Baggage

a contract to carry the person only implies an undertaking to transport such a limited quantity of articles as are ordinarily taken by travellers for their personal use and convenience; such quantity depending of course upon the station of the party, the object and length of the journey, and many other considerations.

Whatever, connected with the objects of the journey, and not exceeding the limits of reason and custom, a traveller takes with him for his personal use, whether during actual travel, or in intervals between trips, or upon the termination of the journey. Bish. Non-Cont. Law, § 1156. It does not include samples of merchandise (98 Mass. 83), money not necessary for travelling (22 Ill. 278), jewelry intended for presents (17 N. Y. Super. Ct. 225). It includes weapons (22 Ill. 278), books (121 Ind. 226), tools (14 Pa. St. 129), opera glasses (33 Ind. 379), bedding for use on the trip (1 Whit. & W. Civ. Cas. Ct. App. [Tex.] § 1253).

Such articles of apparel, ornament, etc., as are in daily use by travellers, for convenience, comfort, or recr< "It includes whatever the passenger takes with him for his personal use or convenience according to the habits or wants of the particular class to which he belongs, either with reference to the immediate necessities or ultimate purpose of the journey;" per Cockburn, C. J., in L. R. G Q. B. 612; only such articles of necessity or convenience as are generally carried by passengers for their personal use; Glovinsky v. Steamship Co., 6 Misc. 38S, 26 N. Y. Supp. 751. It is said that (lie decisions and text-books give us but one definite limitation to the term "baggage," and that is that it must be something for the personal use of the traveller; 12 Harv. L. Rev. 119; but that which one traveller would consider indispensable would be deemed superfluous by another; 19 C. B. N. S. 321; so that his station in life must be taken into consideration; Coward v. R. Co., 16 Lea (Tenn.) 225, 57 Am. Rep. 227; New York, C. & H. R. R. Co. v. Fraloff, 100 U. S. 24, 25 L. Ed. 531. What may be necessary for a voyage on land is unfit for a voyage at sea; and the length of the journey must be considered in determining the quantity of baggage necessary for it; 12 Harv. L. Rev. 119, and cases cited. The traveller is entitled to have carried with him whatever is essential to the ultimate purpose of his journey; Hannibal & St. J. R. Co. v. Swift, 12 Wall. (U. S.) 262, 20 L. Ed. 423; unless his requirements are unreasonable; Oakes v. R. Co., 20 Or. 392, 26 I'ac. 230, 12 L. R. A. 318, 23 Am. St. Rep. 120; Merrill v. Grinuell, 30 N. Y. 591. It has been held that a bicycle is not baggage under a statute allowing 100 pounds of "ordinary baggage"; State v. R. Co., 71 Mo. App. 3S5; but in several states they are expressly declared baggage and in Now York they must be carried free of charge if the owner travels on the same train. In [1S99] 1 Q. B. 243, it is said there are certain requirements which articles must meet in order that they may be regarded as "personal luggage": 1. They must be for the personal use of the passenger. 2. They must be for use in connection with the journey, i. e., something habitually taken by a person when travelling for his own use, not merely during the actual journey, but for use during the time he may be away from home. It was further considered that the word luggage involves the idea of a package, and that the law does not recognize as from the receptacle which i and does not cast any duty on the carri< receive personal baggage until it had placed in a position of reasonable security for handling. This term has been held to include jewelry carried as I.Inch formed a part of female attire, the plaintiff bi journey with bis family; 4 Bingh. 2 tiill v. Rowand, 3 l'a. 431, 45 Am. D A watch, carried in one's trunk, is p. ge; Jones v. Yoorhees, 10 Ohio 145; Walsh v. Wright, 1 Newb. i'.'i. Fed Ci 17,1 1"); but see Bomar v. Maxwell. 9 Humphr. (Tenn.) 821, 51 Am. Dec 682; i. Instruments of an army surgeon; Hannibal J. EL Co. v. Swift, 12 Wall. (1 20 L. Ed. 423; valuable laces carried by a foreign woman of rank, for which the jury found in $10,000 dan Stew York,

1. Whatever a passenger takes with him for his personal use or convenience, according to the habits or wants of the particular class to which he belongs, either with reference to the immediate necessities or to the ultimate purpose of the journey.! A contract to carry a person implies an undertaking to transport such a limited quantity of articles as are ordinarily taken by travelers for their personal use and convenience, the quantity depending upon the station of the party, the object and length of the journey, and other circumstances. To the extent that the articles carried by a, passenger for his personal use exceed in quantity and value such as are usually carried by passengers of like star tion, pursuing like joimieys, they are not baggage for which the carrier, by general law, is responsible as insurer. In cases of abuse by the passenger of the priv- ilege which the law gives him, the carrier secures such exemption from responsibility, not, however, because the passenger, uninquired of, failed to disclose the character and value of the articles carried, but because the articles themselves, in excess of the amount usually or ordinarily carried, under lil?e circumstances, would not constitute baggage within the meaning of the law. In the case (Fraloff's, infra) in which the doctrine foregoing was enunciated, 275 yards of laces, alleged to be of the value of S75,O0O, and f oimd by a jury to be worth $10,000, were held to constitute part of the wearing apparel of the defendant in error — a wealthy Russian. They were adapted to and exclusively designed for personal use, according to her convenience, comfort, or tastes, during an extended journey, upon which she had entered. They were not merchandise, and there was no evidence that they were intended for sale or for purposes of business. It was further decided that whether the laces were such articles iij quantity or value as passengers of like station and under like circumstances ordinarily carry for their personal use, and to subserve their convenience, gratification, or comfort while traveling, was not a question for the jury, under instruction from the court, but for the court itself as a matter of law. The liability of the carrier attaches when the property, as baggage, passes into his hands with his con- 1 Macrow v. Great Western Ey. Co., L. R., 6 Q. B. *622 (1871), Cockbum, C. J. See also Jordan „. Railway Co., 5 Gush. 72 (1849); Connolly v. Warren, 10 Mass. 148 (1870); 6 Hill, 686. " Hannibal, &o. E. Co. v. Swift, 12 Wall. 274, 273 (1870), Field, J. ' TH.Y. Central, &c. R. Co. v. Fi-alofE, 100 U. S. 29-30 (1879), Harlan, J.; Waite, C. J., Clifford, Hunt, Swayne, and Bradley, JJ., concurring; Field, Miller, and Strong,.TJ., dissenting. See also Haines v. Chicago, &c. E. sent. He may refuse to receive property not properly baggage, but it he receives it knowingly, and no deception has been practiced upon him, he must carry it safely.' The fare paid by a passenger includes the transportation of his baggage. The carrier has a lien therefor, and may detain the baggage until payment is made. The term has been held to include — a watch, jewelry,* an opera glass, surgical instruments,* a gun, a pistol,' a mechanic's tools,* manuscript,' books; ' but not, samples of merchandise," except when the carrier, being made aware of the contents of packages, takes them as baggage; nor gold ornaments for presents;' nor money, except as to such limited amount as may be necessary for personal use.'* The possession of a baggage check by a passenger is eridence of the receipt of his baggage." Baggage is to be removed within a reasonable time after arrival, else the carrier may store the articles, charge reasonable rates for such service, and, in case of theft, loss, or destruction, be liable only as a warehouseman,'* q. V. See also Carrier. 3. As to the baggage of guests in hotels, see Innkeeper. TtATT.17 1, V. To deliver personalty to another as a bailment, q. v. 3, V. To deliver a defendant to sureties who give security for his appearance in court at the return of the writ.ln. One or more of such sureties themselves. A delivery or bailment of a person to his sureties, upon their giving (together vrithHannibal, &c. E. Co. v. Swift, ante; Strouse v. Wabash, &c. E. Co., 17 F. E. 209 (1S&3). Left with railway porter. Bunch v. Great Western Ey. Co., L. E. 17