Yeates v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.
| Decision Date | 11 May 1905 |
| Docket Number | 27,208. |
| Citation | 137 F. 943 |
| Parties | YEATES v. ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO. et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
James C. McShane, for plaintiff.
Winston Payne & Strawn, for defendants.
The plaintiff heretofore moved the court to remand said cause to the state court. On November 28, 1904, that motion was denied. Afterward, and on March 20, 1905, plaintiff renewed his application to remand, and leave was given to file briefs. The first count of the declaration, which substantially presents the facts of the case, sets out in substance that the Illinois Central Railroad Company owned and operated certain tracks in this jurisdiction, certain of which, by agreement, were used jointly by it and the Michigan Central Railroad company; that in pursuance of the further terms of said agreement said Illinois Central Railroad Company employed a man whose duty it was to throw certain switches and regulate the movements of engines and trains of the Michigan Central Railroad Company over said tracks used in common onto said exclusive tracks, upon whom the Michigan Central Railroad Company was required to and did rely, and whose duty it was not to signal or permit a Michigan Central Railroad Company's engine or train to pass northward over said common tracks onto said exclusive tracks at a time when an engine was running southward on said tracks in coming out of the same; that plaintiff was then working in one of the engines which was running northerly from the joint tracks to the exclusive track; that the switch tender then negligently threw a switch which signaled and permitted said switch engine and train to pass from the joint tracks to the exclusive track at a time when a Michigan Central engine was backing southerly on said exclusive track; that, when said switch engine and train was stopped or almost stopped, said Michigan Central Railroad Company so negligently ran its road engine that as a result, and in consequence of the joint and concurrent negligence of the switch tender and the Michigan Central Railroad Company, the first in opening said switch and the latter in carelessly handling said road engine and train, said road engine collided with the switch engine causing the injury complained of. The question submitted to the court is, does the declaration disclose a severable controversy within the meaning of the statute? Plaintiff insists that: (1) The Illinois Central Railroad Company is jointly liable with the Michigan Central Railroad Company merely because it is the owner of the tracks and has leased them to its codefendant. (2) The declaration shows a joint cause of action.
While the decision of the Illinois court seems to hold that both the lessor and lessee companies can be held for the negligence of the lessee company, such has not been the holding of the federal courts in cases similar to that before the court. Hayes v. Nor. Pac. R.R. Co., 74 F. 279, 20 C.C.A. 52; Hukill v. The M. & B.S.R.R. Co. (C.C.) 72 F. 745; Kelly v. C. & A.R.R. Co. (C.C.) 122 F. 286; Williard v. Spartanburg R. Co. (C.C.) 124 F. 796; Arrowsmith v. The N. & D.R.R. Co. (C.C.) 57 F. 165; Hutchinson on Carriers (2d Ed.) 515, 516; Elliott on Railroads, Secs. 468, 469; Baldwin's Am. Railroad Law, 460. The question is one of general law, and not controlled by state decisions. B. & O.R.R. Co. v. Baugh, 149 U.S. 368, 13 Sup.Ct. 914, 37 L.Ed. 772; Ry. Co. v. Prentice, 147 U.S. 101, 13 Sup.Ct. 261, 37 L.Ed. 97; Though v. Railway Co., 100 U.S. 213, 25 L.Ed. 612; Gardner v. M.C.R.R. Co., 150 U.S. 349, 14 Sup.Ct. 140, 37 L.Ed. 1107; C., M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Solan, 169 U.S. 133, 18 Sup.Ct. 289, 42 L.Ed. 688; Pelton v. Bullard, 94 F. 784, 37 C.C.A. 1; Murray v. C. & N.W. Ry. Co., 92 F. 871, 35 C.C.A. 62; W.U.T. Co. v. Sklar, 126 F. 298, 61 C.C.A. 281.
The facts set out in the declaration must control the court in determining whether a separable controversy exists. The mere fact that a suit might be brought against each one of the defendants separately or against them jointly does not determine the question whether a severable controversy exists or not. Pirie v. Tvedt, 115 U.S. 41, 5 Sup.Ct. 1034 1161, 29 L.Ed. 331; C. & O.R.R. Co. v. Dixon, 179 U.S. 136; Powers v. C. & O.R.R.R. Co., 169 U.S. 92, 18 Sup.Ct. 264, 42 L.Ed. 673. Nor do the allegations of the declaration that the act was the joint and concurrent act of the defendants add anything to the plaintiff's position. Coker v. Monaghan Mills (C.C.) 110 F. 803; McIntyre v. So. Ry. Co. (C.C.) 131 F. 985; Gustafson v. C.R.I. & P. Co. (C.C.) 128 F. 85. The allegation of the declaration amounts to an averment that the Illinois Central Railroad Company wrongfully permitted and signaled the switch train and engine on which the plaintiff was located to get onto the exclusive track, on which snow had fallen and over which hung great quantities of smoke and steam,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Erie Co v. Tompkins
...v. Robbins, 2 Black 418, 428, 17 L.Ed. 298. Compare Yates v. Milwaukee, 10 Wall. 497, 506, 507, 19 L.Ed. 984; Yeates v. Illinois Cent. Ry. Co., C.C.N.D.Ill., 137 F. 943; Curtis v. Cleveland, C.C. & St. L. Ry. Co., C.C.E.D.Ill., 140 F. 777. See, also, Hough v. Texas Railway Co., 100 U.S. 213......
-
United States v. Union Stockyard & Transit Co. of Chicago
... ... but public, act of the state of Illinois, was thereby ... authorized, not only to maintain stockyards and a hotel, but ... also to ... Stockyard Co. It owns over 90 per cent. of this stock, as ... well as practically all of the stock of the Junction Co.; but ... it owns ... Courts in Illinois have refused to follow the Illinois ... doctrine ( Yeates v. Ill. Central Ry. Co. (C.C.) 137 ... F. 943; Curtis v. C., C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. (C.C.) ... ...
-
Sperry v. Wabash R. Co.
...must be the joint and concurrent acts of all defendants so that there exists, on their part, a community of wrongdoing. Yeates v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., C.C., 137 F. 943. In tort actions, if the employee is charged with something for which he is not liable, in other words, if no case is mad......
-
Goede v. City of Colorado Springs
...negligence common to both defendants. A few of the cases cited by defendant Realty Company, and thus distinguishable, are Yates v. Ill. Cent. Ry. Co. (C.C.) 137 F. 943; Fergason v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. (C.C.) F. 177; McIntyre v. Southern Ry. Co. (C.C.) 131 F. 985; Gustafson v. Chica......