Krueger v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Company

• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: CANTY, J.
• Citation: Krueger v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Company, 71 N.W. 683, 68 Minn. 445 (Minn. 1897)
• Decision Date: 08 June 1897
• Docket Number: 10,514--(115)
• Parties: JULIUS H. KRUEGER v. CHICAGO, ST. PAUL, MINNEAPOLIS & OMAHA RAILWAY COMPANY

71 N.W. 683

68 Minn. 445

JULIUS H. KRUEGER v. CHICAGO, ST. PAUL, MINNEAPOLIS & OMAHA RAILWAY COMPANY

Nos. 10,514--(115)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

June 8, 1897

Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the municipal court of Minneapolis, W. A. Kerr, J., denying a new trial after a dismissal of the action at the close of plaintiff's evidence. Reversed.

The order appealed from is reversed, and a new trial granted.

M. L Cormany, for appellant.

The passenger had the right to stand on his contract with the ticket agent, and if he was not furnished with a ticket evidencing his rights secured by the contract entered into the company should have corrected the mistake when the emergency required, and was liable for ejecting him from the train. Carsten v. Northern, 44 Minn. 454; Gulf v. Rather, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 72; Cain v Minneapolis, 39 Minn. 297; Burnham v. Grand Trunk, 63 Me. 298. It was the duty of the company to give plaintiff a perfect book plainly stamped and correctly punched. It knew of the terms of the contract through another agent, the one with whom the passenger dealt in purchasing his right to transportation. St. Louis v. Mackie, 71 Tex. 493; Pennsylvania v. Bray, 125 Ind. 229; Wightman v. Chicago, 73 Wis. 169; Head v Georgia, 79 Ga. 358; Baltimore v. Bambrey, 16 A. 67; International v. Hassell, 62 Tex. 256; Serwe v. Northern, 48 Minn. 78; Hufford v. Grand Rapids, 64 Mich. 631; Trice v. Chesapeake, 40 W.Va. 271. A passenger on a train with a defective ticket, but showing on its face to have been issued by the line controlling the train upon which he is riding, is not chargeable for the mistakes of the agents of the railroad company who have sold him that ticket, or evidence of passage, and the conductors handling the train. Gulf v. Rather, supra; Trice v. Chesapeake, supra; Head v. Georgia, supra; Pennsylvania v. Bray, supra; Laird v. Pittsburg, 166 Pa. 4.

L. K. Luse, Henry Conlin, and T. A. Polleys, for respondent.

The mileage book, even if considered as nothing more than an ordinary ticket, was conclusive as to appellant's right to ride as between himself and the conductor. Elliott, Railroads, § 1594; Pouilin v. Canadian, 52 F. 197. See particularly in this connection Frederick v. Marquette, 37 Mich. 342; Hufford v. Grand Rapids, 53 Mich. 118; Bradshaw v. South, 135 Mass. 407; Callaway v. Mellett, 15 Ind.App. 366; Peabody v. Oregon, 21 Ore. 121; Yorton v. Milwaukee, 54 Wis. 234. The passenger who begins his trip upon a ticket which is, by the express terms set forth upon its face, expired and void, may be lawfully ejected from the train upon his refusal to pay fare, and, as between himself and the conductor, the face of the ticket is conclusive as to his right to ride. Carsten v. Northern, 44 Minn. 454; Pine v. St. Paul, 50 Minn. 144; McLean v. Chicago, 50 Minn. 485; Appleby v. St. Paul, 54 Minn. 169. The mileage book was an express contract, signed by the plaintiff, and he was bound by the conditions expressed in it, whether he did or did not read them or know what they were. Boylan v. Hot Springs, 132 U.S. 146; Fonseca v. Cunard, 153 Mass. 553; Rahilly v. St. Paul, 66 Minn. 153; Dunlap v. Northern, 35 Minn. 203; Louisville v. Nicholai, 4 Ind.App. 119; Johnson v. Philadelphia, 63 Md. 106; Pennington v. Philadelphia, 62 Md. 95; Howard v. Chicago, 61 Miss. 194; Mosher v. St. Louis, 127 U.S. 390; Central Trust v. East Tennessee, 65 F. 332; Trice v. Chesapeake, 40 W.Va. 271; Abram v. Gulf, 83 Tex. 61; Sherman v. C. & N., 40 Iowa 45. The right to insist that the mileage book was expired and void was not waived. Hill v. Syracuse, 63 N.Y. 101; Dietrich v. Pennsylvania, 71 Pa. 432; Johnson v. Concord, 46 N.H. 213; Trotlinger v. East, 11 Lea, 533; New York v. Feely, 163 Mass. 205; Sherman v. C. & N., supra. If, through mistake, the mileage book failed to state upon its face the correct date of expiration, it was none the less binding upon plaintiff until reformed. Morrison v. Lovejoy, 6 Minn. 224 (319); St. Anthony v. Merriman, 35 Minn. 42; Quinby v. Shearer, 56 Minn. 534.

OPINION

CANTY, J.

Plaintiff alleges that he was a passenger on defendant's train, was ejected therefrom by the conductor, and claims damages therefor. On the trial, the court dismissed the action at the close of plaintiff's evidence, and from an order denying a new trial plaintiff appeals. It appears by the evidence that plaintiff is a traveling man. On June 29, 1895, he purchased of the railroad station agent at Redwood Falls, in this state, a mileage ticket or book in the ordinary form, containing 2,000 miles of transportation, for which he paid $ 50. There was a contract printed on the cover which he signed. The date of issue was also stamped on the cover, and on the margin of the cover was a series of dates, the proper day, month, and year in which were to be punched so as to indicate the time when the right to use the transportation would expire. By mistake, the date June 29, 1895, was punched, so as to make the transportation expire on the day it was issued, instead of a year later, as was intended. The year 1895 was punched instead of the year 1896. The contract so signed stated, among other things, that the 2,000 mile ticket was issued for the exclusive use of plaintiff, was not transferable, was subject to conditions named therein, and was "void for passage after date canceled in margin."

Plaintiff used this ticket until January 15, 1896, without objection, by which time 1,600 miles of the transportation had been torn out of the book, and taken up by the company for plaintiff's fare on its trains, leaving 400 miles still in the book. On that day, plaintiff boarded defendant's passenger train at Minneapolis, for the purpose of riding thereon to Shakopee, in this state. Between Minneapolis and St. Paul the conductor demanded fare, and plaintiff presented him the mileage book. The conductor noticed the date at which it was punched to expire, and refused to accept the mileage contained in it for plaintiff's fare. Plaintiff testified:

"I told him where I bought it, and about when I got it, and showed him the stamp on the back. He says, 'It is very evident that the book was punched a year by mistake, and you will have to take the book as it is.'"

On arriving at St. Paul, the conductor again demanded plaintiff's fare. Plaintiff refused to pay anything except the transportation in the book, and thereupon the conductor caught him by the arm, and led him out of the car onto the platform. He then hastened to the depot, purchased a new ticket, and again boarded the same train, and rode to his destination.

1. We are of the opinion that there was sufficient evidence to sustain a verdict for plaintiff for some amount, and that the court below erred in dismissing the action. It is contended by respondent that there is no evidence that there was any mistake in punching the date on which the ticket should expire, and no evidence that there was any agreement that the ticket should expire on any other date than the one punched. The point is not well taken. Respondent itself, as a part of its cross-examination, introduced in evidence a bulletin or circular letter to its conductors, signed by its general passenger agent, in which it is stated that this ticket was erroneously limited to expire June 29, 1895, and that it should be honored by the conductors until June 29, 1896, and plaintiff admitted that, shortly after he was ejected, he was shown a copy of this bulletin.

2. Respondent also contends that the mileage book so signed by plaintiff is a complete contract in itself; that it must be reformed in equity to correct the alleged mistake and that, until so reformed, plaintiff must stand on the contract as written, citing such cases as Rahilly v. St. Paul, 66 Minn. 153, 68 N.W. 853; Boylan v. Hot Springs, 132 U.S. 146, 10 S.Ct. 50, 33 L.Ed. 290, and Fonseca v. Cunard, 153 Mass. 553, 27 N.E. 665. Most of the cases so cited merely hold that, where the passenger signs or accepts such a contract, he is bound by its provisions, whether he read them or expressly consented to them or not. But suppose the contract as written or printed is contrary to the express oral agreement between the parties; must the passenger go into a court of equity, and have the contract reformed, before he can insist that the common carrier shall perform it, or respect it, or pay damages for failure to do so? Would not such a rule of law be contrary to public policy? Is it public policy to throw such a burden on the passenger, and thus to offer a premium on the commission of errors and mistakes by the common carrier, and to shield it in this manner from the consequences of those errors and mistakes? The passenger usually makes his contract for transportation just before entering upon his journey. If he must have his ticket reformed before he can ride upon it, will it not in most cases be worthless to him, especially if the ticket is not transferable or will expire in a limited time? The common carrier is performing a public duty, and is it not contrary to public policy to allow it to adopt any method of doing business which will unnecessarily or unreasonably shield it from the consequences of its own errors and blunders in the performance of that duty, even though such method is adopted only in cases where it carries passengers at reduced rates? But it is unnecessary to decide...