Harp v. Southern Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 31 March 1904 |
| Parties | HARP v. SOUTHERN RY. CO. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. As many tickets entitle the bearer to transportation, they might be used by the finder, with the result that two could ride for one fare, if the carrier were required to carry a passenger who has lost the ticket purchased by him.
2. A passenger who loses his ticket has no right to be carried upon making or offering to make proof that the one paid for has been lost. The loss falls on him, and not on the carrier.
3. It affirmatively appears from the allegations of the petition that the plaintiff neither had paid nor offered to pay the fare. On his failure to produce a ticket, he was lawfully evicted.
4. Where a petition has been dismissed on general demurrer, and the judgment thereon has been affirmed, there is nothing to amend by; nor do the facts here call for the exercise of any discretionary power by this court to grant an order allowing the plaintiff to amend before the entry of the remittitur in the trial court.
Error from Superior Court, Clayton County; L. S. Roan, Judge.
Action by E. D. Harp, by his next friend, against the Southern Railway Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
M. D Womble and W. R. Hammond, for plaintiff in error.
Dorsey Brewster & Howell, Arthur Heyman, and J. B. Hutcheson, for defendant in error.
This suit was for wrongful expulsion, and not for damages inflicted upon the plaintiff as a result of his being compelled to alight from a moving train. The fact that one actually purchased a ticket, and that this was known to the agent who sold it, or to the gatekeeper who examined or to employés on the train who saw it, would not relieve the passenger of the obligation to surrender it to the conductor. Tickets vary in their terms. Some are good only on certain trains; others only on particular dates; others require validation. The mere fact that the plaintiff has a ticket does not, therefore, necessarily establish his right to be transported on a given train. These matters must be passed on by the conductor, and not by other employés who are not charged with this duty by the company. When the conductor makes his demand, he is entitled to have the ticket surrendered. He cannot be required to hear evidence or investigate the bona fides of the passenger's excuse for its nondelivery, nor to wait until he arrives at the next station, and, by telegraphic correspondence with the selling agent, undertake to verify the correctness of the plaintiff's statement, or determine the character and validity of the ticket sold. It is manifest that such course would necessarily give rise to delay, and seriously interfere with the operation of trains and the rights of the traveling public. Had the plaintiff's money blown out of his hand it is evident that his misfortune would have to fall upon himself, and not upon the company. Such loss would not have prevented his lawful eviction. The same result would follow where the ticket itself was lost, for it might have come into the hands of another, and the company might thereby have been compelled to carry two passengers for one fare. Besides,...
To continue reading
Request your trial