Weber Co. v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.

• Decision Date: 28 January 1901
• Citation: 84 N.W. 1042,113 Iowa 188
• Parties: THE WEBER COMPANY, Appellant, v. THE CHICAGO, ST. PAUL, MINNEAPOLIS & OMAHA RAILWAY COMPANY
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

84 N.W. 1042

113 Iowa 188

THE WEBER COMPANY, Appellant, v. THE CHICAGO, ST. PAUL, MINNEAPOLIS & OMAHA RAILWAY COMPANY

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

January 28, 1901

Appeal from O'Brien District Court.--HON. F. R. GAYNOR, Judge.

THIS action was commenced in 1891 to recover the value of certain jewelry contained in a jeweler's sample case, which was delivered by a traveling agent of plaintiff to the defendant to be transported as baggage. From a judge for plaintiff upon a verdict, defendant appealed to this court, and the judgment was reversed. See 92 Iowa 364. After the case was remanded to the lower court, plaintiff amended his petition, and another trial was had, at the conclusion of which the court sustained a motion to take the case from the jury, and directed the jury to bring in a verdict for defendant. From the judgment for defendant rendered on a verdict in pursuance of this ruling, the plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Geo. E Clark for appellant.

Wright Call & Hubbard for appellee.

MCCLAIN J. LADD, J., took not part.

OPINION

McCLAIN, J.

The trunk containing the jewelry in question was one of two trunks checked by plaintiff's agent as the holder of a ticket entitling him to transportation as a passenger, and to have his baggage transported as a part of the same contract. When it appeared that the weight of the trunks was greater than the amount of baggage allowed to be carried free, plaintiff's agent paid 50 cents charges for excess baggage, and received a receipt therefor. Subsequently and before the trunks were placed in the baggage car of the train, one of them disappeared, and it is for the contents of this trunk that action is brought. It further appeared on the trial that there was a rule of the company to the effect that agents must not receive jewelry sample cases for storage, or check them as baggage, under any circumstances, without the presentation by the passenger of a permit from the general office of the company, and that such permit could be secured only by executing a bond to hold the company harmless from all causes of action, claims, demands, and judgments, in excess of the sum of $ 50, which might arise or grow out of the transportation or storage by said company of such trunks and sample cases. It appears that plaintiff was fully advised as to the existence of this rule, and applied to the general office of the company for a permit, and tendered a bond in compliance with the regulation, but, upon this bond being returned to it as insufficiently executed, the plaintiff took no further steps toward furnishing a bond or procuring a permit, and sent its agent out with its sample cases, to be checked as general baggage. On the former appeal it was decided that a special finding of the jury to the effect that plaintiff had no knowledge of the regulation of the company in regard to sample trunks containing jewelry was without support in the evidence; but that as to the second finding that the baggage agent of defendant when he checked the trunk in controversy as baggage knew, or had reason to know, that it was a jeweler's sample trunk, there was such conflict in the evidence as not to require a reversal on the ground that such finding was unwarranted. The court further held that, if plaintiff had good reason to know of the existence of the regulation, it was charged thereby as fully as though it had actual knowledge, and that an instruction requiring actual knowledge in order to make such regulation binding upon it was erroneous. If the plaintiff had such reasonable knowledge of the regulation with reference to jewelry sample cases, and the evidence of that fact is conclusive, then it could not hold the company liable for jewelry samples, even though its agent induced the baggage agent to check them without the permit required by the regulations. Plaintiff is directly chargeable with notice of the limitation of the power of the baggage agent to render the company liable for jewelry samples, except in the method prescribed by the regulation. We should not care to go as far as the Massachusetts court has gone, and hold that a baggage agent has not the implied authority to accept merchandise as baggage, waiving the objection on that ground. Blumantle v. Railroad Co., 127 Mass. 322. But we do hold that where the agent's authority is expressly limited in this respect, and the limitation is known to the passenger, the act of the agent in violation of the regulation will not bind the company, unless something in the nature of a waiver of the regulation is shown, and there is nothing of the kind in this case.

Appellant while apparently conceding that the defendant did not become liable for these jewelry samples as baggage, still insists that there was a liability for them as warehouseman, and, that there was evidence to go to the jury that there was negligence on the part of the agents of the defendant in caring for the trunk such as would...