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 days from such date." The clear meaning of this condition is that the ticket shali not be good for a return passage at all, unless, within eightyfive days from its original date, the holder not only identifies himself as the original purchaser to the satisfaction of the agent named, but that agent signs, dates, and stamps the ticket; and that, upon such identification and stamping, the ticket shall be good for five days from the new date. The sixth condition, by which the ticket is to be void if the plaintiff does not sign his name and otherwise identify himself, whenever called upon so to do by any conductor or agent of either of the lines over which he may pass, is evidently intended as an additional precaution against a transfer of the ticket either in going or in returning, and not as an alternative or substitute for the previous condition to the validity of the ticket for a return trip. The twelfth condition states that the plaintiff understands and expressly agrees that no agent or employee of any of the lines has any power to alter, modify, or waive any of the conditions of the contract. By the express contract between the parties, therefore, the plaintiff had no right to a return passage under the ticket, unless it bore the stamp of the agent at Hot Springs. Such a stamp was made by the contract a condition precedent to the right to a return passage, and no agent or employee of the defendant was authorized to waive that condition. Absence of The plaintiff contends that, as there was no agent at the office at Hot Springs, to whose satisfaction he could agent at Hot identify himself, and by whom he could have his Springs. ticket stamped, when he presented himself with his ticket at that office, within a reasonable time before he took the return train, he had the right to be carried from Hot Springs to St. Louis under his ticket, without having it stamped, and may therefore maintain this action against the defendant for the act of its conductor in expelling him from the connecting train upon the defendant's road. If this defendant had been the party responsible for not having an agent at Hot Springs, the question thus presented would have been of some difficulty, although we are not prepared to hold that, even under such circumstances, the plaintiff's remedy would not be limited to an action for the breach of the implied contract to have an agent there, and to the expense which he thereby incurred. But this case does not require the expression of any opinion upon that question. By the first condition of the contract contained in the plaintiff's ticket, the defendant is not responsible beyond Defendant its own line. Consequently it was not responsible company not to the plaintiff for failing to have an agent at the liable for further end of the Hot Springs Railroad. The default of Hot agent who was to identify the passenger and Springs Road. stamp his ticket there was the agent of the Hot Springs R. Co., and is so described in the ticket, as well as in the petition. If there was any duty to have an agent at Hot Springs, it was the duty of that company, and not of the defendant. The demurrer admits only the facts alleged, and does not admit the conclusion of law, inserted in the petition, that by reason of the facts previously set forth, and which do not support the conclusion, the defendant and its agent failed and refused, without just cause or excuse, to identify the plaintiff as the original purchaser of the ticket, or to sign, date and stamp it. Hitchcock v. Buchanan, 105 U. S. 416. The omission to have an agent at Hot Springs not being a breach of contract or of duty on the part of this defendant, the case is relieved of all difficulty. Duty of con train. The conductor of the defendant's train, upon the plaintiff's presenting a ticket bearing no stamp of the agent at Hot Springs, had no authority to waive any condition of the contract, to dispense with the want of such ductor on destamp, to inquire into the previous circumstances, fendant's or to permit him to travel on the train. It would be inconsistent alike with the express terms of the contract of the parties, and with the proper performance of the duties of the conductor, in examining the tickets of other passengers, and in conducting his train with due regard to speed and safety, that he should undertake to determine, from oral statements of the passenger or other evidence, facts alleged to have taken place before the beginning of the return trip, and as to which the contract on the face of the ticket made the stamp of the agent of the Hot Springs R. Co. at Hot Springs the only and conclusive proof. The necessary conclusion is that the plaintiff cannot main tain this action against the defendant for the act of its conductor in putting him off the train. Townshend v. New York Central Railroad, 56 N. Y. 295; Shelton v. Lake Shore Railway, 29 Ohio St. 214; Frederick v. Marquette, etc., Railroad, 37 Michigan, 342; Bradshaw v. South Boston Railroad, 135 Mass. 407; s. c., 16 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 386; Mardock v. Boston & Albany Railroad, 137 Mass. 273, 299; s. c., 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 268; Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Fleming, 14 Lea (Tenn.), 128; s. c., 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 347. Judgment affirmed. Conditions in Ticket Requiring it to be Stamped and Signed by the Pur chaser. See Kent v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 31 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 125; Mosher v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 21 Ib. 283; Gregory v. Boston, etc.. R. Co., 1 Ib. 271; Taylor v. Seaboard & R. R. Co., and note, infra. TAYLOR et ux. V. SEABOARD AND ROANOKE R. Co. (North Carolina Supreme Court, March 19, 1888.) Passengers Limited Tickets-Conditions Stamping-Waiver.-Two passengers purchased tickets for Old Point, Va., and return, which were limited and required that they should be stamped by the company's agent at the point of destination. Instead of going to Old Point the passengers broke their journey at Norfolk, Va., and had their tickets stamped there. In an action against the company for damages for expulsion during their return journey, held, that evidence was admissible for the purpose of showing that the person who stamped the tickets at Norfolk was an agent of the company authorized to waive the condition that the ticket should be stamped at Old Point. APPEAL from Superior Court of New Hanover County. Actions by John Taylor and Dora Taylor, his wife, against the Seaboard & Roanoke R. Co. for damages for wrongful expulsion from a train. Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment for the defendant. The opinion states the case. D. L. Russell for plaintiffs. T. W. Strange for defendant. MERRIMON, J.-This case embraces two actions, consolidated by order of the court. The plaintiffs respectively brought theirs to recover damages from the defendant, occasioned by their wrongful expulsion from one of the passenger cars of the defendant, by its agents, while regularly carrying passengers over its road from Portsmouth, in the State of Virginia, to Weldon, in this State. The following is a copy of so much of the case stated on appeal as Facts. is necessary to a proper understanding of the opinion of the court. On the trial the plaintiff John Taylor was then introduced as a witness in behalf of plaintiffs, who testified that he and his wife purchased at Wilmington, N. C., at a price less than the regular fare from Wilmington, N. C., to Old Point, Va., and return, two certain tickets, which were shown to witness, identified, and put in evidence, one of said tickets being signed by himself, and the other by his wife. Plaintiff further testified that in buying said tickets he and his wife did not expect or intend to stop at Old Point, Va., but to go directly by there to New York, intending to purchase at Old Point or Norfolk, Va., other tickets to New York. That plaintiffs stopped a day in Norfolk, and did not go to Old Point at all, being informed by a fellow-passenger that they could have their tickets stamped at Norfolk instead of Old Point; by his advice they applied to a person appearing to be a ticket agent or purser on board one of the steam-boats of the Bay Line, which was then lying in Norfolk, to have said tickets stamped; that said person examined the tickets, and signed and stamped them, and caused plaintiffs to sign their names on the back of their respective tickets, as appears by the ticket hereto attached; that plaintiffs left Norfolk by another route, known as the Cape Charles route, for New York, and came back from New York by the same route, and did not go to Old Point, Va., at all. Plaintiff further testified that upon his return the conductor on board the train of the defendant, after leaving Portsmouth, refused to receive the tickets of himself and wife because they were not properly stamped, and demanded the regular fare from Portsmouth to Weldon, which was paid by plaintiff. Plaintiffs then offered to prove that the person who signed and stamped the tickets at Norfolk was the authorized agent of the defendant. Defendant objected, and the court sustained the objection. The plaintiffs put in evidence the "tickets" mentioned, held by each, which were precisely similar, except as to the name of the holder. The following is a copy of one of their tickets. and the indorsements thereon: Wilmington & Weldon Rail Road Co. Good for One Continuous First Class Passage to OLD POINT, VA., AND RETURN, As per Coupons attached. When officially on and checks SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Signature, D. TAYLOR. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 as] Day-24 | 23 | 22 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 May Jun. Jul. Aug. | Sep. | Oct. | Nov. | Dec. | 31 | 30 | 29 | 28 | 27 | 26 | 25 NOTE.-The year 1886, on the margin of the Ticket was punched, as also the month of Oct., and the day 30th. [NOTE |