tion  with  the  use_  of  through  bills  of  „  -^^^^^  3^  ^    j  _  j,^_  g^g  .  ^^^^  ^

ladmg ;  owing  mainly  to  the  fact  that  u^ymney  RaU.  Co.,  L.  R.,  6  Q.  B.  266 ;

the  ship  in  which  the  ocean  transit  is  t  tt-  t_i     j  -d   -i  /~i      no        r^

.,    .       ,  „  ,  .     ,     ,  Loganv.  Highland  Rail.  Co.,  2  Sess.  Ca.
made  IS  not,  generally,  ascertained  when  fii+hl  2^9
the  through  bill  of   lading   is   given.
The  result  is  that  the  consignee  is  often  ^-^^  ^"°^  "•  ®-  ^-  ^^"-  <^°-'  ^-  ^■'  *

not  able  to  proceed  against  the  ship  ;  ^-  ^-  ^^^  '  ^^°*  *'--^-  ^^^-  ^°-'  ^-  ^■'
while    the    railway    company,    which  '     '

originally  makes  the  contract,  usually  (g)  Hooper  v.  L.  &  N.  W.  Rail.  Co.,

undertakes   no    responsibility   for   the  50  L.  J.,  Q.  B.  103  ;  Gill  v.  M.  S.  &  L.
goods  after  they  have  left  its  posses-  RaU.  Co.,  L.  R.,  8  Q.  B.  186.     But  of.
sion.      An  attempt  has  recently  been  Bristol  and  Exeter  RaU.  Co.  v.  Collins,

made  in  the  cotton  trade  to  establish  a  29  L.  J.,  Ex.  41.
CAEEIAGE  IN  A  GENERAL  SHIP.  143

benefit  of  the  exceptions  of  liability  which  the  contract  may    Sect.  107.
contain  (h).
In  Gni  V.  Manchester,  Sheffield  and  Lincolnshire  Rail.  Co.  («'),
a  cow  had  been  booked  by  the  Great  Northern  Eail.  Co.  from*
Doncaster  through  to  Sheffield,  partly  over  the  defendant's  line ;
the  action  was  brought  for  damage  to  the  cow,  due  to  negligence
in  the  delivery  of  her  from  the  defendant's  railway  at  Sheffield.
