Ella Fitzgerald, John Lewis, Georgiana Henry & Norman Granz v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., 229 F.2d 499 (2d Cir. 1956). · Go Syfert
Search
Ella Fitzgerald, John Lewis, Georgiana Henry & Norman Granz v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., 229 F.2d 499 (2d Cir. 1956). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
164 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 41 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: County of Westchester v. Town of Greenwich, Conn. (nysd, 1990-09-10)
Treatment trajectory · 1956 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1956 1991 2026
Statutes interpreted (leading-cases list)
#2 49 U.S.C. § 676 cited 1× in this case · 13 total citations of statute #20 45 U.S.C. § 1 cited 1× in this case · 412 total citations of statute #3 46 U.S.C. § 821 cited 1× in this case · 99 total citations of statute #6 49 U.S.C. § 9 cited 1× in this case · 114 total citations of statute
Top citers, strongest first. 31 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) County of Westchester v. Town of Greenwich, Conn.
S.D.N.Y. · 1990 · confidence medium
In Fitzgerald v. Pan American World Airways, 229 F.2d 499, 501-02 (2d Cir.1956), for example, the Second Circuit implied a cause of action in favor of individuals who were refused access to an airline because of their race. 6 As to the section in force at that time which was analogous to 49 app.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Haley v. Western Airlines, Inc.
9th Cir. · 1983 · confidence medium
Compare Chumney v. Nixon, 615 F.2d 389 , 395 (6th Cir.1980) (Federal Aviation Act creates private right of action against airline for failing to prevent assault by passenger); Fitzgerald v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 229 F.2d 499, 501-02 (2d Cir. 1956) (Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938 creates implied right of action for racial discrimination by common air carrier), and Laughlin v. Riddle Aviation Co., 205 F.2d 948, 949 (5th Cir. 1953) (C.A.A. creates right of action by pilot to recover wages due under an NLRB decision) with Montgomery v. American Airlines, Inc., 637 F.2d 607, 610 (9th Cir…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Mexico City Aircrash of October 31, 1979 Consolidated Proceedings. Gary Steve Haley, as Heir and of Deceased Theresa Yoriko Sugano Haley, Gary Steven Haley, Special Administrator for the Estate of Theresa Yoriko Sugano Haley v. Western Airlines, Inc., Blanca Estela Paz Tovar, Heir and of Deceased Regina Patricia Tovar Blanca Estela Paz Tovar, Special Administrator for the Estate of Regina Patricia Tovar, Anthony John Dzida, as Heir and of Deceased Vikki Dzida, Anthony John Dzida, Special Administrator for the Estate of Vikki Dzida, Plaintiff v. Western Airlines, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, McDonnell Douglas Company, Inc., a Maryland Corporation Estate of Charles Gilbert Sperry-Rand, Inc., Sunstrand Data Control, Inc., a Foreign Corporation Bendix Corporation, Flight Systems Division, a Delaware Corporation Rockwell International, Inc. Collins Air Transport Division, a Foreign Corporation Thompson, C.F.S., a Foreign Corporation
9th Cir. · 1983 · confidence medium
Compare Chumney v. Nixon, 615 F.2d 389, 395 (6th Cir.1980) (Federal Aviation Act creates private right of action against airline for failing to prevent assault by passenger); Fitzgerald v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 229 F.2d 499, 501-02 (2d Cir.1956) (Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938 creates implied right of action for racial discrimination by common air carrier), and Laughlin v. Riddle Aviation Co., 205 F.2d 948, 949 (5th Cir.1953) (C.A.A. creates right of action by pilot to recover wages due under an NLRB decision) with Montgomery v. American Airlines, Inc., 637 F.2d 607, 610 (9th Cir.19…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sabon Investments, Inc. v. Braniff Airways, Inc.
D. Ariz. · 1982 · confidence medium
No federal common law of torts exists; when Congress enacts legislation rendering it tortious to do what is already a state common-law tort, a suit based on that legislation is within 28 U.S.C. § 1881 . 229 F.2d at 502 (Emphasis added) Fitzgerald, supra, involved discriminatory boarding by the defendant airline based on the race of the famous singer Ella Fitzgerald, and without question, the statute was originally intended to combat that form of discrimination, a remedy which sounds in tort.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Caceres Agency, Inc., for Itself and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v. Trans World Airways, Inc., Caceres Agency, Inc., for Itself and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v. Braniff International Airways, Inc., Caceres Agency, Inc., for Itself and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v. Lufthansa German Airlines (Deutsche Lufthansa Aktiengesellschaft)
2d Cir. · 1979 · confidence medium
Fitzgerald v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 229 F.2d 499, 501 (2d Cir. 1956); See also Lichten v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 189 F.2d 939, 941 (2d Cir. 1951).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Caceres Agency, Inc. v. Trans World Airways, Inc.
2d Cir. · 1979 · confidence medium
Fitzgerald v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 229 F.2d 499, 501 (2d Cir. 1956); see also Lichten v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 189 F.2d 939, 941 (2d Cir. 1951).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Great Destinations, Inc. v. Transportes Aereos Portugueses S.A.R.L.
S.D.N.Y. · 1978 · confidence medium
It has been established that Section 404(b) was enacted to benefit “persons, including passengers, using the facilities of air carriers.” Fitzgerald v. Pan American World Airways, 229 F.2d 499, 501 (2d Cir. 1956); see also Nader v. Allegheny Airlines, Inc. 445 F.Supp. 168, 172 (D.D.C.1978).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Prescription Plan Service Corp. v. Albert Franco, Individually and as Administrator
2d Cir. · 1977 · confidence medium
It invokes federal question jurisdiction by urging us to create a “federal common law tort.” Despite our statement to the contrary over twenty years ago, Fitzgerald v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 229 F.2d 499, 502 (2d Cir. 1956), it is now clear that, in appropriate eases, the federal courts may recognize or create common law torts, see, e. g., Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 , 91 S.Ct. 1999 , 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971); Ivy Broadcasting Co. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 391 F.2d 486, 490-92 (2d Cir. 1968), and that “§ 1331 jurisdiction will support claims fou…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) F. Patrick Hubbard and Judy Hubbard v. Allied Van Lines, Inc.
4th Cir. · 1976 · confidence medium
See, e. g., Nader v. Allegheny Airlines, Inc., 167 U.S.App.D.C. 350 , 512 F.2d 527, 537 (1975), rev’d on other grounds, - U.S. -, 96 S.Ct. 1978 , 48 L.Ed.2d 643 (1976); Archibald v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 460 F.2d 14, 16 (9 Cir. 1972); Fitzgerald v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 229 F.2d 499, 501-02 (2 Cir. 1956).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Williams v. Transworld Airlines, Inc.
S.D.N.Y. · 1974 · confidence medium
It is by no means clear that, in all states and territories, the common-law rules would render unlawful racial differentiations in accord with the ‘separate but equal doctrine,’ whereas, in the light of recent Supreme Court decisions, we must construe Section 484(b) so that that doctrine will not apply.” Fitzgerald v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 229 F.2d 499, 502 (2d Cir. 1956) (footnotes omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Nader v. Allegheny Airlines, Inc.
D.D.C. · 1973 · confidence medium
This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter ( 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 , 1332, 1337), Fitzgerald v. Pan American World Airways, 229 F.2d 499, 502 (2nd Cir. 1956); moreover, the amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds $10,000.00.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Danna v. Air France
S.D.N.Y. · 1971 · confidence medium
And in support they cite Fitzgerald v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 229 F.2d 499, 502 (2 Cir. 1956), 11 where the Court observed : “As such an order [by the CAB] must look to the future, obviously it cannot afford redress to one harmed by a violation of Section [404(b)].” The Court, therefore, permitted the action in Fitzgerald to lie without reference to the CAB because: “(1) The Civil Aeronautics Act, unlike the Interstate Commerce Act, 12 or the Shipping Act, 13 confers no power on the administrative agency to grant reparation in money for past misconduct of the carrier. (2) The …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Guthrie v. Alabama By-Products Company
N.D. Ala. · 1971 · confidence medium
Co. v. Rigsby, 241 U.S. 33, 39 , 36 S.Ct. 482 , 60 L.Ed. 874 (1916); Fitzgerald v. Pan American World Airways, 229 F.2d 499, 501 (2d Cir. 1956); Kardon v. National Gypsum Co., 69 F.Supp. 512, 513 (E.D.Pa.1946). 11 . 33 U.S.C.A. §§ 401 , 406. 12 . 33 U.S.C.A. § 404 . 13 . 33 U.S.C.A. §§ 403 , 409, 414-415. 14 . 33 U.S.C.A. § 407 . 15 . 33 U.S.C.A. § 408 . 16 . 33 U.S.C.A. §§ 411-413 . 17 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Brown v. Bullock
S.D.N.Y. · 1961 · confidence medium
The case seems to be one where it becomes necessary for the district court to assume jurisdiction to determine whether the federal right has been in effect invaded, cf. Bell v. Hood, 1946, 327 U.S. 678 , 66 S.Ct. 773 , 90 L.Ed. 939 ." The Roosevelt Field case has been cited with approval in Fitzgerald v. Pan American World Airways, 2 Cir., 1956, 229 F.2d 499, 502, note 3 ; Laughlin v. Riddle Aviation Co., 5 Cir., 1953, 205 F.2d 948, 949 .
cited Cited "see" Diefenthal v. Civil Aeronautics Board
5th Cir. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See id. at 501 .
cited Cited "see" Stanley M. Diefenthal and Elka F. Diefenthal v. Civil Aeronautics Board and Eastern Airlines, Inc., Stanley M. Diefenthal and Elka F. Diefenthal v. Civil Aeronautics Board
5th Cir. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See id. at 501 .
cited Cited "see" Earl Bratton v. Joel Shiffrin, Roger Chapman and Jeanne Chapman, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. First National Bank of Highland Park, a National Banking Association
1st Cir. · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
See Fitzgerald v. Pan American World Airways, 229 F.2d 499, 502 (2d Cir. 1956); Wills v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 200 F.Supp. 360, 364 (S.D.Cal.1961).
cited Cited "see" Bratton v. Shiffrin
7th Cir. · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
See Fitzgerald v. Pan American World Airways, 229 F.2d 499, 502 (2d Cir. 1956); Wills v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 200 F.Supp. 360, 364 (S.D.Cal.1961).
cited Cited "see" Drake v. Detroit Edison Co.
W.D. Mich. · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
See Fitzgerald v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 229 F.2d 499, 502 (2d Cir. 1956).
cited Cited "see" Arnesen v. Raymond Lee Organization, Inc.
C.D. Cal. · 1971 · signal: see · confidence high
See Fitzgerald v. Pan American World Airways, 229 F.2d 499 (2nd Cir. 1956).
discussed Cited "see" Aircraft Owners & Pilots Ass'n v. Port Authority of NY (2×)
E.D.N.Y · 1969 · signal: see · confidence high
See Fitzgerald v. Pan American World Airways, 2d Cir. 1956, 229 F.2d 499 ; Town of East Haven v. Eastern Airlines, D.Conn.1968, 282 F.Supp. 507, 513 ; cf. Murphy v. Colonial Federal Savings & Loan Assn., 2d Cir. 1967, 388 F.2d 609, 614-615 ; Bloomfield Steamship Co. v. Sabine Pilots Assn., 5th Cir. 1959, 262 F.2d 345, 346-347 ; Adams v. International Brotherhood, etc., 10th Cir. 1958, 262 F.2d 835 , 839.
discussed Cited "see" Rosdail v. Western Aviation, Inc.
D. Colo. · 1969 · signal: see · confidence high
See, Fitzgerald v. Pan American World Airways, 229 F.2d 499 *684 (2d Cir. 1956) (national uniformity-sought, no adequate administrative redress within the statute); Town of East Haven v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 282 F.Supp. 507 (D.Conn.1968) (lack of administrative remedy); Wills v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 200 F.Supp. 360 (D.Cal.1961) (inadequate state remedy and administrative relief, compelling national interest).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Neilan v. Value Vacations, Inc.
S.D.N.Y. · 1985 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Fitzgerald v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 229 F.2d 499 (2d Cir. 1956); Karp v. North Central Air Lines, Inc., 583 F.2d 364 (7th Cir.1978); Archibald v. Pan American World Airways, *1236 Inc., 460 F.2d 14 (9th Cir.1972); Mahaney v. Air France, 474 F.Supp. 532 (S.D.N.Y. 1979).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Sterman v. Trans World Airlines
2d Cir. · 1981 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., Fitzgerald v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 229 F.2d 499 (2d Cir. 1956).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Sterman v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.
2d Cir. · 1981 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., Fitzgerald v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 229 F.2d 499 (2d Cir. 1956).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Roman v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.
N.D. Ill. · 1977 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., Fitzgerald v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 229 F.2d 499 (2d Cir. 1956); Wills v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 200 F.Supp. 360 (S.D.Cal.1961).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Irvin H. Mason v. Kenneth Belieu Appeal of Pan American World Airways, Inc (2×)
D.C. Cir. · 1976 · signal: see also · confidence low
See, e. g., Rosdail v. Western Aviation, Inc., 297 F.Supp. 681, 683-87 (D.Colo.1969); Yelinek v. Worley, 284 F.Supp. 679, 681 (E.D.Va.1968); Moungey v. Brandt, 250 F.Supp. 445, 451-53 (W.D.Wis.1966) (violation of Federal Aviation Act safety regulations); see also William Becker Travel Bureau, Inc. v. Sabena Belgian World Airways, supra (not allowing injunctive relief to private litigant in 404(b) case). 22 The Supreme Court has recently enunciated four factors which must be considered in determining whether a private remedy is implicit in a statute not expressly creating one: 23 1.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Ralph Nader v. Allegheny Airlines, Inc. (2×)
D.C. Cir. · 1975 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Fitzgerald v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 229 F.2d 499 (2d Cir. 1956); Wills v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 200 F.Supp. 360 (S.D.Cal.1961).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Franklin National Bank v. L. B. Meadows & Co.
E.D.N.Y · 1970 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e. g., Fitzgerald v. Pan American World Airways, 229 F.2d 499, 501 (2d Cir. 1956) ( 49 U.S.C. § 484 (b), discrimination by airlines); Reitmeister v. Reitmeister, 162 F.2d 691, 694 (2d Cir. 1947) ( 47 U.S.C. § 605 , “publishing” a telephone message); see generally L.
cited Cited "see, e.g." 2 Fair empl.prac.cas. 356, 2 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 10,166 Pete Gomez v. Florida State Employment Service
5th Cir. · 1969 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See e. g., Fitzgerald v. Pan American World Airways, 2 Cir., 1956, 229 F.2d 499 ; Mortimer v. Delta Airlines, N.D.Ill., 1969, 302 F.Supp. 276 [July 24, 1969], 28 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Spirt v. Bechtel
2d Cir. · 1956 · signal: see also · confidence low
Because of that lack, obviously a civil action on the company’s behalf to compel such repayment adds a most effective sanction; we stressed a similar factor when, implying a civil right, we sustained a civil action in Goldstein v. Groesbeck, 2 Cir., 142 F.2d 422, 427 ; See also Fitzgerald v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., supra. I find it difficult to comprehend why Judge LUMBARD assumes that Congress did not have in mind the fact that violations would harm the company as well as the federal treasury, and that recovery by the company would, protect not only the federal treasury but also t…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ella FITZGERALD, John Lewis, Georgiana Henry and Norman Granz, Appellants,
v.
PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS, Inc., Appellee
23850_1.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Jan 26, 1956.
229 F.2d 499
Bergerman & Hourwich, New York City (Joseph Calderon, New York City, of counsel), for appellants., Haight, Gardner, Poor & Havens, New York City (Douglas B. Bowring, New York City, of counsel), for appellee.
Clark, Frank, Lumbard.
Cited by 117 opinions  |  Published
FRANK, Circuit Judge.

Section 622(a) makes it a federal crime to violate, inter alia, Section 484(b). The latter section is for the benefit of persons, including passengers, using the facilities of air carriers. Consequently, by implication, its violation creates an actionable civil right for the vindication of which a civil action may be maintained by any such person who has been harmed by the violation. As we said in Reitmeister v. Reitmeister, 2 Cir., 162 F.2d 691, 694: “Although the Act does not expressly create any civil liability, we can see no reason why the situation is not within the doctrine which, in the absence of contrary implications, construes a criminal statute, enacted for the protection of a specified class, as creating a civil right in members of the class, although the only express sanctions are criminal.” See also Fischman v. Raytheon Mfg. Co., 2 Cir., 188 F.2d 783, 787; Goldstein v. Groesbeck, 2 Cir., 142 F.2d 422, 427, 154 A.L. R. 1285; Restatement of Torts, Section 286; Morris, The Relation of Criminal Statutes to Tort Liability, 46 Harv.L. Rev. (1933) 453; Lowndes, Civil Liability Created by Criminal Legislation, 16 Minn.L.Rev. (1932) 361.

Defendant, however, argues that Section 484(b) merely states the common-law rule existing in all states and territories, and, therefore, especially as Section 676 preserves all remedies at common law, there is here no basis for federal jurisdiction, absent diversity of citizenship, i. e., that this is not a case “arising under” a “federal law.” In support of this argument, defendant relies chiefly on cases involving the Safety Appliance Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq. [1] Those cases hold that that legislation did not create a right but merely imposed a higher standard of care in suits based upon a state common-law right. [2]

That is not true of the Act here involved. We think it created a[*502] new fedéral right. [3] Although a right created by a federal statute covers thé same ground as a right already existing under the common law of the states and territories, a suit based on that federal statute is one “arising under” a law of the .United States, so that a federal district court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. [4] See, e. g., Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939; Tunstall v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen, 323 U.S. 210, 213, 65 S.Ct. 235, 89 L.Ed. 187; Reitmeister v. Reitmeister, 2 Cir., 162 F.2d 691, 694; Note, 48 Col.L.Rev. (1948) 1090. No federal common law of torts exists; when Congress enacts legislation rendering it tortious to do what is already a state common-law tort, a suit based on that legislation is within 28 U.S.C. § 1331. [5]

Although we regard it as not controlling, we note also the following: Congress sought uniformity in the practices of those subject to this Act. It is by no means clear that, in all states' and territories, the common-law rules would render unlawful racial differentiations in accord with the “separate but equal doctrine,” [5a] whereas, in the light of recent Supreme Court decisions, [6] we must construe Section 484(b) so that that doctrine will not apply.

Defendant also contends that the sole non-criminal federal remedy for a violation of any provisions of the Act is to be found in Section 642, i. e., a complaint to the Civil Aeronautics Board which must investigate the complaint and, if the facts warrant, must issue an order compelling compliance with the violated provisions of the Act. We cannot agree. As such an order must look to the future, obviously it cannot afford redress to one harmed by a violation of Section 484(b). For, whatever may be true of the flight of a plane, undeniably (outside of fiction or “pure” physics) the flight of time — despite the poet Hood’s earnest prayer — is always, alas for us mortals, irreversible. Indeed, Aristotle remarked that “Agathon is right in saying, ‘For this alone is lacking even to God, To make undone things that have once been done.’ ” [7] At any rate, no order of the Board can compel the defendant in 1956 to permit the plaintiffs to board defendant’s plane on July 19, 1954.

This is not a case where the Board has “exclusive primary jurisdiction”: (1) The Civil Aeronautics Act, unlike the Interstate Commerce Act [8] or the Shipping Act, [9] confers no power on the administrative agency to grant reparation in money for past misconduct of the carrier. (2) The Board has no power to approve violations of Section 484 (b). (3) Nor has it purported to do so. [10]

Reversed and remanded.

1

. See, e. g., Moore v. Chesapeake & O. R. Co., 291 U.S. 205, 214-215, 54 S.Ct. 402, 78 L.Ed. 755; Olivary v. Cuyahoga Valley R. Co., 292 U.S. 57, 61-62, 54 S.Ct. 573, 78 L.Ed. 1123; Tipton v. Atchison, T. & S. E. R. Co., 298 U.S. 141, 147, 148, 56 S.Ct. 715, 80 L.Ed. 1091; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Puritan Coal Mining Co., 237 U.S. 121, 35 S.Ct. 484, 59 L.Ed. 867.

2

. See Jacobson v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 1 Cir., 206 E.2d 153, affirmed 347 U.S. 909, 74 S.Ct. 474, 98 L.Ed. 1067.

3

. See, e. g., Tunstall v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen, 323 U.S. 210, 65 S.Ct. 235, 89 L.Ed. 187; Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939; Reitmeister v. Reitmeister, 2 Cir., 162 F.2d 691; Roosevelt Field v. Town of North Hempstead, D.C., 84 F.Supp. 456, 459; Neiswonger v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., D.C., 35 F. 2d 761, 763.

5

. Or Section 1337, if, as here, the statute regulates interstate commerce. The effect of 49 U.S.C.A. § 676 is to avoid the contention that the provisions of the. Act nullify rights under state laws.

5a

See, e. g., Brumfield v. Consolidated Coach Corp., 240 Ky. 1, 40 S.W.2d 356; Day v. Owen, 5 Mich. 520.

6

. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 349 U.S. 294, 75 S.Ct. 753, 99 L.Ed. 1083; Henderson v. United States, 339 U.S. 816, 70 S.Ct. 843, 94 L.Ed. 1302.

7

. Nicomachean Ethics, 1139b, 10-11.

8

. 49 U.S.C.A. §§ 9, 13(1).

9

. 46 U.S.C.A. § 821.

10

. Lichten v. Eastern Airlines, 2 Cir., 189 F.2d 939, 25 A.L.R.2d 1337 is inapposite. There it was held that, in effect, the Board had approved the carrier’s rule exempting it from liability for loss of jewelry. Herman v. Northwest Airlines, 2 Cir., 222 F.2d 326 is similar.