Church v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.

• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: KELLAM, J.
• Citation: Church v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 60 N.W. 854, 6 S.D. 235 (S.D. 1894)
• Decision Date: 19 November 1894
• Parties: CHURCH v. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO.

60 N.W. 854

6 S.D. 235

CHURCH v. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of South Dakota

November 19, 1894

Syllabus by the Court.

1. A passenger held a ticket, issued by the appellant company from Milwaukee, Wis., to Artesian, S.D. Such ticket gave the passenger the right to transportation, subject to such reasonable rules and regulations as the company had a right to make, concerning the running of its trains and the route over which they should run.

2. It is a reasonable regulation for a company operating direct and indirect and circuitous, lines of road between two points, to require that through passengers, traveling upon a simple contract to carry from one point to the other, should go by the most direct route.

3. Such reasonable regulation becomes a part of the contract of carriage.

4. Failure by the company to notify a passenger of such regulation does not affect the contractual rights of the parties, so as to entitle the passenger to ride between such points on other lines of the company than those established as the through route by such regulation.

5. The fact that the passenger told the company's gate keeper at the Milwaukee depot that she desired to go to Artesian by way of Prairie du Chien and Mitchell, and he directed her to the proper train without informing her that she would have to change at Canton, a junction 500 miles distant, or that she could not go on that ticket from Canton to Artesian by way of Mitchell, did not entitle her to go that way, against the regulation of the company.

6. Respondent's wife procured a ticket from Milwaukee, Wis to Artesian, S.D. The company had two established routes between these points,--one, which she took, by way of Prairie du Chien, Canton, and Egan. By this route she should have changed cars at Canton, S. D., for Egan. She did not change but continued on the train west, and insisted upon her right to go by way of Mitchell and Woonsocket, over which lines the company had no through route. Refusing to pay fare, she was ejected. Held, that while the failure of the company to notify her to change at Canton might, if a neglect of an imposed duty, be the ground for damages it did not entitle her to ride upon such ticket over the indirect route, by way of Mitchell and Woonsocket; and an instruction to the jury that she was lawfully on such train over such route if she did not know of such regulation, and that the conductor had no right to put her off, was error.

Appeal from circuit court, Sanborn county; D. Haney, Judge.

Action by Richard M. Church against the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company for wrongfully ejecting plaintiff's wife from defendant's train, and for expenses and loss of services arising therefrom. From a judgment entered on a verdict for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Preston & Hannett (Burton Hanson, of counsel), for appellant.

KELLAM J.

This action was brought by respondent against appellant to recover damages on account of expense incurred, and loss of services of his wife, Julia A. Church, whom he alleges was lawfully on one of appellant's trains, and was wrongfully ejected therefrom. Respondent and his wife resided in the town of Artesian, in this state, a station on an east and west line of appellant's road. In September, 1889, having been for several months in the state of Michigan, she desired to return to Artesian. Her husband procured and had sent to her the return coupon of a Grand Army excursion ticket, both coupons of which were good for a trip from Artesian to Milwaukee and return. It was shown by the company, and was not disputed, that it had two established routes from Milwaukee to Artesian, over either of which a passenger might make a continuous passage from the former to the latter place,--one by way of Prairie du Chien, McGregor, Canton, and Egan, thence west to Artesian; the other by way of La Crosse, thence west, through Egan, to Artesian. Mrs. Church took the train at Milwaukee for the first-named route, and proceeded as far as Canton, where, instead of changing cars for Egan, as she should have done to continue on the route named, she remained on the train with the intention of going to Mitchell, there changing and going north to Woonsocket, and thence, after another change, east to Artesian. After passing Canton, the conductor, finding her still on his train, examined her ticket, and informed her that she was on the wrong train, that she should have changed at Canton, and that her ticket would not take her to Mitchell. She insisted that her ticket entitled her to go by way of Mitchell and Woonsocket, refused to pay her fare, and was put off the train at Worthing, the next station. Appellant contends that the facts disclosed show that respondent and his wife were practicing a fraud upon the company in procuring and using this excursion ticket, sold at reduced rates to enable purchasing parties to attend the Grand Army reunion at Milwaukee, under circumstances and for a purpose which they well knew were not contemplated by the company. They also insist that there was no evidence justifying the court in submitting to the jury the question of actual damages. There was also some conflicting testimony as to the deportment of the conductor, and the manner of her removal from the train, upon which is based a claim of undue and excessive force; but as we think the trial court erroneously instructed the jury as to her rights and the company's duty in the premises, which might and probably did influence the jury, for which the judgment must be reversed, we notice only such error.

The first question which the facts in this case naturally suggest is this: Did Mrs. Church's ticket entitle her to ride from Canton to Artesian by way of Mitchell and Woonsocket? The court instructed the jury as follows: "The rules of the defendant company required that she should change cars at Canton, and proceed to Artesian by way of Egan. If Mrs Church knew this rule, or if she was informed, at or before reaching Canton, that the rules of the company required her to change at Canton, she was unlawfully on the train at Worthing, and plaintiff cannot recover if she was removed from the train in a proper manner; but if she did not know of such rule, and was not informed of it, she was lawfully upon the train at Worthing, and the conductor had no right to put her off. Mrs. Church was not bound to inquire whether she should change cars at Canton; but if, by any means, she had been informed that she should make such change, she should have made it, and should not have remained on the train west of Canton." Mrs. Church's right to transportation by the appellant company was just what her contract gave her. That contract was to carry her from Milwaukee to Artesian, subject to such reasonable rules and regulations as the company had a right to make concerning the management and running of its trains and the routes over which they should run. She was entitled to be carried through with ordinary and reasonable dispatch, but she had no right, under such contract, to select her route, as against a rule or regulation of the company prescribing a different and more direct route, if such regulation were a reasonable one. The law is well settled that a railroad company, as a common carrier, may prescribe and enforce regulations for the conduct of its business in carrying passengers,...