that the condition has been abandoned, and unless the ticket-holder in the particular instance was actually misled.159 Such a condition, printed upon the ticket, can not be waived by an agent or an employé of the carrier.160 If the passenger fails to get the ticket stamped according to its terms, without his own fault, as where there is no person at the place where the ticket requires him to have it stamped,— but nevertheless insists upon riding on it without paying fare, although he has money enough to pay fare, and although he has a thousand-mile ticket which he can use, he can not recover damages in an action of tort for being ejected from the car; but his remedy is an action for a breach of the contract of carriage.161 The purchaser of a round-trip ticket, and it is supposed that this statement of doctrine will apply to any other ticket,-acquires the right to make the transit on some train of the company, according to its reasonable rules and regulations; but it is said that he does not acquire the right to ride. upon any train or class of trains, unless the ticket so states, or unless the agent of the railroad company so informs him at the time of purchasing it.162 § 2587. Mistakes and Misprisions of the Ticket Agent.163-If the ticket agent of the company, from whom the passenger purchases his ticket, makes a mistake in issuing the ticket to him, and the passenger, without fault on his part, is thereby put to inconvenience or damage, he may maintain an action against the company, although the company's train conductor may have acted in the premises in strict accordance with his instructions and with the company's regulations. If, for instance, the ticket-seller sells a punched ticket to a passenger, assuring him that it is good, when it is not, and the passenger gces upon the train in good faith, and is expelled for refusing to pay additional fare, he may maintain an action against the company.104 So, a railway company which sells through tickets over other lines is liable for the mistake of its agent in selling such a ticket, in omitting to stamp thereon the place of destination.165 If the ticket is otherwise defective, owing to the carelessness of the ticket agent, the company can not refuse to accept it without being answerable to the pas 159 Watson v. Louisville &c. R. Co., 104 Tenn. 194; s. c. 56 S. W. Rep. 1024. 160 Mosher v. St. Louis &c. R. Co., 127 U. S. 390; s. c. 32 L. ed. 349. 161 Western &c. R. Co. v. Stockdale, 83 Md. 245; s. c. 4 Am. & Eng. Rail. Cas. (N. S.) 510; 34 Atl. Rep. 880. 162 Claybrook v. Hannibal &c. R. Co., 19 Mo. App. 432; s. c. 2 West. Rep. 173. 163 This section is cited in §§ 3224, 3225. 164 Murdock v. Boston &c. R. Co., 137 Mass. 293; s. c. 50 Am. Rep. 307. 165 Griffin v. Utica &c. R. Co., 41 Hun (N. Y.) 448; s. c. 3 N. Y. St. Rep. 155. senger in damages. 166 Thus, although the ticket-seller has made at mistake in signing or stamping a round-trip ticket, yet the passenger who has received it without fault on his part, and who complies or tenders compliance with all its conditions, can not be refused passage by the carrier without incurring a liability to pay damages.167 If the passenger pays first-class fare to the ticket agent for a first-class passage, but, through a mistake of the agent, receives a second-class ticket, and the conductor subjects him to the humiliation of compelling him and his family to go into a second-class car, he can recover damages from the company, although the conductor offered to allow him. to ride in the first-class car by paying one cent per mile in addition.168 So, if the passenger calls for a ticket to a certain point, and pays the proper fare for such ticket, but, by a mistake of the ticket-seller, receives a ticket to a different point, he may properly insist upon being carried to his real point of destination, and if the conductor ejects him from the train, he will have an action for damages.1 So, it has been held that a railway passenger, to whom, by a mistake of the ticket agent, is delivered a ticket over a different route than that for which he calls for a ticket, can not be treated by the company as a trespasser, and be required to leave the train taken by him to reach. his destination, but has the right to continue his journey by that train.170 But where the ticket agent, in selling a ticket over a connecting line, exceeded his authority by selling a ticket of a form which he was not entitled to use, and the conductor of the connecting line refused to honor the ticket, but ejected the passenger for refusing to pay fare,—it was held that he had no action for the damages.171 166 Ohio &c. R. Co. v. Cope, 36 Ill. App. 97; Hot Springs R. Co. v. Deloney, 65 Ark. 177. 169 form. The ticket was not of the prescribed form. The court held that the issuing agent was at best a 167 Head v. Georgia &c. R. Co., 79 special agent of the defendant, and Ga. 358; s. c. 7 S. E. Rep. 217. 168 St. Louis &c. Co. v. Mackie, 71 Tex. 491; s. c. 9 S. W. Rep. 451; 1 L. R. A. 667. 169 Georgia R. Co. v. Olds, 77 Ga. 673. 170 Gulf &c. R. Co. v. Rather, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 72; s. c. 21 S. W. Rep. 951. 171 Houston &c. R. Co. v. Ford, 53 Tex. 364. In this case, the plaintiff purchased the ticket from one who was not an agent of, or in any way connected with, defendant. The seller of the ticket purchased it from a general agent of another railroad, with no connection with the defendant except the authority derived by custom among railroads to sell tickets of the prescribed that the passenger purchased the ticket at his peril. ---- Where a common agent is employed by two railway companies using a common station, called a union depot, nice questions may arise as to which company is liable for his mistakes in selling passage tickets. But the conclusion seems clear enough, that if an intending passenger applies to such a ticket agent for a passage ticket over the line of the A company, and, by mistake, he sells a passage ticket over the line of the B company, the A company, and not the B company, will be responsible for the mistake; because the intending passenger solicited of him a service to be rendered by the A § 2588. Right to Rely on the Apparent Authority of the Person Officiating in the Ticket Office.-It is obvious, upon a little consideration of the subject, that the travelling public ought to be protected by the law in relying upon the apparent authority of the person officiating in the ticket office, in the absence of fraud or collusion. They have neither the time nor the means of finding out whether he is the authorized agent of the company or not, or what is the extent of his authority; and the train may be approaching, and other intending passengers may be crowding to the window to purchase their tickets. The railway company is therefore, obviously, within the limits above named, bound by the acts and representations of the person suffered so to officiate.172 If such person is the regular agent of the railway company, the intending passenger may, within the foregoing limitations, rely upon the fact of his possessing the authority to sell a ticket of a particular kind; and if he sells such a ticket to an intending passenger without authority, and, on the faith of it, the purchaser boards the proper train in good faith, and is ejected, he may maintain an action against the company for the damages, although, in point of fact, the agent was without authority to sell the particular ticket.173 § 2589. Right to Rely upon Representations of Ticket Agent without Examining Ticket.-It is a part of this theory that the passenger is not required to examine his ticket after its receipt from the ticket agent, except under special circumstances, but that the responsibility is upon the company to sell him the ticket for which he applies.174 On the other hand, a passenger who, by mistake, receives a ticket from the place of destination, and retains it for four months, company, and in respect of that service he therefore became the agent of the A company, and not of the B company: Scott v. Cleveland &c. R. Co., 144 Ind. 125; s. c. 32 L. R. A. 154; 43 N. E. Rep. 133. The fact that a contract for transportation was made out and issued to an illiterate person in a wrong name, through the mistake of her agent who purchased it for her, did not affect the validity of the contract embodied in it, where there was no fraud either on the part of her agent or the company in reference to the sale of the ticket, and she accepted and used it: Southern R. Co. v. White. 108 Ga. 201; s. c. 33 S. E. Rep. 952. 172 Gulf &c. R. Co. v. Moorman (Tex. Civ. App.), 46 S. W. Rep. 662; s. c. 11 Am. & Eng. Rail. Cas. (N. S.) 157 (no off. rep.). 173 Hot Springs R. Co. v. Deloney, 65 Ark. 177. Circumstances under which it was held that the word “exchange" stamped upon a ticket which the agent of the defendant had procured for the plaintiff did not raise a legal presumption that the plaintiff knew that the agent was without authority to sell the ticket, or that he was perpetrating a fraud on the defendant by issuing it, so as to justify the expulsion of the plaintiff from the train: Mexican &c. R. Co. v. Goodman (Tex. Civ. App.), 55 S. W. Rep. 372. 174 Georgia &c. R. Co. v. Dougherty, 86 Ga. 744; s. c. 12 S. E. Rep. 747; McGinnis v. Missouri &c. R. Co., 21 Mo. App. 399; s. c. 4 West. Rep. 797. with full knowledge of its purport, without disclosing the error to the railroad company, will be regarded as having ratified the contract according to its terms.175 Upon the question what will be contributory negligence on the part of the passenger, in not examining his ticket before boarding the train to see that it is correct, it has been held that a railway passenger is not guilty of negligence in failing to discover a mistake in his ticket calling for a different route than that contracted for, where he obtained the ticket as soon as he could, and did not examine it at the time because he had barely time to board the train, and did not think to examine it afterwards until called upon for it by the conductor.176 If a passenger applies to the ticket agent of a railway company for a ticket entitling him to ride between the stations, and pays the usual fare and accepts the ticket without reading it because of the poor light, and the ticket agent assures him that it is all right, and that it will be accepted by the conductor, and it turns out to be an excursion ticket the time limit of which has expired, and the passenger, on presenting the ticket to the conductor on the train, is ejected from the train as a trespasser, he will be entitled to recover exemplary damages for the outrage.177 § 2590. Tickets Purchased from Brokers or "Scalpers."—If a railroad company sells its tickets to brokers in blocks for resale, it thereby makes such brokers its ticket agents within the meaning of a so-called "anti-scalping statute," making the sale of tickets by other than duly appointed agents of the railroad companies unlawful.178 If such tickets are through tickets or coupon tickets over a connecting line, the company selling them through the agency of the broker becomes liable to the broker for the refusal of the connecting company to honor them.179 In such a case the court regarded the price of the coupons over the road of the connecting carrier as a deposit with the initial carrier, returnable on the surrender of the invalid coupons which were vouchers for such deposit. The sale of the whole ticket is not a contract for carriage for the whole distance, but is merely a contract for carriage over the line of the carrier selling the ticket, and the invalid coupons are treated as vouchers for money deposited with the carrier. The broker may therefore re 175 Godfrey v. Ohio &c. R. Co., 116 Ind. 30; s. c. 15 West. Rep. 533; 18 N. E. Rep. 61. 176 Gulf &c. R. Co. v. Rather, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 72; s. c. 21 S. W. Rep. 951. 177 Callaway v. Millett, 15 Ind. App. 366; s. c. 24 Wash. L. Rep. 614; 43 Cent. L. J. 77; 99 Chic. Leg. News 43; 44 N. E. Rep. 198. 179 Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Mulford, 59 Ill. App. 479; s. c. rev'd on other grounds, 162 Ill. 522. 179 Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Mulford, 162 III. 522; rev'g s. c. 59 Ill. App. 479, where 27 Chic. Leg. News 262 was aff'd; s. c. 10 Nat. Corp. Rep. 51. 53 180 cover from such carrier the price of the worthless coupons. According to the case just cited, a railroad company, by selling tickets bearing coupons for transportation over connecting lines, does not impliedly contract that such tickets will be honored by such connecting lines, but merely that it is the agent of such lines and has authority to issue such tickets; and if it sells a quantity of coupon tickets over its own and connecting roads, to brokers, under the representation that they can make the through rate less than the regular through rate by adding the local rate beyond the termination of such tickets, it will not be liable to such brokers for a failure or refusal of a connecting line to honor such tickets; since, in the absence of contract other than the sale of the tickets, the coupons are to be regarded as the distinct tickets of each road.18 181 § 2591. Rights of Passengers Holding Excursion Tickets.-Excursion tickets, so-called, are generally sold at reduced rates, and almost always contain special conditions and limitations. The fact that a ticket is an excursion ticket and sold at a reduced rate ought, it should seem, to be sufficient to put the purchaser on inquiry as to the conditions under which it is sold, and to charge him with constructive notice of those conditions. The conditions of such tickets are generally devised to prevent the fraud which would be practiced 180 Mulford v. Chicago &c. R. Co., supra. 181 Mulford v. Chicago &c. R. Co., supra. A person purchased from a ticket "scalper" in Georgia a roundtrip ticket from Illinois to Florida with coupons over a railroad in Georgia operated by a court receiver. The ticket contained a special contract intended to be signed by the original purchaser; but it was signed only, as attesting witness, by an agent of a railroad company in Illinois, who was an agent of the receiver to sell the ticket in Illinois. The contract provided that it should be used only by the original purchaser. The coupons applicable to railroads between Illinois and Georgia had been detached. It was held that the holder of the ticket did not occupy the position of a bona fide original purchaser, and was not entitled to recover damages for being ejected after refusing to pay his fare: Comer v. Foley, 98 Ga. 678; s. c. 25 S. E. Rep. 671; 5 1901, ch. 639), which prohibits the sale of passage tickets over the lines of transportation companies by others than the authorized agents of such companies, is unconstitutional, in that it is an infraction of the liberty of the citizen to engage in a lawful business: People v. Caldwell, 64 App. Div. (N. Y.) 46. The law cited above is substantially the same as N. Y. Laws of 1897, ch. 506, which was declared unconstitutional for the same reason: People v. Warden of City Prison, 157 N. Y. 116; rev'g s. c. 26 App. Div. 228. The difference between the earlier and the later law is, that the later provides that the authorized agent of any railway company is permitted to purchase from an authorized agent of any other railway company a ticket for a passenger to whom he may sell a ticket to travel over any part of the line for which he is the authorized agent, so as to enable such passenger to travel to the place or junction for which his ticket reads. |