Bismarck weekly tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1884-1943, 1891-04-24

St 1 dClllC ldlllOdu, Is VI SpCCldl interest
to The railways and public at large:
SAN FRANCISCO, March 12, 1891.
On May Is. 1889, two unlimited first class
tickets OF the issue of the Union Pacific
Railway company for San Diego, Cal,
wife for their passage over this cOmpany's
road from Ogden, Utah, to Los Angeles,
Cal.
The tickets were sold at Blue Rapids,
Kan, on April Is, 1889, to II E. X. Camp
bell. The selling agents had allowed the
tickets to leave his hands without the pas
senger's signature to the contract or that
of himself as witness thereto.
The purchaser (Campbell) used the
tickets for passage to Ogden and then dis
posed of them to a ticket broker. by whom
they were sold to MIR. Drummond.
Under our rules and because the tickets
had been transferred. our conductor de-
clined to accept them for the passage of
Mr.. and Mrs. Drummond. and they were
required to leave our train at P~romontory,
Utah, and purchased local tickets. AS a
result, Mr.. Drummond sued this company
in the First district court of Utah for So
600 damages. On the trial, the judges
charges to the jury on Feb. %, 1890, was
such as to result in a verdict for the plaint-
1T in the sun of $115.75.
An appeal was taken by this company
from this verdict to the supreme court of
the territory of Utah, and the decision of
the lower court was reversed on Feb. 8.
1891. The decision is of special interest to
railroad companies. We, therefore, give
you the full text thereof. Respectfully
yours, T.. ii. GOODMAN,
General Passenger Agent.
In the supreme court of the territory Of
Utah, January term, 1891.
Appeal from First district, II. p. Hen
erSOn, Judge.
II Il Ir,n,,o,I rnsnrpJ,,t ~, rrl,
Southern Pacific Company, appellant.
Appearances-rhOmaS Maloney, A. Per-
rim, John n. Perkins, attorneys for re-
s%pondent. Marshall Il Boyle. attorneys for
appellant.
Blackburn, j.
Plaintiff purchased of a ticket broker in
Salt Lake City, in May, 1859, TWO tickets
to San Diego, California, for himself and
wife over the defendant cnmppny'S road.
They rod on them to P~rOmOntory. and
the conductor refused to honor the tickets
and took them up and required the plain
tiff to pay full fare for himself and wife to
their destination. or to bt put off the train.
The plaintiff paid the fare. and this suit is
brought to recover damages for thisb breach
OF duty as claimed by the plaintiff, The
plaintiff received Judgment below, and the
defendant appeals, assert that it was the
duty OF the conductor to refuse to honor
the tickets and take them up and compel
tilC pllllltll 10 pay lull 1iIc OI leave lIlG
train. The tickets were contract tickets,
and. amongst others. contained this cOhdi-
tlOn:
"Ihird-lf not S uscd; if more than one
date is Cancelled. or if presented by any
other person than the original holder, this
ticket is void, and the conductor will take
up and collect full fare"
These class of tickets are usually signed
by the purchasers. but these were not.
These tickets were sold at Blue Rapids,
Kan, by an agent of the Union Pacific
company and used to Salt Lake City and
there sold to the ticket broker.
Before purchasing the tickets the plan
tiff went to the ticket office of the Union
Pacific company at Salt Lake City with
the ticket broker and had the following
conversation and the following transac-
ton: saw Mr.. ingalls,, who was an EN-.
pluye of the said company, and told him
the plaintiff wished TO purchase these two
tickets. He looked at the tickets and say
where they were sold and said all right,
you can sell them and we will guarantee
you will get through all right. We will
limit these tickets and lave Mr.. Drum
mond sign them and will give a letter 1c
Mr.. Drumm0nd to the conductor, on the
Central Pacific railroad, authorizing them
to honor these tickets; Mr.. Ingalls, gav'
tickets and bought them. The letter Wa
signed by Parker, per Ingalls,. and Parker
sWparS positively he had no authority &c
sell tickets over the road Of defendan'
company.
Tie letter spoken Of was not introduced
in evidence, and We cannot tell its con
tents.
The question is, what is the duty Of the
defendant to honor these tickets, although
presented by persons other than the orig
inal PURCHASERS? They wer' through
tickets, and were sold for a less price thar
the local fare; and the purchasers agreed
not to sell them and the tickets STAGED OF
their lace that they were nOn-tranSterablc
The purchaser when he bought thps,
tickets knew that he had no right to rid,
part way upon them and sell them for the
rest of the way: and the plaintiff knew bS
the terms of the tickets he had no right It
buy them; but anXiOus to ride to his DIES
inatiOn for less than the regular fare. lit
considered the matter and bought on tue
opinion Of a man wholly unauthorized tC
bind the defendant company. Aud hi:
suspicious should have been aroused by
the conduct of the pretended agent; De
cause, if the tickets were entitled to be hon
tired on their merits. a letter to the conduct
OrS was unnecessary, and if not OtficiOus thu
letter of the pretended agent would be un
availing; and this ought to have suggeSet
, to him that the tickets would be dishonOret
unless by the influence of this letter thu
conductors would be induced to neglec
their duty.
This class of contract tickets are valid
and common carriers are authorized to Ell
force them.
Post VS.. r. W. Co., 14th Neb. ITO.
Gilmore vs.. Sands. SO N. Y, SIP.
F.: Railroad Co. VS.. Chapman, 140 Mass, 1O7
: Hill VS.. Railroad Co.,144 Mass, 2Si.
) Cody VS.. Railroad Co., 4 Saw, ia.
But it is commended that the ticket agen
at Blue Rapids, Kan, sold without requir
| ing the purchaser to sign the contract
, We think this makes nc difference. Ii
took them at a less price than the regula
fare, the terms of the contract SetOut il
| full, and By accepting the tickets witlou
signing. he accepted the terms of the cor
tract. and was bound by them.
r. r. Co. VS.. Reed. 81 Mills, 4S4, 5.
l r.. II. Co. VS.. McGoWin. q Am Il Eng.
, r. 274.
Mosier VS.. ST. Louis & r. r. Co., 1877 US
l 39l.
. The court instructed the jury in Opposi
| ton to these views, and in that regard hi
Instructions are erroneous.
We also think there is no evidence in tn
record to support the verdict.
Z But it is claimed that the conductors too
up the tickets and therefore the planlit
t should recover. ButShe had a right to d
that under the contract and the Ulaiuti,