Lake S. & M. S. Ry. Co. v. Hochstim
Appellate Court of Illinois
Trespass on the Case, for loss of baggage. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Richard W. Clifford, Judge, presiding.
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Waterman
The carrier having, after being informed as to the character of the articles, received them as baggage, is liable for their loss, although they consisted of merchandise. Hutchinson on Carriers, Sec. 685, note 1; Hannibal Ry. Co. v. Swift, 12 Wall. 262-274.
That the articles lost were actually the property of the plaintiffs, the employers of the traveler, was immaterial to the defendant.
The witness doubtless spoke as is customary with traveling men concerning their samples, calling them his samples, his baggage.
The shipment was really made by the plaintiffs, qwi faoit per alium faeit per se.…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Hannibal Railroad v. SwiftSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
- Barker v. GarveyIllinois Supreme Court · 1876
- Bradley v. GeiselmanIllinois Supreme Court · 1859
- Chicago & North-western Railway Co. v. AmesIllinois Supreme Court · 1866
- Conklin v. LeedsIllinois Supreme Court · 1871
3Cited by5 opinions
- Trouser Co. v. RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1905
- Amory v. Wabash RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1902
- Providence Washington Insurance v. Western Union Telegraph Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1910
- Beifeld v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Illinois Circuit Court · 1908
- Wingate v. Pere Marquette RailroadAppellate Court of Illinois · 1912