Church v. Chicago M. & St. P. Ry. Co.

Citations

• 6 S.D. 235
• 26 L.R.A. 616
• 60 N.W. 854
• 1894 S.D. LEXIS 145

Syllabus

<p>1. A passenger held a ticket, issued by the appellant company, from Milwaukee, Wis., to Artesian, S. D. Such ticket gave the passenger the right to transportation, subject to such reasonable rules and regulations as the company had a right to make, concerning the running of its trains and the route over which they should run.</p> <p>2. It is a reasonable regulation for a company operating direct, and indirect and circuitous; lines of road between two points, to require that throug'h passengers, traveling upon a simple contract to carry from one point to the other, should go by the most direct route.</p> <p>3. Such reasonable regulation becomes a part of the contract of carriage.</p> <p>4. Failure by the company to notify a passenger of such regulation does not affect the contractual rights of the parties, so as to entitle the passenger to ride between such points on other lines of the company than those established as the through route by such regulation.</p> <p>5. The fact that the passenger told the company’s gate keeper at the Milwaukee depot that she desired to go to Artesian by way of Prairie du Chien and Mitchell, and he directed her to the proper train without informing her that she would have to change at Canton, a junction 500 miles distant, or that she could not go on that ticket from Canton to Artesian by way of Mitchell, did not entitle her to go that way, against the regulation of the company.</p> <p>6. Respondent’s wife procured a ticket from Milwaukee, Wis., to Artesian, S. D. The company had two established routes between these points, —one, which she took, by way of Prairie du Chien, Canton, and Egan. By this route she should have changed cars at Canton, S. D., for Egan. She did not change, but continued on the train west, and insisted upon her right to go by way of Mitchell and Woonsocket, over which lines the company had ho through . route. Refusing to pay fare, she was ejected. Held, that while the failure of the company to notify her to chang