Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 19.pdf/279

 254

THE GREEN BAG

NOTES OF THE MOST IMPORTANT RECENT CASES COMPILED BY THE EDITORS OF THE NATIONAL REPORTER

SYSTEM

AND

ANNOTATED

BY

SPECIALISTS IN THE SEVERAL SUBJECTS (Copies of the pamphlet Reporters containing full reports of any of these decisions may be secured from the West Publishing Company, St. Paul, Minnesota, at 35 cents each. In ordering, the title of the desired case should be given as well as the citation of volume and page of the Reporter in which it is printed.) CARRIERS. (Persons Riding Gratuitously.) and might be brought in Illinois, if service could Ind. — Indiana Traction & Terminal Company v. be had on defendant, there was no doubt but that Klentschy, 79 N. E. Rep. 908, is another deci the law of the state of Indiana controlled in deter sion on the broad question as to who are pas mining whether the plaintiff was entitled to re sengers. Plaintiff, a member of a ladies' society, cover, citing Herrick v. Minneapolis & St. Louis was attending a convention in defendant's city. R. Co., 31 Minn. 11, 16 N. W. 414, 47 Am. Rep. With other members of the convention she was 771; Leonard v. Columbia Steam & Nav. Co. 84 invited to ride on defendant's cars, and during N. Y. 48, 38 Am. Rep. 491; Dennick v. Central R. the progress of the ride a collision occurred Co. of N. J., 103 U. S. 26, 20 L. Ed. 439. The between two of the cars by which the plaintiff most interesting part of the court's discussion was injured. It was contended that though the arises on the question of the admission in evi cars were operated by regular employees of the dence of the statutes and report of decisions in 'company, that by the acceptance of the cars they the state of Indiana. The defendant, while rely became the servants of the convention and hence ing on the statutes of Indiana, as defense to the the company would not be liable for their negli action, failed to plead them, contrary to the gen gence. It was also contended that inasmuch as eral rule that a foreign law must always be pleaded. the members of the convention were riding gra The court, in referring to this rule, stated that it tuitously, they did not become passengers so as had its exceptions and that it was not applicable to impose liability upon defendant company. The to the case in hand. It appeared that the plea court in holding that the company was liable for of not guilty was filed, and the court stated that the injuries sustained, said: " A passenger who is under such plea the defendant .was properly per carried gratuitously by a common carrier is as mitted to introduce in proof, as part of its defense, much a passin^ar as if he were paying full fare, the law of the state of Indiana so far as it was and th.3 m^re fact that hs is carried gratuitously material to show there was no liability resting on will not of itself deprive him of his right of action if defendant to respond for the injury, which plain injured by the negligence of the carrier." Citing tiff had sustained. City of Chicago v. Babcock, Russell v. Pittsburg Ry. Co., 157 Ind. 305, 61 N. E. 143 Ill. 358, 32 N. E. 271 was quoted to the effect 678, 55 L. R. A. 253, 87 Am. St. Rep. 214, 2 that in an action on the case, the defendant is Hutchinson on Carriers (3d Ed.) §§ 1021, 1022, 5 permitted, under the general issue, to give in evi Am. & Eng. Ency. Law (2d Ed.) 507, 6 Sack. 544. dence a release, a former recovery, a satisfaction, or any other matter ex post facto, which shows that CONFLICT OF LAWS. (Master and Servant.) the cause of action has been discharged or that in Ill. — In Christiansen v. Graver Tank Works, 79 equity and conscience the plaintiff ought not to N. E. Rep. 97, it appeared that the contract of recover. Thomson-Houston El. Co. v. Palmer, employment was made in Indiana to be performed 52 Minn. 174, 53 N. W. 1137, 38 Am. State Rep. in that state, and an action to recover for injuries 536 was cited as holding that the laws of another received while in the master's employ was brought state as to pleading and proof stand on the same footing as to any other facts, and are not required in Illinois. It was contended that the action hav ing been brought in Illinois, the law of that state to be pleaded when they are matters of evidence. controlled the right of recovery. The court in The court's conclusion was that the defendant was ruling adversely to this contention, maintained properly permitted under its plea of not guilty to that the contract of employment was made in properly introduce in proof, as part of its defense, Indiana to be performed in that state and was the law of the state of Indiana, so far as it was made with reference to the law of that state, and material to show that there was no liability on its concluded that while the action was transitory part.