Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 19.pdf/404

 • NOTES OF RECENT CASES

NOTES

OF THE

MOST

IMPORTANT

375

RECENT

CASES

COMPILED BY THE EDITORS OF THE NATIONAL REPORTER

SYSTEM

AND

ANNOTATED

BY

SPECIALISTS IN THE SEVERAL SUBJECTS (Copies of the pamphlet Reporters containing full reports of any of these decisions may be secured from the West Publishing Company, St. Paul, Minnesota, at 25 cents each. In ordering, the title of the desired case should be given as well as the citation of volume and page of the Reporter in which it is printed.) CARRIERS. (Passengers.) Wash. — The various laws recently enacted regulating carriers, especially railroads, give rise to many interesting and novel questions of law. A question of this nature is presented in the recent case of Bradburn v. Whatcom County Railway & Light Co., 88 Pac. Rep., 1020, wherein a carrier sought to avoid liability for injuries to a passenger on the ground that the latter was riding on a free pass in vio lation of law at the time of the injury. The court refuses to sustain the contention of the carrier and points out the right of a passenger to main tain an action to recover damages for injuries received through the negligence of the carrier, does not depend on the existence of a contract of carriage. The passenger may maintain an action ex delicto for the breach of duty to carry himself safely as well as an action ex contractu for a viola tion of the contract of carriage. The fact that a carrier is prohibited by a law from issuing passes, does not render a person a trespasser who travels upon such a pass unlawfully issued to him. If the pass is unlawful, the conductor should demand the regular fare and his failure to do so will not make the traveler a trespasser and destroy his right as a passenger. In support of this holding, the court cites Buffalo, etc. R. Co. v. O'Hara, 9 Am. & Eng. Railroad Cases, 317 and Philadelphia & Reading R. Co. v. Derby. CARRIERS. (Street Railroads, Baggage.) Conn. — In the recent case of Sperry v. The Consolidated Railway Co., 65 At. Rep., 962, a passenger on a street railroad, sought to hold the railroad com pany liable for the loss of a suit case which she had brought with her when taking passage on a car. In defining plaintiff's right to recover, the court lays down the rule that before a recovery can be had, it must be shown either that the street rail road has accepted the baggage under a contract, express or implied, to carry and deliver it as com mon carriers or that the loss of the baggage was due to defendant's negligence. " Electric street passenger cars, " the court remarks, " are never

furnished, either in the manner in which they are constructed or in the way in which they are oper ated, with facilities and means to enable the com panies themselves to take into their custody and control the baggage of passengers." That street cars are not equipped with baggage compartments and that the duties of the conductor and motorman necessarily prevent them from taking charge of baggage, indicate that the companies do not assume control of baggage brought by passengers. Under such circumstances, the companies are liable only in case of negligence. Henderson v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 123 U. S. 61, 8 Sup. Ct. 60, 31 L. Ed. 92; Kinsley v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 125 Mass. 54, 28 Am. Rep. 200; Whicherv. Boston & A. R. Co., 176 Mass. 275, 57 N. E. 601, 79 Am. St. Rep. 314; Carpenter v. New York, etc., R. Co., 124 N. Y. 54, 26 N. E. 277, 11 L. R. A. 759, 21 Am. St. Rep. 644; Voss v. Palace Car Co., 16 Ind. App. 271, 43 N. E. 20, 44 N. E. 1010; 3 Amer. & Eng. Ency. of Law (2d Ed.) 574-582; 6 Cyc. 661. CONFLICT OF LAWS. (Taxation.) N. Y. Ct. of App. — The transfer taxes enacted in many of our states cause perplexing questions with ref erence to the rights of states to collect such taxes on personal property in cases where the parties are not all residents of the same state. The question as to where the proceeds of an insurance policy are to be taxed in case the company has its home office in one state and the insured was at the time of his death domiciled in another state is dis posed of in the recent case of In re Gordon's Es tate, 79 N. E. 722. In this case it appeared that a NewYork company had issued a policy to a resi dent of New Jersey, in which latter state the com pany had designated a person on whom process might be served. The policy was kept by the in sured in New Jersey, the premiums paid there and the proceeds paid to the executor of the insured in the same state. Under these circumstances, the court regarded the proceeds to be within the state of New Jersey so as not to be taxable in New York. State Tax on Foreign Held Bonds, 15