Opinion of the Court, by SEDGWICK, J. ant by the witness, and acted upon, there can be no doubt they were evidence. It not appearing that they were so communicated that it could be left to the jury to say that they were part of the contract, or of the inducement that led to it, the general objection that was taken might have been good, if the ruling of the court had not been that Pearl's declarations to any one, except made in the presence of one of plaintiff's firm, were not evidence. This was, in substance, a ruling that defendant should not give the evidence proposed, although the declarations were communicated to the defendant. After that, the defendant could not do otherwise, than deem that to be the law of case. Moreover, from all that passed, I think we can see that no question could have been intended to be raised by plaintiff, as to Hirsch's foreman having told Hirsch, what was said. Of course, questions of that character should be excluded, if it appeared that the statements of Pearl did not make part of the contract, or of the inducement that led to the contract. Mere colloquial narrations of an agent do not bind the principal. The party offering the evidence, must show prima facie that it is competent, unless there are in the case such circumstances, as we think there are here, that indicate that facts which would render the evidence competent, were not disputed, or were conceded for the occasion of the ruling. For the reason last given, the exceptions must be sustained, the verdict set aside, and a new trial ordered, with costs to defendant to abide event. MONELL, Ch., J. and FREEDMAN, J. concurred. Statement of the Case. THOMAS E. FAIRFAX, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT, o. THE NEW YORK CENTRAL AND HUDSON RIVER RAILROAD COMPANY, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. 1. CARRIER OF PASSENGERS. BAGGAGE. 1. Duty of carrier to take, outside of any special agreement, is a. The carriage of the passenger and the payment of his fare for 2. AGREEMENT SPECIAL. 1. Receipt by train baggage-master. a. The receipt by a train baggage-master of a carrier by railroad plying between two points, of the baggage of a traveler, who is a passenger by another carrier plying between the same points by different routes, and who has paid no fare to the first carrier, does not constitute a special agreement with the first carrier, and render him liable as carrier for the loss of the baggage. 3. CONNECTING LINES. 1. One carrier can make arrangements with connecting lines so that he may undertake to give a passenger, who desires to be carried between two points, an option between several different routes as to which he will take, or to carry the passenger by one route and his baggage by another. BUT, where there are two distinct lines running between two points, A. and B., the testimony of the agent of a carrier plying from a third point, C., ia connection with several lines, one of the termini of the last of which was at B., that the carrier of which he was agent was in the habit of checking baggage through to A., under some arrangment with connecting lines, that baggage checkel with a check which indicated that it was not issued by either of the lines between B. and A., but rather that it was issued by one of the roads forming the connection between C. and B., might come by either of the lines between B. and A., and that the passengers might come by one of those lines and his baggage by the other, Statement of the Case. is not sufficient to establish an arrangement between the line plying from C. with either of the lines between B. and A. to take the baggage of a passenger who has not paid for his passage on its line. 4. The receipt by an employee of one of the lines between B. and A. of the baggage of a traveler who has not paid for his carriage on that line will not impose on such line a liability as carrier for the loss of the baggage. II. APPLICATION OF ABOVE PRINCIPLES. When A. purchased a ticket at Montreal from the agent of the Grand Trunk R. R. Co., which on its face purported to carry him to New York by the connecting lines of the Grand Trunk R. R., Plattsburg and Montreal, R. R., Champlain Transportation Co., Rensselear and Saratoga R. R., and the Peoples' Line of Stemboats, and at Montreal he had his baggage checked by checks which did not purport to be checks of the Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, and he came to the city of New York not on the C. and H. R. R. R. Co., but via the Peoples' Line of Steamboats; while at Troy the carrier who brought him from Whitehall delivered his baggage to the train baggage-master of the Central and Hudson R. R. R. Co., which company brought the baggage to the city of New York; and a passenger agent of the Grand Trunk Railroad testified as above stated. Held, that the Central and Hudson R. R. were not liable as carriers for the loss of his baggage. Before MONELL, Ch. J., CURTIS and SPEIR, JJ. Decided June 1, 1874. Appeal by defendant from judgment entered on a verdict. The plaintiff being in Montreal, purchased a series of tickets from Montreal to New York, and left Montreal October 8, 1870. The plaintiff was unable to state the corporation he purchased the tickets of. He says, however, that he purchased them at an office adjoining St. Lawrence Hall, on October 7, 1870, and from the inscription on the check, "H R. & R. R." meaning "Hudson River and Railroad," and the fact that he Statement of the Case. landed from a steamboat plying between Albany and New York, and other evidence, it is plain that he purchased them in Montreal of the Grand Trunk Railway, and that his route was by the Rensselaer & Saratoga Railroad to Albany, and from thence by the People's Line of Steamboats to New York. He procured, on leaving Montreal, seven pieces of baggage to be checked to New York, including the lost portmanteau, the subject of the action, for which last he received a check, which indicated on its face, and from the usual course of transportation of passengers and their baggage, that the baggage was to be taken over the same route. The carrier between Whiteball and Albany brought the plaintiff's baggage to Troy, and there delivered the seven pieces to a train baggage-master of the defendants, on October 9, 1870, and it was carried through to New York by the defendants, arriving between three and four o'clock P. M., unloaded into defendants' baggage-room in Twenty-ninth-street in the city, and held ready for delivery. The tickets consisted of a book of coupons available until the first day of November to the holder, to stop at various places, including Albany and Plattsburg. Leaving Montreal in the afternoon of October 8, he arrived at the usual pier of the landing of the People's line of steamers on October 11, at six or seven o'clock P. M., having stopped over at Albany and Plattsburg; and on the following morning, between eight and twelve o'clock, sent to the station in Twenty-ninthstreet for his baggage. Six pieces were delivered. The portmanteau had been stolen from the defendants' baggage-room, between six o'clock of that morning and the time of demand, it having been on hand at the hour of six. The baggage-room was occupied by the Westcott's Express Company, for the purpose of receiving and delivering baggage for the defendants, under an agreement with the Hudson River Railroad Company, Statement of the Case. and they were to take charge of baggage not called for within twenty-four hours after its arrival on the train. The room was a proper place for the receipt and storage of baggage, and due care was exercised in respect to it. On the question as to whether there was any arrangement or agreement between the Grand Trunk Railroad and the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad, whereby the latter company was bound to take at Troy, and transport to New York the baggage of a passenger who bought from the former company a ticket from Montreal to New York, via The Rensselaer & Saratoga Railroad, and the People's Line of Steamers, and who traveled to New York by that route, the following was the only evidence adduced. Isaac F. Hicks, a passenger agent in New York city for the Grand Trunk Railway, testified : The Grand Trunk Railway Company's northern terminus is Montreal. It issues tickets, and did in October, 1870, to carry passengers and their luggage from Montreal to New York. That (ticket shown witness) is the style of the tickets they used in October, 1870, over the Rensselaer & Saratoga Railroad as it reads." The ticket was offered and received in evidence, and is as follows: |