conductor, the probability of a mistake on the part of the agent in issuing the ticket is so strong as reasonably to require further investigation before the passenger is ejected.12 It is the duty of the passenger in such cases to heed the reasonable explanations and warnings of the conductor or other agents of the carrier, and it is also the duty of the conductor to heed the reasonable explanations of the passenger relative to his ticket and his right to ride thereon, and if such explanations are given truthfully it will be at the risk of the carrier if they are not accepted.13 If the evidence which the passenger has is such as to show his right to be transported, the conductor will not be justified in ejecting him by reason of any defect due to the fault of the agent or a previous conductor.14 The above rule does not apply where the passenger himself is mainly at fault in regard to the mistake, as where he accepts and attempts to use a ticket which he knows or by the use of ordinary diligence could know is defective.1 While the conductor should heed the reasonable ex [e] Mutilated ticket.-A carrier is liable for the refusal of the conductor to accept a valid ticket and for ejecting the passenger, even though the ticket was mutilated and difficult to decipher, unless the condition of the ticket which rendered it defective was the fault of the passenger. Houston, etc., R. Co. V. Crone, (Tex. Civ. A.) 37 SW 1074. [f] Extra punch marks.-A provision in a railroad ticket that it should be void if it showed any alterations, or if more than one date was canceled, does not relieve the carrier from liability for wrongfully ejecting a passenger on whose ticket extra punch marks had been placed by the ticket agent. Forrester V. Southern Pac. Co., 36 Nev. 247, 134 P 753, 136 P 705, 48 LRANS 1. 12. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. V. Thornton, 188 Fed. 868, 110 CCA 502; St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. V. Furlow, 81 Ark. 496, 99 SW 689: Krueger v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 68 Minn. 445, 71 NW 683, 64 AmSR 487; Trice v. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 40 W. Va. 271, 21 SE 1022. [a] Illustration.-By mistake, the agent selling a mileage ticket, good for one year from issuance, stamped on it, as the date of issuance, March 4, 1892, instead of 1893, and after the figures "189" wrote the figure "3." making the date of expiration March 4, 1893, and then corrected the latter mistake by writing over the "3" the figure "4." making it read 1894, not correcting the 1892. On April 23, 1893, the holder tendered the ticket for passage, but it was rejected and he was put off the train, the conductor refusing to accept plaintiff's explanation of the circumstances of the mistake and to wait until the train reached the station at which the ticket was bought and make inquiry there. It was held that the passenger was entitled to recover damages of the company. Trice_v. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 40 W. Va. 271, 21 SE 1022. 13. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. V. Kinsley, 27 Ind. A. 135, 60 NE 169, 87 AmSR 245; Saunders v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 101 S. C. 11, 85 SE 167; McKeown v. Southern R. Co., 98 S. planation of the passenger, he need not carry out a ticket agent's illegal agreement or allow a passenger to ride on a ticket which would be in violation of law,16 although the carrier might be liable for the agent's wrongful act in furnishing such ticket.17 [ 1184] c. Reliance on Representations of Agent.18 Where the passenger is not reasonably chargeable with knowledge as to the nature of the ticket furnished him by the agent, he is not bound as a matter of law to read his ticket but has a right to rely on the agent's acts and representations, and may recover for being ejected from a train on which he supposed that he had a right to be transported, although, so far as the conductor ejecting him is concerned, the ticket was not good on that train under the rules of the carrier.19 If the agent assures him that something will be done which will entitle him to transportation on such train, he cannot lawfully be ejected therefrom by reason of having relied on the agent's representations.20 Even as fraud, mistake, or inadvertence, it a passenger has purchased a ticket does not show the real contract." purporting to entitle him to passage Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. Drummond, to a particular place, and has under73 Miss. 813, 819, 20 S 7. taken his journey therefor, and there is nothing on the face of his ticket, and no prior notice or knowledge of rules of the railroad company, inconsistent with the statements on said ticket, brought home to the passenger, he is rightfully a passenger on the train, and the railroad company is liable for his expulsion." Erie R. Co. v. Littell, 128 Fed. 546, 551, 63 CCA 44. 15 14. Rouser v. North Park St. R. 15. Carpenter v. Washington, etc., 16. Saunders V. Atlantic Coast 17. Saunders V. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 101 S. C. 11, 85 SE 167. 18. Representations and acts of agent relative to tickets generally see supra § 1116. 19. U. S.-Erie R. Co. v. Littell, 128 Fed. 546, 63 CCA 44. Ark.-Hot Springs R. Co. v. Deloney, 65 Ark. 177, 45 SW 351, 67 Am SR 913. Ga.-Central R., etc., Co. v. Rob- Ind. Calloway v. Mellett, 15 Ind. Miss.-Illinois Cent. R. Co. V. N. C.-Hallman v. Southern R. Co., Pa-Laird v. Pittsburg Tract. Co., 166 Pa. 4, 31 A 51. Tex. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Carlisle, (Civ. A.) 145 SW 653; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Lynch, (Civ. A.) 73 SW 65; Mexican Cent. R. Co. Goodman, (Civ. A.) 55 SW 372. V. Wash.-Olson v. Northern Pac. R. W. Va.-De Board v. Camden In- Ont.-Dancey v. Grand Trunk R. "While there is some conflict in the C. 338. 82 SE 437; Teddars v. Southern R. Co., 97 S. C. 153, 81 SE 474; Smith v. Southern R. Co., 88 S. C. 421, 70 SE 1057, 34 LRANS 708. See also cases supra note 11. [a] Duty to give explanations.-portation before taking the train. "While a passenger's ticket is not in all cases conclusive evidence of his contract with the carrier, yet it is sufficient evidence of the contract to justify a conductor-an agent of a railway company other than that one with whom the contract was madein acting upon it, as showing the actual contract, in the absence of any reasonable statements made to him the passenger that, through by It is for the jury to say whether the "The rule is well settled that when [a] A street railroad ticket or transfer check, in the hands of a purchaser thereof for use on the car lines of the company issuing it, constitutes the complete evidence of the contract between the purchaser and the company, and the privileges evidenced by its terms are not subject to limitation by a mere rule of the company, knowledge of which the purchaser did not have and could not conveniently have ascertained. De Board v. Camden Interstate R. Co., 62 W. Va. 41, 57 SE 279. 20. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Hine, 121 Ala. 234, 25 S 857; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Davenport, 177 Ill. 110, 52 NE 266; Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Street, 26 Ind. A. 224, 59 NE 404; Houston, etc., R. Co. v. White, (Tex. Civ. A.) 61 SW 436. [a] Where a passenger requests a permit (1) to ride on a certain train when he purchases a ticket, and is told by the agent that the conductor will give him one, the company is liable for his ejection by the conductor for the failure to have such permit, since the duty to furnish the permit is a part of the contract of carriage. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. White, (Tex. Civ. A.) 61 SW 436. (2) Where a passenger bought a ticket and requested the ticket agent to procure him a permit to ride on a freight train and to give the permit to the conductor, which the agent promised to do, and the agent procured the permit, but neglected to give it to the conductor, in consequence of which plaintiff was ejected from the train, plaintiff could recover of the carrier; and defendant's rule prohibiting passengers from riding without permits, and plaintiff's knowledge of the rule, were no defense. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Hine, 121 Ala. 234, 25 S 857. [b] Exchange ticket.-Where a carrier's agent is authorized to sell tickets to passengers, statements by him as to the pasengers' rights thereunder are within the scope of his authority; and hence, where a ticket agent informed the holder of an interchangeable mileage ticket, requiring him to procure exchange transportation tickets at stations, that he could not furnish such tickets because his supply was exhausted, but that the passenger could ride on his against the terms of the ticket itself it has been held 'that the passenger may rely on oral representations of the agent as to the sufficiency of the ticket which is furnished him,21 for the passenger is not presumed to know that the agent is acting without authority,22 although a contrary rule has been upheld.23 [1185] F. Mistake of Conductor as to Right to Transportation-1. In General. Where the passenger has done what is necessary under the rules of the carrier to entitle him to transportation, the carrier will be liable for his ejection from the train by reason of mistake or want of judgment on the part of the conductor, although he acts in good faith,2 as the conductor's good faith in such cases will be material only on the question of punitive 24 639. damages.2 Thus a passenger may recover damages where he is ejected for not paying his fare, after the conductor has accepted and retained his ticket,26 or where the conductor refuses to honor a valid ticket” or transfer;28 and in such a case it is not necessary for the passenger to pay his fare and then to resort to an action to recover it back;29 nor is it a defense to an action for an ejectment in such a case that the carrier was not required to give a transfer,20 or that a rule of the carrier requiring the giving of transfers was not applicable at the point where the particular transfer was given.3 But where the conductor has by mistake taken a less amount of fare than should have been required, and subsequently demands the balance, which the passenger refuses to Tex.-Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Barnett, (Civ. A.) 34 SW 449. 31 son, 145 Ky. 81, 140 SW 71; Ferguson v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 144 Mo. A. 262, 128 SW 799; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Lynch, 43 Tex. Civ. A. 121, 94 SW 1093. mileage, such statement was binding | 884, 35 LRANS 1030, AnnCas1912C 27. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Caron the carrier, and it was liable for damages caused by his ejection by its conductor on the latter's refusal to accept the mileage for transportation. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. V. Street, 26 Ind. A. 224, 59 NE 404. 21. U. S.-Morrison v. The John L. Stephens, 17 F. Cas. No. 9,847, Hoffm. Op. 473. La. Randall v. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 45 La. Ann. 778, 13 S 166. Mo.-Dillon v. Lindell R. Co., 64 Mo. A. 418. N. Y.-Nelson v. Long Island R. Co., 7 Hun 140. Oh. -Corry v. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 3 Oh. Dec. (Reprint) 82, 3 Wkly LGaz 90. Tex.-Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Rather, 3 Tex. Civ. A. 72, 21 SW 951. 22. Mexican Cent. R. Co. v. Goodman. 20 Tex. Civ. A. 109, 48 SW 778, 55 SW 372; San Antonio, etc., P. R. Co. v. Newman, 17 Tex. Civ. A. 606, 43 SW 915. [a] Where two railroads use the same track and have a joint agent the passenger may rely on the representations of such agent that a ticket sold for one will be good on the train of the other. Texas, etc.. R. Co. v. Dye, (Tex. Civ. A.) 33 SW 551. 23. Hall v. Memphis, etc., R. Co., 9 Fed. 585, 15 Fed. 57; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Breckinridge, 99 Ky. 1, 34 SW 702, 17 KyL 1303; Petrie v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 42 N. J. L. 449. Ind. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Conley, 6 Ind. A. 9, 32 NE 96. Mass.-Moore V. Fitchburg Corp., 4 Gray 465, 64 AmD 83. R. R. Mich.-Vining v. Detroit, etc., Co.. 122 Mich. 248, 80 NW 1080. Mo.-Graham v. Pacific R. Co., 66 Mo. 536. Nev. Quigley v. Central Pac. R. Co., 11 Nev. 350. N. Y.-Higgins v. Watervliet Turnpike, etc., R. Co., 46 N. Y. 23, 7 AmR 293; Charbonneau v. Nassau Electric R. Co., 123 App. Div. 531. 108 NYS 105; Regner v. Glens Falls, etc., R. Co., 74 Hun 202, 26 NYS 625; Tarbell v. Northern Cent. R. Co., 24 Hun 51; Milchman v. New York R. Co., 90 Misc. 315, 153 NYS 123. Compare Willetts v. Buffalo, etc., R. Co., 14 Barb. 585 (holding that, where lunatic in charge of his father who had paid his fare was left alone for a time on a train without any evidence of his right to ride, and the conductor, in ignorance of his condition and not knowing that his fare had been paid, ejected him, the carrier was not liable, the conductor being in no way at fault). a N. C.-Dorsett v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 156 N. C. 439, 72 SE 491. Oh.-Cincinnati Northern Tract. Co. v. Rosnagle, 84 Oh. St. 310, 95 NE W. Va.-Sheets v. Ohio River R. Co., 39 W. Va. 475, 20 SE 566. [a] Refusal to receive coin. (1) Where a passenger on a street car tenders to the conductor a genuine silver coin of the United States, not so worn but that its mint marks are plainly discernible, in payment of car fare, and it is refused, and on refusal to make the payment in other money the passenger is ejected, he may have an action for damages against the railroad company; and this is the law, even though the conductor declined to receive the coin because in good faith he believed it to be counterfeit or not a good coin. Chicago Union Tract. Co. v. McClevey, 126 II. A. 21; Ruth v. St. Louis Transit Co., 98 Mo. A. 1, 71 SW 1055; Cincinnati Northern Tract. Co. v. Rosnagle, 84 Oh. St. 310, 95 NE 884, 35 LRANS 1030, AnnCas1912C 639. (2) The fact that a conductor declined to receive a coin of a peculiar appearance, which, however, was legal tender, in payment of a fare, only because he in good faith believed it a counterfeit, did not relieve the carrier from liability for the conductor's ejection of the passenger because of the latter's refusal to pay fare with other money. Atlanta Cons. St. R. Co. v. Kenny, 99 Ga. 266, 25 SE 629, 33 LRA 824. Medium of payment generally see supra § 1102. [b] Mileage book without exchange ticket.-Where a mileage book contract required the holder to exchange mileage coupons for a ticket before boarding the train, and plaintiff so presented his book and demanded a ticket within a reasonable time, but the carrier's agent refused to issue a ticket to destination, alleging lack of time, and gave him a ticket to a junction point only, plaintiff on arriving at the junction point and being unable, for want of time, there to exchange his mileage coupons for a ticket to continue his journey was entitled to ride on the mileage book, so that the conductor's refusal to accept the mileage coupons for transportation, and ejection of plaintiff for his refusal to pay fare except with such coupons, was actionable injury. Dorsett v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 156 N. C. 439, 72 SE 491. 25. Edwards v. Southern R. Co., 162 N. C. 278, 78 SE 219. 26. Mott v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 164 N. C. 367. 79 SE 867; Edwards v. Southern R. Co., 162 N. C. 278, 78 SE 219; Case v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 191 Pa. 450, 43 A 319. [a] A passenger not guilty of any misconduct, who has a ticket which he duly surrenders to the proper official of the railroad company, is entitled to ride to the destination called for in such ticket, and a wrongful ejection entitles him to compensatory damages. Edwards v. Southern R. Co., 162 N. C. 278, 78 SE 219. [a] Where a ticket is apparently genuine, before ejecting a passenger from a train because of a defective ticket the conductor is bound to ascertain that the ticket was not purchased from the company's agent as stated by the passenger. Ferguson v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 144 Mo. A. 262, 128 SW 799. 28. Arnold V. Rhode Island Co.. 28 R. I. 118, 163, 66 A 60, 125 AmSR 721. 29. Arnold V. Rhode Island Co., 28 R. I. 118, 163, 66 A 60, 125 Am SR 721. [a] Discussion of rule.-"It would be as reasonable to require the company to carry a man who refuses to pay his fare and sue him for it afterwards as it would be to require a man who presents the proper evidence that he has paid his fare to pay it again and resort to his action of contract to recover it. If the passenger is entitled to his transportation and presents to the conductor the evidence of his right which the company has established for that purpose, he may lawfully resist expulsion and recover in a suitable action against the company for damage caused by the violence of its servant." Arnold v. Rhode Island Co., 28 R. I. 118, 120, 163, 66 A 60, 125 AmSR 721. 30. Arnold V. Rhode Island Co.. 28 R. I. 118, 163, 66 A 60, 125 AmSR 721. [a] "If the transfer offered by the plaintiff was good for passage upon the car where he offered it, according to the rule and practice of the defendant, it is immaterial, as ruled by the court below, whether the statute had compelled it to enact such a rule and establish such a practice. Its obligation to the public had been established by its own course of dealing, and so had become binding upon it by its voluntary act whether it exceeded the requirement of the statute or not. The statute imposed upon the defendant the duty of giving transfers. The company had adopted a certain voucher to be presented to its conductors by a passenger, like the plaintiff, who claimed the right to ride on the Butler Avenue line by transfer from another car. The company was therefore bound to see that its conductor accepted and honored the voucher which it had provided for that purpose. The language or marks on the transfer card were nothing to the plaintiff so long as it was the card which the defendant's rule made good for him to show on the car to which he transferred." Arnold V. Rhode Island Co., 28 R. I. 118, 121, 163, 66 A 60, 125 AmSR 721. 31. Chiert V. Interurban St. R. Co., 92 NYS 781; Arnold v. Rhode Island Co., 28 R. I. 118, 163, 66 A 60, 125 AmSR 721, pay, the latter may be ejected if he attempts to ride further than the distance for which he has paid.32 The [1186] 2. Mistake of First Conductor. same principles which govern the case where an agent wrongfully fails to furnish the passenger the evidence of right to transportation to which he is entitled33 are applicable also where one conductor should furnish to the passenger the evidence to be presented to a succeeding conductor of the passenger's right to continue his journey; and if, by reason of mistake or negligence on the part of the first conductor, the passenger is ejected by the second conductor, although the act of the second conductor may properly be the fault of the first conductor, the carrier, according to some authorities, will be liable for the ejection, as where, in case of a change or stop-over, the first conductor takes up the passenger's ticket and leaves him without any evi 34 32. Ga. Coyle v. Southern R. Co., 112 Ga. 121, 37 SE 163. Ind.-Lake Erie, etc., R. Co. V: Mayo, 4 Ind. A. 413, 30 NE 1106. Iowa.-McCarthy v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 41 Iowa 432. Ky. Curtis v. Louisville City R. Co., 94 Ky. 573, 23 SW 363, 15 KyL 351, 21 LRA 649. Minn.-Wardwell v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 46 Minn. 514, 49 NW 206, 24 AmSR 246, 13 LRA 596. 33. See supra §§ 1182-1184. 34. U. S. New York, etc., R. Co. v. Winter, 143 U. S. 60, 12 SCt 356, 36 L. ed. 71; Scofield v. Pennsylvania Co., 112 Fed. 855, 50 CCA 553, 56 LRA 224. Cal. Sloane v. Southern California R. Co., 111 Cal. 668, 44 P 320. Ind. Lake Erie, etc., R. Co. v. Fix, 88 Ind. 381, 45 AmR 464; Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. v. Hennigh, 39 Ind. 509. Minn.-Appleby v. St. Paul City R. Co., 54 Minn. 169, 55 NW 1117, 40 AmSR 308. N. Y.-Ray v. Cortland, etc., Tract. Co., 19 App. Div. 530, 46 NYS 521 [expl Townsend v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 56 N. Y. 295, 15 AmR 419]. etc., R. Co. V. Pa.-Baltimore, Bambrey, 16 A 67. S. C.-Palmer v. Charlotte, etc., R. Co., 3 S. C. 580, 16 AmR 750. Tenn.-O'Rourke v. Citizens' St. R. Co., 103 Tenn. 124, 52 SW 872, 76 AmSR 639, 46 LRA 614. [a] Thus, where plaintiff boarded a car on defendant's railroad, paid her fare to her destination, and asked the conductor for a stop-over to enable her to leave the car at a point on the way and take the next car, and the conductor gave her a ticket which, as punched by him, gave her an apparent right to ride to her destination, and he stopped the car for her to get off at the desired point, and there was nothing on the ticket, or in any published rules of the company, to give plaintiff notice of any limitation upon the conductor's right to give such ticket, and she boarded the next car, the conductor of which demanded fare, and on her refusal to pay required her to leave the car, although the ticket was issued by the first conductor through mistake, and in violation of the rules of the company, the company was bound by it, and the ejection of plaintiff from the second car was wrongful. Ray V. Cortland, etc.. Trust Co.. 19 App. Div. 530, 46 NYS 521 [expl Townsend v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 56 N. Y. 295, 15 AmR 419]. 35. U. S. Scofield V. Pennsylvania Co., 112 Fed. 855, 50 CCA 553, 56 LRA 224. Cal. Sloane v. Southern California R. Co., 111 Cal. 668, 44 P 320, 32 LRA 193. N. Y.-Townsend V. New York Cent.. etc., R. Co., 4 Hun 217, 6 Thomps. & C. 495. N. C.-Sawyer v. Norfolk Southern 35 dence of his right to resume or to continue his jour- R. Co., 171 N. C. 13, 86 SE 166. W. Va.-Lovings v. Norfolk, etc., R. Co., 47 W. Va. 582, 35 SE 962. [a] Illustrations.-(1) Where plaintiff had purchased a ticket from the agent of defendant for passage from North Pomona to San Diego, but before reaching a town where she changed cars the conductor took up her ticket without giving her any check or other evidence of her right to be carried, and the second conductor ejected her because of her inability to pay fare, the court held that it is immaterial if different acts of tort were committed by different agents of the railroad company; and that the liability of the company is the same, where one conductor took up the ticket of a passenger and required a change of cars, without giving to the passenger any evidence of the right of passage, and another conductor excluded the passenger for failure to exhibit such evidence, as if both acts had been done by one conductor. Sloane v. Southern California R. Co., 111 Cal. 668, 676, 44 P 320, 32 LRA 193 (where, in an able opinion, after an exhaustive review of the authorities, the court said: "It is contended by the appellant that, as the plaintiff left the car at East Riverside, in accordance with the previous directions of the conductor, and no personal violence was used or displayed towards her, her only right of action is for a breach of the defendant's contract to carry her to San Diego, and that the extent of her recovery therefor is the price paid for the second ticket, and a reasonable compensation for the loss of time sustained by her. The plaintiff's right of action against the defendant is not, however, limited to the breach of its contract to carry her to San Diego, but includes full redress for the wrongs sustained by her by reason of the defendant's violation of the obligations which it assumed in entering into such contract. If she was wrongfully prevented by the defendant from completing the passage to San Diego, for which it had contracted with her, she could either bring an action simply for the breach of this contract, or she could sue it in tort for its violation of the duty as common carrier, which it assumed upon entering into such contract. The complaint in the present case is not merely for the breach of the contract, nor is it merely for the wrong committed in excluding her from the car, but it is to recover the damages sustained by her by reason of the wrongful acts committed by the defendant in the violation of its contract. It is in the nature of an action on the case, arising out of the conduct of the defendant in wrongfully depriving her of her ticket, and thereafter, by reason of such wrongful act, excluding her from its car, and refusing to carry out its contract. Although her action is for the If tort resulting from the defendant's conduct, the wrong which produced that result was twofold-depriving her of the evidence of its contract to carry her to San Diego, and afterward excluding her from its car for failure to produce the evidence of which it had wrongfully deprived her. For the purpose of giving her this right of action, it is immaterial that these different acts were by different agents of the defendant. the conductor who took up the ticket had himself, at a subsequent point in the trip, excluded her for failure to exhibit it, the liability of the defendant would not be questioned. Its liability is the same, notwithstanding, for its own convenience, it has intrusted the management of its train to different conductors"). (2) Where plaintiff purchased through transportation to a destination to reach which it was necessary to change, and the conductor on the first train neglected to return his ticket, he having no money, and, when the conductor of the second train asked for his fare, vainly attempting to borrow from men who had been on the first train with him, it was negligence on the conductor's part not to have satisfied himself by inquiring of such men whether plaintiff had been on the train with them before reaching the changing point, before ejecting plaintiff. Sawyer v. Norfolk Southern R. Co., 171 N. C. 13, 86 SE 166. 36. Moore v. Central of Georgia R. Co., 1 Ga. A. 514, 58 SE 63; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Conrad, 4 Ind. A. 83, 30 NE 406. 37. Ga.-East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. King, 88 Ga. 443, 14 SE 708; Georgia R., etc., Co. v. Dougherty, 86 Ga. 744, 12 SE 747, 22 AmSR 499. Mich.-Rouser v. North Park St. R. Co., 97 Mich. 565, 56 NW 937 (fragment of ticket sufficient to show that it was genuine, and if whole would entitle the passenger to transpor tation). Minn. Krueger v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 68 Minn. 445, 71 NW 683, 64 AmSR 487. Miss.-Alabama, etc.. R. Co. V. Holmes, 75 Miss. 371, 23 S 187. N. Y.-Homiston v. Long Island R. Co., 3 Misc. 342, 22 NYS 738. Pa.-Laird v. Pittsburg Tract. Co., 166 Pa. 4, 3 A 51. 38. Yorton v. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co., 54 Wis. 234, 11 NW 482, 41 AmR 23. See generally supra § 1182. [a] Trip check instead of stopover check given passenger.-Where a passenger asked the proper conductor for a stop-over check, and, through the conductor's fault, received instead only a trip check, the second conductor could still demand fare, and on the passenger's failure to pay it, could eject him. Yorton v. Milwaukee. etc., R. Co., 54 Wis. 234, 11 NW 482. 41 AmR 23. 39. Pennsylvania Co. v. Bray, 125 Ind. 229, 25 NE 439; Lake Erie, etc., a case only where he boards the car to make the return trip in ignorance of the mistake of the conductor on the going trip, and where his failure to discover that such mistake has been made was not due to his own negligence, and that the conductor is not bound to accept the passenger's statement that the first part of the ticket was by mistake taken up by the other conductor.1 40 41 Defective or invalid transfers.* 42 According to some authorities, where a passenger on a street car, through mistake or negligence, is given a transfer which does not entitle him to ride over the connecting line, the conductor of the connecting line may refuse to honor his transfer or to accept his explanation and may eject him from the car, the passenger's remedy being not by refusing to pay fare and resisting ejection, but by leaving the car, or paying a new fare and seeking redress against the company for breach of its contract to give a proper transfer, particularly where he knows of the defective character of his transfer when he enters the second car. 44 By other authorities, however, this rule has been repudiated as unjust and unreasonable, and the better rule is held to be that in such a case the conductor R. Co. v. Fix, 88 Ind. 381, 45 AmR 464; Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. V. Rice, 64 Md. 63, 21 A 97; Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. Riley. 68 Miss. 765, 9 S 443, 24 AmSR 309, 13 LRA 38; Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Bambrey, (Pa.) 16 A 67. 40. Wiggins v. King, 91 Hun 340, 36 NYS 768; Harrison v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 118 NYS 1022. [a] Knowledge of mistake.-A passenger cannot recover for an ejection when, holding a round trip excursion ticket, and knowing that the conductor of the outgoing train had canceled the return coupon, he presents such coupon for a return passage, and the conductor, in obedience to the rule of the company, ejects him on his refusal to pay fare. Mullin v. Long Island R. Co., 136 App. Div. 733, 121 NYS 458. [b] Breach of contract. The passenger can sue for the breach of contract, but not as for a tortious act in such a case, because the ticket, presenting a "going" coupon for a return trip, was void on its face. Harrison V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 118 NYS 1022. 41. Van Dusan v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 97 Mich. 439, 56 NW 848, 37 AmSR 354. 42. See generally supra § 1178. And see supra § 1185 text and notes 28, 30, 31. 43. Ark.-Little Rock R., etc., Co. v. Goerner, 80 Ark. 158, 95 SW 1007, 7 LRANS 97 and note, 10 AnnCas 273 and note [dist St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Baty, 88 Ark. 282, 114 SW 218]. Conn.-Norton v. Consolidated R. Co., 79 Conn. 109. 63 A 1087, 118 AmSR 132, 6 AnnCas 943. D. C.-Capital Tract. Co. v. Brinley, 43 App. 430. Il-Kiley v. Chicago City R. Co., 189 Ill. 384, 59 NE 794, 82 AmSR 460, 52 LRA 626 [aff 90 I11. A. 275]. Mass.-Crowley v. Fitchburg, etc., R. Co., 185 Mass. 279, 70 NE 56; Bradshaw v. South Boston R. Co., 135 Mass. 407, 46 AmR 481. Mich.-Mahoney v. Detroit St. R. Co., 93 Mich. 612, 53 NW 793, 32 Am SR 528, 18 LRA 335. Nebr.-Jones v. Omaha, etc., R. Co.. 95 Nebr. 798, 146 NW 959. N. Y.-Weber v. Rochester, etc.. R. Co., 145 App. Div. 84, 129 NYS 304; Brown v. Brooklyn, etc., R. Co., 136 App. Div. 690, 121 NYS 445; Goodman v. New York R. Co.. 88 Misc. 95, 150 NYS 702; Daniel V. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 67 Misc. 78, 121 NYS 577. But see Jacobs v. Third Ave. R. Co., 71 App. Div. 199, 43 45 on the connecting line must accept the passenger's reasonable explanation, and if he refuses so to do and ejects the passenger on his refusal to pay a second fare, the carrier becomes liable for all damages proximately resulting from such wrongful ejection; and where a passenger accepts a transfer in good faith, he is not bound to stop and examine it to see that no mistake has been made, but has a right to assume that the conductor has given him a proper transfer.46 Where a transfer has two punches, one correct and the other showing it to be invalid, as being too old, the conductor has no right to treat the transfer as old and ignore the correct time punched thereon, and the company is liable for the passenger's ejection.7 [1187] G. Payment or Tender of Fare to Prevent Ejection-1. Before Steps Taken for Ejection.* 48 If, before any steps are taken by the employees in charge of the train to eject the passenger for noncompliance with the rule as to paying fare or producing a ticket, the passenger tenders the fare, or otherwise shows himself able and willing to comply with the rules and regulations of the carrier, he cannot be ejected.49 It has been held that 75 NYS 679, 10 NYAnnCas 462 [rev 34 Misc. 512, 69 NYS 981] (holding that, where one is ejected from a street car because the hour was not correctly punched in his transfer ticket, a regulation of the company making such a transfer worthless is no defense to an action for the ejection); Muckle v. Rochester R. Co., 79 Hun 32, 29 NYS 732 (holding the passenger entitled to recover for the wrongful ejection); Kenney v. New York R. Co., 90 Misc. 672, 154 NYS 151 (holding that the conductor of a street railroad company, receiving a passenger from another line with which it had a transfer agreement, was charged with knowledge of its own schedules, and was bound to give due consideration to the passenger's statement that a transfer presented by him shortly after an hour at which it was marked to expire was given to him, but shortly before the time limited, and that the time expired while he was waiting at the transfer point, and it was liable for ejecting him for refusal to pay fare). 44. Nicholson v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 118 App. Div. 13, 103 NYS 310. 45. Ga.-Georgia R., etc., Co. v. Baker, 125 Ga. 562, 54 SE 639, 114 AmSR 246, 7 LRANS 103, 5 AnnCas 484. Ind.-Indianapolis St. R. Co. V. Wilson, 161 Ind. 153, 66 NE 950, 67 NE 993, 100 AmSR 261; Indiana R. Co. v. Orr, 41 Ind. A. 426, 84 NE 32; Citizens St. R. Co. v. Clark, 33 Ind. A. 190, 71 NE 53, 104 AmSR 249. Minn. Morrill v. Minneapolis St. R. Co., 103 Minn. 362, 115 NW 395, 123 AmSR 341; Appleby v. St. Paul City R. Co., 54 Minn. 169, 55 NW 1117, 40 AmSR 308. N. J.-Perine v. North Jersey St. R. Co., 69 N. J. L. 230, 54 A 799. Oh.- -Cleveland City R. Co. v. Conner, 74 Oh. 225, 78 NE 376, 6 Ann Cas 941. Pa.-Golden v. Pittsburg R. Co.. 28 Pa. Super. 313. But see Anderson v. Union Tract. Co., 7 Pa. Dist. 41 (holding that a street car conductor cannot be expected to listen to, and to decide on, a passenger's account of a disputed transaction relating to the sale of a transfer ticket by a conductor on another line, and that the passenger should either pay his fare or walk quietly off the car and then resort to an action against the company for a breach of contract). Tenn. Memphis St. R. Co. V. Graves, 110 Tenn. 232, 75 SW 729, 100 AmSR 803; O'Rourke v. Citizens' St. R. Co., 103 Tenn. 124, 52 SW 872, 76 AmSR 639, 46 LRA 614. Wash.-Lawshe V. Tacoma, R., etc., Co., 29 Wash. 681, 70 P 118, 59 LRA 350. [a] A transfer slip is not the sole and exclusive evidence of the passenger's right to ride. Morrill v. Minneapolis St. R. Co.. 103 Minn. 362, 115 NW 395, 123 AmSR 341. car [b] Illustrations.-(1) Where plaintiff received a passenger's transfer slip from a conductor on one of defendant's street car lines and entered the first car leaving the point of transfer within the time required by the company's rules, but was ejected from that car because the conductor on the other car had incorrectly punched the transfer slip so as to entitle plaintiff to a transfer only on an earlier car, he may recover for his unlawful ejection, and his right of recovery is not affected by the fact that he left the without compelling the conductor to resort to force to expel him. Indiana R. Co. v. Orr, 41 Ind. A. 426, 84 NE 32. (2) A passenger who has been ejected from a street car to which he had transferred from another car, because his transfer checks were improperly punched by the conductor of the first car, can recover therefor, where, on the refusal of the second conductor to accept the transfer checks and before he was ejected, he made a statement to the conductor showing that the fault in the tickets was due to the negligence of the first conductor. O'Rourke v. Citizens' St. R. Co., 103 Tenn. 124, 52 SW 872, 76 AmSR 639, 46 LRA 614. [e] The fact that the passenger fails to make any explanation before he is put off the car will not defeat recovery, but may be considered as bearing on the question of his good faith. Cleveland City R. Co. v. Conner, 74 Oh. St. 225, 78 NE 376, 6 AnnCas 941. 46. Morrill v. Minneapolis St. R. Co., 103 Minn. 362, 374, 115 NW 395, 123 AmSR 341 [cit Cyc]; Moon V. Interurban St. R. Co., 85 NYS 363: Memphis St. R. Co. v. Graves, 110 Tenn. 232, 75 SW 729, 100 AmSR 803. 47. Laird V. Pittsburgh Tract. Co.. 166 Pa. 4. 31 A 51. 48. Payment or tender of fare generally see supra §§ 1100-1106. 49. U. S.-Gould v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 18 Fed. 155, 5 McCrary 502. Ala. Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Patrick, 10 Ala. A. 341, 65 S 437. the duty of tendering fare in such a case is on the passenger without a demand by the conductor;50 but where a conductor, after accepting a pass from a person not entitled to ride thereon, withdraws such acceptance, as he is bound by statute to do, he should not eject such person until he has given him a reasonable opportunity to pay his fare;51 and this has also been held to be true where a passenger tenders a ticket void on its face.5 An ejection is wrongful where the train stops at a regular stopping place, and before the passenger is ejected he, or some one in his behalf, tenders the fare;53 or where the passenger gets off at a regular station and gets a ticket and enters the train again and tenders the amount of fare due for passage up to that point.54 52 Ark.-Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. Holden, 66 Ark. 602, 53 SW 45. D. C.-Capital Tract. Co. v. Brinley, 43 App. 430. Ga.-Georgia Southern, etc., R. Co. v. Asmore, 88 Ga. 529, 15 SE 13, 16 LRA 53; South Carolina R. Co. v. Nix, 68 Ga. 572. Ill-Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Bryan, 90 I11. 126. Ind.-Brown v. Terre Haute, etc., Tract. Co., (A.) 110 NE 703, 113 NE 313. Ky.-Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Cottongim, 119 SW, 751. La. Ford V. East Louisiana R. Co.. 110 La. 414, 34 S 585. Md. United R., etc., Co. v. Hardesty, 94 Md. 661, 51 A 406, 57 LRA 275. Mo.-Short v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 150 Mo. A. 359, 130 SW 488. N. C.-Norman v. East Carolina R. Co., 161 N. C. 330, 77 SE 345, Ann Cas1914D 917. Tex.-Fordyce v. Belcher, 2 Tex. Civ. A. 29, 21 SW 179. [a] Illustration.-Where a person boards a train at a place where the company does not receive passengers and rides several miles, with knowledge of the conductor who does not eject him as a trespasser, and the conductor demands his fare for transportation, the latter has no right to eject him for nonpayment of fare, where, before the conductor took any steps to eject him, he produced money and offered to pay, as the conductor has elected to treat him as a passenger. Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. Holden, 66 Ark. 602, 53 SW 45. 50. Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Patrick, 10 Ala. A. 341, 65 S 437; United R., etc., Co. v. Hardesty, 94 Md. 661, 51 A 406, 57 LRA 275. [a] Illustration. Where an initial carrier sold plaintiff a ticket for interstate transportation over a prohibited route, and the ticket was refused by a connecting carrier for that reason, plaintiff having sufficient funds with which to pay fare over such portion of the route, it was his duty so to do and avoid ejection to reduce his damages, hence he could not recover for delay and added expense resulting from his ejection and return to a junction point from which he subsequently resumed his journey. Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Patrick, 10 Ala. A. 341, 65 S 437. and 51. Louisville, etc., R. Co. V. Dawson, 11 Ala. A. 621, 66 S 905. Opportunity to pay fare or produce ticket see generally supra § 1174. 52. Capital Tract. Co. v. Brinley, 43 App. (D. C.) 430. [a] Reasons for rule.-"Realizing the proneness of the traveling public to carelessness, the courts have adopted the very reasonable rule that if a passenger tenders a ticket void on its face, he must be given a reasonable opportunity to pay lawful fare before he may be considered a trespasser. In other words, the conductor, at least in the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary, may not assume that he is acting in bad faith until he has been informed that his ticket is not good and has failed, within a reasonable time, to pay his fare. But, after notice, he must seasonably elect whether he will pay his fare and receive the privileges of a passenger, or leave the car as a trespasser." Capital Tract. Co. v. Brinley, 43 App. (D. C.) 430, 438. 53. O'Brien v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 80 N. Y. 236; Guy v. New York, etc., R. Co., 30 Hun (N. Y.) 399; Gulf, etc.. R. Co. v. Bunn, 41 Tex. Civ. A. 503, 95 SW 640. [a] Illustration.-Where a passenger is told by the conductor that his ticket is not good and that he will have to pay his fare or get off, and he gets off the train at its regular stopping place without making an effort to get the money or pay his fare, but before the train starts tells the conductor he can get the money if he will allow him to get back on the train, but the conductor refuses to allow him to reënter the train, he is entitled to damages for the ejection. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Bunn, 41 Tex. Civ. A. 503, 95 SW 640. 54. Stone v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 47 Iowa 82, 29 AmR 458; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Breckinridge, 99 Ky. 1, 34 SW 702, 13 KyL 1303; Nelson v. Long Island R. Co., 7 Hun (N. Y.) 140; Pickens v. Richmond, etc., R. Co.. 104 N. C. 312, 10 SE 556. Payment of back fare generally see supra § 1105; infra § 1189. 55. Gould v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 5 McCrary 502, 18 Fed. 155; Baltimore. etc., R. Co. v. Norris, 17 Ind. A. 189, 46 NE 554, 60 AmSR 166; Ford v. East Louisiana R. Co., 110 La. 414, 34 S 585. [a] Sufficiency of provocation.The fact that plaintiff, after he had tendered to the conductor the amount of fare to A, and the conductor had asked where in hell he was going and had told him that the train did not stop at A, said that he guessed it did, that he had ridden on the train before, and that on another occasion said conductor had accepted a cash fare from him, without giving him a receipt therefor, and had stopped the train for him at A, was not sufficient provocation to authorize the expulsion of plaintiff after he had tendered fare to the first regular stopping station. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Norris, 17 Ind. A. 189, 46 NE 554. [b] Scalping tickets on train.Where a person is in the employ of a connecting line, and because thereof is permitted to ride free on the trains of the other company, and is warned not to traffic in the excursion tickets of the company, and disregarding this warning is detected in scalping tickets on the train, the conductor might be justified in stopping the train and putting him off, even though he offered to pay the fare. Ford v. East Louisiana R. Co.. 110 La. 414, 34 S 585. See also supra § 1169. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 150 Mo. A. 359, 130 SW 488; Arnold v. Rhode Island Co., 28 R. Í. 118, 163, 66 A 60, 125 AmSR 721. [a] Where a passenger has a right to be carried on his ticket, he may insist on being so carried, and if he is ejected he is entitled to recover the damages sustained thereby, although he might take the other course and pay his fare, rather than be ejected, and then recover such damages as he sustains in that event. Pennsylvania County v. Bray, 125 Ind. 229, 25 NE 439. [b] Where before boarding train, an ejected passenger presented his ticket to the brakeman whose duty it was to inspect it, and was passed into the train as if he held valid transportation, and the ticket itself did not suggest otherwise, he was justified in believing that it was good on the portion of the road on which he was traveling, and, so believing, he was within his legal rights when he parleyed with the conductor about the validity of his ticket, and did not tender the money for his fare on the first demand. Short v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 150 Mo. A. 359, 130 SW 488. 58. U. S.-Pennsylvania Co. V. Lenhart, 120 Fed. 61, 56 CCA 467. Ala.-McGhee v. Cashin, 40 S 63. Cal.-Elser V. Southern Pac. Co., 7 Cal. A. 493, 94 P 852, Ga. Atlanta Cons. St. R. Co. v. Keeny, 99 Ga. 266, 25 SE 629, 33 LRA 824. Ill. Chicago Union Tract. Co. v. McClevey, 126 Ill. A. 21. But see Malmgren v. Aurora, etc., R. Co., 193 Ill. A. 241; Chicago v. Giersch, 189 Ill. A. 632 (both holding that the passenger should pay the second fare, and then bring action). Mich.-Burnham V. Detroit, etc.. R. Co., 168 Mich. 55, 133 NW 952, AnnCas1913B 1204 and note; Chamberlain v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 110 Mich. 614, 68 NW 423. N. Y.-Raynor v. New York, etc., Tract. Co., 86 Misc. 201, 149 NYS 151 [rev on other grounds 166 App. Div. 927 mem, 151 NYS 417]. N. C.-Sawyer v. Norfolk Southern R. Co., 171 N. C. 13, 83 SE 166; Harvey v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 153 N. C. 567, 69 SE 627. Oh.-Ann Arbor R. Co. v. Amos, 85 Oh. St. 300, 97 NE 978, 43 LRANS 587; Cincinnati Northern Tract. Co. v. Rosnagle, 84 Oh. St. 310, 95 NE 884, 35 LRANS1912C 1030, AnnCas 1912C 639. V. Southern R. S. C.-McKeown Tex.-Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Dyer, 43 Tex. Civ. A. 93, 95 SW 12; Gulf, etc.. R. Co. v. Copeland, 17 Tex. Civ. A. 55, 42 SW 239. Wash.-Sprenger v. Tacoma Tract. Co., 15 Wash. 660, 47 P 17, 43 LRA 706 and note. [a] Reasons for rule.-"When a passenger is about to be wrongfully ejected from the train, it is not incumbent upon him to prevent the wrong by paying money which the carrier's servant has no right to exact. He is not required to submit to imposition, or to buy again his |