discrimination as to the amount of fare to be charged for the same distance, by charging a higher rate when the fare is paid. on the train than when a ticket is purchased at its office. Such a regulation has been very generally considered reasonable and beneficial both to the public and the corporation, if carried out in good faith. It imposes no hardship or injustice upon passengers, who may, if they desire to do so, pay their fare and procure tickets at the lower rate before entering the cars, and it tends to protect the corporation from the frauds, mistakes, and inconvenience incident to collecting fare and making change on trains while in motion, and from imposition by those who may attempt to ride from one station to another without payment, and to enable conductors to attend to the various details of their duties on the train and at stations. State v. Goold, 53 Maine 279; The Jeffersonville Railroad Co. v. Rogers, 28 Ind. 1; Swan v. Manchester, &c., Railroad Co., 132 Mass. 116.

But such a regulation is invalid, and cannot be sustained, unless the corporation affords reasonable opportunity and facilities to passengers to procure tickets at the lower rate, and thereby avoid the disadvantage of such discrimination. When this is done, and a passenger fails to obtain a ticket, it is his own fault, and he may be ejected from the train if he refuses to pay the higher rate charged on the train.

When such a regulation is established, and a passenger endeavors to buy a ticket before he enters the cars, and is unable to do so on account of the fault of the corporation or its agents or servants, and he offers to pay the ticket rate on the train, and refuses to pay the car rate, it is unlawful for the corporation or its agents or servants to eject him from the train. He is entitled to travel at the lower rate, and the corporation is a trespasser and liable for the consequences if he is ejected from the train by its agents or servants. The passenger may, under such circumstances, either pay the excess demanded under protest, and afterwards recover it by suit, or refuse to pay it, and hold the corporation responsible in damages if he is ejected from the train. 1 Redfield on Railways 104; Evans v. M. & C. Railroad Co., 56 Ala. 246; St. Louis, etc., Railroad Co. v. Dalby, 19 Ill. 353; St. Louis, etc., Railroad Co. v. South, 43 Ill. 176; Smith v. Pittsburg, etc., Railroad Co., 23 Ohio St. 10.

Effect of Agent's Mistake.

BRADSHAW v. SOUTH BOSTON RAILROAD COMPANY.

135 Mass. 407. 1883.

Tort for being expelled from one of the defendant's cars.

C. ALLEN, J. It is a reasonable practice to require a passenger to pay his fare, or to show a ticket, check, or pass; and, in view of the difficulties above alluded to, it would be unreasonable to hold that a passenger, without such evidence of his right to be carried, might forcibly retain his seat in a car, upon his mere statement that he is entitled to a passage. If the company has agreed to furnish him with a proper ticket, and has failed to do so, he is not at liberty to assert and maintain by force his rights under that contract; but he is bound to yield, for the time being, to the reasonable practice and requirements of the company, and enforce his rights in a more appropriate way. It is easy to perceive that, in a moment of irritation or excitement, it may be unpleasant to a passenger who has once paid to submit to an additional exaction. But, unless the law holds him to do this, there arises at once a conflict of rights. His right to transportation is no greater than the right and duty of the conductor to enforce reasonable rules, and to conform to reasonable and settled customs and practices, in order to prevent the company from being defrauded; and a forcible collision might ensue. The two supposed rights are in fact inconsistent with each other. If the passenger has an absolute right to be carried, the conductor can have no right to require the production of a ticket or the payment of fare. It is more reasonable to hold that, for the time being, the passenger must bear the burden which results from his failure to have a proper ticket. It follows that the plaintiff was where he had no right to be, after his refusal to pay a fare, and that he might properly be ejected from the car. This decision is in accordance with the principle of the decisions in several other States, as shown by the cases cited for the defendant; and no case has been brought to our attention holding the contrary. Judgment for defendant.

Mistakes of Conductors.

PHILADELPHIA, WILMINGTON AND BALTIMORE
RAILROAD COMPANY v. RICE.

64 Md. 63, 21 Atl. 97. 1885.

ROBINSON, J., delivered the opinion of the court: Upon these facts it is admitted an action will lie against the company for a breach of contract as a carrier, or for the negligence of the conductor in cancelling the plaintiff's ticket, and thereby destroying the only evidence of his right to the return trip; but inasmuch as the cancellation had not been corrected according to the rules of the company, the ejection of the plaintiff under such circumstances, it is argued, does not in itself furnish a substantive ground of action. We shall not stop to examine the several cases relied on in support of this contention. Hufford v. Grand Rapids and I. R. R. Co., The Reporter, 18 Vol., 147; Frederick v. The Marquette, Houghton and Ontonagon R. R. Co., 37 Michigan 342; Yorton v. The Milwaukee, Lake Shore and Western Railway Co., 54 Wis. 234.

It is sufficient to say the facts in this case differ materially from the facts in those cases. Here the plaintiff was wholly without fault. He had purchased a ticket which entitled him to a round trip from Wilmington to Philadelphia. The return coupon was cancelled through the mistake of the conductor; this error he attempted to correct, and informed the plaintiff that it was all right. The latter had a right to rely on this assurance, and that the ticket for which he had paid his money entitled him to return to Wilmington.

If the servants of the appellant under such circumstances laid their hands forcibly on the person of the plaintiff, and compelled him to leave the car, there was not merely a breach of contract on the part of the company, but an unlawful interference with the person of the plaintiff, and an indignity to his feelings for which an action will lie, and for which he is entitled to be compensated in damages. Such is the well settled law of this state and of this country. The mistake by which the plaintiff's ticket was cancelled was the mistake of the appellant's servant, and it must abide the consequences. There was no error, therefore, in the rulings of the court in this respect.

CHAPTER VII.

COURSE OF THE UNDERTAKING.

Neglect Contributing to Loss.

FOX v. BOSTON & MAINE RAILROAD CO.

148 Mass. 220, 19 N. E. 222. 1889.

MORTON, C. J. In the case before us, the parties made a special contract, by which the defendant agreed to deliver the apples to the Maine Central Railroad by a fixed time, so that they would arrive in Bangor in the afternoon of February 23. Both parties knew that the apples were not to be sold in Portland, but were to be forwarded to Bangor, and the special contract was made for the purpose of avoiding the danger of the apples freezing on the connecting line. This risk was anticipated and contemplated by the parties, and if the danger which it was intended to provide against was incurred by reason of the negligent failure of the defendant to perform its contract, it ought to be responsible in damages. The damages are not too remote. If the freezing had occurred on the defendant's line, it cannot be doubted that the law would regard the delay as the proximate cause of the damage; it is none the less so, because it happened on a connecting line. The damage was not caused by any extraordinary event subsequently occurring, but was caused by an event which was, according to the common experience, naturally and reasonably to be expected, a change of temperature.

The case is thus distinguished from the cases of Denny v. New York Central Railroad, 13 Gray, 481, and Hoadley v. Northern Transportation Co., 115 Mass. 304. In each of these cases, the loss to the plaintiff was caused by an extraordinary event, a fire and a freshet; and the court held that the defendants, although guilty of negligent delay, were not responsible, because the event was not one which would reasonably be antici

pated. In the case at bar, the event which caused the loss was contemplated by the parties when they made their contract as a probable consequence of the breach of it.

Loss Concurrent with Delay.

GREEN-WHEELER SHOE CO. v. CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RY. CO.

130 Iowa 123, 106 N. W. 498. 1906.

MCCLAIN, C. J. Now, while it is true that defendant could not have anticipated this particular flood and could not have foreseen that its negligent delay in transportation would subject the goods to such a danger, yet it is now apparent that such delay did subject the goods to the danger, and that but for the delay they would not have been destroyed; and defendant should have foreseen, as any reasonable person could foresee, that the negligent delay would extend the time during which the goods would be liable in the hands of the carrier to be overtaken by some such casualty, and would therefore increase the peril that the goods should be thus lost to the shipper. This consideration that the peril of accidental destruction is enhanced by the negligent extension of time during which the goods must remain in the carrier's control and out of the control of the owner, and during which some casualty may overtake them, has not, we think, been given sufficient consideration in the cases in which the carrier has been held not responsible for a loss for which he is not primarily liable, but which has overtaken the goods as a consequence of the preceding delay in their transportation.

It is not sufficient for the carrier to say by way of excuse that while a proper and diligent transportation of the goods would have kept them free from the peril by which they were in fact lost it might have subjected them to some other peril just as great. He cannot speculate on mere possibilities. A pertinent illustration is furnished by the well-settled rule with reference to deviation which is that if the carrier transports the goods over some other route than that specified in the contract or reasonably within the contemplation of the parties, he must answer for any loss or damage occurring during such deviation,