Case ID: nys_68/html/0623-01.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

JACOBS v. THIRD AVE. R. CO.
    (City Court of New York, General Term.
    January 18, 1901.)
    1. Carriers—Street Railroads—Transfers—Ejection.
    Where two street-railway companies contracted to give transfers and carry the passengers of each other over their respective roads, a person paying his fare and receiving a transfer from one road is a passenger on the other, and hence can recover damages from the road to which he is transferred, for being ejected from its cars and being arrested immediately thereafter.
    2. Same—Arrest.
    Where a transfer passenger was ejected from the cars of a transfer street-railway company, and was arrested immediately thereafter, the company is liable for the damages resulting from the arrest, though the same was not made until plaintiff had alighted from the car, since the ejection and the arrest constituted one continuous act.
    Appeal from trial term.
    Action by Isaac Jacobs' against the Third Avenue Railroad' Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Argued before MCCARTHY, SCHUCHMAN, and O’DWYER, JJ.
    Hoadley, Lauterbach & Johnson, for appellant.
    Horwitz & Samuels, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

After a careful examination of the' evidence, we-are satisfied that the plaintiff was entitled to recover against the defendant, and that the damages awarded are not excessive. The contract to carry the plaintiff as a passenger was a joint one on the part of both railway companies, and each is responsible for the acts of the other in the performance of the same. Plaintiff having paid his fare and received a transfer ticket, entitling him to ride, in accordance with the contract between the railroad companies, over both their lines, was properly a passenger upon defendant’s car, and the conductor thereof had no right to eject him therefrom. The fact the plaintiff was not arrested until after he had alighted from the car is immaterial. The ejection and subsequent arrest constitutes .one continuous act, and, that act being unlawful, the defendant is liable therefor.

Judgment and order appealed from affirmed, with costs.