Jardine v. Cornell

• Decision Date: 20 June 1888
• Citation: 50 N.J.L. 485,14 A. 590
• Parties: JARDINE v. CORNELL et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

14 A. 590

50 N.J.L. 485

JARDINE

v. CORNELL et al.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

June 20, 1888.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Case certified from circuit court, Union county; before Justice VAN SYCKEL.

On rule to show cause why a new trial should not be granted. Plaintiff purchased, at Railway, a ticket consisting of three parts, viz., a ticket from Railway to Waverly, an admission ticket to the state fair at Waverly, and a return ticket from Waverly to Rahway. The plaintiff was carried to Waverly, and was admitted to the fair grounds. In the evening, he returned by train from Waverly, in company with his brother and an employe. Soon after leaving Waverly station, the conductor of the defendant's train asked the plaintiff for his ticket, whereupon plaintiff offered him the part of the ticket which entitled him to admission to the fair-grounds. The conductor refused to receive this ticket, and told plaintiff that he must pay a fare or leave the train, which the plaintiff refused to do. The train made its regular stop at Elizabeth; and, as it was about leaving that station, the conductor came to plaintiff, and demanded that he pay his fare or leave the train, which plaintiff again refused to do. The conductor then summoned from the station platform the city police on duty there. Plaintiff at this time was seated next to the window, his brother occupied the half of the same seat next the aisle, and his employe was seated near by. The police notified plaintiff: that he must leave the car, which plaintiff refused to do. An effort was made by the officer to pull him out of his seat, which, as the plaintiff forcibly resisted, proved ineffectual. At this juncture a general affray arose, during which plaintiff was forcibly removed from the car to the city station-house. For injuries received in the manner above detailed, plaintiff brought his suit against the conductor and the railroad company. A verdict of $1,750 was recovered.

Argued February term, 1888, before BEASLEY, C. J., and MAGIE and GARRISON, JJ.

C. Parker, for plaintiff. E. T. Green, for defendants.

GARRISON, J., (after stating the facts as above.) An examination of the plaintiff's case shows that the only act ascribed directly to either of the defendants is that Cornell, the conductor, invoked the aid of the police. This act is significant only as a means of imputing the conduct of the officers to the defendants in this suit. That such a result may be reached, is evident from the following well-established principles of law: The agents of a railroad company have a right to forcibly eject from the train a passenger who, being unprovided with a proper ticket, refuses to pay a fare or to leave the train. State v. Overton, 24 N. J. Law, 435; Carpenter v. Railroad Co., 121 U. S. 474, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1002. If, in ejecting a passenger, more violence is used than is necessary for that purpose, the company and its agents are liable for damages resulting from such excess of violence. Steam Boat Co. v. Brockett, 121 U. S. 637, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1039. A police officer, by responding to the invitation of the regular agents of the company to aid in enforcing its regulations, becomes, for that purpose, a special agent of the company, and for the conduct of such special agent, within the scope of his employment, the company is responsible. Collett v. Foster, 2 Hurl. & N. 356; Bayley v. Railway Co., L. R. 7 C. P. 415; Buruap v. Marsh, 13 Ill. 535. The application of these uncontroverted legal principles resulted, at the trial of this cause, in the submission to the jury of the single question of fact, whether the force employed by the police was at any time excessive. This disposition of the case assumes that the original acceptance by the police of a special agency to aid in...