Case Name: CHIERT v. INTERURBAN ST. RY. CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1905-03-21
Citations: 92 N.Y.S. 781
Docket Number: 
Parties: CHIERT v. INTERURBAN ST. RY. CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 92
Pages: 781–783

Head Matter:
CHIERT v. INTERURBAN ST. RY. CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
March 21, 1905.)
Carriers—.Street Railroads—Passengers—Ejection.
Where defendant street railway company was legally bound to issue a transfer to plaintiff at a certain point, and its conductor in fact issued such transfer, it was not entitled to defend an action for wrongful ejection because of plaintiff’s refusal to pay fare except by the surrender of such transfer on the ground that it did not issue transfers at such point
Blanchard, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Thirteenth District.
Action by Henry Chiert, an infant, etc., against the Interurban Street Railway Company. From a Municipal Court judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before SCOTT, O’GORMAN, and BLANCHARD, JJ.
William E. Weaver, for appellant.
Siegel & Louis, for respondent

Opinion:
SCOTT, J.
The judgment is right, and should be affirmed. It is idle for defendant to attempt to justify the act of its conductor by the assertion that it did not issue transfers at 116th street and Madison avenue, for the uncontradicted evidence is that the conductor of the 116th street car did actually issue such a transfer. Furthermore, it was the legal obligation of defendant to issue such a transfer, and we are not called upon to assume, without the strongest evidence, that defendant failed to comply with the law. Having received a transfer, the plaintiff was entitled to ride upon it. The damages are certainly not excessive, in view of the indignity to which plaintiff was subjected.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
O'GORMAN, J., concurs.