Copyright
Thomas Johnson Michie.

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

. (page 22 of 214)
Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 22 of 214)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


V. Gardner (Pa.), 16 Am. & Eng. R. Cas.
324.

Texas. — Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Pol-
lock, 34 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 217, 69 Tex.
120, 5 S. W. 814, 5 Am. St. Rep. 31; Pull-
man Palace Car Co. v. Matthews, 74 Tex.
654, 12 S. W. 744, 15 Am. St. Rep. S73.

22. Calder v. Southern R. Co., 71 S. E.
841, 89 S. C. 287.

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

24. Cooney z: Pullman Palace Car Co.,
121 Ala. 368, 25 So. 712, 53 L. R. A. 690.

25. Careful and continuous watch. —
Kentucky. — Myers v. Pullman Co., 149
Ky. 776, 149 S. W. 1002, 41 L. R. A., N.
S., 799.

XeTV York. — Carpenter v. New York,
etc., R. Co., 124 N. Y. 53, 26 N. E. 277, 21
Am. St. Rep. 644, 11 L. R. A. 759, 47 Am.
& Eng. R. Cas. 421.

Pennsylvania. — Pullman Palace Car Co.
r. Gardner (Pa.), 16 Am. & Eng. R. Cas.
324.

Tennessee. — Pullman Palace Car Co. v.
Gavin, 93 Tenn. (9 Pickle) 53, 23 S. W.
70, 21 L. R. A. 298, 42 Am. St. Rep. 902.

Where it appeared that the only em-
ployee kept on the car while it ran from
New York to Boston, making eight stops
on the way, was a man who acted as
conductor, porter, and bootblack, it was



held that defendant had not exercised
due care in protecting its passengers
while asleep. Carpenter v. New York,
etc., R. Co., 124 N. Y. 53, 26 N. E. 277,
21 Am. St. Rep. 644, 11 L. R. A. 759, 47
Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 421.

Where it appeared that the porter was
found asleep at an early hour of the
morning in a position from which no
view could be had of that part of the car
in which the passengers were asleep; and
that the porter was required to be on
duty for thirty-six hours continuously,
which included two nights, it was held
that there was evidence of negligence on
the part of the defendant proper to be
submitted to the jury. Lewis v. New
York Sleeping Car Co., 143 IMass. 267,
9 N. E. 615, 58 Am. Rep. 135, 28 Am. &
Eng. R. Cas. 148.

26. Carpenter v. New York, etc., R.
Co., 13 N. Y. St. Rep. 718.

27. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Handy, 63
Miss. 609, 56 Am. Rep. 846, citing Blum
V. Southern Pullman Palace Car Co., 1
Flip. 500, Fed. Cas. No. 1,574, 21 Am. &
Eng. R. Cas. 447, and Woodrufif Sleeping,
etc.. Coach Co. v. Diehl, 84 Ind. 474, 43
Am. Rep. 102, 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 294.

Where, in an action against a sleep-
ing car company for the value of goods
stolen from an occupant of a car, it ap-
peared that two sleeping cars in the
train were under the charge of one con-
ductor, that he left the train in the
nighttime, so that for a distance of 84
miles there was no conductor in charge
of the cars, and that thereafter one con-



3219 PALACE CARS AND SLEEPING CAR COMPANIES. §§ 3560-3564

Duty to Provide Sufficient Competent Employees. — A sleeping car com-
pany is bound to exercise due diligence to employ honest and sufficient porters
and is bound to give them such hours that they will be able to sit up at night a
proper length of time and watch the aisle, while passengers are asleep.-^ It is
held that one competent and faithful watcher at a time is enough for each car.^^

§ 3561. While Passengers Are in Toilet Room. — There is generally in
sleeping cars a toilet room, which the company invites the passenger to use when
he rises in the morning. When the invitation of the company is accepted, the duty
to guard his personal effects left in his berth, while he is absent therefrom, is
founded upon a similar reason to that which requires a guard to be maintained
while he is asleep during the night. He can not guard his effects himself while
he is asleep ; neither can he guard his effects in his berth during the morning
when he is necessarily absent therefrom for the purpose of making his toilet in a
place set apart by the company for that purpose. ^'^ The company is bound to ex-
ercise such reasonable care in guarding the traveler's baggage in the case of his
temporary absence from the berth as is customary in such cases. If a certain
guard is customary, the traveler has a right to rely on the custom, and the omis-
sion of a customary guard would constitute negligence. ^^

§ 3562. Passenger Sleeping in Smoker. — Though a sleeping car company
is under no obligation to permit a passenger to occupy a bed in the smoking com-
partment of the car, yet where the servant in charge of the car permits the pas-
senger to do so the company assumes to the latter the same duties as if he oc-
cupied a regular berth, in the absence of any collusion between the servant and
the passenger to defraud the company of its fare. The passenger in such case
does not assume any risk as to the safety of his personal belongings different
from that of passengers occupying regular berths. ^^

§ 3563. Duty to Anticipate Presence of Thief. — Where a passenger was
robbed while boarding the car, a duty rested upon the sleeping car company to
use the means at its command to have prevented the theft only in so far as it
could reasonably have anticipated the presence of the thieves when and where the
passenger was robbed. And it is not negligence for the porter or conductor to
fail to recognize thieves as such, and give notice of their presence to the pas-
sengers, in the absence of knowledge of their presence, although they knew of
similar recent thefts. ^^

§ 3564. Duty of Ticket Agent to Remove Thief. — A ticket seller having
no control over the depot or vicinity is under no duty to remove thieves therefrom
or give warning of their presence, and, even though he be negligent, a sleeping

duclor had charge of four cars, and that Y. 53, 26 N. E. 277, 21 Am. St. Rep. 644,

the porters had duties to perform which 11 L. R. A. 759, 47 Am. & Eng. R. Cas.

were inconsistent with keeping watch 421.

over the occupants of the car, the par- 29. Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Gaylord,

ticular porter having charge of plaintiff's Ky. L. Rep. 5S.

car being absent from the car for part 30. Duty to guard property while pas-

of the night, a findirg that the company sengers in toilet room.— Pullman Co. v.

had not exercised reasonable care m the r,rc-(.n 1"S Ca 14'^ 57 S E "3.3 10 Am

prevention of thefts was justified. Wood- & ].;„„ Xnn. Cas. "893; Root r.^'New York

ruff Slcepmg etc. Coach Co. r. DichK 84 Cent., etc., Co., 28 Mo. App. 199.

Ind. 474. 43 Am. Rep. 102, 9 Am. ^ Kng. ,1 rr i^- -n 1 n r-

R. Cas "')! "^31. Efrnn v. \\ agnor Palace Car Co.,

28. Duty to provide sufficient compe- ''■' ^^"^^ ^''I'" ''^^•

tent employeep.— I'alls River, etc., Mach. 32. Duty to passengers sleeping in

C . r. I'.illiiian Palace Car Co., 6 O. Dec. smoker. Morrow 7'. PuMnian Palace Car

85, 4 .\. P. -6. See Pullman Palace Car Co.. '.ts M,,. App. 3:. I, 73 S. \V. 2Si.

Co. V. Adams, 24 So. 921, 120 .Ma. 581, 33. Duty to anticipate presence of thief.

45 L. R. A. 7G7, 74 Am. vSt. Rep. 53; Car- —Myers v. i'lilliiian Co.. HO S. W. 1002,

pentcr v. New York, etc., R. Co., 124 N. 149 Ky. 770, 11 [,. R. A., N. S., 799.

4 Car— 8



§§ 3564-3567 carriers. 3220

car company, whose agent he is for selling tickets, is not liable on account thereof
for a theft from one of its patrons. ^^

§ 3565. Property Left in Car. — A sleeping car company's liability can not
be said to end until after the passenger has safely reached his destination with all
his effects.2^ Proper diligence on the part of the company towards one of its pa-
trons involves the exercise of ordinary care in looking out for and taking care of
such property as may by him be casually left in the car upon his leaving it, and
the restitution of the property to the owner, when ascertained ; and where such
property is actually found by servants of the company, or is left or dropped in
such place and under such circumstances as that, by the exercise of ordinary care,
it ought to have been found by them, the company will be liable for its value. ^^
But it is held that if a passenger negligently leave his pocketbook in the car when
he reaches his destination, and its contents are abstracted by persons other than
the servants of the company there would be no liability on the part of the com-
pany. When a passenger leaves the train at his destination the company may
reasonably think that he has taken with him all those things which one is ac-
customed to carry about his person, and until it is shown that the property is
discovered by its agents to have been left behind, the company can not be charged
with any duty concerning it.^^

§ 3566. Thefts by Fellow Passengers. — A passenger upon a sleeping car
assumes the risk of such loss from fellow travelers as can not be prevented by
the exercise of ordinary and reasonable care on the part of the company, and the
company can only be made responsible by showing its neglect to exercise that de-
gree of care.^^ But the company is liable for property stolen from a passenger
while asleep, in the night time, though by a fellow passenger, where it does not
keep a continuous and active watch to secure the safety of the property.^^

§ 3 567 Thefts by Employees. — A sleeping car company is liable for the
theft of the necessary property of its passengers, by those in the employment of
the company,'*'^ even though the passengers be negligent.'*^ But the company is
liable only for a passenger's baggage, and for such reasonable sum of money as
may be necessary for the purposes of his journey, though the property was stolen
by one of the company's servants.^ ^ Thus the company is liable for the theft of

34. Duty of ticket agent to remove S. E. 700, 702, 29 L. R. A. 498; Pullman
thief.— flyers v. Pullman Co., 149 S. W. Palace Car Co. v. Gavin, 93 Tenn. (9
1002, 149 Ky. 776, 41 L. R. A., N. S.. 799. Pickle) 53, 23 S. W. 70, 42 Am. St. Rep.

35. Termination of liability.— Voss z'. 902, 21 L. R. A. 298.

Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 16 Ind. App. 271, 41. Effect of contributory negligence.

43 N. E. 20, 44 N. E. 1010, 3 Am. & Eng. — See post, 'AMiere Property Stolen by

R. Cas., X. S., 427. Employees," § 3573.

36. Property left in car by passenger. 42. Nature and amount of property. —
— Kates V. Pullman's Palace Car Co., 95 Root v. New York Cent., etc., Co., 28
Ga'. 810, 23 S. E. 186, 2 Am. & Eng. R. Mo. App. 199.

Cas., N. S., 480. "Tlie extent to which liability has been

37. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Handy, 63 fixed in cases of this sort has not been
Miss. 609, 56 Am. Rep. 846. held to include anything except the

38. Theft by fellow passengers. — Pull- clothing, ornaments and such articles as
man's Palace Car Co. z: Harvey, 101 Ga. are usually carried by travelers in their
733, 28 S. E. 989: Illinois Cent. R. Co. hands, together with a sum of money
V. Handy, 63 Miss. 609, 56 Am. Rep. 846. reasonably sufficient for the expenses of

39. Failure to keep watch. — Pullman the journey in which one is engaged."
Palace Car Co. v. Adains, 120 Ala. 581, Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Handy, 63 Miss.
24 So. 921, 45 L. R. A. 767, 74 Am. St. 609. 56 Am. Rep. 846.

Rep. 53; Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Ga- Where the porter of a sleeping car

vin, 93 Tenn. (9 Pickle) 53, 23 S. W. 70, stole from a passenger $35 m money the

21 L. R. A. 298, 42 Am. St. Rep. 902. company was held liable. Pullman's Pal-

40. Theft by employees.— Pullman Pal- ace Car Co. v. :\tartin, 95 Ga. 314, 22 S.
ace Car Co. r. Matthews. 74 Tex. 654, 12 E. 700, 29 L. R. A. 498. _ _

S. W. 744, 15 Am. St. Rep. 873; Pullman's Money to pay debts due at destmation.

Palace Car Co. v. Martin, 95 Ga. 314, 22 —If the employee of a sleeping car com-



3221



PALACE CARS AND SLEEPING CAR COMPAXIES.



§§ 3567-3568



its porter of jewelry carried for personal adornment."*-' but not for jewelry not
carried for such purpose. ■*"*

§ 3 568. Nature and Amount of Property as Affecting Liability.— As

to the nature of the property, for the loss of which, through its negligence, a
sleeping car company may be held liable, it is held, quite generally, that it must
be property which such passenger might reasonably or properly carry with him,-*^
taking into consideration his condition in life and the surrounding circum-
stances.-**' Its liability extends to such articles of baggage as would be considered
baggage in an action against an ordinary carrier of passengers.-*' The rule as to
the company's liability applies where the property is stolen by its employees.-*^
The fact that the baggage lost by a sleeping car passenger consisted of articles
not intended to be used on the train, but only in case he stopped over at a certain
point, does not prevent the passenger from recovering for their loss.-*''

Amount of Money. — A sleeping car company is liable for no greater sum of
money lost by a passenger through its negligence than such as is necessary to de-
fray the expenses of the trip, taking into consideration his station in life, the
length, duration, and purposes of the journey, and the probable emergencies that
may be expected to arise on the route; •^" and it is not liable if a sum of money car-
ried for another purpose is stolen from him through the negligence of its servants,
provided no special circumstances exist which impose on it a peculiar duty -with



pany steals money from a passenger, the
company is liable onlj^ for an amount
necessary for the reasonable ex])enses of
the passenger's journe}'; not for a sum
■which he carried to pay debts diie in the
city to which he was going. Illinois
Cent. R. Co. v. Handy, 63 Miss. 609, 56
Am. Rep. 846.

43. Jewelry constituting baggage. —
Pullman's Palace Car Co. ?'. Martin, 95
Ga. 314, 22 S. E. 700, 29 L. R. A. 498;
Pullman Co. z: Vanderhoeven, 48 Tex.
Civ. App. 414, 107 S. W. 147.

Where the porter of a sleeping car
stole from a passenger therein $700 worth
of jewelry used for the personal adorn-
ment of the passenger, the company was
liable. Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. Mar-
tin. 95 Ga. 314. 22 S. E. 700. 29 L. R. A.
498.

44. Jewelry not constituting baggage.
— Bacon .-. Pullman Co., 159 Fed. 1.

45. Nature and amount of property as
affecting liability. — United States. — Blum
V. Southern Pullman Palace Car Co., 1
Flip. .500, Fed. Cas. Xo. 1,574, 21 Am. &
Enj^. R. Cas. 447.

Georgia. — Pullman Co. v. Green, 128
Ga. 142, 57 S. E. 2;J3, lO Am. & Eng. .\nn.
Cas. 893; Kates v. Pullman's Palace
Car Co., 95 Ga. 810, 23 S. E. 186, 2 .Am.
& Eng. R. Cas.. N. S.. 480.

Kcntuckw — Myers v. Pullman Co., 149
Ky. 776, 149 S. W. 1002, 41 L. R. A. .\'.
S., 799; Ptilhnan Palace Car Co. v. Gav-
lord. 9 Ky. E. Rep. 58.

Massachusetts. — Lewis v. New York
Sleeping Car Co.. 143 Mass. 267, 9 N. E.
615. 58 Am. Rep. 135. 28 Am. Si Eng. K.
Cas. 148.

Missouri. — Hampton v. Pullman Palace
Car Co., 42 Mo. App. 134.



Pennsylvania. — Pfaelzer v. Pullman Pal-
ace Car Co. (Pa.), 4 Wkly. Notes Cas.
240.

South Carolina. — Godfrey v. Pullman
Co., 87 S. C. 361, 69 S. E. 666.

Texas. — Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Pol-
lock, 69 Tex. 120, 5 S. W. 814, 5 Am. St.
Rep. 31, 34 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 217.

46. Myers v. Pullman Co., 149 Ky. 776,
149 S. W. 1002, 41 L. R. A., N. S., 799.
See Hampton v. Pullman Palace Car Co.,
42 Mo. App. 134.

47. Hampton v. Pullman Palace Car
Co., 42 Mo. App. 134. See, generally,
ante, "What Constitutes Baggage," §§
3429-3445.

48. Theft by employees. — See ante,
"Thefts by Employees," § 3567.

49. Hampton v. Pullman Palace Car
Co., 42 Mo. App. 134.

50. Amount of money. — United States.
— P.arrott r. Pullman's Palace Car Co.,
51 l-'cd. 796; Blum v. Southern Pullman
Palace Car Co., 1 Flip. 500. Fed. Cas. No.
1,574, 21 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 447.

Georgia. — Kates v. Pullman's Car Co..
95 Ga. 810, 23 S. E. 1S6, 2 .\m. & F.ng.
R. Cas., N. S.. 480.

Iowa. — Hillis v. Chicago, etc., U. Co.,
72 Iowa 228, 33 N. W. 643, 31 Am. it
I'.ng. R. Cas. 108.

Kentucky. — rullman Palace Car Co. ?'.
Gaylord, 9 Ky. I.. Rep. 58.

Mississitl'i. — Illinois Cent. R. Co. :■.
dandy, 63 .Miss. 600, 56 Am. Re]). 846.

Missouri. — Wilson v. Baltimore, etc., R.
Co., 32 Mo. App. 682; Root v. New York
Cent., etc., Co., 28 .Mo. Ai^p. 199.

Neiv York. — Williams 7'. Webb. 58 N. Y.
S. 300. 27 .Misc. Rep. 508, m(ulifying 49
.\. V. S. nil, 22 Misc. Rep. 5 13.



§ 3568 CARRiF^Rs. 3222

reference to such money.'^^ This rule applies to money stolen by the employees
of the company.^ 2 The fact that a passenger had a sum of money which he ex-
pected would be sufficient for the exigencies of the journey, in a separate purse
from money that was stolen, does not conclusively show that he is not entitled to
recover any part of the stolen money. ^^

Jewelry. — The personal effects which a passenger may carry on his journey
so as to render a sleeping car company liable for their loss through its negligence
may include jewelry.^^ So a sleeping car company* is liable to a passenger for
the loss of rings stolen from her fingers while she slept, where reasonable care
was not used to prevent thefts. '^^ If the jewelry was not actually being worn at
the time of the theft, but was being carried by the passenger for the purpose of
being worn during the journey, the company is liable as if the jewelry was ac-
tually being worn.^'''^ But a sleeping car company owes no duty with respect to
valuable jewelry carried by a passenger in a hand bag for transportation merely,
without any intention or purpose of using it during the journey.'^'^ The law
places no limit upon the amount of jewelry that may be properly carried. This
must be determined by the passenger's station in life, inclination and resources. ^^
It has been held that a sleeping car company is not liable for negligently permitting
a theft of a valuable diamond ring in the pocketbook of a sleeping passenger, who
had refrained from wearing the ring because the setting had become loose, it be-
ing at the time no part of his personal attire. ^^ But it has also been held that if
a piece of jewelry becomes injured or broken during the journey so that the pas-
senger can not use it in the usual way, the company will not be relieved of its
duty to exercise reasonable diligence to protect the passenger in its possession.*'^

Mileage Tickets. — It has been held, that a passenger on a Pullman car, who
is a general traveling agent for a commercial house, can recover for loss, through
the carrier's negligence, of mileage tickets carried by him in his satchel ; such tick-
ets being usually carried l)y those doing much traveling.^i

Pistol. — It has been held that a pistol is not such an article as is usually and
properly carried by a traveling man, and that the Pullman company is not liable
for its theft through its negligence, though it was being carried in his satchel. ^^

A watch is properly considered baggage for which the sleeping car company
will be liable in case of loss through its negligence. ^^

Miscellaneous Articles. — Opera glasses, a brass compass, a razor and strap
and accoutrements, and a nasal syringe, with accompaniments, being such articles
as add and contribute to the comfort, pleasure, and enjoyment of the traveler, to-
gether with the satchel which contained them, constitute baggage for which the
sleeping car company will be liable in case of loss by its negligence.*''*

51. Barrott v. Pullman's Palace Car Vanderhoeven, 48 Tex. Civ. App. 414, 107
Co.. .51 Fed. 796; HilHs v. Chicago, etc., S. W. 147.

R. Co.. 72 Iowa 228, 33 N. W. 643, 31 Am. 59. Jewelry not worn because injured.

& Eng. R. Cas. 108. —Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Adams, 120

52. See ante, "Thefts by Employees," Ala. 581, 24 So. 921, 45 L. R. A. 767, 74
§ 3567. Am. St. Rep. 53.

53. Williams v. Webb, 58 N. Y. S. 300, 60. Jewelry injured during journey. —
27 Misc. Rep. 508. Pullman Co. v. Schaffner, 126 Ga. 609, 55

54. Liability for loss of jewelry.— Ba- S. E. 933, 9 L. R. A., N. S., 407.

con V. Pullman Co., 159 Fed. 1; Pullman ei. MUeage tickets.— Cooney v. Pull-
Co. v. Schaffner, 126 Ga. 609, 55 S. E. man Palace Car Co., 121 Ala. 368, 25 So.
933, 9 L. R. A., N. S. 407. 712, 53 L. R. A. 690.

55. Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Hunter, en -o- .. ^ n r) n -o \

-1 c \Ar Q.- ^r, T D A ooe ^ ni V 62. Pistol. — Cooncy V. Pullman Palace

o4 S. \\. 84.), 47 L. R. A. 286, 107 Ky. ^ p ., i^ o 710 ro t

519, 21 Ky. L. Rep. 1248. PA Ron

56. Bacon v. Pullman Co., 159 Fed. 1. ^^- ^- ''^"•

57. Jewelry not carried for use.— Ba- ^8. Watch.— Pullman Palace Car Co.
con V. Pullman Co.. 159 Fed. 1. See ^- Gaylord, 9 Ky. L. Rep. 58.
Pfaelzer 7'. Pullman Palace Car Co. (Pa.), 64. Opera glasses, etc. — Cooney v.
4 Wkly. Notes Cas. 240. Pullman Palace Car Co., 121 Ala. 368, 25

58. Value of jewelry. — Pullman Co. v. So. 712, 53 L. R. :\. 690.



"^^-^ PALACK CARS AND SLEEPING CAR COMPANIES. §§ 3569-3571

§ 3569. Custody of Property as Affecting- Liability.— The baggage of a
passenger in a sleeping car is not in tiie custody of the company so as to create
the ordinary Hability of common carriers of merchandise-^^ The custody of his
baggage is, saying the most that can be said in his favor, a mixed custody, partly
his custody and partly that of the sleeping car company .'''^

Baggage Placed in Vacant Berth.— It has been held that a sleeping car
company is not liable for the loss of a passenger's wearing apparel placed by him
in a vacant berth over that which he occupied, as it was not in the possession of
the company.'^"

Baggage Left in Car Over Night.— Evidence that a sleeping car passenger
on leavmg the car for the night on account of a long delay was assured by the con-
. ductor that it would be safe to leave his baggage in the car and that when he ap-
plied for it the next morning it was not returned to him nor its loss explained
makes out a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the company.«8

Baggag:e Entrusted to Porter.— Where the porter of a sleeping car, in pur-
suance of his duties and custom, takes charge of a passenger's baggage, for the
purpose of removing it from the car at the passenger's destination, the porter is
not to be regarded as a mere gratuitous bailee, and the company becomes liable
therefor if such baggage is lost or stolen through the negligence of its employ-
ees.69 In one case it has been held that a sleeping car company is liable as an
mnkeeper for an article of wearing apparel belonging to a passenger which has
been placed in the care of the porter.'^^

§ 3570. Limitation of Liability.— The duty of a sleeping car company to
protect Its passengers from thieves can not be evaded by words printed upon the
passenger's ticket, or notices posted in the car,'i especially where it appears that
the passenger did not see or know of such notices.^ 2 And it will not be presumed
that the laws of any foreign state permit a sleeping car company to contract
against its own negligence.'^

§§ 3571-3573. Contributory Negligence— § 3571. In General.— A

passenger on a sleeping car can not recover from the company for the loss of
his property, where the loss was partly due to his negligence,^^ g^ye in the case

65. Custody of baggage.-Dawley v. the porter followed her, with her bag-
)YT'p fnof r^' ^°" ^«9 Mass 315, gage, into the station. It was then dis-
4< i\ L 1024; Carpenter v. New York, covered that the coat had disaDoeared

A »\ ■ '4^' ^^ ^'"- ^*- ^^P- '^'**' ^^ ^°""^- ^ lie car had been left in charge

«fl % 7- M^^v^^/V r^ °/ ^^'^ conductor. Held, that the facts

2H <An aL^'^^o^^ ^^".;" ^^^■' S°/' ''•"''; ^0"cJ"«ively negligence on the part

-8 Mo. App. 199; Efron v. Wagner Pal- ot the employees, for which the com-

acc Car Co. .9 Mo. App. 641; Morrow v. pany was liable. Voss v. Wagner Pal-

r""'"^\ ^>A^" ^^' ^°- ^^ M°- ^PP- ^'^e Car Co., 44 N. E. 1010, IG Ind. App

i? R^ !• ^ • u u "^^' ^ffi>-"^i"g 43 N. E. 20, 3 Am. & Eng.

«7. Baggage placed in vacant berth.— R. Cas., N S 427

V^''^ 'a,!'"'!'"''" l>''\?' ^^"^ ?°- ^N- ''0- Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Lowe,

\.), 10 Abb^ rac, K b., 352. But see ;.8 Neb. 239, 44 N. W. 226, 6 L. R. A

Florida V. Pullman Palace Car Co., 37 ^09, 26 Am. St. Rep. 325, 40 Am & Entr

Mo. App. 598. R. Cas. 637. • ^ t-

68 Baggage left in car over night.— 71. Limitation of liability.— Stevenson

Cro r. J ullman C,., 113 N. Y. S. 542. v. Pullman Palace Car Co (Tex Ov

61 Misc^ Rep. 205. Ap,,.), gG S. W. 112.

69. Baggage entrusted to porter. - 72. Lewis v. New York Sleeping Car

Voss V. Cleveland etc.. R. Co., 10 Ind. Co., 143 Mass. 267, 9 N. E. 615 58 Am

Am & l..ng. R. Cas., N. S., 427. 73. Presumption as to foreign law.-



Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 22 of 214)