Copyright
Thomas Johnson Michie.

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

. (page 14 of 214)
Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 14 of 214)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


R. Co., 161 Mich. 556, 126 N. W. 851, 29
L. R. A., N. S., 834, 21 Am. & Eng. Ann.
Cas. 96; Laffrey v. Grummond, 74 Mich.
186, 41 N. W. 894, 3 L. R. A. 287, 16 Am.
St. Rep. 624.

Missouri. — Rossier v. Wabash R. Co., 91
S. W. 1018, 115 Mo. App. 515.

New York. — Burnell v. New York Cent.
R. Co., 45 N. V. 184, 6 Am. Rep. 61; Roth
V. Buffalo, etc., R. Co., 34 N. Y. 548, 90



Am. Dec. 736; Robinson v. New York,
etc., R. Co., 129 N. Y. S. 1030, 145 App.
Div. 391, affirmed in 203 N. Y. 627, 97 N.
E. 1115; Gary v. Cleveland, etc., R. Co.
(N. Y.), 29 Barb. 35.

North Carolina. — Kahn v. Atlantic, etc.,
R. Co., 115 N. C. 638, 20 S. E. 169; Char-
lotte 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.

Ohio. — Pennsylvania Co. v. Miller, 35 O.
St. 541, 1 Ky. L. Rep. 184, 35 Am. Rep.
620.

Pennsylvania. — Hoffard v. New York,
etc., R." Co., 43 Pa. Super. Ct. 303; Na-
tional Line Steamship Co. v. Smart, 107
Pa. 492; Mover v. Pennsylvania R. Co..
31 Pa. Super. Ct. 559.

Te.vas. — -Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Smith,
81 Tex. 479, 17 S. W. 133.

Wisconsin. — Hoeger v. Chicago, etc., R.
Co., 63 Wis. 100, 23 N. W. 435, 53 Am.
Rep. 271, 21 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 308.

33. Loss by fire. — Galveston, etc., R. Co.
V. Smith, 81 Tex. 479, 17 S. W. 133; Kan-
sas, etc., R. Co. V. Thomas, 97 Ark. 28 7,
133 S. W. 1030; Roth v. Buffalo, etc., R.
Co., 34 N. Y. 548, 90 Am. Dec. 736.

A steamboat owner is not liable for loss
by accidental fire of a passenger's bag-
gage while stored in a warehouse, after
the termination of the carriage, subject
to delivery on call and presentation of
bageage check. Laffrey z\ Grummond,
74 'Mich. 186, 41 N. W. 894, 3 L. R. A. 287,
16 Am. St. Rep. 624.

34. Loss by theft. — Mote v. Chicago,
etc., R. Co., 27 Iowa 22, 1 Am. Rep. 212.

35. Gratuitous bailee. — Georgia. — ^South-
ern R. Co. v. Rosenheim & Sons, 1 Ga.
App. 766, 58 S. E. 81.

Iowa. — Van Gilder v. Chicago, etc., R.
Co., 44 Iowa 548.

Massachusetts. — Clark v. Eastern R. Co.,
139 Mass. 423, 1 N. E. 128.

li'isconsin. — -Minor v. Chicago, etc., R.
Co., 19 Wis. 40, 88 Am. Dec. 670.



3175



PASSENGERS EFFECTS.



§ 3506



ried by a connecting carrier, depends upon the carrier's express or implied con-
tract for its transportation. Thus, it is competent for a railroad company to con-
tract to carry passengers and their baggage beyond the terminus of its own line,
over other roads, and even into other states, than that in which such company is
located, and the company thus contracting is liable for loss of or injury to his bag-
gage, on any of the roads over which it has contracted to carry him.^^ When
no contract, express or implied, is made by any one of several roads to carry a
passenger beyond its own line, each company is liable only for loss or injury hap-
pening on its own road.^"

Running Own Cars Over Connecting Lines. — Where three railroad com-
panies owned distinct parts of a continuous railroad, and ran their cars over the
whole road, and employed the same agents to sell tickets, and to receive baggage
to be carried over the said continuous road, it was held that a passenger may
maintain an action against the company of whose agent he bought his ticket for
the loss of baggage received at one end thereof to be transported over the en-
tire road. 2^

Failure to Deliver to Connecting Carrier. — Where a passenger stopped
over nightvat a town where the depot was used by the railroad company which
brought her there, and by another company which took her away, and before her
departure she gave her trunk check to an employee of the first road, who agreed
to put the trunk in proper position for transportation, and it did not get aboard
the train, and was lost, it was held that the first company was liable. ^^

Negligence as to Checking Baggage. — Where the initial carrier by mistake
checks baggage over the wrong route it is liable for its loss while on such route.^*^
And if various railroad companies whose lines connect have arranged together
for an excursion train over their several roads, and the company at one end of
the route issues tickets with coupons attached for the whole distance, and its
agent refuses to give a check for the luggage of a purchaser of such ticket, saying
that the same "would be perfectly safe, as he was to go through with them,"
and the luggage is accordingly put into one of the company's baggage cars, wdiich
is sent through the whole distance in charge of its agent, the company is liable



36. Liability of initial carrier — Contract
for through transportation. — Kansas. —
Atchison, etc., R. Co. :'. Roach, 35 Kan.
740, 12 Pac. 93, 27 Am. & Eng. R. Cas.
257, .57 Am. Rep. 199.

Massachusetts. — Najac v. Boston, etc., R.
Co., 7 Allen 329, 83 Am. Dec. 686; Feital
V. Middlesex R. Co., 109 Mass. 398. 12
Am. Rep. 720.

New York. — Cary v. Cleveland, etc., R.
Co., 29 Barb. 35; Kessler v. New York
Cent. R. Co. (N. Y.), 7 Lans. 62, affirmed
in 61 X. Y. 538. See Burnell v. New
York Cent. R, Co., 45 N. Y. 184, G Am.
Rep. 61.

Ohio. — Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Camp-
l)ell. 36 O. St. 647, 38 Am. Rep. 617, 3 .\m.
& Kn.!:^ R. Ca=. 246.

Tennessee. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v.
Weaver, 77 Tenn. (9 Lea) 38, 42 Am.
Rep. 654. 16 Am. & Eng-. R. Cas. 218. See
Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Sprayberry, 56
Tenn. (9 Heisk.) 852.

IVashiiif^ton. — Gomm v. Oregon R., etc.,
Co., 52 Wash. 685, 101 Pac. 361, 25 L. R.
A.. X. S.. 537.

Contra. — In Hood .'. New York, etc., R.
Co., 22 Conn. 1, an action for personal
injuries, it was held that a carrier lias no
power to contract for transportation be-
yond its nun line.



37. Absence of contract to carry be-
yond own line. — Kessler v. New York
Cent. R. Co. (N. Y.), 7 Lans. 62, affirmed
in 61 N. Y. 538. Sec Milnor 7A New York,
etc., R. Co., 53 N. Y. 363, affirming 4 Daly
355.

38. Running own cars over connecting
lines.— Hart v. Rensselaer, etc., R. Co., 8
N. Y. 37, 59 Am. Dec. 447. See Texas,
etc., R. Co. v. Ferguson, 1 Texas App.
Civ. Cas., § 1253, 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas.
395.

39. Failure to deliver to connecting
carrier. — Rome R. Co. :■. Wiml)crly, 75
Ga. 316. 5S .Am. Rep. 46S.

40. Negligence as to checking baggage.
—A. I)ought a ticket from X'ew York to
X'^ew Orleans over defendant's road to
Xiagara Falls, thence to New Orleans by
the "Mobile Route." A. presented his
ticket to defendant's baggage master in
Xew York to have his trunk checked, and
the l)aggage master by mistake clieckcd it
l)y the "Great Jackson Route," on which
route it met with a mishap. Held, that
defendant was liable, though tlic liaggage
master did not have express aulliority to
-end bacrgatre bv tlie Mobile route. Isaac-
son V. New Yo'rk. etc., R. Co., 94 N. Y.
278, 46 .'\m. Rep. 142, K! Am. & Eng. R.
Cas. 188, reversing 25 Hun 350.



§§3506-3507



CARRIIjRvS.



3176



if the luggage is lost anywhere upon the route. ^^

Larceny by Servants of Initial Carrier after Delivery to Succeeding
Carrier. — The delivery of baggage by a railroad company to the baggage master
of a connecting steamboat line, who was authorized by agreement between the
railroad company and the steamboat company to receive upon the trains or at
the depot of the railroad company the baggage of through passengers, would not
discharge the railroad company from liability on account of the larceny of the
baggage by one of its servants, by reason of which it was not delivered at the
boat, unless the baggage master was the agent of the passengers-
Usual Practice Determines When Liability Terminates. — Where at the
junction of connecting roads it becomes the usual course for the first company
to deliver baggage going on over another road to the servants of such other road,
the custody of the first as carrier, continues till the custody of the second begins.
If the second train does not directly connect and leave on the arrival of the first,
and there is a detention at the station for a short period of time, or even for a
few hours, the custody of the railroad company thus assumed must be held to
continue till the expected train departs, or the servants of the second company
take the delivery of the baggage ; the usual course of business determining their
liabilities in this respectS^

§§ 3507-3508. Sale of Through Ticket or Collection of Fare for En-
tire Route — § 3507. Holding That Initial Carrier Liable for Losses on
Other Lines. — As a general rule, a through ticket over the lines of connecting
carriers entitles the passenger to have his baggage transported to his destina-
tion. '*"' And it seems to be the prevailing rule that a railroad company by merely
selling a through ticket over its own and connecting roads, in the absence of a
contract limiting its liability to its own line, becomes liable for the safety of
the passenger's baggage over the whole route. "^^ So, a passenger purchasing a



41. Najac i'. Boston, etc., R. Co.
(Mass.), 7 Allen .329. 83 Am. Dec. 686.

42. Larceny by servants of first carrier
after delivery to succeeding carrier. — ^lo-
bile. etc.. R. Co. v. Hopkins. 41 Ala. 486,
94 Am. Dec. 607.

43. Usual practice determines when lia-
bility terminates. — Ouimit ;'. Henshaw,
35 Vt. ()05, 84 Am. Dec. 64r).

44. Sale of through ticket. — Gomm v.
Oregon R., etc., Co., 52 Wash. 685, 101
Pac. 361, 25 L. R. A.. N. S., 537; Coward
V. East Tennessee, etc.. R. Co., 84 Tenn.
(16 Lea) 225, 57 Am. Rep. 227.

45. Effect of through ticket on initial
carrier liability. — Arkansas. — Kansas, etc.,
R. Co. 7'. Washington, 85 S. W. 406, 74
Ark. 9, 69 L. R. A. 65, 109 Am. St. Rep.
fil; Little Rock, etc., R. Co. v. Record,
S5 S. W. 421, 74 Ark. 125, 109 Am. St.
Rep. 67, 16 R. R. R. 664, 39 Am. & Eng.
R. Cas., N. S., 664.

District of Columbia. — Croft v. Baltimore,
etc., R. Co., 1 MacArthur (8 D. C.) 492.

Florida. — Bennett v. Filyaw, 1 Fla. 403.

Georgia. — Mosher & Co. v. Southern
Exp. Co., 38 Ga. 37; Falvey v. Georgia
Railroad, 76 Ga. 597, 2 Am. St. Rep. 58;
Hawley v. Screven, 62 Ga. 347, 35 Am.
Rep. 126; Southern R. Co. v. White, 108
Ga. 201, 33 S. E. 952; Wolff v. Central R.
Co., 68 Ga. 653, 45 Am. Rep. 501, 6 Am.
& Eng. R. Cas. 441.

Illinois. — Illinois Cent. R. Co. z'. Cope-
land, 24 111. 332, 76 Am. Dec. 749.



lozva. — Angle & Co. v. Mississippi, etc.,
R. Co., 9 Iowa 487.

Kansas. — Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Roach,
35 Kan. 740, 12 Pac. 93, 27 Am. & Eng.
R. Cas. 257, 57 Am. Rep. 199.

Nexv York. — Talcott v. Wabash R. Co.,
66 Hun 456, 21 N. Y. S. 318, 50 N. Y. St.
Rep. 423.

OJno. — Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Camp-
bell, 36 O. St. 647, 38 Am. Rep. 617, 3 Am.
& Eng. R. Cas. 246.

South Carolina. — Bradford v. South
Carolina R. Co., 7 Rich. L. 201, 62 Am.
Dec. 411, distinguished in Felder v. Co-
lumbia, etc., R. Co., 21 S. C. 35, 53 Am.
Rep. 656, 27 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 264.

Tennessee. — Carter v. Peck, 36 Tenn.
(4 Sneed) 203; Furstenheim z<. Memphis,
etc., R. Co., 56 Tenn. (9 Heisk.) 238; Cow-
;'.rd V. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co., 84
Tenn. (16 Lea) 225, 57 Am. Rep. 227;
Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Weaver, 77 Tenn.
(9 Lea) 38, 42 Am. Rep. 654, 16 Am. &
Eng. R. Cas. 218. See, also, Nashville,
etc., R. Co. V. Sprayberry, 67 Tenn. (8
Baxt.) 341, 35 Am. Rep. 705.

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

Wisconsin. — -Candee v. Pennsylvania R.
Co., 21 Wis. 582, 94 Am. Dec. 566.

Washington. — See Gomm v. Oregon R.,
etc.. Co., 52 Wash. 685, 101 Pac. 361, 25
L. R. A., N. S., 537.

England. — Muschamp v. Lancaster R.
Co., 8 M. & W. 421; Watson v. Railway,



3177



PASSENGERS EFFECTS.



§§ 3507-3508



through ticket over connecting hnes of the agent of the initial carrier and having
his trunk checked accordingly, can recover of such carrier for the trunk, al-
though it was shown that there were three connecting roads between his starting
point and destination and that the initial carrier had safely delivered the trunk
to the second carrier.-**^ And it is immaterial to a passenger's right to recover
for baggage lost that there was a change of cars at the terminus of the initial
carrier's road.-*" Where the proprietors of a line of stages contracted with a
railroad company to convey their passengers from one terminus of the road to
various points, upon through tickets issued by the railroad company at the
other terminus of the road, it was held that the proprietors of the stage line
were the agents of the railroad company, and that the latter was liable for bag-
gage lost on the stage line."*^

Coupon Ticket. — A carrier contracting, without limitation of responsibility,
to carry the baggage of a passenger, and giving a check therefor to a given point
beyond the terminus of the carrier's line, becomes liable for the carriage of such
baggage in the same way, and to the same extent as a carrier of goods, although
the passenger, whose baggage is thus checked, may purchase and travel upon a
coupon ticket.-*''

Collection of Fare for Whole Route.— The collection by the contracting
carrier of fare in advance for the entire journey, without agreement as to risks,
renders it liable, on receipt of the traveler's baggage, to transport it safely to
the end of the route, and there deliver it, on demand, to such owner. ^*^

Under the Carmack Amendment to the interstate commerce act, a carrier
receiving baggage for transi)ortation to a point in another state beyond its own
line is liable for its loss occurring upon the lines of a connecting carrier. ^i

§ 3508. Holding That Initial Carrier Not Liable for Losses on Other
Lines. — Some of the cases hold that where a railroad company whose road con-
nects with other roads receives baggage under a through ticket for transportation
beyond the termination of its own line, it is only bound, in the absence of a
special contract, to safely carry over its own route, and safely to deliver to the
next connecting carrier ; but the company may agree that its liability shall ex-
tend over the whole route.^- The sale of a through ticket is a fact that may be
taken into account in determining what the undertaking of the company issuing



1.5 Jur. 48; Webber v. Railway, 3 H. &
C. 771. See post, "Effect of Agreements
between Connecting Lines and Joint Lia-
bility," § 3513; "Presumptions and Burden
of Troof," § 35U.

46. Hawley v. Screven, 02 Ga. 347, 35
Am. Rep. 120.

47. Effect of change of cars. — Illinois
Cent. R. Co. v. Copeland, 24 111. 332, 76
\m. Dec. 749.

48. Wilson v. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co.,
02 \a. (21 Cratt.) 054.

49. Coupon ticket. — Louisville, etc., R.
Co. V. Weaver, 77 Tenn. (9 Lea) 38, 42
Am. Rep. G54, 10 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 218.
See also, Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Spray-
berry. 07 Tenn. (8 Baxt.) 341, 35 Am.
Pep. 705.

50. Collection of fare for whole route. —
("roi't V. lialtiniore, clc, K. Co., 1 Mac-
Arthur (8 D. C.) 492; Baltimore, etc., R.
Co. V. Campbell, 30 O. St. 047, 38 Am.
R<p. 017. ■.', Am. »S: V.wu.- R. Cas. 240.

51. Interstate commerce act. — Act of
Congress, June 29th 1900 amending Act of
1S87, House V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 30 S.
Dak. 321. 138 N. W. H09.



52. Holding that initial carrier not lia-
ble for losses on other lines. — Mauritz v.
New York, etc., R. Co., 21 Am. & Eng.
R. Cas. 286, 23 Fed. 765, citing Myrick v.
Michigan Cent. R. Co., 107 U. S. 102, 1
S. Ct. 425, 27 L. Ed. 325. See Straiton v.
New York, etc., R. Co. (N. Y.), 2 E. D.
Smith 184; Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Spray-
iicrry, 50 Tenn. (9 Heisk.) 852. And see,
"]''ffect of Agreements l)ctween Connect-
ing Lines and Joint Liabilit)'," § 3513.

In Milnor v. New York, etc., R. Co., 53
N. Y. 303, the contracting carrier was sued
lor a loss occurring off of its line, and the
court held it was not liable on the theory
that it acted as the agent of t.lie negli-
gent carrier merely for tlie purpose of
selling its tickets. The force of this case
as an authority is ]irol)ably overcome, if.
indeed, the theory upon which it rests is
not absolutely destroyed, by the later case
of Hutchins v. Pennsylvania R. Co.. 181
N. Y. 180, 73 N. E. 972, too Am. St. Rep.
."i37, wherein it was cited as controlling
in the dissenting opinion. Gomm v. Orc-
;^<.n K.. etc., Co., 52 Wash. 085, 101 Pac.
301. 25 L. R. A., N. S., 537.



§§ 3508-3511 CARRIERS. 3178

the ticket was ; but such facts and circumstances growing out of the negotiations
of the parties, or otherwise arising, ought to be shown, as make it evident that
it was the understanding and agreement on both sides that the company selHng
the ticket undertook to be responsible for the safety of the baggage over con-
necting Hues through to its uUimate destination."^

§ 3509. Power to Limit Liability to Own Line. — It is held that a carrier
selling a ticket over its own and connecting lines may enter into a contract with
the passenger limiting its liability for loss of or injury to his baggage to its own
line.^-* But it has been held that the sale of a ticket by a carrier to a point be-
yond its own line renders it liable for the loss of baggage on a connecting line,
though the ticket is a coupon ticket, specifying that the company selling it is
agent for the connecting line, and shall only be liable for such damages as may
occur on its own line.^^ And it has been held that where a carrier sold a passen-
ger a through continuous ticket over its own and connecting lines and return,
checking her baggage through to destination, and the baggage was lost by reason
of a mistake of the last carrier in checking it for the return trip, the initial car-
rier was liable for the baggage under its contract of carriage, notwithstanding a
limitation of liability to loss on its road only contained in the ticket.^'^ It has
also been held that although a through ticket given to a passenger specifies on
its face, that each party to the contract is only liable for losses on his part of the
line, a railroad company is liable for loss on a stage line, the proprietors of which
have contracted with the railroad company to carry passengers and their effects
to their destination, the proprietors of the stage being agents of the company. ^"'^

Limitation Held Not Applicable to Baggage. — Where an initial carrier
sold tickets over its own and several connecting lines under a special contract
which stated that the first company acted as agent, and was not responsible be-
yond its own line, such limitation, it was held, had reference only to personal
injuries, and not to baggage. ^^

§ 3510. Effect of Release of Connecting Carrier. — Where an initial car-
rier contracted to carry a passenger over its own and several connecting lines
so as to become liable for loss of baggage at any point, and the baggage was
lost by the second carrier, and the subsequent carriers, on the return of the pas-
senger, made a reduction in the rate, in consideration of release of all liability,
it was held that, such subsequent carriers not being liable, the release in no way
affected the initial carrier's liability by reducing or discharging it.^'^

§ 3511. Liability as Warehouseman. — Baggage Awaiting Delivery to
Connecting Carrier. — Where trains arrive at a late hour of the night, and
stop for a few hours, and it is the usual course of the company upon whose train
baggage arrives, upon being informed that it is going on in the morning, by the
next train, over a connecting road, to put it in their baggage room, and keep it
for delivery in the morning to the servants of the other road, when requested
to do so by the owner, their custody during the night is that of carriers and not
of warehousemen. *^o \^(^ ^\^q f^^.^ ^\^^^ baggage, on its arrival at the connecting

53. Mauritz v. New York, etc., R. Co., S., 537.

21 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 286, 23 Fed. 765. 57. Wilson v. Chesapeake, etc.. R. Co.,

54. Power to limit liability to own line. G2 Va. (21 Gratt.) 654.

—Southern R. Co. v. White. 108 Ga. 201, 58. Limitation held not applicable to

33 S. E. 952; Peterson v. Chicago, etc., R. baggage. — Coward v. East Tennessee, etc.,

Co., SO Iowa 92, 45 N. W. 573; Baltimore, R. Co.. 84 Tenn. (16 Lea) 225, 57 Am.

etc., R. Co. v. Campbell, 36 O. St. 647. 38 Rep. 227.

Am. Rep. 61?, 3 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 246; 59. Effect of release of connecting car-
Pennsylvania Cent. R. Co. ■;:'. Schvvarzen- lier. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. z\ Weaver,
berger. 45 Pa. 208, R4 Am. Dec. 490. 77 Tenn. (9 Lea) 38, 42 Am. Rep. 654, 16

55. Talcott V. Wabash R. Co., 66 Hun Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 218.

456, 21 N. Y. S. 318, 50 N. Y. St. Rep. 423. 60. Baggage awaiting delivery to con-

56. Gomm v. Oregon R., etc., Co., 52 necting carrier. — Ouimit f. Henshaw, 35
Wash. 685, 101 Pac. 361, 25 L. R. A., N. Vt. 605, 84 Am. Dec. 646.



3179 passengers' effects. §§ 3511-3512

station, at a depot used by both carriers, is taken in charge by a common agent,
and placed in the common baggage room, where it is destroyed by fire, is not suffi-
cient to reHeve the first carrier from such liability. *^^

Bag-gag-e Awaiting Delivery to Passenger. — It is held that the obligation
of carriers to exercise ordinary care in keeping and preserving property, as to
which they have been relieved from their peculiar liability as insurers by the
failure of the owner to call for his baggage within a reasonable time, is not a new
and independent obligation, arising from the circumstances, accidental and un-
provided for, of the property being left in the hands of the carrier, but the duty
is imposed by the contract of carriage, and rests upon the carrier with whom
the contract was made, although the place of destination is beyond its route and
upon the line of a connecting carrier.*^-

§ 3512. Liability of Intermediate or Last Carrier. — It has been held
that where a passenger purchases a through ticket, with a coupon for each line
of carriers, and checks his baggage to his destination, if on his arrival it is found
to be lost, he can hold the last carrier responsible for the loss.^^ But it is held
that in the absence of any proof of agency, or some contract or arrangement be-
tween connecting roads in regard to the selling of through tickets and the giving
of through checks for baggage, the last line will not be held liable for the loss of
baggage wdiile in the hands of the first company."-* The rule in the federal courts
is that each road, confining itself to its common-law liability, is only bound, in
the absence of a special contract, safely to carry over its own route and safely
to deliver to the next connecting carrier ; but any one of the companies may
agree that its liability shall extend over the whole route. In the absence of a
special agreement to that efifect, such liability will not attach. '^'^

Effect of Agreements between Connecting Lines and Joint Liability. —
See post, "Efi'ect of Agreements between Connecting Lines and Joint Liability,"
§ 3513.

Each Responsible for Its Own Fault. — The carrier actually in fault for the
loss of or injury to baggage may be sued by the passenger, even though the first
carrier may also be liable by its contracts. *5*^

61. Hyman v. Central \'ermont R. Co., panj', except that at Buffalo plaintiff re-
66 Hiin 202, 21 N. Y. S. 119. ceived the company's check for the trunk

62. Baggage awaiting delivery to pas- and other baggage, and the additional
senger.^Burnell v. New York Cent. R. fact that the company delivered the other
Co., 4.J N. Y. 184, 6 Am. Rep. 61. i)aggage, but failed to deliver the trunk.

63. Baggage checked through on cou- Texas, etc., Railroad v. Fort, 1 Texas App.
pon ticket.^Sa\ annah, etc.. R. Co. V. Mc- Civ. Cas., § 1252, 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas.
Intosh, 7:^. Ga. 532, 27 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. ;{92.

269; Hawley v. Screven, 62 Ga. 347, 35 Application of statute. — Georgia Code,

Am. Rep. 126; VVolfT v. Central R. Co., § 20S4, providing lliat the last of a con-

68 Ga. 6.j3, 45 Am. Rep. 501, 6 Am. & necting line of railroads over, which gomls

Eng. R. Cas. 441; Peterson v. Chicago, are shipped, which receives them as in

etc., R. Co., 80 Towa 92, 45 N. W. 573; good order, is lial)lc to the consignee, does

International, etc., R. Co. v. Foltg, 3 not apply to baggage of a passenger

Tex. Civ. App. 644, 22 S. W. 541. checked and accompanying him on his

In Hart v. Rensselaer, etc., R. Co., 8 passage. Wolff v. Central R. Co., 68 Ga.

X Y. 37, 59 Am. Dec. 447, the suit being (-.53, 45 Am. Rep. 50J, 6 Am. & Eng. R.



Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 14 of 214)