New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-06-07
THE COURTS.
TIE USE OF LIMITED TICKETS
AN IMPORTANT DECISION BY TILE NEw-YoRK COURT



OF APPEALS.
The decision in the case of Auerbach against
the NewYork Central and Hudson River Railroad Com
pany OF the handed down by tho Court OF APP
peas is Of especial interest affecting the rights OF
railroad passengers in tho Of limited tickets re-
construction of the lower courts in this
State upon this subject
Mr.. Auerbach, being in st. Louis ION September Il,
1877, purchased Of the Ohio and Mississippi Railway
Company ticket for passage from ST. Louis over the
several railroads mentioned coupons annexed To the
ticket to the City OF NewYork 1t specified on the
ticket that It good for continuous passage 70
the point named in coupon attached - that In selling
the ticket for passage other roads the company
making the sale acted only agent for such other road
and assumed responsibility beyond its line; that
the holder OF the ticket agreed with the respective
companies over whose roads he was carried to
the ticket before September 90 1871 and he re-
panes might refuse to accept the ticket or any coupons
thereof the material part OF The last coupon was AZ
follows: Issued by Ohio and Mississippi Railway on
account Of NewYork Central and Hudson River Rail.
road one frst-class passage Buffalo TO New-iOrk
Wishing stop at Rochester Mr.. Auerbach purchased
ticket Of tine Central Railroad from Buffalo to
Rochester. and used that ticket In going from
% he got tram at Rochester 10 complete his trip 10
NewYork He then presented his original ticket, with
coupon attached. the conductor and 1t was
accepted by him. and recognized a. proper ticket
and punched several times until the plaintiff reached
Hudson, about or o'clock on the morning Oi Septen-
Der 81 when conductor declined to recognize the
ticket on the ground that the time had run out and de-
manded y. fare NOw-YOrk. Mr Auerbach declined to
pay the conductor elected him with force from the
|
The trial Judge nonsuited Mr. Auerbach on the ground
that the ticket entitled him to continuous passage from
Buffalo to New-York and not from any intermediate
point Ncw-YOrk The General Term affirmed the non
suit upon the ground that although the planu began
his passage upon september 20 he could not continue
that date that ticket The Court OF Appeals
holds that upon neither ground shO1d he have Deen
| nonsuted. "The plaintiff" says Judge Earl IN
| his opinion, "was bound to continuous
passage over the defendants road that Is, the planl
could not enter one OF the defendants cars aud
then leave 1t and subsequently take another car ana
complete his journey. He was not, however, bound 10
commence his passage at Buffalo lie could commence
it at Rochester or Albany or any other point between
Buffalo ana NcwIOrk and then make 1t continuous
Wnen the plaintiff entered the ra at ROcheser on Tue
Afternoon, the Goth OF september and presented MS
ticket and accepted and punched was then useu
within the meaning OF the contract II could then nave
been taken up. far the pIantn was concerned IL
had then performed its Office 1t was thereafter LII
with him. not for his convenience but under regulations
Of the defendant Tor its convenience that might know
that his passage had been paid 1Or The contract dd
specify that the passage should be completed on or
before Goth ns but tnat the ticket should be used
before day and that used II seems
us clear for dispute" trial was grant, d.
Messrs Bumeustel a lllIsch tine counsel for MI
Aucrbach, Francis LOOMS for the railroad com
|