Case Name: Georgia Railroad and Banking Company v. Benton
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1903-06-26
Citations: 117 Ga. 785
Docket Number: 
Parties: Georgia Railroad and Banking Company v. Benton.
Judges: All the Justices concur.
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 117
Pages: 785–786

Head Matter:
Georgia Railroad and Banking Company v. Benton.
Submitted June 5,
Decided June 26, 1903.
Action for damages.' Before Judge Foster. Greene superior court. December 22, 1903.
The- plaintiff sued on account of wrongful expulsion of himself and Ms wife from a passenger-train. Wben their tickets were prer sented, the conductor said they were not good. The plaintiff asked why. The conductor said, “You have got to pay me more money or get off, one or the other.” The plaintiff then paid train fare to the next station, where he and his wife left the train, and he bought her a ticket to the place to which they had intended to go, not hav ing money to buy one for himself. She re-entered the train, and be walked back about two miles to his home. While so walking he was overtaken by a son of the acting ticket-agent who had sold him the tickets that the conducter had refused to honor, and the money he had paid for them was refunded to him. It was a July Saturday afternoon. He regarded the conductor as impolite and rude in saying to him, “ Your ticket is no good. You have got to-get off, or pay me more money right now.” He took the conductor’s manner of speaking to be rough. Hie conductor testified that he spoke in an ordinary tone, saying that the tickets were Sunday tickets and he could not honor them, and that plaintiff could pay fare to the next station and there buy tickets to his destination. There was some conflict also as to other matters. The plaintiff obtained a verdict for $150. The railroad company moved for a new trial on the grounds, among others, indicated by the headnotes; and the motion was overruled.

Opinion:
Candler, J.
1. The evidence did not warrant a finding against the defendant for punitive damages; and therefore a charge which in effect instructed the jury that they were authorized to find such damages was erroneous.
2. This not being a case where the entire injury sued for was to the peace and happiness of the plaintiff, it was erroneous to instruct the jury that they might take into consideration the worldly circumstances of the parties a.nd the amount of had faith in the transaction. Central R. Co. v. Almand, 116 Ga. 780. Judgment reversed.
All the Justices concur.
Joseph B. & Bryan Gumming and James B. Bark, for plaintiff in error.
James Davison, contra.