The Toledo v. Patterson
| Decision Date | 31 January 1872 |
| Citation | 1872 WL 8180,63 Ill. 304 |
| Parties | THE TOLEDO, PEORIA AND WARSAW R. R. CO.v.WM. A. PATTERSON. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Adams county; the Hon. JOSEPH SIBLEY, Judge, presiding.
Messrs. BROWNING & BUSHNELL, for the appellant.
Mr. H. W. DRAPER, for the appellee.
This was an action on the case, brought by the appellee against the railway company for expelling him from one of its freight trains.
On the 6th of June, 1870, at Ferris, a village of eight or ten houses, the appellee entered what is called the caboose car, attached to a freight train on the appellant's road, for the purpose of being carried a short distance. About a week or ten days prior to this time, the company had made a rule or regulation, forbidding the conductors of their freight trains to receive fare from passengers, or to carry on such trains any passenger who had not a ticket. A printed order of the company, forbidding the carrying of passengers without tickets on freight trains, was posted on the walls of the public room of Orr's hotel, where the ticket office of the company was kept, and tickets sold.
The company had no depot at Ferris, but used a platform in front of, and attached to, Orr's hotel, and extending thence to the railroad track, for receiving and discharging freight and passengers; and in one corner of the bar-room, which opened on to the platform, was a counter bannistered around, on which stood the ticket case where tickets were sold. Soon after the train left the station at Ferris, the conductor passed through the caboose to take up the tickets of the passengers. The appellee had none, but offered to pay his fare, which the conductor refused to accept, but immediately, when about half a mile west of the station, stopped the train and requested the appellee to get out, which he did. He then walked back to the station at Ferris, and thence home to Carthage, a distance of about five miles in all. This is all the actual injury sustained by the appellee as disclosed by the evidence, except, perhaps, the loss of another day at a subsequent time in going to Keokuk on the same business. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff of $2100, for which the court rendered judgment.
The following instruction was given to the jury at the instance of appellee:
“The court further instructs the jury that if, from the evidence in this case, they should find a verdict for the plaintiff, in assessing plaintiff's damages, they are not confined to the actual damages which the plaintiff suffered by reason of being expelled from defendant's cars against his will, but the jury may take into consideration the annoyance, vexation and delay caused to the plaintiff by being so expelled, and also the indignity done him by so expelling him and exposing him to the ridicule of others.”
The instruction was wrong in assuming that the appellee had suffered indignity and been exposed to ridicule. And this was not a case for vindictive damages. There were no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pegram v. Stortz
...that the jury had acted with prejudice, partiality, passion, or corruption. See Ogg v. Murdock, 25 W. Va. 147; Railroad Co. v. Patterson, 63 Ill. 304; Kolb v. O'Brien, 86 Ill. 210. In the case before us, admitting that every fact which the plaintiff's evidence tended to prove as though it h......
-
Pegram v. Stortz
... ... 253] est exercise ... of judgment,' the motion was denied. See Wiggin ... v. Coffin , 3 Story 11, and Fisher ... v. Patterson , 14 Ohio 418. Again, Mr ... Greenleaf admits (page 224) 'that, when an evil intent ... has manifested itself in acts and circumstances ... ...
- The Vill. of South Evanston v. Lynch
-
Hall v. Memphis & C. R. Co.
... ... Co. v. Flagg, 43 ... Ill. 364 ... [ 18H ] Illinois, etc., R. Co. v. Johnson, 67 ... Ill. 312 ... [ 18I ] Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Patterson, 63 ... Ill. 304 ... [ 18J ] Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Nelson, 59 ... Ill. 110 ... [ 19A ] O'Brien v. N.Y., ... ...