, 1875-06-30
LEGAL INTELLIGENCE.
Decision by tho Supreme Court
OIL tho Law Of Ncgligcnce.
Settlement Of Question Of Joint Liza.
bility. :.
Motion to Restore the Gago Case to the
state Courts.
Judgments and Now Suits.
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
TNn tAyp f1r HPttff1KNEE.

THE LAW or HEt1lt0ENCE. ...
Quito an interesting decision was made recent
ly by tho Supreme Court In The caso Of J. II NO.
bic et Al. "a. John Cunningham. oil tho question
Of negligence. Tic sult was M actlon on tiio
case brought by John Cunningham against John
T. Notlo and Francis 1.iltlo to recover damages
for au iujury fccoivol which reHn'ted In tho loaa
Of haud, aud was causod by tho servants OF
Nobto and L.ttle moving a car on Riao-track OF
tile I!linoln Central RAILROAD In tho City Of Chi
caEo, hgninst one which Cunningham wha a. thc
time orgaRo1 IN repairing. Tho lnitot was ls~
boror employed Ly tho lsatfruad Company. hna'
ut tho tino tho accident occurred, wont ltnder
tho car 10 fix II, Btasionl,g q waIct.nsn ny tho
sido Of tho car to loJ.; ont and give him
warming II any ewitc!l-angino should como
on tho truck from tho south. Thls was tho only
possible objection from Which at engine could
approach, a. on tho North the trark ended. aud
al acccss was prevented by bumplng..post.
There weto numbur of cara OIL tho track ilotth
Of the ono uuder which CuntinRhnu VIA at
work, with BEace tctweep wido enough for
tcarua to ctoss tho track. No1lo a. Littln woro
lumbeY-jcalcfs, and, on Tho morning that Cnu-
ntnghAn was injured, Bont several leans 10 the
railroad 10 load car with lumber 10 DO shipped
out on tho road. Whan tue toamsterB arrived
tts1o they found tlat tho awitch.engino waa in
use moving cars, aud that tloy wou!d DO obliged
to wait some ti.no before thoy could gnt It to
moro tho cars, 60 nB 10 puk In the!r load, and
thoY resolved to move tho cars themselves Oboy
theroupou ,unh!tcted ono Of their teams,
and, attaching it 10 one OF tho cars.
asnrted II thon turning tho toam OF the track.
aod uuhitciing It, tho car ran Oh utll Il crossed
tho road, aud str,cl tho car isndcr which Gun.
niueharn wAs at work. The lattereaf was ktarted
thereby, and ran over tho apCcllcc's hand, cut
ting OF sovcrul OF TUG tingcrh and thumb. Tho
teauBterH never looIted to eco whotller anv ono
was under The cnr nor did tier taEc tho sehtcst
prccautioh to stop tho car when 1t got startled.
Tie case wns trlet mid q verdict given Tor Cull-
ulnghRm for S3.d00. .-.
Al appeal wnB taken, sororal objections DO.
ihg mado, but tho principal ono was that tllo
teanstors when they undertook. to remove the
uat. were not acting in the employ OF Noble 4 y
L,ttlc, but wcro ongaEcd in mattets outside OF
thoir employment. 1he Court lowovct, Do
cided oshorwiac, ho]l,ng ns Ind boen decided IN
Moor W. Hopkins, IL ILL.,. 3l3, that II tho
tort was committed ty The agent tu the eourno
Of his employment. While pursuing the buslncsa
Of bis principal and was not wiful departure
from such employment and buainosB, tho ps!n-
t1pa1 WAS liable, although done without l'ia
knowledge, and In tho present cnse tt.o moving
pf the Cur wng not n departure from tho amtltoy-
nlcnt OF the mon, but "ould ho regarded al In
Tho direct courAe Of thcir employment, losers,
Henry Anthony l. Gait appeured for appellee,
tnd John Van Armhn for appellants.
QUESTION or JOINT LiArrL,rY.
In the cnBe Of Hoodenow ct al. w. JoneB. q
question was raised as to tho liability OF several
partners on q contract. III February, 1872, T..
L. Del, made an agreement with Jones to aoll
him 1000 oords Of chopped beach WOOD moro
OF 1ess, at tho rato OF e6.25 cord. 1u
April following, Bali, 0ooacnow, and
Kinds formed partnership In a
general commission business In selling
lumber, wood, ties, etc, Tho partnership coll
tinucd until July, when. by mutual couscnt, 1t
WAS dissolved, Bell retiring from tho flim. Dur
Ing the continuance Of tho partnership. thora
wore delivered to Joucs by Boil 739 cotdB os
wood, which Ind becn consigned to tho firm.
Jonea' checks were gyo', to tho iirn,. and when
collected tho moooy was Fomittcd to tho con
stgnor, after doductlnE commissions, as IN othct
cases. ThH contract, nut baviug DcGD complot.
ed by Boil or otherwise. Jones sued tho NOM
bafs Of tho Arm, and on trial recovered against
them ! judgment for 5l.B04.13, from which AZ
appeal was taken. In tho court below GoodonuW
4 Eiuds .l!cd plea dcny,ug their loiut liability
aud that question was brought up un the trial.
The Supreme Court reversed tho case OH thlt
ground, holdlng that tue Court below orrod tI
Fu!ing TINT Goodonow l. Kinds were liabio Of
tho contract mndo by Bell With Jones; tint II
was IN indivlual contract; and that 0oodcuov
& IIndB, although thev ontorcd Into partnershiI
with Boil after Ie made the contract wore no
liable. Messrg, Hetvoy. Anthony l. Gait appear
cd for uc appellants, and =. II. Davis for appel
1AAA.