ON report from Superior Court of Suffolk County.

Action of contract to recover a fare for transporting defendant upon train of plaintiff's company between Boston and Melrose Highlands. Trial by the. superior court without a jury. It was admitted by the parties that the established fare between Boston and Melrose Highlands for passengers paying fares upon plaintiff's trains was 29 cents, and that the amount was reasonable; and that the defendant travelled upon the plaintiff's train, and on being asked for his fare offered a coupon which he had detached from a book containing coupons. The outside cover of the book bore the inscription Boston & Melrose Highlands; and on the inside cover was printed:

"One Hundred-Ride Ticket, Boston & Maine Railroad; good for one ride, and an additional ride for each coupon attached, between Boston and Melrose Highlands. Continuous passage. Coupons to be detached by conductor only. D. T. FLANDERS, Gen. Ticket Agent.'

"1200.

Each coupon was of the form following:

"I

"B. & M. R. R.
(1200)

II

"Not good if detached."

Upon the third passage of the cover was printed: "NoTICE TO PASSENGERS. Passengers will please take notice that the coupons attached hereto are to be detached by or in the presence of the conductor, and will be accepted for passage only when accompanied by this ticket."

The holder of the book and coupons was entitled to travel 100 times between Boston & Melrose Highlands, and the price charged for such books was less than the price of 100 separate mile tickets between the same points. It was also admitted that conductor refused to accept the detached coupon as fare, unless the defendant exhibited the book, but the defendant declined to do so, and refused to pay his fare in any other manner. Evidence was offered on behalf of the defendant that he himself and many others had been allowed to travel upon detached coupons; but this testimony we excluded. The court found for the plaintiff for 29 cents upon the facts admitted, and reported the case to the supreme judicial court.

E. R. Anderson for defendant.

S. Lincoln for plaintiff.

BY THE COURT. The contract, of which the book and the coupons therein, sold to the defendant by the plaintiff, are 34 A. & E. R. Cas.-22

the evidence, is a reasonable and valid one. Under it the plaintiff's conductor was not required to accept as the defendant's fare a detached coupon, and had at least the right to demand that he should produce and show the book. There was no evidence which would justify the finding that the plaintiff had rescinded or waived any of the conditions or terms of the contract. Judgment for plaintiff.

Coupons Void if Detached-Reasonable Condition. A condition in a book of commutation tickets that coupons shall not be good if detached, is reasonable and valid. Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. Wysor, 26 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 235.

Refusal to Allow Conductor to Detach.-A traveller, travelling upon a commutation ticket which provides that the coupon shall be void unless detached by the conductor, technically violates the contract by detaching them himself. If, while detaching the coupons the conductor call his attention to the fact that it is his duty to detach them, the passenger should desist, and hand the ticket and coupons to the conductor, and it will then be the duty of the latter, if he saw the coupons detached, or could readily ascertain that they had been detached from the ticket, to accept them. But the conductor will not be bound to receive the detached coupons without seeing the ticket. Louisville N. & G. S. R. Co. v. Harris, 9 Lea (Tenn.), 180; s. c., 16 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 374. Under such a condition if the passenger refuses to allow the conductor to detach the coupons, and insists upon detaching them himself, he may be ejected from the train. Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. Wysor, 26 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 235; especially when he also refuses to exhibit the book to enable the conductor to ascertain whether the coupons had been recently detached, and the passenger had a right to travel on them. Louisville, N. & G. S. R. Co. v. Harris, 9 Lea (Tenn.), 180; s. c., 16 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 374.

Ejection for Failing to Exhibit.-If a commutation ticket contain a condition that it shall be exhibited on each journey, the passenger may be ejected if he attempts to travel without it, although the conductor knew that he had purchased a commutation ticket, and the passenger explained that he had left it at home by mistake. Downs v. New York & N. H. R. Co., 36 Conn. 278; s. c., 4 Am. Rep. 77. So too he may be ejected if he has lost it, and refuse to pay the regular fare. Crawford v. Cincinnati, H. & D. R. Co., 26 Ohio St. 580. A passenger offered detached coupons for his fare, and was arrested for fraudulently evading payment. In an action for false imprisonment, it was held that evidence that plaintiff had frequently seen the conductor accept similar coupons under similar circumstances, was inadmissible, except to prove a custom. Marshall v. Boston & A. R. Co., 145 Mass. 164; s. C., 31 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 18.

See Butler v. Manchester & L. R. Co., 33 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 551, note 556.

MOSHER

ບ.

ST. LOUIS, IRON MOUNTAIN AND SOUTHERN R. Co.

(127 U. S. 390.)

Passenger-Limited Ticket-Identification of Holder-Connecting Lines. -A railroad company sold a round-trip ticket at a reduced rate which was available for a point beyond its own line over the connecting line of another company. The ticket contained among others the following conditions, viz.: that the company issuing it was not responsible beyond its own line, and acted only as agent for the other company; that the purchaser should within the time limited identify himself to the agent of the connecting line at the point of destination, and should have the ticket stamped by him; that without such identification and stamp the ticket should not be available for the return journey; and that no agent or employee of any of the lines should have power to waive any of the conditions. The purchaser within the time limited presented himself for identification at the proper office; but owing to the absence of the agent, could not have himself identified and the ticket stamped. He proceeded on his return journey, and on reaching the line of the company which issued the ticket, the conductor refused to accept it, and ejected him from the train, although he stated the reason that the ticket was not stamped and offered to identify himself to the conductor in the manner required by the ticket. Held, that the passenger could not maintain an action against the company selling the ticket, such company not being responsible by the terms of the contract for the absence of the officer of the connecting company.

ERROK to the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

This was an action by a passenger against a railroad corporation for putting him off one of its trains. The allegations of the amended petition were in substance as follows:

On April 9, 1883, the plaintiff purchased of the defendant at St. Louis a ticket expressed on its face to be "good for one first-class passage to Hot Springs, Ark., and return when officially stamped on back hereof and presented with coupons attached," and containing a "tourist's contract," signed by the plaintiff as well as by the ticket agent, by which, "in consideration of the reduced rate at which this ticket is sold," the plaintiff agreed, "with the several companies" over whose lines the ticket entitled him to be carried, upon certain terms

and conditions, of which those material to be here stated were as follows:

"Ist. That in selling this ticket the St. Louis, Iron Mountain and Southern R. Co. acts only as agent and is not responsible beyond its own line."

66

4th. That it is good for going passage only five (5) days from the date of sale, as stamped on back and written below. "5th. That it is not good for return passage unless the holder identifies himself as the original purchaser to the satisfaction of the authorized agent of the Hot Springs Railroad at Hot Springs, Ark., within eighty-five (85) days from date of sale, and when officially signed and dated in ink and duly stamped by said agent this ticket shall then be good only five (5) days from such date.

"6th. That I, the original purchaser, hereby agree to sign my name and otherwise identify myself as such, whenever called upon to do so by any conductor or agent of the line or lines over which this ticket reads, and on my failure or refusal that this ticket shall become thereafter void."

"12th. And it is expressly agreed and understood by me that no agent or employee of any of the lines named in this ticket has any power to alter, modify or waive in any manner any of the conditions named in this contract."

Attached to the ticket were various coupons, a portion of which entitled the plaintiff to be carried from Malvern to Hot Springs and back on the Hot Springs Railroad. The plaintiff was accordingly carried as a passenger from St. Louis to Hot Springs.

On May 9, 1883, the plaintiff, desiring to return to St. Louis, "presented himself and said ticket at the business and ticket office and depot of said Hot Springs Railroad, the said business and ticket office and depot being then and there the business office of the authorized agent of said Hot Springs. Railroad at said Hot Springs, during business hours and a reasonable time before the time of departure of its train for St. Louis that the plaintiff desired to take and did take," and offered to identify himself as the original purchaser of the ticket to the satisfaction of said agent, for the purpose of entitling himself to return thereon to St. Louis, and of permitting the ticket to be officially signed, dated in ink and duly stamped by said agent; but the defendant and the Hot Springs R. Co. failed to have said agent there at any time between the time when the plaintiff so presented himself and his ticket and the time of departure of the train, "whereby, the petition averred, "said defendant and its agent and the agent of said Hot Springs Railroad at Hot Springs, Ark., failed and refused, without any just cause or excuse, to identify

the plaintiff as the original purchaser of said ticket, or to officially sign, date in ink and stamp said ticket."

The plaintiff thereupon boarded the train of the Hot Springs Railroad at Hot Springs, and was carried thereby to Malvern, where, on the same day, he boarded a regular passenger train of the defendant for St. Louis, and, upon the conductor thereof demanding his fare, presented his ticket, informed him of his presentation of it at the office at Hot Springs, of his offer there to identify himself, and of the absence of the agent, as aforesaid, and offered to sign his name and otherwise identify himself to the conductor, and demanded to be carried to St. Louis by virtue of said ticket; but the conductor refused, and put him off the train, and left him at a way station, where he was obliged to remain without fire or other protection against the cold until he took the midnight train of the defendant for St. Louis, first paying fare; "by reason of each and all of which wrongful and unlawful acts aforesaid of defendant, its agents and employees, the plaintiff says he has been damaged in the sum of ten thousand dollars, for which he asks judgment."

The circuit court sustained a demurrer to this petition, and gave judgment for the defendant. Its opinion, delivered upon sustaining this demurrer and sent up with the record, is reported in 23 Fed. Rep. 326, and 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 283; and its opinion at a former stage of the case, in-5 McCrary, 462, and in 17 Fed. Rep. 880.

Mr. Clinton Rowell for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Winslow S. Pierce, Jr., and Mr. John F. Dillon for defendant in error.'

ticket-Its

GRAY, J.-The right of this plaintiff to be carried upon the defendant's train, without paying additional fare, does not depend upon his having been received as an ordin- Plaintiff's ary passenger, or upon any representations made right deby a ticket-seller, conductor or other officer of the pends on company as to his right to use a ticket, but wholly terms. upon the construction and effect of the written contract, signed by him, upon the face of the ticket (of the kind called "tourist's" or "round-trip" tickets) sold him by the defendant for a passage to Hot Springs and back, by which, in consideration of a reduced rate of fare, he agreed to the following terms:

By the fifth condition, the ticket "is not good for return passage unless the holder identifies himself as the original purchaser to the satisfaction of the authorized agent of the Hot Springs Railroad at Hot Springs, Ark., within eighty-five days