McClure v. Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 22 June 1871
• Citation: 34 Md. 532
• Parties: ELISHA P. P. MCCLURE v. THE PHILADELPHIA, WILMINGTON AND BALTIMORE RAILROAD COMPANY.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

34 Md. 532

ELISHA P. P. MCCLURE v. THE PHILADELPHIA, WILMINGTON AND BALTIMORE RAILROAD COMPANY.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

June 22, 1871

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Baltimore City.

The facts are given in the opinion of the Court.

At the trial below, the plaintiff offered the following prayers:

1. Even should the jury find from the evidence that the conductor of the train in question had a right under the regulations of the company, and the contract made with the plaintiff, should they find such contract, to put the plaintiff off the train in question, the plaintiff is entitled to recover, if they find that in so doing he acted in an unwarrantable manner, as to time or place or mode thereof.

2. That even should the jury find from the evidence that the plaintiff would have been confined by the terms of his ticket to the particular train on which he then was; still, if they further find that before leaving said train, the plaintiff as a matter of precaution, enquired of an authorized agent of the company, whether he would be permitted to lie over under the check he then held, and was informed that "he would be," that said check was good until taken up, then the fact of his ticket or check having contained any such instruction, would not of itself prevent the plaintiff from recovering.

3. Even should the jury find from the evidence that the conductor of the train in question had a right to put the plaintiff off the plaintiff is entitled to recover, if they find from the evidence, that in so doing, the conductor required him to leave while the train was in motion, or put him off at a place where there was no station.

4. Even if the jury should find from the evidence that the conductor of the train in question, had a right to put the plaintiff off, the plaintiff is entitled to recover, if they find from the evidence, that in so doing, the said conductor put him off at a place where there was no station or house near at hand, or any adjacent place for shelter or food, or at any unusual place.

The following instruction was asked by the defendant:

If the jury shall find from the evidence that the plaintiff, on the 1st day of May, 1867, purchased at New York, a through ticket from that place to Baltimore, over the New Jersey railroad and P. W. & B. R. Road, and on that day proceeded on his journey as far as Perryville, on the last named road, where he left the train; and if the jury shall further find that after passing Philadelphia, the then conductor of the train took up said through ticket and gave plaintiff the check in lieu thereof, which has been offered in evidence; and if the jury shall further find that the plaintiff, on the 6th day of said May, got upon the defendant's train for Baltimore at Havre-de-Grace, and the then conductor refused to take said check, but informed the plaintiff that he must pay his fare to Baltimore, or he would be obliged to stop the cars and put him off, and that the defendant refused to pay said fare, and the said plaintiff was then put off, then the plaintiff is not entitled to recover in this case; provided the jury shall find that no more force than was necessary was used in putting said plaintiff off the train, even if the jury shall further find, that on arriving at Perryville on the train, on the said first day of May, the plaintiff enquired from a man at the window of the ticket office of the defendant at that place, whether said check would be good to take him on to Baltimore another day, and was told by said man that it would.

The Court rejected the first, second and third prayers of the plaintiff, and granted the fourth, as also the prayer of the defendant. The plaintiff excepted to the ruling of the Court in rejecting his prayers and granting the prayer of the defendant, and the verdict and judgment being against him, he appealed.

The cause was argued before BARTOL, C.J., STEWART, MAULSBY GRASON, MILLER and ALVEY, J.

Albert Ritchie, for the appellant, cited the following authorities:

Balto. & O. R. R. vs. Blocker, 27 Md., 277; Goddard vs. Grand Trunk R. R., 10 A. L. R., 17; Terre Haute A. & St. L. R. R. vs. Vanatta, 21 Ill., 188; Du Laurans vs. St. P. & P. R. R., 15 Minn., 49; Holmes vs. Wakefield. 12 Allen, 580; Sanford vs. 8th Av. R. R., 23 N. Y., 343.

Thomas Donaldson, for the appellee, referred to

Balto. C. Pass. R. vs. Wilkinson, 30 Md., 224; 2 Redfield on R., 219; C. C. & C. R. R. vs. Bartram, 11 Ohio, 457; Cheney vs. B. & M. R. R. Co., 11 Metc., 121; Beebe vs. Ayres, 28 Barb., (N. Y.,) 275; Johnson vs. Concord R. R., 46 N. H., 213; State vs. Overton, 4 Zab., 435.

GRASON J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

At the trial of this case in the Court below the plaintiff offered four prayers, the last of which was granted and the others were rejected, and the defendant offered one prayer which was granted. The plaintiff excepted to the rejection of his first three prayers and to the granting of the defendant's prayer, and the judgment being against him, he has taken this appeal.

The first question to be considered is, whether a person, who has purchased a through ticket from New York to Baltimore, taken his place in a train, and entered upon his journey, has the right to leave the train at a way-station on the route, and, afterwards, to enter another train and proceed to his original point of destination, without procuring another ticket or paying his fare from the station at which he again enters the car. We think it clear that he cannot.

The contract between the parties is that upon the payment of the fare the company undertakes to carry the passenger to the point named, and he is furnished with a ticket as evidence that he has paid the required fare and is entitled to be carried to the place named. When the passenger has once elected the train on which he is to be transported, and entered upon his journey, he has no right, unless the contract has been modified by competent...