Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

an early hour and a late hour will be enough.1 There is conflict of authority as to whether if messages are accepted at one point for delivery at another and arrive at the destination after office hours, there is an obligation to deliver them before the next office hours there. But in absence of any explicit undertaking, it would seem that all parties must be governed by the reasonable regulation in force at the destination. And where a company has thousands of offices, the office hour at any particular point cannot be known to a certainty at every point.2 There are, however, cases which hold in effect that everything which is received for transmission must be promptly delivered without regard to office hours; but most of these cases are those of exceptional messages obviously requiring urgent haste, and under such circumstances it is well recognized that all regulations must be set aside.3

§ 875. Proper baggage.

The carrier by its customary regulation takes his personal baggage with the passenger without making an

827, 22 Ky. Law Rep. 53, 94 Am. St. Rep. 366 (1900).

1 See Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Ford, 77 Ark. 531, 92 S. W. 528 (1906), and Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Pierce, 170 S. W. 360 (1902).

2 United States.-Given v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 24 Fed. 119 (1885).

Georgia.-Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Georgia Cotton Co., 94 Ga. 444 (Ga.), 21 S. E. 835 (1894).

Indiana.-Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Harding, 103 Ind. 505, 3 N. E. 172 (1885).

Maryland.-Birney v. New York

& W. P. Telegraph Co., 18 Md. 341 (1862).

South Carolina.-Roberts v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 73 S. C. 520, 53 S. E. 985, 114 Am. St. Rep. 100 (1906).

Texas.-Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Neel (Tex. Civ. App.), 25 S. W. 15, 40 Am. St. Rep. 847 (1894); Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Wingate, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 394, 25 S. W. 439 (1894).

3 Iowa.-McPeek v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 107 Iowa, 356 78 N. W. 63, 43 L. R. A. 214, 70 Am. St. Rep. 205 (1899).

Utah.-Brown v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 6 Utah, 219, 21 P. 988 (1889).

additional charge. Nevertheless, it would not be proper to say that the service was gratuitous in such a case. The truth is that the compensation for the carriage of the baggage is included in the fare paid by the passenger, and the carrier is therefore liable for the baggage that he undertakes to accept as an insurer. The baggage which the company so carries in consideration of the passenger's fare consists merely of the ordinary personal effects of the passenger which he will need on his journey. It is almost impossible to summarize as briefly as is necessary at this point what constitutes baggage. In Woods v. Devin to quote from one case, an excellent summary of the general law is given by Chief Justice Treat: "The principle of the authorities is, that the term 'baggage'

1 See for example on this point: Indiana.-Perkins v. Wright, 37 Ind. 27 (1871).

New Hampshire.-Smith v. Boston & M. R. R. Co., 44 N. H. 325 (1862).

New Jersey.-Runyan v. Cent. R. R. Co., 61 N. J. L. 537, 41 Atl. 367, 68 Am. St. Rep. 711, 43 L. R. A. 284, also 64 N. J. Law, 67, 44 Atl. 985, 48 L. R. A. 744 (1898).

Ohio.-First Nat. Bk. v. Marietta & C. R. R. Co., 20 Ohio St. 259, 5 Am. Rep. 655 (1870).

2 See for examples of this: United States.-New York C. & H. R. R. Co. v. Fraloff, 100 U. S. 24, 25 L. ed. 531 (1879).

Connecticut.-Hickox v. Naugatuck R. R. Co., 31 Conn. 281, 83 Am. Dec. 143 (1863).

Illinois.-Michigan C. R. R. Co. v. Carrow, 73 Ill. 348, 24 Am. Rep. 248 (1874).

Indiana.-Ohio & Miss. R. W. Co. v. Nickless, 71 Ind. 271 (1880);

Staub v. Kendrick, 121 Ind. 226, 23
N. E. 79 (1889).

Kansas.-Kansas City, F. S. & G. R. R. Co. v. Morrison, 34 Kan. 502, 9 Pac. 225, 55 Am. Rep. 252 (1886).

Massachusetts.-Connolly v. Warren, 106 Mass. 146, 8 Am. Rep. 300 (1870); Blumantle v. Fitchburg R. R. Co., 127 Mass. 322, 34 Am. Rep. 376 (1879).

Missouri.-McLean v. Rutherford, 8 Mo. 109 (1843).

North Carolina.-Bland et al. v. Womack, 2 Murphy, 373 (1818). Oregon.-Oakes v. No. Pac. R. R. Co., 20 Ore. 392, 26 Pac. 230, 12 L. R. A. 318 (1891).

Wisconsin.-Gleason v. Transportation Co., 32 Wis. 85, 14 Am. Rep. 716 (1873).

England.-Hudston v. Midland Ry. Co., L. R. 4 Q. B. 366 (1869); Macrow v. Great Western Ry. Co., L. R. 6 Q. B. 612 (1871).

13 Ill. 746 (1852).

includes a reasonable amount of money in the trunk of a passenger intended for traveling expenses, and such articles of necessity and convenience as are usually carried by passengers for their personal use, comfort, instruction, amusement or protection; and that it does not extend to money, merchandise, or other valuables, although carried in the trunks of passengers, which are designed for different purposes. And regard may with propriety be had to the object and length of the journey, the expenses attending it, and the habits and condition in life of the passenger." A more definite rule cannot well be laid down. Upon this general principle that baggage is personal paraphernalia taken for use in connection with the journey, the carrier will not be liable for it unless the passenger is forwarding it at the time he is traveling; but of course if the carrier sends it at a different time for its own purposes it is liable.1

[ocr errors]

§ 876. Unusual baggage.

Since baggage is by the usual regulation limited to personal baggage, if the passenger takes ordinary merchan

The possibilities in this whole situation are seen in:

United States.-The Elvira Harbeck, 2 Blatchf. 336, Fed. Cas. No. 4,424 (1851).

Connecticut.-Beers v. Boston & A. R. R. Co., 67 Conn. 417, 34 Atl. 541, 52 Am. St. Rep. 293, 32 L. R. A. 535 (1896).

Indiana.-Perkins v. Wright, 37 Ind. 27 (1871).

Iowa.-Warner v. Burlington & Mo. R. R. R. Co., 22 Ia. 166, 92 Am. Dec. 389 (1867).

Maine.-Graffam v. Boston & M. R. R. Co., 67 Me. 234 (1877); Wilson v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 56 Me. 60, 96 Am. Dec. 435 (1868);

Wood v. Maine Central Ry. Co., 98 Me. 98, 56 Atl. 457 (1903).

Michigan. Flint & Pere M. Ry. Co. v. Weir, 37 Mich. 111, 26 Am. Rep. 499 (1877); Marshall v. Pontiac, O. & N. R. R. Co., 126 Mich. 45, 85 N. W. 242, 55 L. R. A. 650 (1901).

New York.-Fairfax v. New York Cent. R. R. Co., 37 N. Y. Sup. Ct. 516 (1874); Burkett v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. R. Co., 24 Misc. (N. Y.) 76, 53 N. Y. Supp. 394 (1898).

Virginia.-Wilson v. Chesapeake & O. R. R. Co., 21 Gratt. (Va.) 654 (1872).

1

dise he cannot hold the carrier liable. "There is no undertaking to carry merchandise and he had no right to impose his goods subtly upon the company, and then seek to make its obligation that of a common carrier." 2 But when the carrier, knowing the nature of the goods, charges and accepts extra compensation, he is responsible for them as a common carrier. If, however, the carrier has notice that the articles are merchandise and accepts them for carriage, notwithstanding he is a gratuitous carrier, he is responsible for any negligent injury to the goods."

V.

1See for examples of this: United States.-Humphreys Perry, 148 U. S. 627, 37 L. ed. 587, 13 Sup. Ct. 711 (1893).

Georgia.-Georgia R. R. Co. v. Johnson, 113 Ga. 589, 38 S. E. 954 (1901)

Indiana.-Doyle v. Kiser, 6 Ind. 242 (1855).

Maine.-Blumenthal

V. Maine
Cent. R. R. Co., 79 Me. 550, 11
Atl. 605 (1887).

Massachusetts.-Jordan
V. Fall
River R. R. Co., 5 Cush. 69, 51
Am. Dec. 44 (1849).

Minnesota.-McKibbin v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 78 Minn. 232, 80 N. W. 1052 (1899); Haines v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 29 Minn. 160, 12 N. W. 447, 43 Am. Rep. 199 (1882).

Mississippi.-Miss. Cent. Ry. Co. v. Kennedy, 41 Miss. 671 (1868). Missouri.-Rider v. Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co., 14 Mo. App. 529 (1884).

New York.-Blanchard v. Isaacs, 3 Barb. 388 (1848); Bell v. Drew, 4 E. D. Smith 59 (1855).

Ohio.-Toledo & O. C. R. R. Co.

v. Bowler & B. Co., 63 Ohio St. 274, 58 N. E. 813 (1900).

Pennsylvania.-Verner v. Sweitzer, 32 Pa. St. 208 (1858).

Texas.-Jones v. Priester, 1 Tex. Civ. App. Cas. 613 (1877).

England.-Belfast & B. Ry. Co. v. Keys, 9 H. L. Cas. 556, 8 Jus. (N. S.) 367 (1861); Great North. Ry. Co. v. Shepherd, 8 Ex. 30 (1852).

2 The quotation is from Michigan C. R. R. Co. v. Carrow, 73 Ill. 348, 24 Am. Rep. 248 (1874).

New York.-Stoneman v. Erie Ry. Co., 52 N. Y. 429 (1873); Sloman v. Great Western Ry. Co., 67 N. Y. 208 (1876); Millard v. Missouri, K. & T. R. R. Co., 86 N. Y. 441 (1881).

Texas.-Texas & P. Railway Co. v. Capps, 2 Wills App., § 34 (1883).

4 United States.-Hannibal R. R. Co. v. Swift, 12 Wall. (U. S.) 262, 20 L. ed. 423 (1870); Jacobs v. Tutt, 33 Fed. 412 (1888).

Arkansas.-Kansas City, F. S. & M. Ry. Co. v. McGahey, 63 Ark. 344, 38 S. W. 659, 58 Am. St. Rep. 111, 36 L. R. A. 781n (1897).

Topic C. Regulation of Patron's Conduct

§ 877. Regulations requiring prepayment.

The first regulations with which a patron is met are those which designate the conditions with which he must conform in order to obtain service. The most common of these are designed to secure prepayment, which, as has been seen, may always be made a condition precedent, although it may be waived. Thus a street car company may require by a reasonable regulation that a passenger shall deposit his fare in cash in a box upon entering the car. But it would be unreasonable to enforce against a passenger a regulation unknown to him that fares should in rush hours be paid to a conductor instead. One of the most illuminating illustrations of the operation of a regulation is that while a street car company must apparently accept a five dollar bill tendered for its small fare,3 yet a Illinois.-Hamburg Am. Packet L. J. Exch. 286, 7 R. & Can. Cas. 310 (1852).

1

Co. v. Gattman, 127 Ill. 598, 20
N. E. 662 (1889).

Kansas.-Chicago, R. I. & P. R.
R. Co. v. Conklin, 32 Kan. 55, 3
Pac. 762 (1884).

Missouri.-Minter v. Pac. R. R. Co., 41 Mo. 503, 97 Am. Dec. 288 (1867).

V. Erie

New York.-Stoneman
Ry. Co., 52 N. Y. 429 (1873).

Ohio. Toledo & O. C. Ry. Co. v. Dages, 57 Ohio St. 38, 47 N. E. 1039, and see 63 Am. St. Rep. 702 (1897).

Oregon.-Oakes v. No. Pac. R. R. Co., 20 Ore. 392, 26 Pac. 230, 23 Am. St. Rep. 126, 12 L. R. A. 318 (1891).

Texas. Snaman v. Mo., K. & T. Ry. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 42 S. W. 1023 (1897).

England.-Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Shepherd, 8 Exch. 30, 21

But see Blumantle v. Fitchburg R. R. Co., 127 Mass. 322, 34 Am. Rep. 376n (1879); Scott, J., in Michigan Cent. R. R. Co. v. Carrow, supra.

1

Nye v. Marysville & Y. C. St. Ry. Co., 97 Cal. 461, 32 P. 530 (1893). See also Elder v. International Ry. Co., 122 N. Y. Supp. 880 (1910).

2 Perry v. Pittsburg Pass. Ry. Co., 153 Pa. St. 236, 125 Atl. 772 (1893).

3 California.-Barrett v. Market Street Ry. Co., 81 Cal. 296, 22 Pac. 859, 6 L. R. A. 336, 15 Am. St. Rep. 61 (1889).

[blocks in formation]
« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »