Griffith v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 06 November 1905
• Citation: 90 S.W. 408,114 Mo. App. 591
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Parties: GRIFFITH v. ATCHISON, T. & S. F. RY. CO.

90 S.W. 408

114 Mo. App. 591

GRIFFITH v.ATCHISON, T. & S. F. RY. CO.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

November 6, 1905.

CARRIERS — LIABILITY FOR BAGGAGE — CONNECTING LINES.

Plaintiff bought a passenger ticket of defendant for transportation over its road to a certain point, and thence over another road, and checked his baggage to a point he knew was on the connecting road; he knowing also that the ticket recited that defendant assumed no responsibility beyond its own line.Held, that defendant was not liable for loss of plaintiff's baggage after it was delivered to the connecting carrier; the baggage check, reading: "The A. Ry. Co.[defendant] from C. to H., via A. Ry. Co. and O. R. Co.[the connecting carrier].Junction point, O. City"—not constituting a contract, or affecting the question, and Rev. St. 1899, § 5222, providing that when a carrier receives property for transportation, or issues bills of lading it shall be liable for loss of the property, though caused by negligence of a connecting carrier, being limited to contracts of affreightment.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Carroll County; Jno.P. Butler, Judge.

Action by C. J. Griffith against the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Railway Company.Judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.Reversed.

Gardiner Lathrop, Samuel W. Moore, and Samuel W. Sawyer, for appellant.Russell & Kneisley, for respondent.

JOHNSON, J.

This action was brought before a justice of the peace to recover damages for the loss of baggage checked by plaintiff for carriage from Carrollton, Mo., to Hydro, Okl.The case was appealed to the circuit court, where plaintiff had judgment in the sum of $40.Defendant appealed.

Plaintiff testified as follows: "On May 6, 1902, I purchased from defendant at Carrollton, Mo., two round trip tickets to Weatherford, Okl.These tickets were made out over the defendant railroad to Oklahoma City, and from thence to Weatherford over the Choctaw, Oklahoma & Gulf Railroad.Oklahoma City is the point at which these two roads cross each other, and is the point at which passengers transfer from one road to the other.I paid $12 each for these two tickets.At the same time I obtained these tickets I delivered to defendant's station agent at Carrollton a telescope grip containing certain clothing of mine, and had it checked to Hydro, Okl. Hydro is an intermediate point in Oklahoma this side of Weatherford, and on the Choctaw, Oklahoma & Gulf Railroad.I intended to stop off at Hydro a few days.* * * I got on defendant's train and rode from Carrollton to Oklahoma City.At that point, I transferred to the Choctaw, Oklahoma & Gulf Railroad, and rode to Hydro."Plaintiff presented his check and demanded the baggage at Hydro, but did not receive it, as it had been lost in transit.Plaintiff introduced in evidence his check, which read as follows: "The A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., from Carrollton, Mo., to Hydro, O. T., via A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. and C., O. & G. Junction point, Oklahoma City.No. F. 39,532."Defendant offered in evidence the ticket upon which the baggage was checked, the material portions of which read as follows: "Issued by the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Railway Company from Carrollton, Mo., to Weatherford, O. T., and return, when officially stamped on the back hereof by the terminal agent and presented with coupons attached, in accordance with terms of following contract: (1) In selling this ticket for passage over other lines, this company acts only as agent and assumes no responsibility beyond its own line.(2) Baggage liability of any company is limited to wearing apparel not exceeding $100.00 in value.(3) It is subject to the rules and regulations of each line over which it reads, and may be exchanged in whole or in part for a ticket or check, conforming to such regulations.* * * (9) The purchaser's signature shall be in manuscript and in ink.I, the purchaser, hereby accept and agree to be governed by all the conditions as stated in the going and returning portions of this ticket.C. J. Griffith, Purchaser."Attached to the ticket were coupons covering the several stages of the trip.One of these read over defendant's line from Carrollton to Oklahoma City, and another over the line of the connecting carrier from the latter point to Weatherford.The two roads were not jointly operated, but belonged to different and independent corporations.It appears that defendant safely carried the baggage to the junction point, and there delivered it to a transfer company, which hauled it to the station of the Choctaw Road, and delivered it in good order to the agent of that road.The loss occurred upon the line of the connecting carrier.A jury was waived.The court in its rulings upon the declarations of law requested by the parties held defendant liable for the safe carriage and delivery of the baggage by the Choctaw Road.Evidently the law declared was based on the conclusion that defendant delivered the baggage in good condition to its connecting carrier, and in our discussion we will assume this to be the fact.Indeed, no other conclusion is possible under the uncontroverted facts adduced.

It is apparent from the evidence before us that, when the baggage was checked, plaintiff had actual knowledge of the facts that defendant's line did not extend beyond Oklahoma City; that an independent carrier would be called into service between that point and his destination, and that defendant in the contract accepted by him was, with his consent, attempting to limit its own liability touching the carriage of his baggage to that incurred from its own negligence.We are therefore relieved from the necessity of passing upon the questions arising from a passenger's ignorance of the presence upon the face of his ticket of conditions limiting the carrier's liability.We have not been favored by respondent with a brief, but, from the argument of appellant, infer the learned trial judge treated the baggage check received by plaintiff as a contract of affreightment for the carriage of property falling within the purview of Rev. St. 1899, § 5222, and applied the construction...