The Brookhaven leader. [volume] (Brookhaven, Miss.) 1883-1891, 1886-03-18
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
f. b. CASTOR & Co. ct al. 4

county-E. Watkins for sppellant-s. B.
Watts for appellee-opinion Of the
court by Cooper, G. il acts are stated
In opinion.
Appellee was the owner Of certain farm
in Jasper county, which he sold on
credit to one Jones, who died insolvent,
owing four thousand dollars of the pur-
chase money. Appellee employed the law
firm Of Evans q Smith to collect the debt
due him by Jones' Evans was also q part
ner in the practice with the defendant
MCGEE, TO whom was sent the bill to fore
close appellee's lien on the land, and who
procured decree for its sale, and bid it In
at S6OO, in 1869, and received deed from
the commissioners Pending this litigation
q judgment creditor of appellee had an exc
cution issued an d levied upon the land, and
Mcgee 10 protect 1t sued out an injunc-
ton which was made final. McGee not
knowing appellee post Office was unable to
inform him Of this until some time afterward,
when he explained his actions fully In q
letter, and offered to convey the land back
to appellant upon payment of his fees. Ap
pelee refused to recognize MCGEE as his
attorney, or to pay the fees. In 1888
MCGEE being financially embarrassed con-
veyed the lands to CASTOR q Co. with full
explanation of the circumstances, and they
made many substantial improvements there
on. In 1884 appellee exhibited this bill
against MCGEE and CASTOR & Co. to have
them declared trustees of the land fer him
and for an account of the rent profits re-
ceived, or which they might have received.
The Chancellor declared them trustees as
prayed, allowing MeGee q fee Of $500 for
enforcing vendors lien, but disa lowing fee
for enjoining execution sale he allowed
sums expended for court costs and taxes,
but nothing for improvements, and charged
against them the reasonable rental that they
might have received.
While under the circumstances of this
case the delay of the complainant has not
been such as to preclude him from fixing
upon the holders Of the legal title the char
acter of trustees, they should be protected
by allowing them compensation for their
improvements, to the extent that value has
thereby been added to the property, not to
exceed the actual cost of the improvements,
and that only such rents be charged against
them for occupancy prior to exhibition of
this bill, as were actually received by them
or MCGEE. 1t is not shown by the evidence
that the injunction suit was necessary for
the protection of the lands, and the fee for
services in that suit were properly disal-
lowed. In all other matters not referred to
the decree is correct. We note the objec,
ton made by appellee that there is no
proof of the improvements claimed by de-
fendant or their value, but this omission 10
attributable to the fact that the chancellor
in settling the principles on which the &C.
connt should be taken, denied the defen
ants compensation therefor, and 1t was
therefore Unnecessary to take proof on thai
subject. Decree is reversed and cause re-
manded to be further proceeded with in
accordance with this opinion.
FRANK WILSON
N.o.&N E.R.R.Co.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Clarke
county. Robt. George and E. Watkins
for appellant. Opinion of the court by
Arnold.
Appellant purchased an excursion ticket
from Enterprise to Barnett and return. the
terms of the ticket limiting the right Of the
purchaser to ride only on trains advertised
to stop at Barnett, which was flag station.
The train on which he en- deavored to return
was not so advertised, but 1t was admitted
by appellee that the train should have stopp-
ed there if signaled. There was conflict
of testimony as to whether appellant so sig
nailed the train that 1t might by reasonable
care, have been seen by employees in charge
Of it, but the train did not stop, and appel.
liant was forced to walk back 10 miles to En-
terprise in the night. He brought suit for
$3.50 damages in Justices Court. On ap-
peal to the Circuit Court, an instruction
was granted for defendant, that "there
being no proof Of willful wrong, the plain.
tiff is not in any view ofthe case entitled to
recover more than the actual pecuniary loss
he sustained" A verdict was accordingly
rendered for plaintiff for the price Of the
ticket, aad from this judgment plsintid.ap-
pealed.
Held, That by the contract evidenced by
the ticket, appellant has no cause of CON-
plant Of the judgment from..onhieh he ap.
peals. His right to carriage on that ticket
was limited to the terms of that ticket.
A special contract is not necessary to en-
title one to ride on a railroad train, but II q
special contract is made for that purpose,
the rights and responsibilities Of the parties
thereto must be governed by it. Ordinarily
ticket is not contract. but it may be, and
often 10 contract, as where 1t is sold at less
than the general rate and is accepted and is
to be used and enjoyed on conditions there
specified. The reduced rate constitutes
| sufficient confederation for the restrictions
usually contained In such tickets. The
railroad company in such cases binds itself
| to carry at lower rate on the conditions
| named In the ticket, and If the passenger
accepts such ticket he cannot take any ad-
vsntage the reduction In the rate, and re-
| ject the conditions.
But the trial I'm the lower court on apps
from Justice Of the Peace In which there
| to the rights conferred and the duties Inn
posed by the special contract. Appellee was
under obligation to the public, disconnected
| from the special contract, which did not pre-
cluds appellant from paying the fare, and
travelling on the train like any other passen-
ger. 1t Is shown that the train in question
would and should have stopped at Barnett,
il 1t had been signaled, and II it were 30 sig
nailed and the signals were seen, or might