Mullins v. Illinois Central Railroad
Mullins v. Illinois Central Railroad
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
The appellant is a crippled boy, who got on the train with his suit case and no money to go from Brookhaven to his home at Hazlehurst, a few stations away. When called on for his fare he answered that he had no ticket nor money to pay his fare, and was told he would' have to pay his fare or get off.. Accordingly the conductor, with proper consideration for the
At Wesson the boy stopped at the house of his uncle and had' no trouble or inconvenience. In short, do damage whatever was shown. Wesson was within a few miles of his home, and there was a very short, and no doubt pleasant, delay in getting to his home. He had boarded the train with design not to pay fare. The very great weight of authority is against recovery in such a case as this, and we think the conclusion of the court below was a wise one. If a different rule were established, the-operation of railroad trains, so essential to the welfare and convenience of the people, could he made a mere plaything of recalcitrant or mischievous passengers. On the declension of payment of fare and the stopping of the train, any contract, or any right to a contract, for that passage, was forfeited.
This we regard as the true rule, and the judgment is affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.