Case ID: minn_119/html/0177-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JAMES KONKLE v. ST. PAUL CITY RAILWAY COMPANY.
    
    October 11, 1912.
    Nos. 17,851—(194).
    Ejecting passenger — foreign coin — evidence.
    Action for ejecting passenger from a street car for failure to pay his fare. Evidence that conductor accepted and gave change for a Canadian quarter and subsequently demanded return of the change because the quarter was not good. Plaintiff returned the change, and, having no other money, was ordered to leave the car. There was no evidence defendant had given its conductor directions to refuse such coins. The court found the coin tendered was a Canadian coin and ordered judgment in favor of plaintiff. Held:
    
    1. Whthe the question whether Canadian coins pass as current money in this state is not involved, it is a matter of almost everyday experience to receive and pay such coins in St. Paul and other parts of the state.
    2. Evidence that the identical quarter was received by plaintiff from defendant the preceding day as part of the change given him at that time was admissible.
    3. The findings are supported by the evidence. [Reporter]
    Action in the municipal court of St. Paul to recover $400 damages for -wrongful eviction from defendant’s street car. The answer admitted that on October 20, 1911, plaintiff boarded one of defendant’s cars and tendered a coin practically the same size as that of a quarter issued by the United States Government in payment for his fare; that defendant assumed that the coin was lawful money of the United States, but when it discovered its mistake it returned the coin to plaintiff and demanded a return of twenty cents which had been given plaintiff in change, upon the ground that the coin in question was not lawful money of the United States; that plaintiff refused to pay the fare of five cents and voluntarily left the car. The reply was a general denial. The case was tried before Hanft, J., who made findings and as conclusion of law found that plaintiff was entitled to judgment for $50. Erom the judgment entered pursuant to the findings, defendant appealed.
    Affirmed.
    
      W. D. Dwyer, for appellant.
    
      O. JR. St. John, for respondent.
    
      
       Reported in 137 N. W. 738.
    
   Per Curiam.

No important or doubtful question is presented in this case. The evidence justified the court in finding that plaintiff was wrongfully ejected from defendant’s street car for the alleged failure to pay his fare. No physical force was used; but plaintiff was peremptorily oi’dered to leave the car, and he did so. When plaintiff took passage upon the car, he tendered to the conductor a Canadian quarter, which the conductor accepted, and handed to plaintiff in change two dimes. A few moments later the conductor returned to plaintiff, and stated to him that the quarter was not good, and demanded a return of the dimes. A dispute arose as to whether the quarter was current money; but, upon the conductor’s insistence, plaintiff returned the change, and, having no other money with him, on the order of the conductor left the car and walked to his home.

The question whether Canadian coins are legal tender or pass as current money in this state is not necessarily involved in the action. It, however, may be said that it is a matter of almost everyday experience to receive and pay in such coin in the city of St. Paul and other parts of the state. The conductor did not refuse the coin in question on the ground that it was Canadian money, but, as he testified on the trial, because he understood it to be a coin of the province of New Brunswick. In this he was mistaken. The court found that it was a Canadian coin. Nor was there any evidence that the car company had given its conductors any directions to refuse such money in payment of fares. And, further, it appeared that the identical quarter was received by plaintiff from defendant through another conductor the preceding day as part of the change given him at that time. This evidence was proper. We hold that the findings are supported by the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.