Thomas Johnson Michie.

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

. (page 15 of 214)
Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 15 of 214)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

against the last company on the route, not- Cas. 441.

withstanrling there was no evidence in the 64. Lost while in possession of initial

case where the loss occurred, the com- carrier, burslenheini v. Momi)liis, etc., I\.

pany was held lialdc for the loss. Texas, Co., .m; 'i\iin. (9 Heisk.) 238.

etc., R. Co. V. Ferguson, 1 Texas App. 65. Maurilz v. New York, etc.. R. Co.,

Civ. Cas.. § 1253, 9 Am. & K. Cas. 21 Am. & I-'.ng. R. Cas. 2sc., 23 Fed. 7C.5,

•^^•'- citing Myrick v. Michigan Cent. R. Co.,

In McCormick v. Hudson River R. Co. 1(I7 l'. S. 102, 1 S. Ct. 425, 27 I.. Va\. 325.

(X. Y.), 4 E. D. Smith 181, the last com- 66. Each responsible for its own fault. —

pany was held responsible for the loss of . Ildlniina. ScntberM \\\\). Co. 7', Hc>s, 53

a trunk, for whicli it had given its check .\!a. 19.

jit HufTalo long before the trunk reacherl Arkunsas. — Packard v. Taylor, etc., Co.,

its road. And there was no proof that tlie :\: .\rk. 402, 37 Am. Rep. 37.

trunk ever came to the hands of the com- Illinois. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Faiiey,

§ 3512 CARRIERS. 3180

Baggage Delivered to and Checked by Last Carrier. — When a passen-
ger traveling on a ticket over two lines of road delivered his baggage at the point
of transfer to the second road and took its check therefor, such second road was
responsible for the loss of the baggage.'^'

Ticket Honored by Defendant's Conductor. — Where a passenger seeks to
hold one of several roads in his line of transit liable for the loss of his baggage,
the recognition of his ticket purchased at the beginning of his trip, by the con-
ductor of such road, is, in effect, an admission that it was issued by some person
having competent authority to bind the company ; and in such case it is immaterial
\vhether the ticket was issued by a special agent of the company sought to be held
liable or by the ticket agent of some other company.*'"'

Effect of Intermediate Carrier Giving Through Check. — Where plaintiff
bought a through ticket over several connecting carriers, with the option of pass-
ing over an intermediate portion of the route on defendant's line or on another
line, her baggage being checked over the latter, and she chose to go over defend-
ant's line, and in return for her check received defendant's through check to the
end of the route, it was held that defendant did not thereby enter into a new con-
tract so as to be liable beyond its own route.*''*

Baggage Negligently Forwarded by Joint Agent. — Where plaintiff's bag-
gage arrived with him over another road at an intermediate point, and was not
delivered to defendant carrier, but was forwarded by mistake on another road,
when he purchased his ticket from defendant railway company the next morning
to continue his journey, it w^as not liable for its loss, though the baggage agent,
who negligently forwarded the baggage, was the joint agent of all of the roads
at the station."^"

Duty to Notify Passenger of Failure to Receive Baggage. — If on a
change of passage from one railroad to another, the agent of the latter road does
not find the baggage which is checked, he should give immediate notice to the
owner, or the company owning the road on which the passenger embarks will be
held liable.' 1

Delivery to Last Carrier without Passenger's Assent. — Where a passen-
ger bought from a railroad company a ticket by railroad to an intermediate point,
thence by boat to his destination, and had his baggage checked to go by the same
route, and the company's agent at the intermediate point delivered the baggage to
another railroad company, which transported it to the passenger's destination it
w^as held that the latter company incurred, at least, the liability of a warehouse-
man for the baggage, and, in case of its loss, could escape liability therefor only
by proof that it was free from fault.'^-

52 111. 81, 4 Am. Rep. 587; Illinois Cent. Tisdale, 74 Tex. 8, 11 S. W. 900, 4 L. R.

R. Co. V. Cowles, 32 111. 116. A. 545.

Kansas. — Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Roach, England. — Hooper v. London R. Co., 5

35 Kan. 740, 12 Pac. 93, 57 Am. Rep. 199, L. J. Q. B. D. 103, overruling Mylton v.

27 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 357. Midland R. Co., 4 H. & N. 615.

MassachusL'tts.—Schopman v. Boston, 67. Baggage delivered to and checked by

etc., R. Corp., 9 Cush. 24, 55 Am. Dec. 41. last carrier. — Atchison, etc., R. Co. v.

Missouri.- — HalHday v. St. Louis, etc., R. Brewer, 20 Kan. 669.

Co., 74 Mo. 159, 6 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 433. 68. Ticket honored by defendant's con-

Xczv Hampshire. — Barter & Co. v. ductor. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Fahey, 52

Wheeler. 49 N. H. 9. 6 Am. Rep. 434. 111. 81, 4 Am. Rep. 587.

New York.— G\asco v. New York Cent. 69. Effect of intermediate carrier giving

R. Co., .■'.6 Barb. 557. through check. — Candee v. Pennsylvania

Pennsyk'ania.—]ohnson v. West Chester, R. Co., 21 Wis. 582. 94 Am. Dec. 566.

etc., R. Co., 70 Pa. 357. 70. Baggage negligently forwarded by

Tennessee. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. joint agent. — Yazoo, etc., R. Co. v. Mc-

Weaver, 77 Tenn. (9 Lea) 38, 42 Am. Rep. Call, 100 Miss. 827, 57 So. 224.

654, 16 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 218; Coward 71. Duty to notify passenger of failure

V. East Tennessee, etc, R. Co., 84 Tenn. to receive baggage. — Davis v. Michigan,

(16 Lea) 225, 57 Am. Rep. 227. etc., R. Co., 22 111. 278, 74 Am. Dec. 151.

T<'.r«.y.— International, etc., R. Co. v. 72. Delivery to last carrier without pas-



§ 3513

§ 3513. Effect of Agreements between Connecting Lines and Joint Lia-
bility. — It is held that the sale of through tickets and the checking of baggage over
connecting roads which are associated together forming a continuous line, renders
them liable as partners as to such through business, so that either road may be
sued for a loss occurring anywhere on the lineJ^ But in many cases it is held
that the sale of through tickets and checking of baggage over several lines is not
sufficient to show that they are partners so as to make them jointly liable/-* Thus
where three companies constitute a through line, and the fare received for
through tickets is accounted for by the first company to the other companies, ac-
cording to a tariff established by each company for itself, and there is no division
of profits or losses, such an arrangement is not a partnership involving joint lia-
bility for the loss of baggage checked through by the initial carrier but the con-
necting carriers are only responsible for losses occurring on their several linesJ^
And it is held that where several railroad companies enter into an arrangement
by which through coupon tickets are sold and baggage checked for the united
length of their lines, each company receiving fares for the passengers it has car-
ried, such arrangement does not constitute them partners, and renders neither lia-
ble for losses on other than its own road.'*^ Nor is the sale of a through ticket

&enger's assent. — Fairfax v. New York,
etc., R. Co., 73 N. Y. 167, 29 Am. Rep. 119,
affirming 43 N. Y. Super. Ct. 18.

73. Effect of sale of through tickets. —
Wolff V. Central R. Co., 68 Ga. 653, 45 Am.
Rep. 501, 6 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 441;
Texas, etc.. Railroad v. Fort, 1 Texas App.
Civ. Cas., § 1252, 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas.
392: Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Ferguson, 1
Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 1253, 9 Am. &
Eng. R. Cas. 395; Missouri Pac. R. Co.
V. Slater, 3 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 7.

In Check v. Little Aliami R. Co., 2 Disn.
337, 13 O. Dec. Reprint 146, it is held that
where a partj^ contracts for transporta-
tion over a route composed of several rail-
roads, for which he pays an entire sum,
and receives a through ticket or receipt,
the contract is entire. If no partnership
in fact exists between the roads, he may-
treat the contract as entire or several so
far as the other parties are concerned, and
fubject all who are interested to an action
for the value of lost baggage.

Reason for rule. — To hold these continu-
ous or associated companies severally lia-
ble on these through contracts of trans-
portation springs from the necessity of
the rule. To remit the owner whose bag-
gage has been lost or damaged on a
through ticket to the company where the
spoliation or loss occurred, is simply to
deny him all redress. For he has no fa-
cility or means to ascertain the facts, only
at the pleasure of the comi)any, who it is
presumed will not be prompt to fur-
nish evidence of its own negligence and
liability. T.o hold each company liable for
nogbgcncc or loss incurred while trans-
porting under one continuous and joint
contract made with the owner, will inter-
est all alike to be diligent, and if loss
should r)ccur, it is the more equitable for
the losses to be apportioned among them
as they apportion the profits of their
joint enterpri-c, rather than tlic loss

should be borne alone by the owner. The
contract is made to transport with the
joint continuous line; they act for each
other, and receive its fruits as common
agents one for the other. Wolff v. Central
R. Co., 68 Ga. 653, 45 Am. Rep. 501, 6
Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 441.

74. Alabama. — Ellsworth v. Tartt, 26
Ala. 733, 62 Am. Dec, 749.

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

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

Maine.—Knight v. Portland, etc., R. Co.,
56 Me. 234, 96 Am. Dec. 449.

Nczv York. — Marmonstein v. Pennsyl-
vania R. Co., 13 Alisc. Rep. 32, 34 N. Y.
S. 97. 68 N. Y. St. Rep. 172; Straiton v.
New York, etc., R. Co., 2 E. D. Smith 184;
Kessler v. New York Cent. R. Co., 7
Lans. 62.

South Carolina. — Felder z'. Columbia,
etc., R. Co.. 21 S. C. 35, 53 Am. Rep. 656,
27 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 264.

Tennessee. — Nashville, etc.. R. Co. 7'.
Spraylicrry, .'>(') Tcnn. (9 Hcisk.) S52.

Common agent to sell through tickets.
—In Ellsworth v. Tartt. 26 Ala. 733, 62
Am. Dec. 749. it in held that the mere
fact that the several proprietors of differ-
ent portions of a public line of travel, by
agreement among themselves, appoint a
common agent at each end of the route,
to receive the fare and give through tick-
ets, does not constitute them partners as
to passengers who purchase through tick-
ets, so as to render each one liable for
losses occurring on any portion of the line.

75. Croft z'. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 1
MacArthur (8 D. C.) 492, cited in Balti-
more, etc., R. Co. V. Campbell. 36 O. St.
647. 38 Am. Rep. 617, 3 Am. & Eng. R.
Cas. 246.

76. Straiton v. New ^'ork, etc., R. Co.
(N. Y.), 2 !■:. D. Smitli isi.

§§ 3513-3514



and the checking of baggage to the end of the route evidence of a joint contract
bywliich a connecting carrier is liable for a loss by the first/'^ or the last carrier
liable for the negligence of the contracting carrier, or of any other carrier in the
combination.'^ And it has been held that if one of several companies, composing
a pubHc line of travel, by agreement with the others, receive fare and give a
through ticket over the entire route, the company selling the ticket shall be re-
garded as the agent of the other companies, when the ticket itself imports this and
nothing else appears."^

§ 3514. Presumptions and Burden of Proof.— Presumptions.— Where

one buys a through ticket over several lines, the agent who sells it is presumed to
be the agent of each and all the carriers, and each is bound by his statements and
agreements. ^•^' The possession of the check of a connecting carrier and delivery of
part of the baggage at the end of its line will raise a presumption that all of the
baggage was received by it.^i If a passenger checks his baggage in good condi-
tion over connecting lines, and it is delivered to him damaged at destination, the
presumption is that the damage occurred on the last line.^- And the last carrier
is prima facie responsible for baggage which is shown to have come into its pos-
session.^' But the mere failure on the part of the last carrier to deliver baggage,
which it is not shown to have received, is not of itself proof of negligence.^^

Plaintiff's Burden of Proof. — In a suit against one of the several carriers of
connecting lines the plaintiff must show the liability for loss of baggage on the
part of the defendant sued.*"* In order to recover against an intermediate or the
last carrier for the value of lost baggage, plaintiff must prove that it came into its
possession. s*^ And this requirement will not be obviated by suing all of the car-
riers in one suit.^' Nor can a passenger recover from a connecting carrier for
articles taken from a trunk on a presumption of loss in transit over the connect-
ing lines, where the trunk was shipped over one line as a distinct transaction be-
fore it was delivered to the connecting carriers, and where the condition of the
goods when delivered to them was not shown. ^^ And it has been held that where

77. Sale of through ticket not evidence
of joint contract. — Felder v. Columbia,
etc., R. Co., 21 S. C. 35, 53 Am. Rep. 656,
27 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 264.

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

79. Nashville, etc.. R. Co. v. Sprayberry,
56 Tcnn. (9 Heisk.) S52.

80. Authority of agent. — Young v.
Pennsylvania R. Co., 115 Pa. 112, 7 Atl.
741, 28 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 114.

81. Delivery to carrier. — McCormickt^.
Hudson River R. Co. (N. Y.), 4 E. D.
Smith 181; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v.
Weaver. 77 Tenn. (9 Lea) 38, 42 Am.
Rep. 654, 16 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 218._

82. Presumption of damage on last line.
— Moore v. New York, etc., R. Co., 173
Mass. 335, 53 N. E. 816, 73 Am. St. Rep.

83. McCorraick v. Hudson River R. Co.
(N. Y.\ 4 E. D. Smith 181.

84. Mere failure of last carrier to de-
liver. — Stimson v. Connecticut River R.
Co., 98 Mass. 83, 93 Am. Dec. 140; Kess-
ler V. New York, etc., R. Co., 61 N. Y.
538; Milnor %'. New York, etc., R. Co., 53
N. Y. 363; Ward v. New York, etc., R.
Co., 56 Hun 268, 9 N. Y. S. 377, 30 N. Y.
St. Rep. 604; Felder v. Columbia, etc., R.
Co., 21 S. C. 35, 53 Am.. Rep. 656, 27 Am,
& Eng. R. Cas. 264.

85. Plaintiff's burden of proof. — Anchor
Line V. Dater, 68 111. 369; Boston, etc.,
Railroad v. Ordway, 140 Mass. 510, 5
N. E. 627; McCormick v. Hudson River
R. Co. (N. Y.), 4 E. D. Smith 181; Kess-
ler V. New York, etc., R. Co., 61 N. Y.
538; Midland R. Co. v. Bromley (Eng.),
17 C. B. 3 72.

86. Delivery to defendant. — Kessler v.
New York, etc., R. Co., 61 N. Y. 538, af-
firming 7 Lans. 62.

Plaintiff purchased, at the office of the
B. & O. R. R. Co. at W., a coupon ticket
from W. to B., over several connecting
railroads, the last of which was that of
defendant. She received a check for her
baggage, with the names of all the roads
stamped upon i^. On arrivmg at B., she
demanded her baggage, but it could not
be found, and no trace could be found
of it after it was checked. Held
that in the absence of proof that the bag-
gage came into defendant's possession, it
was not liable. Kessler v. New York,
etc., R. Co., 61 N. Y. 538, affirming 7
Lans. 62.

87. Anchor Line 7-. Dater, 68 111. 369;
Chicago, etc.. R. Co. v. Northern Line
Packet Co., 70 111. 217.

88. Condition of baggage. — Sheble v.
Oregon R., etc., Co., 51 Wash. 359, 98
Pac.^ 745.

3183 passe:nge:rs' e;ffects. §§ 3514-3516

a passenger sues a connecting line, it can not recover by proving that his baggage
was checked over it ; but he must also show that he paid his fare over the connect-

Defendant's Burden of Proof. — iV carrier which has accepted baggage to
be carried beyond its own hue must prove a delivery to the connecting carrier be-
fore it can be relieved of its obligation as a common carrier.^'^ And to relieve it-
self from liability the carrier receiving baggage for a connecting line must show
that it delivered it to such connecting line by evidence that would be sufficient to
charge it if the suit was against it.-'^ If it appears that the baggage was damaged
when delivered by the defendant carrier to the connecting carrier, the burden is on
the defendant to show that the damage was occasioned by some cause exempting
him from absolute liability for safe delivery.'^'- Where baggage sent over
several lines arrives at its destination in a damaged condition, or rifled of part of
its contents, in a suit against the last carrier it must show that it was so damaged
or rifled before it received the baggage. '^^ And the failure of an intermediate car-
rier to deliver baggage, according to the terms of his contract, to the next suc-
ceeding carrier, prima facie shows negligence ; and the burden of accounting for
the default lies upon it/-^-* But it is held that where baggage, for the transporta-
tion of which over three connecting railroads, operated by separate and independ-
ent companies, through checks have been issued by one of the terminal roads, is
shown to have been in good condition when delivered to the intermediate road,
but damaged when delivered at the destination, it does not devolve on the inter-
mediate road, in the absence of any special contract or arrangement between the
companies, to show that it was in good condition when delivered to the last
terminal road.^^

§ 3515. Palace and Sleeping Car Companies. — The duties and liabilities
of palace and sleeping car companies in respect to the efl:'ects of passengers is
treated elsewhere.'-*'^

§§ 3516-3530. Actions— § 3516. In General. — An action for loss of
baggage should be founded on the tort, rather than on the contract with the pas-

89. Payment of fare. — Green v. New Hess, 53 Ala. 19; Montgomery, etc., R.

York R. Co. (N. Y.), 12 Abb. Prac, N. Co. v. Culver. 75 Ala. 587, 51 Am. Rep.

S., 473, 4 Daly 553. 483, 22 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 411.

90 DeUvery to succeeding carrier.— l/a/n^.— McQuesten v. Sanford, 40 Me.

Kent V. .Midland R. Co. (Eng.), L. R.. 10 117 , ^i • c- n-.

Q B 1- Rome R. Co. v. Wimberly, 75 Minnesota.— '^\\v\\^^v v. Sioux City, etc.,

Ga. 316, .58 Am. Rep. 468; Philadelphia, R- Co., 24 Minn. 506, 31 Am. Rep. 3,^.

etc., R. Co. V. Harper, 29 Md. 330; Hy- ^ ^^^ York—hm\\.\\ v. New \ ork Cent,

man v. Central, etc., R. Co., 66 Hun 202, R- Co. 43 Barb. 22.5^^

21 N Y S 119 49 N. Y. St. Rep. 313. .\ ortli Carohna. — -Dixon v. Richmond,

Where, under a through ticket, a car- etc R. Co., 74 N. C. 538. ^

lier receives baggage for transportation ^ /t'"«c.?.?£'^.— Memphis, etc., R. Co. v.

over its line and that of a connecting Holloway. 68 fenn. (9 Baxt.) 188.

carrier, it is liable for the loss of the A'.ra.f.— International, etc.. R- Co. v.

baggage, in the absence of proof that it Foltz, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 644, 22 S. W. 541.

was safely transported over its road and I'ei'mont. — Brintnall v. Saratoga, etc., R.

delivered to the connecting carrier. Co., 32 Vt. 665.

Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. Harper, 29 n'i.fco>!.yiu.— Laughlin -•. Cliicago, etc., R.

Md. 3;!0. Co., 28 Wis. 204.

91. Hyman t;. Central, etc R Co., 06 g^ Failure of intermediate carrier to
!nn ;.'0;i, ?A N. \. S ll'>. \^ .;. >. ^t. deliver.— Baltimore Steam Packet Co. v.

Kcp. .!!.!. Smith, 23 .Md. 402, 87 Am. Dec. 575.

92. Damaged when delivered ♦o sue- ^. ^ ,• • , j ,• ■, . • ^
ceeding carrier—Montgomery, etc., \<. 05. Condition when delivered by inter-
Co. 7'. Culver. 75 Ala. 587, 51 Am. Rrp. mediate road. .M..iU^..nury etc., K. C...
483. '>- Am. & Eng. R. Cas.. IM; Lin v. "• ^^''^^'r. !^"' -^l-i- •>;:'. •'! \n:. Kcp. 483.
Terrc Haute, etc.. Railroad. 10 Mo. App. - '^"i- & R»K- R- Cas. 111.

12.">. 96. Palace and sleeping car companies.

93. Damaged when delivered at desti- — See post, "i'al.uc C'ars :iii<l Sleeping
nation. -.Ildhaniii.- Soutlicin l'',x|). Co. v. Car Coinpanies," Cli;i|itiT XXX.

§§ 3516-3517 CARRIERS. 3184

senger, because a less strict degree of proof is required /^'^ Where baggage has
been damaged and Retained by the owner, if he wishes to recover damages, he
must bring his action for the tort or wrong by which the baggage was injured.
He can not maintain an action to recover, upon a verified account, for the value
of the baggage so injured.'^'^ Assumpsit is not maintainable to recover for the
loss of baggage gratuitously carried.o» Where baggage is wrongfully detained by
a carrier, the owner may assign his title, and the assignee, after a fresh demand
thereof, may maintain an action against the carrier in the nature of trover.^ A
demand, before action, for baggage wrongfully detained, is sufficient, when made
of the agents of the railroad company, who are charged with the whole duty of
receiving, keeping, and delivering property ; and in such case a demand of the di-
rectors is unnecessary.-

§ 3517. Rig-ht of Action and Parties.— Where baggage is not the property
of the passenger dehvering it for transportation, but is in his possession and
control as agent of the owner, an action will lie at the suit of such owner to re-
cover for any loss or damage arising from a violation of the duty of the carrier
m respect to such property ,2 though his ownership was not disclosed at the
time it was checked.-^ And it has been held that the owner is the proper party to
sue for loss of the baggage, and not the user of the ticket.^ But it has been held
that where the traveler is liable to such owner for any loss or damage to the bag-
gage, he may be treated as the owner for the purposes of an action against the
carrier for damage thereto.*^ And a traveler may maintain an action against a
common carrier of passengers for the recovery of the value of a trunk contain-
ing the wearing apparel of his daughter, wdien such trunk was delivered on board
of^the boat on which he was traveling as passenger on a through ticket, and
"checked through," and the check for the same delivered to him with those for
other baggage."^ A husband may maintain an action against a carrier for the loss
of baggage, although the baggage was not carried on the train with him, but was
carried on another train with his wife, who was in charge of the baggage, which
included articles for the use of the husband and his family. « A passenger who,
having a free pass over a railroad for himself, buys a ticket for his wife, and de-
livers her trunk to the railroad corporation without informing them that it is not
his, may maintain an action against them for a loss of the trunk during the car-
riage.^ It has been held that a wife is properly joined with her husband in a suit
against a common carrier for the loss of her baggage ; i» and in such case the right

97. Form of action.— Weed v. Saratoga, brought in the name of the owner him-
etc. R. Co. (N. Y.), 19 Wend. 534. self. Sloman v. Great Western R. Co., 67

98. Damaged baggage retained by N. Y. 208, 5 Am. R. Rep. 113.
owner.— Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Wilkin- 4. Ownership not disclosed when
son, 55 Kan. 83, 39 Pac. 1043. checked.— Trimble v. New York, etc., R.

99. Assumpsit.— Flint, etc., R. Co. v. Co., 162 N. Y. 84, 56 N. E. 532, 48 L. R.
Wier, 37 Mich. Ill, 26 Am. Rep. 499. A. 115, 17 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 176.

1 Where baggage wrongfully detained 5. Brick v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 145 N.

—Cass V New York, etc., R. Co. (N. Y.), C. 203, 58 S. E. 1073, 26 R. R. R. 629, 49

1 E. D. Smith 522. Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 629, 13 Am.

2. Sufficiency of demand.— Cass v. New & Eng. Ann. Cas. 328.

York etc R Co (N. Y.), 1 E. D.Smith 6. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Matthews, 24

522 ' " Ky. L. Rep. 1766, 114 Ky. 973. 72 S. W.

"3 Where traveler is not owner.— To- 302, 60 L. R. A, 846, 102 Am. St. Rep. 316,

ledo etc , R. Co. v. Ambach, 10 O. C. C. 6 R. R. R. 769, 29 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N.

490, '6 O. C. D. 574, 8 Am. & Eng. R. S., 769.

Cas., N. S., 533. '''• Baltimore Steam Packet Co. v.

Where the contract for the transpor- Smith, 23 Md. 402, 87 Am. Dec. 575.

tation of trunks, the contents of which 8. Curtis v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 74

were damaged during transportation, was N. Y. 116, 30 Am. Rep. 271.

made by the passenger as agent for the 9. Malone v. Boston, etc., R. Corp.

owner, the passenger paying the compen- (Mass.), 12 Gray 388, 74 Am. Dec. 598.

sation for carriage for the account of and 10. Joinder of husband and wife —

in the conduct of the owner's business, Keith v. New York Cent. R. Co., 1 West,

Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 15 of 214)