Thomas Johnson Michie.

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

. (page 12 of 214)
Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 12 of 214)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

be carried from the depot to a hotel, and received a check with the general ob-
ject printed thereon in large letters, while in very small type was printed that the
check was "good for ordinary personal baggage," it was held that the qualifica-
tion was not such notice as w^ould affect defendant's liability as a carrier, and de-
fendant was liable for loss of the merchandise.^^

Provisions in Ticket. — Where a passenger fully understands a clause in
a ticket bought at a reduced rate, fixing a valuation on baggage and limiting the
carrier's liability to such amount, which provision is not unreasonable, the provis-
ion is binding, though the carrier fixes the valuation without negotiation and with-
out express tender of opportunity to name a diff'erent valuation.^*' Where a pas-
senger accepts an excursion ticket in the form of a paper of some size, setting
forth on its face clearly, prominently and legibly, a reasonable limitation of the
carrier's liability as to baggage, unless special agreement be made, the passenger
is presumed to have read the ticket, and will be bound by the limitation. ^^ Where
one who could neither read nor write and was not informed by any one, purchased
a railroad passenger ticket containing a limitation of the liability of the carrier
in respect to loss of baggage, it was held that he was not bound by the restric-
tion.^^ A passenger in accepting and using a ticket for an ocean voyage known
as a "Passenger's Contract Ticket," even if he did not read it, will be conclusively
held to have assented to its terms.^^ Under the Montana statute, in the absence
of fraud, a passenger signing a ticket containing stipulations limiting the liability
of the carrier can not urge that he was not aware of the stipulations.^'^

General Notice. — A carrier may limit his liability for the loss of or injury to
baggage by a general notice, but its terms must be clear and explicit ; and the party
with whom the carrier deals must be fully informed of the terms and its effect,

bell, 36 O. St. 647. 38 Am. Rep. 617, 3 Am.
& Eng. R. Cas. 246.

Tennessee. — Walker v. Skipwith, 19
Tenn. (1 Meigs) 502, 33 Am. Dec. 161.

Vermont. — Ranchau v. Rutland R. Co.,
71 Vt. 142, 43 Atl. 11, 76 Am. St. Rep.
761, 14 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 416.

Virginia. — Wilson v. Chesapeake, etc.,
R. Co., 62 Va. (21 Gratt.) 654.

JVisconsin. — Gleason v. Goodrich
Transp. Co., 32 Wis. 85, 14 Am. Rep.

Canada. — Anderson v. Canadian Pac.
R. Co., 17 Ont. Rep. 747, 40 Am. & Eng.
R. Cas. 624.

52. Black z'. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 64 S.
E. 418, 82 S. C. 478.

53. Acceptance of check containing lim-
itation. — Prentice v. Decker (N. Y.), 49
Barb. 21.

Where a passenger in a railroad car,
dimly lighted at one end, delivers his
baggage checks to an express messen-
ger, and receives in return a card on
which the number of the check is en-
tered, and which contains an agreement
limiting the liability of the express com-
pany, printed in much smaller type than
that on the rest of the card, and so fine
as to be illegible where the passenger

is sitting, the limitation does not enter
into the contract. Blossom v. Dodd, 43
N. Y. 264, 3 Am. Rep. 701. See Madan
i: Sherard. 73 N. Y. 329, 29 Am. Rep. 153,
affirming 42 N. Y. Super. Ct. 353.

54. In'dianapolis. etc., R. Co. v. Cox, 29
Ind. 360, 95 Am. Dec. 640.

55. Verner z: Sweitzer, 32 Pa. 208.

56. Provision in ticket understood by
passenger. — Gardiner v. New York, etc.,
R. Co., 201 N. Y. 387, 94 N. E. 876, 34 L.
R. A., X. S., 826.

57. Presumed to have read excursion
ticket.— Jacobs z'. Central R. Co., 208 Pa.
535, 11 R. R. R. 562, 34 Am. & Eng. R.
Cas., N. S., 562, 57 Atl. 982; Graham v.
Cummings. 208 Pa. 516. 57 Atl. 943.

58. Passenger unable to read or write.
—Ranchau z: Rutland R. Co., 71 Vt. 142,
43 Atl. 11, 76 Am. St. Rep. 761, 14 Am.
& Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 416.

59. Passenger's contract ticket. — Fon-
seca V. Cunard Steamship Co., 153 Mass.
553, 27 N. E. 665, 12 L. R. A. 340, 25 Am.
St. Rep. 660. See Steers v. Liverpool,
etc.. Steamship Co., 57 N. Y. 1, 15 Am.
Rep. 453.

60. Montana statute. — Section 2876,
Mont. Civ. Code. Rose v. Northern Pac.
R. Co., 35 Mont. 70, 88 Pac. 767.


passe;nge;rs effects.

§ 3494

so as to impliedly assent to the limitation. *^^ So a public notice by a railroad com-
pany that all baggage is at the owner's risk, not brought home to the latter, will
not exonerate the company from liability as a carrier.*'- And a passenger is not
bound by written or printed notices, posted in the boat in conspicuous places, stat-
ing the carrier's regulations as to the delivery of baggage, though he is bound by
such regulations, if reasonable, when informed of them in fact, whether by read-
ing such notices or otherwise.'^^^ In Xew York it has been held that stage coach
proprietors can not restrict their liability by a general notice that "the baggage of
passengers is at the risk of the owners," brought home to the passenger.*''* It is
held that in the absence of any provision in the interstate commerce law as to pas-
sengers' baggage, the filing and posting by a carrier, as a part of its schedules for
passenger tariff for transportation between states, of a limitation of its liability to
loss of baggage not exceeding a certain value, unless a greater value is declared
and excess charges paid thereon at time of checking, does not make such limita-
tion an essential part of the rate of transportation of passengers, so as to be bind-
ing on a passenger having no knowledge thereof.*'-'

Time of Notice and Assent. — To restrict the liability of the common carrier
for the loss of or injury to the baggage of a passenger, it must be shown that the
passenger had notice of the limitation and expressly or impliedly assented to it
before the journey commenced. Discovery of the condition after the journey has
commenced will not affect the rights of the passenger.^*^ It is held that a notice,
limiting the liability of the carrier, printed on the back of a ticket, does not
raise a legal presumption that the passenger knew of and assented to such condi-

61. General notice. — Weber Co. v. Chi-
cago, etc., R. Co., 113 Iowa 188, 84 N. W.
1042, 20 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S.. 466;
Jones V. Voorhees. 10 O. 145; Camden,
etc., R. Co. V. Baldanf, 16 Pa. 67, 55 Am.
Dec. 681; Laing v. Colder, 8 Pa. 479, 49
Am. Dec. 533; Pennsylvania Ceirt. R. Co.
V. Schwarzenberger, 45 Pa. 208, 84 Am.
Dec. 490; v. Oregon, etc., R.
Co., 13 Ore. 352, 10 Pac. 628, 57 Am. Rep.
20; Gleason v. Goodrich Transp. Co., 32
Wis. 85, 14 Am. Rep. 716.

It has been held that a general notice
of limitation of liability must be such as
amounts to actual notice; or shown to
have been so conspicuous that the party
sought to be affected by it, could not
have failed to discover it \\ithout gross
negligence. Verner v. Sweitzer, 32 Pa.

Though a stage owner posted notices
that he would not be accountable for
baggage unless the fare was paid, and
the same entered on the waybill, he was
liable for loss of a trunk through negli-
gence, though the fare was not paid; no-
tice not having been brought home to the
owner, nor to his servant, who carried it
to the stage ofifice. Bean v. Green. 12 Me.

Where the notice is in English, which
the passenger did not understand, the
carrier must prove the knowledge of the
passenger of the limitation in the notice.
Camden, etc., R. Co. v. Baldauf, 16 Pa.
67, 55 Am. Dec. 681.

62. Logan v. Pontchartrain R. Co.,
(La.), 11 Rob. 24, 43 Am. Dec. 190.

63. Notice posted in boat.— Gleason v.

Goodrich Transp. Co.. 32 Wis. 85, 14 Am.
Rep. 716.

64. New York rule. — Cole v. Goodwin,
19 Wend. 251, 32 Am. Dec. 470; Clark v.
Faxton, 21 Wend. 153; Powell v. Myers,
26 Wend. 591; Hollister v. Nowlen, 19
Wend. 234, 32 Am. Dec. 455.

65. Interstate commerce. — Hooker v.
Boston, etc.. Railroad, 209 Mass. 598, 95
N. E. 945.

66. Time of assent. — United States. —
Mauritz v. New York, etc., R. Co., 23
Fed. 765, 21 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 286.

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

New York. — Rawson v. Pennsylvania
R. Co., 48 N. Y. 212, 3 Am. R. Rep. 528,
8 Am. Rep. 543, affirming 2 Abb. Prac, N.
S., 220; Prentice v. Decker, 49 Barb. 21.

Ohio. — Kent v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co.,
45 O. St. 284, 12 X. E. 798, 31 Am. & Eng.
R. Cas. 125, 4 Am. St. Rep. 539.

Pennsylvania. — Camden, etc., R. Co. v.
Baldauf," 16 Pa. 67, 55 Am. Dec. 681.

J'irginia. — Wilson v. Chesapeake, etc.,
R. Co.. 62 Va. (21 Gratt.) 654.

Where a stage proprietor was in the
habit of carrying, in his coaches, per-
sons, and baggage, or packages, regula-
tions of his line, and instructions to his
agents, not to receive goods to be carried
except as the baggage of passengers, or
in the care of passengers, and at the risk
of the owner sending them, would not
limit his lial)ility for goods received by
his agents, unless the owner or his agents
was notified of the rule or instructions at
the time of the receipt of the goods.
Walker v. Skipwith, 19 Tenn. (1 Meigs)
502, 33 Am. Dec. 161.

§§ 3494-3496 carriers. 3166

tion before the journey was commenced; and whether the passenger did have ac-
tual notice of such condition before starting on the journey, is a question for the

Limitation in Pullman Car Ticket. — A pullman car ticket providing that
"wearing apparel or baggage placed in the car will be entirely at the risk of the
owner," does not innure to the benefit of the railroad company. <^'^

§ 3495. Necessity for Consideration. — To render a stipulation purport-
ing to limit the liability of the carrier for baggage valid, there must be a suffi-
cient consideration, either express or implied.^^

§ 3496. Construction and Operation of Limitation. — Construction of
Stipulations in General. — Contracts limiting the liabilities of carriers for the
loss of or injury to baggage are to be construed most strongly against them,"^
and in the light of public policy."^ The carrier's contract as to baggage is not to
be determined alone by the conditions in the ticket, but also by the circumstances
of each case.'^^

General Limitation. — It is held that the limitation of liability for loss of bag-
gage contained in a passenger's ticket is not invalid, because the limitation is gen-
eral in its terms, without reference to negligence ; but such limitation will be en-
forced as to all losses not resulting from the negligence of the carrier." ^ But it
is also held that a stipulation in a contract between a passenger and carrier that
the baggage liability Vv'as limited to wearing apparel only, not exceeding one hun-
dred dollars in value, was not a stipulation of the value of the goods shipped, but
limited the liability to one hundred dollars in any case."'* In New York where a
carrier may relieve itself of liability for losses caused by negligence it is held that
a clause simply releasing a carrier from liability for loss of goods will not in-
clude a case of its own negligence, unless such exemption is expressly and plainly
stated ; but that a clause in consideration of reduced rates limiting the liability of
a carrier to a specified valuation of baggage includes a case of loss or damage
arising from negligence without express mention thereof."-^ Where the
the negligent delay in transporting the baggage of a passenger was not the proxi-
mate cause of a loss of the baggage by fire while the baggage was held at an inter-
mediate point, a general limitation of liability for loss of baggage contained in the
passenger's ticket operated to relieve the carrier from liability."*^

67. Brown v. Eastern R. Co. (Mass.), Co., 55 Wis. 319, 13 N. W. 244, 42 Am.
11 Cush. 97. See Wilson v. Chesapeake, Rep. 713; Cream City R. Co. v. Chicago,
etc.. R. Co., 62 Va. (31 Gratt.) 654. etc., R. Co., 63 Wis. 93, 23 N. W. 425, 21

68. Limitation in pullman car ticket. — Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 70. 53 Am. Rep. 267.
Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Katzenberger, 71. Construed in light of public policy.
84 Tenn. (1(3 Lea) 380, 1 S. W. 44, 57 — Gomm v. Oregon R., etc., Co., 101 Pac.
Am. Rep. 232. 361, 52 Wash. 685, 25 L. R. A., N. S., 537.

69. Necessity for consideration. — Rob- 72. Circumstances of each case consid-
ert v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 148 Mo. App. ered. — Gomm v. Oregon R., etc., Co., 101
96, 127 S. W. 925; Black v. Atlantic, etc., Pac. 361, 52 Wash. 685, 25 L. R. A., N.
R. Co., 82 S. C. 478, 64 S. E. 418; Dillard S., 537.

Bros. V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 70 Tenn. 73. General limitation of liability. —

(2 Lea) 288; Coward v. East Tennessee, French v. Merchants', etc., Transp. Co.,

etc., R. Co., 84 Tenn. (IG Lea) 225, 57 85 N. E. 424, 199 Mass. 433, 19 L. R. A.,

Am. Rep. 227. N. S.. 100.5; Saunders v. Southern R. Co.,

70. Construction of contracts limiting 128 Fed. 15, 62 C. C. A. 523, 11 R. R. R.
li.ibility. — United 6" to?<?.f. — Hopkins v. 596, 34 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., X. S., 596.
Westcott, 6 Blatchf. 64, Fed. Cas. No. 74. Wells v. Great Northern R. Co., 59
6692. Ore. 165, 116 Pac. 1070, 34 L. R. A., N.

Indiana.—St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. S., 818, denying rehearing 114 Pac. 92.
Smuck, 49 Ind. 302. 75. Gardiner v. New York, etc.. R. Co.,

New York.—Eavle v. Cadmus, 2 Daly 201 N. Y. 387, 94 N. E. 876, 34 L. R. A.,

237. N. S., 826. affirming order 123 N. Y. S.

Pennsylvania. — Atwood v. Reliance 865, 139 App. Div. 17.
Transp. Co., 9 Watts 87, 34 Am. Dec. 503; 76. Negligence of carrier not proximate

Bingham v. Roaers (Pa.), 6 Watts & S. cause. — French v. Merchants', etc., Transp.

495, 40 Am. De'c. 581. Co., 199 Mass. 433, 85 N. E. 424, 19 L. R.

Wisconsin.— ^\ v. Goodrich Transp. A., N. S., 1006.

3167 passengers' effects. §§ 3496-3498

Limitations Not Applicable. — Under a contract of carriage, limiting the car-
rier's liability to $100 for loss of baggage, unless a declaration of the value thereof
in excess of such sum be made by the passenger "at or before the issue of this con-
tract or at or before the delivery of said luggage to the ship," the declaration
need not be made before delivery of the baggage on the ship ; and, the baggage
having been delivered to the carrier's employees on the wharf without such de-
claration, for the purpose of having it placed on the ship, and it not having been
placed thereon, the limitation does not apply.'' And where a statute authorized
carriers to limit their liability for loss of "goods, merchandise, or baggage" re-
ceived for transportation by notice "inserted in the bills of lading or receipts given
for such mercliandise or in the tickets to passengers," a carrier's liability was not
limited thereunder with respect to merchandise of a passenger transported in a
packing case without extra compensation, wdiere no bill of lading or receipt was
given therefor except the passenger's ticket, which limited the company's liability
to baggage defined as wearing apparel only.'^'^

§§ 3497-3498. Charges and Liens— § 3497. Charges.— Where a pas-
senger accompanies his baggage, the fare charged for his passage usually in-
cludes compensation for its transportation.'^ Of course, it is not material whether
the passenger pays for his passage himself, or it is paid for by others, to entitle
him to the transportation of his baggage without further charge. ^'^ Common
carriers, however, may, under their specific regulations, and as a condition pre-
cedent to a contract for the transportation of a passenger's baggage, require in-
formation from him as to its value, and demand extra compensation for any ex-
cess beyond that which he may reasonable demand to be transported as baggage
under the contract to carry the person. ^^ And a passenger has no right to carry
as personal baggage, large sums of bullion without paying freight therefor.^- In
the absence of any special agreement, baggage forwarded after the departure of
the passenger is liable to the payment of usual freight charges.^^ To charge a
carrier for the loss of baggage of a passenger, it is not necessary that the passage
money should have been paid in advance.^"* If a passenger, however, does not ac-
company his baggage, the carrier may claim compensation in advance for its
transportation, or may postpone its claim till the delivery and rely on his lien or
on the personal responsibility of the owner. ^^

§ 3498. Liens. — A. common carrier of passengers has a lien on the baggage
of a passenger in its possession and control for any sum due from the passenger
for the transjjortation of either himself or his baggage, or for its storage, growing

77. Limitation not applicable. — Holmes Horn v. Kerniit (N. Y.), -1 E. D. Sniitli
V. North, etc., Steamship Co.. 90 N. Y. S. 453.

s:]4, 100 App. Div. 36, atfirmod in IS-l N. 81. Extra charge for excess. — Railroad

Y. 280, 77 N. E. 21, o E. P. A., N. S.. Co. v. Fralofl", 100 U. S. ;24, 2J L. Ed. r.31.

650. 82. Large sum of bullion. — Hutchings

78. Saleeby v. Central R. Co., 184 N. Y'. tSr Co. v. Western, etc., R. Co., 25 Ga. Gl,
597, 77 N. E. HOG, affirming 90 N. Y. S. 71 Am. Dec. 1 r.C.

1042, 99 App. Div. 163, 15 N. Y. Ann. Cas. 83. Baggage forwarded after departure

•.\r,:^, of passenger. — Wilson :•. Grand 'frunk

79. Charge for baggage included in pas- Railway, 56 Me. 60, 96 Am. Dec. 435.
scnger's fare. — 'I'lu- l'"lvira llarl)eck, I'cd. Tiie trunk of one who does not go by
Cas. No. 4,424, 2 Blatchf. 336; Wood v. the same train on which he expects it
Maine Cent. R. Co., 56 Atl. 457, 98 Me. checked is received as freight, and the
98, 90 Am. St. Rei). W.V.); Jones v. Voor- company assumes the duties and liahili-
hecs, 10 O. 145; Wells v. Great Northern ties of a common carrier with reference
R. Co.. 59 Ore. 165, 114 Pac. 92, 116 Pac. to it. and is entitled to a reasonal)le coni-
1070. 34 T>. R. A., N. S.. 818; pioniar t. pensation for transportation. GralTam ;•.
Maxwell, 28 Tenn. CO Htmiph.) 621, r.l I'-oslon. dc, R. Co., 67 Me. 234.

Am. I )(•(-. 6^2. 84. Necessity for payment of fare in

The price paid by a passenger on a advance. N'.m Hi>rn ;•. Kirniit ( N. \.),

steamboat usually includes the charge for 4 l". I). .Smith I.")!!.

the tr;uisi,(,rt:ition of his l)aggagc. T'erk- 85. 'Pile I'Uvira llarlicck, I'ed. Cas. No.

ins v. Wri^'lit, 37 Iiid. 27. 1,424. 2 I'latchf. 336, reversing l"c(l. Cas.

SO. By whom fare may be paid. \'an .No. 2,005.




out of or connected with such journey. ^'^ Where, however, a passenger pays the
carrier in advance for transportation of baggage, and the carrier, without the as-
sent of the passenger, employs another to perform the service, that other must
look to the carrier, and has no lien on the baggage ; but otherwise, if the passen-
ger has not paid in advance. ^"^

§§ 3499-3505. Carrier as Warehouseman — § 3499. Baggage
Awaiting Transportation. — Where a carrier voluntarily receives trunks con-
taining samples an unreasonable time before the owner intends to take passage,
it is liable for their loss as a warehouseman.^* It has been held, however, that
where plaintitT left his trunks with defendant's freight agent for storage over-
night, intending the next day to take them to the passenger depot, and have them
checked for transportation, but before that time they were lost, defendant, being a
gratuitous bailee, was not liable as a warehouseman, in the absence of gross neg-

§§ 3500-3502. Baggage Awaiting Delivery to Passenger — § 3500.
In General. — The liability of a common carrier as such for the baggage of a pas-
senger, terminates upon the expiration of a reasonable time for the passenger to
claim and receive it after its arrival at destination ; thereafter, when the baggage
has been properly stored, the carrier is liable as a warehouseman only.^*^ Failure
of a passenger to call for his baggage within a reasonable time after arrival,
though terminating the carrier's absolute liability therefor as an insurer, does not
absolve it from liability as a warehouseman or bailee "for the loss of the baggage

86. Lien on baggage. — Hutchings &
Co. V. Western, etc., R. Co., 25 Ga. 61, 71
Am. Dec. 156. holding that what ever is
carried into the passenger car of a rail-
road as baggage is so far considered in
the possession of the conductor or
agent of the road as to authorize him to
exercise the right of retainer for dues
for passage or freight on the article it-

87. Payment in advance. — Xordemeyer
V. Loescher (N. Y.), 1 Hilt. 499.

88. Goods awaiting transportation. —
Fleischman, etc., Co. v. Southern Rail-
way, 56 S. E. 974, 76 S. C. 237, 9 L. R. A.,
N. "S., 519.

89. Gratuitous bailee. — Van Gilder v.
Chicago, etc., R. Co., 44 Iowa 548. See
Little Rock, etc., R. Co. t'. Hunter, 42
Ark. 200.

90. Goods awaiting delivery to passen-
ger. — United States. — Wiegand v. Central
R. Co.. 75 Fed. 370.

Alabafna. — Central, etc., R. Co. v. Jones,
150 Ala. 379, 43 So. 575, 9 L. R. A., N. S.,

Arkansas. — Kansas, etc., R. Co. v. Mc-
Gahey, 63 Ark. 344, 38 S. W. 659, 36 L. R.
A. 781, 58 Am. St. Rep. 111.

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

Illinois. — St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Hard-
way, 17 111. App. 321; Chicago, etc., R.
Co. 7'. Fairclough, 52 111. 106; Bartholo-
mew z'. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 5,^ 111. 227,
5 Am. Rep. 45; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v.
Addizoat, 17 111. App. "632; Chicago, etc.,
R. Co. V. Boyce, 73 111. 510, 24 Am. Rep.

Indiana. — ■ Pennsylvania Co . v. Live-

right, 14 Ind. App. 518, 41 N. E. 350, 43
N. E. 162.

Ion>a. — Mote v. Chicago, etc., R. Co.,
27 Iowa 22, 1 Am. Rep. 212; Porter v.
Chicago, etc., R. Co., 20 Iowa 73; War-
ner V. Burlington, etc., R. Co., 22 Iowa
166, 92 Am. Dec. 389.

Kansas. — Kansas, etc., R. Co. v. Patten,
45 Pac. 108, 3 Kan. App. 338.

Kentucky. — -Louisville, etc., R. Co. v.
Mahan, 8 Bush 184; Young v. Smith, 3
Dana 91, 28 Am. Dec. 57; Wald v. Louis-
ville, etc., R. Co., 92 Ky. 645, 18 S. W.
850, 13 Ky. L. Rep. 853, 58 Am. & Eng.
R. Cas. 125.

Massachusetts. — Norway Plains Co. v.
Boston, etc.. Railway, 1 Gray 263, 61 Am.
Dec. 423; Nealand v. Boston, etc.. Rail-
road, 161 A-Iass. 67, ^,6 N. E. 592.

Mississippi.— Under Code 1892, §§ 3568,
;>569. the carrier's duty as such continues
absolute until the baggage safely reaches
its destination and the passenger has had
a reasonaI)le tmie and opportunity to ob-
tain it. Zeigler Bros. v. Mobile, etc., R.
Co., 39 So. 811. 87 Miss. 367.

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

Nebraska. — Campbell v. Missouri Pac.
R. Co., 78 Neb. 479, 111 N. W. 12v'5.

N'ezu York. — Quimby v. Vanderbilt, 17
N. Y. 306. 72 z'Xm. Dec. 469; Jones v.
Norwich, etc., Transp. Co., 50 Barb. 193;
Watkins v. New York, etc., R. Co., 16 N.
Y. St. Rep. 592, 3 N. Y. S. 946, 55 N. Y.
Super. Ct. 570; Cary v. Cleveland, etc.,
R. Co., 29 Barb. 35; Torpey v. Williams,
3 Daly 162; Fairfax 7'. New York, etc., R.


passengers' :eFi^ECTs.


through the neghgence of its station agent. ^^ The obHgation of common carriers
of passengers and baggage to exercise ordinary care in keeping and preserving
property, as to which they have been reheved from their pecuHar HabiHty as in-
surers by the faihire of the owner to call for his baggage within a reasonable
time, is not a new and independent obligation, arising from the circumstance, ac-
cidental and unprovided for, of the property being left in the hands of the car-
rier, but is imposed by the contract of carriage.'-'- During the time in which a
railroad company may reasonably detain a passenger's baggage, the relation of
carrier and passenger still exists between the parties and the liabihty of the com-
pany does not become that of a mere warehouseman. This is especially true if
the passenger himself has exercised due diligence in point of time in calling for
his baggage.^3 The carrier's liability as a common carrier continues until a rea-
sonable time after the passenger has had opportunity to take away his baggage,
although it may have delivered such baggage to a warehouseman. ^-^ And in or-
der to remove the responsibility of a common carrier, for baggage, it is its duty
to have a baggage master at hand to deliver baggage for a reasonable time after
the arrival of a train, and at reasonable hours thereafter.^^ It is held that where

Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 12 of 214)