The Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago And St. Louis Railway Company v. Lightcap

• Decision Date: 24 May 1893
• Docket Number: 766
• Citation: 34 N.E. 243,7 Ind.App. 249
• Parties: THE PITTSBURGH, CINCINNATI, CHICAGO AND ST. LOUIS RAILWAY COMPANY v. LIGHTCAP
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

34 N.E. 243

7 Ind.App. 249

THE PITTSBURGH, CINCINNATI, CHICAGO AND ST. LOUIS RAILWAY COMPANY v. LIGHTCAP

No. 766

Court of Appeals of Indiana

May 24, 1893

From the Pulaski Circuit Court.

Judgment reversed, with instructions to sustain the demurrer to the complaint.

N. O Ross, G. Ross and J. W. Nichols, for appellant.

J. M Spangler, W. Spangler and H. R. Robbins, for appellee.

REINHARD J. ROSS, J., took no part in the decision of this case.

OPINION

REINHARD, J.

Lightcap sued the railroad company for damages. He alleges, in his complaint, that the appellant, on the 14th day of July, 1891, owned and operated a railroad and was a common carrier of passengers for hire, between North Judson, in Stark county, Indiana, and Logansport, in the same State; that on said day the appellee purchased a ticket from the appellant, entitling him to ride from North Judson to Logansport, and from there back to North Judson, and that he paid therefor the sum of $ 2.20, which was the regular price for first-class fare; that, in pursuance of the contract, the appellant carried the appellee to Logansport and returned to him his "return coupon," entitling him to ride from Logansport back to North Judson; that on the following day, and within the life of the ticket, the appellee got on board of one of appellant's passenger coaches going from Logansport to and through North Judson, which is a regular station on appellant's road, and the crossing of two other railroads, and, according to law, the appellant is bound to stop all her trains at North Judson, and did stop said train at said station and permitted appellee and three other passengers to alight therefrom at said station on said day. And while riding in appellant's passenger coach, and in care of appellant's servants, the conductor on said train demanded from appellee his fare, whereupon the latter tendered the conductor said coupon ticket, which he refused to take or accept, and demanded of appellee two dollars and twenty cents in money. Appellee protested against this demand, but to avoid expulsion from the car by said conductor he was compelled to and did give the latter the said sum claimed by him; that said conductor threatened to and would have put appellee off the train had he not given him said amount. Appellee was greatly mortified and humiliated by being thus compelled to part with his money in the presence of the passengers of said coach, and endured great mental suffering in consequence of said treatment, as well as the loss of his money, to his damage in the sum of $ 5,000.

The overruling of a demurrer to this complaint constitutes the first error relied upon for a reversal of the judgment.

It will be noticed that in the complaint there is an entire absence of any averments that the train upon which appellee had taken passage to North Judson was scheduled to stop at the station or depot at that point for the purpose of receiving and discharging passengers. Nor is there any allegation that it was the appellant's custom to stop said train, or that the other railroads mentioned crossed appellant's road at or near the company's station at North Judson.

There is an averment that appellant was required, by law, to stop at North Judson, and did stop there, but at what point, and whether or not the said stopping place was near said company's station there, is not stated, and, so far as the complaint informs us to the contrary, it may be quite true that the appellant's station and stopping place at North Judson, of the train in question, were separate and distinct places, and any distance apart the one from the other.

It is true there is an averment that in this instance the train stopped "at said station" and permitted the appellee and three other passengers...