Opinion of the Court by
Reversing.
J. W. Reasor bought a ticket of the Paducah & Illinоis Ferry Company at Paducah, entitling him to passage on- said company’s boat from that point to Golconda, Ill. He went upon the boat; the officer- in charge came to -him and told him that he was not an acceptable passenger, and requested Mm to leave the boat. He did not do so immediately, but did leave, when a police officer, who was at the time doing duty -at thе wharf and perhaps on the boat, told him that he would have to leave the boat, because the management would not take him as a passenger. The company tendered to him and he accepted from it the money which he had paid for thе ticket, before he left the boat. Shortly thereafter, he brought suit against the company, in which he sought to recover $5,000 in' damages; alleged to have been sustained by him because of having been forcibly required to leave the boat after he had become a passenger thereon. The company in its answer, set up three defenses. First, a traverse; -second, a pleа that plaintiff voluntarily left the- boat; and third, that, upon the date in question, the boat was not engaged as a common carrier, but was running a special excursion from Paducah to -Golconda; and that it declined to accept plaintiff as a passenger because, on a previous occasion, he had been guilty of misconduct on the boat, in this, that he had insulted a lady passenger, cursed and swore upon the boat in'the presence and hearing of lady passengers, and by his general behavior, whilе in a drunken -and disorderly
A steamboat company, holding itself out to the public as a carrier of passengers and freight, is a common carrier within the meaning of the statute, and the duties imposed upon common carriers, by the laws of thе land, are applicable to it. The fact that it is running a special excursion does not have the effect of relieving its Ownеrs of the duty imposed upon it as a common carrier. 6 Cyc., 535; Indianapolis, etc. R. Co. v. Rinard,
There is nothing in the record to show that appellant, on the occasion in question, was drunk, .or drinking, or disorderly; on the contrary, the evidence distinctly negatives such an idea. The refusal of apрellee to carry him as a passenger on its boat wias based solely on the fact that he had not conducted himself in a gеntlemanly manner on a former occasion. As stated, this furnished appellee no excuse for refusing him passage; and the triаl court properly held this plea bad on demurrer.
Appellee’s plea that appellant voluntarily left the boat, аnd, of his own volition, declined to make the trip, is not supported by any evidence: The captain, or person in charge of the boat, told him that he was not desired as a passenger, requested him to leave, and had a police officer tell him, in substаnce, that he would have to get off the boat. In obedience to these requests, amounting to a command, he left the boаt. The effect of these acts, on the part of those in charge of the boat, was the equivalent of a refusal to pеrmit him to remain a passenger upon the boat, and consequently equivalent to ejecting him from the boat. Appellant was guilty of no misconduct at the time. Being a passenger on the boat, be was entitled to passage, and these acts, on the part of those in charge, constituted an unlawful expulsion, and no instruction should have been given the jury, save a peremptory to find fоr the plaintiff the compensatory damages which he had .sustained by reason of thé wrongful act of the defendant company. Appellant, unde the facts proven, was entitled to, at least, nominal damages. Appellee was entitled to show the cirсumstances leading up to its refusal to permit appellant to make this trip, to-wit: his conduct on .a former occasion, in explanation of its conduct, and the court did not err in so holding.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded for a new trial consistent with this opinion.