McQuat v. Cook's Taxicab & Transfer Co.

• Decision Date: 27 February 1920
• Docket Number: No. 21584.,21584.
• Citation: 176 N.W. 763,145 Minn. 210
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Parties: McQUAT v. COOK'S TAXICAB & TRANSFER CO.

145 Minn. 210

176 N.W. 763

McQUAT

v.COOK'S TAXICAB & TRANSFER CO.

No. 21584.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Feb. 27, 1920.

Appeal from District Court, Ramsey County; Chas. C. Haupt, Judge.

Action by Anna B. McQuat against Cook's Taxicab & Transfer Company. Verdict for plaintiff, and from an order denying its motion for a new trial, defendant appeals. Order affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

A common carrier transfer company, carrying under an independent contract a trunk coming on a train as a passenger's baggage, is responsible to the passenger for the loss of the contents of the trunk, though not all baggage as between the railway carrier and the passenger; and it cannot assert for itself the limitation of liability which runs in favor of a passenger carrier which, as an incident to the carriage of its passenger, carries his baggage. Barrows, Stewart & Metcalf, of St. Paul, for appellant.

Russell L. Moore, of St. Paul, for respondent.

DIBELL, J.

Action to recover the value of a trunk and its contents intrusted to the defendant for transportation and lost while in its possession. There was a verdict for the plaintiff and the defendant appeals from the order denying its motion for a new trial.

The plaintiff came from Grand Rapids, Minn., to St. Paul by railroad. The defendant is a common carrier of passengers and baggage in the city. It has a counter in the railway depot and an office and warehouse some blocks away in the business portion of the city. The plaintiff gave the defendant her railway beggage check at the depot for a trunk which came with her as baggage, and received its claim check in return. The trunk was taken to the defendant's warehouse and while there was stolen. It contained personal baggage valued at $200 and a large amount of table silverwere and some unmade goods valued at $300. The verdict was for the value of all. The defendant concedes its liability for the personal baggage, but denies liability for the silverware and unmanufactured goods. Its claim is that its liability is that of a common carrier transporting its passenger's baggage, and therefore that it is liable only for such articles as between passenger and carrier are baggage.

The defendant performs the usual duties of a common carrier of passengers and baggage, carrying passengers to and from trains and elsewhere, and carrying baggage to and from trains and from house to house. It does not often carry passengers and baggage such as a trunk in the same conveyance. Its contract with the plaintiff was upon a consideration for the carriage of the trunk alone. This was customary. We gather from the record that it carried baggage whenever and whereever requested, just as we know transfer companies do, and that it used its warehouse as a convenient point of distribution.

The common law is that a common carrier of passengers carries the ordinary baggage of the passenger as an incident to the contract of passenger carriage; and the limitation of liability to a loss of baggage and not of merchandise follows from the nature of the contract. McKibbin v. Great N. Ry. Co., 78 Minn. 232, 80 N. W. 1052. So when the carrier knows that merchandise is being carried as baggage it is liable if it accepts it. Ferris v. Minneapolis, etc., Ry. Co., 173 N. W. 178.

In Parmelee v. Lowitz, 74 Ill. 116, 24 Am.Rep. 276, where the circumstances resemble those before us, the court held that the carrier was liable for articles not properly baggage between carrier and pasenger. It said:

‘Appellee was not a passenger with Parmelee. He did not pay or contract for fare. The relation between carrier and passenger did not arise or exist between them. When the trunk was received no inquiry was made by appellant as to its contents, and so far as his liability was concerned, it was of no importance whether it contained baggage or merchandise.’

In Nathan v. Woolverton, 69 Misc. Rep. 425,127 N. Y. Supp. 442, affirmed without opinion in 147 App. Div. 908, 131 N. Y. Supp. 1130, a different conclusion was reached. There, under similar...