The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-06-26

McGHEE ct al V. REYNOLDS.
 Action against a railroad company by
 passenger to recover damages for
 being elected from train.-Appeal
 from the Circuit Court of Morgan.
 1. Action against a railroad com pany by passenger: sufficiency of com plaint-ln an action against railroad company, a count of the complaint averred that plaintiff purchased a round trip tricket from the defendant, which provided that before it was good for return passage, the holder had to be identified as the original purchaser before the defendants station agent at the place to which the plaintiff was going, who would, at that time sign, date and stamp the ticket as sad agent; that plaintiff was carried as a passenger from the place of the pur- chase of the ticket to her point of des- tination, and wishing to return che pre- sented the ticket to the defendants said agent for his official stamp and signature, and offered to prove her identity as the contract on the ticket required her to do, in order to use the ticket for the return passage; but that notwithstanding it was the said station agents duty to sign, date and stamp the said ticket, he refused to do so, and by reason of said ticket not being so dated. stamped and signed, the plaintiff was elected from defen- dant's train while attempting to return to the place from which she started by the use of such ticket. Held: That said count states a good cause Of &C., ton for the alleged refusal of the de- fendant's agent to stamp, date and sign the plaintiffs return trip ticket, so as to make 1t available for her pas sage, but that it did not set forth d cause of action for the plaintiffs clec- tion from the train.
 2. Same; same; motion to strike-- In an action against a railroad com- pany by passenger, count of the complaint averred that the plaintiff purchased a round trip ticket from the defendant, which provided that before it was good for return passage, the holder had to be identified as the original purchaser before the defen- dant's station agent at the place to which plaintiff was going, who would then sign. date and stamp said ticket as said agent; that plaintiff could not read. and after reaching her place of destination and wishing to return, she presented the ticket to the defendants station agent at such place and re- question him to fix it so that she could return to the place when she started; that such agent took said ticket and after looking at 1t informed plaint8f that it was already fixed, and that she could by the use of said ticket, return without fixing 1t, further. That hav- ing no actual knowledge to the con- trary, and by reason of the wanton, willful or gross negligence of the de- fendant's said agent in not doing his A1rfx hxyR Rxipp SaId ticket that plaintiff could return thereon as a pas- senger, plaintiff when she attempted to return on defendants train by the use of said ticket, was, in rude, rough and angry manner, and while using insulting words. expelled from said train by the defendants conductor, who was the defendants authorized agent. and acting within the scope of his authority as such; that such expul- sion from the train occurred about tv o miles from the place where the plaintiff started on the return trip, and plaintiff suffered much pecuniary damage and physical pain; that on re- turning to the place whence she start ed on the return trip, she again re- uuested the defendants agent 70 fix the ticket so that she could use 1t accord ing to it's terms and offered to identify herself as the plrchaser, but that the agent again refused to fix it, and used abusive and insulting language in plaintiffs presence, wherefore rlalnt- if says that by reason of the wanton. wiIlful, intentional and gross nes'li- gence of defendants said agent, she could not travel on said ticket and was put to pecuniary expense and suffered much physical trouble and mental anguish to her damage" etc. Held: That said count stated a cause of &C., tiOn in case for the breach of duty resting on the defendant as a common carrier. by reas0n of the agents failure and refusal to sign and stamp said ticket, but averred no right of recovery for plaintiffs physical election from the train; and that, therefore, that part of said count which related to the plaintiffs expulsion from the train and those averments of wS4t occurred on plaintiffs second attempt to have the