The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-05-14
AN IMPORTANT LEGAL DECISION
As to the Use of Railroad Tickets.

general passenger agent OF tile southern
Pacific railroad. is of special interest to
the railways aud public at large:
SAN Francisco, March IL, 1921.
On May -, 1879, two unlimited first-elass tick
cts OF the issue OF the Union Pacific Railway
Company for Fan Diego, Cal, were presented by
over this eornpany's road from Ogden, Utah, to
Los Angeles, Cal.
The tickets were sold at Blue Rapids, Kan,
on April Is. 1889. TO one r. X. Campbell The
selling agent had allowed the tickets TO leave
his hands without the passengers signature to
the contract or that OF hlmsef as witness thereto
The purchaser tcampbeill used the tickets for
ticket broker, by whom they were sold to Mr.
Drummond.
Under our rules and because the tickets had
been transferred. our conductor declined 10 ac-
cept them for the passage of Nr. and Mrs. Drum
mond, and they were required to leave our train
at Promontory, Utah. and purchase local tick
cts. As result. MI. Drummond sued this COM
psny in the First district court OF Utah for sl0
90 damages. ON the trial, the judges charge TO
the jury on February p, 1890, was such as tn re-
sll575
An appeal was taken by this company from
this verdict To the supreme court OF the terri
tory of Utah. and the decision of the lower court
was reversed OH February 3, 1921. This decision
is of special interest to railroad companies We,
therefore, give you the full text thereof. Re-
spectiuliy yours, T. II. GooDNAs.
General Passenger Agent
In the supreme court of the territory of Utah,
January tern, isal-
Appeal from First district H. r. Henderson
judge.
n. z. Drummond.' respondent, va The South
ern Pacific Company, appellant.
Appearances - Thomas Maloney, A. Perrin
John y. Perkins. attorneys for respondent; Mar
shall Royle, attorneys for appellant.
Blackburn. J.
Plaintiff purchased OF a ticket broker i'm salt
Lake CITY, in May, 1850, two tickets to San Diego,
Cal, for himself and wife, over the defendant
companys road. They rode on them 10 Pro-
montory, and the conductor refused to honor
the tickets and took them up and required the
plaintiff TO pay full fare for himself and wife to
their destination, or to be put off the train The
plaintiff paid the fare, and this suit is brought
70 recover damages for this breach of duty as
claimed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff recoy-
cred Judgment below, and the defendant ap-
peals. asserting that it was the duty of the con
ductor to refuse 10 honor the tickets and take
them up and compel the plaintiff to pay full fare
or leave the train. The tickets were contract
tickets, and, amongst others, contained this con
dition:
"Third-If not so used; IL more than one date
is Cancelled, or ii presented by any other person
than the original holder, this ticket is void and
the conductor will take up and collect full fare
This class of tickets are usually signed by the
purchase 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 plaintiff
went to the ticke; office Of the Union Pacific
ker and had the following conversation and the
following transaction: saw Mr.. Ingalls, who
wa was an employs OF said company, and told him
the plaintiff wished to purchase these two tick
cts lie looked at the tickets and saw where
they were sold, and said all right. You
San sell d them ,,.o and we we viii guarantee
limit these tickets and have Mr.. Drum
letter to Mr.. Drummond to tho conductors on
the Central Pacific railroad, authorizing them
to honor these tickets. Mr. ingalls, gave the let
ter and Mr.. Drummond signed the tickets and
bought them, The letter was signed by Parker,
no authority to sell tickets over the road of de-
PENDANT company.
The letter spoken of was not introduced in
evidence, and we cannot tell it's contents
The question is, was IL the duty of the defend
ant to honor these tickets, although presented
by persons other than the original purchasers
They were through tickets and were sold for a
less price than the local fare; and the pur-
chasers agreed not to sell them, and the tickets
stated on their face that they were non-trans.
ferable.
The purchaser when he bought these tickets
knew that he had no right TO ride part way
upon them and sell them for the rest
Oh pi IN, me way, way; and the plaintiff knew
right to buy them: but anxious to ride to
his destination for less than the regular fare he
considered the matter and bought on the opinion
OF man wholly unauthorized to bind the de-
PENDANT company. And his suspicious shonld
have been aroused by the conduct of the pre
teDdcu agent, because, If the tickets were en-
titled to be honored on their merits, letter to
the conductors was unnecessary, and If not the
otlicious letter OF the pretended agent would he
unavailing; and this ought to have suggested tn
him that the tickets would be dishonored 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 enforce
them.
Post VS.. r. W. Co, 18th Neb., no.
Gilmore VS.. Sands, - n. Y, ST.
Railway co. VS.. Chapman, 40 Mass, I07,
Hill VS.. Railway Co, IA Mass, Isl
Cody Va. Railway Co., 4 Saw. liz
But it is contended that the ticket agent nj
Blue Rapids, Kan, sold without requiring the
purchaser to sign the contract. We think this
makes no difference lie took them at n loss
price than the regular fare, the terms of the con
tract set out in full, and by accepting the tickets
without signing, he accepted the terms ri The
contract and was bound by them.
r. Il. Go. VS. Reed, 81 Mills. fsi 3
X. K. Co. vs. McGowan, 70 Am. e. Eng X r
27i.
Mosier VS.. st. Louis & r. r. Co, 1877 u. 8. aot
The court instructed the jury in opposition IN
these views, and in that regard his instructions
are erroneous.
We also think there is no evidence in thu rec
ord to support the verdict.
But it is claimed that the conductor took Nm
the tickets, and therefore the plaintiff should re-
cover. But he had right TO do that under the
contract and the plaintiff was not DAMAGED ne
he had the tickets at the trial and Introduced
them in evidence
As this error disposes of this case we deem IL
unnecessary to pass upon the other alleged
errors.
The case is reversed and a venire de povo
awarded.
We concur: tsignedl
ZANE, Oh. J.
ANDERSON T.