The carrier is not responsible for losses occurring from natural causes, such as frost, fermentation, evaporation, or natural decay of perishable articles, or the natural and necessary wear in the course of transpor tation, or the shipper's carelessness, provid ed the carrier exercises all reasonable care to have the loss or deterioration as little as practicable; Bull. N. P. 69; 2 Kent 299; Story, Bailm. § 492 a; Warden v. Greer, 6 Watts (Pa.) 424; Redf. Railw. § 141; Jordan v. Exp. Co., 86 Me. 225, 29 Atl. 980; The Guiding Star, 53 Fed. 936; International & G. N. R. Co. v. Hynes, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 20, 21 S. W. 622; Goodman v. Nay. Co., 22 Or. 14, 28 Pac. 894. See Wabash St. L. & P. Ry. Co. v. Jaggerman, 115 Ill. 407, 4 N. E. 641; Fox v. R. Co., 148 Mass. 220, 19 N. E. 222, 1 L. R. A. 702. But a carrier which re ceives perishable goods for through trans portation is bound to furnish cars adapted to preserve them during the journey, and cannot escape its duty by delegating to an independent contractor the task of furnish ing and icing a refrigerator car; St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Renfroe, 82 Ark. 143, 100 S. W. 889, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 317, 118 Am. St. Rep. 58; damp weather and delays incident to railway traffic are no excuse for failure properly to ice cars ; C. C. Taft Co. v. Exp. Co., 133 Ia. 522, 110 N. W. 897.
In every contract for the carriage of goods by sea, unless otherwise expressly stipulated, there is a warranty on the part of the ship owner that the ship is seaworthy when she begins her voyage, and his undertaking is not discharged because the want of fitness is the result of latent defects; The Cale donia, 157 U. S. 124, 15 Sup. Ct. 537, 39 L. Ed. 644.
Carriers, both by land and water, when they undertake the general business of car rying every kind of goods, are bound to carry for all who offer ; and if they refuse, without just excuse, they are liable to an action; Dwight v. Brewster, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 50, 11 Am. Dec. 133 ; Pomeroy v. Donaldson, 5 Mo. 36; Hale v. Navigation Co., 15 Conn. 539, 39 Am. Dec. 398; Jencks v. Coleman, 2 Sumn. 221, Fed. Cas. No. 7,258; Sewall v. Allen, 6 Wend. (N. Y.) 335; Citizens' Bank v4 Steamboat Co., 2 Sto. 16, Fed. Cas. No. 2,730; L. R. 1 C. P. 423; Piedmont Mfg. Co. v. R. Co., 19 S. C. 353; New Jersey Steam Nay. Co. v. Bank, 6 How. (U. S.) 344, 12 L. Ed. 465; 30 L. J. Q. B. 273.
A common carrier is bound to treat all shippers alike and may be compelled to do so by mandamus; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Flour Mills Co., 211 U. S. 612, 29 Sup. Ct. 214, 53 L. Ed. 352; State v. Ry. Co., 52 La. Ann. 1850, 28 South. 284; it cannot law fully reject some goods and afterwards re ceive and transport others when at the time of refusal there is room for the 're jected goods; Ocean S. S. Co. of Savannah v. Supply Co., 131 Ga. 831, 63 S. E. 577, 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 867, 127 Am. St. Rep. 265, 15
Ann. Cas. 1044. It must furnish cars when requested by a shipper, and if unable to do so must advise the shipper of that fact; Di Giorgio Importing & Steamship Co. v. R. Co., 104 Md. 693, 65 Atl. 425, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 108; but at common law there is no duty to furnish sufficient cars for transpor tation beyond its own line of road; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. State, 56 Tex. Civ. App. 353, 120 S. W. 1028. The Hepburn Act (June 29, 1906) made it the duty of interstate carriers to furnish cars; this invalidated all state laws on the same subject; Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Elevator Co., 226 U. S. 426, 33 Sup. Ct. 174, 57 L. Ed. 284, reversing Hard wick Farmers' Elevator Co. R. Co., 110 Minn. 25, 124 N. W. 819, 19 Ann. Cas. 1088; Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. Grocery Co., 227 U. S. 1, 33 Sup. Ct. 213, 55 L. Ed. -. But the business of a common carrier may be restricted within such limits as he may deem expedient, if an individual, or which may be prescribed in its grant of powers, if a corporation, and be is not bound to accept goods out of the line of ,bis usual business. But should the carrier accept goods not within the line of his business, he assumes the liability of a common carrier as to the specific goods accepted; Farmers' & Mechan ics' Bank v. Transp. Co., 23 Vt. 186, 56 Am. Dec. 68; Hays v. Mouille, 14 Pa. 48; Bennett v. Dutton, 10 N. H. 481; Powell v. Mills, 30 Miss. 231, 64 Am. Dec. 158; New York C. R. Co. v. Lockwood, 17 Wall. (U. S.) 357, 21 L. Ed. 627; Sewall v. Allen, 6 Wend. (N. Y.) 335 ; Kimball v. R. Co., 26 Vt. 248, 62 Am. Dec. 567. The carrier may require freight to be paid in advance; but in an action for not carrying, it is only necessary to allege a readiness to pay freight ; 8 M. & W. 372; Galena & Cl., U. R. Co. v. Rae, 18 III. 488, 68 Am. Dec. 574 ; Knox v. Rives, 14 Ala. 249, 48 Am. Dec. 97. It is not required to prove or allege a tender, if the carrier refuse to accept the goods for transportation. The carrier is entitled to a lien upon ..the goods for freight; 2 Ld. Ra'ym. 752; and for ad vances made to other carriers; White v. Vann, 6 Humphr. (Tenn.) 70, 44 Am. Dec. 294 ; Bissel v. 16 Ill. 408; Palmer v. Lorillard, 16 Johns. (N. Y.) 356; Boggs v. Martin, 13 B. Monr. (Ky.) 243. The or is prima facie liable for freight; but the consignee may be liable when the consignor is his agent, or when the title is in him and he accepts the goods; 3 Bingh. 383; Mello v. Funck, 4 Den. (N. Y.) 110; New York & Harve Steam Nay. Co. v. Young, 3 E. D. Sm. (N. Y.) 187. A shipper must Pay the combined rates over connecting railroads existing at the time of the shipment, and be cannot take advantage of a reduction, while the goods are in transit over the first road, if there are no joint through rates; Payne v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 12 Int. St. Com. Rep. 190.