Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Childers

98 So. 319, 19 Ala. App. 492, 1923 Ala. App. LEXIS 284

• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals
• Decided: October 30, 1923
• Docket: 8 Div. 15.
• Status: Published

Opinion

SAMFORD. J.

The plaintiff bought tick- j ets at Texarkana and chocked five pieces of I , , t-, j. * ¡ baggage thereon to Decatur. Ala. At Decatur i i ,' , . ,. , j. ,. TT j. it 4. he bought tickets to Hartsells, Ala., gave to j ’ ceived in exchange five checks for baggage from Decatur to Hartsells. Plaintiff did not. actually see his baggage in Decatur or know whether or not it had arrived at the ( time lie received the checks from defend- j ant’s agent. At Harfsells plaintiff present- ¡ ed his five checks to defendant’s agents, but | only received four pieces of baggage. The ' fifth piece of baggage has never been de- ¡ livered, and was shown by the evidence to | consist of wearing apparel' of the value of ! $S0. The evidence was not in dispute. The' Judgment was for $100. i

The record presents but one ques- j tion necessary to £j decision. The delivery of a check for baggage and its possession ! by the plaintiff is prima facie evidence of ¡ delivery of the baggage to the defendant.; Hickox v. Naugatick R. R. Co., 31 Conn, 281, 83 Am. Dec. 143. There being no proof j as to whether N.the plaintiffs baggage came ' into the possession of defendant.’ other than the check issued by defendant in exchange for the heck of the connecting previous carrier, it will be presumed that the baggage was delivered to defendant. Graham, etc., Transp. Co. v. Young, 117 Ill. App. 237; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Steear, 53 Neb. 95, 73 N. W. 466; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v Hawkins, 39 Ill. App. 400; Dill v. S. C. R. Co., 7 Rich. (S. C.) 158, 62 Am. Dec. 407; Ex parte L. & N. R. R. Co., 176 Ala. 631, 58 South. 315. While the issuance of the check for'baggage and its possession by the passenger is not conclusive upon the carrier, yet where this is shown and nothing is shown to the contrary, in a suit to recover the value of the lost baggage the plaintiff would be entitled to the affirmative charge.

No insistence is made in brief of appellant’s counsel that the verdict of the jury is excessive, and therefore that point is waived.

The plaintiff being entitled to the affirmative charge on the evidence, other assignments of error are not considered.

Let the judgment be affirmed.

Affirmed.