Hornesby v. Ga. Ry. & Electric Co

• Decision Date: 11 August 1904
• Citation: 120 Ga. 913,48 S.E. 339
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court
• Parties: HORNESBY v. GEORGIA RY. & ELECTRIC CO.

48 S.E. 339

120 Ga. 913

HORNESBY

v.GEORGIA RY. & ELECTRIC CO.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Aug. 11, 1904.

STREET RAILROADS—TRANSFERS—EXPULSION OF PASSENGER.

1. Where a street railroad company voluntarily permits passengers to transfer from one of its cars to another and continue their journey without the payment of additional fare, it is reasonable to require, as a condition precedent to the exercise of this right, that the passenger shall tender to the conductor of the second car a printed transfer check, which must be used within a time indicated by punch marks on the check, provided a car upon which the passenger can be conveniently and comfortably transported passes the transfer point within the time so limited.

¶ 1. See Carriers, vol. 9, Cent. Dig. §§ 1060, 1062

2. A person who fails to comply with such requirement, and who refuses to pay fare, cannot recover for an expulsion from the car, when he does not show that his failure to have a valid transfer check was due to the fault of some employs of the company having authority in such matters.

3. It follows that no recovery can be had where the initial car does not reach the transfer point until after the time indicated by the punch marks on the check, and the passenger voluntarily leaves the car before it reaches such point, and makes an unsuccessful attempt to walk to the transfer point before the time limit expires. In such a case it is the duty of the passenger to remain on the car, and give the conductor an opportunity to make arrangements for his transportation on the transfer car; and this is true even though it is the custom of the company not to issue new transfer checks where the initial car is delayed.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from City Court of Atlanta; H. M. Reid, Judge.

Action by W. L. Hornesby against the Georgia Railway & Electric Company. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

O. E. & M. C. Horton, for plaintiff in error.

Rosser & Brandon and Walter T. Colquitt, for defendant in error.

COBB, J. There is no statute in this state requiring street railroad companies to issue transfers. It is not claimed that there is anything in the charter of the city of Atlanta which authorizes its governing authorities to pass an ordinance to compel such railroad companies operating within its limits to issue transfers. See, in this connection, City of Atlanta v. Old Colony Trust Co., 88 Fed. 859. 32 C. C. A. 125. When there is no law or valid city ordinance re quiring a street railroad company to issue transfers, and it does not hold out to the world that It will issue such transfers without condition or restriction, a rule or custom that the right to ride upon a car to which a transfer is made without the payment of additional fare shall be evidenced by a printed slip delivered by the conductor to the passenger on the car in which the fare is paid, is reasonable and binding upon the passenger. And it is also reasonable to require that such slip shall be used within a limited time after its issuance—such time to be indicated by punch marks on the slip— provided that within the time limited there passes the transfer point a car upon which the passenger can be conveniently and comfortably transported. See Booth on St. Rds. § 237; Nellis on St. Surf. Rds. §§ 6, 8, pp. 432. 440; Nellis on St. Rd. Ac. Law, p. 83, § 15; Clark's Accident Law, § 81; Mahoney v. Street R. Co. (Mich.) 53 N. W. 793, 18 L. R. A. 335, 32 Am. St. Rep. 528; Heffron v. City R. Co. (Mich.) 52 N. W. 802, 16 L. R. A. 345. In the present case it does not appear that the street railroad company has held out to the world that it will issue transfers without condition or restriction. The plaintiff boarded one of the cars and paid his fare, and the conductor, at his request, delivered to him a transfer slip to another line, with the time in which it was to be used indicated thereon by punch marks. The car was delayed, and the plaintiff voluntarily left the same and endeavored to reach the transfer point, but failed to arrive there in time to take the car passing within the time limited on the transfer slip. He boarded the next car passing the transfer point after the time limit had expired, and the conductor on that car refused to accept the transfer slip, and ejected him upon his refusal to pay his fare. Under the petition as amended, there is no claim that the manner in which the ejection was made was such as to give rise to a cause of action, independently of the question whether the plaintiff had a right to ride upon tendering the transfer slip; the sole question being whether the plaintiff had a right, as matter of law, to be...