1 Upshare v. Aidee, 1 Com. 24; Citizens' Bank v. Nantucket Steamboat Co., 2 Story, 17.
2 See Wilson v. Grand Trunk Railway Co., 56 Me. 60; 57 Id. 139. 3 Becher v. Great Eastern Railway Co., Law R. 5 Q. B. 241 (1870).
4 Cole v. Goodwin, 19 Wend. 251; Peixotti v. M'Laughlin, 1 Strob. 468. 5 First Nat. Bank v. Marietta, etc. Railroad Co., 20 Ohio St. 259
(1870), a very interesting case on this subject.
6 Hawkins v. Hoffman, 6 Hill, 586; Dibble v. Brown, 12 Ga. 217.
7 The Great Northern Railway Co. v. Shepherd, 8 Exch. 30; 9 Eng. Law & Eq. 477; 14 Ibid. 367.
1 McGill v. Rowand, 3 Barr, 451; Brooke v. Pickwick, 4 Bing. 218. See Nevins v. Bay State Steamboat Co., 4 Bosw. 226; M'Corniick v. Hudson River Railroad Co., 4 E. D. Smith, 181.
2 Jones v. Voorhees, 10 Ohio, 145. But see Bomar v. Maxwell, 9 Humph. 621.
3 Cincinnati, etc. Railroad v. Marcus, 38 I11. 219. See Walsh v. The H. M. Wright, Newb. Adm. 494; Mississippi, etc. Railway Co. v. Kennedy, 41 Miss. 671.
4 Porter v. Hildebrand, 14 Penn. St. 129. See, also, Davis v. Cayuga, etc. Railroad Co., 10 How. Pr. 330.
5 Woods v. Devin, 13 I11. 746. See Davis v. Michigan Southern etc. Railroad Co., 22 I11. 278, 281.
6 Bomar v. Maxwell, 9 Humph. 621.
7 Fraloff v. New York Cent. R. Co., 10 Blatchf. 16 (1872).
8 Jordan v. The Fall River Railroad Co., 5 Cush. 69. In this case, Fletcher, J., said, "The only question of importance raised in the case is, whether or not the plaintiff can recover for the money contained in the trunk, as properly constituting a part of her baggage as passenger. It was held, in the time of Lord Holt, and formerly by the Supreme Court of New York, that passenger earners were not liable for baggage, unless a particular and distinct price had been paid for its conveyance. But it is now well settled, and is a matter of great and general convenience and accommodation in this age of universal and perpetual travelling, that passenger carriers are responsible for the baggage of a passenger, and that the reward for conveying the baggage is included in the passenger's fare. But, though it is settled that passenger carriers are responsible for baggage, yet there is still a very wide field for controversy remaining, in determining what is properly included in the term baggage. From the nature of the case, it is impracticable to prescribe an exact rule, or to define with technical precision what may properly be included in the term baggage, as used in connection with travelling in public conveyances.
"Some persons, and in this particular the wisest, perhaps, take little or nothing with them in travelling, while others take many things and large quantities. It is quite impossible for the court to restrict within certain and prescribed limits the quantity or value or kind of articles which may be embraced in the term baggage of the travelling world. The most that can be done is to prescribe some general rules as to the character, description, and purposes of articles which may be taken as bagbut not large sums of money taken not for use on the journey, but for the purpose of transportation;1 nor a trunk of silk gage. It may be said, in general terms, that the baggage includes such articles as are of necessity or convenience for personal use, and such as it is usual for persons travelling to take with them. It has been said that articles for instruction or amusement, as books, or a gun, or fishing-tackle, fall within the term baggage. In the case of Brooke v. Pickwick, 4 Bing. 218, the carrier was held responsible for a lady's trunk, containing apparel and jewels. So, in the case of McGill v. Rowand, 3 Barr, 451, which was for apparel and jewelry. In Jones v. Voorhees, 10 Ohio, 145, 150, the carrier was held responsible for a watch which was lost in a trunk, as being an appendage of the traveller. But a carrier is not liable for merchandise as baggage. In Pardee v. Drew, 25 Wend. 459, the passenger carrier was held not responsible for a trunk of silk goods as baggage. So, in Hawkins v. Hoffman, 6 Hill, 586, the carrier was held not liable for samples used for effecting sales of goods. So carriers are not liable for large sums of money, as baggage, taken for the purpose of transportation. In the case of the Orange County Bank v. Brown, 9 Wend. 85, it was held, that the owner of a steamboat, used for carrying passengers, was not liable for a trunk, containing a large sum of money, brought on board by a passenger as baggage, the object being the trans-portation of the money. In the case of Weed v. Saratoga & Schenectady Railroad Co., 19 Wend. 534, it was held that a railroad company were liable for money in a trunk, to a reasonable amount, for travelling expenses, as baggage. In that case the sum was $2S5, in the trunk of a passenger from Saratogo to New York. In the case above cited, from 9 Wend. 85, it was also supposed, though not expressly adjudged, that money for travelling expenses might be carried as baggage at the risk of the carrier. But in the case before cited, from 6 Hill, 586, a doubt was expressed, whether any money could be considered as baggage.
"Upon consideration of the whole subject, and referring to cases, the court have come to the conclusion that money bond fide taken for travelling expenses and personal use may properly be regarded as forming a part of a traveller's baggage. The time has been, in our country, when the character and credit of our local currency were such that it was expedient and needful for persons travelling through different States to provide themselves with an amount of specie which could not be conveniently carried about the person to defray travelling expenses. But even if bills are taken for this purpose, it may be convenient and suitable that they should be, to some amount, placed in a travelling trunk, with other necessary articles for personal use. This would seem but a reasonable accommodation to the traveller. It has been objected that the carrier will not expect that there will be money with the baggage, and will not, goods, carried as merchandise;1 nor samples used to effect sales;2 nor a diamond breast-pin;8 nor sheets, blankets, and quilts for house-furnishing.4 Baggage also includes a Bible, but not a history of Ireland; manuscript books belonging to a medical student and necessary for the prosecution of his studies;5 surgical instruments,6 but not silver ware,7 nor a child's " spring-horse," weighing seventy-eight pounds and measuring forty-four inches in length,8 nor articles of merchandise intended for sale, although of such a character that one or more of them might come within the class of articles ordinarily carried for personal use,9 nor money or other artitherefore, be put upon his guard. But, surely, a carrier may, very naturally, understand and expect that a passenger will place his money for expenses, or some part of it, in his trunk, instead of carrying it all about his person; he certainly might as naturally expect this as that there would be jewels or a watch in a travelling trunk, for which articles a carrier has been held responsible. The passenger is not bound to give notice of the contents of his trunks unless particular inquiry be made by the carrier. But it must be fully understood that money cannot be considered as baggage, except such as is bond fide taken for travelling expenses and personal use; and to such reasonable amount only as a prudent person would deem necessary and proper for such purpose. But money intended for trade or business or investment, or for transportation or any other purpose than as above stated, cannot be regarded as baggage." See, also, Bomar v. Maxwell, 9 Humph. 621; Weed v. Saratoga & Schenectady Railroad Co., 19 Wend. 531; Johnson v. Stone, 11 Humph. 419; Merrill v. Grinnell, 30 N. Y. 595; McCormick v. Hudson River R. Co., 4 E. D. Smith, 181; Torpey v. Williams, 3 Daly, 162 (1869). But see Grant v. Newton, 1 E. D. Smith, 95, where the contrary rule is held.
1 Orange County Bank v. Brown, 9 Wend. 85.
1 Pardee v. Drew, 25 Wend. 459. See Great Northern Railway v. Shepherd, 8 Exch. 30; 9 Eng. Law & Eq. 477.
2 Hawkins v. Hoffman, 6 Hill, 586.
3 Everett v. Southern Exp. Co., 46 Ga. 303 (1872).
4 Macrow v. Great Western Railway Co., L. R. 6 Q. B. 612 (1871). 5 Hopkins v. Westcott, 6 Blatchf. 64 (1868).
6 Hannibal Railroad©. Swift, 12 Wall. 262 (1870); Giles v. Fauntle-roy, 13 Md. 126, 129.
7 Bell v. Drew, 4 E. D. Smith, 59.
8 Hudston v. Midland Railway Co., Law R. 4 Q. B. 366 (1869).
9 Richards v. Westcott, 2 Bosw. 589; Collins v. Boston & Maine Railroad Co., 10 Cush. 506; Cahill v. London & N. W. Railway Co., 13 C. B. (N. s.) 818; Belfast & Ballymena Railway Co. v. Keys, 9 H. L. C. 556.
cles belonging to some third person, packed up with a traveller's own things;1 and the tendency of the decisions as to money is to limit the amount to a clearly reasonable sum, bond fide intended for travelling expenses.2
§ 975. It is the duty of carriers of passengers safely to deliver luggage to the owners at the end of the journey. Whether the taking off the goods at the platform of a railway, and the offer of them there to the passenger, is sufficient, depends upon the actual contract and the usage of the country, road, and place. Where the carrier is a railway company, and the usage is to admit cabs within the station, and the porters of the company carry the luggage to the cabs, as in England, it would seem, that although the luggage be identified at the platform by the passenger, yet if it be taken up again by the porter to be carried to the cab, and lost on the way, the company would be responsible.3 But if the passenger should identify his luggage, and request a stranger, not a servant of the company, to carry them for him, the company would not be liable. In America, this usage does not generally exist; and it would seem that the delivery on the platform would terminate the responsibility of the railway company as carriers, unless they employed porters of their own to attend to the removal of the luggage to cabs and hacks. But where trunks are ticketed, it would seem that the company would be responsible as carriers until the passenger had reasonable time to claim his luggage, and from that time they would be responsible as warehousemen for storing the goods.1
1 Phelps v. London & N. W. Railway Co., 19 C. B. (n. s.) 321; Dunlap v. International Steamboat Co., 98 Mass. 371; Dexter v. Syracuse, etc. Railroad Co., 42 N. Y. 326 (1870).
2 Hickox v. Naugatuck Railroad Co., 31 Conn. 281; Davis v. Michigan, etc. Railroad Co., 22 I11. 278; Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Copeland, 24 I11. 332; Whitmore v. Steamboat Caroline, 20 Mo. 513; Merrill v. Grinnell, 30 N. Y. 594; Doyle v. Riser, 6 Ind. 242. But such articles as are usually carried on a journey, and intended for the personal use of a traveller and his family, may be reserved, although not to be used on the journey. Dexter v. Syracuse, etc. Railroad Co., 42 N. Y. 326 (1870).
3 Butcher v. The London & South Western Railway Co., 29 Eng. Law &Eq. 349; 16 C. B. 13; Richards v. The London, Brighton, & South Coast Railway Co., 7 C. B. 839; Stewart v London & North Western Railway Co., 3 H. & C. 135; Midland Railway Co. v. Bromley, 17 C. B. 372.