TICKET. A railroad ticket is a receipt or voucher, rather than a contract ; 5 L. R. A; 818; note; Logan v. R. Co., 77 Mo. e63 ; Frank v. Ingalls, 41 Ohio St. 560 ; it is the evidence of a contract, but does not consti tute the whole contract ; 34 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 219 ; Kansas City, St. J. & C. B. R. Co. v. Rodebaugh, 38 Kan. 45, 15 Pac. 899, 5 Mn. St. Rep. 715 ; it may contain some condi tion or limitation which becomes a part of the contract ; Terry v. R. Co., 13 Hun (N. Y.) 359; Lake S. & M. S. Ry. Co. v. Rosenz weig, 113 Pa. 519, 6 Atl. 545. The actual con tract may be .shown by parol testimony; New York, L. E. & W. R. Co. v. Winter, 143 U. S. 60, 12 Sup. Ct. 356, 36 L. Ed. 71; Pe terson v. Ry. Co., 80 Ia. 92, 45 N. W. 573; and that, not the ticket, which is merely evi dence of it, controls the rights and duties of carriers and passengers ; C. N. 0. & T. P. R. Co. v. Harris, 115 Tenn. 501, 91 S. W. 211, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 779. The ticket has been termed a contract between the purchaser and the company ; Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co. v. Wright, 18 Ind. App. 125, 47 N. E. 491; but one purchased by a husband for his wife is not a contract between him and the com pany for her safe transportation ; Georgia, C. & N. R. Co. v. Brown, 120 Ga. 380, 47 S. E. 942.
As between the passenger and the carrier the ticket is a mere memorandum of the con tract, but as between the passenger and the conductor it is conclusive evidence of the passenger's rights ; Illinois C. R. Co. v. Fleming, 148 Ky. 473, 146 S. W. 1110, 1112.
It is subject to the statute of limitations, running from the d ite of issue; Cassiano v. R. Co. (Tex.) 82 S. W. 806.
Ejection of the passenger is not lawful when the ticket is defective or void without his fault, and he cannot be required to pay a second fare to prevent it; O'Rourke v. R. Co., 103 Tenn. 124, 52 S. W. 872, 46 L. R. A. 614, 76 Am. St. Rep. 639; Georgia R. & E. Co. v. Baker, 125 Ga. 562, 54 S. E. 639, 7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 103, 114 Am. St. Rep. 246, 5 Ann. Cas. 484 ; contra, Norton v. R. Co., 79 Conn. 109, 63 Atl. 1087, 118 Am. St. Rep. 132, 6 Ann. Cas. 913; Maxson v. R. Co., 49 Misc. 502, 97 N. Y. Supp. 962; Montgomery T. Co. v. Fitzpatrick, 149 Ala. 511, 43 South. 130, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 851; Cleveland C. R. Co. v. Conner, 74 Ohio St. 225, 78 N. E..376, 6 Ann. Cas. 941; Illinois C. R..Co. v. 90 Miss. 787, 45 South. 363, 122 Am. St. Rep. 324, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 464, and note; but it is otherwise when the passenger has bought a ticket and lost or mislaid it ; Louis ville, N. & G. S. R. Co. v. Fleming, 14 Lea (Tenn.) 128; Nicholson v. R. Co., 118 App. Div. 13, 103 N. Y. Supp. 310. See 43 L. R. A. 706, note, and 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 695, note.
The purchaser of a railroad ticket has a right to rely upon the statements of the agent; Peabody v. Nay. Co., 21 Or. 121, 26 Pac. 1053, 12 L. R. A. 823 ; Pouilin v. R. Co., 52 Fed. 197, 3 C. C. A. 23; Maroney v. R. Co., 106 Mass. 153, 8 Am. Rep. 305; but agents at intermediate stations and gate keepers cannot vary the terms of the con tract; Murdock v. R. Co., 137 Miss. 293, 50 Am. Rep. 307; Johnson v. R.. Co., 63 Md. 106.
Railroad companies may make reason able regulations as to tickets, such as to keep and show a coupon ticket undetached; Delucas v. R. Co., 38 La. Ann. 930; or re quire the purchase of tickets before entering the car; Harris v. Stevens, 31 Vt. 79, 73
Am. Dec. 337; Pittsburgh, C. & St. L. R. W. Co. v. Vandyne, 57 Ind. 576, 26 Am. Rep. 568; to charge additional fare if paid on the train ; St. Louis, A. & T. H. R. Co. v. South, 43 Ill. 176, 92 Am. Dec. 103; Crocker v. R. Co., 24 Conn. 249; State v. Goold, 53 Me. 279; McGowen v. S. S. Co., 41 La. Ann. 732, 6 South. 606, 5 L. R. A. 817, 17 Am. St. Rep. 413; provided that an opportunity was giv en to procure tickets; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Flagg, 43 Ill. 364, 92 Am. Dec. 133; Jef fersonville R. Co. v. Rogers, 38 Ind. 116, 10 Am. Rep. 103; or restrict holders of a cer tain class of tickets to special trains, pro vided that, if the ticket does not show it, the rule must be brought to the notice of the passenger ; Maroney v. R. Co., 106 Mass. 153, 8 Am. Rep. 305; indeed, knowledge or notice of any condition not apparent on the face of the ticket must be brought home to the passenger, otherwise the railroad com pany is liable for his expulsion; Erie R. Co. v. Littell, 128 Fed. 546, 63 C. C. A. 44; New York, L. E. & W. R. Co. v. Winter, 143 IL S. 60, 12 Sup. Ct. 356, 36 L. Ed. 71; Mure dock v. R. Co. 137 Mass. 293, 50 Am. Rep. 307; a passenger was held bound by a con dition that the carrier should not be liable for delay ; 84 L. T. 774, following [1901] 1 C. P. Div. 286. As to what constitutes tice of conditions to holders of tickets, see 23 L. R. A. 746, note. See as to what are reasonable regulations, 5 L. R. A. 817, note ; and as to the validity of an extra charge when fare is paid on the train, and what is reasonable, Phettiplace v. R. Co., 84 Wis. 412, 54 N. W. 1092, 20 L. R. A. 483.
When the passenger separates the two parts of a round trip ticket, a tender is good if both parts are shown, although it is marked not good if detached; Wightman v.
R. Co., 73 Wis. 169, 40 N. W. 689, 2 L. R. A. 185, 9 Am. St. Rep. 778; Louisville, N. & G.
S. R. Co. v. Harris, 9 Lea (Tenn.) 180, 42 Am. Rep. 668, but if, while detaching it, his attention is called by the conductor to his duty not to do so, he should desist; id.
There is a conflict of authority whether it is the duty of a passenger of whom fare is wrongfully demanded to pay it to avoid expulsion in order to lessen damages. The weight of authority is that he need not do so, but may stand on his rights, and need not pay an extra fare to avoid expulsion; Sprenger v. Traction Co., 15 Wash. 660, 47 Pac. 17, 43 L. R. A. 706 ; Pennsylvania Co.
v. Bray, 125 Ind. 229, 25 N. E. 439; Krueger v. R. Co., 68 Minn. 445, 71 N. W. 683, 64 Am. St. Rep. 487; Ellsworth v. R. Co., 95 Ia. 98, 63 N. W. 584, 29 L. R. A. 173; New York, L. E. & W. R. Co. v. Winter, 143 U.
S. 60, 12 Sup. Ct. 356, 36 L. Ed. 71; English v. Canal Co., 66 N. Y. 454, 23 Am. Rep. 69 ; Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co. v. Rice, 64 Md. 63, 21 All. 97; unless the passenger is at fault or negligent; Weaver v. H. Co., 3 Thomp. & C. (N. Y.) 270; Zagelmeyer v. R. Co., 102 Mich. 214, 60 N. W. 436, 47 Am. St. Rep. 514 ; Murdock v. R. Co., 137 Mass, 293, 50 Am. Rep. 307; Ellsworth v. R. Co., 95 Ia. 98, 63 N. W. 584, 29 L. R. A. 173; Huf ford v. R. Co., 64 Mich. 631, 31 N. W. 544, 8 Am. St. Rep. 859 ; Cherry v. R. Co., 191 Mo. 489, 90 S. W. 381, 109 Am. St. Rep. 830,