Johnson v. Philadelphia, Wilmington & Baltimore Railroad

Miller, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This suit was brought by the appellant against the appellee to recover damages for having been wrongfully ejected from its cars. The declaration alleges that on the 22nd of May, 1888, the plaintiff purchased from the-defendant an excursion ticket from Elkton to Philadelphia, and return, whereby the defendant became bound to carry him safely over its road on this trip, and treat him civilly and properly, hut the defendant had rude and incompetent servants on the train and in charge thereof, who refused to allow him to ride on its road, dragged him from his seat, expelled him from the train, and other wrongs to the plaintiff then and there did. Instead of meeting this simple case with the plea of non cul. and trying it upon issue joined- on that plea, the docket entries show there were an extraordinary number of special pleas and replications, a part of which only are-contained in the record.

It contains only four lengthy pleas, and five similar replications, to which numbers- they had been reduced by the withdrawal of the’ others, there-having been originally eight pleas and many more replications. The Court overruled the demurrers to these four pleas, sustained the demurrers to the five replications, and gave judgment for the defendant, from which the plaintiff has taken this appeal. From this we infer, though it is not so stated in the record, that the plaintiff did not wish to amend or answer over, and was willing that final ■ judgment should he given for the defendant, relying upon the success of his effort to reverse the ruling of the Court upon these demurrers. It is therefore our duty to pass upon the sufficiency of these pleadings, hut before examining them, it becomes important to ascertain the rights and obligations of the plaintiff under the ticket which he purchased.

This ticket is set out verbatim twice in the pleas and once in the replications and it consists of two connected ¹⁰⁹ parts, on the first of which there are printed, helow the name of the defendant the terms “Excursion. Elhton to Philadelphia. Subject to conditions named in contract. Not good to stop off,” and on the second, also below the name •of the defendant, the terms. “Three days’ excursio n— return coupon.

Philadelphia to Elhtonand then follows this contract: “ In consideration of the reduced rate at which this ticket is sold, it is agreed that it shall be used within three days, including the day of sale, as stamped on the back, for a continuous trip only, and by its acceptance the purchaser becomes a party to, and binds himself to a •compliance with these conditions. It is not transferable nor good to stop off.” We find no difficulty in construing this contract. The conditions that the ticket shall be used “ for a continuous trip only,” and is “ not good to stop off,” mean that a purchaser who accepts and uses it, is bound to take a train which will carry him continuously through from one city to the other, both in going and returning, and not to stop off at an intermediate station while going either way, and the obligation of the company is to carry him safely, and to furnish trains which will thus carry him continuously from one place to the other. In Pennington vs. Phil., Wil. & Balto.

R. R. Co., 62 Md., 95 , the party attempted • to use the return coupon of a similar ticket after the expiration of the three days, and it was held that the limitation as to time was good and binding upon him, notwithstanding there was proof that he never read the ticket, and that the agent who sold it to him, told him it was “good until used.” In that case we decided that where a ticket is sold at less than the usual rates, on certain conditions as to its use, if the purchaser accepts and uses it, he makes a contract with .the company, according to the terms stated, and the reduction in the fare is the consideration for his contract; and that after he has availed himself of this reduction by using the ticket to make the trip one ¹¹⁰ way, it is too late for him on his return to allege that he did not know on what terms the reduction was made, when he had ample opportunity of learning them from the ticket in his possession. According to the law thus stated, the plaintiff was bound to observe all the conditions expressed on the face of his ticket, and could not hold the defendant to any other terms than those thus stated; and this being so, there is not much difficulty in disposing of these pleadings. The substantial averments of the pleas are that the plaintiff purchased and accepted this ticket, and on the same day took passage on a train which carried him directly through from Elkton to Philadelphia, and on this side gave up to the conductor the first part of his ticket; that on the next day at Philadelphia, he got on a train which did not run as far as Elkton, and was only intended and advertised to run to Wilmington, all of which he well Tcneiv at and before the time he entered said train; that he moreover entered this train with "the purpose and intention not to make a continuous trip to