Court Opinion

ID: 6421344
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-06-25 12:00:02.618333+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:51:13.236612
License: Public Domain

C. Allen, J.
It appears that the defendant’s agent and ticket seller told the plaintiff that the two tickets would be good for a passage from Springfield to North Adams, and explained the meaning of the punched holes, and, with a full understanding of exactly what the tickets were and of what the plaintiff *299wanted, sold them to him as tickets good for his contemplated trip. There was nothing on their face to show the contrary to the plaintiff, and he took and paid for them on the strength of these explanations and assurances of the ticket seller. There was no mistake on the part of either as to where the plaintiff wished to go, or what terms were actually expressed upon the tickets, or what marks or punched holes they bore. The circumstances of there being two tickets, and of the holes in one of them, naturally induced inquiry by the plaintiff, and he had no reason to distrust the correctness of the explanations which were given to him. The ticket seller assumed to know, and gave assurances which the plaintiff had a right to rely on, and which he did rely on. If, when the conductor refused to accept the punched ticket, it had appeared on an inspection of it that there had been a mistake, and that it did not on its face purport to be good for a passage over that part of the defendant’s road, and that the ticket seller had delivered to the plaintiff a good ticket upon some other railroad, or to some place which had already been passed, when the mistake was discovered, and it was found that the plaintiff had through inadvertence accepted a ticket which on its face was plainly insufficient, then this case would have fallen within the doctrine of the recent decision in Bradshaw v. South Boston Railroad, 135 Mass. 407, and it would have been the duty of the plaintiff to yield for the time being, and pay his fare anew, or withdraw from the car, unless a distinction should be taken between the rights of passengers upon steam railways and street railways, under such circumstances, — a question which we do riot now consider. See Cheney v. Boston & Maine Railroad, 11 Met. 121; Yorton v. Milwaukee, Lake & Shore Western Railway, 54 Wis. 234; Townsend v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad, 56 N. Y. 295; Petrie v. Pennsylvania Railroad, 13 Vroom, 449; Dietrich v. Pennsylvania Railroad, 71 Penn. St. 432; Frederick v. Marquette, Houghton Ontonagon Railroad, 37 Mich. 342. McClure v. Philadelphia, Wilmington & Baltimore Railroad, 34 Md. 532.
But, in the present case, such is not the position of the parties. As has been seen, the plaintiff not only was not guilty of any negligence in accepting his ticket, but he examined it *300carefully, saw everything there was on it, and received explanations of the meaning of the punched holes, and assurances that the two tickets, in the condition in which they were, would be good for the trip. In such a case, there being no mistake or inadvertence on his part in the respects mentioned, and the tickets which were delivered being in all particulars such as were intended to be delivered, and there being nothing which could be gathered by inspection to show that they were insufficient, and no notice of their insufficiency being given to the plaintiff by anybody, or in any form, until he had already entered upon and partially accomplished his journey over the defendant’s road, he might well insist upon being allowed to complete that journey. If the defendant’s superintendent or president, or both of them, had been standing by when the plaintiff purchased his tickets, and had heard and assented to what was said by the ticket seller, and if they also were under the same mistake as to the rules established for the guidance of conductors, the legal position of the plaintiff would hardly have been stronger than it is at present. It would still be the case that he took his tickets relying on the mistaken assurances of the defendant’s agent in respect to their validity. If the defendant, through any imperfection in its rules or methods, or any ignorance or violation of rules or instructions by its agents, has been led into any interference with the rights of the plaintiff under such circumstances, it must abide the consequences. To hold the contrary would be a burden upon passengers such as is called for by no reason of necessity or expediency.
On the other hand, it is no more than a wholesome requirement that railway companies should be responsible in damages for the consequences of a mishap such as occurred in the present case. The conductor’s explanation of the meaning of the two punched holes might or might not be correct; at any rate, their meaning was purely arbitrary, and, so far as the plaintiff could see, the conductor’s interpretation was no more probable or intelligible than that given by the ticket seller. The plaintiff had a right to act upon the explanations given to him at the time when he bought his ticket. The mistake was that of the ticket seller, in supposing that the punched holes signified that the ticket had been used only to Chester, whereas in *301fact, according to the defendant’s rules for the instruction and guidance of conductors, they signified that it had been used to Pittsfield, a station farther on. The offer of the conductor to give a receipt to the plaintiff for the additional fare which he demanded, stating the circumstances under which it was paid, so that the plaintiff might get back the money, if it should be found that his account of the purchase of the ticket was true, though showing good faith on the part of the conductor, did not have the effect to make it the legal duty of the plaintiff to pay the additional fare.
It follows that all the instructions requested were properly refused, except as modified by the presiding judge; and the instructions which were given were clearly and accurately expressed. Maroney v. Old Colony & Newport Railway, 106 Mass. 153. Exceptions overruled.