Thomas Johnson Michie.

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

. (page 6 of 214)
Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 6 of 214)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

or in the absence of evidence that the baggage master had authority to receive
freight to be carried on a passenger train, or to bind the corporation to carry
merchandise as personal baggage.^'''

Agent of Connecting Line. — Where the only authority given by a railroad
company to the baggage agent of a connecting road is to check baggage to all
stations on the line of the former road, no presumption follows that such agent
has authority to check merchandise over the line of said road under the guise
of baggage; and knowledge on the part of such agent that a passenger's trunks
contain merchandise, and not baggage, is not sufficient to charge such company
with knowledge. ^"^

Contract to Furnish Baggage Car.— A local station agent has no power as
a matter of law to contract to furnish the proprietor of a theatrical troupe a
baggage car at each week end for an indefinite period and at other stations, and
to make such a contract binding, special authority to make it must be shown, or
ratification. ^■''•^

klin. .32 Kan. 5."), 3 Pac. 762, 16 Am. & den to receive merchandise as passen-

Eng. R. Cas. 116. ger's baggage.

Missouri.— Sherlock v. Chicago, etc., R. 33. Strouss v. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 17

Co., 8.5 Mo. App. 46; Minter v. Pacific ^''fl- 209.

Railroad, 41 Mo. 503, 97 Am. Dec. 288; 34. Property not so packed as to have

Whitmore i: Caroline, 20 Mo. 513. appearance of baggage.— Waldron v. Chi-

0/;,-o.-Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Ambach, ^^;5°' ^''^•' '^- ^o- 1 Dak. 351, 46 N. W.

10 O. C. C. 490, 6 O. C. D. 574, 8 Am. & ,- c^ t • . d <- n

Fno- R Pa? V q '^■^■^ 35. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 7-. l^erry, 60

tn K. ^as., A. b., 5.i.i. ^^^^ ^33^ 3Q J, ^y ^g^^ 28 L. R. .\. 501, 46

huiiiaud. — Great Northern R. Co. v. \m St Rep 212

Sheperd, 8 Exch. 30, 30 Railw. Cas. 310, ' 36. 'BergsironrV'. Chicago, etc., R. Co.,

21 L. J. Exch. 286. ,:;, Iowa 223, 111 N. W. 818, 25 R. R. R.

Trunk and piece of carpeting accepted 140, 48 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 140,

by baggage master.— In .\I inter v. Pacific 10 L. R. A., N. S., 1119, 13 .'\ni. & Eng.

Railroad, 41 Mo. 503, 97 Am. Dec. 288, it .Ann. Cas. 239.

is held that where a passenger delivered 37. Contrary view. — Blumantle 7'. Fitch-

his trunk and a piece of carpeting to the burg R. Co., 127 Mass. 322, 34 Am. Rep.

baggage master of a passenger railroad .iTi..

train and received a check for his trunk, 37a. Agent of connecting line.— Toledo,

but was told that no check was necessary etc., R. Co. t: Howkr, tic, Co., 63 O. Si.

for the carpet as it would go safely, the 274, 58 N. E. 813.

railroad was liable for the loss of the car- 37b. Contract to furnish baggage car. —

pet. although by ihe printcfl rules of the Xcwbury ?'. Seabr)ar<l .Air Line R. Co.,

company the baggage master was forbifl- 160 N. C. 156, 76 S. \\. 238.

§§ 3448-3450 CARRIERS. 3134

§§ 3448-3457. Delivery to Carrier and Commencement of Liability

§ 3448. In General. — The liability of a railroad company as insurers of

luo-traoe commences from the moment when it is placed under the control of
onTo'f their authorized employees for the purpose of putting it in transit.^^
The acceptance of baggage for transportation by the employee of the carrier
at the station of another company where the carrier receives passengers for
carriage, imposes upon the carrier the obligation of a common carrier.-'*'^ And
a steamship engaged in carrying passengers and their baggage from one port
to another is responsible to a passenger for the injury to the contents of a trunk
by its falling into the water while being carried from a wharf on board the ves-
sel by persons in the employment of the managers of the vessel.'**^* Where plain-
tifif left his trunks with defendant's freight agent for storage over night, intend-
ing the next day to take them to the passenger depot and have them checked
for transportation, in an action to recover for their loss before the owner re-
turned to take them from the possession of the freight agent, it was held that
the railroad company had never received them into its possession as a com-
mon carrier.'*^

§ 3449. Necessity of Delivery. — A railway company is not responsible
for a passenger's baggage, which is shown never to have been delivered to it.^^
It is not always necessary, however, to show actual delivery and express ac-
ceptance, since there may be an implied or constructive delivery and acceptance
of baggage. *3 If there has been no delivery to the carrier, but his agent, with-
out authority, agrees to take care of the baggage as a matter of accommoda-
tion, the agent is pro hac the agent of the owner of the baggage, and not of the
carrier, and no responsibility against the latter attaches to the transaction. ^^

§ 3450. Time of Delivery. — To make a carrier liable for baggage deliv-
ered to it, it must be delivered and accepted for transportation within a reason-
able time before departure of the train. ^^ The passenger has the right to deliver his
baggage to the carrier such time before the starting of the train upon which he in-
tends to take passage as may be reasonably necessary for obtaining a ticket and
checking the baggage. From the time delivery is thus made, the carrier will be re-
sponsible for its safety, as a common carrier.^*' But a passenger delivering his bag-
gage at the station before it is necessary to do so in order to have reasonable
time for obtaining his ticket, checking his baggage, etc., can not thereby render
the carrier liable as an insurer of the baggage wdthout its consent.*^ A railroad,

38. When liability commences.— Lovell 44. Carrier's agent as owner's agent.—

7; London, etc., R. Co., 4.5 L. J. Q. B. 476, Southern R. Co. v. Rosenheim & Sons,

34 L. T. 127, 34 W. R. 394, 6 R. & C T. 1 Ga. App. 766, 58 S. E 8].

Cas. Ixix, 3 R. & C. T. Cas. xx. 45. Time of delivery.— Williams v.

39. Wilson V. Grand Trunk Railway, 57 So^^thern R Co., 155 N C. 200, 7_1 S. E.
Me. 138. 2 Am. Rep. 26. 346, 42 R R- R- 105, 65 Am. & Eng R.

„ ^' ^ . r^^ „^ T A Cas., ]\. S., 105, 13 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas.

40. Moore v. Evening Star, 20 La. Ann 328

•*0~- . TD r> 46. Southern R. Co. v. Rosenheim &

41 Van Gilder v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., g^^^^^ ^ ^^.^ ,^pp ^^.^^^ ^g g_ ^ g^_

44 Iowa 548. 47_ Goldberg v. Ahnapee, etc., R. Co.,

42. Necessity of delivery.— Park v. ^05 Wis. 1, 80 N. W. 920, 47 L. R. A. 221,
Southern Railway, 78 S. C. 302, 58 S. E. 75 Am. St. Rep. 899, 17 Am. & Eng. R.
931, 25 R. R. R. 573, 48 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 65.

Cas., N. S., 573; Southern R. Co. v. Bick- a.', intending to take a trip on a:
ley, etc., Co., 119 Tenn. 528, 107 S. W. steamer which was to sail on Monday,
680, 14 L. R. A., N. S., 859, 14 Am. & Eng. ggnt his valise to the office of the steam-
Ann. Cas. 910. ship company on Saturday, where it was

43. Constructive delivery. — Cone v. received by the company's agents, who
Southern Railway, 85 S. C. 524, 67 S. E. declined to sign a receipt for it. On Mon-
779, 36 R. R. R. 179, 59 Am. & Eng. R. day A. went to the office in time to_ have
Cas., N. S., 179, 21 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. the valise checked and inquired for it, but
158. it could not be found. The rules of the



$§ 3450-3451

however, may be liable as an insurer, for a passenger's baggage as soon as it is
properly accepted at night for transportation by a train scheduled for departure
next morning.-** And it has been held that where a passenger, intending to
leave on an afternoon train, carried his trunk to the station in the forenoon,
and was there told by the agent that it could not be checked until fifteen minutes
before the starting of the train, whereupon the passenger left his trunk in the
care of the agent, it was held that the delivery was complete from that time.'*^

§ 3451. Liability before Purchase of Ticket or Demand for Check. —

The liability of a carrier for baggage may arise before the purchase of a ticket bv
one intending to become a passenger, who has his baggage placed at the proper
place on the station premises within a reasonable time before the departure of
the train upon which the prospective passenger intends to ride,^*^ and before de-
mand for a check. ^1 A railroad company's rule that a person intending to be-
come a passenger shall purchase a ticket or pay fare, before the company becomes
responsible for his baggage, is a reasonable regulation, and may be en forced. ^^
But if the company adopts no such rule, or if, having adopted, it adopts a
practice or custom to the contrary, or if, notwithstanding such a rule, it receives
a person's trtmk or baggage, trusting to his honesty to purchase the ticket upon
the train upon which the trunk is to go, it will be liable for its loss, whether that
loss occurs before or after the arrival or departure of the train, or before or
after the purchase of a ticket. ^^

company required a ticket to be presented
in order to have baggage checked, and A.
presented such a ticket. It was held that
the liability of defendant was that of a
vrarehouseman. and not that of a carrier.
Miirrav v. International Steamship Co..
170 Mass. IGG. 48 X. E. 109.3. 64 Am. St.
l\ep. 200.

48. Delivered at night for next morn-
ing tram.— Alabama. — Anniston Transfer
Co. r. Giirley. 107 Ala. 600, 18 So. 209, 34
L. R. A. 137.

Connecticut. — Hickox v. Naugatuck R.
Co.. 31 Conn. 281, 83 Am. Dec. 143.

lozi'a. — Green v. Milwaukee, etc., R.
Co., 41 Iowa 410.

North Carolina. — Williams v. Southern
R. Co., 1.5.5 X. C. 260, 71 S. E. 346. 42 R.
R. R. 10.5, 65 Am. S^ Eng. R. Cas.. N. S.,
10.5. 13 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 328.

J'ermont. — Ouimit v. Henshaw, 35 Vt.
'.05. 84 Am. Dec. 646.

G. advised defendant's agent that she
intended to take the train the following
morning. She sent her baggage, prop-
erly marked, to the station the evening
before her departure, as was the custom
with passengers intending to take the
morning train, and it was locked up in
defendant's baggage room. Held, that
the facts constituted an acceptance of the
liaggagc by the carrier, and rendered it
liable for the loss of the trunk and bag-
gage by the burning of the depot during
the night. Green z'. Milwaukee, tic, R.
Co., 41 Iowa 410.

In Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Troi;.=;liiH-, 64
.Mii^s. 834. 2 So. 255, 31 .\m. & Eng. R.
Cas. V.I, it appeared that the owner left
baggage witli the defendant's baggage
master, with instructions to ship to a
certain place the next day. This was on
l-'riday, and the baggage, not havir.g been

shipped as directed, was consumed by
fire on Sunday. It was held that the de-
fendant was liable as a carrier.

49. Hickox v. Naugatuck R. Co., 31
Conn. 2S1. S3 Am. Dec.^143.

50. Liability before purchase of ticket.
— Connecticut. — Hicko.x v. Naugatuck R.
Co.. 31 Conn. 281, 83 Am. Dec. 143

Indiana. — Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v.
Foster, 104 Ind. 293, 4 N. E. 20, 54 Am.
Rep. 319.

lozva. — Green v. Milwaukee, etc., R.
Co.. 41 Iowa 410.

Mississippi.- — Coffee v. Louisville, etc.,
R. Co., 76 Miss. 569, 25 So. 157, 45 L. R.
A. 112, 71 Am. St. Rep. 535.

South Carolina. — Cone v. Southern
Railway. 85 S. C. 524. 67 S. E. 779, 36 R.
R. R. 179. 59 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S.,
179. 21 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 158.

England. — Lovell v. London, etc., R.
Co.. 45 L. J. Q. B. 476, 34 L. T. 127. 24 W.
R. 394. 6 R. & C. T. Cas. Ixix. 3 R. &
C. T. Cas. XX.

When a porter receives luggage at the
entrance of a station for the purpose of
labelling it and putting it in the train,
ilu' coniprmj^ is liable for its safety, al-
though tlie passenger has not yet taken
a ticket. Lovell v. London, etc., R. Co.,
45 L. J. Q. B. 476. 34 L. T. 127, 24 W. R.
394. 6 R. & C. T. Cas. Ixix. 3 R. & C.
T. Cas. x\.

51. Liability before demand for check.
— Cone ."■. SoiUluTn Railwax, s.". S. C. 52 1,
67 S. v.. 779, :;6 l\ 1^ R. I7'.t. .59 Am. &
I'.ng. R. Cas.. N. S.. 179, 21 Am. & Eng.
Ann. Cas. 15S.

52. Validity of rule. — Lake Shore, etc.,
R. Co. ;■. I'ostcr. 10 1 Ind. 293, 4 N. E. 20,
54 .'\in. Rep. :;19.

53. Lake Shore, etc.. R. Co. :•. ]-"oster,
4 \. I".. 20, 10 1 IikI. 29.'!. 51 .'\m. Rfp- :n9.

§§ 3452-3453 carriers. 3136

§ 34 52. Place of Delivery. — As a general rule, where a carrier has pro-
vided a regular and suitable place at its depot for receiving baggage, delivery of
bao-gage to it can only be accomplished by depositing it there. ^*_ It has been held
that*' leaving baggage at the yard of an inn whence the vehicle of the carrier
departs, wall, in the absence of special agreemeiit or custom, not suffice.^^ _ And
where a trunk containing a large sum of money was left by the owner in the
care of the baggage keeper of a boat, contrary to the advice and instruction of
the captain of the boat, who said that the office was the proper place of deposit,
the owner replying that he would take care of the trunk himself, it was held
that there was no delivery.^*^ The place of delivery, however, may be variedby
special agreement or by usage. -"^^ And a delivery, if accepted by the carrier,
may be made at a place other than where such deliveries are usually made.^s

§ 3453. Notice to Carrier. — As a rule, notice must be given to an author-
ized agent of the carrier when baggage is taken to a railroad station or other
place where baggage is usually received, in order to make the carrier liable.^^
Thus, the placing of baggage in the carrier's conveyance without his knowledge
does 'not, as a general rule, constitute delivery. ^o And where a passenger en-
tered a railway car just before the train started, left his valise on a vacant seat,
and went out, it not appearing that any one was in charge of the train at that
time, and on coming back soon afterward found that it was gone, it was held
that there was no delivery.''^ By course of business, huwever, the carrier may
be held bound for the delivery of baggage, where it is deposited in the usual
place for the reception of baggage, though no notice thereof is given to the car-
rier or his agent.6 2 And where there is a custom that baggage for transpor-
tation shall be deposited at a particular place, and it appears that baggage was
thus deposited, an acceptance by the carrier may be in f erred. "^^

54. Place of delivery. — Where a rail-
road provided a regular and safe place
at it.s depot for receiving- baggage, and
there was a safe road leading tliereto, de-
livery of baggage to the railroad in such
sense as to make it responsible for in-
jury thereto could not be accomplished
by unloading the baggage from a dray,
in the absence of the station officials,
onto a wheeled truck close to the edge
of the platform near the track. Lennon
V. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 103 N. W. 343, 127
Iowa 431.

55. Buckman v. Levi, 3 Camp. 414; Sel-
way V. HoUoway (Eng.), 1 Ld. Raym. 46.

56. Senecal z'. Richelieu (Eng.), 15 L.
C. Jur. 1.

57. Special agreement or usage. — Green
V. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co., 38 Iowa 100.

58. Phillips V. Earle (Mass.), 8 Pick.

If a message be left at the booking of-
fice of a common carrier from N. to L.,
for his van to call for plaintiff's luggage
at another inn, for the purpose of its be-
ing carried to L., and the carrier's em-
ployee and van go to the other inn, and
the plaintiff's luggage be there put into
such van, and afterwards lost therefrom,
the carrier is liable for loss, just as he
would be if the luggage had been ac-
cepted for carriage at the carrier's book-
ing office. Davey v. ^Nlason, 41 Eng. C.
L.' 30.

59. Notice to carrier. — Williams v.
Southern R. Co., 155 N. C. 260, 71 S. E.

346, 42 R. R. R. 105, 65 Am. & Eng. R.
Cas., N. S., 105, 13 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas.
328; Gregory v. Webb, 40 Tex. Civ. App.
360, 89 S. W. 1109.

60. Leigh V. Smith, 1 C. & P. 638.
Trunk deposited on steamboat in usual

place. — Plaintiff intending to take pas-
sage on the steamboat of defendants, de-
posited his trunk on board in the usual
place for baggage, but without putting
it in charge of any person, or notifying
any one employed on the boat of such
deposit or of his intention to take pas-
sage, and, while temporarily absent from
the boat, she started on her trip and he
was left. The trunk could not afterwards
be found. It was held that it appeared
from these facts that there was no con-
structive delivery and acceptance of the
trunk as bageage by the carrier. Wright
V. Caldwell, 3 Mich. 51.

61. Kerr v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 24 U.
C. C. P. 209.

62. Effect of custom. — Green v. Milwau-
kee, etc., R. Co., 38 Iowa 100; Najac v.
Boston, etc., R. Co. (Mass.), 7 Allen 329,
S3 Am. Dec. 686; Minter f. Pacific Rail-
road, 41 Mo. 503, 97 Am. Dec. 288; Cam-
den, etc., Transp. Co. v. Belknap (N. Y.),
21 Wend. 354; Williams v. Southern R.
Co., 155 N. C. 260, 71 S. E. 346, 42 R. R.
R. 105, 65 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 105,
13 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 328.

63. Merriam v. Hartford, etc., R. Co..
20 Conn. 354, 52 .Am. Dec. 344.



§§ 3454-3455

§ 3454. What Constitutes Delivery in General, — To render a carrier
liable for baggage the owner need not have placed himself in such situation that
he cannot withdraw the baggage. The question of liability is determined by the
intention of the owner at the time he places his baggage in the hands of the
carrier's ser\-ants.*''* The delivery of a trunk to a common carrier for carriage,
however, is not complete while the trmik remains in the traveler's private dwell-
ing, though a check or receipt therefor may have been issued by the carrier.®^
And when a passenger gives baggage to the carrier with a request to retain it
until he is ready to go, this will not be such a delivery as will bind the carrier as
such.^^ AMiere, by a regulation of the carrier, known to plaintiff, no baggage
could be received except for immediate shipment, and the baggage agent took
charge of plaintiff's trunks as an accommodation to plaintiff', and they were burned
before plaintiff' gave directions to ship, the carrier can not be held for the loss.*'"''

Violation of Instructions by Agent, — Where a transfer agent with author-
ity to check baggage checked the baggage of one who subsequently purchased a
ticket, the fact that the agent violated his instructions not to check baggage for a
person unless he produced a ticket was immaterial on the issue of the liability
l{ the carrier for loss of the baggage. *^^

Mere Acceptance of Check of Another Company, — W here a station agent
accepted a check issued by another railroad for a trunk then at another station
common to both railroads, and at which they had a common agent, and agreed
to have the trunk forwarded to the destination of the person delivering the
check, but the trunk w^as not forwarded, and was subsequently burned while at
the station at which it was when the check was accepted, it was held that there
was no constructive delivery of the trunk to the railroad whose agent accepted the
check, so as to render it liable for the loss of the trunk. *^"

§ 3455, To "Whom Delivery May Be Made.— It is held that delivery if
made to a servant or agent of the carrier, must be to such an one as is instructed
to receive baggage, and not one engaged in other duties.'*^ But as a general rule,
a passenger may deliver his baggage to any person at a station of the carrier, who
has apparent authority to accept it on the part of the carrier." ^ When one took

64. What constitutes delivery in gen-
eral. — Green v. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co.,
41 Iowa 4]0.

65. Hoskins ?•. Southern Pac. Co.. 148
111. App, 11, affirmed in 90 N. j?, (jgo.

66. Grosvenor v. New York Cent. R.
Co., .39 N. Y. 34, 5 Abb. Prac, N. S.,

Co. f. Troustine,
; 31 Am. & Eng.

67, Illinois Cent. R.
64 Miss. 834, 2 So 25
R. Cas. 99.

68, Violation of instructions. — Wolf ?■.
Grand Ra])ids, etc.. Railway. 149 Mich.
ir,, n;.' X. W. t:;:.'.

69, Mere acceptance of check of another
company.— Southern R. Co. v. P.ickley,
etc.. Co., 119 Tcnn. 528, 107 S. W. G80,
14 L. R. A.. X. S., 8.'j9, 14 Am. & Eng.
Ann. Cas. 910.

70, To whom delivery may be made. —
Gleasftn :■. Gofj'iric li Transp. Co., [',2 Wi.s.
8J, 14 Am. Rep. 710.

A passenger on a steamboat asked for
the key to the stateroom assigned him
by the clerk, and, being told that no keys
were given out, replied that he wanted
to place his l)aggagc where it would Ik-
safe while he went to get his trunk

checked. He deposited his valise in an
unlocked room, calling the attention of
two or three cabin boys to the fact, ask-
ing whether it would be safe, and receiv-
ing an affirmative answer. When he re-
turned to his room, the valise was gone.
There was a porter on the boat, whose
duty it was to receive and check baggage,
which plaintiff knew. There was no evi-
dence of any usage of defendant to ac-
cept delivery in that way; nor of any
specific direction or assent on the part
of the carrier; nor was there any finding
by the jury that the carrier was guilty
of negligence in not providing the state-
room door with a suitable lock and key,
according to the custom of such car-
riers, and that such negligence caused
the loss. Held, that there was no de-
livery of the valise to the carrier, and he
was not liable for its loss. Glcason v.
Gf)odrich Transp. Co., 32 Wis. S.'), 14 Am.
Rep. 710.

71. Wolf 7'. Grand Rai)ids, etc.. Ivailway,
149 Mich. 7"), 111.' ,\. \V. 73;.'; T.altle v.
Cf)!umbia, etc., Railroad, 70 S. C. 329, 49
S. E. 849; International, etc., R. Co. 7',
I'Vdliard, OO '{'ex. 003, 1 S. W. 021. :V.i Am.
Rep. 032.

§§ 3455-3458 carriers. 3138

a trunk to the baggage room of a railway comjiatiy and found it locked, and left
it outside the door, went in the ticket office, and informed the ticket agent of
the fact, who said "all right," it w^as held that as the ticket agent was apparently
in charge of the depot, there was evidence showing a delivery, even if another
agent had charge of the business of receiving freight.'- Where the trunk of a
passenger is delivered to the only person in charge of the station, who is at the
time engaged at a telegraph instrument, by depositing it at the place indicated
by him, and giving him at the time directions as to checking, and notice that the
owner would soon appear, and that he would attend to it, it is a delivery to the
carrier.'^ And a railway passenger is justified in regarding the man whom he
sees handling the baggage at its station as the proper agent of the railway com-
pany for receiving baggage.'^"*

To Other than Carrier's Employee. — When a passenger notifies the em-
ployees of a railroad company of his wish that his baggage go with him, it is
the duty of the company to take charge of it, and the company is liable as a com-
mon carrier, as for a breach of that duty, if the passenger, having been directed
by an employee of the company wdiere to deposit his baggage, delivered it at the
place designated, but, by mistake, to another than an employee of the company. '^^
Where, when a passenger arrived at the station the baggage master of the road
over which she was to travel was absent and she delivered her baggage to the
baggage master of another road which used the same station, as was customary
under such circumstances, it was held that this constituted delivery to the former

§ 34 56. Carrier's Duty to Take Charge of Baggage. ^ — When a passen-
ger notifies the sen^ants of a railway company of his wash that his baggage go
with him. it is the duty of the company to take charge of it.''"'' And while it is
a reasonable regulation that baggage shall not be checked until a ticket is pro-
cured, a carrier can not refuse to take charge of baggage until the procurement
of a ticket.'^ ^ The proprietors of a railroad, who receive passengers and com-
mence their carriage at the station of another road, are bound to have an em-
ployee there to take charge of baggage. "^^

§ 3457. Goods Awaiting Transportation. — After baggage has been de-
livered to and accepted by the carrier for carriage, its responsibility of its safety
while it is awaiting transportation is that of a common carrier, and not of a ware-
houseman.'^" x\nd a carrier is liable for the personal baggage of a passenger
delivered to and received by it solely for transportation, and not for storage, al-
though for the convenience of the carrier the passenger consents to delay in the
transportation, and it is put in the baggage room and destroyed by fire the day

Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 6 of 214)