Purington-Kimball Brick Co. v. Eckman

Appellant contends that the action was improperly brought against two defendants, “ because one of them had nothing whatever to do with the wrong,” if the verdict is to be taken as conclusive of the facts.

The point is not well taken. In Baker v. Ry. Co., 42 Ill. 73-78, which wms a joint action against several railway companies for damages resulting from delay in the tra-ns]>ortation of a lot of hams, there was judgment for the only company that pleaded, the other companies being defaulted. On appeal the Supreme Court found error in the trial, and reversed the case. The court say:

“ It is urged…