Ammons v. Southern Ry. Co

• Decision Date: 26 May 1905
• Citation: 138 N.C. 555,51 S.E. 127
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: AMMONS. v. SOUTHERN RY. CO.

138 N.C. 555

51 S.E. 127

AMMONS.

v.SOUTHERN RY. CO.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 26, 1905.

1. Railroads — Rule Requiring Purchase of Tickets Before Entering Cars.

A rule of a railroad company requiring passengers to procure tickets before entering the cars is reasonable.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 9, Cent. Dig. Carriers, §§ 1005, 1045, 1433.]

2. Same—Enforcement of Rule.

The rule may be enforced either by ejecting from the train a passenger without a ticket, regardless of a tender by him of the fare in money, or by requiring the payment of a larger fare on the train than that charged for a ticket.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 9, Cent. Dig. Carriers, §§ 1005, 1433.]

3. Same — Conditions Precedent to Enforcement — Facilities fob Purchasing Ticket.

In order to entitle the railroad to enforce the rule by ejection from the train or by exacting a larger fare, it must have afforded the passenger reasonable facilities to purchase the required ticket.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 9, Cent. Dig. Carriers, § 1433.]

4. Same—Failure to Supply Tickets for Sale—Knowledge of Conductor—Action for Wrongful Expulsion from Train —Submission to Jury—Error.

In an action against a railroad for wrongfully ejecting plaintiff from one of its trains, plaintiff testified that, on applying for a ticket, defendant's agent told him he was out of tickets, but to board the train, and he would tell the conductor not to charge plaintiff extra fare; defendant's rule requiring the payment of 25 cents extra when a passenger has no ticket. The conductor refused to accept plaintiff's statement that the agent had no tickets, and ejected him from the train on his refusal to pay extra fare. Held, that plaintiff's right of recovery did not depend on the conductor's knowledge or ignorance of the fact that the agent had no tickets for sale, and refusal to submit the case to the jury under proper instructions was error.

Appeal from Superior Court, Swain County; Long, Judge.

Action by W. R. Ammons against the Southern Railway Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. New trial.

The plaintiff alleges that he was unlawfully ejected from one of the defendant's trains, and sues to recover damages for the wrong thus committed. At the close of the testimony, and after the plaintiff had requested certain instructions to be given to the jury, the court held that he could not recover in the action. The plaintiff thereupon submitted to a nonsuit, and appealed. It is necessary to state only the substance of his testimony, which is as follows: On June 20th the plaintiff went to Almond, a station on defendant's line, to buy a ticket to Noland, which is nine miles away. The defendant's agent told him he was out of tickets, but to get on the train, and he would tell the conductor not to charge extra fare. The agent said the ticket rate was 41 cents. The extra or train rate was 65 cents. The agent said the plaintiff would have to pay only 41 cents. He boarded the train, and the conductor asked him for his ticket. The plaintiff told him what the agent had said to him, and the conductor demanded 75 cents, and said that the agent did have tickets. He then told the plaintiff to pay 75 cents or get off. He pulled the bell cord, when the plaintiff said, "If you put me off, I will sue the company, " and the conductor replied, "It would not make a durn bit of difference to me if you did." When the conductor called for the fare, the plaintiff offered him 50 cents, and added that he did not mind a rebate, but did not want to pay 75 cents. The conductor refused to take the 50 cents, and put the plaintiff off the train 400 yards from the station. It is a rule of the company to require the payment of 25 cents extra when a passenger has no ticket. There was evidence as to the damages, not necessary to be stated.

A. J. Franklin and F. C. Fisher, for appellant.

Moore & Rollins and A. B. Andrews, Jr,. for appellee.

WALKER, J. (after stating the case). Assuming the plaintiff's testimony to be true, and giving him the benefit of all reasonable inferences therefrom—and this is the way it should be considered—we think the judge erred in his intimation of opinion against the plaintiff's right to recover. The law of the case, at least in the present development of the latter, and in the aspect of it now presented, seems to be well settled, and is thus stated by a learned and accurate text-writer: "It is undoubtedly competent for a railroad company, as a means of protection against imposition, and to facilitate the transaction of its business, to require passengers to procure tickets before entering the car; and where this requirement is duly made known, and reasonable opportunities are afforded for complying with it, it may be enforced either by expulsion from the train, regardless of a tender of the fare in money, or by requiring the payment of a larger fare upon the train than that for which the ticket might have been procured. A...