Thomas Johnson Michie.

A treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) online

. (page 10 of 214)
Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 10 of 214)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

(luire, altiiough the word "glass" was
written on the box in large letters, it was
iieid that, as tlie box contained only mer-
chandise, there was no contract on the
part of the railroad to carry it. and it was
not lial)le for its loss. Cahill 7'. London,
etc., Ry. Co., 10 C. B., N. S.. 154. 7 Jur.
.\'. S., 1164, 30 L. J. C. P. 289. 9 W. R.
653, 4 P. T., N. S.. 246, aflirmed in Exche-
quer Cliamber. 13 C H., X. S.. 8is.

Holding that carrier should make in-
quiry. In Kuter 7'. Michigan Cinl. R.
Co., 1 Biss. 35. I<'cd. Cas. No. 7955. dis-
approved in Humphreys ?'. Perry. 148 U.
S. 627, i:t S. Ct. 711. 37 P. Ed. 5S7, it was

§§ 3478-3479



by a passenger as baggage, to see whether it contains articles of merchandised •"
Nor is the carrier bound to inquire as to the contents of a trunk delivered to it as
ordinary baggage, such as travelers usually carry, even if the same is of consider-
able weight, but may rely upon the representations arising by implication, that it
contains nothing more than baggage."*"^ And the carrier does not, by accepting it
without inc{uiring as to contents, become an insurer of a traveling salesman's
trunk filled with samples/^

§ 3479. Sufficiency of Notice to Carrier of Nature of Property. — It

has been held that in order to charge a railroad company with liability for articles
of merchandise tendered and accepted as baggage, it need not be shown that the
agent of the railroad company was expressly notified that the articles were mer-
chandise, but it is sufficient if the agent had notice or knowledge sufficient to put
him on inquiry J ^ But the paying of overweight charges on baggage is not of it-

said in the charge to the jury, that, if the
railroad company knew that immigrants,
like the plaintilT, were in the habit of put-
ting valuable articles and money among
their household goods, and from such
knowledge might have inferred that the
box of the plaintiff might contain money,
then it became the duty of the company
to make inquiry in order to relieve itself
from liability.

And in Walker v. Jackson, 10 Mces. &
W. (Eng.), 161, it appeared that the
plaintiff paid 5s. for the ferriage of his
phaeton and horse, which according to
the defendant's scale of charges, was the
charge for a light four-wheeled phaeton
and one horse, and he did not communi-
cate the fact that the carriage contained
in the box seat, jewelry and watches to
the value of several thousand pounds.
Before the phaeton was landed on the op-
posite side of the ferry, it, and the jew-
elry contained, were injured. The ferry-
man was held liable; and Parke, B., said:
"I take it now to be perfectly well un-
derstood, according to the majority of
opinions on the subject, that if any thing
is to be delivered to a person to be car-
ried, it is the duty of the person receiv-
ing it to ask such questions about it as
may be necessary; if he asks no ques-
tions, and there be no fraud to give the
case a false complexion, on the delivery
of the parcel, he is bound to carry the
parcel as it is."

76. Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Dages, 57 O.
St. 38, 47 N. E. 1039, 8 Am. & Eng. R.
Cas., N. S., 533, 63 Am. St. Rep. 702.

77. Heavy trunk. — Michigan Cent. R.
Co. V. Carrow, 73 111. 348, 24 Am. Rep.
248. See Humphrevs v. Perrv, 148 U. S.
627, 13 S. Ct. 711, 37 L. Ed. 587.

78. Drummer's trunk. — Pennsylvania Co.
V. Miller, 35 O. St. 541, 1 Ky. L. Rep. 184,
35 Am. Rep. 620; Humphreys v. Perry,
148 U. S. 627, 13 S. Ct. 711, 37 L. Ed. 587.

79. Sufficiency of notice to carrier. —
Dahrooge v. Pere Marquette R. Co., 108
N. W. 283, 144 Mich. 541. See Trimble
V. New York, etc., R. Co., 162 N. Y. 84,
50 N. E. 532, 48 L. R. A. 115, 17 Am. &
Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 176; Sloman v. Great
Western R. Co., 67 N. Y. 208, 5 Am. R.

Rep. 113; Talcott v. Wabash R. Co.. 159
N. Y. 46], 54 N. E. 1; Illinois Cent. R.
Co. V. Matthews, 114 Ky. 973, 24 Ky. L.
Rep. 1766, 72 S. W. 302, 60 L. R. A. 846,
102 Am. St. Rep. 316, 6 R. R. R. 769, 29
Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 769.

Illustrations. — Where a traveling sales-
man had his sample trunk, which was
different in appearance from ordinary
trunks, checked from a station from
which he had frequently had it checked
before, and an employee of the road,
other than the, in a record
kept by him, designated it as a sample
trunk, and the baggageman was accus-
tomed to checking sample trunks, but the
salesman did not state that his trunk
contained samples, such fact were held
to warrant a direction of a verdict that
defendant had notice that the trunk con-
tained samples. Trimble v. New York,
etc., R. Co., 56 N. E. 532, 162 N. Y. 84,
48 L. R. A. 115, 17 Am. & Eng. R. Cas.,
N. S.. 176.

Where plaintiff had traveled over de-
fendant's road for six years, carrying
samples of merchandise in trunks differ-
ent in style from the ordinary and a wit-
ness testified that on the last of these
trips the baggage master stated that
plaintiff was a dress man, and that he
had ladies dresses, but the trunks were
received as passengers' baggage, and
some of their contents, stolen, there was
evidence from which the jury might infer
knowledge on defendant's part as to the
character of the contents, and a verdict
for plaintiff will not be disturbed. Am-
ory V. Wabash etc., R. Co., 130 Mich. 404,
90 N. W. 22, 4 R. R. R. 408, 27 Am. &
Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 408.

Where three members of a family of-
fered for transportation, as their bag-
gage, two trunks and three boxes, having
tlic appearance of being packed with mer-
chandise, and aggregating over 500 pounds
in weight (Sand. & H. Dig., § 6215, al-
lowing each passenger 150 pounds), the
carrier was chargeable with notice that
the contents exceeded the ordinary lug-
gage of three persons. Kansas, etc., Co.
V. McGahey, 38 S. W. 659, 63 Ark. 344,36
L. R. A. 781, 58 Am. St. Rep. 111.



§§ 3479-3482

self such notice to the company that the trunk contains merchandise, or other ar-
ticles than the passenger's ordinary baggage, as wiU render the company liable as
a carrier for such articles. s*^ And the packing of articles, not baggage, in a laun-
dry basket does not give notice to the carrier of the character of the articles. ^^
Knowledge of Baggage Agent of Connecting Road. — It has been held
that where the only authority given by a railroad company to the baggage agent
of a connecting road is to check baggage to all stations on the line of the former
road, no presumption follows that such agent has authority to check merchandise
over the line of said road under the guise of baggage; and knowledge on the part
of such agent that a passenger's trunks contain merchandise, and not baggage, is
not sufficient to charge the railroad company with such knowledge.^-

§ 3480. Money Intrusted for Safe-Keeping to Carrier or Its Servants.

— It has been held that the owners of a steamboat are not liable for the loss of
money intrusted to the clerk by a passenger, unless a known and established us-
age for a steamboat to carry money for hire, on account of the owners, is shown.^^
A steamboat, however, is responsible for money deposited by travelers with the
captain, when the deposit is a necessary one.^'*

§ 3481. Effect of Regulations Known to Passenger. — It has been held
that where the passenger knew of a regulation of the carrier forbidding baggage
men to receive jewelers' sample cases for carriage as ordinary baggage, without
the execution of a bond to release the carrier from liability in case of loss, he
could not recover for the loss of the samples, though the carrier's own agent in-
duced its baggage man to receive the samples without the bond.^^ And a railroad
company which does not assume the transportation of dogs, but permits its bag-
gage masters to take charge of them as a matter of accommodation, and for a fee
retained by the baggage master, is not liable as a common carrier to one with
notice of its rules, if the dogs come to harm.^*'

§ 3482. Contributory Negligence of Passenger. — Where a passenger's
negligence contributes to cause the loss of or injury to his baggage, for which he
sues, he can not, as a general rule, recover therefor against the carrier.*" Thus,

80. Paying overweight charges. — Illi-
nois Cent. R. Co. v. Mattliews, 73 vS. W.
302, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 1766, 114 Ivy. 973, GO
L. R. A. 846, 102 Am. St. Rep. 316, 6 R. R.
R. 769, 29 Am. & En^. R. Cas.. N. S., 769.

81. Packing articles in laundry basket.
—St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Miller, 103 Ark.
37, 14.'j S. W. '<M), 30 I,. R. A., N. S., 634.

82. Knowledge of baggage agent of
connecting road. — Toledo, etc., R. Co. v.
Bowier. etc., Co., 19 Am. & Eng. R. Cas.,
X. S.. .-,74, 63 (). Ft. 27 1, .-,'< y. K. ^13.

83. Money intrusted for safe-keeping to
carrier or its servants.— Wliitmore ?'. Car-
cliiic. :.'0 Mo. :,\.\.

It has heen held that a .scaled letter
with bank notes inclosed, delivered by a
passenger to the clerk of a steamboat for
safe-keeping, is simply a contract of de-
posit between them, and the steamboat is
not lialile for loss of the noter.. Wilcox
V. T'liiladelphia, 9 La. «0, 29 Am. Dec. 436.

84. Dunn :•. Branncr, 13 La. Ann. 4.')2.
Money wa-^ intrusted to the owner of a

steamljoat by a passenger, who paid no
nmre tlian the regular fare. Tlicre was a
great crowd. Two boats lying near had
just been robbed The nioiu-y \y;\< stolen
from the safe, anrl the extra watchman

4 Car — \

employed about the boat was not pro-
duced as a witness. Held, that the owner
was liable as a mandatory, and that there
was evidence of a want of the ordinary
care called for under the circumstances to
sustain a verdict for the plaintiff. Jen-
kins V. ^[otlow, 33 Tenn. (1 Snccd) 248,
60 Am. Dec. 1,54.

85. Effect of regulation known to pas-
senger. — Weber Co. v. Chicago, etc., R.
Co., 113 Iowa 188, 84 N. \V. 1042, 20 Am.
& I-.n- R. Cas., N. S., 466.

86. IToneyman v. Oregon, etc., R. Co.,
i:! Ore. ?<:>■'.. 10 Pac. 62S. ,',7 .\m. Rop. 20.

87. Contributory negligence of passen-
ger.— ^//(/Vi'i/ States. — The John Brooks,
Fed. Cas. No, 7,.!3.-,, 1 Hask. 439.

Colorado. — Denver, etc., R. Co. v. John-
son, no Colo. 1S7, 114 Pac. 6.-)0, .\nn. Cas.
1912C, 627.

Luuisi.ina. — Gonthier v. New Orleans,
etc., R. Co., 28 La. Ann. 67, 69.

AVw Ilauipsliirc. — E.lkins 7'. Boston,
etc., R. Co.. 23 N. H. 275.

Nciv York. — Burkctt v. New York, etc.,
R. Co., 53 N. Y. S. :!9I. 2 1 .Misc. Kep. 76.

Tc.vas. — Bonner v. Grumbacli, 2 Tex.
Civ. .\\)]>. is;.', :.«1 S. W. 1010.

If'iv- oiirni. — . Glcason V. Go<i(bich

§ 3482 carrie:rs. 3156

where, a passenger who had placed his coat, containing money, in an unoccupied
seat, just before the coach turned over, recovered his coat shortly after he had
gotten out of the overturned coach, and immediately missed his money, his fail-
ure to notify the carrier of his loss, or to make any effort to find it, will preclude
a recovery/'*^ And, where a passenger's property is stolen from his stateroom by
reason of his neglect to lock and bolt his stateroom door, the carrier is not lia-
ble.^^ It has been held that where one delivered articles to a ticket master, with
no label on them so as to show their owner or place of consignment, the company
is not liable for their loss, though the ticket master promised to put a label on
them, such promise not being binding on the company.-'" But the fact that a
passenger negligently leaves valuables in a car does not, necessarily, relieve the
carrier from responsibility for their ^afety.'-'^ And the fact that a passenger
on a train takes off his coat and places it on an unoccupied seat is not such con-
tributory negligence as will prevent his recovering for money therein contained,
lost by the overturning of the coach into the water.'-*- Nor was a passenger whose
baggage was stolen from an insecurely fastened baggage room, where the car-
rier had stored it, negligent, so as to defeat his recovery, because he omitted to
claim the baggage for two days.-'^ And a woman passenger, who has delivered
a suit case to a trainman to assist her from the train on his assurance that the
train was about to stop at her station, is not guilty of contributory negligence
if, after about fifteen minutes has passed and the train has not stopped, she does
not seek out the trainman and retake the suit case, and keep it until the train
reaches the station.''^ A passenger, prima facie entitled to recover of a
carrier for loss of property contained in a suit case delivered to the carrier's
employee, is not precluded by the fact that the suit case was neither locked nor
fastened except by the catches when delivered to the employee, since contributory
negligence in its ordinary sense has no application where the plaintiff shows de-
livery to defendant and failure to redeliver, and no explanation or excuse is given
by the carrier, since it is only as a part of the explanation required of the bailee
that it becomes material.^^

Transp. Co., 32 Wis. 85, 14 Am. Rep. 716. 89. Failure to lock door of stateroom.—

In Talley v. Great Western R. Co., L. The John Brooks, Fed. Cas. Xo. 7,335, 1

R. 6 C. P. 44, a passenger got out of a Hask. 439.

railway coach for refreshments, leaving in American Steamship Co. v. Bryan,

his portmanteau in the coach. On return- §3 Pa. 446, the valise of the plaintiff was

ing- he failed to find his coach, and so got stolen from his stateroom while he slept,

into another. At the end of his journey he having left the door open for ventila-

he recovered his portmanteau, but found tion. He had no key to the door, but

that it had been rifled of a portion of its could have had one on application. The

contents. It was held that the passenger carrier was held not liable,

had been guilty of contributory negli- ^^ Failure to label baggage.-Elkins v.

gence m failmg to take reasonable care Boston, etc., R. Co., 23 X. H. 275.

of his baggage and that the railwav com- „„ , • i i » • n

pany was discharged. " 91 Leaving valuables in car.-Bonner ^^

A passenger riding on a pass who bases De Mendoza, 4 Texas App. Civ. Cas., §

his right to recover for loss of his gun '^'^"*' -"^ " ^- ^^ • •""•

from his bundle checked as baggage only 92. Placing coat on seat.— Bonner v.

on the principle that the carrier is liable Grumbach, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 482, 21 S. W.

for such negligence as w-culd charge a lOlO.

gratuitous bailee, can not prevail, notwMth- 93. Delay in claiming baggage. — Mote

standing evidence of the carrier's _ negli- i<, Chicago, etc., R. Co., 27 Iowa 22, 1 Am.

gence, where contributing therewith to Rep. 212.

the loss was the passenger's own wrong- g^' Ha.sbrouck :•. Xew York, etc., R.

ful act in presenting to the baggage agent ^^ g. j^y £ g^g <,q2 j^t y 363 35 L R

the bundle without divulging its contents, ^'J^ g ' .3;^ ^\^^ ^^^ ViVlY:). 1150, af-

when the rule of the carrier forbaae the filming judgment 122 N. Y. S. 123. 137

checking of a weapon except when in- . ^-^^ .^^ ^.j^j^j^ ^f^^^^^^ ^^8 ^t y. S.

closed in a proper case. Denver, etc. R. ^3 g^ ^jjg^_ ^ 4^8

Co. z: Johnson, 50 Colo. 187, 114 Pac. 6o0, ,t , , ^^ \j , t,

Ann Cas 191''C 6''7 ^5. Hasbrouck v. Xew York, etc., K.

88! Bonner ~i'. ' Grumbach, 2 Tex. Civ. 9°-\t^ ^^'- ^- T' ^^%^- \-J^' .l^}^' ^^
App 48'^ '^1 '^ W 1010 '^-^ ^- S., 537, Ann. Cas. 1912D, lloO.

3157 passengers' effects. §§ 3482-3484

Failure to Comply with Rule. — A carrier of passengers may establish any
reasonable regulation for the safety of baggage, and is not liable where a passen-
ger loses his baggage through his own neglect or refusal to comply with it.^*^

Improper Packing". — If the manner in which a passenger's baggage is packed
for transportation by the owner is obviously objectionable, the carrier must make
the objection a reason for refusing to receive the property. The full liability of
the carrier attaches when the property passes, with its assent, into its possession,
and is not affected by the manner in which it is loaded.^"

§ 3483. Baggage of Ejected Passenger. — In ejecting a passenger from
a railway train, employees of the company have no right to place the baggage of
the passenger in a place where it will be injured. ^^ And a passenger being ejected
from a railway train has the right to use such force as is necessary to prevent his
baggage from being injured.^^

§§ 3484-3492. Transportation and Delivery to Passenger and Termi-
nation of Liability — § 3484. When Baggage Must Be Carried. — The

obligation of a carrier as to baggage is to transport the same to its destination
within a reasonable time after it has received and checked such baggage.^ It is
held that railroad companies, in the absence of an express or implied contract
provision on the subject, are under obligation to transport a passenger's baggage
in a car annexed to the passenger train in which the passenger himself goes,^
if the passenger has allowed the carrier's agent a reasonable time for checking
and getting the same on board the train after the purchase of his ticket.^ But it is
also held that if the carrier sees proper to carry the baggage of a passenger in an-
other train than that by which he is carried to his destination, no objection can be
made, provided the baggage is delivered at the time the passenger reaches his des-
tination."* And a carrier's practice of giving checks in exchange for transfer
company checks amounts to an agreement to receive the baggage when it arrives
and check it to its destination seasonably, and contemplates that it may not go by
the train the passenger takes. ^

Contributory Negligence of Passenger. — The passenger may be guilty of
such contributory negligence as will defeat a recover for delay in the delivery of

96. Failure to comply 'Arith rule. — Glea- it was the duty of the railroad company
son V. Goodrich Transp. Co., 32 Wis. 85, to carry the trunk on the same train with
14 .Am. Rep. TUi. its owner, and a failure to do so was neg-

97. Improper packing. — Hanni1)a^ etc, ligence. Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Tapp, 6
R. Co. c'. Swift (U. vS.), 12 Wall. 262, 20 Ind. .App. .304, 33 N. H. 4f.2.

L. I\(l. I'.':;. 4. Sullivan v. Southern Railway, 74 S.

98. Baggage of ejected passenger C. .'i77, .54 S. E. 580.

Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Moody (Tex. Civ. In the early development of railroads

App.), 30 S. \X . 574. it was regarded as necessary for the pas-

99. Right of passenger to prevent in- senger to accompany his baggage for
jury to baggage. - < "j-.ilt. etc., R. Co. v. the purpose of identifying it and receiv-
.Mi-ifi'ly (Tex. Civ. App.), .''.() S. W. •">74. ing it when it reached its destination.

1. Duty to transport promptly. — I.ogan This is still necessary in Kngland and
V. I'ontcharlrain R. Co. (l.a.), 11 Rob. ?A, other couiUrics, wlierc tlie system of
4.'! Am. Dec. 199; Brooks v. Northern checking docs not prevail. Hut now car-
I'ac. R. Co., 58 (Jrc. 387, 114 I'ac. 040: St. ricrs in this country frequently refuse to
Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Ray, 13 Te.x. Civ. take on trains which carry pas-
App. (128. :j5 S. W. 951. sengers, and give notice of this fact in

2. Upon same train. — Glasco v. New their time-tables. Adger f. Blue Ridge
York Cent. I^ C". (X. ^'.), 30 Rarb. 557. Ry. Co.. 71 S. C. 213, 50 S. I'.. 7S3, 110

3. Reasonable time for checking bag- Am. St. Ivcp. 5C.s.

gage. ('>inli(iiii -'. ('hiciK'", etc., K. Co., 5. Giving checks in exchange for trans-

101 Minn. :'.I2. in; \. W. 5S|, 17 1.. R. .\.. fer checks. .Moirait ;•. I.oii.g lslan<l R.

N. S., 1091, 15 Am. & I*,ng. Ann. Cas. Co.. I(i7 X. \ . S. Ml.t, 1.'.'3 Ap]). Div. 719.

389. 6. Contributory negligence. — Failure to

Where a passenger purdiased a ticket examine check. I'hiiiuilT, a nu-rcliant

for a certain train, and had his trunk tailor in O., prcpar.ilory to sending one

rherkcil twenty minutes before train lime, of his clerks to J. on Imsiness, ])aiked a

§§ 3485-3487 carriers. 3158

§ 3485. Packing and Conveyance. — The duty to see that the packing of
baggage and its conveyance are such as to secure its safety rests upon the carrier."

§ 3486, Notice of Arrival at Destination. — Where a passenger is in-
formed of the time of the arrival of his baggage, no notice of its arrival is nec-
essary to relieve the carrier from a common carrier's HabiHty.^

§ 3487. Time, Place and Manner of Delivery. — The carrier is bound as
such to carry the baggage to the place of destination, and to deliver it there in
a reasonable time, and in a reasonable manner.'-^ And it owes to a passenger
alighting at a station reasonable facilities for the reception of his baggage by who-
ever is to transport it further. ^^^ Where baggage has reached its final destination,
the railroad company must, upon its arrival, have it ready for delivery upon the
platform, at the usual place of delivery, until the owner can, in the use of due
diligence, call for and receive it.^^ And where baggage is accompanied by the
owner, as the carrier has a right to suppose will be the case, when the journey has
been safely made, the carrier may at once deliver to him his baggage. ^^ A rail-
road company, however, is entitled to a reasonable time within which to deliver
the baggage. What will constitute a reasonable time in this respect must neces-
sarily vary according to circumstances. ^^ It has been held that the fact that a
passenger calls for his baggage on Sunday, during which secular labor is forbid-
den by law, will not excuse the carrier for failing to deliver it on that day.^'* And
the custom of a carrier to keep open an office for the delivery of baggage only
during certain hours of the day will not bind a passenger unless he is infomied
of it.15

Failure of Passenger to Inquire for Baggage. — The proprietors of a stage-
coach are responsible for the loss of a trunk carried beyond its destination al-
though the owner, after his arrival at the end of his journey, permitted the coach
to proceed without any incjuiry for his trunk.^*^

Custom as to Place of Delivery. — Where it is the custom of a common car-
rier to allow the baggage of passengers to be taken in charge by its employees, to
be delivered by them at a certain place, they will be liable for the loss of the bag-
gage arising from the neglect of their employees to make the delivery according
to custom. 1"

trunk with samples, etc., for him, and seat — Georgia R., etc., Co. v. Phillips, 93 Ga.

it to the depot by another clerk, who 801. 20 ~^S. E. 646.

received a check for it, which he ,eave to "Tn some instances a few minutes will

the clerk who was going to J. Neither be all the time to which the company is

of the two clerks looked at the check. entitled. Tn other instances the lapse of

By some mistake, the trunk went to P., a much longer period before delivering

Avhereby its delivery was greatly delayed. the baggage would not be unreasonable.

Held, that the failure of the clerks to ex- A passenger alighting from a train at a

amine the check was negligence, defeat- small country station should be able to

ing plaintiffs recovery. Gonthier v. New get his trunk at once; while a visitor to

Orleans, etc., R. Co., 2S La. Ann. 67, 69. Chicago during the World's Fair would

7. Packing and conveyance. — Hannibal, have had no just cause of complaint
etc., R. Co. V. Swift (U. S.), 12 Wall. 262, against the railroad which landed him in
20 L. Ed. 42.3. that city if he failed to receive his trunk

8. Notice of arrival at destination. — In- until after the lapse of several hours."
diana, etc.. R. Co. v. Zilh', 20 Ind. Aop. Georgia, R., etc., Co. v. Phillips, 93 Ga.
569, 51_ N. E. 141. ' SOI, 20 S. M. 64G.

9. Time, place and manner of delivery. 14. Demand for baggage on Sunday. —
— Logan V. Pontchartrain R. Co. (La.), Stallard v. Great Western R. Co., 2 B. &
11 Rob. 24, 43 Am. Dec. 199; Gary z>. S. 420, 110 E. C. L. 419.

Cleveland, etc., R. Co. (N. Y.), 29 Barb. 35. 15. Custom to keep office open during

10. Reasonable facilities for reception of certain hours. — Stallard v. Great Western
baggage.— Hedding v. Gallagher, 69 N. R. Co., 2 B. & S. 420, 110 E. C. L. 419.
H. 6.-)0, 4.5 Atl. 96, 76 Am. St. Rep. 204. 16. Failure of passenger to inquire. —

11. Ouimit V. Henshaw, 35 Vt. 605, 84 Cole v. Goodwin (X. Y.), 19 Wend. 251,
Am. Dec. 646. 33 Am. Dec. 470.

12. Wood V. ]\Iaine Cent. R. Co., 98 ^le. 17. Custom to allow baggage to be de-

Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 10 of 214)