Case Name: John J. Mulligan, Resp't, v. The New York & Rockaway Beach Railway Co., App'lt
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1892-01-20
Citations: 42 N.Y. St. Rep. 83
Docket Number: 
Parties: John J. Mulligan, Resp’t, v. The New York & Rockaway Beach Railway Co., App’lt.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 42
Pages: 83–90

Head Matter:
John J. Mulligan, Resp’t, v. The New York & Rockaway Beach Railway Co., App’lt.
(Court of Appeals,
Filed January 20, 1892.)
False imprisonment—Common carrier—Principal and agent.
Defendant’s ticket agent, having been warned against certain counterfeits, received a five dollar bill from plaintiff in payment of excursion tickets on defendant’s railroad, and ten minutes afterward caused the arrest of the latter while waiting on defendant’s platform for the arrival of his train. The bill proved genuine and plaintiff was discharged after being taken through the street and imprisoned for an hour. Held, that the defendant was not liable, as the agent was not acting within the scope and. in the line of his duty as defendant’s agent.
(Earl and Finch, JJ., dissent.)
Appeal from judgment of the supreme court, general term, second department, affirming judgment in favor of plaintiff. •
The material facts of this case are substantially as follows: On the afternoon of the 1 Oth of July, 1888, the plaintiff, accompanied by a friend, went to defendant’s station at East New York and purchased tickets for passage to Rockaway Beach and back. He gave the station agent a five dollar bill and received back the tickets and his change, with which he passed out to the platform and he waited there for the train. In about ten minutes the ticket agent, accompanied by two policemen, came out on the platform and pointed out to the policemen the plaintiff and his friend, and said, in substance, that they had passed a counterfeit five dollar bill upon him, and he directed the police officer to arrest the two men. The policeman told the ticket agent that he believed that there must be some mistake, as he knew the plaintiff and his friend to be reputable business men, and could not believe that they had committed the crime. The' agent, however, said that they had passed the counterfeit bill upon him, and that he could not be mistaken, and he ended by insisting that the policeman should arrest the plaintiff and his friend, which was accordingly done. The plaintiff and his friend were taken through the street to the police station in custody, a distance of a mile. On arriving at the police station the five dollar bill which the plaintiff had given to the ticket agent was sent to a neighboring bank and was there pronounced good. The police sergeant sent for the ticket agent, and after he came the facts were explained to him and he said he was sorry for what he had done and wanted plaintiff and his friend to excuse him, after which plaintiff and his friend were discharged. They had been detained an hour or so at the police station. Subsequently he commenced this action to recover damages for the assault upon him, and his arrest, and he recovered a verdict.
• JE. B. Hinsdale, for app’lt; Olías. J. Patterson, for resp’t.
Reversing 39 St. Rep., 20.

Opinion:
O'Brien, J.
The plaintiff recovered damages in this case upon :an allegation that he was unlawfully arrested and imprisoned by the defendant. The legal question involved relates to the respon-. .sibility of the defendant for the conduct of a ticket agent under the following circumstances. On the 10th of July, 1888, the plaintiff and a companion went to the defendant's station,- at the corner of Atlantic avenue and Yesta street, Brooklyn, and procured from the ticket agent there two excursion tickets to Bock-away Beach. The plaintiff handed to the agent a new five dollar bill in payment for the tickets, and received from him the tickets and the change. A very short time before the plaintiff -and his friend appeared at the station and purchased the ticket, a detective connected with the Brooklyn police force came to the station and left with the agent the following paper: " Look out for three men passing $5.00 counterfeit bills, Garfield's picture. One 35 years, blue coat, black slouch hat, small dark mustache. One 40 years, dark alpaca coat, black pants, slouch hat, the other 35 years, blue suit, black slouch hat, full red whiskers; looks like Italian." When the plaintiff and his companion came to the station, the ticket agent supposed they were two of the persons described in the notice left with him by the detective. The agent's .statement as to what took place between himself and the detective before the plaintiff appeared at the station, and his action in consequence down to the time of the arrest, is hot contradicted. The .agent was told by the detective that if any of these men referred to in the paper put in an appearance to have the officers arrest them. He says that the two men walked up to the window of the ticket office, and the plaintiff took a brand new five dollar bill from his pocket and asked for two tickets for Boclcaway Beach and return. What the agent then did is, perhaps, best expressed in his own language. He says: " I took the money from him, and gave him the two tickets; didn't let on anything at the time; took the bill and left it one side, because it looked ' queer.' After the two went outside a messenger boy came in; I took the bill up before the messenger came; took a pin and pulled to find the two parallel silk threads that run through the bill; it appears in all these kind of bills that are made with the distributor fibre through; it is like a pencil mark, red and blue, and when I picked at it I could not see anything in it, and as I have no instructions to arrest anybody, I tools; the bill, and when the messenger boy came in I told him to take the bill, go up to the Howard House and see if he could find Detective McNeany. If he did, to give him the bill and tell him that the men who had the bill were here at the station. I told him that if he didn't find him to give it to the ticket agent at the Howard House, the detective said something about giving him the bill and to ask him if that was the bill. I sent the bill away by this boy, the same bill that I received. Afterward Officer Kenney and the messenger boy came in. The bill was not returned to me. I never had the bill after I gave it to the messenger boy." It seems that in consequence of the action of the agent that the police arrived in a short time after the tickets had been purchased and while the plaintiff and his companion were sitting on a bench outside, and as the plaintiff claims the agent pointed him out to the police and directed them to arrest him. He was arrested and brought to the police court, when, it appearing that the bill was good, be was discharged. The transaction immediately preceding the arrest is thus described by the plaintiff:
" I went in and handed him in a five dollar bill to the ticket agent, asked him for two return tickets for Eockaway; he took the bill and looked at me; I thought it was some young man that might have known me, he was going so slow, going to make the change and give me the tickets; and walked back in the rear of the office; there was an operator, a lady, sitting there; he had some conversation with her, and in another corner was a boy; in another corner of the room; he came back to me and looked at me again; I says, you ought to be in a little more hurry than that; he didn't say a word, but handed me out the change and my return tickets; the change of the five dollar bill, which I think was four thirty, or whatever it was. Then we walked out on the platform, down on the Atlantic avenue side and sat on the bench of the station platform for ten or fifteen minutes, waiting for the train to come up. It is a regular platform ; I think there is a porch over it. I did not have to pass through a gate to go to it." After the plaintiff was pointed out to the police by the agent he was brought into the ticket office and the agent then charged him with having passed to him a five dollar counterfeit bill, which the plaintiff denied but gave to the agent another bill in its place. The agent denied that he gave any direction to the police to make the arrest and there was some question on the trial as to whether the bill that was actually passed by the plaintiff was the bill produced before the police magistrate and found by him to be good, but these questions must be regarded as settled in the plaintiff's favor by the verdict of the jury.
Assuming, as we must, that the agent directed the arrest and that the plaintiff had committed no offense that justified it, the question still remains whether the agent was acting in the line of his duty so as to make the defendant responsible for his acts. It is quite clear from the evidence that the agent was first put upon his guard, and in fact set in motion, not by any direction from the defendant, but by the police. When he took the bill he knew or at least believed it to be a counterfeit, but notwithstanding this he gave the plaintiff defendant's property for it, whereas it was his duty, considering him merely as the agent of the defendant, to refuse it He did not take the bill in the course of his business as agent, but for the purpose.of entrapping persons that he believed to be engaged in the commission of crimes. This may have been laudable enough on his part as a citizen or as a person aiding the police, but he was not acting in the line of his duty' as-defendant's agent. If he had been cheated or imposed upon by the plaintiff, or if he honestly believed he had been, and then attempted to recover what he had, or supposed he had, lost by the arrest of the plaintiff, it might then be said that he w as engaged in the protection of the property and interests of the defendant, and, therefore, acting within the line of his duty. But where a ticket agent of a railroad deliberately takes from a person applying to purchase a ticket what he believes to be a counterfeit five dollar bill, not, of course, in good faith or in the regular and ordinary course of his business, but for the purpose of aiding the police in the detection of criminals, and then immediately directs the arrest of the person from whom he took the bill, such an act on his part is not binding on his principal. If he was, in fact, acting within the scope and in the line of his duty he would have refused to receive what he believed to be counterfeit money for the property of his principal, and would have refused to part with such property except upon receipt of what at least he believed to be good money. The defendant, as a citizen, might with perfect propriety render to the police such services as he could in procuring the detection and arrest of persons engaged in passing counterfeit money, but it does not follow that all his acts in that respect are binding on the defendant.
The charge, therefore, that the defendant procured the plaintiff to be arrested without cause was not made out, as the act of the ticket agent in this respect cannot be attributed to it. The remaining question is whether it was shown that the defendant is liable for a breach of its contract with the plaintiff as a passenger, or for neglect of any duty it owed to him growing out of the relation of passenger and carrier. The law is settled that a common carrier, by its contract of transportation, undertakes to protect the passenger against any injury arising from the negligence or willful misconduct of its servants while engaged in performing a duty which the carrier owes to him. Stewart v. B. & C. R. R. Co., 90 N. Y., 588.
Upon the facts disclosed by the record it is very difficult to bring this Case within that principle. All we know with respect to the duties of the agent is that he sold tickets at the station from a place behind a window in the waiting room. It does not appear that he had any charge of the place where the plaintiff was when arrested, or that the plaintiff was, within the meaning of the decisions, in his custody or under his protection, or that the ticket agent was entrusted by the defendant with any powers or duties with respect to the execution of contracts for the transportation of passengers. .Upon the facts disclosed at the trial it would be quite difficult, if not impossible, to classify the act of the agent in pointing out the plaintiff to the police and directing his arrest as negligence or willful misconduct. There can be no doubt that a conductor-or like agent of a carrier of passengers, who has them in his charge and under his care, may violate the duty which he owes to them by directing an arrest without cause for which his principal may be held liable, but sufficient was not shown in this case to bring it within that rule.
The judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted^ costs to abide the event.