Prentice v. Decker

Common carriers of goods may, by express stipulation, limit their liability for the loss of goods occurring from even the negligence of their agents and servants; or wholly exempt themselves from such liability; and the acceptance by the bailor, from the-bailee, in the ordinary course of business, of a receipt for the goods containing such a stipulation, creates a binding contract. But the liability of the carrier will continue, as established by the common law, in respect to all matters not expressly stipulated against. The putting into the hands of a passenger, on receiving her baggage for delivery at her residence, of a card containing a clause limiting the liability of the carrier to a specified amount, except by special agreement, to be noted on such card, will not, without further proof from which the assent of such passenger to the terms thereof may be implied, establish such a contract. Such a contract relates only to the carrier’s liability as an insurer of the goods, and imparts no exemption from liability for actual negligence. And it applies only to deliveries to railroads and steamboats. The legal title to wearing apparel and jewelry, provided by a father for the use of his infant daughter, remains in him, notwithstanding the possession of them by the infant. And for the purposes of an action by the father against a common carrier, to recover for the loss of such property, the daughter must be treated as the legally constituted agent of the plaintiff.

APPEAL from a judgment entered upon the report of a referee. Westcott’s Express Company is a joint stock company, of which the defendant Decker is treasurer. On the 2d of November, 1864, Miss Ellen Prentice; a daughter of the plaintiff, under age, delivered at the defendants’ office at the Hudson river railroad depot, in New York, for transportation from the depot to the plaintiff’s residence in Brooklyn, two trunks containitig clothing and jewelry pro-, vided for her use by her father. One of the trunks was left exposed and unguarded in the defendants’ express wagon, in the street, on a very dark night, and was stolen. The defendants, in their answer, put in issue the plaintiff’s title, and set up a contract with the plaintiff, limiting the defendants’ liability to $100 in case of loss. The defendants were allowed to amend the answer so as to make it conform to the testimony,.by alleging that the supposed contract was made with Ellen Prentice. The referee found, as matters of fact: 1. That on or about the second day of November, 1864, Ellen Prentice, a daughter of the plaintiff, then an infant under the age of twenty-one years, and then and still living with him, in the' city of Brooklyn, who had been temporarily absent from her home, arrived in the city of New York by the Hudson river railroad, having two trunks which were brought by the train on which she came, and for which trunks she had two checks. 2. That on the arrival of the said Ellen Prentice in said city of New York, she applied to an agent of the said Westcott’s Express Company, in the baggage room or' office of the said company, the same being in the building used as the depot of the said railroad company, to have said trunks carried to her place of residence, No. 1 Grace court, in the said city of Brooklyn, and delivered to the said agent the said checks ; and that the said agent, in exchange for said checks, delivéred to the said Ellen Prentice a card, of which the following is a copy: By purchasing your railroad ticket at any of our offices, baggage can be checked from the residence to destination. Rates same as at depot. (over.)” • That the initials A. H. D., under the numbers 6750 and 6672 on said card, are the initials of Alexander H. Dixon, the then agent of said Westcott’s Express Company, at their said office in New York. 3. That so far as any evidence given before him other than the mere delivery of the said card to the said Ellen Prentice; showed, or tends to show, the limitation in the said card of the liability of the said Westcott’s express was not pointed out to the said Ellen Prentice, nor was her attention in any manner directed thereto, nor was the said card read by her. 4. That the said trunks were brought by the agents or servants of the said Westcott’s Express Company, on or about the 2d day of November, 1864, to their office in Brooklyn ; and that a driver or servant of the said company started from the said office, in the evening of the same day, after dark, with a horse and wagon, having the said trunks, and two or three other trunks, in said wagon, and stopped at a house in Remsen street, in said city of Brooklyn, to deliver a trunk; and, that, while the said driver or servant was on the stoop of the said house, where he remained- three or four minutes ; during which he was unable to see the said wagon, on acconnt of the darkness, and no person was in charge thereof, one of the said trunks, being that referred to in the pleadings in this action, was stolen and carried away by some person or persons unknown, and has never been delivered by the said Westcott’s Express Company. 5. That the said trunk, so stolen and carried away, contained wearing apparel and jewelry, which the plaintiff in this action had provided, as a parent, at his own expense, for the use of his said daughter Ellen ; that the fair and reasonable value of the said trunk and contents, at the time the same were so received by the said Westcott’s Express Company, was $456.35, and that the said amount was wholly lost to the said plaintiff. And the referee found, as a conclusion of law, from the aforesaid facts, that the plaintiff was entitled to recover of the defendant, as treasurer of the said Westcott’s Express Company, the sum of $456.35, and to have judgment therefor, besides his costs in this action. On the trial, the defendant’s counsel moved for a dismissal of the complaint on the following grounds : “1. That the plaintiff is not shown to he the owner of any of the baggage referred to in the complaint, or to have any interest or property in, or possession of, the said baggage. 2. That Ellen Prentice is shown to be the owner of said baggage,, and to have had the possession thereof at the time of its delivery to the defendants. 3. That the plaintiff is not shown to be the assignee of the claim set up in the complaint, or of the daughter’s alleged right of action against the defendant. 4. That it does not appear that the plaintiff is the guardian, ad litem, of the said Ellen. Prentice, or in any way authorized to bring or sustain this action.” Motion denied, and'the defendant’s counsel duly excepted. From the judgment entered upon the referee’s report, the defendant appealed.