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 of the South
ern Pacific Railroad, is of special interest
to the rail ways and public at large:
SAN FRANCISCO, March IL. 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 HI. E Drummond
and wife for their passage over this COM
pany's road from Ogden, Utah, co 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 (Cambell) used the tick
cts for passage to Ogden and then dis
posed of them to a ticket broker, by
whom they were sold to Mr.. 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 Promon-
tory, Utah, and purchase local tickets.
AS a result, Mr.. Drum mond sued this
company in the First district court of
Utah for SO 900 damages. On the trial.
the judges charge to the Jury on Feb.
%, 1890, was such as to result in YER
dict for the plaintiff in the sum of $115.
rs.
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 wasreversed 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. III. 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.
HI. 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 ticket broker
in Salt Lake City, in May, 1889 two tic
kets to San Diego, California, for himself
and wife, over the defendant company's
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, OF
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 rs
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, anC
amongst others, contained this condi
ton:
"Third-If not so used; if more thar
one date is Cancelled, or if presented by
any other person than the origina
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 Uniol
Pacific company at Salt Lake City will
the ticket broker and had the followin,
conversation and the following trans
action: Saw Mr.. Ingals, who was al
employee OF the said company, and tol,
him the plaintiff wished to purchase thes
| two tickets. He looked at the ticket
and saw where they were sold and sal,
all right, you can sell them and we will
guarantee you will get through all right
: We will limit these tickets and have Nh
Drummond sign them and will give a let
ter to Mr.. Drummond to the conductor
on the Central Pacific railroad, author
zing them to honor these tickets. MI
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 h
: had no authority to sell tickets over tn
= road of defendant company.
The letter spoken of was not introduce
in evidence, and we cannot tell its cor
tents.
: The question is, was it the of duty c
: the defendant to honor these tickets, a
though presented by persons other thai
the original purchasers? They wer
through tickets, and were sold for les
!, price than the local fare; and the pul
: chasers agreed not to sell them and tn
, tickets stated on their face that the
were non-transferable.
The purchaser when he bought thes
: tickets knew that he had no right to rid
: part way; and the plaintiff knew by tn
i terms of the tickets he had no right t
buy them, but. anxious to ride to hi
destination for less than the regular far,
4 he considered the matter and bought o
/ the opinion of man wholly unauthol
: lied to bind the defendant company
And his suspicious should have bee
aroused by the conduct of the pretende
c agent; because, if the tickets were entitle
IS to be honored on their merits, a letter
9 i the conductors was unnecessary, and
not the ofhcious letter of the pretende
agent would be unavailing, and tn
s ought TO haye suggested to him that Il
: tickets would be dishonored unless b
A the influence of this letter the conductor
:, would be induced to neglect their dpt,
II This class of contract tickets are vali
J. sfu common carriers are authorized |
d enforce them.
&c Post VS.. r. w. Co., 18th Neb., ITO.
Elmore VS.. Sands, So N Y, SIS,
Railway Cows. Chapman, lao Mas:
1O7.
Hill VS.. Railway Co., IA Mass, %
SOuy Wy. NetllWdy TO-, r odW.i 1F.
But ut is eontended that the tick
agent at Blue Rapids, Kan, sold wit
out requiring the purchaser to sign t
contract. We think this makes no diffs
ence. He took them at less price ths
the regular fare, the terms of the co
tract set out in full, and by accepting t
tickets without signing, he accepted t
Of terms OF the contract, and was bound
to them;
ne RR. Co. VS.. Reed, 81 Mills, 1874, s.
I'd r. r, Co. vs.. MCGOWAN, 20 Am.
b, Eng. r. r. 274.
i'd Mosier VS.. St. Louis & R. R. Co., /.
ed u. S., 391.
e. The court instructed the jury in opp
OF sition to these views, and in that rega
it, his instructions are erroneous.
i'd We also think There is no eSidsnc in
he record to support the verdict.
lg But it is claimed that the conduct
ID, took up the tickets and therefore t
of plaintiff should recover. But he had
| ~ Ia %1 IL. he -.