Case ID: ny-super-ct_41/html/0541-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

THOMAS NOLAN, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN, AND HARTFORD RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant.
    
      Exceptions heard in the first instance at General Term.
    
    PASSENGER CARRIER. RAILROADS.
    1. Eon-payment offare, ejecting for^ when company not liable for. Plaintiff purchased an excursion ticket from the city of New York to Bridgeport and return; he paid $2.60; the regular fare between the two places was $1.50 each way. The ticket and return coupon attached to it, had printed on them, “Good this day only on all trains, except the Boston express trains. See printed regulations in the depot.” The regulations referred to were contained in a printed notice posted up in the depot, headed in large letters
    “Excursion Tickets.”
    Underneath this, in prominent but not quite so large letters,
    
      ‘ ‘ Rates for round trip. ”
    Under this,
    “Bridgeport and New York, $2.60.”
    Under this, in large letters,
    “ Rules and Regulations.”
    Under this,
    “Excursion tickets are not good, and will not be received on Boston express trains. ”
    With this ticket plaintiff got on the one o’clock, p.m., Boston express train. The conductor of that train refused to accept plaintiff’s ticket, and demanded full fare. Plaintiff refused to pay the fare, aud the conductor at the next station, without using any unnecessary force, put Mm off the train. Plaintiff claimed that he was led to take the train with the belief that Ms ticket was good, by the statements of ticket agents and doorkeepers. The ticket agent, to an inquiry made by plaintiff before purchasing his ticket, as to whether the company was selling return tickets to and from Bridgeport, said it was, and in response to a further inquiry as to at what time the train would reach Bridgeport, answered a few minutes to three o’clock. The plaintiff then purchased Ms ticket, and on presenting it to the man at the door at the entrance to that portion of the depot in which the cars are placed for the reception of passengers, was allowed to pass in.
    Before Sedgwick and Sanford, JJ.
    
      Decided, June 5, 1876.
    Held,
    that plaintiff had no cause of action.
    On the trial of this action in the court below, the defendant’s counsel, after the evidence had been closed on both sides, moved to dismiss the ^complaint. The motion was granted. Plaintiff excepted, and the court ordered the exceptions to be heard in the first notice at general term.-
    
      Thomas Nolan, in person, attorney, and Charles Mathews, of counsel, for plaintiff, cited:
    Page v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 65 Duer ; Higgins v. Watervelt Turnpike Co., 46 N. Y. 23, and approved in 53 Id. 28; also 55 Id. 579, and 58 Id. 221, and 57 Id. 552 ; Ker v. Williams, 6 M. and C. 150; and similarly in the recent case of Lewis v. McKee, 17 W. R. 325, L. R. 4 Ex. 58 ; Townsend v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 56 N. Y. 295 ; 6 N. Y. Sup'm. Ct. 495; Hamilton v. Third Ave. R. R. Co., 53 N. Y. 25; Pittsburg, &c. R. R. Co. v. Henning, 39 Ind. 509; Palmer v. Railroad, 3 S. C. (N. S.) 580; Alb. L. J. July 3, 1875, p. 13; Henderson v. Stephenson, Alb. L. J. August 28, 1875, p. 136 ; Burnham v. Grand Trunk R. R. Co., 63 Me. 298, reported in Alb. L. J. July 17, 1875, p. 33; Dunn v. J. F. R. R. ; Quimbe v. Vanderbilt, 17 N Y. 306 ; 28 Id. 217 ; 31 Id. 661; 48 Id. 212 ; Van Buskirk v. Roberts, 31 Id. 661; Woodruff v. Woodruff, 52 Id. 53; Robson v. N. E. R. R. Co., 10 Queens’ Bench; Weber v. N. Y. C. R. R. Co., 58 N. Y. 457.
    
      William C. Burnett, attorney, and Calvin E. Child, of counsel for defendant, cited:
    Townsend v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co., 56 N. Y. 296; Elmore v. Sands, 54 Id. 512; McClure v. P. W. & R. R. R., 34 Md. 532; Frink v. A. & S. R. R. Co., 4 Lans. 147; Boice v. H. R. R. R., 61 Barb. 611; Steers v. Steam, &c. Co., 57 N. Y. 1; McMaster’s R. R. Law, 161, 162 : Weaver v. Rome, W. & O. R. R., 1 N. Y. Sup’m. Ct. (T. & C.) 270 ; Wertz v. Erie R. W., 3 Hun, 242.
   By the Court.

Plaintiff’s exceptions overruled, and judgment ordered for the defendant, with costs.