Thomas Johnson Michie.

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

. (page 16 of 214)
Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 16 of 214)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

an action for such damages is properly L. M. 451, 2 O. Dec. 125; Yazoo, etc., R.

3185 PASSFvNGERS' EFFECTS. §§ 3517-3519

to maintain the action is not affected by the fact that the husband was traveling
with the wife without a ticket and without paying fare.^^

The assignee of the title of the owner of baggage wrongfully detained by a
carrier may maintain an action against tlie carrier, i-

Where property of a jfirm is carried as the personal baggage of a mem-
ber of the hrm. the carrier is not liable to the firm for injuries done to such
property. 1^

§§ 3518-3519. Pleading and Proof— § 3518. Necessity and Suffi-
ciency of Allegations. — A complaint in an action for loss of a passenger's bag-
gage, which alleges that plaintiff' holds the check of the carrier, only alleges evi-
dence of delivery, and is bad for failing to allege a delivery, of the baggage to the
carrier.^-* And a complaint in an action against the second of two connecting
carriers for the loss of baggage, does not state a cause of action where it fails to
allege that the carriers were joint contractors, or that the second carrier received
the baggage.^ •"* In an action to recover the value of a sample trunk and contents,
consisting of merchandise, belonging to plaintiff's, which they claim was deliv-
ered by one of their commercial travelers to defendant, to be transported as his
baggage on one of its trains, where such trunk had been either lost or stolen,
<he complaint must show, not only the custom or manner of carrying trunks of
commercial travelers as baggage, but must aver particularly the custom, so as to
cover all the facts in the case.^*^ A bill of particulars which does not state in terms
that the plaintiff" was a passenger on the carrier's railroad, or that the carrier was
guilty of any negligence, but alleges that the property was delivered to its agent
to be forwarded as baggage on the first passenger train of the carrier, and that
the carrier refused to deliver the property to plaintiff, but kept and retained it,
is sufiicient.i^ An allegation that a party took his trunk to the baggage room in
the evening and on the next morning bought a ticket and asked that the baggage
be checked, and was informed that it had been sent by mistake to another point,
that it would be forwarded to the passenger's destination, but that it never was
so delivered, does not show notice to the carrier that he would be subject to spe-
cial damages in case of nondelivery. i'"*

§ 3519. Evidence Admissible under Pleadings. — Although the declara-
tion in an action to recover for lost baggage does not allege that plaintiff' was a
passenger, yet proof of that fact may be introduced.^'* Under a declaration al-
leging that defendant, as a common carrier, agreed, for hire, to carry a box con-
taining specified articles, and that the box was lost by defendant's negligence, evi-
dence that plaintiff' bought a ticket, and defendant received the box as baggage, is
admissible, it being unnecessary to describe the box as baggage, or to allege that
the hire for carrying it was a part of money paid for the ticket.-*^ As in an ac-
tion brouglit simply for breach of contract against a common carrier, the actual
damage arising from the breach is the measure of recovery, where the breach al-

Co. v. Baldwin, ll.i Tcnn. 205, 81 S. W. 16. Custom to carry sample trunks as

.WJ, 12 R. R. R. 8.50, :5.-) Am. & Eng. R. baggage.— .McKibl)in v. Great Northern

Cas., X. S., 8.56. K. Co.. 78 Minn. 2:i:i, SO N. W. 1052.

li'. Yazoo, etc., R. Co. v. Baldwin, IK! 17. Sufficiency of allegation of failure

Tcnn. 205, 81 S. W. 599, 12 R. R. R. 850, to deliver to passenger. —Cliioat^o. etc.,

;;5 /\m. & ICnj,'. R. Cas., N. S., 856. \<. Co. ;■. Cmklin, :;:i^ Kan. 55, ;! I'ac. 702,

12. Assignee. — Cass v. New York, etc., 10 .Am. iK: \\n'^. I\. Cas. lio.

k. Co. ( N. v.), 1 K. D. Smith 522. 18. Notice of special damages.— Weh-

13. Property of firm. — Pennsylvania K. man "'. Southern Railway, 74 S. C. 28(), 54
Co. 7-. Kni^'lit, 5>< N. J. L. 287, XI Atl.84-.. S. I'.. :!00.

14. Necessity of alleging delivery to 19. That plaintiff was a passenger. -
carrier. I'aik ?•. Southern l-tailway, 78 S. Ilhnois CeiU. I\. Co. 7: Copeland, 2 1 111.
C. :!02. 58 S. E. 9:11, 25 R. R. R. 57:i, 48 :!:!:.', 70 Am. Dee. 74'.).

,\m. & Vmk- H. Cas.. N. S., 57:!. 20. Purchase of ticket and acceptance

15. I-elder v. Columhia. etc.. R. Co., 21 of baggage. — Kanehau r. iiutland K. Co.,
S. C. .".5. 5:1 Am. Rep. 050, 27 Am. & ICng. 71 Vt. 112, 4:i Atl. 11. 76 Am. St. Kep.
R. Cas. 204. TOl. 14 Am. cSi ICnu. k. Cas., i\'. S.. 410.

§§ 3519-3520



leged was the loss of a trunk and contents, it was error to admit testimony to
prove an extra expenditure for clothing to supply immediate wants occasioned
by the loss of the trunk. -^ But in an action against a railroad company for dam-
ages in "breaking a trunk," and in delay of "goods checked," evidence of damage
to any articles such as a passenger might carry as baggage and have checked, is

§§ 3520-3522. Presumptions and Burden of Proof— § 3520. In
General. — The failure to deliver baggage to a passenger at its destination,
in the absence of any explanation, establishes a prima facie case against the car-
rier.2" It is held that in such case the presumption is that the property is still in
the carrier's possession or converted. ^^

Presumption of Negligence. — It has been held that the unexplained failure
of a carrier, holding goods delivered by a passenger and liable for loss only in
case of negligence, to deliver the goods on demand, is prima facie evidence of
negligence. 2^ And the unexplained loss of baggage, is sufficient to establish a
prima facie case of negligence. ^^^ Proof of the loss of baggage after arrival
raises a presumption that the carrier's agent was negligent.-'' And it has been
held that, in the absence of all proof that the baggage had been properly stowed
when such proof was peculiarly within the reach of the carrier, the loss must be
presumed to have arisen from imperfect stowage.-^ The failure of the carrier
to account in some manner for the loss of a trunk which it had agreed to store
over night and deliver on the following morning warrants the inference that the
trunk was stolen by its servants or was lost in consequence of their gross neg-
lect.-° A presumption of negligence arises from the derailment of a train, by
reason of which a passenger's baggage was destroyed.^*^ However, in an action
by a passenger for a loss of baggage destroyed by a flood of such extraordinary
character that it could not be foreseen or provided against, there is no presump-
tion of negligence because of the accident, the flood being an act of God.-^^

21. Evidence as to damages. — New Or-
leans, etc., R. Co. 7'. Moore, 40 Miss. 39.

22. International, etc., R. Co. r. Phil-
ips, 63 Tex. 590.

23. Failure to deliver to passenger. —
Alabama. — Central, etc., R. Co. v. Jones,
150 Ala. 379, 43 So. 575, 9 L. R. A., N. S.,

Georgia. — Southern R. Co. v. Edmund-
son, 123 Ga. 474, 51 S. E. 388; Rome R.
Co. V. Wimberly, 75 Ga. 316, 58 Am. Rep.

Kansas. — • Atchison, etc., R. Co. v.
Brewer, 20 Kan. 669.

Mississippi. — Zeigler Bros. v. Mobile,
etc., R. Co., 87 Miss. 367, 39 So. 811.

Nczv York. — Burnell v. New York Cent.
R. Co., 45 N. Y. 184, 6 Am. Rep. 61; Has-
brouck V. New York, etc., R. Co., 202 N.
Y. 363, 95 N. E. 808, 35 L. R. A., N. S.,
537, Ann. Cas. 1912D, 1150; Saleeby z\
Central R. Co., 184 N. Y. 597, 77 N. E.

North Carolina. — Williams v. Southern
R. Co., 155 N. C. 260, 71 S. E. 346, 42 R.
R. R. 105, 6:-. Am. & En^'. R. Cas., N. S.,
105. 13 Am. & En.£?. Ann. Cas. 328.

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

South Carolina. — Meyer v. Atlantic, etc.,
R. Co., 92 S. C. 101, 75 S. E. 209: Fleisch-
man, etc., Co. v. Southern Railway, 76

S. C. 237, 56 S. E. 974, 9 L. R. A., N. S.,

24. In possession of carrier or con-
verted. — Hasbrouck v. New York, etc., R.
Cn.. 203 N. Y. 363, 95 N. E. 808, 35 L. R.
A., N. S., 537. Ann. Cas. 1912D, 1150.

25. Presumption of negligence. — Has-
brouck V. New York, etc., R. Co., 95 N.
E. 808, 202 N. Y. 363, 35 L. R. A., N. S.,
537, Ann. Cas. 1912D, 1150; Campbell v.
Missouri Pac. R. Co., 78 Neb. 479, 111 N.
W. 126; Johnson v. Stone, 30 Tenn. (11
Humph.) 419.

26. Saleeby v. Central R. Co., 77 N. E.
1196, 184 N. Y. 597, affirming 90 N. Y. S.
1042, 99 App. Div. 163, 15 N. Y. Ann. Cas.

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

28. Improper stowage. — The Kensing-
ton, 183 U. S. 263, 22 S. Ct. 102, 46 L. Ed.

29. Rome R. Co. v. Wimberly, 75 Ga.
316, 58 Am_. Rep. 468.

30. Derailment of train. — Thomas v.
Southern R. Co., 131 N. C. 590, 42 S. E.

31. Act of God. — Long v. Pennsylvania
R. Co., 147 Pa. 343, 23 Atl. 459, 29 Wkly.
Xotes Cas. 375, 30 Am. St. Rep. 732, 14
L. R. A. 741.

3187 passengers' effi^cts. §§ 3520-3521

Rebuttal of Presumption of Negligence. — See post, "Weight and Suffi-
ciency of Evidence," § 3525.

Knowledge of Limitation. — A notice that a raih-oad corporation would not
"be liable for the baggage of passengers beyond a certain amount, unless, etc.,"
printed on the back of the passage ticket, and detached from what ordinarily con-
tains all that is material to the passenger to know, does not raise a legal presump-
tion that the party, at the time of receiving the ticket, and before the train leaves
the station, had knowledge of the limitations or conditions which the carrier had
attached to the transportation of the baggage of passengers. ^^ And there is no
presumption of law that a passenger on a railroad has read a notice limiting the
liability of the railroad corporation for baggage, printed upon the back of a
check delivered to him, having on its face the words, "Look on the back," and
also printed on a placard posted in the cars, and containing other notices which
he has read.^^

That Baggage Checked on Pass. — Where plaintifif, riding on a pass, ac-
companied by his son, riding on a ticket, had two bundles checked as baggage, it
may be assumed, in the absence of evidence, that the one containing his owai
gun was checked on the pass.^-*

Authority of Agent. — Where, in an action to recover for loss of baggage,
plaintiit showed that she purchased a ticket for herself and her baggage from
one who purported to be an agent of the road for the sale of tickets, and that it
was accepted by the conductors of the road and no other fare was demanded, a
presumption arose from the acts of the company's conductors that the act of the
agent was valid and binding upon the company. ^^

Law of Sister State. — Where under a state statute the limitation of the lia-
bility of a railroad company for wearing apparel in a passenger's baggage to the
value of one hundred dollars, by a provision printed in the ticket, is ineffectual,
and where the contract for transportation is made in another state, to be executed
in the former state, it will be presumed, in absence of proof to the contrary, that
the law of such other state is to the same eft'ect.^*5

Presumption Arising from Custom. — The assent of a common carrier that
the baggage of a traveler may be left at a railway station without notice to the
carrier or agent may be implied from the course of business or custom of the

It can not be conclusively presumed that an entire shipment is bag-
gage where an emigrant carries trunks and other ordinary baggage, and at the
same time turns over other boxes of goods to the carrier for transportation, pay-
ing freight for the weight in excess of her baggage allowance, and the general
character of the shipment is known to the carrier, so as to make applicable the
rule that there can be no recovery in case of loss except for such articles con-
tained in the boxes as would properly be designated as necessary baggage. ^^

Presumptions in Actions against Connecting Carriers. — See ante, "Pre-
sumptions and llurden of I'roof," § 3514.

§ 3521. Plaintiff's Burden of Proof.— Delivery to Carrier.— Delivery
of the baggage to the carrier must be proved, in order to charge the carrier for its
loss."-' So a railroad cor])oration will not be held liable for lost baggage unless

32. Knowledge o£ limitation.— Brown v. cage, etc., R. Co., 8:5 Iowa 744, io N. W.
Eastern R. Co. (Mass.), 11 Cush. 97. 77; Cmle Iowa, S§ l'i<>^. :.'1S4.

33. .M alone v. Boston, etc., R. Corp. 37. Presumption arising from custom
(.Mass.), 12 f;ray :!8S, 71 Am. Dcr. .'5;)8. —Qreen r. Milwaukee. v\c., R. Co., :;8

34. That baggage checked on pass.— Iowa 100.

Denver, etc., R. Co. v. Johnson, 50 Colo. 38. That entire shipment is baggage.—

187, 114 Pac. f).-)0, Ann. Cas. H)12C, 027. 1 1 aniburM- American I'acket Co. r. Gatt-

35. Authority of agent.— Glasco v. New man, ];.'7 111. 598, 20 N. E. CG2.

York Cent. I-;. Co. (X. Y.), .36 Barb. .'j")?. 39. Delivery to carrier.— Dibble i:

36. Law of sister state.-Davis j-. Chi- T.rown, 12 C,a. 217, .^(i Am. Dec. 4(>0.

4 Car—

§§ 3521-3522 carriers. 3188

it is shown to have been in its possession, or that the company had contracted in
some way to transport the baggage.-*" And a street car passenger, to recover for
the loss of her baggage, must show either that the carrier accepted the baggage
under a contract, express or implied, to carry and deliver it as a carrier, or that
the loss was due to its negligence.-*^

Condition of Baggage before Delivery to Carrier.— To charge a carrier
with the value of articles stolen from a trunk, it must appear with reasonable
certainty that the trunk was not opened and rifled before coming to the posses-
sion of the carrier.-* 2 So a passenger who, before starting on her journey, de-
livered her trunk to an expressman for delivery at the depot, could not, after
completing the journey, hold the railroad company liable for goods stolen from
the trunk, without showing that the trunk was not opened while in the possession
of the drayman.-*^

Notice of Nature of Goods. — Where a trunk is delivered to a carrier as
baggage, the carrier can assume that it contains personal baggage only of the
passenger, and hence the burden, in the absence of negligence, of proving that
the carrier had notice of the nature of the property, is on the passenger seeking
to recover for its loss.-*"*

Payment of Fare. — In a suit against stage owners for loss of baggage pay-
ment of fare need not be expressly proved.-*^

Negligence as Warehouseman, — In an action against a carrier for loss of
baggage where its liability is that of a warehouseman, the burden is on the plain-
tiff to show that the defendant was negligent.-**' So in an action against a car-
rier for baggage burned after it had reached its destination, and the carrier's
liability had become that of a warehouseman, the burden is on the plaintiff" to
show want of ordinary care by defendant."*"^

In Actions against Connecting Carriers. — See ante, "Presumptions and
Burden of Proof," § 3514.

§ 3522. Defendant's Burden of Proof.— Delivery to Passenger.— The

burden of proving delivery to the passenger is on the carrier.-*^

Cause of Failure to Deliver to Passenger. — The burden is on the carrier
to show legal excuse for failure to deliver on demand baggage received by it.^**
Where a passenger shows delivery of his baggage to a carrier and the carrier's

40. Michigan, etc., R. Co. v. Meyres, 21 piecautions were taken by the company
Ill_ 627. ' ^"^r the protection of the baggage. Held,

41. Sperry v. Consolidated R. Co., 79 in an action by A. against the company
Conn. 565, 65 Atl. 962, 10 L. R. A., N. S., for conversion of the valise, the burden
907. of proof was on the plaintiff to show that

42. Condition of baggage before deliv- the defendant was negligent. ^Murray v.
ery to carrier. — McQuesten t. Sanford, 40 International Steamship Co., 170 Mass.
]\Ie. 117. ]66, 48 N. E. 1093, 64 Am. St. Rep. 290.

43. I^ingwalt v. Wabash R. Co.. 45 Neb. 47. Kahn 7-. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 115
760, 64 \'. W. 219. N. C. 638, 20 S. E. 169.

44. Notice of nature of goods.— Haines A passenger suing for baggage that
V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 29 Minn. 160, 12 was burned on a steamship company's
N W. 447! 43 Am. Rep. 199. pier after he had requested the company

45. Payrnent of fare.— McGill v. Row- to keep it until he could call for it has
and, 3 Pa. 451, 45 Am. Dec. 654. the burden of showing that the company

46. Negligence as warehouseman.— A., was negligent. National Line Steamship
intending to take a trip on a steamer Co. r. Smart. 107 Pa. 492.

which was to sail on Monday, sent his 48. Delivery to passenger.— Matteson z/.

\alise to the office of the steamship com- New York, etc., R. Co., 76 N. ^' ■ '^>^}-
pany on Saturday, where it was received 49. Excuse for failure to deliver.—

by the company's agent, who declined to Southern R. Co. r. Edmundson, d1 b. E.

sic-n a receipt for it. On Monday A 3SS, 123 Ga. 474; William.s t'. Southern R.

went to the office in time to have the va- Co., 155 N. C. 260 71 S. E. 346 42 R. R.

lise checked and inquired for it, but it R. 105, 65 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. _b., 105,

could not be found. The rules of the 13 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 328; Zeiglej

company required a ticket to be presented Bros. r. Mobile, etc., R. Co., 87 Miss. 36 <,

in order to have baggage checked, and 39 So. 811; Meyer v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co.,

A. presented such a ticket. The usual 75 S. E. 209, 92 S. C. 101.




failure to deliver the same, the burden is on the carrier to show that it has not
converted the property. ^^ The failure of a carrier whose liability for baggage
has become that of a warehouseman to deliver baggage when demanded throws
the burden of accounting for the default upon the carrier. ^^

Absence of Neglig-ence. — In an action against a carrier for the loss of bag-
gage entrusted to it for storage over night by an incoming passenger, it is in-
cumbent on the carrier to show that the loss was not attributable to the want of
care on the part of its servants or agents. °2 A carrier, undertaking pursuant to
an express contract limiting liability to carry a passenger's baggage, has the bur-
den of disproving that the negligence of its servants resulted in the loss of the
baggage.^^'=^ _

Limitation of Liability. — In an action against a carrier to recover for loss
of baggage, the burden of proving a limitation of the carrier's liability is on the
party setting it up.^"*

In Actions against Connecting Carriers. — See ante, "Presumptions and
Burden of Proof," § 3514.

§ 3523. Witnesses. — Contents of Baggage. — It is generally held that in
an action against a carrier to recover for the loss of his baggage the passenger
is, from the necessity of the case, a competent witness to prove the contents of
his baggage where no other evidence is obtainable ; ^^ and for the same reason
the evidence of his wife is admissible. ^^ And a person, who may have had some
of the articles lost, in his trunls:, or may have had articles which belonged to him
in the trunk lost, is a competent witness.^"

50. Fleischman, etc.. Co. v. Southern
Raihvay, 56 S. E. 974, Tfi S. C. 237, 9 L. R.
A., N. S., 51&,

51. Burnell v. New York Cent. R. Co.,
4.5 X. Y. 184, 6 Am. Rep. 61.

A carrier can not relieve itself from re-
sponsibility for a trunk which it had
agreed to store over night and deliver on
the following morning to a carrier using
the same station, unless -in some manner
it accounts for the loss of the trunk and
shows how it left its custody. Rome R.
Co. f. Wimberlv, 75 Ga. 316, 58 Am. Rep.

52. Absence of negligence. — Rome R.
Co. T'. \\'iml)crlv, 7.5 Ga. :'. 16, 58 Am. Rep.
468; Camden, etc., R. Co. z: Baldauf, 16
Pa. 67, 55 Am. Dec. 481.

53. Wells V. Great Northern R. Co., 59
Ore. 165, 114 Pac. 92, 116 Pac. 1070, 34 L.
R. A., X. S.. si>*.

54. Limitation of liability. — Verner c'.
SwciiziT, :;■.' I 'a. :.'0^.

55. Right of passenger to testify to con-
tents of baggage. — .■lldhniiKi. — iJouglass v.
.Montgomery, etc., R. Co., 37 Ala. 638, 79
.•\m. Dec. 76.

Georgia. — Dibble v. Brown, 12 Ga. 217,
56 Am. Dec. 4(10.

Illiitois. — Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Taylor,
24 ill. 323: Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Cope-
land, 24 111. 332, 76 Am. Dec. 749; Davi-^
r. .Michigan, etc.. K. Co., 22 III. 278. 7 1
Am. Dec. 151; Parmeloe 7'. .McXulty. 19
111. 556.

/«(/»■;/»(/. —Indiana Cent. R. Co. f. Gu-
lick. 19 ind. N.'i, citing Doyle 7'. Riser, 6
hu!. 2 12.

.V/f/j)ir. -Herman 7f. Drinkwater (Me.),
1 Grcenl. 27; I'udor r. I'.oston, etc., Rail-
roafl, 26 Me. 45S.

Missouri. — By statute the plaintiff is a
competent witness. f-i. C. 1855, p. 435,
§ 45. Nolan z: Ohio, etc., R. Co., 39 Mo.
114; Williams z'. Frost, 39 Mo. 516.

Ohio.— Mad River, etc., R. Co. v. Ful-
ton, 20 O. 318.

Pennsylvania. — Whitesell 7'. Crane (Pa.),
8 Watts & S. "369; McGill 7'. Rowand, 3
Pa. 451, 45 Am. Dec. 654.

Tennessee. — Johnson v. Stone, 30 Tenn.
(11 iiumph.) 419.

.A shipmaster having received a trunk
of goods on board his vessel, to be car-
ried to another port, which, on the pas-
sage, he broke open and rifled of its con-
tents, the owner of the goods, proving
tlic delivery of the trunk and its viola-
tions, was properly admitted as a witness,
in an action for the goods against the
shipmaster, to testify to the particular
contents of the trunk, there being no
(>ther evidence of the fact to he obtained.
Ilennan r. Drinkwater t Me.), 1 Greenl. 27.

56. Competency of wife. — Dibble v.
Brown, 12 Ga. 217, 56 Am. Dec. 460; Illi-
nois Cent. R. Co. v. Copeland, 24 111. 332,
76 ;\m. Dec. 749; Illinois Ceni. R. Co. :'.
Taylor. 24 111. 323; .Mad River, etc., R.
Co. :•. iMilton, 20 O. 318; Kiitii 7'. Xew
^■.•^k (,\nl. R. Co.. 1 West. 1- M. 451, 2
(). DcT, 125. See Battle 7'. Columbia, etc.,
Railroail, 70 S. C. 329. 49 S. Iv 849.

'"ilie prin(ii)Ie of necessity which alone
enables a part\', under certain circum-
stances, to prove the ronli'iUs of a l)()x,
or trunk, ai)i)lies. with as nuuli, if not
greater fr)rce, to the wife as In I be hus-
band." McGill 7'. Rowand, 3 I 'a. 15 1. 15
Am. I )ec. (15 1.

57. i'aiiiielee 7'. Au'^lin, :.'0 111. 35.

§ 3523



Value of Baggage. — It is held that a passenger whose baggage has been
lost may, from the necessity of the case, be a competent witness to prove its
vahie;^^ and for the same reason his wife may also testify as to its value."'^
Where a husband sues a carrier for the loss of his wife's trunk while a passen-
ger, the husband may testify as to the value after the wife has testified as to
the'contents.*^*^ It is held that where the value of articles can be proved by other
evidence, that of the party interested or his wife can not be received for such
purpose. '^^ And where the testimony of the interested party is received on the
question of value, and it is not shown that there are no witnesses capable of prov-
ing the value, the judgment will be reversed.^ -

Testimony Restricted to Articles of Baggage. — The rule allowing the
owner or his wife to testify as to the contents of baggage, and their value, will
not be extended further than to the proof of such articles as are commonly car-
ried as baggage.^^ In one case the court said that the rule is without this limita-
tion when th.e evidence is admitted upon the ground of fraud or spoliation. ^^
In an action against a common carrier for the loss of a box alleged to contain
medical books, medicines, surgical instruments, and chemical apparatus, it has
been held that plaintilt should not be allowed to prove the contents of the box
on his own oath, although it did not appear that he had any other means of show-
ing it."-''

In Louisiana a passenger suing for the loss of baggage is incompetent as a
witness to testify as to the contents of the trunk and its value, under Civ. Code,
arts. 22S7, 2940.*'*'

In Massachusetts it has been held that in an action by a passenger agamst
a railroad company to recover for the negligent loss of a trunk, plaintiff is not

"Articles can be described, their qual-
ity, style, and all particulars pertaining
to them, and when described, dealers in
such articles can, from the description,
place the value upon them, so that there

Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 16 of 214)