Chicago v. Fairclough

• Decision Date: 30 September 1869
• Citation: 1869 WL 5395,52 Ill. 106
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Parties: CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC R. R. CO.v.WILLIAM H. FAIRCLOUGH.

52 Ill. 106

1869 WL 5395 (Ill.)

CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC R. R. CO.

v.WILLIAM H. FAIRCLOUGH.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

September Term, 1869.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Rock Island county; the Hon. GEO. W. PLEASANTS, Judge, presiding.

The opinion states the case.

Messrs. GLOVER, COOK & CAMPBELL, for the appellants.

Mr. WILLIAM H. GEST, for the appellee.

Mr. JUSTICE LAWRENCE delivered the opinion of the Court:

The appellee purchased a ticket entitling him to passage upon the railroad of appellants from Chicago to Moline, and checked his baggage to the same station.

On arriving at Geneseo, he procured a lay over ticket, and stopped there from the 13th to the 15th of February.

The baggage was allowed to go on to Moline, arriving at 5.25 P. M. of the 13th, and no one being on hand to receive it, the baggage master of appellants placed it in the depot building, where baggage was ordinarily kept. He remained in the building until 11:45 P. M., then locked all the doors and fastened all the windows, and left the station, for the night. At 7 1/2 the next morning, he went to the depot and found that burglars had broken into the depot, broken open the trunks, and rifled their contents. This action was brought against the company to recover the value of the property stolen, and the jury found a verdict for $92.50. The court instructed the jury as follows: “The responsibility of the defendant as a common carrier, lasted until the plaintiff's baggage reached Moline, and was delivered to the plaintiff or his authorized agent, or was by the defendant stored in a safe warehouse of itself or some one else.

If the jury believe, from the evidence, that the goods of the plaintiff were carried to their destination and not then and there delivered to the plaintiff, either by reason of his not being there to receive them, or for other causes, not the fault of the plaintiff, it was then the duty of the defendant to store the goods in a safe warehouse; and if the jury further believe from the evidence, that the defendant retained possession of the goods after so arriving at their destination, then it was in the capacity of warehousemen, or keepers of goods for hire, and as such warehousemen, the defendants were bound to use ordinary diligence in the care of the same.

Ordinary diligence or care which a warehouseman is bound to use, is that degree of care or attention which, under the actual circumstances, a man of ordinary prudence and discretion...