Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1889-12-01
NONsUITED.
A Company Not Responsible for an Ac-
ciaent nm a Cnnnectinn Lima

| 4 Company Not Responsible for an Ac-
cident on a Connecting Line.
The Supreme Court has rendered de-
cision in the case of Michael ]. Kelrigan
| (appellsnt) against the Southern Pacific
Company trespondenD, implicated with j.
Paine, defendant. This was an action for
| damages for bodily injuries received by
plaintiff through the alleged negligence of
defendants while carrying plaintiff as a
passenger on stage coach from Gilroy Hot
Springs to Gilroy.
Both defendants answered but at the
trial the defendant corporation only ap.
peared, and after the plaintiff closed his
case, il moved for and obtained a nonsuit
as to itself. The case was then given to the
Jury, who returned verdict for plaintiff
against defendant Paine From the iudg-
ment of nonsuit the plaintiff appeals.
The facts are as follows: On the several
dates hereafter mentioned, the respondent
corporation owned and was operating a
steam railroad for the carriage of passen-
gers and baggage between San Jose and
Gilroy in either direction, and the defend
ant Paine was the owner of and operating
a stage line between GiIroy and Gilroy Hot
Springs for the carriage of passengers and
baggage in either direction. On the 23d of
June, 1885, the plaintiff purchased of the
respondent roundtrip special excursion
ticket from San Jose to Gilroy Hot Springs
and return to San Jose, emitting him to
transportation over the railway and stage
line above mentioned.
On the 9th day of June. 1885, when the
appellant was returning from Gilroy Hot
Springs to Gilroy, upon said ticket, as a
passenger on stage coach of the stage line
belonging to the defendant Paine, thes stage
coach, while descending steep grade on
the road and making sharp turn around
bank on one side, was upset on one side.
solely through the negligence of the driver,
and the appellant was crushed between the
bank and stage-c, ach and severely injured.
The claim of appellant is that the re-
spondent, by selling him the ticket from
San Jose to Gilroy Hot Springs via Gilroy
and return to the first place, undertook as
principal to transport him over the COIL
Meeting stage line from Gllroy to Gilroy Hot
Springs and back to Gilroy, and is liable as
such principal for the default of the owner
of the stage line.
Doubtless, q railway company may so
issue tickets to places beyond its own line
and so control the transportation of its pas
sengers as to be held to have contracted for
the entire distance, and, in consequence, be
answerable in damages for negligence oc-
curing On any one of the connecting lines.
But we understand the rule to be
that where there are several connecting
lines and the plaintiff seeks, as in the pres
ept case, to recover of one for an injury re-
ceived upon another of the connecting
lines, he must establish a contract with the
line be endeavors to hold. or that it had
some interest in, or control over, the trans
portarion of passengers by the line in de-
fault. wilde VS.. Northern R. K. Co., 50
n. Y, 156; Penn. R r. Co. vs. Schwartzen-
berger, As Pa. St., POS; Penn. r. r. Co. VS..
Cornell, IS Eng. and Am. K. K. Cases, 500;
Horton VS.. Eastern r. r. Co., IA Mass, A.
Brooke VS. Grand Trunk Railway Co., Is
Mich, 332; Knight VS.. Portland S. and P
R. R. Co., Sc Me, 234; Redfield on Rail-
way, 9th ed PIP. 313, 314.)
Do the facts in the present case show
contract between the appellant and re-
spondent, whereby the latter undertook to
carry the former TO Gilroy Hot Springs and
back again to san Jose? The only evil
dence upon this point is that the appellant
purchased, paid for and accepted the ticket
containing the notice and conditions above
set forth, and that he rode upon it from
one of the termini to the other and back
again. There is not word to show that
the respondent undertook differently from
what appears upon the face of the ticket.
The sections of the Civil Code cited by ap-
pellant refer only to contracts of railroad
companies for carriage over their own
lines.
The nonsuit was properly granted and
the judgment is affirmed.