Goetz v. Hannibal & St. Joseph R.R. Co.

• Decision Date: 31 August 1872
• Citation: 50 Mo. 472
• Parties: ANTON GOETZ, Respondent, v. THE HANNIBAL & ST. JOSEPH RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

50 Mo. 472

ANTON GOETZ, Respondent,

v.THE HANNIBAL & ST. JOSEPH RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

August Term, 1872.

Appeal from Linn Circuit Court.

Hall & Oliver, for appellant.

I. The appellant, as a common carrier of passengers, had a lawful right to make and carry out the rule enforced in this case. (Crocker v. New London, W. & P. R.R. Co., 24 Conn. 249; The Commonwealth v. Power, 7 Metc. 596; Jencks v. Coleman, 2 Sumn. 221; Hibbard v. New York & Erie R.R. Co., 15 N. Y. 455; Downs v. N. Y. & N. H. R.R. Co., 36 Conn. 287; Cheney v. Boston & Maine R.R. Co., 11 Metc. 121.)

II. The second instruction given to the jury at the request of the respondent entirely ignores the issue raised by the pleadings and evidence, and is contradictory to one given for appellant.

III. There was no evidence of either malice, violence, oppression or wanton recklessness of appellant, or of its agents, in its treatment of the respondent. Everything was done decently, civilly, and in order.

G. D. Burgess, for respondent.

The instructions presented the case fairly to the jury, and were as favorable to the appellant as it could have desired.

It was the duty of appellant to have notified its servants and agents of the special arrangement between plaintiff and it, and it was guilty of the very grossest negligence in failing to do so. (Sullivan v. Phila. & Reading R.R. Co., 30 Penn. St. 234.)

BLISS, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff, with others, purchased a half-fare ticket from Brookfield to Macon, upon an agreement that they were to be returned at the same rate. When about to return to Brookfield he purchased at the Macon ticket office the same kind of ticket and went aboard the train. He had no regular permit to travel on such ticket, and the conductor had not been notified of the arrangement. The latter, therefore, demanded the balance of the fare; and the plaintiff refusing to pay it, the train was stopped, he was ordered to leave the car, and at once obeyed and walked back to Macon. In the evening of the same day he was forwarded to Brookfield without expense.

There is no evidence of any harsh treatment by the conductor, but the evidence shows that he was simply doing his duty. The road regulations forbid him from passing any one on half-fare tickets, unless those exhibiting them shall carry a permit from the proper officer to thus travel. This is a reasonable rule; otherwise any one could purchase and travel upon such tickets. Defendant claimed to have shown that when the plaintiff and his companions applied for a reduction of fare, it was too late to prepare excursion tickets, and a special arrangement was made by which the Brookfield ticket agent should sell half-fare tickets and notify the conductor of the approaching train, and that the excursionists should inform Mr. Burnett, the ticket agent at Macon, when they were ready to return, and he would do the same. Upon their return they came to the ticket office and purchased half-fare tickets of the clerk, but did not see Mr....