Case Name: V. M. DORSETT v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1911-11-01
Citations: 156 N.C. 439
Docket Number: 
Parties: V. M. DORSETT v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 156
Pages: 439–443

Head Matter:
V. M. DORSETT v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY.
(Filed 1 November, 1911.)
1. Carriers of Passengers — Mileage Book — Exchange for Tickets— Wrongful Refusal — Ejection from Train — Damages.
When the owner of a mileage book has properly requested the carrier’s agent for a ticket in exchange for his mileage, to which he was entitled under the rules of the company, and has been refused by the agent, it is incumbent upon the conductor of the carrier to take the mileage on -the train for his transportation; and the ejection of the passenger by the conductor because the former did not have the ticket and, after explanation, had insisted on his taking the mileage to destination, subjects the carrier to the payment of the damages sustained in consequence.
2. Carriers of Passengers — Mileage Exchanged — Wrongful Refusal —Intermediate Point — Consent—Evidence.
When the owner of the carrier’s mileage book has requested under the rules of the company a ticket to his destination in exchange for his mileage, and has been refused by the agent an exchange except to an intermediate point, and then requested, with the same result, a ticket to a further point towards his destination, it is competent to show that he had not consented to the agent’s giving him the ticket to the intermediate point as evidence that he had not withdrawn his request for the ticket to the point beyond.
3. Evidence — Rebuttal—Examination on Matters Already Testified —Appeal and Error.
Examination of a witness in rebuttal upon evidence he has already gone over in his original examination, while irregular, does not constitute reversible error on appeal.
4. Carriers of Passengers — Mileage Exchanged — Refusal—Ejection of Passenger — Punitive Damages.
The wrongful ejection of the plaintiff, a passenger on defendant’s train, by the conductor, porter, and baggagemaster, in a very rough manner, with anger and violence, because he insisted upon the conductor’s taking his mileage for his transportation, as under the circumstances he had a right to do, justifies a charge to the jury that in their discretion they might, if they saw fit, award punitive as well as compensatory damages.
Clark, C. J., concurring.
Appeal from O. H. Allen, J., at June Term, 1911, of Lee.
The action was brought to recover damages for unlawful ejection from defendant’s train. Appropriate issues were submitted to which there is no exception.
There was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff, from which defendant appealed.
A. A. F. Seawell and D. E. Mclver for plaintiff.
‘Bose & Rose for defendant.

Opinion:
BkowN, J.
The evidence of the plaintiff tends to prove that on 30 October, 1909, he presented his mileage book issued by-defendant to its agent at Red Springs in due time before arrival of its train for Fayetteville and demanded a ticket for Siler City, N. C. This being refused, he demanded ticket to Sanford, N. C., which was likewise refused. The agent stated he had no time, and gave plaintiff a ticket to Fayetteville. It is necessary to change cars at Fayetteville for Sanford and Siler City.
While plaintiff was alighting from train at Fayetteville he saw Conductor McCulloch of the train from Fayetteville to Sanford, and asked him if he, plaintiff, had time to get a ticket; he was told by the conductor that he did not have time, and the train left immediately. Train was in motion by the time plaintiff could get to his seat. Conductor McCplloch demanded a ticket of plaintiff. Plaintiff tendered his mileage coupons, explaining the circumstances stated above, which the conductor refused. The conductor, aided by his porter and baggagemas-ter, by force, in a very rough manner and with anger and violence, ejected plaintiff from defendant's train.
There was evidence offered by defendant contradicting, qualifying, and explaining the plaintiff's evidence which it is unnecessary to set out.
The three assignments of'error relating to the evidence cannot be sustained.
It was permissible to ask plaintiff whether he consented to the agent giving him a ticket to Fayetteville in order to show that plaintiff had not voluntarily withdrawn his application for a ticket to Sanford.
Allowing tbe plaintiff to be examined in rebuttal upon evidence already gone over in bis original examination, while irregular, does not constitute reversible error.
Tbe remaining assignments of error relate to tbe charge and to refusal to give certain instructions, which it is unnecessary to set out here.
Tbe propositions of law chiefly urged by tbe learned counsel for defendant are settled in Harvey v. R. R., 153 N. C., 568.
It is decided in that case that a mileage book is a contract for carriage, subject to certain restrictive regulations; that tbe owner is compelled under tbe terms of tbe contract to present it at tbe ticket office in reasonable time, and, when he does so, that be is entitled to receive a ticket in exchange for bis mileage strip.
If tbe traveler fails to do this, be has no right to have tbe book accepted for transportation on tbe train. When be complies with tbe contract on bis part and tbe cárrier fails to give him tbe requisite ticket in exchange, tbe carrier is at fault and may not lawfully refuse to honor tbe mileage contract on tbe train, and cannot rightfully eject him. Tbe plaintiff, according to all tbe evidence, complied with tbe contract on bis part. He waived bis right to a ticket to Siler City, but not to Sanford. It was defendant's duty to furnish plaintiff a ticket to Sanford in exchange for bis mileage, which be bad bought and paid for. Tbe plaintiff, according to tbe evidence, bad no time to present bis book at Fayetteville, even if that was necessary, which we do not admit, as plaintiff bad already presented it at Eed Springs.
If tbe railway companies insist upon tbe traveler presenting bis book at tbe ticket window, they must be prepared to honor it there. If they fail to do so, they should instruct their conductors to honor it on tbe train. This will prevent much friction and will doubtless save tbe railway companies from much litigation and expense.
In tbe Harvey case it was admitted that there was no foundation for punitive damages, and two members of this Court thought- tbe verdict rendered grossly excessive and that it should have been set aside for that reason. But in this ease the plaintiff offers evidence which fully justified the court in instructing the jury that in their discretion they might, if they saw fit, award punitive as well as compensatory damages.
We think the charge of the court is a full presentation of the contentions' of both parties and is free from error.
No error.