The paramount duty of a railroad company is to look to the safety of the persons and property it transports. And it has been for the damage sustained by the wife whilst travelling in their cars. As passenger carriers, the defendants were bound to the most exact care and diligence, not only in the management of the trains and cars, but also in the structure and care of the track, and in all the subsidiary arrangements necessary to the safety of the passengers. The wife haying contracted with the defendants, and paid fare to them, the plaintiffs had a right to look to them, in the first instance, for the use of all necessary care and skill. The switch in question, in the careless or negligent management of which the damage occurred, was a part of the defendants' road, over which they must necessarily carry all their passengers; and although provided for, and attended by, a servant of the Concord Railroad Corporation, and at their expense, yet it was still a part of the Nashua & Lowell Railroad, and it was within the scope of their duty to see that the switch was rightly constructed, attended, and managed, before they were justified in carrying passengers over it." See also Nashville & C. Railroad Co. v. Messino, 1 Sneed, 220; Grote v. The C. & H. Railway Co. 2 Exch. 251, cited ante, p. * 227, note (o); Tuller v. Talbot, 23 Ill. 357.

(qq) O'Brien v. Boston, etc R. R. Co. 16 Gray, 20. See State v. Campbell, 8 Vroom, 309.

(qr) Kline v. Central Pacific, etc. R. R. Co. 37 Cal. 400.

(qs) Fairmount R. R. Co. v. Stutler, 64 Penn. St. 375.

(qt) Edgerton v. N. Y., etc. R. R. Co. 39 N. T. 227; and see Dillaye v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co. 56 Barb. 80.

1 Creed v. Penn. R. Co. 86 Penn. St 189; Dunn p. Grand Trunk R. Co. 58 Me. 187; Ind., etc. R. Co. v. Beaver, 41 Ind. 498; Lucas v. Milwaukee R. Co. 38 Wis. 41. Indianapolis, etc. R. Co. v. Horst, 93 U. S. 291, decided that a person taking a cattle train is entitled to demand the highest possible degree of care and diligence, regardless of the kind of train he takes.

held that a steamer carrying passengers is bound to protect them from any violence which may be expected from disorderly persons on board, although these persons are soldiers who were received by the steamer on compulsion, (qu) and the duty of avoiding unnecessary injury to animals straying upon the road is subordinate to this. (r) And he is liable for the acts of partners, or quasi partners, in the same manner that the carrier of goods is liable. (s) On the other hand, the carrier may make and enforce all reasonable regulations in reference to his business, or to the buildings connected therewith; as the depots of railroads, and the like; (t) but notice that the carrier would not be liable for injuries to passengers caused by negligence of its servants, would be unreasonable and inoperative. (tt) The passengers are bound to comply with all reasonable regulations; and to show their tickets when asked. (u) l

As the carrier is bound to make all proper provision for the safety and comfort of his passengers, he must have power to do so ; and on this ground, as well as in defence of his own rights, he may refuse to receive, or may remove from the car or carriage, a passenger whose condition or conduct is such as to endanger other passengers or cause them material discomfort.2 A decision

(qu) Flint v. Norwich, etc. Transportation Co. 6 Blatchf. 168.

(r) Sandford v. Eighth Av. R. R. Co. 83 N. T. (9 Smith) 343. See also Louisville & Frankfort R. R. Co. v. Ballard, 2 Met (Ky.) 177.

(s) Dwight v. Brewster, 1 Pick. 60; Champion v. Bostwick, 11 Wend. 671; 18 id. 176; Waland v. Elkins, 1 Stark. 277; Fromont v. Coupland, 9 J. B. Moore, 319; Cobb v. Abbot, 14 Pick. 289; Wetmore v. Baker, 9 Johns. 807; Green v. Beesley, 2 Bing. N. C. 108; Stockton v. Frey, 4 Gill, 406.

(t) Hall v. Power, 12 Met. 482.

(tt) Flinn v. Philadelphia R. R. Co. 1 Houston, 469.

(u) Hibbard v. N. Y. & E. R. R. Co. 16 N. Y. 466; Willis v. L. I. R. R. Co. 82 Barb. 398; Illinois, etc. R. R. Co. v. Whittemore, 43 Ill. 420.

1 Although a season-ticket passenger. Downs v. K. Y., etc. R. Co. 36 Conn. S87. -A railroad company has a right to provide and insist that its passenger tickets shall be used upon the day when issued. Elmore v. Sands, 54 N. Y. 512. If a commutation ticket is lost, for which a receipt was given requiring the showing of the ticket to the conductor when requested, stating that no duplicate would be issued and subjecting the ticket to its regulations, the company after such loss can exact full fare. Ripley v. N. J., etc. R. Co. 2 Vroom, 388. That ejection is justified by a failure to have a stopover check, although through a conductor's mistake, see Yorton v. Milwaukee R. Co. 54 Wis. 234; and by a refusal to pay extra fare under the circumstances, see Lake Shore, etc. R. Co. v. Pierce, 47 Mich. 277. - A regulation setting apart a car in each passenger train for the separate use of women and men accompanying them, is reasonable, but a male passenger without a seat in the other cars may peaceably use such a car. Bass v. Chicago, Ac. R. Co. 86 Wis. 450 ; 42 Wis. 654. See Peck v. N. Y. Cent, etc R. Co. 70 N. Y. 587, that an excess of force used to prevent a male passenger from entering such a car renders the company liable.

2 An ugly and boisterous drunkard may be expelled, and the company is not liable for his subsequent death on the track. Railway Co. v. Valleley, 32 Ohio St. 345. See also Philadelphia, etc. R. Co. v. Larkiu, 47 Md. 155. It is for the jury to say whether has lately been made in Massachusetts, in reference to a street or horse-railroad car, which it may be hoped will be maintained as law in reference to all passenger cars. It is that a conductor need not wait for an act of violence, profanity, or other misconduct, but may expel a passenger whose conduct or condition makes it reasonably certain that he will cause annoyance to other passengers. (uu)