The Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railway Company 2. Foster.

be entitled to the rights and protection of a passenger as to his person, there is no reason why a person thus intending to become a passenger may not hold the carrier for the loss of his baggage.

We can not regard the case of Ford v. Mitchell, 21 Ind. 54, cited by appellant's counsel, as controlling here, because in that case the box was not delivered to any one held out as the proper person to receive such freight.

The case of Grosvenor v. New York Central R. R. Co., 39 N. Y. 34, also cited by appellant's counsel, turned upon the proposition, that the property for shipment was not delivered at the proper place, and that the owner carelessly left it in a dangerous position; and, further, that it was not, therefore, delivered to the carrier.

Without extending this opinion to express our approval or disapproval of the reasoning in the case upon the question of delivery, it is sufficient to say that, in the case before us, the trunk was delivered upon the platform, near the door of the baggage-room, which was certainly a proper place to deliver baggage to the baggageman. The case of Mattison v. New York Central R. R. Co., 57 N. Y. 552, cited by appellant's counsel, was decided upon this state of facts: Upon arrival of the passenger and her baggage at the place of destination, she informed the baggage-master at the station that she desired to leave her trunk for a few days, perhaps for two weeks. The baggage-master replied, that he was not allowed to and could not keep the baggage with the check on; that if she gave up the check the baggage would be perfectly safe. This she did, and the trunk was left. About a week after it was thus left, the trunk was delivered to one falsely claiming authority to receive it. It was held (DWIGHT and EARL, C C., dissenting), that the declaration of the agent was, in substance, a notification to the plaintiff that he was without power to continue in force the obligation of the company in respect to the baggage indicated by the check, and the surrender of the check was, in effect, an admission of the performance of

The Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railway Company . Foster.

that obligation, that is, of the safe arrival and the delivery of the baggage. The decision was based upon the proposition that the surrender of the check, under the circumstances, was an admission by the plaintiff not only of the safe arrival, but also of the delivery of the baggage to her, and that she was bound to know that the agent could not make storage contracts after the performance of the contract of carriage. The conclusion was combated in the opinion by the dissenting judges.

It might suffice to say of this case, that the facts are unlike the facts in the case before us. There it was a question of fact as to whether or not the owner had received her trunk from the carrier; here it is a question whether there is evidence which tends to show, or from which it may be reasonably inferred, that the carrier received the baggage from the owner. Here the agent was held out as having general authority to receive the baggage of persons intending to go upon the company's trains; there it can not be said that baggage-masters are held out as having general authority to make contracts of storage, after the completion and performance of the contract of carriage.

We are cited to the case of Wright v. Caldwell, 3 Mich. 51. In that case the owner of the trunk placed it upon a steamboat, but he did not deliver it to any one, nor call the attention of any one connected with the boat to the fact that he had placed the trunk upon the boat for carriage, or for any other purpose. That case is different in many features from the case in hearing.

Steamboats carry both freight and passengers. When a trunk, therefore, is placed upon a steamboat by the owner, it may be as freight or as baggage, according to circumstances. If not delivered and accepted as baggage, and the owner should allow the boat to depart without becoming a passenger, it is clear that he could not recover, as for lost baggage. But if a person delivers a trunk to a baggageman of a railway company, and it is received, it is difficult to see how it could rea

The Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railway Company t. Foster.

sonably be said that it is received as freight. The baggageman is held out as having authority to receive baggage, but he is not held out as having authority to receive freight. The public know that he has authority to receive baggage, and they are bound to know that he has not authority to receive freight, unless, indeed, he acts as both baggageman and freight agent. When, therefore, a trunk is delivered to an agent of a railway company who is a baggageman only, and he receives it, the presumption is that it is delivered and received as baggage.

The cases already cited by us show that a railway company may receive a trunk as baggage, and become liable for its loss as such before transit, upon the express or implied understanding that the owner is to become a passenger, although he has neither purchased a ticket nor paid fare. In such a case the express or implied agreement to become a passenger makes the owner in such sense a passenger, as to make the railway company liable for the loss of his baggage up to the time when the train leaves, and it is ascertained that the owner has not kept his agreement by becoming a passenger. If the railway company is willing to receive a trunk as baggage, and assume the responsibility of holding it as such upon the express or implied agreement of the owner to become a passenger, there is nothing to prevent it so doing.

In the case before us, the evidence tends to show that the trunk was so received; and the evidence is clear that appellee kept her agreement by purchasing a ticket for passage upon the train upon which she informed appellant the trunk was to go.

We have thus spoken of what the company may do. In the case before us, whatever was done in behalf of the company was by a subordinate agent, and the further contention of appellant is, that appellee's evidence shows that the agent had no authority to accept or receive baggage in advance of the train upon which it was to go, and in advance of the purchase of a ticket or the payment of fare by the

The Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railway Company . Foster.

owner.

In other words, that the agent had no authority to receive the trunk until after a consummated contract of carriage by the payment of fare had been entered into between the owner of the trunk and the railway company. Appellee's evidence does show that the authority of the baggageman was thus limited by the rules and regulations of the company. Whether or not the filing of the demurrer to the evidence withdrew all of this evidence is a question which, for the present, we do not decide, but treat the case as though that evidence were to be considered.

There is no evidence at all showing, or tending to show, that appellee had any knowledge or notice of the rules and regulations limiting the authority of the agent, or fixing the manner or time of receiving baggage by him. Her baggage having been received upon a former occasion, under like circumstances, might well have led her to believe that the company thus received baggage in advance of the train, and in advance of the purchase of a ticket or the payment of fare. And she might well have been confirmed in this belief by the fact that upon this occasion the agent received the baggage without in any way giving notice or intimating that his authority was limited, as now contended. The course of the agent upon this occasion, as well as upon the former, was well calculated to prevent any inquiry by 'appellee as to any rules or regulations.

Nor is there any evidence that the public generally had any notice of the rules and regulations so limiting the authority of the agent. Appellee, we must presume, acted in good faith, with no notice of such rules and regulations. Having found this, and that her trunk was delivered to, and received by, the agent as baggage, the question is, must appellee, who is without wrong, lose the value of her trunk and its contents because the railway company had placed a limit upon the authority of its agent? That she must thus lose, we think, is a proposition not supported either by reason or authority.

The Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railway Company . Foster.

The baggageman was the agent of appellant, with general authority to receive the baggage of persons intending to go upon the company's trains. He was so held out to the public. That was the general scope of his business, authority and agency. Whatever he did within the general scope of this agency was binding upon the company, unless the owner of the baggage, in some way, had notice of a limitation imposed upon his general authority.

Mr. Wood, in his work on Railway Law, vol. 1, p. 447, citing authorities in support of this text, says: "Strangers dealing with the agent of a corporation are not bound to inquire what the corporation has in fact authorized him to do, but may deal with him in reference to those powers which it has held him out to the world as being possessed of,—in other words, in reference to his apparent authority. * * * The maxim qui facit per alium, facit per se applies with full force to corporations; and the rule is not a doubtful one, either in policy or principle, that in transactions where one of two persons must sustain a loss, the loss must fall upon him who has made it possible for the other, innocently, to be placed in a position where loss might result to him except for the application of this rule. It would be disastrous to commercial, as well as other interests, if a person, by acting through the agency of another, could shield himself from liability for such person's acts ad libitum. Fortunately, no such rule exists, and he who intrusts authority to another, in whatever department of business, is bound by all that is done by his agent within the scope of his apparent power, and can not screen himself from the consequences thereof upon the ground that no authority in fact was given him to do the particular act, unless the act was clearly in excess of his apparent authority, or was done under such circumstances as to put the person dealing with him upon inquiry as to his real authority. ** The rule may be said to be, that restrictions upon an agent's apparent authority are not binding upon third persons, where there is nothing to put them upon inquiry as to the extent of