The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1869-05-18
SUPREME COu3I-cRCU.I-pART l.
Tho Liability of Principals for the Acts OF
Their Agcnts-verdict for PIaintin in the
Mccormack suit.

Tho Liability of Principals for the Acts OF
Their Agcuts-verdict for Plaintiff in the
Mccormack suit.
Before Judge Sutherland.
Cyrus HdU McCornlack Us. The PENNSYLVANIA Cen
trai Railroad CODlpdny.--The plaintin sued 10 re-
for baggage lost by the defendants. In March,
ls62, Mr.. Mccormack, with his wife, was In Philade
phia route to Chicago, and purchased tickets for
himself and wife over the defendants road to the
latter city. When he sought to have his baggage
checked the baggage agent refused TO check II I'M
Tess additional charges for extra weight were paid.
Plaintiff refused pay the extra fees, left the
baggage on the platform Of the railroad
Depot and went to see some OF the railroad officials
20 endeavor TO make some arrangement. Subse-
nuenty he returned TO the depot and asked for the
baggage to be returned 10 him. but was informed by
khe baggage man that 1t was already slowed on
board the car. The train was just on the point OF
leaying and there was no time TO extrcate the plain;
et and to unship It, The baggage lelt In the train
BY advice Of one OF the officers OF the company
plaiutlfY teegraphed to Pttsburg TO have tue bag
gage detained. Through some mishap the baggage
was not detained, but went on to Chicago. No one
appearing there TO claim it, it was stored in baggage
baggage comprised wearing apparel and collection
OF valuable diamond jeweiry, part OF which latter
The case was concluded yesterday, the counsel on
0otn sides declining to address the Jury and sub
miiing the case under the charge OF the Court the
Court ruled out ali questions as to defendants la
bility as common carriers, on the ground suostan-
Tally tnat no contract mad been male. Inc per-
Chase OF tickets by the plaintiff could not be con.
strued as creating contract for the transportation
Of the baggage rs 1t was optional executory with
him whether he sent any baggage or not, and the
evidence shows that he desired II should sent
when acquainted with the defendants terms. The
defend ints agent should have kept the baggage on
the platform until the plaintiff had returned and
Informed him whether he wished to have IL for
wardcd and until then no contract could be claimed
70 exist. And II when the plantin returned aud de-
jmnndcd his baggage the agent refused or failed TO
comply the act OF the agent was one OF conversion,
end his principals were bound 10y and liable for bis
AcIs even though done IN excess OF his authority.
Among the property was q diamond necklace
which had cost Al 800 At the time OF the alleged
conversion diamonds had advanced twenty per cent
Above their gold value at the time this necklace
was purchased. The total cost Of the diamonds lost
was s2s2o This appreciation Of value the Court IN
etruced the Jury should he taken INTO consideration
by them IN estimating theivslue OF the goods con-
yerlcd.
Tic jury rendered a verdict for plaintiff In the sum
OF Slo,C52. Thirty days STAY was allowed defend.
Ants TO make case OF appeal. For plaintiff Edwin
W. StouLthon for DEFENDANTS, Ira Shafer.