43

official," and that they be surrendered; 2 but, in this last case, the passenger can validly insist that some token or receipt be given to him as evidence that he has paid his fare. When a ticket is lost or mislaid, this is therefore the misfortune of the passenger, and if, after a reasonable time, the ticket cannot be found, the passenger must pay his fare under penalty of ejection." A rule of the carrier is also valid providing that no one will be admitted to his conveyance save those who have already purchased tickets,** or one exacting a higher fare on the train from those who have no tickets, if in both cases the carrier has given the passenger a reasonable opportunity to purchase a ticket before entering the conveyance of the carrier.47

46

41 Rogers v. Atlantic City R. Co., 57 N. J. Law, 703, 34 Atl. 11; White v. Grand Rapids & I. R. Co., 107 Mich. 681, 65 N. W. 521.

42 Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Blocher, 27 Md. 277; White v. Evansville & T. H. R. Co., 133 Ind. 480, 33 N. E. 273; Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Dorsey, 106 Ga. 826, 32 S. E. 873; Rogers v. Atlantic City R. Co., 57 N. J. Law, 703, 34 Atl. 11; Van Dusan v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co. of Canada, 97 Mich. 439, 56 N. W. 848, 37 Am. St. Rep. 354.

43 State v. Thompson, 20 N. H. 250; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Whittemore, 43 Ill. 420, 92 Am. Dec. 138. See, also, East Tennessee, V. & G. Ry. Co. v. King, 88 Ga. 443, 14 S. E. 708, as to ejection when passenger has surrendered ticket without a receipt.

44 Ripley v. New Jersey R. & Transp. Co., 31 N. J. Law, 388; Harp v. Southern R. Co., 119 Ga. 927, 47 S. E. 206, 100 Am. St. Rep. 212; Louisville, N. & G. S. R. Co. v. Fleming, 14 Lea (Tenn.) 128; Downs v. New York & N. H. R. Co., 36 Conn. 287, 4 Am. Rep. 77; Standish v. Narragansett S. S. Co., 111 Mass. 512, 15 Am. Rep. 66; Cresson v. Philadelphia & R. R. Co., 11 Phila. (Pa.) 597; Crawford v. Cincinnati, H. & D. R. Co., 26 Ohio St. 580; Atwater v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 48 N. J. Law, 55, 2 Atl. 803, 57 Am. Rep. 543; International & G. N. R. Co. v. Wilkes, 68 Tex. 617, 5 S. W. 491, 2 Am. St. Rep. 515; Cooper v. Railway Co., 4 Exch. Div. (Eng.) 88.

45 Mills v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas, 94 Tex. 242, 59 S. W. 874, 55 L. R. A. 497; McCook v. Northrup, 65 Ark. 225, 45 S. W. 547; Illinois Cent. Ry. Co. v. Louthan, 80 Ill. App. 579; Poole v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 16 Or. 261, 19 Pac. 107, 8 Am. St. Rep. 289; Dickerman v. St. Paul Union Depot Co., 44 Minn. 433, 46 N. W. 907.

46 Swan v. Manchester & L. R. Co., 132 Mass. 116, 42 Am. Rep. 432; St. Louis, A. & T. H. R. Co. v. South, 43 Ill. 176, 92 Am. Dec. 103; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Johnson, 67 Ill. 312; Indianapolis, P. & C. Ry. Co. v. Rinard, 46 Ind. 293; Du Laurans v. First Division of St. Paul & P. R. Co., 15 Minn. 49 (Gil. 29), 2 Am. Rep. 102; Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Beckett, 11 Ind. App. 547, 39 N. E. 429; Snellbaker v. Paducah, T. & A. R. Co., 94 Ky. 597, 23 S. W. 509; Coyle v. Southern Ry. Co., 112 Ga. 121, 37 S. E. 163; FORSEE v. ALABAMA G. S. R. CO., 63 Miss. 66, 56 Am. Rep. 801, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 351.

47 St. Louis, A. & T. H. R. Co. v. South, 43 Ill. 176, 92 Am. Dec. 103; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Flagg, 43 Ill. 364, 92 Am. Dec. 133; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Johnson, 67 Ill. 312; Jeffersonville R. Co. v. Rogers, 28 Ind. 1, 92 Am. Dec. 276; Indianapolis, P. & C. Ry. Co. v. Rinard, 46 Ind. 293; Du Laurans

When the passenger has begun his journey, he has no right, in the absence of a stipulation to that effect, to stop over at intermediate points, and then to insist on being carried to his destination on the same ticket.48 But a coupon ticket over several roads entitles the passenger to stop at the end of each carrier's line, in the absence of any express limitation. The passenger cannot use a ticket to travel between the points named, but in an opposite direction to that specified.50

49

WRONG TICKET GIVEN TO PASSENGER BY THE CARRIER

195. The ticket, as between the passenger and conductor, is conclusive as to the former's right to travel. When, by the fault of the carrier's agent, an improper ticket is given to the passenger, the latter may recover damages from the carrier, based on the wrong of such agent. There is, however, grave conflict on these points among the cases.

v. First Division of St. Paul & P. R. Co., 15 Minn. 49 (Gil. 29), 2 Am. Rep. 102; Swan v. Manchester & L. R. Co., 132 Mass. 116, 42 Am. Rep. 432; Everett v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 69 Iowa, 15, 28 N. W. 410, 58 Am. Rep. 207; Cross v. Kansas City, Ft. S. & M. Ry. Co., 56 Mo. App. 664; FORSEE v. ALABAMA G. S. R. CO., 63 Miss. 66, 56 Am. Rep. 801, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 351; Phillips v. Southern Ry. Co., 114 Ga. 284, 40 S. E. 268; Rivers v. Kansas City & M. B. R. Co., 86 Miss. 571, 38 South. 508; Phettiplace v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 84 Wis. 412, 54 N. W. 1092, 20 L. R. A. 483.

48 Hamilton v. New York Cent. R. Co., 51 N. Y. 100; Beebe v. Ayres, 28 Barb. (N. Y.) 275; Terry v. Flushing, N. S. & C. R. Co., 13 Hun (N. Y.) 359; Cheney v. Boston & M. R. Co., 11 Metc. (Mass.) 121, 45 Am. Dec. 190; Oil Creek & A. R. Ry. Co. v. Clark, 72 Pa. 231; Dietrich v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 71 Pa. 432, 10 Am. Rep. 711; Vankirk v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 76 Pa. 66, 18 Am. Rep. 404; Wyman v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 34 Minn. 210, 25 N. W. 349; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Parry, 55 N. J. Law, 551, 27 Atl. 914, 22 L. R. A. 251, 39 Am. St. Rep. 654; Cleveland, C. & C. R. Co. v. Bartram, 11 Ohio St. 457; Drew v. Central Pac. R. Co., 51 Cal. 425; Breen v. Texas & P. R. Co., 50 Tex. 43; Johnson v. Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co., 63 Md. 106; Roberts v. Koehler (C. C.) 30 Fed. 94; Ashton v. Railway Co., [1904] 2 K. B. (Eng.) 313, 73 L. J. K. B. 701; International & G. N. R. Co. v. Best, 93 Tex. 344, 55 S. W. 315. Contra, by statute, Carpenter v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 72 Me. 388, 39 Am. Rep. 340; Robinson v. Southern Pac. Co., 105 Cal. 526, 541, 38 Pac. 94, 108, 722, 28 L. R. A. 773.

49 Brooke v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 15 Mich. 332; Little Rock & F. S. R. Co. v. Dean, 43 Ark. 529, 51 Am. Rep. 584; Spencer v. Lovejoy, 96 Ga. 657, 23 S. E. 836, 51 Am. St. Rep. 152; Auerbach v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 89 N. Y. 281, 42 Am. Rep. 290; Nichols v. Southern Pac. Co., 23 Or. 123, 31 Pac. 296, 18 L. R. A. 55, 37 Am. St. Rep. 664.

50 Godfrey v. Ohio & M. R. Co., 116 Ind. 30, 18 N. E. 61; Pease v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 101 N. Y. 367, 5 N. E. 37, 54 Am. Rep. 699. For a qualifica

There are few questions in the law which have given rise to more real conflict on almost every point involved than that of the liability of the carrier for the ejection of a passenger traveling on a wrong ticket furnished to him through the fault of the carrier's agent. In addition, great confusion has arisen through failure to differentiate even the factors that enter into the problem. The typical case is when a ticket agent negligently fails to give the passenger the proper ticket, for which the passenger has asked and paid, and the passenger, presenting this ticket and declining to pay again, is ejected from the train by the conductor.51

Though there are many cases to the contrary,52 both authority and reason establish the rule that, as between the passenger and conductor, the ticket is conclusive as to the former's right to travel. This rule is demanded by the exigencies of the business;

53

tion of this principle, see Pennsylvania Co. v. Bray, 125 Ind. 229, 25 N. E. 439.

51 For discussions of this perplexing problem, see 2 Hutch. Carr. §§ 10611066; 1 Fetter on Passenger Carriers, §§ 317-326. See, also, note 9 Ann. Cas. 889.

52 St. Louis, A. & T. Ry. Co. v. Mackie, 71 Tex. 491, 9 S. W. 451, 1 L. R. A. 667, 10 Am. St. Rep. 766; Watkins v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 21 D. C. 1; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Harper, 83 Miss. 560, 35 South. 764, 64 L. R. A. 283, 102 Am. St. Rep. 469; EVANSVILLE & T. H. R. CO. v. CATES, 14 Ind. App. 172, 41 N. E. 712, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 360; Hufford v. Grand Rapids & I. R. Co., 64 Mich. 631, 31 N. W. 544, 8 Am. St. Rep. 859; Indianapolis St. R. Co. v. Wilson, 161 Ind. 153, 66 N. E. 950, 67 N. E. 993, 100 Am. St. Rep. 261 (this case, in the principal and dissenting opinions, presents both sides of this question, with elaborate citation and discussion of the cases).

53 FREDERICK v. MARQUETTE, H. & O. R. CO., 37 Mich. 342, 26 Am. Rep. 531, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 357; Bradshaw v. South Boston R. Co., 135 Mass. 407, 46 Am. Rep. 481; Mosher v. St. Louis & I. M. & T. R. Co. (C. C.) 23 Fed. 326; Hall v. Memphis & C. R. Co. (C. C.) 15 Fed. 57; Petrie v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 42 N. J. Law, 449; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Gants, 38 Kan. 608, 17 Pac. 54, 5 Am. St. Rep. 780; McKay v. Ohio River Ry. Co., 34 W. Va. 65, 11 S. E. 737, 9 L. R. A. 132, 26 Am. St. Rep. 913; Rose v. Wilmington & W. R. Co., 106 N. C. 168, 11 S. E. 526; Townsend v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 56 N. Y. 295, 15 Am. Rep. 419; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Griffin, 68 Ill. 499; McClure v. Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co., 34 Md. 532, 6 Am. Rep. 345; Shelton v. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co., 29 Ohio St. 214; Yorton v. Milwaukee, L. S. & W. Ry. Co., 54 Wis. 234, 11 N. W. 482, 41 Am. Rep. 23; Brown v. Rapid R. Co., 134 Mich. 591, 96 N. W. 925; Morse v. Southern Ry. Co., 102 Ga. 308, 29 S. E. 865; Peabody v. Oregon Ry. & Nav. Co., 21 Or. 121, 26 Pac. 1053, 12 L. R. A. 823; Kansas City, M. & B. R. Co. v. Foster, 134 Ala. 244, 32 South. 773, 92 Am. St. Rep. 25; Kleven v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 70 Minn. 79, 72 N. W. 828; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Jackson, 117 Ky. 900, 79 S. W. 1187; Rolfs v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 66 Kan. 272, 71 Pac. 526; Maxson v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 49 Misc. Rep. 502, 97 N. Y. Supp. 962; Pennsylvania Co. v. Lenhart, 120 Fed. 61, 56 C. C. A. 467; Wilson v. West Jersey & S. R. Co.,

for if the conductor were compelled to rely on the passenger's statement as to the ticket he ought to have, rather than on the ticket he actually has, this would seriously cripple the efficiency of passenger service, as well as expose the carrier to countless frauds. The conductor, then, merely performs his duty in ejecting the passenger whose ticket does not entitle him to travel on the train in question. The conductor's act, of itself, is therefore not tortious.54

55

This, however, does not mean that the ejected passenger is without remedy. He recovers damages against the carrier for the ejection, but his right of action is based, not on the act of the conductor in performing his duty, but on the wrongful act of the ticket agent in failing to supply the passenger with the proper ticket, for which he both asked and paid. The passenger thereby became entitled to a ticket on which he could make the journey in question. The ticket actually furnished him did not give that right, and thus the ticket agent failed in his duty. Again, the more rigid and scrupulous the conductor is in ejecting passengers whose tickets are not proper, the keener is the wrong of the ticket agent and the clearer the causal connection between his wrong and the resulting ejection.

Similar considerations apply when, by the act of one conductor, the passenger is deprived of a proper ticket for presentation to a second conductor, by whom the passenger is ejected. In such case the actionable wrong is that of the first conductor." This

83 N. J. Law, 755, 85 Atl. 347, 43 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1148; Loy v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 68 Wash. 33, 122 Pac. 372.

54 See cases cited in preceding note. See particularly Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Jackson, 117 Ky. 900, 79 S. W. 1187.

55 Murdock v. Boston & A. R. Co., 137 Mass. 293, 50 Am. Rep. 307; Muckle v. Rochester Ry. Co., 79 Hun, 32, 29 N. Y. Supp. 732; Townsend v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 56 N. Y. 295, 15 Am. Rep. 419; Elliott v. New York C: & H. R. R. Co., 53 Hun, 78, 6 N. Y. Supp. 363; FREDERICK v. MARQUETTE, H. & O. R. CO., 37 Mich. 342, 26 Am. Rep. 531, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 357; Lake Erie & W. R. Co. v. Fix, 88 Ind. 381, 45 Am. Rep. 464; Pennsylvania Co. v. Bray, 125 Ind. 229, 25 N. E. 439; Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Berryman, 11 Ind. App. 640, 36 N. E. 728; Appleby v. St. Paul City R. Co., 54 Minn. 169, 55 N. W. 1117, 40 Am. St. Rep. 308; Puckett v. Southern Ry. Co., 9 Ga. App. 589, 71 S. E. 944; Krueger v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 68 Minn. 445, 71 N. W. 683, 64 Am. St. Rep. 487; Holden v. Rutland R. Co., 72 Vt. 156, 47 Atl. 403, 82 Am. St. Rep. 926; Trice v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., 40 W. Va. 271, 21 S. E. 1022. See, also, giving the ejected passenger a right of recovery, New York, L. E. & W. R. Co. v. Winter, 143 U. S. 60, 12 Sup. Ct. 356, 36 L. Ed. 71; Ellsworth v. Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co., 95 Iowa, 98, 63 N. W. 584, 29 L. R. A. 173; Randall v. New Orleans & N. E. R. Co., 45 La. Ann. 778, 13 South. 166.

56 Lovings v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 47 W. Va. 582, 35 S. E. 962; Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co. v. Conrad, 4 Ind. App. 83, 30 N. E. 406; Shelton v. Lake

is clearly brought out when the conductors are in the employ of different railroads. In this case, the suit must be brought against the railroad employing the first conductor, for it alone has committed a wrong against the passenger."

Negligence of the Passenger

The cases are not entirely clear and harmonious as to the effect on such recovery of the passenger's conduct. Of course, there is no difficulty when the ticket is on its face apparently good.58 It would seem, too, that when there is some doubt as to its validity on the face of the ticket, the passenger should clearly recover who has exercised due care to satisfy himself of the ticket's validity. Even when the ticket on its face shows obviously that it is the wrong ticket, the majority of the courts seem disposed to hold that this fact alone will not necessarily serve to bar a recovery." When, however, the passenger knew that the ticket was a wrong one, or when he is negligent in not knowing that, then this should be a defense to the carrier. The passenger is not bound, though, to exercise more than ordinary care, while in judging negligence by this standard the courts are inclined to be liberal to the passenger, and all the surrounding facts and circumstances are to be taken into consideration."1

Shore & M. S. Ry. Co., 29 Ohio St. 214. But see East Tennessee, V. & G. R. Co. v. King, 88 Ga. 443, 14 S. E. 708; Scofield v. Pennsylvania Co., 112 Fed. 855, 50 C. C. A. 553, 56 L. R. A. 224.

57 Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co. v. Conrad, 4 Ind. App. 83, 30 N. E. 406. 58 Murdock v. Boston & A. R. Co., 137 Mass. 293, 50 Am. Rep. 307; Ellsworth v. Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co., 95 Iowa, 98, 63 N. W. 584, 29 L. R. A. 173; New York, L. E. & W. R. Co. v. Winter, 143 U. S. 60, 12 Sup. Ct. 356, 36 L. Ed. 71; Jevons v. Union Pac. R. Co., 70 Kan. 491, 78 Pac. 817; Indianapolis St. R. Co. v. Wilson, 161 Ind. 153, 66 N. E. 950, 67 N. E. 993, 100 Am. St. Rep. 261; Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Reynolds, 55 Ohio St. 370, 45 N. E. 712, 60 Am. St. Rep. 706.

9 Kansas City, M. & B. R. Co. v. Foster, 134 Ala. 244, 32 South. 773, 92 Am. St. Rep. 25; Chase v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 70 Kan. 546, 79 Pac. 153; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Jackson, 117 Ky. 900, 79 S. W. 1187; Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. v. Dougherty, 86 Ga. 744, 12 S. E. 747, 22 Am. St. Rep. 499; McKay v. Ohio River Ry. Co., 34 W. Va. 65, 11 S. E. 737, 9 L. R. A. 132, 26 Am. St. Rep. 913; Illinois Cent. Ry. Co. v. Moore, 79 Miss. 766, 31 South. 436; Peabody v. Oregon Ry. & Nav. Co., 21 Or. 121, 26 Pac. 1053, 12 L. R. A. 823; Krueger v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 68 Minn. 445, 71 N. W. 683, 64 Am. St. Rep. 487.

60 Western Maryland Ry. Co. v. Stocksdale, 83 Md. 245, 34 Atl. 880; Callaway v. Mellett, 15 Ind. App. 366, 44 N. E. 198, 57 Am. St. Rep. 238; Parish v. Ulster & D. R. Co., 99 App. Div. 10, 90 N. Y. Supp. 1000; Pouilin v. Canadian Pac. R. Co., 52 Fed. 197, 3 C. C. A. 23, 17 L. R. A. 800; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Daniels (Tex. Civ. App.) 29 S. W. 426; Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Daniels, 90 Ill. App. 154.

1 See cases cited in preceding note.