charged extra fare and expelled from the train for refusing to pay more than the usual fare, without the company becoming liable to him in damages. 131 As between the conductor and the passenger, the ticket purchased by the latter from the proper officer of the carri-. is the only evidence of the right of the passenger to travel. The conductor can not be expected to accept explanations of the passenger in regard to an improper ticket which he produces, or when he fails to produce any ticket whatever.132 But it must constantly be kept in mind that it is not merely a question between the injured passenger and the conductor, but that it is a question between the passenger and the carrier whose servant the conductor is; so that. although the conductor may not be personally in the wrong, yet the company will become responsible in damages because of the negligence of its other agent, its station agent, in failing to afford the passenger that reasonable opportunity to purchase his ticket which law and right demand.1 133 § 3142. Regulations as to the Exhibition and Delivery of Tickets. The carrier has the right to make reasonable regulations requiring passengers to exhibit and deliver up their tickets to his agen: or servant;134 the circumstances of the case make such a rule imperatively necessary. The number of persons carried, for example, in railway coaches, the great variety of tickets used, the frequency of stations upon the line, the fact that passengers go over many connecting lines upon a single journey and that each line must have a certain portion of the ticket in order to demand compensation from the office which has issued the ticket,-all these circumstances concur 131 Fordyce v. Manuel, 82 Tex. 527; s. c. 18 S. W. Rep. 657. 132 Townsend v. New York &c. R. Co., 56 N. Y. 295 (but see s. c. 4 Hun (N. Y.) 217; 6 Thomp. & C. (N. Y.) 495); Frederick v. Marquette &c. R. Co., 37 Mich. 342; s. c. 6 Reporter 116; Shelton v. Lake Shore &c. R. Co., 29 Ohio St. 214; Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Reed, 75 Ill. 125; Weaver v. Rome &c. R. Co., 3 Thomp. & C. (N. Y.) 270; Jerome v. Smith, 48 Vt. 230; Downs v. New Haven &c. R. Co., 36 Conn. 287; Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Griffin, 68 Ill. 499. But see Hamilton v. Third Avenue R. Co., 53 N. Y. 25. 133 A regulation of a railroad company, which is ancient and public, requiring passengers without tickets to pay an extra fare, is presumed to be the act of the corporation; and the party ejected for noncompliance has no right to question the fact or the method of its adoption: Me Gowen v. Morgan's &c. Co., 41 La An. 732; s. c. 5 L. R. A. 817; 39 AIL. & Eng. Rail. Cas. 460; 6 South. Rep. 606. The fact that a railroad company gives a draw-back coupon for the extra fare, on which a passerger may collect it back from any agent at a station, does not affect the validity of a regulation requir ing passengers without tickets to pay an extra fare: McGowen T. 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. 134 Lowe v. Volp, L. R. (1896) 1 Q. B. 256; s. c. 65 L. J. M. C. (N. S) 43; 74 L. T. Rep. 143. to demonstrate that any serious restriction laid upon the carrier's power in this respect would result in frequent loss, or needlessly enhance the difficulty of obtaining compensation for carriage. The passenger who refuses to comply with such a regulation forfeits his right to further carriage, and may be ejected from the train by the servants of the railway company, of course without unnecessary violence.135 Regulations of this kind ought not to be condemned unless they are palpably unjust.136 It is not unreasonable to demand of the passenger the surrender of his ticket in exchange for a conductor's check;137 but a passenger ought not to be compelled to give up his ticket without such a check in return, at a considerable distance from his destination, when there are intervening stations at which the train stops.13s A passenger has no right, however, to demand a conductor's check in exchange for his ticket after the train has left the station immediately preceding that to which his ticket entitles him to be carried. 139 Persons holding commutation or season tickets may be required to exhibit them whenever requested, and on refusal to do so may be compelled to pay the regular fare as transient passengers, without liability on the part of the company to repay the same ;140 and on refusal to pay the regular fare, the commuter may be ejected from the train at the next station.141 But if the conductor of the train knows that a person unable to produce his ticket is a commuter, and that his ticket has not expired, he must act reasonably under the circumstances. If the passenger assures him that he has the ticket, but has mislaid it, he must be allowed to ride as long as there is any reasonable expectation of finding it. Although such passenger had signed a receipt by which he agreed to show his ticket to the conductor in the same manner as other passengers, when required, yet, in the absence of an express stipulation in the contract that the plaintiff should pay his fare unless the ticket should be produced, his failure to produce the ticket was not such a breach of the contract as to justify the defendants in rescinding it, and treating the plaintiff 155 People v. Caryl, 3 Park. Cr. Cas. (N. Y.) 326; Baltimore &c. R. Co. v. Blocher, 27 Md. 277; Loring v. Aborn, 4 Cush. (Mass.) 608; State v. Campbell, 32 N. J. L. 309; Hibbard v. New York &c. R. Co., 15 N. Y. 455. But if the conductor knows that the passenger has paid his fare, he has no right to expel him from the car, although he refuses to exhibit his ticket: Ibid., per Comstock, J. 12 Vedder v. Fellows, 20 N. Y. 126. 137 Northern R. Co. v. Page, 22 Barb. (N. Y.) 130. 138 State v. Thompson, 20 N. H. 251; Pittsburgh &c. R. Co. v. Hennigh, 39 Ind. 509. 139 Illinois &c. R. Co. v. Whitemore, 43 III. 420. 140 Bennett v. Railroad Co., 7 Phila. (Pa.) 11; Ripley v. New Jersey &c. Transp. Co., 31 N. J. L. 388; Woodard v. Eastern Counties R. Co., 30 L. J. (M. C.) 196. 141 Downs v. New York &c. R. Co., 36 Conn. 287. 142 as a trespasser on the train.1 A lunatic, unknown to the servants of the carrier as such, and carelessly left in his seat alone by the person having him and his ticket in charge, may be rightfully espelled from the train, although he does not understand the demand made upon him for the payment of his fare.143 Where a railroad company was under a contract with a municipal corporation to carry passengers over two sections of its line for one fare, a regulation requiring passengers to exhibit an undetached coupon ticket as a voucher of their right to continue beyond the first section of the line was held reasonable, so that the company might lawfully eject the passenger refusing to comply with it.144 A by-law of a tramway company requiring each passenger to show his ticket when requested to do so by the conductor or any duly authorized servant of the company, is not unreasonable.145 § 3143. Requiring Passengers to Exhibit Tickets to Gate-Keeper.— Regulations of a railway carrier of passengers requiring persons passing through its gates for the purpose of taking trains to exhibit tickets to, and have them punched by, the gate-keeper, and that ne passenger shall be allowed to board any train while in motion, a reasonable; and persons knowing of such rules, and having a reasonable opportunity to do so, must comply therewith:146 and the same is true of a regulation that the gate-keeper at a depot shall not permit passengers to go through, unless they are entitled by their tickets to go upon a particular train.147 142 Maples v. New York &c. R. Co., 38 Conn. 557. 143 Willetts v. Buffalo &c. R. Co., 14 Barb. (N. Y.) 585. In Jennings v. Great Northern R. Co., L. R. 1 Q. B. 7, the plaintiff took tickets for himself, his servants, and horses by a particular train on the defendants' railway. The train was afterwards divided into two. The plaintiff travelled in the first part of the train, taking all the tickets with him. When the second train, with the servants and horses, was about to start, the plaintiff's servants were required to produce their tickets, and on their being unable to do so, the defendants refused to carry them. A by-law of the defendants provided that "no passenger will be allowed to enter any carriage without having first paid his fare and obtained a ticket. Each passenger, on pay ment of his fare, will be furnished with a ticket, which such passenger is to show when required, and to deliver up before leaving the com pany's premises, upon demand." It was held, in an action by the plaintiff for not carrying his servants. that, as the defendants contracted with the plaintiff, and delivered the tickets to him, and not to the servants, they were not in a position to enforce the by-law. 1** De Lucas v. New Orleans &c. R Co., 38 La. An. 930. 145 Lowe v. Volp, L. R. (1896) 1 Q. B. 256; s. c. 65 L. J. M. C. (N. S.) 43; 74 Law T. Rep. 143. 148 Dickerman v. St. Paul Union Depot Co., 44 Minn. 433. 147 Watkins v. Pennsylvania R. Ce 21 D. C. 1; s. c. 52 Am. & Eng. Rail. Cas. 159. § 3144. Regulation Requiring Identification of Purchasers of Tickets. A railway rule or regulation requiring an original purchaser of an excursion ticket at a reduced rate to be identified by the company's agent at the point of original destination before he can demand return passage has been held lawful and reasonable; and upon his non-compliance therewith the conductor on the return trip has the legal right to eject him.148 .149 § 3145. Rights of Passenger who has Lost or Mislaid his Ticket.— Clearly, a passenger who has lost or mislaid his ticket, and who, after having been allowed a reasonable opportunity to search for it, can not find it, must either pay the fare which the carrier is entitled to demand of passengers boarding his vehicle without tickets, or else get off the vehicle. A by-law of a tramway company, enforceable by a penalty, providing that each passenger, when required to do so by an agent of the company, shall either deliver up his ticket or pay fare, is therefore reasonable and valid;11o and under the operation of such a by-law, a passenger who has lost his ticket is liable to the penalty, upon his refusal to pay a new fare.150 A passenger who has mislaid his ticket is entitled to a reasonable length of time in which to search for it; he is not obliged to have his ticket ready in hand the moment the conductor may demand that it shall be exhibited.151 The loss of a ticket is very properly held to fall upon the passenger; any other rule would be a source of endless fraud upon the carrier and of intolerable delay to the public. "It is better and more reasonable that a passenger should now and then have to suffer the consequences of his own want of care, than that a system should be rendered impracticable which seems necessary to the transaction of this important branch of business. The public, whether wisely or not, desire to travel at the rate of four or five hundred miles a day, and that rapidity of movement can not be accomplished without peculiar arrangements to suit the exigency, which must sometimes be found to produce inconvenience."152 It is the duty of the passenger, in case he has lost or mislaid his ticket, or in case the ticket which he happens to hold does not entitle him to proceed further, although he may have paid the price of a ticket to a station further on, to pay the fare demanded; and if the company afterwards refuses * * ** 148 Abram v. Gulf &c. R. Co., 83 Tex. 61: s. c. 11 Rail. & Corp. L. J. 158; 18 S. W. Rep. 321. 143 Hanks V. Bridgman, L. R. (1896) 1 Q. B. 253; s. c. 65 L. J. M. C. (N. S.) 41; 74 Law T. Rep. 26. See post, §§ 3216, 3217. 150 Hanks v. Bridgman, supra. 151 Curtis v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 12 Upper Canada C. P. 89; Maples v. New York &c. R. Co., 38 Conn. 557. 152 Robinson, C. J., in Duke v. Great Western R. Co., 14 Upper Canada Q. B. 377, 384; s. c. id. 369. as a trespasser on the train.142 A lunatic, unknown to the servants of the carrier as such, and carelessly left in his seat alone by the person having him and his ticket in charge, may be rightfully expelled from the train, although he does not understand the demand made upon him for the payment of his fare.143 Where a railroad company was under a contract with a municipal corporation to carry passengers over two sections of its line for one fare, a regulation requiring passengers to exhibit an undetached coupon ticket as a voucher of their right to continue beyond the first section of the line was held reasonable, so that the company might lawfully eject the passenger refusing to comply with it.1 A by-law of a tramway company requiring each passenger to show his ticket when requested to do so by the conductor or any duly authorized servant of the company, is not unreasonable, 145 § 3143. Requiring Passengers to Exhibit Tickets to Gate-Keeper.Regulations of a railway carrier of passengers requiring persons passing through its gates for the purpose of taking trains to exhibit tickets to, and have them punched by, the gate-keeper, and that no passenger shall be allowed to board any train while in motion, are reasonable; and persons knowing of such rules, and having a reasonable opportunity to do so, must comply therewith;146 and the same is true of a regulation that the gate-keeper at a depot shall not permit passengers to go through, unless they are entitled by their tickets to go upon a particular train.147 142 Maples v. New York &c. R. Co., 38 Conn. 557. 143 Willetts v. Buffalo &c. R. Co., 14 Barb. (N. Y.) 585. In Jennings v. Great Northern R. Co., L. R. 1 Q. B. 7, the plaintiff took tickets for himself, his servants, and horses by a particular train on the defendants' railway. The train was afterwards divided into two. The plaintiff travelled in the first part of the train, taking all the tickets with him. When the second train, with the servants and horses, was about to start, the plaintiff's servants were required to produce their tickets, and on their being unable to do so, the defendants refused to carry them. A by-law of the defendants provided that "no passenger will be allowed to enter any carriage without having first paid his fare and obtained a ticket. Each passenger, on pay ment of his fare, will be furnished with a ticket, which such passenger is to show when required, and to deliver up before leaving the company's premises, upon demand." It was held, in an action by the plaintiff for not carrying his servants, that, as the defendants contracted with the plaintiff, and delivered the tickets to him, and not to the serv ants, they were not in a position to enforce the by-law. 144 De Lucas v. New Orleans &c. R. Co., 38 La. An. 930. 145 Lowe V. Volp, L. R. (1896) 1 Q. B. 256; s. c. 65 L. J. M. C. (N. S.) 43; 74 Law T. Rep. 143. 146 Dickerman v. St. Paul Union Depot Co., 44 Minn. 433. 147 Watkins v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 21 D. C. 1; s. c. 52 Am. & Eng. Rail. Cas. 159. |