Dietrich v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co.

• Decision Date: 13 May 1872
• Citation: 71 Pa. 432
• Parties: Dietrich <I>versus</I> The Pennsylvania Railroad Co.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

71 Pa. 432

Dietrich versus The Pennsylvania Railroad Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

May 8, 1872.

May 13, 1872.

May 8th 1872.

Before THOMPSON, C. J., READ, AGNEW, SHARSWOOD and WILLIAMS, JJ.

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster county: No. 38 to May Term 1872 S. H. Reynolds and O. J. Dickey, for plaintiff in error.

G. F. Breneman and H. M. North, for defendants in error.— Railway companies may make reasonable regulations for the carriage of passengers: 1 Redfield on Railways 99 et seq., 3d ed.; State v. Overton, 4 Zabriskie 435; Cheney v. The B. & M. Railroad Co., 11 Metc. 121; Beebe v. Ayres, 28 Barb. 275; Johnson v. Concord Railroad, 46 N. H. 213; C. C. & C. Railroad v. Bartram, 11 Ohio S. R. 457; State v. Gould, 53 Maine 279; Crocker v. Railroad Co., 24 Conn. 249. The purchase of the ticket by Dietrich created a contract by which he was to be carried directly from Philadelphia to Pittsburg. The company did not contract to carry him from point to point on the route at his pleasure, until he reached his destination, and when he left the train at Lancaster, he broke the contract, the performance of which was commenced when he embarked on the train at Philadelphia.

The opinion of the court was delivered, May 13th 1872, by AGNEW, J.

This was a judgment of nonsuit, and the question is, whether the plaintiff's evidence disclosed a case for the jury. Deitrich, the plaintiff, was a drover, residing in Lancaster county. On the 11th of March 1867, he purchased a drovers' ticket from Philadelphia to Pittsburg, and took passage on the fast line on the defendant's railroad. At Lancaster he got off, and next day (the 12th) he resumed his journey. When the conductor, Young came along collecting fares, he declined the plaintiff's ticket on the ground that he had "stopped off," and informed him such were his orders. Young told him he must get off at Landisville. After passing Landisville, finding him still on the train, Young told him he must get off at Mount Joy. At Mount Joy the brakesman put him off, but Young, who observed the brakesman taking him across the track, halloed at him not to put him off in that way; and told Dietrich to get on again. He was then carried to Altoona, where Young's portion of the route ended. After leaving Altoona, Hawkins, the conductor from Altoona to Pittsburg, came around, and the plaintiff exhibited his drover's ticket. Hawkins refused it and put him off at Galitzin, at the west end of the mountain tunnel. The plaintiff got on without leave, and Hawkins again refusing his ticket, the plaintiff paid his fare from Altoona to Pittsburg.

On his cross-examination, the plaintiff stated that Hawkins was not rude or unkind, and told him it was his duty to collect the fare or put him off. Dietrich said to him, "I want this tested and I want you to put me off genteely." The question is, therefore, simply upon a breach of the contract for carriage, and depends on its terms. Before examining the terms of the ticket, it is proper to clear the case of some immaterial matters. Stress is laid on the statement of Wimer, that the restriction of stopping off, was not intended for such men as he, who shipped stock over the road every week. This clearly has no influence whatever in ascertaining or interpreting the terms of the ticket; he afterwards purchased from the proper ticket agent. Wimer was a mere freight agent, whose duty had no relation to the sale of tickets, but was confined to giving the required certificate to entitle Dietrich to a drover's ticket. When Dietrich went to Franciscus, and asked him to make the ticket so as to stop off at Lancaster, Franciscus said, "No sir." He admits that he knew of the restriction as to stopping off, which his request implies, and that he had seen Young refuse another drover's ticket for this cause, and that in consequence he had been in the habit of buying a ticket from Philadelphia to Lancaster, when he wished to stop off. The restriction, and his knowledge of it, if this were necessary, are plainly proved by himself. It is evident, therefore, that the plaintiff is thrown upon his ticket and the terms it imports or recognises, as the evidence of his right of transit over the defendant's road. The ticket is in these words: "Drover's ticket. Not good on the Philadelphia Express. Good only in the hands of Mr. A. Dietrich for one seat from Philadelphia to Pittsburg. This ticket good only until March 16th 1867. Issued March 11th 1867. S. H. Wallace, agent." On the back is stamped "Penna. R. R., March 11th 1867. Philadelphia." Such tickets are evidence of the payment of the fare, and of the right of the holder or party named, as here, to be carried according to its terms. So far as they are expressed the terms are binding of course, but such tickets are not the whole contract, which must be gathered, so far as not expressed, from the rules and regulations of the company in running its trains. This is the generally received doctrine, with the qualification, however, that these rules and regulations must be reasonable and not contrary to the terms expressed: see Johnson v. The Concord Railroad Co., 46 N. H. Rep. 213, and cases there cited; The State v. Overton, 4 Zabriskie 435; The Clev., Col. & Cin. Railroad Co. v. S. H. Bartram, 11 Ohio St. Rep. 457; Cheney v. The Boston & Maine Railroad Co., 11 Met. 121. With the same qualification of reasonableness it is also well settled that one who buys a ticket is bound to inform himself of the rules and regulations of the company governing the transit and conduct of its trains. Thus he must ascertain the train in which he is to go, the time of its departure and arrival, its stopping stations, his right to get off and get on, to resume his trips, &c. See the cases, supra. If the law were otherwise a railroad company could not regulate the running of its trains to suit the interests of the public or of themselves. For this purpose some trains must be fast, with few stoppages. Others must be slow, with frequent stoppages. Some must be through trains and others local. It is very clear that a passenger with a through ticket cannot require a local train to carry him through. Nor can he require a through train to stop at a way station not in its time table. Even having a stop-off ticket would not increase his right to require the train to stop at a station not in its time table.

It is evident that if in such cases the holders of tickets can compel the trains to alter regulations, they would be governed by the passengers and not by the company. An excursion party on this principle, stopping off at will, would overcrowd a subsequent train to the discomfort of the proper passengers, and to the prejudice of the interests of the company. The authorities, as well as the reason of the thing, show that the company must make its own regulations, and that passengers purchase their tickets subject to these rules, and that it does not lie on the company to bring home notice of them in...