An express company may by special con tract limit its liability for the value of goods lost; Oppenheimer v. Exp. Co., 69 Ill. 62, 18 Am. Rep. 596 ; Magnin v. Dinsmore, 62 N. Y. 35, 20 Am. Rep. 442 ; Baldwin v. Steam ship Co., 74 N. Y. 125, 30 Am. Rep. 277; U. S. Exp. Co. v. Backman, 28 Ohio St. 144; except for losses due to its own negligence or misconduct ; Bank of Kentucky v. Eip. CO., 93 Ti. S. 174, 23 L. Ed. 872; Boscowitz v. Exp. Co., 93 Ill. 523, 34 Am. Rep. 191; Har vey v. R. Co., 74 Mo. 538; Whitworth v. Ry. Co., 87 N. Y. 413. A contract between an express company and its messenger exempt ing it from liability for injury to him by the negligence of the carrier, is valid and may extend so far as to authorize the ex press company to contract with the carrier against liability to the messenger ; but such contract will not enure to the benefit of the carrier having no knowledge of it or not having availed itself of it by contracting with the express company ; Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co. v. Keefer, 146 Ind. 21, 44 N. E. 796, 38 L. R. A. 93, 58 Am. St. Rep. 348.
An express company is liable for damages to perishable freight injured by delay ; Adams Exp. Co. v. Williams (Ark.) 14 S. W.
40; but a delay, to create a liability, must be "an unreasonable delay which is such as involves some want of ordinary care or dili gence" ; Adams Exp. Co. v. Brattou, 106 Ill. App. 563.
Where it was a habit to carry large sums of money for hire and keep the same for several hours after its transportation before called for, the liability for its loss is as a warehouseman and not as a common carrier ; President, etc., of Conway Bank v. Exp. Co., 8 Allen (Mass.) 512. The liability of an ex press company as a common carrier termi nates on the safe carriage of the goods to their destination and notice to the consignee; Hasse v. Exp. Co., 94 Mich. 133, 53 N. W. 918, 34 Am. St. Rep. 328 ; and where goods are sent C. 0. D., and the consignee refuses to accept them, and the shipper on notice directs the company to hold them until call ed for, its liability is only that of a ware houseman ; Byrne v. Fargo, 36 Misc. 543, 73 N. Y. Supp. 943 ; but it is held that in the absence of a special contract the duty of the company is not completed on the arrival of the goods, but includes delivery ; Burr v. Exp. Co., 71 N. J. L. 263, 58 Atl. 609 ; or constructive delivery by notice to the consignee; Rogers v. Fargo, 47 Misc. 155,
93 N. Y. Supp. 550 ; where there is such lo cal usage; Hutchinson v. Exp. Co., 63 W. Va. 128, 59 S. E. 949, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 393, and note 'on delivery.
An express company is not denied the equal protection of the laws by classifying it with railroad and telegraph companies as subject to the unit rule of taxation, which estimates the value of the whole plant, though situated in different states, as an entirety, for the purpose of determining the value of the property in one state ; Adams Exp. Co. v. Ohio State Auditor, 165 U. S. 194, 17 Sup. Ct. 305, 41 L. Ed. 683 ; id., 166 U. S. 185, 17 Sup. Ct. 604, 41 L. Ed. 965 ; and a state statute, requiring foreign ex press companies to file a statement before doing business and an agreement in refer ence to suits brought against them, did not give them a vested right to carry on business subject to the then existing laws or exempt them from future legislative control ; Adams Exp. Co. v. State, 161 Ind. 328, 67 N. E. 1033.
Under a state statute providing that one who offers to carry persons, property or mes sages is a common carrier of what he thus offers to carry, an express company offering to carry money for hire is a common carrier thereof.; Platt v. Le Cocq, 150 Fed. 391, where it was held that the railroad commis sioners' order requiring it to receive money, of which it held itself out to be a common carrier, at all reasonable business hours pre ceding the departure of trains, was reason able. A state statute regulating express companies by requiring equal terms to all, without discrimination, does not violate the XIVth amendment of the United States con stitutlon; Am. Express Co. v. Express Co., 167 Ind. 292, 78 N. E. 1021.
In some states statutes relating to the 'transportation of property by railroad com panies are applicable to express companies; 'MacMillan v. Express Co., 123 Ia. 236, 98 N. W. 629; but a statute prescribing the duties of railroads with reference to intersecting lines relates to the mere physical connection of the tracks and has no application to ex press companies; Southern Ind. Express Co. v. Ex. Co., 92 Fed. 1022, 35 C. C. A. 172.
See an epitome of the law on this subject at that date by Judge Redfield in 5 Am. Law Reg. N. S. 1; and three articles on ex press companies as common carriers; id. 449, 513, 648.
See RAILROAD ; COMMON CARRIERS.