Case Name: Ludwig Semler v. The Commissioners of Emigration
Court: New York Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1856-07
Citations: 1 Hilt. 244
Docket Number: 
Parties: Ludwig Semler v. The Commissioners of Emigration.
Judges: 
Reporter: Hilton's Common Pleas Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 244–247

Head Matter:
Ludwig Semler v. The Commissioners of Emigration.
8., an emigrant, arriving in New Torlc, was, under the rules of the Commissioners of Emigration, placed on board a barge with his baggage, for the purpose of being landed. The barge belongod to and was in the custody of certain railroad com-j'anies, who had ticket offices in Castle Garden, the promises of the Commissioners of Emigration. Upon landing, the baggage was transferred to the wharf by'tho employees of the railroad companies, in whose charge it was left for the purpose of boing weighed and marked, while S. was required to enter Castle Garden in order to have his name registered, pursuant to the rules of the commissioners. During S.’s absence for this purpose,'his baggage was lost.
Held, that the Commissioners of Emigration were not liable therefor. The baggaga was not in their charge, nor in the charge of any one in their employ. Tho remedy of S, if any, was against the persons in charge of the baggage, or their employers, the railroad companies.
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of tbe Marine Court, This was an action to recover damages for lost baggage, belonging to Martin and Lucas Scbmidt, tbe plaintiff’s assignors, who were emigrants, and whose baggage was lost at Castle Garden under the following circumstances: 4
The Commissioners of Emigration allow certain railroad companies, running out of New York city, to keep ticket offices in Castle Garden. These companies provide a barge, by means of which all emigrants are landed on their arrival. Their luggage is taken by the barge at the same time, and placed upon the dock. The emigrants are required first to enter Castle Garden and have their names registered; they are then permitted to go to the dock and select their baggage, which is left there in charge of a weighmaster employed by the railroad companies. By him it is marked with the address of its intended destination, or, if the emigrant desires to remain in the city, it is given to him.
Martin and Lucas Schmidt arrived in this city the 3d of September, 1856, in-tbe St. Nicholas, were taken, in conqeany with the other emigrants, and with their baggage, on board the barge, and were by it landed at Castle Garden. When last they saw their baggage it was upon the barge. Upon going to the dock to get it, and have it properly marked, it was nowhere to be found. This action was brought against the Commissioners of Emigration to recover its value. Judgment was rendered for the plaintiffs, and the defendants appealed.
John E. Devlin, for the appellants.
Robert Johnston, for tbe respondent.

Opinion:
Ingraham, First Judge. —
Tbe evidence shows that tbe barge, on which tbe baggage was lost, was in the employ of Burns, and was provided by tbe railroad companies, and not by tbe defendants. Those companies, from motives of interest on their part, have adopted, with tbe consent of tbe defendants, this mode of effecting tbe landing of emigrants. On delivery to tbe emigrant, at tbe ship, on board of tbe barge, of bis luggage, tbe ship-owners are discharged. If any loss occurs before reaching Castle Carden, tbe persons liable would not be tbe defendants, but tbe person in charge of tbe barge and bis employers. Throughout this case tbe fact is undisputed, that the defendants do not em-employ tbe person in charge, or provide tbe barge. That is done by tbe railroad companies. From tbe ship, therefore, to the place of landing, it could not be pretended that tbe defendants are responsible. Tbe baggage is not in their charge, nor in tbe charge of any-person in. their employ. They may prohibit his landing at the Garden by withdrawing their consent, but that does not make them responsible for bis acts, as tbe owners and employers are.
Is anything done after landing that transfers to the defendants the custody of tbe property of the emigrants ? From the testimony, I think there is no evidence of any such transfer of the possession. They require tbe emigrant to enter tbe building, to comply with tbe requisites of the statutes, in being registered, &c. They prohibit him from bringing upon their premises, or within their control, the very baggage which they are charged as having in their custody. They compel him to leave his baggage on board of tbe barge, which does not belong to them, and where tbe same liability continues which existed on receiving the baggage from the ship; and after' complying with the provisions of tbe law in regard to the emigrant, they permit him again to return to the barge, there to take possession of his baggage from the barge, where it originally was placed.
I can find in this proceeding nothing which will warrant the finding that at any time tbe baggage was in tbe custody of tbe defendants, or of persons in tbeir employ.
No matter bow barsb it may appear, to compel tbe emigrant' to leave bis baggage on board of tbe barge, still sucb acts are not sufficient to charge tbe defendants as bailees when tbe custody of tbe property is elsewhere.
My conclusion is, that tbe defendants cannot be held responsible as bailees, but that the remedy for -any loss is against the person in charge of tbe property, or of bis employer, and that tbe judgment must be reversed.
Judgment reversed.