Year: 1879

n 9uGStlOu ABOUT G4RCCSs


A RUSSIAN COUNTESS RECEIVERS $4,000 FROM


A RAILROAD FOR STOLEN FINERY.


WASHINGTON. November 3.-The case Of
the New York Central Railroad Us. Olga de
Swaloff was decided by the Unltcd States
Supreme Court o-day. This case comes up
on writ Of error from q Judgment against
the railroad company to recover the value
Of certain laces alleged to have been taken
from the trunks Of the defendant while a
passenger on the cars OF the company, and
while ber trunks were in the company's
charge for transportation as q part OF her
baggage. The defendant is a Russian
countess, who was travelling for pleasure,
and the laces, which it is alleged were taken
from her trunks, are valued at $4,000. It
was argued by the railroad company that
the failure Of the Countess Swaloff to in
form the company's agents when she gave
them her trunks Of their value and OF the
extraordinary nature OF their contents was
in itself an act OF bad faith and a fraud
upon the carrier, which should prevent any
recovery in this action. In the opinion Of
this Court it is undoubtedly competent for
a carrier OF passengers, BY specific regula-
tions distinctly brought to the knowledge
Of the passengers, to protect itself against


liability as insurers for baggage exceeding
a fixed amount in value, except upon pay
mcnt OF additional compensation proper
toned to the risk, and in order that such
regulations may be made practically effect
i've, and the carrier advised of the extent
of its responsibility, it may rightly require,
as condition precedent to any contract for
the transportation OF baggage, information
from the passenger as to its value. 1t is
also undoubtedly true that the carrier
may be discharged from all respon-
sibility as insurer il the passenger,
bv any device or artifce, purs off
inquiry as to the value OF bis baggage, and
thereby imposes upon the carrier RESPONSE
biIity beyond that which he was bound to
assume. In the absence, however, of legis-
lation limiting the responsibility Of carriers
for the baggage; in the absence Of reason
able regulations upon the subject by the
carrier, Of which the passenger has know
ledge; and in the absence OF all inquiry OF
the passenger as to the value of the articles
carried, the Court cannot declare that the
failure OF the passenger to disclose the
value OF his baggage is in itself a fraud
upon the carrier which defeats any right OF
recovery. In general law passenger has
the right TO carry without extra compensa-
tion such articles adapted to his personal use
as his necessities, comfort, convenience, or
qualification may suggest. To the extent that
such articles exceed in quantity and value
such as are ordinarily carried by passengers
! Of like station and pursuing like journeys,
to that extent they are not for which the
carrier by general law is responsible as in.
surer. This Court holds, in view Of the
whole scope and bearing OF the charge Of
the court below, that no error was permit.
ted to the prejudice OF the company, and
the Judgment is affirmed. Justice Harlan
delivered the opinion; Justices Field, Nil.
ler, and Strong dissenting OF the ground
that 275 yards OF lace. claimed by the owner
to be worth $75,0OO, and found by the Jury
to be Of the value OF $40, 900, cannot, as
matter Of law, be properly considered as


baggage OF passenger for which the rail.
road company, in the absence OF any special


agreement. should be held liable. Justice
Field delivered the opinion. g-aaH'