Walker v. Wabash

• Citation: 15 Mo.App. 333
• Parties: FRANK E. WALKER, Respondent, v. WABASH, ST. LOUIS AND PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant.
• Decision Date: 01 April 1884
• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)

15 Mo.App. 333

FRANK E. WALKER, Respondent,

v.WABASH, ST. LOUIS AND PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant.

St. Louis Court of Appeals, Missouri.

Apr. 1, 1884.

APPEAL from the St. Louis Circuit Court, BARCLAY, J.

Reversed and judgment.

GEORGE B. BURNETT and GEORGE S. GROVER, for the appellant.

R. CRAWFORD, for the respondent.

THOMPSON, J., delivered the opinion of the court:--

The plaintiff, desiring to go from St. Louis to Chicago, thought he would save a little money by buying a ticket of a broker. So he went to the office of Mr. Manget, on the corner of Fifth and Chestnut Streets, and purchased a train check, which, with the punches in it, presented the following appearance:--

TABULAR OR GRAPHIC MATERIAL SET AT THIS POINT IS NOT DISPLAYABLE

This train check, it will be perceived, does not purport to be a regular passage ticket. The name of the place from, and the place to, which the holder is to be carried, is not stated. On the reverse side, it is countersigned in ink by the conductor by whom it is issued to the passenger; and the particular check was, in fact, issued by one of the defendant's conductors, to a passenger other than the plaintiff, who had taken passage on one of the defendant's trains the day previous at Council Bluffs, upon a limited ticket, for Chicago, by way of St. Louis. It seems that this passenger had traveled as far as St. Louis, when he had left the train, and sold this train check to the broker from whom the plaintiff bought it. With this, he went with his baggage to the Union Depot, and there presented it to the porter of the defendant's evening train, who allowed him to get aboard. It also passed the inspection of the bridge conductor; but when the train had got beyond the bridge, the regular train conductor came around, examined it, told the plaintiff that it was not good, and that he would have to pay fare or get off at the next station. The plaintiff declined to do either, and the conductor and porter put him off without unnecessary violence, at a station called Edwardsville, eighteen miles from St. Louis. He stayed all night at Edwardsville, came back to St. Louis the next morning, and afterwards bought a ticket, and again started for Chicago, according to his original plan. This statement indicates substantially the amount of damage which he suffered. For this damage he brought the present action, and a jury gave him five hundred dollars.

At the trial, the defendant put in evidence a book of instructions issued by the defendant to conductors and agents, which starts out by saying that “in order to prevent the scalping of limited and unlimited first-class tickets, reading between prominent points on this company's lines, it is deemed advisable to take up such tickets on first presentation and issue a ‘continuous passage train check’ in exchange; and for the proper issuance of continuance passage train checks, the following rules are given.” Then follows a series of minute directions in regard to the issuing and punching of train checks; the cautions which are to be given to the passengers to whom such checks are given; what reports conductors are to make touching the same; what they are to do in the case of a misunderstanding with the passenger, and the like. The numbers by which the leading stations on the defendant's lines of road are designated on these train checks, are also given, from which it appears that Council Bluffs is designated by the number 885; St. Louis by the number 601, and Chicago by the number 501. When these train checks are issued in exchange for a limited passage ticket, which the conductor takes up, he is required to punch the word “limited” in the margin of the check. With these instructions in view, recurring to the train check which this plaintiff had bought, it is seen that the number 885, in the column marked “from” in the tint, was not punched. According to the instructions, this should have been done by the defendant's conductor when he issued the check to the passenger. It also appears that the word “limited” was not punched, as the rules required. It further appears that in the column marked “to” in the tint, the figure 501 was punched. Then at the bottom of the check, there were punched the word “July,” the figure 1 in the left-hand column of figures, and the figure 9 in the right hand column of figures. The punch marks indicated, according to the instructions put in evidence, and also in accordance with what appears on the face of the check, that the check would not be good unless used before midnight of the 19th of July, 1883. In this regard, also, the defendant's conductor had not punched the ticket according to the instructions, which prescribe that “checks must be limited to one day from date of issue. For instance, a check issued on January 1st must be punched to expire on January 2d.” This check was issued by the defendant's conductor, to a passenger, as already stated, on the 17th of July, and was punched to expire on the 19th. The train on which this passenger was, arrived in St. Louis on the morning of the 18th, it would seem, on the usual time. The defendant's next regular train for Chicago left St. Louis half an hour later, namely, at eight o'clock in the morning; so that it appears that the train on which this plaintiff took passage for Chicago was not a continuous train in respect of the train on which the previous holder of the ticket had arrived in St. Louis. Paragraph 108 of the defendant's instructions to agents and conductors, already referred to, is as follows: “These checks, when issued in accordance with the foregoing instructions, will be treated as valid passage tickets, and they will be subject to the same rules concerning ‘trip cancellations' that are now in force for regular tickets; such cancellations, however, must be made in that portion of the check designated by stars (* * *), and, of course, these cancellations will be regarded as additional to those above mentioned.” There is no evidence that these instructions are communicated to the public, or to ticket brokers, or to any persons except the defendant's conductors and agents, for whose guidance they are intended. We mention this fact because it seems important to take it into consideration in determining whether the public are entitled to buy these...