West Chicago St. Ry. Co. v. Horne

• Decision Date: 19 June 1902
• Citation: 197 Ill. 250,64 N.E. 331
• Parties: WEST CHICAGO ST. RY. CO. et al. v. HORNE.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

197 Ill. 250

64 N.E. 331

WEST CHICAGO ST. RY. CO. et al.

v.HORNE.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 19, 1902.

Appeal from appellate court, First district.

Action by John W. Horne against the West Chicago Street Railway Company and another for injuries to plaintiff while a passenger on defendants' lines. From a judgment of the appellate court (100 Ill. App. 259) affirming a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

John A. Rose and Louis Boisot (W. W. Gurley, of counsel), for appellants.

George C. Mastin and Charles R. Whitman, for appellee.

HAND, J.

This was an action on the case, brought by the plaintiff in the superior court of Cook county, against the defendants, the West Chicago Street Railway Company and the Chicago Union Traction Company, to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been received by the plaintiff while a passenger in a car operated by the Chicago Union Traction Compnay, as lessee of the West Chicago Street Railway Company. The declaration consisted of one count, which alleged that the defendants were in possession of and operating a certain line of street railway and a certain train of cable cars running thereon; that the plaintiff was a passenger on said train of cars, riding on a grip car, and that the defendants so carelessly, negligently and improperly drove and managed said grip car that it ran into and struck against a certain wagon, whereby the plaintiff was struck with great force and violence by the collision with said wagon, and injured. The defendants pleaded separately, each filing the general issue. The jury returned into court the following verdict: ‘We, the jury, find the defendant guilty and assess the plaintiff's damages at the sum of $3,000.’ Upon this verdict judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against both the defendants for $3,000, which judgment has been affirmed by the appellate court and a further appeal has been prosecuted to this court.

It is first assigned as error that the court erred in holding that the verdict was sufficient to support a judgment against both the defendants or against either of them. The criticism made upon the verdict is that it uses the word ‘defendant’ instead of the word ‘defendants.’ We think this irregularity wholly immaterial, as the rule is that if, by looking into the record, the verdict can be seen to be responsive, it will be sustained. On looking into the record it appears that the West Chicago Street Railway Company was the lessor and the Chicago Union Traction Company the lessee of the street railway upon which the plaintiff was injured, and the law is well settled that when an injury results from the negligence or unlawful operation of a railway, whether by the corporation to which the franchise is granted or by another corporation which the proprietary company authorizes or permits to use its tracks, both the lessor and the lessee are liable to...