Carsten v. N. Pac. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 11 November 1890
• Citation: 44 Minn. 454,47 N.W. 49
• Parties: CARSTEN v NORTHERN PAC. R. CO.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

44 Minn. 454

47 N.W. 49

CARSTENvNORTHERN PAC. R. CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Nov. 11, 1890.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. A round-trip excursion ticket used by the purchaser in going to the station named therein, and then sold and transferred, no restrictions appearing, is valid in the hands of the holder, and entitles him to a return passage, subject to the prescribed limitations as to time, etc.

2. And where a conductor of a train refuses to recognize such ticket in the hands of the holder, who is thereby entitled to ride thereon, and demands of him the regular fare, and attempts to eject him by force for non-payment thereof, the railway company is liable in damages for the assault, and the jury in assessing the damages may consider in connection therewith the annoyance, vexation, and indignity suffered by him.

3. In such an action, damages resulting from the loss of a job of work, occasioned by his delay at the station at which he was obliged to leave the train, held too remote to be considered.

Appeal from district court, Crow Wing county; SEARLE, Judge.

John C. Bullitt, Jr., and Tilden R. Selmes, for appellant.

J. B. Douglas and J. N. True, for respondent.

VANDERBURGH, J.

The defendant in August, 1888, issued excursion passenger tickets from Detroit, in this state, “to Minneapolis and return,” to be used within a time limited, but without restrictions as to transfer. The plaintiff purchased one of these tickets at second-hand of a railway ticket broker, and, in conformity with the usage of the company, had it stamped by the defendant's agent at the depot in Minneapolis, and thereupon presented it to the baggageman, who punched it and checked his baggage, and within the time limited plaintiff took passage on a regular passenger train from Minneapolis to Detroit. While on the way, and before reaching Brainerd, an intermediate station, his ticket was examined by an agent of the company, who is styled a “ticket exchanger,” and acted as an assistant to the regular conductor, and who notified the plaintiff that his ticket was not good, on the ground stated by him that it was bought at a “scalper's office.” He, however, took up and retained the ticket, and refused to return it to the plaintiff. The regular conductor soon after came along and demanded plaintiff's fare, and when informed what had been done by the exchanger also stated that the ticket was not good, and notified him that he would have to leave the train unless he paid his fare; and soon after came back accompanied by two brakemen as the train was approaching a station, for the purpose, as the evidence tends to show, of ejecting plaintiff from that train. They took him by the shoulder and led him to the door in presence of the passengers, when a stranger paid his fare to Brainerd, at which place the plaintiff voluntarily left the train. Plaintiff acted under compulsion when leaving his seat when ordered, but made no resistance, and there was in fact no violence or vindictive or abusive language used.

1. The evidence is...