Casey v. Northern P. R. Co.
| Decision Date | 09 November 1896 |
| Citation | 48 P. 53,15 Wash. 450 |
| Parties | CASEY v. NORTHERN PAC. R. CO. ET AL. [1] |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Appeal from superior court, Spokane county; Jesse Arthur, Judge.
Action by T. H. Casey against the Northern Pacific Railroad Company and others. The case was dismissed as to defendants A. H Simmons and the railroad company, and judgment rendered against Thomas F. Oakes and others, receivers, who appeal. Reversed.
John R McBride and Ashton & Chapman, for appellants.
Plummer & Thayer and Winston & Winston, for respondent.
It appeared from the complaint filed in this action that the plaintiff was the holder of a ticket issued by the Northern Pacific Railroad Company; that the defendants Oakes, Paine and Rouse were the duly-appointed receivers of such company that the other defendant, A. H. Simmons, was an employé of the receivers at and around the depot of the railroad company in the city of Spokane; that plaintiff sought, by virtue of this ticket, to pass to the cars of the company, to be transported as agreed therein; that the defendant Simmons refused to allow him to do so, and abused and assaulted him in the depot building of said company; that, by reason of this action of said Simmons, he had been deprived of his rights under the contract for transportation contained in the ticket, and had been greatly injured in his person and feelings, to his damage in the sum of $1,900. After the evidence was all in, a motion to dismiss was made by each of the defendants. This motion was granted as to the railroad company and Simmons, but denied as to the receivers of the railroad company, against whom a verdict was rendered by the jury. The court could only have rightfully dismissed the action as to the railroad company and Simmons, and refused to dismiss it as to the receivers, if, in its opinion, the action was upon the contract contained in the ticket. Its action would not have been justified if, in its opinion, the action was one of tort. If any of the defendants were guilty of a tort, the defendant Simmons, who did all that was done would certainly have been guilty. But the court took the case from the jury as to him. Hence it must have found either that the action was not one of tort, or that there had been no evidence introduced to show that a tort had been committed. In either case the receivers would have been entitled to a dismissal, if the defendant Simmons was. It must...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wallace Bank & Trust Co. v. First National Bank of Fairfield
... ... People v. Globe Mutual L. Ins. Co., 91 N.Y. 174; 34 ... Cyc. 265-267; Fidelity Safe Deposit & Tr. Co. v ... Armstrong, 35 F. 567; Casey v. N. P. Ry. Co., ... 15 Wash. 450, 48 P. 53; Lenoir v. Linville Imp. Co., ... 123 N.C. 922, 36 S.E. 185, 51 L. R. A. 146; Tennis Bros ... ...
-
Bloch v. Bell Furniture Co.
...Wells v. Hartford Manilla Co., 76 Conn. 27, 55 A. 599; Fell v. Securities Co. of N. A., 11 Del. Ch. 101, 97 A. 610; Casey v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 15 Wash. 450, 48 P. 53; Scott v. Rainier Power, etc., Co., 13 Wash. 108, 42 P. The solvency or insolvency of the company has no bearing on the p......
-
Crawford v. Gordon
... ... the contract. Scott v. Rainier Power & Railway Co., ... 13 Wash. 108, 42 P. 531; Casey v. Northern Pacific Ry ... Co., 15 Wash. 450, 48 P. 53. But all the books hold that ... a contract that is voidable--that is no contract ... ...
-
Maxwell v. Mo. Valley Ice & Cold Storage Co.
...make the appointment of a receiver necessary for the protection of the assets in the interest of creditors. Casey v. Northern Pacific Railway Co., 15 Wash. 450, 48 Pac. 53;Spencer v. World's Columbia Exposition, 163 Ill. 117, 45 N. E. 250. In this case it is said: “The general principle * *......