
    (22 Misc. Rep. 513.)
    WILLIAMS v. WEBB.
    (City Court of New York, General Term.
    February 7, 1898.)
    Passenger in Sleeping Car—Loss of Money.
    A passenger traveling in a sleeping car cannot bold the company liable for the loss, in his berth, of a sum of money which he is carrying with him, and which is in excess of such reasonable sum as a man might properly and usually carry on his person for traveling expenses, the reasonableness of such sum depending upon the circumstances,—such as his position and condition in life, his responsibility to others traveling under his care, the distance traveled, etc.
    Appeal from special term.
    
      Action by Ernest Williams against William Seward Webb, as president of the Wagner Oar Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.
    Reversed.
    Argued before FITZSIMONS, P. J., and McCARTHY and O’DWYER, JJ.
    Saunders, Webb & Worcester, for appellant.
    Thomas C. Campbell, for respondent.
   FITZSIMONS, P. J.

The judgment must be reversed, and the complaint dismissed. The plaintiff’s own testimony shows that at Detroit he hired one of the defendant’s sleeping berths to this city, and thus became a passenger; that he had sufficient money in his purse to pay for his meals and other expenses that he might make coming down the road; and that, in addition, he had $1,250 in cash in a fob pocket in his pantaloons, the latter fund being the result of certain collections and the balance of a bank account collected a short time before, which fund he did not intend to use or meddle with, except to deposit it in a bank in Boston when he got there. This $1,250 he lost in the sleeping berth between Buffalo and here, and he claims that such loss was due to the defendant’s negligence, brought action, and recovered the amount from the jury. \

I think that the rule of law applicable to this case is just, full, and broad, and that there is nothing technical, harsh, or arbitrary about it, and I think may be safely and briefly, stated to be: “A plaintiff can only recover in actions of this character such reasonable sum as a man might properly and usually carry on his person for traveling expenses, the reasonableness of such sum of course depending upon surrounding circumstances, such as his position and condition in life, Ms responsibility to others traveling under Ms care, distance traveled,” etc. In this case the plaintiff had determined how much Ms expenses to this city should cost him, which he certainly had a right to do. That he was mot stingy with himself was apparent because he had at least five dollars left over out of the fund set apart for himself after he reached the city. It is therefore very apparent that the $1,250 was not necessary for his traveling expenses; that he never deemed it so; that he did not carry it with him on his person for any such purpose; that the only reason he did so carry it was that he might deposit it in bank in Boston when he arrived there. It appears that he desired to act as his own banker or safe-deposit company, and in so doing he assumed all risk of that capacity, but cannot charge defendant with damage caused by the loss in question, unless the responsibility of the custody of said fund was assumed by it, wMch is not claimed here.

For the reason that said $1,250 was not a necessary or reasonable part of plaintiff’s traveling expenses from Detroit to this city, the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint should have been granted, and the judgment must be reversed, and complaint dismissed, with costs to the appellant. All concur.  