Case ID: ohio-cir-dec_10/html/0112-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Parker, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

THEATRES — TICKET SELLERS.
    [Hamilton Circuit Court,
    January Term, 1899.]
    King, Haynes and Parker, JJ.
    [Of the Sixth Circuit, sitting in the First Circuit.]
    M. C. Anderson v. James W. Rawlings.
    OwnErs or Lessees or a Theatre not Responsible eor Acts or Ticket Seller Unless Within the Scope of his authority.
    The owners or lessees of a theatre are not responsible for the act of a ticket seller in refusing to sell a ticket to a colored man, unless it appears that the ticket seller was acting within the scope of his authority.
    Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton county.
    The defendant in error sued the Fountain Square Theatre Co., owners, and M. C. Anderson, lessee, for $500 damages, claimed to have been forfeited to him under the civil rights act by reason of the refusal of the ticket seller at the Fountain Square theatre to sell to him tickets to the parquet of said theatre, the reason given for said refusal being that all the seats, in that part of the theatre weje sold, when, as a matter of fact, the seats were not all sold, and said refusal was because of his (Rawlings) race and color. The Fountain Square Theatre Co. were dismissed from the suit at the trial below, and a jury awarded Rawlings $200 damages,' for which he was given judgment.
    
      Shay & Cogan, for M. C. Anderson.
    
      George H. Jackson, for Rawlings.
   Parker, J.

'The judgment in this case is reversed on the ground that the petition fails to state a cause of action against the plaintiff in error' in this, that it contains no averments that plaintiff in error did the act complained of, or that the ticket agent was authorized by plaintiff in error to do such act or that he was acting within the scope of his authority therein — i. e., in making the unlawful discrimination complained of.

Whether allegation and proof that the ticket agent was given authority to exercise his own discretion in selling or refusing to sell tickets to persons applying therefor would be sufficient to charge the principal with liability for such act as that complained of, we do not decide.