Krueger v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal oy plaintiff from an order of the municipal court of Minneapolis, W. A. Kerr, J., denying a new trial after a dismissal of the action at the close of plaintiff’s evidence. The passenger had the right to stand on his contract with the ticket agent, and if he was not furnished with a ticket evidencing his rights secured by the contract entered into, the company should have corrected the mistake when the emergency required, and was liable for ejecting him from the train.
Read the full summary
Appeal oy plaintiff from an order of the municipal court of Minneapolis, W. A. Kerr, J., denying a new trial after a dismissal of the action at the close of plaintiff’s evidence. The passenger had the right to stand on his contract with the ticket agent, and if he was not furnished with a ticket evidencing his rights secured by the contract entered into, the company should have corrected the mistake when the emergency required, and was liable for ejecting him from the train. Carsten v. Northern, 44 Minn. 454; Gulf v. Rather, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 72; Cain v. Minneapolis, 39 Minn. 297; Burnham v.…
1Opinion of the CourtCanty, J.
Plaintiff alleges that he was a passenger on defendant’s train, was ejected therefrom by the conductor, and claims damages therefor. On the trial, the court dismissed the action at the close of plaintiff’s evidence, and from an order denying a new trial plaintiff appeals. It appears by the evidence that plaintiff is a traveling man. On June 29, 1895, he purchased of the railroad station agent at Redwood Falls, in this state, a mileage ticket or book in the ordinary form, containing 2,000 miles of transportation, for which he paid $50. There was a contract printed on the cover which he signed.…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Fonseca v. Cunard Steamship Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1891
- Frederick v. Marquette, Houghton & Ontonagon RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1877
- Boylan v. Hot Springs RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Pouilin v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1892
- Rahilly v. St. Paul & Duluth RailroadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1896
3Cited by9 opinions
- Hanlon v. Illinois Central RailroadSupreme Court of Iowa · 1899
- Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. VosburgSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1928
- Holden v. Rutland RailroadSupreme Court of Vermont · 1901
- Morrill v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1908
- Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. DyerCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1906
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.