Atkinson v. Southern Ry. Co

• Decision Date: 07 November 1901
• Citation: 114 Ga. 146,39 S.E. 888
• Parties: ATKINSON . v. SOUTHERN RY. CO.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

39 S.E. 888

114 Ga. 146

ATKINSON .

v.SOUTHERN RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Nov. 7, 1901.

CARRIERS—EXPULSION OF PASSENGER.

If a ticket seller of a railroad company sells a ticket for passage on a particular train, assuring the purchaser that the train will stop at the station at which he desires to alight, he may recover damages from the company if expelled from the train by the conductor solely on the ground that the train does not stop at the station in question, unless the purchaser knew or had reason to believe that the information given him by the ticket agent was incorrect, or that there was a rule or regulation of the company making the agent incompetent to give the information, or prohibiting the conductor from stopping the train at that station.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from city court of Floyd county; Jno. H. Reece, Judge.

Action by H. A. Atkinson against the Southern Railway Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.

Seaborn Wright, for plaintiff in error.

Shumate & Maddox, Geo. A. H. Harris & Son, and R. L. Chamlee. for defendant in error.

COBB, J. The plaintiff sued the railway company for damages alleged to have been sustained on account of having been wrongfully expelled from one of its trains. Upon the trial it appeared from the testimony introduced in behalf of the plaintiff that he desired to go as a passenger upon one of the trains of the defendant from the city of Rome to a station called "Seney." When he went to the ticket office of the defendant, and informed the ticket agent that he desired to go to Seney, the agent told him that the train to Seney had gone. Upon his asking the agent when there would be another train to Seney, he was told that in about two or three hours there would be a freight train, which carried passengers, and upon which he could go. The agent then sold him a ticket to Seney, and stated that the ticket would be good on the freight train, which would arrive two or three hours later. Plaintiff then left the station, and returned later in the day. Upon the arrival of the freight train he again inquired of the ticket agent if that was the train on which he could go to Seney, and the agent told him that it was. He then boarded the train, and went into the caboose. When the train had moved forward from the station about 125 or 150 yards, the conductor asked plaintiff where he was going, and plaintiff replied to Seney; stating that the agent had sold him a ticket to that point to be used on that train. The conductor then stated that he did not stop at Seney; that he did not see why the agent had sold a ticket to that point for that train, which did not carry passengers; that plaintiff could not go to Seney on that train; and that, if he attempted to do so, he (the conductor) would put him off. Plaintiff then returned to the station, and offered the agent his ticket, and requested that his money be refunded. The agent refused to redeem the ticket, and when plaintiff told him what the conductor had said the agent told him to go back, and get on the train, and go to Seney, —the train having stopped a short distance from the station. Plaintiff then returned to the train, and the conductor again informed him that he could not go to Seney on that train, whereupon plaintiff again returned to the agent, and requested that his money be refunded, which the agent refused to do. The ticket sold plaintiff was introduced in evidence, and appears to be a ticket which entitled the plaintiff to one first-class passage from Rome to Seney, but does not specify in any way what train it was to be used on, nor is there anything on it to indicate that it would not be good on freight trains. The only witness called by the defendant was the ticket agent. He denied the plaintiff's statements about his offer to surrender the ticket and request for the return of his money, and stated that he did offer to redeem the ticket, but that the plaintiff refused to allow him to do it. The agent further testified that he had nothing at all to do with the freight train, that the superintendent and train master had authority over it, and...