PRODUCING TICKETS, OR EVICTION.
Carried past.--Jumping off.--Junctions.--Cave Canem.--Conductors
refusing Change.--Fighting in the Cars.--Conduct of
Passengers.--Ladies’ Car.--Turned out in the Dark.--No Seats.--Colored
Persons.--Tickets lost and found too late.--Conductor’s
Conduct.--Damages for Wrongful Ejectment.--Go quietly.--Companies
heavily Mulcted.--By-law as to producing Tickets.--A Lover, his
Mark.--Getting off for a Moment.
Fortunately for my friend the attention of our fellow travellers was
drawn away from him by the language, more forcible than elegant,
of a man who had been carried past a small way-station at which he
desired to alight, and for which he had a ticket. He vowed vengeance
against the company because the train was not stopped and a reasonable
opportunity given him to alight, and threatened loudly to sue the
company for the damage which, he said, he would inevitably sustain
through his non-delivery at his destination. And no doubt he would be
successful, judging from authorities, in recovering compensation for
the inconvenience, loss of time, and the labor of travelling back to
the haven where he would be, because these are the direct consequences
of the wrong done him.[349] One Hobbs, and Betsy his wife, with two
juveniles, once took a midnight train homeward bound; they were landed,
however, at another village, some miles off from their house; it was so
late that they could neither get a conveyance, nor yet accommodation
at an inn, and so all had to walk home through a drizzling rain. Betsy
took cold and was laid up for some time, and the jury gave a verdict
of £28 in their favor; £8 for the personal inconvenience, the balance
for the wife’s illness and its consequences. The court considered
that Hobbs was entitled to the £8, but not to the rest, the sickness
being too remote a consequence of the breach of contract.[350] This
was in England, but in Mississippi where a man, subject to rheumatism,
got carried past his station and had to walk back in the rain,
whereupon his old enemy attacked him, it was decided that he might
get satisfaction out of the company.[351] The ticket must always be
taken to be the contract between the passenger and the company for the
special purpose, and upon the terms which are contained in it,[352]
and when the company has issued a ticket to a particular place they
are bound to stop there, and it is not enough merely to slacken off
steam;[353] but, without special agreement, one cannot insist upon a
train stopping at a place where they do not usually delay.[354]
Somebody--not a Solomon--asked the man why he had not jumped off; he
sensibly--considering he was in a passion--replied:--
“If I had been so foolhardy as to jump off while the train was in
motion, without doubt, many a court in the land would hold that I did
it at my own risk, and, if hurt, could coolly tell me that for my gross
imprudence I had nobody but myself to blame,[355] if, however, they had
stopped but for a moment, I would have run the risk of being injured by
their starting before I was quite off, for then they would have been
liable,[356] and I would have done so if the train had been moving
slowly.”[357]
“But,” said my legal luminary to me, sotto-voce--for he was afraid to
draw attention to himself again--“if a passenger is induced to leap
from a car under the influence of a well-grounded fear of a collision
that would be fatal to limb or life, it seems to be regarded as well
settled that he may recover against the carriers, even though he would
not have been hurt in the slightest degree, had he philosophically
remained quiet.”[358]
Another man wanted the conductor to stop the train because he had
just discovered that he was on the wrong track; but this favor was
refused, and the stupid fellow had to pay the full fare to the next
stopping-place.[359]
By this time we had reached the Junction, and friend Smith and myself
and several other persons got out to take the cars of the one or the
other of the two other companies whose lines here cross. The stations
of the three companies are all open to each other, and the passengers
of each pass directly from the one to the other, “no pent up Utica
contracts their powers” of pedestrianism, the whole area being used
as common ground by the travellers on all three roads. While here,
a porter of the B. and E. Co., who was trundling a track laden high
with luggage, let a portmanteau fall off and injure the toes of one
of our fellow-travellers who was on the part of the platform owned by
the B. and E. Rw. Co. on his way to the terminus of the other line.
(I afterwards heard that the court held that the negligence being an
act of misfeasance by the servant of the company in the course of his
employment, the maxim _respondeat superior_ applied, and that the
company were liable; but the judges doubted whether the railway would
have been responsible supposing the man had been injured from the state
and condition of the platform, as he had no business on it.)[360]
As I was trudging along an ugly dog of the cur tribe, with a _noli me
tangere_ expression of countenance, dashed past me and rushed up to an
innocent-looking individual, seizing him violently by the posterior
part of the most indispensable portion of a man’s attire, and judging
from the row the fellow kicked up, by something more sensitive than
pantaloons as well: shaking vigorously, the dog detached a piece
of cloth and drew a little blood. The victim had a heavy stick in
his hand, and the little doggy’s lively career was stopped then and
there. I remarked to the man, “My friend, if you find out that that
unfortunate puppy belonged to the company or to any of their servants,
sue them for damages; if not, don’t trouble yourself to do so unless
you can show that they were able to dispose of the fractious animal and
did not do it.”[361]
Shortly after we were again under way a little excitement was
occasioned by an altercation between the conductor and a man who
had not fully made up his mind (whether owing to the magnitude or
insignificance thereof, we cannot say) how far he intended to ride, and
so did not wish to settle for the present. The strife of tongues waxed
warm, and the sound of the conflict rose high above the rattle and the
din of the train.
The conductor said that if he did not at once pay the fare to some
place or other he would have the pleasure of walking there. The man
still hesitated, so the official pulled the check-rope, and on the
stoppage of the train proceeded to eject the traveller, who at the
last moment tendered a $20 gold piece, and told the conductor to take
the fare to the next station (some $1.35). The latter declined now
to receive the money, and put the man off, leaving him alone in his
glory, breathing curses loud and deep.[362] Doubtless the official
was justified in so doing, as in a somewhat similar case the court
said that even an officer at a ticket office might reasonably object
to an offer of a $20 gold piece to pay a fare of $1.35, on account
of the trouble and risk involved: and that a person rushing into the
cars without a ticket has no reason to expect that he will find the
conductor prepared to change a $20 gold piece, for he relies upon
receiving tickets from the passengers, or, if money be paid to him
instead, he expects that it will be paid with reasonable regard to what
is convenient under the circumstances.[363]
I may as well inform the general public here, that it is considered a
reasonable condition for railway companies to require passengers to
procure tickets before entering the train.[364]
My friend was just beginning to dilate upon the subject of ejecting
passengers, when his voice was drowned by a crash, a scream, and
a general uprising of our fellow-travellers. I verily thought
within myself that there was a collision--that we were off the
track--that--that--that, I don’t know what I did not think in the few
moments that elapsed before I saw that it was only a fight between some
men who had been indulging deeply in that cup which inebriates and
brutalizes as well as cheers. The conductor soon arrived and quelled
the disturbance. In this case, fortunately, it was not necessary--as
it may sometimes be--for him to stop the train, call to his aid the
engineer, the firemen, brakesmen and bellicose passengers, and leading
the way himself--like some valiant knight of the Middle Ages--expel
the disturbers of the peace, or else show by an earnest experiment
that to do so was impossible.[365] If this latter contingency were
to happen, the conductor must either discontinue the trip, or give
the other passengers an opportunity of leaving the cars; otherwise
the company will be responsible for the acts of the rioters.[366] A
conductor is not bound to wait until some act of violence, profaneness,
or other misconduct has been committed before exercising the power
reposed in him of excluding or expelling offenders.[367] Of course he
is never bound to receive passengers who will not conform to reasonable
regulations, or who from their behavior, state of health or person,
are offensive to the other travellers.[368]
Carriers of passengers are just as responsible for the misconduct of
their living freight as they are for the mismanagement of the train.
They must exercise the utmost vigilance in maintaining order--that
first of Heaven’s laws--and in guarding passengers against violence;
or if not, they must pay for the consequences. In one case, they had
to pay for the eye which a passenger lost, through the quarrel of some
drunken men.[369] In another, for an arm broken in a shindy between
votaries of Bacchus.[370] All disorderly and indecent conduct is to
be repressed, and those sons of Belial who are guilty thereof must
be excommunicated, or expelled, with Puritanic severity.[371] No one
should be permitted to travel in a car, who so demeans himself as to
endanger the safety, or interfere with the reasonable comfort and
convenience of other passengers. But a wolf in sheep’s clothing, a
whited sepulchre, a serpent disguised as an angel of light, cannot
be refused transport; nor need a conductor remove a too-far-gone
dissenter from the principles of J. B. Gough, if he is neither
disorderly nor offensive, nor if he remains quiet after admonition. If
there is nothing in the condition, conduct, appearance, or manner of
a passenger, from which it can reasonably be inferred that he means
mischief, the company will not be liable for any sudden attack he may
make upon another passenger.[372]
Where the company issue excursion tickets, stipulating to run trains
in a particular manner, they cannot excuse themselves, by showing that
the carriages are all filled.[373] In England, in ordinary cases, the
ticket is issued subject to the condition that there is room in the
train; otherwise those who are booked for the greatest distance have
the preference.[374] And a carriage must not be suffered to become,
or at least to continue overcrowded.[375] A considerable discussion
has taken place in some of the States of the Republic as to how far
railway companies can require colored persons to sit in a particular
place or car. The right to do so was maintained by the Supreme Court
of Pennsylvania,[376] but other tribunals have denied it. In Illinois
it was decided that a company could not from caprice, wantonness, or
prejudice, exclude a black woman from the ladies’ car on account of
her negro blood; although it might not be an unreasonable rule to
require colored persons to occupy seats in a separate car, furnished as
comfortably as the others.[377]
The duties of common carriers include the doing of everything
calculated to render the transportation most comfortable and least
annoying to passengers.[378] Their contract with their patrons is a
stipulation for respectful treatment, that decency of demeanor which
constitutes the charm of social life, that attention which mitigates
evils without reluctance, and that promptitude which administers
aid to distress. And in respect to women it proceeds still further;
it includes an implied stipulation against general obscenity, that
immodesty of approach which borders on lasciviousness, and against that
wanton disregard of the feelings which aggravates every evil.[379]
As men of all sorts and conditions are so constantly travelling
on trains, it is not only a reasonable regulation, but almost a
humane duty, to have on every train a ladies’ car for women and men
accompanying them, from which creatures wearing exposed bifurcated
garments, unblessed by the companionship of the fair sex, and women
of offensive habits and character may be excluded, so that all the
good ladies may be together as they will be in heaven.[380] And even
though persons not admissible under the letter of the regulation are
occasionally permitted within the charmed precincts the rule is still
binding, and a male in trowsers has no right to enter without license
or reasonable excuse. If passengers excluded, by regulations, from
the ladies’ car cannot find seats in the regular coaches and there
is room in the privileged place, they must not be kept standing; but
it is the officers of the train who must determine who shall, or who
shall not, be allowed to enter the presence of the ladies; one has no
right to enter or attempt an entrance by force. If one being unable to
find a seat elsewhere go peaceably into the ladies’ car without being
forbidden, he cannot then be removed by violence, unless a seat in
another carriage is offered to him and he refuses to move. But under
no circumstances will a brakesman be authorized in forcibly ejecting
such an intruder by throwing him on to the platform while the train is
crossing a river. A man is not bound to stay in a smoking-car.[381]
It is said to have been held by some court, in a case of _Toland_
against _The Hudson River Railway_, that a passenger who is not
provided with a seat is not obliged to pay any fare, and if expelled
from the cars for refusing such payment may sustain an action against
the company. But this doctrine must be taken _cum grano salis_. If
a passenger is not accommodated as he should be, he may decline any
compromise, and sue the company for refusing to carry him as their
contract by the ticket or their duty required; and he doubtless
will succeed unless the company prove some just excuse. But if one
chooses to accept a passage without a seat, the general understanding
undoubtedly is that he must pay. If, however, he goes upon the cars
expecting proper accommodation, and is put off because he declines
going without, he may still sue.[382] So much by way of parenthesis and
digression.
“Well, what have you got to say about ejectment?” I asked my chum.
“Oh, that it is deuced hard that every dunderhead of a conductor
may put a poor wayfaring-man off, even at the noon of night, near
any dwelling-house he may choose. In one case the night was dark
and cloudy; from where the ejected man was placed, the lights of
the last station were visible, although no house was nigh, yet the
court held that the servants of the company had not exceeded their
authority.[383] The law in some States is that one can only be put out
at a station.”[384]
“How would it be, old boy, if the poor wretch was short-sighted?” I
inquired.
“That defect in one’s optics would impose no additional obligation on
the company; at least so it would appear from the authorities.”[385]
“What would be the consequences if a fellow was to mislay his ticket,
and find it again after he had been ignominiously expelled; could he
recover against the company?”
“I remember where one Curtis was travelling between St. Mary’s and
London, and had put his ticket away so safely--lest he should lose
it--that he could not find it. The conductor called upon him to produce
it; in vain Curtis ransacked pocket after pocket in coat, waistcoat,
and trowsers, pulling out papers, letters, newspapers, wool, and all
that precious olio to be found in a man’s pockets. The other travellers
were greatly edified and delighted at the exhibition of this _omnium
gatherum_, and their laughs and jests added not a little to the
confusion of the poor wretch searching for his little talismanic piece
of pasteboard. At length the conductor stopped the train and turned C.
off, though while being put off he offered to pay his fare. He sued
the company, and got $300 out of them, the court holding the company
liable for the acts of their officers duly authorized and styled (under
the Act) conductors, when not committed in excess of authority, which
in this case had not been overstepped. The company applied for a new
trial, but the court declined to disturb the verdict (it being the
second one recovered by Curtis), although it considered the damages
excessive.”[386]
“I should think,” I remarked, “one ought to be allowed a reasonable
time to find his ticket.”
“Of course,” was the reply, “a passenger has a right to ride so
long as there is a reasonable expectation of his finding it during
the trip.[387] A conductor on a previous train wrongfully taking
the passenger’s ticket does not excuse the traveller from producing
it, when called upon by another conductor; although, in such a
case, the company would be liable for the wrongful act of the first
conductor.”[388]
“I suppose the courts assume that the conductors are the agents of the
company and authorized to do all legal acts for properly collecting
the tickets, keeping order, running the train and removing persons who
misbehave or will not pay, and such?” I queried.
“Yes,” replied my friend, who was suffering from an acute attack of
_cacoethes loquendi_, “and if in assuming to carry out what he is
legally empowered to do, he forcibly removes from the cars (without
any excuse) a passenger who has paid his fare, he will be liable for
the assault; but if while being removed the man should slip, fall, and
be injured, the company will not be responsible for his scratches and
bruises, or his sprains and strains, such things being the remote, and
not the proximate consequences of the ejectment.”[389] Force may be
used to prevent one unlawfully getting on a train and no liability
be incurred for injuries; but when once a man is fairly on care must
be taken in removing him.[390] Companies have a right to adopt such
reasonable regulations as are necessary for their security, and if they
are not complied with by the passengers, not only may the railroad
refuse them admission to the cars, but if they are already within
they may remove them;[391] “and in the enforcement of order, and in
the execution of reasonable regulations for the safety and comfort of
passengers and for the security of the train, the authority of the
officer in charge must be obeyed.”[392]
“Suppose a man suffered serious detriment to his business by being
wrongfully turned out of the cars, could he recover for such losses?” I
asked.
“It has been so considered in the great Republic, if he declares
specially in regard to them.[393] But it has been held--and I think
rightly--that one cannot get vindictive or punitive damages against a
company, unless they expressly or impliedly participate in the wrongful
action by authorizing it beforehand or approving of it afterwards;[394]
or the case be one of gross negligence or wilful misconduct.”[395]
“What is it, then, exactly, that a man can get for being with
indignity and insolence hustled out of a train, amid the laughs and
jeers of the vulgar and the sneers of the polite?”
“Damages for actual injury, loss of time, pain of body, money paid to
the doctor, or for injuries to the wounded feelings of the evicted one,
may be allowed.[396] One man got $1,150 for being put off, when sick,
away from a station.”[397]
“Suppose one was killed, and sent off unprepared to the happy hunting
grounds of his fathers?” I queried.
“Then the company would be liable under Lord Campbell’s Act,”[398]
answered my Nestor.
“I presume,” I continued, still indulging my unquenchable thirst for
knowledge, “that when a conductor gets into his cranium the idea that
it is the proper thing to put one off, the best plan is quietly to
submit to the inscrutable and go?”
“Undoubtedly--spoken like a veritable Solon. In such an evil case
it will be wise and prudent to gather together one’s surroundings
and belongings, and peaceably succumb to the powers that be, for if
you leave any articles behind you, you cannot recover their value,
unless you can show that the company got them, or that the violence or
suddenness of your ejection rendered it impossible for you to take them
with you and so they were lost. This point Mr. Glover had the pleasure
of settling. He was trying to do the London and Southwestern by giving
half his ticket to a friend to save expenses, and when put out of the
cars left a pair of glasses behind him, and the court told him that
he had only himself to blame for the loss.[399] The courts never like
the idea of mulcting railway companies in heavy damages for the sins
of commission of their servants and conductors; and so where a verdict
of £50 was given against the G. W. R. because the conductor put the
plaintiff off the train, though the inconvenience to him was a mere
bagatelle and the conductor had acted _bonâ fide_ under an impression
that the fare had not been paid, and had used no harshness or violence,
a new trial was granted on the ground of excessive damages, and the
Chief Justice stigmatized the verdict as ‘outrageous:’ but there the
jurors of our Lady the Queen and my lord differed; and so on the second
trial the yeomen of the county gave the man only £5 less, and the
company submitted.[400] And in another case the same Canadian court
spoke regretfully of the exorbitant amount of damages (£50) where the
company were not otherwise concerned than through the act of their
conductor, who thought that he had only been doing his duty, as England
expects every man to do.[401] And where an American jury gave $1,000,
no special damage being shown, a new trial was granted.”[402]
“To return to the question of tickets.” I said, “I saw an English
decision the other day, which shows how one may save a little in going
to an intermediate place, where opposition lines are running to some
place beyond.”
“How is that?” was asked.
“Why, often if two lines run to B. or there is an excursion thither,
the fare is cheaper than to A., which, perhaps, is not half the
distance, and one can buy a ticket to B. and get off at A. if he so
wishes.”
“Would that be a safe dodge?”
“It appears to have been decided in England that one may pay his fare
to one place, and yet leave the cars at some intermediate place where
the train stops, although the fare to the latter place may be greater
than it is to the former.”[403]
“I saw another rather funny decision. By a by-law, passengers not
delivering up their tickets when required were made liable to a
penalty; a man took a return ticket, yet after returning to the place
whence he started, did not get off but went on to a further station,
without, however, any intention to defraud; it was held that he could
not be convicted under the by-law, for it only applied to the case of
a person wilfully refusing to show his ticket _when he had one_, while
here the man had none! It was held, also, that the by-law only applied
to people travelling minus a ticket with intent to defraud.[404] Where
a gentleman took tickets for himself and three servants, keeping the
tickets in his own custody and telling the guard that he had them, and
the servants were permitted to enter the car without having or showing
each his ticket, the court held that the company were estopped from
raising the objection that the by-law as to the production and delivery
up of tickets had been infringed.”[405]
“I believe,” I remarked, when a pause enabled me to squeeze in a
remark, “a company if it chooses may allow a discount off tickets
bought before entering the cars; but that those who enter without their
magic scraps of card-board cannot claim such indulgence,[406] even
though they have been prevented purchasing them from the fact of the
office being closed.[407] Although, I believe, it has been held by some
courts that the increased rate cannot be collected unless every proper
and reasonable facility has been afforded for procuring tickets at the
station;[408] and that if a man, without any default on his part, is
prevented getting a ticket, he may pay the conductor the excess of
fare under protest, and recover it back by suit, or else he may insist
upon being taken at ticket rate, and sue for damages if the company
refuse.”[409]
“I see that in England some companies have a by-law that if a passenger
loses his ticket he shall be liable to pay the full fare from the most
distant place on the line.”
“That’s rather hard lines.”
“Don’t pun--fortunately they cannot enforce their by-law by detaining
the traveller himself.”[410]
The legal disquisitions on railway companies were suffered to subside
for a time, while the train rattled on. I gazed about on my companions.
In the seat in front of me sat a young couple, and, judging from the
orange blossoms in the bonnet of the one, and the clean shave and kid
gloves of the other, not many hours had elapsed since they had stood
side by side at Hymen’s altar, and now they were seated inclining
towards each other like the slanting sides of the letter A. The male
had a little piece of sticking-plaster on his lower lip. As I was
staring at the youthful couple, the train dashed into a tunnel and all
was darkness. I heard a prolonged sucking sound as of a cow drawing her
hind foot out of a mud-hole--to quote a western poet of renown--and
when again we emerged into the daylight, ho! presto! the plaster was
reposing securely on the ruby lip of the orange-bonneted one; all else
was serene and tranquil, and the two looked childlike and bland. How
was this? here was a mystery as interesting as any involved in railway
law. I meditated deeply on the point until I recollected what in our
ante-nuptial days my Elizabeth and myself were wont to do; then all
became clear and plain.
“Had a sleep, have you?” I said to my friend, who had been silent an
hour and was now yawningly stretching himself.
“A sleep? oh! no! not even a cat-nap, scarcely worthy of the name of a
kitten-nap,” was the reply.
“Humph! rather a long kitten! twenty miles or so!”
We stopped at a small wayside station for a few minutes while the
engine took a draught of water; a gentleman got out to take a breath of
air or something of the sort, and while he was wandering up and down
the platform, off started our train without a solitary premonitory
screech, leaving the individual wildly waving his arms and frantically
shouting after the hindermost car. In thus quietly slipping off, the
company were wrong, for a traveller who alights temporarily, but
without notice, invitation, or objection, while the train is stopping
at an intermediate station, does no unlawful act, and although for a
time he surrenders his place and rights as a passenger, he may resume
them again before the train starts, and the officers of the railway
are bound to give him reasonable notice of starting,[411] and must
not steal off silently like a thief in the night. And passengers have
a right to perambulate the platforms while the train is stopping for
refreshments, and the firemen and stokers should not toss about wood or
coal so as to injure the travellers.[412]
FOOTNOTES:
[349] Damont _v._ N. O. & C. Rw., 9 Lou. Ann. 441; Ill. C. Rw. _v._
Able, 59 Ill. 131; Redfield on Railways, vol. ii., 276.
[350] Hobbs _v._ L. & S. W. Rw., L. R., 10 Q. B. 111.
[351] Mobile, etc., Rw. _v._ McArthur, 43 Miss. 180.
[352] Farewell _v._ G. T. R., 15 U. C. C. P. 427.
[353] Georgia Rw. _v._ McCurdy, 45 Ga. 288.
[354] Chicago, etc., Rw. _v._ Randolph, 53 Ill. 510.
[355] Damont _v._ N. O. & C. Rw. 9 Lou. Ann. 441; Lucas _v._ T. & N. B.
Rw., 6 Gray, 64; but see Ill. C. Rw. _v._ Able, 59 Ill. 131.
[356] Penn. Rw. _v._ Kilgore, 32 Penn. St. 292.
[357] Filer _v._ N. Y. C., 49 N. Y. 47; Loyd _v._ Hannibal, etc., Rw.,
53 Mo. 509.
[358] Ingalls _v._ Bills, 9 Met. 1; Eldridge _v._ Long Is. Rw., 1
Sandf. 89; Rw. _v._ Aspell, 23 Penn. St. 147.
[359] Columbus, etc., Rw. _v._ Powell, 40 Ind. 37.
[360] Tebbutt _v._ Bristol & Ex. R. Co., L. R., 6 Q. B. 73; Stiles _v._
Cardiff Steam Nav. Co., 33 L. J. (N. S.), Q. B. 310.
[361] Smith _v._ Great Eastern Rw., L. R., 2 C. P. 4; Barrett _v._
Malden & Melrose Rw., 3 Allen, 101.
[362] People _v._ Jillson, 3 Parker C. C. 234.
[363] Fulton _v._ Grand Trunk Rw., 17 U. C. Q. B. 433.
[364] Hurst _v._ G. W. R., 19 C. B. (N. S.) 310.
[365] Pittsburgh, F. W., etc., Rw. _v._ Hinds, 7 Am. Reg. (N. S.) 14;
_S. C._, 53 Pa. St. 512.
[366] Redfield on Railways, vol. ii., p. 234.
[367] Vinton _v._ Middlesex Rw., 11 Allen, 306.
[368] Hodges on Railways, 553; 5th edit., 585.
[369] Pittsburgh, etc., _v._ Pillow, 7 Leg. Gaz. 13; Sup. Ct. Pa.
[370] Pittsburgh, F. W., etc., Rw. _v._ Hinds, 7 Am. Reg. (N. S.) 14;
_S. C._, 53 Pa. St. 512.
[371] Flint _v._ Norwich, etc., Transportation Co., 34 Conn. 554.
[372] Putnam _v._ Broadway, etc., Rw., 55 N. Y. 108.
[373] Patteson, J., in Hawcroft _v._ G. N. R., 16 Jur. 196.
[374] Hodges on Railways, 553.
[375] Jackson _v._ Metropolitan Rw., L. R., 10 C. P. 49.
[376] Westchester Rw. _v._ Miles, 55 Penn. St. 209.
[377] Chicago & N. W. _v._ Williams, 55 Ill. 185.
[378] Day _v._ Owen, 5 Mich. 520.
[379] Chamberlain _v._ Chandler, 3 Mason, 242; Nieto _v._ Clark, 1
Clifford, 145.
[380] Bass _v._ C. & N. W. Rw., 36 Wis. 450.
[381] Bass _v._ Chicago & N. W. Rw., 36 Wis. 450.
[382] Redfield on Railways, vol. ii., p. 282; but see Davis _v._ Kansas
City Rw., 53 Mo. 317.
[383] Fulton _v._ G. T. R., 17 U. C. Q. B. 433.
[384] Toledo, P., & W. Rw. _v._ Patterson, 63 Ill. 304.
[385] Bridges _v._ N. London Rw., L. R., 6 Q. B. 377.
[386] Curtis _v._ G. T. R., 12 C. P. (U. C.), 89.
[387] Maples _v._ N. Y. & N. H. Rw., 38 Conn. 557.
[388] Townsend _v._ N. Y. C., 56 N. Y. 295; Hamilton _v._ N. Y. C., 51
N. Y. 100; but see Pittsburgh, etc., _v._ Hennigh, 39 Ind. 509; Palmer
_v._ Charlotte, etc., Rw., 3 S. C. 580.
[389] Williamson _v._ G. T. R., 17 C. P. (U. C.), 615.
[390] Kline _v._ Cent. Pac. Rw., 37 Cal. 400.
[391] Stephen _v._ Smith, 29 Vt. 160.
[392] Bass _v._ C. & N. W. Rw., 36 Wis. 463.
[393] Holmes _v._ Doane, 3 Gray, 328.
[394] Hagan _v._ Providence & W. Rw., 3 Rhode Island, 88.
[395] Bannon _v._ Baltimore & O. R. R., 24 Md. 108; Baltimore & O. R.
R. _v._ State, Ib. 271.
[396] Hagan _v._ Prov. & W. Rw., 3 Rhode Island, 88.
[397] Ill., etc., Rw. _v._ Sutton, 53 Ill. 397.
[398] Penn. Rw. Co. _v._ Vandiver, 42 Penn. St. 365.
[399] Glover _v._ London & S. W. Rw., 3 Q. B. 25.
[400] Huntsman _v._ G. W. R., 20 U. C. Q. B. 24.
[401] Davis _v._ G. W. R., 20 U. C. Q. B. 27, and Life of Lord Nelson.
[402] Crocker _v._ New London, Will., & Pat. Rw., 24 Conn. 249.
[403] The Queen _v._ Frere, 4 E. & B. 598; Moore _v._ Metropolitan Rw.,
8 Q. B. 36.
[404] Dearden _v._ Townsend, 12 Jur. (N. S.), 120; 35 L. J. Q. B. (N.
S.), 98.
[405] Jennings _v._ G. N. R., 1 L. R. Q. B., 7.
[406] The State _v._ Goold, 53 Maine, 279; Chicago and Alton Rw. _v._
Roberts, 40 Ill. 503.
[407] Crocker _v._ New London, Will., & Pat. Rw., 24 Conn. 249.
[408] St. Louis, etc., Rw. _v._ Dalby, 19 Ill. 353.
[409] Jeffersonville, etc., Rw. _v._ Rogers, 28 Ind. 1.
[410] Chilton _v._ L. & C. Rw., 16 M. & W. 212.
[411] State _v._ G. T. R., 4 Am. Rep. 258; 58 Me. 176.
[412] Jeffersonville, etc., Rw. _v._ Riley, 39 Ind. 568.