Daily Iowa State Democrat. [volume] (Davenport, Iowa) 1856-1859, 1858-03-09
TTOuI tIIt VIIICIIIIIdII OouiIHFlCI,
Ohio Supreme Court

ITou uie OlhC!uudll OoHHltTCldIs
Ohio Supreme Court.
Important to Railroad Companies and 71rarel
ers By Railroad
Thornton Cheek as. The Little Mi
ami Railroad Company. Judge Spen-
Ger delivered an opinion in the case
an action to recover the value Of
property taken out of trunk. The
plaintiff bought through ticket at
Washington for Cincinnati. He got
here in due time and inquired for his
trunk; it was not to be found !; but in
about fourteen days, upon presenting
his check at the depot of the Little
Miami Railroad Company in Cincinnati
it was produced to him, having previ-
ously been broken open and riiied of a
portion Of its contents, to-wit: about
$40 worth of clothing and $50 in
money. He claims this was lost through
the negligence Of the defendants, and
seeks to recover judgment for the
amount, as well as for damages he sus-
tanned in losing situation, occasioned
as he alleges, by the delay.
On the part of the defense, it was
admitted that the trunk had the APP
pearance Of being broken open when
delivered to the plaintiff, but alleged
that it was in that condition when it
arrived at the depot, but they denied its
delivery by the plaintiff to any agent
Of defendants at Washington, author
lied to contract on their behalf-there
being several intervening lines owned
by Independent companies.
1t was remarked by Judge Spencer,
that it had been heretofore decided by
the Court that a railroad company
might make contract for transpor-
tation outside of its own terminus and
the question now to be determined
was, with whom did the plaintiff make
his contract: When a party contracts
with an agent for transportation over
the entire line, pays an entire price
and receives a through ticket does he
understand he is making payment for
an entire consideration, or several dis
tinct considerations or do the pro-
prietors of these several lines hold
themselves out as dealing severally or
uniting in common purpose for an
entire consideration The answer
must determine the question Of liabili-
ty. 1t is evident, SO far as the plain
tiff is concerned, that he must have
considered the contract of transporta-
ton as entire, either as such with the
company at the starting point of the
line, or as made with all the persons
composing the line; that he considers
that contract as a unit, aid not as
made up Of several agreements with
several distinct parties. The evidence
he receives from the other contracting
parties is Of an entire engagement, and
not of several distinct liabilities. Ills
baggage is checked through the entire
distance, to be delivered safely at its
journeys end, and is not to be received
by him at any intermediate point. If
his ticket should be refused at any in
termediate point, he does not expect to
recover back the consideration money
paid for that particular part Of the
route, but regards the whole contract
as broken. 1t follows, then, that he
treats the contract as entire. If no
partnership in fact exists between the
roads, he may, undoubtedly, treat the
contract as entire or several. So far a.
the other parties are concerned, BY the
of common agent to re-
ceive the entire consideration, when
they issue through tickets and checks
which they recognize and approve, they
are made aware of the expectation Of
those dealing with the agent, and must
know the contract would be treated "a
entire and not several.
Undoubtedly, if the agent at the
starting point failed to disclose his
principals, and to contract on their be-
half, whether jointly or severally, he,
or the company represented BY him,
may be treated as sole principal. and
held liable. But, if the contract made
by him is entire, and he is, in fact.
dealing for others who receive the
benefit of the contract, the other con-
tracing party may look to- the real
principals, and subject all who are in
terested in the joint contract.
In this view of the case, he { Judge
Spencer) was of the opinion that, ia
the present action, the contract Of
transportation might properly be con-
sidercd as joint between all the roads
participating in its benefits, and that
the defendants we're liable accordingly.
Assuming however, that the facts
above referred to fail to establish I
joint liability between the parties form
Ing the line, It sesms 70 the Court The
ouaot3on a anaHhnr mint n h heae -