The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1903-03-10
NOntransferable Clause in Worlds
Fair Transportation Decided
to Be Legal.
REGARDED AS A TEST CASE.
Judge Wood Holds That COnces-
sion of Cheaper Fare by Rail
road Entities 1t to Restrict
Privileges of Ticket.

Circuit Judge Wood decided yesterday that
railroad companies have right to issue
nontransferable rate tickets for Worlds
Fair use and that ticket brokers have not
the right to deal in them.
In the test case brought by the Wabash
Railroad Company against Bennett and Da-
vid Wasserman. composing the ticket bro
kers' Arm of Wasserman & Co., to restrain
them from dealing in the tickets, Judge
Wood granted the injunction prayed for.
The suit was based upon the sale last
October by the ticket brokers of the return
portion Of a round-trp ticket issued to A.
A Mass at Kansas City and of one issued
to j. c. Simpson. The return tickets were
bought by the brokers and resold.
The answer of the brokers denied the
authority of the railroad company to make
the tickets nontranSferable and claimed
that the limitation was void.
HIGHER COURT DECIDES POINT.
This contention. Judge Wood stated, was
a a.S,1s at the trial Of the case. the
United States Supreme Court having de-
cided that. in consideration of reduced
rate, railroad company may issue ticket
with such a condition, and that violation
Of the conditions would render the ticket
void.
The second defense was, the op;nion
states. that the Wabash Company and 9TH
er companies associated themselves in a
passenger association and established uni
form rates between St. Louis and other
cities, and pooled and divided ratably
among themselves, according to agreement.
the earnings of their lines on tickets to and
from st. Louis: and that the tickets in
question, We're issued and sold upon the
terms alleged.
In regard to this contention, Judge Wood
says:
Il have carefully examined the testimony
In this case, and have come to the conclu-
sion that the allegations of the answer re-
spectlng the alleged unlawful conspiracy
and combination in restraint of trade and in
VOCATION or the sherman law Ia
ported by the testimony; but, on the con-
tirary; that the plaintiff made the rate and
issued the ticket independently OF any
agreement with other railroads; that there
Is no existing combination among carriers
OF passengers by which any one carrier is
bound by any. agreement to maintain the
nxed rates. and that the Western Passenger
ASSOCIATION has no power or authority eth
er 10 TX or to maintain rates. and that
all OF the companies whose agents are
members OF said a ssociation have power
Independently TO fix and maintain rates
ana 10 change them at any time they see
Enthusiastically the fixing of a rate by
one line between competitive points would
have the immediate effect of causing other
lower rate, or lose the trade between sucn
competitive points. and this fact hos ur-
doubtedly produced uniformity of rate
In many instances; but. so far as the court
has been able to ascertain. this Uniform
ity OF rate is not and has not teep the
result resi-, o OF any preconceived design to pre-
But assuming that the allegations re-
speeding such unlawful conspiracy and
combination between the plaintiff and
other competing roads were established, the
defendant is not. in my opinion, in a po-
sition to assert any such defense
The principle, as a defense that the
plaintiff does not come into court with
clean hands. does not and never was in
tended 10 sRply b to AZ the transactions of
, THE principle has its limitations, and must
be confined to misconduct in regard to the
matter in litigation, so that it has in some
measure affected the equitab BILE relations
subsisting between the parties and arising
out of the transaction.
III this were an action between railroad
companies for C. division of the proceeds
arising out of n pooling arrangement made
10 prevent competition in rates, the de-
fense alleged would be applicable
'"The relief sought in this case is to pre-
vent the defendant from causing purchas-
ers of the tickets of plaintiff to violate tine
contract obligations of said tickets with the
railroad company. As between the railroad
company and the purchasers the tickets
constitute a valid contract. The railroad
company Is bound to carry all passengers
! purchasing such tickets and passenger.
( holding such tickets are obligated to OBJ.
serve their terms"