Pennsylvania Co. v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 19 January 1893 |
| Citation | 144 Ill. 197,33 N.E. 415 |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
| Parties | PENNSYLVANIA CO. v. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from appellate court, first district.
Action on the case brought by the Pennsylvania Company against the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. There was a judgment in favor of the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company, which was affirmed by the appellate court. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.George Willard and E. O. Brown, for appellant.
Edwin Walker, for appellee.
This was an action on the case brought by the Pennsylvania Company against the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to recover damages for the failure of the defendants to transport and deliver certain oils from Chicago to Brandon, in the province of Manitoba and dominion of Canada. The second amended declaration contained two counts. In the first count it is averred that on, to wit, the 1st day of May, 1886, the plaintiff was a common carrier of oils, goods, wares, and merchandise from Cleveland, Ohio, to the city of Chicago; that the defendants at and during the same time were carriers of oils, goods, wares, and merchandise from Chicago to Brandon, in the province of Manitoba and dominion of Canada. It is then averred that on, to wit, the 5th day of May, A. D. 1886, at, to wit, Cleveland, aforesaid, to wit, at the county of Cook, aforesaid, it, the said plaintiff, received of the Forrest City Oil Company a large quantity, to wit, 52 barrels of carbon, to wit, carbon oil, of great value, to wit, of the value of $1,000, consigned to G. G. Fortier, at Brandon, Man., to wit, Brandon, in the province of Manitoba, in the dominion of Canada, in care of a certain railroad, to wit, the Canadian Pacific Railroad, to be taken reasonable care of, and properly directed, billed, and transported within a reasonable time from Cleveland, aforesaid, to Brandon, aforesaid, and there at Brandon, aforesaid, to be delivered within such reasonable time to the said consignee or other proper person. It is then averred that the plaintiff transported the oil from Cleveland to Chicago; and on, to wit, the 17th day of May, A. D. 1886, the said oil, in good order, and properly billed and directed, was delivered by the said plaintiff to the said defendants, to be by them taken reasonable care of, and by them properly directed, billed, and transported within a reasonable time to a certain other place, to wit, Brandon, aforesaid, for hire and reward; and said plaintiff avers that said defendants then and there, to wit, on the day last aforesaid, at, to wit, Chicago, aforesaid, received and accepted the said oil for transportation and delivery as aforesaid, for hire and reward; and plaintiff avers that it thereupon became and was the duty of said defendants to take reasonable care of said goods, and properly bill and direct the same, and transport the same to Brandon, aforesaid, within a reasonable time, and there to wit, at Brandon, aforesaid, to safely deliver to the consignee. The declaration contains a second count, which in form is substantially like the first, except it is averred that it received 64 barrels of oil at Cleveland on July 31, 1886, consigned to Fortier & Burke, at Brandon, Can., which, it is averred, as in the other count, defendant received at Chicago, to be properly directed, billed, transported, and delivered at Brandon, aforesaid. It is then averred that it became and was the duty of said defendants to take reasonable care of said goods, to wit, said lot of 52 barrels of oil and said lot of 64 barrels of oil, and properly bill and direct the same and transport the same to, to wit, Brandon, aforesaid,within a reasonable time, and there, to wit, at Brandon, aforesaid, within such reasonable time, to safely deliver the said oil to the said consignees or other proper persons, and to repay all sums of money which the plaintiff by due process of law might or should be compelled to pay to the owners of said oil on account of any wrongful or negligent failure on the part of said defendants so to do. Yet the said defendants did not nor would perform their said duty, but, on the contrary thereof, so wrongfully and negligently conducted themselves in the premises that thereby and by reason thereof the said oil, to wit, the lot of 52 barrels and the lot of 64 barrels, became and was injured and damaged, and wholly lost to the owners thereof, and the owners thereof thereby became and were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Krop
...negligent procurement of insurance. Lobianco relies, in turn, on the nineteenth-century case of Pennsylvania Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. , 144 Ill. 197, 33 N.E. 415 (1893), involving common carriers for hire and their negligent conduct in transporting certain goods. Additio......
-
Moorman Mfg. Co. v. National Tank Co.
...There it commences at the time of the breach of duty, not when the damage is sustained. (Pennsylvania Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. (1893), 144 Ill. 197, 202, 33 N.E. 415.) The principal reason is that the breach itself is actionable. This rule encourages the party to act wit......
-
West American Ins. Co. v. Sal E. Lobianco & Son Co., Inc.
...There it commences at the time of the breach of duty, not when the damage is sustained. (Pennsylvania Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. (1893), 144 Ill. 197, 202, 33 N.E. 415.) The principal reason is that the breach itself is actionable. This rule encourages the party to act wit......
-
Vill. of Dolton v. Harms
...damages for the taking of the note, the 5-year statute would bar the action. Carr v. Barnett, 21 Ill.App. 137;Pennsylvania Co. v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 144 Ill. 197, As far as the officer himself is concerned, his official bond does not extend the obligation imposed on him by law an......