Hyman v. Central Vermont Railroad — 49 N.Y. St. Rep. 313

Majority

p. 313

Walter H. Hyman, App’lt, v. The Central Vermont Railroad Co., Resp’t.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department,

Filed November 22, 1892.)

Headnote

1. Carriers—Liability of railroad for lost baggage.

To relieve a carrier which has checked a piece of baggage to a point on a connecting line from liability for a subsequent loss thereof, it must show such an unequivocal act of transfer to the connecting line as would charge the latter company if the action were brought against it.

3. Same.

Plaintiff purchased a ticket of defendant to a station where it connected with another line, and had his baggage checked to a station on such connecting line. The station at the junction was a union station, and the same person acted as baggage master for both roads. On arrival he placed plaintiff’s trunk in the common baggage room in the place where baggage for the other road was usually placed, and the following day it was destroyed by fire. Held, that there was no such unequivocal act of transfer as relieved defendant from liability.

Appeal from judgment of county court, reversing judgment of a justice of the peace in favor of plaintiff.

N. M. Claflin, for app’lt; Louis Hasbrouck, for resp’t.

Appeal from a judgment of St. Lawrence county court, reversing a judgment of justice court in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant is a railroad company owning or controlling a railroad for the transportation .of passengers between a station called Norwood and one on the same road called Moira, at which latter station the Northern Adirondack Eailroad con-

p. 314

nected with that of the defendant. "At Norwood plaintiff purchased a passenger ticket to Moira, and at the same time took a check for his trunk from Norwood to Tupper Lake, a station beyond Moira on the Northern Adirondack. The baggage station at Moira on the defendant’s road is a union station used by that road and the Northern Adirondack Bailroad Company jointly, at which station the baggage master of the two companies is the same person.

The plaintiff’s trunk was carried on this check from Norwood to Moira on the defendant’s train, and on its arrival at the latter place was taken by the common agent of these companies and placed in this common baggage room in the place where the baggage was usually placed which was to be forwarded on the Northern Adirondack Bailroad. This was. about four o’clock on Saturday, September 26th. On the next night,' Sunday, September 27th, the station and baggage room at Moira with this trunk and its contents were destroyed by fire.

On these facts the justice gave judgment for the plaintiff, which was on appeal upon questions of law only reversed by the St. Lawrence county court, and from that judgment of'reversal the plaintiff appeals to this court.

The defendant is a common carrier of passengers and baggage, and as such is liable for baggage of passengers which it assumes to carry for all loss or destruction, except by the act of God or public enemies.

Having taken the baggage in its possession for transportation, it assumed the burden, in order to relieve itself from liability for loss, of showing that it discharged that duty by delivering it at its point of destination, or delivering it to tíre succeeding carrier to be so delivered.

Section 48 of chapter 565 of the Laws of 1890 provides that: “Every railroad corporation doing business in this state * * * shall be liable as a common carrier for the transportation of passengers, or delivery of freight, received by it to be transported to any place on the line of a connecting road, etc.” And also provides for the liability to them of connecting lines for losses which may be suffered on such lines.

If, therefore, we could treat this check as a contract on the part of the defendant to deliver this baggage at Tupper’s Lake, then the liability of the defendant could not be questioned. But it was held in Isaacson v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 94 N. Y., 278 , that the baggage check is not regarded as a contract on the part of the carrier which issues it, but simply a means of identification of the baggage at the end of the route.

But if we are not at liberty to regard this check as a contract on the part of the defendant to deliver this baggage at Tupper Lake, then it was a contract to deliver to the connecting line to be transported thither, and the defendant must establish such delivery before it can be relieved from the obligation of its undertaking as a common carrier.

The check indicated upon its face that the baggage was to be carried to Tupper Lake, and made it the plain duty of the de

p. 315

fendant to forward it by the Rortbern Adirondack R. R to that point.

This it could not do without a delivery to that road. Rawson v. Holland, 59 N. Y., 611 ; Jennings v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 127 id., 445 ; 40 St. Rep., 318 . Ro such delivery was in this case shown. To constitute such delivery there should be some act of the carrier so that if it was discharged the succeeding line would be charged with the care and custody of the goods. Goold v. Chapin, 20 N. Y., 264 . In this case the court say: “Ra owner can be supposed to have an agent to superintend each transport-meat of goods, * * * and if the responsibility of each carrier is not continued until delivery in fact to the next carrier, or at least until the first carrier by some act clearly indicating his purpose terminates his relation as carrier, we shall greatly diminish the security and convenience of those whose property is necessarily abandoned to others.”

We see nothing in the act of the agent indicating that he had transferred this baggage from the custody of the defendant to the R. A. R R. and there is no such unequivocal act of transfer as would charge that company if the action had been prosecuted against it. In this class of bailment the security of the public can only be conserved by holding the first carrier to such unequivocal acts of transfer of possession to a succeeding line as will make it possible for the owner of goods to charge such succeeding line, before the first carrier should be released from its obligation.

We think the learned county judge erred in holding that this trunk was delivered to the Rortbern Adirondack Railroad Company by the defendant.

The judgment of the county court should be reversed and that of the justice affirmed, with costs.

Putnam and Herrick, JJ., concur.