Memphis St. Ry. Co. v. Graves

• Decision Date: 23 May 1903
• Citation: 75 S.W. 729
• Parties: MEMPHIS ST. RY. CO. v. GRAVES.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

Page 729

75 S.W. 729

MEMPHIS ST. RY. CO. v. GRAVES.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

May 23, 1903.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Shelby County; J. S. Galloway, Judge.

Action by R. L. Graves against the Memphis Street Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Wright, Peters & Wright, for appellant. J. W. Canda, for appellee.

WILKES, J.

This is an action for the alleged unlawful ejection of the plaintiff from the car of the defendant company by one of its conductors The action was commenced before a justice of the peace. On appeal it was tried before the court and a jury, and there was a verdict and judgment for $50, and the street railway company has appealed and assigned errors.

The facts necessary to be stated are that the plaintiff boarded a car of the defendant company on its suburban line at the corner of Latham and McLemore streets. When he paid his fare, he asked for a transfer ticket to go east on Vance street. At the proper transfer point he boarded a Vance Street car, and, when the conductor of that car came for his fare, handed him the transfer ticket received from the conductor of the initial car. The conductor of the Vance Street car refused to recognize the transfer ticket, and after some parley the plaintiff was ejected from the car. He had no money with him, and was compelled to walk to his place of business, where he arrived late, causing him anxiety lest he lose his position. The plaintiff testifies that the conductor ejected him by force, over his protest and explanation, and treated him roughly. He testifies that, when he presented his transfer ticket, the conductor insolently and insultingly handed it back to him, saying: "This ain't no good. You will have to pay your fare." He further states that he politely protested, and informed the conductor that the conductor on the suburban line had given it to him as a transfer east on Vance street. To which the conductor replied, "You will have to get off," and thereupon had the car stopped, and jerked him by the arm in the presence of the passengers, and rudely and roughly carried him out of the car, and put him on the ground, without any explanation why he would not honor the transfer; that there were many passengers on the car, some of whom were ladies, and he was greatly humiliated and embarrassed; and that it was a rainy, disagreeable morning.

It is said that the court erred in charging the jury that "it was the duty of the defendant company, upon being applied to for a transfer, to furnish the plaintiff a proper transfer, and, if the conductor furnished the plaintiff a different transfer from the one called for, that would be the negligence of the conductor, and not the negligence of the plaintiff; that the plaintiff had the right to presume that the street car conductor would do his duty in the premises, and had a right to rely for passage upon the transfer given him." It is said, also, that it was error to charge it to be negligence on the part of the company if the conductor gave him a wrong transfer, and also that it was error to hold that the plaintiff could accept the transfer without question, and that his acceptance of a wrong transfer would not constitute negligence on his part. We think there is no error in the charge, and that the question has already, in principle and effect, been settled in the case of O'Rourke v. Street Railway Co., 103 Tenn. 126, 52 S. W. 872, 46 L. R. A. 614, 76 Am. St....