Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-11-15
COURT G i! DECISIONS /,
Notes Il|'''s of. ofsc G as Recently Decided,
Which are Of Interest 10 IS
Our PEOPLE.
D1GEsTED BY ". B. MARTIN.
tE1clusively for vireinian- Pilot,


oRouRKE v. CITIZENS ST. RY.
co. s ti 2
Supreme Court of Tennessee.
September 6. 1885,
A PASSBNGERiC CAN RECOVER FOR
S BEING ELECTED FROM A
STREET CAR WHEN HIS TRANS
FER TICKET WAS IMPROPERLY
PUNCHED BY THD CONDUCTOR
OF THE FIRST, CAR.
SUCH PASSENGER Is NOT BOUND
& BY CONDITIONS PRINTED ON
THE BACK OF HIS TICKET UN-
LESS THEY ARE REASONABLE.
A CONDITION THAT THE 3PASSEN-
GER MUST SEE THAT DATE.
TIMR, SC, OF TRANSFER, ARE
CORRECT Isl NOT REASONABLE,
NOR is ONE THAT. IN CASE OF
& CONTROVERSY HE MUST. PAY
THE REGULAR FARE AND ,,AP-
PLY AT. CoNfPANY's OFFICE FOR
ITS RETURN WITHIN THREE
2 DAYS.
This was an action against the de-
PENDANT street railroad company for
damages for being wrongfuMy elected
from one of it's cars. There was a judg.
ment and the plaintiff appealed. u
The expulsion resulted from the mis-
take of the conductor of car on which
the plaintiff first took passage and paid
his fare In punching his transfer tick
cts SO as to show they were issued at
l:iO p m, when In fact they We're is
sued nearly an hour later.
The Court says:
The plaintiff. had a right to believe
the transfer ticket all that 1t should
be. With 1t he diligently sought and
promptly entered the first transfer car
and upon being challenged by the con-
ductor of that car as too late. to use
the ticket, he made fair and reason
able statement showing that he had
Just left the first car. and that the
first conductor mustthave wrongly indi-
Gated the hour of Issuance ontthe face
of the ticket. On that statement the
plaintiff should have been allowed to
pursue his journey to It's end He
owed the company no other duty, and
his expulsion under such circumstances
was tortious breach Of the contract
for which he became entitled to re-
cover all proximately resulting dam
ages, including those for humiliation
and mortification. If such were in fact
sustained.
On the face of the transfer check
were printed the following words:
Transfer. Passengers, In accepting
this transfer. agrees to read and be
governed by the conditions on the
back hereof, subject to the rules OF tho
company"
Among the conditions printed on the
pack OF the transfer check was one
IN this language: Part of the condi-
tons upon which this transfer is given
ana accepted are that the passenger
examine date, time and direction, and
secs that the same are correct and
complies with all its conditions.''
This condition Is unreasonable. be-
cause no passenger .can be bound to
verify the act of the conductor in issu-
ing a transfer check. and also because
no inexperienced passenger. however
intelligent, could In the time at his
command. and OH so brief a, trip. EEK
anime date. time and drectionu in
dlcated by the punch marks, and, with
outtan explanation, see that the same
are correct" The compleXity of the
checks, and the unreasona tienees os
the rule requiring n passenger to yerI-
~ their correctness when issued. could
hardly be better Illustrated than by a
feTteFfi ent-freffa- ttifaiis--record thar the
learned trial judge himself. with mo
OF the very checks before him: was NOT
able to understand its meaning with
out a minute examination. IT cannot he
fair or just or reasonable to reoi,ira
passengers in the hurry of rapfd street
car travel, to decipher, at their peril "a
check whose meaning so intelligent n
Judge cannot ascertain by careful and
deliberate inspection
Another condition on the bacl, of ~.
check was expressed thus: "In accent
Ing this transfer passenger agrees
that In case of controversy with con
dnctor about this ticket, and its refusal
TO pay the regular fare charged. and
apply at the Office of the company for
refund of same within three DAYS"
This condition is unreasonable IN
tfat 1t makes the conductor. for tho
time the sole judge Of the sufficiencv
OF the ticket. and requires the passen-
ger to pay additional fare, though tbe
ticket may be refused without sufficient
cause: and, further, in that 1t requires
.he Wronged passenger, who so pays. to
apply for refund at the office of tbe
company. which must be remote fror,
the houses and business places of most
passengers, and then limits the amount
TO be received by such person to thai
wrongfuliy eSacted. 1t puts all the
burden OF the CONTROVERSY upon the
Wronged passenger and none upon the
wrong doing company, and therehv
makes the just suffer for the uniusi
Reversed. y
T1LLMAN ". BEARD.
Supreme Court of Aftcl,iean