The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1891-04-22
Kan, by nm agent Of the Union Pacific
company and used to Salt Lake City. II

Kan, by nm agent Of the Union Pacific
company and used to Salt Lake City. and
there sold TO the ticket broker.
Before purchasing tho tickets tho plaintiffs
went to tho ticket office Of the Union Pacific
company at Salt Lake City with tho ticket
broker and had the following conversation
and the following transaction: Saw Mr..
ingalls,, who was nm enplOye OF ths COM
pany, and told him the plaintiff wished TO
purchase these two tickets. He looked at
the tickets and saw where they we're sold
and said all right, you can sell them and We
will guarantee you will get through al!
right. We will limit these tickets and
have MI. Drummond sign them II will
give a letter to Mr.. Drunmond to tho con-
ductors on tho Central Faciic railroad.
authorizing them to honor these tickets.
Mr.. lngslls gave tho letter and Mr.. Drum
mond signed the tickets and bought them.
The letter was signed by Parker, per In
gals, II Parker swears positively he had
nc authority to sell tickets over the road OF
defendant company.
The letter spoken Of was not introduced
In evidence, and VIC cannot tell its con-
tents.
The question is, was it the duty of the
defendant to honor these tickets, although
presented by persons other than the origi-
nal purchasers? They were through tickets,
and were sold for a less price than the local
fare; and the purchasers agreed not to cell
lApIu ullu tIo LICh0bh kLHLO Oh LlElT lace
that they were non-transferable.
The purchaser when he bought these
tickets knew that he had no right to ride
part way on them and sell them for the
rest of the way; and the plaintiff knew by
tho terms of the tickets he had no right to
buy them; but, anxious to ride to hi3 desti-
nation for less than the regular fare. he
considered the matter and bought on the
opinion of n man wholly unauthorized to
bind the defendant company. And his sus-
picions should nave been aroused by the
conduct of the pretended agent; because, if
the tickets were entitled to be honored on
their merits. a letter to the conductors
was unnecessary, and if not the o~fficious
letter of the pretended agent would be un-
availing, and this ought to have suggested
to him that the tickets would be dishon-
ored unless by the influence of this letter
the conductors would be induced to. neglect
their duty.
This class of contract tickets are valid,
and common carriers are authorized to en-
Post VS.. r. w. Co., 14th Ncb.. ITO.
Elmore vs.. Sands, 53 N. Y. BIZ.
Railway Co. VS.. Chapman, lao Mass, 1907.
Hill va. Railway Co, 144 Mass, 284.
Cody vs. Railway Co., 4 Saw, ia.
But it is commended that the ticket agent
ing the purchaser to sign the contract. We
think this makes no difference. He took
them at a less price than the regular fare,
the terms of the contract set out in full,
and by accepting the tickets without sign
ing, he accepted the terms of the contract,
and was bound by them.
r. II. Co. vs.. Reed, 81 Mills, 484, 5.
r. r.. Co. vs.. MCGOWAN, rs Am. d Eng.
X. Il. 2z.
Mosier VS.. st. Louisa X. r. Co., 1877 U. s.
1911.
The court instructed the jury in opposi-
ton to these views, and in that regard his
instructions are erroneous.
We also think there is no evidence in the
record to support the verdict.
But it is claimed that the conductor took
up the tickets AMI therefore the plaintiff
should recover. But he had a right to do
that under the contract and the plaintiff
was not damaged, us he had the tickets at
the trial and introduced them in evidence.
As this error disposes of this case, we
deem it unnecessary to pass upon the
other alleged errors.
The case is reversed and a venire de
novo awarded.
We concur, [Signed]
ZANE, Oh. j.,
ANDERSON, j.,
MINER, j..
Jos. p. BACHE. clerk.
Marked filed Feb. 3, 1891.
Thu United States of America, territory