St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 08 March 1910 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 420 |
| Parties | ST. LOUIS & S. F. R. CO. v. JOHNSON. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. TERRITORIES--Legislative Power to Modify Act Ratified by Congress. An act of the territorial Legislature which requires the ratification of Congress in order to make it valid as law, after such ratification cannot be modified, repealed, or amended by the Legislature without the assent of Congress.
2. CARRIERS--Rules--Ejection of Passengers. Under section 504 of the Compiled Laws of Oklahoma, 1909, common carriers of persons may make reasonable rules for the conduct of their business, and may require passengers to conform thereto and under the provisions of section 506 may eject any passenger who refuses to conform thereto, provided the same is done with as little violence as possible at any usual stopping place or near some dwelling house.
3. CARRIERS--Rules--Limit of Ticket. Common carriers of passengers may limit the time within which tickets for passage will be valid subject only to the qualification that the limitation made is reasonable.
4. CARRIERS--Carriage of Passengers--Ejection--Right of Recovery--Case. January 24, 1905, plaintiff purchased an ordinary local ticket over the line of the St. Louis & San Francisco Railway, at Chandler, Okla. T., for passage to Oklahoma City. The same was stamped as of the date of purchase, and on its face bore the condition, "good only one day from date of sale as stamped on back." Not having used the same plaintiff tendered it for passage on April 8, 1905, and the same was refused by the conductor, and on plaintiff's refusal to pay his fare he was in the daytime near a residence and without violence required to leave the train, whereupon he brought suit for damages, and on a showing of these facts the court denied a request for an instructed verdict for the defendant. Held error.
Error from District Court, Oklahoma County; George W. Clark, Judge.
Action by R. L. Johnson against the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed and remanded, with instructions to dismiss.
Flynn & Ames and R. A. Kleinschmidt, for plaintiff in error.--Citing: Elliott on Railroads (2d. Ed.) sec. 1598; 6 Cyc. 575; McGhee v. Drisdale (Ala.) 20 So. 391; Railway Co. v. Dean, 43 Ark. 529; Railway Co. v. Watson (Ga.) 36 S.E. 209; Calaway v. Mellett (Ind.) 44 S.E. 198; Hanlon v. Railroad Co. (Iowa) 80 N.W. 223; Freeman v. Ry. Co., 71 Kan. 327; Railway Co. v. Dwelle (Kan.) 25 P. 500; Coburn v. Railroad Co. (La.) 29 So. 882; Railroad Co. v. Proctor (Mass.) 79 Am. Dec. 729; Smith v. Express Co. (Mich.) 66 N.W. 479; Railroad Co. v. Martlett (Miss.) 23 So. 583; Birmington v. Railroad Co. (Md.) 18 A. & E. R. R. Cases, 310; Randolph v. Railroad Co. (Mo.) 107 S.W. 1029; Lillis v. Railroad Co. (Mo.) 27 Am. Rep. 255; Elmore v. Sands, 54 N.Y. 513; Hill v. Railroad Co., 63 N.Y. 101; State v. Campbell, 32 N. J. Law 309; Johnson v. Railroad Co. (N. H.) 88 Am. Dec. 199; Penn. Co. v. Hine, 41 Ohio St. 276; Deitrich v. Railroad Co., 71 Pa. St. 432; Hall v. Railroad Co., 15 F. 57; Railway Co. v. Murphy (Tex.) 35 S.W. 66; Shedd v. R. R. Co., 40 Vt. 88; Crogan v. Ry. Co. (W. Va.) 19 S.E. 563; Martin v. Territory, 8 Okla. 41; Morford v. Territory (Okla.) 63 P. 598.
J. H. Grant and E. G. McAdams, for defendant in error.--Citing: Boyd v. Spencer (Ga.) 30 S.E. 841; Railroad Co. v. Baldoni (Ga.) 42 S.E. 364; Railroad Co. v. Turner (Tenn.) 47 S.W. 223; Norman v. Ry. Co. (S. C.) 44 S.E. 83; Dagnell v. Railroad Co. (S. C.) 48 S.E. 97.
¶1 This action presents error from the district court of Oklahoma county. R. L. Johnson, as plaintiff, sued plaintiff in error, as defendant, in the probate court of Oklahoma county, filing his petition therein prior to statehood. After trial in that court the case was appealed by the defendant, against whom judgment was rendered, to the district court of Oklahoma county, and a trial de novo had therein. Plaintiff was again successful and recovered a judgment, to reverse which defendant has brought the case to this court. The action is one for damages on account of an alleged wrongful expulsion of plaintiff from a train on defendant's road.
¶2 We are met at the outset of our consideration of this case by an objection to our jurisdiction, counsel for defendant in error insisting that under section 4, art. 3, c. 12, of the Session Laws of Oklahoma, 1905, all appeals from final judgments of the probate court, except certain ones not necessary here to notice, should be taken direct to the Supreme Court of the territory, and it is contended that jurisdiction was not vested in the district court to entertain a trial of this case de novo. Counsel for plaintiff in error contend that the statute referred to was ineffective to divest the district court of jurisdiction because the act conferring jurisdiction upon the probate courts and allowing an appeal in cases such as this to district courts for trial de novo was an act which became effective by and through congressional sanction, and the territorial Legislature did not have authority to amend it as was attempted in the section above noted. On this proposition we cannot agree with counsel for defendant in error. The Supreme Court of the territory of Oklahoma in the case of Martin v. Territory, 8 Okla. 41, 56 P. 712, held:
"An act of the territorial Legislature, which requires the ratification of Congress in order to make it valid as law, after such ratification cannot be modified, repealed, or amended by the Legislature without the assent of Congress."
¶3 The section of the Session Laws of 1905 never having received the assent of Congress was not effectual to amend the act referred to, and the district court had jurisdiction to entertain this cause. This brings us to the consideration of the case on its merits.
¶4 A statement of the facts involved, sufficient upon which to predicate the conclusion to which we have come, is embodied in the following: Plaintiff testified that on the 8th day of April, 1905, he resided at Oklahoma city and was coming home from Tulsa on the Frisco. He bought a ticket from Tulsa to Sapulpa, and during the journey tendered to the conductor a ticket from Chandler to Oklahoma City, which he had purchased at Chandler on the 24th day of January, 1905, at a cost of $ 1.46. The conductor said the ticket was out of date and that Johnson would have to pay cash fare; refusing to do this, he was put off the train about 1 1-2 miles west of Chandler. He identified the ticket which is as follows:
".
¶5 On the back of said ticket is stamped: "St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company. Chandler, O. T., Jan. 24, 1905." He further testified that he had been a traveling salesman for 15 years, and had bought a great many tickets in that time; that he could read and write; that he had the ticket in question in his pocket all the time between the 24th day of January when it was bought, and the 8th day of April, when it was tendered for passage; that on the day in question he bought a ticket from Tulsa to Sapulpa, also a ticket from Sapulpa to Bristow, and, when he gave the conductor that ticket, paid cash fare from Bristow to Chandler; that he presented the ticket in question at the time he paid the cash fare from Bristow to Chandler and before reaching Chandler, and at that time the conductor told him that it was no good; that when the train stopped at Chandler he made no attempt to buy another ticket. When the conductor came through after leaving Chandler, he again tendered him the ticket in question, and the conductor again told him the ticket was not good, as it had expired. The conductor demanded fare, and plaintiff told him that was his ticket. The conductor said he would have to put him off the train if he did not produce another ticket or pay cash fare.
¶6 The uncontradicted testimony on the part of the railway company given by its conductor was that, prior to reaching Chandler, Johnson offered him the ticket in question, and he called his attention to the fact that the same had expired and was not valid; that Johnson said the ticket was all right until used, to which the conductor replied it was not and could not be accepted; that after the train left Chandler he again called on this passenger for his ticket and was tendered the one in question. He again informed him that it was no good and could not be accepted, and Johnson stated that was all he would get, and that he refused to pay his fare, whereupon he was asked if he wanted to get off, or if he would have to put him off, and he said he would have to be put off. The conductor then took hold of Johnson's sleeve, and led him out between the seats, and Johnson stepped off on the ground. There was no disturbance or violence of any kind. It was a clear morning in April within sight of Chandler and a dwelling house about 200 yards from the track. The station agent testified that the ticket was an ordinary local ticket of the defendant railway company.
¶7 The damages claimed are general, no special damages being averred or proven. At...
To continue reading
Request your trial