Case Name: W. M. MERRITT v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1910-03-31
Citations: 152 N.C. 281
Docket Number: 
Parties: W. M. MERRITT v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 152
Pages: 281–286

Head Matter:
W. M. MERRITT v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD.
(Filed 31 March, 1910.)
Penalty Statutes — Interpretation—Railroads—“Jim Crow Car”— Separate Accommodations — Direction of Conductor.
When a railroad company has fully and in good faith complied with the statute requiring it to furnish equal and separate accommodations on its train for the white and colored races, no penalties thereunder may be recovered by reason of the conductor merely directing a few white passengers to take the coach set apart for the colored people, and under evidence establishing these facts defendant’s motion for nonsuit should be granted. Revisal, secs. 2619, 2321, 2622.
Clark, O. J., dissenting.
Appeal from Guión, J., at January Term, 1910, of SampsoN.
Civil action to recover a penalty for violation of what is commonly called the Jim Crow car law, embodied in Revisal of 1905, secs. 2619 to 2622, inclusive. The following is the evidence of the plaintiff:
*'On Wednesday morning, 29 December, 1908, we went to Ivanhoe, a station on defendant’s railroad. There were four of us, all white, and we bought tickets at Ivanhoe for Tomahawk, the nearest station to our homes. We paid 25 cents for each ticket, and the distance was about ten miles. When the train came we started towards the steps of the white car. We got on steps of white car and started to go in white coach, and the conductor told us to go into the other car. We went in and found a few colored folks, and they told us we were in the wrong car. We then went out and started to go into the white coach, but the conductor told us to go back into the colored car. There was ample room for us in the white coach, but when the conductor told us to go into the other car we went. He didn’t use any threats or do anything to make us go in, except to say, 'Go in that car,’ pointing to the car for colored people with his hand. He did not use any force.” <■.
J. H. Boney testified for plaintiff: “I was with Merritt. All of us had tickets. We started to go up white steps, and eon- ductor said, .‘Go on in the other car.’ We then went into the colored car, and some negroes in there told us we were in the wrong car, and we started out to go into the white coach, when the conductor waved his hand and said, ‘Go on back in the other car.’ We went back. When the conductor came to take up our tickets I asked him why he put us in the colored car, and he said, ‘You want to keep your baggage with you, don’t you?’ I said I usually kept it. My baggage was rafting gear, axe,' etc., in a tow. sack. There was plenty of room in the white car, and there- was plenty of room in the colored car. The railroad had provided separate cars for the two races, xbut we are white men, and the conductor ordered us to go into the colored car. He did not cuss or abuse us, and did nothing except to tell us to go into the car for the colored race. There was a coach for the whites with plenty of room, but the conductor told us to ride in the colored car.”
The plaintiff here rested, and the defendant moved for judgment as of nonsuit, under the Hinsdale Act. Motion overruled, and defendant excepted.
From a verdict and judgment for plaintiff the defendant appealed.
No counsel for plaintiff.
F. R. Cooper for defendant.

Opinion:
Brown, J.,
after stating the case: We are of the opinion that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover the penalty announced by section 2622 of the Revisal for failure to provide separate cars. »
Where the carrier has-obeyed the law and provided separate cars for the white and colored passengers which afford equal accommodations, no statutory penalty is incurred if the individual passenger is directed by a train hand or conductor into the wrong car.
This is manifest from the language of the statutes. Omitting superfluities, section 2619 reads as follows: "All railroad companies shall provide separate but equal accommodations for the white and colored races on all trains carrying passengers.
"Such accommodations may be furnished by railroad companies either by separate passenger cars or by compartments in passenger cars, which shall be provided by the railroad under the supervision and direction of the Corporation Commission."
Section 2320 provides that the commission may exempt certain roads and trains. Section 2321 provides when the two races may be put in the same coach, and section 2622 imposes a penalty for failing to provide separate cars.
Upon tbe testimony of tbe plaintiff it appears tbat tbe defendant bad complied fully and in good faith with tbe statutes cited, and furnished equal and separate accommodations, on its train for tbe white and colored races.
Assuming, as contended by plaintiff, tbat tbe conductor erred in showing plaintiff into the colored car, because be bad bis rafting gear with him, tbat does not alter tbe admitted fact tbat so far as tbe carrier is concerned it bad complied in good faitb with tbe law and provided separate cars and equal accommodations for tbe two races. Tbat being so, no statutory penalty is incurred.
. Tbat our construction is right is manifest from tbat portion of tbe law which provides tbat tbe separate cars, and accommodations, for failure to supply which tbe penalty is given, must be furnished by tbe carrier under tbe direction and supervision of tbe Corporation Commission.
As said by tbe Federal Court, tbe equipment is tbe required thing, tbe failure to furnish which brings on tbe penalty, and not tbe management of tbe equipment by tbe employees. U. S. v. Ill. Cent. R. R., 156 Fed., 183. Tbat was an action brought by tbe Government for tbe penalty imposed by tbe safety-appliance act of 2 March, 1893. Tbe Circuit Court held tbat the penalties were incurred by a failure to furnish tbe appliances, and not becaus'e improperly managed by tbe company's employees after being furnished.
Tbe motion to nonsuit is sustained.
Eeversed and dismissed.