Muldoon v. Seattle City Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 17 December 1894
• Citation: 10 Wash. 311,38 P. 995
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: MULDOON v. SEATTLE CITY RY. CO.

38 P. 995

10 Wash. 311

MULDOON v. SEATTLE CITY RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Washington

December 17, 1894

Appeal from superior court, King county; R. Osborn, Judge.

Action by F. M. Muldoon against the Seattle City Railway Company for personal injuries. There was a judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

For opinion on prior appeal, see 35 P. 422.

Thompson Edsen & Humphries, for appellant.

Burleigh & Gamble, for respondent.

STILES, J.

Upon the remittance of this case after the former decision (7 Wash. 528, 35 P. 422), the plaintiff filed a reply containing two defenses to the matter concerning the free pass set up in the answer. In the first it is alleged that at the time of receiving the pass appellant was a duly elected, qualified and acting member of the common council of Seattle, being a member of the house of delegates from the Second ward; that the pass was issued and delivered to him by respondent with full knowledge of all the facts, and for the reason and cause that appellant was such public officer, and not otherwise. It is further alleged that appellant received and accepted the pass so tendered as a public officer, in his official capacity, and used the same to ride upon respondent's cars because of his being such public officer, and not otherwise. In the second it is alleged that the pass was delivered to appellant bound and inclosed in a leather case so constructed as to conceal all portions of the pass except the face, so that in using it in riding to and fro upon the respondent's road it was unnecessary to remove it from the case, but it was only necessary to exhibit the exposed face of the pass to the conductors. It is further alleged that neither at the time of receiving the pass, nor at any time thereafter, prior to the injury complained of, did the appellant ever have any knowledge, notice, or information that there was printed upon the back of said pass, or upon any part thereof, the conditions and charges set forth in the answer. To these defenses a demurrer was sustained, and this appeal calls for a decision as to their sufficiency. It is maintained, in the first place, that, because the constitution of the state (article 12, § 20) forbids transportation companies to grant passes to public officers, when that prohibition was violated by the respondent both the pass and the condition were void, and the parties were placed in the position that the street-railroad company was carrying the appellant as though he were an ordinary free...