Case Name: Sarah Lloyd Smith, Appellant, v. Nicholas J. Hughes, Doing Business, Etc., Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1909-05
Citations: 63 Misc. 326
Docket Number: 
Parties: Sarah Lloyd Smith, Appellant, v. Nicholas J. Hughes, Doing Business, Etc., Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 63
Pages: 326–327

Head Matter:
Sarah Lloyd Smith, Appellant, v. Nicholas J. Hughes, Doing Business, Etc., Respondent.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
May, 1909.)
Carriers — Carriage of baggage and passenger’s effects — In general — Limitation of liability.
Where, in an action for loss of baggage, it appeared, that plaintiff, upon delivering same to defendant at her residence for transportation to a railway station, received a coupon check upon the reverse side of which there was a clause limiting the value of the baggage to twenty-five dollars, of which plaintiff was ignorant but which the trial court ruled was binding upon her, a judgment entered upon a verdict rendered by direction of the court in her favor will be reversed and a new trial granted.
Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment of the City Court of the city of New York, entered upon a verdict rendered by direction of the court in favor of the plaintiff.
Henry Woog, for appellant.
Mark Eisner, for respondent.

Opinion:
Lehman, J.
The plaintiff sues for loss of baggage delivered to the defendant. At the trial, it appeared that the plaintiff, at her residence, delivered the baggage to the defendant to be transferred to the Grand Central station, and received a coupon check for identification marked: " Claim Coupon No. 5947." On the reverse side there was the clause: " It is agreed by the person receiving coupon receipt, that he, for himself or as agent of the owner of the article shipped, will limit the value of the same to twenty-five dollars."
The trial court held that this limitation was binding on the plaintiff. It does not appear that the plaintiff knew of this limitation or, as a reasonable person, should be presumed to have examined the coupon to see exactly what was printed upon it. Scofield v. May, 62 Misc. Rep. 243.
The judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.
Dayton and Seabury, JJ., concur.
Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.