Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 17.pdf/610

 DEPENDENT SERVICES OF COMMON CARRIERS

581

Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, this privilege was refused to petitioner; Third, that the privilege of using an office in Rhode Island, and Virginia.1 On the other hand, in many other juris the baggage-room of the defendants for the dictions it would certainly be held that the transaction of its business was granted to general duty owed by the railway company the cab company and refused to Kates; to its passengers to allow them free egress Fourth, the privilege of checking the bag from its station, involved the duty to allow gage of prospective passengers at hotels and them free access within the station to those residences in advance of delivery of the who might wish to put themselves at their baggage at the passenger-station. Each of disposal to aid them in getting their belong which privileges was refused to the peti ings away. This certainly would be held tioner." Mr. Justice Little held that none of these in Florida, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, four grounds of complaint were well founded. Mississippi, Missouri, and Montana.2 "The merit of his complaint, if any exists, XII must be found in the fact of the refusal of Whatever the duty may be, it must have the defendants to grant to him the oppor some stopping place. It cannot be matter tunities so to serve the public and thereby of obligation, for example, to do for every better his business. Whether the refusal so baggage transfer man what is done for any. to do is proper or unlawful does not depend The obligation is only in so far as there may upon the favor or inclination of the railroad be fairly said to be a duty to the public. company, but upon the plaintiff's right. If It will be profitable to inquire, therefore, it should depend upon favor, then the plain the precise extent to which it may be agreed tiff in error has no cause of complaint, be that the duty goes in this case. In Kates v. cause favor is essentially free and volun Atlanta Baggage and Cab Co. (107 Ga. 636) tary, and may not be demanded; and it is in the complaint was made in four separate this view that we come to measure by the counts: First, that the defendants permitted legal standard what are the rights of the the cab company to enter the passenger- petitioner under the allegations he makes, trains before reaching the city, for the pur as against the rights of the defendants to pose of soliciting baggage, and refused the control property to which they have title same privilege to the petitioner; Second, and consequently the right of use; and the that the servants of the cab company were plaintiff in error, to succeed, must establish allowed access to the passenger-train for the the proposition that the defendants as com purpose of soliciting patronage and for more mon carriers are in law bound to afford to conveniently attending to its business, and him the same conveniences and facilities for 1 Cartier v. Grand Trunk Ry., 12 Lower Can. carrying on his business which they afford Jur. 140; N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. v. Scoville, 71 to others engaged in the same calling." Conn. 136; Kates v. Atlanta Baggage Co., 107 But is not a distinction to be made in Ga. 636; Old Colony R. R. v. Tripp, 147 Mass. handling the complicated facts of the prin 35; Godbout v. Union Depot, 79 Minn. 188; cipal case now under discussion? If it be Hedding v. Gallagher, 72 N. H. 377; Brown v. N. Y. C. R. R., 151 N. Y. 674; Norfolk & W. Ry. maintained that at arrival at the station, v. Old Dominion Baggage Co., 99 Va. in; N. Y. the railroad owes to the passenger with N. H. & H. R. R. v. Bork, 23 R. I. 218. baggage, free movement and free access, so 2 Indian River Sb. Co. v. East Coast Co., 28 Fla. that it must allow the transfer men equal 387; Indianapolis R. R. v. Dohn, 133 Ind. 10; accommodation there and the same prox McConnell v. Pedigo, 92 Ky. 465; Kalamazoo Co. v. Sootsma, 84 Mich. 194; Craven v. Rogers, 101 imity to passengers, is it necessary to go Mo. 247; Montana Ry. v. Langlois, 9 Mont. 419; further and to require the railroad to grant State v. Reed, 176 Miss. 211. to all, the privilege of soliciting upon trains