“A second state of things, as we know from the evidence in this case to which by the consent of the parties we are at liberty to refer, prevailed extensively for many years after the railway system was in full operation, and for some years at least after the passing of the Act of 1845. The railway company provided the line and provided the engines and trucks, but they were not carriers. The large warehouses and sheds wherein goods were received, sorted, loaded, covered, checked, weighed and labelled, and trucks or carriages marshalled and prepared for convenient removal to their various places of destination--a corresponding work was done in respect of goods arriving from a distance--the staff of clerks, book-keepers, porters, workmen, and horses necessary for these operations were all provided and maintained at the expense of the carrier, and no portion of them fell upon the company. The company, on the other hand, as owners of the rolling stock, for the use of which, as well as of their railways, they received payment, provided whatever accommodation they needed in order to keep in convenient proximity to the places where the carrier had his depôts the necessary supply of rolling stock. “The third state of things which might exist simultaneously with the second, or might be the one prevailing exclusively on a particular line, existed when the company were themselves the carriers of the goods, and when as carriers they provided the accommodation and performed the services above described. “The company might thus be: 1, toll-takers and neither conveyers nor carriers; 2, conveyers but not carriers; 3, carriers. It would naturally be expected that in the first case they would have powers to take tolls, and tolls only, and that in the second, they would have power to make charges, which should include tolls and charges for the use of rolling stock, and it would seem reasonable enough that (inasmuch as they would probably have much greater facilities for keeping and using their rolling stock to advantage and with economy than any other person could have) where they provided both trucks and locomotives as well as took tolls, the maximum charge should be lower than the aggregate of the three separate charges which they might make for, 1, use of railways; 2, use of carriages; 3, locomotive power. “It would seem natural also to expect that where the company were carriers, inasmuch as they performed the identical services which they perform under the second head, and others besides, they should be allowed to charge the same sums as they might charge when falling under the second category, _plus_ those which are appropriate to the extra services and liabilities which fall upon them when they undertake the duties and business of a carrier.