70 F. 585 | 9th Cir. | 1895
(after staling- tbe facts). The disposition to be made of this ease depends upon the question whether {he charge of the court to the jury stales a correct legal principle applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. The authorities bearing upon this question are by no means uniform, some ■of the courts holding that it is the duly of the passenger, before going upon the train, to examine his ticket, and to ascertain therefrom whether or not any mistake has been made by the ticket agent; that the face of the ticket is conclusive evidence to the conductor of (lie train as to the contract between the1 passenger and the railroad company; that the conductor can look only to the ticket, and has no right to be governed by any statement or explanation of the passenger; that if the ticket is not upon its face such a ticket as entitles the passenger to ride, the conductor has the right, and it is his duty, to eject, him from the train; and that Ins only remedy for the mistake, negligence, or carelessness of the ticket agent is by an action for breach of the contract to recover the extra amount
With reference to the right of a passenger to be carried on the wrong coupon, where the coupons are detached by the conductor on the going trip, and the returning coupon, instead of the going coupon, is retained by the conductor, and the going coupon, instead of the returning coupon, given to the passenger, which the passenger retains without discovering tin; mistake until he presents it to the'conductor on the return trip, and then makes his explanation as to how the mistake occurred, the courts have held that under such circumstances the passenger1 has the lawful right to be carried on his return trip on presenting the going coupon, with the explanation; and, if expelled for- not paying his fare, he is entitled to recover damages for the expulsion. Pennsylvania Co. v. Bray, 125 Ind. 229, 25 N. E. 439; Railway Co. v. Fix, 88 Ind. 381; Railroad Co. v. Bambrey (Pa. Sup.) 16 Atl. 67; Wightman v. Railway Co. (Wis.) 40 N. W. 689; Railroad Co. v. Rice, 64 Md. 63, 21 Atl. 97; Rouser v. Railway Co., 97 Mich. 565, 56 N. W. 937. These cases, as well as the others previously referred to, all proceed upon the broad' ground that the passenger was wholly wilhout fault; that he had done all that could reasonably" be required of him to do; and that the railroad company, by the mistake, carelessness, or negligence of its agents or conductors, was itself at fault. This is the underlying principle of all the well-considered cast's upon this subject. This principle is fair to both parties. It is sound, reasonable, and'just. In further support of it we cite the following additional authorities: Johnson v. Railway Co., 46 Fed. 347; Zion v. Southern Pac. Co., 67 Fed. 506; Head v. Railway Co. (Ga.) 7 S. E. 217; Railroad Co. v. Dougherty, 86 Ga. 744, 12 S. E. 747; Railroad Co. v. Roberts, 91 Ga. 514, 18 S. E. 315; Railway Co. v. Hennigh, 39 Ind. 509; Hufford v. Railroad Co., 64 Mich. 631, 31 N. W. 544; Railway Co. v. Mackie (Tex. Sup.) 9 S. W. 451; Railroad Co. v. Conley (Ind. App.) 32 N. E. 96; Murdock v. Railroad Co., 137 Mass. 293; Muckle v. Railway Co., 79 Hun, 38, 29 N. Y. Supp. 732; McGinnis v. Railway Co., 21 Mo. App. 399; Burnham v. Railway Co., 63 Me. 298.
In a majority of the cases cited by the plaintiff in error in support of its contention, it affirmatively appears that the passenger was himself at fault, and that the railroad company was free from any fault, negligence, carelessness, or mistake. Especially is this true in the following cases: Railway Co. v. Bennett, 1 C. C. A. 544, 50 Fed. 496; Dietrich v. Railroad Co., 71 Pa. St. 433; Railway Co. v. Griffin, 68 Ill. 499; Pennington v. Railroad Co., 62 Md. 95; Johnson v. Railroad Co., 63 Md. 106; Petrie v. Railroad Co., 42 N. J. Law, 449. In Mosher v. Railroad Co., 127 U. S. 390, 8 Sup. C Gt. 1324, upon which plaintiff in error principally relies, neither party seems to
“By the first condition of the contract contained in the plaintiff’s ticket the defendant is not responsible beyond its own line. Consequently, it was not responsible to the plaintiff for failing to have an agent at the further end of the Hot Springs Railroad. The agent who was to identify the passenger and stamp his ticket there was the agent of the Hot Springs Railroad Company, and is so described in the ticket, as well as in the petition. If there was any duty to have an agent at Hot Springs, it was the duty of that company, and not of the defendant. ⅞ ⅞ * The omission to have an agent at Hot Springs not being a breach of contract or of duty on the part of this defendant, tho case is relieved of all difficulty.”
This was the reason, and the sole reason, given for the decision. It will therefore readily be §een that the decision in that case does not support the views, contended for by the plaintiff in error.
In Railroad Co. v. Winter’s Adm’r, 143 U. S. 60, 73, 12 Sup. Ct. 356, there is a clear recognition of the fundamental principles which we have announced. The court, in the course of the opinion, said :
“The reason of such rule is to be found in the principle that, where a party does all that he is required to do under the terms of a contract into which he has entered, and is only prevented from reaping the benefit of such contract by the fault or wrongful act of the other party to it, the law gives him a remedy against the other party for such breach of contract.”
In the present case Pauson introduced testimony tending to show, and from which the jury were authorized to infer, that he had fully complied with all the conditions of the ticket upon his part; that he “did present himself to an agent, and sign the ticket in his [the agent’s] presence, and the agent took the ticket; and returned it in such a way and under such circumstances as to justify plaintiff in