« PreviousContinue »
ticket, by writing my name on the back of this contract, and by other means, if required, in the presence of the ticket agent of Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company at the point to which this ticket was sold, who will witness the signature, date and stamp the contract; and that this ticket and coupons shall be good returning only for a continuous passage from such date, and in no case later than the date canceled in the margin of this contract." Plaintiff conformed to all the requirements of this contract until he reached Mobile on his return trip. At that place he stopped off one day. At the end of that time he boarded another train of the railroad at midnight, and took a berth in a sleeping car. ceeded unmolested on his homeward trip until he passed Montgomery, and was nearing Calera, less than forty miles from Birmingham. At the stage of his journey the conductor in charge of the train discovered he was traveling on a forfeited ticket, but possibly he did not learn he had so traveled before he reached Montgomery. As a condition of his proceeding further the conductor exacted of him that he should pay fare from Montgomery to Birmingham, or, failing, that he would be put off the train at the next station, which would be Calera; plaintiff procured from the ticket agent at that place a ticket to Birmingham, and upon that ticket sought to continue his journey on the same train. This the conductor refused to allow him to do, stating that under the road's regulations he could not permit him to proceed unless he would also pay the back fare from Montgomery. This he failed to do and was ejected from the train. An action was brought to recover damages for such ejection.
A regulation by which railroads, when passengers are found on their trains who have no tickets, or who have only forfeited tickets, require of such passengers fare, not only for that part of the route to be traveled, but also for the part already passed over, it was said by the court in deciding the case, is certainly a reasonable one. If persons who are attempting to ride without paying fare can have the past forgiven, and need pay only from the place and time of their detection, would not this, it is asked, be the offer of a premium for an attempted undue advantage of the railroad? The regulation needs no argument to uphold its reasonableness. The authorities are almost uniform, and very abundant, that the conductor was authorized to demand fare, not only for the portion of the road yet to be traveled, but equally for that part of the road plaintiff had been carried, after his ticket had become functus by virtue of his stop over. And the conductor, it was held, was fully justified in ejecting plaintiff from the train on his refusal to pay the fare as demanded.' In Ward v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. 30 N. Y. S. R. 604 the ticket had no clause or stipulation requiring or looking to continuous passage. The decisionis rested on the absence of that provision. It refers to and ap. proves many of the decisions referred to above, pronounced on contracts requiring continuous passage. Properly interpreted, that case is an authority again - the passenger. In Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Carmichael, 9 L. R. 1.388, 90 Ala. 19, comment was made on the great importance, the public necessity of wisely observing regulations in the running of trains on railroads.
In Chicago, B. & Q. R. ('0. v. Bryan, 90 III. 126, it is held. in conflict with the recent case in Alabama stated in the text that a passenger expelled from a train at a station for refusal to pay the amount of fare demanded may get on again and continue his journey on the same train on payment of the lawful fare from that point without paying fare for the distance previously ridden. This distinction is based on his right to again become e passenger for a distinct trip, and it is held that he can do so on that train as well as any other. But the majority of the cases agree with the case referred to in the text.
A passenger who has been expelled at a station for refusing to pay fare cannot continue his passage by paying fare from that point only, but must pay for the whole distance. The purchase of a ticket from the station at which a passenger is ejected for nonpayment of fare, does not entitle him to ride on the same
'Manning v. Louisville & Y. R. Co. (Ala.) 16 L. R. A. 55; Hill v. Syracuse,
B. & NY. R. Co. 63 N. Y. 101; State v. Campbell, 32 N. J. L. 309; Suan v. Manchester & L. R. Co. 132 Mass. 116; Daris v. Kansas City, St. J. & C. B. R. Co. 53 Mo. 317, 14 Am. Rep. 457; Stone v. Chicago & V. W. R. Co. 47 Iowa, 82, 29 Am. Rep. 458; Hall v. Memphis & C. R. Co. 15 Fed. Rep. 57; Pennington v. Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co. 62 Md. 95: Pickens v. Richmond & D. R. Co. 104 N. C. 312; Atchison, 1. & 8. F. R. Co. v. Gants, 38 Kap. 629; Johnson v. Concord R. Corp. 46 N. H. 213; Rose v.
Wilmington &W. R. Co. 106 N. C. 168. 'Suan v. Manchester & L. R. Co. 132 Mass. 116, 42 Am. Rep. 432; Per
nington v. Philadelphia, W. & B. P. Co. 62 Md. 95.
train without payment for the distance already ridden even if he could claim the right to be admitted to that train on any terms."
So on the same principle a tender of fare from a station where a passenger secures a seat, although he has already ridden for some distance, will not be sufficient without paying fare for the whole distance. But where a passenger bas a ticket not limited to any particular time or to the day on which it was purchased, and after it is punched stops over at a station and takes another train, if the conductor of the latter refuses to accept the ticket and threatens to eject him at the next station, he is entitled on procuring a ticket there to proceed upon it without paying fare again for the distance already ridden on that train as he has previously paid for the whole ride."
A railway conductor who collects from a passenger boarding the train without a ticket a less sum than the full train fare to his destination may within a reasonable time, on discovering the mistake, require him to pay the deficiency, and eject him at the next station on his refusal to pay it, upon first refunding the sum paid, less the fare for the distance actually traveled. It has been ruled that a by-law of a railway company providing that every passenger shall show his ticket when required, and on failure to do so shall be required to pay fare, does not authorize his expulsion from the train for refusal to pay fare or produce his ticket, at least where lie had purchased a ticket and lost it accidentally. A doubt has been expressed whether a by-law expressly authorizing his expulsion in such a case would be reasonable.
If a passenger has sold or disposed of his ticket, or is unable to exhibit it within a reasonable time after being requested to do so by the conductor, and refuses to pay the usual fare for the balance of the trip, he is not entitled to recover anything, if he is required, without abuse, insult or unnecessary force or violence, to leave the train.' The loss of a ticket which cannot be used by another
Slone v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. 47 Iowa, 82, 29 Am. Rep. 458. · Duris v. Kansas City, St. J. & C. B. R. Co. 53 Mo. 317, 14 Am. Rep. 457. 3 Ward v. New York Cent. & II. R. R. Co. 30 N. Y. S. R. 604. * Wardwell v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. 13 L. R. A. 596, 46 Minn. 514. • Butler v. Manchester, S. & L. R. Co. L. R. 21 Q. B. Div. 207. 6 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Maybin, 66 Miss. 83.
if found, as a sleeping car ticket will not anthorize the removal of a passenger.'
If a person upon entering a train shows the brakeman his ticket, which is in fact to ride on another road, but the brakeman assists him upon the train, the conductor is not justified in putting him off the train at a stopping-place, because he had no money to pay his fare, unless such place is a reasonably safe and convenient point from which he can most expeditiously reach a train on the road on which he wishes to travel; and it is not material that the conductor does not know that he showed his ticket to the brakeman. If a person holding a ticket on one road, upon entering a train проп another road, does not show his ticket to the brakeman, but goes upon the train by reason of his own mistake, and neglects or refuses to pay his fare when the conductor demands it, the latter is justified, under a statute authorizing the removal of one refusing to pay fare, in putting him off the train at a usual stoppingplace or near a dwelling-house." A passenger who purchased a ticket at a reduced price for a continuous trip by a particular train, and, having been inisalirected as to the train by an employé of the company, is put off by the conductor, is entitled to proceed on the right train when it comes along and the company is liable in case of his removal therefrom."
Where an instamped ticket gave a passenger no right to a return passage, and he refused to pay the usual fare upon a demand by the conductor, as there was no contract in force between him and the company to carry him back, there could be no breach of the contract; and an action of assumpsit cammot be maintained to recover damages for plaintiff's expulsion from the company's train. An important case decided by the New York Court of Appeals is authority for the proposition that a regulation of a railroad company requiring passengers either to present evidence Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Reed, 75 II. 125; Putry v. Chicago, St. P. M. &
0. R. Co. 77 Wis. 218; Louisville, V. & G. S. R. Co. v. Fleming, 14 Lea, 128; De Lucis v. Nero Orleans & C. R. Co. 38 La. Ann. 930; Havens v. Hartford & N. H. R. Co. 28 Conn. 69; Standish v. Narragansett SS. Co. 111 Mass. 512 See also Butler v. Manchester & L. R. Co. L. R. 21 Q. B. Div. 207; Jerome v. Smith, 48 Vt. 230; Cresson v. Philadelphia & R. R.
Co. 11 Phila. 597. · Patry v. Chicago, St. P. M. &0. R. Co. 77 Wis. 218. Elliott v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. 53 Hun, 78. *Boylan v. Hot Springs R. Co. 132 C. S. 146, 33 L. ed. 290.
to the conductor of a right to a seat, when reasonably required so to do, or to pay fare, is reasonable; and for noncompliance therewith a passenger may lawfully be put off the train. And the wrongful taking of the passenger's ticket by the conductor of a previous train, in which the foriner had performed part of his journey, does not exonerate him from compliance with this regulation."
A person is not entitled to damages for ejection from a street car without unnecessary force or violence, where the ticket presented by him is transfer ticket intended for use on another line and he himself was mainly in fault in regard to the mistake in such ticket. Where a conductor with no express or implied authority collects fare from a passenger over a connecting road as well as over his own, his company is not liable for the passenger's ejection on the connecting road for not paying a second fare." Wrongful refusal to pass a child on a half fare ticket, entitles the mother to damages for being deprived of her passage as well as that of the child, although the conductor offered to pass her on her ticket, without the child, as it is not reasonable to expect a mother to leave her child."
$ 60. Conclusiveness of Ticket as to Rights of
Passenger. In New York, West Virginia, Illinois, Maryland, Ohio, Wis. consin, Connecticut, New Jersey, Massachusetts, North Carolina and Oregon and some of the United States Circuit Courts, it seems to have been decided that the ticket presented by the passenger is the only evidence of his right to travel upon the train which can be recognized by the conductor; and that if, by reason of the negligence of other servants of the carrier, a wrong ticket has been given to the passenger, or the right ticket has been given to him, but erroneously taken from him, the passenger's right of action is for the wrong thus committed; and that he may
'Tornsend v. Nero York Cent. & II. R. R. Co. 56 N. Y. 29.7. But see Nero
York L. E. & I. R. Co. v. Winter, 143 L, S. 60, 36 L. ed. 71. * Carpenter v. Washington & G. R. Co. 121 C. S. 474, 30 L. ed. 101.5. 3 Haggerty v. Flint & P. V. R. Co. 59 Mich. 366. 60 Am. Rep. 301. *Gibson v. East Tennessee', 1. & G. R. Co. 30 Fed. Rep. 904.