Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

reparation can be based only on a finding that the rate was unreasonable at the time it was paid.- Grain Shippers' Assn. v. Ill. Cent. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 158.

Charges in excess of those fixed by legislative authority are conclusively unreasonable, and in an action by shippers to recover excess, evidence to show the excess charges were in fact reasonable is immaterial.- Heiserman v. Burl. C. R. & N. R. Co., 63 Iowa, 732, 18 N. W. 902.

In a suit against a carrier for unreasonable charges, it is necessary to show that such rates were higher than those fixed by the state commission.-Cohn v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co., 181 Mo. 30, 79 S. W. 961.

[blocks in formation]

The proper rule of reparation for excessive rates is the difference between the rate charged and the rate which should have been charged. Proof that the carriers' rates on strawberries were so excessive that complainant's crop was valueless to pick, etc., does not entitle complainant to even nominal damages in reparation for this loss as such. -Perry v. Fla. C. & P. R. Co., 3 Inters. Com. R. 416, 740, 5 I. S. C. C. R. 97.

[blocks in formation]

The statute of limitations on an action by a shipper under his common law right to recover excess charges, is not that provided by statute as to recovery of penalties, but that on actions on implied contracts.-Heiserman v. Burl. C. R. & N. R. Co., 63 Iowa, 732, 18 N. W 903. Cf. Herriman v. R. Co., 57 Iowa, 187.

[58] Duty of street railroads as to giving of transfers.

Provisions requiring the issuing of transfers by street surface railroads, see N. Y. R. R. L., § 104.

Power of Commission to regulate giving of transfers,- see post, § 49, note [14].

Section 104 of the N. Y. Railroad Law requires a street railroad company to issue transfers only to such lines as are operated by it under lease or other contract.- O'Connor v. Brooklyn H. R. Co., 123 App. Div. (N. Y.) 784, 108 N. Y. Supp. 471.

Under the first provision of N. Y. R. R. L., § 101, a passenger on a street car is entitled for one fare to a "continuous ride" over the lines of a company and those operated or controlled by it on the same car, and without change. O'Connor v. Brooklyn H. R. Co., 123 App. Div. (N. Y.) 784, 108 N. Y. Supp. 471.

Under the second provision of N. Y. R. R. L., § 101, a passenger on a street car is entitled to transfer from the main line to any branch or extension or vice versa, or he may ride over such branch and main line for one fare if the same car continues over both, but he is not entitled to transfer to another line of the same company which crosses the main line at right angles and does not run into the main line, unless it can be shown that such intersecting line is operated by the other under a lease or contract, in which case a transfer could be demanded under N. Y. R. R. L., § 104.— O'Connor v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 123 App. Div. (N. Y.) 784, 108 N. Y. Supp. 471.

The "point of intersection" where a passenger on a street car is entitled to transfer to a connecting line is any point where the passenger can continue his direct journey by taking another car.- Charbonneau v. Nassau Elect. R. Co., 123 App. Div. (N. Y.) 531, 108 N. Y. Supp. 110. The word "continuous," as used in N. Y. R. R. L., § 104, which gives a passenger on a street railway a right to one continuous passage over the connecting lines owned or operated by that company, must be construed to mean direct" whenever it can apply and a continuous passage" must mean the most direct, the quickest and most convenient route to the desired destination under the circumstances.- Charbonneau v. Nassau Elect. R. Co., 123 App. Div. (N. Y.) 531, 108 N. Y. Supp. 110.

[ocr errors]

66

A person desiring to go from the corner of Lexington avenue and 102d street, New York city, to the corner of Columbus avenue and 93d street, took a north-bound car, was transferred west at 116th street, and it was then necessary that he go south on Columbus avenue. A transfer was refused on the ground that having begun his journey north, he could receive no transfer which would take him south.-Held, that he was entitled to his transfer as demanded.- Wells v. N. Y. City R. Co., 122 App. Div. (N. Y.) 488, 107 N. Y. Supp 430.

It is the duty of a street railroad corporation, by virtue of N. Y. R. R. L., § 101, to transport, for a single fare, a passenger whose fare is accepted on any car, to any point upon its line reached by cars running in that direction, whether or not the car boarded by the passenger is a short-service or a long-service car.-. - Baron v. N. Y. City R. Co., 120 App. Div. (N. Y.) 134, 105 N. Y. Supp. 258.

When a passenger pays his fare on a car, the contract implied is that the company will carry the passenger from the point where he gets on the car to the nearest point possible to his destination by the shortest and most direct route, and the company will not be obliged to carry him by a longer and more circuitous route.- Kelly v. N. Y. City R. Co., 119 App. Div. (N. Y.) 223, 104 N. Y. Supp. 561, affd. 192 N. Y. 97, 84 N. E. 569.

A passenger is not entitled to penalties because the conductor refused him transfers to enable him to make his trip by a roundabout route.

Hunt v. Brooklyn H. R. Co., 115 App. Div. (N. Y.) 673, 101 N. Y. Supp. 209.

N. Y. R. R. L., § 104, vests authority in a street railroad to fix transfer points where the convenience of the greatest number of the traveling public will be subserved in going to and from their respective points of destination, and if this is done there is a compliance with the Act, even though under such system it refuses transfers at some points.— Topham v. Interurban St. R. Co., 96 App. Div. (N. Y.) 323, 89 N. Y. Supp. 298, revg. s. c. 42 Misc. (N. Y.) 503, 86 N. Y. Supp. 295.

A transfer need not be to continue the passenger's journey in the sa me longitudinal direction.- Kelley v. N. Y. City R. Co., 52 Misc. (N. Y.) 585, 102 N. Y. Supp. 742.

When a street railroad company voluntarily adopts the custom of issuing transfers for the consideration paid the conductor of the first car, it binds itself, by a contract, to transport the passenger from the point where he enters the car to a point on any line to which, under the custom of the company, it is usual to issue transfers. When the passenger pays his fare and demands the transfer, and it is issued, the contract is complete.- Georgia R. & Elect. Co. v. Baker, 125 Ga. 562, 54 S. E. 639.

Where a franchise to operate a street railway is given by an ordinance which also contains conditions as to the giving of transfers and the sale of tickets, and the company commences operations under such ordinance, the company assumes contractual obligations as to the conditions imposed by the same.— Virginia Pass. & P. Co. v. Commonwealth, 103 Va. 644, 49 S. E. 995.

[59] Transfer statutes How construed generally.

General rules of statutory construction,-see ante, § 1, notes [23][39].

A transfer penalty statute should be construed adversely to the company and in favor of the right of the public to receive a transfer.O'Reilly v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 95 App. Div. (N. Y.) 253, 89 N. Y. Supp. 41; affd. 179 N. Y. 450, 72 N. E. 517.

N. Y. R. R. L., §§ 39, 104, which provide penalties for overcharge and the refusing of transfers respectively, must be considered together in determining the liability of a railroad for an excessive charge or refusal to give a transfer.-Tullis v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 71 App. Div. (N. Y.) 494, 75 N. Y. Supp. 863.

[blocks in formation]

A municipal regulation forbidding the selling or giving away of street railway transfers is constitutional.- City of Chicago v. Openheim, 229 Ill. 313, 82 N. E. 294.

N. Y. R. R. L., § 104, providing that street railroad corporations entering into traffic agreements shall carry between points on the lines embraced in the contract for a single fare, and shall give transfers to any point on any road embraced in the agreement, is constitutional.Blume v. Interurban St. R. Co., 41 Misc. (N. Y.) 171, 83 N. Y. Supp. 989.

[blocks in formation]

N. Y. R. R. L., Art. IV, § 101, providing that no corporation constructing and operating a railroad under the provisions of that article shall charge more than five cents for a continuous ride from any point on its road or any line operated by it to any other point on its lines within the limits of an incorporated city or village has no application to transportation on a steam railroad which is leased by an electric surface railroad corporation.- People v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 187 N. Y. 48, 79 N. E. 838.

The single five cent fare requirement of N. Y. R. R. L., § 101, does not apply to an elevated or steam surface road having a charter right to charge a greater fare, even though such road has been leased by a street railroad to which the section does apply and though the lessee has wholly substituted electricity for steam as motive power on the leased line. People v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 187 N. Y. 48, 79 N. E. 838.

N. Y. R. R. L., § 104, providing that every street railroad corporation entering into a contract for the use of the road of another company shall carry any passengers desiring to make a continuous trip between any two points on the railroads or portions thereof embraced within such contracts, for a single fare, does not apply to a case where there is a continuous trip over the road of one company and where there is no contract with other lines.- Baron v. N. Y. City R. Co., 120 App. Div. (N. Y.) 134, 105 N. Y. Supp. 258.

Where two surface railroads are leased and operated by the same company, N. Y. R. R. L., § 104, requires that transfers shall be given between the two lines at points of their intersection.- Griffin v. Interurban St. R. Co., 179 N. Y. 438, 72 N. E. 513, modfg. s. c. 96 App. Div. (N. Y.) 636, 89 N. Y. Supp. 1105, and Scudder v. Interurban St. R. Co., 96 App. Div. (N. Y.) 340, 89 N. Y. Supp. 1115.

One who is refused a transfer from the line of a street railway which owns a majority of the stock of another street railway, to the lines of the latter, and is compelled to pay an additional fare, cannot recover a penalty under N. Y. R. R. L., § 39.- Senior v. N. Y. City R. Co., 111 App. Div. (N. Y.) 39, 97 N. Y. Supp. 645; affd. 187 N. Y. 559, 80 N. E.

A steam railroad and an electric surface railroad were leased by a corporation and their tracks connected, the motive power of the former being changed to electricity, and they were operated as a continuous line.- Held, that N. Y. R. R. L., § 101, embodying the provisions of L. 1884, ch. 252, as amended, providing that no company should charge more than five cents for one continuous ride over lines operated by it, does not apply to this case, especially as the steam railroad was in operation prior to the passage of that act.- Barnett v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 53 App. Div. (N. Y.) 432, 65 N. Y. Supp. 1068.

The requirement of N. Y. R. R. L., § 104, relating to contracts between street railroads and requiring issuance of transfers between railroads, "embraced in such contract," includes only roads operated by the contracting companies at the time the contract was made.- Mendoza v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 51 App. Div. (N. Y.) 430, 64 N. Y. Supp. 745, 48 App. Div. (N. Y.) 62, 62 N. Y. Supp. 580.

A street railway having two lines physically distinct, not intersecting, and not operated as a part of the same system, is not required, under N. Y. R. R. L., § 104, to grant transfers from one line to the other, at a point where the terminus of one line is about thirty feet from the other.- Ketcham v. N. Y. City R. Co., 48 Misc. (N. Y.) 367, 95 N. Y. Supp. 553.

N. Y. R. R. L., § 101, incorporating the provisions of L. 1884, ch. 252, § 13, providing that no street surface railroad company incorporated under that Act shall charge more than five cents for a continuous ride from any point on its road "or on any road or line or branch operated by it or under its control," to any point on such line or its said connecting roads or branches within the limits of a city, does not apply to roads leased by such a corporation from a steam railroad company.McNulty v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 36 Misc. (N. Y.) 402, 73 N. Y. Supp. 698.

N. Y. R. R. L., § 104, requiring contracting corporations to carry passengers for one fare between any two points on said roads, refers only to corporations between whom there is a traffic agreement, and is not applicable to a corporation that has leased and is operating exclusively the line of another corporation.- Roosa v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 28 Misc. (N. Y.) 387, 59 N. Y. Supp. 664.

[62] Demand for transfer - Rules as to time for making.

Passengers not bound by rules of which no reasonable notice has been given, see ante, note [22].

A rule of a street railroad which requires passengers desiring transfers to obtain them from the conductor at the time of paying fare is not unreasonable.- Ketchum v. N. Y. City R. Co., 118 App. Div. (N. Y.) 248, 103 N. Y. Supp. 486.

« AnteriorContinuar »