not ride further without paying fare to the place at which it next regularly stops, and, if he refuses to do so or to leave the train, he may lawfully be ejected and is without remedy.8

Where, however, he is misled by the acts or statements of the company or its agents into taking a train which does not stop at his destination, he is not without remedy.

indeed, insist that the conductor shall violate his instructions and stop the train at the place in question,10 nor can he insist upon remaining on the train after learning that it will not stop.11 His remedy in such a case is to leave the train and seek transportation by some other means, and then to recover of the company damages for the injury he has sustained by its breach of contract.12 He has not the right, however, though erroneous notions in this regard seem very generally to prevail, to aggravate his injury by refusing to leave and making the application of force necessary for his removal. He is now wrongfully upon the train, and whatever force is reasonably necessary and proper to eject him he himself invites, and he cannot recover damages for an injury thereby sustained,13 though he is still entitled to protection against unnecessary and wanton violence.

But the railroad company may make a special arrangement by its authorized agents for the stopping of a particular train

Co., 66 Md. 120. So the mere fact that the ticket reads "Good on passenger trains only" is not a representation that all passenger trains stop at all stations. Ohio, etc. R'y Co. v. Swarthout, 67 Ind. 567. Where a ticket is sold for a train which does not stop at passenger's destination, he is entitled to damages for breach of contract. Louis, etc. R'y Co. v. Adcox, 52 Ark. 406; Railroad Co. v. Little, 66 Kan. 378, 71 Pac. Rep. 820, 61 L. R. A. 122, 97 Am. St. Rep. 376.

St.

10. St. Louis, etc. R'y Co. v. Atchison, 47 Ark. 74; Marshall v. Railway Co., 78 Mo. 610; International, etc. R. Co. v. Hassell, 62 Tex. 256; Lake Shore R'y Co. v. Pierce, 47 Mich. 277; Wells v. Railroad Co., 67 Miss. 24.

11. Lake Shore R'y Co. v. Pierce, 47 Mich. 277; White v. Railroad Co., 133 Ind. 480, 33 N. E. Rep.

273; Turner v. McCook, 77 Mo. App. 196; Miller v. King, 166 N. Y. 394, 59 N. E. Rep. 1114, affirming 58 N. Y. Supp. 1145; s. c. 53 N. Y. Supp. 123, 32 App. Div. 389; s. c. 47 N. Y. Supp. 534, 21 App. Div. 192; s. c. 34 N. Y. Supp. 425, 88 Hun, 181; s. c. 32 N. Y. Supp. 332, 84 Hun, 309; Railway Co. v. Moorman, (Tex. Civ. App.) 46 S. W. Rep. 662.

12. And his complaint must be for the misdirection or breach of contract and not for the ejection. Marshall v. Railway Co., 78 Mo. 610; Lake Shore R'y Co. v. Pierce, 47 Mich. 277. Hicks v. R. Co., 68 Mo. 329, contra, is disapproved in later cases.

See also, Sira v. Railway Co., 115 Mo. 127, 21 S. W. Rep. 905, 37 Am. St. Rep. 386.

13. Lake Shore R'y Co. v. Pierce, 47 Mich. 277.

at a certain station at which, under its general rules and regulations, it is not required to stop. Such a contract is not unlawful, and the breach of it, whereby the ticket holder, induced to take passage under it, is prevented from reaching his destination as contemplated by the contract, will entail upon the railroad company liability for a violation of its duty.14

Sec. 1061. (§ 580h.) Same subject-How when by mistake he is given obviously wrong ticket. So where the passenger, having paid fare to the point of destination, is, by the mistake of the company's agent, furnished with a ticket which upon its face entitles him to a ride only to a point short of his destination, or the like, the passenger, having accepted the ticket, cannot insist on riding upon that ticket beyond the point to which by its terms it entitles him. He must therefore pay fare to his destination or get off and continue his journey by other means, and, if he refuses, the conductor may eject him; but he may recover of the carrier damages for the injury he has sustained by reason of its breach of contract.15 Here too, however, the action will be for the breach of the contract, and not for the ejection.16 And he may not aggravate his injury by resisting ejection under otherwise proper conditions.17

14. Railroad Co. v. Wilson, 20 Ind. App. 5, 50 N. E. Rep. 90; Noble v. Railroad Co., 4 Okl. 534, 46 Pac. Rep. 483; Railway Co. v. Elliott, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 31, 54 S. W. Rep. 410.

15. Frederick v. Railroad Co., 37 Mich. 342; Hufford v. Railroad Co., 53 Mich. 118; Bradshaw v. Railroad Co., 135 Mass. 407; Georgia R. Co. v. Olds. 77 Ga. 673; Mackay v. Railroad Co., 34 W. Va. 65, 11 S. E. Rep. 737; Peabody v. Railway Co., 21 Oreg. 121, 26 Pac. Rep. 1053; Railroad Co. v. Foster, 134 Ala. 244, 32 So. Rep. 773, 92 Am. St. Rep. 25, citing Hutch. on Carr.; Railroad Co. v. Stratton, 111 Ill. App. 142; Chase v. Railway Co., 70

There is in these cases an element of negligence in the passenger in not seeing that he obtains and presents a ticket which is at least apparently regular.18

Sec. 1062. (§ 5801.) Same subject-How when ticket apparently good.-But where, though the ticket given to the passenger, either by the ticket agent or the conductor, is one which by the company's regulations is not sufficient for his transportation to the point agreed upon, there is nothing upon its face to indicate any such infirmity, and he has purchased or taken it in reliance, without negligence, upon the express or implied representation of the company's agent that it is good for the trip intended, the passenger must be deemed to be lawfully upon the train, and entitled to complete the journey according to the apparent import of his ticket. In this case he cannot lawfully be required either to leave the cars or pay additional fare upon demand, and if he is ejected, or compelled to pay fare to avoid ejection, he is entitled to recover damages.19 But an agent authorized to sell railroad

18. Poulin v. Railway Co., 52 Fed. 197, 3 C. C. A. 23, 6 U. S. App. 298, 17 L. R. A. 800, affirming 47 Fed. 858.

19. Hufford v. Railway Co., 53 Mich. 118; Murdock v. Railroad Co., 137 Mass. 293; Philadelphia, etc. R. Co. v. Rice, 64 Md. 63; Fell v. Railroad Co., 44 Fed. 248; Railroad Co. v. Winter's Adm'r, 143 U. S. 60, 12 Sup. Ct. R. 356, 36 L. Ed. 71; Railroad Co. v. Littell, 128 Fed. 546, 63 C. C. A. 44; Pennsylvania Co. v. Lenhart, 120 Fed. 61, 56 C. C. A. 457; Scofield v. Railroad Co., 112 Fed. 855, 50 C. C. A. 553, 56 L. R. A. 224; Callaway v. Mellett, 15 Ind. App. 366, 44 N. E. Rep. 198; Ellsworth v. Railway Co., 95 Iowa, 98, 63 N. W. Rep. 584, 29 L. R. A. 173; Railroad Co.

Little, 66 Kan. 378, 71 Pac. Rep. 820, 61 L. R. A. 122, 97 Am. St.

Rep. 376; Railroad Co. v. Harper, 83 Miss. 560, 35 So. Rep. 764, 64 L. R. A. 283, 102 Am. St. Rep. 469; Railroad Co. v. Reynolds, 55 Ohio St. 370, 45 N. E. Rep. 712, 60 Am. St. Rep. 706; Railway Co. v. Wilson, 161 Ind. 153, 66 N. E. Rep. 950, 67 N. E. Rep. 993, 100 Am. St. Rep. 261; Railroad Co. v. Cates, 14 Ind. App. 172, 41 N. E. Rep. 712; Jevons v. Railroad Co., 70 Kan. 491, 78 Pac. Rep. 817; Cincinnati, etc. R'y Co. v. Harris, Tenn.

91 S. W. Rep. 211. In Railway Co. v. Street, 26 Ind. App. 224, 59 N. E. Rep. 904, plaintiff presented an interchangeable mileage ticket which he had purchased of a passenger association of which defendant was a member, and demanded of defendant's agent an exchange ticket. He was informed by the agent that the

tickets has no implied powers after the sale of a ticket is fully completed and his duties in regard to it are at an end, and he cannot then bind the company by representations which contradict the plain terms of the ticket.20

Sec. 1063. Same subject-Where two or more roads employ a joint ticket agent-Which road liable for his mistakes. -It sometimes happens that a ticket agent is agent for two railroad companies. If a person applies to such an agent for a ticket over one road, and by mistake the ticket agent gives him a ticket over the other road, his negligence is that of the first road, and the latter road is not liable to the purchaser for the agent's negligence or its consequences.21

supply of tickets was exhausted, and that the conductor on defendant's train would give him transportation on his mileage without exchange. The court held that he was not required to pay the regular fare and then sue the company for failure to carry him on his mileage, but he could insist on being carried on his mileage, and, if ejected, recover as for a tort. See also, Pennsylvania Co. v. Lenhart, 120 Fed. 61, 56 C. C. A. 457.

Where a ticket was taken up by the conductor, and afterwards, without producing it, the conductor claimed it was for a point short of the passenger's destination, demanded additional fare of the passenger which he refused to pay, and thereupon ejected the passenger from the train, the fact that the amount of additional fare wrongfully demanded was trifling, and could have been paid by the passenger, cannot be considered in mitigation of damages for such ejection. A carrier cannot place a passenger in such a position that, if he yields to the carrier's demands, a legitimate inference

might be drawn by other passengers that he was guilty of dishonesty in attempting to ride without paying the rightful fare. Railroad Co. v. Arnold, 8 Ind. App. 297, 34 N. E. Rep. 742.

Where the passenger presents a ticket which on its face entitles him to be carried, the company will not be permitted to show a custom on its part, and the part of other companies, to issue such tickets for certain days only when it is shown that the passenger had no knowledge of such a limitation. Carvey v. Railroad Co., 133 Mich. 659, 95 N. W. Rep. 716.

Where a husband buys a ticket for his wife and signs his own name thereon on the representation of the agent that his wife could ride on it, his wife is entitled to use the ticket. Railway Co. v. Goodman, (Tex. Civ. App.), 43 S. W. Rep. 580.

20. Hanlon v. Railroad Co., 109 Iowa, 136, 80 N. W. Rep. 223.

21. Scott v. Railroad Co., 144 Ind. 125, 43 N. E. Rep. 133, 32 L R. A. 154.