Beckwith v. Cheshire Railroad

8 N.E. 875, 143 Mass. 68, 1886 Mass. LEXIS 17
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedNovember 24, 1886
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 8 N.E. 875 (Beckwith v. Cheshire Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Beckwith v. Cheshire Railroad, 8 N.E. 875, 143 Mass. 68, 1886 Mass. LEXIS 17 (Mass. 1886).

Opinion

Holmes, J.

We agree with the argument of the counsel for the defendant, that if the meaning of the words of the Pub. Sts. c. 112, § 197, (St. 1874, c. 372, § 150,) “No person shall be removed from a car of a steam railroad corporation except as provided in section eighteen of chapter one hundred and three,” (St. 1874, c. 372, § 146,) had been to take away the right of such corporation to remove from a train a person who does not pay his fare, without arresting him as provided in the section referred to, there would have been no reason for adding the further words, “nor from a train except at a regular passenger station.” If the passenger is arrested, c. 103, § 18, requires the removal to be not only at a station, but at a station where the passenger can be placed in charge of an officer, &c.

The statute seems to us to speak of removal from a car byway of partial antithesis to removal from a train, and to refer to such removals from a car as are provided for in c. 103, § 18; that is, to removals “ to the baggage or other suitable car of such train.” We are of opinion that, when proper cause exists for removal, but the company does not deem it necessary to arrest the passenger, the statute does not prohibit putting him off the train at a regular passenger station without arresting him.

[72]*72Apart from the clause which we have construed, there is no doubt of the company’s right to put off the infant, whether the contract for her carriage, if any, was made with her or with her mother. She was a passenger, and as such was not entitled to be carried unless paid for. Pub. Sts. c. 112, § 197. She did not stand on the same footing as her mother’s parasol, as was suggested by her counsel.

Exceptions sustained.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Dion v. Drapeau
150 N.E. 14 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1926)
Georgia Railway & Power Co. v. Turner
125 S.E. 598 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1924)
Fleck v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas
191 S.W. 386 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1916)
Braun v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.
82 N.W. 675 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1900)
Sullivan v. Old Colony Railroad
1 L.R.A. 513 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1888)
Marshall v. Boston & Albany Railroad
13 N.E. 384 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1887)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
8 N.E. 875, 143 Mass. 68, 1886 Mass. LEXIS 17, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beckwith-v-cheshire-railroad-mass-1886.