use of that taken, to that untaken of the same tract. Upon this distinction the court said:

"Upon the facts which we have detailed we think the plaintiff in error was not entitled to recover damages to the land not taken because of the probable use to which the Government would put the land it proposed to take. If the remaining land had been part of the same tract which the Government seeks to condemn, then the damage to the remaining portion of the tract taken, arising from the probable use thereof by the Government, would be a proper subject of award in these condemnation proceedings. But the Government takes the whole of one tract."

To the same effect see Cooley's Constitutional Limitations, pp. 565-566.

There is nothing in United States v. Welch, 217 U. S. 333, cited above, which conflicts with the conclusion we have reached, but, upon the contrary, the trend of the opinion is toward the decision we announce.

The constitutional limitation upon the power of eminent domain possessed by the United States is that "private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation." The "just compensation" thus guaranteed obviously requires that the recompense to the owner for the loss caused to him by the taking of a part of a parcel, or single tract of land shall be measured by the loss resulting to him from the appropriation. If, as the court below found, the flooding and taking of a part of the plaintiffs' farm has depreciated the usefulness and value of the remainder the owner is not justly compensated by paying for only that actually appropriated, and leaving him uncompensated for the depreciation over benefits to that which remains. In recognition of this principle of justice it is required that regard be had to the effect of the appropriation of a part of a single parcel upon the remaining interest of the owner, by taking into ac

count both the benefits which accrue and the depreciation which results to the remainder in its use and value. Thus in Bauman v. Ross, 167 U. S. 548, 574, it is said:

"Consequently, when part only of a parcel of land is taken for a highway, the value of that part is not the sole measure of compensation or damages to be paid to the owner; but the incidental injury or benefit to the part not taken is also to be considered. When the part not taken is left in such shape or condition as to be in itself of less value than before, the owner is entitled to additional damages on that account. When, on the other hand, the part which he retains is specially and directly increased in value by the public improvement, the damages to the whole parcel by the appropriation of part of it are lessened."

In Sharp v. United States, 191 U. S. 341, 354, and High Bridge Lumber Co. v. United States, 69 Fed. Rep. 320, 323, as well as in United States v. Welch, 217 U. S. 333, the principle is recognized as settled law.

Both the petition and the finding show that access to the public road has been cut off by the intervention of flooded land actually taken.

That the trial judge found the damages for the land and for the easement of access separately is not controlling. The determining factor was that the value of that part of the Grizzard farm not taken was fifteen hundred dollars, when the value of the entire place before the taking was three thousand dollars. A judgment for a less sum will not be that "just compensation" to which the defendants are entitled. The case is not different in legal consequence from what it would have been if a railway had been constructed across one's lawn, cutting the owner off from his road and outbuildings, etc. To say that such an owner would be compensated by paying him only for the narrow strip actually appropriated, and leaving out of consideration the depreciation to the re

maining land by the manner in which the part was taken, and the use to which it was put, would be a travesty upon justice.

Judgment affirmed.

ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY v. RIVERSIDE MILLS.

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA.

No. 215. Argued October 19, 20, 1910.-Decided January 3, 1911.

A provision in a bill of lading issued by the initial carrier, that it should not be liable for loss or damage not occurring on its portion of the route, is not a contract of exemption from its own liability as a carrier, but a provision of non-assumption of the liabilities of others and at common law relieves it of such liabilities.

The general rule adopted by this court is that, in the absence of legislation, a carrier, unless there be a special contract, is only bound to carry over its own line and then deliver to a connecting carrier; it may, however, contract to carry beyond its line, and if it does so its common-law carrier liability extends over the entire route.

It was not only the legal elements of the situation, but also the fact that the business prosperity of the country largely depends on through rates and routes of transportation, that induced Congress to enact such regulations in regard to the duties and liabilities of interstate carriers as would relieve shippers whose goods were damaged from the burden of proving where the loss occurred. There is no absolute freedom of contract. The Government may deny liberty of contract by regulating or forbidding every contract reasonably calculated to injuriously affect public interests. The United States is a Government of limited and delegated powers but in respect to the powers delegated, including that to regulate commerce between the States, the power is absolute except as limited by other provisions of the Constitution.

Congress has power to prohibit a carrier engaged in interstate commerce from limiting by contract its liability beyond its own line,

219 U. S.

Statement of the Case.

and the Carmack amendment of January 29, 1906, c. 3591, 34 Stat. 584, 595, to § 20 of the Interstate Commerce Act, making such carriers liable for loss or damage to merchandise received for interstate transportation beyond their own lines, notwithstanding any contract of exemption in the bill of lading, is a valid exercise of such power and is not in conflict with the due process provision of the Fifth Amendment.

Quare, and not decided, whether a carrier can be compelled to accept goods for transportation beyond its own lines or be required to make a through or joint rate over independent lines. Under the Carmack amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act, the initial carrier is, as principal, liable not only for its own negligence, but that of any agency which it may use, although as between themselves the carrier actually causing the loss may be primarily liable. Section 8 of the act to regulate commerce of February 4, 1887, c. 104, 24 Stat. 379, 382, does not authorize the taxing of an attorney's fee in an action to recover damages for loss to goods which does not result from a violation of the act.

168 Fed. Rep. 987 and 990, affirmed.

THIS was an action to recover the value of goods received by the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad at a point on its line in the State of Georgia for transportation to points in other States. The agreed statement of facts showed that the goods were safely delivered by the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad to connecting carriers, and were lost while in the care of such carriers, and the question is whether the initial carrier is liable for such loss.

The stipulated facts showed that the goods were tendered to the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad and through bills of lading demanded therefor, which were duly issued, as averred, on the dates named in the petition. That the goods so received were forwarded over the lines of the receiving road and in due course delivered to a connecting carrier engaged in interstate shipment for continuance of the transportation. It was also stipulated "that the Riverside Mill made constant and frequent shipments over the Atlantic Coast Line, and had a blank form of receipt, like the attached, marked 'A,' which the

Argument for Plaintiff in Error.

219 U.S.

Riverside Mill filled out, showing what goods it had loaded into cars and the name of the consignee; said receipt containing a stipulation that the shipment is 'per conditions of the company's bill of lading,' and that the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, on said receipts prepared by the Riverside Mill, issued, for each of the shipments hereinbefore referred to, bills of lading on forms like that attached, marked exhibit 'B.'"

Upon the reverse side of the bill of lading were certain conditions, one of which was that "No carrier shall be liable for loss or damage not occurring on its portion of the route." The tenth clause thereof was in these words:

"This bill of lading is signed for the different carriers who may engage in the transportation, severally but not jointly, each of which is to be bound by and have the benefits of the provisions thereof, and in accepting this bill of lading the shipper, owner and consignee of the goods, and the holder of the bill of lading, agree to be bound by all its stipulations, exceptions and conditions, whether printed or written."

The court below, upon this state of facts, instructed a verdict for the plaintiff, upon which there was judgment for the amount of the verdict, and, upon motion of the plaintiff, an attorney's fee of $100 was ordered to be taxed as part of the costs in the case. Thereupon error was assigned, and this writ of error sued out by the railroad company.

Mr. J. R. Lamar, for plaintiff in error in this case and Mr. C. H. Moorman, with whom Mr. B. D. Warfield and Mr. Henry L. Stone were on the brief, for plaintiff in error in No. 286:1

The cases below hold that the statute is a great convenience to the shipper; is declaratory of the common law; that the initial carrier at common law is liable beyond its

1 See post, p. 209.