Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 23.pdf/592

 554

The Green Bag

application to a loss occurring outside the state, the Court continued: —

“The plaintiff took the articles in question with her for personal use at a reception to be held at the end of her journey, and a small amount of money for use in case of emergency. The

jewelry was adapted to her tastes, habits and standing, as the court found upon suﬁicient evidence, and the amount of money was no greater than was found to be reasonable and prudent. Under the facts as thus settled we think that

the suit case and contents were baggage such as is frequently called luggage, and that in the absence of any limita tion by statute, regulation of the road

or inquiry as to value, the defendant was liable for the reasonable value of what was lost. The contract to transport the plaintiff carried with it the duty of transporting a reasonable amount of hand baggage, such as is commonly taken by travelers for their personal use, the quantity and value depending upon station in life, object of the journey and other considerations. Merrill v. Grinnell, 30 N. Y., 594; Carlson v. Oceanic Steam Nav. Co., 109 N. Y., 359; Railroad Co. v. Fraloﬁ', 100 U. S., 24, 29;

Ray on Negligence of Imposed Duties, 561, 564; 4 Elliot on Railroads, 2604,

2605." Carriers.

United States Circuit Court of the ninth circuit in San Francisco Gas 8’ El. Co. v.

San Francisco, decided in August. The complainant sought to enjoin the enforcement of an ordinance ﬁxing gas and lighting rates in San Francisco, mainly on the ground that the rates were inadequate to afford a due return to the

complainant. The Court (Van Fleet, J.) denied a motion made by the respondent that the case be dismissed for want of jurisdiction, holding that, from a num ber of authorities cited, the following state of the law was deducible:— “That where it appears from the aver ments of the bill that the act complained of violates the Constitution of the United States, this court has jurisdiction of the controversy, notwithstanding it may also appear that the act contravenes the constitution or laws of the state, and is for that reason invalid; and that where a state has conferred power upon some one

of its agencies to perform a certain func tion involving the exercise of discretion ary power, the performance of such function within that grant, although in

a manner to render it obnoxious to the laws of the state, is none the less the act

of the state within the contemplation of the constitutional guaranty here in voked; that such an instance is in all material respects analagous to the one where a state has conferred certain juris

See Bailments.

Due Process of Law. Federal Juris diction— Municipal Ordinance Passed

diction upon its courts, where acting within the limits of that jurisdiction, no one may question that the decision of a

under Authority of the State — Regula tion of Rates — Fourteenth Amendment.

act of the state, whose majesty it repre

U. S. The jurisdiction of federal courts in rate-ﬁxing cases arising under municipal ordinances, which had been considered

by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals in Seattle Electric Co. v. Seattle,

R. 85. Ry. Co., 185 Fed. 365 (23 Green Bag 153), was again dealt with by the

state court is to be regarded as much the sents, when it decides wrong, as when it decides right, since it is still, in either event, acting under the cloak of state authority.”

The Court disclaimed any intention of overruling the decision in the Seattle case, above cited, of which it approved, and carefully distinguished the facts of