{ "id": 2731182, "name": "Toba Levensohn, Defendant in Error, v. The Cunard Steamship Company, Limited, Plaintiff in Error", "name_abbreviation": "Levensohn v. Cunard Steamship Co.", "decision_date": "1911-06-01", "docket_number": "Gen. No. 15,612", "first_page": "421", "last_page": "424", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "162 Ill. App. 421" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "13 Ill. 746", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2583431 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/13/0746-01" ] }, { "cite": "22 Ill. 212", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5282321 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/22/0212-01" ] }, { "cite": "74 N. Y. 116", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "case_ids": [ 534693 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ny/74/0116-01" ] }, { "cite": "35 Yt. 604", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Vt.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "17 Ill. App. 321", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 867349 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/17/0321-01" ] }, { "cite": "106 Mass. 146", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "case_ids": [ 715937 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mass/106/0146-01" ] }, { "cite": "81 S. W. 599", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "23 Fed. Rep. 765", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.", "case_ids": [ 3771632 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f/23/0765-01" ] }, { "cite": "61 Ill. 184", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2460772 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/61/0184-01" ] }, { "cite": "24 Ill. 466", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5284596 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/24/0466-01" ] }, { "cite": "11 Cush, 97", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cush.", "case_ids": [ 1970411 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mass/65/0097-01" ] }, { "cite": "186 N. Y. 151", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "case_ids": [ 2327193 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ny/186/0151-01" ] }, { "cite": "93 Ill. 523", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2735144 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/93/0523-01" ] }, { "cite": "69 Ill. 66", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 508, "char_count": 7894, "ocr_confidence": 0.52, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.08390778767410764 }, "sha256": "79364096011971f48a4b402267c69a29bc91991a4325684e6a50cbe9df5c16bd", "simhash": "1:cbf2c390560c8860", "word_count": 1370 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:09:35.474007+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Toba Levensohn, Defendant in Error, v. The Cunard Steamship Company, Limited, Plaintiff in Error." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Smith\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThe plaintiff, here the defendant in error, purchased in London three steerage passenger tickets, for herself and two daughters, aged sixteen and eighteen respectively, to Chicago, via the line of the defendant, here the plaintiff in error, from Liverpool to New York. The baggage consisted of two boxes and two bales. At New York two of the pieces of baggage were missing and two were delivered to plaintiff. After their arrival in Chicago one of the missing pieces was found and forwarded. To recover the value of the other this suit was brought. The jury found for the plaintiff and judgment was entered for $160.\nWe think the jury might properly find from the evidence the baggage in question was delivered to the defendant and also the value thereof.\nOn the back of the ticket under \u201cNotice to Passengers\u201d was a clause printed in English limiting liability for loss of baggage to 5 \u00a3 \u201cunless the value of the same be declared at or before the- issue of this contract ticket and freight at current rates * * * is paid.\u201d This provision was of course meant to obligate the purchaser to declare the value of the baggage \u201cat or before the issue\u201d of the ticket, or limit the carrier\u2019s liability therefor to 5 \u00a3. The plaintiff could not speak, read or write the English language, and, although both daughters could, we think the evidence shows she neither assented to nor had any knowledge of said provision of limitation. The counsel for defendant seem to so concede, but claim: \u201cThe ticket held by the passenger contained reasonable conditions to insure fair dealings between the parties, and the plaintiff had an opportunity to read the same and is, therefore, held to have had knowledge of such conditions,\u201d citing Oppenheimer v. U. S. Express Co., 69 Ill. 66; Boscowitz v. Adams Express Co., 93 Ill. 523, and Tewes v. North German Lloyd S. S. Co., 186 N. Y. 151.\nIn Boscowitz v. Adams Express Co., supra, the court in speaking of such limitations said: \u2018Whether such restrictions have been assented to in any given case, is always a matter of evidence.\u201d We understand Oppenheimer v. U. S. Express Co., supra, to so hold, and that both cases hold that a limitation simply to insure good faith and fair dealing must be, to be sufficient, \u201cbrought home to the knowledge of the owner of the property delivered for carriage.\u201d Tewes v. North German Lloyd S. S. Co., supra, sustains defendant\u2019s contention on the law. A distinction is there made between a steamship ticket and a railway ticket, and it is apparently held that the purchaser of a steamship ticket is presumed, as a matter of law, to know and understand all the provisions of the ticket. A vigorous dissenting opinion was filed in that case, and our attention has not been called to any case outside of New York in its support. That no presumption of law arises that the passenger has assented to a limitation because of a notice printed on the back of the ticket, is stated in Hutchinson on Carriers, Vol. 2, sec. 1070, on the authority of Brown v. Eastern R. R. Co., 11 Cush, 97, That assent to, or knowledge of, the limitation is not presumed, as a matter of law, on the shipment of goods, is held in Western Transportation Co. v. Newhall et al., 24 Ill. 466, and Adams Express Co. v. Stettaners, 61 Ill. 184. In Mauritz v. N. Y. L. E. & W. R. Co., 23 Fed. Rep. 765, the court held the passenger was not bound by the printed conditions on the ticket.\nThe next objection urged is that a large number of the articles lost were men\u2019s wearing apparel and household furnishings, and could not properly be considered plaintiff\u2019s baggage. The plaintiff was bringing to her husband and son a suit of clothes, a dozen shirts and underclothes in dozen lots. The remittitur entered before judgment was more than the value placed upon the said men\u2019s wearing apparel, and so that question need not be considered.\nThe household furnishings lost were a clock, pillows, table covers, feather beds, curtains, sheets, etc. The counsel for defendant rely on Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. Baldwin, 81 S. W. 599 (Tenn.), which holds that sheets, bed spreads, pillows, etc., are household goods and not properly designated baggage. They also cite in support of same: Connolly v. Warren, 106 Mass. 146; Mauritz v. New York, L. E. & W. R. Co., 23 Fed. 765; St. Louis & Cairo R. R. Co. v. Hardway, 17 Ill. App. 321, and Macrow v. Great Western Ry. Co., Vol. 6, Law Reports (Q. B.) 612. The counsel for plaintiff rely on Ouimit v. Henshaw, 35 Yt. 604, which holds that \u201ca bed, pillows, bolster and bed quilt belonging to a. poor man, who is moving with his wife and family, may be properly called baggage. * * * If the tools of a mechanic, or articles of amusement, such as a gun, a pistol and fishing tackle, or of instruction, such as books, or a lady\u2019s jewelry, are properly baggage because they are usually carried as such, we think the articles in question may both by reason and custom be included in the same list.\u201d They also cite in support of same: Curtis v. D. L. & W. R. R. Co., 74 N. Y. 116; Parmelee v. Fisher, 22 Ill. 212; Woods v. Devin, 13 Ill. 746, and Hutchinson on Carriers, Vol. 3, sec. 1242.\nEach passenger was entitled to carry ten cubic feet of baggage. The piece of baggage lost was a bale wrapped in coarse cloth and tied with webbing and string. It contained, besides the articles mentioned, some ladies\u2019 wearing apparel. It was accepted as baggage by the defendant, and it would seem the defendant would be somewhat familiar with what the' ordinary immigrant usually brings as baggage. In Hutchinson on Carriers, Vol. 3, sec. 1250, it is said: \u201cAnd although the real character of articles tendered as baggage, but which are not properly such, is not stated to the carrier when he accepts them for carriage, if from the facts and circumstances surrounding their acceptance he ought to know that they are not properly baggage, knowledge on his part of their true character will be presumed, and he will be considered as having assumed the liability of a common carrier. * * * Whether the circumstances surrounding their acceptance were such that he would be charged with knowledge of their true character, will be a question of fact for the jury.\u201d The same author said, sec. 1242: \u201cIt may be stated generally, therefore, that those articles of personal convenience or necessity which the passenger takes with him, either for his immediate use or the ultimate purpose of the journey, and which are such as persons of like habits and wants usually take with them for such purposes when on similar journeys, will be considered as baggage within the rule of the carrier\u2019s liability.\u201d\nIn Parmelee v. Fischer, supra, a recovery was had for the loss of similar articles to those in question here, and the judgment was sustained. That decision seems to define the position of the courts in this State on the controverted question.\nWe see no good reason why the judgment should be disturbed and the same is affirmed.\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Smith" } ], "attorneys": [ "Scott, Bancroft & Stephens, for plaintiff in error.", "Legal Aid Society of Chicago, M. B. Wellington and Guy M. Blake, for defendant in error." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Toba Levensohn, Defendant in Error, v. The Cunard Steamship Company, Limited, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 15,612.\n1. Common carriers\u2014when restrictions of liability not enforced. Attempted restrictions of liability printed upon the back of a steamship passenger ticket will not be enforced in the absence of evidence of assent to such restrictions.\n2. Common carriers\u2014character of baggage for which recovery may be had. A passenger upon a steamship line running between ports of different nations is not restricted in his recovery to mere wearing apparel.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Hosea W. Wells, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1909.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed June 1, 1911.\nScott, Bancroft & Stephens, for plaintiff in error.\nLegal Aid Society of Chicago, M. B. Wellington and Guy M. Blake, for defendant in error." }, "file_name": "0421-01", "first_page_order": 441, "last_page_order": 444 }