65

67

person;

62

es toys; presents;

68

64

66

68

cloth for a dress intended for a third handcuffs and locks; 5 quantities of watches; bullion, jewelry, etc., not intended to be worn; 7 samples of traveling salesmen ; es deeds and documents; " valuable papers; " engravings; " silverware; 72 bicycles."

69

Question for Jury or Court

70

The question whether certain articles are technically baggage is usually one of fact for the jury." This is always true when

if the carrier is not informed of its presence, he is not liable for its loss. Orange County Bank v. Brown, 9 Wend. (N. Y.) 85, 24 Am, Dec. 129. Compare the cases cited in note 45.

62 Dexter v. Syracuse, B. & N. Y. R. Co., 42 N. Y. 326, 1 Am. Rep. 527.

68 Nevins v. Bay Steamboat Co., 4 Bosw. (N. Y.) 225; The Ionic, 5 Blatchf. 538, Fed. Cas. No. 7,059.

64 Hudston v. Railway Co., L. R. 4 Q. B. (Eng.) 366 (rocking horse as a present for a child).

65 Bomar v. Maxwell, 9 Humph. (Tenn.) 621, 51 Am. Dec. 682.

66 Belfast, etc., Ry. Co. v. Keys, 9 H. L. Cas. (Eng.) 556; Mississippi Cent. Ry. Co. v. Kennedy, 41 Miss. 671.

67 Cincinnati & C. Air Line R. Co. v. Marcus, 38 Ill. 219; Nevins v. Bay Steamboat Co., 4 Bosw. (N. Y.) 225; Steers v. Liverpool, N. Y. & P. S. S. Co., 57 N. Y. 1, 15 Am. Rep. 453; MICHIGAN CENT. R. CO. v. CARROW, 73 Ill. 348, 24 Am. Rep. 248, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 369. Contrast cases cited in note 44.

68 Hawkins v. Hoffman, 6 Hill (N. Y.) 586, 41 Am. Dec. 767; Pennsylvania Co. v. Miller, 35 Ohio St. 541, 35 Am. Rep. 620; Alling v. Boston & A. R. Co., 126 Mass. 121, 30 Am. Rep. 667; Stimson v. Connecticut River R. Co., 98 Mass. 83, 93 Am. Dec. 140; Southern Kansas Ry. Co. v. Clark, 52 Kan. 398, 34 Pac. 1054; Humphreys v. Perry, 148 U. S. 627, 13 Sup. Ct. 711, 37 L. Ed. 587; Rossier v. Wabash R. Co., 115 Mo. App. 515, 91 S. W. 1018; Hoeger v. Chicago, M. & St: P. Ry. Co., 63 Wis. 100, 23 N. E. 435, 53 Am. Rep. 271; Cahill v. Railway Co., 10 C. B. N. S. (Eng.) 154, 100 E. C. L. 154. 69 Phelps v. Railway Co., 19 C. B. N. S. (Eng.) 321. 70 Phelps v. Railway Co., 19 C. B. N. S. (Eng.) 321; Thomas v. Railway Co., 14 U. C. Q. B. (Canada) 389. Compare and contrast the cases cited in note 57. See, also, Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. Georgia Home Ins. Co., 85 Miss. 7, 37 South. 500, 67 L. R. A. 646, 107 Am. St. Rep. 265, holding the papers relating to the business of a principal not to be baggage in the trunk of the agent.

71 Nevins v. Bay Steamboat Co. 4 Bosw. (N. Y.) 225.

72 Giles v. Fauntleroy, 13 Md. 126.

78 State ex rel. Bettis v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 71 Mo. App. 385.

74 RAILROAD CO. v. FRALOFF, 100 U. S. 24, 25 L. Ed. 531, Doble Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 364; Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Russell (Tex. Civ. App.) 97 S. W. 1090; Little Rock & H. S. W. R. Co. v. Record, 74 Ark. 125, 85 S. W. 421, 109 Am. St. Rep. 67; Mauritz v. New York, L. E. & W. R. Co. (C. C.) 23 Fed. 765; Knieriem v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 109 App. Div. 709, 96 N. Y. Supp. 902; Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. of Texas v. Meek, 33 Tex. Civ. App. 47, 75 S. W. 317; Oakes v. Northern Pac. R. R. Co., 20 Or. 392, 26 Pac. 230, 12 L. R. A. 318, 23 Am. St. Rep. 126; Wingate v. Pere Marquette Ry. Co., 172 Ill. App. 314.

76

the facts are in dispute." Even when these are admitted, however, the questions of whether the article is for the passenger's personal use or is suitable for persons in his station to carry under the circumstances ordinarily should be determined by the jury. When, however, both the facts and the solution of these questions on the facts are clear and obvious, the question becomes one of law for the court."7

LIABILITY OF CARRIER FOR MERCHANDISE
SHIPPED AS BAGGAGE

198. If the carrier, with full knowledge, voluntarily accepts as baggage, for transportation with the passenger, articles which are not actually baggage, then the carrier thereby incurs an insuring liability as to such articles, just as if they were technically baggage.

While common carriers of passengers are bound to carry the passenger's baggage, they are not bound to carry with the passenger anything that is not, in a technical legal sense, baggage.78 Freight trains and express facilities are provided for the transportation of such articles, and the carrier is entitled to compensation therefor. The carrier's liability, when he carries such articles as baggage, without knowledge of their true character, has just been discussed."

A different question is presented, however, when the carrier knows the nature of the articles, which indicates that these are

75 Since the jury is primarily the trier of facts, this would naturally follow. See cases cited in previous note; also Godfrey v. Pullman Co., 87 S. C. 361, 69 S. E. 666, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 971.

76 Knieriem v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 109 App. Div. 709, 96 N. Y. Supp. 602; RAILROAD CO. v. FRALOFF, 100 U. S. 24, 25 L. Ed. 531, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 364; Oakes v. Northern Pac. R. R. Co., 20 Or. 392, 26 Pac. 230, 12 L. R. A. 318, 23 Am. St. Rep. 126; Godfrey v. Pullman Co., 87 S. C. 361, 69 S. E. 666, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 971; Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Russell (Tex. Civ. App.) 97 S. W. 1090; Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. of Texas v. Meek, 33 Tex. Civ. App. 47, 75 S. W. 317;. Kansas City, Ft. S. & G. R. Co. v. Morrison, 34 Kan. 502, 9 Pac. 225, 55 Am. Rep. 252.

77 Godfrey v. Pullman Co., 87 S. C. 361, 69 S. E. 666, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 971; Jones v. Priester, 1 White & W. Civ. Cas. Ct. App. (Tex.) § 613; Connolly v. Warren, 106 Mass. 146, 8 Am. Rep. 300.

78 Smith v. Boston & M. R. R., 44 N. H. 325; Collins v. Boston & M. R., 10 Cush. (Mass.) 506; Pfister v. Central Pac. R. Co., 70 Cal. 169, 11 Pac. 686, 59 Am. Rep. 404; Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. Irvine, 84 Va. 553, 5 S. E. 532; Id., 85 Va. 217, 7 S. E. 233, 1 L. R. A. 110.

79 Ante, pp. 641-642.

merchandise rather than baggage, and still accepts and transports the articles as baggage. There is substantial agreement among the courts that, when the carrier has knowingly and voluntarily treated the goods as baggage, these are thereby impressed with that character in so far as the carrier's liability is concerned. His liability, then, as to such articles thus received, is that of an insurer, just as if these articles came technically within the definition of baggage. The doctrine of estoppel may well be applied here against the carrier.

80

Where the carrier or his agent is expressly notified that the articles are not baggage, and nevertheless receives them, no question as to notice can arise. But, even without express notice, knowledge that the articles are not baggage may be implied where the goods are so packed that their nature is obvious.81 Thus, where a roll of carpet was received as baggage, the carrier was held liable

80 Jacobs V. Tutt (C. C.) 33 Fed. 412. In Stoneman v. Erie Ry. Co., 52 N. Y. 429, Peckham, J., said: "I think it safe to say that, 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, although they are not travelers' baggage." See Waldron v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 1 Dak. 351, 46 N. W. 456; St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Green, 44 Tex. Civ. App. 13, 97 S. W. 531; Bergstrom v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 134 Iowa, 223, 111 N. W. 818, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1119, 13 Ann. Cas. 239; Fleischman Morris & Co. v. Southern Ry. Co., 76 S. C. 237, 56 S. E. 974, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 519; St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Lilly, 1 Ala. App. 320, 55 South. 937; Wells v. Great Northern R. Co., 59 Or. 165, 114 Pac. 92, 116 Pac. 1070, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 818, 825; Honeyman v. Oregon & C. R. Co., 13 Or. 352, 10 Pac. 628, 57 Am. Rep. 20; St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co. v. Berry, 60 Ark. 433, 30 S. W. 764, 28 L. R. A. 501, 46 Am. St. Rep. 212; MICHIGAN CENT. R. CO. v. CARROW, 73 Ill. 348, 24 Am. Rep. 248, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 369; Southern R. Co. v. Dinkins & Davidson Hardware Co., 139 Ga. 332, 77 S. E. 147, 43 L. R. A. (N. S.) 806. An agent who is charged with receiving and checking baggage has ordinarily authority (by virtue of his position) to accept merchandise as baggage, rendering the carrier liable accordingly. Charlotte Trouser Co. v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co., 139 N. C. 382, 51 S. E. 973; Chicago, R. 1. & P. R. Co. v. Conklin, 32 Kan. 55, 3 Pac. 762; Toledo & O. C. Ry. Co. v. Dages, 57 Ohio St. 38, 47 N. E. 1039.

81 Dahrooge v. Pere Marquette R. Co., 144 Mich. 544, 108 N. W. 283; IIlinois Cent. R. Co. v. Matthews, 114 Ky. 973, 72 S. W. 302, 60 L. R. A. 846, 102 Am. St. Rep. 316; Amory v. Wabash R. Co., 130 Mich. 404, 90 N. W. 22; Trimble v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 162 N. Y. 84, 56 N. E. 532, 48 L. R. A. 115; Kansas City Ft. S. & M. Ry. Co. v. McGahey, 63 Ark. 344, 38 S. W. 659, 36 L. R. A. 781, 58 Am. St. Rep. 111. The fact that a package was marked "Glass," and resembled a package of merchandise, is insufficient to show an undertaking to carry such merchandise as baggage. Cahill v. Railway Co., 10 C. B. N. S. (Eng.) 154, 13 C. B. N. S. 818. The packing of articles, not baggage, in a laundry basket, does not give notice to the carrier of the character of the articles. St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Miller, 103 Ark. 37, 145 S. W. 889, 39 L. R. A. (N. S.) 634.

84

83

for its loss. And, where poles, ropes, and canvas constituting a tent belonging to a passenger were accepted as baggage for transportation, it was held that the carrier must account for them as if they were personal luggage. But the mere fact that a box is tendered, instead of a trunk, or that a trunk is of the kind usually used by commercial travelers," is not notice that they contain merchandise or samples; for baggage may well be carried in that manner, though the size and number of these trunks and other circumstances might constitute implied notice to the carrier that the trunks do contain merchandise rather than baggage. Custom and usage of the carrier are frequently relevant on this point.s A passenger, by tendering a package to be carried as baggage, impliedly represents that it contains only baggage. The carrier has a right to rely upon this representation without making any inquiries, in the absence of facts putting the carrier on notice, even though there may be single suspicious circumstances. If the carrier inquires as to the contents, the passenger must, of course, answer truly; and, if he refuses to answer, the carrier may refuse to transport the articles as baggage."

82 Minter v. Pacific R. R., 41 Mo. 503, 97 Am. Dec. 288.

83 Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Conklin, 32 Kan. 55, 3 Pac. 762.

84 Belfast, etc., Ry. Co. v. Keys, 9 H. L. Cases (Eng.) 556. See, also, St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Green, 44 Tex. Civ. App. 13, 97 S. W. 531. But compare when the box obviously contained merchandise and was carried with the passenger's baggage. Waldron v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 1 Dak. 351, 46 N. W. 456.

85 MICHIGAN CENT. R. CO. v. CARROW, 73 Ill. 348, 24 Am. Rep. 248, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 369; Alling v. Boston & A. R. Co., 126 Mass. 121, 30 Am. Rep. 667; Rossier v. Wabash R. Co., 115 Mo. App. 515, 91 S. W. 1018; Humphreys v. Perry, 148 U. S. 627, 13 Sup. Ct. 711, 37 L. Ed. 587.

86 See cases cited in note 81; Trimble v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 162 N. Y. 84, 56 N. E. 532, 48 L. R. A. 115; Sloman v. Great Western R. Co., 67 N. Y. 208.

87 MICHIGAN CENT. R. CO. v. CARROW, 73 Ill. 348, 24 Am. Rep. 248, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 369: Humphreys v. Perry, 148 U. S. 627, 13 Sup. Ct. 711, 37 L. Ed. 587; Haines v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 29 Minn. 160, 12 N. W. 447, 43 Am. Rep. 199.

68 Cahill v. Railway Co., 10 C. B. N. S. (Eng.) 154, 13 C. B. N. S. 818; MICHIGAN CENT. R. CO. v. CARROW, 73 Ill. 348, 24 Am. Rep. 248, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 369; Pennsylvania Co. v. Miller, 35 Ohio St. 541, 35 Am. Rep. 620. See, also, Blumenthal v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 79 Me. 550, 11 Atl. 605.

89 RAILROAD CO. v. FRALOFF, 100 U. S. 24, 25 L. Ed. 531, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 364; Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. Irvine, 84 Va. 553, 5 S. E. 532; Id., 85 Va. 217, 7 S. E. 233, 1 L. R. A. 110.

PASSENGER MUST EITHER OWN THE BAGGAGE OR HAVE A SPECIAL INTEREST IN IT

199. One, to recover against the carrier for loss of, or damage to, articles as baggage, must be a passenger, and must also either own these articles or have a special interest in them.

Baggage Implies Passenger

Since it is an incident to the transportation of the passenger, the very term "baggage" implies the relation of passenger and carrier. Unless, therefore, one is a passenger, strictly speaking, he can have no baggage. Only a passenger, therefore, can sue the carrier for loss or damage as to articles on the score of the carrier's liability arising out of the fact that these articles were technically baggage." Accordingly, if one secures the transportation of articles on the representation that he will become a passenger and he does not become one, then clearly he cannot hold the carrier liable for these articles as baggage." Again, if the carrier transports the goods, knowing that there was not even an intention on the part of the owner to become a passenger, such carrier is a carrier of goods, whose liability is to be worked out accordingly without reference to the subject of baggage."2 Passenger Must Own or Have a Special Interest in the Baggage

Ordinarily the person accompanying the baggage is its owner, in which case there is little difficulty as to the liability of the carrier. The carrier, though, is not responsible for articles as baggage when the passenger for whom they are carried has neither the ownership of, nor a special interest in, these articles; for in such

• Marshall v. Pontiac, O. & N. R. Co., 126 Mich. 45, 85 N. W. 242, 55 L. R. A. 650; Beers v. Boston & A. R. Co., 67 Conn. 417, 34 Atl. 541, 32 L. R. A. 535, 52 Am. St. Rep. 293 (mistake). Cases in which the plaintiff is a passenger, but his baggage is not transported on the same train or boat, present somewhat different problems, and these cases are treated in section 200. See Wood v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 98 Me. 98, 56 Atl. 457, 99 Am. St. Rep. 339. See, also, 3 Hutch. Carr. § 1274.

91 Marshall v. Pontiac, O. & N. R. Co., 126 Mich. 45, 85 N. W. 242, 55 L. R. A. 650. This case held the carrier liable only as a gratuitous bailee, though the plaintiff checked the "baggage" on a ticket that he bought solely for that purpose, and did not use the ticket save to check the baggage. Such cases are exceedingly rare. See criticism of this case in the note appended to the case in 55 L. R. A. 650. See, when the carrier had notice of the situ ation, the interesting case of Adger v. Blue Ridge Ry., 71 S. C. 213, 50 S. E 783, 110 Am. St. Rep. 56S.

92 There would then be no occasion for invoking the law of passenger car