McVeety v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 20 January 1891
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Parties: MCVEETY v ST. PAUL, M. & M. RY. CO.

45 Minn. 268

47 N.W. 809

MCVEETYvST. PAUL, M. & M. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Jan. 20, 1891.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

If a person knowingly induces the conductor of a railway train to violate a rule of the company, and to carry him without charge, he is guilty of a fraud on the company, and cannot claim the rights of a passenger.

Appeal from district court, Wright county; SMITH, Judge.

Action by Alexander McVeety against the St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railroad Company, for injuries received by him while on defendant's train. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

M. D. Grover and R. A. Wilkinson, for appellant.

J. J. Wooley and F. E. Latham, (Wendell & Pidgeon, of counsel,) for respondent.

COLLINS, J.

On the trial of this action, it was defendant's contention that, although plaintiff was on its train, a freight with a caboose attached, when the accident occurred in which he claims to have been injured, he was not a passenger to whom it owed any duty. Testimony was introduced tending to show that plaintiff had not paid his fare; had no ticket; that on boarding the train he had solicited the conductor, an acquaintance, to permit him to ride without paying his fare; and that the latter had consented. The defendant then offered to prove by the conductor that when soliciting that he be carried without paying his fare, the plaintiff knew that the conductor had no authority to allow it. To this offer the court sustained an objection, defendant duly excepting. This ruling was erroneous, and a new trial must be had. It is probable that there is authority for the statement that when the conductor of a train disobeys the rules of the company for which he is acting, in regard to the collection of fare from a traveler, or in respect to some other matters, such, for instance, as permitting him upon a forbidden part of the train or upon a train not allowed to carry passengers, the traveler has all the rights of a passenger, if he has no notice of the rule, express or implied, or of the conductor's disobedience. But if a person solicits and secures free transportation, or if he rides upon a part of the train from which passengers are excluded, or takes passage upon a train not allowed to carry passengers, knowing that his act is against the rules of the carrier, and in permitting it the conductor is disobedient, he is guilty of a fraud, and not entitled to a passenger's rights. Railway Co. v. Brooks, 81 Ill. 245; ...