§ 2593. Transfers from one Car to Another on the Same Line.— Street railway companies, for their own convenience, frequently adopt the practice of transfering their passengers from one car to another, or from one section of their line to another. The fact that a street car on which a passenger is riding meets with an accident which delays it, does not give him a right to mount another car for the purpose of completing his journey, without procuring a transfer to that car, so as to entitle him to recover damages for being ejected therefrom; but if the servants of the company refuse to transfer him, that puts upon the company the responsibility for a breach of its contract to transport him to his destination within a reasonable time, and he may recover damages for that.196 If a street railway company has, by a continuous practice, established a right on the part of its passengers to change without a transfer ticket from one car to another in the completion of their journey, it can not change such practice without due notice.19 197

States, see 1 Thomp. Corp., §§ 47, 48, 319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 688; 7 Thomp. Corp., §§ 8246, 8247, 8248, 8263, 8264. It need scarcely be argued that a railway company can not be required to accept, in payment of passage over its road, a coupon entitling the person to passage over a connecting road, which the conductor on the latter handed by mistake to the passenger, instead of the coupon for the former road; and the expulsion of the passenger for refusal to pay fare under such circumstances is not wrongful: Louisville &c. R. Co. v. Conrad, 4 Ind. App. 83; s. c. 30 N. E. Rep. 406.

196 Taylor v. Nassau &c. R. Co., 32 App. Div. 486; s. c. 53 N. Y. Supp. 5. The charter of a street railway company in Massachusetts required it to give transfers for a continuous ride to any point on its lines. Two lines ran parallel on a street for a short distance to a transfer point, where one of the lines ended. A rule of the company required passengers on the line ending at the transfer point to receive transfers for the other line there. The defendant, knowing the rule, boarded the car on the short line, tendered his fare, and demanded a transfer to the other line immediately, which was refused. He left the car, without paying his fare, before reaching the transfer point, and boarded a car on the continuing line and paid his fare. It was

held that he was guilty of an evasion of fare, within Pub. St., ch. 112, § 197, prohibiting a person from leaving a car without having paid the fare for the distance travelled, although he had no intention to defraud the company, and if he had conformed to its rules, would have been entitled to a continuous ride over the route travelled for one fare: Commonwealth v. Jones, 174 Mass. 401; s. c. 54 N. E. Rep. 869.

197 Consolidated Traction Co. V. Taborn, 58 N. J. L. 1; s. c. 2 Am. & Eng. Rail. Cas. (N. S.) 124: 32 Atl. Rep. 685; aff'd in 58 N. J. L. 408 (mem.). Another case is found which proceeds on the same conception, and which stops at the conductor instead of stopping at the corporation. A street car company changed its transfer regulations, by limiting its transfers to be used, on only one of its lines, for which they had been previously issued. The plaintiff attempted to ride on the line from which the transfer privilege had been withdrawn on a transfer issued for the other line, and was ejected by the conductor. He brought an action for damages, grounded solely on the ejection. It was held that he could not recover, for the reason that the transfer did not, on its face, entitle him to ride on the car which he entered, and because, as between him and the conductor, the transfer was the con

§ 2594. Regulations and Restrictions Annexed to such Transfers.— Street railroad companies have frequently attempted to annex conditions, or to impose limitations or regulations upon such transfers, some of them reasonable and others dishonest and oppressive. It has been held that a rule of a city railroad company, requiring a passenger riding over two sections of its line to keep and show, undetached by him, a coupon ticket, is reasonable, and a passenger failing to comply with such rule may be ejected.198 Again, it has been held that a condition printed on such a transfer check that the passenger shall examine date, time and directions, and see that the same are correct, is not reasonable, and will not be enforced, when the system of figures and punches used to indicate time of transfer are so complicated as to be not easily understood by persons of ordinary intelligence. The passenger has a right to presume correct action on the part of the company's agent in issuing the ticket or transfer.199 Nor is the passenger bound by the conditions printed on the back of a transfer check, although there is printed on the face thereof a recital that the "passenger in accepting this transfer agrees to read and be governed by the conditions on the back thereof, subject to the rules. of the company," unless the conditions so imposed are reasonable."

clusive evidence of his right: Keen v. Detroit Electric R. Co., 123 Mich. 247; s. c. 81 N. W. Rep. 1084.

198 De Lucas v. New Orleans &c. Co., 38 La. An. 930. On the other hand, it has been held that a transfer ticket issued to a passenger by a conductor to enable him to stop off and take the next car, is binding upon the company and entitles such passenger to ride on the next car, although it reads "subject to the rules of the company," and such rules authorize the issuance of tickets only for other lines, where such rules are not published so that the travelling public can see or read them: Ray v. Cortland &c. Traction Co., 19 App. Div. (N. Y.) 530; s. c. 46 N. Y. Supp. 521 (distinguishing Townsend v. New York &c. R. Co., 56 N. Y. 295; Wiggins v. King, 91 Hun (N. Y.) 340).

10 O'Rourke v. Citizens' St. R. Co., 103 Tenn. 124; s. c. 52 S. W. Rep. 872; 46 L. R. A. 614.

200 O'Rourke v. Citizens' Street R. Co., 103 Tenn. 124; s. c. 52 S. W. Rep. 872; 46 L. R. A. 614. It has been held that a condition printed on a street railroad transfer check, which provided that, "in accept

200

ing this transfer, passenger agrees, in case of controversy with conductor about this ticket, and its refusal, to pay the regular fare charged, and apply at the office of the company for refund of the same within three days," is unreasonable, and will not be enforced: O'Rourke v. Citizens' St. R. Co., 103 Tenn. 124; s. c. 52 S. W. Rep. 872; 46 L. R. A. 614. When a ticket has been delivered by a railroad company for passage over its lines to the publisher of a newspaper, with power in the latter to sell and transfer the same, but its validity has been expressly limited on its face to the first purchaser, the newspaper becomes the agent of the company to dispose of the ticket on the terms named. No authority being given such agent to vary the terms of the sale, after a sale by the agent and the insertion of the purchaser's name, it is valueless in the hands of any other person: Davis v. South Carolina &c. R. Co., 107 Ga. 420. It seems that under the New York General Railroad Law (Laws of 1890, chap. 565; General Laws, chap. 39, § 101), restricting the fare on certain street surface railroads

§ 2595. Transfers Given to Street Railway Passengers. 201-The well-known practice of street railway companies, in many cases enforced by statute or by municipal ordinances, of giving transfers to passengers to enable them to proceed upon connecting lines without the payment of additional fare, has received some attention at the hands of the courts. A regulation of a street railway company whose charter provides for passage over two lines for one fare, that a passenger over the second line must have a transfer check and comply with its conditions, is not unreasonable.202 As the object of giving such a transfer to a passenger is to enable him to identify himself to the conductor of the connecting vehicle which he enters, as a passenger having paid one fare, and being thus entitled to continue. his journey,—it follows that a person who attempts to continue such a journey without procuring the proper transfer, or endeavoring to procure it, has no action for damages if he is ejected for refusing to pay fare;203 though it has been held that if the passenger has been unable to procure the transfer, he can not be lawfully ejected, where the conductor has otherwise sufficient evidence of his having paid his fare and acquired the right to be transported to his destination.204 The holder of such a transfer has no absolute right to board the first car that approaches on the line to which he is transferred, where it is so full that room for him can not be made inside; and if the use of the front platform by passengers is prohibited by a city ordinance, he will not be justified in attempting to ride on it; but if he is ordered to leave it and refuses, he may be ejected. In such a case, if the car is so full that there is no place upon it where he may lawfully ride, it is his duty to wait for another car.205 If, under the governing statute,206 the passenger is entitled to a continuous trip for a single fare, and, in order to accomplish this, he must be transferred from one car or one line to another, his right to such a transfer can not, it has been held, be encumbered by an arbitrary condition that he shall

therein mentioned and their connections therein described, to one fare of five cents for one continuous ride on such road or on such road and such connection,-a regulation of the corporation operating such road on from five to eight minutes' headway,-to the effect that a transfer ticket given by the conductor of the car upon which passage is taken, shall be so punched as to indicate that the passenger has ten minutes and no more, at the place of connection, within which to take the car for which the transfer is given,-is reasonable:

Muckle v. Rochester R. Co., 79 Hun (N. Y.) 32.

201 This section is cited in § 3554. 202 Percy v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 58 Mo. App. 75.

203 Mahoney v. Detroit Street R. Co., 93 Mich. 613; s. c. 18 L. R. A. 335; 52 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 581; 53 N. W. Rep. 793.

204 Homiston v. Long Island R. Co., 3 Misc. (N. Y.) 342; s. c. 52 N. Y. St. Rep. 1; 22 N. Y. Supp. 738.

203 Hanna v. Nassau &c. R. Co., 18 App. Div. (N. Y.) 137; s. c. 45 N. Y. Supp. 437.

206 New York Laws 1892, ch. 676, § 104.

take a car within ten minutes after receiving his transfer, no matter whether the cars which pass within that time afford room for passengers or not. If, therefore, he is unable to find a place on a car within the time limit of his transfer, he may board a subsequent car, and if he is ejected therefrom, he may recover damages. 207 It has been held that a transfer issued to such a passenger, in which the route which he is at liberty to take is designated in such general terms as to be applicable to several lines, entitles him to a passage over either.208

§ 2596. Right to Stop Short of Destination on "Continuous Trip Tickets."209-The holder of a railroad ticket entitling him to a specified number of single continuous trips evidenced by separate coupons, between two specified stations, with a provision that passage shall be taken only on such trains as stop at such stations, and that the ticket shall be good "only for continuous trips between" such stations, is entitled, on surrendering one of the coupons, to ride from either station to an intermediate station, or vice versa, on a passenger train scheduled to stop at the stations designated and also at the intermediate stations.210

§ 2597. Right to Stop Off and Resume Journey on Same Ticket.— It may be stated, as a general rule, that the contract for conveyance entered into between the carrier and the passenger is an entirety. Neither party can require the other to perform it in parts. The passenger has no right to leave the conveyance at an intermediate point, without the carrier's consent, and afterwards demand that the contract be completed according to his convenience.211 A passenger

207 Jenkins v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 51 N. Y. Supp. 216; s. c. 29 App. Div. 8; rehearing denied in 51 N. Y. Supp. 868; 30 App. Div. 622.

208 Pine v. St. Paul &c. R. Co., 50 Minn. 144; s. c. 16 L. R. A. 347; 52 N. W. Rep. 392. It has been held that one who boards a street car and rides to the point of transfer, for the sole purpose of demanding a transfer, and with no desire to go beyond that point, is not a "passenger desirous of making one continuous trip between such points" within the New York railroad law subjecting certain corporations to a penalty to be recovered by the aggrieved party for refusing a transfer to such party: Myers v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 41 N. Y. Supp. 798; s. c. 10 App. Div. 335. It has

been held that no recovery can be had for ejection from a street car, in a suit based on the wrongful act of the conductor, by one who presented for passage a transfer ticket torn in two pieces, where the rules of the company required fares to be collected in money or by "proper transfer tickets," and passengers receiving transfers frequently tore them up and threw them away because of not wishing to wait for a car: Woods v. Metropolitan Street R. Co., 48 Mo. App. 125.

20% This section is cited in § 3226. 210 Georgia R. &c. Co. v. Clarke, 97 Ga. 706; s. c. 5 Am. & Eng. Rail. Cas. (N. S.) 219; 25 S. E. Rep. 368.

211 Stone v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 47 Iowa 82; s. c. 10 Chic. Leg. N. 78; 6 Reporter 489; Hamilton V. New

holding a ticket bearing upon its face the stipulation "Good for this day and train only" will not be entitled to leave the train after his journey has commenced, and afterwards, though on the same day, claim passage on such ticket.212 Even though it has been customary upon a certain railroad to allow passengers to stop over at stations intermediate upon their journey without detriment to their right to resume travel upon the same ticket, yet the railroad company may at any time make a regulation to the contrary, and a passenger will be bound by such regulation whether he has notice of it or not.213 Such a rule has been upheld by the courts upon the assumption that it is necessary for the prevention of frauds upon the carrier. 214 By the voluntary act of the passenger in leaving the train upon a ticket which gives him no stop-over privileges, with the intention of resuming his journey upon the same ticket, the contract of carriage is deemed to have been broken; and if the passenger thereafter enters the vehicle of the carrier without purchasing another ticket, or making payment of fare, he is deemed a trespasser, and may be rightfully ejected from the vehicle.215 This rule applies to coupon tickets calling for a continuous passage over connecting lines, as well as to tickets over a single line, if the contract so requires ;216 but if the contract does not so require, it seems that there is a right to stop off on completing the portion of the journey covered by each coupon, provided the passenger can resume the journey before the time limited for the next coupon has expired.217 Accordingly, it has been held that the holder of a valid passenger ticket over a system of railways operated under one management, but divided into separate divisions, to which ticket coupons for each division are attached, is

York &c. R. Co., 51 N. Y. 100; Cheney v. Boston &c. R. Co., 11 Metc. (Mass.) 121; Cleveland &c. R. Co. v. Bartram, 11 Ohio St. 457; State v. Overton, 24 N. J. L. 435; Johnson v. Concord R. Co., 46 N. H. 213; Beebe v. Ayers, 28 Barb. (N. Y.) 275; Drew v. Central Pacific R. Co., 51 Cal. 425; Briggs v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 24 Upper Canada Q. B. 510; Craig v. Great Western R. Co., 24 Upper Canada Q. B. 504; Barker v. Coflin, 31 Barb. (N. Y.) 556; Breen v. Texas &c. R. Co., 50 Texas 43; Gale v. Delaware &c R. Co., 7 Hun (N. Y.) 670; Oil Creek &c. R. Co. v. Clark,72 Pa. St. 231; Terry v. Flushing &c. R. Co., 13 Hun (N. Y.) 359; Dunphy v. Erie R. Co., 10 Jones & Sp. (N. Y.) 128; Wyman v. Northern &c. R. Co., 34 Minn. 210; Coombs v. Reg., 26 Can. S. C. 13.

212 Gale v. Delaware &c. R. Co., 7 Hun (N. Y.) 670.

213 Johnson v. Concord &c. R. Co., 46 N. H. 213. See, also, Dietrich v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 71 Pa. St. 432.

214 Beebe v. Ayers, 28 Barb. (N. Y.) 275.

215 Dietrich v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 71 Pa. St. 432; Vankirk v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 76 Pa. St. 66. As to what effect declarations of the company's ticket-seller or conductor in regard to the right to stop over will have upon the contract for carriage, see Burnham v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 63 Me. 298; Denny v. New York &c. R. Co., 5 Daly (N. Y.) 50; Vankirk v. Pennsylvania R. Co., supra.

216 Little Rock &c. R. Co. v. Dean, 43 Ark. 529.

217 Little Rock &c. R. Co. v. Dean, 43 Ark. 529.