TICKETS,

Passenger with ticket for way station was told by ticket agent to get on
express train, which did not stop at said station. The conductor refused to
stop, and carried passenger beyond her destination. In action for damages,
held, that conductor was not in fault, and that plaintiff should have counted
on negligent misdirection of ticket agent. St. Louis, K. C. & N. R. Co. v.
Marshall, xviii. 248.

Company selling tickets beyond its own line is liable for sure and safe
transportation of passenger to destination, notwithstanding clause in ticket
limiting company's liability to its own line. Central R. R. of Ga. v. Combs
et al., xviii. 298.

Company sold ticket to point beyond destination, part of the route being
by steamer. Owing to quarantine the steamer was taken off after sale of
ticket. Held, that passenger was not entitled to damages. Central R. R.
of Go. v. Combs et al., xviii. 298.

Railroad company sold ticket to point beyond its own line reached in part
by steamer. The steamer had been withdrawn prior to sale of ticket. Held,
that if passenger could reach destination in another way, he was bound to do
so, and could recover extra expense and damages for delay. If he could not,
he was entitled to return to point of starting, and could recover his expenses
going and returning, and damages for delay. Central R. R. of Ga. v.
Combs et al., xviii. 298.

Passenger purchasing excursion ticket good for continuous passage only
cannot ride on train not making whole trip and may be expelled. Johnson
v. Phila., W. & B. R. R. Co., xviii. 304.

When passenger purchases ticket good if used within a time limited,
such ticket is good for a passage begun within time limited. Lundy v. Cen-
tral Pacific R. Co., xviii. 309.

A railroad company selling tickets beyond its own line acts as agent of
the other roads. An action lies by the passenger against such other roads.
Lundy v. Central Pacific R. Co., xviii. 309.

Passenger bought ticket at reduced rate good for limited time only. He
attempted to ride after expiration of time, and was expelled. Held, that he
was rightly expelled, and had no right to continue his journey unless he paid
fare from starting point. Pennington v. Phila., W. & B. R. Co., xviii. 310.
Railroad excursion ticket contained a clause that it was exchangeable for
another good on day and train designated. Held, that advertisements of tour
were inadmissible to show that passenger was entitled to ride on any later
day or train than was designated by ticket. Howard v. Chicago, St. L. &
N. O. R. Co., xviii. 313.

Regulation that passengers holding excursion tickets must ride on excur-
sion train and not on regular train is reasonable and binding. Passengers
are bound to take notice of such regulation. McRae v. Wilmington & W.
R. Co., xviii. 316.

Passengers bought excursion tickets. By regulations of company they
were entitled to ride in excursion train only. Conductor took up tickets, and
gave coupons in lieu thereof. Held, that passengers could not return by
regular train, even at an earlier day than that advertised for excursion to
return. McRae v. Wilmington & W. R. Co., xviii. 316.

Passengers in street car gave up tickets. They were transferred en route
from one car to another, but were not furnished with transfer tickets. Con-
ductor on second car ejected them for failing to produce a ticket. Held, that
they were entitled to recover exemplary damages. City & Suburban Ry. of
Savannah v. Brauss, xviii. 324.

When passenger stopping over is by negligence of conductor not provided
with stop-over ticket, and is required by conductor of subsequent train to pay
fare or leave the cars, he may elect to leave the cars, and may recover all
damages resulting naturally and directly from negligence of first conductor.
Yorton v. Milwaukee, L. S. & W. R. Co., xviii. 332.

Passenger bought ticket from agent which he was informed was good. It
was not good, having been previously used. Conductor refused to take it,

TICKETS-Continued,

and expelled passenger. Held, that if ticket was on its face good, passenger
was entitled to exemplary damages, but not if the ticket was bad on its face.
Hubbard v. Grand Rapids, etc., R. Co., xviii. 336.

When company sells ticket to point beyond its own line, the coupons
attached setting forth that they are sold on account of another company,
the company selling the tickets acts as agent for other line, and will not be
deemed to have contracted to carry passenger through to destination, Penn-
sylvania R. Co. v. Connell, xviii. 339.

Company issued through ticket over connecting line after it was notified
not to do so. Conductor on connecting line refused to receive the ticket.
Held, that passenger could recover damages for breach of contract, but that
he could not, by resisting expulsion, entitle himself to recover exemplary
damages. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Connell, xviii. 339.

Passenger may be required to exhibit tickets on entering train and to sur-
render them to conductor on demand, under penalty of expulsion. Louis-
ville & N. R. Co. v. Fleming, xviii. 347.

Conductor is not bound to hear evidence from passenger that he has
bought ticket and then lost it, although he has exhibited ticket on entering
train. Passenger must either produce ticket or pay his fare. Louisville &
N. R. Co. v. Fleming, xviii. 347.

It is not the ordinary duty of conductor to assist a passenger suffering
under physical infirmities to find a lost ticket. If he consents to search, he
is not bound to do so except in place indicated by passenger, and if he is in
good faith unable to find the ticket, he may expel the passenger, although
latter actually has ticket on his person. Louisville & Ñ. R. Co. v. Fleming,
xviii. 347.

If in above case conductor acted in bad faith and did not make search,
though he pretended to do so, the company would be liable in exemplary
damages. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Fleming, xviii. 347.

When passenger has mislaid his ticket, conductor is bound to afford him
reasonable opportunity to find it, and cannot at once stop train and expel
him. Whether or not reasonable opportunity has been given, is for jury.
Hayes v. New York Central & H. R. R. Co. xviii. 363.

Passenger being given wrong transfer ticket was expelled from car.
Court charged that if mistake was owing to negligence of transfer agent,
plaintiff could recover damages; that if mistake or expulsion was malicious
or wanton, he could recover vindictive damages; and that if conduct of
defendant was wanton, contributory negligence of plaintiff would be no
defence. Held, that the instructions were as favorable as plaintiff could
ask. Carpenter v. Washington & G. R. Co., xviii. 370.

Young woman was in same seat with a little girl, her sister. She pro-
duced two tickets, one for herself and one for the father, but none for
the child. Held, that if the conductor could reasonably infer that the child
was under the young woman's care, he was justified in expelling them both
for non-payment of fare. Phila. W. & B. R. Co. v. Hoeflich, xviii. 373.

In the above case, as the child's father was really responsible for her pres-
ence and fare, it was for jury to say whether conductor, knowing there was
a man in the party, was not bound to discover his relationship to the child.
If he was negligent in this respect, he was not justified in expelling the
young woman, and company was liable. Phila. W. & B. R. Co. v. Hoeflich.
xviii. 373.

TIME TABLES.

Time-table which purports on its face to be for guidance of servants only,
and which reserves to company right to vary trains, and which states that
flag stations are designated by star, is not sufficient evidence to show that
stations not so designated are advertised to public as regular passenger
stations. Denver, S. P. & P. R. Co. v. Pickard, xviii. 284.

TRESPASSERS.

Passenger who was drunk was carried beyond his destination and then
put off train. He wandered on track, and was killed by another train with-
out fault on part of those in charge thereof. Held, that the railroad com-
pany was not liable. McClelland Adm'r v. Louisville, N. A. & C. R. Co.,
xviii. 260.

TUNNELS.

In passing through tunnel, lights should be lighted and windows, doors
and ventilators closed, but an officer need not be provided for every car, and
failure to shut out gas and smoke does not give passengers right of action.
Western Maryland R. Co. v. Stanley, xviii. 206.

While crowded car was in tunnel, passenger rose to shut door and in so
doing was injured. Held, that he could recover, unless he was guilty of
contributory negligence, which was for jury. Western Maryland R. Co. v.
Stanley, xviii. 206.

UNITED STATES COURTS.

Writ of error will not lie to Supreme Court of U. S. from decision of
Supreme Court of Penna., that mail agent killed by negligence on railroad
is not a passenger. Price et al. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., xviii. 273.

Suits against Adams Express Co. must be brought against president or
treasurer who are citizens of New York. In suit against company by cor-
poration of State of Maryland, held, that United States courts had
jurisdiction on account of difference in citizenship. Baltimore & Ohio R.
Co. v. Adams Express Co., xviii. 455.

Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. is domestic corporation of West Virginia.
Suit instituted against it by citizen in State court cannot be removed to
United States courts. Quarrier v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., xviii. 535.

State courts may refuse to order removal of cause to courts of United
States when incomplete bond only is filed without penalty. Quarrier v.
Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co., xviii. 535.

Company receiving freight defectively addressed waives right to plead
defect as excuse for non-delivery. Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Maetze, xviii. 613.

WAREHOUSEMAN.

When goods are delivered to railroad company to be forwarded immedi-
ately, company becomes at once liable as common carrier. If they are to
wait further orders of shipper before carriage, company is liable as ware-
houseman only. Little Rock & Ft. S. R. Co. v. Hunter, xviii. 527.

When railroad company stores goods in a warehouse at its terminus
owing to inability of connecting line to transport them, and fails to notify
shipper of fact, it will be liable for all injury to the goods occasioned by
delay, notwithstanding fact that it has assumed no extra terminal liability.
Petersen et al. v. Case, Receiver, xviii. 578.

Carrier is liable for loss of goods in its warehouse awaiting transportation
by connecting line, notwithstanding custom that connecting carrier shall
inspect_books of goods received and take possession of same for transporta-
tion. Condon v. Marquette, H. & C. R. Co., xviii. 574.

Passenger, while in act of taking seat in street car, rested his hand on and
partially over base of open window, and same was struck and injured by
sewer plank standing near car. Held, that question of contributory negli
gence was for jury. Dahlberg v. Minneapolis St. R. Co., xviii. 202.