KEEP V. INDIANAPOIilS & ST. LOUIS B. 00. 457 �Louis, to find his way over the bridge and through the tunnel to the St. Louis depot as best he might. Some one was responsible for his safe transfer to and delivery at the St. Louis depot, involving the bridge and tunnel transfer. �It is contended earnestly that the Indianapolis & St. Louis Rail- road Company was an intermediate road between New York and St. Louis, whose terminus was at Eaat St. Louis, and although its con- ductor took up the terminal coupon, and gave a bridge and terminal ticket, that in doing so it acted only as the agent of the transit Com- pany, its own responsibility terminating at its station in East St. Louis; that from that point the transit company became the Connect- ing and terminal road. To this there are two objections : First, the terminal coupon was from Indianapolis to St. Louis, over the Indian- apolis & St. Louis Bailroad; and, second, that the accident happened before that railroad company actually reached its station or depot at East St. Louis, where it would have delivered its passengers if bound to the latter place. Besides, it had its arrangements with the other defendant for hauling its cars over the bridge and through the tun- nel j the latter furnishing merely the motive power. The trains were not taken up at East St. Louis; there was no transfer of passengers there; the train was a through one. Bach through passenger re- taining his seat was to be landed at the St. Louis depot, through the operation or agency of the contracting party or parties. �Whose duty was it on the arrivai of the train at East St. Louis to forward the same ? Had the obligations of the Indianapolis & St. Louis Eailroad, under the circumstances, then ceased, and all the com- mon carrier's obligations thereafter been devolved on the transit company? In that connection the court received written evidence as to the corporate character of the transit company, and its contracts with the defendant railroad. It ruled, as a matter of law, that for all the purposes of these suits the transit company was the agent of the railroad, bound to haul the latter's trains, merely furnishing the motive force and managing the same. Hence, the railroad was a common carrier, responsible for the acts of its agent. �It may be that under other faets and circumstances, and possibly under later arrangements, a different relationship legally may exist between those companies ; but the court, in trying these cases, could not go beyond the record before it. �The facts were that on the arrivai of the railroad train in East St. Louis, and before the same had reached the Eelay depot, its locomo- tive was detached for the purpose of having the transit company 's ��� �
