Copyright
Thomas Johnson Michie.

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

. (page 7 of 214)
Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 7 of 214)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


after the deliver}'. ^^

§§ 3458-3461. Checks and Receipts, and Checking Baggage —
§ 3458. Nature and Functions of Checks and Receipts. — The ordinary
baggage check is not regarded as embodying the contract of carriage, but only as

72. Rogers v. Long Island R. Co. (N. etc., R. Co. v. FoUiard, 66 Tex. 603, 1 S.

Y.). 2 Lans. 269. W. 624, 59 Am. Rep. 632.

73 Battle v. Columbia, etc., Railroad, 78. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Anderson

70 S. C. 329, 40 S. E. 849. (Tex. Civ. App.), 147 S. W. 353.

74. Ouimit V. Henshaw, 35 Vt. 605, 84 79. Employee at station of another
Am Dec 646 company. — Wilson v. Grand Trunk Rail-

'c rr ' 4.u^ 4.U • ' 1 wav, 57 ^le. 138, 2 Am. Rep. 26.

75. To other than earners employee.- g^ ^^^^^ awaiting transportation-
International, etc., R Co. r. Folhard 66 ^ ^, ^r,K,.^,,,K-ee. efc, R. Co., 41 Iowa
Tex. 603, 1 S. W. 624, 59 Am. Rep. 632. ^^q. gj^^^^, ^, Northern Pac. R. Co., 40

76. Jordan v. Fall River R. Co. (Mass.), Minn. 144, 41 N. W. 548; Fleischman,
5 Cush. 69, 51 Am. Dec. 44. etc., Co. v. Southern Railway, 76 S. C.

77. Duty to take charge of baggage.— 237, 56 S. E. 974, 9 L. R. A., N. S., 519.
Jordan t'. Fall River R. Co. (Mass.), 5 81. Shaw v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 40
Cush. 69, 51 Am. Dec. 44; International, Minn. 144, 41 N. W. 548.



3139



PASSENGERS EFFECTS.



§ 3458



a voucher or token to enable the passenger to reclaim his baggage at the end of his
journey.^- It is intended as evidence of the identity of the baggage.^^ ^ check,
however, may be admissible in evidence to show the nature of the carrier's con-
tract.^^ And it is held that a baggage check is evidence that the party holding it
has purchased the rights of a passenger.®^ The delivery of a check to a passen-
ger is intended to relieve him of any care or superintendence of his baggage,
while on its journey, and devolves such care upon the agents of the several roads
over which it passes.^^

As Evidence of Ownership. — Possession of a baggage check is prima facie
evidence of ownership or authority to receive the baggage.^'''

As Evidence of Delivery to Carrier. — The possession of a baggage check
by a railroad passenger is prima facie evidence that the carrier has received and
IS in possession of his personal baggage. ^^ But the presumption of the receipt
of the baggage by the carrier arising from the possession of its check is prima
facie only, and may be rebutted. ^^ The carrier may show that the check or re-
ceipt was obtained by the passenger without the article in question actually pass-
ing into the hands of the carrier.'^"' Where a railway company received a
passenger's check for baggage not yet received from another carrier, giving its
own check in lieu thereof, and it appeared that it had surrendered the check so re-
ceived to the other carrier, this was held to show that the baggage had been re-



82. Nature and function of baggage
checks. — Hickox r. Naugatuck R. Co., 31
Ccnn. 2SJ, 83 Am. Dec. 143; Hoskins v.
Southern Pac. Co., 148 Til. App. 11, af-
firmed in 90 N. E. 669; Isaacson v. New
York. etc.. R. Co., 94 N. Y. 278, 16 Am.
& Eng. R. Cas. 188, 46 Am. Rep. 142;
Soviero v. Westcott Exp. Co., 94 N. Y.
S. 37.5. 47 Misc. Rep. 596; Park v. South-
ern Railway, 78 S. C. 302, 58 S. E. 931,
25 R. R. R. 573, 48 Am. & Eng, R. Cas.,
N. S.. 573.

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

84. Wilson v. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co.,
62 Va. (21 Gratt.) 654.

85. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Copeland, 24
111. 332. 76 Am. Dec. 749.

86. Relief from care of baggage. —
Check V. Little Miami R. Co.. 2 Disn. 237,
13 O. Dec. Reprint 146: Philadelphia, etc.,
R. Co. V. Harper, 20 Md. 330.

Relieves passenger of duty of seeing
that baggage properly placed aboard
train. — Savannali. etc.. R. Co. v. .Mcin-
tosh, 73 Ga. 532, 27 Am. & Eng. R. Cas.
269.

87. As evidence of ownership. — St.
Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Stone, 78 Ark. 318,
95 S. W. 470; Hickox v. Naugatuck R.
Co.. 31 Conn. 28L 83 Am. Dec. 143.

.\ check for baggage is prima facie evi-
dence that the baggage it represents has
been delivered to the issuing company
by the person to whom the check was
issued. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Steear,
53 .\tl). 95, 73 X. W. 466.

88. Check as evidence of delivery to
carrier. — Colorado. — Denver, etc., R. Co.
V. Roberts, Colo. 333.

Georgia. — Atlanta Baggage, etc., Co. v.
Mizo, 4 Ga. App. 407, 61 S. E. 844.

4 Car— 3



lUiiwis. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Clay-
ton. 78 III. 616; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v.
Hawkins, 39 111. App. 406; Illinois Cent.
R. Co. V. Copeland, 24 111. 332, 76 Am.
Dec. 749.

Kansas. — Atchison, etc., R. Co. v.
Brevv^er, 20 Kan. 669.

Minnesota. — Ahlbeck v. St. Paul, etc.,
R. Co., 39 Minn. 424, 40 N. W. 364, 12
Am. St. Rep. 661.

Xcbraska. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v.
Steear, 53 Neb. 95, 73 N. W. 466.

Neiu York. — Davis v. Cayuga, etc., R.
Co., 10 How. Prac. 330.

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;
Park z: Southern Railway. 78 S. C. 302,
58 S. E. 931, 25 R. R. R. 573, 48 Am. &
Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 573; Dill v. South
Carolina R. Co., 7 Rich. L. 158, 62 Am.
Dec. 407.

Tennessee. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v.
Weaver, 77 Tenn. CJ Lea) 38, 43 Am. Rep.
654, 16 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 218.

Virginia. — Wilson v. Chesapeake, etc.,
R. Co., 62 Va. (21 Gratt.) 654.

The possession of a check by the pas-
senger, and evidence that carriers only
give checks when fares have been paid
and their haggage has been received, suf-
ficiently proves receipt of baggage. Da-
vis 7: Cayuga, etc., R. Co. (N. Y.), 10
How. I'rac. 330.

89. Presumption may be rebutted. —
Cliicago, etc., R. Co. r. Clayton, 7S 111.
6 1 6.

90. Hoskins 7-. Southern Pac. Co., 143
HI. .^pp. 11, judgment aflirmed in 90 N.
E. 609.



§§ 3458-3460 carriers. 3140

ceivecj by the railway company. *^^ Where a railway company issued to a pas-
senger its check for baggage, without having received the same from another
company, for the purpose of accommodating the passenger, the check was prima
facie evidence of a delivery to it of the baggage, rebuttable only by direct proof
that the baggage was never received. ^^

§ 3459. Duties and Liabilities of Carrier. — Upon receiving the baggage
of a passenger, it is the duty of the carrier to check or otherwise receipt for the
same with due care.^^ And where a passenger buys a ticket from a point on
the carrier's line to a station on another line with which a connection is made at
a junctional point, the carrier must check the baggage to the point of destination
and can not require the passenger to recheck at the junctional point.''"*

Failure to Buy Ticket. — The carrier is responsible where it gives a check
for baggage received, though the passenger has bought no ticket.^^

Failure to Furnish Check. — Where a passenger has delivered his baggage
to a carrier, but has failed to receive a check through the fault of the latter, he
may recover for the loss of the baggage, though a regulation of the carrier re-
cjuires all baggage to be checked or booked.^*^

Depot Company as Agent of Railroad. — Where a railroad company's trains,
by an arrangement with a depot company, regularly enter and depart from the
depot of the latter, which is also intrusted with the business of handling and
checking the baggage of the railroad's passengers, and furnished by it with
checks, such company must be deemed the agent of the railroad company in re-
spect to such business.'^''

Bag-gage Checked at Place Other than Station. — Where a carrier allows
a person to check baggage of the intending passengers at other places than the
station, the person delivering such checks is, in law and in fact, the agent of the
carrier and the checks delivered by him become tokens of a contract between the
carrier and prospective passengers for the transportation of the latter's bag-
gage.98

§ 3460. Baggage Company Receiving Railroad Check. — Where a bag-
gage company, engaged in the business of hauling for hire trunks and other bag-
gage of the traveling public, received from a passenger a railroad check for a
trunk, for which check it issued a receipt containing the number of the check,
the baggage company agreeing to get the trunk that was called for by the check
and deliver it to him as directed, the baggage company was under a legal obliga-

91. Connecting carriers. — Chicago, etc., Western R. Co. 7'. Goodman (Eng.), 12 C.
R. Co. V. Clayton, 78 111. G16. B. 313.

92. Park v. Southern Railway, 78 S. C. Where plaintiff's wife was a passenger
302, .58 S. E. 931, 25 R. R. R. 573, 48 Am. on defendant's railroad and placed her
& Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 573; Ahlbeck v. two trunks and a package in the cus-
St. Paul, etc., R. Co., 39 Minn. 424, 40 N. tody of the railroad company, with re-
W. 364, 12 Am. St. Rep. 661. See At- quest that they be checked to her des-
lanta Baggage, etc., Co. v. Mizo, 4 Ga. tination, and defendant's agent said he
App. 407, 61 S. E. 844. would not have time to check the pack-

93. Duty to check.— Cleveland, etc., R. age, but would send it by express the
Co. V. Bartram 11 O. St. 457. next day, and the trunks were checked



94. Checking baggage over connecting



by defendant's agents, and the package.



i:^» c ir c ?u D -1 HA though not checked, was put on the car

line. — buUivan v. Southern Railway, 74 i r .i . ■ y r. ,^ i .. ..i

o n o'~<~ r < o -c> -aa before the tram left and was lost, the

.' . railroad company was liable. Ft. vVorth,

95. Failure to buy ticket.— Matteson v. etc., R. Co. v. McCarty, 94 S. W. 178, 42
r^ew York, etc., R. Co., 76 N. Y. 381. ^ex. Civ. App. 514.

96. Failure to furnish check. — Hickox 97. Depot company as agent of railroad.
V. Naugatuck R. Co., 31 Conn. 281, 83 —Ahlbeck v. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., 39
Am. Dec. 143; Waldron v. Chicago, etc., Minn. 424, 40 N. W. 364, 12 Am. St. Rep.
R. Co., 1 Dak. 351, 46 N. W. 456; Free- 661.

man v. Newton (N. Y.), 3 E. D. Smith 98. Baggage checked at place other

246; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Weatherby, 41 than station. — Kates v. Atlanta, etc.. Cab

Tex. Civ. App. 409, 92 S. W. 58; Great Co., 107 Ga. 636, 34 S. E. 372.



3141



passe::ngers effe^cts.



§§ 3460-3463



tion to deliver the trunk as directed, or return the railroad check to the passen-
ger.99

§ 3461. Surrender of Check. — A stipulation in an excess baggage check
requiring it to be surrendered with ordinary baggage checks given by the rail-
road in order to get baggage is valid. ^

§§ 3462-3482. Loss or Injury— §§ 3462-3473. Personal Baggage
in General — § 3462. What Law Governs. — It is a general rule, in an action
against a carrier for the loss of or injury to baggage, that the law of the state or
country in which the contract of transportation was made governs the rights and
liabilities of the parties under it.- Thus, a contract upon the face of a steamship
ticket issued in England limiting the liability for loss of baggage, being valid in
England, where made, will be enforced in Massachusetts, although, if made in
the latter place, it would be void as against public policy.^ It has been held, how-
ever, that if a passenger delivers his baggage to a railroad company in Pennsyl-
vania, to be carried to New York, and there delivered, the company is liable, in
case of failure to deliver, under New York laws, and can not take advantage of
a Pennsylvania statute detining the liability of railroad corporations for bag-
gage.-^

§§ 3463-3469. Liability as Insurer— § 3463. In General.— A com-
mon carrier of passengers, such as a railroad company, stage proprietor, steam-
boat owner, and omnibus proprietor, who carries passengers for hire, as regards
the passengers' baggage, is liable for its loss or injury to the same extent as a
common carrier of freight. Hence, it is an insurer of passengers' baggage
against any loss or damage not caused by an act of God, the public enemy, vis
major, the nature of the property, the fault of the passenger or his agent,^ or the



99. Baggage company receiving rail-
road check. — Atlanta Baggage, etc., Co.
V. Mizo, 4 Ga. App. 407, 61 S. .E. 844.

Where a passenger on a railroad, upon
arriving at his destination, contracted
with a transfer company to procure his
baggage from the depot and deliver it at
his residence, and he surrendered his
checks to the company and it then re-
fused to deliver the baggage to him until
it •was paid certain extra charges for
transportation claimed by the railroad
company, though the owner tendered the
price agreed to be paid for its own serv-
ice, and, on his refusal to pay these extra
charges, it retained his checks for a time,
and then gave them up to the railroad
company, under the contract, the transfer
company was responsible for the delivery
of the baggage, and the owner might en-
force his rights against it by suit and se-
questration. Da Ponte v. New Orleans
Transfer Co., 42 La. Ann. 690, 7 So. 008.

1. Surrender of check. — Texas Mex. R.
Co. V. Willis, '.', Texas App. Civ. Cas.,
§ 71.

2. What law governs. — Wald v. Pitts-
burg, etc., R. Co., 00 111. App. 400; Fon-
seca V. Cunard Steamship Co., 153 Mass.
553, 27 N. K. 605, 12 L. R. A. 340, 25 Am.
St. Rep. 060.

3. I'*onscca v. Cunard Steamship Co.,
I. '.3 Mass. 553, 27 N. K. 605, 12 L. R. A.
340. 25 Am. St. Rep. 000.

4. Curtis 7'. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 74
N. Y. no, 30 Am. Rep. 271.



5. Liability as insurer. — United States.
—Walsh V. Wright, Newb. 494, Fed. Cas.
Xo. 17,115; Hannibal, etc., R. Co. v.
Swift (U. vS.), 12 Wall. 262, 20 L. Fd. 423.

Georgia. — Ford v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co.,
8 Ga. App. 295, 68 S. E. 1072; Dibble v.
Brown, 12 Ga'. 217, 56 Am. Dec. 460; Cen-
tral, etc., R. Co. V. Lippman, 110 Ga. 665,
36 S. E. 202, 50 L. R. A. 673; City Trans-
fer Co. V. Draper, 115 Ga. 954, 42 S. E.
221; Southern R. Co. v. Rosenheim &
Sons.l Ga. App. 766, 58 S. E. 81.

Indiana. — Indiana, etc., R. Co. v. Zilly,
20 Tnd. App. 569, 51 N. E. 141.

Michigan. — Wolf v. Grand Rapids, etc.,
Railway, 149 Mich. 75, 112 N. W. 732.

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

New York. — Butler v. Hudson River R.
Co., 3 E. D. Smith 571; Merrill z'. Griii-
nell, 30 N. Y. 594; Estes v. St. Paul, etc.,
R. Co., .-)5 Hun OO;-), 7 N. Y. S. S03. 27 N.
Y. St. Rep. 594; Hawkins i>. Hoffman, 6
Hill 580, 41 y\m. Dec. 707; Hollistcr .-.
Nowlcn, 19 Wend. 234, 32 Am. J")cc. 455;
Robinson ?'. New York, etc., R. Co., 203
N. Y. 027, 97 N. E. 1115, affirming order
129 N. Y. S. 1030, 145 App. Div. 391.

North Carolina. — Brick v. Atlantic, etc.,
R. Co.. 145 N. C. 203, 58 S. E. 10 73. 20
R. R. R. 029, 49 Am. & Eng. R. Cas.,
N. S.. 029. 13 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 32S.

Ohio. — Bowler, etc., Co. v. Toledo, etc.,
R. Co., 3 N. P. 322, 1 O. Dec. 55; Toledo,
etc., R. Co. V. Ambach, 10 O. C. C. 490,
6 (). C. D. 574. 8 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N.



j§ 3463-3464



CARRIERS.



3142



act of the civil authorities." So the carrier may be Hable for the loss of or injury
to the baggage of a passenger although it was entirely without fault, and no neg-
ligence nor lack of skill for which it was responsible contributed in any degree
to cause the loss or injury." Thus, it is liable for damage that happens to bag-
gage from a defect in the vehicles or machinery, though it may not be negligent
or unskillful in securing its safety.^

§§ 3464-3469. Exceptions and Excuses— § 3464. Act of God.— As

the liability of a common carrier of passengers for the loss of or injury to the
baggage of a passenger is the same as that of a common carrier of freight, it is
not liable where such loss or injury is proximately caused by the act of God.^
It is the duty of a railroad company, however, to protect the baggage of its pas-
sengers, while in its custody, from exposure to rain, or other act of God, by the
exercise of due care.^*^ And where an injury to baggage is the result of an act



S., 5;33; Pennsylvania Co. v. Miller, 3.5 O.
St. 541, 1 Ky. L. Rep. 184, 35 Am. Rep.
620; Keith v. New York Cent. R. Co., 1
West. L. M. 451, 2 O. Dec. 125.

Pennsvhania. — Springer v. Pullman
Co.. 234' Pa. 172, 83 Atl. 98.

South Carolina. — Peixotti v. McLaugh-
lin, 1 Strob. 468, 47 Am. Dec. 563; Dill z\
South Carolina R. Co., 7 Rich. L. 153, 62
Am. Dec. 407.

Tennessee. — ■ Bomar v. Maxwell, 28
Tenn. (9 Humph.) 621, 51 Am. Dec. 682;
Johnson r. Stone, 30 Tenn. (11 Humph.)
419; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Katzen-
berger, 84 Tenn. (16 Lea) 380, 1 S. W.
44, 57 Am. Rep. 232; Nashville, etc., R.
Co. <•. Lillie, 112 Tenn. 331, 78 S. W.
1055, 105 Am. St. Rep. 947.

Texas. — Mexican Cent. R. Co. v. De
Rosear (Tex. Civ. App.), 109 S. W. 949;
White V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. (Tex.
Civ. App.), 86 S. W. 962.

J^irginia. — Wilson v. Chesapeake, etc.,
R. Co., 62 Va. (21 Gratt.) 654. See ante,
"Liability as Lisurer," §§ 989-1010.

"In the early history of railroads, it
was held that, as a carrier was only li-
able for the negligence causing injury
to a passenger, it was only liable to that
extent for loss of his baggage. The
courts have repudiated this doctrine, and
a railroad is now held to the strict lia-
bility of a carrier of goods." Adger z'.
Bhie Ridge Ry. Co., 71 S. C. 213, 59 S.
E. 783, 110 Am. St. Rep. 568.

Special circumstances excusing duty of
carrying passenger. — A railroad company
can not, in an action against it by a pas-
senger for loss of his baggage, defend
upon the ground that special circum-
stances existed when the plaintiff took
passage, excusing the company from the
duty of carrying him. If a carrier has
reasonable ground for refusing to receive
and carry persons or property applying,
he is bound to make the objection at the
time the application is made. If the car-
rier, without making objection, receives
the persons or property for transporta-
tion, his liability is the same as though
no ground for refusal existed. Hannibal,
etc., R. Co. V. Swift (U. S.), 12 Wall.
262, 20 L. Ed. 423.



6. Act of civil authorities. — See post,
"Act of Civil Authorities," § 3466.

7. Absence of negligence. — Camden,
etc., Transp. Co. v. Burke (N. Y.), 13
Wend. 611, 28 Am. Dec. 488; Hawkins v.
Hoffman (N. Y.), 6 Hill 586, 41 Am. Dec.
767; Knieriem v. New York, etc., R. Co.,
96 N. Y. S. 602, 109 App. Div. 709, 17 N.
Y. Ann. Cas. 415; Hasbrouck v. New
York, etc., R. Co., 122 2\\ Y. S. 123, 137
App. Div. 532.

8. Defects in vehicles or machinery. —
Camden, etc., Transp. Co. v. Burke (N.
Y.), 13 Wend. Oil, 28 Am. Dec. 488.

9. Act of God. — Georgia. — Dibble v.
Brown, 12 Ga. 217, 56 Am. Dec. 460; Ford
V. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 8 Ga. App. 295,
68 S. E. 1072; Southern R. Co. v. Rosen-
heim & Sons, 1 Ga. App. 766, 58 S. E. 81.

Michigan.— WoU v. Grand Rapids, etc..
Railway, 149 Mich. 75, 112 N. W. 732.

Missonri. — Hubbard v. Mobile, etc., R.
Co., 112 Mo. App. 459, 87 S. W. 52.

New York. — Hollister v. Nowlen, 19
Wend. 234, 32 Am. Dec. 455.

Pennsylvania. — Springer v. Pullman Co.,
234 Pa. 172, 83 Atl. 98.

Tennessee. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v.
Katzenberger. 84 Tenn. (16 Lea) 380,
1 S. W. 44, 57 Am. Rep. 232; Nashville,
etc., R. Co. z'. Lillie, 112 Tenn. 331, 78
S. W. 1055, 105 Am. St. Rep. 947. See
ante, "In General," § 3463.

What constitutes act of God. — See ante,
"What Constitutes Act of God," § 991.

10. Duty to protect from act of God. — •
Sonneborn & Co. z'. Southern R. Co., 65
S. C. 502, 44 S. E. 77; Harzburg & Co. v.
Southern R. Co., 44 S. E. _75, 65 S. C. 539.

A sudden and extraordinary flood in a
river is to be regarded as the act of God;
and, in an action by the owner of bag-
gage for damage caused thereby, the jurv
are to determine, from all the circum-
stances of the case, whether, after the
baggage master of the railroad company
received and checked such baggage, the
flood came so suddenly that, under the
circumstances, the injury could not have
reasonably been prevented by the com-
pany or its agents by the use of all possi-
ble means; and if they find that it could
have been done with the exercise of rea-



3143



PASSENGERS EFFECTS.



i§ 3464-3469



of God, such as a flood or lightning, and a faidt of the carrier combined, and
each is necessary in the combination to produce it, the carrier is Hable therefor.^^
Thus, if there be any neghgence on the part of a carrier in the care of baggage
in leaving it exposed to the rain, the carrier can not escape responsibility by
showing that the act of God was the cause of the injury.^- And where a carrier,
through its negligence, fails to send a passenger's baggage by the same train with
the passenger, it is liable for the loss of the baggage if destroyed, due to such
delay, by an act of God.^^

§ 3465. Act of Public Enemy. — The carrier is not liable where the proxi-
mate cause of the loss of or damage to baggage is the act of a public enemy. ^^
Where, however, in an action for loss of baggage, it appeared that the enemy
limited its capture to the vessel, and expressly permitted passengers to take their
baggage; that the captain of the captured ship took charge of the baggage, and
attempted to transfer it in a schooner provided by the enemy, but omitted to
bring plaintiff's baggage on board the schooner, there was not such a capture of
the baggage as relieved the carrier of liability therefor.^^

§ 3466. Act of Civil Authorities. — The carrier is not liable for the loss
of or injury to baggage as the result of its being taken from its possession and
control by the ci\il authorities.^*^

§ 3467. Spontaneous Combustion of Other Baggage. — In an action

against a common carrier of persons, for the loss of baggage, it is no defense
that it was destroyed by the spontaneous combustion of some article contained
in the baggage of another person, carried at the same time, such combustion not
being an act of God.^"

§ 3468. Contributory Negligence of Passenger. — See post, "Contribu-
tory Negligence of Passenger," § 3482.

§ 3469. Loss by Theft. — The act of a thief in stealing baggage, while it
is in the possession and under the control of the carrier, is not, in contempla-



sonable and proper and all possible means
that could be exercised and used by its
agents, the carrier was bound to place
such baggage in a place of safety and
prevent damage to the goods, and the
owner is entitled to recover. Strouss v.
Wabash, etc.. R. Co., 17 Fed. 209.

11. Negligence of carrier concurring
with act of God. — Strouss v. Wabash, etc.,
R. Co., 17 Fed. 209; Ilarzburg & Co. v.
Southern R. Co., 65 S. C. 539, 44 S. E.
75; Sonneborn & Co. v. Southern R. Co.,
05 S. C. 502. 44 S. E. 77.

12. Sonneborn & Co. v. Southern R.
Co.. 44 S. K. 77, 05 S. C. 502.

13. Negligent delay. — W'ald v. Pitts-
burj^h. etc.. R. Co.. -M N. E. 8S8, 102 111.
.'.15, .'!5 L. k. .\. :!05, :>?, .\m. St. Rep. 332.

14. Act of public enemy. — Georgia. — -
i'ord V. .'\tlantic, etc., R. Co.. 8 Ga. App.
2'!5, 08 S. E. 1072; Dibble V. Brown, 12
r,a. 217. 50 Am. Dec. 400; Southern R.
Co. V. Rosenheim & Sons, 1 Ga. App. 700,
5S S. E. 81.

Michigan. — Wolf v. Grand Rapids, etc.,
Railway, 149 Mich. 75, 112 N. W. 7:{2.

Mi.isoxiri. — Hul)l)ard v. Mobile, etc., R.
Co.. 112 Mo. ,App. 450, 87 S. W. 5;'.

New York. — Hollistcr v. Nowlen, 19
Wend. 2:54, 32 Am. Dec. 455.



Pennsylvania. — Springer v. Pullman Co.,
234 Pa. 172, 83 Atl. 98.

Tennessee. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v.
Katzenberger, 84 Tenn. (lO Lea) 3S0, 1 S.
W. 44, 57 Am. Rep. 232; Nashville, etc.,
R. Co. V. Lillie, 112 Tenn. 331, 78 S. W.
1055. 105 Am. St. Rep. 947.

Who are public enemies. — See ante,
"Act of Public Enemy," §§ 995-997.

15. Spaids V. New York Mail, etc., Co.
(N. Y.), 3 Daly 139.

16. Act of civil authorities.— Plaintiff
purchased a ticket from defendant rail-
wzy company, and obtained leave to stop
over until next day at an intermediate
station. Me also requested that his bag-
gage be unloaded there, but this was not
assented to,, and it was carried through
to the point of destination named in the
ticket, where it was taken charge of, pur-
suant to law. by the customs ollicers of
the United States, and while in their
custody was destroyed by lire. Held,
that defendant was not liable for its loss.
lir.well 7'. Grand Trunk R. Co., 92 ilnn
l:.'3, 30 \. N'. S. 5 11, 71 .\'. >■. Si. Rep. 040.



Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 7 of 214)