train conductor the fare which he would have paid for a ticket to his destination, the precise rights which he would have had if he had purchased such a ticket.278 He must be treated as a passenger rightfully on the train after having paid the rightful fare, and if he is compelled to pay extra fare as the price of remaining on the train, he may recover it in an action;279 or if he is expelled from the train for refusing to pay such extra fare, he may recover damages. 250 Where a railroad company charges passengers without tickets a higher rate than those provided therewith, a passenger who boards. a train at a station where there is no office may pay such higher rate to a ticket station, and there buy a ticket and travel for the reduced fare; and if such office is closed, he may again board the train and. travel at the lower rate.281 It has even been held that a passenger, having a ticket to a station where there is no ticket office, can not be charged an extra fare imposed upon passengers having no tickets, upon his determining, while on the train, to go to a station beyond that for which his ticket calls, although a provision is made for its subsequent return to him; and his failure to pay such additional charge is no legal justification for expelling him from the train. 282 278 Atchison &c. R. Co. v. Dwelle, 44 Kan. 394; s. c. 24 Pac. Rep. 500; Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Graham, 3 Ind. App. 28; s. c. 11 Rail. & Corp. L. J. 57; 29 N. E. Rep. 170; Homiston v. Long Island R. Co., 3 Misc. (N Y.) 342; s. c. 52 N. Y. St. Rep. 1; 22 N. Y. Supp. 738; Forsee v. Alabama &c. R. Co., 63 Miss. 66; Georgia &c. R. Co. v. Asmore, 88 Ga. 529; s. c. 16 L. R. A. 53; 15 S. E. Rep. 13; Jeffersonville &c. R. Co. v. Rogers, 38 Ind. 116. if he desires to make a new contract, he must do it under conditions applicable to an original contract: Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Parks, 18 Ill. 460; s. c. Thomp. Carr. Pass. 319. A passenger paying his fare on the train does not forfeit his rights by failing to exhibit a rebate check given him upon a demand for further payment of the fare, where he did not have it in mind, and the conductor did not suggest it on being informed that the fare had been 27 Forsee v. Alabama &c. R. Co., paid; and he can recover dam63 Miss. 66. 250 Phettiplace v. Northern &c. R. Co., 84 Wis. 412; s. c. 54 N. W. Rep. 1092; 20 L. R. A. 483; Forsee v. Alabama &c. R. Co., 63 Miss. 66. 251 Georgia R. &c. Co. v. Murden, 86 Ga. 434; s. c. 12 S. E. Rep. 630. 252 Phettiplace v. Northern &c R. Co., 84 Wis. 412; s. c. 20 L. R. A. 483; 54 N. W. Rep. 1092. Contrary to this, it has been held that if the passenger pays his fare on the train from one station to another, and thereafter concludes to proceed further, he must alight and procure a ticket, or otherwise he may be charged the extra or train fare. The rule is said to be that when the first journey is completed, his contract with the company is at an end, and ages for an ejection from the train: Louisville &c. R. Co. v. Goben, 15 Ind. App. 123; s. c. 43 N. E. Rep. 890; denying rehearing in 42 N. E. Rep. 1116. In an action by a passenger on a street railway car, on being required to pay additional fare because of the error of the conductor in delivering him a transfer, where no malice or insult is shown, plaintiff can enjoy the consolation of recovering the amount of money paid over and above the regular fare required to reach the point to which he travelled: Carr v. Toledo Traction Co., 19 Ohio C. C. 281; s. c. 10 Ohio C. D. 296. See Cleveland &c. R. Co. v. Quillen, 22 Ind. App. 496. An intending passenger on a railway train, who upon being told by 2610. When Ticket Offices to be Kept Open.283-For this purpose, a railway company is under an obligation to keep its ticket offices open for a reasonable length of time before the departure of every train, and to have an authorized agent in such offices ready to sell tickets to intending passengers on their application;284 and where it invites the public to ride at a special rate of fare, they have the right to expect a reasonable opportunity to obtain tickets, either at the station or upon the train.285 But, on the other hand, it is under no duty to keep its train waiting at a station beyond its schedule time of departure, to enable a passenger to procure a ticket and thereby pay a less rate of fare than is charged when payment is made upon the train;286 nor to keep the office open beyond the point of time at which persons purchasing tickets would be able to reach the train before it should begin to move.287 But whether it is bound to keep its office open and its ticket agent in attendance down to the time of the arrival of trains which are belated, or only down to its schedule time for the departure of any particular train, has called forth some difference of opinion. The Supreme Court of Illinois, qualifying its earlier holding,288 took the view that the time to which the railway company must keep its offices open is the published or fixed time for the departure of the train, which everybody is presumed to know. The court reasoned that if a person should see fit to apply at the ticket office after the published time for the departure of the train, he could not demand the same rights and privileges as those who should go at the proper time for their tickets. Any other rule, the court added, would oblige the railroad company, in case its trains were delayed, to keep a person stationed in its office until the belated train might arrive. 289 Nor is a railroad company bound, in the absence of a statute providing otherwise, to keep its stations open at small places where travelling is comparatively unfrequent, at all hours both night and day.290 a stranger that he is too late to get a ticket at the ticket office, which is open, boards the train without making a further attempt to obtain a ticket, is liable for the excess of fare authorized by Kansas Laws 1886, chap. 139: Union &c. R. Co. v. Wolf, 54 Kan. 592; s. c. 38 Pac. Rep. 786. 283 This section is cited in §§ 2634, 3113, 3141, 3156, 3218, 3219. 284 Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Parks, 18 Ill. 460, 465, opinion by Caton, J., using strong language; s. c. Thomp. Carr. Pass. 319. 256 Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Graham, 3 Ind. App. 28; s. c. 11 Rail. & Corp. L. J. 57; 22 N. E. Rep. 170. 286 Easton v. Waters, 4 Wills. (Tex. App. Civ. Cas.) 111; s. c. 16 S. W. Rep. 540. 287 State v. Hungerford, 39 Minn. 6; s. c. 38 N. W. Rep. 628. 288 The earlier holding was in Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Parks, 18 Ill. 460; s. c. Thomp. Carr. Pass. 319. 289 St. Louis &c. R. Co. v. South, 43 Ill. 176; followed in Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Brisbane, 24 Ill. App. 463. But see Porter v. New York &c. R. Co., 34 Barb. (N. Y.) 353. 200 For example, a regulation of a § 2611. When Railroad Waiting-Rooms are to be Kept Open.— The obligation of keeping open a waiting-room at a railway station. is obviously a different one from the obligation of keeping the ticket office open for a sufficient time to enable passengers to purchase tickets before boarding any particular train. The obligation of keeping the waiting-room at a station open during the long intervals which may elapse between trains, is in some sense the obligation of keeping a hotel. A regulation for closing a railroad waiting-room after the departure of a train, until thirty minutes before the departure of the next train, was held a reasonable one, as applied to a person who had come to the station at 8 P. M. to wait for a train at 1:30 A. M., and was driven out of the room, although the night was cold, to wait several hours until the regular time of re-opening the room; but it was thought that the rule might not be reasonable in case of through passengers, or delayed trains.2 291 § 2612. Statutory Regulations upon this Subject.-Statutory regulations upon this subject have been enacted in some of the States, having in view, on the one hand, the protection of the passenger, and, on the other hand, the protection of the carrier. We have already noticed some statutes affirming the principle of the common law that the carrier has the right to charge an extra fare, not in itself unreasonable, from passengers who do not purchase tickets before boarding his vehicle, provided he has given them a reasonable opportunity to do so.202 Under a statute authorizing an additional charge where the fare is paid in the cars, when "a ticket might have been procured within a reasonable time before the departure of the train,"293 it has been held not necessary, at a small station, that the ticket office should be kept open to the very moment of the departure of the train.294 But another court has refused to admit any exception to the rule imposed by a statute,295 that, unless a railroad company keeps its ticket office open for thirty minutes before the departure of a train, it can not collect extra fare from a passenger having no ticket.296 railroad company that a station at a village of less than fifty inhabitants, should be open for the transaction of business from seven A. M. to seven P. M. only, has been held a reasonable regulation: Louisville &c. R. Co. v. Wright, 18 Ind. App. 125; s. c. 45 Cent. L. J. 212; 45 N. E. Rep. 491. 291 Phillips v. Southern R. Co., 124 N. C. 123; s. c. 45 L. R. A. 163; 32 S. E. Rep. 388; citing Webster v. Fitchburg R. Co., 161 Mass. 298; s. c. § 2613. Regulations Requiring Passengers Boarding Cars Outside of Station to Pay Extra Fare, although they have Already Paid Fare in the Station.-It'has been held that a regulation of a street railway company requiring that persons taking passage on cars outside the station must pay fare, although they had already paid fare in the station, is a reasonable one, which should be observed by the passenger, and that it is error to refuse so to instruct the jury. 297 Where a passenger, having paid fare in the station, to avoid a delay of twenty minutes boarded a car outside the station, and refused to pay another fare demanded of him by the conductor, and was thereupon put off after the car had started,—it was held that the fact that the car had been started by the conductor with knowledge that the plaintiff that allowed by law shall forfeit $50, which sum may be recovered, together with the excess so received, by the party paying the same," etc.: Laws N. Y. 1857, p. 432, chap. 185. By a statute passed the same year, it is provided that the New York Central Railroad Company, "at every station on its road where a ticket-office is now or may hereafter be established, shall keep the same open for the sale of tickets at least one hour prior to the departure of each passenger train from such station": Id., 488, chap. 228, § 1. The right to charge persons paying their fare upon the train five cents extra is also guaranteed by this statute: Id., § 2. In a case arising under these provisions, the facts were that the plaintiff was in the neighborhood of the ticket-office and had ample opportunity to procure his ticket before the arrival of the train. He waited, however, until he heard the whistle of the engine of the approaching train, and then went to the office to procure his ticket. The ticket agent was absent, but came in from the train, without the key to the ticket drawer, which had been taken off by a person in charge of the office on the approach of the train. The train was behind time, but the office had been kept open up to the published time of the departure of the train. The passenger having been compelled to pay the five cents extra, the usual fare, brought an action for the statutory penalty. The court held that the company was required to keep its ticket-office open until the actual departure of the train; and if they closed it prior to that time, passen gers afterwards applying for tickets could not be charged the additional fare; furthermore, that if the company have nobody at the office to furnish a ticket, it is not open within the meaning of the statute: Porter v. New York &c. R. Co., 34 Barb. (N. Y.) 353. By the same statute it is provided that the New York Central Railroad Company shall not be required to keep their ticket-offices open, except at Utica and six other places, between the hours of nine o'clock P. M. and five o'clock A. M. A passenger applied at the Utica office at about one o'clock A. M., and found it closed, and thereupon took his seat in the cars. The extra five cents was demanded and paid. In an action for this excess and the statutory penalty, the court held that the extra fare could only be demanded when the passenger failed to purchase his ticket at an established office which was open: Nellis v. New York &c. R. Co., 30 N. Y. 505. Construction of Ky. Stat., § 784, requiring ticket offices and waiting rooms to be kept open at least thirty minutes before the departure of a passenger train from a "regular passenger depot" from which such trains start or at which they regularly stop-with the conclusion that it does not require ticket offices and waiting rooms to be kept open for night trains, where the company had never kept such rooms open for the sale of tickets for night trains: Louisville &c. R. Co. v. Com., 19 Ky. L. Rep. 1462; s. c. 43 S. W. Rep. 458. 297 Nashville St. R. Co. v. Griffin, 104 Tenn. 81; s. c. 57 S. W. Rep. 153. had paid a fare was not an acceptance of him as a passenger and a waiver of the rule as to him.298 Where, such a regulation being in force, the plaintiff paid his fare in the station, and, seeing the car that he wished to take standing just outside, ran for it and boarded it, in order to save a delay of twenty minutes in waiting for another car, and the conductor demanded another fare, which was refused, and the plaintiff was ejected from the car in such a manner as to injure him, it was held that the regulation of the company was, under the circumstances, unreasonably enforced, and the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages.2 299 § 2614. Illegible Tickets.-Whether a passenger will be entitled to ride upon a ticket which is so illegible that the train conductor can not read it, would seem to depend upon the solution of the inquiry whether the ticket was sold to the passenger in that condition, and whether he received it in that condition without any fault on his part. We must therefore read with this qualification a decision to the effect that a railroad company is liable for the refusal of a conductor to accept a genuine ticket and for collecting an extra fare of the passenger under a threat of ejection, merely because the color of the passenger's ticket has been accidentally washed off or has faded.30 300 It has been held that the fact that a ticket which a passenger receives in an illegible condition is collected by the gateman of the company, does not impose upon the passenger the duty of getting the indorsement of a ticket receiver as to its validity; and further, that a rule of the railroad company, making such a requirement, is unreasonable, because it would subject a passenger to great inconvenience and might cause him to lose his train.30 While a regulation of the company requiring conductors to reject tickets appearing to have been altered may be reasonable and the conductor be justified, yet if the appearance of the ticket was due to a mistake of the ticket agent, the company will be liable for the refusal of the conductor to allow the passenger to travel.302 301 28 Nashville St. R. Co. v. Griffin, conductor a ticket which is so mu tilated that the conductor can not tell whether it is valid or not, and the conductor refuses to recognize it, the company will not be liable, provided its defective condition was due to the fault of the passenger: Houston &c. R. Co. v. Crone (Tex. Civ. App.), 37 S. W. Rep. 1074 (no off. rep.). If the ticket is so mutilated that the conductor can not, from an examination, tell whether or not it has expired by its time |