Carson daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1873-1877, 1875-11-20
SLEEpINe CARS NOT INNS.

In the ST. Louis Tru,i. .I0,.rl.a! We find
The following editorial reference to the
question Of Ii. liability of palace draw
inS-oon and sleeping ear companies fox
. certain character Of losses occurring
TO :t.ir patrons. The decision referred
70 was rendered 10y one Of tn. Courts Of
New York:
4 party took berth in q Pullman
from Detroit to Buffalo. When .is vent
20 bed he placed his ov.rcost in vacant
berth over that ia which he slept. In
the morning his ov.reost ras missing
and could not le found. The Court held
that tls company was not liable The
Judge who delivered the opinion said,
among other things: II il sought to
chsr.. the company With the RESPONSE
bili;y Of the innke-p.r. upon tho as
sumption that the law implied : contract
or imposed liability of the same nature
that responsibility gss declared by the
civil lav to rs as strict add sevsre as
that OF common carriers md modern
jurisprudence has adopted sid applied
The principle Bat il went no further.
as is sought to be done n tbs case. He
cannot lawfully refuse 70 80 eve guess
70 tins extent of bis reasonable acr -
motiatiOuS Eor can be impose unree IL
able terms upon them. The necessities
of the traveller require these just rUles TO
De adopted. As compensation fox the
responsibility thu. incurred. he has a
iisn upon ali the property Of TIE guest
at the inn for all his expenses theIa.
There are no facts IL This case jus,ifying
the application of such Tules of law.
The company co.ld not be compelled to
receive and entertain passengers, how
ever ansrabls it might De upon its con-
tract with the carrier and il had no lien
for the pr!cc Q. accommodations Tbs
traveller Voluntarily. and Eot Of necss-
si,y, avsiled himself of what was placed
before him for his comfort, ana he can
not cast the burden of care and dill
gencs upon ihs defendant; neither Is it
right or Just that the law shoull do so.
We must confess that this cs2si sylia-
bus. although Ct a style and form OF
statement quite il vogue among the
gifted metaphysicisns who aruse them
selves with writing Law reports. is 50
much more than ordinarily ambiguous
and involved As 10 be difficult for the
non-legal mind to comprehend with alb
solute cleSrness. Ths gist Of it seems
to be, however, tina. Sieepin. Car
Company may steal (as in its own line
Of proftsl, or permit its servants to
steal as in the cheerful way Of p-rqui-
sites, any unchecked garments, pack
ages or luggage that its customers may
happen to Re precariously seized with
whsn entering tie said company. cars.
1t es-m. to Us that this decision is IA
mentally deficient in one respect, name
IL. in stopping short of : ful. declaration
Of the rights Of such companies in ths
direction of necessary aud jus.ifiable
larcsnieS. However, We suppose that
the learned Jldge, in this instance, con-
ined hiInEslf TO tie points actually in
yolved, and that he fel; delic.cy about
going outside Of the record and giving
formal expression to the opinion (which
Is 20 doubt entertained by him, that
the irreprsssible laws of pros--,s and
u, unob,tructed course of modern en-
terprise demand that these corporations
should be quite unmolestsd in their well
directed efforts 20 anticipate any and all
losses liable to arise from their passen-
gers stealing the spittoons, water cool
srs, bell cords. patent sir brakes, repu-
tatIon or o:h.r light article Of furniture
belonging to the eQnipage Of thei- cars
The decision is well enough. as far as it
goes, and we have faith to believe that
n Gods good tiIae, the fGil lsrceuous
rights G: sleeping car oE-pai.iss will be
declared. /. would be
iistrus,ful Of the Spirit OF the Age to
think otherwise.