upon the carrier if they were used in the place of general tickets for the purpose of an ordinary passage, as, for example, if they are used one way by an ordinary passenger and the coupon is sold to a ticket broker or "scalper," and is by him sold to another person, who uses it for the return passage as an ordinary passenger; so that those who use the ticket for passage either way escape the payment of the ordinary fare, without belonging to the excursion party. At the same time, it is well known that the passenger agents of competing railroad companies frequently resort to the device of selling excursion tickets in order to cut the rates which have been agreed upon among such companies, between given points, and to attract an undue proportion of the travel to their own lines. A few holdings which have been made in the interpretation of the conditions of excursion tickets will now be briefly noticed. A condition in such a ticket, sold at a reduced rate, that if used for any other station it will be forfeited and the full fare charged, applies to its stations beyond that named on the ticket, as well as to the intermediate station." An excursion ticket marked "Good going on any train" on a certain day has reference only to trains used to carry passengers, and gives no right to ride upon a through freight train, on which, by the rule of the company, passengers are not allowed to ride without a special permit.183 The holder of a special excursion ticket good only on a special excursion train and for a round trip, who surrenders it to the conductor in order that the connecting roads over which the excursion train passes may have vouchers for their share of the excursion money, and who receives instead a regular ticket substituted by the company, must return on the excursion train, since the original contract is not changed by the issuing by the conductor of a regular ticket.184

182

§ 2592. Tickets over Connecting Lines.185-As elsewhere seen, a common carrier is not bound to undertake the conveyance of a passenger beyond the termination of his own line,1 186 and it was at one

182 Great Northern &c. R. Co. v. Palmer, L. R. (1895) 1 Q. B. 862; s. c. 64 L. J. Q. B. (N. S.) 316.

183 Thomas v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 72 Mich. 355; s. c. 40 N. W. Rep. 463.

184 McRae v. Wilmington &c. R. Co., 88 N. C. 526; s. c. 43 Am. Rep. 745. A statute of Georgia (Ga. Code, § 2068) forbids carriers to limit their legal liability by notice or entry on tickets sold, without an express contract with the passenger. Under this statute a railroad com

pany can not, when receiving pay for a return ticket, exact that the passenger shall sign the ticket, and that it shall be stamped by an agent, although the ticket is sold at a reduced price, is limited as to time, and imports on its face that it is to be signed and stamped: Phillips v. Georgia R. &c. Co., 93 Ga. 356; s. c. 20 S. E. Rep. 247.

185 This section is cited in § 3381. Post, § 3349, et seq.

180

time thought to be ultra vires for an incorporated carrier to make such a contract of carriage, but that doctrine has been abandoned. Carriers whose lines connect with each other may make traffic arrangements with each other for a through or continuous carriage, and the responsibilities which will arise under such arrangements will depend in every case upon their real nature, which will be a question of fact, or of law upon particular facts. A railway carrier may become bound by an undertaking to convey a passenger over a connecting line, in the absence of a stipulation that he makes the contract in respect of such line, only as agent of the purchaser of the ticket, and without responsibility on his part for any default of such line in the performance of its part of the contract. A railroad company which sells tickets calling for transportation over another road does not contract that they will be good for transportation over the latter road, but only that it is the agent of the connecting road with authority to issue such tickets. 187 On the other hand, a railroad company which authorizes another company to issue and sell tickets good over its road, makes such company its agent, and can not repudiate the contract so made with a passenger, who in good faith buys a ticket from such agent, on account of any subsequent disagreement between the two companies.188 But if a railway company has made a special contract for the transportation of passengers upon excursion tickets over its line in connection with another line, it will be responsible for the damages attending its failure to run trains on the return trip in connection with the other line as advertised.189 But through tickets in the form of coupons, entitling the holder to pass over successive roads, usually import no contract with the company selling the same to carry the passenger beyond the line of its own road, being regarded as distinct tickets for each road, sold by the first company as agent for the others, as far as the passenger is concerned.190 It is the duty of the company named in each coupon in a through ticket, where the company selling the ticket is authorized to act as agent for such company, to honor the coupon for one continuous passage over the road named therein, at any time before it expires by its own limitation; and such company is bound by such representations of the agent of the selling company as to stop-over privi

187 Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Mulford, 162 Ill. 522; rev'g s. c. 59 Ill. App. 479.

188 Cowen v. Winters, 96 Fed. Rep. 929; aff'g s. c. 90 Fed. Rep. 99; Poulin v. Canadian &c. R. Co., 52 Fed. Rep. 197; s. c. 6 U. S. App. 298; 3 C. C. A. 23 (duty of passenger to cure known defect in ticket).

199 Hawcroft v. Great Northern R. Co., 21 L. J. (Q. B.) 178; s. c. 16 Jur. 196; 8 Eng. Law & Eq. 362.

190 Young v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 115 Pa. St. 112; s. c. 5 Cent. Rep. 848; Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Mulford. 162 Ill. 522; rev'g s. c. 59 Ill. App. 479.

leges. 191 The agency of an initial carrier to issue a through coupon passenger ticket of a particular class over a system of connecting railways in the hands of a receiver, operated by him in separate divisions, is sufficiently established by the fact that the conductors in the receiver's employment, with his knowledge, had recognized and honored as valid the coupons of similar tickets for his lines: that a coupon of such ticket was accepted for passage over one of such divisions. 192 The retention by a railroad conductor of a coupon ticket presented for passage over a railroad operated by a receiver, which ticket had been sold without authority from the receiver, does not render the latter liable for refusing to allow the one presenting it to ride on it.19 193 It has been held that if a connecting line be discontinued after the sale of a ticket, in consequence of the prevalence of the yellow fever, the passenger can recover no damages from the carrier selling the ticket. But if service on the connecting line has been discontinued before the selling of the ticket, and the passenger has no other convenient route to his destination, he can maintain an action against the carrier selling the ticket for a breach of the contract, and the measure of his damages will be the expense of his return and a reasonable compensation for the loss of his time.194 Where a railroad company was chartered both in Tennessee and in Mississippi, and the officers of the company in each State were the same, and it was for practical purposes treated as one company, and a single ticket was used for both portions of the line,-it was held that the contract might be treated as that of each company.195

191 Young v. Pennsylvania R. Co., supra.

192

Spencer v. Lovejoy, 96 Ga. 657; s. c. 23 S. E. Rep. 836.

193 Comer v. Foley, 98 Ga. 678; s. c. 25 S. E. Rep. 671; 5 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. (N. S.) 250. In another case, a street railroad company had an arrangement with another company whereby it ran its cars over the tracks of the other in leaving and entering the city, and they sold coupon tickets, one portion of which was good over the line of the city company and a part of the line of the other company. The conductor of the city company took up the. tickets as to its line and such part of the trip over the line of the other company before the conductor of the rural line took charge of the car. When the car reached the end of the city company's line, but before it had reached the point to which plaintiff was entitled to ride by vir

tue of the first coupon, the conductor of the rural company took charge of the car, and demanded plaintiff's fare, when it was ascertained that the conductor of the city line had collected the wrong coupon. It was held that the conductor of the rural line had no authority to eject plaintiff before the car reached the point to which plaintiff was entitled to ride by virtue of his first coupon, as his uncollected ticket tendered to the conductor was sufficient to entitle him to ride to the point to which it was issued: Vining v. Detroit &c. R. Co., 122 Mich. 248; s. c. 80 N. W. Rep. 1080.

104 Central R. Co. v. Combs, 70 Ga. 533; Percy v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 58 Mo. App. 75.

195 Mississippi &c. R. Co. v. Ayres, 16 Lea (Tenn.) 725. As to the status of companies created by the concurrent legislation of two or more

time thought to be ultra vires for an incorporated carrier to make such a contract of carriage, but that doctrine has been abandoned. Carriers whose lines connect with each other may make traffic arrangements with each other for a through or continuous carriage, and the responsibilities which will arise under such arrangements will depend in every case upon their real nature, which will be a question of fact, or of law upon particular facts. A railway carrier may become bound by an undertaking to convey a passenger over a connecting line, in the absence of a stipulation that he makes the contract in respect of such line, only as agent of the purchaser of the ticket, and without responsibility on his part for any default of such line in the performance of its part of the contract. A railroad company which sells tickets calling for transportation over another road does not contract that they will be good for transportation over the latter road, but only that it is the agent of the connecting road with authority to issue such tickets.187 On the other hand, a railroad company which authorizes another company to issue and sell tickets good over its road, makes such company its agent, and can not repudiate the contract so made with a passenger, who in good faith buys a ticket from such agent, on account of any subsequent disagreement between the two companies.188 But if a railway company has made a special contract for the transportation of passengers upon excursion tickets over its line in connection with another line, it will be responsible for the damages attending its failure to run trains on the return trip in connection with the other line as advertised.189 But through tickets in the form of coupons, entitling the holder to pass over successive roads, usually import no contract with the company selling the same to carry the passenger beyond the line of its own road, being regarded as distinct tickets for each road, sold. by the first company as agent for the others, as far as the passenger is concerned." 190 It is the duty of the company named in each coupon in a through ticket, where the company selling the ticket is authorized to act as agent for such company, to honor the coupon for one continuous passage over the road named therein, at any time before it expires by its own limitation; and such company is bound by such representations of the agent of the selling company as to stop-over privi

187 Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Mulford, 162 Ill. 522; rev'g s. c. 59 Ill. App. 479.

188 Cowen v. Winters, 96 Fed. Rep. 929; aff'g s. c. 90 Fed. Rep. 99; Poulin v. Canadian &c. R. Co., 52 Fed. Rep. 197; s. c. 6 U. S. App. 298; 3 C. C. A. 23 (duty of passenger to cure known defect in ticket).

189 Hawcroft v. Great Northern R. Co., 21 L. J. (Q. B.) 178; s. c. 16 Jur. 196; 8 Eng. Law & Eq. 362.

190 Young v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 115 Pa. St. 112; s. c. 5 Cent. Rep. 848; Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Mulford, 162 Ill. 522; rev'g s. c. 59 Ill. App. 479.

leges 191 The agency of an initial carrier to issue a through coupon passenger ticket of a particular class over a system of connecting railways in the hands of a receiver, operated by him in separate divisions, is sufficiently established by the fact that the conductors in the receiver's employment, with his knowledge, had recognized and honored as valid the coupons of similar tickets for his lines: that a coupon of such ticket was accepted for passage over one of such divisions.192 The retention by a railroad conductor of a coupon ticket presented for passage over a railroad operated by a receiver, which ticket had been sold without authority from the receiver, does not render the latter liable for refusing to allow the one presenting it. to ride on it.193 It has been held that if a connecting line be discontinued after the sale of a ticket, in consequence of the prevalence of the yellow fever, the passenger can recover no damages from the carrier selling the ticket. But if service on the connecting line has been discontinued before the selling of the ticket, and the passenger has no other convenient route to his destination, he can maintain an action against the carrier selling the ticket for a breach of the contract, and the measure of his damages will be the expense of his return and a reasonable compensation for the loss of his time.194 Where a railroad company was chartered both in Tennessee and in Mississippi, and the officers of the company in each State were the same, and it was for practical purposes treated as one company, and a single ticket was used for both portions of the line,-it was held that the contract might be treated as that of each company.195

supra.

112

Young v. Pennsylvania R. Co.,

Spencer v. Lovejoy, 96 Ga. 657; s. c. 23 S. E. Rep. 836.

123 Comer v. Foley, 98 Ga. 678; s. c. 25 S. E. Rep. 671; 5 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. (N. S.) 250. In another case, a street railroad company had an arrangement with another company whereby it ran its cars over the tracks of the other in leaving and entering the city, and they sold coupon tickets, one portion of which was good over the line of the city company and a part of the line of the other company. The conductor of the city company took up the. tickets as to its line and such part of the trip over the line of the other company before the conductor of the rural line took charge of the car. When the car reached the end of the city company's line, but before it had reached the point to which plaintiff was entitled to ride by vir

tue of the first coupon, the conductor of the rural company took charge of the car, and demanded plaintiff's fare, when it was ascertained that the conductor of the city line had collected the wrong coupon. It was held that the conductor of the rural line had no authority to eject plaintiff before the car reached the point to which plaintiff was entitled to ride by virtue of his first coupon, as his uncollected ticket tendered to the conductor was sufficient to entitle him to ride to the point to which it was issued: Vining v. Detroit &c. R. Co., 122 Mich. 248; s. c. 80 N. W. Rep. 1080.

104 Central R. Co. v. Combs, 70 Ga. 533; Percy v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 58 Mo. App. 75.

105 Mississippi &c. R. Co. v. Ayres, 16 Lea (Tenn.) 725. As to the status of companies created by the concur rent legislation of two or

more