Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/344

 § 348.] THE LAW OF PRIVATE CORPORATIONS. [CHAP. VII. May make reasonable regula- tions. § 34S. A carrier has the right to make reasonable regulations for the management and ordering of his business ; and no cause of action will arise against him for the reasonable acts of his servants done in carrying out such regulations. But a regulation will be no pro- tection to the carrier if it is unreasonable, or if his servants use undue force or violence in enforcing it. 1 A regulation by a railroad company setting apart in the first instance a car for females and their escorts, is proper and reasonable, and the company has a right to enforce it. 2 Likewise, in order to pre- serve order and prevent collisions from well-known race repug- nances, a carrier may seat passengers according to color. 3 And v. Burke, 53 Miss. 200; Pittsburgh & C. R. R. Co. v. Pillow, 76 Pa. St. 510; Spohn v. Missouri Pac. R'y Co., 87 Mo. 74. See Putnam v. Broadway, etc., R. R. Co., 55 N. Y. 108; Barrett v. Maiden, etc., R. R. Co., 3 Allen, 101. It is said that sleeping-car com- panies are not liable either as inn- keepers or as common carriers for goods stolen from the person of an occupant of a berth in a sleeping-car. Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Smith, 73 111. 360. See Welch v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 16 Abb. Pr. N. S. (N. Y.) 352; Pullman's Pal. Car Co. v. Hall, 106 Ga. 765, and cases below. But it is the duty of a sleeping-car company vigilantly to protect in their persons and property the occu- pants of berths when asleep; and the company is liable to them for goods stolen from their persons while asleep, through want of care on its part and on the part of its servants. Woodruff Sleeping, etc., Co. v. Diehl, 84 Ind. 474; Pullman's Pal. Car Co. v. Adam, 120 Ala. 581 ; Cooney v. Pullman Pal. Car Co., 121 Ala. 368; Lewis v. N. Y. S. C. Co., 143 Mass. 267. A palace car company is "bound so to manage its cars as not unreasonably to expose a passenger's 324 property to risk of loss by theft or otherwise." Dawley v. Wagner Pal- ace Car Co., 169 Mass. 315. See, also, Whicher v. B. & A. R. R. Co., 176 Mass. 275. 1 Peck v. N. Y. C. and H. R. R. R. Co., 70 N. Y. 587; Chicago, B. and Q. R. R. Co. v. Griffin, 68 111. 499; Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Vandiver, 42 Pa. St. 365; Chicago, B. & Q. R. R. Co. u. Byran, 90 111. 126. A passenger should inform himself of the carrier's regulations. McRae v. Wilmington, etc., R. R. Co., 88 N. C. 526; Britton v. Atlanta, etc., R'y Co., ib. 536. 2 Peck v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 70 N/. Y. 587. So a regulation that no man, unaccompanied by a woman, shall enter the ladies' private room is reasonable. Toledo, Wabash and W. R'y Co. v. Williams, 77 111. 354. See also, McRae v. Wilming- ton, etc., R. R. Co., 88 N. C. 526. 3 West Chester, etc., R. R. Co. v. Miles, 55 Pa. St. 209. See Derry v. Lowry, 6 Phila. 30. Changed by act of Pennsylvania legislature in 1867. And see, as opposed to the Penn- sylvania decisions, Chicago and N. W. R'y Co. v. Williams, 55 111. 185. A passenger must observe proper decorum and reasonable rules, and I