Q. B. 66 ; a carpet ; Minter v. R. R., 41 Mo. 503, 97 Am. Dec. 288 ; an illustrated cata logue, the individual property of a travelling salesman, prepared by himself at his own ex pense, necessary for use in his business ; Staub v. Kendrick, 121 Ind. 226, 23 N. E. 79; 6 L. R. A. 619.
The following have been held not to be baggage : Jewelry bought for presents; Ne vins v. Steamboat Co., 4 Bosw. (N. Y.) 225 ; Metz v. R. Co., 85 Cal. 329, 24 Pac. 610, 9 L.
R. A. 431, 20 Am. St. Rep. 228; a stock of jewelry carried by a salesman to be sold (checked, without saying anything as to its contents, and there being nothing to indicate its contents, and railroad dlimpany'S agent having checked it without inquiries) Humphreys v. Perry, 148 U. R. 627; 13 Sup. Ct. 711, 37 L. Ed. 587 ; a feather-bed not in tended for use on the journey; COnnolly v. Warren, 106 Mass. 146, 8 Am. Rep. 300; a lawyer's papers and bank notes to be used by him in conducting a case; 19 C. B. N. S. 321; trunks containing stage properties, cos tumes, paraphernalia, and advertising mat ters of a theatrical company, unless accepted' as baggage, but the carrier, though without fault, is liable for the destruction of the trunks where its agent checked them as bag , gage with full knowledge that they contained;.
besides persona] apparel, stage costumes and properties; Oakes v. R. Co., 20 Or. 392, 26 Pac. 230, 12 L. R. A. 318, 23 Am. St. Rep. 126. Samples of merchandise are not bag gage ; 13 C. B. N. S. 818 ; Stimson v. R. Co., 98 Mass. 83, 93 Am. Dec. 140; Hawkins v. Hoffman, 6 Hill (N. Y.) 586, 41 Am. Dec. 767; Talcott v. R. Co., 66 Hun 456, 21 N. Y. Supp. 318; Ailing v. R. Co., 126 Mass. 121, 30 Am. Rep. 667 ; Pennsylvania Co. v. Miller, 35 Ohlo St. 541, 35 Am. Rep. 620; Southern Kansas R. Co. v. Clark, 52 Kan. 398, 34 Pac. 1054 ; nor a trunk deposited with the car rier without being accompanied by the pas senger ; Wright v. Caldwell, 3 Mich. 51; nor money even to a reasonable amount; Haw kins v. Hoffman, 6 Hill (N. Y.) 586, 41 Am. Dec. 767; Davis v. R. Co., 22 III. 278, 74 Am. Dec. 151; intended for trade, business or investment, or for transportation and not in tended for the passenger while travelling ; Pfister v. R. Co., 70 Cal. 169, 11 Pae. 686, 59
Am. Rep. 404 ; Bomar v. Maxwell, 9 Humphr. (Tenn.) 621, 51 Am. Dec. 682; contra, Dun lap v. Steamboat Co., 98 Mass. 371; Merrill v. Grinnell, 30 N. Y. 594.
If a carrier knows that merchandise is in cluded among baggage, and does not object, he is liable to the same extent as for other goods taken in the due course of his busi ness; Butler v. R. Co., 3 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 571; 8 Exch. 30; but he must have actual knowledge; L. R. 6 Q. B. 612 ; Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Carrow, 73 III. 348, 24 Am. Rep. 248; Mississippi Cent. R.. Co. v. Ken nedy, 41 Miss. 671; Stoneman v. R. Co., 52 N. Y. -429; Ft. Worth & R. G. R. Co. v. Mil linery Co. (Tex.) 29 S. W. 196. Where trunks containing merchandise were checked as baggage by a salesman (whose intention was to follow them to the same place) and through the negligence of the carrier were burnt soon after they had reached their des tination, the carrier was held liable ; Mc Kibbin v. R. Co., 100 Minn. 270, 110 N. W. 964, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 489, 117 Am. St. Rep. 689; so where a carrier accepted as baggage trunks of samples belonging to the employer of the passenger, the owner was entitled to recover for their loss; Talcott v. R. Co., 159 N. Y. 461, 54 N. E. 1; but see 5 Q. B. D. 241; 11895] 2 Q. B. D. 387.
The general rule seems to be that where a railroad rompany has given an agent author ity to receive and check baggage, he must be deemed to have authority to determine what class of articles come within the de scription of baggage, and when he accepts as baggage what is not strictly so, with knowledge or means of knowledge of its character, the company is held responsible for his acceptance of it ; St. Louis S. W. R. Co. v. Berry, 60 Ark. 433, 30 S. W. 764, 28 L. R. A. 501, 46 Am. St. Rep. 212; Waldron v. R. Co., 1 Dak. 357, 46 N. W. 456 ; Chicago, R. I. & P. It. Co. v. Conklin, 32 Kan. 55, 3 Pac. 762; Bergstrom v. R. Co., 134 Ia. 223,