77 76 missibility of the evidence, in an action against a carrier for the delay of, injury to, or loss of, baggage, is governed by the rules applying in civil cases generally." Thus, any competent evidence as to the nature and value of the baggage is admissible for the purpose of enabling the jury to find its value. In an action for delay in delivering baggage, the owner may testify that he contracted with the carrier to transmit it to a certain point, without producing his check.78 So also in an action for delay in delivering the baggage of a traveling salesman, whereby he was unable to sell goods, evidence that the time of the year was that in which his business was most active is admissible." 79 While plaintiff cannot testify as to his opinion regarding the amount of damage sustained,80 yet one who has had experience with reference to the kind of property damaged may testify as to injury caused by the elements, even though he has never seen the property in question.8 81 Admissions of agents of carrier. The declarations or admissions of an agent or servant of the company, 76. See generally Evidence [16 Cyc 1110 et seq]. And see Kansas Pac. R. Co. v. Montelle, 10 Kan. 119; Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Bowler, etc., Co., 19 Oh. Cir. Ct. 737, 9 Oh. Cir. Dec. 465 (holding that, in determining whether a baggage-master has actual knowledge of the contents of a package shipped as baggage, the jury are not precluded from considering circumstantial evidence); Snaman v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., (Tex. Civ. A.) 42 SW 1023 (evidence held inadmissible). [a] Evidence held admissible.—(1) St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Stone, 78 Ark. 318, 95 SW 470. (2) The fact that oil-soaked waste was kept in a car used as a freight depot may be shown as having a bearing on the cause of the fire in the car, by which five trunks held by the carrier as warehouseman were burned. Levi v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 157 Mo. A. 536, 138 SW 699. (3) In an action for damages for failure to connect plaintiff's baggage car so as to enable it to be at its final destination on the morning of a certain date, as shown by the itinerary prepared by defendant, resulting in inability to give an afternoon performance, evidence of the gross receipts of such performance, which were refunded on plaintiff's delayed arrival, was competent. Altschuler v. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 155 Wis. 146, 144 NW 294, 49 LRANS 491. [b] Custom as to delivery-In an action against a transfer company and a carrier for loss of baggage, evidence that it had long been the custom of transfer men to leave the baggage of prospective customers in an inclosed place in a union depot is admissible to show delivery. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Anderson, (Tex. Civ. A.) 147 SW 353. [c] Evidence of fraudulent claim. -Where plaintiff sued a railroad company for loss of his trunk which, he alleged, contained valuable papers, among them the lease of a farm from his father to himself, and defendant resisted the claim as fraudulent, denying that it had ever received the trunk, and gave strong evidence to support its defense, and then offered to prove, as tending further to show the dishonesty of the claim, that the farm had been the subject of a suit in chancery in which it was decreed that plaintiff's father held the land as agent for another and should convey to him. and that plaintiff was aware of the fact, such evidence was rightly received and is sufficient to prove the decree without the other proceedings in the suit. Thomas v. Great Western R. Co., 14 U. C. Q. B. (Ont.) 389. [d] Evidence of similiar occur 82 in regard to the cause or circumstances of a loss of baggage, are not admissible against the carrier, unless shown to have been made within the authority of such servant or agent,s: or to have been a part of the res gestæ, as is the rule in other cases. A statement by an employee which is merely an expression of an opinion is inadmissible.84 83 Witnesses. At common law, under the rule excluding the testimony of parties in interest, it was held that the owner, or other person interested in the loss of baggage, if a party to the suit, could not testify as to the contents of a lost trunk;85 but in most of the states, by general statutory provisions making parties competent witnesses, this rule no longer applies, and even without such general statute it has been held, either by virtue of some special statutory provision or by reason of an exception to the rule, that the owner of baggage, although a party to the suit, is competent, in the absence of other means of proof, to testify as to the contents of a lost trunk,86 and as to the value of the articles rence. In a passenger's suit for the 77. Atlanta Baggage, etc., Co. v. S. C. L. 468, 47 AmD 563.. See also [a] Slight and prima facie evi- a re [b] Plaintiff's affidavits.-(1) In an action to recover the value of a lost trunk, the ex parte affidavits of plaintiff are not competent to show the contents of the trunk. Indiana Cent. R. Co. v. Gulick, 19 Ind. 83 [dist Doyle v. Kiser, 6 Ind. 242]. (2) A pauper affidavit made by plaintiff in suit in a justice's court against a railroad company to cover for the loss of a trunk and contents, in order to appeal the case to the superior court, is not admissible on the trial of the case in that court to show that plaintiff's financial condition was such that she did not probably own the property claimed to have been contained in the trunk. Southern R. Co. v. White, 108 Ga. 201, 33 SE 952. [c] In the absence of better evidence, testimony of a witness who saw the trunk packed sometime before shipment is admissible to show the contents of the trunk and their value. Sugg V. Memphis, etc., Packet Co., 40 Mo. 442. [d] Opinion. A witness who has Evidence of value generally see 78. Strange v. Atlantic Coast Line 79. Webb v. Atlantic Coast R. Co., 76 S. C. 193, 56 SE 954, 9 LRANS 1218, 11 AnnCas 834. 80. Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Wilkinson, 55 Kan. 83, 39 P 1043. 81. Sonneborn v. Southern R. Co., 65 S. C. 502, 44 SE 77. 82. Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Carrow, 73 Ill. 348, 24 AmR 248; Stiles v. Western R. Co., 8 Metc. (Mass.) 44, 41 AmD 486; Green v. New York Cent. R. Co., 4 Daly (N. Y.) 553, 12 AbbPrNS 473; Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Campbell, 36 Oh. St. 647, 38 AmR 617. See generally Evidence [16 Cyc 1021]. [a] Illustrations.-(1) Where a baggage car and its contents are destroyed by fire, the carrier cannot be bound by the subsequent declarations of one of its brakemen as to the cause of the fire. Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Carrow, 73 111. 348, 24 AmR 248. (2) But the admissions of the conductor, baggage-master, or station agent, as to the manner of the loss, made in answer to inquiries in behalf of the passenger, are admissible in evidence against the company on the ground that they were made by the agent as agent and within the scope of his authority. Morse v. Connecticut River R. Co., 6 Gray (Mass.) 450; Curtis v. Avon, etc., R. Co., 49 Barb. (N. Y.) 148. (3) Where a passenger, as soon after his arrival at his destination as was practicable, presented to the agent in charge of the baggage room a check for his baggage and asked for the same, which had been delivered to the company when he took passage on its train, and the agent, being unable to find the baggage, took the number of the check, and asked the passenger to call again, and he did the following evening, when the agent informed him that he had made further search for the baggage, and that it could not be found, such acts and declarations of the agent are admissible against the company in an action against it by the passenger for the loss of his baggage. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Campbell, 36 Oh. St. 647, 38 AmR 617. 83. so on kinson, 55 Kan. 83, 39 P 1043; Illi- [a] Thus, where plaintiff's suit case was taken out of a car by the porter at the passenger's destination and lost before plaintiff could alight, a statement by the porter that he saw some one that might have taken it was immaterial. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Grace, 22 Wyo. 452, 143 P 353, LRA1915B 608. 85. Block v. Steamboat Trent, 18 La. Ann. 664; Smith v. North Carolina R. Co., 60 N. C. 202; Herring v. Utley, 53 N. C. 270; Dill v. South Carolina R. Co., 41 S. C. L. 158, 62 AmD 407. See generally Witnesses [40 Cyc 2244]. 86. U. S.-U. S. v. Clark, 96 U. S. 37, 24 L. ed. 696. Ala.-Douglass V. Montgomery, etc., R. Co., 37 Ala. 638, 79 AmD 76. Ga.-Dibble v. Brown, 12 Ga. 217, 56 AmD 460. Ill.-Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Copeland, 24 Ill. 332, 76 AmD 749; Illinois constituting his baggage;87 and under this exception either the husband or the wife may ordinarily testify as to the character and quantity of the wearing apparel belonging to each, and as to the character of all other articles in the lost trunk which may properly be classed as baggage.88 As regards the common-law rule, some of the authorities admit plaintiff to testify only in odium spoliatoris, and require the element of willful spoliation or interference, while, on the other hand, there are authorities placing the exception on the necessity of permitting the only party who knows the matter to be proved to testify in order to prevent a failure 89 Cent. R. Co. v. Taylor, 24 Ill. 323; Ind.-Indiana Cent. R. Co. v. Gulick, 19 Ind. 83. Me.-Pudor v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 26 Me. 458; Herman v. Drinkwater, 1 Me. 27. Md.-Pettigrew v. Barnum, 11 Md. 434, 69 AmD 212. Mass. Harlow v. Fitchburg R. Co., 8 Gray 237. Mo.-Williams V. Frost, 39 Mo. 516; Nolan v. Ohio, etc., R.,Co., 39 Mo. 114 (by statute). N. Y.-Garvey v. Camden, etc., R. Co., 1 Hilt. 280, 4 AbbPr 171; Davis v. Cayuga, etc., R. Co., 10 HowPr 330. Oh. Mad River, etc., R. Co. v. Fulton, 20 Oh. 318. Pa.-McGill v. Rowand, 3 Pa. 451, 45 AmD 654; Whitesell v. Crane, 8 Watts & S. 369. Mo.-Nolan v. Ohio, etc., R. Co., 39 Mo. 114 (by statute). N. Y.-Garvey v. Camden, etc., R. Co., 1 Hilt. 280, 4 AbbPr 171. Oh. Mad River, etc., R. Co. v. Fulton, 20 Oh. 318. Pa.-McGill v. Rowand, 3 Pa. 451, 45 AmD 654; Whitesell v. Crane, 8 Watts & S. 369. Tex.-Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. McCarty, 42 Tex. Civ. A. 514, 94 SW 178. [a] Without special knowledge.The owner may testify as to the value of the articles, although he is not shown to have any special knowledge in respect thereto, since every one is presumed to know the value of articles in common use. Parmelee v. Raymond, 43 Ill. A. 609. 88. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Taylor, 24 Ill. 323; Mad River, etc., R. Co. v. Fulton, 20 Oh. 318; McGill v. Rowand, 3 Pa. 451, 45 AmD 654; Battle v. Columbia, etc., R. Co., 70 S. C. 329, 49 SE 849. [a] Especially applicable to wife. -The principle of necessity which enables a person under certain circumstances to prove the contents of his box or trunk, although he is an interested party, applies to the wife with even greater force than to the husband. McGill v. Rowand, 3 Pa. 451, 45 AmD 654. [b] A husband may prove, in a suit by himself to recover for lost baggage, the articles lost by either himself or his wife; but on account of their interest they are not permitted to prove their value. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Taylor, 24 I11. 323. [c] Where a husband sues a carrier for the loss of his wife's trunk while a passenger, the husband may testify as to the value after the wife has testified as to the contents. Battle v. Columbia, etc., R. Co., 70 S. C. 329. 49 SE 849. 89. Snow V. Eastern R. Co., 12 Metc. (Mass.) 44; Garvey v. Camden, etc., R. Co., 1 Hilt. (N. Y.) 280, 4 90. U. S. v. Clark, 96 U. S. 37, 24 "It is not usual or convenient for the passenger to have a witness to the contents of his trunk, box, or parcel; or to call the special attention of the carrier to those contents coming under the general character of baggage; or in any manner to prepare himself with evidence in anticipation of the loss. If in such case, the loss should occur, he is without remedy, because without proof of the extent of his injury, unless his own oath be admitted as competent. His condition in this respect, is not the result of any want of care or diligence on his part, and that being the case, it would be unreasonable and unjust to say, that he can have no remedy for an injury done him, by the negligence of the carrier." Johnson V. Stone, 11 Humphr. (Tenn.) 419, 422. 91. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Taylor, 24 Ill. 323; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Copeland, 24 III. 232, 76 AmD 749; Davis v. Michigan Southern, etc., R. Co., 22 Ill. 278, 74 AmD 151. 92. Pudor v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 26 Me. 458; Garvey v. Camden, etc., R. Co., 1 Hilt. (N. Y.) 280, 4 AbbPr 171; Mad River, etc., R. Co. v. Fulton, 20 Oh. 318; Johnson v. Stone, 11 Humphr. (Tenn.) 419. 93. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Weatherby, 41 Tex. Civ. A. 409, 92 SW 58. 94. See generally Evidence [17 Cyc 753]. And see Green v. Southern Express Co., 45 Ga. 305; Conheim v. Chicago Great Western R. Co., 104 Minn. 312, 116 NW 581, 124 AmSR 623, 17 LRANS 1091, 15 AnnCas 389 (evidence too indefinite); Burnes v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 144 Mo. A. 71, 128 SW 236. tiff's right as a passenger to sue for its loss, is sufficiently established by his possession of the check therefor and the testimony of the baggagemaster as to the custom and manner of checking baggage); Cone v. Southern R. Co., 85 S. C. 524, 67 SE 779. 21 AnnCas 158 (holding that the fact that defendant so far received the trunk as baggage as to check the same for the party stealing it was some evidence of delivery to defendant as carrier). (4) To show a delivery to plaintiff. Davidson v. Cunard SS. Co., 134 App. Div. 288, 118 NYS 929. (5) To support a finding that connecting carriers had entered into an arrangement for carrying passengers and baggage, rendering them jointly liable for the loss of a passenger's baggage. Peterson v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 80 Iowa 92, 45 NW 573; Wolf v. Grand Rapids, etc., R. Co., 149 Mich. 75, 112 NW 732. (6) To authorize a judgment in favor of the carrier. Eckstein v. Woolverton, 111 NYS 535. (7) To justify a finding of the carrier's negligence. Kimball v. Goldman, 117 Ark. 446, 174 SW 1185; Baack, etc., Millinery Co. v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 177 Mo. A. 282, 164 SW 175; Clark v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 157 App. Div. 194, 141 NYS 966 [aff 215 N. Y. 649 mem. 109 NE 1070 mem]. (8) In an action for loss of baggage at the station to which it was checked, where the passenger did not accompany the same, to show no want of ordinary care on the part of defendant respecting the same, so as to render it liable for the loss thereof. Wood v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 98 Me. 98, 56 A 457, 99 AmSR 339 and note. (9) In an action for the loss of articles from a passenger's suit case which had been delivered to defendant's trainman to help her off the train, to sustain a finding that the trainman was acting within his duty in taking the suit case. Hasbrouck v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 202 N. Y. 363, 95 NE 808, 35 LRANS 537, Ann Cas1912D 1150 [aff 137 App. Div. 532, 122 NYS 123]. (10) Where a passenger's trunk which when delivered by her to a steamship company contained her wearing apparel could not be found at the end of the voyage, and when afterward forwarded to her was empty, and the company refused to give any explanation, and when sued for the loss introduced no evidence as to its care or treatment of the trunk while in its possession, the court was justified in finding that it was broken open and rifled by the company's employees. The New England, 110 Fed. 415 [app dism 129 Fed. 1006 mem, 62 CCA 684 mem]. (11) In an action to recover for the loss of a traveling bag from a carrier of parcels for hire, to whom it was intrusted to be delivered at a designated depot in time for a particular train, a prima facie case is made out by the testimony of plaintiff that he inquired at the baggage room at the proper time and was unable to find his baggage. Ziegler v. Freeman, 31 Oh. Cir. Čt. 342. [a] Evidence held sufficient: (1) To sustain a finding and verdict for plaintiff. Southern R. Co. v. Edmundson, 123 Ga. 474, 51 SE 388; Jones v. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 184 Ill. A. 287; Amory v. Wabash R. Co., 130 Mich. 404, 90 NW 22; McKibbin v. Wisconsin Cent. R. Co., 100 Minn. 270, 110 NW 964, 117 AmSR 689, 8 LRANS 489; Perry v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co., 171 N. C. 158, 88 SE 156, LRA1916E 478; Carter-Mullaly Transfer Co. v. Angell, (Tex. Civ. A.) 181 SW 237; Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Anderson, (Tex. Civ. A.) 147 SW 353. (2) To warrant an award of some damages on account of detention and damage to the baggage. Southern R. Co. v. Wood, 114 Ga. 159, 39 SE 922. (3) To show a delivery to the carrier. Wolf v. Grand Rapids, etc., R. Co., 149 Mich. 75, 112 NW 732 (holding that testimony of the carrier's transfer agent to whom plaintiff delivered the baggage at his house that he delivered the same at the carrier's freight depot is sufficient proof that the baggage came into the custody of the carrier); Davis v. Cayuga, etc., R. Co., 10 HowPr (N. Y.) 330 (holding that [b] Evidence held insufficient: the fact that the baggage was re- (1) To support a verdict for plaintiff. ceived by the carrier, and of plain-Bridges v. Southern R. Co., 137 Ga. be established by proof of delivery to the carrier and failure to deliver it at its destination, even without demand and refusal, if there is other evidence of loss.95 But mere proof of nondelivery without proof of demand and refusal, or other evidence of loss, is not sufficient to show a conversion.96 The admission as to the value of lost baggage made by an immigrant to a steamship company on a printed blank and signed only by mark will not as a matter of law be given more weight than the immigrant's positive statement as to the actual value given at the trial.97 rebutted by evidence that the derailment and wrecking of the train were caused by a slide of dirt and rocks.99 Offer to compromise not admission of liability. A mere offer by the carrier to compromise a claim against it is not conclusive evidence of its liability, nor is it entitled to any weight, unless the circumstances are such as to make it tantamount to an admission of liability.1 [§ 1608] 5. Trial2-a. Questions of Law and Fact. As in other civil cases, where the evidence on a matter in issue is conflicting, or is such that reasonable minds might come to different conclusions therefrom, the question is one of fact and should be submitted to the jury. But where the evidence is insufficient or is undisputed, or such that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion therefrom, the question becomes one of law for the court to determine and may be disposed of by it without the aid of the jury, such as by a dismissal, nonsuit, peremptory instruction, or by directing a verdict. Thus these trips the baggage-master stated that plaintiff was a dress man, and that he had ladies' dresses, but the trunks were received as passenger's baggage, and some of the contents stolen, there was evidence from which the jury might infer knowledge on defendant's part as to the character of the contents, and a verdict for plaintiff will not be disturbed. Amory v. Wabash R. Co., 130 Mich. 404, 90 NW 22. Rebutting presumptions. An inference of negligence arising from a carrier's failure to account for the loss of baggage which had been stored with it is not overcome by evidence showing that the building used for the storage was safe and secure, in charge of trusty agents and servants, and properly guarded by day and night.98 The presumption of negligence arising from the derailment of a train, by reason of which a passenger's baggage was destroyed, is not 107, 72 SE 892. (2) To sustain a verdict for defendant. Snaman V. Missouri, etc., R. Co., (Tex. Civ. A.) 42 SW 1023. (3) To show that plaintiff's baggage was ever delivered to defendant carrier. Lustig v. International Nav. Co., 38 Misc. 802, 78 NYS 885. (4) To show conclusively contributory negligence on plaintiff's part in placing his trunk at the accustomed checking place, and leaving it there for the night. Cone v. Southern R. Co., 85 S. C. 524, 67 SE 779, 21 AnnCas 158. (5) To show delivery to plaintiff. Hubbard v. Mobile, etc., R. Co., 112 Mo. A. 459, 87 SW 52 (holding that, where a carrier undertook to deliver a passenger and her baggage at destination, the mere fact that the passenger received the baggage from a terminal carrier does not in the absence of evidence showing how the terminal carrier obtained possession of the baggage show that the carrier had performed its duty of delivering the baggage, and exempt it from responsibility, both as carrier and as warehouseman, for a loss of certain articles of baggage). (6) In an action against a street railroad for the loss of a passenger's baggage, to support a finding that the railroad was negligent in permitting a fellow passenger to take plaintiff's baggage. Sperry v. Cons. R. Co., 79 Conn. 565, 65 A 962, 118 AmSR 169, 10 LRANS 907, 9 AnnCas 199. (7) In an action against a street railroad for the loss of a passenger's baggage, to justify a finding that the conductor assumed the custody of the baggage so as to render the railroad liable for its loss. Sperry v. Cons. R. Co., supra. [c] Finding of gross negligence against weight of evidence. A finding that a carrier was grossly negligent in allowing goods in its baggage room to be destroyed by fire is against the weight of the evidence, where it was shown that when the fire was discovered it was unsafe to enter the baggage room, and there was no opportunity to remove the goods, and the testimony of plaintiff's witnesses that inquiry had been made as to the removal of the goods was contradicted by defendant's witness who was corroborated by others and the circumstances attending the fire. Cattaraugus Cutlery Co. v. Buffalo, etc., R. Co., 24 App. Div. 267, 48 NYS 451. [d] The misrouting of baggage by a carrier at a junction point is strong proof of gross negligence. Robert v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 148 Mo. A. 96, 127 SW 925. [e] Defendant's knowledge of character of baggage.-Where plaintiff had traveled over defendant's road for six years, carrying samples of merchandise in trunks different in style from the ordinary, and a witness testified that on the last of [f] An advertisement signed by a general passenger agent of a carrier and a representative of a party of excursionists, stating that "a special baggage car is attached to the train with our Own baggage-master in charge," does not show conclusively that the person in charge of the baggage was the agent of the passengers, although it might be taken into consideration by the jury as evidence of that fact. Burnes v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 144 Mo. A. 71, 128 SW 236. 95. McCormick V. Pennsylvania Cent. R. Co., 99 N. Y. 65, 1 NE 99, 52 AmR 6; Garvey v. Camden, etc., R. Co., 1 Hilt. (N. Y.) 280, 4 AbbPr 171. [a] Proof of a demand for baggage and a refusal is not necessary where there is evidence that the baggage was lost on the journey. Garvey v. Camden, etc., R. Co., 1 Hilt. (N. Y.) 280, 4 AbbPr 171. 96. Tolano v. National Steam Nav. Co., 28 N. Y. Super. 318, 4 AbbPrNS 316, 35 How Pr 496. 97. Haaga V. Austro-Americana Line, 173 Ill. A. 35. 98. Rome R. Co. v. Wimberly, 75 Ga. 316, 58 AmR 468. [a] Mere proof that the baggage had been placed in a proper building in charge of trusty employees, and properly guarded, is not sufficient to rebut the presumption of negligence arising from the nondelivery of the baggage to its owner. Hofford v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 43 Pa. Super. 303. 99. Thomas v. Southern R. Co., 131 N. C. 590, 42 SE 964. 1. Michigan Southern, etc., R. Co. v. Meyres, 21 111. 627. See generally Compromise and Settlement [8 Cye 518, 538]; Evidence [16 Cyc 946]. 2. See generally Trial [38 Cyc 1511]. 3. U. S.-Southern Pac. Co. v. Maloney, 136 Fed. 171, 69 CCA 83. Ark.-St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. V. Stone, 78 Ark. 318, 95 SW 470. Mo.-Burnes V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 144 Mo. A. 71, 128 SW 236. Nebr.-Gibbons v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 98 Nebr. 696, 154 NW 226. N. Y.-Knieriem v. New York Cent. etc., R. Co., 146 App. Div. 661, 131 NYS 496 [aff 210 N. Y. 573 mem, 104 NE 1132 mem]; Downey v. Inman, etc., SS. Co., 2 NYS 659. N. C.-Perry v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co., 171 N. C. 158, 88 SE 156, LRA 1916E 478; Newberry v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co., 160 N. C. 156, 76 SE 238. Tex.-St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. Green, 44 Tex. Civ. A. 13, 97 SW 531. [a] Validity of contract-Where the ticket providing that action for loss of baggage should be brought within ninety days was not delivered to the passenger until long after he had paid his fare and the carrier had received his baggage, it is at most a question for the jury whether there was a valid contract. Lunansky v. Hamburg American Packet Co., 51 Misc. 21, 99 NYS 810. [b] Authority of agent.-Where the carrier claimed that the local agent had no authority to make the contract sued on, and plaintiff's evidence showed that the agent had power to make it, and that it had been ratified, the issues of the agent's authority and of ratification were for the jury. Newberry v. Sea Board Air Line R. Co., 160 N. C. 156, 76 SE 238. [c] Proof of loss alone.-In an action by a passenger against a railroad company, based on the alleged act of a train employee in wrongfully taking plaintiff's satchel when she was on a journey, and stealing therefrom her purse containing all her money, where there was evidence to support such allegation, the loss of the money alone was sufficient to sustain the action of the court in refusing to direct a verdict for defendant without regard to the proof in respect to her claim for other damages. Southern Pac. Co. v. Maloney, 136 Fed. 171, 69 CCA 83. 4. Denver, etc., R. Co. v. Doyle, 58 Colo. 327, 145 P 688, LRA1915D 113; Trimble v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 162 N. Y. 84, 56 NE 532, 48 LRA 115 [aff 39 App. Div. 403, 57 NYS 437]; Chatzkelson v. California SS. Co., 7 Misc. 240, 27 NYS 270; Black v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.. 82 S. C. 478, 64 SE 418; Home v. Oregon Short Line R. Co., 42 Utah 15, 128 P 522. [a] Construction of ticket. Where the complaint alleged that defendant issued to plaintiff a ticket authorizing her to ride on its trains, as a part of her cause of action, and the ticket was introduced in evidence without objection, and its identity was not disputed, it was for the court to construe its terms as a matter of law responsive to the testimony, even if strict pleading required defendant to plead a limitation of liability stated in the ticket. Black v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 82 S. C. 478, 64 SE 418. [b] Insufficient evidence of agency. In an action for loss of baggage, the complaint should be dismissed where there was no evidence that the person from whom plaintiff bought her passage ticket was defendant's agent, except the testimony of plaintiff's child who was at the where the evidence is conflicting or doubtful, it is 5. Green v. Milwaukee, etc.. R. Co., 41 Iowa 410; McKibbin v. Great on [a] Time of delivery.-What is a carrier exercised ordinary care, as warehouseman, in 12 What constitutes baggage. The question as to Mahan, 8 Bush 184. Miss. Ziegler Bros. v. Mobile, etc., N. Y.-Moffat v. Long Island R. Man.-Brown v. Canadian Pac. R. See generally supra § 1590. [a] Where the facts are not in 9. Brown v. Eastern R. Co., 11 Malone v. Boston, etc., R. Co., [b] Custom as to [c] Place of delivery.-In an 6. Sloman V. Great Western R. a 7. Matteson v. New York Cent., V. Iowa.-Ditman Boot, etc., Co. V. Ky.-Louisville, etc., R. Co. V. R. 11. Williams v. New Jersey Cent. [a] Illustration.-In an action If any [b] Where the facts are not in 13. See generally supra §§ 1557- 1566. 14. U. S.-New York Cent., etc., Ark.-Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Whit- Fla.-Brock v. Gale, 14 Fla. 523, Ga. Dibble v. Brown, 12 Ga. 217, R. Co. 172 Ill. A. 314. Kan. Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. Mo.-Doerner v. St. Louis, etc., R. Nebr.-Gibbons v. Chicago, etc., R. N. Y.-Merrill v. Grinnell, 30 N. Y. PrNS 220. Or. Oakes V. Northern Pac. R. S. C.-Vlasservitch V. Augusta. S. D.-House v. Chicago, etc., R. Tex.-Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Rus- Vt. Ouimit v. Henshaw, 35 Vt. "The question what articles of [a] Mixed question of law and [b] Mechanic's tools.-In an ac- as as 15. Connolly v. Warren, 106 Mass. V. Pere Marquette [a] Feather bed. It is a ques- 16 cases the court may say, as a matter of law, that The reasonableness of a regulation of a carrier as tion of law for the court, and not 16. Jones v. Priester, 1 Tex. A. 17. Doerner v. St. Louis, etc., R. 18. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Cope- San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Green, (Tex. Civ. A.) 170 [a] Illustration.-Where plain- circum- V. 19. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. V. 20. Gardiner v. New York Cent., 21. Pittsburgh, 22. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Seale, liability is for the court.2 24 [ 1609] b. Instructions. As in other civil ac- [ 1610] c. Verdict and Findings. The verdict 28 Tex. Civ. A. 364, 67 SW 437. 1594]. 24. Little Rock, etc., R. Co. V. [a] Goods damaged or destroyed whatever the [b] Charge as to what constitutes 25. Williams v. Southern R. Co., make a a [a] "Immediate."-To 71 SE 346. 26. St. Louis Southwestern R. [a] Right to transportation of struction that it was not responsi- [b] Recovery for injury in ac- V. 28. Harzburg v. Southern R. Co., [a] Assuming unseasonable cloth- 31. Denver, etc., R. Co. v. John- [a] Insufficient evidence of value. Weight and sufficiency of evidence |