Assault by Fellow Passenger-Separate Accommodation for Races-Proximate Cause. In Royston 7. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 67 Miss. 376, it was held that a passenger who was assaulted by a fellow passenger while the conductor of the train is absent attending to his duties, not knowing of the assault, or that it was threatened, cannot recover damages of the railroad company therefor. In the case before the court, it appeared that the plaintiff, a colored passenger, was severely beaten while travelling on a train of defendant, which carried only one first class coach and a smoking car. Plaintiff and other passengers, white and colored, were in the former, and his evidence tended to show that the conductor ordered him into the smoker; that he found it full of tobacco smoke, nauseating to him, and he remained on the platform, where the conductor cursed and beat him. Defendant's testimony tended to show that plaintiff was drinking and boisterous, and that lady passengers complained of his conduct, whereupon the conductor told him to behave or go into the other car; that he went upon the platform and was afterwards assaulted by another passenger, in the absence and without the knowledge of the conductor. Held, that a verdict for defendant would not be disturbed, and that it was proper to refuse instructions that the failure to provide separate accommodations for white and colored passengers, as required, was the proximate cause of the injury. CARSTEN ย. NORTHERN PACIFIC R. Co. (Minnesota Supreme Court, November 11, 1890.) Passengers-Excursion Ticket-Transfer-Return Passage.-A round-trip excursion ticket used by the purchaser in going to the station named therein, and then sold and transferred, no restrictions appearing, is valid in the hands of the holder, and entitles him to a return passage, subject to the prescribed limitations as to time, etc. Same Same-Expulsion of Passenger-Damages. And where a conductor of a train refuses to recognize such ticket in the hands of the holder, who is thereby entitled to ride thereon, and demands of him the regular fare, and attempts to eject him by force for non-payment thereof, the railway company is liable in damages for the assault, and the jury in assessing the damages may consider in connection therewith the annoyance, vexation, and indignity suffered by him. Same-Remoteness of Damages. In such an action, damages resulting from the loss of a job of work, occasioned by his delay at the station at which he was obliged to leave the train, held too remote to be considered. APPEAL from District Court, Crow Wing County. John C. Bullitt, Fr., and Tilden R. Selmes, for appellant. F. B. Douglas and J. N. True, for respondent. VANDERBURGH, J.-The defendant in August, 1888, issued excursion passenger tickets from Detroit, in this state "to Minneapolis and return," to be used within a time limited, but without restrictions as to transfer. The plaintiff purchased one of these tickets at second-hand Case stated. of a railway ticket broker, and, in conformity with the usage of the company, had it stamped by the defendant's agent at the depot in Minneapolis, and thereupon presented it to the baggageman, who punched it and checked his baggage, and within the time limited plaintiff took passage on a regular passenger train from Minneapolis to Detroit. While on the way, and before reaching Brainerd, an intermediate station, his ticket was examined by an agent of the company, who is styled a "ticket exchanger," and acted as an assistant to the regular conductor, and who notified the plaintiff that his ticket was not good, on the ground stated by him that it was bought at a "scalper's office." He, however, took up and retained the ticket, and refused to return it to the plaintiff. The regular conductor soon after came along and demanded plaintiff's fare, and when informed what had been done by the exchanger also stated that the ticket was not good, and notified him that he would have to leave the train unless he paid his fare; and soon after came back accompanied by two brakemen as the train was approaching a station, for the purpose, as the evidence tends to show, of ejecting plaintiff from that train. They took him by the shoulder and led him to the door in presence of the passengers, when a stranger paid his fare to Brainerd, at which place the plaintiff voluntarily left the train. Plaintiff acted under compulsion when leaving his seat when ordered, but made no resistance, and there was in fact no violence or vindictive or abusive language used. ticket-Valid ity of trans 1. The evidence is sufficient to show that the ticket was genuine and was good for one passage from Minneapolis to Detroit as a return ticket, and that it was wrongfully taken away from plaintiff and appropriated Excursion by the agent of the defendant. The ticket was transferable in the absence of any restrictions in fer. the original contract of sale, and was valid in plaintiff's hands. The conductor was fully advised of the facts in the case, which he could verify by reference to his assistant on the same train. His conduct in requiring the plaintiff to leave the train was therefore wrongful. Burnham v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 63 Me. 303. Expulsion- 2. It is an action sounding in tort, and we think the plaintiff entitled to claim damages for the wrong and injury done him. in addition to the price of the ticket, though no particular loss or special injury to his person was shown. The evidence tended to prove that the agents of the defendant laid hands on him, and were proceeding to eject him by force, if necessary, from the car, which was full of passengers. The fact that he escaped personal violence by non-resistance does not deprive him of his right of action; and the jury were entitled to consider, in connection with the physical acts of the conductor in wrongfully attempting to eject him, the annoyance, vexation, and mortification suffered by him, and the indignity put upon him. Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Flagg, 43 Ill. 364; 3 Suth. Dam. 712, 715; 2 Beach, Ry. Law, §891. But the jury must be governed by the evidence, and the damages assessed must be appropriate to the nature of the case, which will be modified by the circumstances, such as the presence or absence of personal malice, actual violence, and threatening or insulting language. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Parks, 18 Ill. 460, 68 Am. Dec. 562, 573. The instruction given by the court to the jury that if the conductor took up the ticket, and failed to give any. excuse for his refusal to return the same to plaintiff, and no excuse existed, they might presume that he acted malevolently, and with a tyrannical and oppressive motive, and might award him "any amount of damages that is proper not exceeding the sum of $1,000," was, we think, in view of the evidence in the case, erroneous, and likely to mislead the jury as to the extent of their discretion on the question of damages. 3. The plaintiff was permitted, against the objection of the defendant, to prove that, by reason of his delay at Brainerd, he lost a job of threshing at Detroit, for which he expected $2.25 per day. He testified that he was detained there for a week for want of money to go damages. any further, and this alleged loss the jury were Same-Remoteness of allowed to consider. This was error. Such damages are too remote. They cannot be considered the proximate result of the alleged wrongful act of the conductor. There must have been several other independent causes to which the same result might have been referred. Brown v. Cummings, 7 Allen, (Mass.), 508. Order reversed. Rights of Passenger Purchasing Excursion Ticket. See McRae v. Wilmington, etc. R. Co. (N. Car.), 18 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 316; Johnson v. Philadelphia, etc. R. Co. (Md.), 18 Id. 304; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Spicker (Pa.), 23 Id. 672; Howard v. Chicago, etc. R. Co. (Miss.), 18 Id. 313, note, 39 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 422. Condition as to Having Return Ticket Signed and Stamped.--The plaintiff purchased a return ticket from Lansing to Chicago. The ticket was sold at a reduced rate on condition-printed on the ticket, and signed by plaintiff that it should not be good for return passage unless stamped in Chicago, and there signed again by the original purchaser. Plaintiff failed to comply with these conditions and, refusing to pay his fare on the return trip, was ejected from the train. Held, that plaintiff was not entitled to ride on the ticket, and could not recover for his ejectment. Edwards v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co., Mich. Sup. Ct., June 6, 1890. Presentation of Wrong Coupon of Return Ticket. A passenger is not entitled to be carried on the wrong coupon of a return ticket without any explanation of the reasons why it was presented. The instructions given by the court in this case held to inform the jury of this fact. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Bray, Ind. Sup. Ct., Oct. 7, 1890. Presenting Detached Coupon of Return Ticket-Waiver of Condition.— A round trip ticket provided that it would be void if the coupons were detached. The coupons were accidentally detached, and the passenger presented both ends, and the conductor by mistake took the returning coupon when he should have taken the going coupon. Held, that this was a waiver of the condition on the going coupon in regard to detachment. Pennsylvania Co. v. Bray, Ind. Sup. Ct., Oct. 7, 1890. Expiration of Time for Which Ticket Was Purchased-Conflict of Laws.Boston & M. R. Co. v. Trafton, 151 Mass. 221, was an action to recover fares for three journeys by the defendant upon the plaintiff's road. The defendant in each case tendered stop-over checks, which were refused. These checks were stated on their face to be good only for 10 days, and the 10 days had expired; but the defendant claimed the right to be carried without further payment, on the ground that he received the checks under protest, in exchange for tickets from points in Maine to Boston, which he had purchased of the plaintiff in Maine, and that the Maine statute made tickets good for six years, and allowed passengers to stop over at will. The court held that this was no defense, saying: "It is a sufficient answer to the defendant's argument that the statute upon which he relies is construed by the supreme judicial court of Maine as applying only to transportation within the limits of that state. Carpenter v. Railway Co., 72 Me. 388. Obviously, a broader construction would lead to great confusion and trouble, apart from the constitutional questions mentioned by the court. Admitting, then, that the statute entered into the defendant's contract as an implied term, the contract, so far as it embodied the statute, was only that the defendant might stop over in Maine. As this disposes of the case, we do not consider other difficulties of the defense." MACKAY υ. OHIO RIVER R. Co. (West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, June 24, 1890.) Passenger-Expulsion for Refusal to Produce Ticket or Pay Fare.-A railroad conductor may demand a ticket as evidence of a passenger's right of passage, or on failure to produce it may demand payment of fare; and on failure to pay it may lawfully eject the passenger from the train, using no more force than necessary. Passenger Given Wrong Ticket-Expulsion-Action in Tort or in Contract. If a passenger pay a railroad agent fare for a certain trip, and by mistake of the agent is given a ticket not answering for that trip, but one in an opposite direction, and the conductor refuses to recognize such ticket, and demands fare, which the passenger fails to pay, ejection of the passenger from the train without unnecessary force will not be ground of action against the company as for a tort, but the action may and must be based on the breach of the contract to convey the passenger. LUCAS, J., dissenting. ERROR to Circuit Court, Ohio County. V. B. Archer and Robert White, for plaintiff in error. BRANNON, J.-This was an action of trespass on the case, in the circuit court of this county, brought by Winfield S. MacKay against the Ohio River Railroad ComCase stated. pany, resulting in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for $539.17, to which judgment this writ of error was granted on the petition of said company. An inspection of the declaration will raise the question whether it states a cause of action ex contractu or ex delicto; whether it is in assumpsit on a contract for transportation, or for tort for the ejection of the plaintiff from a car. It avers that the defendant company undertook and promised, for certain hire and reward paid to it, to safely and securely convey the plaintiff in its cars from the town of Ravenswood to Wheeling, and back again to Ravenswood, and that the plaintiff, confiding in such promise and undertaking of defendant, did take a seat as a passenger, in the defendant's car, and was conveyed to Wheeling, and that afterwards, still confiding in such promise and undertaking of the defendant, he took a seat as a passenger in one of its cars to be conveyed back to Wheeling to Ravenswood; but the defendant, not regarding its promise and undertaking, but contriving to injure the plaintiff, did not convey him from Wheeling to Ravenswood, but neglected and refused so to do. Thus far the declaration seems to be based on the contract of conveyance made by the defendant, as a carrier, with the plaintiff. But it then immediately avers that, instead of so conveying the plaintiff, the defendant, by its servants, violently and with great force caused the plaintiff, against his will and protest, to be ejected from said car, and to be pushed and hurled from it upon the ground, and to be prevented from going to Ravenswood on that day, by means whereof he was compelled to walk a long distance to a hotel, was greatly humiliated in his feelings and hurt in his pride, by being exposed to other passengers on the car, and was compelled to remain in Wheeling, from his business and home, and to pay hotel bills, and spend three or four dollars for telegrams sent to his wife, to allay her uneasiness on account of his failure to reach home when expected, and to spend money to purchase a ticket to reach home, and to borrow money for that purpose, and that his wife was ill, and her alarm from his failure to reach home when expected injured her, and protracted her illness, causing him to pay large medical bills, and that his business was damaged by his detention from home, and he sustained nu |