May be by Agreement.

4.

3. Effect of Rule of Company Against Receiving It.
Knowledge of Character of Property.
A.

Need not be by Direct Statement.

B. Knowledge by Agent.

C. Need not Inquire as to Contents-Fraud.

e. Disclosing Value of Baggage by Passenger.

f. Liability for Extra Baggage.

III. Connecting Carriers.

a. May Contract Beyond Own Line.

b. Limiting Liability to Own Line.

c.

English Rule-American Rules.

d. Presumptions, Where not Known Where Loss or Injury Occurred.

IV. Limitation of Liability.

How Far Carrier may Restrict His Liability. b. Effect of General Notice of Nonliability.

c. May Limit Liability by Contract.

1. Generally.

2. Ticket as a Contract.

A. Opposing Views.

B. Must have Opportunity and Ability to Read
It.

3. Limitations must be Communicated before Journey

4.

5.

d.

e.

Starts.

Unreasonable Limitations.

Restrictions by One Carrier Available to Connecting Carrier.

Construction of Conditions.

Statutory Enactments.

1. Prohibiting Limitation of Liability.

2. Construction of Statute Limiting Liability.

V. When Liability Attaches.

VI. Delivery to Carrier.

a. Necessity Therefor.

b. Custom as Showing Delivery.

C.

Retention of Control of Baggage by Passenger.
1. Effect Thereof.

2. Steamship Companies as Innkeepers.

VII. When Liability Ends.

a.

b.

C.

d.

e.

After Reasonable Time.

Custom as Determining Cessation of Liability.
Must have Opportunity to Obtain Baggage.
To Whom Delivery must be Made.

Where Taken Charge of by Government Officials.

f. Burden of Showing Delivery to Passenger.
g. Liability for Property Left Behind in Car.

VIII. Liability as Warehouseman.

IX. Contributory Negligence of Passenger.

I. Authority of Baggage Master as to Baggage.
XI. Power of Carrier to Establish Regulations.
XII. Liability for Willful Acts of Employés.
XIII. Necessity for Payment of Fare in Advance.
XIV. When Baggage Should be Sent.

a. On Same Train.

b. Effect of Passenger not Accompanying It. XV. Measure of Damages.

a. For Loss or Destruction.

b. For Delay.

c. Place of Destination as Fixing Damages.

XVI. Conflict of Laws.

XVII. What Actions will Lie.

XVIII. Who may Sue.

a. In General.

b. Principal Suing Where Agent was Passenger.

c. Partners or Joint Owners.

d. Husband.

e. Father.

XIX. Burden of Proof and Evidence.

a. Proof of Delivery and Failure to Produce Make Out Prima Facie Case.

b. Baggage Check as Evidence of Receipt of Baggage. c. Statements of Carrier's Agents.

d. Proof as to Contents of Trunk.

I. Nature of the Liability.

3. That of Insurer. While it was at one time held that in order to render a common carrier liable for the baggage of passengers separate price must be paid therefor, it is now universally considered as law that payment for the personal transportation of a passenger includes also that of his baggage, without any special agreement or separate compensation, it being merely incidental to the carriage of the passenger himself: Cincinnati etc. R. Co. v. Marcus, 38 Ill. 219; Chicago etc. R. Co. v. Fahey, 52 Ill. 81, 4 Am. Rep. 587; Seasongood v. Owensboro etc. R. Co., 14 Ky. Law Rep. 430; Wilson v. Grand Trunk Ry., 56 Me. 60, 96 Am. Dec. 435; Mississippi Cent. R. Co. v. Kennedy, 41 Miss. 671; McKibbin v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 78 Minn. 232, 80 N. W. 1052; Harlow v. Fitchburg R. Co., 74 Mass. (8 Gray) 237; Smith v. Boston etc. R. Co., 44 N. H. 325; Hedding v. Gallagher, 69 N. H. 650, 76 Am. St. Rep. 204, 45 Atl. 96; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Knight, 58 N. J. L. 287, 33 Atl. 845; Isaacson v. New York etc. R. Co., 94 N. Y. 278, 46 Am. Rep. 142, reversing 25 Hun, 350; Orange County Bank v. Brown, 9 Wend. 85, 24 Am. Dec. 129; Hawkins v. Hoffman, 6 Hill, 586, 41 Am. Dec. 767; Talcott v. Wabash R. Co., 89 Hun, 492, 35 N. Y. Supp. 574; Oakes v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 20 Or. 392, 23 Am. St. Rep. 126, 26 Pac. 230; Peixotti v. McLaughlin,

1 Strob. (S. C.) 468, 45 Am. Dec. 563; Wilson v. Chesapeake etc. E. Co., 21 Gratt. 654.

In regard to such baggage the liability of a common carrier of passengers does not differ from that of a carrier of goods or freight, and he is held to the strict accountability of an insurer, excused only from loss or damage occurring by an act of God, or a public enemy: Montgomery etc. Ry. Co. v. Culver, 75 Ala. 587, 51 Am. Rep. 583; Waldron v. Chicago etc. R. Co., 1 Dak. 351, 46 N. W. 456; Dibble v. Brown, 12 Ga. 217, 56 Am. Dec. 460; Woods v. Devin, 13 Ill. 747, 55 Am. Dec. 483; Louisville etc. Ry. Co. v. Nicholai, 4 Ind. App. 119, 51 Am. St. Rep. 206, 30 N. E. 424; Seasongood v. Owensboro etc. R. Co., 14 Ky. Law Rep. 430; Aiken v. Wabash R. Co., 80 Mo. App. 8; Ringwalt v. Wabash R. Co., 45 Neb. 760, 64 N. W. 219; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Knight, 58 N. J. L. 287, 33 Atl. 845; Camden etc. Co. v. Burke, 13 Wend. 611, 28 Am. Dec. 488; Hollister v. Nowlen, 19 Wend. 234, 32 Am. Dec. 455; Merrill v. Grinnell, 30 N. Y. 594; Hyman v. Central Vermont R. Co., 60 Hun, 202, 21 N. Y. Supp. 119; Oakes v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 20 Or. 392, 23 Am. St. Rep. 126, 26 Pac. 230, Dill v. South Carolina R. Co., 7 Rich. (S. C.) 158, 62 Am. Rep. 407; Houston etc. Ry. Co. v. Seale, 28 Tex. Civ. App. 364, 67 S. W. 437.

This liability arises from the fact that a reward has been paid, although included in the personal fare of the passenger. Therefore, where a common carrier undertakes to carry baggage without compensation, he is held to no greater degree of diligence than that of a gratuitous bailee, answerable only for bad faith or gross neglect: Rice v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 22 Ill. App. 643; Flint etc. Ry. Co. v. Weir, 37 Mich. 111, 26 Am. Rep. 499.

b. Act of God or Public Enemy as Defense.-An unusual flood is an act of God, and if the destruction of baggage is caused thereby it is a good defense when sued for its loss; and such loss does not give rise to a presumption of negligence: Long v. Pennsylvania E. Co., 147 Pa. St. 343, 30 Am. St. Rep. 732, 23 Atl. 459. The act of God relied upon as an excuse must be the entire cause of the damage, and the carrier must be free from negligence in any way contributing thereto: Sonneborn v. Southern Ry. Co., 65 S. C. 502, 44 S. E. 77. See, also, Wald v. Pittsburgh etc. R. Co., 162 Ill. 545, 53 Am. St. Rep. 332, 44 N. E. 888, reversing 60 Ill. App. 460. And in Harzburg v. Southern Ry. Co., 65 S. C. 539, 44 S. E. 75, it is held that it is not sufficient to show that the damage resulted from an unusual and unforeseen action of nature, but that the carrier must show further that the injury could not have been prevented by any foresight, pains or care reasonably to be expected.

The act of a public enemy will constitute no defense where the baggage might still be saved. So, where during the Civil War, a Confederate cruiser captured a passenger vessel, but the passengers were permitted to take with them their baggage, and the captain of the captured ship undertook to transfer the passengers' baggage to a schooner provided by the enemy to convey the passengers to

port, the steamship company was held liable where certain baggage was not brought on board the schooner but was lost: Spaids v. New York Mail S. S. Co., 3 Daly, 139.

Where it is proved that the baggage was in good condition when received by the carrier, and damaged when delivered, the burden is on him to show that it was occasioned by some cause exempting from absolute liability for safe delivery: Montgomery etc. Ry. Co. v. Culver, 75 Ala. 587, 51 Am. Rep. 483; Toledo etc. R. Co. v. Tapp, 6 Ind. App. 304, 33 N. E. 462.

II. What Baggage Includes.

a. On What It Depends.-The liability of a common carrier of passengers as insurers extending only to baggage, it becomes necessary to determine what is meant by that term. It has been held to comprise such articles of necessity and convenience as passengers usually carry for their personal use, comfort, instruction, amusement, or protection, having regard to the length and object of their journey: Parmelee v. Fischer, 22 Ill. 212, 74 Am. Dec. 138. It is a relative term, depending not only on the length and purpose of the journey, but also upon the station in life of the passenger, and therefore what might be considered baggage for one traveler could not be so held for one occupying a different position: Dibble v. Brown, 12 Ga. 217, 56 Am. Dec. 460; Hannibal etc. R. Co. v. Swift, 79 U. S. (12 Wall.) 262; Fraloff v. New York etc. R. Co., 100 U. S. 24, affirming 10 Blatchf. 16, Fed. Cas. No. 5025, 12 Blatchf. 484, Fed. Cas. No. 5026, in which latter case a wealthy Russian woman was allowed ten thousand dollars for the loss of a quantity of lace which she was carrying with her as her personal baggage. It is not essential that the articles be for use on the journey itself, but if for use with reference to the ultimate purpose of the journey, it is regarded as baggage: Dexter v. Syracuse etc. Ry. Co., 42 N. Y. 326, 1 Am. Rep. 527; Missouri etc. Ry. Co. v. Meek (Tex. Civ. App.), 75 S. W. 317; Macrow v. Great Western R. Co., L. R. 6 Q. B. 612. For other cases defining baggage, see Kansas City etc. Ry. Co. v. McGahey, 63 Ark. 344, 38 S. W. 659; Dibble v. Brown, 12 Ga. 217, 56 Am. Dec. 460, Cincinnati etc. R. Co. v. Marcus, 38 Ill. 219; Doyle v. Kiser, 6 Ind. 242; American Contract Co. v. Cross, 71 Ky. (8 Bush) 472, 8 Am. Rep. 471; Del Valle v. The Richmond, 27 La. Ann. 90; Jordan v. Fall River R. Co., 59 Mass. (5 Cush.) 69, 51 Am. Dec. 44; McKibbin v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 78 Minn. 232, 80 N. W. 1052; New Orleans etc. R. Co. v. Moore, 40 Miss. 39; Mississippi Cent. R. Co. v. Kennedy, 41 Miss. 671; Spooner v. Hannibal etc. R. Co., 23 Mo. App. 403; Nordemeyer v. Loos her, 1 Hilt. (N. Y.) 499; Herring v. Utlev, 53 N. C. (8 Jones) 270; Oakes v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 20 Or. 392, 23 Am. St. Rep. 126, 26 Pac. 230; Bomar v. Maxwell, 28 Tenn. (9 Humph.) 621, 51 Am. Dec. 682; Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. York, 2 Wills. Civ. Cas. Ct. Rep. (Tex.), sec. 639; Hudston v. Midland R. Co., L. R. 4 Q. B. 366. That luggage and baggage are synonymous, see

Pfister v. Central Pac. Ry. Co., 70 Cal. 169, 59 Am. Rep. 404, 11 Pac. 686; Choctaw etc. R. Co. v. Zwirtz, 13 Okla. 411, 73 Pac. 941.

Of what articles baggage may consist is a mixed question of law and fact, to be determined by the jury under proper instructions from the court: Brock v. Gale, 14 Fla. 523, 14 Am. Rep. 356; Kansas City etc. R. Co. v. Morrison, 34 Kan. 502, 55 Am. Rep. 252, 9 Pac. 225; Nevins v. Bay State Steamboat Co., 17 N. Y. Super Ct. (4 Bosw.) 225; Jones v. Priester, 1 White & W. Civ. Cas. Ct. App. (Tex.), sec. 613; Texas etc. Co. v. Ferguson, 1 White & W. Civ. Cas. Ct. App. (Tex.), sec. 1255.

b. To Whom It Must Belong.-To render the company liable, the baggage must belong to the passenger carrying it, and not to another: Dunlap v. International Steamboat Co., 98 Mass. 371; Andrews v. Ft. Worth etc. Ry. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 25 S. W. 1040. See, as to who may sue, XVIII, herein.

c. Specific Articles of Baggage.

1. Wearing Apparel.-Personal baggage, while including wearing apparel, is not confined thereto: Runyan v. Central R. Co., 61 N. J. L. 537, 68 Am. St. Rep. 711, 41 Atl. 367; Mexican Nat. R. Co. v. Ware (Tex. Civ. App.), 60 S. W. 343. The mere fact, however, that it is wearing apparel will not impress upon it the character of baggage, and it has accordingly been held that where a passenger took a short journey in the summer-time, and carried with him heavy winter clothing, it was error for the trial court to hold as a matter of law that it came within the definition of baggage: Missouri etc. Ry. Co. v. Meek (Tex. Civ. App.), 75 S. W. 317.

2. Money.-Money intended and reasonably sufficient to defray the traveling expenses of a passenger, having regard to all the circumstances, is now regarded as baggage, and the carrier liable accordingly; but not for an amount in excess thereof, as the carrier cannot be held to have assumed the great risk connected with transporting large quantities of money, for which he does not receive equal remuneration and of the existence of which he is not, in most instances, aware: St. Louis etc. Ry. Co. v. Berry, 60 Ark. 433, 30 S. W. 764; Pfister v. Central Pac. Ry. Co., 70 Cal. 169, 59 Am. Rep. 404, 11 Pac. 686; Hutchings v. Western etc. R. R. Co., 25 Ga. 61, 71 Am. Dec. 156; Davis v. Michigan etc. R. Co., 22 Ill. 278, 74 Am. Dec. 151; Cincinnati etc. R. Co. v. Marcus, 38 Ill. 219; Doyle v. Kiser, 6 Ind. 242; Del Valle v. The Richmond, 27 La. Ann. 90; Jordan v. Fall River R. Co., 59 Mass. (5 Cush.) 69, 51 Am. Dec. 44; Dunlap v. International Steamboat Co., 98 Mass. 371; Levins v. New York etc. R. Co., 183 Mass. 175, 97 Am. St. Rep. 434, 66 N. E. 803; Whitmore v. The Caroline, 20 Mo. 513; Orange County Bank v. Brown, 9 Wend. 85, 24 Am. Dec. 129: Torpey v. Williams, 3 Daly, 162; Walsh v. The H. M. Wright, Newb. Adm. 494, Fed. Cas. No. 17,115; Phelps v. London etc. R. Co., 19 Com. B., N. S., 321, 115 Eng. Com. L. 321.