Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-09-26
COURT .'![;.ll|l!! B DECISIONS.
koses o1lf'lC as IS Recently Decided,
Which i aroof Interest TO
81 I, Our People. \.
DlGESTED BY ". B: MARTIN.
tExclusiyely for vlrginian- Pilot,
81 .TALCoTT v. WABASH R. CO.

49, y ~ - f -
Court OF Appeals Of New York.
H5-trts June Is, 1893.
WHERE "a COMMERCIAL TRAY
:3 E .lLl, BUYS A TICKET AND PAYS
FOR fIIs SAMPLES AS EXTRA
BAGGAGE, THE CONTRACT For,
TRANSPORTATION or HIMSELF
AND PERSONAL BAGGAGE AND
FOR THD SAMPLES ARE INDIE
PENDENT CONTRACTS, AND
WILL SUPPORT SEPARATED AC-
sT1ONs.
1NSSUCH CASD THE TRAVELLERS
EMPLOYER CAN SUE ON TIE
CONTRACT TO TRANSPORT THE
SAMPLES.
This was a suit by plaintiff to recover
the yalue of certain property destroyed
while In transit from Chicago to New
York. Cullom, who was a commercial
traveller and in the employ OF plaintiff,
bought Of defendent company ticket
and had four trunks checked to New
York. He told the baggage agent that
they contained samples and was re.
CURED to pay some sis for extra bag
gage. Afterwards, In transit, most Of
the property was DESTROYED, Of which
to plaintiff, the value of his samples.
4 CulIQm assigned his claim to plaintiff
before suit brought.
The court says: ,
1t Is clear that the PLAINTIFFS agent
made two con tracts,-one for the trans
portation OF himself, and not to exceed
Ito pounds OF baggage, and the other
for the transportation Of merchandise.
Mnlard v. Railroad Company, IS. N. Y.
AL. This case leaves no room for dis
cusston as to the Independent charac-
ter Of these contracts; fer, upon state
OF facts analogous to these before us,
It was held that an action brought to
recover for tho loss of baggage was
not bar to an action brought to re-
cover for the loss Of merchandise, be-
cnuse the two actions were based on
separate contracts. The contract made
by the purchase of the ticket bears but
slightly upon the contract made sevc-
raj hours later by the transportation of
ticket SO far as the checking of the
trunks was concerned, was exhaust ed
by checking Mr.. Cullom's personal
effects. The railroad company by
placing that man as baggage agent in
tts baggage room, and furnishing him
with checks, held out to the public that
he had general authority to check the
ordinary baggage OF passengers. BY
furnishing him with blank cnrd board
S :Rra f 15,oa eneess beggage , stamped
signed by Its general baggage agent"
It further held out to the public that lie
s had authority to contract for the trans
portation Of extra baggage from Chi
cago to New York, and, necessarily, to
decide what kind of goods should be
included under the head Of extra bag.
gage, ct least to the extent Of includ-
Ing the samples of commercial travel
ers. owned by their employers. In view
OF the universal custom proved in that
regard. The baggage agent In ques-
ton. therefore. stood, as to Mr.. Gull
Ion. in the place Of the railroad COM
pany. The number and appearance of
the trunks were some evidence that
they contained merchandise, and the
agent was expressly told that they con-
tajned samples. On being informed
that Cullom wished to have them
checked to New York, he required the
payment of SIG for transporting them
as extra baggage to that place, and de-
livered q check stamped with the name
Of thu company he represented, and
with the words From Chicago to New
York"
The referee was. therefore, authorized
to find as n fact, that the company
agreed. aside from the contract to
transport the passenger. for new and
Independent consideration, to transport
the trunks containing merchandise to
the City OF New York, and. as a con-
clusion of law that the plaintiff, MS
undisclosed principal. could enforce the
agreement.