By the instructions under which this case was submitted to the jury, in connection with the refusal of those which were asked for by the defendants, we are led to infer that the learned judge who presided at the trial was of opinion that the defendants and their duly authorized agents had no legal power or authority to exclude or expel from the vehicles under their charge a passenger whose condition and conduct were such as to give a reasonable ground of belief that bis presence and continuance in the vehicle would create inconvenience and disturbance and cause discomfort and annoyance to other passengers. Such certainly were the result and effect of the rule of law laid down for the guidance of the jury at the trial. We are constrained to say that we know of no warrant, either in principle or authority, for putting any such limitation on the right and authority of the defendants as common carriers of passengers, or of their servants acting within the scope of their employment.
It being conceded, as it must be under adjudicated cases, that the defendants, as incident to the business which they carried on, not only had the power but were bound to take all reasonable and proper means to insure the safety and provide for the comfort and convenience of passengers, it follows that they had a right, in the exercise of this authority and duty, to repress and prohibit all disorderly conduct in their vehicles, and to expel or exclude therefrom any person whose conduct or condition was such as to render acts of impropriety, rudeness, indecency or disturbance either inevitable or probable. Certainly the conductor in charge of the vehicle was not bound to wait until some overt act of violence, profaneness or other misconduct had been committed, to the inconvenience or annoyance of other passengers, nefore exercising his authority to exclude or expel the offender *307The right and power of the defendants and their servants to prevent the occurrence of improper and disorderly conduct in a public vehicle is quite as essential and important as the authority to stop a disturbance or repress acts of violence or breaches of decorum after they have been committed, and the mischief of annoyance and disturbance have been done.
Indeed, if the rule laid down at the trial be correct, then it would follow that passengers in public vehicles must be subjected to a certain amount or degree of discomfort or insult from evil disposed persons before the right to expel them would accrue to a carrier or his servant. There would be no authority to restrain or prevent profaneness, indecency or other breaches of decorum in speech or behavior, until it had continued long enough to become manifest to the eyes or ears of other passengers. It is obvious that any such restriction on the operation of the rule of law would greatly diminish its practical value. Nor can we see that there is any good reason for giving so narrow a scope to the authority of carriers of passengers and their agents as was indicated in the rulings at the trial. The only objection suggested is, that it is liable to abuse and may become the instrument of oppression. But the same is true of many other salutary rules of law. The safeguard against an unjust or unauthorized use of the power is to be found in the consideration that it can never be,properly exercised except in cases where it can be satisfactorily proved that the condition or conduct of a person was such as to render it reasonably certain that he would occasion discomfort or annoyance to other passengers, if he was admitted into a public vehicle or allowed longer to remain within it.
Exceptions sustained.