As a general rule, the provide for the safety of passengers continues, not only while the passenger is in the cars, but while he is leaving the premises of the company.8 And the intoxication of a passenger does not diminish the duty of the company to exercise due care for his safety. company is bound to carry all persons who apply for a passage, upon being paid the usual rate of fare.10 But it may refuse to accept one as a passenger, while so drunk as to be disgusting or annoying to other passengers; 11 and it may exclude gamblers from travel on its trains when seeking to use them to ply their vocation thereon; 12 and it is not bound to receive an unusual number of passengers, beyond the number it might reasonably be required to provide for.18 So the company can establish and enforce reasonable regulations to secure comfort, order, and safety of passengers; 14 and it is not bound to admit persons as passengers who refuse to obey such regulations, or who are guilty of gross and vulgar habits of conduct, 15 And a passenger in the cars who refuses compliance with the reasonable regulations of the company may be lawfully ejected from the train, although he has paid his fare.16 Persons traveling upon the company's trains as messengers or agents of an express company are passengers, and entitled to the care due to passengers, although no charge is made for their fare.17 And so of persons in charge of live stock, merchandise, etc., in transportation on the train. 18 And the company may be liable for causing the death of a person as passenger, though at the time riding on a free pass, upon which was a stipulation, signed by himself, releasing the company from all liability for injury to his person or property while using the same, 19 So one who has procured a ticket, and is present to take the train at the ordinary point of departure, is a passenger, though he has not entered the cars. 20 So the relation of carrier and passenger exists between the company and one who, by mistake, gets on a train other than the one upon which he intended to take passage.21 But one fraudulently traveling on a train without paying fare has not the rights of a passenger; 22 and the company is not liable for a personal injury to such person on its train, or for his death caused by mere negligence.23 A regulation discriminating in passenger fares, in favor of those who purchase tickets before entering the cars, is not unreasonable; 24 but any right of the company to make such discrimination depends on the fact that a reasonable opportunity has been given to obtain tickets at the lower rate.25 To this end, the ticket-office must be kept open a reasonable time prior to the time fixed for the departure of the train.26 The liability of a railway company as a common carrier, for baggage, is founded on the payment of fare by the passenger, and the liability continues until the baggage is ready to be delivered to the owner at his destination, and until he has had a reasonable opportunity to receive and remove it.28 The delivery of a check to the passenger relieves him of the care of his baggage during the journey, and devolves such care upon the agents of the several roads over which it passes.23 But the company is not obliged to carry the baggage of one who does not go by the same train; 30 and for baggage left at the station beforehand, in anticipation of taking a journey, or left there after the journey has terminated, the company is liable as a warehouseman only. The term "baggage," within the rule of the carrier's liability, includes such articles only as may become necessary, convenient, or ornamental during the course of the passenger's journey; 32 with such reasonable amount of money as will be required to meet his actual and contingent expenses.33 I Wheaton v. North Beach etc. R. R. Co. 36 Cal. 590; Brown v. N. Y. Cent etc. R. R. Co. 18 N. Y. 408; Indianapolis etc. R. R. Co. v. Horst, 93 U. S. 21; Kansas Pacif. Railw. Co. v. Miller, 2 Colo. 442; Brunswick etc. R. R. Co. v. Gale, 56 Ga. 322. 2 Meier r. Penn'a R. R. Co. 64 Pa. St. 225; 3 Am. R. 581; Carroll v. Staten Island R. R. Co. 53 N. Y. 126; Baltimore etc. R. R. Co. v. Breinig, 25 Md. 378; Klein v. Jewett, 23 N. J. L. 474; Johnson v. Winona etc. R. R. Co. 11 Minn. 296; Hardy v. North Carolina etc. R. R. Co. 74 No. Car. " 3 Dunn v. Grand Trunk Railw. Co. 58 Me. 187; Hazard v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co. 1 Biss. 503; Edgerton v. N. Y. etc. R. R. Co. 3.) N. Y. 227; Indianapolis etc. R. R. Co. v. Horst, 93 U. S. 291; and see Lucas v. Mil waukee etc. R. R. Co. 33 Wis. 41; 14 Am. R. 735; Arnold e. lll. Cent. R. R. Co. 83 III. 273; 25 Am. R. 353. 4 Eaton e. Del. etc. R. R. Co. 57 N. Y. 382; Chicago etc. R. R. Co. v. Flagg, 43 III. 364. Compare Houston etc. R. R. Co. v. Moore, 49 Tex. 31; 30 Am. R. 98; Creed v. Penn'a R. R. Co. 86 Pa. St. 139; 27 Am. R. 693. 5 Pittsburg etc. R. R. Co. v. Thompson, 56 Ill. 138; Reed v. N. Y. etc. R. R. Co. 55 Barb. 48; Holyoke v. Grand Trunk Lailw. Co. 43 N. H. 541; Kansas Pacif. Railw. Co. e. Miller, 2 Colo. 442; Great Western Railw. e. Braid, 1 Moore P. C. (N. S.) 101. 6 Carroll r. Staten Island R. R. Co. 58 N. Y. 126; 65 Barb. 32; McPadden c. N. Y. Cent. R. R. Co. 44 N. Y. 478; 4 Am. R. 705; and see Francis . Cockrell, Law R. 5 Q. B. 184, 501; Readhead v. Midland Railw. Co. Law R. 2 Q. B. 412; Law R. 4 id. 379. 7 Gonzales r. N. Y. etc. R. R. Co. 33 How. Pr. 497; Beard r. Conn. etc. R. R. Co. 43 Vt. 101; Chicago etc. Railw. Co. e. Fillmore, 57 III. 265; Mayo e. Boston etc. R. R. 164 Mass. 137; Keating e. N. Y. etc. R. R. Co. 3 Lans. 467; Central R. R. Co. v. Perry, 53 Ga. 451; McDonalde. Chicago etc. R. R. Co. 26 Iowa, 124; Memphis etc. R. R. Co. e. Whitfield, 44 Miss. 460. 8 Gaynor v. Old Colony etc. Railw. Co. 100 Mass. 208. And compare Armstrong . N. Y. etc. R. R. Co. 65 Barb. 437; Imhoff v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co. 22 Wis. 661; Robson v. North Eastern Railw. Co. Law R. 10 Q. B. 271; 12 Eng. R. 302; Dublin etc. Railw. Co. v. Slattery, Law R. 3 App. Cas. 1155; 24 Eng. R. .13. 9 Milliman e. N. Y. etc. R. R. Co. 66 N. Y. 643. 10 Tarbell v. Cent. Pacif. R. R. Co. 34 Cal. 616; Beekman v. Schenectady R. R. 3 Paige, 45; Westchester etc. R. R. Co. v. Miles, 55 Pa. St. 20; Bennett e. Peninsular etc. Co. 6 Com. B. 775; Tattan v Great Western Railw. 2 El. & E. 844. 11 Pittsburg etc. Railw. Co. v. Vandyne, 57 Ind. 576. 12 Thurston v. Union Pacif. R. R. Co. 22 Int. Rev. Rec. 251. 13 Haweroft v. Great Northern Railw. Co. 8 Eng. L. & Eq. 362; Evansville etc. I. R. Co. v. Duncan, 28 Ind. 441. 14 Bass v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co. 36 Wis. 450; Chicago etc. R. R. Co. v. People, 55 Ill. 355; Lake Shore etc. R. R. Co. v. Greenwood, 79 Pa. St. 373: Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Reed, 75 Ill. 125. 15 Jencks e. Coleman, 2 Sum. 221; Thomp. & C. 598. Barney v. Steamboat Co. 2 16 Havens v. Hartford etc. R. R. Co. 28 Conn. 69; and see Shelton v. Lake Shore etc. R. K. Co. 29 Ohio St. 214; Crawford v. Cin, etc. R. R. Co. 25 id. 550; New Orleans etc. R. R. Co. v. Burke, 53 Miss. 201; Hanson v. European etc. R. R. Co. 62 Me. 84; 16 Am. R. 404; Kline v. Cent. Pacif. R. R. Co. 37 Cal. 400. 17 Blair r. Erie Railw. Co. 66 N. Y. 313; 23 Am. R. 55; and see Hammond v. North Eastern R. R. Co. 6 So. Car. 130; Commonw. v. Vt. etc. R. R. Co. 103 Mass. 7; Ohio etc. R. R. Co. v. Muhlins, 30 Ill. 9; Collett v. London etc. Railw. Co. 16 Q. B. 55. Compare Union Pacif. Railw. Co. c. Nichols, 8 Kan. 565; Flower v. Penn'a R. R. Co. 59 Pa. St. 210. 18 Ohio etc. Railw. Co. v. Selby, 47 Ind. 471; 17 Am. R. 719; Yeomans v. Contra Costa Steam Nav. Co. 44 Cal. 71; Railway Co. v. Stevens, 95 U. S. 655. See § 257, ante. 19 Rose v. Des Moines Valley Railw. Co. 39 Iowa, 246; and see Rail road Co. v. Hopkins, 41 Ala. 486; Jacobus v. St. Paul etc. R. R. Co. 21 Minn. 125. But the rule is otherwise in New York: Poucher v. N. Y. Cent. R. R. Co. 49 N. Y. 263; 10 Am. R. 364; Bissell v. N. Y. Cent. R. R. 25 N. Y. 442: Sunderland v. Westcott, 40 How. Pr. 468; 2 Sweeny, 260; and in England: Gallin v. London etc. Railw. Co. Law R. 10 Q. B. 212; 12 Eng, K. 268; McCawley v. Furness Railw. Co. Law R. 8 Q. B. 57; 4 Eng. R. 21s; Alexander v. Toronto etc. Railw. Co. 35 Up. Can. Q. B. 453. Compare Kinney v. Railroad Co. 34 N. J. L. 513. 20 Central R. R. Co. v. Perry, 58 Ga. 461; Gordon v. Grand Street etc. R. R. Co. 40 Barb. 546; Jeffersonville etc. R. R. Co. v. Riley, 39 Ind. 568; Buffett v. Troy etc. R. R. Co. 40 N. Y. 168; and see Allender v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co. 37 Iowa, 264. 21 Columbus etc. R. R. Co. v. Powell, 40 Ind. 37; and see Austin v. Great Western Railw. Co. Law R. 2 Q. B. 442. 22 Austin v. Great Western Railw. Co. Law R. 2 Q. B. 442; and see Great Northern Rail. Co. v. Harrison, 10 Ex. 376. 23 Toledo etc. Railw. Co. v. Brooks, 81 Ill. 245. 24 Jeffersonville R. R. Co. v. Kogers, 28 Ind. 1; Indianapolis etc. Railw. Co. v. Rinard, 46 id. 293; and see Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Reed, 75 III. 125: Goetz v. Hannibal etc. R. R. Co. 50 Mo. 472; Smith v. Pittsburg etc. Railw. 23 Ohio St. 10; State v. Goold, 53 Me. 279. 25 St. Louis etc. R. R. Co. v. South, 43 Ill. 176; Jeffersonville R. R. Co. v. Rogers, 28 Ind. 1. But see Bordeaux v. Erie Railw. Co. 8 Hun, 579. 26 St. Louis etc. Railw. Co. v. Myrtle, 51 Ind. 566; Chicago etc. R. R. Co. v. Flagg, 43 Ill. 364. 27 Smith v. Boston etc. R. R. Co. 44 N. H. 330; Wilson v. Grand Trunk Railw. Co. 56 Me. 60; Perkins v. Wright, 37 Ind. 27. 28 Jones v. Norwich etc. Transp. Co. 50 Barb. 193; Dininny v. N. Y. etc. R. R. Co. 49 N. Y. 546; Louisville etc. R. R. Co. v. Mahan, 8 Bush, 135. 29 Check v. Little Miami R. R. Co. 2 Disn. 237; and see Chicago etc. R. R. Co. v. Clayton, 78 Ill. 616; Rogers v. Long Island R. R. Co. 38 How. Pr. 289; 2 Lans. 269. 30 Graffam v. Boston etc. R. R. Co. 67 Me. 234; Beecher v. Great Eastern Railw. Co. Law R. 5 Q. B. 241; and see Fairfax v. N. Y. etc. R. R. Co. 5 Jones & S. 516; 67 N. Y. 11. 31 Burnell v. N. Y. Cent. R. R. Co. 45 N. Y. 184; 6 Am. R. 61; Mote v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co. 27 Iowa, 22; 1 Am. R. 212; Mattison v. N. Y. Cent. R. R. Co. 57 N. Y. 552; Van Gilder v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co. 44 Iowa, 548; Bartholomew v. St. Louis etc. R. R. Co. 53 Ill. 227; 5 Am. R. 45. 32 Dexter v. Syracuse etc. R. R. Co. 42 N. Y. 326; 1 Am. R. 527; Wilson v. Grand Trunk Railw. 56 Me. 60; 57 id. 130; 2 Am. R. 26; Hannibai Railroad v. Swift, 12 Wall. 262; Gleason v. Goodrich Transp. Co. 32 Wis. 85; Stinson v. Comm. etc. R. R. Co. 8 Mass. 83; Fraloff v. N. Y. etc. R. R. 10 Blatchf. 16; Macrow v. Great Western Railw. Co. Law R. 6 Q. B. 612. Hudston v. Midland Railw. Co. Law R. 10 Q. B. 366. 33 First Nat. Bank v. Marietta etc. R. R. Co. 20 Ohio St. 259; 5 Am. R. 655; Wilson v. Grand Trunk Railw. 56 Me. 60; Weeks v. N. Y. etc. R R. Co. 9 Hun, 669; aff'd, 72 N. Y. 50. See, as to condition limiting liability in respect of passengers' baggage: Rawson v. Penn'a R. R. Co. 48 N. Y. 212; Cohen v. Southeastern Railw. Co. Law R. 1 Ex. D. 217. § 260. Freights, fares, and other charges.-The right of a railway company to take tolls, freight, and fares can never be raised by implication. It can only be exercised under an express grant in the charter,2 and is subject to general regulation by the legislature, unless that body has by express compact with the company surrendered or restricted its authority. And in determining questions as to the right to take freight, etc., courts will construe the charter most in favor of the public and most against the company. Discriminations in rates of toll, which are fair and reasonable, and founded on reasons consistent with the public interest, may be allowable. But under like circumstances, a like rate should be imposed upon all persons for the transportation of goods of like description; and a contract by a railway company to carry goods for one person at a cheaper rate than for another, under the same conditions, is held to be void, as creating an illegal preference. But the company may discriminate between the amount of fare where a ticket is purchased at a ticket-office and where the fare is paid upon the train.8 Under a statute imposing a penalty on railway companies for extorting excessive fares, one who has paid the excessive fare when riding in expectation of being overcharged, and simply for the purpose of obtaining the penalty, is entitled to recover; 9 and under the Iowa statute, the penalty for overcharging and the amount wrongfully collected may be recovered in a single action. 10 A railway company has a lien upon the goods transported over its route for the freight earned; 11 but the lien is only coextensive with the right to claim and recover freight,12 and the company cannot hold goods by virtue of a lien for back freights; 13 and no right of lien for freight can grow out of a wrongful bailment of the goods to the company.14 Where, by reason of the default of the consignee in not receiving goods, the carrier acquires a right to store them, he may do so without losing his lien for the freight, whether deposited in his own name or that of the owner, subject to the lien. 15 And where a consignee fails to remove goods in accordance |