30 A FEDERAL nuvonrun.
V271; Myrick V. Railroad Co. 107 U. S. 102;. S. C. 1 Sup. Ct.Bep. 425;
Helliwell v. Grand Trunk Ry. O0. 7 FED. REP. 68. If liable at all,
the measure of damages would be the depreciation or loss of market
value resulting from the delay, and no such loss is shown. Railroad
ov. Reeves, 10 Wall. 176.
l Burman, J. What were the defendant’s obligations? Did it dis-
charge them ? The answer to the first question involves the relations
of the parties, as shipper and carrier. Did these relations spring
from the express contract, entered into on receipt of the merchandise
at Memphis, or an implied contract, arising from its receipt in tran-
sit at Bristol. The defendant was not a party to the bill of lading,
nor responsible for anything done or omitted, when the merchandise
was received at Memphis. The agreement between the several rail-
road companies did not make them partners, nor responsible in any
respect for each other’s acts or contracts. They were connecting car-
riers on a through route, each having the exclusive ownership and
control of its line, with arrangements for continuous transportation
on through bills of lading, at settled rates of compensation, each be-
ing alone responsible for its own acts or omissions, as specified in
the bill before us. That such agreements do not render intermediate
carriers responsible for the undertakings, representations, or miscon-
duct of the carrier who receives merchandise from a shipper, seems
to be so fully settled by the authorities as to leave nothing for dis-
cussion. It was the point directly involved and decided in Ins. Oo.
v. Railroad O0. 104 U. S. 146. U
The defendants obligations were, therefore, those of an interme-
diate carrier, arising out of the implied contract springing from re-
ceipt of the goods. These bound it for safe carriage over its own line,
and for delivery or tender to the next carrier beyond, within reason-
able time. Ins. Co. v. Railroad Oo., supra; Empire Oo. v. Wallace, 18
P. F. Smith, 302; Myrick v. Railroad Oo. 107 U. S. 102; S. C. 1 Sup.
Ct. Rep. 425; Railroad Oo. v. Manuf’g Oo. 16 Wall. 318; Amer. &
Eng. By. Cas. 271. It was entitled to the benefit of all exemptions
allowed by the skipper, and bound to the terms ofthe bill of lading
generally, as respects freight, etc. Being prepared to carry the mer-
chandise, on its arrival at Bristol, it was the defendant’s right as well
as duty to accept it without inquiry. Had it not been so prepared, ‘
the acceptance would have rendered it responsible as carrier while
the merchandise remained in its possession, no matter how great the
delay arising from this cause might have been. The defendant was
not, however, responsible for the succeeding carrier’s failure to accept
or provide means for further transportation. If the Memphis &
Charleston Railroad Company, when it received the merchandise, was
aware of the dehcient means of transportation from Norfolk, (and that
delay must consequently arise,) and failed to communicate this fact
to the shipper, we may assume that this company was in fault. To
visit the defendant, however, with responsibility for such fault, it