Bush v. Beauchamp
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Second Division; G. W. Hendricks, Judge; 1. Plaintiff was not entitled to recover for loss of jewelry checked as baggage. Ill Ark. 430; 233 IT. S. 97. 2. Defendant is not liable for damage not occurring on its own line. 106 Am. St. Rep. 597, 610. 3. Appellee can not recover under the interstate law. Carmack Amendment to Interstate Com. Act, § 20; 233 IT.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Second Division; G. W. Hendricks, Judge; 1. Plaintiff was not entitled to recover for loss of jewelry checked as baggage. Ill Ark. 430; 233 IT. S. 97. 2. Defendant is not liable for damage not occurring on its own line. 106 Am. St. Rep. 597, 610. 3. Appellee can not recover under the interstate law. Carmack Amendment to Interstate Com. Act, § 20; 233 IT. S. 97. The case in 101 Pac. 361 does not apply. 1. The personal adornments of a woman are part of her wearing apparel and baggage. 123 Fed. 371, 59 C. C. A. 499; 96 Id. 832; 158 Id. 153; 33 Ind. 379; 3 Pa.…
1Opinion of the Court
HART, J.,
(after stating the facts). (1) The contract to carry the baggage is an incident to the contract to carry the passenger. Railway Company v. Berry, 60 Ark. 433, and Kansas City, F. S. & M. R. Co. v. McGahey, 63 Ark. 344. Counsel for appellant concedes this to be true, but insists that under the regulations filed by the railroad company with the Interstate Commerce Commission that it was not allowed to carry the diamond ring as baggage. They rely on the case of Boston & Maine Rd. v. Hooker, 233 U. S. 97. In that case the railroad company had filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Boston & Maine Railroad v. HookerSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- Hasbrouck v. . N.Y.C. H.R.R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1911
- Kansas City, Fort Scott & Memphis Railway Co. v. McGaheySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1897
- Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. WhittenSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
- House v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1912
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Ry. v. HamCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1948
- Missouri Pacific Railroad v. PughSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1923