Boehm v. Duluth, S. S. & A. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 17 December 1895 |
| Parties | BOEHM v. DULUTH, S. S. & A. RY. CO. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Ashland county; John K. Parish, Judge.
Action by Joseph Boehm against the Duluth, South Shore & Atlantic Railway Company.
This is an action for damages sustained by the plaintiff by reason of having been ejected from a train on the defendant's railway, Saturday, April 15, 1893. The answer consists of admissions and denials. At the close of the trial the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and assessed his damages at $350. From the judgment entered thereon the defendant brings this appeal. Affirmed.Tomkins & Merrill, for appellant.
Sanborn & Dufur, for respondent.
There is evidence tending to prove that at the time mentioned the plaintiff was at Sanborn, a station on the defendant's railway; that he was desirous of going to his home, at Ashland, about 20 miles distant, where his wife was then sick; that to go there by railway it was necessary for him to go on the defendant's road to Maringo, a station on that road, about five miles east of Sanborn, where that railway made connection with the Wisconsin Central; that he told the station agent at Sanborn that his wife was sick, and he wanted to go to Maringo on the first train, whether freight or passenger; that the agent sold him a first-class ticket to Maringo; that about that time the freight train on its way to Maringo came into the station; that the plaintiff then asked the station agent if that was the train he should go on, and that the agent answered that it was; that there was a caboose on that train, with seats on the side; that the conductor came out of it, and the station agent told him that the plaintiff wanted to go to Maringo on that train, and he told the plaintiff it was all right; that the train started, and, after going about a mile and a half, the conductor came to the plaintiff for his fare; that the plaintiff handed to him the ticket so purchased, but that he refused to take it, and exacted the fare in money; that the plaintiff refused to pay in money, and insisted on the conductor taking the ticket; that the conductor then put him off the train, and in getting off he fell down the bank, and was injured; that he was compelled to walk to Maringo; that he missed the Central train, and was compelled to walk to Ashland; that the freight trains on the defendant's railway usually carried passengers at that time, and the defendant sold tickets for its regular freight trains; that the plaintiff subsequently ascertained that the ticket was dated Monday, April 17th, instead of Saturday, April 15th. The evidence is undisputed that the plaintiff bought the ticket, got upon the train, and that the conductor refused to accept the ticket, and put the plaintiff off the train because he would not pay in cash as indicated; but as to the other facts stated there is a conflict in the evidence. We must hold that there is evidence sufficient to support the verdict. Lucas v. Railway Co.,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Powell v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company
...for refusal to pay his fare, except at the places and in conformity with the other conditions specified in the statute. [Boehm v. Railroad, 65 N.W. 506.] And is the uniform doctrine in other States having similar statutes. [Railroad v. Latimer, 128 Ill. 163c; Railroad v. Branch, 45 Ark. 524......
-
Powell v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co.
...for refusal to pay his fare except at the places and in conformity with the other conditions specified in the statute." Boehm v. R. R., 91 Wis. 592, 65 N. W. 506, and such is the uniform doctrine in other states, having similar statutes. R. R. v. Latimer, 128 Ill. 171, 21 N. E. 7; R. R. v. ......
-
Hensel v. Hensel Yellow Cab Co.
...the circumstances of that case, had ostensible authority to permit a passenger to ride on his train. In Boehm v. Duluth, South Shore & Atlantic Railway Company, 91 Wis. 592, 65 N. W. 506, it is held that the railroad company is liable to one who applies to the ticket agent for a ticket, say......
-
Reed v. Jamieson Inv. Co.
... ... body or limb can never escape.' ... [10 P.2d 979] ... In Boehm v. Duluth, S. S. & A. Ry. Co., 91 Wis. 592, ... 65 N.W. 506, an instruction in which the words 'personal ... inconvenience' were ... ...