Fryklund v. Great Northern Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 26 April 1907
• Docket Number: Nos. 15,130-(74).,s. 15,130-(74).
• Citation: 101 Minn. 37
• Parties: OLAF J. FRYKLUND v. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

101 Minn. 37

OLAF J. FRYKLUND v. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.¹

Nos. 15,130-(74).

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

April 26, 1907.

Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Carlton county, Dibell, J., overruling a demurrer to the complaint. Affirmed.

W. R. Begg, J. A. Murphy, and Heber McHugh, for appellant.

John Jenswold, Jr., for respondent.

BROWN, J.

The complaint in this action alleges, among other things, that on June 5, 1906, plaintiff, a resident of Cloquet, this state, purchased a round-trip passenger ticket from the Northern Pacific Railway Company, which, under some traffic arrangement with the Great Northern Railway Company, defendant in this action, and the Oregon Railway & Navigation Company, entitled him to passage from Cloquet, on the Northern Pacific line, to Portland, Oregon, thence to Spokane over the Oregon Railway & Navigation road, and returning to his home at Cloquet over defendant's line. The complaint also alleges that the ticket was sold by the Northern Pacific Company under authority from the other two companies, but the particulars of the contract between them are not stated. It further alleges that on July 5, 1906, he boarded one of defendant's regular passenger trains at Spokane for the purpose of returning to his home; that he presented the portion of the ticket entitling him to passage over defendant's road, which was accepted by its conductor, and plaintiff thereby became a passenger upon the train and entitled to safe passage to his destination. It then alleges that by reason of the negligence of defendant and its servants a collision occurred on defendant's road between this and another train, in the state of Montana, by reason of which plaintiff was seriously injured.

Defendant demurred to the complaint on the grounds (1) that there was a defect of parties defendant, in that the Northern Pacific Railway Company and the Oregon Railway & Navigation Company should have been joined as defendants; and (2) that the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The demurrer was overruled, and defendant appealed.

The first ground of demurrer, namely, that there is a defect of parties defendant, presents the only question requiring mention. That the complaint states a cause of action there is no doubt, and we pass that feature of the case without further remark. It is urged in support of the first ground of demurrer that the action is founded upon a breach of contract; that the arrangement between the railroad companies indefinitely disclosed by the complaint, created a copartnership relation, rendering them jointly liable, and consequently that all should have been made defendants. This contention requires no extended discussion. It is disposed of by section 4282, R. L. 1905, which provides, generally, that all parties to a joint obligation shall be severally liable for the full amount thereof. In view of this statute it is unnecessary to inquire or determine whether the action is for a breach of contract or in tort, or whether the several railroad companies were jointly liable. A joint contract liability may, for the purposes of the case, be conceded. Plaintiff received...