Pennsylvania Co. v. Lenhart
Citations
- 120 F. 61
- 56 C.C.A. 467
- 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 4459
Syllabus
<p>1. Carriers — Ejection of Passenger — Breach of Contract.</p> <p>Plaintiff held a mileage ticket, good on defendant’s railroad, which provided that it must be presented at the ticket office at the starting point, where the agent would issue a mileage exchange ticket for the desired trip in exchange for coupons from the book. It also provided that conductors might issue such exchange tickets, where the holder took the train at a station where there was no ticket office, or where such office was closed. Plaintiff presented his book to the agent at a station, and desired an exchange ticket, but the agent was not supplied with such tickets, and promised to explain such fact to the conductor. Plaintiff got on board, and presented his book to the conductor, who refused to give him an exchange ticket, and on plaintiff’s refusal to pay fare ejected him at the next station. The ticket office there was closed, and plaintiff called the conductor’s attention to such fact, and desired to again enter the train, but was refused. Held, that such action was a breach of the contract on the part of defendant, which rendered it liable in damages for plaintiff’s wrongful ejection.</p> <p>2. Same — Duty to Pay Pare to Prevent Threatened Wrongful Ejection.</p> <p>Plaintiff was not required to pay his fare when demanded and trust to its recovery by suit for the purpose of saving defendant from the consequences of its threatened breach of contract if he did not, but, having presented a legal ticket, was entitled to stand upon his rights under the contract.</p> <p>3. Same — Action for Damages — Evidence.</p> <p>In an action to recover damages for such breach of contract and wrongful ejection it was error to permit plaintiff to testify to transactions and conversations between him and a ticket agent after his ejection or between him and the conductor of the succeeding train, such evidence not being relevant to the issues.</p> <p>4 Same.</p> <p>A railroad company is liable in damages, witho
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “As with the attorney-client privilege, an assertion that a document is protected by the work-product doctrine must be established by specific facts and not conclusory statements.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Baker
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.