and manner. However, this However, this power to enforce regulations does not go to the extent of permitting the company arbitrarily to impose a pecuniary penalty for breaking the rules.68 Nor can the company hold a passenger until the fare is forthcoming, without being liable for false imprisonment." Similar principles justify a supplying company or a service in cutting off service for default or disobedience of reasonable rules. And like limitations upon this power are to be found if it is exercised with outrageous disregard of the rights of the patron, as in the case where the claim is in dispute or where there has been failure to give notice. 53. Conditions upon acceptance.-Regulations relating to the conditions under which service will be undertaken are to be tested by the general conditions pertaining to the service. Thus a railroad may refuse to take goods or passengers unless they are tendered or present themselves within a reasonable time before the scheduled departure of its trains. And so freight or passengers may be refused if the tender is not made or the demand is not made at its regular stations. Moreover, the railroad may by reasonable regulations require that certain freight shall be tendered to it at a particular place or in a certain manner.72 So an express company may require that valuables 70 67 Hudson v. Lynn & B. Ry. Co., 178 Mass. 64, 59 N. E. 647. 69 Lynch v. Metropolitan El. Ry. Co., 90 N. Y. 77. 70 Frazier & Cooper v. Kansas City, St. J. & C. B. Ry. Co., 48 Iowa 571, LEADING ILLUSTRATIVE CASES. 71 Nashville St. Ry. Co. v. Griffin, 104 Tenn. 81, 57 S. W. 153. 72 Robinson v. Baltimore & O. R. R. Co., 129 Fed. 753. shall be sealed in certain ways at the time of delivery to the carrier.73 But if goods are actually taken, notwithstanding the fact that they could have been refused because not tendered in accordance with the regulation, the carrier becomes fully responsible for them as for any other goods which have been taken in charge. 54. Times established for service.-Time-tables are to be justified thus, and transportation need only be given according to an established schedule. A time-table which provides a service sufficiently frequent to handle the whole business offered, is a justification for not giving individual attention to particular cases.74 Time-tables should be established with due regard to the real needs of the community, more frequent service being demanded where there is much travel than where there is little. Moreover, train movements should be so arranged as to take care of the business properly. A railroad is not absolutely responsible for adherence to schedule; it is excused if its failure is due to causes for which it is not to blame.75 In many public businesses there are premises maintained for the use of the public in the course of the service, or offices established for the convenience of the public dealing with the company. A railroad may certainly by proper regulation close its stations for certain periods; it is usually enough if they are opened a reasonable time before and after the departure of 73 St. John v. Southern Express Co., 1 Woods 612 (U. S.): See also Platt v. Lecocq, 158 Fed. 723, LEADING ILLUSTRATIVE CASES. 74 Riley v. Wrightsville & T. R. R. Co., 133 Ga. 413, 65 S. E. 890. 75 Gordon v. Manchester & L. Ry. Co., 52 N. H. 596. 76 trains. But if a telegraph office is actually open, although it is after usual closing time, a message must be received. The case is not different from that of a train behind its schedule and stopping at a station. In both cases service must be rendered." 55. Limitations upon supplying services.-Likewise supplying companies may make regulations to prevent abuse of the supply by waste, or by fraud upon them by diverting the supply.78 But a regulation providing that the agents of the gas company should have free access to the premises at all hours for examining appliances was held to be outrageous. It has been held that the supply of a customer might be cut off for letting the water run, although he offered to prove that it was necessary to do this in order to get the water fresh.80 So a regulation was held justified which provided that, during the sprinkling season, all outside hydrants of a water taker which were a part of his piping system must have the threads filed from them, if he would not pay for sprinkling service.81 A telephone company may properly object to any tampering by its patrons with the instruments they provide, as that would tend to defeat the service.82 But regulations unconditionally forbidding gas users to have gov 76 Phillips v. Southern Ry. Co., 124 N. C. 123, 32 S. E. 388, LEADING ILLUSTRATIVE CASES. 77 Bright v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 132 N. C. 317, 43 S. E. 841. 78 Ferguson v. Metropolitan Gaslight Co., 37 How. Pr. 189 (N. Y.). 79 Shepard v. Milwaukee Gaslight Co., 6 Wis. 539. 80 Watauga Water Co. v. Wolfe, 99 Tenn. 429, 41 S. W. 1060. 81 Harbison v. Knoxville Water Co., 53 S. W. 993 (Tenn.), LEADING ILLUSTRATIVE CASES. 82 Gardner v. Providence Telephone Co., 23 R. I. 312, 50 Atl. 1014, LEADING ILLUSTRATIVE CASES. ernors incorporated in their own piping system have been held to be unreasonable.83 56. Regulations relating to prepayment.-Among the first regulations with which a patron is met are those which are designed to secure prepayment. Thus a street car company may require that a passenger shall deposit his fare in cash in a box upon entering the car.84 Indeed, the regulations may go further, as they do upon some elevated railways, and require that the passengers first procure a ticket to present at the gate.85 One of the most illuminating illustrations of the operation of a regulation in changing the situation between the company and its patron is that while a street car company must apparently accept a five dollar bill tendered for its small fare,se yet a regulation that no larger bill than two dollars will be changed is held reasonable.87 In the supply services the company may require a deposit as security if the amount of the deposit required is not far from what a current bill would be.88 And of the validity of a rule that telephone subscribers must pay before a certain day after bills have been rendered, on pain of having their services cut off, there can be no doubt.89 57. Systems to prevent escaping payment.-In order to make sure that none are obtaining service 83 Consolidated Gas. Co. v. Blondell, 89 Md. 732, 43 Atl. 817. 85 Corwin v. Long Is. Ry. Co., 2 N. Y. City Ct. 106. 86 Barrett v. Market St. Ry., 81 Cal. 296. 87 Funderburg v. Augusta & A. Ry. Co., 81 S. C. 141, 61 S. E. 1075, LEADING ILLUSTRATIVE CASES. 88 Williams v. Mutual Gas Co., 52 Mich. 499, 18 N. W. 236. 89 Irvin v. Rustville Co-operative Telephone Co., 161 Ind. 524, 69 N. E. 258. 91 without payment, elaborate regulations are devised, concerning which there has been much litigation. Thus a railroad may require that passengers shall show their tickets before passing the gates leading to the trains,90 and that these tickets shall be produced upon request of the conductor taking up fares. Similarly street car companies may require that a proper transfer be presented upon changing cars 92 and that transfers shall be good only at intersecting points.93 If a person has bought a ticket, and even after having once presented it loses it, he may be expelled from the train when the time comes for showing his ticket again."4 The passenger is, however, entitled to a reasonable opportunity to search for his ticket.95 The real justification for these elaborate regulations is that they are well designed to enforce the ticket system, without which orderly management would be impossible. 58. Excess charge for cash fare. As the railroad company may require tickets absolutely, if it permits cash to be paid on the train in the alternative by those who have not procured tickets in advance, an extra charge may be made those who have not procured tickets. Certainly the usual system of requiring a larger cash payment to the conductor accompanied with a refund check for the excess is 96 90 Dickerman v. St. Paul Union Depot Co., 44 Minn. 433, 46 N. W. 907, LEADING ILLUSTRATIVE CASES. 91 Ammons v. Southern Ry. Co., 138 N. C. 555, 51 S. E. 127. 92 Birmingham Ry. L. & P. Co. v. McDonough, 153 Ala. 122, 44 So. 960. 93 Percy v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 58 Mo. App. 78. 94 Harp v. Southern Ry., 119 Ga. 927, 47 S. E. 206. 95 Maples v. New York & N. H. R. R. Co., 38 Conn. 557. 96 Railroad Co. v. Skillman, 39 Oh. St. 444. |