Ohage v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 28 October 1912
• Docket Number: 3,744.
• Citation: 200 F. 128
• Parties: OHAGE v. NORTHERN PAC. RY. CO.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

200 F. 128

OHAGE v. NORTHERN PAC. RY. CO.

No. 3,744.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

October 28, 1912

John W Willis, of St. Paul, Minn. (Emil W. Helmes, of St. Paul Minn., on the brief), for plaintiff in error.

Charles Donnelly, of St. Paul, Minn. (Charles W. Bunn, of St. Paul Minn., on the brief), for defendant in error.

Before SANBORN and HOOK, Circuit Judges, and McPHERSON, District judge.

HOOK Circuit Judge.

Justus Ohage brought an action against the Northern Pacific Railway Company for being denied admission to one of its passenger trains. At the conclusion of the evidence the trial court directed a verdict for the company, and he prosecuted this writ of error.

The plaintiff, who is a physician and surgeon of St. Paul, Minn desired to visit a patient at the village of White Bear, about 12 miles distant. Personal business of importance required his return by a certain time in the evening, in order to make a railroad connection to another place. This was May 27, 1909. He obtained from a hotel in St. Paul a Northern Pacific folder dated April 1, 1909, and found from it that he could leave St. Paul in the afternoon, have time to attend his patient, and, returning, could take the Duluth Limited, scheduled as departing from White Bear for St. Paul at 6 p.m. The folder showed that the train carried passengers locally between the two points; also that the company reserved 'the right to vary therefrom without notice. ' The plaintiff planned and acted accordingly, as the due time of the Limited at St. Paul would enable him to make his connection and keep his business engagement. He went to White Bear, made his professional call, and repaired to the station shortly before 6 o'clock. He asked the agent if the Limited was on time, and was informed it was. The train came in, discharged some passengers, and took on some express. The plaintiff sought to enter, but was prevented from doing so, first by a brakeman and then by the conductor. He was informed by them that the train did not carry passengers from White Bear to St. Paul. He missed his connection at the latter city, and the engagement mentioned.

In his petition he claimed damages for loss in his business, for the indignity and humiliation in the presence of people on the railroad platform, and for personal violence of the trainmen. The latter may be dismissed from further notice, as there was no evidence at the trial that the trainmen offered more resistance than was necessary to prevent him from boarding the train. The Duluth Limited had for years been running through White Bear to St. Paul at the time scheduled in the folder, and it had been the practice of the company to carry passengers on it locally between those places part of each year, but not during the period commencing some time in May and ending in the autumn. White Bear is a lake resort, and the patronage in the excepted season being considerable, and at the same time variable, the company established and maintained a suburban service. The Limited was withdrawn from the local service, though passengers from beyond were allowed to alight there. Accordingly on May 23, 1909, four days before the plaintiff's trip, the company put into effect a time-table showing that the train in question would not carry passengers locally between White Bear and St. Paul. Of this, however, plaintiff was not aware. Before leaving St. Paul, he inquired at the information bureau in the Union Station as to the time of departure of a train for White Bear, but did not inquire about a train for return. There is no contention in the case that White Bear was not adequately served by the company aside from the limited train. Ten or twelve trains were engaged in that service. Indeed, a train left White...