Case Name: Bowers, Appellant, v. Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne & Chicago R. R.
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1893-11-06
Citations: 158 Pa. 302
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 122
Parties: Bowers, Appellant, v. Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne & Chicago R. R.
Judges: Before Sterrett, C. J., Green, Williams, McCollum. Mitchell, Dean and Thompson, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 158
Pages: 302–305

Head Matter:
Bowers, Appellant, v. Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne & Chicago R. R.
Railroads — Carriers of passengers — Regulations—Ticket.
A regulation of a railroad company providing that a “ special excursion ticket” shall not be valid for the return journey, unless presented by the original purchaser to the authorized agent of the company to bo stamped on the back, is not unreasonable, and if the passenger does not comply with the condition he has no right to use the ticket for the return journey.
Notice of conditions of tickets — Waiver.
A ticket had the following notice printed in large letters on its face: “ Notice to purchaser. Read the above contract carefully — it is important —and take notice that the contract must be stamped at Chicago, Ill., before ticket will be accepted for return trip.” Held, that the condition was not unreasonable, and that it was the passenger’s duty to have informed himself of its existence.
In such a case the fact that the gateman permitted the passenger to pass through the gate without examining and punching the ticket, and that the conductor of the sleeping car failed to notice that the ticket was unstamped, was not evidence of a waiver of the condition by the company.
Argued Oct. 26, 1893.
Appeal, No. 122, Oct. T., 1893, by plaintiff, Isadore Bowers, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Allegheny Co., Aug. T., 1892, No. 429, on verdict for defendant.
Before Sterrett, C. J., Green, Williams, McCollum. Mitchell, Dean and Thompson, JJ.
Trespass for ejection of passenger. Before Me Clung, J.
At the trial it appeared that, on June 20, 1892, plaintiff purchased at Pittsburgh a ticket substantially similar in appearance to that shown on pp. 303 and 304 below.
On June 27, 1892, plaintiff presented the ticket at the Pullman ticket office in Chicago, and purchased a sleeping car berth. He then proceeded through the gate. He testified as follows as to what occurred at the gate: “ Q. Did you show your ticket ? A. I held my ticket up in my hand and walked through. Q. Did they ask you to have it punched? A. No. Q. You just held up your hand ? A. And walked through.” As to what occurred on the sleeping car he testified as follows: “ I didn’t get on the train right away; the car was back near the' gate, and I handed the Pullman sleeping car conductor my ticket, and he looked at it and gave me a slip, and I walked up and down the platform for half a hour before the train pulled out. Q. Did the Pullman conductor take both tickets ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Your railroad ticket and your sleeping car ticket?
A. Yes, sir. Q. And gave you a sleeping car check ? A. Yes, sir.”
When the railroad conductor discovered that the ticket was not stamped, plaintiff was compelled to leave the train at Valparaiso station, some fifty miles from Chicago. He returned to Chicago, had his ticket stamped, and then returned upon the ticket to Pittsburgh.
Binding instructions for defendant were given.
Verdict and judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appealed.
Frrór assigned was above instruction, quoting it.
Thomas M. Marshall, Jr., Frank P. Sproul with him, for appellant,
cited: Young v. P. R. R., 115 Pa. 112; Reese v. Pa. Co., 181 Pa. 422; Bonnert v. Pa. Ins. Co., 129 Pa. 558; Telegram Co. v. Stevenson, 128 Pa. 442; Edwards v. Ins. Co., 5 Kulp, 259; Bank v. Shupp, 1 Northampton R. 35; Assn. v. Furniture Co., 18 W. N. 379; McFarland v. Ins. Co., 134 Pa. 590; Ins. Co. v. Hallock, 22 W. N. 151.
George B. Gordon, William Scott with him, for appellee,
cited: Dietrich v. P. R. R., 71 Pa. 432; Pouilin v. Ry., 52 Am. & Eng. Ry. Cas. 188.
November 6, 1893 :

Opinion:
Pee Cueiam,
One of the conditions, to which plaintiff's "special excursion ticket " was expressly subject, is: " That for the return journey this ticket will not be valid unless presented by the original purchaser to the authorized agent of the Pennsylvania line at Chicago, Ill., to be stamped on the back, and, when this ticket is officially executed by such agent, it will be good only for a continuous passage commencing on the date so stamped, and in no case will it be accepted after July 8, 1892."
His attention was called to this cqndition by the following " notice to purchaser," printed in large letters on the face of the ticket: " Read 'the above contract carefully — it is important —and take notice that the contract must be stamped at Chicago, Ill., before ticket will be accepted for return trip."
The condition above quoted is not unreasonable; and it was clearly plaintiff's duty to have informed himself of its existence. Having failed to comply with the terms of the condition he had no right to use the ticket for return trip. The fact that the gateman permitted him to pass through the gate without examining and punching the ticket was no evidence that the condition was waived by the company; nor was the fact that the conductor of the sleeping car failed to notice that the ticket was unstamped, any evidence of waiver. As soon as it passed into the hands of the regular passenger conductor, he discovered that the condition as to stamping had not been complied with, and so informed the plaintiff.
In view of the undisputed facts there was no error in charging the jury, as requested by defendant, " that under all the evidence in the case the verdict should be in favor of the defendant."
Judgment affirmed.