The S. Company, owning a railroad extending from S. to M., and
there connecting with the railroad of the H. Company from M. to H.,
sold a ticket at a reduced rate of fare, for a passage from S. to
H. and return,
Page 127 U. S. 391
containing a contract signed by the purchaser, by which he
agreed "with the several companies" upon the following conditions:
that "in selling this ticket, the S. Company acts only as agent and
is not responsible beyond its own line;" that the ticket
"is not good for return passage unless the holder identifies
himself as the original purchaser to the satisfaction of the
authorized agent of the H. railroad at H. within eighty-five days
from the date of sale, and, when officially signed and dated in ink
and duly stamped by said agent,"
shall be good for five days from that time; that the original
purchaser shall sign his name and otherwise identify himself,
whenever called upon to do so by any conductor or agent of either
line, and that no agent or employee of either line has any power to
alter, modify or waive any condition of the contract. The original
purchaser was carried from S. to H., and within eighty-five days
and a reasonable time before the departure of a return train
presented himself with the ticket at the office of the agent of the
H. railroad at H. for the purpose of identifying himself and of
having the ticket stamped, and, no agent being at that office, took
the return train on the H. railroad from H. to M. and a connecting
train on the S. railroad for S., and, upon the conductor of the
latter train demanding his fare, presented the unstamped ticket,
informed him of what he had done at H., offered to sign his name
and otherwise identify himself to the conductor, and demanded to be
carried to S. by virtue of the ticket, but the conductor refused,
and put him off the train.
Held that he could not maintain
an action against the S. Company.
This was an action by a passenger against a railroad corporation
for putting him off one of its trains. The allegations of the
amended petition were in substance as follows:
On April 9, 1883, the plaintiff purchased of the defendant at
St. Louis a ticked expressed on its face to be "good for one first
class passage to Hot Springs, Ark., and return when officially
stamped on back hereof and presented with coupons attached," and
containing a "tourist's contract," signed by the plaintiff as well
as by the ticket agent, by which, "in consideration of the reduced
rate at which this ticket is sold," the plaintiff agreed "with the
several companies" over whose lines the ticket entitled him to be
carried, upon certain terms and conditions, of which those material
to be here stated were as follows:
"1st. That in selling this ticket, the St. Louis, Iron Mountain,
and Southern Railway acts only as agent, and is not responsible
beyond its own line."
"4th. That it is good for going passage only five (5) days
Page 127 U. S. 392
from the date of sale, as stamped on back and written
below."
"5th. That it is not good for return passage unless the holder
identifies himself as the original purchaser to the satisfaction of
the authorized agent of the Hot Springs Railroad at Hot Springs,
Ark., within eighty-five (85) days from the date of sale, and when
officially signed and dated in ink and duly stamped by said agent,
this ticket shall then be good only five (5) days from such
date."
"6th. That I, the original purchaser, hereby agree to sign my
name and otherwise identify myself as such whenever called upon to
do so by any conductor or agent of the line or lines over which
this ticket reads, and on my failure or refusal, that this ticket
shall become thereafter void."
"12th. And it is expressly agreed and understood by me that no
agent or employee of any of the lines named in this ticket has any
power to alter, modify, or waive in any manner any of the
conditions named in this contract."
Attached to the ticket were various coupons, a portion of which
entitled the plaintiff to be carried from Malvern to Hot Springs
and back on the Hot Springs Railroad. The plaintiff was accordingly
carried as a passenger from St. Louis to Hot Springs.
On May 9, 1883, the plaintiff, desiring to return to St.
Louis,
"presented himself and said ticket at the business and ticket
office and depot of said Hot Springs Railroad, the said business
and ticket office and depot being then and there the business
office of the authorized agent of said Hot Springs Railroad at said
Hot Springs, during business hours and a reasonable time before the
time of departure of its train for St. Louis that the plaintiff
desired to take and did take,"
and offered to identify himself as the original purchaser of the
ticket to the satisfaction of said agent for the purpose of
entitling himself to return thereon to St. Louis and of permitting
the ticked to be officially signed, dated in ink and duly stamped
by said agent, but the defendant and the Hot Springs Railroad
Company failed to have said agent there at any time between the
time when the plaintiff so presented
Page 127 U. S. 393
himself and his ticket and the time of departure of the train,
"whereby," the petition averred,
"said defendant and its agent and the agent of said Hot Springs
Railroad at Hot Springs, Ark., failed and refused, without any just
cause or excuse, to identify the plaintiff as the original
purchaser of said ticket or to officially sign, date in ink and
stamp said ticket."
The plaintiff thereupon boarded the train of the Hot Springs
Railroad at Hot Springs, and was carried thereby to Malvern, where,
on the same day, he boarded a regular passenger train of the
defendant for St. Louis, and, upon the conductor thereof demanding
his fare, presented his ticket, informed him of his presentation of
it at the office at Hot Springs, of his offer there to identify
himself, and of the absence of the agent, as aforesaid, and offered
to sign his name and otherwise identify himself to the conductor,
and demanded to be carried to St. Louis by virtue of said ticket,
but the conductor refused, and put him off the train, and left him
at a way station, where he was obliged to remain without fire or
other protection against the cold until he took the midnight train
of the defendant for St. Louis, first paying fare,
"by reason of each and all of which wrongful and unlawful acts
aforesaid of defendant, its agents and employees, the plaintiff
says he has been damaged in the sum of ten thousand dollars, for
which he asks judgment."
The circuit court sustained a demurrer to this petition and gave
judgment for the defendant. Its opinion, delivered upon sustaining
this demurrer and sent up with the record, is reported in 23 F.
326, and its opinion at a former stage of the case in 17 F.
880.
MR. JUSTICE GRAY, after stating the facts as above, delivered
the opinion of the Court.
The right of this plaintiff to be carried upon the defendant's
train without paying additional fare does not depend upon
Page 127 U. S. 394
his having been received as an ordinary passenger, or upon any
representations made by a ticket seller, conductor, or other
officer of the company as to his right to use a ticket, but wholly
upon the construction and effect of the written contract, signed by
him, upon the face of the ticket (of the kind called "tourist's" or
"round-trip" tickets) sold him by the defendant for a passage to
Hot Springs and back, by which, in consideration of a reduced rate
of fare, he agreed to the following terms:
By the fifth condition, the ticket
"is not good for return passage unless the holder identifies
himself as the original purchaser to the satisfaction of the
authorized agent of the Hot Springs Railroad at Hot Springs, Ark.,
within eighty-five days from date of sale, and, when officially
signed and dated in ink and duly stamped by said agent, this ticket
shall then be good only five days from such date."
The clear meaning of this condition is that the ticket shall not
be good for a return passage at all unless, within eighty-five days
from its original date, the holder not only identifies himself as
the original purchaser to the satisfaction of the agent named, but
that agent signs, dates, and stamps the ticket, and that, upon such
identification and stamping, the ticket shall be good for five days
from the new date.
The sixth condition, by which the ticket is to be void if the
plaintiff does not sign his name and otherwise identify himself
whenever called upon so to do by any conductor or agent of either
of the lines over which he may pass, is evidently intended as an
additional precaution against a transfer of the ticket either in
going or in returning, and not as an alternative or substitute for
the previous condition to the validity of the ticket for a return
trip.
The twelfth condition states that the plaintiff understands and
expressly agrees that no agent or employee of any of the lines has
any power to alter, modify, or waive any of the conditions of the
contract.
By the express contract between the parties, therefore, the
plaintiff had no right to a return passage under the ticket unless
it bore the stamp of the agent at Hot Springs. Such
Page 127 U. S. 395
stamp was made by the contract a condition precedent to the
right to a return passage, and no agent or employee of the
defendant was authorized to waive that condition.
The plaintiff contends that, as there was no agent at the office
at Hot Springs to whose satisfaction he could identify himself and
by whom he could have his ticket stamped when he presented himself
with his ticket at that office within a reasonable time before he
took the return train, he had the right to be carried from Hot
Springs to St. Louis under his ticket without having it stamped,
and may therefore maintain this action against the defendant for
the act of its conductor in expelling him from the connecting train
upon the defendant's road.
If this defendant had been the party responsible for not having
an agent at Hot Springs, the question thus presented would have
been of some difficulty, although we are not prepared to hold that
even under such circumstances the plaintiff's remedy would not be
limited to an action for the breach of the implied contract to have
an agent here, and to the expense which he thereby incurred. But
this case does not require the expression of any opinion upon that
question.
By the first condition of the contract contained in the
plaintiff's ticket, the defendant is not responsible beyond its own
line. Consequently it was not responsible to the plaintiff for
failing to have an agent at the further end of the Hot Springs
Railroad. The agent who was to identify the passenger, and stamp
his ticket there was the agent of the Hot Springs Railroad Company,
and is so described in the ticket as well as in the petition. If
there was any duty to have an agent at Hot Springs, it was the duty
of that company, and not of the defendant. The demurrer admits only
the facts alleged, and does not admit the conclusion of law
inserted in the petition that by reason of the facts previously set
forth, and which do not support the conclusion, the defendant and
its agent failed and refused without just cause or excuse to
identify the plaintiff as the original purchaser of the ticket or
to sign, date, and stamp it.
Hitchcock v. Buchanan,
105 U. S. 416.
The omission to have an agent at Hot Springs not being a
Page 127 U. S. 396
breach of contract or of duty on the part of this defendant, the
case is relieved of all difficulty.
The conductor of the defendant's train, upon the plaintiff's
presenting a ticket bearing no stamp of the agent at Hot Springs,
had no authority to waive any condition of the contract, to
dispense with the want of such stamp, to inquire into the previous
circumstances, or to permit him to travel on the train. It would be
inconsistent alike with the express terms of the contract of the
parties and with the proper performance of the duties of the
conductor in examining the tickets of other passengers and in
conducting his train with due regard to speed and safety that he
should undertake to determine, from oral statements of the
passenger or other evidence, facts alleged to have taken place
before the beginning of the return trip, and as to which the
contract on the face of the ticket made the stamp of the agent of
the Hot Springs Railroad Company at Hot Springs the only and
conclusive proof.
The necessary conclusion is that the plaintiff cannot maintain
this action against the defendant for the act of its conductor in
putting him off the train.
Townsend v. New York Central
Railroad, 56 N.Y. 295;
Shelton v. Lake Shore Railway,
29 Ohio St. 214;
Frederick v. Marquette &c. Railroad,
37 Mich. 342;
Bradshaw v. South Boston Railroad, 135 Mass.
407;
Murdock v. Boston & Albany Railroad, 137 Mass.
293, 299;
Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Fleming,
14 Lea 128.
Judgment affirmed.