Copyright
Thomas Johnson Michie.

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

. (page 8 of 214)
Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 8 of 214)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


17. Spontaneous combustion of other
baggage. — Keith v. New York Cent. R.
Co., I West. L. M. 451, 2 O. Dec. 125.



§§ 3469-3472 carriers. 3144

tion of the law, an act of a public enemy, nor vis major, such as to relieve the
carrier from responsibility. ^^

§ 3470. Liability for Negligence. — Of course the carrier is liable in dam-
ages for any loss or injury caused by its negligence, as where baggage has been
negligently exposed to the weather. ^^ But to render a carrier liable for injury
to a passenger's baggage on account of its negligence, such negligence must be
the proximate cause of the injury. 2*^ As to the effect of the act of God where
the carrier's negligence concurs therewith, see ante, "Act of God," § 3464.

§ 3471. Effect of Nonpayment of Compensation. — The law does not
exact from a railway company carrying baggage free any greater diligence than
from any other gratuitous bailee.^i Thus, a vessel is not liable for failure to de-
liver at its destination personal baggage gratuitously carried, and unaccompanied
by the owner, where there is no proof of actual negligence or misconduct, or of
improper delivery, on the part of the carrier.22 And it has been held that where
a carrier received baggage for transportation, mistakenly supposing that the
owners thereof had purchased tickets over its road, when in fact they had pur-
chased tickets over another road, it owed to the owners the duty only of abstain-
ing from anything amounting to willful or wanton injury to their property while
in its possession, and was hence not liable for its destruction, in common with its
own property, caused by attempting to run the train in which it was placed upon
an unguarded bridge, which w^as, and long had been, so defective that it could
not sustain such a burden. ^3 Where, however, a person procures goods to be
checked as baggage and takes passage on a train, intending to pay cash fare, and
does so pay when demanded by the conductor, he is a passenger from the time he
boarded the train and the company is charged with the same responsibility con-
cerning his baggage as if he had purchased a ticket at the station. - * And it has
been held that even if fare is not paid by a passenger in a stage coach, the fact
that he is liable to the stage owner therefor renders the latter liable to the pas-
senger for failing to exercise ordinary diligence in the care of his baggage.-^

§ 3472. Where Passenger Does Not Accompany Baggage.— As a gen-
eral rule, it makes no difference, so far as a common carrier's responsibility for
the safety of a passenger's baggage is concerned, wdiether the passenger travels
with his baggage or whether it is carried without him.^e And it has been held



'■&&'^



18. Loss by theft.— Chicago, etc., R. Co. ni, 26 Am. Rep. 499; White v. St. Louis,
r. Conklin, .^2 Kan. 55, 3 Pac. T62. 16 Am. etc., R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 86 S. W.
& Eng. R. Cas. 116; Hasbrouck v. New 962.

York, etc., R. Co., 122 N. Y. S. 123, 137 22. Brown v. Elvira Harbeck, Eed. Cas.

App. Div. 532. No. 2,005, reversed in Fed. Cas. No. 4,424,

19. Liability for negligence. — Southern 2 Blatchf. 336, on the ground that the
R. Co. V. Wood. 114 Ga. 159. 39 S. E. 922. baggage was not carried gratuitously.

20. Proximate cause. — United States. — 23. Beers v. Boston, etc.. R. Co., 67
Strouss V. \\'abash, etc., R. Co., 17 Fed. Conn. 417, 34 Atl. 541, 32 L. R. R. 535,
209. 52 Am. St. Rep. 293.

Illiiwis.—Wald V. Pittsburgh, etc R. 34. Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Ambach, 10

Co., 162 111. 545, 44 ^. E. 888, 35 L. R. A. q ^ ^ ^g^^ ^, q C. D. 574. 8 Am. &

365,^ 53 Am St Rep. 332 ^ j>_ q n. S., 533; affirmed in 57

I\ezu York. — McCormick v. Pennsylva- q '^^ .^g ^„ -v^t -g ^^o^

nia Cent. R. Co., 80 N. Y. 353; Schalscha ''^ \T'^-„ ' ' i-,' ' j o -n , - • ak

V. Third Ave. R. Co., 43 N. Y. S. 251, 19 , 25. ^IcGill v. Rowand, 3 Pa. 4ol, 45

Misc. Rep. 141. Am- ^ec. 654.

South Cflro/fno.- Harzburg & Co. v. 26. Where passenger and baggage are

Southern R. Co., 65 S. C 539, 44 S. E. 75; transported by different trams.— Earned

Sonneborn & Co. v. Southern R. Co., 65 v. Central R. Co., 81 N. J. L. 571, 79 Atl.

S. C. 502, 44 S. E. 77. 289; Adger V. Blue Ridge Ry. Co., 71 S.

r^.va,?.— Tarvin v. Texas, etc., R. Co. C. 213, 50 S. E. 783, 110 Am. St. Rep. 568.

(Tex. Civ. App.). 151 S. W. 640. A railway company's liability as a car-

21. Baggage carried gratuitously. — rier of baggage is not affected by the pas-
Rice V. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 22 111. x\pp. senger going on a later train than that
643; Flint, etc., R. Co. v. Wier, 37 Mich. carrying the baggage. Wilson v. Chesa-



3145



passe:nge;rs effects.



§§ 3472-3474



that a railway carrier is not, as a matter of law, liable only as a gratuitous bailee
of baggage which it has regularly checked, merely because the passenger does not
go on the same train with it.-"

§ 3473. Bagg-age Not Carried as Incident to Transportation of Pas-
senger. — A carrier of passengers is not liable for baggage unless the baggage is
checked and transported as incident to the transportation of a passenger, even
though it may have been checked and carried in a baggage car.-® So where one
purchased a passenger ticket over the defendant's railroad for the purpose of
obtaining a check upon which his trunk was forwarded as baggage, without any
intention of accompanying the baggage in its transportation, and made the jour-
ney to his destination by his own private conveyance, it was held that defendant
was not liable as a common carrier, and that the owner could not recover where
the baggage was stolen from the baggage room in the absence of gross negli-
gence.-'* But it has been held that where plaintifif applied in good faith for a
ticket and transportation of baggage over the line of the initial carrier and its
connecting lines, with notice to the agent of no intent to become a passenger
on its line, but to take the train at a more distant point, and the agent declined
to sell a through ticket, but sold a ticket over its lines, and received and checked
the baggage to its destination, it was liable for the loss therp-of.^*^

§ 3474. Property under Control of Passenger. — It may be stated, as a
general rule, that in the absence of a special agreement, the carrier, whether its
transportation be by water or by land, is not liable as a common carrier or in-
surer for the loss of money, valuables or other property carried upon the per-
sons of passengers, or in their exclusive custody, ^^ but becomes responsible only



peake, etc., R. Co., 62 Va. (21 Gratt.)
654.

A passenger was promised by an agent
that his trunk, which was locked up in
the baggage room of another railroad at
the time he wished to start, should be
sent by the next train. Held that, as the
passenger had paid his fare, it made no
difference, as far as his right to recover
for the loss thereof was concerned, that
the trunk wa? not forwarded by the
same train that he took. Warner 7'. Bur-
lington, etc., R. Co., 22 Iowa 166, 92 Am.
Dec. 389.

27. McKibbin r. Wisconsin Cent. R.
Co., 100 Minn. 270, 110 N. W. 964, 8 L. R.
A.. X. vS., 4S9.

28. Baggage not carried as incident to
transportation of passenger. — Hicks v.
Wabash R. Co., 131 Iowa 29.1. 108 N. W.
534. 8 L. R. A., N. S., 235.

29. Marshall v. Pontiac, etc.. R. Co., 120
Mich. 45, 85 N. W. 242, 55 L. R. A. 650.

30. Adger 7: Blue Ridge R. Co., 71 S.
C. 213. 50 S. F,. 783. 110 Am. St. Rep. 568.

31. Property under control of passen-
ger. — I'nitcd Slates. — Ucfrier v. Nicara-
gua, 81 Fed. 745; Henderson v. Louisville,
etc.. R. Co., 16 Am. &: Kng. R. Cas. 397.
20 Fed. 430; The Huml)olt, 97 Fed. 656;
The R. K. Lee, Fed. Cas. No. 11.690. 2
Abb. U. S. 49.

Connecticut. — Spcrry v. Consolidated
R. Co., 65 Atl. 962, 79 Conn. 565. 10 I..
R. A.. N. S., 907.

Kentucky. — Crystal Palace v. Vander-
prol, 16 H. Mon. 302. holding that steam-
boat owners art- not liable as common



carriers, for the loss of the wearing ap-
parel of a passenger, or his money, which
is not delivered to the officers of the boat
for safe-keeping, but kept under his own
immediate care and control.

Louisiana. — Del Valle v. Richmond, 27
La. Ann. 90.

Maine. — Abbott v. Bradstreet, 55 Me.
530.

Massachusetts. — Dawley v. Wagner
Palace Car Co., 169 Mass. 315, 47 N. E.
1024; Levins v. New York, etc., R. Co.,
183 Mass. 175, 66 N. E. 803, 97 Am. St.
Rep. 434; Kinsley v. Lake Shore, etc.. R.
Co., 125 Mass. 54, 28 Am. Rep. 200; Clark
V. Burns, 118 Mass. 275, 19 Am. Rep. 456;
Bursteen v. Boston Elev. R. Co., 98 N. E.
27. 211 Mass. 459, 39 L. R. A., N. S., 313,
Ann. Cas. 1913B, 558.

Michigan. — McKee v. Owen, 15 Mich.
115.

Mississifypi. — Illinois Cent. R. Co. v.
Handy, 6:5 Miss. 609. 56 .Am. Rep. S46.

Missouri. — Williams v. Keokuk North-
ern Line Packet Co., 3 Cent. L. Jur. 400.

Neiv York-.— Cohen v. Frost, 9 N. Y.
Super. Ct. 335; Hawkins v. Hoffman. 6
II ill 586, 41 Am. Dec. 767; Carpenter 2>.
Xew York, etc., R. Co.. 124 N. Y. 53. 26
N. E. 277, 11 L. R. A. 759. 21 Am. St. Rep.
644; Sev/all v. Allen. 6 Wond. 335; Weeks
7'. New York, etc.. R. Co., 9 Ilun 669. af-
firmed in 72 N. Y. 50. 28 Am. Re]). 104;
'i'olano 7'. National Steam Nav. Co., 5
i-tobt. 318; Kniericm 7'. New York, etc.,
k. Co., 96 N. Y. S. 602, 109 .App. Div. 709,
17 N. Y. Ann. Cas. 415; liasbrouok v.
New York, etc., R. Co., 95 N. E. 808, 202



§ 3474



CARRIERS.



3146



for failing to exercise reasonable care to protect the same from loss or injury. ^2
The reason for the rule is that such possession on the part of the passenger is
not regarded as the possession of the carrier.^^ So the carrier has been held lia-
ble for the loss of property where the possession of the passenger was not ex-
clusive.^-* And it has been held that where a passenger carried a valise into a



N. Y. 363. 35 L. R. A., N. S., 537, Ann.
Cas. 1912D, 1150, affirming judgment 123
N. Y. S. 123, 137 App. Div. 533, which af-
firms 118 N. Y. S. 735, 64 Misc. Rep. 478;
Tower v. Utica, etc., R. Co. (N. Y.), 7
Hill 47, 42 Am. Dec. 36.

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

Pennsylvania. — American Steamship Co.
V. Bryan, 83 Pa. 446, holding that an
ocean steamship company is not respon-
sible, as a' common carrier or an inn-
keeper, for the baggage of a passenger
which he keeps in his own possession in
his stateroom.

Tennessee. — ^Nashville, etc.. R. Co. v.
Lillie, 112 Tenn. 331, 78 S. W. 1055, 105
Am. St. Rep. 947, holding that a railroad
company is not an insurer of baggage
and hand luggage taken by passengers
into a day coach.

Texas. — Pullman Palace Car Co. v.
Pollock, 69 Tex. 120, 5 S. W. 814, 5 Am.
St. Rep. 31; Bonner v. Grumbach, 2 Tex.
Civ. App. 482, 21 S. W. 1010.

England. — Bunch v. Great Western R.
Co., 17 Q. B. D. 215, 55 L. J. Q. B. 525,
5 Ry. & C. T. Cas. viii; Talley v. Great
Western R. Co., L. R., 6 C. P. 44, 40 L.
J. C. P. 9, 19 W. R. 154, 23 L. T, N. S.,
413, 3 Ry. & C. T Cas. xx.

In WilHams v. Webb, 22 Misc. Rep. 513,
49 N. Y. S. fill, it is held that a common
carrier is not liable to a sleeping-car pas-
senger, from Detroit to New York, for
the loss of $1,250, of which he had re-
tained custody, and which he intended,
upon subsequently reaching the city of
Boston, to deposit in a bank, as such .^
large sum can not be regarded as neces-
sary or reasonable for the expenses of
the trip.

Contrary holding as to carriers by
water. — A few cases hold that the liabil-
ity of a carrier by water is analogous to
that of an innkeeper. Adams v. New
Jersey Steamboat Co., 9 Misc. Rep. 25. 39
N. Y. S. 56, 59 N. Y. St. Rep. 720, affirmed
in 151 N. Y. 163, 45 N. E. 369, 34 L. R. A.
682, 56 Am. St. Rep. 616; Macklin v. New
Jersey Steamboat Co. (N. Y.), 7 Abb.
Prac, N. S., 329. Thus, it is held that
where money for traveling expenses car-
ried by a passenger on a steamboat is
taken from his stateroom at night, the
owner of the boat is liable therefor, with-
out proof of negligence on his part. Ad-
ams V. New Jersey Steamboat Co., 9
Misc. Rep. 25, 39 N. Y. S. 56, 59 N. Y. St.
Rep. 730, affirmed in 151 N. Y. 163, 45 N.
E. 369, 34 L. R. A. 682, 56 Am. St. Rep.
6i6. And see Van Horn v. Kermit (N. Y.),
4 E. D. Smith 453, holding that a passen-



ger, in order to make the shipowner re-
sponsible for the safety of his baggage,
is not bound to place it beyond his own
reach, in the special charge of the offi-
cers of the ship.

In Mudgett v. Bay State Steamboat Co.
(N. Y.), 1 Daly 151, and Gore v. Norwich,
etc., Transp. Co. (N. Y.), 3 Daly 254, the
stateroom door was provided with a lock,
of which the key was delivered to the
passenger, who had it in his possession,
leaving the door of the room locked when
the same was broken and entered, and
the articles stolen for which the carrier
was held responsible. See, also, Gleason
V. Goodrich Transp. Co., 32 Wis. 85, 14
Am. Rep. 716, holding the carrier not lia-
ble because the passenger was not pro-
vided with a key to the stateroom door.

"In Crozier v. Boston, etc.. Steamboat
Co. (N. Y.), 43 How. Prac. 466, the plain-
tiff, the occupant of a stateroom on the
defendant's steamboat, retired at night
and in the morning found that his room
had been entered, and his watch and chain
and pocketbook stolen, and the action
brought to recover the damages sustained
thereby. It was said: 'In such a case,
the passenger is invited, upon the payment
of a consideration, to disrobe himself and
retire to a couch to sleep; in other words,
he is invited to throw aside all the vigi-
lance and precaution which men habitually
practice when awake, and to intrust his
person, and whatever men usually carry
about their persons, to the care and vigi-
lance which it must be presumed they who
extend the invitation and receive the re-
ward for the comfort thus afiforded, will
themselves exercise.' " Woodruff, etc..
Coach Co. V. Diehl, 84 Ind. 474, 43 Am.
Rep. 102.

32. Sperry v. Consolidated R. Co., 65
Atl. 962, 79 Conn. 565, 10 L. R. A., N. S.,
907; Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Pollock,
69 Tex. 120, 5 S. W. 814, 5 Am. St. Rep. 31.

33. Reason of rule. — McKee v. Owen,
15 Mich. 115.

Street railways. — In the absence of a
special agreement, a street railroad com-
pany does not assume control of such
baggage as its passengers may bring with
them into its cars. Sperry v. Consoli-
dated R. Co.. 65 Atl. 962, 79 Conn. 565.
10 L. R. A.. N. S., 907.

34. Possession of passenger not exclu-
sive. — It appeared that a passenger went
to a railroad carriage, and there gave a
chronometer to the railwa}' porter, who
placed it on a seat in the carriage. They
both then went away; the passenger to
look after his own luggage, and the por-
ter to attend to his other duties, and that



3147



PASSENGERS EFFECTS.



§ 3474



sleeping car, and deposited it on his seat, and afterwards, on retiring, placed it
under his berth, the vahse was, in effect, placed in charge of the railroad com-
pany, and hence it was an insurer thereof. ^-^

Liability for Negligence. — Though a carrier of passengers is not liable as a
common carrier for baggage retained in the possession and control of the pas-
senger, it may become responsible for its loss or injury through its failure to
exercise ordinary' and reasonable care under the circumstances.^*' So a carrier
is responsible for baggage, kept by a passenger exclusively within his own con-
trol, which is lost through the negligence of the carrier or its servants, and with-
out fault of the passenger."^" And the liability of a carrier may exist without
proof of gross negligence.^'^ But it is held that a common carrier of passengers
is not liable for the loss of money kept in the sole custody of a passenger, and
which he carries, without notice to the carrier, for a purpose unconnected with
the expenses of the journey, notwithstanding such loss was occasioned by the
negligence of the carrier's sen^ants.^''

Losses by Theft. — In the absence of any fault on its part, a carrier of pas-
sengers is not liable for the loss of property by theft when it was within the ex-
clusive custody of the passenger.^** So a carrier by water is not liable for the
property of a passenger kept in his exclusive possession, which is stolen,-* ^ in the



the former returned in a few minutes, and
found that the chronometer had been
stolen. It was held that the company was
liable for the loss, the possession of the
passenger not having been exclusive. Le
Coteur V. London & S. W. R. Co., 6 B. &
S. 961, 118 E. C. L. 9G1.

In Richards v. London, B. & S. C. R.
Co., 7 C. B. 839, G2 E. C. L. 839, a lady
was traveling- on a railway train, having
with her a dressing case, which the rail-
way porters placed under her seat. On
arriving at her destination the same
porters took the dressing case for the
purpose of placing it in a coach which
was to take the lady to her residence; but
it was not placed in the coach. The
court held that the railway company was
liable lor the loss.

35. Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Lillie, 112
Tenn. 331, 78 S. W. 10.55, 105 Am. St. Rep.
947.

S6, Liability for negligence. — Sperry v.
Consolidated R. Co., 65 Atl. 962, 79 Conn.
565, 10 L. R. A., N. S., 907: Bonner v.
Grumbach, 2 Te.x. Civ. App. 482, 21 S. W.
1010.

37. Kinsley v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co.,
125 Mass. 54, 28 Am. Rep. 200; American
StCcimship Co. v. I'ryan, S3 I'a. 14''i.

38. Gross negligence unnecessary. —
Connecticut. — Sperry v. Consolidated R.
Co., 65 Ati. 962, 79 Conn. 565, 10 L. I\. .\.,
X. S., 907.

/oiiu. — Hillis V. Chicago, etc., R. Co.,
72 Iowa 22H, 33 X. W. 643, 31 Am. S/ Kng.
R. Cas. 108.

Massachusetts. — Bursleen v. Boston
Kiev. k. Co., 98 X. ]•:. 27, 211 .Mass. 459,
:i» L. R. A., X. S., 313. Ann. Cas. 1913B,
55H; Kinsley v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co.,
125 Mass. 54, 28 .Am. Rci). 200.

-Vr-f York. — Weeks v. Xew York, etc.,
R. Co.. 72 X. Y. 50, 2H Am. Re]). 104.

Ohio. — First Xat. Bank v. Marietta,
etc., R. Co., 20 (). St. 259. 5 .\ni. Rep. 655.



Pennsylvania. — American Steamship
Co. V. Bryan, 83 Pa. 446.

Texas. — Bonner v. Grumbach, 2 Tex.
Civ. App. 482, 21 S. W. 1010; Pullman Pal-
ace Car Co. V. Pollock, 69 Tex. 120, 5 S.
W. 814, 5 Am. St. Rep. 31.

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

40. Losses by theft.— The R. E. Lee,
Fed. Cas. No. 11,690, 2 Abb. U. S. 49; Le-
vins V. New Y'ork, etc., R. Co., 183 Mass.
175, 66 N. E. 803, 97 Am. St. Rep. 434;
Weeks v. New York, etc., R. Co. (N.
Y.), 9 Hun 669, affirmed in 72 N. Y. 50, 28
Am. Rep. 104.

Where a passenger on a railroad train
keeps her money in her possession and
under her control, and it is lost or stolen
when left momentarily by her on a win-
dow sill of the car, the company can not
be held responsible as a bailee. Levins v.
New York, etc., R. Co., 183 Mass. 175, 66
N. E. 803, 97 Am. St. Rep. 434.

Plaintiff was a passenger in one of de-
fendant's trains. On its arrival at New
York, the car in which plaintiff was sit-
ting was detached from the rest of the
train, and allowed to remain unguarded,
while awaiting the arrival of horses to
draw it to the station. Plaintiff got up
and went towards the door to ascertain
the cause of the stoppage, whereupon he
was seized by three men, who had just
entered the car, and robbed of over
$16,000. Held, that he was not entitled
to recover from the company for the loss.
Weeks v. New York, etc.. R. Co. (N.
Y.), 9 Hun 669, affirmed in 72 N. Y. 50,
2S Am. Rep. 104.

41. Carrier by water.— In McKce v.
Owen, 15 .Mich. 115, it appeared that a
|)assenger on l)oar(l a steaml)oat, a com-
mon carrier of i)assengers, occupied a
stateroom with a fellow passenger, a
stranger, wliicli was as>igne(l to (hem by
tile oflicers of the l)oal; tliat the state-



§§ 3474-3475



CARRIERS.



3148



absence of proof that the robbery was committed by one of its employees.^2
Where a passenger who, having placed his overcoat on the seat of the car in which
he sat, forgot to take it with him when he left, and it was afterwards stolen,
the carrier was not liable.-*^ And it has been held that the carrier is not liable
for a large amount of gold coin placed in a carpet bag by a passenger without no-
tice to the carrier, though the money is stolen by one of the carrier's employees."*^

Duty of Carrier after Loss. — Where a passenger on a subway lost a violin,
due to a sudden jerk of the car, but without negligence of the carrier, it was
under no duty to stop the car between stations to permit him to regain it."*^ And
where a passenger accidentally drops a handbag containing money and jewelry
out of the window of the car, while attempting to close it, the company is not
liable for the loss, although the passenger notifies those in charge of the train
of the accident and requests that the train be stopped in order that she may re-
cover it.'*^

Assisting Departing Passenger Off Train. — It has been held that where
a trainman, acting in the scope of his employment, takes a passenger's suit case,
which had not been checked as baggage, for the special purpose of assisting the
passenger off the train, his possession is that of the carrier, but the carrier's
liability is only that of a bailee and not that of an insurer, but for a theft by the
employee the carrier is liable*^

§§ 3475-3481. Property Other than Personal Baggage— § 3475.
Effect of Acceptance with Knowledge of Nature of Property. — If a car-
rier knows that an article oft'ered by a passenger for transportation as his per-
sonal baggage is not such baggage, but undertakes to carry it as such, it renders
itself responsible as a common carrier for its loss or injury, as much so as for
the real baggage of a passenger.-^^ This rule has been applied to drummers'



room window was broken, and the atten-
tion of the stewardess was called to it.
When the first passenger retired for the
night, she rolled up her dress, in the
pocket of which were money and a gold
chain, and placed it at the foot of the
upper berth. Early in the morning she
found the dress unrolled, and the money
and chain had disappeared, and a pillow
which had been placed in the window was
not in it; and she testified that the woman
with her could not have taken the prop-
ert}' without awakening her, as they oc-
cupied the same berth. It was held, that
the owners of the boat were not liable
for the loss, because the money and chain
were not in their custody. But see Cro-
zier V. Boston, etc., Steamboat Co. (N.
Y.), 43 How. Prac. 466, and Gore v. Nor-
wich, etc., Transp. Co. (N. Y.), 2 Daly
254, holding the carrier liable. See, also,
Gleason v. Goodrich Transp. Co., 32 Wis.
85, 14 Am. Rep. 716.

42. Abbott V. Bradstreet, 55 Me. 530.
(Money stolen from pocket of passen-
ger.)

43. Leaving overcoat in car. — Tower v.
Utica;, etc., R. Co. (N. Y.), 7 Hill 47, 42
Am. Dec. 36.

44. Theft by carrier's employees. —
Doyle V. Kiser, 6 Ind. 242.

45. Duty of carrier after loss. — Burs-
teen V. Boston Elev. R. Co., 98 N. E. 27,
211 Mass. 459, 39 L. R. A., N. S., 313, Ann.
Cas. 1913B, 558.

46. Henderson v. Louisville, etc., R. Co.,
123 U. S. 61, 8 S. Ct. 60, 31 L. Ed. 92.



47. When assisting passenger off train.

— Hasbrouck v. New York, etc., R. Co.,
95 N. E. 808, 202 N. Y. 363, 35 L. R. A., N.
S.. 537, Ann. Cas. 1912D, 1150, affirming
judgment 122 N. Y. S. 123, 137 App. Div.
532, which affirms 118 N. Y. S. 735, 64
INIisc. Rep. 478. See Richards v. London,
B. & S. C. R. Co., 7 C. B. 839, 62 E. C. L.
839, holding the carrier liable for the less
of a suit case which its porter took from
the train for the purpose of olacing it in
a coach which was to take the passenger
to his residence.

48. Effect of acceptance with knowledge
of character and value. — United States. —
Strouss V. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 17 Fed.
209; Central Trust Co. v. Wabash, etc.,
R. Co., 40 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., 636, 39
Fed. 417; Hannibal, etc., R. Co. v. Swift,
12 Wall. 262, 20 L. Ed. 423; Saunders iK
Southern R. Co., 62 C. C. A. 523, 11 R. R.
R. 596, 34 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 596,
128 Fed. 15; Hellman v. Holladay, 1
Woolw. 365, Fed. Cas. No. 6340; Jacobs
V. Tutt, 33 Fed. 412.

Arkansas. — St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v.
Berry, 60 Ark. 433, 30 S. W. 764, 28 L. R.
A. 501, 46 Am. St. Rep. 212; Kansas, etc.,
R. Co. V. IMcGahey, 63 Ark. 344, 38 S. W.
659, 36 L. R. A. 781, 58 Am. St. Rep. Ill;
St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Miller, 103 Ark.



Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 8 of 214)