The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1879-11-12
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
An Interesting Case, Involving the
Liability of Railway Companies for
Losses for Baggage in Transit-Oth-
er Decisions.


WASHINGTON, November 3 -Supreme
court decisions No. 33-New York Cen
trail and Hudson River Railroad Compa-
ny, plaintiffs in error, vs.. Olga De NAL
uta Twalotf-in error to the circuit court
Of the United States for the southern
district Of New York. This case came
up on Il writ of error from a judgment
against the railroad company in an ac-
ton TO recover the value Of certain laces
alleged to have been taken from the
trunks Of defendent in error while pas
senger upon the ears of the company,
and while her trunks were in the com
pany's charge for transportation as a
part of hor baggage The defendant in
error is Russian countess, who was trav-
cling for pleasure, and the laces which
it is alleged were taken from her trunks
were valued at seventy-hve thousand
dollars. 1t was argued by the counsel
for the railroad company, that the fail
ure of the countess To inform the compa-
ny's agent, when she gave them her
trunks, of their value and of the extra
ordinary nature of their contents, was in
itself an act of bad faith and fraud upon
the carrier, which should prevent any re-
court it is undoubtedly competent for
carrier Of passengers, by specific regula-
tons, distinctly brought to the knowl-
edge of the passengers, to protect itself
against liability as an insurer for bag
gage exceeding fixed amount i'll value,
except upon payment Of additional com
pensation proportional to the risk; and
in order that such regulations may be
made practically effective, and the car
rer advised Of the extent of its response
bility, it may rightly require as a con-
dition precedent to any contract, for the
transportation Of baggage, information
from the passenger as to It's value, and
if the value thus disclosed exceeds that
which the passenger could reasonably
ask to have carried as baggage without
extra compensation, the company may
make such additional charges as the
risk iustifes 1t is also undoubtedly
true that carrier may be discharged
from all responsibility us insurer if a
passenger by any device or artitice puts
off inquiry as TO the value of his baggage,
and thereby imposes upon the carrier
responsibility beyond that which he was
bound to assume. In the absence, how
ever, of legislation limiting the respon-
sibility of carriers for the baggage OF
passengers, in the absence of reasonable
regulations upon the subject by the
carrier, of which the passenger
has knowledge, and in the alb
sence of all in quiry of the passen-
ger of the value OF the articles carried,
the court cannot, as a mere matter of
law. declare, as it was in effect
requested in this case to do, that the
failure of a passenger to disclose the
value of his baggage is itself fraud
upon the carrier which defeats any right
Of recovery. 1t is safe to say that by
general law, in the absence of special
regulations by the carrier of the nature
indicated, passenger has right To
carry without extra compensation such
articles adapted to his personal use as
his necessities. comfort, convenience or
qualification may suggest, to the extent
that such articles exceed IN quality and
value such as are ordinarily carried by
passengers of a like station and pursu-
ing like Journeys to that extent they
are not baggage by which a carrier by
general law is responsible. Ibis court
holds, in view of the scope and bearing
of the charge Of the court below, that
no error was committed to the prejudice
of the company or of which it can coma
plain. The Judgment of the lower court
is affirmed Justice Harlan delivered
the opinion. Justices Field, Miller and
Strong dissented, on the ground that
two hundred and seventy-five yards of
lace, claimed by the owner to be worth
seyentv-five thousand dollars, and found
by "a jury to be of the value of ten
thousand dollars, cannot, as matter of
law, be properly considered as baggage
of a passenger for which railroad COM
panv, in the absence of any special
aersement should be held liable. JUS
tice Field delivered the dissenting opin-
ion.