to the passenger too much change, unless the latter rectifies the mistake when called upon to do so, he may be expelled, when he has ridden as far as the payment made entitles him to ride.' Plaintiff, without a ticket, though he had full opportunity to procure one, boarded defendant's train at Faribault, to go to Owatonna, and, when he told the fare collector where he was going, the latter told him the fare was fifty cents, which he paid. This was more than the ticket fare, but six cents less than the train fare. Before the train arrived at Walcott, the first station at which the train was to stop, the collector informed plaintiff of his error in the amount of the fare, and required him to pay the six cents, which plaintiff refused, and the collector told him unless he paid it he must leave the train. On arrival at Walcott, where the train stopped, the plaintiff persisting in his refusal, the collector put him off, and then returned him the fifty cents, less the fare from Faribault to Walcott. It was said that the collector, on discovering the mistake, might, within a reasonable time, require plaintiff to pay the other six cents; that, notwithstanding his first refusal, the plaintiff might, at any time before the arrival at Walcott, still pay the six cents, and secure the right to be carried to Owatonna; that the collector's retention of the fifty cents till the arrival at Walcott was not a waiver of the right to require payment of the six cents; that the company had a right to be paid the fare from Faribault to Walcott, and the collector might retain it out of the fifty cents; and that the collector could not retain the entire amount, and also put plaintiff off, but could put him off only upon first returning to him the fifty cents, less the fare to Walcott, and, having put him off before doing so, the expulsion was wrongful.*

Where a conductor of a train refuses to recognize an excursion ticket in the hands of the holder, who is thereby entitled to ride thereon, and demands of him the regular fare, and attempts to eject him by force for nonpayment thereof, the railway company

McCarthy v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. 41 Iowa, 432.

Qualifying Du Laurans v. First Div. St. Paul & P. R. Co. 15 Minn. 49 (Gil. 29).

Overruling Du Laurans v. First Div. St. Paul & P. R. Co. 15 Minn. 49.

♦ Wardwell v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. 13 L. R. A. 596, 46 Minn. 514. See Bland v. Southern Pac. R. Co. 55 Cal. 570.

is liable in damages for the assault, and the jury in assessing the damages may consider in connection therewith the annoyance, vexation, and indignity suffered by him.' A railroad company is liable for the wrongful expulsion of a passenger from a train, though he does not wait to be forcibly ejected, but obeys the seemingly peremptory order of the conductor to get off at a particular station, although the conductor is not present when he does so. For unnecessary force in ejecting a passenger the company is liable, although the conductor had the right to remove him.' A passenger unprovided with ticket and refusing to pay fare or leave the train may be ejected by agents of the carrier; but if more violence is used than necessary for that purpose, the carrier and its agents are liable for damages. A police officer assisting in ejecting the passenger, at the invitation of the agent of the carrier, is subject to the same rule in regard to excessive violence.'

Although a brakeman, in the absence of express orders, has no authority to eject a passenger from a train, a railroad company will be liable for an injury wantonly inflicted by a brakeman on a passenger traveling on a train on which such brakeman is employed. Although a servant of a carrier may be obliged to use force in the enforcement of reasonable regulations established by the carrier, the carrier will not be protected if he uses excessive or unnecessary force. Facts showing the use of unnecessary force must be averred in an action for damages for such a cause." Where the evidence fails to show that any more force was used than was necessary to remove a passenger from the railing on the platform of a chair car from which he had been removed, and in which he had no right to ride, and he had refused to go into the next car, which was a first-class passenger car, he cannot recover damages. In determining whether a conductor on a railway acted in

8

1Carsten v. Northern Pac. R. Co. 9 L. R. A. 688. 44 Minn. 454, 20 Am. St. Rep. 589, 44 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 392. See New York, L. E. & W. R. Co. v. Winter, 143 U. S. 60, 36 L. ed. 71.

"Georgia R. & Bkg. Co. v. Eskew, 86 Ga. 641.

Chicago, St. L. & P. R. Co. v. Bills, 1 West. Rep. 847, 104 Ind. 13.

Jardine v. Cornell, 12 Cent. Rep. 804, 50 N. J. L. 485.

Wabash R. Co. v. Savage, 6 West. Rep. 298, 110 Ind. 156.

New Jersey 8. B. Co. v. Brockett, 121 U. S. 637, 30 L. ed. 1049.

7 Chicago, St. L. & P. R. Co. v. Bills, 104 Ind. 13.

Wright v. California Cent. R. Co. 78 Cal. 360.

reckless disregard of the rights of a passenger, the question is properly for the jury,' and the jury may consider that in ejecting the passenger the conductor violated an express rule of the company, calculated to promote the safety of passengers. A railroad company will be liable for an injury resulting to an adult riding on a train without paying his fare, and negligently ejected by the conductor.'

The passenger is entitled, even while being dealt with by the conductor pursuant to regulations, to respectful and courteous treatment and protection against insult and indignity. If the holder deports himself properly, the company has no right to refuse the ticket, or to eject him before reaching the station named in the ticket. So long as a passenger upon a railway shall comply with the reasonable regulations of the company, he has the right to remain there, and to be carried over the road." A passenger, having a right to be carried on his ticket, is entitled, if wrongfully ejected, to recover the damages sustained, although he might have paid his fare rather than be ejected, and recovered such damages as he sustained thereby.' There is authority for the statement that a railroad company is liable for damages sustained by a passenger wrongfully removed from its car by its servants, although his injuries are caused by forcing him loose from his hold upon the seats, taken to resist such removal.

But where a party on a train is explicitly informed by the conductor that he cannot retain his seat and must leave the car, he then knows that he cannot, except by the use of force, proceed longer upon the train; and he must leave and resort to his legal 'Arnold v. Pennsylvania R. Co. 15 Pa. 135.

Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. v. Rosenzweig, 4 Cent. Rep. 712, 113 Pa. 519. Biddle v. Пlestonville, M. & F. Pass. R. Co. 3 Cent. Rep. 404, 112 Pa. 551. 4McGinnis v. Missouri Pac. R. Co. 4 West. Rep. 797. 21 Mo. App. 399. But see Stone v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. 47 Iowa, 82; Chicago, St. L. & P. R. Co. v. Bills, 104 Ind. 13.

'Churchill v. Chicago & A. R. Co. 67 Ill. 390.

State v. Chovin, 7 Iowa, 204.

'Pennsylvania Co. v. Bray, 125 Ind. 229.

Louisville, N. A. & C. R. Co. v. Wolfe, 128 Ind. 347; New York, L. E. &W.
R. Co. v. Winter, 143 U. S. 60, 36 L. ed. 71. But see Peabody v. Oregon
R. Nav. Co. (Or.) 12 L. R. A. 823;
Memphis C. R. Čo. 15 Fed.
Rep. 61; Southern Kansas R. Co. v. Rice, 38 Kan. 398; Townsend v. New
York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. 56 N. Y. 295.

Hall v.

remedy, the same as though he had been ejected.' He cannot make continuance of process of lawful expulsion unlawful by offer to pay during its progress.*

A woman may be justified in attempting to alight from a train in motion, through fear of being pushed off by the conductor caused by his manifestations and directions, although he did not lay hands on her or make any actual or hostile demonstration.' A passenger about to be wrongfully expelled from a railroad train need not require force to be exerted to secure his rights or increase his damages. For any breach of contract or gross negligence on the part of the conductor or other employés of the railroad company, redress must be sought in the courts, rather than by the strong arm of the person who thinks himself about to be deprived of his rights. It is the duty of a passenger, if he has not the required ticket or token evidencing his right to travel on that train, to pay his fare or quietly leave the train when requested, and resort to his appropriate remedy for the damages he has sustained; and if he attempts to retain his seat without paying his fare, and is expelled by the conductor, using no more force than is necessary, he can recover no damages for the injury incurred by the use of the force necessary for such expulsion.*

A

A person has no right to a passage upon a ticket which has been punched so as to indicate that it has once been used, nor where it has been so mutilated as to render it impossible to determine whether it has been used or not. But the company has no right to eject him at any other point than a regular station. passenger expelled from a train cannot recover damages for walking and its consequences, when he might have reached his destination more cheaply and expeditiously and with less injury to health; nor, as a general rule, for inconvenience, hardship, or Southern Kansas R. Co. v. Hinsdale, 38 Kan. 507; Head v. Georgia Pac. R. Co. 79 Ga. 358; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Connell, 112 Ill. 295. Pease v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. 2 Cent. Rep. 423, 101 N. Y. 367. Highland Ave. & B. R. Co. v. Winn, 93 Ala. 306.

Jardine v. Cornell, 12 Cent. Rep. 804, 50 N. J. L. 485; Southern Kansas R. Co. v. Rice, 38 Kan. 398; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Gants, 38 Kan. 608; Hall v. Memphis & C. R. Co. 15 Fed. Rep. 57; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Griffin, 68 Ill. 499.

་

*Peabody v. Oregon R. & Nav. Co. (Or.) 12 L. R. A. 823.

Terre Haute, A. & St. L. R. Co. v. Vanatta, 21 Ill. 188; Chicago & N. W. R.
Co. v. Peacock, 48 Ill. 253.

injury to health originating after he reached his destination.' No recovery for wounded feelings or pain of mind can be had by a passenger who entered a railroad train expecting and desiring to be put off, in order to make a case for damages against the railroad company.

§ 56. Removal of Passenger Destined for a Station at which Cars do not Stop.

A railroad company, as a common carrier, may make reasonable rules for the regulation of its business and the performance of its public duties. Even in the case of a passenger the regulations of the carrier enter to some extent, at least, into the contract of parties. A passenger must take notice of the published rules of a railway company. He is not entitled to damages if he takes a train which, by such rules, does not stop at the station to which he desires to go. It is the duty of a passenger to inform himself of a regulation governing the transit and conduct of trains; he must inform himself when, where and how he can go or stop, according to the regulations of the company.' If a passenger disregards the regulations adopted by the company as to the purchase of tickets or running of trains, by failure on his part to make any inquiries, and such neglect is not induced by the company's agent having authority in the matter, the company is not liable therefor.

A passenger has no right on a train which, under a rule of the company, does not stop at the station for which he bought the ticket. In such case he cannot recover damages except for need1Georgia R. & Bkg. Co. v. Eskew, 86 Ga. 641.

St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Trimble, 54 Ark. 354.
Evans v. Memphis & C. R. Co. 56 Ala. 246.

*Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Whitcomb, 111 Ind. 212; Chicago, St. L. & P. R. Co. v. Bills, 104 Ind. 13; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Harding, 103 Ind. 505; Ohio & M. R. Co. v. Applewhite, 52 Ind. 540; Pittsburgh, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Nuzum, 50 Ind. 141, 19 Am. Rep. 703.

Trotlinger v. East Tennessee, V. & G. R. Co. 11 Lea, 533. *Southern Kansas R. Co. v. Hinsdale, 38 Kan. 507.

Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Gantz, 138 Kan. 608; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Randolph, 53 Ill. 510; Chicago, St. L. & P. R. Co. v. Bills, 104 Ind. 13; Duling v. Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co. 66 Md. 120; Fink v. Albany & S. R. Co. 4 Lans. 147; Pittsburgh, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Nuzum, 50 Ind. 141: Ohio & M. R. Co. v. Swarthout, 67 Ind. 567; Henry v. St. Louis, K. O. & N. R. Co. 76 Mo. 288.

Southern Kansas R. Co. v. Hinsdale, 38 Kan. 507.