We are unable to see any valid reason for the suggestion that the defendants are not to be regarded as common carriers. The name or style under which they assume to carry on their business is wholly immaterial. The real nature of their occupation and of the legal duties and obligations which it imposes on them is to be ascertained from a consideration of the kind of service which they hold themselves out to the public as ready to render to those who may have occasion to employ them. Upon this point there is no room for doubt. They exercise the employment of'receiving, carrying and delivering goods, wares and merchandise for hire on behalf of all persons who may see fit to require their services. In this capacity they take property from the custody of the owner, assume entire possession and control of it, transport it from place to place, and deliver it at a point of destination to some consignee or agent there authorized to receive it. This statement embraces all the elements essential to constitute the relation of common carriers on the part of the defendants towards the persons who employ them. Dwight v. Brewster, 1 Pick. 50, 53. Lowell Wire Fence Co. v. Sargent, 8 Allen, 189. 2 Redfield on Railways, 1-16.
But it is urged in behalf of the defendants that they ought not to be held to the strict liability of common carriers, for the reason that the contract of carriage is essentially modified by the peculiar mode in which the defendants undertake the performance of the service. The main ground on which this argument rests is, that persons exercising the employment of express carriers or messengers over railroads and by steamboats cannot, from the very nature of the case, exercise any care or control over the means of transportation which they are obliged to adopt; that the carriages and boats in which the merchandise intrusted to them is placed, and the agents or servants by whom they are managed, are not selected by them nor subject to their direction or supervision ; and that the rules of the common law, regulating the duties and liabilities of carriers, having been adapted to a different mode of conducting business by which the carrier was enabled, to select his own servants and vehicles and to exercise a personal care and oversight of them, are *130wholly inapplicable to a contract of carriage by which it is understood between the parties that the service is to be performed, in part at least, by means of agencies over which the carrier can exercise no management or control whatever. But this argument, though specious, is unsound. Its fallacy consists in the assumption that at common law, in the absence of any express stipulation, the contract with an owner or consignor of goods delivered to a carrier for transportation necessarily implies that they are to be carried by the party with whom the contract is made, or by servants or agents under his immediate direction and control. But such is not the undertaking of the carrier. The essence of the contract is that the goods are to be carried to their destination, unless the fulfilment of this undertaking is prevented by the act of God or the public enemy. This, indeed, is the whole contract, whether the goods are carried by land or water, by the carrier himself or by agents employed by him. The contract does not imply a personal trust, which can be executed only by the contracting party himself or under his supervision by agents and means of transportation directly and absolutely within his control. Long before the discovery of steam power, a carrier who undertook to convey merchandise from one point to another was authorized to perform the service through agents exercising an independent employment, which they carried on by the use of their own vehicles and under the exclusive care of their own servants. It certainly never was supposed that a person who agreed to carry goods from one place to another by means of wagons or stages could escape liability for the safe carriage of the property over any part of the designated route by showing that a loss happened at a time when the goods were placed by him in vehicles which he did not own, or which were under the charge of agents whom he did not select or control. The truth is that the particular mode or agency by which the service is to be performed does not enter into the contract of carriage with the owner or consignor. The liability of the carrier at common law continues during the transportation over the entire route or distance over which he has agreed to carry the property intrusted to him. And there is no good reason for *131making any distinction in the nature and extent of this liability attaching to carriers, as between those who undertake to transport property by the use of the modern methods of conveyance, and those who performed a like service in the modes formerly in use. If a person assumes to do the business of a common carrier, he can, if he sees fit, confine it within such limits that it may be done under his personal care and supervision or by agents whom he can select and control. But if he undertakes to extend it further, he must either 'restrict his liability by a special contract or bear the responsibility which the law affixes to the species of contract into which he voluntarily enters. There is certainly no hardship in this, because he is bound to take no greater risk than that which is imposed by law on those whom he employs as his agents to fulfil the contracts into which he has entered.
It is not denied that in the present case the goods were lost or destroyed while they were being carried over a portion of the route embraced in the contract with the plaintiffs, and before they had reached the point to which the defendants had agreed to carry them. It is not a case where the agreement between the parties was that the mérchandise was to be delivered over by the defendants to other carriers at an intermediate point, thence to be transported over an independent route to the point of destination without further agency on the part of the defendants. The stipulation was that the defendants should carry the property from the place where they received it to the point where it was to be delivered into the hands of the consignee. The loss happened before the defendants had fulfilled their promise.
The other question raised by the agreed facts is rather one of fact than of law. It is no longer open to controversy in this state that a common canter may limit his responsibility for property intrusted to him by a notice containing reasonable and suitable restrictions, if brought home to the owner of goods delivered for transportation and assented to clearly and unequivocally by him. It is also settled that assent is not necessarily to be inferred from the mere fact that knowledge of s.uch notice on *132the part of an owner or consignor of goods is shown. The evidence must go further and be sufficient to show that the terms on which the carrier proposed to carry the goods were adopted as the contract between the parties according to which the service of the carrier was to be rendered. Judson v. Western Railroad Co. 6 Allen, 486-490. On a consideration of the facts stated, it does not appear to us that the plaintiffs ever did agree that the merchandise in question should be transported on the terms set forth in the receipt which was delivered to the workman at the manufactory when the package was delivered to the defendants’ agent. It is not stated that the plaintiffs or either of them ever read the paper containing the alleged regulations or one similar to it. It is agreed that the defendants received and carried like packages of merchandise for the plaintiffs at or about the time when the one in controversy was delivered for carriage without giving the plaintiffs any receipt whatever therefor, and that this was the course of dealing between the parties in a large majority of the instances in which the defendants had been employed by the plaintiffs. From this it would appear that the ordinary course of business was for the defendants to receive merchandise from the plaintiffs without attempting to limit their liability as carriers in any manner whatever. Under such circumstances we cannot fairly infer that the plaintiffs understood that, by the delivery of a receipt for the merchandise the defendants intended to limit the liability which they ordinarily assumed in their dealings with the plaintiffs, or that the latter understood and assented to the contents of such receipt as fixing the terms on which the defendants were to transport the merchandise. Judgment for the plaintiffs.