The  trial  judge  nonsuited  the  plaintiff  on  the  ground  that  the
ticket  entitled  him  to  a  continuous  passage  from  Buffalo  to  New
York,  and  not  from  any  intermediate  point  to  New  York.  The
General  Term  affirmed  the  nonsuit  upon  the  ground  that,  although
the  plaintiff  commenced  his  passage  upon  the  26th  of  September,  he
could  not  continue  it  after  that  date  on  that  ticket.
We  are  of  opinion  that  the  plaintiff  was  improperly  nonsuited.
The  contract  at  St.  Louis,  evidenced  by  the  ticket  and  coupons
there  sold,  was  not  a  contract  by  any  one  company  or  by  all  the


672  CARRIERS   OF   PASSENGERS.
companies  named  in  the  coupons  jointly  for  a  continuous  passage
from  St.  Louis  to  New  York,  A  separate  contract  was  made  for  a
continuous  passage  over  each  of  the  roads  mentioned  in  the  several
coupons.  Each  company  through  the  agent  selling  the  ticket  made
a  contract  for  a  passage  over  its  road,  and  each  company  assumed
responsibility  for  the  passenger  only  over  its  road.  Ko  company
was  liable  for  any  accident  or  default  upon  any  road  but  its  own.
This  was  so  by  the  very  terras  of  the  agreement  printed  upon  the
ticket.  Hence  the  defendant  is  not  in  a  position  to  claim  that  the
plaintiff  was  bound  to  a  continuous  passage  from  St.  Louis  to  Xew
York,  and  it  cannot  complain  of  the  stoppage  at  Cincinnati  and
Cleveland.  Hutchinson  on  Carriers,  sec.  579;  Brooke  v.  The  Grand
Trunk  Railway  Co.,  15  Mich.  332.
