Copyright
Thomas Johnson Michie.

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

. (page 11 of 214)
Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 11 of 214)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


98, 56 Atl._ 457, 99 Am. St. Rep. ^^.\9. _ livered at certain place. — Fisher v. Ged-

13. Carrier entitled to reasonable time. des, 15 La. Ann. 14.



3159



passengers' effects.



j§ 3487-3489



Waiver as to Place of Delivery. — A passenger may waive his rights under
a contract stipulation requiring the carrier to dehver his baggage at a certain
place. ^'^

§ 3488. Delivery to Wrong Person. — The carrier is liable where it deliv-
ers baggage to one not entitled to receive it.^^ And the carrier is not discharged
from liability by a delivery of the baggage upon a forged order after arrival at
the passenger's destination.-"

§ 3489. Time for Removal of Baggage by Passenger. — A passenger is
allowed a reasonable time in which to call for and take his baggage upon reach-
ing his destination ;-i and it is his duty to call for his baggage within a reasonable
time. - What constitutes such reasonable time depends on the particular facts and
circumstances of each case.-^ If a passenger is informed that his baggage has not
arrived on the train he came on and he gives no directions concerning it and no
information to identify himself so notice of its arrival can be given, it is his duty
to make inquiry for it the first convenient opportunity after the arrival of the
next train and within a reasonable time. - * It is not negligence for a passenger
to go to his hotel near by and then to send back within a reasonable time for his
baggage.25 It has been held that the fact that a passenger arrives at his destina-
tion on Sunday, during which secular labor is forbidden by law, will not excuse
him for not calling for his baggage until Alonday.-*^ Where a passenger knew



18. Waiver as to place of delivery. —
Patten v. Johnson, 131 :\Iass. 29T.

A. hired of a common carrier a hack
and driver to take himself and two trunks
to a house on a certain street, at each end
of which were posts so placed that the
hack could not enter. A. told the carrier
that he would help the driver with the
trunks, although the carrier proposed to
send another man for that purpose. On
arriving at the entrance to the street, A.
went into the house with a vaiise, leaving
the driver to unload the trunks, and then
returned and suggested that they take in
the heavier trunk first, to which the
driver assented, saying, "I will set the
other in here," putting the smaller trunk
inside of the posts. On their return from
carrying the larger trunk into the house,
the other was gone, and had never been
found. Held, that a finding that A. had
waived a delivery of the trunks at the
house was warranted by these facts. Pat-
ten z'. Johnson, 131 Mass. 297.

19. Delivery to wrong person. — A street
railway company which, according to its
regulations, took charge of a passenger's
hand bag, which she had left in the car,
and delivered it to the wrong person, was
liable for its conversion. .Morris z'. Third
Ave. R. Co. rN. Y.), 1 Daly 202, 2.3 How.
Prac. IM."*.

Plaintiff, having bought tickets of dc-
I'fiulant railroad company for himself and
family, pointed out to the baggage mas-
ter their baggage, consisting of three
trunks and two Ijoxcs, and they were all
checked except one box, a small, rough,
l)inc bo.x, such as is used for merchandise.
This box was not checked, for the sole
reason that it had no handle or i)lacc to
which a check could be fastened, but the



agent received it, saying that he would
place it in the baggage car, and that it
would go just as safe. Plaintiff made no
misrepresentations, and was not asked
as to the contents or value. For some
reason it was not placed in the baggage
car, but was left behind on the platform,
and afterwards put in the baggage room.
That evening the night baggage master,
who knew that plaintiff intended to have
the box go on the train with him, deliv-
ered it to one who falsely claimed to have
authority to receive it, and at his request
it was checked as baggage for him to a
place other than that plaintiff had gone
to. Held, that the railroad company was
liable to plaintiff for the contents of the
box. \\'aldron r. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 1
Dak. .3.")!, 46 X. W. 450.^

20. Delivery upon forged order. — •
Powell r. Myers ( X. Y.), 26 Wend. 591.

21. Time for removal. — Georgia R., etc.,
Co. V. Phillips, 93 Ga. 801, 20 S. E. 646:
Rome R. Co. v. Wimberly, 75 Ga. 316, 58
Am. Rep. 468.

22. Hurwitz i>. Hamburg-American
Packet Co., 56 N. Y. S. 379. 27 ^\hc. Rep.
814; Ouimit v. Henshaw, 35 Vt. 605, 84
Am. Dec. 646; Chicago, etc., R. Co. 7-. Ad-
dizoat, 17 111. App. 6.32; Holdridgc V.
Utica. etc.. R. Co. (N. Y."), 56 Rarh. 191.

23. What constitutes reasonable time.—
See post, "What Constitutes Reasonable
Tinie for Removal of Baggage," § 3501.

24. Chicago, etc., R. Co. t'. Addi?:oat, 17

111. Aim.. ••-•'••-■.

25. Contributory negligence. — NcvinsT'.
I'.av Slate Sleand)oat Co., 17 X. Y. Super.
Ct. 225.

26. Arrival on Sunday. — Jones .'. Nor-
wich, etc., Tr.uisp. Co. ( N. Y.), 50 Barb.
193.



§§ 3489-3491



CARRIERS.



3160



that the carrier's depot was usually closed soon after the time of his arrival, and
he made no effort to remove his baggage therefrom, and did not ask that the sta-
tion be kept open until he had had an opportunity to take it away, he can not
complain that, because of the closing of the depot, he had no opportunity to ob-
tain it.-'^

§ 3490. Duty to Care for Baggage until Reasonable Time for Re-
moval. — If the passenger does not call for his baggage at once after its arrival
at its destination, the carrier must place it in a suitable and secure baggage room
or warehouse, and is responsible for it as a common carrier while it is there, un-
til the passenger has had a reasonable time and opportunity to remove it.^^

§ 3491. Termination of Liability. — Effect of Delivery to Owner or
Agent. — A delivery of baggage by a carrier at the end of its route to the owner
or to his agent terminates the liability of the company.^^^ A through passenger
over connecting lines of transportation, however, who avails himself of the privi-
lege, accorded to all passengers over such lines, of stopping overnight at certain
specified points, is entitled to have his baggage carried to his lodgings, and, if he
redelivers it the next morning to the carrier, the continuity of bailment is not
broken/^"

Expiration of Reasonable Time for Delivery. — The liability of a common
carrier as such for the baggage of a passenger is terminated upon the expiration
of a reasonable time for its delivery after arrival at destination ; it then becomes
liable as a warehouseman only.^i As to what constitutes such reasonable time,
see post, "What Constitutes Reasonable Time for Removal of Baggage," § 3501.



27. Right to complain of lack of oppor-
tunity. — Graves v. Fitchburg R. Co., 51
N. Y. S. 636, 29 App. Div. 591.

28. Duty to care for baggage until rea-
sonable time for removal. — Rome R. Co.
V. Wimberly, 75 Ga. 316, 58 Am. Rep. 468;
Bartholomew v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co.,
53 111. 227, 5 Am. Rep. 45; Chicago, etc.,
R. Co. V. Fairclough, 52 111. 106; Matte-
son V. New York, etc., R. Co., 76 N. Y.
381; Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, 81
Tex. 479, 17 S. W. 133.

29. Termination of liability. — Effect of
delivery.— Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. Hop-
kins, 41 Ala. 486, 94 Am. Dec. 607.

As a: general rule, a carrier of passen-
gers, in order to terminate his responsi-
bility for the baggage of a passenger,
must deliver it to him. Matteson v. New
York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 76 N. Y.
381; Oumit v. Henshaw, 35 Vt. 605, 84
Am. Dec. 646.

30. Wilson V. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co.,
62 Va. (21 Gratt.) 654.

31. Expiration of reasonable time for
delivery — Liability as warehouseman. —
United States. — Wiegand v. Central R.
Co., 75 Fed. 370.

Alabama.— CtntvA, etc., R. Co. v. Jones,
150 Ala. 379, 43 So. 575, 9 L. R. A., N. S.,
1240.

Arkansas. — Kansas, etc., R. Co. v. Mc-
Gahey, 63 Ark. 344, 3S S. W. 659, 36 L. R.
A. 781, 58 Am. St. Rep. 111.

Georgia.—Romt R. Co. v. Wimberly,
75 Ga. 316, 58 Am. Rep. 468.

Illinois.— ht. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Hard-



wav, 17 111. App. 321; Chicago, etc, R. Co.
V. Fairclough. 52 111. 106.

lozva. — Mote v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 27
Iowa 22, 1 Am. Rep. 212.

Kentucky. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v.
Mahan, 8 Bush 184; Wald v. Louisville,
etc., R. Co., 92 Ky. 645, 18 S. W. 850, 13
Ky. L. Rep. 853, 58 Am. & Eng. R. Cas.
125.

Massachusetts. — Nealand v. Boston,
etc., Railroad, 161 Mass. 67, 36 N. E. 592;
Norway Plains Co. v. Boston, etc.. Rail-
way, 1 Gray 263, 61 Am. Dec. 423.

Missouri. — Lin v. Terre Haute, etc..
Railroad, 10 Mo. App. 125; Cohen v. St.
Louis, etc., R. Co., 59 Mo. App. 66; Ross
V. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 4 Mo. App. 583.

Neiv York. — Quimby v. Vanderbilt, 17
N. Y. 306, 72 Am. Dec. 469; Powell v.
Myers, 26 Wend. 591; Gary v. Cleveland,
etc., R. Co., 29 Barb. 35; Roth v. Buffalo,
etc., R. Co., 34 N. Y. 548, 90 Am. Dec. 736;
Burnell v. New York Cent. R. Co., 45
N. Y. 184, 6 Am. Rep. 61; Burgevin v.
New. York, etc., R. Co., 69 Hun 479, 23
N. Y. S. 415, 52 N. Y. St. Rep. 617; Hart
V. Rensslaer, etc.. R. Co., 8 N. Y. 37, 59
Am. Dec. 447; Mattison v. New York
Cent. R. Co., 57 N. Y. 552; Fairfax v.
New York, etc., R. Co., 67 N. Y. 11.

North Carolina. — Charlotte Trouser Co.
V. Seaboard, etc., R. Co., 51 S. E. 973, 139
N. C. 382, 21 R. R. R. 459, 44 Am. & Eng.
R. Cas., N. S., 459.

Pennsylvania. — National Line Steam-
ship Co. V. Smart, 107 Pa. 192.

rc;ra.y.— Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Jackson,
4 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 47, 15 S. W.
128; Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Smith



3161



PASSENXERS EFFECTS.



§§ 3492-3493



§ 3492. Carriers' Agents. — Who Are Agents. — The person provided by
a carrier to care for baggage is the agent of the carrier, although he may not be
one of the crew, or paid by the carrier, but a porter who receives his compensa-
tion from the passenger.^- A passenger in a railroad train has a right to regard
the man who handles and takes charge of the baggage on the arrival of the train
at a station as the authorized agent of the company on whose road he is traveling,
and notice to such person as to the destination of the baggage is notice to the
company.^2 Where a railroad company delivers all of its baggage to a union de-
pot company, to be cared for and delivered to passengers on presentation of
checks, it makes such depot company its agent for such purpose.^"* Where a rail-
way company had been in the habit for years of stopping all its trains to discharge
passengers and baggage at the station of another company, whose agent cared for
the baggage on its trains, and checks for such baggage were required to be sur-
rendered on the train, it was held that the agent at such station was the agent of
the railway company so delivering the baggage, and not of the owner. ^^

Authority of Agents. — A baggage master, as such, has no authority to con-
tract for carriage beyond his company's route. ^^ And directions given by a bag-
gage master concerning the delivery of baggage will not bind the railroad com-
pany, if given ofif the company's premises, and by the baggage master wliile en-
gaged in the transaction of his private business. ^'' As to the authority of agents
to make special contracts for the transportation of baggage, see ante, "Authority
of Carriers' Agents," § 3447.

§§ 3493-3496. Limitation of Liability— § 3493, A Power to Limit

Liability. — A common carrier of passengers may contract for a reasonable
limitation of its common-law liability for loss of or damage to baggage not result-
ing from its own negligence or that of its servants. ^^ Thus, is is held that by a



(Tex. Civ. App.), 24 S. W. 668; S.
C. 81 Tex. 479, 17 S. W. 133.

J'irginia. — Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v.
Beasley, etc., Co., 104 Va. 788, 52 S. E.
566. 3 L. R. A., N. S., 183.

IVisconsin. — Hoeger v. Chicago, etc.,
R. Co., 63 Wis. 100, 23 X. W. 43.5, 53 Am.
Rep. 271, 21 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 308;
Whitney v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 27 Wis.
327.

Canada. — Vineburg v. Grand Trunk R.
Co., 13 Ont. App. 93, 27 Am. & Eng. R.
Cas. 271.

32. Person provided by carrier — Paid
by passenger. — Perkins v. Wright, 37
Infl. -.n.

33. One who takes charge of baggage.

— Ouimit f. Hcnshaw, '■'>:, Vt. 605. sj Am.
Dec. 646. cited in Campbell v. Missouri
Pac. R. Co., 78 Neb. 479, 111 N. W. 1:^6.

34. Union depot company. — Jacobs v.
Tutt, 33 Ted. 4 1;.'.

35. Agent of other company. — Campl)ell
V. Missouri Par. K. Co., 78 Xch. 479, 111
X. W. ):.'<;.

36. Authority of agents. — Marmonstein
i: Pennsylvania R. Co., 34 N. Y. S. 97,
fiS X. Y. vSt. Rep. 172, 13 Misc. Rep. 32.

37. Chillicothr -'. Raynard. 80 Mo. 185.

38. May contract for reasonable limi-
tation.— r;M/(v/ Sidles. — The Majestic, 56
Fed. 244; Avers v. Western R. Corp., 14
RIatchf. 9. i'cd. Cas. Xo. 689; vSaunders
V. Southern R. Co., 128 Fed. 15, 62 C. C.
A. 523, 11 R. R. R. 596. 34 Am. & Eng.
R. Cas., N. S.. 596; Michigan Cent. R. Co.



V. Mineral Springs Mfg. Co. (U. S.), 16
Wall. 318, 21 L. Ed. 297; Railroad Co. v.
Fraloff, 100 U. S. 24, 25 L. Ed. 531.

Massachusetts. — Malone v. Boston, etc.,
R. Corp., 12 Gray 388, 74 Am. Dec. 593.

Michigan. — American Transp. Co. v.
Moore, 5 Mich. 368.

Montana. — Rose v. Northern Pac. R.
Co., 35 Mont. 70, 88 Pac. 767, holding
that under Civ. Code, § 2892, providing
that the liability of a carrier for baggage
received with a passenger is the same as
that of a carrier of property, a carrier
may lawfully contract to limit its liability
for loss of a passenger's baggage, pro-
vided the limitation is reasonable. Rose
T'. Northern Pac. R. Co., 88 Pac. 767, 35
Mont. 70.

AVw Y'ork. — Bissell v. New York Cent.
R. Co., 25 N. Y. 442, 82 Am. Dec. 369;
Moore 7-. Evans (N. Y.), 14 Barh. 524.

Ohio. — Davidson v. Graham, 2 O. St.
131.

Pcnnsyhania. — Laing v. Colder, 8 Pa.
479, 49 Am. Dec. 533; Bingham v. Rogers
(Pa.), 6 Watts & S. 495, 40 Am. Dec. 581;
At wood 7'. Reliance Transp. Co. (Pa.), 9
Watts 87. 34 Am. Dec. 503; Earnham v.
Camden, etc., R. Co.. 55 Pa. 53.

'rmncsscr. — Dillard Bros. v. Louisville,
etc.. R. Co., 70 Tenn. (2 l.ca) 288; Coward
7'. East Tenr.essec, etc., R. Co.. *< 4 'Pcnn.
(in Lea) 225, 57 Am. Rep. 227.

Wisconsin. — Morrison v. Phillips, etc.,
Constr. Co., 44 Wis. 405, 28 Am. Rep. 599.

I'.nglnnd. — Rumsev v. Northeastern R.
Co., 11 r. R. X. S. 641.



§ 3493



CARRIERS.



3162



sperial notice brought to the knowledge of the owner the carrier may qiiahfy his
liability for loss of brittle, perishable, or unusually valuable articles ; and that by
special contract the carrier may relieve himself from loss by fire.^^ It is held
that a statute declaring that no railroad shall exempt itself from liability as a car-
rier by any contract, does not apply to rule that a company's baggage men should
not receive jewelers' sample cases for transportation as ordinary baggage unless
the owner had secured a permit from the company.'*'^

Amount of Recovery. — The carrier may, by an express or implied contract,
limit its liability on account of a passenger's baggage to a reasonable amount.^i
Where a ticket limits the liability for loss or injury to baggage to a certain amount
unless the passenger declares and pays additional compensation, such a limita-
tion is void where the right to declare and pay for a greater amount of baggage
is burdenel with conditions void because against public policy^^ Where a pas-
senger pays extra compensation for the transportation of his trunk, a limitation
in his ticket of the damages recoverable for loss of baggage will not preclude a
recovery in excess of such limitation, since his right to recover depends on the
agreement.'*'^

Losses Caused by Negligence. — According to the weight of authority in
the United States, a common carrier can not, even by express contract, exempt
itself from liability for the loss of or injury to a passenger's baggage caused by
its negligence or that of its servants.'^-* Thus, exemptions in a ticket seeking un-
eciuivocally to relieve a carrier from the initial duty of furnishing a seaworthy
vessel, for all negligence in loading or stowing and for any and every fault of



39. Smith v. North Carolina R. Co., 64
N. C. 235.

40. Code, § 2074; Weber Co. v. Chicago,
etc., R. Co.. 113 Iowa'l88, 84 N. W. 1042,
20 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 466.

41. Limitation of amount of recovery. —
The Majestic, 166 U. S. 375, 17 S. Ct. 597,
41 L. Ed. 1030; Kansas, etc., R. Co. v. Ro-
debaugh, 38 Kan. 45, 15 Pac. 899, 34 Am.
& Eng. R. Cas. 219, 5 Am. St. Rep. 715;
Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Campbell, 36 O.
St. 647, 38 Am. Rep. 617, 3 Am. & Eng.
R. Cas. 246; Jacobs v. Central R. Co., 208
Pa. 535, 57 Atl. 982, 11 R. R. R. 562, 34
Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 562.

Where the passenger does not disclose
and pay for a greater value the amount
of recovery that may be had for the loss
cf his baggage may be limited by the car-
rier. Jacobs V. Central R. Co., 208 Pa. 535,
57 Atl. 982, 11 R. R. R. 562, 34 Am. & Eng.
R. Cas., N. S., 562.

The carrier, by specific regulations, dis-
tinctly brought to the knowledge of the
passenger, which are reasonable, and not
inconsistent with a statute or its duties
to the public, may protect itself against
liability as an insurer of his baggage
which exceeds a fixed amount in value,
except upon additional compensation
proportioned to the risk. Railroad Co. v.
Fraloff, 100 U. S. 24, 25 L. Ed. 531; The
Majestic, 166 U. S. 375, 17 S. Ct. 597, 41
L. Ed. 1039.

42. The Kensington, 183 U. S. 263, 22
S. Ct. 10?, 46 I.. Ed. 190.

43. Extra compensation. — Trimble v.
New York, etc., R. Co., 57 N. Y. S. 437,
39 App. Div. 403, order afifirmed in 163



N. Y. 84, 56 N. E. 532, 48 L. R. A. 115, 17
Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 176.

44. Limitation of liability for losses
caused by negligence. — United States. —
The Kensington, 183 U. S. 263, 22 S. Ct.
102, 46 L. Ed. 190; Saunders v. Southern
R. Co.. 128 Fed. 15, 62 C. C. A. 523, 11
R. R. R. 596, 34 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N.
S., 596.

Indiana. — Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. v.
Cox, 29 Ind. 360, 95 Am. Dec. 640.

Massachusetts. — French v. Merchants',
etc.. Transp. Co., 199 Mass. 433, 85 N. E.
424,' 19 L. R. A., N. S., 1006.

Oregon. — Homer v. Oregon, etc., R.
Co. (Utah), 128 Pac. 522; Wells v. Great
Northern R. Co., 59 Ore. 165, 114 Pac.
92. 116 Pac. 1070, 34 L. R. A., N. S., 818.

Pennsylvania. — Laing v. Colder, 8 Pa.
479, 49 Am. Dec. 533.

Tennessee. — Dillard Bros. v. Louisville,
etc., R. Co., 70 Tenn. (2 Lea) 288; Co-
ward V. East Tennessee, etc.. R. Co., 84
Tenn. (16 Lea) 225, 57 Am. Rep. 227.

Texas. — International, etc., R. Co. v.
Foltz, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 644, 22 S. W. 541,
affirmed in 93 Tex. 687, no op.

A ticket issued to a person at a re-
duced rate and limiting liability for liag-
gage to wearing apparel not exceeding
one hundred dollars in value docs not re-
lieve the carrier from accountability for
the value of the baggage lost through
the negligence of its agents. Wells v.
Great Northern R. Co., 59 Ore. 165, 114
Pac. 92, 116 Pac. 1070, 34 L. R. A., N. S.,
818; International, etc., R. Co. v. Foltz,
3 Tex. Civ. App. 644, 22 S. W. 541, af-
firmed in 93 Tex. 687, no op.



3163



PASSENGERS EFl'ECTS.



§§ 3493-3494



commission or omission on the part of a carrier or its serA'ants, are void.'*^ And
a railroad company can not limit its responsibility for a passenger's baggage to a
specified sum, and thus exempt itself from all liability for the willful default or
tort of its servants, although such stipulation be made by special contract. ^^^ But
in New York the carrier may, by special contract, exempt itself from liability for
loss of or injury to baggage resulting from the negligence of itself or its em-
ployees.^''

Free Passes. — It is held that the issuance of a "free ticket" by a railroad com-
pany to a passenger containing the following writing : "The person accepting
this free ticket, in consideration thereof, assumes all risk of accident, and ex-
pressly agrees that the company shall not be liable, under any circumstances,
whether of the negligence of their agents, or otherwise, for any injury to the
person or property," does not exempt the company from liability for the loss
of baggage of the passenger occasioned by the negligence, or willful default or
tort of its servants.-**' It has been held, however, that where plaintiff was travel-
ing on a pass under an agreement thereon that the railroad company should no<-
be liable for damage to property of such person by negligence of its agents or
othcwisc, such person could not recover for loss of baggage, except for willful
uiisconduct.'"' In Georgia, one who receives from a carrier a pass over its line,
issued on condition that the person accepting it agrees that the company shall not
be liable under anv circumstances for injury to the person or damage to the
property, can not recover the value of baggage lost while traveling on the pass.^^

Power to Limit Liability to Own Line. — See post, "Power to Limit Liabil-
ity to Own Line," § 3509.

§ 3494. Manner of Limiting- Liability. — A carrier can limit its common-
law liability for loss of or injury to baggage only by express contract with the
passenger, or by his express or implied assent to a notice or regulation brought to
his knowledge. ^1 A passenger, not assenting to a contract limiting the carrier's



45. The Kensington, 183 U. S. 263, 22
S. Ct. 102, 46 L. Ed. 190.

46. Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. Hopkins, 41
Ala. 486, 94 Am. Dec. 607.

47. New York rule. — Gardiner v. New-
York, etc., R. Co., 201 N. Y. 387, 94 N. E.
876, 34 L. R. A., N. S., 826, affirming or-
der 123 N. Y. S. 86.5, 139 App. Div. 17,
and answering certified question 125 N.
Y. S. 1121, 140 App. Div. 907; Steers v.
Liverpool, etc.. Steamship Co., 57 N. Y.
1, J 5 Am. Rep. 4oLi.

48. Free pass. — Mobile, etc., R. Co. v.
Hopkins, 41 Ala. 486, 94 Am. Dec. 607.

49. Hutto V. Southern Railway, 55 S.
E. 445, 75 S. C. 295.

50. Georgia doctrine. — Holly v. South-
ern K. Co., no Ga. 767, 47 S. E. 188.

51. Necessity for notice to and assent
of passenger. — • United States. — Mauritz
V. New York, etc., R. Co., 23 Fed. 765, 21
Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 286; The Majestic,
166 U. S. 375, 17 S. Ct. 597, 41 L. Ed.
1039; VVicgand v. Central R. Co., 75 Fed.
370, judgment affirmed in 79 Fed. 901, 25
C. C. A. 681.

Arkansas. — Little Rock, etc., R. Co. v.
Record, 74 Ark. 125, 85 S. W. 421, 109
Am. St. Rep. 67, 16 R. R. R. 664, 39 Am.
& Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 664.

luditnia. — Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. v.
Co.x, 29 Ind. :i60, 9.") .Am. Dec. 610.



Iowa. — Davis v. Chicago, etc., R. Co.,
S3 Iowa 744, 49 N. W. 77.

Kansas. — -Kansas, etc., R. Co. v. Ro-
debaugh, 38 Kan. 45, 15 Pac. 890, 5 Am.
St. Rep. 715, 34 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 219.

Louisiana. — Logan v. Pontchartrain R.
Co., 11 Rob. 24, 43 Am. Dec. 199.

Maine. — Bean v. Green, 12 Me. 199.

Massachusetts. — Malone v. Boston, etc.,
R. Corp., 12 Gray 388, 74 Am. Dec. 598;
Hooker v. Boston, etc., Railroad, 209
Mass. 598, 95 N. E. 945.

Nciv Hampshire. — Lessard v. Boston,
etc., Railroad, 45 Atl. 712, 69 N. H. 64S.

i\'e7v York. — Hollister v. Nowlen, 19
Wend. 234, 32 Am. Dec. 455; Blossom v.
Dodd, 43 N. Y. 264, 3 Am. Rep. 701; Cole
V. Goodwin, 19 Wend. 251, 32 Am. Dec.
470; Camden, etc., Transp. Co. v. Belk-
nap, 21 Wend. 354; Rawson v. Pennsyl-
vania R. Co., 48 N. Y. 212, 3 Am. R. Rep.
528, 8 Am. Rep. 543; Madan v. Sherard,
73 N. Y. 329, 29 Am. Rep. 153, afiirming
42 N. Y. Super. Ct. 353; Gardiner v. New
York, etc., R. Co., 201 N. Y. 387. 94 N. E.
876, 34 L. R. A., N. S., 826; Prentice 7'.
Decker, 49 Barb. 21; Hnlchins v. Penn-
sylvania R. Co., 181 N. Y. 186, 73 N. E.
972, 106 Am. St. Rep. 537, affirming 86
N. Y. S. 1138, 92 App. Div. 612.

North Carolina. — Smith v. North Caro-
lina R. Co., 64 N. C. 235.

O/mV?.— Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Camp-



S 3494



CARRIERS.



3164



liability for baggage, is not bound thereby, even though the limitation be reason-
able.^ -

Provisions in Check. — Acceptance of a check containing a limitation of the
carrier's liability for loss of baggage will not in itself establish a contract for such
limitation ; ^>'-^ the passenger is not bound unless he had other notice of the restric-
tion."'' Where plaintiff delivered to defendant a trunk containing merchandise to



Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 11 of 214)