Boice v. Hudson River Railroad
New York Supreme Court
OH the 6th day of September, 1867, the plaintiff purchased a ticket of the defendants’ ticket agent, at Rhinebeck, for a passage in the defendants’ passenger cars, on their railroad, from Rhinebeck to Poughkeepsie. This statement was on the face of the ticket, viz: “ Good for this day only.” It was indorsed, “ Sept. 6, 1867, Rhine-beck station.” The plaintiff took the ticket and went out of the ticket office at Rhineheck.
Read the full summary
OH the 6th day of September, 1867, the plaintiff purchased a ticket of the defendants’ ticket agent, at Rhinebeck, for a passage in the defendants’ passenger cars, on their railroad, from Rhinebeck to Poughkeepsie. This statement was on the face of the ticket, viz: “ Good for this day only.” It was indorsed, “ Sept. 6, 1867, Rhine-beck station.” The plaintiff took the ticket and went out of the ticket office at Rhineheck. He came back within a few minutes, and ascertained the train he intended to go on was late. He then requested the ticket agent to take the ticket back, and return him the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Balcom, J.
We are of the opinion that the ticket the plaintiff had did not entitle him to a ride in the defendants’ cars from Rhinebeck to Poughkeepsie, on a day subsequent to its date. The decision in Barker v. Coffin, (31 Barb. 556,) is decisive of this question. That ease also holds that such a ticket is to be regarded as the evidence of the contract the defendants made to carry the plaintiff from Bhinebeck to Poughkeepsie.
We are also of the opinion that what was said between the plaintiff and the defendants’ ticket agent at Bhinebeck, subsequent to the purchase of the ticket,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Barker v. CoflinNew York Supreme Court · 1860
3Cited by3 opinions
- Hanlon v. Illinois Central RailroadSupreme Court of Iowa · 1899
- Freeman v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1905
- Shoenig v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1915