service, and the vital relation of such service to the general interest of the public, afford such ample warrant for this rule that the courts have not been slow in its enforcement. The analogies of the innkeeper and common carrier of goods are so admirably applicable here that the general right of a proper person suitably applying to sue a common carrier refusing to accept and transport him requires no extended discussion. Who May be Refused The right of a person to be accepted by the common carrier, as in the case of the innkeeper, is subject to the qualification that he must be a proper person. Again, this right of the carrier to exclude from his vehicles those manifestly unfit is essentially a derivative right growing out of the carrier's duty to secure the comfort and safety of the other passengers. In this connection substantially the same considerations apply as in the case of the innkeeper." Accordingly, it is not only the right, but the duty, of the carrier to exclude those who may be reasonably expected to injure or unduly annoy the passengers of the carrier. 10 Thus the carrier is not bound to carry one fleeing from justice,. or one going upon the vehicle to assault a passenger,11 to commit larceny or robbery, to interfere with the proper regulations of the company, or to commit any crime. Nor is a carrier bound to carry persons who are drunk 12 and disorderly, or infected with con • See ante, § 94. 13 7 See ante, § 109. 8 Freedon v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 24 App. Div. 306, 48 N. Y. Supp. 584; Story v. Norfolk & S. R. Co., 133 N. C. 59, 45 S. E. 349; Stevenson v. West Seattle Land & Imp. Co., 22 Wash. 84, 60 Pac. 51; Meyer v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co., 54 Fed. 116, 4 C. C. A. 221; Daniel v. North Jersey St. Ry. Co., 64 N. J. Law, 603, 46 Atl. 625. See ante, §§ 94, 95. 10 O'Neill v. Lynn & B. R. Co., 155 Mass. 371, 29 N. E. 630; Freedon v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 24 App. Div. 306, 48 N. Y. Supp. 584; Story v. Norfolk & S. R. Co., 133 N. C. 59, 45 S. E. 349. See cases cited in succeeding notes. The carrier may decline to receive one who refuses to comply with its reasonable regulations. Renaud v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 210 Mass. 553, 97 N. E. 98, 38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 689; Daniel v. North Jersey St. Ry. Co., 64 N. J. Law, 603, 46 Atl. 625. 11 BENNETT v. DUTTON, 10 N. H. 481, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 322. 12 Pittsburgh, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Vandyne, 57 Ind. 576, 26 Am. Rep. 68; Wills v. Lynn & B. R. Co., 129 Mass. 351; Story v. Norfolk & S. R. Co., 133 13 VINTON v. MIDDLESEX R. CO., 11 Allen (Mass.) 304, 87 Am. Dec. 714, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 316; Pittsburg & C. R. Co. v. Pillow, 76 Pa. 510, 18 Am. Rep. 424; PITTSBURGH, F. W. & C. RY. CO. v. HINDS, 53 Pa. 512, 91 Am. Dec. 224, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 334; Pittsburgh, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Vandyne, 57 Ind. 576, 26 Am. Rep. 68; Flint v. Norwich & N. Y. Transp. Co., 34 Conn. 554, Fed. Cas. No. 4,873. tagious diseases.14 The carrier is not bound to accept persons who intend to use his vehicle for an unlawful or illegitimate purpose, such as gambling.15 And a passenger may be refused if his arrival at the place of destination would excite violence and disorder.1o So, too, the carrier may exclude unaccompanied blind persons when they are not qualified to travel alone," and insane persons under the same circumstances.18 Nor is there any obligation to carry one whose ostensible business on the carrier's conveyance is to injure its business by soliciting for a rival line.19 A woman, however, cannot be refused merely because of previous unchastity, when there is nothing to indicate that she will misbehave while on the carrier's vehicle.20 Using Vehicle of Carrier for Business The duty of the carrier in this regard is limited to furnishing transportation; it owes no duty to furnish to any person the opportunity of carrying on his business on its conveyances.21 A carrier of passengers is not bound to furnish traveling conveniences for those who wish to engage on their vehicles in the business of selling books, papers, or articles of food, or in the business of receiving and distributing parcels or baggage,22 nor even to permit N. C. 59, 45 S. E. 349; Freedon v. New York Cent. & H. R. Co., 24 App. Div. 306, 48 N. Y. Supp. 584; Putnam v. Broadway & S. A. R. Co., 55 N. Y. 108, 14 Am. Rep. 190; Pittsburg & C. R. Co. v. Pillow, 76 Pa. 510, 18 Am. Rep. 424. But not slight intoxication. Pittsburgh, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Vandyne, 57 Ind. 576, 26 Am. Rep. 68; Putnam v. Broadway & S. A. R. Co., 55 N. Y. 108, 114, 14 Am. Rep. 190; Milliman v. New York Cent. & H. R. Co., 66 N. Y. 642. 14 Walsh v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 42 Wis. 23, 24 Am. Rep. 376. 17 Zackery v. Mobile & O. R. Co., 75 Miss. 751, 23 South. 435, 41 L. R. A. 385, 65 Am. St. Rep. 617; Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. Derry, 47 Colo. 584, 108 Pac. 172, 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 761; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Allen, 121 Ky. 138, 89 S. W. 150, 28 Ky. Law Rep. 108, 11 Ann. Cas. 970. 18 Meyer v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co., 54 Fed. 116, 4 C. C. A. 221; Owens v. Macon & B. R. Co., 119 Ga. 230, 46 S. E. 87, 63 L. R. A. 946; Louisville, & N. R. Co. v. Brewer, 147 Ky. 166, 143 S. W. 1014, 39 L. R. A. (N. S.) 647, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 151. 19 Jencks v. Coleman, 2 Sumn. 221, Fed. Cas. No. 7,258. 20 Brown v. Memphis & C. R. Co. (C. C.) 7 Fed. 51. In Reasor v. Paducah & Illinois Ferry Co., 152 Ky. 220, 153 S. W. 222, 43 L. R. A. (N. S.) 820, it was held that the carrier could not refuse a sober and orderly passenger merely because he had been disorderly on a former trip. 21 See cases cited in the two succeeding notes. 22 Jencks v. Coleman, 2 Sumn. 221, Fed. Cas. No. 7,258; Com. v. Power, 7 Metc. (Mass.) 596, 41 Am. Dec. 465; New Jersey Steam Nav. Co. v. Merchants' Bank, 6 How. 344, 12 L. Ed. 465; The D. R. Martin, 11 Blatchf. 233, Fed. the transaction of this business in its vehicles, when this interferes. with its own interests. If a profit may arise from such business, the benefit of it belongs to the carrier, which is entitled to the exclusive use of its vehicles for such purposes.23 The sale or leasing of these rights to individuals, and the exclusion of others besides the privileged individuals therefrom, come under the head of reasonable regulations, which the courts recognize and enforce. The right of transportation, which belongs to all who desire it, does not carry with it a right of carrying on a traffic or of conducting a business. One violating such a rule of the carrier may be ejected from the carrier's vehicle.24 Insufficient Accommodations 25 The carrier of passengers is not bound to receive any one for transportation after his accommodations are exhausted and he has no more room.2 But, if the carrier sells tickets to more persons than he can carry, he is liable for breach of his contract.20 The carrier, however, must provide facilities for the traffic which he reasonably had a right to expect,27 and there are statutes to this effect in some of the states.28 There is no such duty, however, when the traffic is unforeseen and somewhat unprecedented. And even if the traffic, though unusually large, is foreseen, and particularly if lasting but for a short time, the carrier is not liable if it would under the circumstances be unreasonable to require the carrier to provide facilities adequate for handling the traffic.30 29 The carrier, too, must attend to the quality of its vehicles and must furnish conveyances reasonably adapted to the comfort and Cas. No. 1,030; Barney v. Oyster Bay & H. Steamboat Co., 67 N. Y. 301, 23 Am. Rep. 115; Smallman v. Whitter, 87 Ill. 545, 29 Am. Rep. 76. 23 See cases cited in preceding note. 24 The D. R. Martin, 11 Blatchf. 233, Fed. Cas. No. 1,030. 25 Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Carroll, 5 Ill. App. 201; Evansville & C. R. Co. v. Duncan, 28 Ind. 441, 92 Am. Dec. 322. The underlying idea here is that of the carrier's undertaking to devote merely those facilities that he has to the service. See 1 Wyman, Public Service Corporations, § 791. 26 The Pacific, 1 Blatchf. 569, Fed. Cas. No. 10,643; Hawcroft v. Railway Co., 8 Eng. Law & Eq. 362; Williams v. International & G. N. R. Co., 28 Tex. Civ. App. 503, 67 S. W. 1085. 27 Lafayette & I. R. Co. v. Sims, 27 Ind. 59. See 1 Wyman, Public Service Corporations, § 797. See, also, Harmon v. Flintham, 196 Fed. 635, 116 C. C. A. 309. 28 See 1 Fetter, Passenger Carriers, § 249. 29 Louisville, N. O. & T. Ry. Co. v. Patterson, 69 Miss. 421, 13 South. 697, 22 L. R. A. 259; Gordon v. Manchester & L. R. R., 52 N. H. 596, 13 Am. Rep. 97; 2 Hutch. Carr. § 1114. 30 Pursell v. Richmond & D. R. Co., 108 N. C. 414, 12 S. E. 954, 956, 12 L. R. A. 113; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Dumser, 161 Ill. 190, 43 N. E. 698. 31 convenience of the passenger, according to the method of transportation which the carrier adopts. Thus, in winter, the carrier's vehicles should be suitably heated. The passenger, too, is entitled to a seat.33 Unless a seat is given to the passenger, he may either travel and pay fare without the seat, or he may refuse to pay without a seat, in which case he must, at the first reasonable chance, leave the carrier's conveyance. He can then sue the carrier. He cannot, however, insist on traveling free merely because he has no seat.80 When, as is usually the case, the carrier has provided separate and sufficient trains or conveyances for the transportation of goods and passengers, the passenger cannot ordinarily insist on being carried on freight trains or vehicles. If the carrier, though, has held itself out as carrying passengers on freight trains, then it may render itself liable by failing to live up to this holding out, in refusing to accept one suitably applying for transportation on such trains.38 These principles are also true as to special trains, or trains run owing to some emergency.*° 39 Carriers are bound to carry only those who can and will pay for 81 Hunter v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 72 S. C. 336, 51 S. E. 860, 110 Am. St. Rep. 605; Wood v. Georgia Railroad & Banking Co., 84 Ga. 363, 10 S. E. 967. 32 Ft. Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. v. Hyatt, 12 Tex. Civ. App. 435, 34 S. W. 677; Hastings v. Northern Pac. R. Co. (C. C.) 53 Fed. 224; Taylor v. Wabash R. Co. (Mo.) 38 S. W. 304, 42 L. R. A. 110. 33 Camden & A. R. Co. v. Hoosey, 99 Pa. 492, 44 Am. Rep. 120; Louisville N. O. & T. Ry. Co. v. Patterson, 69 Miss. 421, 13 South. 697, 22 L. R. A. 259; Memphis & C. R. Co. v. Benson, 85 Tenn. 627, 4 S. W. 5, 4 Am. St. Rep. 776; New York, L. E. & W. R. Co. v. Burns, 51 N. J. Law, 340, 17 Atl. 630. 34 Hardenbergh v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 39 Minn. 3, 38 N. W. 625, 12 Am. St. Rep. 610; Memphis & C. R. Co. v. Benson, 85 Tenn. 627, 4 S. W. 5, 4 Am. St. Rep. 776; Davis v. Kansas City, St. J. & C. B. R. Co., 53 Mo. 317, 14 Am. Rep. 457; St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Leigh, 45 Ark. 368, 55 Am. Rep. 558. Cf. Louisville, N. O. & T. R. Co. v. Patterson, 69 Miss. 421, 13 South. 697, 22 L. R. A. 259. 35 Memphis & C. R. Co. v. Benson, 85 Tenn. 627, 4 S. W. 5, 4 Am. St. Rep. 776; Hardenbergh v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 39 Minn. 3, 38 N. W. 625, 12 Am. St. Rep. 610. 36 Davis v. Kansas City, St. J. & C. B. R. Co., 53 Mo. 317, 14 Am. Rep. 457; St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. v. Leigh, 45 Ark. 368, 55 Am. Rep. 558. 37 Cleveland, C., C., & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Best, 169 Ill. 301, 48 N. E. 684; Roberts v. Smith, 5 Ariz. 368, 52 Pac. 1120; Gardner v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co., 117 Mo. App. 138, 93 S. W. 917. 38 Reed v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 76 Minn. 163, 78 N. W. 974; McCook v. Northrup, 65 Ark. 225, 45 S. W. 547; Thomas v. Chicago & G. T. Ry. Co., 72 Mich. 355, 40 N. W. 463. 39 Southwestern R. R. Co. v. Singleton, 66 Ga. 252. 40 Du Bose v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 121 Ga. 308, 48 S. E. 913. 43 41 their transportation. This payment may be demanded in advance. as a condition precedent to accepting a person as a passenger." Again, the analogy of the innkeeper and common carrier of goods is clear, and this right is again a corollary of the carrier's duty to accept all proper persons who apply. This method of safeguarding the payment of fare is particularly important here, since, when the passenger has no baggage, there is nothing to which the carrier's lien for his fare may attach.** Waiver of Right to Refuse A carrier should, in the first place, refuse to sell tickets to per sons whom it has the right to refuse to carry, when it wishes to exercise that right, and should exclude them if they attempt to enter the vehicle without tickets. If a ticket has been inadvertently sold to such person, the carrier may still rescind the contract for transportation, but it should then tender a return of the money paid for the ticket. The ticket holder, however, may, under any circumstances, recover the amount he paid for the ticket. If the carrier, at the time, knew facts which would justify a refusal to carry, his selling of a ticket to such a person is a waiver of the right to refuse him, and this is also true of any other acceptance of the passenger by the carrier. 46 DUTY TO FURNISH EQUAL ACCOMMODATIONS TO PASSENGERS 176. The common carrier of passengers is bound, not only to transport all proper persons who apply, but also, in general, to furnish accommodations that are equal. The carrier, however, may by regulations make reasonable dis criminations in the accommodations furnished, based on-(a) Sex, kind of ticket, or length of ticket. (b) Race or color. 41 Day v. Owen, 5 Mich. 520, 72 Am. Dec. 62; Tarbell v. Central Pac. R. Co., 34 Cal. 616; Nashville & C. R. Co. v. Messino, 1 Sneed (Tenn.) 220; Ker v. Mountain, 1 Esp. (Eng.) 27. A strict tender of fare is not necessary. Day v. Owen, supra; Nashville & C. R. Co. v. Messino, supra; Tarbell v. Central Pac. R. Co., supra; Pickford v. Railway Co., 8 Mees. & W. (Eng.) 372. 42 See ante, §§ 94, 99. 48 See ante, §§ 113, 147. 44 See Ramsden v. Boston & A. R. Co., 104 Mass. 117, 6 Am. Rep. 200; Roberts v. Koehler (C. C.) 30 Fed. 94. 45 Thurston v. Union Pac. R. Co., 4 Dill. 321, Fed. Cas. No. 14,019. 46 Hannibal & St. J. R. Co. v. Swift, 12 Wall. 262, 20 L. Ed. 423; Pearson v. Duane, 4 Wall. 605, 18 L. Ed. 447; Tarbell v. Central Pac. R. Co., 34 Cal. |