PART IV.] LIABILITY FOR TORTS OF AGENTS. [§ 349. gamblers and raonte-men, who travel on a train to ply their vocation, may be excluded ;' ora person who is so drunk as to be offensive. 2 A regulation by a railroad company requiring passengers to exhibit their tickets whenever requested by the conductor, and directing the ejection from the cars of those who refuse to com- ply, is reasonable and proper. A passenger is bound to comply, and by refusing forfeits his right to be carried farther. 3 On the other hand, it is unreasonable to require that a passenger shall not leave the train or station without showing a ticket or pay- ing his fare ; and if in carrying out this regulation a passenger is detained or arrested by the employes of the carrier, the car- rier will be liable for damages in a suit for false imprisonment. 4 § 349. The most numerous and on that account the most is not justified in resisting every trivial imposition to which he may be exposed, so that his resistance must be overcome by counter-force to preserve subordination. Chicago, B. and Q. R. R. Co. v. Griffin, 68 111. 499. 1 Thurston v. Union Pac. R. R. Co., 4 Dill. 321. See, also, Pearson v. Duane, 4 Wall. 605. A regulation forbidding hackmen, peddlers, ex- pressmen, and loafers from coming within a passenger depot is reasona- ble. Summitt v. State, 8 Lea(Tenn.), 413. 2 Pittsburgh, C. and St. L. R'y Co. v. Vandyne, 57 Ind. 576. See Railway Co. v. Valleley, 32 O. St. 345; Murphy v. Union R'y Co., 118 Mass. 228. 3 Hibbard v. N. Y. and Erie R. R. Co., 15 N. Y. 455 ; Crawford v. Cin- cinnati, etc., R. R. Co., 26 O. St. 580. Carriers may require passengers to purchase and show tickets. Pullman Palace Car Co. ». Reed, 75 111. 125 ; Lane v. Railroal Co., 5 Lea (Tenn.), 124 ; Price v. C. & O. R'y Co., 46 W. Va. 538. A carrier may discriminate between the amount of fare when a ticket is purchased, and when the fare is paid on the train. Swan v. Man- chester, etc., R. R., 132 Mass. 116 ; Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Rinard, 46 Ind. 293 ; Toledo, W. and W. R. R. Co. ». Wright, 68 Ind. 586 ; Du Laurens v. First Division St. P. and P. R. R., 15 Minn. 49 ; see Jefferson- ville R. R. Co. v. Rogers, 38 Ind. 116. A regulation requiring stop-over tick- ets is reasonable. Yorton v. Milwau- kee, etc., R'y Co., 54 Wis. 234; Stone v. C. and N. W. R. Co., 47 Iowa, 82. A regulation requiring the purchase of tickets before entering the cars is unreasonable, unless proper facilities for the purchase of tickets are fur- nished. Evans v. Memphis, etc., R. R. Co., 56 Ala. 246 ; Du Laurens v. First Division St. P. and P. R. R. Co., 15 Minn. 49 ; St. Louis, A. and C. R. R. Co. v. Dalby, 19 111. 353. Com- pare Thorpe v. New York C. and H. R. R. R. Co., 76 N. Y. 402. 4 Lynch v. Metropolitan Elevated R'y Co., 90 N. Y. 77. Under such circumstances the carrier may have an action to recover the fare, but no right to arrest or imprison the pas- senger, lb. 325
