Case Name: The People ex rel. Paul Armstrong, Plaintiff in Error, vs. The Chicago Railways Company et al. Defendants in Error
Court: Illinois Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1915-10-27
Citations: 270 Ill. 140
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People ex rel. Paul Armstrong, Plaintiff in Error, vs. The Chicago Railways Company et al. Defendants in Error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Reports
Volume: 270
Pages: 140–141

Head Matter:
The People ex rel. Paul Armstrong, Plaintiff in Error, vs. The Chicago Railways Company et al. Defendants in Error.
Opinion filed October 27, 1915
Rehearing denied Dec. 9, 1915.
This case is controlled by the decision in People v. Chicago Railways Co. (ante, p. 87.)
Writ oe Error to the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Charles M. Foell, Judge, presiding.
B. E. Langworthy, and William R. Moss, (S. S. Gregory, of counsel,) for plaintiff in error.
John J. Herrick, and Horace Kent Tenney, for defendant in error the Chicago Railways Company.
John W. Beckwith, Corporation Counsel, and Chas. M. Haet, for defendant in error the city of Chicago. '

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Cooke
delivered the opinion of the court:
The situation disclosed by the record in this case is the same as that in People v. Chicago Railways Co. (ante, p. 87,) with the exception that in this case the petition for mandamus was filed on the relation of Paul Armstrong, president of the village of River Forest, and it was sought to compel the Chicago Railways Company and the County Traction Company to establish and maintain a five-cent rate of fare for transportation between the western boundary line of the village of River Forest and the loop district in the city of Chicago. The same plea was filed to the petition and the same replication to the plea as in the case above mentioned. The court sustained the demurrer interposed by the Chicago Railways Company to the replication and rendered judgment in favor of the Chicago Railways Company and the city of Chicago. For the reasons given in People v. Chicago Railzvays Co. supra, the court did not err in sustaining the demurrer to the replication.
The judgment of the superior court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.