Pittsburgh, C.C. & St. L.Ry. Co. v. Reynolds
| Decision Date | 08 December 1896 |
| Citation | 45 N.E. 712,55 Ohio St. 370 |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
| Parties | PITTSBURGH, C., C. & ST. L. RY. CO. v. REYNOLDS. |
Error to circuit court, Warren county.
Action by James G. Reynolds against the Pittsburgh, Cincinnati Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
The action below was a suit brought by the plaintiff to recover damages of the defendant for wrongfully ejecting him from one of its trains. The issues having been made up, the case was tried to the court, on an agreed statement of the facts. The statement is as follows: ‘ On the 4th day of July 1891, the plaintiff and his son, aged 12 years, at South Lebanon, purchased at reduced rates, of the ticket agent of the defendant, two round-trip excursion tickets from South Lebanon to Loveland, Ohio, and return, the distance between said points being nine miles. That the going portions of said tickets bore upon their face the following: ‘ Good for a continuous trip, South Lebanon to Loveland, until July 6 1891, if stamped by agent and presented on trains stopping at points named before expiration of time limit; ’ and the return coupons bore the same, except that they read: ‘ From Loveland to South Lebanon, Ohio.’ The plaintiff and his on went to Loveland on the 4th day of July, 1891, on one of the defendant's trains. That on the 5th day of July, as they went to the station of the defendant in Loveland for the purpose of returning to South Lebanon, they saw a train approaching the station, and the plaintiff went to the window of the ticket office of the defendant, and asked a man in the ticket office if that train just coming in would stop at South Lebanon, to which the man replied ‘ Yes; and the only one that will stop there to-day.’ That thereupon the plaintiff and his son got upon the train without making further inquiry or being stopped by the trainmen, and, when a short distance out from Loveland, the conductor of the train asked the plaintiff and his son for their fare. That the plaintiff tendered the two returning coupons, described as aforesaid, which the conductor declined to accept, stating that his train did not stop at South Lebanon, but stated that his first stop was at Morrow, the first station immediately east of South Lebanon and he would accept the returning coupons in part payment of their fare, and they could pay him the fare from South Lebanon to Morrow in cash, amounting to 25 cents for the two. That plaintiff replied he had no money, and that the ticket agent at Loveland had told him that that train stopped at South Lebanon, and was the only one that would that day. Thereupon the train was stopped about two miles from Loveland, between 5 and 6 o'clock in the afternoon; and, upon the demand of the conductor, the plaintiff and his son were compelled to leave the train, at a place where there was no station, and where there was a fill and steep bank; but that no force was used in their removal from the train, and from there they walked to their home, in Lebanon. It is agreed that the ticket agent at Loveland had no power to change the terms of the tickets, or to order the train to stop at South Lebanon, and that the train was one which did not stop at that station. One of said return coupons is hereto attached, marked ‘ Exhibit A."
The following is the exhibit:
(Image Omitted)
It is agreed that the coupons were stamped on the back by the agent at South Lebanon.
The court, on the agreed statement, found for the defendant, and dismissed the plaintiff's petition. A motion for a new trial was made and overruled, and exceptions taken. The agreed statement of facts is made a part of the pecord by a bill of exceptions. On error to the circult court, the judgment was reversed, on the ground that ‘ the court erred in finding that the plaintiff and not stated a cause of action which was sustained by the agreed statement of facts.’ This is the question presented here on error. In his petition the plaintiff averred that the defendant is a common carrier of passengers in this state; that on July 4, 1891, he purchased of the defendant's agent at South Lebanon two round-trip tickets, to be valid until July 6th, who was about eleven years for his son, who was about eleven years of age, entitling him to ride from South Lebanon to Loveland and return on trains of the company; and that on the 4th day of July, 1891, he boarded one of defendant's trains at South Lebanon, and went to Loveland, as he had a right to do on said ticket; and on the 5th day of July, desiring to return to South Lebanon, the plaintiff entered the defendant's office at Loveland, and inquired of defendant's agent there if the train then approaching was the one for him to take to South Lebanon, said agent replied that it was, and that it was the only train that would stop there that night. Thereupon the plaintiff and his said son boarded said train, and while riding on said train, at a point about two miles from Loveland, defendant, by its agent, the conductor then in charge of said train, assaulted plaintiff, and ejected him and his said son, without cause or fault on his part, from said train of said company, and before the end of plaintiff's said journey, and before the arrival of said train at any station. And plaintiff further states that he tendered the tickets purchased as aforesaid, for return passage to South Lebanon, Ohio, to the conductor of said train, which he refused to accept, and ejected plaintiff from said train, to his damage in the sum of $1,000. ‘ Wherefore plaintiff prays judgment against defendant in the sum of one thousand dollars.’ The case is here on error to reverse the judgment of the circuit court; and the only question presented is whether, on the facts, the case made in the petition was sustained.
Where a person who has a ticket, purchased from a company engaged in the business of a common carrier of passengers, entitling him to be carried from a certain station to another on the line of its road, which is good only on trains stopping at his destination, is, by the fault of the company's station agent, induced to take a train that does not, under the schedule, stop at such place, and, as a consequence, is ejected by the conductor on calling for his ticket, and before reaching his destination, such facts show a right in the passenger against the company to recover as for a tort, and not merely for a breach of contract.
Charies Darlington, for plaintiff in error.
William McDonald and W. F. Eltzroth, for defendant in error.
MINSHALL, J. (after stating the facts).
We think there can be no question but that the petition states a cause of action founded on tort,-the wrong of the defendant by its agent in ejecting the plaintiff and his son from the train. Then do the facts contained in the agreed statement support the complaint? We think they do. The plaintiff and his son were at Loveland, and each had a ticket which required the company to carry them to South Lebanon that day on any train stopping at that place. He inquired of the agent at the station if a train then approaching was the train for him to take. The agent said it was, and that it was the only train that would stop at his destination that afternoon. He then, with his son, boarded the train. It proved to be a wrong one. This was the fault of the company; and he and his son were afterwards, and before reaching their destination, ejected, because, under the instructions the conductor had from the company, it was his duty to do so. The argument in support of the company's claim is that the agent, under the circumstances, had the right to eject them, as the tickets did not authorize the plaintiff and his son to ride on that train, because it did not, under the schedule, stop at the plaintiff's destination; and therefore the plaintiff's...
To continue reading
Request your trial