Wyman v. Northern Pacific Railroad Company
| Decision Date | 23 October 1885 |
| Citation | 25 N.W. 349,34 Minn. 210 |
| Parties | George H. Wyman v. Northern Pacific Railroad Company |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for Anoka county, Lochren, J., presiding, sustaining a demurrer to the complaint.
Order affirmed.
Merrick & Merrick, for appellant, cited Maples v. N.Y. & N.H. R Co., 38 Conn. 557; Lake Erie & W. Ry. Co. v Fix, 88 Ind. 381; Brooke v. Grand Trunk Ry Co., 15 Mich. 332; Maroney v. Old Colony, etc., Ry Co., 106 Mass. 153; Murdock v. Boston & A. R. Co., 137 Mass. 293; Elmore v. Sands, 54 N.Y. 512; Rawson v. Penn. R. Co., 48 N.Y. 212; Auerbach v. N.Y. C., etc., R. Co., 89 N.Y. 281; Northern R. R. Co. v. Page, 22 Barb. 130; Townsend v. N.Y. Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 4 Hun 217; Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Bartram, 11 Ohio St. 457; Palmer v. Railroad, 3 S.C. 580; Churchill v. Chicago & A. R. Co., 3 Am. Ry. Rep. 430; S. C., 67 Ill. 390.
W. P. Clough, for respondent.
This was an action for damages for unlawfully ejecting plaintiff from defendant's train. The appeal is from an order sustaining a demurrer to the complaint. The allegations of the complaint are that the plaintiff purchased of defendant a ticket from Anoka to St. Paul and return, and entered one of defendant's trains at Anoka, and proceeded to St. Paul; that on the trip the conductor took up one-half of the ticket and returned the other half to the plaintiff; that on the afternoon of the same day he boarded one of the trains of the St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Company from St. Paul to Minneapolis, and presented the remaining or "return" half of the ticket to the conductor, who punched it and returned it to him; that this train ran only to Minneapolis; that in the evening at Minneapolis he entered a passenger train of defendant for Anoka, and during the trip tendered this same ticket to the conductor, who refused to receive it for his fare, and then stopped the train at a point eight miles from Anoka, "in an uninhabited country, and not at any station, and with force, threats, and violence expelled plaintiff from said train, and did then and there refuse to carry plaintiff to said Anoka, as, for a valuable consideration paid, defendant had theretofore agreed to do." The ticket, which is set out in the complaint, contains no permission to "stop over," but reads merely "returning;" "St. Paul to Anoka." The complaint contains no allegation that plaintiff paid, or offered to pay, his fare, except by tendering the ticket in question.
In explanation, it may be proper to state, what was assumed and conceded on the argument, (although the fact does not clearly appear from the complaint,) that the road between St. Paul and Anoka is used by both the defendant and the St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Company, each, however, operating its own trains; but that the ticket in question was good on the trains of either company.
We do not construe the complaint as alleging the use of undue or unnecessary force in expelling plaintiff. The gist of his cause of action is that the expulsion was unlawful, and the allegations of assault with force and violence are referable to the fact of the expulsion. Neither is the allegation material that the place of expulsion "was not at any station." If a person enter a train, and refuse to pay his fare when lawfully demanded, he is a trespasser and not a passenger, and at common law the carrier is not required to put him out at one place rather than another, provided he is not wantonly exposed to peril of serious personal injury. Expulsion may be at a place other than a depot or usual stopping-place, provided care is taken not to expose the person to serious injury or danger; or, as it is sometimes expressed, provided the act will not result in wanton injury to him. The carrier is not required to have consideration for the mere convenience of such a wrong-doer. McClure v. Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co., 34 Md. 532; Great Western Ry. Co. v. Miller, 19 Mich. 305; Lillis v. St. Louis, K. C. & N. Ry. Co., 64 Mo. 464; O'Brien v. Boston & Worcester R. Co., 15 Gray 20. In some states this rule has been changed by statute, but we are aware of no authority to the contrary where the common-law doctrine remains in force. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial