68 Ga. 219 | Ga. | 1881
Thomas A. Walker and John Tucker, receivers of that portion of the Selma, Rome and Dalton Railroad lying in Alabama, appointed by the chancellor of the middle-chancery division of Alabama, applied to the chancellor for leave to lease that portion of the road lying in Georgia which had been sold under a decree to Edward D. Cow
The record shows that on the night of the 8th of December, 1877, the defendant in error, Bigelow, was put off the railroad cars about six miles from Rome, Georgia, on the southward bound train going towards Cave Spring, Floyd county, Georgia, between the hours .of 9 o’clock and 11 at night, where there was no place for accommodating travellers nor temporary refuge from the inclemency of the weather.
For this ejection from the cars run on the railroad track of the Georgia Southern Railroad, Bigelow brought his action for damages against the Georgia Southern Railroad Company, the plaintiff in error, in Floyd superior court.
(i.) Because said verdict is contrary to law.
(2.) Because said verdict is contrary to evidence and weight of evidence.
(3.) Because the verdict is excessive, contrary to law and evidence, and there being no evidence to support the same.
(4.) Because the court erred in not sustaining exceptions to the writ, and in holding the service made on Printup, as director of the Georgia Southern Railroad Company, and on A. S. Crane, as agent, was under the evidence insufficient to bind the defendant.
(5.) Because the court overruled the demurrer to the declaration.
(6.) Because the court erred in ruling out and not permitting Murphy, a witness, to answer the following question asked by defendant: “ What time was this ticket out ? On Saturday or Saturday night ?”
(7.) Because the court erred in refusing to give the following charge in its entirety as requested in writing :
“ A railroad company and its agents have the right to prescribe rules and regulations for selling tickets, and limit the time in which they shall be used. [And if the purchaser of such ticket is informed of such limitation he is bound thereby.”] The part in brackets the court refused to give in charge to the jury as requested.
(8.) Because the court erred in charging the jury that, by the ticket offered in evidence as having been issued to plaintiff below, the plaintiff had the right to return on the ticket at any time until 12 o’clock at night on the 8th of December.
(9.) Because the court erred in giving to the jury that portion of his charge set forth in the ninth ground of the
In the argument before this court counsel for plaintiff in error relied mainly upon three errors assigned in the motion :
(1.) That there was no sufficient legal service on the defendant, the Georgia Southern Railroad.
(2.) In the legal construction the court gave to the railroad ticket purchased by plaintiff below and on which he was proposing to return to Cave Spring.
(3.) Because the verdict is excessive in amount under the evidence.
On the reverse side of the ticket was stamped, “ Selma, Rome & Dalton R. R., December 6th, Cave Spring.”
It appears from the evidence, that on the night of the 8th of December, before 10 o’clock, the plaintiff below entered on the car at Rome, of the defendant below, for the purpose of returning on this ticket to Cave Spring, at which place he had purchased the ticket; that on presenting the ticket the conductor refused to receive it, claiming the time limited to use it had expired, and against the will of plaintiff he was forced to leave the car, on his refusing to pay the usual fare. This ticket was issued and sold to plaintiff on the 6th of December; by it the plaintiff had the right to pass on the cars of the defendant below over the road from Cave Spring to Rome any time from the day of its purchase, and return if within two days
Whether the action of defendant below in ejecting plaintiff from its cars was a tort accompanied with aggravating circumstances, was a question for the jury, and exclusively within their province to decide, subject of course to the rule that they are not influenced by “gross mistake or undue bias.” Here was this defendant in error, who had made a contract with the plaintiff in error to be transported on its train from Cave Spring to Rome and return within a time designated. Under that contract and by authority of it, for which he had paid his money, he was on the cars of the plaintiff in error; the night was cold, inclement and dark, and it had been raining and was then freezing. Without authority of law, and in violation of the legal terms of their own contract, the defendant in error, an old man 65 years of age, was put off the cars in freezing weather, between the hours of 9 and 11 o’clock
Let the judgment of the court below be affirmed.