Carriers: Right to Recover for Baggage Not Accompanied by Holder of Passage Ticket

1914 Michigan law review  
Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the mid--seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non--commercial purposes. Read more about Early Journal
more » ... out Early Journal Content at JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not--for--profit organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please contact RECENT IMPORTANT DECISIONS RECENT IMPORTANT DECISIONS in favor of one of the original parties as against the other so as to give validity to the contract. Colby v. Title Ins. Co., I60 Cal. 632, 35 L. R. A. (N. S.) 813; Embry v. Jemison, 131 U. S. 336; Ayer v. Younker, Io Colo. App. 27; Brown v. First National Bank, 137 Ind. 655; Standard v. Sampson, 23 Okla. 13; Henry v. State Bank, I3J Ia. 97. There is also the further rule that equitable estoppel does not apply to make good an act which is void by law. N. Y. etc. R. R. v. Schuler, 38 Barb. 534; Battersby v. Odell, 23 U. C. Q. B. 482; Friedlander v. N. Y. Plate Glass Co., 38 N. Y. App., Div. I46. But in spite of the holdings that a note based on a gambling transaction is absolutely void (even in the hands of a bona fide holder) , that there can be no equitable estoppel of the maker in favor of an original party or one standing in his stead, and that equitable estoppel does not apply to make good an act void by law, the courts seem uniformly to Ihold with the instant case that the maker may be estopped to assert the illegality of the consideration of the note against one who took without notice of the transaction and in reliance on the maker's word that it was a good and valid contract. Fosdick v. 4leyers, 8I Ill. 544; Hurburt & Sons v. Straub, 54 W. Va. 303; and cases cited in principal case. But this doctrine aids that which the statute is intended to prevent, i. e., the enforcement of contracts founded on-gambling transactions. It would seem that the evil can be remedied, not alone by making void the contract, but by preventing its circulation, in other words withholding the application o'f the doctrine of equitable estoppel even in favor of bona fide holders.
doi:10.2307/1275333 fatcat:6yabwkg4nfgsfpcilaxe32evdm