Pennington v. Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co.

• Court: Maryland Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: BRYAN, J. delivered the opinion of the Court.
• Citation: Pennington v. Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co., 62 Md. 95 (Md. 1884)
• Decision Date: 27 March 1884
• Parties: WILLIAM A. PENNINGTON v. THE PHILADELPHIA, WILMINGTON AND BALTIMORE RAILROAD COMPANY.

62 Md. 95

WILLIAM A. PENNINGTON v. THE PHILADELPHIA, WILMINGTON AND BALTIMORE RAILROAD COMPANY.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

March 27, 1884

APPEAL from Baltimore City Court.

This was an action brought by the appellant to recover damages for being required to leave a train of cars on the railroad of the appellee, between Perryman's Station and the City of Baltimore. The case is stated in the opinion of the Court. The plaintiff presented four bills of exception; the first second and third were to rulings of the Court (FISHER, J.,) upon questions of evidence, and the fourth was to the Court's rulings upon the prayers offered. The insertion of the exceptions is deemed unnecessary. The verdict and judgment being for the defendant, the plaintiff appealed.

The cause was submitted to ALVEY, C.J., STONE, MILLER, ROBINSON IRVING, RITCHIE, and BRYAN, J.

George E. Nelson and James B. Green, for the appellant, cited the following authorities:

Thompson's Carriers of Passengers, p. 65, notes, sec. 1; Hutchinson on Carriers, sec. 245; Lawson on Carriers, 116, 117; Rawson vs. Penn. R. R. Co., 48 N. Y., 212; Blossom vs. Dodd, 43 N. Y., 264; Brown vs. Eastern R. R. Co., 11 Cush., 101; Quimby vs. Vanderbilt, 17 N. Y., 313; Burnham vs. Grand Trunk Railway Co., 63 Maine, 298; Wilson vs. Ches. & Ohio R. R. Co., 21 Gratt., 676; Van Buskirk vs. Roberts, 31 N. Y., 669; Nelson vs. Long Island R. R. Co., 7 Hun, 140; Elmore vs. Sands, 54 N. Y., 515; Verner, et al. vs. Sweetzer, 32 Penn., 208; Camden & Amboy R. R. vs. Baldauf, 16 Penn., 78.

John J. Donaldson, for the appellee, referred to the following authorities:

Brehme vs. Adams Express Co., 25 Md., 328; McClure vs. Phil., Wilm. & Balt. R. R. Co., 34 Md., 532; Freidenrich vs. Balt. & Ohio R. R. Co., 53 Md., 201; Thompson's Carr. of Pass., 70, 71, and cases cited; Burke vs. South Eastern R. W. Co., L. R., 5 C. P. D., 1; Hamilton vs. State, use of Hardesty, 32 Md., 354; Birney vs. New York and Washington Telegraph Co., 18 Md., 357; United States Telegraph Co. vs. Gildersleve, 29 Md., 232: Swan vs. Manchester and Lawrence R. R., 13 The Reporter, 590; O'Brien vs. Boston and Worcester R. R. Co., 15 Gray, 20; Nelson vs. Long Island R. R., 7 Hun, 140; People vs. Jillson, 3 Park., Cr., 234; Hibbard vs. New York and Erie R. R., 15 N. Y., 455.

BRYAN J. delivered the opinion of the Court.

The appellant purchased from a ticket agent of the appellee a ticket of which the following is a copy:

Excursion Return Check.

PHILA. WILM. and BALTO. R. R.

( One Continuous Passage.)

PERRYMAN'S to BALTIMORE.

In consideration of the reduced rate at which the ticket is sold, it is agreed that it shall be used within three days, including the day of sale, for a continuous trip only, and by such trains as stop regularly at the station, and by its acceptance the purchaser becomes a party to and binds himself to a compliance with these conditions.

(1,723) GEO. A. DADMUN,

General Ticket Agent.

On the back of the above ticket is the following stamp, to wit:

( Phila. Wilm. and Balto. R. R. )

(Dec. 13, 1882. )

( Baltimore. )

He proceeded in appellee's cars to Perryman's on the thirteenth day of December, 1881, and while attempting to return on the sixteenth day of December, the conductor refused to receive the ticket for his passage and required him to leave the cars. The controversy depends upon the rights acquired by the purchase of the ticket. The plaintiff, at the trial below, offered to prove that before he purchased the ticket, he was informed by the agent, upon inquiry from him, that it was "good until used."

We think that the plaintiff's rights in this regard are limited by the ticket. There is no evidence in the record that the ticket agent was authorized to make any contracts for the railroad company, or that he had any duties beyond the sale and delivery of the tickets. The ticket purchased by the appellant clearly informed him that he would have no right to use it after the fifteenth, and the agent had no authority to vary its terms.

A passenger has a right to be conveyed in the cars of a railroad company without making any special contract for transportation. Upon payment of the usual fare, the company is bound to convey him, and is under all the obligations imposed by law on common carriers, so far as they relate to the transportation of him as a passenger. It is competent to vary these obligations by a special agreement, on valuable consideration, between the passenger and the company. But if the passenger chooses to do so, he may stand on his legal rights, and elect to be carried to his destination without making any special contract. The mere purchase of a ticket does not constitute a contract. Before the ordinary liability of the railroad company can be varied, there must be a consent of the passenger, founded on valuable consideration. The ticket ordinarily is only a token, showing that the passenger has paid his fare. But where the ticket is sold at less than the usual rates, on the condition that it shall not be used after a limited time, if the passenger accepts and uses the ticket, he makes a contract with the company according to the terms stated, and the reduction in the fare is the consideration for his contract. It is true, he pays his fare before he receives the ticket, but if he has been misled or misinformed by...