Page images



$ 145. Condition and Limitation on Ticket.
$ 146. Limit of Time in Ticket.
8 147. Round Trip Ticket.
$ 148. Through Tickets over Connecting Roads.

$ 145. Condition and Limitation on Ticket. A regulation of a railway company by which one who has paid his fare between two points on the road, who desires to stop over at an intermediate point, is required to procure a stop-over ticket from the conductor and present it to the conductor of the train on which he seeks to complete his journey, as evidence of his right to do so without further payment, is a reasonable regulation.' The plaintiff purchased a ticket for a passage from Dunham to Boston. It was a rule of the defendant that a passenger should go through in the same train of cars. The plaintiff, after taking

. his seat, was so informed, and remonstrated. He stopped at an intermediate place, and went aboard of the next train and was required to pay fare again. The action was for money had and received and for breach of contract. The court held that the plaintiff could not recover.' Where a passenger purchases a ticket for one continuous trip,

a the contract is indivisible; and it is his duty to ascertain the train upon which he could take passage according to its terms; but if he takes the wrong train and the conductor suffers him to proceed thereon, get off at an intermediate station and wait for his proper train, his expulsion from the latter train is wrongful.'

Whether conditions on the back of a ticket, or on the face in small type, will conclude the passenger upon his mere acceptance of the ticket, has been a matter of some question. But the pre

Gorton v. Milwaukee, L. S. & W. R. Co. 54 Wis. 239.
$ Cheney v. Boston & M, R. Co. 11 Met. 121.
3 Kellett v. Chicago & A. R. Co. 4 West. Rep. 828, 22 Mo. App. 356.



sumption is against such effect.' Where such conditions are printed distinctly upon the face of the ticket or there referred to as part of the proposed contract, the law is even less clearly settled. One might be required to take notice of the usual reasonable regulations of the company so printed,' and it has been held that a notice printed on the general ticket and the coupon, that a coupon if detached from the book, is destroyed, will bind the traveler: But a notice of a limitation in time within which ticket

a is to be used, has been held to be insufficient unless stated at the time of the purchase of the ticket."

Where one purchases a ticket of a railroad company's agent at its office, he has a right to rely upon the agent to give him a ticket expressive of the contract to be carried within the time contracted for,' and for the class for which he pays.' But unreasonable retention of a wrong ticket may

amount to a waiver of the wrong.' But the decided weight of authority is that there must be some proof of consent by the passenger to the conditions inserted on what is intended, not as a contract, but as a simple admission by the carrier that the passage has been paid.'

A ticket for the transportation of a passenger is not a contract of itself. It is simply evidence of a contract, and it has been held 'Brown v. Enstern R. Cn. 11 Cush. 97; Blossom v. Dodd, 43 N. Y. 264; Lim.

burger v. Westcott, 49 Barb. 283: Brittan v. Barnaby, 62 U. S. 21 How. 527, 16 L. ed. 177; Camden & A. R Co. v. Baldauf, 16 Pa. 67; McMilan v. Michigan S. & N. 1. R. Co, 16 Mich. 79; Malone v. Boston & W. R.

Corp. 12 Gray, 388. * Kelsey v. Michig in Cent. R. Co. 28 Hun, 460. But see Macklin v. New Jer.

sey 8. B. Co. 7 Abb. Pr. N. S. 229. Boston & M. R. Co. v. Chipman, 146 Mass. 107. *Pennsylvania R Co. v. Spicker, 105 Pa. 142. 'McGinnis v, Missouri Pac. R. Co. 4 West. Rep. 797, 21 Mo. App. 399. St. Louis, A. & T. R. Co. v. Mackie, 1 L. R. A. 667, 71 Tex. 491. "Godfrey v. Ohin & M. R. Co. 116 Ind. 30. 8 Baltimore & 0. R. Co. v. Harris, 79 U. S. 12 Wall. 65, 20 L. ed. 354; Hlen.

derron v. Stevenson, 2 H. L. Sc. App. Cas. 470; Quimby v. Vanderbilt, 17 N. Y. 306; Ruwwxon v. Pennsylvania R. Co. 48 N. Y. 212; Van Bunkirk v. Riberts, 31 N. Y. 661; Pennington v. Philadelphin. W. & B. R. Co. 62 Md. 95; Nevins v. Bay State S. B. Co. 4 Busw. 225; Malone v. Boston & W. R Corp. 12 Gray, 388; Brouon v. Eastern R. Co. 11 Cush. 97; Mobile & 0. R. Co. v. Weiner, 49 Miss. 725; Wilson v. Chesapeake & 0. R. Co. 21 Gratt. 654; Burnham v. Grand Trunk R. Co. 63 Me. 298; Adams Exp. Co v. Slettaners, 61 Ill. 184; Buscowitz v. Adams Exp. Co. 93 Ill. 523; Balti. more & 0. R. Co. v. Brudy, 32 Md. 333; Derioort v. Loomer, 21 Conn. 245; Blumenthal v. Brainard, 38 Vt. 412: McMillan v. Michigan S. & N. 1. R. Co. 16 Micb. 79; Elmore v. Sunds, 54 N. Y. 512.


that before a passenger can be bound by a declaration on the ticket for transportation on a passenger train, the restrictions or limitations sought to be made must be known to him, and he must have accepted the ticket with full knowledge of the restrictions of the company thereon.' The purchaser of a railroad ticket does not, by mere acceptance, acquiesce in and bind himself to all of the terms and conditions printed thereon in the absence of actual knowledge of them."

The burden of proof of knowledge by a passenger, of a memorandum on his ticket limiting the liability of the railroad company and of his assent to it rests upon the company. If the carrier desires to avail itself of the haste in which tickets are usually sold, to conclude a special contract with the passenger, it should offer some evidence that the latter was advised of the wish of the carrier and intentionally accepted the proposed contract, understanding its terms.' Of course custom, well established and known to the passenger, would be an element to be considered, as any other special matter of evidence. Thus as an ocean passage usually involves more care and consideration in perfecting its details, than a short railroad trip, one who contemplates the former may be chargeable with more accurate knowledge of the conditions usual or likely to be imposed than in the latter case' But the simple acceptance of what is usually treated as a receipt for money paid for the right of passage, under the common law conditions, should not be sufficient proof of a contract imposing any special limitation on the usual obligation of the carrier.“ Any attempt at fraud or to conceal or render obscure conditions incorporated in a ticket, or the fact that they are uncertain will require proof of more than mere acceptance of the ticket.'

Kansas City, St. J. & C. B. R. Co. v. Rudebaugh, 38 Kan. 45. See Malone

V. Boston & W. R. Corp. 12 Gray, 388; United States Exp. Co. v. Bachman, 2 Cin. Sup. ci. Rep. 251; Blumenthal v. Brainwird, 38 Vt. 402; Farmers & M. Bank v. Champlain Transp. Co. 23 Vt. 186; Anchor Line V. Dater, 68 ml. 369; Adams Erp. On v. Haynes, 42 III. 89; New Jersey Steam Nao. Co. v. Merchants Bank of Boston, 47 U. 8. 6 How. 344, 12 L. ed. 465; Davidson v. Graham, 2 Ohio St. 135; Jones v. Voorhees, 10

Ohio, 145. *Kent v. Baltimore & 0. R. Co. 10 West. Rep. 459, 45 Ohio St. 284; Balti

more & 0. R. Co. v. Campbell, 36 Ohio St. 648; Quimby v. Vanderbilt, 17 N. Y. 306; Hollister v. Nowlen, 19 Wend. 231; Madan v. Sherard, 73 N. Y. 329, King v. Woodbridge, 31 Vt. 565; Erio & W. Transp. Co. v. Dator,

91 III. 195; Cole v. Goodwin, 19 Wend. 251. Indianapolis & St. L. R. Co. v. Horst, 93 U. 8. 291, 23 L. ed. 898. *Steers v. Liverpool, N Y. & P. SS. Co. 57 N. Y. 1; Fonseca v. Cunard SS.

Co. 12 L. R. A. 340, 153 Muss. 553. Keller v. Equitable F. Ins. Co. 28 Ind. 170; Baltimore & 0. R. Co. v. Har ris, 79•U. S. 12 Wall. 65, 20 L. ed. 354; Wilson v. Chesapeake & 0. R. Co. 21 Gratt. 654; Frank v. Ingalls, 41 Ohio St.560; Pier v. Finch, 24 Barb. 514. 'Brown v. Eastern R. Co. 11 Cush. 97: Blossom v. Dodd, 43 N. Y. 264; Mc

Where the signature of the passenger is required to the conditions inserted in the contract stated in the ticket, such signature may well be held to be evidence of such assent. Where the contract to carry a passenger by a railroad company is an express one, signed by him and the company's agent, and is contained in a ticket for a passage to the place of destination and back, having assented to the contract by accepting and signing it, heis bound by the conditions expressed in it, whether he did or did not read them or know what they were." A passenger who signs a special contract on the back of his ticket is bound by it though it is written in small type and the purchase is necessarily somewhat hurried. And this is inore conclusive in case of a free pass, and indeed, the use of the latter has been held sufficient evidence of assent. Unquestionably the

" ticket may be used as evidence with other facts, to prove the actual making of a contract. Indeed, the circumstances under which a ticket is purchased and the irregularity attending it, may create a presumption that the traveler informed himself of the special conditions attending the unusual issue. Thus a ticket issued for a known reduced rate, may require the purchaser to inquire as to the special limitations and restrictions, which cause

[ocr errors]

Millan v. Michigan S. & N. I. R. Co. 16 Mich. 79; Verner v. Sweitzer, 32 Pa. 208; Blumenthal v. Brainard, 38 Vt. 402; Perry v. Thompson, 98 Mass. 249; Simons v. Great Western R. Co. 2 C. B. N. S. 620; Strohn v. Detroit & M. R. Co. 21 Wis. 554; Belger v. Dinsmore, 51 N. Y. 166; The Wisconsin v. Young, 3 G. Greene, 268; Adams Exp. Co. v. Guthrie, 9

Bush, 78. *Boylan v. Hot Springs R. Co. 132 U. S. 146, 33 L. ed. 290, 40 Am. &

Eng. R. Cas. 666; Bethea v. Northeastern R. 00. 26 S. C. 91; Blumen

thal v. Brainard, 38 Vt. 402. *Boylan v. Hot Springs R. Co. 132 U. 8. 146, 33 L. ed. 290, 40 Am. & Eng.

R. Cas. 666. *Betheg v. Northeastern R. Co. 26 S. C. 91. "Gulf, C. & 8. F. R. Co. v, McGown, 65 Tex. 640; Wells v. Nero York Cent.

R, Co. 24 N. Y. 181; Perkins v. New York Cent. R Co. 94 N. Y. 196;

Quimby v. Boxton & M. R. Co. 5 L. R. A. 816, 150 Mass. 365. Milnor v. New York & N. H. R. Co. 53 N. Y. 363.


the reduction in price, whether there be limitations as to time, transfer, or identification.'

Tickets sold for a reduced rate on condition that they shall not be transferred, and that full fare may be collected from any person presenting them, other than the original holder, are valid, and carriers are authorized to enforce them. The fact that a ticket on its face non-transferable was sold without requiring the purchaser to sign it does not relieve him from the terms of the contract.' But conditions in consideration of reduced fare, to be indicated by the signature of the passenger and by punching it, are not binding on a passenger who paid full fare and did not sign the conditions in the ticket, which is not punched.' A condition as to identification may be waived,' or it may be insisted upon and all evidence or identification to any one but the particular agent designated may be rejected and his special assent to the identification insisted upon.

Where a 1000 mile ticket is sold and delivered to a purchaser by the company's conductor without requiring him to sign the conditions stamped thereon, the company waives such requirement, and its conductor is not justified in ejecting the passenger from the car for refusing to sign the ticket, or pay the usual fare in money for his passage. Where a passenger ticket contains limitations of the carrier's liability printed thereon, with blank space therein for the passenger's signature, but the passenger is not requested to sign his name thereto, and does not sign it, and the conditions therein are not made known to him, they are equivalent to neither a restriction or limitation of the liability of the carrier.' The purchaser of a railroad ticket does not by its mere acceptance acquiesce and bind himself to all terms and conditions printed thereon in the absence of actual knowledge of them.

Eduards v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. 81 Mich. 364; Boylan v. Flot Springs

R. Co. 132 U. S. 146, 33 L. ed. 290), 40 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 666; Bethea

v. Northeastern R. Co. 26 S. C. 91. * Drummond v. Southern Pac. Co. (Utab.) 9 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 371. 3 Anderson v. Canadian Puc. R. Co. 17 Ont. Rep. 747, 40 Am. & Eng. R.

Cas. 624. * Taylor v. Seaboard & R. R. Co. 99 N. C. 185, 6 Am. St. Rep. 509. 5 Edwurds v. Lake Shure & M. S. R. Co. 81 Mich. 364. Kent v. Baltimore & 0. R. Co, 10 West. Rep. 457, 45 Ohio St. 284. * Kansas City, St. J. & C. B. R. Co. v. Rodebaugh, 38 Kan. 45.


« PreviousContinue »