See further ACCIDENT; CARRIER; CONDITION; POSSIAct of honor. Acceptance or indorseaccident arising from the so-called act of God will, ment of protested paper, to save the credit any more than inevitable accident in general by the Roman and continental law, afford immunity to the carrier. This must depend upon his ability to avert the effects of the vis major, and the degree of diligence which he is bound to apply to that end. All causes of inevitable accident may be divided into two classes: those which are occasioned by the elementary forces of nature unconnected with the agency of man or other cause; and those which have their origin, in whole or in part, in the agency of man, whether in acts of commission or omission, of nonfeasance or mis-feasance, or in any other cause independent of the agency of natural forces. It is not because an accident is occasioned by the agency of nature, and therefore by what may be termed the "act of God," that it necessarily follows that the carrier is entitled to immunity. The carrier is bound to do his utmost to protect the goods from loss or damage, and if he fails herein he becomes liable from the nature of his contract. If by his default in omitting to take the necessary care, loss or damage ensues, he remains responsible, though the so-called act of God may have been the immediate cause of the mischief. What Story says of "perils of the seas" applies equally to such perils coming within the designation of "acts of God." That is, all that can be required of the carrier is that he shall do all that is reasonably and practically possible to insure the safety of the goods. If he uses all the known means to which prudent and experienced carriers ordinarily have recourse he does all that can be reasonably required of him; and if, under such circumstances, he is overpowered by storm or other natural agency, he is within the rule which gives immunity from the effects of such vis major as the act of God. It is, therefore, erroneous to say that the vis major must be such as "no amount of human care or skill could have resisted" or the injury such as "no human ability could have prevented." 1 by fine discrimination, and by accurate research," 1 Smith's Lead. Cases, 413, where extended quotation is made from it. of a name thereon. See HONOR, 1. Act of the law. The operation of legal rules upon a fact or facts; operation of law. A common expression is "act and operation of law." Succession to property, surrender of leases, and some divorces are said to be created by act of the law.4 An act of the law exonerates from liability. 2. A formal written statement that something has been done; as, that an instrument is the maker's act and deed. See ACKNOWLEDGMENT, 2. 3. A law made by a legislative body. Used abstractly, or with reference to a particular statute: as, an act of Assembly, of Congress, of legislation, or of the legislature; the Civil Rights Act, the Confiscation Acts, the Factor's Act, the Inter-State Commerce Act, the Legal Tender Act, Recording Acts, the Riot Act, Tenterden's Act, the Tenure of Office Act, qq. v. Enact. To establish in the form of positive law, or by written law. Whence enactment. Enacting clause. The section of a bill or statute which establishes the whole document as a law. Commonly begins "Be it enacted, etc.," that is, by the Senate and House of Representatives (or the People) of a State, or of the United States. The section of a statute which defines an offense is not the enacting clause." "Act of Congress" is as strong and unequivocal as "statute of Congress."" The legislature, in exercising a power conferred, 1 Davis v. Wabash, &c. R. Co., 89 Mo. 349-53 (1886), cases, Ray, J. Same case, 25 Am. Law Reg. 650 (1885); ib. 658-60, cases. Central Trust Co. v. Wabash, &c. R. Co., 31 F. R. 441 (1887). 317 Wall. 373, 376. 1 Nugent v. Smith, L. R., 1 C. P. D. 429-30, 435-36 (1876), cases, Cockburn, C. J.; 1 Story, Bailm. § 512 (a). The defendant received a mare to be carried by him as a common carrier by sea. The jury found that her death was caused partly by very rough weather and partly from struggling due to fright, and that the de2 Whart. Ev. §§ 858-62. fendant had not been negligent. The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court, holding that the defendant was not liable for the value of the animal. See 1 Bl. Com. 123; 15 Wend. 400; 2 Barb. 180; • Taylor v. Taintor, 16 Wall. 376 (1872). • United States v. Cook, 17 Wall. 176 (1876). United States v. Smith, 2 Mas. 151 (1820), Story, J.