Thomas Johnson Michie.

A treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) online

. (page 41 of 214)
Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 41 of 214)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

ability terminates. .M,lls z, ifaUimorc '« }'%[), f"*!; •^^.^"- ^^^P; ^O;'" , ^/<=
etc.. R. Co.. Ill Md :.<io 73 Atl ss.-, l'^?^^' ^^l^^ Constitutes a Contract for

Through Transportation — Effect of Con-
tract," § 3C.7'

25. Railroad corporation may contract
to carry passenger over connecting roads.

-I.tliif.;!] X'allcv k. Co. :■., (M C. 28. Power of part owner of one of sev-

C. .'\. 47H, I'^M Fed. 840; .Atcliison, etc., R. ^■'^1 connecting lines to contract. — Quiml)y

Co. t: koach, 3.5 Kan. 740, ^'.> Pac 93', 57 ^'- Vanderhih, IT X. \'. .'.(Ki, 72 Am. Dec.

Am. Rep. 199; .Mills 7.'. Baltimore, etc., R. "••'•

Co.. Ill Md. aco, 73 Atl. H85, 887; Nash- 29. Liability under contract to carry

villc, etc., k. Co. V. Sprayherry, 50 Tenn. passengers over line of another carrier.

<9 Hcisk.) 8.52; S. C. 07 Tenn. (8 I'.axt.) — Chollctte ?•. Omaha, etc., R. Co., 26

341. 3.5 Am. Rep. 705. Neb. 159, 41 N. W. IIOG, 4 L. R. A. 135.

4 Car— 14




which case it will be held responsible to that extent. 3*^ Thus a railroad company
which sells and issues tickets to passengers over its own lines of road and lines of
road of other companies, known as through tickets, is liable for the sure and safe
transportation of such passengers to the point of destination. "^ In such case the
company constitutes the connecting carrier its agent for the purpose of perform-
ing the contract, and is liable for the negligence of such connecting carrier.^2
The employees of the connecting line are, as regards such passengers, the employ-
ees of the contracting company, so as to render it liable for their acts.^^ But
where there is no evidence that a carrier's agent in any way deceived plaintiff, or
had knowledge that any quarantine regulations existed in a state through which
plaintiff must pass, the fact that he sold plaintiff a ticket through such state will
not render the carrier liable for damages occasioned by the wrongful act of a con-
necting line in enforcing its quarantine regulations.^"* And it has been held that
the sale by a carrier of a ticket to a station on a connecting line creates no im-
plied obligation that the train for which it is sold shall stop at that station, or that
it will be reached without change of cars, or waiting at stations for other trains.^^
A ticket issued, not as a coupon ticket, but as the joint contract of several car-
riers, entitles the purchaser to transportation by each of the said carriers, notwith-
standing that the delay of one of them may have occasioned the expiration of the
ticket before its presentation to all.^*^

Through Tickets Issued in the Form of Coupons. — Through tickets over
several distinct lines of transportation, issued in the form of coupons, and recog-
nized by the proprietors of each line, are to be regarded as distinct tickets for
each line sold by one as agent for the others, and the rights and liabilities of the
parties are the same as if the purchase had been made at the ticket offices of the

30. Carrier may by its conduct bind
itself for through transportation. — Knight
V. Portland, etc., R. Co., 56 Me. 23 i, 96
Am. Dec. 449.

Transaction not raising implied con-
tract for through transportation. — Plain-
tifif, desiring transportation to Dawson
City, paid to the agent of defendant rail-
road company in Chicago $362, for which
he received tickets for rail transportation
to Seattle, and an order on defendant's
agent at that place for a ticket from
there to Dawson City on a certain steam-
ship. The order stated its value at $300.
When plaintiff arrived at Seattle and pre-
sented the order, defendant's agent went
with him to the office of a steamship
company, and paid $300 for a ticket on
the designated vessel. This was a con-
tract ticket signed by the steamship com-
pany and plaintiff, and containing certain
limitations. Held, that no contract by
defendant, as carrier, to transport plain-
tiff through from Chicago to Dawson
City, could be implied from such trans-
action, and, in the absence of evidence
of an express contract to that effect, de-
fendant could not be held liable for a de-
lay occurring after plaintiff left Seattle.
Dresser v. Canadian Pac. R. Co., 116
Fed. 281, 53 C. C. A. 559.

31. Liability of railroad company sell-
ing through tickets. — Central R. Co. v.
Combs, 70 Ga. 533, 48 Am. Rep. 582;
Candee v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 21 Wis.
582, 94 Am. Dec. 566.

The sale of a through ticket, for a

single fare, by a railroad company, to a
point on a connecting line, together with
the checking of the baggage through to
the destination, is evidence tending to
show an undertaking to carry the pas-
seng;er and baggage the whole distance,
and, in the absence of other conditions
or limitations and of all other circum-
stances, will make such carrier liable for
faithful performance, and for all loss on
connecting lines, the same as on its own.
Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Roach, 35 Kan.
740, ]2 Pac. 93, 57 Am. Rep. 199.

But in Tennessee it has been held that
the sale of a passenger ticket by a car-
rier to a point beyond the terminus of
its road does not conclusively establish
a contract binding it to be responsible
for the entire route. Nashville, etc., R.
Co. V. Sprayberry, 56 Tenn. (9 Heisk.)
852; S. C, 67 Tenn. (8 Baxt.) 341, 35 Am.
Rep. 705. But see Carter v. Peck, 36-
Tenn. (4 Sneed) 203, 67 Am. Dec. 604.

32. Omaha, etc., R. Co. v. Crow, 74 N.
W. 1066, 54 Neb. 747, 69 Am. St. Rep.

33. Watkins v. Pennsylvania R. Co.^
10 Mackey (21 D. C.) 1.

34. St. Clair v. Kansas, etc., R. Co., 77
Miss. 789, 28 So. 957.

35. Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Cameron,
66 Fed. 709, 14 C. C. A. 358.

36. Effect of expiration of through
ticket before presentation to all the car-
riers. — Gulf, etc.. R. Co. V. Looney, 85.
Tex. 158, 19 S. W. 1039, 16 L. R. A. 471,
34 Am. St. Rep. 787.




respective lines. ^' The mere sale of such ticket does not import an undertaking
on the part of the company selling the same to be responsible for the safety of the
passenger beyond its own line.^* But in New York it has been held that if one
undertakes, as a common carrier, to transport a passenger the whole route be-
tween two places, it is a contract for through transportation, though separate
tickets be issued for different portions of the route. -^'-^ By accepting a coupon
ticket over a number of railroads which provides that it is "good for one contin-
uous passage,"' the purchaser merely agrees that he is not entitled to any stop-over
privileges on any of the lines, and will continue his journey over any line without
interruption after beginning it over that line.'**^

37. Through tickets issued in the form
of coupons. — Knis'ht v. Portland, etc., R.
Co.. 56 Me. 234. 9G Am. Dec. 449; Alihior
z: New York, etc., R. Co., 53 N. Y. 363,
affirming 4 Daly 355; AlcCollum 7'. South-
ern Pac. Co., 31 Utah 494, 88 Pac. 663;
Fitzgerald z: Southern Pac. Co., 31 Utah
510. 88 Pac. 669.

Where a coupon ticket is issued by an
initial carrier as agent for subsequent
carriers, the body of the ticket and each
coupon constitute a separate contract
between the passenger and the carrier
to whose line the coupon applies, and
neither hne is responsible for delays oc-
curing on others, so that a passenger
would not be entitled to carriage over
the last road after the time limited for
transportation over it had expired, though
prevented from presenting his ticket
within that time by the fault of the other
carriers. Brian z'. Oregon Short Line R.
Co.. 105 Pac. 489, 40 Mont. 109.

The plaintiff was familiar with the
route, liis ticket was a coupon ticket, of
which certain coupons purported to be
issued by the Central Railroad Company
as agent. And he did not deny that he
knew that the Central Railroad Company
acted as agent only as to points beyond
its owm road. It was held that the re-
lation of carrier and passenger did not
exist between plaintiff and the Central
Railroad Company after the train left
the latter's road. McDonald v. Central
R. Co., 72 X. J. L. 280, 19 R. R. R. 58, 42
Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 58, 62 Atl. 405,
2 L. R. A., X. S.. 505.

Defendant railway company sold to
plaintiff ticket brokers a quantity of tick-
ets over its own road, with coupons at-
tached for transportation over a connect-
ing line. Said tickets were issued under
an agreement with said connecting road.
anci were for a number of years honored
by the latter road, and until it passed into
tlie bands uf a receiver, who was ordered
by the federal court to refuse to accept
for |»a^sage the remainder of said tickets.
Hclfl, that in selling said coupons de-
fendant acted merely as agent for the
coniHcling line, and was not liable for
the latter's failure to ])crform the con-
tract. 59 III. App. 479, reversed in Chi-
caRo, etc., R. Co. z: Mulford, 44 X. I-,.
SOI. ir,2 111. 522, 35 1,. R. A. 599.

It was immaterial that in negotiating
the sale to plaintiffs defendant's agent

stated that defendant would give plain-
tiff's rates through to certain points so
low that by adding the local rate they
could make a through rate to eastern
cities that would be less than the regu-
lar through rate. Chicago, etc., R. Co. z'.
Mulford. 44 N. E. 861, 162 111. 522, 35 L.
R. A. 599.

A statement in the tickets that they
were issued by defendant for first-class
passage to station stamped in margin of
coupon did not make them contracts to
transport the holder over the connecting
line, and the name of the connecting
line on the coupon, showing over what
line the tickets were good, did not alter
the contract. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v.
Mulford, 44 N. E. 861. 162 111. 522, 35 L.
R. A. 599.

In the sale of a round-trip ticket with
coupons attached, good for passage over
two roads under a special contract with
the passenger, each road may stand on
the contract and if one passes him the
other is not bound thereby to pass him
also in the face of the terms of the con-
tract. ]Moses z'. East Tennessee, etc..
Railroad, 73 Ga. 356.

38. Hartan v. Eastern R. Co., 114 Mass.
44; Pennsylvania Co. v. Loftis, 72 O. St.
288, 74 N. E. 179, 106 Am. St. Rep. 597;
S. C, 72 O. St. 300, 74 N. E. 182.

"Where coupon tickets are sold over
long lines of connecting roads by the
first company, acting alone as the agent
of those over whose roads the passen-
ger is to travel, the company selling the
ticket is liable only for a safe passage
over its line." Chollette v. Omaha, etc.,
R. Co., 26 Neb. 159, 41 N. W. 1106, 1109,
4 L. R. A. 135.

39. Contract for through transporta-
tion binding though separate tickets be
issued for different portions of route. —
Van I'.uskirk z: Roljerts, 31 X. Y. 661.

Thus, if one undertakes, as a common
carrier, to transport a passenger the
wliole route from N'^ew ^^irk to San
I-'rancisco, he is liable in damages for
negligent detention, thougli separati'
tickets be issued for different jK/rtions of
the route. Van I'uskiik ;•. l^toherts, :!l
X. Y. 661.

40. Effect of acceptance of coupon
ticket "good for one continuous pas-
sage." — Hrian ?'. C^regon Short Line R.
Co., HI Mont. J09, 105 Pac. 489.

^§ 3677-3679



Effect of Withdrawal of Connecting Line. — Where a railroad company
sells a through ticket, calling for transportation over a connecting line, if the con-
necting line be withdrawn after sale of the ticket, in consequence of the preva-
lence of yellow fever, the passenger can recover no damages. But if the connect-
ing carrier be withdrawn before the sale, and there is no other convenient route
to his destination, he can recover the expenses of his journey thus far and his re-
turn and compensation for his time.'*^

§ 3678. Liability for Acts of Agent Making the Contract. — Where the
agent of a carrier, selling a ticket over its own line to its terminus, thence via and
for the account of a connecting line to a certain point, fails to designate, in the
coupon covering passage on the connecting line, the point of ultimate destination,
and to stamp the ticket, whereby the passenger at the connecting point is refused
further passage, and obliged to buy a new ticket, the initial carrier is liable for
such acts as those of its agent, and not as those of an agent of the connecting

§ 3679. Obligation of Carrier to Honor Tickets Issued by Another
Carrier. — In the absence of any arrangement between connecting railroad com-
panies, there is no obligation on the part of either to honor passenger tickets is-
sued by the other.^s But one railroad company may authorize another company
to issue and sell tickets good over the line of the former, and where it does so it is
bound to honor such tickets.'*"*

41. Effect of withdrawal of connecting
line. — Central R. Co. v. Combs, 70 Ga.
533, 48 Am. Rep. 582.

42. Liability for acts of agent making

contract for through transportation

Griffin v. Utica, etc., R. Co., 41 Hun 448,
3 N. Y. St. Rep. ]55.

43. Carrier not obliged to honor tickets
issued by another carrier. — Oregon, etc..
R. Co. V. Northern Pac. R. Co., 51 Fed.
465; Mills v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., Ill
Md. 260, 73 At!. 885.

44. A railroad company which author-
izes another company to issue and sell
mileage tickets good over its road makes
sucli company its agent, and can not re-
pudiate the contract so made with a pas-
senger, who in good faith buys a ticket
from such agent, on account of any sub-
sequent disagreement between the two
companies. Cowen v. Winters, 37 C. C.
A. 628, 96 Fed. 929, affirming 90 Fed. 99.

Facts sufficient to show authority of
issuing company to sell ticket for trans-
portation over other lines. — Thai a rail-
road comi)any had repeatedly issued
tickets similar to one sold to plaintiff for
transportation over a number of lines, in-
cluding defendant's which tickets had
been accepted by defendant, was suffi-
cient to show authority of the issuing
company to sell the ticket to plaintiff;
plaintiff not being bound to ascertain
whether the issuing road was the agent
for defendant. Brian v. Oregon Short
Line R. Co.. 40 Mont. 109, lO." Pac. 489.

Facts showing that connecting car-
riers were bound by acts of agent of in-
itial carrier. — The agent of an initial car-
rier sold plaintiff' a through ticket and
coupon tickets over several connecting

roads, stamping the time limit thereon,
the agent stating that plaintiff could stop
over at a certain point on one of the
lines. Plaintiff did so, and purchased
a local ticket to the end of that line. The
-ame conductor and train continued on
the next line, and plaintiff's through
ticket, though within the time limit, was
refused, and plaintiff ejected. His ticket
was accepted on a later train. Held suf-
ficient to show that the connecting car-
riers were bound by the acts of the agent
of the initial carrier, and that the ticket
was good over their lines, within the
time limit. Young v. Pennsylvania R.
Co., 115 Pa. 112, 7 Atl. 741.

Facts not binding connecting carrier
to receive round trip ticket on return trip.
— Where, in an action against a carrier
for refusal to furnish transportation, the
ticket sold showed on its face that it was
intended to have coupons for several con-
necting lines, over which defendant sold
it, attached to it so that plaintiff could
go to a certain place and return, and de-
fendant warranted the ticket to be good,
the fact that the conductor over the con-
necting line passed it on the outgoing
trip, does not bind such connecting line,
so as to require another conductor on
the same road to receive it on the re-
turn trip. Bussey v. Charleston, etc.,
Railway, 55 S. E. 163, 75 S. C. 116.

Facts not creating presumption that
carrier was authorized to place with
ticket broker certain tickets for passage
over another carrier's road. — The fact
that an Illinois railroad company was
the agent of a Georgia railroad company
to seU in Chicago tickets from that city
to Jacksonville, Fla., and return, with


§ 3680. On What Trains Passengers Received from a Connecting-
Carrier Must Be Transported. — The failure of a train carrying second-class
passengers to connect with the proper train of another road, the two roads form-
ing a through line, does not impose upon the second road an obligation to trans-
port passengers holding second-class through tickets upon the next train — a lim-
ited express — upon which such tickets are not valid. ^^

§ 3681. Through Tickets Limited as to Time. — Where a ticket over con-
necting carriers provides that it must be used on or before a day specified therein,
it is sufficient if the trip is begun upon a particular line and the ticket presented
before midnight on the day named, though the journey is not completed on that
line until after that time.'**' Where a coupon ticket provides that it will not be ac-
cepted for passage unless used to destination before midnight on a certain date,
if the limitation is reasonable, the passenger is not entitled to transportation over
the last road upon presenting his ticket after that time.'*' Where an agent of a
cennecting line, who issued a through ticket to a purchaser over defendant's rail-
road, had previously so acted, and his action in limiting such tickets had always
been acceded to by defendant in order to obtain a share of the business, and de-
fendant's proportionate part of the cost of the purchaser's ticket must have been
received by defendant, and was retained prior to the purchaser's offer of the re-
turn portion of his ticket for transportation within the time limit specified therein,
defendant is bound by the act of such issuing agent in limiting the ticket, whether
he is a general or a mere special agent.-** The acceptance of a railroad ticket by
one of the connecting carriers over wdiose lines it provides for passage does not
require another of such carriers to accept it, the time for using it having expired. ^'-^

§§ 3682-3690. Injuries to Passengers— § 3682. In General.— A de-
pot and track used in common by two chartered railroad companies in the city
where their lines connect, though belonging to one of them exclusively, may be
considered as belonging to each relatively to its own operations and business.
Each must protect its own passengers from the other's negligence, so long as pas-
sengers are in their proper places, but not when they are out of place.^"'*'

coupons thereon for passage over the one of said divisions, sufficiently estab-

Georgia road, each ticket containing a lished, in behalf of the holder of the ticket

special contract, to be signed by the orig- so issued, the agency of the initial com-

inal purchaser, stipulating that the ticket pany for the receiver in issuing the

should be used by him only, did not ere- ticket. Spencer v. Lovejov, 9C> Ga. 657,

ate a presumption that the Illinois com- 2.3 S. E. 8;!6, 51 Am. St. Rep. 153.

pany was authorized to place in the 45. On what trains passengers received

hands of a ticket broker, for sale in At- from a connecting carrier must be trans-

lanta. tickets of that kind, stamped at ported.— New York, etc., R. Co. v. Den-

the Chicago office of the Illinois com- nett, 50 J-'ed. 49(;, 1 C. C. A. 514.

pany, with the contracts thereon left un- 46. Ticket providing for use on or be-

signed, and the coupons for the railroads fore a day specified. — P)rian 7'. Oregon

between Chicago and Atlanta detached. Short Line R. Co., 40 Mont. 109, 105 Pac.

Atkinson, J., dissenting. Comer v. Fo- 4S<).

ley, 25 S. E. r.TI, 98 Ga. 678. 47. Ticket providing for use to destina-

Facts establishing agency of carrier tion before midnight on a certain date. — •

for receiver of other carriers. — Where a Urian v. ( )n,-()n Short Line \i. Co., 40

throiij.ih coujjon passenger ticket of a .Mont. 109, 105 Vav. isii.

certain class was issued by a railroad 48. Carrier bound by act of connecting

conii)any over its own line and the lines carrier's agent in limiting ticket. — Cherry

of Dther companies, including a system v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 90 S. W. :}81, 191

of railways in the hands of a receiver, Mo. 489, 2 L. R. A., N. S., 695, 109 Am.

which were operated in separate divi- St. Rej). s.'io.

sions, the fact that, with the receiver's 49. Effect of acceptance of ticket by

knowledge, conductors in his emplfjy- one of connecting carriers. — Rolling v.

mctit had been recognizing as valid the St. Louis, etc., I\. Co., SH S. W. :}5, 18!)

coupons for his lines of such class of .Mr.. 219.

tickets, in connection with the fact that 50. Injuries in depot or upon track

a coupon of a particular ticket of such used in common by two carriers. Cen-

class had been accepted for passage over tral R., etc., Co. v. Perry, 58 Ga. 46L

§§ 3682-3686 carriers. 3320

Injury from Defect in Platform Used in Common with Intersecting
Road. — Where a passenger was set down from a train on a railroad platform,
used in common with an intersecting road which the passenger intended to take,
the company which brought him there is liable for an injury sustained by him
from a defect in the platform, without regard to the question of which company
in fact owned it or was bound to keep it in repair.^''^

§ 3683-3689. Liability of Initial Carrier— § 3683. Injury on Wharf
Connecting Carrier's Line with Steamboat. — Where a railroad company
sells a ticket entitling the purchaser to through transportation over its road to a
certain place and thence by a steamboat owned by another carrier to the place of
destination, it will be liable to such purchaser, as a common carrier of passengers,
for an injury received on a wharf owned by it, and connecting its road with the
steamboat, and made subsidiary and necessary to the proper use and enjoyment
of its road.^-

§§ 3684-3689. Injuries on the Line of the Succeeding or a SubS'e-
quent Carrier — § 3684. Injuries Resulting from Misrepresentation of
Initial Carrier's Agent as to the Best Route. — Where by the misrepresen-
tation as to the best route made by an initial carrier's agent plaintiff and his
family were caused to go in a wrong direction on such carrier's railroad, which
necessarily caused them delay and inconvenience, to the injury of plaintiff's wife,
such carrier was not liable for delays on other connecting roads over which plain-
tiff traveled to his destination, in the absence of proof that such delays were not
caused by failure of such connecting carriers to run their trains on time or by other
negligence on their part.'''^

§ 368 5. Injuries Resulting from Negligence of a Subordinate Carrier.

— Wliere a railroad company sells a ticket for transportation between two points,
containing nothing to show that such transportation, or a part thereof, is to be
performed on a railroad, operated by another corporation, whose stock is en-
tirely owned by a third railroad company, the stock of which in turn is owned by
the initial carrier, which in fact controls the operation of the second carrier
through its officers, the initial carrier is liable for the wrongful killing of the
purchaser of the ticket, though resulting from the negligence of the second

§§ 3686-3689. Liability under Contract— § 3686. In General.—

AMiere a carrier undertakes to transport a passenger over its own line and that

51. Injury from defect in platform used care, in making the wharf safe and con-
in common with intersecting road.— Wa- venient for their through passengers to
bash, etc., R. Co. r. Wolff, 13 111. App. travel over, as is required of common
437 ' ' carriers of passengers, although they re-

52. Injury on wharf connecting car- quired them to disembark at their depot,
tier's line with steamboat.— Where the 40 rods distant from the steamboat; and
plaintiff's ticket entitled her to a passage that this liability continued until, in the
over the defendant's road to P. and ordinary course of the passage over the,
thence by steamboat; and it appeared wharf, the passengers reached the pomt
that the defendants had built theii track where the liability of the steamboat cona-
upon their wharf down to the steamboat, pany commenced. Knight v. Portland,
and had run their passenger train upon it etc., R. Co., 56 Me. 234, 96 Am. Dec. 449.
for a time, and still continued to run 53. Injuries resulting from misrepre-
their baggage train there; and that they sentation of initial earner's agent as to

Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 41 of 214)