M'Lean v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 14 July 1892
• Citation: 50 Minn. 485
• Parties: FRED McLEAN <I>vs.</I> CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O. RY. CO.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

50 Minn. 485

FRED McLEANvs.

CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Submitted on briefs June 28, 1892.

Decided July 14, 1892.

Appeal by defendant, the Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Omaha Railway Company, from an order of the District Court, Blue Earth County, Severance, J., made March 10, 1892, refusing a new trial.

The plaintiff, Fred McLean, residing at Lake Crystal, Minn., on the line of defendant's road, applied to the ticket agent there for a ticket to Madelia on said line, and for a permit to make the trip on

one of defendant's freight trains. The ticket agent furnished him a ticket, for which he paid, and also a permit. Certain blanks in the permit were not filled out in accordance with the rules of the company, and the conductor refused to accept it, and stopping the train, put plaintiff off without force. The plaintiff walked back to Lake Crystal, about two miles. This was about five o'clock A. M., November 13, 1890, a dark and foggy morning. This action was brought to recover damages for the expulsion of plaintiff from the train. The case was tried December 2, 1891, before a jury, and resulted in a verdict of $250 for the plaintiff. A motion for a new trial was made on the grounds of excessive damages, and that the verdict was not justified by the evidence, and contrary to law. From an order denying this motion, defendant appealed.

S. L. Perrin and Lorin Cray, for appellant.

D. A. Reed and Wm. N. Plymat, for respondent.

COLLINS, J.

There is no substantial difference between the facts in this case and those recently considered in Finch v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 47 Minn. 36, (49 N. W. Rep. 329,) or in the rules of law which govern. There the plaintiff, unable to buy a ticket at the station where he boarded a passenger train, the office being closed, was obliged to leave the train because he refused to pay a small sum demanded by the conductor in good faith, and in accordance with a rule of the railway company, in addition to the regular fare. Here the plaintiff had purchased a ticket, and had obtained, as he supposed, and as required by a regulation of defendant corporation, a permit to ride upon the freight train in question. He was compelled to leave the train because of a defect in the permit in that certain blanks therein were not filled, wholly the fault of defendant's station agent from whom it was obtained. This was shortly after five o'clock in the morning of November 13, 1890, and plaintiff was...