change their seats in a car would be unreasonable,12 and one forbidding passengers to wear the cap or uniform of an opposition line of steamers.13 Further examples are given under the subject of "Tickets," discussed in another section.

THE RIGHT TO COMPENSATION

193. Like the carrier of goods, the common carrier of passengers is entitled to a reasonable compensation, which he may collect in advance; but the carrier cannot make any unjust discriminations in the rates charged.

The general principles as to the compensation of the carrier of passengers are those governing the carrier of goods.1 The compensation is the benefit received by the carrier, and his right to this is the primary right upon which his very life as a carrier must necessarily depend. For the same reasons, here as there, this compensation of the passenger carrier must be a reasonable one.15 The right of the passenger carrier to demand his compensation in advance has already been mentioned.10 A reasonable opportunity to pay his fare must be afforded to the passenger,17 and the latter is not required to tender the exact fare; but, to a reasonable amount, at least, the carrier must be ready to make change.18

In many states, statutes have been passed fixing the compensation of the passenger carrier.19 These statutes are valid, provided they do not attempt to regulate interstate commerce, and provided these rates are not fixed so low as to be confiscatory.2 20

12 Green, C. J., in State v. Overton, 24 N. J. Law, 435, 441, 61 Am. Dec. 671. 18 South Florida R. Co. v. Rhodes, 25 Fla. 40, 5 South. 633, 3 L. R. A. 733, 23 Am. St. Rep. 506.

14 See ante, § 147.

15 Spofford v. Boston & M. R., 128 Mass. 326; McDuffee v. Portland & R. R. R., 52 N. H. 430, 13 Am. Rep. 72; Johnson v. Pensacola & P. R. Co., 16 Fla. 623, 26 Am. Rep. 731.

16 See ante, p. 567.

17 Clark v. Wilmington & W. Ry. Co., 91 N. C. 506, 49 Am. Rep. 647. 18 Barrett v. Market St. Ry. Co., 81 Cal. 296, 22 Pac. 859.

19 For example, see Rev. St. Mo. 1889, § 2673; Comp. St. Neb. 1893, c. 72, art. 9, §§ 1, 2; 1 How. Ann. St. Mich. 1882, § 3323, subd. 9; Const. Va. 1902, 156, subsec. b; Const. Mich. art. 19a, § 1; Act N. J. March 11, 1880 (Gen. St. 1895, p. 2701, § 270); Rev. St. Ohio 1906, § 3374.

20 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Iowa, 94 U. S. 155, 24 L. Ed. 94; Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Minnesota ex rel. Railroad & W. Commission, 134 U. S. 418, 10 Sup. Ct. 462, 702, 33 L. Ed. 970; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v.

Discrimination in rates by the passenger carrier 21 is forbidden, according to the principles discussed under carriers of goods.22 It is also prohibited by statutes in some of the states, 23 and by the second section of the Interstate Commerce Act. As to the amounts involved and its importance from an economic standpoint, discrimination by the passenger carrier is not nearly so serious as in the case of the carrier of goods.

TICKETS

194. Ordinarily a ticket is not the contract between the carrier and the passenger, but is merely evidence of the contract. But when the ticket purports to be the contract between the parties, the passenger accepting and using the ticket, whether he reads it or not, is presumed to have assented to the stipulations contained in the ticket.

Ordinarily, a passenger ticket is not the contract between the carrier and passenger, but serves only as a receipt for the payment of fare, and as a token to indicate to the servants. of the carrier the nature and extent of the transportation to which the passenger is entitled. When, therefore, the ticket is merely such a token or

24

Campbell, 61 Kan. 439, 59 Pac. 1051, 48 L. R. A. 251, 78 Am. St. Rep. 328; Beardsley v. New York, L. E. & W. R. Co., 15 App. Div. 251, 44 N. Y. Supp. 175; Storrs v. Pensacola & A. R. Co., 29 Fla. 617, 11 South. 226; St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Gill, 54 Ark. 101, 15 S. W. 18, 11 L. R. A. 452; Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. Pendleton, 86 Va. 1004, 11 S. E. 1062, affirmed 156 U. S. 667, 15 Sup. Ct. 413, 39 L. Ed. 574; Pingree v. Michigan Cent. Ry. Co., 118 Mich. 314, 76 N. W. 635, 53 L. R. A. 274.

21 Atwater v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 48 N. J. Law, 55, 2 Atl. 803, 57 Am. Rep. 543; Spofford v. Boston & M. R., 128 Mass. 326; Phillips v. Southern Ry. Co., 114 Ga. 284, 40 S. E. 268.

22 Ante, § 148.

23 Civ. Code Ga. 1895, § 2188; Laws N. C. 1891, c. 320, § 4; Acts Iowa 22d Gen. Assem. c. 28; Fla. Const. 1885, art. 16, § 30; Const. Ky. § 196; St. Mass. 1874-75, c. 372, § 138. See, also, Spofford v. Southern Ry. Co., 128 Mass. 326; Chamberlain v. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co., 122 Mich. 477, 81 N. W. 339; State v. Southern Ry. Co., 122 N. C. 1052, 30 S. E. 133, 41 L. R. A. 246; Phillips v. Southern Ry. Co., 114 Ga. 284, 40 S. E. 268. 24 Rawson v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 48 N. Y. 212, 8 Am. Rep. 543; Quimby v. Vanderbilt, 17 N. Y. 306, 72 Am. Dec. 469; Boice v. Hudson River R. Co., 61 Barb. (N. Y.) 611; Elmore v. Sands, 54 N. Y. 512, 13 Am. Rep. 617; Johnson v. Concord R. Corp., 46 N. H. 213, 88 Am. Dec. 199; Gordon v. Manchester & L. R. R., 52 N. H. 596, 13 Am. Rep. 97; State v. Overton, 24 N. J. Law, 435, 61 Am. Dec. 671; Henderson v. Stevenson, L. R. 2 H. L. Sc. (Eng.) 470; Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. R. Co. v. Harris, 115 Tenn. 501, 91 S. W. 211, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 779; Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Copeland, 17 Tex.

check, the passenger is under no obligation to read stipulations on the ticket, nor is he bound by these unless he has in some way expressly assented to them.25 Such a memorandum does not fall strictly within the "parol evidence rule," and other evidence is admissible to show what was the real contract between the carrier and passenger.20

Not infrequently, however, the ticket is made a convenient instrument in which this contract is embodied. When this is the case, and when the ticket brings this home to the passenger, then it is no longer a memorandum or token, but a contract.27 The passenger, by then accepting it and using it, is presumed to have assented to its terms. Even though he does not sign it, or even read it, by the acceptance and use of what purports to be a contract by its form, size, etc., or what is expressly tendered to him as a contract, he becomes bound by its terms.28 Then the analogy of the bill of lading is apt. Here, too, as there, parol evidence

Civ. App. 55, 42 S. W. 239; Norman v. East Carolina R. Co., 161 N. C. 330, 77 S. E. 345; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Fleming, 148 Ky. 473, 146 S. W. 1110.

25 Henderson v. Stevenson, L. R. 2 H. L. Sc. (Eng.) 470; FONSECA v. CUNARD S. S. CO., 153 Mass. 553, 27 N. E. 665, 12 L. R. A. 340, 25 Am. St. Rep. 660, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 353; Indianapolis & C. R. Co. v. Cox, 29 Ind. 360, 95 Am. Dec. 640; Norman v. Southern R. Co., 65 S. C. 517, 44 S. E. 83, 95 Am. St. Rep. 809; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Turner, 100 Tenn. 213, 47 S. W. 223, 43 L. R. A. 140; San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co. v. Newman, 17 Tex. Civ. App. 606, 43 S. W. 915; Hutchins v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 181 N. Y. 186, 73 N. E. 972, 106 Am. St. Rep. 537.

26 Van Buskirk v. Roberts, 31 N. Y. 661; Northern R. Co. v. Page, 22 Barb. (N. Y.) 130; Barker v. Coflin, 31 Barb. 556; Nevins v. Bay Steamboat Co., 4 Bosw. (N. Y.) 225; Rawson v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 48 N. Y. 212, 8 Am. Rep. 543; Elmore v. Sands, 54 N. Y. 512, 13 Am. Rep. 617; Brown v. Eastern R. Co., 11 Cush. (Mass.) 97; Johnson v. Concord R. Corp., 46 N. H. 213, 88 Am. Dec. 199; Crosby v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 69 Me. 418; Burnham v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 63 Me. 298, 18 Am. Rep. 220; Peterson v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 80 Iowa, 92, 45 N. W. 573; Lexington & E. Ry. Co. v. Lyons, 46 S. W. 209, 20 Ky. Law Rep. 516; Dixon v. New England R. Co., 179 Mass. 242, 60 N. E. 581.

27 FONSECA v. CUNARD S. S. CO., 153 Mass. 553, 27 N. E. 665, 12 L. R. A. 340, 25 Am. St. Rep. 660, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 353; Abram v. Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co., 83 Tex. 61, 18 S. W. 321; Rolfs v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 66 Kan. 272, 71 Pac. 526; Perkins v. New York Cent. R. Co., 24 N. Y. 196, 82 Am. Dec. 281; Burke v. Ry. Co., 5 C. P. Div. (Eng.) 1.

28 Watson v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 104 Tenn. 194, 56 S. W. 1024, 49 L. R. A. 454; Quimby v. Boston & M. R. Co., 150 Mass. 365, 23 N. E. 205, 5 L. R. A. 846; St. Clair v. Kansas City, M. & B. R. Co., 77 Miss. 789, 28 South. 957; Boling v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co., 189 Mo. 219, 88 S. W. 35; Rogers v. Atlantic City R. Co., 57 N. J. Law, 703, 34 Atl. 11; Sanden v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 43 Mont. 209, 115 Pac. 408, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 711; FONSECA v. CUNARD S. S. CO., 153 Mass. 553, 27 N. E. 665, 12 L. R. A. 340, 25 Am. St. Rep. 660, Dobie Cas Bailments and Carriers, 353.

DOB.BAILM.-40

cannot vary or alter the provisions of the contract.29 Of course, though, to be valid these provisions must contravene no rule of public policy (e. g., relieving the carrier of liability for negligence), and they must be supported by a valuable consideration, which is usually a reduced rate. These contracts, like those of the carrier of goods, are construed most strongly against the carrier.32

30

Legal Incidents of Tickets

The almost universal use of tickets in modern passenger transportation justifies some brief reference to their more usual legal incidents. In the absence of provisions to the contrary, tickets are assignable,33 and can be used at any time within the period prescribed for such contracts by the statute of limitations. Contract stipulations are binding, however, which provide that tickets shall be nontransferable, and that the ticket must be used within a cer

34

29 Simis v. New York L. E. & W. R. Co., 1 Misc. Rep. 179, 20 N. Y. Supp. 639; Eastman v. Maine Cent. R. R., 70 N. H. 240, 46 Atl. 54; FONSECA v. CUNARD S. S. CO., 153 Mass. 553, 27 N. E. 665, 12 L. R. A. 340, 25 Am. St. Rep. 660, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 353; Dietrich v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 71 Pa. 432, 10 Am. Rep. 711; Rolfs v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 66 Kan. 272, 71 Pac. 526.

30 Ante, § 190.

81 Spiess v. Erie R. Co., 71 N. J. Law, 90, 58 Atl. 116; Watson v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 104 Tenn. 194, 56 S. W. 1024, 49 L. R. A. 454; Boling v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co., 189 Mo. 219, 88 S. W. 35; Southern R. Co. v. De Saussare, 116 Ga. 53, 42 S. E. 479.

32 Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Kinsley, 27 Ind. App. 135, 60 N. E. 169, 87 Am. St. Rep. 245; Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. v. Clarke, 97 Ga. 706, 25 S. E. 368; Ann Arbor R. Co. v. Amos, 85 Ohio St. 300, 97 N. E. 978, 43 L. R. A. (N. S.) 587; Norman v. East Carolina R. Co., 161 N. C. 330, 77 S. E. 345.

33 International & G. N. R. Co. v. Ing, 29 Tex. Civ. App. 398, 68 S. W. 722; CARSTEN v. NORTHERN PAC. R. CO., 44 Minn. 454, 47 N. W. 49, 9 L. R. A. 688, 20 Am. St. Rep. 589, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 381; The Willamette Valley (D. C.) 71 Fed. 712; Sleeper v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 100 Pa. 259, 45 Am. Rep. 380; Spencer v. Lovejoy, 96 Ga. 658, 23 S. E. 836, 51 Am. St. Rep. 152.

34 Cassiano v. Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 82 S. W. 806; Boyd v. Spencer, 103 Ga. 828, 30 S. E. 841, 68 Am. St. Rep. 146.

35 Schubach v. McDonald, 179 Mo. 163, 78 S. W. 1020, 65 L. R. A. 136, 101 Am. St. Rep. 452; Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v. Frank (C. C.) 110 Fed. 689; Davis v. South Carolina & G. R. Co., 107 Ga. 420, 33 S. E. 437; Rahilly v. St. Paul & D. R. Co., 66 Minn. 153, 68 N. W. 853; WAY v. CHICAGO, R. I. & P. R. CO., 64 Iowa, 48, 19 N. W. 828, 52 Am. Rep. 431, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 300; Post v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 14 Neb. 110, 15 N. W. 225, 45 Am. Rep. 100; Walker v. Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co., 15 Mo. App. 333; Drummond v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 7 Utah, 118, 25 Pac. 733. And see, as to forfeiture of the ticket, Freidenhich v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 53 Md. 201; Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Russ, 6 C. C. A. 597, 57 Fed.

37

86

tain time. In this latter case, unless the stipulation clearly specifies the completion of the journey, it is sufficient if the journey be commenced before midnight of the day on which the ticket expires. Other valid stipulations are that coupons are not good if detached, that a ticket is good only on certain trains, and that a return trip coupon will not be honored unless it is stamped and validated.40

38

89

Regulations of the carrier have been upheld requiring that tickets be exhibited on a reasonable demand by the conductor or similar

822; Kirby v. Union Pac. R. Co., 51 Colo. 509, 119 Pac. 1042, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 461.

36 Hill v. Syracuse, B. & N. Y. R. Co., 63 N. Y. 101; Barker v. Coflin, 31 Barb. (N. Y.) 556; Boice v. Hudson River R. Co., 61 Barb. (N. Y.) 611; Wentz v. Erie R. Co., 3 Hun (N. Y.) 241; Boston & L. R. Co. v. Proctor, 1 Allen (Mass.) 267, 79 Am. Dec. 729; State v. Campbell, 32 N. J. Law, 309; Pennington v. Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co., 62 Md. 95; Lewis v. Western & A. R. Co., 93 Ga. 225, 18 S. E. 650; Johnson v. Concord R. Corp., 46 N. H. 213, 88 Am. Dec. 199; Rawitzky v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 40 La. Ann. 47, 3 South. 387; Hanlon v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 109 Iowa, 136, 80 N. W. 223; Elliott v. Southern Pac. Co., 145 Cal. 441, 79 Pac. 420, 68 L. R. A. 393; Burn v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 153 Ill. App. 319.

37 Auerback v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 89 N. Y. 281, 42 Am. Rep. 290; Lundy v. Central Pac. R. Co., 66 Cal. 191, 4 Pac. 1193, 56 Am. Rep. 100; Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Wright, 10 Tex. Civ. App. 179, 30 S. W. 294; Evans v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co., 11 Mo. App. 463. And see Georgia Southern R. Co. v. Bigelow, 68 Ga. 219; Pennsylvania Co. v. Hine, 41 Ohio St. 276; Morningstar v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 135 Ala. 251, 33 South. 156.

38 Boston & M. R. R. v. Chipman, 146 Mass. 107, 14 N. E. 940, 4 Am. St. Rep. 293; Norfolk, N. & W. R. Co. v. Wysor, 82 Va. 250; Louisville, N. & G. S. R. Co. v. Harris, 9 Lea (Tenn.) 180, 42 Am. Rep. 668; Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Ford, 53 Tex. 364. But see, where the coupons are detached by

mistake, Wightman v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 73 Wis. 169, 40 N. W. 689, 2 L. R. A. 185, 9 Am. St. Rep. 778. And compare Chicago, St. L. & P. R. Co. v. Holdridge, 118 Ind. 281, 20 N. E. 837; Rouser v. North Park St. Ry. Co., 97 Mich. 565, 56 N. W. 937; Thompson v. Truesdale, 61 Minn. 129, 63 N. W. 259, 52 Am. St. Rep. 579.

39 Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. v. Rosenzweig, 113 Pa. 519, 6 Atl. 545; Thorp v. Concord R. Co., 61 Vt. 378, 17 Atl. 791; MacRae v. Wilmington & W. R. Co., 88 N. C. 526, 43 Am. Rep. 745; New York & N. E. R. Co. v. Feeley, 163 Mass. 205, 40 N. E. 20.

40 Mosher v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co., 127 U. S. 390, 8 Sup. Ct. 1324, 32 L. Ed. 249; BOYLAN v. HOT SPRINGS R. CO., 132 U. S. 146, 10 Sup. Ct. 50, 33 L. Ed. 290, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 355; Edwards v. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co., 81 Mich. 364, 45 N. W. 827, 21 Am. St. Rep. 527; Bowers v. Pittsburgh, Ft. W. & C. R. R., 158 Pa. 302, 27 Atl. 893; Central Trust Co. v. East Tennessee, V. & G. Ry. Co. (C. C.) 65 Fed. 332; Central of Georgia R. Co. v. Cannon, 106 Ga. 828, 32 S. E. 874; Dangerfield v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 62 Kan. 85, 61 Pac. 405; Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Bagley, 173 Ala. 611, 55 South. 894.