Boling v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 06 June 1905
• Citation: 88 S.W. 35,189 Mo. 219
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Parties: BOLING v. ST. LOUIS & S. F. R. CO.

88 S.W. 35

189 Mo. 219

BOLING v. ST. LOUIS & S. F. R. CO.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

June 6, 1905.

1. APPEAL—CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION.

An appeal, having fairly raised a constitutional question, and having been taken before the question was settled by the Supreme Court, will be retained, and not sent to the Court of Appeals.

2. CARRIERS—SPECIAL RATE TICKET.

The condition in a railroad ticket sold at a reduced rate that it will not be good for return passage unless the holder identifies himself as the original purchaser to the ticket agent at destination on any day within the limit of 21 days from date of sale, and that it will then be good for continuous return passage, which shall be commenced on date of execution, as punched in the right-hand margin, is binding, so that the purchaser having, on arriving at her destination, two days after purchase of the ticket, been identified by the ticket agent at that place, who then attested her signature and dated it as of that date, the ticket is not good for a return passage commencing several days thereafter, though within the limit of 21 days.

3. SAME—EXPIRATION OF TIME LIMIT.

The acceptance of a railroad ticket by one of the connecting carriers over whose lines it provides for passage does not require another of such carriers to accept it, the time for using it having expired.

4. SAME—RIGHTS OF PURCHASER.

The fact that one buying what she knew was a special-rate railroad ticket did not read it does not relieve her of the effect of a stipulation, plainly printed on its face, that return passage should be commenced on the date that she was identified, and the ticket was stamped and punched for return passage.

5. SAME—EXPULSION OF PASSENGER.

Though a railroad ticket presented by a passenger does not entitle her to passage, so that, on her being informed of its invalidity and refusing to pay fare, the conductor may remove her, the company is liable for compensatory damages for his using unnecessary and insulting language to her, injuring her feelings and humiliating her.

6. SAME.

The leaving of a train by a passenger whose ticket the conductor had refused to accept, in obedience to the conductor's command to the porter to see that she got off at the next station, is an ejection.

7. SAME.

For a passenger, whose ticket the conductor had refused to accept, to leave the train of her own accord, and against his advice that she remain, and allow him to hold her baggage check as security for passage, to be paid if the company agreed with him that the ticket was not good, is not an ejection.

8. SAME—TICKET AGENT—MISTAKE.

Defendant sold a ticket over its road and other roads to C. and return, providing that in selling the ticket it acted as agent, and was not responsible beyond its line, and that the return passage must be commenced the day that the passenger identified herself to the ticket agent at C., and he punched the ticket. Held, that the ticket agent at C. was not the agent of defendant, so as to make it responsible for his mistake in punching it on her arrival, and telling her that she could use it on a later day.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Greene County; Jas. T. Neville, Judge.

Action by Julia M. Boling against the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Reversed.

L. F. Parker and J. T. Woodruff, for appellant. Vaughan & Coltrane, for respondent.

GANTT, J.

This is an action by Mrs. Julia M. Boling, who resides at Claremore, Ind. T., against the defendant company for damages for being ejected from one of its trains at Pacific, Mo., April 6, 1900. The petition alleges the purchase of a railroad ticket from the defendant company at Joplin, Mo., entitling her to passage from Joplin to Chickamauga, Ga., and return, and then alleges that "before beginning her return passage said ticket was duly signed by her, and her signature witnessed and the same countersigned by the agent of the defendant's connecting line at Chickamauga, Georgia, and that at the times hereinafter stated said ticket entitled plaintiff to return over said lines of railway to Joplin, Missouri; that she began her return passage on the 5th day of April, 1899, and on the night of April 6, 1899, at St. Louis, Mo., she took passage upon and entered one of the defendant's trains leaving St. Louis, the same being a regular passenger from said city of St. Louis to Joplin, Missouri; that near a station of defendant's said railway, called `Pacific,' and while she was rightfully on said train, the conductor in charge thereof rudely and wrongfully deprived her of said ticket and the use thereof by taking it up and denying her transportation thereon, and wrongfully, willfully, and insultingly expelled and ejected her from said train; that in consequence she was compelled to use the small amount of money she had to obtain other transportation to her home, and, being among strangers, was compelled to go without food the next morning, and was put to great expense, trouble, and inconvenience, was injured in body and mind, and suffered great shame and humiliation, on account of all of which plaintiff says she has been damaged in the sum of five thousand dollars." In its answer the defendant admits it is a railroad, and owns and operates the line of railways between St. Louis and Joplin, and is engaged in carrying passengers for hire thereon, but denies each and every other allegation in said petition contained.

The evidence, in substance, was: That plaintiff, a married lady, was a resident of the town of Claremore, Ind. T., on March 20, 1900, and on that date went to Joplin, Mo. She desired to go to Chickamauga, Ga., to visit her sister, and bring back with her a little niece, five or six years old. That she learned that the Frisco Road, the defendant herein, had on sale at Joplin, Mo., excursion tickets from Joplin to Chickamauga and return. That she endeavored to obtain one of these tickets from the agent at Claremore, but was unable to do so, and, desiring to see Joplin, she went to that city, and there purchased one of those excursion tickets from Joplin to Chickamauga and return. The ticket was sold at a reduced rate. This ticket, in large type, reads:

"Good for one first-class passage to Chickamauga, Georgia, and return, when officially dated, stamped and presented with coupons attached subject to the following contract:

"(1) In selling this ticket and carrying baggage hereon, this company acts as agent and is not responsible beyond its own line.

"(2) This ticket will be good to leave starting point only on date of sale, as stamped thereon. It will then be good for going passage within fifteen days from date of sale as per final going limit punched in left hand margin by selling agent.

"(3) Stop-overs will be allowed on going passage within the going of fifteen days. No stop-overs will be allowed on return trip.

"(4) It will not be good for return passage unless the holder identifies himself as the original purchaser to the satisfaction of the ticket agent at destination point by signature or otherwise, on any day within final limit of 21 days from date of sale, as stamped on back or written below. It will then be good for continuous return passage of the original purchaser, which shall be commenced on date of execution, as punched in right-hand margin hereof."

The ninth clause is: "Unless all the conditions on this ticket are fully complied with, it shall be void." "I hereby agree to all the conditions of the above contract. [Signed] J. M. Boling, Purchaser. Witness: J. A. Glassey, Selling Agent. Date of sale March 20th, 1900."

The plaintiff commenced her journey from Joplin on the 20th of March, 1900, and arrived in Chickamauga, Ga., on the 22d, as indicated by punched marks on the left-hand margin of the ticket. On arriving at Chickamauga, Ga., on the 22d of March, and intending to visit relatives some 12 miles in the country, and near Kingston, on another railroad, leading into Chattanooga, Tenn., and not wishing to return by way of Chickamauga, she inquired of the station agent of the Chickamauga, Rome & Southern Railroad (the last road over which she traveled to Chickamauga) if she could be identified and have her ticket stamped by him at that time so that she would not have to return to Chickamauga for that purpose when she got ready to return to her home, in the Indian Territory. He assured her that she could, and thereupon she signed the ticket before the ticket agent at that place, and he attested her signature, and dated the same March 22, 1900. This agent at Chickamauga was advised that she had just arrived, because she called on him for her baggage, which it appears had not arrived, but had been left in Chattanooga, when, at her request, he had the baggage sent from Chattanooga to Kingston direct on another road. When plaintiff got ready to return to her home, she did not return to Chickamauga, but started from Kingston, and went to Chattanooga. She began to use her ticket for return passage between Chattanooga and St. Louis, and it was honored by the other railroads until she reached St. Louis, on April 5, 1900. On the evening of April 6th, plaintiff purchased of the Pullman Palace Car Company a sleeping-car berth for herself and her sister Miss Davis, and the little niece, and was allowed to pass through the gate at the Union Station on the presentation of her ticket, and into the sleeping car attached to one of defendant's passenger trains, bound for Monett, Mo. The conductor of this train was John Gillis. After the train started, and near Valley Park, a station some 17 miles west of St. Louis, the conductor, Gillis, began taking up tickets in this sleeping car. Plaintiff's sister Miss Davis had her own and the plaintiff's said return ticket, and, when the conductor came to her, she handed both to him, and thereupon he pronounced the ticket invalid. And at this point there is a conflict in the testimony...