Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Dickson
The Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Company v. Laura A. Dickson
Syllabus
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Mr. Justice Breese delivered the opinion of the Court:
This was an action on the case, and a recovery had, brought by husband and wife, for personal injury to the wife alone, caused by the negligence of appellant’s agents and servants.
This court has settled the doctrine, that, under the legislation of this State, a married woman, for personal injuries, must sue alone. C. B. and Q. R. R. Co. v. Dunn, 52 Ill. 260 ; Hennies et al. v. Vogel and wife, 66 Ill. 401 ; and in regard to her personal rights growing out of her ownership of property, Emerson v. Clayton, 32 Ill. 493 ; Hayner et al. v. Smith et al. 63 Ill. 430 . And a majority of this court went a step further, at the same time, in holding that the husband was not responsible for the torts of his wife. This case is clearly within the principle of these cases; the point is distinctly made by appellant, and it must be decided in the same way.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Judgment reversed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 5 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.