The Leavenworth weekly times., 1879-05-29
DRAWING ROOM CARS.
\ Court OF Appeals Decision a. to the
Rights Of Passengers.

n Court or Appeals Decision a. TO the
Rights of Passengers.
The Court OF Appeals has recently given
an important decision in the Gaze oi Thorpe
We. the New York Central and Hudson
River Railroad Company, which is briefly
stated as follows:
The plaintiff was a passenger on the de-
fendant's train. He entered the cars at
Syracuse, with the intention of going to
Auburn. He passed through the two ordi-
nary cars Of the train, in which many pas
sengers were standing, and finding no va
cant seat, passed into the drawing-room
car, and, ", IN called on for the extra
charge for a seat in that car. declined to
pay it on the ground that there was no seat
leave whenever he could find seat in an
other car. The porter then attempted to
eject him, and this action vas brought to
recover for that assault. A nonsuit was
asked on the ground that the porter was the
servant of the owner of the drawing-room
car and not the defendant, and refused. and
plaintiff had judgment. Held, no error.
The action cannot be maintained on the
conventional relation of master and servant
between the porter and the defendant, for
he was the servant of Wagner, the owner
of the drawing-room car, employed by him
alone, and liable to discharge by him alone.
But the ab-ence of this relation
il not q defence to the defendant
Under the contract with Wagner he was to
furnish the necessary number of drawing
room cars, make certain repairs, provide
conductors and porter, free from the inter-
ference of train conductors, but the train
conductors we're entitled to enter the .rs to
collect fares or manage the train, and Wag-
ner's employees we're TO assist them in main
tanning order and discipline. Wagner was
t. account monthly to the defendant, and
pay il certain proportion of his gross
e ,-nipss, in jusideraiion Of motive power,
fuel, lights and certsfn repairs. The loca-
ton II the drawing-room cars was to be left
to defendant. These cars are open to all,
subisct to the extra compensation. Passen-
gers cannot know the private arrangement,
AID they have q right to assume that these
cars are under . contract with the company,
and thst the servants in charge Of such
cars are the servants of the company. 9th
erwise there would be twoseparate contracts
in the case Of every passenger. which would
involve confusion of rights, and obliga-
tions, and divide q responsibility which
ought to be single and definite. Pulic in
terests require that the railroad company
should be charged with and responsible for
the management of the train, and that all
persons employed thereon should be deemed,
as to passengers, the servants of the rail-
road company. That statute assumes that
the servants employed are the servants Of
the company. They are required to wear
badges. They are authorized to eject pas
sengers for non-payment of fare. As to
sleeping-carr, the statute provides that the
railroad company il liable for injuries the
eame - if the cars were owned and pro-
vided By the company. The neglect of the
plaintiff, in passing through the ordinary
carr, il he saw seats occupied BY luggage,
to AK the conductor for . seat before pass.
ing into the drswisg-room car, does no,
prevs.t his recovssine. il not appsarins
that Il such luegags had bsn removed
'thae vuaA hsve - seah mficisat fol