The morning call., 1894-11-08
WILL BE REHEARD
RObinsOn'S Case Against
the S. p. Co.
SUPREME COURT DECISION.
Arguments to Be Heard Upon a
New Point Raised.
FIGHTING RIGHTS OF STOP-oVER
| A Decision Which Was Not Made
Public, Although Prepared,
Until after Election.
FIGHTING RIGHTS OF sTOP-ovER

The Supreme Court has granted aFe-
hearing of the suit brought by DR.. w. Ill.
Robinson against the Southern Pacific
Company, and which q few weeks ago
was decided in favor of the plaintiff.
The action was brought to recover 5000
from the railroad company as damages for
the company's refusal to allow DR.. Rob-
insOn n stop-over privilege on a ticket from
San Francisco TO Alameda. DR.. Robinson
on the occasion complained of journeyed
across the ferry and alighted from the cars
at Oakland. He transacted some business
there, and essayed TO resume his journey
to Alameda on the same ticket which had
conveyed him to Oakland from the foot of
Market street. The privilege was refused
him, however, and he brought suit against
the Southern Pacific Company to exact the
5000 penalty. The case was tried before
Judge Hunt and a verdict obtained for the
amount asked. On appeal this Judgment
was sustained by the Supreme Court.
It was held by the whole court, with
the exception of Justice Mcfarland, who
wrote a dissenting opinion, that the case
was governed by section 400 of the Civil
Code, and that stop-over privileges must
be accorded upon all frst-class tickets
guaranteeing to convey atrayeler from one
station 10 another. So that, il the ticket
had said "San Francisco TO Alameda" or
"San Francisco to Alameda. via Oakland"
the judgment in all probability would
have now been left undi,turbed. The
court, however, only decided that uues-
ton upon the points presented in the
briefs and 10 the oral argument of counsel.
But the ground upon which a rehearing
is granted by the Supreme Court is a new
point urged by The defendant company,
and which. It appears. was not touched
upon before in the presentation of their
case. This new point is that the ticket
purchased by DIR. Robinson called for a
passage from San Francisco to Oakland
or Alameda" giving the traveller his
choice between the two localities. The
company urges that DR.. Robinson. having
had his choice, elected TO go 10 Oakland
and having chosen that route and having
left The train at Oakland, he could not
then proceed TO the other place on the
same ticket
Upon this question the Supreme Court
desires 10 hear further argument. The
decision in this respect is worded as fol-
lows:
w.
The Judgment heretofore entered herein is
vacated and SET aside. and the cause ordered
10 4 rehearing before the court in bank.
MCFARLAND J.
VAN FLEET, J.
November 5, 1894.
Then follows a concurring opinion from
Chief Justice Beatty, who, however. de-
Sres that the case be reOpened fer argu-
ment upon the new question only. He
SAYS:
/ concur in The foregoing order but would
desire 10 limit The reargument TO a single point,
VIZ: the first point discussed in the dissenting
opinion of Mir. Justice Mcfarland; or, In other
words, TO the question whether a ticket con.
ferring the right 10 ride TO either Oakland or
Alameda gives the holder right 10 stop off at
one pl ce and afterWard resume his Journey TO
the other place. BEATTY, c. j.
Similar views are expressed in a concur
ring opinion, written by Justice Fitzger-
aid, who says:
] concur in tie foregoing order granting a re-
hearing, but desire 70 state that my opinion
remains unchanged upon the three prlncipal
points here ofOre decided. l am satisfied that
section 400 Of the Civil Code is still In force
that it applies TO the Southern Pacific COMPANY
and that 1t gives stop-Over privileges. But
upon point which was not touched in the oral
argument, and but slightly and inadeuuately
discussed in The brief. am 10 serious doubt
i refer 10 the question whether The ticket pur-
chased by the plaintiff and which, by its terms
entitled him TO 90 10 either Oakland or Alameda
gave him the right, after electing TO stop at
Oakland TO afterward 90 10 Alameda. Upon
this point only l think the court should hear
further arguments. FIT ZGERALD, j.
November ., 1894.
So the Southern Pacific Company has
one more chance to tighten its cinch upon
the weary traveller The former decision
of the Superior and Supreme courts
brought Joy to the bosom OF many a tor
tured sufferer. but now that the case has
assumed a different aspect ana fresh legal
technicaiities have arisen it is difficult to
predict what the outcome will be.
Ii is worthy of note that the decree
granting rehearing of the case, written
and signed by Justices Mcfarland and
Van Fleet. was written on Monday last
but was not made public until yesterday,
thus allowing the election to pass by.