Home/Court of Appeals of Kansas/Walker v. Price

Walker v. Price

59 P. 1102, 9 Kan. App. 720, 1900 Kan. App. LEXIS 59
CourtCourt of Appeals of Kansas
DecidedFebruary 19, 1900
DocketNo. 697
StatusPublished

This text of 59 P. 1102 (Walker v. Price) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Walker v. Price, 59 P. 1102, 9 Kan. App. 720, 1900 Kan. App. LEXIS 59 (kanctapp 1900).

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Milton, J.:

This action was brought by Lena Price, one of the defendants in error, against the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad Company, and the plaintiffs in error as receivers of that company, to recover damages for the alleged wrongful ejection of the plaintiff from a passenger-train of the defendants by the defendants’ agent, the conductor of the train, and the consequent impairment of the plaintiff’s health by reason of the shock and worry thereby occasioned. The petition alleged that on the 27th day of May, 1894, near the village of Derby, a station on the said [721]*721railroad in the county of Sedgwick, this state, and while plaintiff was rightfully on one of defendants’ trains as a passenger for hire, and while she was entitled to be carried by the defendants on said train as such passenger from Wichita, Kan., to Woodward, I. T., she was compelled by the conductor of the train to leave the same, and was by him wrongfully ejected from said car and train in the presence of relatives,. friends, and other passengers; that she was then in délicate health, and frail in mind and body, which fact the defendants and their agents well knew; and that by reason of said wrongful ejection the plaintiff’s health in body and mind was greatly and permanently impaired, all to her damage in the sum of $7000.

The defendants filed separate answers, each containing a general denial of the allegations of the petition. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff against both the railroad company and the receivers for $1000. The railroad company’s motion for a new trial was granted and that of the receivers overruled. Judgment was thereupon rendered against the receivers in accordance with the verdict.

From the record it appears that in April, 1894, the plaintiff, a young woman about twenty years of age, was residing with her parents at Woodward, I. T. She was suffering from nervous and other troubles, and it was decided that, accompanied by her mother, she should go to Wichita, Kan., for medical treatment. The length of their stay in Wichita was necessarily uncertain. On April 25, the plaintiff’s brother, Frank Price, purchased tickets for the plaintiff and her mother from the agent of the receivers at Woodward, good for passage from that place to Wichita and return. The tickets were in two connected parts, one [722]*722part to be used in going and the other in returning. The only testimony concerning the purchase of the tickets was that of Frank Price, who testified as follows :

“ Ques. State what occurred at the purchase, and manner of purchase. Ans. I asked the ticket agent at Woodward what two tickets would cost from there to Wichita and return.
“ Q. What did he say? A. He went and looked and came back and says, ‘ I could sell you a limited ticket for so much ’— I forget the amount. I told him I didn’t want a limited ticket, and he told me what an unlimited ticket would cost — first-class ticket. I told him I would take that, and paid the price asked for it — about all there was of it.
“ Q. You handed them to your mother and sister? A. Yes, sir.
“ Q. That is all you know about the matter. A. Yes, sir.”

He further testified that he did not notice the face of the tickets, except to see that one part read from Woodward to Wichita and the other part from Wichita to Woodward ; and that he did not see the agent punch the tickets nor observe the punch marks. The return portion of plaintiff’s ticket, which was the only part introduced in evidence, is shown on next page.

The plaintiff testified that because of her illness she was not able to read her ticket when it was delivered to her, and that she did not at any time read it or become acquainted with its provisions. She did not sign the contract thereon, nor was she asked to do so. Under the treatment of her physician the plaintiff’-s condition was much improved, and on the morning of May 27 she and her mother walked some seven or eight blocks to the depot of the defendants to take passage on an early train for their home in Woodward. On production of one of the tickets their trunk [723]*723was checked to Woodward, and was carried on the train which the plaintiff and her mother entered for their return passage. Shortly after leaving Wichita the tickets were handed to the conductor of the train. He promptly informed the plaintiff and her mother that the tickets had expired and could not be used for transportation on that train. The mother then stated to the conductor the reason for their visit to Wichita; how long they had stayed there in order that the plaintiff might have medical treatment; that the ticket -agent at the defendants’ depot in Wichita had just told them their tickets were good; and the fact of the checking of their trunk. The conductor told them that if they had been detained on account of the plaintiff’s sickness, the tickets would be extended and made good for the return trip, if they would present them to Mr. Murdock, the general agent of the railroad company at Wichita; and he advised that they get off at the first station, Derby, ten miles from [724]*724Wichita, and return to the latter place on the train which would pass through Derby at ten o’clock that morning. The plaintiff testified that they requested the conductor to carry them to Wellington, and that her mother offered to pay all the money she had, which was less than the regular fare for the two to that point, but that the conductor declined to do so and stopped the train at Derby, telling them they must get off there. She also testified : “ He took me by the arm and put me off the train.”

[723]

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

Related

Railroad Company v. Harris
79 U.S. 65 (Supreme Court, 1871)
Rawson v. . Pennsylvania Railroad Co.
48 N.Y. 212 (New York Court of Appeals, 1872)
Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. v. Dougherty
12 S.E. 747 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1890)
Boyd v. Spencer
30 S.E. 841 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1898)
Kansas City, St. Joseph & Council Bluffs Railroad v. Rodebaugh
38 Kan. 45 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1887)
Atchison Topeka & Santa Fé Railroad v. Long
46 Kan. 260 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1891)
Carsten v. Northern Pacific Railroad
9 L.R.A. 688 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1890)
Railroad v. Turner
100 Tenn. 213 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1898)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
59 P. 1102, 9 Kan. App. 720, 1900 Kan. App. LEXIS 59, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walker-v-price-kanctapp-1900.