Case ID: ohio-st_39/html/0375-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Johnson, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hatten v. Railroad Company.
    On August 17,1882, defendant, a common carrier of passengers between Newark and Junction City, sold to plaintiff a ticket by which it agreed to carry him from the former to the latter place, on its cars. Before reaching Somerset, an intermediate station, he surrendered his ticket to the conductor, but demanded a stop-over check for that place, which was refused, and plaintiff voluntarily left the train at Somerset.
    In the afternoon, the same train, in charge of the same conductor, on its second trip from Newark to Junction City, stopped at Somerset, and . plaintiff entered the cars to resume his journey, and demanded the right to do so on said ticket, and refused to pay the fare from Somerset to Junction City. On such refusal, he was put off before reaching his destination.
    
      Held: in the absence of any agreement, or of a rule- or regulation to the contrary, the obligation created by a sale of the ticket was f^r one continuous passage, and if the passenger voluntarily left the train at an intermediate station while the carrier was engaged in the performance of its contract, he thereby released it from further performance, and had no right to demand such performance on another train, or at another time.
    Motion for leave to file a petition in error, to the district court of Muskingum county.
    August 17,1882, plaintiff bought of defendant, a common carrier of passengers, a ticket from Newark to Junction City.
    While being carried as per contract he desired, to stop over at Somerset, an intermediate station, at which the train was to stop and on surrendering his ticket demanded a stop-over check, or some evidence of his right to resume his journey, on the train next to follow. This was refused and he voluntarily, left the train at Somerset, and having transacted his business, went' on board the same train in the afternoon (this train making two trips daily to and from Newark and Junction City in charge of the same conductor), and demanded the right to continue his journey, under the contract evidenced by his ticket purchased at Newark in the morning, which the conductor bad taken up before he reached Somerset.
    This was refused, and full fare from Somerset to Junction City was demanded, and on his refusal to pay he was put off, and was compelled to walk some seven miles to his destination.
    For this refusal to carry him he asks damages.
    The common pleas and district court held on demurrer to the petition that plaintiff had no right of action.
    
      O. A. Beard, for the motion.
    
      A. W. Train and J. H. Collins, contra.
   Johnson, C. J.

In the absence of any understanding, or of rules and regulations to modify the contract, the purchase and salé of a ticket from Newark to Junction City, created an obligation on the part of the carrier to carry by continuous service to the traveler’s destination. The carrier had no right to perform its part of the contract by a series of carriages fronvstation to station, on different-trains, at its convenience, but was bound, when the passenger selected the train he wished to go on, to carry him to his destination without avoidable delay. The rights of the parties in this respect are reciprocal, and, therefore, the passenger, after the carrier had entered on the performance of its obligation, had no right to demand performance by breaking the transit, and resuming it again at another, time. The rights of both parties arise out of the contract growing out of the sale of the ticket from Newark to Junction City. The ticket was only evidence of plaintiff’s right to be so carried. He had not stipulated for the right to abandon that train and resume his journey on another or at another time, and there was no rule, regulation or usage as there sometimes is, which entitled him to a stop-over check. The fact that it was- the same train, making a second trip the same day, to the same destination, in charge of the same conductor who knew the facts, can make no difference in the obligations created by tbe sale of the ticket. That was for an entire and continuous journey. By voluntarily leaving tbe train at an intermediate station, tbe plaintiff took from tbe defendant tbe opportunity of completing its contract, and thereby released it from further obligation to do so. Tbe reasons for this rule are obvious and need not be particularized.

Since tbe case of C. C. C. R. R. Co. v. Bartram, 11 Ohio St. 457, tbe question might be regarded as settled. It is said, however, that is “ a freight train case.” It was tbe case of a passenger who took passage in a car attached to a freight train for tbe carriage of local passengers, and tbe rights and obligations of thé parties were tbe same in this respect, as on a regular train. State v. Overton, 4 Zab. 435; Deitrich v. Penn. R. R. Co., 71 Penn. 432; Stone v. C. &. N. W. R. R. Co., 47 Iowa, 82; Cheney v. B. & M. R. R. Co., 11 Met. 121; Barker v. Coffin, 31 Barb. 556.

Leave refused.