Swan v. Manchester & Lawrence Railroad

• Decision Date: 05 January 1882
• Citation: 132 Mass. 116
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
• Parties: Albert D. Swan v. Manchester & Lawrence Railroad

132 Mass. 116

Albert D. Swan v. Manchester & Lawrence Railroad

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

January 5, 1882

Argued November 3, 1881

Essex. Tort in two counts. The first count was for expelling the plaintiff from the defendant's cars at Windham, in the State of New Hampshire. The second count was for refusing to sell the plaintiff a ticket entitling him to be carried over the defendant's railroad from said Windham to Lawrence in this Commonwealth. The case was submitted to the Superior Court, and, after judgment for the defendant, to this court on appeal, upon agreed facts, the material parts of which appear in the opinion.

Judgment affirmed.

E. T Burley & W. S. Knox, for the plaintiff.

J. H George, of New Hampshire, (J. W. Fellows, of New Hampshire, with him,) for the defendant.

Devens J. Morton & Allen JJ., absent.

OPINION

Devens, J.

The regulation that all passengers, who shall purchase tickets before entering the cars of a railroad company to be transported therein, shall be entitled to a small discount from the advertised rates of fare, but, if such ticket is not purchased, the full rate of fare shall be charged, is a reasonable one, and in no way violates the rule, which in New Hampshire has the sanction of the statute law, that the rates shall be the same for all persons between the same points. Commonwealth v. Power, 7 Met. 596. Johnson v. Concord Railroad, 46 N.H. 213. St. Louis, Alton & Terre Haute Railroad v. South, 43 III. 176. Illinois Central Railroad v. Johnson, 67 III. 312. Indianapolis, Peru & Chicago Railroad v. Rinard, 46 Ind. 293. Du Laurans v. St. Paul & Pacific Railroad, 15 Minn. 49.

The number of persons carried, the rapidity with which the cars move, the frequency and shortness of their stops, the delay and inconvenience of making change, the various details to be attended to by the conductor while the train is in motion or at the stations, and the importance to the railroad company of conducting its business at fixed places, render the mode of payment by tickets previously purchased one of advantage to the railroad company and of convenience to the public. A passenger who is without a ticket and declines to pay full fare may ordinarily be ejected from a train at a station, as one may who absolutely refuses to pay his fare. State v. Goold, 53 Me. 279. Stephen v. Smith, 29 Vt. 160. Hilliard v. Goold, 34 N.H. 230, and cases above cited.

These positions are not controverted by the plaintiff, who maintains that, although he had no ticket, he was entitled to be carried for the price of one, in view of his failure to procure one under the circumstances hereafter stated. The table of prices advertised by the defendant authorized the ticket seller to make a discount of fifteen cents, had the plaintiff purchased one for the journey he proposed to make from Derry to Lawrence, the advertised fare being sixty-five cents. Until the time advertised for the departure of the train from Derry had expired, the ticket seller had been in his office. He left it after that time, and while the train was approaching, in order to aid the station agent, as he was accustomed to do, in loading the baggage upon the passenger trains. While the plaintiff did not approach the ticket office to find it vacant and the ticket seller absent until after the time had expired for the departure of the train as advertised, there was sufficient time for him to have procured his ticket before the train actually started from the station, if the ticket seller had then been in the office. He entered the train without a ticket, and the conductor, acting according to the rules of the company, demanded the full price for the fare, sixty-five cents, which the plaintiff refused to pay, insisting upon his right to be carried for fifty cents, the price of a ticket, which he tendered, but which the conductor refused, telling the plaintiff he must leave the train at the next station, unless the demand for full fare was complied with. On the arrival of the train at the next station, the plaintiff, failing to comply with the demand of the conductor, was ordered by him to leave the train, which he did.

Upon this part of his case, the plaintiff contends that, inasmuch as he went to the office to procure a ticket, and was unable so to do, as above stated, he was entitled to be carried for the price of a ticket, which he tendered, and that his exclusion from the train was therefore unjustifiable.

It has been held in a few cases that the offer to carry passengers at a less rate if tickets were procured, was in the nature of a proposal, like other proposals to enter into a contract, dependant for its acceptance upon the compliance with its condition; that it might be withdrawn at any time; that closing the office for the sale of tickets was such withdrawal; and that the offer carried with it no obligation on the part of the company to open an office, or to keep such office open for any length of time, it being merely an offer to make the deduction if the ticket should be procured. Crocker v. New London, Willimantic & Palmer Railroad, 24 Conn. 249. Bordeaux v. Erie Railway, 8 Hun 579.

In a much larger number of cases, and with much better reason, it has been held that where the railroad undertakes to conduct its business by means of tickets, whether it requires, as it may, the possession of a ticket as a prerequisite to entering its cars, or whether it offers a deduction from the regular or advertised rate to one who shall procure a ticket in advance, it is a part of its duty to afford a reasonable opportunity to obtain its tickets. St. Louis, Alton & Terre Haute Railroad v. South, ubi supra. Chicago & Alton Railroad v. Flagg, 43 III. 364. Jeffersonville Railroad v. Rogers, 28 Ind. 1. Indianapolis, Peru & Chicago Railroad v. Rinard, ubi supra. Du Laurans v. St. Paul & Pacific Railroad, ubi supra.

Adopting on this part of the case the rule most favorable to the plaintiff, he was afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to obtain a ticket. Delays must necessarily from time to time arise in the progress of a train from a variety of incidental circumstances, but at the stations everything may be definitely arranged with reference to the time when by the schedule the train is to depart. A traveller should be at the station sufficiently early to make the ordinary preparation for his journey according to this, and has a right to expect that other matters in which he is interested will be accommodated to the schedule arranged; that suitable persons will then be at the station to take...