Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/897

 882, FEDERAL REPOfiTER. �It may be conceded also that a ticket is a receipt for passage money, and not full evidence of the contract to earry, as aeclarea in Quimbi/' s Case, 17 N.Y. 306. But it is, nevertheless, in the hands of the passen- ger, evidence of his right ta be on the train, without which he cannot travel. By delivering it to another he may signify his purpose to assign his contract with defendant, and that should be enough. �We have seen that although the tickets were for passage over the Bio Grande road they were not available for that purpose, and the right of the holder to demand of defendant a ticket or money, what* ever it was, could be maintained. That it was assignable under our statute, so as to give a right of action to the assignee, would seem to be clear, and the delivery of the ticket, although it should be called a receipt oir token, should be evidence of such assignment. Can it be question ed that in delivering the ticket to plaintiff the holder intended to part with his right ? If he did so intend the right of action is how in the plaintiff, although the contract as originally made may have contained something more than is expressed in the ticket, �It is also said that the facts appearing in evidence are not set out in the complaint, and the proof varies from the allegation. The plaintiff charges that he purchased the tickets of defendant's agents, and the fact appears to be that they were bought by others, of whom plaintiff bought them. He has said nothing in the complaint of the redemption of the tickets by defendant, but relied on the refusai of the Eio Grande eompany to honor them. Whatever weight this objection wonld have, if made.at the trial, it is believed. that it cornes too late after verdict. The matter in issue between the parties was the presentvalue of the tickets, as defendant imust have understood from the complaint, and no formai objection can now be entertained. �The motion for new trial wHl be denied. ���Chase and others v. United States. �{Circuit Uourt, D. Massachusetts. January 31, 1882.) �DcTiES ON ImpoRts. �The facta that imported goods were aubject to a lower rate of duty than that charged upon them, and that the action of the principal appraiser was irregtilar, because he did not see the goods, cannot be set up by the importer in an action to recover the difference between the amount paid and that of the flnalliquida- tion, wherehc was notified by the cpllectorpf the liquidation of the entries at tho liigher rate, and did not take an appeal to the secretary of the treasury. �at Law. ��� �