the passenger knows that the agent has no authority to give the directions he assumes to give.41

Sec. 1068. When passenger's ticket has been purchased for him by third person.-If a passenger's ticket has been purchased for him by a third person, and he has been accepted as a passenger and has acquired the rights incident thereto, the carrier cannot thereafter, by agreement with the third person and without the consent of the passenger, cancel his ticket and expel him from his vehicle.42

14. Limitation of carrier's liability.

Sec. 1069. (§ 581.) Passenger carrier cannot limit his liability by notice or regulation-Conclusiveness of contract.-It has been frequently held that mere notices to the passenger are no more effectual for the purpose of limiting the liability of the passenger carrier than of the common carrier of goods, and that any regulation he may adopt, the effect or tendency of which would be to release him in the least from that utmost care and diligence which the law requires of him, whether such regulation was known to the passenger or not, would be absolutely nugatory.43 But one who intends to become a pas

other officer as to a matter intrusted to his charge, as to direct a passenger which way to go or to take a car at a given time, may be relied upon. Chance v. Railway Co., 10 Mo. App. 351; Allender v. Railroad Co., 43 Iowa, 276.

41. This is illustrated by the case of Alabama, etc. R. Co. v. Carmichael, 90 Ala. 19, 8 So. Rep. 87, 9 L. R. A. 388. There the passenger applied for a ticket on a limited train, for a certain point. The agent declined to sell her the ticket as the train did not stop at that point. She then applied to the conductor and he told her to get on without a ticket and he

would stop at that station and let her off, which he failed to do. Held, that she had such notice of the regulation not to stop there that she was not entitled to rely on the conductor's promise to stop, and therefore the company was not liable. See also, Wells v. Railroad Co., 67 Miss. 24; Railway Co. v. Hatton, 60 Ind. 12; Railway Co. v. Pierce, 47 Mich. 277.

42. La Gascogne, 135 Fed. 577. 43. Ante, § 1052. See also, The Majestic, 166 U. S. 375, 17 Sup. Ct. R. 597, 41 L. Ed. 1039; Smith v. North German Lloyd S. S. Co., 142 Fed. 1032; La Bourgoyne, C. C. A.

144 Fed. 781. (These

senger may contract with the carrier in the same manner as the owner of goods, and when the contract has been put into the passenger's ticket, the same conclusive presumption exists that it is the complete and entire contract between the parties, as when the contract for the carriage of goods is contained in the carrier's receipt or bill of lading. And if the passenger has accepted from the carrier such a ticket, to be used by him as evidence of his right to be carried over the route, and in the vehicles of the carrier, he will be held to have agreed to be carried according to the contract, even though he did not read it.44

Sec. 1070. (§ 582.) Same subject-Good faith required on part of the carrier.-The same good faith will, however, be required of the carrier in his dealings with the passenger in respect to such tickets, as is required of the common carrier of goods when he undertakes to qualify his liability by the terms. of his receipt; and the ticket will be held to have the obligatory effect of a contract only when the written or printed matter, designed to vary the contract from that which would be implied by the law, is upon the face of the ticket, and so patent that it will be presumed that the passenger could have failed to see and understand it only from inattention or negligence. Consequently, if the carrier has resorted to any device to conceal it from the passenger's notice, or if he has affixed it to the ticket, whether designedly or not, in such a manner as that it would not have been probably noticed, as if it should be written or printed illegibly or unintelligibly, or upon the back of the ticket, the presumption would be that it had not been seen or understood by him, and that he had therefore never assented to it.45

cases were all on limitations as to baggage.) See post, § 1299.

44. Fonesca v. Steamship Co., 153 Mass. 553, 27 N. E. Rep. 665; Railway Co. v. Nicholai, 4 Ind. App. 119, 30 N. E. Rep. 424, 51 Am St. Rep. 206; Rogers v. Steamboat Co., 86 Me. 261, 29 Atl. Rep. 1069, 25 L. R. A. 491; Aiken v.

Railroad Co., 80 Mo. App. 8;
Wheeler v. Nav. Co., 72 Hun, 5, 25
N. Y. Supp. 578; Crary v. Railroad
Co., 203 Pa. St. 525, 53 Atl. Rep.
363, 59 L. R. A. 815, 93 Am. St.
Rep. 778.

45. Brown v. The Railroad, 11 Cush. 97.

Ante, §§ 415, 1052.

Sec. 1071. Same subject-When limitation inures to benefit of connecting carrier.-The same rules obtain as to connecting carriers claiming the benefit of limitations contained in a passenger's contract of through carriage as exist in the carriage of freight.46

Sec. 1072. (§ 583.) Right of the carrier to provide against liability for injuries to the passenger from the negligence of the carrier or his servants.-The decisions of the courts as to the right of the carrier of passengers to limit his liability for the neglect of that care and circumspection which the law requires of him have followed almost the same course as those upon the right of the carrier of goods to guard himself by contract with the bailor against the consequences of his negligence; and the same diversity as to the validity of such contracts and the extent to which they may provide against the carrier's liability, when they are allowed, is to be found. But it may now be stated to be the decidedly prevailing doctrine in this country that a passenger carrier cannot contract

The contract of carriage is consummated when the passenger pays, and the carrier accepts the fare. If no special agreement be then made, the conditions of carriage are prescribed by law; and any subsequent assent by the passenger, without a separate consideration, to a limitation of the carrier's liability, is nudum pactum, and void. An assent by a passenger to a limitation of the carrier's liability will not be implied when such limitation is communicated to the passenger, for the first time, after he has paid his fare, and is in a situation, by the act of the carrier, which does not admit of his declining the conveyance and reclaiming his baggage. Lechowitzer v. Packet

Co., 28 N. Y. Supp. 577, 8 Misc.
Rep. 213.

In Bate v. Railway Co., (Can.) 18 S. C. R. 697, the plaintiff had sore eyes and did not read the conditions on the ticket which limited defendant's liability for baggage to wearing apparel not exceeding $100 in value. Defendant's agent obtained plaintiff's signature to the ticket by explaining that it was merely for identification. The baggage was lost en route and was worth over $1,000. Held, that the special conditions on the back of the ticket, not having been brought to plaintiff's notice, she was not bound by them and could recover from the carrier.

46. Aiken v. Railroad Co., 80 Mo. App. 8. Ante, § 472.

against the consequences of his own negligence when the carriage of the passenger himself is the subject of the contract.47

Sec. 1073. (§ 584.) Same subject—Actual payment of cash fare not necessary in order to render stipulations against liability for negligence void.-As we have already seen in preceding sections, a person is entitled to be considered a passenger for hire if a good and valuable consideration exists for his passage, even though the consideration is something else than the actual payment of cash fare, as where he is carried upon a "drover's" or "employe's's pass, or any other ticket pur