The Sauk Centre herald. (Sauk Centre, Stearns County, Minn.) 1886-current, 1891-04-30
AN IMPORTANT LEGAL DE.
CISION.
AS TO THE USE OF RAILROAD TICKETS

the general passenger agent ofthe South
ern Pacific Railroad. is of special interest
to the rail ways and public at large:
SAN FRANCISCO, March II. 1891.
On May Is, 1889, two unlimited first
class tickets of the issue of the Union Pa
cific Railway company for San Diego,
Cal, were presented by H. Drummond
and wife for their passage over this COM
pany's road from Ogden, Utah, TO Los
Angeles, Cal.
The tickets were sold at Blue Rapids,
Kan, on April Is, 1889, to one E. K.
Cambell. The selling agent had allowed
the tickets to leave his hands without
the passengers signature to the contract
or that of himself as witness thereto.
The purchaser (CambelD used the tick
cts for passage to Ogden and then dis.
posed of them to ticket broker, by
whom they were sold to Mr.. Drummond.
Under our rules and because the tickets
had been transferred, our conductor de-
Mr.. and Mrs. Drummond. and they were
required to leave our train at Promon-
tory, Utah, and purchase local tickets.
AS a result, Mr.. Drum mond sued this
company in the First district court of
Utah for Sic, 900 damages. On the trial.
the judges charge to the Jury on Feb.
%, 1890, was such as to result in a YER
dict for the plaintiff in the sum of Sis.
Is.
An appeal was taken by 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.
This decision is of special interest to rail
road 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, H. P. Hen
derson, Judge.
H. E. Drummond. respondent, VS.. The
Southern Pacific Company, appellant.
Appearances-Thos.M aloney, A. Per-
rim, John N. Perkins, attorneys for re-
spondant. Marshall & Royle, attorneys
for appellant.
Blackburn 7.
Plaintiff purchased of a ticket broker
in Salt Lake City, in May, 1889 two tic
kets to San Diego, California, for himself
and wife, over the defendant company
road: They rode on them to Promon-
tory, and the conductor refused to honor
the tickets and took them up and re-
quired 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 to re-
cover damages for this breach of duty 5
claimed by plaintiff. The plaintiff recov-
cred judgment below, and the defendant
appeals, asserting that it was the duty
OF the conductor to refuse to 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 condi
ton:
"Third-If not SO used; if more than
one date is Cancelled, or if presented by
any other person than the original
holder, this ticket is void, and the con-
ductor will take up and collect full fare"
This 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 plain
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 trans
action: Saw Mr.. Ingals, who was an
employe OF the said company, and told
him the plaintiff wished to purchase these
two tickets. He looked at the tickets
and saw 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 have Mr..
Drummond sign them and will give let
ter to Mr.. Drummond to the conductors
on the Central Pacific railroad, authori-
zing them to honor these tickets. Mr..
Ingals gave the letter and Mr. Drum
mond signed the tickets and bought them
The letter was signed by Parker, per In
gals, and Parker swears positively he
had no authority to sell tickets over the
road of defendant company.
The letter spoken of was not introduced
in evidence, and we cannot tell its con-
tents.
The ques ton is, was it the of duty of
the defendant to honor these tickets, al.
though presented by persons other than
the original purchasers? They were
through tickets, and were sold for 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-transferable.
The purchaser when he bought these
tickets knew that he had no right to ride
part way; and the plaintiff knew by the
terms of the tickets he had no 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 unauthor-
lied to bind the defendant company.
And his suspicious should have been
aroused by the conduct of the pretended
agent; because, if the tickets were entitled
to be honored on their merits, letter to
the conductors was unnecessary, and if
not the ofhcious letter of the pretended
agent would be unavailing, and this
ought TO have suggested to 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
anu common carriers are authorized to
enforce them.
Post VS.. R. w. Co., 18th Neb., 10.
Elmore VS.. Sands, SO N. Y, SIS,
Railway Co. VS.. Chapman, lao Mass,
107.
Hill VS.. Railway Co., IA Mass, 2S4.
Cody Wy. Railway Co.. 4 Saw, ia.
But lit is eontended that the ticket
agent at Blue Rapids, Kan, sold with
out requiring the purchaser to sign the
contract. We think this makes no differ
ence. He took them at less 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 OF the contract, and was bound by
them.
r. r. Co. VS.. Reed, 81 Mills, 4S4, s,
r. r. Co. VS.. MCGOWAN, 20 Am. &
Eng. r. r. 274.
Mosier VS.. St. Louis & R. R. Co., 1877
U. S., 391.
The court instructed the jury in oppo-
sition to these views, and in that regard
his instructions are erroneous.
We also think There is no eTidanc in the
record to support the verdict.
But it is claimed that the conductor
took up the tickets and therefore the
plaintiff should recover. But he had
right to do that under the contract and