Pauls to Tacoma. Besides the representation as to the goods being in care of the company after reaching St. Pauls was the direct act of the company itself.
Upon the whole therefore, I am inclined to think that the appeal should be dismissed.
Appeal dismissed with costs.