Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/600

 HALL V. MEMPHIS « CHAELBSTOK B. CO. 585 ���Hall v. Mbmphis & Charleston E. Co. �(Circuit Court, W. D. Tennessee. December 24, 1881.) �1. Carriebs of Passbngbrs — Lhiited Tickets— Ejection for Non-Paymeni �OF FaRB— OONTRIBUTOBT NEGLIGENCE. �Although a passenger may have the right to be carried uader a special con- tract, if he be not provided with a ticket the conductor can recognize, he must pay the fare demanded by the conductor, under a reasonable regulation requir- ing him to demand a fare of persons without tickets, and cannot insist o;i heing expelled by force as a foundation for a suit for damages for wrongful expulsion. By this conduct he contributes to his injuries, which are the direct resuit of his own conduct, and not of the breacli of anv snenial contract he may have for his carriage. �Mr. and Mrs. Hall are a gentleman and a lady aged 85 and 76, living af Town Creek, Alabama. Last April they desired to go to Texas, and purchased three round-trip tickets to Memphis for themselves and daughter. According to hia proof he was not aware of a limitation printed on the tickets, "Not gopd after 30 days," and carried them back to the station agent to get unlim- ited tickets, and the agent told him they were good after the 30 days, and he would not be put off the train if he kept them. On his return home the con- ductor ref used to take the tickets, and demanded train fare. The old gentle- man ofiEered to pay the difference between the price of the tickets and train fare, and told the conductor that if he did not accept that proposition he would have to put them off by force, which the conductor did, putting them off at White's station, where they spent the night at the station-house under cii- cumstances of great discomfort and some injury to the old gentleman and lady. The conductor tried to persuade him to pay the fare at least to Collier- ville, and told him he disliked to put him off under the circumstances, but would have to do it. The agent denied that he had told the plaintiff that he could ride on the tickets after they had expired. There was a great conflict of testimony in the case, on most of the points, as to whether the plaintiff had been misled about the tickets. �Wright e Folkes, for plaintiff. �Humes e Poston, for defendant. �Hammond, D. J,, (char g ing jury.) It being an undisputed fact in this case that the plaintiff was provided with the money to pay the fare demanded by the conductor, it was his duty to have paid it if he desired to continue his journey in that train, whatever may have been his rights under the special contraet he seeks to prove in this case; and the regulation of the company requiring the con- ductor to eject a passenger who refuses to pay the conductor's rates was not unreasonable. Whatever injury the plaintiff received was the direct resuit of his refusai to comply with this reasonable regula- tion, was not the r-esult of the breach of any contract made for his carriage, and he cannot complain of injuries so received unless you ��� �