FREEMAN v. NEW YORK CITY RY. CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
February 16, 1905.)
1. Carriers—Street Railways—Transfers.
Where, though a passenger knew he could have traveled to his destination by pursuing a route over which defendant street railway company issued transfers, he had frequently traveled over the route selected, and had always theretofore been given a transfer, and there was no evidence that any notice of the discontinuance of transfers was given to him when he boarded the car, or until no alternative continuous route was available, defendant was liable for refusal to issue a transfer to him as theretofore.
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Seventh District.
Action by Henry Freeman against the New York City Railway Company. From a Municipal Court judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
*48Argued before SCOTT, MacLEAN, and DAVIS, JJ.
H. A. Robinson, for appellant.
H. C. Brooks, for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
The proof shows that plaintiff could have traveled to his point of destination by pursuing another route, over which, as he knew, the defendant issued transfers. It also shows, however, that he had frequently traveled over the route he selected, and had always theretofore been given a transfer. There is no evidence that any notice of the discontinuance of the issue of such transfers was given to him when he boarded the car, or until it had traveled some blocks. At that time no alternative continuous route was available. Even if it be conceded, under the reasoning of Hatch, J., in the Topham Case (Sup.) 89 N. Y. Supp. 298, that, where there are two alternative routes between the same points, the defendant has the right to grant transfers over only one and refuse it over the other, timely' notice should in some manner be given to the passenger while it is still open to him to use either route.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.