Evansville & Richmond Railroad Company v. Kyte
Citation | 32 N.E. 1134,6 Ind.App. 52 |
Decision Date | 17 January 1893 |
Docket Number | 652 |
Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
Parties | EVANSVILLE & RICHMOND RAILROAD COMPANY v. KYTE |
From the Washington Circuit Court.
Judgment affirmed.
M. F Dunn, for appellant.
O. H Montgomery, for appellee.
The appellee, who was the plaintiff in the court below, in her complaint in this cause alleges that on the 26th day of October, 1891, she purchased a ticket from the appellant, a common carrier, entitling her to a passage over its railroad from Kurtz to Cortland, and that on said day she took passage at said station of Kurtz on one of its passenger trains, which was scheduled under the rules of the appellant to stop at said station of Cortland to receive and discharge passengers; that said railroad company had provided a platform at said station of Cortland, at which passengers were received and discharged; that appellant's said train, upon which she took passage, did not stop at said station of Cortland, but carried appellee beyond said station and platform a quarter of a mile, where appellant had no station or platform, and over her objection the conductor of said train ejected her therefrom at that point, and she was compelled to walk back to said station of Cortland, etc. Other allegations are made relative to the indignities imposed upon her by appellant's conductor in ejecting her; also, the fact that she was compelled to walk back to her destination, exposed to a cold wind, and to carry her baggage and a child one year old, from which exposure she became sick.
The contention of appellant in this court is that the complaint does not state a cause of action, and insists that the cause of action as alleged in the complaint did not arise ex contractu, but if any cause exists it arose ex delicto.
We adopt the construction of appellee's counsel that the theory of the complaint is that the appellee was injured by reason of the violation of the implied contract made by the appellant to safely carry her to her destination. When the appellant sold appellee the ticket entitling her to a passage over its railroad from Kurtz to Cortland, and accepted her upon its train, it impliedly undertook to carry her safely to her destination and to permit her to alight at that point. If it in any way violated that contract to her injury, she is entitled to recover damages. It was not necessary to set out a copy of the ticket in the complaint.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gratiot St. Warehouse Co. v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co.
...that, unless there is some agreement to that effect, the freight is not payable until the goods are delivered. Evansville, etc., Ry. Co. v. Kyte, 6 Ind. App. 57, 32 N. E. 1134; Ray on Neg. of Imposed Duties of Carriers, § 126; 3 Wood on Railroads, § 428; 4 Elliott on Railroads, §§ 1558-1569......
-
Terre Haute, Indianapolis & Eastern Traction Company v. Hunter
... ... destination; that the duty of a railroad company as a common ... carrier [62 Ind.App. 408] of passengers is not ... Co. v. Butler (1887), 112 ... Ind. 598, 14 N.E. 599; Evansville, etc., R. Co. v ... Kyte (1893), 6 Ind.App. 52, 32 N.E. 1134; ... ...
-
Trout v. Watkins Livery and Undertaking Company
... ... Everett v. Railroad, 214 Mo. 54; O'Brien v ... Transit Company, 212 Mo. 59. (2) Without ... See ... Dale v. Hall, 1 Wilson 281; see also Evansville, ... etc., R. Co. v. Kyte, 6 Ind.App. 52, 32 N.E. 1134. It is ... true ... ...
-
Terre Haute, I. & E. Traction Co. v. Hunter
...Co. v. Keiter, 175 Ind. 268-275, 92 N. E. 982;White Water Co. R. Co. v. Butler, 112 Ind. 598, 14 N. E. 599;Evansville, etc., R. Co. v. Kyte, 6 Ind. App. 52, 32 N. E. 1134;Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Rose, 40 Ind. App. 240-250, 79 N. E. 1094;Olson v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 94 Minn. 241, 102 ......