Hoffman v. Northern Pacific R. Co.

• Decision Date: 15 December 1890
• Citation: 45 Minn. 53
• Parties: A. L. HOFFMAN <I>vs.</I> NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 53

45 Minn. 53

A. L. HOFFMANvs.

NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

December 15, 1890.

Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Crow Wing county, Searle, J., presiding, (acting for the judge of the 15th district,) refusing a new trial after a trial before Holland, J., and verdict of $300 for plaintiff.

Tilden R. Selmes, for appellant.

J. B. Douglas and Wetherby, True & Warner, for respondent.

DICKINSON, J.

This action is for the recovery of damages for an alleged assault and threatened expulsion of the plaintiff from a passenger train of the defendant. The facts are so nearly like those in Carsten against this same defendant, 44 Minn. 454, (47 N. W. Rep. 49,) our decision in which has been recently filed, that we refer to the report of that case both as stating substantially the facts of this case, except as herein otherwise stated, and as deciding some of the legal questions identical in both, and which will therefore not be particularly noticed here. This plaintiff got on the train at Minneapolis to go to Brainerd, having a ticket which had been issued by defendant for passage from Wadena to Minneapolis and return, and which, having been used for passage to Minneapolis, entitled the holder to the return passage. The plaintiff had purchased it of a ticket broker, but, as was held in the Carsten Case, the use of the ticket was not restricted to the original holder, and the plaintiff, owning the ticket, had the right to be carried from Minneapolis to Wadena. Brainerd was an intermediate station. When the ticket exchanger came through the cars, taking up tickets, and giving out checks in their place, to be taken up by the conductor, he refused to accept the plaintiff's ticket, for the reason that it had been purchased from a ticket broker, — a "scalper," — and he stated that the plaintiff would have to pay his fare or get off the train. When the conductor came to the plaintiff, he refused to receive the ticket for fare, because, as he testified, and as his language at the time indicated, the ticket exchanger had refused to take it. Several times the conductor talked with the plaintiff, telling him that he could not take the ticket, and that the plaintiff must pay his fare or get off the train. The plaintiff said that he could do neither; that he had no money, and must get home. No intemperate language was used until after several interviews of a like import, when, according to the plaintiff's testimony, some two hours after starting, the train being at a station, the conductor said to the plaintiff, with an oath, "Stop this monkey work. Get off here, or else pay your fare." The plaintiff not moving, the conductor then seized him by the shoulder and arm, and was moving him towards the door to put him off, the plaintiff offering no resistance, when another passenger, who had promised the plaintiff to pay his fare if necessary, did pay it. The plaintiff evidently did not intend to pay the fare demanded, nor to leave the train, until actually compelled to do so; and no more violence was used than was necessary to enforce the demand that the plaintiff pay the...