The Modern Law of Carriers; Or, the Limitation of the Common-Law Liability of Common Carriers Under the Law Merchant, Statute and Special Contracts (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1890 Excerpt: ...Cook (N. Y.), 495; s. c. 4 The same rule has been laid down in cases where the holder of an excursion ticket received from the first conductor a check, instead of his return ticket; or where, from any error of the first conductor, the passenger failed to receive a return ticket in due form.1 Other cases maintain the reverse. These conflicting decisions are stated in the notes. Hun, 217 (1875). In this case the Supreme Court said: "To require a passenger to show a ticket may be reasonable, but a company cannot require a passenger to comply with a regulation, compliance with which they have themselves prevented. Nor can it be said that the act of the conductor, in taking up the ticket, was wrongful toward the passenger. The company might take up their tickets whenever they chose, but they could not, by so doing, acquire the right to refuse to transport the passenger." Pittsburg, Cin. & St. L. R. Co. v. Hennigh, 39 Ind. 509 (1872); Palmer v. Charlotte, C. & A. R. R., 3 S. Car. (N.S) 580 (1872); City & Suburban R. of Savannah v. Brauss, 70 Ga. 368 (1883). The authority of the statement just quoted from the Townsend case is not unquestioned. Indeed, the law in New York is by no means free from doubt. On the first appeal in the Townsend case, 56 N. Y. 295 (1874), the opinion of Grover, J., which is the only one reported, maintains that the expulsion under the circumstances stated was lawful, but that the passenger had a remedy for the unlawful act of the first conductor in not giving him a proper check. It does not appear that this was concurred in by a majority of the court. And the General Term, in the same case, did not follow the rule thus stated, but held, as has been shown, that the expulsion was unlawful. And it was so held in the Ham...