
    LINCOLN v. NEW YORK & CUBA MAIL S. S. CO.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    March. 9, 1900.)
    Carriers—Loss of Property of Passengers—Contributory Negligence.
    A passenger on a steamship, having been assigned to a stateroom, placed therein a traveling bag containing $200 in $2 bills, locked the bag, closed the door of the stateroom, and went for a key to the room, none having been given him, returned to the room, and found that the money was stolen during his absence. EelA, that the passenger was not negligent.
    • Appeal from municipal court.
    Action by Winslow S. Lincoln against New York & Cuba Mail Steamship Company for damages. From. a judgment dismissing complaint, plaintiff appeals.
    Reversed.
    Argued before TRUAX, P. J., and DUGRO and SCOTT, JJ.
    Francis Burton Harrison, for appellant.
    Charles C. Nadal, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff began a journey to Savannah, Ky., and Massachusetts, by taking passage on defendant’s steamer at Havana. He placed $200, in $2 bills, in a traveling bag, which he locked, and put in a stateroom that had been assigned to him by the purser. No key for the door of the room having been given him, he closed the door, and went for a key. On his return to the room, he found that the money had been stolen. This appeal is from a judgment dismissing the complaint. Several questions are raised. The main one, however, is that as to the alleged negligence of the plaintiff. The appellant is so clearly right in the others that it is needless to discuss them. If he was not negligent in leaving the bag in the •stateroom, the judgment should be reversed.

The defendant, having assigned the plaintiff to a stateroom, had taken entire charge of him as a passenger, and of his effects. Adams v. Steamboat Co., 151 N. Y. 163, 45 N. E. 369, 34 L. R. A. 682. Having placed the bag in the stateroom, locked the bag, and closed the door of the room, and then gone for the key of the door, the plaintiff did all that could be reasonably expected of him. What followed shows that it would have been better to have taken the money with him, but this does not affect the question of negligence. The sum was a reasonable one for the plaintiff to have, in view of the journey, and it appears that he could not conveniently have carried the .money on his person. He was not negligent. We' have been referred by the respondent to some cases in which it appears that doors were not, although they could have been, locked. They are not pertinent. It is unnecessary to refer to the facts further, as, from respondent’s brief, it seems inferentially that he is not unmindful of the strength of the plaintiff’s appeal.

Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered in the municipal court in the district in which the action was brought, with costs to appellant to abide the event.  