Слике страница
PDF
ePub

Galena &C. U. R. Co. v. Rae, 18 Ill. 488; Sangamon Co. v. Henry, 14 Ill. 156; Clark v. Am. Exp. Co., 130 Iowa, 254, 106 N. W. 642; Inman v. St. L. S. W. R. Co., 14 Tex. Civ. App. 39, 37 S. W. 37; Peet v. Ch. & N. W. R. Co., 20 Wis. 624.

In an action to recover for damage caused by delay in transporting live stock, a fall in the market between the time when the stock should have arrived and the time when it actually arrived is a proper element of damage. Kent v. Hudson R. R. Co., 22 Barb. (N. Y.) 278.

Damages from loss of market, due to an unexcused delay by carrier, are too speculative and contingent to be recoverable.— Conger v. Duer, 6 Duer (N. Y.), 375.

[38] Baggage — What are proper articles of baggage.

Penalties for injury to baggage,- see N. Y. R. R. L., § 45.

Right of carrier to grant special privileges as to the amount of free baggage which may be carried under mileage tickets,- see ante, § 33.

Power of Commission as to baggage,- see post, § 49, note [14].

Whether articles of wearing apparel in a particular case constitute baggage, for which the carrier is responsible as insurer, depends upon the inquiry whether they are such in quantity and value as passengers under like circumstances ordinarily carry for personal use when traveling.- New York C. & H. R. R. Co. v. Fraloff, 100 U. S. 24.

Jewelry carried by a traveler and not intended to be used during her journey cannot be considered as baggage.- Bacon v. Pullman Co., 159 Fed. 1.

Passenger may recover for a reasonable amount of money carried in his baggage as such.- Fairfax v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co., 73 N. Y. 167, affg. s. c. 43 N. Y. Super 18; Merrill v. Grinnell, 30 N. Y. 594; Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Lawrence, 15 Tex. Ct. R. 471, 95 S. W. 663.

Samples of merchandise carried by the passenger in a trunk, to assist him in selling goods, and money, apparently even for traveling expenses, are not baggage.- Hawkins v. Hoffman, 6 Hill (N. Y.), 586.

Money, except what may be carried for traveling expenses, is not a proper article of baggage.- Orange Co. Bank v. Brown, 9 Wend. (N. Y.) 85.

A pair of duelling-pistols and a pocket-pistol are properly a part of the baggage of a traveler for the loss of which the carrier is liable.- Woods v. Devin, 13 Ill. 746.

[ocr errors]

The term baggage" includes only those effects of the traveler required for his pleasure, convenience and necessity during the journey.Wilson v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 56 Me. 60.

[39]

Source of carrier's obligation as to baggage.

The sale of a ticket by a carrier of passengers obligates the carrier, without any specific agreement or separate compensation, to carry the passenger's baggage to a reasonable amount, and deliver it at its destination or the end of the route.— Isaacson v. N. Y. C. & H. R. Co., 94 N. Y. 278, revg. s. c. 25 Hun (N. Y.), 340.

[blocks in formation]

A baggage check is a mere receipt for goods delivered and is not the contract of carriage.- Park v. So. R. Co., — S. C. —, 58 S. E. 931.

[41]

Liability of carrier for loss of or injury to baggage. A carrier is responsible for a parcel, though ignorant of its contents, no matter how valuable, unless he has made a special acceptance.Stoneman v. Erie R. Co., 52 N. Y. 429.

The baggage of a passenger is under the same legal protection as goods entrusted to a common carrier.— Merrill v. Grinnell, 30 N. Y. 594.

As a common carrier a railroad is an insurer of baggage carried except against an act of God or of the public enemy.- Williams v. Cent. R. Co. of N. J., 93 App. Div. (N. Y.) 582, 88 N. Y. Supp. 434; affd. 183 N. Y. 518, 76 N. E. 1116.

[42]

Liability for goods not properly baggage.

If the carrier knew or had notice of the character of the goods taken as baggage and still undertook to transport them, he is liable for their loss, though they are not traveler's baggage.-Stoneman v. Erie R. Co., 52 N. Y. 429.

A railroad is liable for merchandise carried as baggage, if it knew it was such, and a limitation for loss of baggage to $100, does not prevent recovery of the full value of merchandise so carried.- Saleeby v. Central R. Co. of N. J., 99 App. Div. (N. Y.) 163, 90 N. Y. Supp. 1042; affd. without opinion, 184 N. Y. 597, 77 N. E. 1196.

An agreement in a passenger's passage ticket limiting the carrier's liability for loss of baggage to $100 does not prevent recovery of full value for a sample trunk, plainly marked.- Trimble v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co., 39 App. Div. (N. Y.) 403, 57 N. Y. Supp. 437; affd. 162 N. Y. 84, 56 N. E. 532, 48 L. R. A. 115.

[blocks in formation]

It is competent for carriers, by specific regulations, brought to the knowledge of passengers, which are reasonable and not inconsistent with any statute or their duties to the public, to protect themselves against liability, as insurers, for baggage upon additional compensa

tion, proportioned to the risk; and the carriers may require, as a condition precedent to any contract for transportation of baggage, information from the passenger as to its value.- New York C. & H. R. R. Co. v. Fraloff, 100 U. S. 24.

Where a passenger received for his baggage a metal check and a paper containing a written statement of exemption from liability, he was chargeable with notice of the contents of the paper, and by it the liability of the carrier was qualified to the extent stated in the paper. -Hopkins v. Westcott, 6 Blatch. (U. S.) 64, Fed. Cases No. 6,692.

The rule that in the absence of fraud, stipulations contained in a receipt limiting the carrier's liability are legally presumed to have been known and assented to by the person receiving it, applies to carriers of passengers with their baggage.- Steers v. Liverpool N. Y. & P. Ss. Co., 57 N. Y. 1.

A notice by a carrier that it will not be responsible for injuries to or loss of baggage will not relieve the carrier from liability.- Camden Transp. Co. v. Belknap, 21 Wend. (N. Y.) 354.

A carrier cannot limit its liability as to baggage by a general notice. · Cole v. Goodwin, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 251.

[blocks in formation]

Whether statutory remedy supersedes existing remedies,-see post, § 40, note [2].

When a passenger suing for loss of her baggage, introduces in evidence her receipt from the carrier, for the purpose of proving her case, she becomes bound by any limitation of liability therein contained.- Springer v. Westcott, 78 Hun (N. Y.), 365, 29 N. Y. Supp. 149.

of

§ 39. Continuous carriage *[and breakage bulk].- No common carrier shall enter into or become a party to any combination, contract, agreement or understanding, written. or oral, express or implied, to prevent by any arrangement or by change of arrangement of time schedule, by carriage in different cars or by any other means or device whatsoever the carriage of freight and property from being continuous from the place of shipment to the place of destination. No breakage of bulk, stoppage or interruption of carriage made by any common carrier shall prevent the carriage of freight and property from being treated as one continuous carriage from the place of shipment to the place of destination. Nor shall any such breakage of bulk, stoppage or interruption of carriage be made or permitted by any common car*Words in brackets not a part of section heading as enacted.

rier except it be done in good faith for a necessary purpose without intention to avoid or unnecessarily interrupt or delay, the continuous carriage of such freight or property or to evade any of the provisions of law, of this act or of an order of the commission.

For parallel provisions of Interstate Commerce Act,- see Interst. Com. Act, § 7, post, Appendix B.

Service and facilities shall be adequate and reasonable, generally,see ante, § 26.

Undue prejudice and disadvantage, generally,- see ante, § 32.

Duty of carriers to interchange cars with connecting lines, generally, see ante, § 35.

Liability of carrier for delay in transit, generally,- see ante, § 38. Power of Commission to establish through routes and make reasonable regulations as to service, generally,- see post, § 49. Power of Commission to order changes in time schedules, etc., post, § 51.

-

see

Actions by aggrieved persons for loss or damage caused by unnecessary breakage of bulk, or interruptions of continuous carriage,see post, § 40.

Penalties and forfeitures for unnecessary interruptions of continuous carriage, see post, § 56.

General power of the state to regulate property devoted to public use, - see ante, § 1, notes [1]-[22].

Exemptions from public control,- see ante, § 1, notes [16]-[21]. General rules of statutory construction,-see ante, § 1, notes [23]-[40].

Purpose of regulative acts,- see ante, § 1, note [32].

Who are common carriers,—see ante, § 2, notes [2]-[7].

Effect of receivership on power to regulate,- see ante, § 2, note [15].

What constitutes "continuous carriage" defined.- Inters. Com. Commission v. C. N. O. & T. P. R Co., 56 Fed. 925.

Carriers may not lawfully discriminate between shippers in the matter of continuous carriage without the breaking of bulk.- WarrenEhret Co. v. Cent. R. Co. of N. J., 8 Inters. Com. R. 598.

A carrier may not regard lighterage service, for avoidance of breakage of bulk, as part of the through transportation to more distant points and not to an intermediate point, the carriage to both places

being through and continuous.- Warren-Ehret Co. v. Cent. R. Co. of N. J., 8 Inters. Com. R. 598.

The continuity of a carriage of goods is not broken by one or more carriers, members of a through line, charging local rates as their proportion of a through line.- Board of Trade v. Ala. Mid. R. Co., 6 Inters. Com. R. 1.

A railroad company cannot require a connecting carrier to break bulk and reship, as a condition of carrying the latter's freight from such point of intersection.- Hudson Valley R. Co. v. Boston & M. R. Co., 45 Misc. (N. Y.) 520, 92 N. Y. Supp. 928.

66

Allegations that the acts charged against defendant carrier were unlawful, in that it was purposely avoiding continuous passage of the goods, etc., do not make out a contract, combination or agreement to prevent continuous carriage."— Clark v. Am. Exp. Co., 130 Iowa, 254, 106 N. W. 642.

A statute of Iowa which provides that connecting carriers shall transfer carload lots of freight without unloading unless such unloading be done without charge therefor is not unconstitutional.— Burlington, C. R. & N. R. Co. v. Dey, 82 Iowa, 312, 48 N. W. 98, 12 L. R. A. 436n.

A state statute requiring the breaking of bulk and preventing continuous carriage, etc., is unconstitutional.- Council Bluffs v. K. C. St. J. & B. R. Co., 45 Iowa, 338.

A carrier may be required to make transfers of freight to a connecting carrier without breaking bulk.- Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Central Stockyards Co., 30 Ky. L. R. 18, 77 S. W. 778.

§ 40. Liability for loss or damage caused by violation of this act; *[reasonable attorneys' fees taxable as costs].— In case a common carrier shall do, cause to be done or permit to be done any act, matter or thing prohibited, forbidden or declared to be unlawful, or shall omit to do any act, matter or thing required to be done, either by any law of the state of New York, by this act or by an order of the commission, such common carrier shall be liable to the persons or corporations affected thereby for all loss, damage or injury caused thereby or resulting therefrom, and in case of recovery, if the court shall find that such act or omission was wilful, it may in its discretion fix a reasonable counsel or attorney's fee, which fee shall be taxed and

*Words in brackets not a part of section heading as enacted.-Ed.

« ПретходнаНастави »