As soon as the goods are delivered and received, they are at the risk of the carrier. This reception of them may be specific *or general, and according to the usage of his business; and it may be actual or constructive. (n) 2 But the delivery to the carrier is not complete if the goods are still in charge of the owner or his representative; the delivery must place the goods in the custody of the carrier. (o) 3 The de415, and Batcher v. L. & S. W. R. Co. 16 C. B. 13.

(m) Hackett v. B. C. & M. R. R. Co. 35 N. H. 390.

(mm) Meyer v. Lemcke, 31 Ind. 308. (mn) Chicago, etc. R. R. Co. v. Merrill, 48 Ill. 425.

(n) Merriam v. The Hartford Railroad Co. 20 Conn. 354.

(o) Brind v. Dale, 8 C. & P. 207. It frequently becomes a difficult question of fact, whether goods have been so delivered to a carrier as to be in his custody and under his control, or whether they livery to a ship is complete * when the master, or mate, or other agent of the owner, receives them, either at the ship, still continue under the control of the owner or his servant. There are several cases in the books which have turned upon this question. Thus, in the case of the East India Co. v. Pollen, 2 Stra. 690, an action was brought against the defendant as a common carrier, on an undertaking to carry for hire on the River Thames, from the ship to the company's warehouses. It appeared in evidence that the defendant was a common lighterman, and that it was the usage of the company, on the unshipping of their goods, to put an officer, who was called a guardian, into the lighter, who, as soon as the lading was taken in, put the company's locks on the hatches, and went with the goods to see them safely delivered at the warehouse. It appeared that such was the course in this case, and part of the goods were lost. Upon this evidence, Raymond, C. J., was of the opinion that "this differed from the common case, this not being any trust in the defendant, and the goods were not to be considered as ever having been in his possession, but in the possession of the company's servant, who had hired the lighter to use himself." The plaintiff was accordingly nonsuited. So in the case of Tower v. The Utica & S. Railroad Co. 7 Hill (X. T.), 47, where an action was brought to charge a railroad company as common carriers, for the loss of an overcoat belonging to a passenger, and it appeared that the coat was not delivered to the defendants, but that the passenger, having placed it on the seat of the car in which he sat, forgot to take it with him when he left, and it was afterwards stolen; it was held that the defendants were not liable. And Nelson, C. J., said: "The overcoat was not delivered into the possession or custody of the defendants, which is essential to their liability as carriers. Being an article of wearing apparel of present use, and in the care and keeping of the traveller himself for that purpose, the defendants have a right to say that it shall be regarded in the same light as if it had been upon his person. No carrier, however discreet and vigilant, would think of turning his attention to property of the passenger in the situation of the article in question, or imagine that any responsibility attached to him in respect to it." On the other hand, in Robinson v. Dunmore, 2 B. & P. 416, it appeared in evidence that the plaintiff, who was an upholsterer, having occasion to send some furniture into the country, agreed with the defendant to take the same; that the defendant brought his cart to the plaintiff's house, where the goods were loaded in the presence of the plaintiff himself, and with the assistance of two of the plaintiff's servants; that the plaintiff having observed that the tarpaulin which the defendant had brought for the purpose of covering the cart was too small, the defendant said, " I have plenty of sacks, and I will warrant the goods shall go safe;" that, on account of the defendant's being a stranger to the plaintiff, the latter sent one of his own porters with the cart, who would otherwise have gone by the stage; that this porter, in the course of the journey, paid a person for watching the goods one night; and that the goods in the course of the journey were damaged by rain. Upon these facts, the jury, under the direction of Lord Eldon, before whom the case was tried, found a verdict for the plaintiff. And a rule nisi having been obtained for setting this verdict aside and entering a nonsuit, Chambre, J., said: " This is a very clear case. The defendant is not a common carrier by trade, but has put himself into the situation of a common carrier by his particular warranty. As to possession, that seems clearly proved by the circumstances of the case; the defendant attends with his horse and cart at the plaintiff's house, where the goods are delivered to him and put into the cart by the plaintiff's servants. This is a complete possession. How is this affected by the presence of the plaintiff's servant? It has been determined, that if a man travel in a stagecoach, and take his portmanteau with him, though he has his eye upon the portmanteau, yet the carrier is not absolved from his responsibility, but will be liable if the portmanteau be lost. In this case the plaintiff, for greater caution, sends his servant with the goods, who pays for watching them, because he apprehends danger of their being stolen. So the man who travels in a stage has some care of his own property, since it is more for his interest that the property should not be lost than that he should have an action against the carrier. This case bears no resemblance to that cited from Strange, for there the decision proceeded on the usage of the East India Company, who never intrust the lighterman with their goods, but give the whole charge of the property to one of their own officers, who is called a guardian." The rule was accordingly discharged. See also Richards v. The London Railway Co. 7 C. B. 839; or on the wharf, or in a warehouse, if such delivery and receipt be according to the usage. And the owners of the ship forthwith become insurers as to all but the cases excepted by law, or by the bill of lading. (p) Delivery may be made in a different way, or at a different time or place, from that which is usual, or notified to the public; such difference being requested, or suggested by the carrier, or his agent, or sanctioned by him by receiving the goods without objection, and entering them on the waybill. (q) The responsibility of the carrier is fixed by his acceptance of the goods without objection, whatever be the manner of the delivery. Nor is it necessary to complete the delivery that the goods should be * entered on the way-bill or freight-list, or any written memorandum made. (r) But delivery to a clerk of the carrier, outside of the carrier's office, is not a delivery to the carrier until the parcel comes into actual possession of the carrier's agent for that purpose. (rr) Nor is delivery at the proper place without notice to the proper person, (rs) unless the place is one which the carrier indicates as that where goods for him should be put, and will then be under his care.