Peck v. Cooper
| Decision Date | 17 November 1884 |
| Citation | 112 Ill. 192,54 Am.Rep. 231,1884 WL 9998 |
| Parties | FERDINAND W. PECKv.TIMOTHY COOPER. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Appellate Court for the First District;--heard in that court on appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. SIDNEY SMITH, Judge, presiding.
Mr. WM. W. GURLEY, for the appellant:
The doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply to intermediate agents, but only to the ultimate principal. Thompson on Liability of Officers of Corporations, 489; Bath v. Caton, 37 Mich. 139; 2 Thompson on Negligence, 1060; Hewitt v. Swift, 3 Allen, 420; Bacheller v. Pinkham, 68 Me. 253; Stone v. Cartwright, 6 T. R. 411; Nicholson v. Mounsey, 15 East, 384; Peck v. Cooper, 8 Bradw. 403, and 13 Id. 37.
The trial court erred in admitting evidence tending to show that after the injury to the appellee, the driver, Lewis, was retained in the employment of the company.
The court below erred in admitting evidence in regard to the amount of the capital stock of the People's Omnibus and Baggage Company held by the appellant and his brothers.
Mr. E. B. MCCLANAHAN, for the appellee:
In Peck v. Cooper, 8 Bradw. 408, the court say: “The mere fact that a person is a director and stockholder in a corporation does not render him liable for the torts of the corporation or its agents.” The soundness of this principle is not disputed, but it is limited in its application by another question, which is one of fact, and in the same connection the court say: “Some knowledge and participation in the act claimed to be tortious must be brought home to him.”
This action was brought to recover for damages claimed to have been sustained by plaintiff by being forcibly ejected from an omnibus controlled and operated by defendant in Chicago. There have been several trials, in the Superior and Appellate courts. On the last trial the jury found, and the court rendered a judgment, against defendant for $2600, and the case comes to this court by appeal from the Appellate Court for the First District.
The was organized and became a corporation in 1871, and before the injury of which complaint is made. The horses and omnibus belonged to, and the driver was employed by, the company. Appellant was the president of the company, and was sued individually in this action, and was held liable for the injury.
The law conferred on appellee the right to travel in the omnibus, and if he, in the exercise of that right, was injured by the order of appellant, the latter is liable to respond for the injury in damages. The fact that appellant was the president of the corporation is no protection to him in the commission of an illegal act, and where an officer of an incorporation performs an illegal act resulting in an injury to another, he is liable. Nor does it exonerate him from such liability because the corporation may also be liable. The only question, therefore, is, did appellant give the order to the drivers of omnibuses of the company to exclude colored persons from traveling therein? That is a question of fact that was submitted to a jury, and they found appellant gave the general order under which appellee was expelled and injured by the driver. The Appellate Court have, by affirming the judgment, approved of the finding, and we are precluded from reviewing the evidence on that question....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tillman v. Wheaton-Haven Recreation Ass'n, Inc.
...to act is sufficient to make him personally accountable. Aeroglide Corp. v. Zeh, 301 F.2d 420 (2d Cir. 1962). For example, in Peck v. Cooper, 112 Ill. 192 (1884), the court held the president of an omnibus company, who apparently also served as a director, individually liable for instructin......
-
Orcutt v. Century Building Co.
...Brownell v. Fisher, 37 Cal. 130; Miller v. Staples, 3 Colo.App. 93; Bennett v. Ives, 30 Conn. 329; Reed v. Peterson, 91 Ill. 288; Peck v. Cooper, 112 Ill. 192; Johnson v. Barber, 10 Ill. 425; Baird v. Shipman, 132 Ill. 16; Berghoff v. McDonald, 87 Ind. 549; McNaughton v. Elkhart, 85 Ind. 38......
-
Zahl v. Krupa
...for action by the corporate entity Frontier, was perforce a participant in the negligent action by that entity. McDonald cited Peck v. Cooper, 112 Ill. 192 (1884), Miller v. Simon, 100 Ill.App.2d 6, 241 N.E.2d 697 (1968), Lowell Hoit & Co. v. Detig, 320 Ill.App. 179, 50 N.E.2d 602 (1943). I......
-
Cooke v. Maxum Sports Bar & Grill, Ltd.
...security to Jarosz. Thus, Zahl and Lowell Hoit support the trial court's decision in this case.¶ 88 Plaintiffs also cite Peck v. Cooper , 112 Ill. 192 (1884), Chicago Title & Trust Co. v. Munday , 297 Ill. 555, 131 N.E. 103 (1921), McDonald , and Miller v. Simon , 100 Ill. App. 2d 6, 241 N.......