Majority
Headnote
Where a passenger purchased, in Chicago, a “ through ticket” for New York, consisting of four coupons, to he separated and delivered up on demand, three thereof at points between Chicago and Albany, and the fourth after leaving the latter place; held, that the railroad company owning the last route of the journey, from Albany to New York, were liable for the loss of a trunk, the passenger having received their check upon surrendering such trunk and a carpet bag at Buffalo, and they having delivered a part of said baggage at New York.The assignor purchased a ticket at Chicago, for his transportation to New York. It was what is called a through ticket, or coupons, that is, there were four tickets upon one piece of paper, so arranged as to admit of each ticket being cut off and delivered up when demanded at different points along the route. Three of the parts of the coupons were delivered between Chicago and Albany, and the fourth part was received by the defendant, for his transportation from Albany to New York. At Buffalo he de
Concurrence
This was sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to recover. The ticket which McCormick received in Chicago, passed him over the defendants’ road; and that they took charge of Ms baggage at Buffalo, appéars by their delivering their check for it, and by their transporting a part of it safely to New York. The justice was justified in assuming that the ticket sold McCormick in CMcago was sold by the defendants, or their agents, and that they or their agents took charge of the baggage in Buffalo.
A gold watch is an article of wearing apparel, and when not carried about the person, but in a trunk wMle travelling, is to be deemed baggage. (See Grant v. Newton, 1 E. D. Smith, 95.)
I concur with Judge Dady in the opinion, that the liability of the defendants was sufficiently established, but must dissent from his conclusion that their liability extended to the loss of the plaintiff’s watch and chain, and finger rings. The liability of carriers has often been declared to extend only to “ ordinary baggage.” To extend it to the traveller’s watch and chain and finger rings, assumes that such articles are usually carried in his trunk; while, on the contrary, they are ordinarily carried upon the person, and so notoriously, if not universally, thus carried, that (in the absence of any proof on the subject in the case presented) in my opinion they can no more be termed baggage than could any description of goods which, in a particular instance, a traveller might place in his trunk. The case of Grant v. Newton, 1 E. D. Smith, 98, I tMnk, as well as the cases there cited, requires us to deduct from the judgment the amount of those articles, $78 50, and affirm the judgment for the residue, without costs on appeal.
I do not feel willing to decide as matter of law that a traveller may not put his watch, or other articles usually worn about his person, into his trunk while travelling, and claim the protection for them which the law gives him for his ordinary baggage. It is true that a watch, or a ring, if worn, is so used about the person, but there may be times, and especially in travelling, that the traveller may prefer to keep them in his trunk. They are, I think, entitled to be treated in the same way as a snuff box, or other articles necessary for his comfort, though not intended for clothing.
The case of Grant v. Newton, 1 E. D. Smith, 95, does not conflict with these views. There, we held that in such cases we would leave it to the jury to decide whether they were such articles as the traveller ought to carry in his trunk.
In this case, the court below, acting as the jury, has found for the plaintiff, and I do not feel authorized to interfere with the finding.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.