the goods do not arrive in specie, though through no fault of the carrier, no freight whatever is earned.17 If they arrive damaged by fault of the carrier, so long as they are still in specie, the owner cannot refuse to receive them. In England he must pay the entire freight, and recover damages for the injury as a separate matter. 18 In the United States, however, he may if he chooses deduct from the freight the damage to the goods. As, however, no excess of damage can be recovered in that way and if recoupment is made no action will lie for the excess of the damage, this course is not wise unless the amount of damage is less than the freight.

19

The whole question is well summarized in the extract which follows: "It may happen, however, that goods existing in specie when brought to the place of destination are so deteriorated in condition as not to be worth the freight; and then arises the question whether the merchant is bound to pay the freight, or is at liberty to abandon the goods to the shipowner for his claim. In considering it, the causes from which the deterioration in the merchandise may proceed must be distinguished. If it proceeds from the fault of the masters or mariners, the merchant is entitled to a compensation and may recover it against the owners or master. On the other hand, if the deterioration proceeds from an intrinsic principle of decay naturally inherent in the commodity itself, whether active in every situation or only in the confinement and closeness of the ship, the merchant must bear the loss and pay the freight. The

The Cuba, 3 Ware 260, Fed. Cas. 3,458 (1860); Seaman v. Adler, 37 Fed. 268 (1889).

17 Ridyard v. Phillips, 4 Blatch. 443, Fed. Cas. 11,820 (1860). 18 Meyer v. Dresser, 10 C. B. N. S. 646 (1864).

19 Relyea v. New Haven R. M. Co., 42 Conn. 579 (1873); Edwards v. Todd, 2 Ill. 462 (1837); Boggs v. Martin, 13 B. Mon. (Ky.) 239 (1852); Ward v. Fellers, 3 Mich. 281 (1854); Elwell v. Skiddy, 77 N. Y. 282 (1879); Leech v. Baldwin, 5 Watts (Pa.) 446 (1836); Humphreys v. Reed, 6 Whart. (Pa.) 435 (1841).

master and owners are in no fault; nor does their contract, though taken as the contract of common carriers, contain an insurance or guaranty against such an event." 20

§ 690. Effect of partial delivery.

Where delivery is made of part of the goods only, it is sometimes possible to divide the shipment into separate units, and recover freight for as many such units as are delivered. This often happens where a large quantity of similar things are shipped, or commodities are shipped in bulk, and a portion is lost. Thus where a cargo of fruit was shipped and part of it decayed, freight was recoverable on that portion of the cargo which was delivered in specie.21 In fact, it may in such a case be the duty of the carrier to permit the consignee to treat the shipment as an aggregate of units. For instance, when such a cargo was being unloaded upon the wharf for delivery, and only part of it could be unloaded in a day, it was held that the consignee had a right to take that portion of the cargo so unloaded upon paying freight pro rata.22

8691. Lien for entire charge on every part.

Freight earned on a single shipment is a charge as an entirety upon every part of the goods carried. Therefore, though part of the goods are voluntarily delivered by the carrier he may retain his lien upon the rest.23 And even if the shipment is on different

20 Maclachlan on Shipping, 469, as quoted with approval in Seaman v. Adler, 37 Fed. 268 (1889).

21 The Brig Collenberg, 1 Black (U. S.) 170, 17 L. Ed. 89 (1862). 22 Brittan v. Barnaby, 21 How. (U. S.) 527, 16 L. Ed. 177 (1859). 23 Chicago & S. W. R. R. v. Northwestern U. P. Co., 38 Iowa, 377 (1874); Potts v. New York & N. E. R. R., 131 Mass. 455, 41 Am. Rep. 239, B. & W. 284 (1881); Fuller v. Bradley, 25 Pa. St. 120; Goldsborough v. McCulloch, 5 W. W. & A. B. (Victoria) 154.

vessels or on different trains, provided an agreement for the carriage of the whole was made, the freight is an entirety, and the lien may be enforced for the whole amount of the freight upon a single cargo or train-load.2+ This lien is effective against the shipper when he attempts to exercise the right of stoppage in transitu.2 25

§ 692. No lien except for specific charge.

The lien exists only for the single charge, and the carrier cannot hold the goods until the payment of an entirely unconnected prior charge; in other words, there is no general lien for freight.27 Nor will notice by the carrier, to the shipper or even to the consignee, that he shall enforce a general lien on goods alter the case; since he must take them on the ordinary terms, an ex parte proceeding like a notice will not confer upon him any additional right to hold on lien.28 A general lien may be created by express agreement between the parties,29 but such an agreement will not enable the carrier to enforce against goods bought and shipped by the receiver of a bankrupt a lien for a debt of the bankrupt with whom the agreement was made. As to these goods, the receiver is an independent owner.30 The re

24 Pennsylvania Steel Co. v. Georgia R. R. & B. Co., 94 Ga. 636, 21 S. E. 577 (1894); Lane v. Old Colony & N. R. R., 14 Gray (Mass.), 143 (1859).

25 Pennsylvania Steel Co. v. Georgia R. R. & B. Co., 94 Ga. 636, 21 S. E. 577 (1894); Potts v. New York & N. E. R. R., 131 Mass. 455, 41 Am. Rep. 239, B. & W. 284 (1881).

27 Rushforth v. Hadfield, 6 East (Eng.) 519 (1805); Leonard v. Winslow, 2 Grant (Pa.), 139; Goldsborough v. McCulloch, 5 W. W. & A'B. (Victoria) 154.

28 Wright v. Snell, 5 B. & Ald. (Eng.) 350 (1822).

29 Rushford v. Hadfield, 6 East, 519 (Eng., 1805); In re Northfield I.

& S. Co., 14 L. T. N. S. (Eng.) 695.

30 Ex parte Great Western Ry., 22 Ch. D. (Eng.) 470 (1882).

ceiver would, however, be bound as to goods received from the bankrupt.31

TOPIC D-ADDITIONAL CHARGES FOR SEPARATE PARTS OF THE

SERVICE.

§ 693. General principles as to additional charges.

The entire service of the carrier in connection with a single shipment being conceived of as a unit, it should follow that only one charge may be made, covering the entire unit of service. Ordinarily this is true. The railroad company cannot make a variety of different charges for the facilities it uses and the servants it employs; for instance, it would be absurd for it to make a block signal charge or an engineer charge. It would seem to be the duty of the railroad to equip itself fully for the service it undertakes, and then to make a single rate to the shipper who wishes the transportation of certain goods to a certain place. This ought to hold true of all usual services which the carrier must render the shipper in the line of its duty, but as to services outside its obligation to the shipper it may render a separate bill if it pleases. More than this, there are, it must be admitted, certain extraordinary services in special kinds of shipments which are not required by shippers generally, and for which, it seems, it is more convenient, if indeed not more just, to make a separate charge.1

§ 694. Whether extra charges should be made.

From what has been said it will have been seen that in the United States ordinarily the single rate includes all charges.

31 In re Northfield I. & S. Co., 14 L. T. N. S. (Eng.) 695.

1 The status of these additional charges is fixed oftentimes by statutory provisions.

Upon the European continent freight rates do not appear to be made in this way. There is, first of all, a terminal charge, which applies to all traffic, to which a charge for movement is added. In England at the present time a shipper may require the railroad company to segregate the rate, determining what part of it is fairly a terminal charge, and if he does not take advantage of the terminal facilities, he may demand under some circumstances a reduction in the rate to that amount; but, with us, the rate ordinarily includes the cost of delivery. It would seem to follow that extra charges should not generally be made by the carrier for the use of its facilities in delivering his property to the consignee; but this is not altogether agreed.

$695. Foreign system of itemized charges.

2

As an example of the English system of itemized charges for railway charges, the following abstract of a leading case is printed. As to one item, switching, the railway company claimed payment for shunting services performed by them in respect of the Salt Union traffic to or from their sidings at Malkins Bank and Wheelock, respectively. The traffic was salt outwards and coal inwards; and it was proved that as the works at Malkins Bank were in three sets or separate parts, and there were serveral points at which they communicated by sidings with the railway, the business of delivering full coal trucks and collecting loaded salt vans, and of bringing back and taking away empties, was considerable. The Salt Union sent a man to meet each train as it arrived, and he pointed out the particular sidings into which he desired trucks inwards to be put, or in which there were loaded salt vans to be hauled

2 North Staffordshire Ry. Co. v. Salt Union, Ltd., 10 R. & C. T. Cas. 161.