without money, was carried beyond the station at a late hour of night, and was not informed of the difficulties in the way of her returning under those circumstances, it was held not to be her duty to go on to the next city, rather than to attempt to find her way back to her destination. In reckoning the damages of a passenger who was carried beyond his destination, and who, in consequence of being ¡put off at a place of great exposure in the midst of inclement weather, contracted pneumonia, it has been held that his physical suffering, the expense to which he was put, and the loss to his business, should be considered. In a late case in Kentucky, where it was in evidence that the train passed the plaintiff's station without stopping; that plaintiff asked to be put off, but the conductor refused, offering to take her on to the next station; that plaintiff got off the train between stations, the conductor not offering to assist her in any way, and his voice and manner being rude and insulting; that she walked back about a mile, carrying a bundle and valise; that her route lay through an uninhabited country; and that, as a result of the walk and the excitement, she was sick for several days; it was held, upon a second trial, although there was conflicting testimony as to these facts, that a verdict of three thousand dollars would not be disturbed. But exemplary damages are not recoverable for the company's failure to stop at a station and to allow an opportunity for alighting, unless the failure so to do was willful, or the wrong was aggravated by insult."

1 Galveston, H. & H. R'y Co. v. Crispi (1889), -Tex.-; International & G. N. Ry Co. v. Terry, 62 Tex. 380; 50 Am. Rep. 529; Louisville & N. R. R. Co. v. Ballard, 85 Ky. 302; Mississippi & T. R. R. Co. v. Gill (1839), -Miss.-;

New York, C. & St. L. R'y Co. v. Doane (1888), 115 Ind. 435; 7 Am. St. Rep. 451; Kellett v. Chicago & A. R. R. Co. 22 Mo. App. 356.

2 Richmond, F. etc. R. R. Co. v. Ashby, 79 Va. 130; 52 Am. Rep. 620. 3 International & G. N. R'y Co. v. Hassell, 62 Tex. 256; 50 Am. Rep. 525.

4 New York, C. & St. L. R'y Co. v. Doane (1888), 115 Ind. 435; 7 Am.. St. Rep. 451.

5 Winkler v. St. Louis, I. M. etc. R'y Co. 21 Mo. App. 99.

6 Galveston, H. & H. R'y Co. v. Crispi (1889),

-

Tex.

7 International & G. N. R'y Co. v. Terry, 62 Tex. 380; 50 Am. Rep. 529). 8 Louisville & N. R. R. Co. v. Ballard, 85 Ky. 302.

9 Mississippi & T. R. R. Co. v. Gill (1889), Miss.; Dorrah v. Illinois Central R. R. Co. (1887), 65 Miss. 14; 7 Am. St. Rep. 629; Chicago etc. R. R. Co. v. Scarr, 59 Miss. 456; 42 Am. Rep. 733; Vicksburg etc. R. R. Co. v. Scanlon, 63 Miss. 413.

2

§ 868. The same subject, continued.—Express trains and local travel.-A passenger, however, is affected with knowledge of the published rules of the carrier with respect to the stopping of trains at his destination,' and it is his duty to inform himself as to whether the train which he takes will stop at the place to which he desires to go. For a railway company is under no obligation to stop all of its trains at every station upon its route, and it is not liable to a passenger for refusing to allow him an opportunity to alight when he has taken a train which, according to the regulations of the company, does not stop at his destination, unless an express agreement be made to the contrary, or unless he has been misdirected, or led to believe by an authorized agent of the company, that the train taken by him will stop at that station.* But by selling a ticket "good for passenger trains only," the company does not contract that every passenger train shall stop at the station designated upon the ticket; nor is the conductor bound to awaken a sleeping passenger at his destination, and, even though he has promised to do so, the company is

not liable for carrying the passenger beyond his station by reason of the conductor failing to awaken him; nor where the position of a station has been changed, and trains have been uniformly stopped at the new depot for some time, is the company under any obligation to carry a passenger having no notice of the change to the former station, half a mile distant; nor is the company liable for injuries sustained by a passenger, who, fearing that the train will not stop at his destination, jumps off while it is passing the station for the purpose of being switched on to a side track, according to regular custom, to allow another train to make use of the main track."

1 Trotlinger v. East Tennessee etc. R. R. Co. 11 Lea (Tenn.), 533.

2 Ohio etc. R. R. Co. v. Swarthout, 67 Ind. 567; 33 Am. Rep. 104; Ohio etc. R. R. Co. v. Hatton, 60 Ind. 12.

3 Plott v. Chicago & N. R. R. Co. 63 Wis. 511.

4 Pittsburgh etc. R. R Co. v. Nuzum, 50 Ind. 141; Florida Southern R'y Co. v. Katz (87), 23 Fla. 139, where the passenger's fare to a certain point was accepta in silence, and he was not notified until afterward that the train would not stop tre. Cf. Hull v. East Line etc. R. R. Co., (1887), 66 Tex. 619, where, although the passenger's destination was not a regular station, trains had been accustomed to stop there, and his fare to that point was accepted, he was held entitled to recover upon breach of contract, for being carried beyond.

5 Ohio etc. R. R. Co. v. Swarthout, 67 Ind. 567; 33 Am. Rep. 104.

6 Munn v. Georgia R. R. Co. 71 Ga. 710; 51 Am. Rep. 284.

7 Martindale v. Kansas City R. R. Co. 60 Mo. 508.

8 Hemminway v. Chicago M. & St. P. R'y Co. (1SS7) 67 Wis. 668.

§ 870.

§ 871.

§ 872.

§ 873.

Non-transferable tickets.

Admiss bility of the ticket as evidence of the terms of the contract.
Limited tickets.

Of the right to stop-over.

§ 880.

(b). Expulsion to preserve the public peace, morals, and health. § 881. (c). Expulsion for refusal to pay or to present a ticket. § 882. (d). Expulsion for violation of rules and regulations. $833. (e). Expulsion for breach of the contract of carriage. Of tender after refusal to pay-Resumption of journey. Of the place of expulsion-At common law.

§ 884.

§ 885.

§ 886.

Of the place of expulsion-Statutory regulations.

§ 887. Damages for wrongful expulsion of passengers.

§ 888. Damages for unnecessary violence in expulsion of passengers or trespassers.

§ 889. The same subject, continued and illustrated.

830. Elements of damage.

§ 891.

Mental suffering, shame, and humiliation as elements of damage.

§ 832. Of the quantum of damages.

§ 833. Of punitive, exemplary, vindictive, or added damages.

§ 804. The same subject, continued.

835. Punitive damages for expulsion without violence or insult. 836. Mitigation of damages.

869. Of tickets. Their nature as vouchers or receipts.—A railway ticket is a mere voucher or

3

receipt, and is not itself the contract of carriage.1 Accordingly, the terms of the contract between the railway carrier and its passenger may be proven by parol. By such evidence it may be shown that the usual contract of carriage had been varied in a particular instance, or that the acts of an authorized agent of the company amounted to a waiver of the conditions expressed in the ticket. And the company is liable for refusing to carry the purchaser of a ticket who performs or offers to perform in proper time and manner all the stipulations of the contract on his part, notwithstanding any omission or mistake by its agents, or of the passenger acting at the direction of the company's agent. Thus, the company has been held liable for ejecting a passenger whose round-trip ticket was taken up on the first trip, and who in good faith, endeavored to return upon the conductor's check given in lieu thereof.5 Upon the same principle, the carrier is liable for refusing to honor a ticket not properly stamped, through its agent's fault, or not properly signed by a passenger acting under the direction of its agent. For the possession of a ticket is prima facie evidence of ownership, and the failure of a passenger to sign the contract upon a special ticket in the absence of evidence that he was requested to do so, does not invalidate it, as the signature is merely a convenient mode of identifying the passenger. So, also, where the plaintiff had paid the ticket agent the price of a first-class passage, it was held that he might recover for breach of contract in being required to ride in a second-class car, although the ticket which he presented to the conductor proved, through the mistake of the agent, to

6

7