Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1883-12-22
TIE STREET CAR FARE CASE.
Motion for Nonsuit Granted in the Case
of Prtndle VS.. Carey s Sons,

statement of the facts that hsd been proved
by the plaintiff in the case of Harrison
Prindle against Il. S. Carey i Sons, the Oval
ers of the lines of street railways in this city.
The plaintiff rendered Decent piece to the
driver on the car, but refused to receive its
equivalent in tickets and did not tender q
5-cent piece to pay his fare. For non-psy.
ment of his fare he was forcibly elected from
the car by the driver, and brought suit
in the Superior Court of this county tor
damages against the owners of the railway.
The motion for 8 nonsuit was argued at
length on Thursday, snd yesterday morning
Judge Mcfarland rendered his opinion
orally on the motion. The following is a
Photographic report OF his opinion:
In passing on this motion for nousuit the Court
is relieved from the necessity Of considering whether
undue force used in ejectng plaiutff from the
car, that point being for the purposes Of this mo
tiou waived. The only question. therefore, is
Had defendants the right to eNpel the plautiff
II is to be observed, also that there is question
here as to the power Of the Legislature 10 control
the matter Of a carrier making change where a
larger amount than the fare is rendered The Legs-
lature has not undertaken to legislate upon the
subject.
Here is case where the question Of tender arises
4 certain amount Of money offered and the party
refUs To accep. 1t the ground that too much Is
offered and that he will net give change. / think
the general rule is beyond doubt that in the mat
ter Of tender the exact amount must be rendered
That question can only arise where hostility exists
between the parties to that particular point OF
course, il ! mau tenders a larger amount to q
creditor and he refuses receive IL for some other
reason the point does not arise. Generally, of
course in ordinary bust less change made because
IT IS to the interest Of both parties % make IT, ia
debtor and creditor both agree that the one owes
the other 50 and tender is made of sl00 the
creditor will give the change because 1t is 20 his
interest to do it, and there s no dispute or question
about It but suppose the debtor claims that he
only owes the creditor SIS and the creditor claims
that he owes him SO, aud he then tenders hin
500 bill or 500 in gold coin tnd the creditor
not desire to cOnsl Ter 1t a tgu tender and objects
because IL is not the exact amount he says moth
iug about H. It l. not then legal tender, because
there has been no waiver Of the ri hi 10 nave the
exact amount rendered Now that principle APP
pigsi ms TO me to Cffer g. pay fare As much
as it do 5 70 the payment OF an ordinary debt
There Is some little difference OF authority a. go
what ki' d contra, IL is when party goes upon
3 car, but the reasoning IS exactly the .me.
party has not the right TO ride ON the car without
paying the fare, and he can only pay The fare by
rendering 1t, and the question whether the tender
Of greater amount is good tender is Just a. per
tinent in the case OF railroad as in any other
case or in any other kind Of a teude~.
The z neral rule Is that the ten Ter must be made
without any condition. II Is claimed here that a
right e compel the runners OF the road u give him
change. / have examined this question to a con
siderable extent. II was argued here Iengthily on
demurrer, and | have examined good many au-
thnriIes myself in addition to those THAI have been
cited. ! cannot see from what quarter Of the law
comes the doctrine that man Is compelled 10 give
change in any clse. do not tind any case that au-
nOuuCes that doctrine, but find the GENERAL current
OF The authorities to be that when YOU come to hos
Jiiities aud stand upon your legal rights YOU must
tender the exact amount, and that You cannot com
pei the other party % give change. Because cor
mon carrier differs from ordinary people IN one or
two respects it does not follow that he mas no rights
at all in other respects. a common carrier differs
from ordinary men in this that an ordinary bust
ness man is not cancelled to zeal with any
body except those with whom he wishes to deal. II
I 90 into store To buy a 80 X Of flour, ! cannot
compel the merchant to seit 20 Il Tor any reason
of lis own his dislike Of me any other reason he
does not choose TO sell it to me. ii apply t o a
comnan carrier TO have freight transp rted, or to
he carried myself he cannot refuse do it, provided
/ am respectable person That is the main diffel-
cuce between o common carrier and an ordinary
business man An ordinary business man can select
his customers, and common carrier cannot But
being compelled % do business with whoever offers
IS thing and being compelled TO do ia other re-
-pec;s what other men are not cumpe'ledto do
that is. To make change i another thing, and
cannot find any law that makes a tender o. any
kind good where the condition % make change is
part OF the tender. The only case cited IN point
is Fulton vs.. Trunk r. K. Co, Upper Canada,
b. Rep. which sus aims these views
But aside from that under our statute, and under
the common law common carrier has the right 10
make all rules with respect 90 his business and the
collection Of fares and i'm relation 20 every DEPART
mem of the arrerfrise I'M which he +. .rr,,,,,j
which are reasonable. BE has a right TO make rea-
souabe rules and {. is shown here tial thar these
defendants nave made rule that they viii not
change asv coin larger than ten cent piece' witt.
ol; giving some tickets iu exchange. In order To-
upset that rule it must be shown that that rule is
uureasoHahl'. Upon what ground cas- tnnt be
company has the right 10 compel a party 10 buv a
ticke. before De enters the ears al ALL that ii be
does not DO 10 th5y may make Another rule that he
may he oh. ri more Than the uric. of the ticket
The reason uu1u which chat rule is based II seems
10 me apply O. this case In Sueakiuu on that
subject The Superior Cau # Maine SAID IN sub.
stance stba, sufficient reason Tor the ~ e
was tl,r- i, allowed tr. conductor limo f5 N.
tend 10 his p-o.er du les ON .h. train wr.ch
would be often serious a. ilf,rf.rpi with If his time
WAS IA. en- uu i'm coll. e'u. fares * I1ugu, money
aud answering questions and also tina, tue rule
WIS imulrlut as q check AGAINST mistakes ar frauds
hv c0ujugt5-- Tina. rule p lies inst Is flrribly 40
a street r.t read iu CITY i- this II aupsr~ here
ard fl is not claimed that t f, caI that these crrs
are run bv one i.er who acts as driver and CON
ductor. Sow, the public are Interested AS well "a
the COMPANY that the business %. carried on safely
and with ,,u,lll.i1n and it cert i., seems IN M,
th,t it cannot be considered am ,sanarIs r1'e
that the conductor shall not be cor,I led occup,
most Of mis- time in masking change Ihe pen. le Of
the city undoubtedly uut, rssud the rule and il is
meter IT yey LITTLE inconvenience % th.,l To have
some small coins f. the uurnose ef having their
fares. 1t is not supposed that tue loal !
are run particularly for !
strangers audit stranger does no. happen to know
mot happen to have dime ora iye-oent piece in his
cy.[ 70 9 M ms lais MN Az most DC Would Only
changed in travelling along crowded street # |
seems to me that these objections are often made
Tor the 'grr.sG Of beng annoying and tr9u5esome
and IN 70 oI. oi HAT rn d, ot tSye hs;
any party has right in any business transaction to
demand change from anybody else. Men can give |
bl, , Il CSN S5V , Inns T. no, Question as TO
II is a matter Of law. and not matter Of opnio1
Neither is it's question with us OF what the law
ought to be; the legislature ought |
;t-regn'r;o, AN r,i,r"-5 c11c,rigs 20 NJ, 10
change. tnat is a matter to be argued !
before the legislature This matter Of regulating
u.s. mas .,- oeen O,,o[e l tne PpGo very pIom
sued in the Legislature from every standpoint and
instead Of the eg-lature undertaking to prescribe