Adams Express Co. v. Beckwith

• Citation: 100 Ohio St. 348,126 N.E. 300
• Decision Date: 09 December 1919
• Docket Number: No. 16200.,16200.
• Parties: ADAMS EXPRESS CO. v. BECKWITH et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Ohio

100 Ohio St. 348
126 N.E. 300

ADAMS EXPRESS CO.
v.
BECKWITH et al.

No. 16200.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Dec. 9, 1919.

Error to Court of Appeals, Lucas county.

Action by Ida Beckwith against the Adams Express Company and others. A verdict was directed for the defendant named, judgment was reversed by the Court of Appeals, and the defendant named brings error. Affirmed.

In September, 1917, the case of Ida Beckwith v. Adams Express Company et al. was tried in the court of common pleas of Lucas county upon the amended petition, the answer, and the reply. At the conclusion of plaintiff's evidence, as appears from plaintiff in error's brief, the defendant express company moved the court to arrest the evidence from the jury and direct a verdict for the defendant on the ground that ‘no negligence has been shown against the Adams Express Company and that no act of the Adams Express Company can be said to have been the proximate or contributing cause of this injury.’ This motion was sustained.

Error was prosecuted to the Court of Appeals by Ida Beckwith, which court reversed the judgment of the court of common pleas and remanded the case for further proceedings according to law. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is now here for review.

Syllabus by the Court

A written release in general and unqualified terms, made and executed upon legal consideration between a party wronged and one or more of the persons charged with the commission of the wrong, is presumed in law to be a release for the benefit of all the wrongdoers.

Such written releases, however, are to be construed according to the well-known rules governing the construction of contracts.

Where such written releases expressly provide that the release is solely and exclusively for the benefit of the parties thereto and expressly reserves a right of action as against any other wrongdoer, such reservation is legal and a available to the parties thereto.

Such written release, whether it be a covenant not to sue, a covenant to cease suing, or a covenant in partial satisfaction, does not inure to the benefit of any other persons than those who are parties to such written release, save and except that it is a satisfaction pro tanto to the party wronged, and to that extent works a discharge to all joint wrongdoers. Ellis v. Bitzer, 2 Ohio, 89, 15 Am. Dec. 534, disapproved and overruled.

[Ohio St. 349]Marshall & Fraser, of Toledo, for plaintiff in error.

Wm. H. McLellan, Jr., Doyle & Lewis, and Brown, Geddes, Schmettau & Williams, all of Toledo, for defendants in error.

WANAMAKER, J.

The full opinions of the court of common pleas and the Court of Appeals are not before this court. Briefs and arguments of counsel, however, disclose substantially three controversies between the parties in this court:

(1) As appears from plaintiff in error's brief: ‘No negligence has been shown against the Adams Express Company.’

Whether or not negligence has been shown under the evidence is a question not for the judge but for the jury. The record discloses that there was some evidence tending to show negligence, and the question whether or not it was sufficient should have been submitted to the jury.

(2) ‘That no act of the Adams Express Company can be said to have been the proximate or contributing cause of this injury.’

[Ohio St. 350]Whether or not the Adams Express Company was guilty of negligence, as pleaded, was not the only question for the jury to determine upon this record, but also whether or not such negligence was a proximate cause, not necessarily the proximate cause, of her injury. These were both questions of fact for submission to the jury.

(3) The main contention between the parties hereto is one of law arising upon two paper writings, known as Exhibits A and B; Exhibit A being between Ida Beckwith and the Hocking Valley Railway Company, and Exhibit B between Ida Beckwith and the New York Central Railroad Company. These agreements are substantially the same in style, and the chief substance of both is contained in the following paragraphs:

‘Whereas, the party of the first part claims that liability for said injuries attaches against the said the Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Company, the Hocking Valley Railroad Company, and the Adams Express...