McGhee v. Drisdale

• Decision Date: 28 May 1896
• Parties: MCGHEE ET AL. v. DRISDALE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

20 So. 391

111 Ala. 597

MCGHEE ET AL. v. DRISDALE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 28, 1896

Appeal from circuit court, Colbert county; Thomas R. Roulhac, Judge.

This action was brought by the appellee, William E. Drisdale against the Memphis & Charleston Railroad Company, and Charles McGhee and Henry Fink, as receivers of the Memphis &amp Charleston Railroad Company, to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff by reason of being put off of one of the trains operated on the Memphis & Charleston Railroad. The cause was tried by the court, without the intervention of a jury; and, upon the hearing of all the evidence, the court rendered judgment for the plaintiff. The defendants appeal, and assign the rendition of this judgment as error. Reversed.

Humes Sheffey & Speake, for appellants.

James Jackson, for appellee.

HEAD J.

Without deciding whether a railway passenger is conclusively presumed to know of limitations printed or stamped on the back of his ticket, we have no doubt, under the evidence, that the appellee in this case knew, or ought to have known, his ticket was so limited. The limitation stamped on the back was as follows:

M. & C. R. R. ) This ticket will be void unless

Feb. 24, ) used before midnight of the day

1894. ) after the date stamped hereon.

Courtland. )

The plaintiff purchased the ticket at Courtland on February 24th to ride to Cherokee, in an adjoining county; kept it in his possession several days; and then undertook to use it. He testified that the agent from whom he purchased it did not inform him that it was a limited ticket, but he further testified as follows: That he would not be positive as to whether he read the indorsement on the back of the ticket, but it was the best of his recollection that he had not, but he knew the road, previous to that time, was selling such tickets, and his attention had been called to the indorsement on similar tickets sold by defendants; that Mr. Craig, defendant's agent at Cherokee, when he had sold him similar tickets, had called his attention to the indorsement on back of the ticket, and, previous to the time of said purchase, he knew of the existence and sale of such tickets by defendants. When the conductor explained to him that the ticket was out of date, and would not be received, he made no claim that he did not know of the limit, as was most natural for him to do if such had been the fact, but very promptly informed the conductor that he would have to put him off. Mr. Kirk, who was a passenger, sitting in...