Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad Company v. Rodgers

• Decision Date: 24 March 1902
• Citation: 31 So. 581,80 Miss. 200
• Parties: YAZOO & MISSISSIPPI VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY v. WILLIAM RODGERS
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

31 So. 581

80 Miss. 200

YAZOO & MISSISSIPPI VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY v. WILLIAM RODGERS

Supreme Court of Mississippi

March 24, 1902

March 1902

From the circuit court of Sharkey county. HON. GEORGE ANDERSON Judge.

Rogers appellee, was plaintiff in the court below; the railroad company, appellant, was defendant there. From a judgment in plaintiff's favor defendant appealed to the supreme court. The opinion states the case.

Reversed and remanded.

Mayes &amp Harris, for appellant.

The plaintiff claimed that there was a special contract which entitled him to return on any regular train of the defendant, including train No. 6. This statement is contradicted by the station agent, who testifies the contract was to return on any local train. No. 6 was shown by the defendant's witnesses not to have been a local train.

On the question of punitive damages, the plaintiff testifies to insulting language used by the conductor. He testifies, further, that he was insisting that the conductor should allow him to return on that train because his wife was sick. The conductor details what occurred, and the conductor's statement is conflicting with that of the plaintiff in every particular. The conductor stated there were several negroes who wanted to go back, and that he declined to take them. He says nothing whatever of any statement having been made to him of a sick wife, or of any language having been used by him to the plaintiff. Undoubtedly, if the testimony of the conductor was true, and the jury had a right to pass upon it, there was nothing in it entitling the plaintiff to punitive damages, as there was no insult or anything connected with it to wound the plaintiff's sensibilities.

The third instruction given for the plaintiff does not correctly announce the law. For this error we respectfully submit the judgment of the court below should be reversed. It is settled in this state that a railroad company has a right to run fast through trains which do not stop at all stations, and that a railroad company has a right, in the absence of any special contract to the contrary, to exclude persons from its trains who are destined to stations at which the train does not stop. Humphries v. Illinois, etc., R. R. Co., 70 Miss. 453.

In other words, this is a reasonable regulation. And it makes no difference that the holder of a ticket at the time he purchases it is not aware that the particular train on which he applies for passage does not stop at his station; the railroad company has a right to decline to carry him on a train which does not stop at his station, in the absence of special circumstances, as shown in the case which we have referred to above. This is true, notwithstanding the fact that the party does not k. now at the time he purchases the ticket that the train on which he undertakes to take passage does not stop at his station. According to the testimony for the defendant, nothing was done to mislead the plaintiff.

A railroad company has a right to establish reasonable regulations for the proper and safe conduct of its business, and parties dealing with it must take notice of and conform to them. Southern Railroad Co. v. Kendrick, 40 Miss. 374 (2 Am. & Eng. R'y Cases, N. S., 23). The instructions asked for the defendant were improperly refused. They correctly announce the law. Sira v. Wabash R. R. Co., S.Ct. Mo. Mch. 3, 1893; 2 Woods Railway Law, sec. 355; Logan v. Railway Co., 77 Mo. 664; Marshall v. Railway Co., 78 Mo. 610; Lake Shore, etc., R'y Co. v. Pierce, 3 Am. & Eng. R'y Cases, 340.

McLaurin & Clements, for appellee.

There are three questions involved in this case.

1. Has the ticket agent the authority to bind the company

2. Was there a special contract between appellant and appellee?

3. Is this a case for punitive or exemplary damages?

First. Under the first proposition, as to the agent's authority to bind the principal in a case of this kind, see Wells v. A. G. S. R. R. Co., 67 Miss. 24; Maroney v. Old Colony & Newport R'y Co., 106 Mass. 153 (8 Am. Rep., 305); Murdock v. Boston & Albany R. R. Co., 137 Mass. 293 (50 Am. Rep., 307); Hufford v. G. R. & I. R. R. Co., 64 Mich. 631 (8 Am. St. Rep., 859); Eddy v. Harris, 78 Tex. 661; Dye v. V. M. R. Co., 9 Mackey (D.C.), 63.

Second. Was there a special contract between appellant and appellee in this case? Four witnesses for the plaintiff testify that the agent of appellant, Mr. Joseph, made the representations to appellee as stated. Mr. Joseph, as a witness for appellant, does not say that he did not make the said representation. He says, "He could not recollect whether he did or did not." So upon the undisputed evidence introduced, the learned circuit judge was eminently correct in giving the peremptory instruction on the contract.

Now in regard to appellant's refused instructions, according to the uncontradicted testimony, appellee purchased his ticket on the special contract between him and the agent of appellant that he should be allowed to return within the four days' limit, on any passenger train of appellant without restriction, no exception being made of train designated as No. 6, and appellee, under this contract,...