Reese v. Pennsylvania R.

[To be reported.] 1. A railroad company has power to make reasonable regulations, not only as to the amount of passenger fares,- but also as to the time, place and mode of their payment; this includes the right to refuse to carry without the previous procurement of a ticket, or to charge a higher rate of fare to passengers without tickets, provided a reasonable opportunity to procure them before entering the train has been afforded. 2. A fortiori, a regulation requiring the payment by passengers neglecting to procure tickets of ten cents in addition to the regular fare, to be refunded on presentation at the ticket office of a check therefor, is valid, being neither unreasonable, oppressive, nor needlessly inconvenient to the traveler. 3. Nor does a provision in such a regulation that it shall not be enforced as to passengers getting on trains at stations where no tickets are on sale, or when the presence of a large crowd upon a train renders it impossible for the conductor to collect the fares and tickets, if he takes time to issue such receipts to passengers without tickets, render the regulation unreasonable as not being general, fair and impartial. 4. The additional sum so to be paid by the passenger and afterwards refunded to him, is not a charge for transportation, within the meaning of a provision in the company’s charter limiting such charges to a certain rate per mile; wherefore, the fact that the fare and such additional sum may exceed the authorized maximum charge for transportation, does not constitute a violation of the charter.

APPEAL BY DEPENDANT PROM THE COURT OP COMMON PLEAS NO. 2 OP ALLEGHENY COUNTY. No. 250 October Term 1889, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 127 January Term 1889, C. P. No. 2. On October 31,1888, L. B. D. Reese brought trespass against the Pennsylvania Railroad Company to recover damages for the alleged unlawful ejecting of the plaintiff from a passenger train of the defendant. Issue. At the trial on September 17,1889, the following facts were shown: About eleven o’clock on the evening of October 24, 1888, the plaintiff, in company with two friends, boarded a passenger train of the defendant company at East Liberty station, in the city of Pittsburgh, for the purpose of going to the Union station in said city. The testimony for the plaintiff tended to prove that they arrived at East Liberty station just as the train was about to start, and too late to get tickets; while witnesses for the defendant testified that the plaintiff and his companions were at the station some minutes before the train left. The ticket office at East Liberty was kept open the usual length of time prior to the departure of that train, and afforded all persons who were at the station before it started an opportunity to procure tickets. The defendant company was incorporated by act of April 13, 1846, P. L. 312, § 21 of which provides that “ in the transportation of passengers, no charge shall be made to exceed three cents per mile for through passengers, and three and one half cents per mile for way passengers.” After the train had started, the conductor called upon the plaintiff for his ticket, when the plaintiff stated that he had none and tendered to the conductor the sum of fourteen cents in cash. The distance between the East Liberty and Union stations is four and one half miles, and the regular and uniform fare charged by the defendant between those points was fourteen cents, being at the rate of three cents a mile. The company, however, had a regulation requiring passengers without tickets to pay to the conductor, in addition to the regular fare of three cents per mile, the additional sum of ten cents. The amount so to be paid in excess of the regular fare was uniform in all cases, irrespective of the distance the passenger was traveling, and upon its payment the conductor was required to give to the passenger a memorandum or check, signed by the general passenger agent of the company, redeemable at ten cents on presentation at any ticket office of the company along its road. This memorandum is known as a “ duplex ticket,” the conductor being required to retain and forward to the auditor of passenger receipts a duplicate of each one issued. It is printed upon a form so arranged that the stations from and to which fare is collected can be indicated upon it by punch marks, and conductors are required to do this in all cases. Of this regulation, notice was given to the public by printed cards posted at the company’s ticket offices. Two such notices were posted on the station house at East Liberty at and for some time prior to the date when the plaintiff took this train. They read as follows: “ An excess of ten cents will be charged on all fares paid on trains. Passengers paying such fares will be furnished by the conductors with a memorandum, upon presentation of which, at any ticket office, of the Pennsylvania Railroad Division, the excess of ten cents will be refunded. Passengers are respectfully requested to purchase tickets at the regular ticket offices of the company, as far as practicable.” The following instructions to conductors respecting the enforcement of this regulation were issued by the company’s division ticket agent on June 80, 1887, and were still in force on October 24,1888: “The following rules will, until further notice, govern the issue of duplex tickets on the Pittsburgh Division. “ The collection of excess must be omitted as follows: 1. When passage is taken from non-ticket stations; whether the destination is a ticket station, or a non-ticket station. • 2. When passage is taken from a ticket station, the office of which being closed by authority, regardless of the passenger’s destination. 3. When, on account of a large crowd, it is impossible to issue duplex tickets without losing cash fares, or leaving tickets in the hands of passengers. 4. In cases of small children traveling alone, and of sick, aged, or infirm persons, who have not money enough to pay the excess. 5. When excursion tickets are issued. 6. Omit the collection of excess in connection with New York & Chicago Limited Express extra faros ; and, also, when ordered, collections are made on second class and emigrant tickets. “ In all cases, except as above noted, conductors must courteously enforce the collection of excess, as prescribed in circular 160; and require the persons who refuse to pay it, to leave the train; and if necessary, without undue force or violence, eject them at the next station, as provided in the book of rules.” Acting under the regulation of the company respecting the payment of cash fares, the conductor refused to accept the fourteen cents tendered him by the plaintiff and demanded twenty-four cents. The plaintiff declined absolutely to pay more than fourteen cents, whereupon he was put off the train at Roup station. The conductor of the train testified, for the defendant, that at the time of demanding twenty-four cents from the plaintiff, he explained to the latter that a duplex, redeemable at ten cents at any office of the company along the line, would be issued upon payment of the twenty-four cents. The plaintiff denied this and testified that he did not know that he would receive such a check, because he had no notice of the regulation and had never seen any of the printed placards notifying the public of it; and that he had previously ridden in trains of the defendant when no excess over the regular fare was exacted from him. He admitted, however, that he had heard of the regulation, had heard people complain of it, and had read of it in the newspapers : Q. You supposed when the conductor demanded that ten cents, that that was what it was ? A. I suppose so. Q. You did not think they were demanding the ten cents for the purpose of keeping it as fare ? A. I don’t know what they were demanding it for. I know they demanded it, and that is all there was of it. The conductor said nothing to me about getting any rebate; didn’t tender me any slip; didn’t say anything to "me about any regulation they had, but just simply demanded the twenty-four cents. Q. You did not ask him anything about it ? A. I didn’t. At the conclusion of the testimony the court, Ewing, P. J., charged the jury in part as follows : Counsel for defendant requests the court to charge : 1. Under the uncontradicted evidence in this case, the regulation of the defendant was a reasonable one, and the plaintiff, who was insisting on riding in violation thereof, has no cause of action; and the verdict should be in favor of defendant. Answer: Refused.1 8. The regulation of the defendant company requiring a passenger who gets on the train at a station where there is a ticket office and who neglects to obtain a ticket, to pay ten cents more than the regular ticket fare, and giving him a check for the ten cents which he can have cashed at any ticket office of the company, is a reasonable regulation and binding upon a passenger, and he has no right to ride upon the cars in contravention of that regulation. Answer: This point is refused under the uncontradicted evidence and admissions in this case; the fare demanded being in excess of the maximum rate which the railroad company by its charter is permitted to charge, the regulation is illegal and therefore unreasonable. The demand of the conductor that the plaintiff should pay twenty-four cents, or be put off the train, was a demand of that amount as fare.8 4. Where the travel is so great and the stops are so frequent that it is not reasonably practicable for the conductor to receive the passengers’ fares on the train, and the company has provided a convenient ticket office which is open a reasonable length of time before the departure of trains, the company is not bound to receive a passenger’s fare on the train; and a regulation of the company that specifies that his fare will only be received on the train when ten cents extra is paid, for which the passenger receives a refunding receipt, and which will be repaid by the company on presentation of the receipt at any ticket office, is a reasonable and valid regulation and binding upon passengers. Answer: It is not necessary in this case to decide whether or not the railroad company has a right to make a regulation that it will not carry passengers who have no ticket. This company has not made such a regulation; and, having left it open to the public to ti'avel by paying fare on the train, the company must limit its demand to the maximum allowed by its charter.3 The court is requested by the plaintiff to instruct the jury : 3. If the jury find that the amount demanded from plaintiff by the conductor was in excess of the maximum rate of fare per mile fixed by defendant’s charter, such demand was illegal; and if, in consequence of plaintiff’s refusal to pay the excessive amount so demanded, he was ejected from the train, he is entitled to recover in this action, especially if the jury further find that he was willing to pay, and tendered to the conductor, the regular ticket or cash fare between said points. Answer: Afiffimed.4 It seems that the company has a regulation, known to its officers at least, and the regulation 021 which this conductor acted that night, that where a passenger gets on the train to get transportation to some other poÍ2it 021 the road without a ticket, the conductor is to collect from him the regular fare that he would have paid for a ticket and ten cents in addition to that, regardless of the distance he is going to travel. The conductor, actÍ2ig 021 that, demanded the ten cents additional fare, making twenty-four cents. There is no doubt that the railroad co2npany, both in its own interest and in the interest and C021-venience of the public in traveling, has a right to make some difference in the fare charged to a person who gets his ticket at the office and has it so that the evidence of payment of fare shall be easily taken by the conductor, or ticket collector, or whoever it may be, without inconvenience and without waste of time. If they only make a reasonable difference under the circumstances, then it is a valid one; and if the passenger, liaving neglected to get his ticket, refuses to pay the proper fare, and is put off, the company is not liable. It seems that there is another part of the regulation, that when the conductor collects the extra fare from the passenger, he is required to give him a receipt or duplicate ticket, or something of the kind, which is said to entitle the passenger paying it, if he sees fit to go for it, to receive back the ten cents at the office of the company. Now we are unable to see, that giving that receipt converts this into anything else than the fare' demanded on the road, and we say to you, when the conductor demanded twenty-four cents from the plaintiff, as a condition precedent to his ride to Union station, it was a demand of twenty-four cents as fare; and if that was a larger fare than the law of the company, namely, its charter, authorized it to charge, then it was a demand of an illegal fare, and the regulation as to this particular case, and between these two stations, is illegal, and, therefore, unreasonable. If left to the court to form a conclusion, as to whether or not it was a reasonable discrimination between a ticket fare and the cash fare, I would say that ten cents is an unreasonable addition to make to the fare between these two points; but that is immaterial in this case, with the view we take of what this demand was; namely, a demand of the fare of twenty-four cents..... [The act of assembly, read in your presence and offered in evidence, fixes the maximum fare that the railroad company can charge between any points, as three and one half cents per mile. The admitted distance between the two stations is four and one half miles; from which I think they would be entitled to charge for five miles; so that this would he an excessive fare, beyond the maximum that the statute authorized the Pennsylvania railroad to charge in any case, and therefore illegal.] 5 If that fare was demanded, and the plaintiff was put off because he would not pay it, it is immaterial that he got off before force was used; it was illegal, and the defendant is liable for the damages. There are two questions that appear to be in dispute from the evidence, which I do not deem material. We have admitted several things in evidence, on the part of defendant, which we are inclined to think are not strictly legal evidence, but think it is important that everything connected with this case should go on the record, and we will ask yoa to pass on two questions disputed by the testimony..... Did the plaintiff, Mr. Reese, on the evening in question, arrive at East Liberty station in time to procure a ticket before going on the train? If he did, answer it yes; if ho did not, answer it no. The next is, that the conductor explained to Mr. Reese that when he would pay the twenty-four cents, he would get a receipt, or something, entitling him to be paid back ten cents. Mr. Reese says he did not explain anything of the kind, and the other two witnesses corroborate it.....We ask you to answer either in the negative or affirmative that question. [If you find that the fare demanded was in excess of the legal fare, three and one half cents per mile, and that he was put off for not paying that, then you find for the plaintiff, and you will return that verdict, filling the amount in] 6 and answering these questions. The next question is, if you find for the plaintiff, what is the amount of damages ? ... . The jury rendered the following verdict: “We find for the plaintiff in the sum of two hundred and fifty dollars ($250). And we have further answered the annexed questions submitted to us for answer as part of the verdict: “ 1. Did the plaintiff, Mr. Reese, on the evening in question, arrive at the East Liberty station in time to procure a ticket before getting on the train ? “No.” “ 2. Did the conductor, when demanding from the plaintiff twenty-four cents fare, or before putting him off the train, inform him that he.would obtain a receipt entitling him to be repaid ten cents of the fare on presentation at the proper office; or did Mr. Reese know that such was the regulation ? “No:” Judgment having been entered upon the verdict, the defendant took this appeal, assigning for error: 1-3. The answers to defendant’s points.1 to 3 4. The answer to plaintiffs’ point-.4 5, 6. The parts of the charge embraced in [ ] 5 6