Lundy v. Cent. Pac. R.R. (1884) · DecisionDepot

Lundy v. Cent. Pac. R.R.

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Dec 8, 1884 No. No. 8,200Published

Before: Thornton

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the lower court erred in granting a nonsuit because the plaintiff's contract for passage was valid and the defendant was properly liable for the plaintiff's ejection.

Issues

Whether the plaintiff's contract for passage was validly exercised within the specified timeframe.
Whether the defendant was the proper party to be sued for the plaintiff's ejection from the train.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the court below, in granting the nonsuit in this case, misconceived the meaning of the contract for passage between the plaintiff and defendant.”

“We see nothing in the evidence to uphold the ruling of the court below nonsuiting the plaintiff, and the judgment and order denying a new trial are therefore reversed”

Synopsis

Railroad Tickets—Limitation as to Time.—Where a railroad ticket is conditioned that it will not be good for passage after a certain number of days from the date of sale, the passenger may commence his journey at any date within the stipulated time. Such a condition does not require him to complete the passage within the time mentioned.

Id.—Liability ob Connecting Roads—Agency.—Where a ticket is issued by a railroad company for passage over its own line and a connecting road, under a verbal agreement between the respective passenger and ticket agents that tickets issued by one shall be accepted by the other, and afterwards pro-rated, an action may be maintained against the connecting road for an illegal expulsion of the passenger by its officers.

Thornton, J. -The court below, in granting the nonsuit in this case, misconceived the meaning of the contract for passage between the plaintiff and defendant. In our view, it was only-required of the plaintiff that he present himself at the cars of the Union Pacific Railroad Company, or of the defendant, and take passage at any time within nine days from the 12th day of March, 1874 The plaintiff took passage on the 21st of the same month, and was illegally ejected from the cars of defendant by its servant on the morning of the 25th following.

The admission of defendant showed clearly that the contract for carrying the plaintiff from Omaha to San Francisco, though made by the Union Pacific Railroad Company, was made by authority of defendant.

We have no doubt that the action was properly brought against the defendant.

We see nothing in the evidence to uphold the ruling of the court below nonsuiting the plaintiff, and the judgment and order denying a new trial are therefore reversed, and the cause remanded, that a new trial may be had in accordance with the views herein expressed.

Sharpstein, J., and Myrick, J.,concurred.

Lundy v. Cent. Pac. R.R.

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief