of authority to sustain it."101 A railway company is under no obligation, under the principles of the common law, to afford accommodation to hackmen for the transaction of their business of carry

ing passengers to and from its stations.102 A railroad company has the power to make reasonable regulations governing the conduct of persons who come upon its premises for the purpose of soliciting the patronage of its passengers, and to eject from its premises persons who violate such rules.103 It has been held that a railroad company can not grant to one person, a common carrier, to the exclusion of all other persons engaged in a like business, the right to come upon its depot grounds with his vehicles for the purpose of receiving freight or passengers.104 Another court has taken the contrary view, holding that a railway company may, by contract, confer upon a transfer company the exclusive privilege of going upon its premises with its hacks for the purpose of soliciting passengers, and may prohibit other hackmen, having no contract relation with it, or with its passengers, from doing so.105 It has been held that a rule of a railroad company, by which it reserves the right to assign places on its own grounds to the different hackmen, and to exclude others not assigned thereto, is a reasonable rule, and one which the company may enforce.106

$3131. Excluding Drunken Persons from Platforms of Street Cars. A rule of a horse railway company that its drivers shall not allow an intoxicated person on the front platform under any circumstances, and a notice or placard posted in the car forbidding all persons to be on the front platform, and stating that the company will not be responsible for their safety there,-are reasonable.107

101 Barker v. Midland R. Co., 18 Compare New York &c. R. Co. v. C. B. 46, 58.

102 New York &c. R. Co. v. Sheeley, 57 N. Y. St. Rep. 766; s. c. 27 N. Y. Supp. 185.

103 Com. v. Power, 7 Metc. (Mass.) 596; Landrigan v. State, 31 Ark. 50. The rights of hackmen at depots, wharves, etc., is treated in a note to Cole v. Rowen, 13 L. R. A. 848.

104 McConnell v. Pedigo, 92 Ky. 465; Cravens v. Rodgers, 101 Mo. 247; Colorado Springs v. Smith, 19 Colo. 554; s. c. 36 Pac. Rep. 540; Kalamazoo Hack &c. Co. v. Sootsma, 84 Mich. 194; s. c. 47 N. W. Rep. 667; Montana &c. R. Co. v. Langlois, 9 Mont. 419; Indianapolis &c. R. Co. v. Dohn, 153 Ind. 10; s. c. 53 N. E. Rep. 937. Contra, Old Colony R. Co. v. Tripp, 147 Mass. 35.

Flynn, 74 Hun (N. Y.) 124; s. c. 26
N. Y. Supp. 859.

105 New York &c. R. Co. v. Flynn, 74 Hun (N. Y.) 124.

103 Cole v. Rowen, 88 Mich. 219; s. c. 13 L. R. A. 848, and note; Lucas v. Herbert, 148 Ind. 64; s. c. 47 N. E. Rep. 146; 37 L. R. A. 376. Under a city charter conferring on the city the power to regulate hacks, an ordinance providing that no "agent of any transfer company

*shall go within the depot [of said city] for the purpose of soliciting patronage," is valid: Lindsay v. Mayor, 104 Ala. 257; s. c. 27 L. R. A. 436.

107 O'Neill v. Lynn &c. R. Co., 155 Mass. 371; s. c. 29 N. E. Rep. 630.

§ 3132. Prohibiting Passengers from Riding on the Platforms of the Cars. In case of a steam railway company, a regulation prohibiting passengers from riding on the platforms of the cars is rea sonable and valid;108 and so, in case of a street railway, is a regu lation prohibiting passengers from riding on the front platforms of the cars.109

§ 3133. Preventing Passengers from Boarding Trains while in Motion. A railroad company has obviously the right to make ar enforce a regulation preventing passengers from boarding its trains until they have come to a full stop for that purpose; and it has been held that its gate-keeper may seize hold of and detain passenger so far as to prevent them from performing such a dangerous and prohibited act.110

§ 3134. Prohibiting Passengers from Wearing Uniform of Rival Company. A regulation of a railroad company prohibiting pas sengers on its trains from wearing the uniform cap of a line of steamers running in opposition to a line which it runs in connection with its railroad, has been held unreasonable and invalid.111

§ 3135. Preventing Passengers from Stopping and Taking of their Baggage at Intermediate Stations.-Passengers on railwa trains have the right to stop off and receive their baggage at any regular station or stopping place of the train on which they may be travelling within the route called for by their ticket, and ar regulation that deprives them of this right is said to be arbitran. unreasonable and illegal. It has been so held concerning a regulation by which, although a passenger may himself get off at a regular station or stopping place of a passenger train, which is just across the street from the station of another railroad, he will not be soll a ticket to that place, or his baggage checked to or delivered at that station, but will be compelled to pay for a ticket to another station & mile distant and go there for his baggage.112

108 McCauley v. Tennessee &c. R. Co., 93 Ala. 356; Alabama &c. R. Co. v. Hawk, 72 Ala. 112; s. c. 47 Am. Rep. 403; Johnson v. Macon &c. R. Co., 38 Ga. 409.

100 Wills v. Lynn &c. R. Co., 129 Mass. 351; O'Neill v. Lynn &c. R. Co., 155 Mass. 371; Baltimore &c. R. Co. v. Cason, 72 Md. 377.

110 Dickerman v. St. Paul Unica Depot Co., 44 Minn. 433.

111 South Florida R. Co. v. Rhodes 25 Fla. 40; s. c. 3 L. R. A. 733: 5 South. Rep. 633.

112 Pittsburgh &c. R. Co. v. Lyon (Pa.), 23 W. N. C. 69.

§ 3136. Validity of Various Regulations of Steam Railway Carriers. It is a reasonable regulation for a steam railway company, having two lines of road between two points, one direct and the other circuitous, to require that its passengers, travelling upon a simple ticket from one of these points to the other, shall go by the most direct route;113 that one passenger shall not occupy more than one seat in a car;114 that, on a suburban train, the conductor and a collector shall start from each end of the train to collect tickets and fares, and that passengers shall not pass either the conductor or the collector without a ticket, unless they satisfy him that they have already paid;115 that the rear door of the rear car shall be kept locked, and that passengers shall enter at the front door;116 that a certain through train shall not be stopped at a specified station, which consists only of a side track, the nearest house to which is a mile away, where two other trains stop daily at such station;117 that no one but the holder of a first-class railroad ticket shall be allowed to ride upon a sleeping car;118 and that passengers shall not carry packages of merchandise into the passenger cars.119

§ 3137. Regulations which have been Held Void.-A regulation that a baggage master shall not receive baggage into the baggage room until a ticket shall have been procured, has been held to be an imposition on the public and unreasonable and void. It was conceded that it would be reasonable to refuse to check the baggage of a pas

113 Church v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 6 S. D. 235; s. c. 26 L. R. A. 616; 60 N. W. Rep. 854 (and such regulation becomes a part of the contract of carriage). It is further held that the failure of a railroad company to notify a passenger of its regulation that through passengers between two points shall take a direct route, instead of a more circuitous one which it also operates, does not entitle the passenger to ride between such points on the more circuitous route: Church v. Chicago &c. R. Co., supra.

114 Gulf &c. R. Co. v. Moody, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 622; s. c. 30 S. W. Rep. 574 (and for a persistent violation of this regulation the passenger may be expelled).

115 Faber v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 62 Minn. 433; s. c. 64 N. W. Rep. 918 (and this regulation may be enforced against a passenger who has no previous notice of it).

119 Missouri &c. R. Co. v. Brown (Tex. Civ. App.), 39 S. W. Rep. 326

(no off. rep.). It was held that this rule was valid, even as to passengers having no knowledge of it; so that where such a passenger boarded the rear platform, and, because of the door being locked, could not get into the car, but was forced to remain on the rear platform, and was thereby injured, he could not recover damages: Missouri &c. R. Co. v. Brown, supra.

117 Texas &c. R. Co. v. Ludlam, 57 Fed. Rep. 481; s. c. 48 Alb. L. J. 427; 6 C. C. A. 454 (the rule being published in the circulars and the time cards of the company). It is the duty of a person about to take passage for such a station to inform himself as to whether the particular train will stop there: Texas &c. R. Co. v. Ludlam, 57 Fed. Rep. 481; s. c. 48 Alb. L. J. 427; 6 C. C. A. 454. 11 Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Lee, 49 Ill. App. 75.

119 Runyon v. Central &c. R. Co., 64 N. J. L. 67; s. c. 44 Atl. Rep. 985.

senger until he had procured and exhibited his ticket.120 Clearly, a carrier may adopt a rule that an intending passenger shall pay his fare before the carrier assumes responsibility for his baggage; if a railway carrier fails to adopt such a rule, it is liable for the l of the baggage of an intending passenger, received by its agent befor the passenger has purchased his ticket.121

§ 3138. Interpretation of Various Regulations.-A rule requiring passengers travelling on freight trains to keep their seats does pot apply to one who, at the invitation of the railroad company, is in a freight car engaged in shoveling grain, pursuant to his employmen by the shipper; and he is not guilty of contributory negligence in continuing his work while the car is being moved, where he has no notice or knowledge that it is to be moved.122

ARTICLE III. REGULATIONS RESPECTING THE PURCHASE OF TICKETS AND THE PAYMENT OF FARES.

§ 3141. Requiring Passengers to Purchase Tickets or Pay Extra Fare.123-As already seen,124 judicial opinion is unanimous to th effect that a regulation of a railway carrier requiring passengers to purchase tickets before taking passage, or else to pay extra fare

other station, and carried back to the former station in the morning free of charge, does not relieve the company of liability for carrying a passenger past such station, where no notice of the regulation was giv en to the public, and the passenger had no actual notice of it: Louis ville &c. R. Co. v. Cayce, 17 Ky. L Rep. 1389; s. c. 34 S. W. Rep. 89 (not to be rep.).

123 This section is cited in § 3218. 124 Ante, §§ 2608, 2609.

upon the train, is reasonable,125 and a passenger may be ejected for refusing to comply with it;126 and it will be no excuse that the ejected passenger acts in good faith, believing the sum tendered by him to be the regular fare, or that he has previously been allowed to ride upon tender of the regular fare upon the train,127-provided that the proper facilities to enable the passenger to procure a ticket before boarding the train have been furnished,128 and provided that the extra fare demanded from the passenger on the train shall not, when added to the regular fare, exceed the maximum rate of fare which the company is allowed to charge by the statute law.129 The passenger can not complain that proper facilities to enable him to purchase his ticket have not been afforded him, where he has not applied at the ticket office until the time has arrived for the train to depart from the station, although it has not actually departed, where he fails to get his ticket because the ticket agent is at that time engaged in other business.130 But if the passenger has not had a reasonable opportunity to purchase a ticket at the station before. boarding the train, although he has applied for the same in ample time, because there is no one in the office authorized to sell it to him, and is obliged to board the train without a ticket, he can not be

125 Sage v. Evansville &c. R. Co., 134 Ind. 100; s. c. 33 N. E. Rep. 771; Forsee v. Alabama &c. R. Co., 63 Miss. 66; Wilsey v. Louisville &c. R. Co., 83 Ky. 511; Illinois &c. R. Co. v. Bauer, 66 Ill. App. 124; McGowen v. Morgan's &c. Co., 41 La. An. 732; s. c. 5 L. R. A. 817; 39 Am. & Eng. Rail. Cas. 460; 6 South. Rep. 606 (not unreasonable to require passengers without tickets to pay twentyfive cents extra).

12 Cincinnati &c. R. Co. v. Skillman, 39 Ohio St. 444; Sage v. Evansville &c. R. Co., 134 Ind. 100; s. c. 33 N. E. Rep. 771.

127 Sage v. Evansville &c. R. Co., 134 Ind. 100; s. c. 33 N. E. Rep. 771. 128 Ante, § 2610; Poole v. Northern &c. R. Co., 16 Or. 261; s. c. 19 Pac. Rep. 107; Cross v. Kansas City &c. R. Co., 56 Mo. App. 664; Atchison &c. R. Co. v. Dickerson, 4 Kan. App. 345; s. c. 45 Pac. Rep. 975; Fordyce v. Manuel, 82 Tex. 527; s. c. 18 S. W. Rep. 657.

129 Zagelmeyer v. Cincinnati &c. R. Co., 102 Mich. 214; s. c. 60 N. W. Rep. 436; Atchison &c. R. Co. v. Dickerson, 4 Kan. App. 345; s. c. 45 Pac. Rep. 975. So, a railroad company which fails to keep its ticket office open as required by Kan. Gen.

Stat. 1889, par. 1325, is not entitled to charge a passenger more than the regular fare per mile, or expel from a train a passenger who refuses to pay more: Atchison &c. R. Co. v. Dickerson, 4 Kan. App. 345; s. c. 45 Pac. Rep. 975.

130 Illinois &c. R. Co. v. Bauer, 66 Ill. App. 124. Under a statute enacting that "a charge of ten cents may be added to the fare of any passenger where the same is paid upon the cars," if a ticket might have been procured within a reasonable time before the departure of the train (Iowa Laws 1874, ch. 68, § 2),—it is not necessary for the railway company to keep the ticket office, at a small station, open until the very moment of the departure of the train; but all that the passenger can require is that he have a reasonable opportunity to purchase a ticket; and, in determining whether such opportunity was given him, it is proper for the jury to consider the character of the station, and whether the facilities allowed for purchasing tickets were such as the convenience of the public required at that place: Everett v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 69 Iowa 15.