Thomas Johnson Michie.

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

. (page 18 of 214)
Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 18 of 214)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

from a common carrier a receipt for his baggage, has taken it with notice of its
contents, is a question of fact for the jnry.^

Knowledge of Limitation of Liability. — Where a notice limiting the car-
rier's Habihty for baggage was printed on the back of a passage ticket and de-
tached from what ordinarily contains all that is material for the passenger to
know, it was held in an action to recover for loss of baggage, that it is a ques-
tion for the jury whether plaintiff knew of the limitation before beginning the

Genuineness of Check and Authority to Direct Return of Baggage. —
Where a passenger, who was traveling with plaintiiT as her husband, presented
a check for plaintifif's trunk, and, on being informed of its nonarrival requested
the agent to return the trunk to a certain place which was done, whether the check
presented by the passenger was the genuine check issued for the trunk or was
forged, and whether he had authority to direct the return of the trunk, was for
the jury.i^

§ 3527. Instructions. — An instruction in an action for injuries to baggage
that, when the railroad gave a check for the trunk it took the burden of care in
transporting and delivering the trunk, is not erroneous as a charge on the facts. ^-
A charge that baggage is whatever a passenger takes with him for his personal
use or convenience, according to the habits or wants of the class to which he
belongs, either with reference to his immediate necessities or to the purposes of
the journey, properly submits to the jury whether shotguns carried by a passen-
ger in his valise, to hunt with as opportunity presented, are baggage. ^^ Where
plaintiff was in the habit of carrying merchandise in his trunk as personal bag-
gage, contrary to the regulations of defendant railroad, in an action against de-
fendant for refusal to check and transport plaintiff's trunk, an instruction which
left in doubt whether the occasion alluded to therein as the time when plaintiff
had not endeavored to deceive the defendant was the occasion mentioned in the
declaration, or some former occasion, was erroneous.^'* Improper instructions
may be ground for reversal, notwithstanding proper instruction on the same sub-
ject had been previously given. ^^

Refusal to Charge. — Where a chest containing property belonging to two
passengers on a train, to whom a check was issued jointly, is lost, in an action to
recover for its value the court's refusal to charge that, as the evidence showed
some of the articles were owned in severalty, no recovery could be had therefor,

9. Notice of contents of receipt. — Ma- tions. — Plaintiff, a passenger on defend-
dan V. Sherard, 73 N. Y. 329, 29 Am. Rep. ant's steamboat, on retiring at night to
153. the berth assigned to him, placed his vest,

10. Knowledge of limitation of liabil- in which were $73 in money, a gold
ity. — Brown v. Eastern R. Co. (Mass.), watch, gold pen and pencil, and railroad
11 Cush. 97; Malone v. Boston, etc., R. tickets, under his pillow. When he
Corp. (Mass.), 12 Gray 388, 74 Am. Dec. awoke in the morning, the vest and these
598. articles had been stolen. In an action

11. Genuineness of check and author- against defendant, the court charged the
ity to direct return of trunk. — St. Louis, jury that, if it was negligent for plaintiff
etc., R. Co. V. Stone, 78 Ark. 318, 95 S. to have the amount of money in his
W. 470. berth, instead of giving it to defendant's

12. Instructions — Charge on facts. — employees to take care of, defendant was
Harzburg & Co. v. Southern R. Co., 65 entitled to a verdict; and that plaintiff
S. C. 539, 44 S. E. 75. had a right to carry such articles with

13. What is baggage. — Little Rock, etc., him on his trip, but not to retain them
R. Co. V. Record, 85 S. W. 421, 74 Ark. in his berth. Held, error, for which a
125, 109 Am. St. Rep. 67, 16 R. R. R. 664, judgment for defendant must be reversed,
39 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 664. notwithstanding proper instructions on

14. Refusal to check and transport the subject had been previously given,
trunk. — Xorfolk. ei ■., ^. Co. '■. Tr-me, 85 Dunn v. New Haven Steamboat Co., 58
Aa. 217, 7 S. E. 233, 1 L. R. A. 110. Hun 461, 12 N. Y. S. 406, 35 N. Y. St.

15. Error not cured by other instruc- Rep. 251.

3197 passengers' effects. §§ 3527-3529

is' not error, the evidence being admitted without objection, and no motion made
to sever the causes of action. ^'^

§§ 3528-3530. Damages — § 3528. Nominal Damages. — Where plain-
titl delivered his baggage before procuring his tickets, and subsequently refused
to pay a charge for excess baggage, and a return to him of the baggage-was re-
fused, it having been put on the car, and afterwards he waived the conversion
by agreeing to accept the baggage at the point of destination, where it was de-
stroyed by a fire caused by lightning, the plaintiflf could recover nominal dam-
ages only.i' .\i-,(^ in an action against a carrier for the loss of laces, an heir-
loom, where no evidence is given by plaintiff as to the value of such laces meas-
ured by a money standard, nominal damages only will be awarded. ^'^

§ 3529. Punitive or Exemplary Damages. — The negligent violation of
the duties of a carrier to a passenger will not justify an award of exemplary dam-
ages, unless the carrier is guilty of willfulness, wantonness, or conscious indif-
ference to consequences, from which malice will be inferred. i'' Where a ticket
agent refused to check the baggage of a passenger to a point on another line to
which the passenger had bought a ticket, because under the rules of the company
he could only check to the junctional point, and on return of the check to the
junctional point he threw the baggage out of the car and refused to take further
charge of it, it authorizes a recovery of punitive damages by the passenger.-" And
where a passenger's baggage was wrongfully carried beyond the station at which
he desired it delivered to him, exemplary damages may be given if the jury be-
lieve the act to be committed willfully, or with such negligence as indicates a
wanton disregard of the rights of others.-^ But where defendant railroad made
an earnest effort to trace and deliver plaintiff's baggage which had miscarried,
an inference of willful misconduct was not warranted, and plaintiff could not
recover punitive damages for delay in delivery.— In an action for delay in de-
livery of baggage punitive damages are recoverable for any willful or wanton
failure to transport the baggage with reasonable dispatch, or where the negligence
is so gross and reckless as to assume the nature of wantonness and willfulness. ^s
Punitive damages may be allowed where the carrier has refused to allow a pas-
senger to board its car with proper personal baggage.^^ And it has been held

16. Refusal to charge.— Anderson v. the transportation of a trunk caused by
Wabash, etc.. R. Co., 65 Iowa 131, 21 N. three separate and distinct acts of neg-
\V. 48"). ligence on the part of the carrier, it an-
il. Nominal damages.— McCormick v. thorized punitive damages. Webb v. At-
Pennsylvania Cent. R. Co., 80 N. Y. 353. lantic, etc., R. Co., 76 S. C. 193, 56 S. E.

18. Fraloflf v. New York, etc., R. Co., 954, 9 L. R. A., N. S., 1218, 11 Am. &
Fed. Cas. Xo. 5,025, 10 Blatchf. 16. Eng. Ann. Cass 834.

19. Punitive or exemplary damages.— 24. Refusal to permit passenger to
Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Whitten, 90 Ark. board car with proper baggage. -Where,
462 119 S. W. 835, 32 R. R. R. 152, 55 in an action against a street railway corn-
Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 152, 21 Am. & pany for refusal to permit plaintiflf to
Eng. /\nn. Cas. 726. board a car, the evidence showed that

20. Refusal to check beyond own line. plaintiff and the conductor had had a
—Sullivan v. Southern Railway, 74 S. C. previous difliculty, that plaintiiY attempted
377, 54 S. v.. 586. to board the car in a proper manner and

21. Baggage carried beyond station.— with proper personal baggage, consisting
Pitt-bur^fh. itc, R. Co. v. Lyon. 123 Pa. of a small piece of ice so wrapped as to
140, 16 .^tl. 607, 10 Am. St. Rep. 517, 2 prevent leakage, that he informed the
L. R. A. 4H9. conductor of the urgency of his carrying

22. Effort to trace baggage.— Hlack v. the ice to a sick man, that plaintiflf of-
.Atlantic, etc., R. Co., K2 S. C. 478, 04 S. fcrcd to stay on the platform vvith the
j.;. -tiH. ' ' ice and to pay for its transportation, but

23. belay in delivery. -Webb v. Allan- that the conductor rudely shut tlic gate
tic, etc.. \<. Co., "t", S. C. 193, 56 S. E. and would not let him get aboard, and
954. 9 i-. R. .'\., .\. S., 1218, 11 ,^m. & tliat the conductor ftjllowing on the next
i-'iig. .'\nn. C!as. s.'M. car permitted plaintiff to l)oard the car

Several distinct acts of negligence. — with the ice, there was evidence of willful
W'luTc there was a delay of four days in inv:isioii u{ plaiiilifT's riglits, justifying

§§ 3529-3530 carriers. ■ 3198

that if a street railway waived its rule prohibiting passengers from bringing large
and unwieldly articles into the car by permitting a passenger to bring a grapho-
phone horn into the car with him, it will be held liable to punitive damages for
afterwards refusing to allow plaintiff to become a passenger with a graphophone

§ 3530. Compensatory Damages. — Loss of Baggage. — In an action for
damages for the loss of baggage the measure of damages is the value of the prop-
erty at the place of its destination,-^ without taking into account any expense in-
curred in the effort to recover it, or in being deprived of its use, or in the pur-
chase of other material, where there was no notice to the carrier of special
circumstances.-" Where the baggage consisted in part of articles of clothing,
the passenger is entitled to recover the full value of such clothing for use to him,
and not merely what it may be sold for in money. -^ If there is no proof of the
value of the contents of a lost trunk, or of what they consisted, the jury may give
damages proportioned to the value of the articles, which they, in their judg-
ment, think the trunk did and might fairly contain. ^o

Injury to Baggage. — In an action against a carrier for damage to baggage
consisting of household goods or wearing apparel, the measure of damages is the
difference in their actual value prior and subsequent to the injury, and not the dif-
ference in the market value of similar goods at such time, at the nearest place
where such market obtains.-'^"

Tender of Damaged Baggage in Action for Loss. — Where in an action
for loss of baggage, defendant on the day of trial produced the baggage, which it
tendered to plaintiff, who refused to accept it, the measure of damages was any
reasonable loss and expense occasioned by the delay, together with the value of
the goods at the time and place they should have been delivered, less their value
according to their condition at the time and place of tender.^i But it is held that
a passenger after bringing an action for damages for the loss of a trunk, and
after the original answer generally denying the complaint has been filed, is not
bound to accept, when tendered, the property concerning which the action has been
brought, and to recover only for the detention and any damage to the property.32

Delay in Delivery.— The measure of damages for failure of a carrier to de-
liver promptly a traveling man's sample trunks, which the carrier received with
knowledge of their contents, is the value of the use of the property during the
delay ,'''^ including such incidental expenses and damages as were in the contempla-
tion of the parties when the contract was entered into. 2"* Thus, the passenger
may recover for the loss of his time in going from the town where the trunks
were checked to the town where they should have been delivered, and return, and
the expense of the trip, and the profit on sales that he could have made.^-^ He

punitive damages. Mcintosh v. Augusta, R. Co. v. Dickerson, 29 Okla. 386, 118

etc., R. Co., 87 S. C. 181, 69 S. E. 159, 30 Pac. 140.

L. R. A., N. S., 889. 31. Tender of damaged baggage in ac-
25. Vlasservitch v. Augusta, etc., R. tion for loss^Wall i: Atlantic, etc., Rail-
Co., 85 S. C. 291, 67 S. E. 306, 35 R. R. road, 71 S. C. 337, 51 S. E. 95.
R. 721, 58 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 721. 32. Where passenger not bound to ac-
„-T ,, Ticu i cept damaged baggage. — Lake bhore,
26 Loss of baggage.-Lake Shore, etc., ^^l ^ ^^^ ^ War?eiT, 3 Wyo. 134, 6
R. Co. V. Warren, 3 Wyo. 134, 6 rac. p ^^.

724; Turner v. Southern Railway, 75 S. „„" rk^i,,,. ;^ A^w^r^^n-., r^.^Uo,-,-,-, ,, rw,

r ^s '^A c; V ^9=^ 7 T R A ^ q 1SS ^^- Delay m deUvery.—Conheim z;. Chi-

C. 58, 54 S. E. 825, i U K. A., .N. b., IbS. ^^^^^ ^^^^ ^ ^^^ ^^^ ^j^^^^ 3^2, 116 N.

27. Turner v. Southern Railway, 75 S. w. 581, 17 L. R. A., N. S., 1091, 15 Am.
C. 58, 5 S. E. 825, 7 L. R. A., N. S., 188. & gng. Ann. Cas. 389; Brooks v. North-

28. Fairfax v. New York, etc., R. Co., ern Pac. R. Co., 58 Ore. 387, 114 Pac. 949.
73 N. Y. 167, 29 Am. Rep. 119, cited in 34. Conheim v. Chicago, etc., R. Co.,
Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Warren, 3 104 Minn. 312, 116 N. W. 581, 17 L. R.
Wyo. 134, 6 Pac. 724. A., N. S., 1091, 15 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas.

29. Dill V. South Carolina R. Co. (S. 389.

C), 7 Rich. L. 158, 62 Am. Dec. 407. 35. Carnahan v. Chesapeake, etc., R.

30. Injury to baggage.— St. Louis, etc., Co., 145 Ky. 676, 141 S. W. 49.

3199 passengers' effects. § 3530

may_ recover for all injury to the special business attributable to the delay, in-
cluding the expense and loss of time incurred in a search for the delayed bag-
gage. This does not include speculative profits resting on the mere hope of par-
ticular future transactions.-"^ In an action by a passenger against a railroad com-
pany for delay in the transportation of his baggage, plaintiff may recover the
damages sustained by him by being compelled to buy clothes to replace those with
his baggage; also the damages sustained in waiting for the arrival of the bag-
gage.^' The measure of damages for delay in the transmission of baggage, by
which a passenger was delayed in his journey, is not the difference in value of the
goods when they did arrive from what it would have been had they arrived on

Special Damages. — A passenger can not recover special damages for failure
to deli\er his baggage in time, unless the carrier had notice of the special circum-
stances at the time of receiving the baggage. ^^

Expenses of Search. — In an action by a passenger against a common carrier
for loss of baggage, as a general rule he can not recover for his expenses in
searching for his baggage.'*'^*

Mental Suffering-. — In an action against a carrier for damage to a trunk and
contents, plaintiff' is not entitled to recover for mental suft'ering.^i

36. Strange v. Atlantic, etc.. R. Co., 77 S. E. 724.

S. C. 182, 57 S. E. 724. 40. Expenses of search. — Mississippi

37. International, etc., R. Co. v. Phil- Cent. R. Co. v. Kennedy. 41 Miss. 671.
ips. 63 Tex. 590. 41. Mental suffering. — Chicago, etc., R.

38. International, etc., R. Co. v. Phil- Co. v. Whitten, 90 Ark. 462, ll9 S. W.
ips. 63 Tex. 590. 835, 32 R. R. R. 152, 55 Am. & Eng. R.

39. Notice of special damages.— Strange Cas., N. S., 152, 21 Am. & Eng. Ann.
V. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 77 S. C. 182, 57 Cas. 726.


Palace Cars and Sleeping Car Companies.

I. Nature of Liability in General, § 3531.
II. Statutory Regulations as to Empty Berths, § 3532.

III. Duty to Receive Passengers, §§ 3533-3535.

A. In General, § 3533.

B. Right to Demand Compensation, § 3534.

C. Regulations as to Tickets, § 3535.

IV. Contracts for Accommodations, §§ 3536-3544.

A. In General, § 3536.

B. Operation and Effect in General, § 3537.

C. Breach of Contract to Reserve Berth, § 3538.

D. Contract for Use of Berth in Daytime, § 3539.

E. Failure of Railroad Company to Haul Sleeper, § 3540.

F. Voluntary Abandonment of Contract Rights, § 3541.

G. Right of Husband and Wife to Occupy Same Berth, § 3542.
H. Condition Precedent to Rescission of Contract, § 3543.

I. Implied Agreement of Passenger, § 3544.

V. Duties and Liabilities as to Person of Passenger, §§ 3545-3548.

A. In General, § 3545.

B. Assaults, Insults, etc.. § 3546.

C. Duty as to Discharging Passengers, § 3547.

D. Contributory Negligence of Passenger, § 3548.

VI. Ejection of Passengers, §§ 3549-3557.

A. Right to Eject, § 3549.

B. Liability for Wrongful Ejection, §§ 3550-3551.

a. In General, § 3550.

b. Ejection by Railway Company, § 3551.

C. Grounds for Ejection, §§ 3552-3555.

a. Failure to Pay Fare, § 3552.

b. Failure to Procure Proper Railroad Ticket, § 3553.

c. Loss of Ticket, § 3554.

d. Bringing Improper Articles into Car, § 3555.

D. What Constitutes Ejection, § 3556.

E. Manner of Ejection, § 3557.

VII. Duties and Liabilities as to Property of Passengers, §§ 3558-3573.

A. Nature of Liability, § 3558.

B. Duty to Protect Property, §§ 3559-3564.

a. In General, § 3559.

b. While Passengers Are Asleep, § 3560.

c. While Passengers Are in Toilet Room, § 3561.

d. Passenger Sleeping in Smoker, § 3562.

e. Duty to Anticipate Presence of Thief, § 3663.

f. Duty of Ticket Agent to Remove Thief, § 3564.

C. Property Left in Car, § 3565.

D. Thefts by Fellow Passengers, § 3566.

E. Thefts by Employees, § 3567.

F. Nature and Amount of Property as Affecting Liability, § 3568.

G. Custody of Property as Affecting Liability, § 3569.
H. Limitation of Liability, § 3570.

I. Contributory Negligence, §§ 3571-3573.
a. In General, § 3571.


b. What Constitutes Contributory Negligence, § 3572.

c. Where Property Stolen by Employees, § 3573.
VIII. Liability of Railway Company, § 3574.

IX. Joint Liability of Sleeping Car and Railway Companies, § 3575.
X. Actions, §§ 3576-3587.

A. Nature of Action, § 3576.

B. Parties, § 3577.

C. Pleading, §§ 3578-3579.

a. Declaration or Complaint, § 3578.

b. Necessity for Pleading Contributory Negligence, § 3579.

D. Issues, Proof and Variance, § 3580.

E. Presumptions and Burden of Proof, § 8581.

F. Admissibility of Evidence, §§ 3582-3584.

a. In General, § 3582.

b. In Actions for Wrongful Ejection, § 3583.

c. In Actions for Loss of Property, § 3584.

G. Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence, § 3585.
H. Instructions, § 3586.

I. Questions for Court or Jury, § 3587.
XL Damages, §§ 3588-3595.

A. Nominal Damages, § 3588.

B. Punitive Damages, § 3589.

C. Compensatory Damages, §§ 3590-3594.

a. In General, § 3590.

b. Mental Suffering, § 3591.

c. Physical Suffering, § 3592.

d. Remote Damages, § 3593.

e. Damages in Contemplation of Parties, § 3594.

D. Excessiveness of Damages, § 3595.

§ 3531. Nature of Liability in General. — Palace and sleeping car com-
panies are not, properly speaking, engaged in transportation. They ofifer to those
to be transported by railway companies the comiorts and convenience of their
cars and the services of their employees. They are not common carriers, and in
no proper sense can they be held liable as such.i They have no control over the

1. Nature of liability — Not liable as Xew York. — Carpenter v. New York,

common carriers. — United States. — Lemon etc., R. Co., 10 N. Y. St. Rep. 712.
V. I'ullman Palace Car Co., 52 Fed. 262; O/n'o.— Falls River, etc., Mach. Co. v.

-Meyer v. St. Louis, elc, R. Co., 58 Am. Pullman Palace Car Co., 4 N.' P. 26, 6

& Eng. R. Cas. Ill, 54 Fed. 116, 4 C. C. O. Dec. 85.

A. 221; Blum v. Southern Pullman Palace Teinussee. — Nashville, etc., R. Co. v.

Car Co., Fed. Cas. No. 1,574, 1 Flip. 500, Lillie, 112 Tcnn. 331, 78 S. W. 1055, 105

21 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 447; Calhoun v. Am. St. Rep. 947.
Pullman Palace Car Co., 149 Fed. 546. Texas.— Diirgan v. Pullman Palace Car

.-//(;6a»ia.— Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Co., 2 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 691, 26

Adams, 120 Ala. 581, 24 So. 921, 45 L. R. Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 149; Pullman Pal-

A. 767, 74 Am. St. Rep. 53; Cooney v. ace Car Co. v. Pollock, 69 Tex. 120, 5

I'ullman Palace Car Co., 121 Ala. 368, 25 S. W. 814. 5 Am. St. Rep. 31, 34 Am. &

So. 712. 53 L. R. A. 690. Eng. R. Cas. 217; Pullman Palace Car

Oi'or^'ta.— Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. Co. v. Matthews, 74 Tex. 654, 12 S. W.

Hall, 106 Ga. 765, 32 S. I',. 923, 44 L. R. A. 74 1. 15 Am. St. Rep. K73; Stevenson v.

790, 71 Am. St. Rep. 293. rullniaii Palace Car Co. (Tex. Civ. App.).

I lliiinis. —VwWnvdn Palace Car Co. v. 26 S. \V. 112; I'.elden v. Pullman Palace

Smith, 73 111. 360, 24 Am. Rep. 25H. Car Co. (Tex. Civ. .\pi).). 13 S. W. 22.

/)/f/i /«<;. — \ V. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., The Mississippi constitution, § 195, de-

16 Ind. App. 27 L 43 N. IC. 20, 44 N. E. dares that sUei)ii)g car companies arc

1010, 3 Am. & Eng. K. Cas., N. S., 427. common carriers. Pullman Co. v. Kelly,

A'<»i/MfA-y.— Pullman Palace Car Co. v. K6 Miss. 87, 38 So. 317; Pullman Palace

Gaylord, 9 Ky. L. kei). 5h. Car Co. i: Lawrence. 74 Miss. 7H2, 22 So.

.\/ij.v(;Mrj.— Scaling v. Pullman I'.ilace 53, wherein the court said, "They seem

Car Co., 24 Mo. App. 29. to be <iuasi common carriers."

§ 3531



contract for transportation and are not responsible for the manner in which it is
performed ;- their contract being to lodge the passengers.^ And while sleeping
car companies bear a relation to the public somewhat similar to that occupied by
innkeepers, insomuch as they furnish sleeping accommodations to the traveling
public, they are not liable as innkeepers.'* But in one case it has been held that
insofar as they render service similar in kind to innkeepers, they are subject to
the same liabilities.^ The character and extent of the obligations resting upon
sleeping car companies have not yet been defined with exactness, and may in
some particulars be dependent upon the relation existing between them and the
railway company upon whose line their cars are used.*' They are public service

2. Calhoun v. Pullman Co., 159 Fed.
387, 86 C. C. A. 387, affirming 149
Fed. 546; See Nashville, etc., R. Co.
V. Lillie, 112 Tenn. 331, 78 S. W. 1055,
105 Am. St. Rep. 947; Pullman's Palace
Car Co. V. King, 99 Fed. 380, 39 C. C. A.

3. "PuUman Palace Car Co. %i. Ga-
vin, 93 Tenn. (9 Picklel 53, 23 S. W. 70,
21 L. R. A. 298, 42 Am. St. Rep. 902.

4. Not liable as innkeepers. — United
States. — Blum v. Southern Pullman Palace
Car Co., Fed. Cas. No. 1,574, 1 Flip. 500,
21 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 447.

Alabama. — Pullman Palace Car Co. v.
Adams, 120 Ala. 581, 24 So. 921, 45 L.
R. A. 767, 74 Am. St. Rep. 53.

Georgia. — Pullman's Palace Car Co. v.
Hall, 106 Ga. 765, 32 S. E. 923, 44 L. R.
A. 790, 71 Am. St. Rep. 293.

Illinois. — -Pullman Palace Car Co. v.
Smith, 73 111. 360, 24 Am. Rep. 258.

Kentucky. — Pullman Palace Car Co. v.
Gaylord, 9 Ky. L. Rep. 58.

Mississippi. — See Pullman Palace Car
Co. z: Lawrence. 74 Miss. 782, 22 So. 53.

Ohio. — Falls River, etc., Mach. Co. v.
Pullman Palace Car Co., 4 N. P. 26, 6
O. Dec. 85.

Tennessee. — Nashville, etc., R. Co. v.
Lillie, 112 Tenn. 331, 78 S. W. 1055, 105
Am. St. Rep. 947.

Texas.- — Stevenson v. Pullman Palace
Car Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 25 S. W. 112;
Dargan z'. Pullman Palace Car Co., 2
Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 091, 2'j Am. &
Eng. R. Cas. 149; Belden v. Pullman Pal-
ace Car Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 43 S. W.
22; Pullman Palace Car Co. v. I\Iatthews,
74 Tex. 654, 12 S. W. 744, 15 Am. St. Rep.
873; Stevenson r. Pullman Palace Car Co.
(Tex. Civ. App.), 32 S. \y. 335.

Innkeepers and sleeping car compa-
nies distinguished. — In Blum f. Southern
Pullman Palace Car Co., Fed. Cas. No.
1,574, 1 Flip. 500, 21 Am. & Eng. R. Cas.
447, holding that there are good reasons
for not extending the liability of an inn-
keeper to the proprietor of a sleeping
car, the court said: "First, the peculiar
construction of sleeping cars is such as
to render it almost impossible for the
company, even with the most careful
watch, to protect the occupants of berths
from being plundered by the occupants
of adjoining sections. All the berths
open upon a common aisle, and are se-

cured only by a curtain, behind which a
hand may be slipped from an adioining
or lower berth with scarcely a possibility
of detection. Second, as a compensation
for his extraordinary liability, the inn-

Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 18 of 214)