Strange v. Atl. Coast Line R. Co

• Decision Date: 04 June 1907
• Citation: Strange v. Atl. Coast Line R. Co, 57 S.E. 724, 77 S.C. 182 (S.C. 1907)
• Parties: STRANGE v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

57 S.E. 724

77 S.C. 182

STRANGE

v.ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

June 4, 1907.

1.Carriers—Baggage—Delay in Delivery —Evidence.

In an action for delay of carrier in delivering baggage, the owner thereof may testify that he contracted with the carrier to transmit it to a certain point without producing his check.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, seeCent. Dig. vol. 9, Carriers, § 1564.]

2.Same—Special Damages.

A passenger cannot recover special damages for failure to deliver his baggage in time, unless the carrier had notice of the special circumstances at the time of receiving the baggage.

3.Same—Measure or Damages.

In an action for delay in delivery of baggage, which the carrier accepts with notice that the passenger requires it at a certain place at a certain time for a special purpose, the measure of damages is the injury to the special business attributable to the delay, including the expense and loss of time incurred in a search for the delayed baggage.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, seeCent. Dig. vol. 9, Carriers, § 1568.]

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Clarendon County; Gary, Judge.

Action by Riley M. Strange against the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company.From an order of the circuit court dismissing appeal from a magistrate, defendant appeals.Affirmed.

J. T. Barron and Wilson & Du Rant, for appellant.

W. C. Davis, for respondent

WOODS, J. 1.The plaintiff, a traveling salesman, recovered a judgment of $65 in the court of Magistrate Youmans for delay in the transportation from Columbia to Manning of a trunk containing samples.The circuit court affirmed the judgment of the magistrate.The plaintiff delivered two trunks to the defendant's agent at Columbia, intending to have them checked to Manning, and he testified the checks were actually so issued.Evidence was introduced on behalf of the defendant to the effect that one of the trunks was cheeked to Manning and the other to Sumter.The baggage agent at Columbia did not testify, and the defendant made no effort to explain the mistake which it alleged had been made in checking one of the trunks to Sumter, instead of Manning.Certainly there was no evidence that the plaintiff had asked for a check to Sumter, even if he assume the check had written on it Sumter, instead of Manning.It cannot be said, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff should bear the consequences because he failed to examine the checks and observe and have corrected the defendant's error.In the case of Isaacson v. Railway, 94 N. Y. 278, 46 Am. Rep. 142. which was very similar to this case, the court said: "In this case the request to check over the Mobile route was made to the baggage master and assented to by him. and he assumed to give checks in accordance with the request.This constituted, we think, an agreement binding on the company, and, unless the plaintiff's omission to examine the checks was contributory negligence, we are of the opinion that the nonsuit was erroneous.The primary purpose of giving the passenger a duplicate check is to enable him to identify and claim his baggage at the end of the route.It has never, we think, been regarded as embodying the contract of carriage, but only as a voucher or token for the purpose mentioned.SeeQuimby v. Vanderbilt, 17 N. Y. 306, 72 Am. Dec. 469;Van Buskirk v. Roberts, 31 N. Y. 661;Blossom v. Dodd, 43 N. Y. 264, 3 Am. Rep. 701;Rawson v. Penn. R. R. Co., 48 N. Y. 212, 8 Am. Rep. 543.The plaintiff had a right to repose upon the representation of the baggage master, without examining the checks."See, also, Hutchinson on Carriers, § 1302, and note.It was competent for the plaintiff to testify that he actually contracted with the defendant to transport the trunk to Manning, and not to Sumter, without producing the check, and the exception on this point cannot be sustained.

2.There was error in receiving plaintiff's testimony as to a conversation with defendant's agent after the loss of the trunks, in which he gave notice of his business as a traveling salesman.Special damages for losses arising from failure to deliver goods cannot be recovered, unless the defendant has notice of the special circumstances at the time of shipment.Traywick v. Railway Co., 71 S. C. 82, 50 S. E. 549, 110 Am. St Rep. 503;Wesner v. Railway Co., 71 S. C. 211, 50 S. E. 789;Guess v. Railway Co., 73 S. C. 264, 53 S. E. 421.But this error was immaterial, as plaintiff testified defendant's agent, who received the trunks, had frequently checked them for him, and knew the kind of business in which he was engaged, and this evidence was not disputed.

3.The main contention of the defendant is that the magistrate erred in admitting evidence of the...