Nichols v. Union Pacific Railway Co.

• Decision Date: 12 September 1891
• Court: Utah Supreme Court
• Parties: THURSA NICHOLS, AND ANOTHER, RESPONDENTS, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, APPELLANT

27 P. 693

7 Utah 510

THURSA NICHOLS, AND ANOTHER, RESPONDENTS, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, APPELLANT

Supreme Court of Utah

September 12, 1891

APPEAL from a judgment of the district court of the first district and from an order refusing a new trial. The opinion states the facts.

Judgment affirmed, less $ 42 interest.

Messrs Williams and Van Cott, for the appellant.

Messrs Maloney and Perkins, for the respondents.

BLACKBURN J. ZANE, C. J., and ANDERSON, J., concurred.

OPINION

BLACKBURN, J.:

This suit is brought to recover damages for ejecting the plaintiff, Thursa Nichols, from defendant's cars while riding as a passenger. She was riding from Hot Springs, Utah, to Willard station. The facts developed at the trial are substantially as follows: She had ridden in defendant's cars from Salt Lake City to Hot Springs on a ticket to Hot Springs. She continued on the train beyond, and wanted to go to Willard station. The conductor asked for her fare when the train had passed Hot Springs about one and a half miles. She offered him twenty-five cents, the regular fare from Hot Springs to Willard. He refused to accept it, and said it was fifty cents when paid on the train, and told her she must pay fifty cents or get off. That she did not do, and he stopped the train, and caused her to get off, and treated her very abruptly. The verdict of the jury was for $ 175, and $ 42 interest from October 10, 1890. The defendant made a motion for a new trial, which was overruled, and it appeals.

Many errors are assigned for reversal, but only two are insisted upon in the argument, and we do not deem it necessary to consider the others. They are: (1) The court erred in charging the jury that the appellant could only eject passengers at a station or stopping place for non-payment of fare. (2) The court erred in charging the jury that interest should be added to the damages at the rate of eight per cent. per annum.

The first of these contentions is untenable. The statute of the Territory is: "Any passenger who refuses to prepay his fare or toll on demand may be put off the cars at any stopping place the conductor or employe of the company may elect." 2 Comp. Laws, § 2354. If before that statute was passed the company had not the right to eject a passenger who refused to pay his fare on demand, it gave it the right, but limited its exercise to a stopping place. If it had the right, in that case the statute would be entirely meaningless, unless it is a limitation of the right to a stopping place. Before the passage of this statute, any common carrier had the right to refuse to carry passengers unless they paid their fare on demand, and to exclude from their vehicles of...