1073.

#### Williams *v.*Rome Railway *&*Light Company.

Action for damages, from city court of Eloyd county — -Judge Hamilton. February 28, 1908.

Argued May 5,

Decided May 18, 1908.

The -petition in substance alleges, that the defendant, a corpora-*371lion engaged in the transportation of passengers, has injured and damaged the plaintiff in the sum of $1,000, as will appear from the following allegations. On October *22, 1907,*about 1:15 o’clock p. m., the plaintiff, accompanied by his wife, boarded the North Rome car of the defendant at the switch on Broad street in the city of Rome. As soon as they got into the car he told the conductor that he and his wife desired to go to their home in West Rome, and asked the conductor if he could catch the West Rome car, which was in front, and let him and his wife transfer to the said West Rome car; and the conductor told him that he could; whereupon he paid the fare of his wife and himself, and the conductor gave him and his wife a transfer to the West Rome car. By the time the West Rome car had reached Fifth avenue and was turning from the main line on Broad street into the line which leads to West Rome, the North Rome car had caught the West Rome car. At that time the motorman had holloaed to the conductor on the West Rome car and told him to wait and get some passengers; and immediately thereafter the plaintiff jumped off the North Rome ear and ran up to the conductor on the West Rome car and told him to wait until his wife had gotten off the North Rome car, so she and he could get on the West Rome car; but, notwithstanding this, the said conductor only looked at him and reached up and pulled the bell-cord, and signalled the conductor (?) to go ahead; and in response to the signal the car rapidly moved off and left the plaintiff and his wife. The said transfers .were good for the said West Rome car, and if the plaintiff- had ridden on another car he would have had to pay fares again. As u result of the car not waiting for the plaintiff and his wife, they were compelled to walk to their home, which is more than a mile from the place where the said car ran off and'left them; and if they had not walked they would hate been compelled again to pay their fares and also to wait twenty minutes on the street corner until the next car went to West Rome. The plaintiff was free from fault and negligence. “It was negligence in said company in failing to convey petitioner to West Rome as said conductor on •aid North Rome car had promised should be done, on petitioner •faying said fares; . . it was negligence in said conductor of said West Rome car in not waiting on petitioner; . . it was negligence in said company in not conveying petitioner to West *372Rome as said conductor of said North Rome car had agreed.” The defendant demurred on the following grounds: (1) The petition sets forth no cause of action. *(2)*The petition shows that if any injury has been sustained by the plaintiff’s wife, it was due to her voluntary act, and not to any act of negligence of the defendant. (3) The petition shows that by a wait of twenty minutes the plaintiffs wife could have boarded another car, and thus have avoided the walk from which she claims to have been injured. The demurrer was sustained, and the plaintiff excepted. See opinion in next case, infra.

*370Russell, J.

It was error to dismiss the petition on general demurrer. However, the plaintiff, under his allegations, is entitled to nominal damages only. *Glenn*v. *W. U. Tel. Co.,*1 *Ga. App.*831 (58 S. E. 83) ; *Williamson*v. *Central Ry. Co.,*127 *Ga.*125 (56 S. E. 119) *; Lilly*v. *Boyd,*72 *Ga.*83, (1) ; *Kenny*v. *Collier,*79 *Ga.*743 (8 S. E. 58).

*Judgment reversed.*

*372*M. B. Eubanks, W. B. Mebane,*for plaintiff,

cited *Williamson*v. *Central Ry. Co.,*127 *Ga.*125 (1).

*Dean & Dean,*for defendant,

cited Civil Code, §3802, and the *Williamson*case, supra.