4

submitted to a jury. The passenger, however, may lose his right of action by contributory negligence. Thus, in a Massachusetts case, a passenger who left the car for several minutes, and on returning found that her satchel had been stolen, was held to have been guilty of such contributory negligence as would bar her action for recovery.3

1 Pullman Palace Car Co. v Gardner (Pa.), 16 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 324. As to what these articles are, vide supra, §§ 899 and 900.

2 Tracy v. Pullman Palace Car Co. 67 How. Pr. 151; Hilles v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co. 72 Iowa, 223; Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Smith, 73 Ill. 3.0; 24 Am. Rep. 258.

3 Lewis v. New York Central Sleeping-Car Co. 143 Mass. 267; 58 Am. Rep. 135.

4 Whitney v. Pullman Palace Car Co. 143 Mass. 243.

5 Whitney v. Pullman Palace Car Co. 143 Mass. 243,

2

§ 910. The carrier's liability for delay in delivery of baggage-Measure of damages-Exemplary damages.-The carrier is bound to deliver baggage within a reasonable time after its arrival,1 and at a reasonably convenient place. Where it appears in an action for the value of baggage stolen from a railroad, that the business of the station often required a delay of as much as two hours from the time of arrival until the delivery of baggage, and that the baggage in question was stolen during that time, the company is liable. And a rule made by a railway company, to sell tickets and deliver baggage at only one of its five stations in a city, which is less convenient for such passengers as desire to transfer baggage to another road, and to carry all baggage on to the main station, though the trains regularly stop at the other stations to allow passenger to alight from or get on them, is, as a matter of law, un eason ble and void. Accordingly, in an action for damages by a passenger whose

3

baggage was under such a rule wrongfully carried beyond the station at which he desired it delivered to him, exemplary damages may be given, if the jury believe the act to be committed willfully, or with such negligence as indicates a wanton disregard of the rights of others. But in an action brought against a railway company by a passenger, to recover damages for a delay in his journey, occasioned by a detention of his baggage, it was held that his damages could not be reckoned as the difference in value of the goods at the time of their arrival, and what it would have been if they had arrived on time.5

1 Jacobs v. Tutt (1888), 33 Fed. Rep. 412; International & G. N. R'y Co v. Philips, 63 Tex. 590; Cary v. Cleveland etc. R. R. Co. 23 Barb. 35.

2 Pittsburgh, C. & St. L. R'y Co. v. Lyon (Pa. 1888), 37 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 231.

3 Jacobs v. Tutt (1888), 33 Fed. Rep. 412.

4 Pittsburgh, C. & St. L. R'y Co. v. Lyon (Pa. 1888), 37 Am. & Eng. R R. Cas. 231.

5 International & Great Northern R's Co. v. Philips, 63 Tex. 590.

§ 911. Of notices and stipulations as affecting liability for baggage.—As a general rule a common carrier cannot, by mere declarations, stipulations or notices, upon a ticket or check, or otherwise by a mere general notice, limit his liability.1 Accordingly, a mere notice on a check or ticket that all baggage is carried at the owner's risk does not affect the liability of the carrier for its loss or injury; certainly, not where it is printed in type smaller than that in which the general purport of the ticket is stated. There is no presumption that the passenger read the notice * It must be shown that it was actually brought to his knowledge while he yet had an opportunity to recede from his posi

3

5

tion as a passenger; and that he consented to the limitation therein imposed."

1 Georgia R. R. Co. v. Gunn, 68 Ga. 350; Wilson v. Chesapeake etc. R. R. Co. 21 Gratt. 654, 672; Story on Contracts, § 761; Bank of Kentucky v. Adams Express Co. 93 U. S. 174; Evansville etc. R. R. Co. v Young, 28 Ind. 516; Hollister v. Nowlen, 19 Wend. 234; 32 Am. Dec. 455, note 408; Logan v. Pontchartrain R. R. Co. 11 Rob. 24; 43 Am. Dec. 199; Southern Express Co. v. Purcell, 37 Ga. 103; 92 Am. Dec. 53, and note; Southern Express Co. v. Newby, 35 Ga. 635; 91 Am. Dec. 783. Contra, in Pennsylvania: Powell v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co. 32 Pa. St. 414; 75 Am. Dec. 554; American Exp. Co. v. Lands, 55 Pa. St. 140; Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Miller, 87 Pa. St. 395; Adams Exp. Co. v. Sharpless, 77 Pa. St. 517; Clyde v. Hubbard, 83 Pa. St. 353; Lanig v. Colder, 8 Pa. St. 473; 49 Am. Dec. 533; Bingham v. Rogers, 6 Watts & S. 495; 4) Am. Dec. 581.

2 Mauritz v. New York, L. E. etc. R. R. Co. 23 Fed. Rep. 765; Camden etc. R. R. Co. v. Burke, 13 Wend. 611; Rawson v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co. 48 N. Y. 212; 8 Am. Rep, 543. See Hollister v. Nowlen, 19 Wend. 234; S. C. Thompson on Carriers, 483.

3 Verner v. Sweitzer, 32 Pa. St. 208.

4 Malone v. Boston etc. R. R. Co. 12 Gray (Mass.), 388; 74 Am. Dec. 598; Brown v. Eastern R. R. Co. 11 Cush. (Mass.) 97. See Mauritz v. New York, L. E, etc. R. R. Co. 23 Fed. Rep. 765.

5 Logan v. Pontchartrain R. R. Co. 11 Rob. (La.) 24; 43 Am. Dec. 199. 6 Kansas City, St. J. & C. B. R. R. Co. v. Rudebaugh (1888), 38 Kan. 45; and cases cited supra.

§ 912. Of the termination of the carrier's liability for baggage.-The carrier's liability for baggage terminates only when the passenger has had a reasonable time wherein to remove it, after the company was ready to deliver it1 at the station to which it was destined. When the delay arises through the mistake of the railway, it will, of course, continue liable. It is the duty of the baggage-master to remain at the station for a reasonable time after the arrival of trains, for the purpose of delivering baggage to passengers, or their servants; and loss occurring through his leaving the depot, immediately, will fall upon the company.3 Where a railroad company delivers all of its baggage to a union depot company, to be cared for and de ivered to passengers on presentation of checks, it makes the depot company its agent for that purpose, and it is liable

as a common carrier for loss of any baggage, while in the depot company's custody, occurring before a reasonable time for delivery has elapsed. After the lapse of a reasonable time, the company's liability is changed from that of a carrier to the liability of an ordinary bailee for hire; from the liability of an insurer to that f a warehouseman. And the passenger who has failed to remove his baggage, must show that its loss or injury was the result of the company's negligence. The reasonableness of the passenger's delay in taking his baggage away, depends upon the facilities to be had for removing it, and the custom of the place." Ordinarily, he incurs a risk by leaving it overnight. But it may be shown that the depot was at a distance from the village, and no conveyance could be hired to transport it; that the passenger was sick and lame, and that the company agreed to let it remain; in which case it continues liable as a carrier.8

1 Louisville etc. R. R. Co. v. Mahan, 8 Bush, 135; Torpey v. Williams, 3 Daly, 162; Klein v. Hamburg etc. Packet Co. 3 Daly, 390.

2 Toledo etc. R. R. Co. v. Hammond, 33 Ind. 379, 5 Am. Rep. 221, where the baggage was taken to the wrong station and there stored.

3 Dinnig v. New York etc. R. R. Co. 49 N. Y. 546.

4 Jacobs v. Tutt (1888), 33 Fed. Rep. 412.

5 Roth v. Buffalo etc. R. R. Co. 34 N. Y. 518; 90 Am. Dec. 734; St Louis etc. R. R. Co. v. Hardway, 17 Ill. App. 321; Chicago & A. R. R. Co. V. Addizoat, 17 Ill. App. 632; Minor v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co. 19 Wis. 40; 88 Am. Dec. 670; Hoeger v. Chicago, M. etc. R'y Co. 63 Wis. 100; 53 Am. Rep. 271.

6 Mote v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co. 27 Iowa, 22; 1 Am. Rep. 212.

7 Jacobs v. Tutt (1883), 33 Fed. Rep. 412, where the baggage arrived on the afternoon of one day, but was not called for until 9 or 10 A. M. of the next day, an 1 the company was held free from liability for its being stolen, no negligence on its part being shown; Morris v. Third Avenue R. R. Co. 1 Daly, 202; Jones v. Norwich etc. Transportation Co. 50 Barb. 493; Louisville etc. R. R. Co. v. Mahan, 8 Bush, 184.

8 Curtis v. Avon etc. R, R. Co. 49 Barb. 118.

CHAPTER XXXVI.

CARRIERS OF GOODS.

§ 913. Railway and transportation companies as common carriers--Excoptions to the rule.

§ 914. Beginning of the carrier's liability.

§ 915. Termination of the carrier's liability.

§ 916. Constructive delivery-Notification of arrival.

Whether delivery to connecting carrier terminates liability of

initial carrier.

§ 917.

§ 925.

§ 926.

§ 927.

Of the carrier's obligations-(a). To receive and carry.
"Strikes," as affecting the obligation to receive and carry.
(b). To supply safe and suitable cars.

§ 928.

The same subject, continued.

§ 929.

(c). To separate goods injurious to each other.

§ 930.

(d). To deliver to the right person at the designated place.

§ 931. The same subject, continued.

§ 932.

(e). To deliver within a reasonable time.

933. The same subject, continued-Presumption as to the reasonableness of time.

§ 934. (f). In respect of "leaks and outs."

§ 935. (g). In respect of live-stock shipments-Duty to supply safe and

suitable cars.

§ 936. Additional duties of carriers of live-stock-Special agreements. 937. (h). In respect of stoppage in transitu.

938. The same subject, continued.

§ 939. The carrier's right to compensation, and its lien to secure payment. § 940. Payment of charges in advance-Waiver.

§ 941. Excessive charges.

§ 942. State regulation of rates-Railway comunission

BEACH ON RAILWAYS -98