The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1895-01-06
STOP-ovERS MUST BE GIVEN.
Opinion After a Rehearing Az
firmed.
BUT ONE DISSENTING JUSTICE.
Passengers Between San Francisco
and Alameda May Stop Over in
Oakland on Single Fare.

A passenger going from the city to Ala
media, by way of Oakland. is entitled TO
stop-oyer privileges in Oakland. and to
proceed thence to his destination without
the payment of additional fare. The
converse holds good for the passenger
coming from Alameda to this city by way
of Oakland.
w. III. Robinson has gained his great
fight against the Southern Pacific Com
pany. The fight for stop-over privileges
a Oakland on tickets to or from Alameda
is ended. The Supreme Court some time
ago found for Robinson. The railroad
company asked for rehearing. 1t was
granted, and tie opinion Of the Supreme
Court after this rehearing was given yes
terday. 1t is complete victory for Rob-
inson.
The main questions arising in the case
were fully and deliberately argued by
counsel and were carefully considered in
the op MON of the court which was
origi ally filed. 1t was held: FIRST, that
section 400 OF the Civil Code is still in
TO ce; second. that it confers stop-aver
privileges upun the holders of the tickets
therein provided for; aud third. that he
defendant is sub ject to its provisions.
The opinion says: "As to these points
our views remain unchanged, and nothing
fur her need ba said concerning them"
The reheariDg was ordered with special
reference to question which had not
been discussed Al the oral argument, and
had been but slightly considered In the
opinion of the court. This question
briefly stated is: did the plain Tiff, by
purchasing aud accepting ticket, which
in terms and in fact gave him the alt-rn a.
tive right to go 10 Oakland or Alameda,
become thereby entitled to go to Oakland,
journey tn Alameda?"
The opinion goes on to say that when
this question is considered in the light of
the principles established by he former
decision and with reference to the facts
stated in that opinion and other facts ap-
pearing in the record it is of comparatively
easy S0lu ion.
1.-THE defendant had ferry and rail-
road line, which 1t was operating between
the foot of Market street IN San Francisco
end the city OF Alameda, and which passed
through the city of Oakland. where there
was station at which passengers were
accustomed to enter and leave its cars"
saws the opinion.
''The fact that defendant had another and
more direct line of road and terry between
the same termini did not relieve il of its
statutory obligation 10 fix. either alone or
in conjunction with the Railroad Commits
sion. a regulNr passenger rate by the longer
route. The right to operate the road ana
the obligation to fix such regular rate are
correlative. 1t had, in fact. complied with
the statute and fixed the Fate at Is cents
and this was well known. not only to the
plaintiff bot 10 the public generally. Such
being the case the plaintiff, desiring to go
from San Francisco TO Alameda via Oak
land, rendered the regular fare and de-
manded the ticket which it was the duty
of The defendant to furnish. He received
ticket in the form set out in our origin al
opinion, which was the only ticket the
defendant was accustomed to issue TO pas
seDgers desiring to go by either Of two
routes to Oakland or either of two other
routes to Alameda. But the fact that the
ticket gave the plaintiff his choice of these
various routes and different des situations
made ii none the less effective as ticket
from San Francisco to Alameda via Oak
land. What he wanted was a ticket uf
that particular kind, with all the lawful
privileges thereto attached, and it was not
in the pnwer of the defendant to deprive
him of such privileges by offering nim
other privileges in exchange.
1.-The conclusions which the railroad
sought to derive from such holding does
not in v0lve the consequences set forth BY
the counsel for the corporation" says the
opinion. "The railroad Is not prohibited
from Issuing tickle without stop-over
privileges. 1t is only held that there must
be a regular passenger rate established
from one depot to another and that pas
senger who tenders the regular fare is en-
titled to ticket to his place of destina-
ton, which ticket under the law gives
him the right to stop over at an intermedi-
ale station"
The opinion is signed by Chief Justice
Beatty. Justices Garoutte, Fitzgerald,
Harrison, De Haven aud Van Fleet concur.
q dissenting opinion is written By JUS
tice Mcfarland, who concludes: "This
action is not for refusing respondent: the
kind of ticket he wanted but for refusing
to do something for which the ticket he
accepted did not provide. In nv opinion
the Judgment can be affirmed only upon
the theory that if respondent had paid the
proper fare he could ride, and get off and
get on again as often as he pleased upon
any sort of ticket or without any ticket
at ALL"