Little Falls transcript. [volume] (Little Falls, Morrison County, Minn.) 1876-1894, 1879-11-06
Supreme Court Decisions.

Central l. Hudson River railroad company,
plaintiffi in error, VS.. Olga Demaluta Twaleff,
in error to the circuit court of the United
States for the southern district of New York.
against the railroad company in the action to
recover the value of certain laces alleged to
have been taken from the trunks of defendant
in error while q passenger upon the cars of the
company. and while her trunks were in the
company's charge for transportation as part of
her baggage. Defendant in error is . Russian
Countess. who was travelling for pleasure, and
her trunks are valued at seventy five thousand
dollars. 1t was argued by counsel for
the railroad company, that the failure Of the
countess to inform the company's agents when
she gave them her trunks, OF their contents,
was in itself an act of bad faith and fraud on
the carrier. which should prevent any recovery
in this action.
In the opinion of this court it is undoubted-
ly competent for a carrier of passengers, by
specific regulations distinctly brought to the
knowledge of passengers, to protect itself
against liability as an insurer of baggage ex-
ceeding fixed amount in value
except upon payment Of additional
compensation proportional to the risk,
may be %aae ppaoteay effective and 6e esrn
rier advised of the extent of its responsibility,
it may rightfully require as = condition prece-
dent to any contract for transportation of bag
gage, 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 transported as baggage, without extra
compensation, the carrier may name such adj
ditional charge as the risk justifes. 1t is also
undoubtedly true that the carrier may be dis
charged from all responsibility as insurer If
the passenger by any device or artifce
puts of inquiry as to the value of his baggage,
and thereby imposes upon the carrier re-
sponsibility beyond that which he was bound
to assume.
In the absence, however, of legislation lin
iting the responsibility of carriers for baggage
of passengers, in the absence of responsible
regulations upon the subject by the carrier, of
which the passenger has knowledge, aud in the
absence of all inquiry Of the passenger as to
the value of the articles carried, the court can
not as mere matter Of law declare, as it was
the passenger to disclose ' the value
of his baggage is in itself fraud upon the
carrier which defeats any right of recovery. It
is safe to say that by the general law, in the
absence of special regulations by the carrier of
the nature indicated, passenger has the right
to carry without extra compensation, such ar
ticles adapted to his personal use as his neces.
stiles, comfort, convenience or qualification,
may suggest to the extent that
such articles exceed in quantity
and value such as arc ordinarily carried
by passengers of like station and pursuing like
jOurnies to the extent they are not baggage,
for which the carriers, by the general law, are
responsible as insurers.
This court holds. in view of the whole 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 complain.
The judgment of the lower court is affirmed.
Justice : Hardin delivered the opin-
ion. Justices Field, Miller and
Strong : dissented on tho ground
that the 275 yards of lace claimed by theowner
to be worth $75, 900, and found by the jury to
be of the value of $40, 900, cannot. as matter
Of law, be properly considered as baggage of .
passenger for which the railroad company, in
the absence of any special agreements, should
be held liable. Justice Field delivered the
dissenting opinion. -: -. .---...
No. S42. J. o. Tinstman, plaintiff in error,
W. the First National Bank of Mount Pleasant,
Pa, in error to the circuit court of the United
States for the Western district of Pennsylvania.
Writ Of error dismissed for want of iurisdic
ton. :{~s --s-- 49,: ,.ss ..~.. 49, -
:. No. 24O.-National Bank of the Republic,
plaintiff, in error, vs.. r. j. Willard, in error,
to the Supreme Court of the District of Col
umbia. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
The chief Justice delivered the opinion.
No. 8.-Original, ex parte, Ira G. French.
Fl titi0n for mandamus denied. The chief
Justice delivered the opinion. $3.50,
row and the justices made together their an
nual call upon the President. -.
THE CANADIAN CATTLE.
The secretary of the treasury has issued an
order prohibiting the importation Of neat cat
tie from Canada, to take effect Dec lat next,