Court Opinion

ID: 9830905
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:36:55.891766+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:28.258897
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
It is suggested in the argument, submitted as a part of the motion, that the opinion on original hearing might admit of the construction, that it contained an intimation unfavorable to appellee; but we disclaim any such intimation. We do not controvert, the position, assumed in the argument, that a person with the highest sense of honor and pride of character might, with the money-in his pocket to pay his fare, *99suffer an expulsion from a passenger coach rather than submit to extortion or other act- of oppression; but whether, in a given case, expulsion is due wholly to a spirit of resistance to oppression, or, in part at least, to a willingness to suffer a temporary injury to feelings for the sake of ultimate pecuniary gain, or punishment to the carrier, or both, is a question of fact which seems to be raised when a passenger refuses to avail himself of the means at hand to prevent an expulsion attended with serious inconvenience and humiliation. Without, therefore, intending to intimate that appellee was actuated by any but the highest motives, we concluded on the original hearing, and are'still of the opinion, that the fact of his submitting to the expulsion, when he could have averted it by paying a few dollars to the conductor, ivas a circumstance to be considered by the jury in making up the amount of their verdict.
Motion overruled.

Reversed and remanded.