Year: 1879

WASHINGTON November 3.-No. 80,
New York Central and Hudson River
Railway Company, plaintiff IN error, VS..
Olga Demaluta Twalotf, in error to the
Circuit Court OF the United States, Tor
the Southern district OF New York. This
case comes up on writ of error from
Judgment against the railroad company
i'm the action 10 recover the value oil
certain laces alleged to have been taken
from trunks OF the defendent in error,
while passenger upon the cars OF the
company, and while her trunks were IN
the company's charge for transportation
As a part of her baggage. The defend
ent i'm error is a Russian Countess, who
was travelling for pleasure, and the
laces, which, il is alleged, were taken
from her trunks, are valued ut S75,OOO.
IL was argued by counsel Tor the rail-
road company that the failure OF the
Countess to inform the company's
agents when she gave them her trunks
of their value, and OF the extraor-
dinary value 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 1t IS un-
doubtedly competent for a carrierO OF pas
sengers by specific regulations, distinct
ly brought 10 the knowledge OF the
passengers, to protect itself against
liability as insurer for baggage exceed
ing the fixed amount IN the value ex-
cept on the payment OF additional COM
pensation propOrtiOned to the risk,
and in order that such regulations may
be made practically effective and
the carrier advised of the ex-
tent of its responsibility 1t may
rightly require, as a condition precedent
TO any contract for the transportation CT
baggage information from the passenger
as To its value, and ii the value thus dis
closed exceeds that which the passen-
ger could reasonably ask to have trans
ported as baggage without extra COM
pensatiOn, the carrier may make such
additional charge as the risk lustlties.
Ii is also undoubtedly true that the car
rier NAV be discharged from all respOns-
ibility as an insurer, if the passenger
bv any device or artitice, puts OFT IN
quiry as TO the value of his baggage, and
thereby imposes upon the carrier a
responsibility beyond that which he
Was bound 10 assume. In the absence,
however, Of legislation limiting the
responsibility OF carriers for the bag
gage of passengers, IN the absence
of reasonable regulations on the sub
iect by the carrier OF which the passen-
ger has knowledge, and in the absence
of all inquiry OF the passenger, as to the
value of the articles carried the court
cannot. as a mere matter of law, declare,
as il wasin effect requested in this case
IN do. that the failure of the paSsen-
yer To disclose the value Ui his baggage
is i'm itself fraud on the carrier, which
defeats any right of recovery. 1t Is safe
to saw that by the general law, IN the
absence Of special regulations by car
riers OF the nature Indicated, passenger
has a right to carry, without extra
compensation, sueh articles adapted to
his personal use as his necessities,
comfort, convenience or qualification.
NAV suggest, TO the extent that snch ar
ticles exceed in quantity and value such
a. are ordinarily carried by passengers
of like station and pursuing like jour
news to that extent. They are not bag
plge for which carrier by general law
IS held responsible as insured. This
Court holds, on view of the whole scope
and hearing of the charge Of the Court
below, that no error was committed to
the prejudice Of the company, or oI
which il can complain. The Judgment
of the lower Court is affirmed.


Justice Harlan delivered the opinion
Justices Field, Miller and Strong dis,
sented. on the ground that 275 yards OF
lace. claimed BY the owner to be worth
SIS 900. and found by the jury 10 be
Of the value Of $4,000, cannot, as mat
ter flaw, be properly considered as the
baggage of a passenger, for which q
railroad company, in the absence OF any
special agreement should be held Ina
Die. Justice Field delivered the dis
Seuting opinion.