In Johnson v. Southern Railway,11 Mr. Chief Justice McIvor said: “A female holding a ticket entitling her to transportation as a passenger on a railroad train, if feeble, or incumbered with heavy baggage or other impediments, is entitled to have assistance in boarding the train; and, if the same is not afforded by the railroad officials or servants, her husband or other escort may render her the necessary assistance, and for this purpose is entitled to enter the train, and is entitled to a reasonable time to leave the train before it is put in motion."

Similarly the carrier is bound to admit to his premises one who comes to meet an arriving passenger.12 Thus, where a man who had come to a railway station to meet his wife was injured by a defect in the premises, he was held entitled to compensation. The railway, the court said, was bound to keep its premises in safe condition for its customers, and the injured person was a customer.13

Mr. Chief Justice Graves said: "It is admitted in argument that had his presence at the station been in the character of a hackman engaged in running for passengers his stepping aside would not have been wrongful, and the duty of the company would have extended to him. We think it would be straining common sense to make such a distinction as is implied here. He

Massachusetts.-Lucas v. Taunton & N. B. R. R., 6 Gray, 64 (1856,

semble).

Missouri.-Doss v. Mo., etc., R. Co., 59 Mo. 27, 21 Am. Rep. 371 (1875). New York.-Rott v. Forty-second St., etc., Ferry R. Co., 56 N. Y. Super. Ct. 151, 1 N. Y. Supp. 518 (1888).

South Carolina.-Johnson v. So. R. Co., 53 S. C. 203, 31 S. E. 212, 69 Am. St. Rep. 849 (1898).

Texas.—Gulf, etc., Ry. Co. v. Williams, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 469, 51 S. W. 653 (1899); Hamilton v. Texas R., 64 Tex. 251, 53 Am. Rep. 756 (1855). Wisconsin.-Dowd v. Chicago, M. & S. R., 84 Wis. 105, 54 N. W. 24, 20 L. R. A. 527 and note (1893, semble).

11 Supra.

12 McKone v. Michigan C. R. R., 51 Mich. 601, 17 N. W. 74, 47 Am. Rep. 596 (1883); Missouri, K. & T. Ry. v. Miller, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 241, 27 S. W. 905 (1894).

13 McKone v. Michigan C. R. R., supra.

was a customer within the essence of the rule just mentioned. The company was bringing his wife to him, and he went to receive and protect her. Had his errand been to receive a bale of goods or a horse, no one would doubt that he had all the rights of a customer, and it seems little less than preposterous to contend that the right was not simply different or inferior, but absolutely wanting, because it was his wife that he went for."

8 208. Right involved is that of the passenger.

The right of the customer who is not a passenger or an intending passenger, to be received by the carrier in order to accompany or to meet a passenger, is a right primarily due to the passenger only; and it is only so far as the interest of the passenger requires it that the service can be demanded of the carrier. Thus, when a person came to a station out of curiosity, in order to see the President of the United States, who was a passenger on a passing train, the carrier owed him no duty.14

Mr. Justice Sharswood said: "Had it been the hour for the arrival or departure of a train and he had gone there to welcome a coming or speed a parting guest, it might very well be contended that he was there by authority of the defendants as much as if he was actually a passenger. The plaintiff was on the

spot merely to enjoy himself, to gratify his curiosity, or to give vent to his patriotic feelings. The defendant had nothing to do with that."

A similar case was one where one boarded a train to speak with an acquaintance and was injured under circumstances which would have shown liability if the plaintiff had been a passenger. But it was held that the defendant company owed such a person no duty of that sort since he was not upon the train in connection with any duty which the carrier owed the passenger.15

14 Gillis v. Pennsylvania R. R., 59 Pa. 129, 98 Am. Dec. 317 (1869). 15 Bullock v. Houston & T. C. Ry. (Tex. Civ. App.), 55 S. W. 184 (1900).

§ 209. Extent of carrier's duty to such persons.

That such persons are not passengers is clear, but they are, in the language of the cases, "customers," and are entitled to safe and properly lighted premises.16

But they are not entitled to the active protection which is due to passengers. Thus, while waiting in a station for a train, in order to meet a passenger, such a person is not entitled to protection against the assault of a stranger.17

But where the person actually gets on board the train, assisting a passenger, and the train starts without giving him time to alight safely, the question whether the carrier has been guilty of a breach of duty is a difficult one. One or two cases are clear enough.

If the conductor had no notice that the assistant was on the train, and the train stopped the usual and reasonable time, the

16 United States.-Ill. Cent. R. Co. v. Griffin, 80 Fed. 278, 53 U. S. App. 22, 25 C. C. A. 413 (1897).

Georgia.-Georgia Ry., etc., Co. v. Richmond, 98 Ga. 495, 25 S. E. 565

(1896).

Illinois. Toledo, W. & W. Ry. v. Grush, 67 Ill. 262, 16 Am. Rep. 618 (1873).

Maine.-Tobin v. Portland, S. & P. R. R., 59 Me. 183, 8 Am. Rep. 415

(1871).

Massachusetts.-Bradford v. Boston & M. R. R., 160 Mass. 392, 35 N. E.

1131 (1894).

Michigan. McKone v. Michigan C. R. R., 51 Mich. 601, 17 N. W. 74, 47 Am. Rep. 596 (1883).

Nebraska.-Union Pac. R. Co. v. Evans, 52 Nebr. 50, 71 N. W. 1062

(1897).

New York. Hank v. N. Y., etc., R. Co., 34 N. Y. App. Div. 434, 54 N. Y. Supp. 248 (1898).

Texas.-Hamilton v. Texas & P. Ry., 64 Tex. 251, 53 Am. Rep. 756 (1855); Missouri, K. & T. Ry. v. Miller, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 241, 27 S. W. 905 (1894).

Vermont.-Hale v. Grand Trunk R. R., 60 Vt. 605, 15 Atl. 300, B. & W. 124 (1888).

England.-Holmes v. North Eastern Ry., L. R. 4 Ex. 254 (1869).

17 Houston & T. C. Ry. v. Phillis, 96 Tex. 18, 69 S. W. 994, 97 Am. St. Rep. 868 (1902).

carrier has performed its duty.18 But if the conductor had notice that the assistant was on the train, the carrier must give him a reasonable time to alight.19 Even if the conductor does not know of the presence of the assistant, there is good authority for holding the carrier if the train starts without giving him a reasonable time to alight after notice that the train was about to start.20

In Doss v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railroad 21 Mr. Justice Napton said: "The plaintiff was entitled to have sufficient time to escort the lady under his charge to her seat, and then leave the cars. If the time was not enough or if the defendant's agents failed to give notice of the starting of the train, by the usual signals, of an oral ery of all aboard' from the conductor, and the ringing of the bell by the engineer, it was not such ordinary care as the defendant was bound to exercise, both toward passengers and persons in the situation of plaintiff." But in a Massachusetts case it was said that the carrier was not bound to give such a person special notice of the time of the departure of the train.22

18 Coleman v. Georgia R. R., 84 Ga. 1, 10 S: E. 498 (1889); Hill v. Louisville & N. R. R. (Ga.), 52 S. W. 651 (1905); Missouri, K. & T. Ry. v. Miller, 8 Tex. Civ. 241, 27 S. W. 905 (1894); Griswold v. Chicago & N. W. Ry., 64 Wis. 652 (1885). In Missouri, K. & T. Ry. v. Miller, the court said: "It was the duty of the appellee to take notice of the usual length of time given for this purpose, and if it was not sufficient, and it was necessary for him to go into the train, in order to place upon the company the duty of holding the train specially for him to disembark, he must have given notice of his intention."

19 Louisville & N. R. R. v. Crunk, 119 Ind. 542, 21 N. E. 31, 12 Am. St. Rep. 443 (1889); Doss v. Missouri, K & T. R. R., 59 Mo. 27, 21 Am. Rep. 371 (1875); Johnson v. Southern Ry., 53 S. C. 203, 31 S. E. 212, 69 Am. St. Rep. 849 (1898).

20 Doss v. Missouri, K. & T. R. R., 59 Mo. 27, 21 Am. Rep. 371 (1875); Johnson v. Southern Ry., 53 S. C. 203, 31 S. E. 212, 69 Am. St. Rep. 849 (1898).

21 Supra.

22 Lucas v. New Bedford & T. R. R., 6 Gray (Mass.), 64 (1856).

TOPIC B-TENDER OF COMPENSATION REQUIRED.

§ 210. Payment of fare as condition of receiving.

The carrier may make it a condition of accepting a passenger or goods for carriage that fare or freight be paid in advance;1 or that a ticket shall be purchased 2 and presented at the gate before entering the train.3

211. What is sufficient tender of fare or freight.

The payment in advance of fare or freight to a carrier is not the payinent of a debt, but the satisfaction of a reasonable condition imposed by regulation of the carrier. A debtor must seek his creditor and make legal tender of the exact amount due. But the passenger paying his fare may tender a greater amount and demand change, provided it is a reasonable demand. This question was discussed at length in the case of Barrett v. Market Street Cable Railway. This was an action for damages for

1 Tarbell v. Central Pac. R. R., 34 Cal. 616 (1868); Nye v. Marysville & Y. C. S. R. R., 97 Cal. 461, 32 Pac. 530 (1893). This is a provision of the California Civil Code (§ 2187), which, however, merely re-enacts the common law. Prepayment of freight, Galena, etc., R. Co. v. Rae, 18 Ill. 488, 68 Am. Dec. 574 (1857); Ill. Cent. R. Co. v. Frankenburg, 54 Ill. 88, 5 Am. Rep. 92 (1870); Wilder v. St. Johnsbury, etc., R. Co., 66 Vt. 636, 30 At. 41 (1894).

2 Illinois.—Ill. Cent. R. Co. v. Loutham, 80 Ill. App. 579 (1898); Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Boger, 1 Ill. App. 472 (1877).

Indiana.-Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Vandyne, 57 Ind. 576, 26 Am. Rep.

68 (1877).

Michigan.-Van Dusan v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 97 Mich. 439, 56 N. W. 848, 37 Am. St. Rep. 354 (1893).

Nebraska.-Burlington & M. R. R. R. v. Rose, 11 Neb. 177, 8 N. W. 433

(1881).

New York.-Corwin v. Long Island R. Co., 2 N. Y. City Ct. 106 (1885). Ohio.-Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Bartram, 11 Ohio St. 457 (1860). Texas. International, etc., R. Co. v. Goldstein, 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. 274 (1884).

Vermont.-Harris v. Stevens, 31 Vt. 79, 73 Am. Dec. 337 (1858).

3 Dickerman v. St. Paul U. D. Co., 44 Minn. 433, 46 N. W. 907 (1890). 481 Cal. 296, 22 Pac. 859, 15 Am. St. Rep. 61, 6 L. R. A. 336, B. & W. 297 (1889).