(t) Thomas v. Boston & Providence Railroad Co. 10 Met. 472. This was an action against the defendants as common carriers, to recover for the loss of a roll of leather. It appeared in evidence that four rolls of leather, the property of the plaintiff, were delivered to the defendants at Providence, to be transported to Boston; that they were so transported, and were deposited at the defendant's depot at Boston; that a teamster, employed by the plaintiff, shortly after called at the depot, with a bill of the freight receipted by the defendants, and inquired for the leather; that it was pointed out to him by the defendants' agent, Allen, who had charge of the depot; that the teamster then took away two of the rolls, and soon after called again and inquired for the other two; that he was directed where to look for them; and that he found only one. The court held, that under these circumstances, the defendants were not liable as carriers. Hubbard, J., said: "The transportation of goods, and the storage of goods, are contracts of a different character; and though one person or company may render both services, yet the two contracts are not be confounded or blended; because the legal liabilities attending the two are different. The proprietors of a railroad transport merchandise over their road, receiving it at one depot, or place of deposit, and delivering it at another, agreeably to the direction of the owner or consignor. But from the very nature and peculiar construction of the road, the proprietors cannot deliver merchandise at the warehouse of the owner when situated off the line of the road, as a common wagoner can do. To make such a delivery, a distinct species of transportation would be required and would be the subject of a distinct contract. They can deliver it only at the terminus of the road, or at the given depot where goods can be safely unladed, and put into a place of safety. After such delivery at a depot the carriage is completed. But, owing to the great amount of goods transported, and belonging to so many different persons, and in consequence of the different hours of arrival, by night as well as by day, it becomes equally convenient and necessary, both for the proprietors of the road and the owners of the goods, that they should

There is, perhaps, no objection to * this usage strengthening itself into law. But we think in that case, that the be unladed, and deposited in a safe place, protected from the weather, and from exposure to thieves and pilferers. And where such suitable warehouses are provided, and the goods which are not called for on their arrival at the places of destination, are unladed and separated from the goods of other persons, and stored safely in such warehouses or depots, the duty of the proprietors as common carriers is, in our judgment, terminated. They have done all they agreed to do; they have received the goods, have transported them safely to the place of delivery, and, the consignee not being present to receive them, have unladed them, and have put them in a safe and proper place for the consignee to take them away; and he can take them at any reasonable time. The liability of common carriers being ended, the proprietors are, by force of law, depositaries of the goods, and are bound to reasonable diligence in the custody of them, and consequently are only liable to the owners in case of a want of ordinary care. In the case at bar, the goods were transported over the defendants' road, and were safely deposited in their merchandise depot, ready for delivery to the plaintiff, of which he had notice, and were in fact in part taken away by him; the residue, a portion of which was afterwards lost, being left there for his convenience. No agreement was made for the storage of the roods, and no further compensation paid therefor; the sum paid being the freight for carriage, which was payable if the goods had been delivered to the plaintiff immediately on the arrival of the cars without any storage. Upon these facts, we are of opinion, for the reasons before stated, that the duty of the defendants, as common carriers, had ceased on their safe deposit of the plaintiff's goods in the merchandise depot; and that they were then responsible only as depositaries without further charge, and consequently, unless guilty of negligence, in the want of ordinary care in the custody of the goods, they are not liable to the plaintiff for the alleged loss of a part of the goods." In Norway Plains Co. v. Boston & Maine Railroad Co. 1 Gray, 263, it is decided, that the rule requiring carriers to make personal delivery to the consignee does not apply to railroads, transportation by which more resembles sea-carriage than carriage by means of wagons and similar vehicles; that the nature of transportation of freight by railroad is such that the implied contract between the parties is that the company will transport the goods, discharge them from the cars upon a suitable platform, and there deliver them to the consignee if he is ready to receive them, and if he is not, that they will place them securely and keep them a reasonable time, ready to be delivered when called for; that from this view of the duty and contract between the parties, the company are first common carriers, and after that warehousemen, responsible as the former until the goods are removed from the cars and placed upon the platform, and if, on account of their arrival in the night, or for any reason, the consignee is not then ready to receive them, it is the duty of the company to take care of them, under the liability of warehousemen or keepers of goods for hire. And the court are strongly inclined to be of the opinion that it is not necessary for the company to give notice of the arrival of the goods, but that the nature of the transportation is such as to dispense with it. And see Smith v. Nashua and Lowell R. R. Co. 7 Foster (N. H.), 86. But in Richards v. The London Railway Co. 7 C. B. 839, it was held, that where a railway company employ porters at their stations to convey passengers' luggage from the railway carriages to the carriages or hired vehicles of the passengers, the liability of the company as carriers continues until the porters have discharged their duty. That was an action on the case against the defendants for the loss of a package. The first count of the declaration stated, that the defendants were the owners and proprietors of a railway for the carriage and conveyance of passengers and their luggage, etc., from A to B, for hire; that the defendants were common carriers for hire in and upon the said railway; that the wife of the plaintiff, at their request, became a passenger in and upon the railway, to be carried and conveyed therein and thereby from A to B, together with her luggage, consisting of a dressing-case, etc., also to be carried and conveyed by the defendants, as such carriers, in and upon the railway from A to B, and there, to wit, at the station or terminus at B, safely and securely delivered for the plaintiff, for reasonable reward to the defendants in that behalf: and the breach alleged was, that the defendants, not regarding their duty, did not use due and proper care in and about the carriage and conveyance of the dressing-case from A to B, but took so little and such bad care in and about the carrying and conveying the same, that by and through railroad carrier should give notice forthwith, on * the arri val of the goods, to the consignee, if his residence is known, or can be found by any reasonable exertions. We think the law should make this requirement, and this so positively that no usage against it should be permitted to control the law; at least not unless it were quite universal, and well known to all, and there is some disposition to hold the law thus. (u) 1