Case Name: Louis Granier vs. Louisiana Western Railroad Company
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1890-07
Citations: 42 La. 880
Docket Number: No. 1384
Parties: Louis Granier vs. Louisiana Western Railroad Company.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 42
Pages: 880–886

Head Matter:
No. 1384.
Louis Granier vs. Louisiana Western Railroad Company.
1. "When a person claiming the right to travel on a train of a railroad company, as a passenger holding a commutation, ticket issued by the agent of the company, on the alleged ground that he is one of the members of the partnership named on the face of the ticket. Held, that he must show the conductor that his name appears indorsed thereon in compliance with the conditions specified in the contract on the reverse of the ticket.
2. In case the conductor of the train should decline to recognize his right to thus use the commutation ticket and should eject the holder, and damages are judicially claimed therefor, the legal obligation is imposed on the claimant to establish by a clear preponderance of proof, if denied, that there existed such a partnership at the time, and that he was one of its members
PPBAL from the Thirteenth District Court, Parish of Acadia. Lewis, J.
Wilson, Sigur & Mayer, Estilette & Dupré and Kenneth Baillio for Plaintiff and Appellee:
Mr. Pierce, in his work on Railroads, pp. 283, 284 and 285, says:
Liability of the company for injuries committed by lessees and others using its tracks and liability of lessees. — The company can not, in the absence of special statute authority and exemption, divest itself of responsibility for the torts of persons ope2*atmg its road by transferring its corporate powers, or leasing the road to them. It can not by its own act absolve itself from its public obligations without the consent of the Legislature. It is liable for injuries to its passengers caused by the negligence of another company which it allows to use'its road.
See also Amer. Dig., Vol. 2,1156, title, as follows: Railroads. — Lessees’ liability, 248 A railroad corporation is not relieved from the obligations imposed by its charter by a lease of its road to another company. Harmon vs. Columbia & (4. n. Co. (S. 0.),5 8. K. 835.
249. A railroad company can not, by leasing its road, avoid liability to a shipper of freight for loss caused by fire at a depot, where no authority for such lease is conferred by statute. International & G. N. R. vs. Bloody (Tex.), 9 S. U. 465.
250. A railroad company can not avoid its liability for negligence resulting in the death of a passenger by showing that its road and trains were operated by another company. Palmer vs. Utah & N. Ry. Co. (Idaho), 16, p. 553.
251. A railroad company is directly liable to one who is injured while riding on the train of another company operating over defendant’s road by reason of a defective or mismanaged switch maintained by defendant, toward the maintenance of which the carrier company paid, defendant a certain sum monthly Stodder vs. X. Y., L. 10. & AY. R. Co., 2 N. Y. S. 780.
See also Vol. 1, Ainer. Dig. 1086, as follows: No. 230. A lease duly authorized by law will not release the company from liability for afailureto discharge its charter obligations, unless the law giving the power to lease contains also a proviso to that effect. Central & Bl. R. Co. vs. Morris (Tex.), 3 S. AY. 457, Yol. of 1889, p. 455.
No. 177. A railroad company, organized under the laws of Nebraska, can not relieve itself from the liability imposed by Comp. St. Neb. C. 72, Art. 1, S. 3, for all personal injuries to passengers, except when these are criminally negligent or violate some express rule of the company actually brought to their notice by permitting a foreign railroad company to operate its roads as owner of its capital stock. A release from such liability can he had only by express statutory enactment. Cholutto vs. Omaha & R. V. R. Co. (Neb.), 41 N. U. 1106.
Henry L. Garland, Laurent Dupré, and Leroy & Blair for Defendant and Appellant:
1. Railroad companies have a right to eject from their cars any person who refuses to pay fare or comply with reasonable requirements as^to tickets. DeLueas vs. Railroad Company, 38 An. 933; Rawitsky vs. Railroad Company, 40 An. 47; McGowan vs. Blorgan Company, 41 An. 732; Mosher vs. Railroad Company, 127 U. S.; Boylan vs. Railroad Company, 132 U. S. 146; Hutchinson on Common Carriers, Secs. 569,581.
2. “A passenger who refuses to pay fare or to obey a reasonable regulation of the carrier forfeits his right to he carried, and at once puts himself in the condition of an intruder, and may be ejected at any point upon the carrier’s route at which he may choose to put him off.” Hutchinson on Common Carriers, See. 590; The G. AY. R. Co, vs. Bliller, 19 Blich., p. 313; A. T. & S. E. R. Co. vs. Gants (Kansas, 1888), 34An. and IS. R. C. 290; AAryman vs. Railroad Co. (Minn. 1885), 22 A. and E. R. O. 402.
3. The fact that plaintiff succeeded in getting passage on the ticket on one or two occasions subsequent to the ejectment is entirely immaterial. Thorp vs. Railroad Company (Connecticut, 1889), 17 Atlantic Reporter, 791.

Opinion:
On Motion to Disbiiss Apreal.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Watkins, J.
The single ground of the motion is that the defendant and appellant has not given an appeal bond in conformity to law and the order of the court; and the reason assigned by Moore's counsel is that the bond was never signed by the defendant and appellant.
It was signed as follows: " Henry L. Garland, attorney at law and attorney in fact for A. O. Hutchinson; O. O. Duson, W. W. Duson."
In the body of the bond occurs this recital, viz:
"Know all men by these presents that one A. O. Hutchinson, special agent of La. West. R. R. Co. defendant, cited to answer in the suit of Louis A. Granier vs. Louisiana Western R. R. Company, No. 109 of District Court, as principal, and C. C. Duson and W. W. Duson as securities, are held and firmly bound," etc.
Then, it is clear that H. L. Garland signed the bond as the attorney at law of A. C. Hutchinson, special agent of the defendant railroad company; and that C. O. Duson and W. W. Duson signed as the sureties of the defendant company.
We fail to appreciate the objection that is urged against the bond. On the face of the bond it appears that A. C. Hutchinson was the special agent of the defendant company, cited to answer in this suit; and that as his attorney H. L. Garland signed the bond. That signature fulfils all the requirements of the law, in so far as the principal is concerned, and no doubt is expressed as to the signatures of the securities.
It has «¡often been held by this court that the signature of the appellant is not necessary to an appeal bond; but that it is enough that it is signed by a sufficient surety. His obligation to discharge the judgment rendered against him on the appeal, results from the judgment itself. 9 M. 84; 10 M. 74; 6 La. 824; 10 La. 410; 8 R. 264; 5 R. 59; 12 An. 880; 14 An. 701.
The appeal bond is perfectly regular in form, and is validly and sufficiently signed, and appellee's motion is denied.