Rich v. Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 04 January 1904
• Citation: 34 Wash. 14,74 P. 1008
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: RICH v. CHICAGO, B. & Q. RY. CO.

74 P. 1008

34 Wash. 14

RICH v. CHICAGO, B. & Q. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Washington

January 4, 1904

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Geo. E. Morris, Judge.

Action by A. J. Rich against the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Company. From a judgment in favor of defendant plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

H. E Foster, for appellant.

John P Hartman, for respondent.

FULLERTON, C.J.

The appellant (plaintiff below) brought this action in the superior court of King county against the respondent, the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Company, to recover for wrongs and personal indignities inflicted upon himself and his family by the agents, employés, and servants of the respondent while he was, with his family, riding upon the respondent's train on a ticket purchased at Kansas City Mo., entitling him to ride to Seattle, in this state. The wrongs occurred, according to the allegations of the complaint, at Lincoln, Neb., and consisted of compelling the appellant and his family to leave a tourist sleeping car, in which he had engaged reservations, and take passage in a day coach. Service of summons was sought to be made upon the respondent by serving one M. P. Benton, alleged to be its agent residing in the city of Seattle. The respondent appeared specially and moved to quash the service, which motion the court granted after a notice and hearing. This appeal is from the order quashing the service.

From the showing accompanying the motion, and the findings of the court thereon, it substantially appears that the respondent the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Company, is a foreign corporation, organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the state of Iowa, and has not complied, nor made any attempt to comply, with the laws of this state with reference to foreign corporations doing business herein; that it neither owns, leases, operates, nor maintains, by itself, or in connection with any other person, company, or corporation, any line or lines of railway in this state, nor does it receive, accept, carry, or deliver passengers or freight within the state of Washington that M. P. Benton, the person on whom the service for and on behalf of the respondent was made, was an employé of the respondent, whose duties were to solicit for it passenger and freight traffic--that is, his duties were to try to induce persons who intended to travel or ship freight from the state of Washington to some other place in the United States, which could be reached by passing over the respondent's railway lines, to take that route, or ship their freight over that route, which would pass over such lines, but that he was without authority to make contracts with reference to such...