Hoffbauer v. D. & N. W. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 28 October 1879
• Citation: 52 Iowa 342,3 N.W. 121
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court
• Parties: F. W. HOFFBAUER, APPELLEE, v. THE D. & N. W. RY. CO., APPELLANT.

52 Iowa 342

3 N.W. 121

F. W. HOFFBAUER, APPELLEE,

v.THE D. & N. W. RY. CO., APPELLANT.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed October 28, 1879.

Appeal from Delaware district court.

The plaintiff took passage on the defendant's cars at Delhi for Delaware Center, a distance of about four miles, and after riding a small portion of the distance was forcibly removed from the cars by the conductor. He brings this action to recover the damages which he alleges that he sustained by reason of the expulsion. The evidence in regard to the circumstances of the expulsion is somewhat conflicting, but according to the testimony of the plaintiff the facts were as follows: He went aboard the cars without procuring a ticket, his failure to procure a ticket resulting from the fact that he arrived at the station but a short time before the train started, and that short time he consumed in conversation with a person with whom he had business. When the conductor called for tickets the plaintiff tendered sixteen cents, the price of a ticket, and the conductor received it, demanding, however, ten cents more, being the extra charge where no ticket is procured. This the plaintiff declined to pay. The conductor, after some altercation with him in regard to the extra charge, rang the bell and stopped the train, and called in the brakeman to assist in putting him off. The plaintiff, rather than be put off, offered to pay the extra ten cents, but the conductor refused to receive it and expelled him from the cars. There was a trial by jury, and a verdict and judgment were rendered for the plaintiff. The defendant appeals.Grant & Grant and Peters & Heath, for appellant.

McCenery & O'Donnell, for appellee.

ADAMS, J.

1. The court instructed the jury that “every railroad company may charge one rate of fare to those passengers who purchase tickets before taking their seats in the cars, and exact an additional sum of those who neglect to do so, and such a regulation is a reasonable one. The reasonableness of the regulation is a question of fact for the jury to decide under all the circumstances of the case.”

The appellant insists that the court erred in instructing the jury that the reasonableness of the regulation was a question for them to decide. The different parts of the instruction do not seem to be consistent with each other. If the regulation were reasonable, as a matter of law, it was not a question of fact for the jury. But no question, we think, arose in regard to the reasonableness of the regulation. The regulation is allowed by statute. Chapter 68 of the Laws of the Fifteenth General Assembly. In our opinion the appellant's objection to the instruction is well taken. There might indeed be a question as to whether the facts were such in a given case that the regulation could be properly enforced. The statute provides that an extra charge of ten cents may be made where a ticket might have been procured within a reasonable time before the departure of the train. But in this case there is no pretence that a ticket might not have been procured within such time.

2. The court...