1 Hit in 0.037 sec

The Rights of a Passenger Presenting a Wrong Transfer

1906 The Yale law journal  
Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the mid--seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non--commercial purposes. Read more about Early Journal
more » ... out Early Journal Content at JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not--for--profit organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please contact COMMENT COMMENT which for fifty years has held its doors open to all, whose purpose in teaching, as expressed in its charter, was "for promoting the cause of Christ," now stands guilty under an indictment. The Court of Appeals of Kentucky considered this separation statute as only a fair exercise of the police power by the legislature. Whether its decision would have been the same had the police power been exercised in reference to any subject except the relation between the colored and white races, is an entirely different question. This power of police is an expansive power and circumstances often alter cases. THE RIGHTS OF A PASSENGER PRESENTING A WRONG TRANSFER. This question has usually arisen when the conductor has attempted to eject the passenger presenting such defective transfer, and the late case of Norton v. Consolidated R. Co., 79 Conn. Io9, is no exception.There the plaintiff boarded a car, paid his fare, and asked for a transfer. Through the negligence of the conductor this transfer was wrongly punched and the conductor of the second car attempted to eject him, but finally desisted. The action was brought for damages for the alleged assault. The particular point involved turns on the question of the conclusiveness of the transfer. In deciding whether or not the transfer is conclusive on the passenger, the various courts of appeal, before whom the problem has arisen, have reached exactly opposite conclusions. In the case of Indianapolis St. R. Co. v. Wilson, 66 N. E. 950, recently decided, the court adopts the view that the ticket is not conclusive evidence of the contract of passage. Jordan, J., says: "The ticket is only evidence of the contract, and if it fails to disclose the true contract its infirmity or fault in this respect must be chargeable to the carrier, and the latter is liable for the natural consequences. Inasmuch as the passenger is not permitted to have anything to do with the preparation of the ticket, the passenger has a right to presume that the ticket furnished him is a correct expression of the contract between himself and the carrier." The plaintiff, therefore, was given damages for the assault. The court cited, in support of this view, Trice v. Chesapeake, etc., R. R. Co., 40 W. Va. 27I; Ellsworth v. Chicago R. Co., 95 Iowa 98. The opposite result, however, was reached in Bradshaw v. R. R. Co., I35 Mass. 407, where the court said the rule of the company requiring the passenger to have a proper ticket was a reasonable one, and the right of the passenger to transportation is no greater than
doi:10.2307/784140 fatcat:pw7lsv7ikjc6rgeh7sttpu3nzy