## Facts

- Vernon R. Jones and his wife brought suit against Great Northern Railway Company for property they alleged the railway lost through negligence.
- The complaint stated two causes of action: one involving coats (not material to the Supreme Court’s main analysis) and a second involving two traveling bags and their contents.
- As to the traveling bags, the plaintiffs alleged that at Devils Lake, North Dakota, they deposited two traveling bags with the railway’s parcel room for safekeeping and paid a fee.
- When the bags were deposited, the railway issued a parcel-room check (receipt) for each bag, each bearing a serial number and printed “Conditions.”
- One printed condition limited “Liability in case of loss or damage” to ten dollars.
- Vernon R. Jones (acting for himself and his wife) testified that he noticed the checks contained printed matter but did not read it, assumed the checks were only for identification on retrieval, and would not have left the bags if he had known of the limitation.
- He also testified that no railway employee called the limitation to his attention or explained it.
- The railway admitted receipt of the bags and that it could not return them, but argued its liability was limited by a “special contract” stated on the checks.
- The jury returned a general verdict for the railway on the first cause of action (coats) and for the plaintiffs on the second cause of action (traveling bags) in the amount of $520, with interest from September 15, 1920.
- The judgment initially attempted to award the railway costs related only to the first cause of action and award the plaintiffs costs related to the second cause of action; the plaintiffs moved to strike/tax costs and amend the judgment, and the trial court later denied the railway any costs.
- The railway appealed from the judgment and separately from the order denying costs.

## Issues

1. Is a bailor bound, as a matter of law, by a $10-per-bag limitation printed on a parcel-room check when the bailor had no actual knowledge of the term and the railway did not give notice that the check contained contractual conditions?
2. In a paid parcel-room storage transaction (a mutual-benefit bailment), what is the measure of damages for negligent loss absent an enforceable limitation agreement?
3. May a court award or split costs between parties where each prevails on a different cause of action, without statutory authority?
4. Is an order denying costs independently appealable, or is it reviewable only on appeal from the judgment?

## Decision

- The transaction involving the traveling bags was a bailment for mutual benefit (storage), and the railway was not acting as a common carrier.
- A bailee may limit liability by special agreement not contrary to law or public policy, but the limitation printed on the parcel-room checks was not binding on this record because notice of the condition was not brought home to the bailor and the bailor’s conduct did not show assent as a matter of law.
- The mere fact that Jones retained the checks without objection did not, by itself, establish assent, and without notice that the checks contained such a term, Jones was not under a legal duty to read the fine print.
- Because there was no enforceable limitation agreement, the proper measure of liability for negligent loss was the reasonable value of the property, and the jury’s $520 award on the second cause of action was allowed.
- The order denying costs was, in substance, an order taxing costs and was not separately appealable; its validity could be reviewed on appeal from the judgment.
- Costs are allowed only when authorized by statute, and in the absence of statutory authorization, costs may not be apportioned between plaintiff and defendant based on partial success on separate causes of action.
- Under the applicable costs statute, a defendant’s right to costs applied only where the defendant recovered judgment and the plaintiff was entirely unsuccessful; because the plaintiffs recovered on one cause of action, the railway was not entitled to costs on the other.
- The judgment was affirmed, including the trial court’s refusal to enforce the $10 limitation and its denial of costs to the railway.

## Legal Principles

- A railway that accepts parcels for safekeeping in a parcel/check room for a fee is a bailee in a mutual-benefit bailment (storage), not a common carrier, as to that transaction.
- Absent a valid special agreement limiting liability, a negligent bailee is liable for the reasonable value of the lost property.
- A liability limit printed on a parcel-room check is not enforceable against a bailor who lacks actual knowledge of the condition unless the bailee gives notice of the condition or the bailor’s conduct reasonably indicates assent; retention of the check alone does not establish assent as a matter of law, and without notice the bailor has no legal duty to read the printed conditions.
- Costs are “creatures of statute” and may be awarded only as statutes allow; courts may not split or apportion costs between parties without statutory authority.
- An order denying costs operates as an order taxing costs and is reviewed on appeal from the judgment rather than by an independent appeal.

## Conclusion

The Montana Supreme Court affirmed a full-value award for two traveling bags lost from the railway’s parcel room because the $10-per-bag limitation printed on the claim checks was not binding without notice or conduct showing assent, and it also upheld the denial of costs to the railway because cost recovery and any allocation of costs depend solely on statutory authorization, which did not permit costs to a defendant when the plaintiffs were not entirely unsuccessful.


Jones v. Great Northern Railway Co., 217 P. 673 (1923)