A sleeping-car company is bound to af ford equal facilities to all travellers who ap ply for them in compliance with reasonable regulations; Nevin v. Palace Car Co., 106 Ill. 222, 46 Am. Rep. 688; Searles v. Boudoir Car Co., 45 Fed. 330; but it has a right to sell a section to one passenger and is not lia ble to a passenger to whom it has refused to sell one of the berths in such section, though it was not occupied; Searles v. Boudoir Car Co., 45 Fed. 330. And it is not bound to fur nish a berth to one who by the rules of the railroad company is not entitled thereto; Lawrence v. Palace Car Co., 144 Mass. 6, 10 N. E. 723, 59 Am. Rep. 58; Lemon v. Palace Car Co., 52 Fed. 262.
A purchaser of a section may share its use with any proper person whom he in vites into it; Searles v. Boudoir Car Co., 45 Fed. 330 ; and he may, on leaving the train, transfer the use of his section to another first-class passenger for the rest of the trip; 34 Am. L. Reg. 709 (Super. Ct. of Baltimore); s. c. 28 Chic. L. N. 68 (apparently not else where reported); and see comments on this case in 9 Harv. L. Rev. 354, where it is !sug gested that the decision can only be support ed on the ground of a difference between sleeping-car and ordinary railroad ticket, the existence of which is at least doubtful.
There seem to be no other cases to the same point.
It is the duty of a sleeping-car company to furnish a berth on the payment of the usual fare to a passenger holding a first class ticket and to whom no personal ob jection attaches, provided the company has a vacant one at its disposal, and the passenger makes application at the proper time and in the proper manner ; Nevin v. Pullman Pal ace Car Co., •106 Ill. 222, 46 Am. Rep. 688; Braun v. Webb, 32 Misc. Rep. 243, 65 N. Y. Supp. 668; Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Cain, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 503, 40 S. W. 220 ; Mann Boudoir Car Co. v. Dupre, 54 Fed. 646, 4 C. C. A. 540, 21 L. R. A. 289 ; Patterson v. Steamship Co., 140 N. C. 412, 53 S. E. 224, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1012, 111 Am. St. Rep. 848 ; It must furnish the berth it has agreed to furnish ; Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Taylor, 65 Ind. 153, 32 Am. Rep. 57; Aplington v. Pullman Co., 110 App. Div. 250, 97 N. Y. Supp. 329 ; Pullman Palace-Car Co. v. Booth (Tex.) 28 S. W. 719 ; and the passenger is entitled to accept only that paid for and specified in his ticket ; Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Bales, 80 Tex. 211, 15 S. W. 785. One suffering from a contagious disease may be expelled ; Pullman Car Co. v. Krauss, 145 Ala. 395, 40 South. 398, 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 103, 8 Ann. Cas. 218. A company may sell a whole section to oue passenger who occupies but one berth therein, and refuse to sell the unoccupied berth to another ; Searles v. Car
Co., 45 Fed. 330.
An act requiring the company to leave the upper berth open or closed (when not sold) according to the direction given by the holder of the lower berth, was held unconstitution al; State v. Redmon, 134 Wis. 89, 114 N. W. 137, 126 Am. St. Rep. 1003, 15 Ann. Cas. 4()8, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 229, where it is said in the note that diligent search had failed to disclose any case upon the legislative power to prescribe conditions in which sleeping or passenger cars should be maintained or used where such attempted regulation tends mere ly to the comfort and not to the preservation of the health or safety of the occupant.
An act requiring upper berths to be kept closed till occupied, when the lower berth is engaged or occupied, is not an interference with interstate commerce carried on in cars doing both inter- and intrastate commerce ; State v. R. Co., 152 Wis. 341, 140 N. W. 70. And see notes on police power, deprecating unwise extensions of it; '17 Yale L. J. 393 ; 21 H. L. R. 372.
One who has paid for a berth from one point to another is entitled to a continuous passage in it, or in one equally good, and cannot be transferrred to another berth or another car at the arbitrary discretion of the company ; Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Taylor, 65 Ind. 153, 32 Am. Rep. 57.
In the contract for the use of the berth there is directly involved an obligation to awaken and notify the passenger in time for him to prepare safely and comfortably to leave the train at his destination ; Pull - man Palace Car Co. v. Smith, 79 Tex. 468, 14 S. W. 993, 13 L. R. A. 215, 23 Am, St. Rep. 356 ; Airey v. Car Co., 50 La. Ann. 648, 23 South. 512 ; McKeon v. R. Co., 94 Wis. 477, 69 N. W. 175, 35 L. R. A. 252, 59 Am. St. Rep. 910; even though the journey was entirely by day and the passenger had no berth ; Pullman Co. v. Kelly, 86 Miss. 87, 38 South. 317; and a person not so awakened and notified may recover punitive damages ; Pullman Co. •v. Lutz, 154 Ala. 517, 45 South. 675, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 907, 129 Am. St. Rep. 67. But when the sleeping-car conductor, in the presence of the train' con ductor permits a passenger to ride in a Pullman car until her own car is connected, promising to put her on it, and neglects to do so, she is not a passenger on that car, and for the consequence of her missing her car the railroad company is liable and the sleeping-car company is not; Cin., N. 0. & T. P. R. Co. v. Raine, 130 Ky. 454, 113 S. W. 495, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 753, 132 Am. St. Rep. 400. A railroad company is liable for the wrongful act of the sleeping-car em ployees ; Airey v. Palace Car Co., 50 La. Ann. 648, 23 South. 512 ; Campbell v. Air Line R. Co., 83 S. C. 448, 65 S.,E. 628, 23 L.