77 S.E. 745 | S.C. | 1913
March 20, 1913. The opinion of the Court was delivered by This action was commenced in the Court of Common Pleas for Greenville county in April, 1911, for $1,900 damages, on account of the alleged illegal, wilful and wanton act of the defendant in confiscating the plaintiff's mileage book and refusing to return either mileage, exchange ticket or cash paid near Greenville, South Carolina, on November 24, 1910. The case was tried before Judge Prince, in June, 1912; upon an agreed state of facts, contained in the stipulation signed by counsel; a jury trial having been waived. This agreement should be set out in the report of the case. Judge Prince rendered judgment for the plaintiff for $37 and costs, and his rulings should be set forth in the report of the case. Defendants appealed, and questions the correctness of the presiding Judge's rulings and findings by six (6) exceptions, duly filed.
The whole question turns upon the point whether or not there was a contract printed in the mileage book by which plaintiff forfeited the same. This is raised by all of the exceptions.
The plaintiff purchased from the defendant company one mileage book, at Greensboro, North Carolina, for twenty dollars. At that time he was the owner of a part of one thousand mile ticket with four hundred and twenty-five miles unused for which he had paid twenty dollars.
This was November 20, 1910. On that day, he presented both mileage books to the defendant's agent at Greensboro, North Carolina, and asked for and obtained from him two mileage exchange tickets to Greenville, South Carolina. The distance from Greensboro to Greenville is two hundred miles. This left in one mileage book two hundred and twenty-five and in the other eight hundred miles. It does not appear that the ticket agent at Greensboro noticed that both mileage books were in plaintiff's name or that anything passed between them other than that the mileage books were *102 offered and accepted by the agent and exchange made. The plaintiff and his wife traveled upon the mileage exchange tickets from Greensboro to Greenville, and they were accepted without question by the conductor on the train.
They remained in Greenville until November 24, 1910, and, wishing to return to Greensboro on that day, plaintiff again presented both mileage books to the ticket agent of the defendant at Greenville, South Carolina, and asked for and received two mileage exchange tickets to Greensboro, North Carolina; the agent detaching two hundred miles from each mileage book, leaving on one twenty-five miles and on the other six hundred miles. It does not appear that the ticket agent noticed both mileage books were in plaintiff's name or that there was any conversation in reference to the matter.
Plaintiff and his wife boarded defendant's train for Greensboro and when the collector of tickets of defendant proceeded to collect tickets the plaintiff produced the two mileage exchange tickets that he had received from the ticket agent at Greenville, one for himself and the other for his wife, and upon demand produced both mileage books issued in his name. The ticket collector retained the mileage book containing six hundred unused mileage coupons and the mileage exchange corresponding therewith, claiming the same was forfeited under the terms and conditions of the ticket, and collected fare from plaintiff for his wife. Defendant's ticket collector required the plaintiff to pay full fare for the wife and confiscated the two hundred miles represented by the exchange and six hundred miles unused mileage in the mileage book. There was no evidence of concealment by the plaintiff or any fraud or misrepresentation. The books presented to the ticket agent for exchange were presented by the original purchaser. He had paid full value for the same and was in no manner attempting to defraud the defendant. He offered the books of mileage to the ticket agent at Greenville and received in exchange, therefore, without question, two tickets to Greensboro, North *103
Carolina. This was the person who was authorized to sell tickets, exchange mileage, etc. When the tickets were offered on the train the plaintiff offered them for both himself and wife. He, as original purchaser, was in possession of both mileage books, and there is no evidence that his wife was ever in possession of either mileage book. The conductor had no right to both exact fare for the wife and confiscate mileage. The claim of the railroad was satisfied when full fare was paid for the wife's passage, and the defendant had no right to confiscate the plaintiff's property in the manner it did. The ticket agent at Greenville issued the two tickets in exchange for mileage. When one was offered for the wife the ticket collector declined to receive it for her and demanded the fare, which was paid. The plaintiff certainly had the right to ride on his. Both husband and wife were then full passengers, having paid for their passage. Why should plaintiff's property, then, be confiscated and he mulched in damages? In Smith v.Southern Railway Company,
In this case, plaintiff presents two mileage books and asks the ticket agent to exchange for two tickets. This the agent does. An inspection on his part would have shown the plaintiff was the owner of both mileage books and did not need two tickets to carry one passenger. By act of the ticket agent at Greenville two tickets were given in exchange for mileage and when plaintiff's attention was directed that his wife could not use the ticket he paid full fare for her, and, yet defendant retained his mileage book when nothing was due the defendant.
Quoting from the opinion of Mr. Justice Hydrick, inSmith v. Southern Railway,
Under the evidence in this case, that two ticket agents, acting in the apparent scope of their authority, exchanged tickets for mileage coupons for both plaintiff and his wife out of two mileage books, the property of the husband, and when plaintiff was told his wife could not ride on her ticket and he fully explained the facts to the ticket collector and upon demand paid full fare for her, the retention of the mileage book, his property, was an invasion of his rights not justified by the facts of the case.
The exceptions are overruled and judgment affirmed.