The Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Reed

• Decision Date: 30 September 1874
• Citation: 1874 WL 9202,75 Ill. 125,20 Am.Rep. 232
• Parties: THE PULLMAN PALACE CAR COMPANYv.WILLIAM REED.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

75 Ill. 125

1874 WL 9202 (Ill.)

20 Am.Rep. 232

THE PULLMAN PALACE CAR COMPANY

v.WILLIAM REED.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

September Term, 1874.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Lee county; the Hon. WILLIAM W. HEATON, Judge, presiding.

Messrs. WALKER, DEXTER & SMITH, for the appellant.

Messrs. EUSTACE, BARGE & DIXON, for the appellee.

Mr. JUSTICE SCHOLFIELD delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was case, by appellee against appellant, for ejecting him from one of its sleeping cars. The verdict of the jury was for appellee, assessing his damages at $3,000. Motion for a new trial was made by appellant, and overruled by the court, and judgment given on the verdict, from which this appeal is prosecuted.

The principal error insisted on in argument is, that the damages, as assessed, are excessive.

The facts connected with the alleged wrong, as detailed by appellee in his examination, are these: On the 21st of January, 1873, appellee purchased at appellant's ticket office in Chicago, a sleeping car ticket for berth No. 4 in appellant's car known as No. 184, from Chicago to Crestline, by way of the Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne and Chicago railroad, having previously purchased a passenger ticket entitling him to be thus carried. The price paid for the sleeping car ticket was $1.50. The train to which the sleeping car was attached left Chicago about nine o'clock in the evening, and arrived at Crestline between seven and eight o'clock next morning. As appellee first entered the sleeping car, he exhibited his ticket to the porter of the car, who went into the car with him and showed him his berth. He seems shortly afterwards to have gone into the water-closet, and, upon returning, he took off his overcoat and boots, sat down, and engaged in reading until the conductor of the sleeping car came around for tickets. He then commenced looking for his ticket but was unable to find it. When the conductor came up to him he informed him that he was unable to find the ticket, that he had either lost it or the porter had not given it back to him. He then went to the porter, who replied to his inquiry, that he had not taken the ticket; that he had seen the ticket, but appellee still held it in his hand. He thereupon returned and inquired of the conductor whether it would make any difference, as the porter had seen his ticket, and was informed by the conductor that he must either have the ticket or the money. Appellee replied to the conductor that he would get a duplicate ticket, if he had time. The conductor informed him that he would have about ten minutes until the train started. He then went to the appellant's agent, from whom he had purchased the ticket, and informed him of his difficulty. The agent expressed himself as being unable to give him a duplicate ticket, because he was charged by the company with all the tickets left with him, but said he would give him an order on the conductor, and then wrote on a slip of paper and gave him, the following:

“Mr. Ziezler (the name of the conductor), this is the gentleman who bought lower 4 to Crestline. If the ticket is presented by any one else, see to it.

KIRKLAND, Ticket Agent.”

Upon receiving this he re-entered the car and handed it to the conductor, who took it without saying any thing, and went himself to the ticket office. After returning, the conductor informed appellee that he could not let him ride on it, saying, “my orders are, I must have the money, a ticket, or a pass, and that is not a pass; that is an order.” Appellee replied: “I propose to ride right here in this berth.” The conductor answered that there was no use multiplying words, that the company would not accept that as a voucher from him, and that, unless appellee paid him, he should put him out of the car. Appellee replied that he should not go. After the cars had started, some twenty minutes, the conductor again returned and inquired of appellee what he was going to do. Appellee replied that he had paid for the ride and didn't propose to pay again. The conductor said that the company would not accept that as a voucher from him. Appellee observed, that if the conductor had to pay the one dollar and a half he would refund it to him. In reply to this, the conductor said he did not know appellee. When appellee remarked he would do nothing further, the conductor took appellee's boots, coat and satchel from berth No. 4, and carried them into the passenger car next in front, and, returning, said to appellee, “I will thank you to vacate this car.” Appellee again replied that he had paid for a ride and expected to ride there. The conductor then took hold of his collar and led him out of the car, and from there he went into the passenger car. The next morning about eight o'clock the conductor went to appellee and gave him his original ticket, saying he had found it in the water-closet, and that if appellee would present it to the office in Chicago, he presumed they would pay him back the dollar and a half. Appellee told him he should not sell it so cheaply.

Appellee does not recollect that, in searching for his ticket, he examined the water-closet, but thinks that he otherwise made an ordinarily careful search for it. The conductor used no violence or rudeness towards him, and no offensive language, other than what has been stated. The passenger car into which he was removed was, in nowise objectionable, except that it was a passenger and not a sleeping car. Appellee suffered no physical injury, and no pecuniary loss whatever, beyond the price of the sleeping car ticket. While the...