Case Name: Patrick Duffy v. Samuel Thompson, impleaded with John W. Mason
Court: New York Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1855-03
Citations: 4 E.D. Smith 178
Docket Number: 
Parties: Patrick Duffy v. Samuel Thompson, impleaded with John W. Mason.
Judges: 
Reporter: E.D. Smith's Common Pleas Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 178–180

Head Matter:
Patrick Duffy v. Samuel Thompson, impleaded with John W. Mason.
A passenger upon a voyage from a foreign country, may keep money designed for small personal expenses, in his trunk, while on board ship, and hold the ship owner responsible.
The rule differs from that applied where a passenger enters a stage coach or railroad car for a few days’ travel (See Grant v. Newton, 1 E. D. Smith, 95.)
A limited quantity of cloth, cut into patterns for garments, may be held a part of the wearing apparel of a passenger, and the carrier, in case of loss,.be liable therefor as baggage.
An objection is not available on appeal, where it has not been taken in the court below, nor specified in the notice as a ground of appeal.
This action was prosecuted to recover the value of a trunk and its contents, being the personal baggage of the plaintiff’s assignor, lost on a passage from Liverpool to New York, in the steamer “ Star of the "West.” The plaintiff recovered a judgment against the defendant, Thompson, only, the evidence proving him to have been the owner of the ship. ■ The case now came up on his appeal.
The receipt held by the passenger was for a certain sum “ for passage money and all charges.” Among the contents of the trunk, which formed a part of the recovery in the court "below, were fourteen yards of linen cut into shirt patterns, and $7 50 in money. The appellant contended that he was not liable, as a carrier, for either of these items.
The suit being prosecuted by an assignee of the claim, it was urged that the cause of action was not assignable. This objection, however, was not taken at the trial, nor specified in the notice of appeal.
Peter A. Van Bergen, for the appellant.
Robert Dodge, for the plaintiff.

Opinion:
Daly, J.
That the cause of action was not assignable was not made one of the grounds of appeal. The objection was not taken upon the trial, or included in the notice of appeal, and cannot now be taken advantage of.
Ho notice of the examination of the assignor was necessary. This we have repeatedly held.
The plaintiff proved that the defendant, Thompson, admitted that he was the owner of the vessel. This was sufficient to support a recovery against him. Judgment should have been rendered for the defendant, Mason, with costs.
The fourteen yards of fine linen were cut up into shut patterns for the assignor, Duffy's, use. It was, consequently, part of his wearing apparel, and might be recovered for as baggage.