Sleeper v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co.

• Decision Date: 02 October 1882
• Citation: 100 Pa. 259
• Parties: Sleeper <I>versus</I> Pennsylvania Railroad Co.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

100 Pa. 259

Sleeper versus Pennsylvania Railroad Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

April 6, 1882.

October 2, 1882.

April 6th 1882.

Before SHARSWOOD, C. J., MERCUR, GORDON, PAXSON, TRUNKEY, STERRETT and GREEN, JJ.

ERROR to the Court of Common Pleas No. 4, of Philadelphia county: Of January Term 1882, No. 86.

J. H. Shoemaker (with whom was George Robinson), for plaintiff in error.—In New York there is no law against the sale of railroad tickets by others than agents of the company. The law of the place of the contract governs: Brown v. Camden & Atlantic R. R. Co., 2 Norris 316; Story on Conf. of Laws 242.

Contracts valid by the law of the place where they are made, are valid everywhere, by tacit consent, unless they are immoral or unjust, or contrary to the policy of the state in which they are sought to be enforced. Story on Conf. of Laws, § 244; Whar. on Conf. of Laws, § 485, 486.

The contract in this case is not immoral, irreligious or unrighteous, and it would not be against the policy of the state to support this action. It is submitted that a contract not to be universally enforced must be contrary to the natural principles of justice and of government, and not merely contrary to the policy of a statute of a state: Hadden v. Collector, 5 Wall. 107; Dwarris on Stat. 212; Kentucky v. Bassford, 6 Hill 526; McIntyre v. Parks, 3 Metc. 207; Hill v. Spear, 11 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 497; Smith v. Godfrey, 28 N. H. 384; Wharton on Conflict of Laws, § 485.

Our Act of Assembly makes the sale of the ticket alone unlawful and imposes a penalty on the seller only. The purchaser violates no law: Tracy v. Talmage, 14 N. Y. 173.

Railroad tickets are negotiable, any person holding them is entitled to ride: 2 Redfield on Railroads 374.

Wayne Mac Veagh, for defendant in error—The contract must be presumed to have been made in Pennsylvania so far as the defendant company is concerned and certainly was to be performed in this state. The statute of this state has directly and positively stated the settled policy of the state. The court cannot lend its aid to enforce a contract grounded on an act which is in contravention of such settled policy: Thorne v. Traveler's Insurance Co., 30 P. F. S. 15.

Mr. Justice TRUNKEY delivered the opinion of the court, October 2d 1882.

The parties agree that this case presents a single question, whether a person purchasing a ticket over the Pennsylvania railroad from New York to Philadelphia, from a ticket dealer who is not an authorized agent of the company, can maintain an action in the courts of this state for the refusal of the company to carry him between these points in return for said ticket.

By the Act of May 6th 1863, P. L. 582, it is made the duty of every railroad company to provide each agent authorized to sell tickets entitling the holder to travel upon its road, with a certificate attested by the corporate seal and the signature of the officer whose name is signed to the tickets. And any person not possessed of such authority, who shall sell, barter or transfer, for any consideration, the whole or any part of a ticket, or other evidence of the holder's title to travel on any railroad, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be liable to be punished by fine and imprisonment. The purchasing and using a ticket from a person who has no authority to sell, is not made an offence.

That the plaintiff's ticket, on its face, entitled him to the rights of a passenger between the points named, is unquestioned. The only reason for denying him such right was that he bought from...