Hall v. Memphis & Charleston R.
District Court, W.D. Tennessee
Motion for New Trial. The plaintiff, who is about 85 years of age, purchased tickets at reduced rates for himself, his wife, about 76 years of age, and his daughter and her child, from Town Creek, a station on defendant’s road, to Memphis and return, upon which a limitation was printed, “Not good after 30 days.” They were persons of the highest respectability.
Read the full summary
Motion for New Trial. The plaintiff, who is about 85 years of age, purchased tickets at reduced rates for himself, his wife, about 76 years of age, and his daughter and her child, from Town Creek, a station on defendant’s road, to Memphis and return, upon which a limitation was printed, “Not good after 30 days.” They were persons of the highest respectability. Going to Texas, they returned after the limitation expired, and the conductor refused to receive the tickets, demanding train fare. This being refused, they were ejected at the next station, as required by a regulation requiring the…
1Opinion of the CourtHammond, J.
It was much argued at the trial and on this motion for a new trial whether, under this declaration, there could be any recovery ex contractu at all, and whether the action did not sound so entirely in damages that the plaintiff could not recover for any mere breach of the contract, irrespective of the question whether the plaintiff had been rightfully or wrongfully ejected from the train. The court was of opinion then, and now is, that this was an -immaterial question, since, under our Code, abolishing all forms of action, a plaintiff may recover by a simple statement- of the facts, be they…
2Cases cited87 opinions
- Day v. WoodworthSupreme Court of the United States · 1852
- Oelrichs v. SpainSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
- Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. ArmsSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Mott v. . Consumers' Ice CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
- Rounds v. . Del., Lack. West. R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1876
82 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. ElamTennessee Supreme Court · 1955
- St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. v. ReaganSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company v. ElamTennessee Supreme Court · 1955
- Coffman v. Southern Coal Co.District Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1943
- Hull v. EvansCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1968
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.