regulation is not unreasonable which provides that change will not be given for a larger bill than two dollars.1 There are many examples of these principles; and regulations tending to facilitate the making of payment or to secure the company its payment will be supported unless they are outrageous. Thus the common regulation in the supply services that the company may require a deposit as security for bills not yet incurred is held to be justifiable, provided that the amount of the deposit required is not far from what a current bill would be. Such a requirement requiring deposit in advance of ascertainment of the amount due could only be made obligatory by a general regulation to this effect. There can be no doubt 1 Georgia.-W y nn v. Georgia Ry. & El. Co., 6 Ga. App. 77, 64 S. E. 278 (1909). New York.-Barker v. Central Park N. & E. R. R. R. Co., 151 N. Y. 237, 45 N. E. 550, 35 L. R. A. 489, 56 Am. St. Rep. 626 (1896). Pennsylvania. Muldowney v. Pittsburg & B. Tr. Co., 8 Pa. Super. Ct. 335, 43 W. N. C. 52 (1898). South Carolina.-Funderburg v. Augusta & A. Ry. Co., 81 S. C. 141, 61 S. E. 1075, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 868 (1908). In the following cases the propriety of securing a deposit was recognized: United States.-Hewlett v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 28 Fed. 181 (1886). Idaho.-Bardsly v. Boise Irr. & L. Co., 8 Idaho, 155, 67 Pac. 428 (1901). Indiana.-Western Union Telegraph Co. v. McGuire, 104 Ind. 130, 2 N. E. 201 (1885). Kentucky.-Owensboro Gaslight Co. v. Hildebrand, 19 Ky. L. Rep. 983, 42 S. W. 351 (1897). Massachusetts.-Turner v. Revere Water Co., 171 Mass. 329, 50 N. E. 634, 40 L. R. A. 657, 68 Am. St. Rep. 432, 40 L. R. A. 657 (1898). Michigan.-Williams v. Mutual Gas Co., 52 Mich. 499, 18 N. W. 236, 50 Am. Rep. 266 (1884). Missouri.-Vanderberg v. Kansas City Mo. Gas Co., 126 Mo. App. 600, 105 S. W. 17 (1907). New York.-Ford v. Brooklyn Gaslight Co., 3 Hun, 621 (1875). Wisconsin.-Shepard v. Milwaukee Gaslight Co., 6 Wis. 539, 70 Am. Dec. 479 (1858). But the requirement of such a deposit must be by a general regulation universally enforced or else the arrangement can be complained of for discrimination. Kentucky.-Owensboro Gaslight Co. v. Hildebrand, 19 Ky. L. Rep. 983, 42 S. W. 351 (1897). Pennsylvania.-Long v. Spring of the validity of a rule that telephone subscribers must pay before a certain day after bills have been rendered, on pain of having their service cut off. And further, a railroad may have a list of those whom it deems worthy of credit, from whom it does not require prepayment,2 without its being considered discrimination against those not on the list. § 878. Regulations to prevent escape from payment. Moreover, in order to make sure that none are obtaining service without payment, elaborate regulations may be devised. Thus a railroad may require that passengers shall purchase a ticket before presenting themselves for transportation,3 that they shall show their tickets before passing the gates leading to the trains, that these tickets vere Water Co., 171 Mass. 329, 50 N. E. 634, 68 Am. St. Rep. 432, 40 L. R. A. 657 (1898). Iowa.-Phelan v. Boone Gas Co. 125 N. W. 208 (1910). 1 Irvin v. Rushville Cooperative Telephone Co., 161 Ind. 521, 69 N. E. 258 (1903). 2 Brown & B. C. Co. v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co. (Mich.), 124 N. W. Rep. 528 (1910). 3 Arkansas.-McCook v. Northrup, 65 Ark. 225, 45 S. W. 547 (1898). California.-Nye v. Marysville & Y. C. R. R. Co., 97 Cal. 461, 32 Pac. 530 (1893). 4 Illinois. Chicago, B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Boger, 1 Ill. App. 472 (1877). Georgia.-Harp v. Southern Ry. Co., 119 Ga. 927, 47 S. E. 206 (1904). Kansas. South Kansas Ry. v. Hinsdale, 38 Kan. 507, 16 Pac. 937 (1888). Michigan.-Van Dusan v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 97 Mich. 439, 56 N. W. 848, 37 Am. St. Rep. 354 (1893). Mississippi.-Louisville & N. R. R. Co. v. Maybin, 66 Miss. 83, 5 So. 401 (1888). New York.-Corwin v. Long Is. R. R. Co., 2 N. Y. City Ct. 106 (1885), semble, Ohio. Cleveland C. & C. Ry. Co. v. Bartram, 11 Ohio St. 457 (1860). Vermont.-Hams v. Stevens, 31 Vt. 79, 73 Am. Dec. 337 (1858). 'Indiana.-Pittsburg, C. & St. L: R. W. Co. v. Vandyne, 57 Ind. 576, 26 Am. Rep. 68 (1877). shall be produced upon request of the conductor taking up fares,1 and that the ticket shall be exchanged for a train check which must be shown during the journey." Similarly street car companies may require that a proper transfer be presented upon changing cars,3 that transfers shall be asked for when paying fares, that transfers shall only be good at intersecting points, and that passengers shall not go from one car in charge of one conductor into another in charge of another conductor. It is obvious Maryland.-Northern Central Ry. Co. v. O'Connor, 76 Md. 207, 24 Atl. 449, 35 Am. St. Rep. 422 (1892). Minnesota.-Dickerman V. St. Paul Union Depot Co., 44 Minn. 433, 46 N. W. 907 (1890). Missouri.-Cathey v. St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co., 130 S. W. 130 (1910). 1 Illinois.-Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. Loutham, 80 Ill. App. 579 (1898). Nebraska.-Burlington & M. R. R. R. Co. v. Rose, 11 Neb. 177, 8 N. W. 433 (1881). New York.-Hibbard v. N. Y. & Erie R. R. Co., 15 N. Y. 455 (1857). North Carolina.-Am mons v. Railroad, 138 N. C. 555, 49 S. E. 1038 (1905). 2 New York.-Veeder v. Fellows, 20 N. Y. 126 (1859). West Virginia.-Price v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., 46 W. Va. 538, 39 Am. St. Rep. 517, 33 S. E. 255 (1899). So a passenger can refuse to give up his ticket unless he is given a - train check where this regulation prevails. State v. Thompson, 20 N. H. 250 (1850). 5 4 An ordinance prohibiting, under a penalty, the selling or giving away of any street car transfer issued to a passenger to enable him to make a continuous trip over a connecting line of the street railway company is not unconstitutional. City of Chicago v. Openheim, 229 Ill. 313, 82 N. E. 294 (1907). Where a passenger takes a car having placards indicating that it ran only to a point two miles short of his destination with a ticket entitling him to ride over the line to his destination, he is not entitled to a transfer upon the car's reaching the end of its run, contrary to rules of the company. Mills v. Seattle, Renton & S. R. Co., 50 Wash. 20, 96 Pac. 520 (1908). 'Ketchum v. New York City Ry. Co., 118 N. Y. App. Div. 248, 103 N. Y. Supp. 486 (1907). Hanley v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 110 App. Div. 429 (1905); Percy v. Metropolitan Ry. Co., 58 Mo. App. 75 (1894). "Birmingham R. L. & P. Co. v. McDonough, 153 Ala. 122, 44 So. 960, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 445 (1907). Minnesota.-Faber v. Chicago that as parts of a system designed to prevent escape from payment these particular regulations are all justified. § 879. Personal behavior of patron. Various regulations may be made as to the personal conduct of the patron, whatever may seem to be necessary for the convenience of the company itself, as well as for the protection of other patrons. Most of this is properly discussed under the head of excuses for refusal in a former chapter, for most persons of this sort could almost always be refused without such regulations. Rules for the exclusion or expulsion of disorderly people, or diseased persons 2 are, generally speaking, justifiable. And so are regulations for the rejecting or ejecting of intoxicated persons or gamblers. All this could doubtless be done without showing a regulation in justification; but in close cases the existence of a regulation will turn the scale. For example, smoking 5 and even spitting apparently cannot be forbidden without a regulation. And although regulations forbidding interrupting conversations over the telephone by another party on the same line or Gt. Western Ry. Co., 62 Minn. 433, 64 N. W. 918, 36 L. R. A. 789 (1895). 3 A rule that coupons of such tickets, if detached, will not be accepted for a passage, is reasonable. Norfolk & W. R. R. Co. v. Wysor, 82 Va. 250 (1886). A regulation of a railroad company that a monthly commutation ticket shall be surrendered by the passenger to the conductor on the last trip taken during the period for which it is issued is a reasonable regulation. Rogers v. Atlantic City R. R. Co., 57 N. J. L. 703, 34 Atl. 11 (1895). 1 Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. 6 7 v. Moore, 148 Ala. 63, 41 So. 984 (1906). 2 Pullman Car Co. v. Krauss, 145 Ala. 395, 40 So. 398, 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 103 (1906). 3 O'Neill v. Lynn & B. R. Co., 155 Mass. 371, 29 N. E. Rep. 630 (1892). Tall v. Baltimore Steam Packet Co., 90 Md. 248, 44 Atl. 1007, 47 L. R. A. 120 (1899). 'McQuerry v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 117 Mo. App. 255 (1906). 6 People v. McKay, 46 Mich. 430, 9 N. W. 486 (1881). 7 Huffman v. Marcy Mut. Telephone Co. (Iowa), 121 N. W. 1033, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1010 (1909). 1 sleeping upon the benches of a waiting room 1 may be enforced, it is a question whether without such rules any action could be taken in the particular instance. The very nature of the service undertaken exacts control to this extent, for without this power there could be no assurance of its character or efficiency. This power to regulate is essential in order to enable the company involved to perform its service, and is clearly to be implied from the nature of the enterprise. § 880. Bringing dangerous things prohibited. 4 There are many reasonable rules to protect both the others carried and carrier itself. To protect all concerned the bringing of weapons 2 or animals 3 within public vehicles may be forbidden. These regulations could be enforced although the weapon was in fact not loaded or the animal in fact docile. Upon the same principles the bringing of cumbrous or deleterious 5 parcels which might obstruct passageway or cause damage may be forbidden by regulations. But it does not follow that such regulations may be unreasonably enforced. A mechanic's tools cannot be thrown off the car, but he may be told to go upon the platform with them." The conductor cannot take his parcels away from a passenger, but he may eject him with his undesirable property." 1 Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Motes, 117 Ga. 923, 43 S. W. 990, 62 L. R. A. 507, 97 Am. St. Rep. 223 (1903). 2 Dowd v. Albany Ry. Co., 47 N. Y. App. Div. 202, 62 N. Y. Supp. 179 (1900). 'Daniel v. New Jersey St. Ry. Co., 64 N. J. L. 603, 46 Atl. 625 (1900). See also O'Gorman v. New York & Q. C. Ry. Co., 89 N. Y. Supp. 589 (1904). 6 8 Mackintosh v. Augusta & A. Ry. Co., 69 S. E. 159 (1910). Smith v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 122 Mo. App. 85 (1906). 7 Nuttleman v. Philadelphia R. T. Co., 221 Pa. St. 485, 70 Atl. 828, 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 503 (1908). Bullock v. Delaware, L. & W. R. R. Co., 60 N. J. L. 24, 36 Atl. 773 (1897). 'Gregory v. Chicago & N. W. |