Copyright
Thomas Johnson Michie.

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

. (page 5 of 214)
Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 5 of 214)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


is carrying in his valise for the purpose of producing on a trial. ^ Memoranda
and papers in the possession of an agent, but relating exclusively to the business
of his principal, and carried by the agent solely for business purposes, are not
baggage, when put by the agent in his trunk, and, in the absence of a consent or



on's Faust Co.. 20 Tex. Civ. App. 144, 4S
S. W. 110,-5.

IViscoiisiii. — Gleason v. Goodrich
Transp. Co., 32 Wis. 85, 14 Am. Rep. 716.

En^la)id. — Cadwallder v. Grand Trunk
R. Co.. 9 L. C. (Eng.), 169.

Barber's tools. — Razors and other tools
of a barber in his suit case constitute
baggage. Grzywacz v. New York, etc.,
R. Co., 134 N. Y. S. 209, 74 Misc. Rep.
343, judgment affirmed in 134 N. Y. S.
1133. 149 App. Div. 936.

Carpenter's tools. — In Porter v. Hilde-
brand, 14 Pa. 129, a carpenter emigrating
from one state to another was allowed
to recover for the loss of his trunk con-
taining carpenter tools worth fifty-five
dollars. But in Bruty v. Grand Trunk R.
Co., 32 U. C. Q. B. 66, it is held that a
carpenter's baggage may not include the
tools of his trade.

Jeweler's tools. — A watchmaker and
jewler may carry as a part of his personal
baggage a reasonable quantity of watch-
maker's and jewler's tools, when placed
in his trunk for transportation as bag-
gage. Wells V. Great Northern R. Co.,
59^0re. 165, 114 Pac. 92, 116 Pac. 1070,
34 L. R. A., N. S., 818; Kansas, etc., R.
Co. 7'. Morrison, 34 Kan. 502, 55 Am. Rep.
252. 9 Pac. 225, 23 Am. 8z Eng. R. Cas.
481.'

Mechanics tools. — The tools of a me-
chanic, taken by him in his trunk when
going on a journey to perform the work
of his trade, are "baggage." House v.
Chicago, etc., R. Co., 30 S. Dak. 321, 138
N. W. 809.

Tools of mechanical engineer — Tests!
for determining question. — In ^.lissouri,
etc., R. Co. V. Meek, 33 Tex. Civ. App. 47,
75 S. W. 317, it appeared that plaintiff, a
mechanical engineer, was going to a cer-
tain town to do work upon engines there,
testing and regulating them, and he
shipped his tools necessary for that pur-
pose as baggage. In action for their
loss, the court charged that if the jury
found that the tools were of a character



absolutely essential and necessary for
plaintiff to carry with him on that par-
ticular trip for performing the work in
which he was engaged in his vocation at
the time, they should determine the issue
of whether they were baggage or not in
his favor. This was held error, as mak-
ing the personal use and necessities of
plaintiff for that trip the sole test of
whether the articles were such as are car-
ried by passengers of that class upon
such a journey according to the habits
and customs of such passengers.

Easel of artist may be baggage. — Mis-
souri, etc., R. Co. V. Meek, 33 Tex. Civ.
App. 47, 75 S. W. 317.

99. Manuscript music used by traveling
company. — Texas, etc., R. Co. z\ Morris-
on's Faust Co., 20 Tex. Civ. App. 144, 48
S. W. 1103.

1. Manuscript of author, etc. — Hop-
kins 7'. Westcott, 6 Blatchf. 64, Fed. Cas.
No. 6,692.

2. Surgical instruments. — Hannibal, etc.,
R. Co. V. Swift (U. S.), 12 Wall. 262, 20
L. Ed. 423.

3. Stage properties of theatrical com-
pany. — Saunders 7'. Southern R. Co., 62
C. C. A. 523, 128 Fed. 15, 11 R. R. R. 596,
34 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 596; Oakes
7'. Northern Pac. R. Co., 20 Ore. 392, 26
Pac. 230, 23 Am. St. Rep. 126, 12 L. R. A.
318.

Unless a general custom to do so is
shown the carrier does not impliedly con-
tract to carry the paraphernalia of a the-
atrical company without extra compensa-
tion on the tickets of the company as
passengers. Saunders v. Southern R. Co.,
62 C. C. A. 523, 128 Fed. 15, 11 R. R. R.
596, 34 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 596.

4. Painter's and tailor's utensils. — Mau-
ritz V. New York, etc., R. Co., 23 Fed.
765, 21 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 286.

5. Documents to be used on trial.—
Phelps 7'. London & N. W. Ry. Co., 19 C.
B., N. S., 321, 11 Jur., N. S., 652, 34 L. J.
C. P. 259, 13 W. R. 782, 12 L. T. 492.



3129



PASSENGERS EFFECTS.



3441-3443



custom from the railroad to accept such papers as baggage, no damages can be
recovered against the railroad, either for the loss of the papers, or for delay in
their shipment and delivery.*^ It has been held that an artist's baggage may not
include his pencil sketches. '''

Salesman's Catalogue or Price Book. — See ante, "Commercial Travellers'
Samples," § 3433.

§ 3442. Watches. — It has been held that a passenger's watch, when car-
ried in his trunk, may be properly classed as baggage.^

§ 3443. Wearing Apparel. — A passenger has a right to take with him a
reasonable amount of clothing, for use on the journey and a reasonable time
thereafter, according to circumstances.'' It has been held that it is not neces-
sary that the clothes shall be ready for use, and a quantity of cloth cut into
patterns for garments may constitute baggage.^*^ Where the journey was in
summer, it was held error for the court to assume as a matter of law that heavy



6. Business memoranda and papers in
agent's trunk. — Yazoo, etc., R. Co. v.
Georgia Home Ins. Co.. 85 Miss. 7. 37
So. .500, 15 R. R. R. 766, 38 Am. & Eng.
R. Cas., N. S., 766, 67 t. R. A. 646, 107
Am. St. Rep. 265.

7. Artist's sketches. — Mutton v. Mid-
land R. Co. (Hng.), 4 H. & N. 615.

8. Watches in trunks. — United States. —
Walsh r. Wright, Newb. 494, Fed. Ca«.
No. 17,115.

Indiana. — Doyle v. Kiser, 6 Ind. 242.

Kentucky. — American Contract Co. v.
Cross, S Bush 472, 8 Am. Rep. 471.

Nezv York. — Torpey v. Williams, 3 Daly
162; McCormick v. Hudson River R. Co.,
4 E. p. Smith 181.

Ohio. — Jones v. Voorhees, 10 O. 145.

Tennessee. — Coward v. East Tennessee,
etc., R. Co., 84 Tenn. (16 Lea) 225, 57 Am.
Rep. 227; compare Bomar v. Maxwell, 28
Tenn. (n Humph.) 621, 51 Am. Dec. 682.

9. Wearing apparel. — United States. —
Mauritz v. New York, etc., R. Co., 23 Fed.
765, 21 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 286; Rail-
road Co. z\ Fralofif, 100 U. S. 24, 25 L.
Ed. 531; Baldraff v. Camden, etc., Rail-
road, Fed. Cas. No. 794, 25 Hunt, Mer.
Mag. 77.

Alabama. — Cooney v. Pullman Palace
Car Co.. 121 Ala. 368, 25 So. 712, 53 L.
R. A. 690.

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

///inoij.— Parmelee v. Fischer, 22 111. 212,
74 ,\m. Dec. 138.

Indiana. — Doyle v. Kiser, 6 Ind. 242.

Maryland. — Baltimore Steam Packet
Co. V. Smith, 23 Md. 402, 87 Am. Dec.
575; Pettigrew v. Barnum, 11 Md. 434, 69
Am. Dec. 212.

Xcti.' I fanifysliire.—Smith v. Boston, etc..
Railroad, 44 N. H. 325.

New York. — Dexter v. Syracuse, etc.,
R. Co., 42 N. Y. 326. 1 Am. Rep. 527;
Duffy r. Thompson, 4 E. D. Smith 178;
Hawkins v. Hoffman, R Hill 586, 41 Am.
Dec. 767; Torpey v. Williams, 3 Daly
102; Glovinsky v. Cunard Steamship Co.,



4 Misc. Rep. 266, 24 N. Y. S. 136; Merrill
V. Grinnell, 30 N. Y. 594; Curtis v. Dela-
ware, 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. — McGill z'. Rowand, 3
Pa. 451, 45 Am. Dec. 654.

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.

Texas. — Pullman Co. v. Vanderhoeven,
107 S. W. 147, 48 Tex. Civ. App. 414; Mex-
ican Cent. R. Co. V. De Rosear (Tex. Civ.
App.), 109 S. W. 949.

Eiii^laiid. — Munster v. Southeastern R.
Co., 4 Jur. N. S. 738, 27 L. J. C. P. 30S,
4 C. B. N. S. 676; Brooke v. Pickwick, 4
Bing. 218; Macrow v. Great Western R.
Co., L. R.. 6 Q. B. 612, 40 L. J. Q. B.
300. 24 L. T. 618, 19 W. R. 8, 3 Ry. & C.
T. Cas. xix.

A traveler's own clothing and that of
her children, including fancy work and
miscellaneous ornaments, all of which
were lieing carried in her trunk, consti-
tuted baggage, for the loss of which she
was entitled to recover. Yazoo, etc., R.
Co. V. Baldwin, 113 Tenn. 205, 81 S. W.
599, 12 R. R. R. 856, 35 Am. & Eng. R.
Cas., N. S., 856.

Costly dresses and laces. — In Railroad
Co. r. Fraloff. 100 U. S. 24, 25 L. Ed. 531.
it appeared that the defendant in error
had brought with her to the United
States six trunks, containing a large (luan-
tity of wearing apparel, including many
costly dresses, and rare and valuable
laces, which she had been accustomed to
wear wlicn on visits, and to theaters,
dinners. l)alls, and receptions. On Iicr
railroad passage from Albany to Niagara
I'alls one of tlic trunks was l>roken and
more than two Inindred yards of dross
lace abstracted. She sued the railroad
and obtained judgment for $10,000.

10. Cloth cut into patterns. — Duffy v.
Thompson (K. Y.), 4 E. D. Smith 178.



;§ 3443-3445



CARRIERS.



3130



winter clothing included among the lost articles would come within the defini-
tion of baggage4^

§ 3444. Weapons. — Weapons, such as pistols and guns, whether for use
as weapons or for sporting purposes, may constitute a part of the ordinary
baggage of a passenger.^- So it is held that a common carrier of passengers
is liable for the loss of a pocket pistol and a pair of dueling pistols, contained
in a carpet bag of a passenger, which is stolen out of the possession of the car-
rier.i^ And a passenger who was formerly an army officer may recover of a
carrier the value of two swords carried by him in his trunk and lost during the
passage.^'* Where, however, a grocer, who went into the countr}^ in cjuest of
butter, sought to recover of a railroad company the value of two revolvers,
among other things, which he claimed were in his trunk as part of his baggage,
which was lost by the carrier, it was held that with due regard to the habits and
condition of life of the passenger, more than one revolver was not reasonably
necessary for his personal protection and use so that could only recover for
one 4^

§ 344 5. Questions for Court or Jury. — The question what articles bag-
gage may consist of is a mixed question of law and fact, to be determined by
the jury under proper instructions from the court4''' The court, however, may



11. Winter clothing carried in summer.

—Missouri, etc., R. Co. z: Meek, 33 Tex.
Civ. App. 47, 7.5 S. W. 317.

12. Weapons. — Arkansas. — Little Rock,
etc., R. Co. 7'. Records, 74 Ark. 125, 85 S.
W. 421, 16 R. R. R. 664, 39 Am. & Eng.
R. Cas.. N. S., 664, 109 Am. St. Rep. 67.

Illinois. — Atwood v. Mohler, 108 111.
App. 416; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Collins,
56 111. 212, 4 Am. R. Rep. 453; Davis v.
Michigan, etc., R. Co., 22 111. 278, 74 Am.
Dec. 151; Woods v. Devin, 13 111. 746, 56
Am. Dec. 483; Parmelee v. Fischer, 22 111.
212, 74 Am. Dec. 138. .

Neiv York. — Davis v. Cayuga, etc., R.
Co., 10 How. Prac. 330; Hawkins v. Hoff-
man, 6 Hill 586, 41 Am. Dec. 767; Mer-
rill V. Grinnell, 30 N. Y. 594; Van Horn
V. Kermit, 4 E. D. Smith 453.

Texas. — Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Meek,
33 Tex. Civ. App. 47, 75 S. W. 317.

England. — Munster v. Southeastern R.
Co., 4 Jur., N. S., 738, 27 L. J. C. P. 308,
4 C. B. N. S. 676.

Canada. — Brunty v. Grand Trunk R.
Co.. 32 U. C. Q. B. 66.

Pistol held not to be baggage. — See
Cooney v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 121
Ala. 368, 25 So. 712, 53 E. R. A. 690; Giles
V. Fauntleroy, 13 Md. 126.

13. Pocket pistol and pair of dueling
pistols in carpet bag. — Woods v. Devin,
13 111. 746, 56 Am. Dec. 483.

14. Two swords in trunk. — Alerrill v.
Grinnell, 30 N. Y. 594.

15. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Collins, 56
111. 212, 4 Am. R. Rep. 453.

16. Questions for court or jury. — United
States. — Mauritz v. New York, etc., R.
Co.. 23 Fed. 765, 21 Am. & Eng. R. Cas.
286; Railroad Co. v. Fraloff, 100 U. S. 24,
35 E. Ed. 531.

Arkansas. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Whit-



ten, 90 Ark. 462, 119 S. W. 835, 32 R. R.
R. 152, 55 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 152,
21 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 726.

Kansas. — Kansas, etc., R. Co. v. Mor-
rison, 34 Kan. 502, 55 Am. Rep. 252, 9
Pac. 225, 23 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 481.

Missouri. — Spooner v. Hannibal, etc.,
R. Co., 23 Mo. App. 403.

South Carolina. — Vlasservitch v. Au-
gusta, etc., R. Co., 85 S. C. 291, 67 S. E.
300, 35 R. R. R. 721, 58 Am. & Eng. R.
Cas., N. S., 721.

Texas. — Jones v. Priester, 1 Texas App.
Civ. Cas., § 613; Texas, etc., R. Co. v.
Ferguson, 1 Texas y\pp. Civ. Cas., § 1253,
9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 395. See, also,
Texas, etc., R. Co. r. Lawrence, 42 Tex.
Civ. App. 318, 95 S. W. 663.

It has been held that it is improper for
the judge to designate by name what ar-
ticles may be included in the term "bag-
gage" of a traveler. Brock v. Gale, 14
Fla. 523, 14 Am. Rep. 356.

Bedding. — Whether a bed, pillows,
bolster and bed quilts, belonging to a
poor man, v^'ho is moving with his fam-
ily, carried along with him in a railroad
train, and packed in his trunk or box
containing his clothing, are baggage or
not, is a question to be decided by the
jury, under proper instructions from the
court, taking into consideration the par-
ticular circumstances of the case, and the
use, quality, value and kind of the arti-
cles in question. Ouimit v. Henshaw, 35
Vt. 605, 84 Am. Dec. 646. See Missouri
Pac. R. Co. V. York, 2 Texas App. Civ.
Cas., § 638.

Money. — Plaintiff and his family were
emigrants to Texas from Tennessee. He
had a trunk containing $400 in money.
Held, that the question of whether the
money was legal "baggage" was one of



3131



PASSENGERS EFFECTS.



3445



determine such question where the facts are susceptible of one inference only,^^
or the facts are admitted. i- And in some instances the court may say that par-
ticular articles are not baggage.'-' But the question must be submitted to the
jury when the facts and circumstances of the particular case are such as to
raise a reasonable doubt in the minds of men of ordinary intelligence, whether
the article falls within the definition of baggage given by the court.-*^ What
articles are usually carried by passengers is a question to be left to the jury,
under the direction of the court, upon a consideration of the condition in life
of the traveler, his habits, vocation and tastes, the length of his journey, and
whether he travels alone, or with his family, and of the usage of the time, and
place, and all the circumstances of each case.-^ Where it appeared that plaintifi^
had taken the journey in the summer time, and for a short distance only, it was
error for the court to assume as matter of law that heavy winter clothing in-
cluded among the lost articles would come within the definition of baggage. -
And in an action against a carrier for the contents of a trunk, carried as bag-
gage, it was proper to submit to the jury w'hether the contents came under the
bead of merchandise and were carried for purposes of trade, or whether they
were carried merely for the comfort and convenience of the traveler either on
the journey or after arriving at his destination. - "

Questions as to Quantity and Value. — In the absence of a valid regula-
tion on the subject, the proper quantity and value of property which a passen-
ger is entitled to have transported as his personal baggage is a question for the
jury.^'* The question whether jewelry comprising part of plaintiff's baggage



fact to be determined by the court, pass-
ing upon the case as a jury. Missouri
Pac. R. Co. f. York, 2 Texas App. Civ.
Cas., § 638.

Tools. — In an action against a carrier
for negligent delay in delivering a pas-
senger's trunk, it appearing that the pas-
senger was a carpenter on his way to a
place where he expected to use tools con-
tained in his trunk, the question whether
the tools constituted baggage was one
for the jury. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Rus-
sell (Tex. Civ. App.), 97 S. W. 1090.

17. Vlasservitch v. Augusta, etc., R. Co.,
85 S. C. -291, 67 S. E. 306, 35 R. R. R. 721,
58 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 721.

18. Connolly v. Warren, 106 Mass. 146,
8 Am. Rep. 300; Spooner v. Hannibal,
etc., R. Co., 23 Mo. App. 403; Grant v.
Newton (N. Y.^, 1 E. D. Smith 95.

It is a question of law for the court,
•whether a feather bed not intended for
use on the voyage, is personal baggage
for an emigrant from Ireland to America.
Connolly v. Warren, 106 Mass. 146, 8 Am.
Rep. 300.

19. Mauritz v. New York, etc., R. Co.,
23 Fed. 765, 21 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 286;
Bomar v. Maxwell, 28 Tenn. (9 Humph.)
621, 51 Am. Dec. 682; Jones v. Priester, 1
Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 613.

20. Florida.— Brock v. Gale, 14 Fla. 523,
14 Am. Rep. 356.

GVor^'ia.— Diblile v. Brown, 12 Ga. 217,
5G Am. Dec. 460.

Kansas. — Kansas, etc., R. Co. v. Mor-
rison, 34 Kan. 502, 55 Am. Rep. 252, 9
Pac. 225, 23 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 481.

Missouri. — Hul)hard v. Mobile, etc., R.
Co., 112 Mo. App. 459, 87 S. W. 52.



Xeii' York. — Grant v. Newton, 1 E. D.
Smith 95.

South Carolina. — Vlasservitch v. Au-
gusta, etc., R. Co., 85 S. C. 291, 67 S. E.
oOfi, 35 R. R. R. 721, 58 Am. & Eng. R.
Cas., N. S., 721.

Texas. — Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Meek,
33 Tex. Civ. App. 47, 75 S. W. 317.

21. Dibble v. Brown, 12 Ga. 217, 56 Am.
Dec. 460. See Chicago, etc., R. Co. v.
Whitten, 90 Ark. 462, 119 S. W. 835, 32 R.
R. R. 152, 55 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S.,
152. 21 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 726; Brock
V. Gale, 14 Fla. 523, 14 Am. Rep. 356; Bo-
mar V. Maxwell. 28 Tenn. (9 Humph.)
621, 51 Am. Dec. 682.

In Hubbard v. Mobile, etc., R. Co., 112
]\Io. App. 459, 87 S. W. 52, an action
against a railroad for loss of a passen-
ger's baggage, it was held that whether
the articles lost, consisting of opera
glasses, jewelry, watches, diamonds, etc.,
were l)aggage or not, that is articles of
personal comfort, convenience and orna-
ment usually taken on journeys, was
proiicrly left to the jury.

22. Winter clothing in summer. — Mis-
souri, etc., R. Co. V. Meek, 75 S. W. 317,
33 Tex. Civ. .App. 47.

23. Jones v. Priester, 1 Texas App. Civ.
Cas.. § 613.

24. Questions as to quantity and value.
- /7,>r;V</. - P.rock v. Gale, 14 Fla. 523, 14
,\m. l\op. 35t).

///t»i<M'.y.— Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Cope-
land. 24 111. 332, 76 Am. Dec. 749.

Kansas. — Kansas, etc., R. Co. v. Mor-
rison, 34 Kan. 502. 55 Am. Rep. 252, 9
Pac. 225, 23 Am. Si F.ng. R. Cas. 481.

New York. — Merrill v. Grinncll, 30 N.



§§ 3445-3447 carriers. 3132

exceeded in value that usually taken by passengers of like station is for the
jury.25 The amount of money which a passenger may carry as baggage de-
pends upon the length of the journey, the circumstances and condition of the
passenger, and other questions which are to be determined by the jury.2<5 So
the question of the reasonableness of the amount of money carried by a pas-
senger in his trunk for traveling expenses is one of fact.^'^ In an action by a
mechanic against a carrier for lost tools checked as baggage, it was for the jury
to determine whether the tools were reasonable in quantity, and of a character
usually carried by mechanics like plaintiff for their personal use at their desti-
nations, and hence such as could be regarded as baggage. ^s

§§ 3446-3447. Extra Baggage and Special Contracts— § 3446. In
General.- — A carrier may, by express or implied agreement, waive the right to
refuse to transport as baggage anything but the usual personal efifects of a pas-
senger.29 And if proprietors of railroads, steamboats, stage coaches and omni-
buses, etc., who are engaged in the business of transporting passengers, holding
themselves out to the world as persons exercising a public employment, and as
being ready to carry goods for hire, receive extra baggage, to be carried for
compensation, they are, as to such extra baggage, liable as common carriers.^*'

Knowledge of Agent. — It is held that a carrier whose agent sells a ticket
to a passenger, and checks his valise, is not bound by the knowledge of the agent
that the valise contains only merchandise, where such knowledge did not come
to the agent in the transaction of the carrier's business, but in the purchase of
personal wearing apparel.-^ ^

§ 3447. Authority of Carrier's Agents. — It may be stated, as a general
rule, that a baggage master, or other agent of the carrier clothed with a baggage
master's authority, has implied authority to accept a particular article as bag-
gage, and the carrier can not question his decision, except on the ground of
fraud and collusion.^2 Where a railroad company places a baggage master in

Y. 504; Rawson v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 27. Merrill z: Grinnell, 30 N. Y. 594.

2 Abb. Prac, N. S., 220, affirmed in 48 N. 28. Tools,— Missouri, etc., R. Co. v.

Y. 212, 3 Am. R. Rep. 528, 8 Am. Rep. Meek, 75 S. W. 317, 33 Tex. Civ. App. 47.

543; Fairfax v. New York, etc., R. Co., 73 Tools of jeweler.— Kansas, etc., R. Co.

N. Y. 167, 29 Am. Rep. 1J9. v. Morrison, 34 Kan. 502, 9 Pac. 225, 55

United States.— Railroad Co. v. Fralofif, Am. Rep. 252, 23 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 481.

100 U. S. 24, 25 L. Ed. 531, affirming Fed. 29. Special contracts.— Wells v. Great

Cas. No. 5,026, 12 Blatchf. 484. Northern R. Co., 59 Ore. 165, 114 Pac. 92,

Orr^oM.— Oakes v. Northern Pac. R. 116 Pac. 1070, 34 L. R. A., N. S., 818.

Co., 20 Ore. 392, 26 Pac. 230, 23 Am. St. 30. Dibble v. Brown, 12 Ga. 217, 56 Am.

Rep. 126, 12 L. R. A. 318. Dec. 460. See Stoneman v. Erie R. Co.

r£'.rfl.y.— Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Fales, (N. Y.), 1 Sheld. 286. affirmed in 52 N. Y.

33 Tex. Civ. App. 457, 77 S. W. 234, af- 429. And see post, "Property Other than

firmed in 98 Tex. 617, no op.; Interna- Personal Baggage," §§ 3475-3481.

tional, etc., R. Co. z'. McCown, 2 Texas 31. Knowledge of agent acquired out-

.A.pp. Civ. Cas., § 712; Missouri, etc., R. side of line of duty.— Central, etc., R. Co.

Co. ?'. Meek, 33 Tex. Civ. App. 47, 75 S. t- Joseph, 125 Ala. 313. 28 So. 35.

W. 317; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. York, 2 32. Authority of carrier's agents.—

Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 638; Tones v. United States. — Strouss v. Wabash, etc.,

Priester, 1 Texas App. Civ. Cas.', § 613; R. Co., 17 Fed. 209.

614; Bonner v. Blum (Tex. Civ. App.), 25 Arkansas.St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v.

S. W. 60. Berry, 60 Ark. 433, 30 S. W. 764, 28 L. R.

25. Jewelry.— Bonner v. Blum (Tex. A. 501, 46 Am. St. Rep. 212.

Civ. App."), 25 S. W. 60. Indiana. — Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v.

26. Money.— International, etc., R. Co. Foster, 104 Ind. 293, 4 N. E. 20, 54 Am.
V. McCown, 2 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 712. Rep. 319.

Where a traveler sought to recover for lozva. — Bergstrom v. Chicago, etc., R.

$100 in coin, and $200 in currency, lost Co., 134 Iowa 223, 111 N. W. 818, 25 R. R.

with his baggage, it was for the jury, un- R. 140, 48 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 140,

der all the circumstances, whether the 10 L. R. A., N. S.. 1119, 13 Am. & Eng.

sum was greater than necessary. Jones Ann. Cas. 239.

V. Priester, 1 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 613. i<:a;ua.y.— Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Con-



^1«^^ passengers' effects. § 3447

Its baggage room it holds out to the pubhc that he has authority to make ar-
rangement as to what sort of baggage shall be carried by the company, and a
contract to carry extra baggage upon the payment of an extra charge made by
him will be binding on the railroad.^s If property is offered by the passenger
to the carrier's agent, but not so packed as to assume the outward appearance
of ordinary baggage, or so as to deceive or conceal its true character, it is within
the scope of the agent's business and duty to decide whether the company will
receive and carry it as baggage, and if so received to be forwarded, the carrier
is responsible for its safe delivery.34 So where a passenger, ignorant of the
rules of the railroad company forbidding its agents to receive money for trans-
portation as baggage, delivers to the baggage agent more money that the carrier
is required to transport, and informs the agent of the amount, the carrier's com-
mon law liability will attach, if the agent undertakes to ship it as baggage, and
a loss occurs.35 And a carrier is bound by the act of its baggage master' who
receives and checks a trunk as personal baggage of a passenger with knowledge
that it contains goods not baggage, without advising the passenger, ignorant
of the extent of his authority, that he exceeds his authority in so doing.^'*^

Contrary View. — It has been held that a railroad corporation is not liable
for the value of merchandise checked as baggage, although the baggage master
knew it was merchandise, in the absence of an agreement to carry it as freight,



Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 5 of 214)