Baltimore, Chesapeake & Atlantic Railway Co. v. Kirby

Fowler, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The plaintiff was a passenger on the train of the defendant Railroad Company on the 25 th August, 1897. He was returning from Ocean City to his home in Talbot County, and claims damages for the alleged wrongful action of the company in ejecting him from its cars before he had completed his journey. It appears from the evidence that the defendant had sold to the plaintiff an excursion ticket which it is conceded was good on the train on which he was riding when the occurrences took place which gave rise to this suit; that the conductor when collecting the tickets of the passengers approached the defendant, who at that time was sitting in the front car°of the train, and when the latter showed his ticket the former refused to take it, said that the ticket would not do, and that the plaintiff had no right on that train; that thereupon the plaintiff informed the conductor that he was from Trappe and that he bought the ticket with the understanding that it was good on that train.

As we have said the ticket wás in fact good, and the conductor was undoubtedly in error if he refused to accept it when offered by the plaintiff. After the conversation between the conductor and the plaintiff both of them passed into the second or rear car of the train where they had another interview which resulted in the ejection here complained of. The plaintiff testifies that he went into the rear car and took ⁴¹¹ a seat beside a passenger who had a ticket like the one the conductor had refused to take from him. Other passengers had similar tickets all of which except that of the plaintiff were accepted by the conductor.

It does not appear from the testimony of the plaintiff, that the conductor said anything to him or he to the conductor while in the rear car; but the evidence of other witnesses who testified on behalf of the plaintiff is to the effect that some one offered to pay plaintiff’s fare after signal had been given to stop the train, and that the plaintiff said that he had offered the ticket in the front car, and that he as going to keep it to return home on if he was put off. Another witness for plaintiff testified that the conductor after collecting the remainder of the tickets rang the bell and said, “ I will put you off.” The testimony on the part of the defendant in so far as necessary here to rehearse it, is that when the conductor came to the plaintiff on the rear car and demanded his ticket, he ran his hand in his pocket and said, “ there it is, but I’ll be d-d if you’ll get it,” to which the conductor replied, “ I’ll have to have your ticket or fare ” ; that he took up the other tickets and returning to the plaintiff again asked him for the ticket or fare. Upon the refusal of the plaintiff the train was stopped and he was put off. Other witnesses also testified that the conductor said to the plaintiff, “ all I want is your ticket or the fare.” The conductor denied emphatically that he had refused to take the ticket in the front car, and further testified that the only reason why he did not take the plaintiff’s ticket was because he could not get it.

There is but one question presented by this appeal and that is, whether there wras, under the evidence in this case, error in granting the plaintiff’s first prayer. By that prayer the jury were instructed that if the conductor refused to accept the ticket in question and demanded a different ticket or the payment