Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 12.djvu/142

122 122 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. ment our rights to carry baggage have expanded, and the baggage cars of to-day offer a service that would have been impossible sev- enty-five years ago. It is always important to bear this in mind in considering the older authorities when these questions are to- day before our courts. No less important than the nature of the carrier is the nature and extent of the journey itself. It is of course only too evident that what may be necessary for a trip on land is totally unfit for a voyage at sea/ and a long journey demands prepa- rations and provisions that would be absurd for a short one. Thus not only does the kind of necessaries which each passenger may carry with him as baggage vary with the details of each journey but also the quantity.^ What is necessarily a part of each trav- eller's impedimenta must therefore be considered each time a question is raised thereon in the light of all these attending circumstances. This can be illustrated in no way better than in that class of cases where the traveller seeks to recover for money which he packed with his baggage, and for the loss of which he now seeks to hold the carrier liable. In Illinois ;^300^ and in New York ^285^ and ^800* were under proper conditions con- sidered part of the traveller's baggage, while in another case ^439^ was held so large a sum that the traveller would be unreasonable in having it in his trunk, and it could not be considered as baggage ; while the Massachusetts court was in doubt about the sum of ^325, and sent the case back for a new trial for further evidence.^ In the second group of considerations we must examine the personnel' of the traveller. It is only too obvious that what is necessary for a woman has no place in the baggage of a man.' So, too, *' the station in life " of the traveller is a most essential consideration to determine what maybe necessary for his " conven- 1 Cadwallader v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 9 Low. Can. 169; Wood v. Devin, 13 111. 746 ; Davis v. Mich. S. & N. I. R. R. Co., 22 111. 278 ; Dexter v. Syracuse, B. & N. R. R. Co., 42 N. Y. 326 ; Duffy v. Thompson, 4 E. D. Smith (N. Y.), 178 ; Ouimit v. Hen. shaw, 35 Vt. 605; Michigan S. & N. I. R. R.. Co. v. Oehm, 56 111. 293; Parmelee v. Fischer, 22 111. 212 ; Grant v. Goodwin, i E. D. Smith (N. Y.), 95. 2 Illinois C. R. R. Co. v. Copeland, 24 111. 332. 8 Weed V. Saratoga & S. R. R. Co., 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 534. 95; Cole V. Goodwin, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 251; Duffy v. Thompson, 4 E. D. Smith (N. Y.), 178; Bowman z'. Maxwell, 9 Hump. (Tenn.) 624; Johnson v. Stone, 11 Hump. (Tenn.) 419. 5 Davis V. Mich. S., etc. R. R. Co., 22 111. 278, 74 Am. Dec. 151. ^ Jordan v. Fall River R. R. Co., 5 Cush. 69. See also Torpey v. Williams, 3 Daly (N. Y.), 162 ; Doyle v. Kiser, 6 Ind. 242. t Chicago, R. I. & Pac. R. R. Co. v. Boyce, 73 111. 510.
 * Merrill J/. Grinnell, 30 N. Y. 594. See also Grant v. Newton, i E. D. Smith (N. Y.),