Copyright
Thomas Johnson Michie.

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

. (page 3 of 214)
Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 3 of 214)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


rive in time. It was held that, in order to
recover, it was necessary for the passen-
ger to show she informed defendant's
servants of the contents of the trunks.

60. Sack and muff, etc., in trunk oi man.
— Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Boyce, 73 111.
510, 24 An-i. Rep. 268.

61. Effects of immigrants. — Clothing
and household goods. — In Parmelee v.
Fischer, 22 111. 212, 74 Am. Dec. 138, the
jury found that a passenger, traveling
with his family, was entitled to have
transported as baggage two feather beds
and pillows, two blankets, six towels, a
table cover, considerable clothing, one
looking glass, one set of dishes, two
dozen German-Silver spoons, one sewing
box, and a double-barrelled gun, worth, al-
together, about one hundred and fifty
dollars, and the judgment was sustained
on appeal.

In Glovinsky v. Cunard Steamship Co.,
4 Misc. Rep. 266, 24 N. Y. S. 136, it is
held a woman and her two^ children,
traveling as emigrants from Europe to
the United States, were entitled to carry
with them as baggage clotlnng and bed-
ding, valued at two hundred and eighty-
five dollars; and a provision in their
ticket purporting to limit the carrier's li-
ability for loss of baggage to fifty dollars
was held invalid.

And in House v. Chicago, etc., R. Co.,
30 S. Dak. 321, 138 N. W. 809, it is held
that where passengers making a perma-
nent change of abode, take with them, in
their trunks household articles such as



dishes, cutlery, etc., such articles are
"baggage," if it is customary to take
them under such circumstances.

Carpenter's tools. — In Porter v. Hilde-
brand, 14 Pa. 129, it appeared that the
plaintifl^ was a carpenter, and that liis
trunk contained $45 worth of clothing
and $55 worth of carpanter's tools. He
was moving from Pennsylvania to the
state of Ohio, and he delivered his trunk
to the owners of a stage to carry it from
Pittsburg to VVooster, Ohio; and it is
said in the opinion: ''The right to carry
tools as baggage is unquestionably open
to abuse, but in the language of the court
in McGill i: Rowland, 3 Pa. 451, 45 Am.
Dec. 654, the correction is to be found
in the intelligence and integrity of the
jury called to determine under the cir-
cumstances of each case. It is, it is said,
a common thing for journeyman rne-
chanics to carry in their trunks with
clothing a small and select portion of
their tools. To this practice I see no
such objection as ought to put this kind
of property out of the protection afforded
to the necessaries a traveler is compelled
by legitimate considerations to transport
with his person. Upon this score, the
judgment rendered below is, I think, un-
objectionable."

Rifle carried in trunk. — In Davis v.
Cayuga, etc., R. Co. (N. Y.), 10 How.
Prac. 330, it is held that a riHle, valued
at $35, in the trunk of a harness maker,
who was moving to another town, was
included in the term baggage and its
value recoverable against the railroad
company, the trunk and its contents be-
ing lost while being transpoited on the
railroad as his personal baggage.

Emigrant from Germany to New York
— Two sv/ords — $800 in gold. — In ^lerrill
r. Grinnell, 30 N. V. 594, the owner of
the trunk, for whose loss, with its con-
tents, the action was brought, was al-
lov.ed to recover for many articles of
clothing, besides money, th?t the passen-
ger did not need to use by the way. He
was an emigrant from Germany to New
York, and purchased his ticket at Ham-
burg for the transportation of himself
and baggage to New York via Hull and
Liverpool, such baggage being a leather
trunk, and its contents, consisting of a
large amount of wearing apparel, among



3119



PASSENGERS EFFECTS.



§§ 3430-3431



cases more stringent rules have been applied/'- \\4iere a steerage passenger on
a vessel is bound to provide her own bedding for the voyage, such bedding con-
stitutes a part of her ordinary baggage.*'^ In the case of an immigrant, who car-
ries with him trunks and ordinary baggage, and who also turns over to the car-
rier a number of boxes of goods for transportation, and pays freight for the
weight in excess of his allowance as baggage, and the general character of the
shipment is known to the carrier, the courts will not conclusively presume that
the entire shipment is of baggage and hold there can be no recovery except for
such articles contained in the boxes as may properly be designated as necessary
baggage."'^

§§ 3431-3432. Property of Others— § 3431. In General.— A common
carrier is liable as such only for what the passenger takes with him for his own
persona] use and convenience, and not for the property of others which the pas-
senger has placed in his trunk or othenvise included with his personal baggage. <^^



which were six dozen shirts, two swords,
valued at sixty-eight dollars, $800 in gold,
and other articles, valued in all at
$1,991.27. The court allowed plaintiff to
recover for all these articles. The chief
controversy related to the money. It is
quite apparent that of these materials of
wearing apparel, A'ery few, and of the
money very little, if any, were requisite
for the use of the passenger while on the
journey. His ticket was paid for before
he started, and it did not appear that he
sought or had occasion to open or to
take anything from his trunk before his
arrival in New York, where, upon de-
mand for it, it was found to have been
stolen or lest.

62, Household goods. — A married
woman passenger is not entitled to re-
cover for the loss of articles constitut-
ing household goods which she was car-
rying in her trunk, though she and her
husband were changing their residence
by removal from one state to another,
where the carrier had no notice of the
fact that such goods were being trans-
ported as baggage. Yazoo, etc., R. Co.
V. Baldwin, 11.3 Tenn. 20=5, 81 S. W. 590,
12 R. R. R. 856, 35 Am. & Eng. R. Cas.,
N. S.. 856.

Bedding. — Proprietors of an ocean
steamship are not liable, under the'r or-
dinary contract as common carriers to
transport a passenger and her baggage,
for the loss of a feather bed, carried by
the passenger, but not intended fur use
or; the voyage. Coimolly z'. Warren, 106
Mass. 146, 8 Am. Rep. :iO0.

And it has been held that six pair of
sheets and an equal niunber of blankets
and quilts were not to be deemed the per-
sonal baggage of a passenger traveling
from Canada to London, where he ex-
pected to provide himself a home. Mac-
row V. Great Western R. Co. CHng.\ L.
R., 6 Q. P.. 612, 40 L. J. Q. R. :500, 24
L. T. 61", 19 W. R. 8. :5 Ry. & C. T. Cas.
xix.

Artist's and tailor's utensils. -In Mau-
ritz V. New York, etc.. R. Co., 2:i I"e(l.
765, 21 Am. & Kng. R. Cas. 286, it is held



that a carrier can not be held liable, as
an insurer, lor the loss of artist's and
tailor's utensils packed with the baggage
of an emigrant.

63. Steerage passenger required to fur-
nish own bedding. — Hirschsohn v. Ham-
liurgh American Packet Co., 37 N. Y.
Super. Ct. .jL'I.

64. Payment for excess weight. — Ham-
burgh-American Packet Co. v. Gattman,
127 111. .VJS, 20 X. E. 662.

65. Property of others. — Arkansas. —
Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Whitten, 90 Ark.
462, 110 S. W. 835, 32 R. R. R. 152, 55
Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 152, 21 Am.
& Eng. Ann. Cas. 726; Kansas, etc., R.
Co. V. Skinner, 88 Ark. 189, 113 S. W.
1019, 31 R. R. R. 423, 54 Am. & Eng. R.
Cas., N. S., 423, 21 L. R. A., N. S., 850.

California. — Metz v. California, etc., R.
Co., 85 Cal. 329, 24 Pac. 610, 9 L. R. A.
431, 20 Am. St. Rep. 228.

Georgia. — ^Dibble v. Brown, 12 Ga. 217,
56 Am. Dec. 460.

Illiiwis. — Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Mar-
cus, 38 111. 219; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v.
Boyce, 73 111. 510, 24 .Am. Rep. 268.

Koitiicky. — ■ Illinois Cent. R. Co. v.
Matthews," 114 Ky. 973, 72 S. W. 302, 6
R. R. R. 769, 29 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N.
S., 769, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 1766, 60 L. R. A.
846, 102 Am. St. Rep. 316.

.Maryland. — Pettigrew 7'. Barnum, 11
Md. 434, 69 .Am. Dec. 212.

.Massachusetts. — Dunlap i'. IiUernational
Steaml)oat Co., 98 Mass. 371.

.Mississippi. — Yazoo, etc., R. Co. z'.
Georgia Home Ins. Co., 85 Miss. 7, 37
So. 500. 15 R. R. R. 766, 38 .Am. c1- Eng.
R. Cas.. X. S., 766. 67 L. R. .\. 646, 107
-Am. St. Rep. 265; Mississippi Cciu. R.
Co. r. Kennedy, 41 Miss. 671.

.Wtc Jersew — Pennsylvania R. Co. v.
Knight, 58 X. J. L. 287, 33 .Atl. 845.

.\ ezv York. — Dexter v. Syracuse, etc.,
R. C«\, 42 X. Y. 326. 1 ;\m. Rep. 527;
ilurwitz 7'. I lamburgh-.American Packet
Co.. 56 N. Y. S. 379, 27 Misc. Rep. 814;
Giirney v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 59 Hun
625. 14 X. \. S. 321, 37 N. Y. Super. Ct.
155; Weed v. Saratoga, etc., R. Co., 19



}§ 3431-3432



CARRIERS.



3120



Thus, it has been held tluit a raih-oad passenger's baggage does not include ar-
ticles which he has purchased for a person not a member of his family and has
packed with his own baggage.^** A man traveling alone, carrying a lady's jew-
elry in his trunk, can not recover from the carrier for its loss during the passage,
if there was no special contract with the carrier relating thereto."'^

Property of Passenger's Firm. — It has been held that a carrier is not lia-
ble to a hrm for injuries done to an article belonging to the firm, but carried by
the carrier as the personal baggage of a passenger, although the passenger was
a member of the firm.^s

Money of Others. — A common carrier can not be held responsible as a carrier
of baggage for the loss of money of another passenger, or of a stranger to the
carrier, carried in a passenger's trunk, or on his person, without the carrier's
knowledge and consent.^'-*

§ 3432. Property of Members of Family. — Property of Members of
Family Traveling Together. — It seems to be generally held that when the
members of the same family are traveling together, the baggage of one member
may be placed in the trunk or other receptacle for baggage of another, without
affecting the right to recover against the carrier for its loss or injury.*^^ So a



Wend. 534; Cattaraugus Cutlery Co. v.
Buffalo, etc., R. Co., 24 App. Div. 267, 48
N. Y. S. 451; Curtis v. Delaware, etc., R.
Co., 74 N. Y. 116, 30 Am. Rep. 271.

Ohio. — First Nat. Bank v. Marietta,
etc., R. Co., 20 O. St. 259, 5 Am. Rep. 655.

Pennsylvania. — Bullard v. Delaware,
etc., R. Co., 21 Pa. Super. Ct. 583; Jacobs
V. Cenlral R. Co., 19 Pa. Super. Ct. 13.

Texas.— hnAvfws v. Fort Worth, etc.,
R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 25 S. W. 1040.

England. — Becker v. Great Eastern R.
Co., L. R., 5 Q. B. 24.

66. Articles purchased for another. —
Dexter v. Syracuse, etc., R. Co., 42 N.
Y. 326, 1 Am. Rep. 527.

67. Man carrying lady's jewelry. —
Metz V. California, etc., R. Co.,^ 85 Cal.
329, 24 Pac. 610, 9 L. R. A. 431, 20 V\m. St.
Rep. 228.

68. Property of passenger's firm. —
Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Knight, 58 N. J.
L. 287, 33 Atl. 845.

69. Money of others. — United States. —
Halhiian v. Holladay, 1 Woolw. 365.

Massachusetts. — Dunlap n International
Steamboat Co., 98 Mass. 371. .

Nezv York. — Gurney v. Grand Trunk
R. Co., 59 Hun 625, 14 N. Y. S. 321, 37 N.
Y. Super. Ct. 155.

Ohio. — First Nat. Bank v. Marietta, etc.,
R. Co., 20 O. St. 259, 5 Am. Rep. 655.

Texas. — Andrews v. Fort Worth, etc.,
R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 25 S. W. 1040.

Money of one passenger in valise of
another — Fraud on carrier. — In Dunlap
V. International Steamboat Co., 98 Mass.
371, holding that a carrier is not liable
for the loss of money of one passenger
contained in a valise which another pas-
senger, with the knowledge of the first,
delivered as his own luggage, and the
carrier received as such, it is said in the
opinion: "It was in effect a concealment
of its real value to put into the valise a
larger amount of money than was suffi-



cient for the expenses of a single passen-
ger. This enhanced the risk assumed by
tlie defendants, without their knowledge.
It exposed them to the hazard of incur-
ring, by the loss of the luggage of one
passenger, a heavier liability than they
had ever agreed to assume. It is obvious
that this was a practical fraud on the
defendants."

70. Property of members of family
traveling together. — Maryland. — Balti-
more Steam Packet Co. v. Smith, 23 Md.
402, 87 Am. Dec. 575.

Michigan. — Withey v. Pere Marquette
R. Co., 141 Mich. 412, 104 N. W. 773, 21
R. R. R. 740, 44 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N.
S., 740, 1 L. R. A., N. S., 352, 113 Am. St.
Rep. 533.

New York. — Curtis v. Delaware, etc., R.
Co., 74 N. Y. 116, 30 Am. Rep. 271; Dex-
ter V. Syracuse, etc., R. Co., 42 N. Y. 326.
1 Am. Rep. 527.

North Carolina. — Brick v. Atlantic, etc.,
R. Co., 145 N. C. 203, 58 S. E. 1073, 26 R.
R. R. 629. 49 Am. & Eng. R. Cas.. N. S.,
629, 13 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 328.

Tennessee. — Yazoo, etc., R. Co. v. Bald-
win, 113 Tenn. 205, 81 S. W. 599, 12 R. R.
R. 856, 35 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 856.

Checked as baggage of one member

Brick V. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 145 N. C.
203, 58 S. E. 1073, 26 R. R. R. 629, 49 Am.
& Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 629, 13 Am. & Eng.
Ann. Cas. 328, it is held that though the
carriage of the personal baggage of a
passenger is incident to the ticket pur-
chased, and is personal to the user of the
ticket, where several members of a family
are traveling together, articles belonging
to them may be checked as the baggage
of one.

Husband's underwear in wife's trunk. —
In Yazoo, etc., R. Co. v. Baldwin, 113
Tenn. 20.5, 81 S. W. 599, 12 R. R. R. 856,
35 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 856, it is
held that a married woman is entitled to



3121



passenge;rs effects.



;§ 3432-3433



father paying full fare for himself, traveling with a child of such tender years
that by custom no fare is demanded for its carriage, may recover upon the con-
tract of carriage for loss or injury of any articles bought and used for the child,
which articles are part of the father's baggage.'^ ^ And it has been held that the
fact that a lost trunk contained clothing prepared for plaintiff's daughter, nine-
teen years of age did not divest him of the right to recover its value in an ac-
tion against the carrier for the loss of his personal baggage while he and his
daughter were being transported by defendant as passengers. ''-

Property of Members of Family Not Traveling with Passenger. — It
has been held that the carrier is not liable, as for baggage, for articles which a
passenger has placed in his trunk for the purpose of carrying home for members
of his family who are not traveling with him.''^

§§ 3433-3444. Particular Kinds of Property— § 3433. Commercial
Travelers' Samples. — Drummers, under ordinary circumstances, are not en-
titled to have the samples used by them in making sales carried as baggage.'^*



recover for the loss of a small amount of
her husband's underwear, which was be-
ing carried in her trunk as a part of her
baggage, it appearing that her husband
was traveling with her and they were
clianging their place of residence by re-
moval from one state to another.

71. Articles used for child as father's
baggage. — Withey v. Pere Marquette R.
Co., 141 Mich. 412, 104 N. W. 77.?, 21 R.
R. R. 740, 44 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S.,
740, 1 L. R. A., N. S., 352, 113 Am. St.
Rep. 533.

72. Daughter's clothing in father's
trunk. — Baltimore Steam Packet Co. v.
Smith. 23 Md. 402, 87 Am. Dec. 575.

73. Property of members of family not
traveling with passenger. — Hurwitz v.
Hamburg-American Packet Co., 27 Misc.
Rep. 814, 5G N. Y. S. 379; BuUard v. Del-
aware, etc., R. Co., 21 Pa. Super. Ct. 583.

Mother's dress. — In Bullard v. Dela-
ware, etc., R. Co., 21 Pa. Super. Ct. 583,
it is held that where a passenger carries
with her own personal clothing, an em-
broidered table centerpiece of her own,
and a dress belonging to her mother, and
the baggage is lost, she can not recover
from the carrier for the loss of the center-
piece, or sucli dress.

Books bought for husband with his
money. — In llurwitz v. Hamburg-Amer-
ican I'ackct Co., 27 Misc. Rep. 814, 56 N.
Y. S. 379, it is held, in an action for loss
of a passenger's baggage, that no recov-
ery can be had for books, as constituting
a part thereof, wliich she bought for her
husl)anfl with money which he rcmittccl
to her for tlial iturjiose.

74. Commercial travelers' samples. —
United Slates.— ]-dCohs v. Tutt, 33 Fed.
412; Strouss v. Waljash, etc., R. Co., 17
I'cd. 209.

Arkansas. — Kansas, etc., R. Co. v. State,
4f> S. W. 421, f)."} Ark. 303, 4 1 I<. R. A. 333,
f.7 Am. St. Rep. 933.

Georgia. — Dilihle v. Brown, 17 da. 217,
."if) Am. Dec. 4r,0.

///iMoi.r.— Michigan Cent. R. Co. i'. Car-
row, 73 III. :!4H, 24 Am. Rep. 24H.

Iowa. — McKiroy v. Iowa Cent. R. Co.,



133 Iowa 544, 110 N. W. 915, 23 R. R. R.
466, 46 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S.. 466.

Kansas. — Southern Kansas R. Co. v.
Clark, 52 Kan. 398, 34 Pac. 1054.

Kentucky. — Illinois Cent. R. Co. v.
Matthews, 114 Ky. 973, 72 S. W. 302, 6
R. R. R. 769, 29 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N.
S., 769, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 1766, 60 L. R. A.
846, 102 Am. St. Rep. 316.

Massachusetts. — Ailing v. Boston, etc.,
R. Co., 126 Mass. 121, 30 Am. Rep. 667;
Stimson v. Connecticut River R. Co., 98
Mass. 83, 93 Am. Dec. 140.

Minnesota. — McKibbin v. Great North-
ern R. Co., 78 Minn. 232, SO N. W. 1052.

Mississippi. — New Orleans, etc., R. Co.
V. Shackleford, 87 Miss. 610, 40 So. 427, 24
R. R. R. 15, 47 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S.,
15, 4 L. R. A., N. S., 1035, 112 Am. St.
Rep. 461, construing Miss. Rev. Code
1892, § 2569.

New York. — Gurney v. Grand Trunk
R. Co., 59 Hun 625, 14 N. Y. S. 321, 37 N.
Y. Super. Ct. 155; Hawkins v. Hoffman,
6 Hill 586, 41 Am. Dec. 767; Simpson v.
New York, etc., R. Co., 16 Misc. Rep. 613,
38 N. Y. S. 341, 73 N. Y. St. Rep. 812;
Talcott V. Wabash R. Co., 50 N. Y. St.
Rep. 423, 06 Hun 456, 21 N. Y. S. 318;
Cattaraugus Cutlery Co. v. Buffalo, etc.,
R. Co., 24 App. Div. 267, 48 N. Y. S. 451.

Ohio. — Pennsylvania Co. v. Miller, 35
O. St. 541, 1 Ky. L. Rep. 184, 35 Am. Rep.
620; Greenwich Ins. Co. v. Memphis, etc.,
Packet Co., 1 N. P. 120, 4 O. Dec. 405.

Texas. — Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Cfapps, 2
Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 33, 16 Am. & Eng.
k. Cas. W^.

Photographs of articles passenger was
engaged in selling. — In .Mcl-'bov v. Iowa
Cent. R. Co., 133 Iowa 544. 110 N. W. 915.
23 R. R. R. 400. 40 .\m. Si Eng. R. Cas.,
N. S., 46(), it is licld that luulor Iowa
Code, § 2077. re(iniring llie c.-irrier to ac-
cc-i)t an<l carry tlie ordinary baggage of
a j)assengcr, a carrier was not liable for
delay in the delivery of a sami)le case
checked by a i):issenger as baggage and
containing pliotof.rraphs of articles of
furniture which ihe passenger engaged in
selling as a commercial traveler.



§§ 3433-3435 carriers. 3122

Custom to Carry Sample Cases as Baggage. — It has been held that the
fact that commercial travelers are accustomed to have their sample cases carried
on passenger trains of the carrier without paying any more than the usual price
of a ticket for a passenger, even if known to the carrier, will not render it lia-
ble as an insurer for the loss of a particular sample case so carried, unless it is
.^hown that it accepted such sample case as baggage with knowledge of its con-
tents.'"'

Salesman's Catalogue or Price Book. — It is held that a traveling sales-
man's catalogue,"^^ or his manuscript price book," carried with him for his per-
sona] use and convenience, used by him in his business and necessary to be car-
ried in the discharge of his duties, is a part of his personal baggage.

Under Storage Rule. — It has been held that a traveling salesman's sample
case, containing patterns and designs used in the business of soliciting orders,
carried by him in the passenger coach, is ordinary baggage, within a notice of
the carrier for the storage of baggage, and fixing charges for storage on each
piece of baggage after remaining at the station for a specified time."^'^

Employer Entitled to Benefit of Drummer's Contract. — It has been held
that the employer of a commercial traveler is entitled to the benefit of the lat-
ter's contract with a carrier, under which his samples were knowingly accepted
as baggage.'''

§ 3434. Dogs. — Under some circumstances, dogs may be considered a part
of the baggage of passengers. '"* But where a passenger applied_ to the ticket
agent for transportation for himself and dogs, but was refused tickets for the
dogs and referred to the baggage master, who consented, as a mere accommoda-
tion, to take the dogs in his car, and promised to look after them, for which the
passenger paid him two dollars, he could not hold the carrier responsible for the
loss of the animals in the absence of proof of negligence.'^i

§'343 5. Household Goods.— Under exceptional circumstances the baggage
of a passenger may include household goods ; but it may be stated, as a general
rule, that the carrier can not be held responsible for such articles, as the personal

75. Custom to carry sample cases as tions which were printed and posted at

baggage. Ailing v. Boston, etc., R. Co., its stations "live animals" were "allowed

12(3 Alass. 121, 30 Am. Rep. 667; McKib- as baggagemen's /perqnisites." But no

bin V. Great Northern R. Co., 78 Minn. special notice of this rule was brought

232. 80 N. W. 1052; Smith v. Boston, etc., home to such owner. It was held that

Railroad, 44 N. H. 325. the railroad was liable for the loss of the

76. Salesman's catalogue.— Staub v. dog by the baggage master.

Kendrick, 121 Ind. 226, 23 N. E. 779. 6 L. Dog taken on hunting trip— Refusal to

R \ f,19 pay fee to baggage master. — In kan-^as.

77.' Manuscript "price book."-Gleason f;;- ^%^V'- .^'§,1,°"' ^1 ^^^^c^^p ^"i^o"

V. Goodricli Transp. Co., 32 Wis. 85, 14 282, 14 L. R. A. 515, 33 Am. St. Rep 119

Am Ren 716 '^ ^^ ^^ ^ passenger on a railroad

,J.' ' ,■ -r- Tir 1 train, taking his dog with him on a hunt,

78. Milwaukee Mirror etc. Works t^ ^,^^ ^^^j^^^ required by the conductor to
Chicago, etc., R. Co. (Wis.), 134 iN. VV. ^^^^ j^j^^^ ^^ ^j^^ baggage car, may main-
•^'^- tain an action against the railroad com-

79. Employer entitled to benefit of pany for the loss of the dog, which the
drummer's contract. — Toledo, etc., R. Co. baggage master refused to deliver at his
7). Ambach, 10 O. C. C. 490, 6 O. C. D. 574, destination without the payment of a
8 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 533; Ft. small fee, and which was then carried on
Worth, etc.. R. Co. v. Rosenthal Millinery and lost; and a rule of the railroad with
Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 29 S. W. 196. reference to carrying dogs, requiring that

80. Dogs.— In Cantling v. Hannibal, etc., they be placed in the baggage car, and
R. Co., 54 :\Io. 385, 14 Am. Rep. 476, it allowing the baggage master a small
appeared that the owner having a dog on charge for his care, is no defense to the
a railroad train, being informed by the action, when it is not shown that the pas-
brakeman and the baggage master that senger had knowledge or notice of it.
the animal was not allowed in the passen- 81. Dogs taken charge of for accommo-
ger car, placed him in charge of the bag- dation. — Honeyman v. Oregon, etc., R.
gage master, and paid the latter for his Co., 13 Ore. 352, 10 Pac. 628, 57 Am.
transportation. By the carrier's regula- Rep. 20.



3123



passengers' effects.



!§ 3435-3436



baggage of an ordinary passenger, when they are carried in his trunk, or other-
wise concealed in his legitimate baggage.^- It has been held, however, that
where passengers contemplate a short sojourn at their destination where they,
for the time being, will keep house, and take with them, in their trunk, bedding,
dishes, and cutlery, these articles are "baggage," if it is customary for people
going upon such a journey to take such articles. '^^

Household Goods of Immigrants. — See ante, "Effects of Immigrants,"
§ 3430.

§ 3436. Jewelry for Personal Use. — Baggage may include a reasonable
amount of jewelry carried by a passenger for personal use, according to the
condition and circumstances in the life of the passenger.^-* However, it has been



82. Household goods. — Maryland. — Giles
V. Fauntleroy, 13 Md. 126.

Massachusetts. — Connolly v. Warren,
106 Mass. 146, 8 Am. Rep. 300.

Xczv York. — Bell z'. Drew, 4 E. D.
Smith 59; Hawkins i: Hoffman (N. Y.),
6 Hill ,586, 41 Am. Dec. 767; Orange
County Bank v. Brown (N. Y.), 9 Wend.



Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 3 of 214)