880 ���FEDERAL REPORTBR. ���parts of the route, and as the Eio G-rande Company was to complete the contract, its coupon was the last of the series, and connected with the general provisions constituting the contract. All of them were in substance like those issued by the Missouri Pacifie Eailway Com- pany, in the following form : ���MISSOURI PACIFIC EAILWAY. �This Ticket entitles the holder to one First-Class Passage �TO TRINIDAD, COLORADO. �This Ticket is void unless offlcially staniped and dated. In selling this Ticket for Passage over other roads, this company acts only as Agent, and assumes no responsibility beyond its own line. This Company assumes no risk on baggage, except for wearing apparel, and limits its responsibility to $100 in value. AU baggage exceeding that value will be at the risk of the owner unless taken by special, contract. The ehecks belonging to this Ticket will be void if detached. F. E. Fowler, �FORM 307. Acting Gen'l Passsenger Agent. ���FORM 307. ���C3 - y; �a « ���S!5 s I .-s a> �n.ii " �d 2 fi.2 ���23 ���It will be observed that there are no conditions as to the time of performing the journey, or as to the right of the purchaser to trans- fer the ticket to another. It entitles the holder "to one first-class passage" from the place of departure, which, in this instance, was St. Louis, Missouri, to Trinidad, Colorado. �At its office in Denver, for a month or more, the defendant re- deemed tickets similar to these in all respects, paying therefor local rates from Denver to the points named in the tickets. It was not then contended that the right was limited to the original purchaser, but payment was made to the holder, and many of them were pre- sented by the plaintifif himself, who received the money for them. The tickets in suit were bought by plaintifif, who calls himself a "ticket broker," in the expectation that defendant would redeem them as had been done with others of the same class. As to these tickets, defendant's agent at first requested plaintiff to hold them a few days until money should be received for redeeming them, and, after four days, defendant absolutely refused to redeem them. Meantime plaintiff had bought others of the same class, amounting in all to the sum in controversy, and after defendant refused them he bought no more. �As to what may be a fair deduction from this proceeding, concern- ing defendant's liability, there is not much room for discussion. ��� �
