, 1863-12-02

Conpfollcr OF the Ctty declined to advance funds
for the night schools, and pronounced such an act
Illegal III legality was being tried, and the re,
suit would he reported to the board.
Important Decision Of Judge
Williams
1foldcfs Of Complimentary Tickets.
In the Circuit Court Of Cook County On satur
day Last, Judge Williams delivered an important
and able opinion in case involving the question
~ Of passengers riding on complimentary tickets.
This opinion Is Of some length, but we think It II
Of Euhlcient interest to the profession, railroad
companies and the public generally, to warrant us
In giving It in full. Tho professional reader viii
find in it the New York decisions, which seem to
hold contrary doctrine, thoroughly and searching
ly reviewed.
George D. Read Y. Illinois Central Railroad
Tais i m action brought s. the plaintia against
for injuries sustained By pnintid upon defendants
The declaration alleges that these injuries were
occasioned by the gsa<t negligence Of the defend"
nInr s oaa so b sss
ing car IN which the plsintif was riding.
TO this declaration, the defendant has fled Rey-
the Tine of tie collision usine eompiimentafy mt p
ticket asencd TO him by the defendant without the
payment Of any consideration on the part Of plain
ti, therefor, npon which ticket there was an agree
ment that tie acccptor should assume all risks OF
accidents and that defendant shoud not be llable
Z, whether Of
or property while ueiuE the came
70 these pleas the plaintiff has demnrred,
and thus the question is distinctly presented,
yxh n f{lrh n mn Ia
Geates binding Obligation apon Him, il cass his
injuries hare resulted from the gToss carelessness
That the acceptance Of such tiekct constitutes
contract between tho passenger and the common
% and iis S ef &C.
Court In this case only one question, whether the
contract Is in whole OF in par obligatory upon the
Strong arguments can be found for and against
the validity Of such contract. The question
must he determined By the application Of legal
Mois ei he he caaes a. il which tie ssse1s Fight to
rcstrict his liability has been discussed and deter
mined, hare involTed only Injuries TO property, not
carricr II goodt to 1es.rict and iimit his common
M Established both il Ills country and il Enslsnd.
Tie T;cht On tie part All Of he carrier entirely to
exempt himself from an liability foz negligence as
10 goods has not been universally conceded BY the
American Coarts. n the more recent cases in
England, The courte huye gone to the extent Of A.
LOVING carrier Of merchandise by railway to dis
genes zen by T special contract out It vii b. rensm.
0ercd that these railroads uudcr no obligations
to become common carriers, but may assume that
war caece 49, noe while in this country the po-
icy Of thelnw ebliscs the compsny to become
Baron Plat, dissenting from majority Of tho
Court in the case Of Carr W. Lancanshisc, &
Yorkshire Railway Co. Il. English Law and equity,
TO- where an owner Of ho:ees had entered into
1T is Suggested that the animnl "a
sa9 tsst Be- al's%sa nRs1. at the ,ss ssasns
on on ourselves a A> the 'A'.n Office " OF ieglsls-
lion, his ticket abaelves the carriers rom a re-
sponslbility. loxn am startled At such = propo-
t Il Is aatppotea Tel ought 10 deabt I'D aiss1ast
my own opinion. But I am bound to shy that am
not sstssed TINT the ansnns ~ Ct I'll tsset ab
cannot help thinking tie ner OF the goods nsv-
er dreamed Of euch . Thing when he signed this
so9,Isf Tns e. = Psisens sa
lRedAed On Railways, e.1 dis far more coason-
q o1 % ha Sn
conrt in lie case aborc refczrcd TO- Parroas eays,
rrer, il wo11d seem 10 be pretty nearly 4 not quite,
settled. ihsf il is Incompetent foasHier either By
note Or express contract to exempt himself from
In tie q. csae ot saser vs. The Portsmouth R, h.
CO: Inst Maine. sss] eontract was introduced b
which the plaintiff agrecd to exonerate the R. +.
any horses be should send over theroad. Plain
tiff's horre having been injured BY exposure to
cold in nn open car, he brought IN action for dam
delivering he opinion 81 The cou:t IN that case
Sid: ~ The very gre1t danger to be anticipated
by permitting them lRatlrosd companicsl to enter
into contracts 10 be exempt from losses oecasoned
by niscondnet or negligence can scarcely be over
estimated II would remove the principal safe
guard for the preservation Of life and property in
Argument in tlat case, broad I'd 1t Was did not ex
enpt tic Company from damages for mtsfeasanec
In Rcno rs. Hagar l1s D. Aopras] the
Court held TINT the spseta, contract that the com
IncE carrier ehoud not be accountable for break
age did not exempt him from liability for break
ssf sapa Is 5t9% poE WIZ :. 4. ). siean, Mar. Co.
Sand 1S0, Stoddard =. L. L r. B. Co.
Mow ~
l6 Penn. State Rep, O..
In the case in 4th Sanford above cited the couEt,
mh ; hs ii. s1 Il sesa
fine thls right to the csIfiers liability a. an tnsn,.
CT. II Is sall - common carrier has IN dnth
dent or mistake where he IL lisbfe by the custom
of the re1lm or the common law as an Insurer, the
ees for loses By desnl. Or nsgenSe 5 whsFe be
tainly seem but reasonable that he might by eT-
press epeclal contract restrict bis liability as in
insurer, that be might protect hmse! against mis-.
TINT he should not be permitted to etpua1e for I'm;
putty where the loss occurs from his own default
or NEGLECT Of dnty Such We u9derata1d to be the
Merchants Bank IN 9Th How. and such We conaid-
es 10 be the law IN the present cssc.r
In the cnEc in 9Th Howard. the Cont, In speaking
,F%t At,pn
ity, sayr: Tho }nnguage is general and broad and
might yery well comprehend cveT3 description 9!
f.sEincidsntto the shipment. bntWs think + you'd
any Eer end reasonable construction Of the agree.
ment, were to regard It as sprl.tius for Wlllful
misconduct, gross negligence, or want OF Ordinary
proper equipments and fnTnitMre, Or In her man-
agement by The master and hands.
This Is the utmost effect thst was given to 4
general notice, both in England and this SorntlJ,
when allowed to restrict the carriers liability,
although as road and absolute In ite terms as the
special agreement before NJ n9E % vas as j. allowed
casioncd by defect in the vehicle or mode OF con-
reynrce used in the transportation
The same view Of the lsw was taken BY the
In the Supreme Conrt Of Ohio, 1aa ohio Rep. 1s1,
aEd 1t there held 1t had been In the Supreme
Court Court Of ths Un',ed s;ates and IN the Superior
common Law liability as m insurer Of goods, but
F ths as ssrfo oz nset o. TT
al Tilt @sat3easd i,ss!i; rs 6s5 to F. as,inst
voia. This would also seem 70 Be The view adop:.
| ed by our own Supreme Court.
In the case.of the Illinois Central Ratlroad Com
pany ye- Morrison & Crabtree 10 Ills. 1s6,J which
was action on tho c.sc hsoag against The Eaii~
In transit from Erbana to Chicago the Cont saws
We THINK The rule good one as established In
England and in ffis country, that railroad compa-
mics Lave right to restrict their liability as com
! mon carriers BY such contracts as may be agreed
upon specially they st1n remaining liable for grass
neSligcnce. oGatnet which rood morals and public
policT forbid That they should he permitted To stip.
I think therefore upon careful examination Of
the leading cnee8 upon this important question In
] .his county We arc forced ethe conclusion that
there 10 liability on the part Of the COMMON car,
| fier Of merchandise, from which the courts will
not allow him to protect himself by cont1acts, 90
the ground TINT snch m agreement is ngatnat pub
his own misconduct and neglect Il duty. 1t any
rate our OWL Supreme Court }mve In the case lnsi
| aboye cited clearly stated TINT while the carrier
may restrict his liability, he s yet liabe (Fhatcycr
his confracD for gross negligence or ~fful tnisfca-
eante.
have set forth tho law. as understand 1t, upon
this question Of the restriction Of the carrers ill.,
hity for merchandise entrusted to him, because 1t
consideration, That Is tho right q the carrier Of
passengers to restrict his liability for injuries
done 70 their persons by his negligence. Addition
liora1 light may be thrown npon this auhjert from
contract 1t is baifment: WHETHER 1t be con-
tract TO convey goods or TO convey passengers The
car7ierm may convey gratuitouay, and then his con-
f q ss ana thei 81 hf
the ftcaff0 oncra& Of the civil 1aW'.
Now, cser since the decision Of the leading case
Of Cagge rs: Bernard the law has been regarded as