Appeal
from circuit court, Morgan county, H. C. Speake, Judge.
Action
by Mariah Reynolds against Charles M. McGhee and Henry Fink
receivers of the Memphis & Charleston Railroad Company.
Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants appeals. Reversed.
This is
the second appeal in this case. After the reversal of the
judgment and remandment of the cause on the former appeal
the complaint was amended by striking out the first and third
counts thereof, and adding the fourth and fifth counts. In
the second count of the complaint the plaintiff claimed $500
as damages, and then averred that the defendants, as
receivers, were operating the Memphis & Charleston Railroad
and were engaged in transporting passengers and traffic for
hire; that on June 22, 1894, the plaintiff purchased a ticket
of the defendants for her transportation as a passenger on
the defendants' cars from Decatur, Ala., to Huntsville
Ala., and return to Decatur. The second count of the
complaint then continued as follows: "That one of the
terms and conditions of the ticket sold by defendant to
plaintiff was as follows: That it is not good for return
passage unless the holder identifies himself as the original
purchaser before the authorized agent of the Memphis &
Charleston Railroad at point first named above (which
plaintiff avers was Huntsville), and when officially signed
and dated in ink, and duly stamped by said agent, this ticket
shall then be good only for a continuous passage to starting
point, as last named above (which plaintiff avers was
Decatur, Ala.), only on next passenger train leaving after
date of said identification, but in no case later than the
date canceled in margin (which plaintiff avers was October
31, 1894). Plaintiff avers that on, to wit, June 22, 1894
she did travel as a passenger on said ticket on
defendants' cars from Decatur, Alabama, to Huntsville,
Alabama, and on or about June 22, 1894, presented herself for
identification as the original purchaser of said ticket to
the authorized agent of defendants in charge of the Memphis &
Charleston Railroad at Huntsville, Alabama, and offered proof
of her identity as required by said ticket, and plaintiff
avers that said agent at Huntsville, Alabama, was the agent
of defendants, and as such was acting within the scope of his
authority. Plaintiff further avers that she requested of said
agent of defendants at Huntsville, Alabama (whose name is
unknown to plaintiff), to fix her said ticket in all respects
as was required by the stipulation on plaintiff's ticket
as is above set forth. Plaintiff avers that it was within the
scope of the duties of said authorized agent, prescribed by
his employment, and his duty as the agent of defendants, to
officially sign and date and stamp in ink the said ticket of
plaintiff, but the said agent wholly refused and failed to do
so, though requested to do so, and though plaintiff had
offered proof of her identity to said agent, as was required
by the terms of said ticket. Plaintiff further avers that
after said agent at Huntsville, Alabama, refused to sign and
date and stamp her ticket, as is above averred, she took
passage at Huntsville, Alabama, on or about June 22, 1894, on
the next passenger train of defendants, bound for Decatur,
Alabama, in all respects as she was required and authorized
to do, under the stipulations of said ticket purchased by her
of defendants; that while she was occupying a seat in
defendants' said passenger train, in a lawful and
peaceable manner, the conductor of said train, an officer and
employé of defendants, who at the time was acting as agent
for defendants, and within the scope of his authority as
conductor in charge of said train, demanded of plaintiff fare
from Huntsville, Alabama, to Decatur, Alabama; that plaintiff
tendered to said officer and agent of defendants, who at the
time was in charge and control of said train, the said ticket
that she had purchased of defendants, and had tendered to
defendants' authorized agent in Huntsville, Alabama, to
be signed, dated, and stamped by said agent; that the said
conductor of defendants' train refused to accept said
ticket, refused to allow or permit plaintiff to ride on said
train from Huntsville to Decatur, but, against the protest
and objections of plaintiff, forcibly, roughly, unlawfully,
wrongfully, and willfully ejected plaintiff from said car,
and refused to allow or permit her to ride thereon; wherefore
plaintiff says that by the wrongful, violent, and forcible
conduct of defendants, which was knowingly and willfully
done, that plaintiff suffered pecuniary loss, and endured
mental and bodily suffering, to her damage five hundred
($500.00) dollars; wherefore she brings this suit." The
fourth count of the complaint, after setting out the purchase
of said ticket of the defendants' duly-authorized agent,
then continued as follows: "Plaintiff avers that said
ticket was purchased by her from the regular and authorized
ticket agent of defendants at Decatur, Alabama, and (at the
time of the purchase she informed defendants' said agent
that she could not read nor write, and was unable to sign her
name thereto; whereupon defendants' said agent, one F. G.
Morrow, procured another person to sign plaintiff's name
to said ticket. Plaintiff further avers that said agent did
not inform plaintiff of the terms and stipulations of said
ticket, and that she had no actual knowledge of the contents
of said ticket, because of her inability to read, and because
she was not informed by said agent. Said agent did inform
plaintiff that when she got on the train to go to Huntsville
the conductor of said train would tear the ticket in two;
that he would keep one-half of it, and give back to plaintiff
one-half; that, before plaintiff could return upon the part
of the ticket given back to her, she would have to take it to
the ticket agent of defendants at Huntsville, Alabama, and
have him fix it for plaintiff.) Plaintiff avers that on, to
wit, June 22, 1894, she did travel on said ticket as a
passenger on defendants' cars from Decatur, Alabama, to
Huntsville, Alabama (and on or about the same day and date
she presented said ticket to the ticket agent of defendants
at Huntsville, Alabama, whose name is to plaintiff unknown,
who was the authorized agent of defendants to sell and fix
tickets, and at the time was acting as such, and requested
him, the said ticket agent, to fix her ticket so that she
could return to Decatur, Alabama, on said ticket, on the cars
of defendants. Plaintiff avers that it was within the scope
of said ticket agent's authority to fix her tickets as
requested, and it was his duty so to do. When said ticket was
presented to said agent as aforesaid, the said agent took
said ticket, looked at it, informed plaintiff that it was
already fixed, that there was nothing wrong with said ticket,
that the same was all right, and that she could go from
Huntsville to Decatur on said ticket without fixing it any
further.) Plaintiff avers that she had no actual knowledge to
the contrary, and that by reason of the wanton, willful, or
gross negligence of said ticket agent in not doing his duty,
and fixing said ticket so that plaintiff could return thereon
as a passenger on defendants' cars to Decatur, Alabama,
(plaintiff, when she attempted to do so, was expelled by the
conductor of said train, who was the authorized agent of
defendants, and at the time acting as defendants' agent,
and within the scope of his authority as such, in a rude,
rough, and angry manner, and with words of insult in a coarse
and brutal manner), so that plaintiff suffered much pecuniary
damage and physical pain and mental anguish. (Said ejection
from said train took place about two miles from Huntsville,
Ala. The weather was hot and the roads dusty, and plaintiff
was physically ill, and in this condition, by reason of said
ejection, which was caused by said ticket agent not doing his
duty, as aforesaid, plaintiff was compelled to walk back to
Huntsville.) (Plaintiff avers that upon her return to
Huntsville as aforesaid,...
