Philadelphia, Wilmington & Baltimore Railroad v. Rice

Robinson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellee, plaintiff below, bought a round trip ticket from Wilmington to Philadelphia. The ticket was in two coupons attached to each other, — one being for the trip to Philadelphia, and the other for the return trip. Shortly after leaving Wilmington, the conductor came through for tickets, took the plaintiff’s ticket, tore off the coupon for'the trip to Philadelphia, and by mistake punched the return coupon.

A few minutes after, he came back and ⁶⁵ said to plaintiff, “let me see that ticket, I think I have made a mistake.” He then took the ticket which was the return coupon punched by him, and wrote on the back of it with a pencil the words, “ cancelled by mistake,” and returned it to the plaintiff, saying, “I have fixed it all right, now you can ride on it.” The next day, the plaintiff on the return trip to Wilmington handed to the conductor of that train the punched coupon, which however he declined to accept, because it had been cancelled. The plaintiff then called his attention to the writing on the back of the ticket, and explained how it had been punched, and the mistake corrected by the conductor on the trip to Philadelphia. But the conductor declined to accept the explanation, saying to the plaintiff, “anybody could have written that, you could have done it yourself.” The mistake it seems had not been corrected according to the rules of the company, which required the conductor making the mistake to draw a ring around the cancellation mark, •and write on the back of the ticket the word “error,” and sign his name or initials. The conductor accordingly demanded of the plaintiff the fare from Philadelphia to Wilmington, and upon his refusal to pay-it, he was put off the train.

Upon these facts it is admitted an action will lie against the company for a breach of contract as a carrier, of for the negligence of the conductor in cancelling the plaintiff's ticket, and thereby destroying the only evidence of his right to the return trip ; but inasmuch as the cancellation had not been corrected according to the rules of the com•pany, the ejection of the plaintiff under such circumstances, it is argued, does not in itself furnish a substantive ground of action. We shall not stop to examine the several cases relied on in support of this contention. Hufford vs. Grand Rapids and I. R. R. Co., The Reporter, 18 Vol., 147; Frederick vs. The Marquette, Houghton and Ontonagon R. R. Co., 37 Michigan, 342; Yorton vs. The ⁶⁶ Milwaukee, Lake Shore, and Western Railway Co., 54 Wisconsin, 234; Bradshaw vs. South Boston R. R. Co., 135 Mass., 407 . It is sufficient to say, the facts in this case differ materially from the facts in those cases.

Here the plaintiff was wholly without fault. He had purchased a ticket which entitled him to a round trip from "Wilmington to Philadelphia. The return coupon was cancelled through the mistake of the conductor ; this error he attempted to. correct, and informed the plaintiff that it was all right. The latter had a right to rely on this assurance, and that the ticket for which he had paid his money, entitled him to return to Wilmington.

If the servants of the appellant under such circumstances laid their hands forcibly on the person of the plaintiff, and compelled him to leave the car, there was not merely a breach of contract