The bee. (Earlington, Ky.) 1889-19??, 1905-03-09
CANNOT STOP TRAINS.
Court Of Appeals Decides for Railroad
Company in Hopkins County Case.
PASSENGERS FOR LOCAL STATIONS
MUST RIDE ON LOCAL TRAINS.

The following opinion is interest
ing to the whole travelling public:
Court of Appeals of Kentucky, March
3, l905-J. l.. Hancock, appellant,
VS.. Louisville & Nashville Rail-
road Company, appellee. Appeal
from Hopkins Circuit Court. Opin-
ion of the court by Judge O'Rear.
Appellant bought a ticket for
continuous passage over appellee's
railroad from GAINESVILLE, Tenn, to
Slaughter Station, in Hopkins coun-
ty, Ky. GAINESVILLE and Slaughter
are on different branches of appel
lees system, necessitating change
of cars by passengers between those
points at Guthrie. When appellant
arrived at Guthrie he left that train
and had to wait for one going north
on the Henderson division, due to
stop at Slaughter. The first passen-
ger train that came along that way
was the fast express from Nashville
to Henderson, which was not sched-
uled to stop at Slaughter. Appel
liant sought passage on it, but was
told by the train crew that it did
not stop at his station, and they
could not stop for him. He boarded
the train Notwithstanding, and Of
fered to pay the conductor addition
al fare to Sebree, a stopping point,
or get off at jacksonville, also a
stopping point for this train. The
conductor declined to accept that
ticket for any purpose on that train,
and appellant was elected at Guth-
RE. The Circuit Court directed a
verdict for appellee at the close of
plaintiffs evidence.
|, Common carriers may make rea-
sonable rules for running of their
trains. 1t is reasonable rule that
provides local train for stopping
at stations, and through trains that
stop only at populous places and at
greater distances apart. These
through trains are expected to car
nv passengers intending to continue
their journeys on other connecting
roads. The volume of such traffic is
considerable. The interests of such
passengers are certainly entitled to
as much consideration as those of
others In order to make fast time,
to meet connecting trains on time,
and to expedite the passenger
traffic of a large system, such fast
through service is deemed indIspen-
sable. 1t would be unreasonable
and unjust to compel the carrier to
disarrange its schedule and leopard
ize it's train and lives of its passen-
gers and servants by compelling the
carrier at every within of passen-
ger to stop trains at any station, al
though contrary to the established
schedule, for, as trains so sched-
uled are not expected by train dis
patchers aud the operatives of other
trains at non.scheduled points, the
movements OF other trains are regu-
lated with that fact in mind; there
fore, If any passenger could compel
a change of schedule stops, many
times at places where there was not
a telegraph station, there would be
great danger of collision by other
trains coming on unexpectedly.
A passenger purchasing ticket
for transportation to station on
the carriers line contracts to take
his passage on a train scheduled
TO stop at that point. Nor can the
carrier be required to alter the con-
tract by substituting another for it.
AS between the passenger and the
train conductor, the ticket is the
sole evidence of the contract. a
train conductor is not authorized to
accept the fare from a passenger to
a station not scheduled for stop by
his train. He cannot, upon the same
principle, accept a ticket from a
passenger to "a point not scheduled
for his train to stop. 1t is contrary
to the rules for operating through
trains for conductors to do either
They cannot confer rights by con-
tract that are violative of their
known duties to other passengers, to
the employer and to the public. Nor
can they vary the contract already
made between the carrier and the
passenger so as to cause the latter's
right to flow in different channel.
Appellant did not offer to pay the
fare to Sebree or Madisonville. He
showed no right of action against
the carrier. The non-suit was prop
erly ordered Judgment affirmed,