[§ 1174] 3. Opportunity to Pay Fare or Produce Ticket.45 A passenger is entitled to a reasonable time in which to present his ticket or check or pay his fare before being ejected, and if he is acting in good faith the conductor has no right to eject him from the train without affording him a reasonable opportunity to make payment or to find and present his ticket or check, if lost or mislaid;46 and it has been held that he should be permitted to go to another part of the train to obtain funds from a friend who is willing to supply them. What is a reasonable opportunity or time to allow a passenger to produce his ticket or pay his fare must depend largely on the facts and circumstances of each particular case.18 cuse, the passenger is at liberty to treat the contract as violated by the company, and he may leave the train and sue for a breach of the contract.' St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Leigh, 45 Ark. 368, 371, 55 AmR 558. To same effect Memphis, etc., R. Co. v. Benson, 85 Tenn. 627, 4 SW 5, 9 AmSR 776. (2) "There can be no doubt, that a passenger on a railroad, who exhibits his ticket and demands a seat, has a right to have that demand complied with, prior to the surrender of that which constitutes, in the very nature of the case, the best evidence of his contract with the company for safe and comfortable transportation. But it is equally true, that he must adhere to, and rely on that contract, or, if there be a noncompliance with its terms in any reasonable and essential particular on the part of the company, he must abandon the contract and quit the train, so soon as suitable opportunity offers." Davis v. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 53 Mo. 317, 320, 14 AmR 457. Duty of carrier to furnish seat generally see infra § 1236. 45. Opportunity to pay fare to prevent ejection see infra § 1187. Opportunity to purchase ticket as a condition to demanding extra fare see supra §§ 1112, 1113. 46. Ala.-Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Dawson, 11 Ala. A. 621, 66 S 905; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Mason, 4 Ala. A. 353, 357, 58 S 963 [cit Cyc]. Conn.-Maples v. New York, etc., R. Co., 38 Conn. 557, 9 AmR 434 [dist Downs v. New York, etc., R. Co., 36 Conn. 287, 4 AmR 77]. Fla.-Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Scarborough, 52 Fla. 425, 42 S 706. Ga.-Western, etc., R. Co. v. Ledbetter, 99 Ga. 318, 25 SE 663. Ill-Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Willard, 31 Ill. A. 435. Iowa.-Curl v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 63 Iowa 417, 16 NW 69, 19 NW 308. Ky.-Anderson v. Louisville, etc.. R. Co., 134 Ky. 343, 350, 120 SW 298, 20 AnnCas 920 and note [quot Cyc]. Mich. Ferguson v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 98 Mich, 533, 57 NW 801. Mo.-Holt v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 174 Mo. 524. 74 SW 631 [rev 87 Mo. A. 203]; Cathey v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co.. 149 Mo. A. 134. 130 SW 130; Bolles v. Kansas City Southern R. Co., 134 Mo. A. 696, 115 SW 459. N. Y.-Buckley v. Hudson Valley R. Co., 212 N. Y. 440, 106 NE 121. LRA1915C 134 and note, AnnCas 1915D 143; Hayes v. New York Cent.. etc., R. Co., 34 Hun 627 mem. 30 AlbLJ 469; Zuckerman v. New York R. Co., 86 Misc. 54, 148 NYS 82. N. C.-Clark v. Wilmington, etc.. R. Co., 91 N. C. 506, 49 AmR 647. Oh-Northern Ohio Tract., etc., Co. v. Wieland, 23 Oh. Cir. Ct. N. S. 123; Guy v. Pittsburgh. etc., R. Co., 9 OhS&CP 23, 6 OhNP 3. Tex.-International, etc.. R. Co. v. Wilkes, 68 Tex. 617, 5 SW 491, 2 AmSR 515; Texas, etc., R. Co. V. Bond. 62 Tex. 442, 50 AmR 532; St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Fussell. (Civ. A.) 97 SW 332; Gulf, etc.. R Co. v. Bunn, 41 Tex. Civ. A. 503, 95 SW 640. 47 49 [§ 1175] 4. Failure to Procure Ticket or Permit for Freight Train." Special conditions are sometimes attached to the privilege of transportation on freight trains, such as that the passenger shall have procured a ticket, or, in addition to a ticket, a permit to ride on such train, or the like, and one who insists on transportation on a freight train in violation of such conditions may be ejected; 50 but the carrier cannot enforce such condition unless a reasonable opportunity to procure a ticket or permit has been afforded the passenger." The conductor is not bound by any agreement which the passenger has, or claims to have, made with the ticket agent before entering the car, and the passenger may be ejected, notwithstanding that he was told by the [a] Discussion of the situation.It has been said that a passenger is entitled to a reasonable indulgence in the discussion of his rights and duties in the payment of fare when it is demanded by the agent of the company. Holt v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 174 Mo. 524, 74 SW 621; Gates v. Quincy, etc., R. Co., 125 Mo. A. 334, 102 SW 50. [b] Where a passenger has mislaid his ticket and failed to find it after the conductor rang the bell for the purpose of stopping the train and ejecting him, the omission to find and surrender the ticket was not equivalent to a refusal so to do, and the passenger was entitled to a reasonable opportunity to find his ticket, and in default to pay his fare. Hayes v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 34 Hun 627 mem, 30 AlbLJ 469. [c] Where a passenger does not request additional time to search for his ticket which he has mislaid, the conductor may eject him at once, without giving him additional time. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Mason, 4 Ala. A. 353, 357, 58 S 963 [cit Cyc]. 47. Clark v. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 91 N. C. 506, 49 AmR 647; Guy v. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co., 9 OhS&CP 23, 6 OhNP 3. See also infra § 1189. 48. Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Scarborough, 52 Fla. 425, 42 S 706; Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. Friend, 159 Ky. 778, 169 SW 509, LRA1915C 148; Huba v. Schenectady R. Co., 85 App. Div. 199, 83 NYS 157; Northern Ohio Tract., etc., Co. v. Wieland, 23 Oh. Cir. Ct. N. S. 123. [a] It cannot be said, as a matter of law, that the time which it takes a street car to travel a quarter of a mile is such a reasonable time, when there is no evidence as to the speed at which the car was traveling other than that it was running at its regu lar speed. Huba v. Schenectady R. Co., 85 App. Div. 199, 83 NYS 157. [b] Sufficiency of demand.-There is a proper demand for a ticket or fare of a passenger, authorizing his ejection for nonproduction thereof. where he has gone to sleep in his seat, has permitted the conductor, on three occasions, to make a reasonable effort to arouse him, and has then suffered himself to be raised out of his seat and pushed the length of the coach and out on to the platform without tender of his fare, the only excuse being too much drink and too little sleep. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. Friend. 159 Ky. 778, 169 SW 509, LRA1915C 148. [c] Ticket with companion. Where a passenger leaves his ticket in the custody of another passenger in the farthest part of a crowded street car, and the conductor forcibly ejects him within a minute or two after having first demanded his fare, he is not given a reasonable opportunity to secure and present his ticket, and the carrier is liable in damages. Northern Ohio Tract., etc., Co. v. Wieland, 23 Oh. Cir. Ct. N. S. 123. 49. Defective ticket or permit see infra §§ 1178-1184. Ejection from freight trains generally see supra § 1170. 51 50. Ala.-South, etc., R. Co. V. Huffman, 76 Ala. 492, 52 AmR 349. Ark.-McCook v. Northup, 65 Ark. 225, 45 SW 547. Ill.-Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Patterson, 63 Ill. 304; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Nelson, 59 I. 110. Ind.-Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Kennedy, 77 Ind. 507; Falkner V. Ohio, etc., R. Co., 55 Ind. 369; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Myrtle, 51 Ind. 566. Iowa.-Law v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 32 Iowa 534. Kan.-Southern Kansas R. Co. v. Hinsdale, 38 Kan. 507, 16 P 937. Mich. Thomas v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 72 Mich. 355, 40 NW 463. Mo.-Claybrook v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 19 Mo. A. 432; Jones v. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 17 Mo. A. 158. Nebr. -Burlington, etc., R. Co. v. Rose, 11 Nebr. 177, 8 NW 433. Pa.-Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Greenwood, 79 Pa. 373. Tenn.-Lane V. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co., 5 Lea 124. Tex.-Houston, etc., R. Co. V. White, (Civ. A.) 61 SW 436. [a] The failure to buy a ticket as required by a rule against carrying passengers who are not provided with tickets on freight trains has been held equivalent to a refusal to pay fare under a statute authorizing ejection for nonpayment of fare at a regular stopping place. McCook v. Northup, 65 Ark. 225, 45 SW 547. [b] Notice of regulation.-Where the conductor enters the caboose after all the passengers are aboard and announces, so that they all may hear and have time to purchase tickets before the departure of the train, that no one will be entitled to passage without a ticket, ample publicity is given to the existence of the regulation, and a passenger may be ejected at any suitable place for noncompliance therewith. Southern Kansas R. Co. v. Hinsdale, 38 Kan. 507, 16 P 937. [c] Previous violations of rule by conductor.-Where a railroad has a rule forbidding the issuance of permits by conductors, and a passenger is ejected for want of such a permit, the company is not liable because its conductors have violated such rule, unless it has been so frequently violated as to warrant the conclusion that it is not enforced. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. White, (Tex. Civ. A.) 61 SW 436. Requiring ticket or permit on freight train see generally supra § 1120. 51. Ala.-Evans v. Memphis, etc., R. Co., 56 Ala. 246, 28 AmR 771. Ill-Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Parks, 18 I. 460, 68 AmD 562 and note. Ind.-St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Myrtle, 51 Ind. 566. Kan.-Brown v. Kansas City, etc., R. Co.. 38 Kan. 634, 16 P 942; Southern Kan. R. Co. v. Hinsdale, 38 Kan. 507, 16 P 937. Minn. Reed v. Great Northern R. Co.. 76 Minn. 163, 78 NW 974. Mo.-Gardner v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co.. 117 Mo. A. 138, 93 SW 917; Cross v. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 56 Mo. A. 664. 52 ticket agent that he might ride on that train.5 But it has been held that the passenger cannot be rightfully ejected, where he has endeavored in good faith to comply with such conditions, but through the fault of the ticket agent they have not been complied with.53 Change of regulation; notice. Where the carrier has been in the habit of receiving payment of fare in cash on freight trains, and it changes its rules so as to require the purchase of a ticket by the passenger before entering the car, the passenger is entitled to reasonable notice of such change of regulation; and where he has not had such reasonable notice and takes passage in ignorance of the change, the railroad company is liable for his ejection by the conductor.54 [§ 1176] 5. Extra Fares or Charges. Tex.-Houston, etc., R. Co. V. Berry, (Civ. A.) 84 SW 258. [a] Procuring permit at intermediate station.-Where a person in good faith enters a freight train as a passenger, and in possession of a ticket good on the train when accompanied by a permit, the fact that he is informed by the brakeman prior to demand by the conductor for his ticket and permit that the rules require a permit in connection with the ticket does not make it the duty of the passenger to leave the train at a station at which a stop was made after receiving the information, and before the conductor's demand. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Berry, (Tex. Civ. A.) 84 SW 258. 52. Falkner v. Ohio, etc., R. Co., 55 Ind. 369; Thomas v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 72 Mich. 355, 40 NW 463; Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Stell, 28 Tex. Civ. A. 280, 67 SW 537. [a] Knowledge by passenger of rule. A passenger who knows it is essential, under the rules of the railroad, that, in addition to his ticket, he must have a permit to ride on a freight train, that he must get the permit before he gets on the train, and that the ticket agent has no authority to say that he can get it from the conductor, cannot, because of such representation of the agent, recover for his ejection by the conductor. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Stell, 28 Tex. Civ. A. 280, 67 SW 537. 53. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Hine, 121 Ala. 234, 25 S 857; Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Berry, (Tex. Civ. A.) 84 SW 258; Olson v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 49 Wash. 626, 96 P 150, 18 LRANS 209. [a] "An intending passenger who applies to the proper agent of the company for transportation by freight train has the same right to rely on the transportation furnished him as has any other passenger, and if he relies on the transportation furnished and is ejected from the train because of a mistake of the agent and without fault or negligence on his own part, he has a right of action." Olson v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 49 Wash. 626, 629, 96 P 150, 18 LRANS 209. 54. Lane v. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co., 5 Lea (Tenn.) 124. 55. Conn.-Crocker v. New London, etc., R. Co., 24 Conn. 249. Ga.-Louisville, etc.. R. Co. v. Parris, 142 Ga. 11, 82 SE 566; Southern R. Co. v. Fleming, 128 Ga. 241, 57 SE 481, 10 AnnCas 921; Moody v. Southern R. Co.. 14 Ga. A. 258, 80 SE 911; Southern R. Co. v. Jones, 8 Ga. A. 225, 68 SE 1011; McCook v. Dublin, etc., R. Co., 2 Ga. A. 374, 58 SE 491. Ill-St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Dalby, 19 Ill. 353; Lake Erie, etc., R. Co. v. Quisenberry, 48 Ill. A. 338; Chicago, etc.. R. Co. v. Brisbane, 24 Ill. A. 463. Ind.-Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Wright, 68 Ind. 586, 34 AmR 277; Evansville, etc., R. Co. v. Gilmore, 1 Ind. A. 468, 27 NE 992. Ky.-Ponder v. Lexington, etc., R. A passenger 55 who enters a train without a ticket, without a good and sufficient excuse, and who refuses to pay an extra fare or charge, as required by the reasonable regulations of the carrier in such cases, may be ejected, although he had a ticket but has lost it;56 but the conductor or agent who passes on the merits of the excuse offered by the passenger for not having provided himself with a ticket, or who refuses to hear such excuse, does so at the peril of the carrier. This rule, however, does not apply where the conductor has accepted the regular ticket fare, without demanding more, 58 or where the carrier has refused the passenger a ticket without just cause. And it has been held that this rule does not apply where the carrier has not afforded the passenger a reasonable opportunity to purchase a ticket, and he offers to pay the regular fare,60 although there is 57 Co., 164 Ky. 69, 174 SW 786; Snellbaker v. Paducah, etc.. R. Co., 94 Ky. 597, 23 SW 509, 15 KyL 380; Wicks v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 15 KyL 605. La.-McGowen v. Morgan's Louisiana, etc., R., etc., Co., 41 La. Ann. 732, 6 S 606, 17 AmSR 415, 5 LRA 817 and note. N. H.-Hilliard v. Goold, 34 N. H. 230, 66 AmD 765. N. C.-Lankford V. Southern R. Co., 165 N. C. 653, 81 SE 998; Ammons v. Southern R. Co., 138 N. C. 555, 51 SE 127, 3 AnnCas 886. S. C.-Saunders v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 101 S. C. 11, 85 SE 167; Moore v. Columbia, etc., R. Co., 38 S. C. 1, 16 SE 781. Tenn.-Nashville St. R. Co. v. Griffin, 104 Tenn. 81, 57 SW 153, 49 LRA 451. Tex.-Houston, etc., R. Co. V. Faulkner, (Civ. A.) 63 SW 655. [a] An electric railway passenger who is afforded an opportunity to buy six tickets for twenty-five cents, and who knows that the conductor does not sell them, is properly ejected, on refusing to pay cash fare and demanding that the conductor procure the tickets for him. Herbst v. Tidewater Power Co., 161 N. C. 457, 77 SE 673. [b] Second fare on taking car outside station.-A regulation of a street railroad company requiring that one taking passage on a car outside the station shall pay a fare, although a fare has already been paid in the station, is reasonable a one, and where a passenger who has paid his fare in the station sees a car which he wishes to take standing outside and boards it, he may be ejected for refusing to pay a second fare demand of the conductor, although the car has already started. Nashville St. R. Co. v. Griffin, 104 Tenn. 81, 57 SW 153, 49 LRA 451. on [c] The parent or custodian of an infant, who is responsible for its fare, on failure or refusal to pay it together with the extra charge may be ejected. Lankford v. Southern_R. Co., 165 N. C. 653, 81 SE 998. See also supra § 1172 text and notes 30-34. Extra charges on failure to purchase tickets generally §§ 1111-1115. see supra 56. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Faulkner, (Tex. Civ. A.) 63 SW 655. 57. Southern R. Co. v. Jones, 8 Ga. A. 225, 68 SE 1011. 58. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Joplin, 55 SW 206, 21 KyL 1380. [a] Illustration.-Where a passenger truthfully told a conductor that he had obtained a ticket and had lost it, and offered to pay the ticket fare which the conductor accepted without demanding more, he had no right thereafter to eject the passenger on his refusal to pay the additional amount necessary to make the train fare, although, originally, the conductor might have had the right to demand the train fare. Louisville, 59 etc., R. Co. v. Joplin, 55 SW 206, 21 KyL 1380. 59. Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Rinard, 46 Ind. 293; Cleveland, etc.. R. Co. v. Beckett, 11 Ind. A. 547, 39 NE 429; Lake Erie, etc., R. Co. v. Close, 5 Ind. A. 444, 32 NË 588. 60. Ala-Kennedy v. Birmingham R., etc., Co., 138 Ala. 225, 35 S 108. Ga.-Brown v. Central of Georgia R. Co., 128 Ga. 635, 58 SE 163; Phillips v. Southern R. Co., 114 Ga. 284, 40 SE 268. Ind. Jeffersonville R. Co. v. Rogers, 38 Ind. 116, 10 AmR 103; Lake Erie, etc., R. Co. v. Mays, 4 Ind. A. 413, 30 NE 1106; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Graham. 3 Ind. A. 28, 29 NE 170, 50 AmSR 256. Iowa.-Bowsher v. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 113 Iowa 16, 84 NW 958. Ky. Ponder v. Lexington, etc., R. Co., 164 Ky. 69, 174 SW 786. Miss.- -Rivers v. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 86 Miss. 571, 38 S 508. N. C.-Ammons v. Southern R. Co., 138 N. C. 555, 51 SE 127, 3 AnnCas 886 and note. Or.-Poole v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 16 Or. 261, 19 P 107, 8 AmSR 289. Tex.-Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Sparger, (Civ. A.) 39 SW 1001. [a] Illustrations.-(1) A passenger may not be ejected for refusing to pay the extra train fare where he got off the train to get a ticket but, by reason of the agent being otherwise engaged, he was not able to get one before the train started. Brown v. Central of Georgia R. Co., 128 Ga. 635, 58 SE 163. (2) Or where he is taken on at a place where tickets are not for sale, although they are for sale at a station one thousand feet away. Kennedy v. Birmingham R., etc., Co., 138 Ala. 225, 35 S 108. [b] The abolition of a carrier's ticket office at a station on its line, on account of lack of business to justify the maintenance of the office, is no justification for the ejection of a passenger from an excursion train, who boarded the train at such station without a ticket, and was ejected by the conductor on refusal to pay the regular cash fare demanded by him, where the carrier invited the public to take passage on the train at that point and agreed to carry them for a special rate. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Graham, 3 Ind. A. 28, 29 NE 170, 50 AmSR 256. [c] Where a passenger makes no effort to get a ticket at a certain junction, not knowing that there is a ticket office there, he is not precluded thereby from urging that the time was short, that during most of it the way to the office was obstructed, and that the agent was engaged in transferring mail, etc., as an excuse to the conductor for not having a ticket; and a judgment for the passenger, in an action for ejection, would not be disturbed because of a refusal to instruct that he was so precluded. Bowsher v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 113 Iowa 16, 84 NW 958. authority to the contrary.60% But where the ticket office is kept open until the advertised time for the departure of the train, and the passenger is unable to obtain a ticket because he does not apply until after that time, when the office is closed, he cannot complain that an opportunity has not been furnished him to buy a ticket, and on his refusal to pay the train fare he may be ejected.61 Illegal amount. Where the regulation provides for the collection of a greater amount, when paid on the train, than is within the limits of the road's authority, it is not necessary for the passenger, in order to remain on the train, to tender more than the ticket rate, although the ticket rate is less than the road is authorized to charge; and if he is ejected for refusing to pay the unauthorized fare demanded, he may recover damages therefor. 62 Extra accommodations. A passenger may be ejected from a car in which are provided special Opportunity to purchase ticket generally see supra §§ 1112-1113. 602. Monnier v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 175 N. Y. 281, 67 NE 569, 96 AmSR 619, 62 LRA 357 [rev 70 App. Div. 405, 75 NYS 521]. [a] Resistance not justified.-A passenger who is unable to buy a ticket because of the absence of the ticket agent is not excused from paying the additional fare required of a passenger without a ticket, and hence on his refusal to pay such fare he is not justified in forcibly resisting ejection by the conductor. Monnier v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 175 N. Y. 281, 67 NE 569, 96 AmSR 619, 62 LRA 357 [rev 70 App. Div. 405, 75 NYS 521]. Resistance of ejection see generally infra § 1196. 61. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. South, 43 Ill. 176, 92 AmD 103; Swan v. Manchester, etc., R. Co., 132 Mass. 116, 42 AmR 432. Time for keeping ticket office open see supra § 1113. 62. Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Dickerson, 4 Kan. A. 345, 45 P 975; Chamberlain v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 110 Mich. 614, 68 NW 423; Williams V. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 153 N. C. 360, 69 SE 402. [a] Repeal of statute.-In North Carolina L. (1907) c 216 § 1, prohibiting a carrier of intra-state passengers from demanding more than two and one-fourth cents per mile for transportation was repealed by Acts (Ex. Sess. 1908) c 144, effective April 1, 1908, § 6 of which provides that no railroad company shall be held liable by reason of anything done, or attempted to be done, in violation of the repealed act. Plaintiff sued several months before the repealing statute became effective to recover for being ejected from defendant's passenger train after having tendered the proper amount of fare required by L. (1907), on the ground that the fare tendered was insufficient; the right of action sued on was not statutory, although the rate of transportation was fixed by statute, so that the subsequent repeal of L. (1907) did not destroy plaintiff's right of action. Williams v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 153 N. C. 360, 69 SE 402. 63. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Ashley, 169 Ky. 330, 183 SW 921, LRA 1916E 763; Doherty v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 43 Mont. 294, 115 P 401, 36 LRANS 1139. 64. U. S.-Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Ludlam, 57 Fed. 481, 6 CCA 454. Ala-Southern R. Co. v. Farquhar, 192 Ala. 415, 68 S 289; South, etc., R. Co. v. Huffman, 76 Ala. 492, 52 AmR 349. Ind.-Godfrey v. Ohio, etc., R. Co., 116 Ind. 30, 18 NE 61; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Bills, 104 Ind. 13. 3 NE 611; Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Lightcap, 7 Ind. A. 249, 34 NE 243. Iowa.-Stone v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 47 Iowa 82, 29 AmR 458. [10 C.J.-47] accommodations for which he has not paid.es [ 1177] D. Taking Wrong Train; Carried Past Destination; Turning Back Car. In general it is the duty of the passenger to ascertain what train will take him to his destination, and if through carelessness or mistake, without being misled by those authorized to act for the carrier in the matter, he takes the wrong train, or one which does not stop at his point of destination, he may properly be ejected therefrom.64 Thus, where a passenger boards a train which does not, under the rules of the company, stop at the station for which he is bound, he may be required to pay fare to the first station beyond, where the train does stop; and on his refusal so to do, he may be put off the train short of his destination,65 such as at the preceding stopping place, unless the rule prohibiting the train from stopping at his station has been waived or has become obsolete by its continued nonenforce Kan.-Burgess v. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 83 Kan. 497, 112 P 103. N., Y.-Barker v. New York Cent. R. Co., 24 N. Y. 599; Miller v. King, 21 App. Div. 192, 47 NYS 534; Page v. New York Cent. R. Co., 13 N. Y. Super. 523. N. C.-Mace v. Southern R. Co., 151 N. C. 404, 66 SE 342, 24 LRANS 1178 and note. Tex.-Albin v. Gulf, etc., R. Co., 43 Tex. Civ. A. 170, 95 SW 589. Wash.-Mills V. Seattle, etc., R. Co., 50 Wash. 20, 96 P 520, 19 LRANS 704. Wis.-Boehm v. Duluth, etc., R. Co., 91 Wis. 592, 65 NW 506. [a] Excursion ticket not good on particular train.-Where a passenger holds an excursion ticket, sold at a reduced rate, which recites that it is not good on a particular train, and, although he does not read the ticket before boarding such train, he is apprised that it does not entitle him to travel thereon, he is not entitled to damages for his ejection, where accompanied by no unnecessary force. England v. International, etc., R. Co., 32 Tex. Civ. A. 86, 73 SW 24. recover [b] Wrong street car.-Where a passenger boards an electric car going in the direction in which he desires to travel, but not to his destination, and owing to his own mistake in taking the wrong car, he is required to leave the car on the conductor's request that he do so at the end of its journey, notwithstanding the conductor's refusal to give him a transfer to another car on which he may complete his journey for the same fare, and, on his refusal so to do, he becomes a trespasser subject to ejection. Mills v. Seattle, etc., R. Co., 50 Wash. 20, 96 P 520, 19 LRA NS 704. [c] Train going in opposite direction. A person may not deliberately enter on a railroad train, with knowledge that his ticket on its face entitles him to be carried in the reverse direction from that in which he proposes to go, and, with ample opportunity to procure another, insist on being carried without paying fare. Railroad companies have the undoubted right to make reasonable regulations for the conduct of their business, and it is certainly a reasonable requirement that a passenger having the opportunity should purchase his ticket to the place of his destination, and not in the opposite direction. To compel railroad companies to receive unused tickets, without regard to the direction in which the holder wished to go, would introduce inextricable confusion into their business, and be of no benefit to any person possessed of sufficient intelligence to go on a train. Godfrey v. Ohio, etc., R. Co., 116 Ind. 30, 18 NE 61. 66 65. Kan.-Burgess V. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 83 Kan. 497, 112 P 103; Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Gants, 38 Kan. 608, 17 P 54, 5 AmSR 780. Ky.-Hancock. v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 85 SW 210, 27 KyL 434; Flood v. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 80 SW 184, 25 KyL 2135. Mich.-Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Pierce, 47 Mich. 277, 11 NW 157. Mo.-Sira v. Wabash R. Co., 115 Mo. 127, 21 SW 905, 37 AmSR 386; Logan v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 77 Mo. 663; Drew v. Wabash R. Co., 129 Mo. A. 459, 107 SW 478; Turner v. McCook, 77 Mo. A. 196. N. Y.-Fink v. Albany, etc., R. Co., 4 Lans. 147. N. C.-Allen v. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 119 N. C. 710, 25 SE 787. Oh. New York, etc, R. Co. v. Willing, 24 Oh. Cir. Ct. 474. Okl.-Noble v. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 4 Okl. 534, 46 P 483. Tenn. Trotlinger v. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co., 11 Lea 533. Tex.-Texas Pac. R. Co. v. James, 82 Tex. 306, 18 SW 589, 15 LRA 347; International, etc., R. Co. v. Hassell, 62 Tex. 256, 50 AmR 525; Albin v. Gulf, etc., R. Co., 43 Tex. Civ. A. 170, 95 SW 589. But see Southern R. Co. v. Flanigan, 10 Ga. A. 745, 74 SE 85 (holding that, where a person with a ticket to a particular station boards a train in ignorance of the fact that such train does not stop at that particular station, it is the duty of the conductor when he first discovers the passenger's mistake to inform him of the fact in order that the passenger may exercise his option to remain on the train to the point to which the ticket entitles him to ride, or to get off at some station where the train does stop; and the passenger cannot be treated as a trespasser before reaching the station called for by his ticket; and if, over his protest, he is compelled by the conductor to leave the train before reaching such station, his wrongful ejection is a tort for which the railroad company is responsible in damages). [a] Where a train occasionally stops at a station, the carrier has the burden of showing that it was justified in ejecting a passenger destined for that station for refusal to pay additional fare on the failure of the train to stop to permit him to alight. Sira v. Wabash R. Co.. 115 Mo. 127, 21 SW 905, 37 AmSR 386. Payment of fare by passenger on wrong train see generally supra § 1106. 66. U. S.-Texas, etc.. R. Co. v. Ludlam, 57 Fed. 481, 6 CCA 454. Mo.-Logan v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 77 Mo. 663. N. Y.-Fink v. Albany, etc., R. Co., 4 Lans. 147. Pa. Caldwell v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 8 Pa. Co. 467. Tex.-Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Dice, (Civ. A.) 168 SW 478. Va.-Richmond, etc., R. Co. V. Ashby, 79 Va.. 130, 52 AmR 620. 67. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Herring, 61 Tex. Civ. A. 543, 127 SW 1155, 130 SW 1039. [a] Knowledge of rule.-Where a passenger, before boarding a train, knew that the carrier had promulgated a rule prohibiting the train from stopping at his destination, such knowledge did not determine his right to travel to his destination on that train, if by continued nonenforcement of the rule the carrier had permitted it to become obsolete, in which event his ejection at the station before his destination was reached was unlawful. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Herring, 61 Tex. Civ. A. 543, 127 SW 1155, 130 SW 1039. 68. Ala.-South, etc.. R. Co. V. Huffman, 76 Ala. 492, 52 AmR 349. Ark.-St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Branch, 106 Ark. 269, 153 SW 118. Ga.-Atkinson v. Southern R. Co., 114 Ga. 146, 39 SE 888, 55 LRA 223. Kan. Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. Little, 66 Kan. 378, 71 P 820, 97 Am SR 376, 61 LRA 122. Ky. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. Barkley, 13 KyL 331. V. Miss.-Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Harper, 83 Miss. 560, 35 S 764, 102 AmSR 469, 64 LRA 283. Nebr.-Chicago, etc., R. Co. V. Spirk, 51 Nebr. 167, 70 NW 926. N. Y.-Elliott v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co.. 53 Hun 78, 6 NYS 363; Martin v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 1 N. Y. St. 738. N. C.-Bullock v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 152 N. C. 66, 67 SE 60; Mace v. Southern R. Co., 151 N. C. 404, 66 SE 342, 24 LRANS 1178 and note. Oh.-Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. V. Reynolds, 55 Oh. St. 370, 45 NE 712, 60 AmSR 706; Pennsylvania Co. v. Wentz, 37 Oh. St. 333. Pa.-Golden v. Pittsburg R. Co., 28 Pa. Super. 313. Tex.-Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Moore, 98 Tex. 302, 305. 83 SW 362, 4 Ann Cas 770 [cit Cyc]; International, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, 1 SW 565; International, etc., R. Co. v. Gilbert, 64 Tex. 536; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Humphries, (Civ. A.) 157 SW 1174; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Herring, 61 Tex. Civ. A. 543, 127 SW 1155, 130 SW 1039 (misled by conductor and ticket agent); St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Pruitt, (Civ. A.) 79 SW 598 [writ of error den 97 Tex. 487, 80 SW 72]. "Where a company by the act of a proper agent, causes a passenger. as in this case, to take the wrong train-one that does not stop at his station-it must be held to have contemplated, that under the instruction given its conductor, the passenger would be put off the train as soon as the error should be discovered by the conductor, unless he should, as demanded, pay additional fare and be carried beyond his station. The act of the first agent of the company, misdirecting the passenger, is wrongful act for which the company becomes liable in tort, and the act of the conductor in ejecting him is a consequence of the first wrongful act-is the proximate cause of the passenger being ejected; and as against the passenger, the act of the conductor in ejecting him, being the act of the company, is wrongful." Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Reynolds, the 55 Oh. St. 370, 380, 45 NE 712, 60 AmSR 706. [a] A conductor must listen to the explanation of a passenger on the wrong train, to the effect that the ticket agent who sold her her ticket and the conductor on the previous train had told her that her ticket entitled her to travel over that route; and, having heard such explanation, it is a willful wrong warranting exemplary damages for the conductor to put her off unattended, and in the nighttime, although he acted in a gentlemanly manner and was guilty of no insolent conduct. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Harper, 83 Miss. 560, 35 S 764. 102 AmSR 469, 64 LRA 283. [b] Duty to give proper information. It is the duty of the agents of a railroad company who have charge of its passenger stations to know, when the inquiry is made of them, what train a passenger should take to reach his destination; and if a passenger takes the train he is directed by the agent to take, and it afterward turns out that it was the wrong train, he is not a trespasser. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Barkley, 13 KyL 331. [c] Duty to stop at destination.— It has been held that where a passenger takes passage on a train on the advice of a railroad employee provided for that purpose, the employees in charge of the train are required to stop it at the destination of the passenger, and ejecting him at another place subjects the company to damages. International, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, 40 Tex. Civ. A. 432, 90 SW 709. [d] Where a passenger receives a transfer ticket not good on night cars, and at the point of transfer attempts to get on four cars in succession, but is prevented by the conductors on the ground that the cars are going only to the barn, and subsequently gets on the fifth car which proves to be a night car, and is excluded therefrom when he presents his ticket and refuses to pay an additional fare, the company will be liable as for a wrongful exclusion. Golden v. Pittsburg R. Co., 28 Pa. Super. 313. [e] Wrong route.-Where a passenger on showing his ticket is admitted to a train but is not told that that particular train takes a longer route than the way his ticket reads so that his ticket is not good for the entire passage, the carrier is liable for ejecting him on his refusal to pay additional fare; in such case the carrier should either refuse him admission to the train as a passenger on the ticket presented, or should advise him that the ticket is not good for the entire trip, or else should carry him without additional fare. St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Branch, 106 Ark. 269, 153 SW 118. 69. Atkinson v. Southern R. Co., 114 Ga. 146, 39 SE 888, 55 LRA 223; Johnson v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 63 Md. 106. 70. Atkinson v. Southern R. Co., 114 Ga. 146, 39 SE 888, 55 LRA 223. 71. Atkinson v. Southern R. Co., 114 Ga. 146, 39 SE 888, 55 LRA 223. 72. White v. Evansville. etc., R. Co., 133 Ind. 480, 33 NE 273; Lake Shore, etc.. R. Co. v. Pierce, 47 Mich. 277, 11 NW 157; Crutcher v. The Big Four, 132 Mo. A. 311, 111 SW 891; Drew v. Wabash R. Co., 129 Mo. A. 459, 107 SW 478; Runyon v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 74 N. J. L. 225, 68 A 107 [dist McDonald v. Central R. Co., 72 N. J. L. 280, 62 A 405, 111 AmSR 672, 2 LRANS 505 and note]. [a] Reason for rule.-"In the operation of a railroad the safety of those traveling upon it requires that the trains running over it shall be moved according to a prearranged schedule, and this safeguard would be practically destroyed if a conductor was bound to stop his train at a station, not a scheduled stopping point, whenever a passenger was wrongfully informed by a ticket agent that the train would take him to that station. As was said in the case of Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Pierce, 47 Mich. 277, 11 NW 157: 'A passenger cannot, by reason of such information, compel a conductor to deviate from his appointed scheme. and, when truly informed concerning the rule as to stoppages, he is bound to conform his movements to it, and seek redress in some other way. Every one is bound to know that the conductor is not invested with general power to run his train as he pleases, and that, so far as he is concerned, trains must conform to schedule.'" Runyon v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 74 N. J. L. 225, 228, 68 A 107. [b] Discussion of rule.-"The view expressed in the decisions of some of our sister states, that misinformation as to the stopping of a train at a particular station, given by a ticket agent to an inquiring passenger, and action upon it by the latter, consitute a contract between the railroad company and the passenger, has not been accepted by the courts of this state. In the late case of Shelton v. Erie R. Co., 73 N. J. L. 558, 66 A 403, 118 AmSR 704, 9 LRANS 727, 9 AnnCas 883 and note, Mr. Justice_Garrison, speaking for the Court of Errors and Appeals, in commenting upon the cases which so hold, says: "The fundamental fallacy of this position is that it assumes the authority of the ticket agents to make contracts for railroad companies. The authority of such agents is notoriously limited to the sale of tickets and to the doing of acts that are ancillary thereto. By no rule of the law of agency or of evidence can the acts or statements of a ticket agent beyond the scope of his limited authority be erected into a contract binding upon the railroad company. What has been mistaken for this authority to make contracts is the ability of these agents to make trouble for their companies by their negligence in the delivery of tickets, or their mistakes in giving information. The judicial conclusions that have been constructed on this erroneous foundation do not in any way commend themselves to us.'" Runyon v, Pennsylvania R. Co., 74 N. J. L. 225, 227, 68 A 107. a [c] Illustrations.-(1) Where a passenger being informed by a ticket agent that a certain train stops at certain station, although in fact it is not scheduled to stop there, buys a ticket thereto and boards the train, and is thereafter told by the conductor that the train does not stop at such station, and is requested to leave the train at the regular stopping point just before such station, and at such point is ejected from the train for refusing to comply with such request, the ejection, no more violence being used than necessary, is is under no duty to volunteer information, his failure to tell a passenger as to which of two roads his ticket is good over is not such negligence as to authorize a recovery from the company for the passenger's being ejected from a train on a road over which the ticket is not good,73 particularly where the ticket shows plainly that it is good only over another road.74 Where passenger carried by station. Where a passenger's own neglect causes him to be carried beyond his destination, he is not entitled to free passage to the next station, and may be put off in default of payment;75 and it has been held that, even where a passenger is carried past his destination through the failure of the conductor or other proper employee to call the station or street, he has no right to remain on such train or car without the justified, since the agent's misrepre- 73. McKinley v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 137 Ky. 845, 127 SW 483, 28 LRANS 611. a [a] Illustration.-It is ticket agent's duty to advise a passenger of the time of the departure of trains and as to the proper train to take only where the passenger requests such information, and where a passenger asked the ticket agent at the point where she changed cars when the train left for a certain place, and was told that a train left for that place at a certain time on two roads. over one of which she held a ticket, the agent was not guilty of negligence SO as to authorize recovery from the company for damages for being ejected from a train on the road over which the ticket was not good. McKinley v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 137 Ky. 845, 127 SW 483, 28 LRANS 611. 74. McKinley v. Louisville, etc., R. Co.. 137 Ky. 845, 127 SW 483, 28 LRANS 611. a pas [a] Illustration.-Where senger asks a ticket agent at a union depot for a ticket to a certain point. without stating by which route she wishes to go, and is given a ticket which shows plainly that it is over a certain road, the agent is not negligent so as to entitle plaintiff to recover damages for being put off the train of another road to which she changes cars, over which the payment of another fare.76 Turning back car short of destination. Where a street car company breaks its contract with a passenger by turning back the car at a point short of the passenger's destination, the passenger's right of action for a breach of the contract is complete, but he is not entitled to remain on the car for its return journey without payment of another fare." [ 1178] E. Defective or Invalid Ticket-1. In General. As a general rule where the ticket offered by a passenger is void or otherwise not such as to entitle him to transportation at the time and on the train or car for which it is offered, and the passenger refuses to pay fare or otherwise show himself entitled to transportation, he may be ejected therefrom,78 particularly where he knows that his ticket is not good, as he has the right to assume that plaintiff knows the route which she wishes to take and can read the ticket so as to have the route changed if she desires. McKinley v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 137 Ky. 845, 127 SW 483, 28 LRANS 611 and note. 75. Hoelljes v. Interurban St. R. Co., 43 Misc. 350, 87 NYS 133; Texas Pac. R. Co. v. James, 82 Tex. 306, 18 SW 589, 15 LRA 347; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Middleton, (Tex. Civ. A.) 172 SW 1114; Bragg v. Norfolk, etc., R. Co., 110 Va. 867, 67 SE 593. [a] Where a passenger while intoxicated and irresponsible is carried past his point of destination, the carrier has the right to put him off the train. Bragg v. Norfolk, etc., R. Co., 110 Va. 867, 67 SE 593. [b] Where a street car passenger on being refused a transfer instead of leaving the car continues thereon to the end of the line, and refuses on the car's return trip to pay an additional fare, whereupon he is forcibly ejected, he has no cause of action against the company. Hoelljes v. Interurban St. R. Co., 43 Misc. 350, 87 NYS 133. 76. Willard v. St. Paul City R. Co., 116 Minn. 183, 133 NW 465; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Richardson, (Tex.. Civ. A.) 131 SW 1139. [a] Where there is no statute requiring employees in charge of a train when approaching a station to call its name in a reasonable time and manner for a passenger to alight, and this is not an absolute duty indispensable to the safety of passengers, it is error to instruct, in an action for injury to a passenger from being ejected from the train after being carried beyond W, her station, that, if the train employees as the train approached W failed to call its name in a reasonable time and manner, such failure authorized a recovery, if by it the passenger was carried beyond her destination and afterward ejected. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Richardson, (Tex. Civ. A.) 131 SW 1139. [b] Street car passenger.-Where a passenger by the failure of the conductor to call the streets was carried past his destination, and he rode around the loop for the purpose of riding back to his destination, and while he was riding on the car on his return trip the conductor requested him to pay his fare or get off the car, and he refused to do either, and in forcibly resisting the attempt of the trainmen to eject him he was injured, he had no right at the time he was ejected to ride on the car without paying the fare, and on his refusal to pay or to get off it was the right and duty of the trainmen to put him off. provided they used only such reasonable force as was necessary. Willard v. St. Paul City R. Co., 116 Minn. 183, 133 NW 465. 77. Wright v. Orange, etc., R. Co., 77 N. J. L. 774, 73 A 517, 23 LRANS 571. 78. Ala.-South, etc., Alabama R. Co. v. Huffman, 76 Ala. 492, 52 AmR 349. Ark. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Brown, 93 Ark. 35, 123 SW 763. Ga.-Morgan v. Southern R. Co., 139 Ga. 465, 77 SE 632; Perry v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 9 Ga. A. 260, 70 SE 1122. Ill. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Herring, 57 Ill. 59; Terre Haute, etc., R. Co. v. Vanatta, 21 Ill. 188, 74 AmD 96; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Bannerman, 15 Ill. A. 100; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Carroll, 13 Ill. A. 585. Ind.-Baltimore, etc.. R. Co. V. Evans, 169 Ind. 410, 82 NE 773; Terre Haute, etc., R. Co. v. Fitzgerald, 47 Ind. 79. La.-De Lucas v. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 38 La. Ann. 930. Md. Freidenrich v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 53 Md. 201. Mich.-Keen v. Detroit Electric R. Co., 123 Mich. 247, 81 NW 1084. Nebr.-Post v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 14 Nebr. 110, 15 NW 225, 45 AmR 100. N. Y.-Henly v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 28 Misc. 499, 59 NYS 857. S. C.-Saunders v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 101 S. C. 11, 85 SE 167. S. D.-Melody v. Great Northern R. Co., 25 S. D. 606, 127 NW 543, 30 LRANS 568, AnnCas1912C 727 and note. 53 Tex. 364; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Tex.-Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Ford, Luster. (Civ. A.) 162 SW 11; Freeman v. Costley, 58 Tex. Civ. A. 388, 124 SW 458. Vt.-Thorp v. Concord R. Co., 61 Vt. 378, 17 A 791. Wash.-Loy v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 68 Wash. 33, 122 P 372. W. Va.-Moore v. Ohio River R. Co., 41 W. Va. 160, 23 SE 539; McKay v. Ohio River R. Co., 34 W. Va. 65, 11 SE 737, 26 AmSR 913, 9 LRA 132. Ont.-Davis v. Great Western R. Co., 20 U. C. Q. B. 27. [a] Illustrations.-(1) Where a passenger knows that his mileage book is not under the express terms of the contract good for passage between points in the state. he is bound by the terms, thereof and cannot recover for his ejection from a train for his failure to pay fare after refusal to accept his mileage, where the ejection is unattended by any circumstances of insult. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Brown, 93 Ark. 35, 123 SW 763. (2) Where a commutation ticket sold at a reduced rate is limited to use by the purchaser and the dependent members of his family, and provides for forfeiture in case of transfer, and the purchaser permits persons to use the ticket who are not entitled so to do, he himself is not thereafter entitled to use unexpired portions thereof..but the carrier is authorized to refuse it and eject him for refusal to pay fare except with the ticket. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Evans, 169 Ind. 410, 82 NE 773; Freidenrich v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 53 Md. 201. (3) Where a mileage contract provides that coupons therefrom will not be accepted on trains in place of tickets, the refusal of a railroad conductor to |