The Chicago v. the People
| Decision Date | 29 March 1883 |
| Citation | 105 Ill. 657,1883 WL 10175 |
| Parties | THE CHICAGO AND ALTON RAILROAD COMPANYv.THE PEOPLE, for use of David D. Pierson. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Appellate Court for the Third District;--heard in that court on appeal from the Circuit Court of Greene county; the Hon. ALBERT G. BURR, Judge, presiding.
Mr. HENRY C. WITHERS, for the appellant.
Mr. JAMES R. WARD, for the appellee.
This was an action brought against the Chicago and Alton Railroad Company to recover a penalty for a failure to stop one of its passenger trains at its station at Carrollton, the county seat of Greene county, a sufficient length of time to receive and let off passengers, as required by an act approved May 29, 1879. (Laws of 1879, page 225.) The act provides: “Every railroad corporation shall cause its passenger trains to stop upon its arrival at each station advertised by such corporation as a place for receiving and discharging passengers upon and from such trains, a sufficient length of time to receive and let off such passengers with safety: Provided, all regular passenger trains shall stop a sufficient length of time at the railroad station of county seats to receive and let off passengers with safety.”
On the 11th day of December, 1879, (the time the railroad company was charged with the omission of the duty imposed by the law,) the company was operating three passenger trains on its line of road through Carrollton. These trains passed through the town each way daily. Two of these trains stopped regularly at the station, but the other, known as the “Kansas City Express,” which passed through, going south, at 5 o'clock A. M., and returned, going north, at 11:32 o'clock P. M., made no stop whatever at Carrollton, except on Sundays the train was stopped to deliver and receive the mail. It is contended by the plaintiff that the train which passed through Carrollton at 11:32 o'clock in the night of December 11, 1879, was a regular passenger train, within the intent and meaning of the statute, and because the company failed and refused to stop this train at Carrollton and receive passengers who desired to take passage, it is liable for the penalty imposed by the law. On the other hand, it is claimed by the railroad company that this being a through train from St. Louis to Kansas City, conveying through passengers, was not, under the circumstances, a regular passenger train, within the meaning of the statute, and that the company was not bound to stop at Carrollton, although it was a county seat. The train in question was equipped and operated in the same manner as any other passenger train on the road. It carried passengers and baggage as did other trains. It run upon the official time table of the company as other trains did. Indeed, the only difference between this and the other passenger trains on the road was, that the other two stopped at all the stations while this did not. On account of this difference, can the train, within the meaning of the statute, be regarded other than a regular passenger train? We think not. The language of the act would not, perhaps, include a wild train, a freight train, an excursion train or a special train; but where a train was engaged in carrying passengers, running regularly every day upon an advertised time card of the company, equipped as all other passenger trains are, we are satisfied such a train was designed by the legislature to fall within the terms of the act, “all regular passenger trains.” Had the legislature intended to except a fast train or a through train from the operation of the law, it would have been an easy matter to have framed the law in such a way that no doubt could have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wiggins Ferry Company, And Respondent v. Chicago & Alton Railroad Company, And Respondent
... ... 83 Ill. 365; Fortier v. Penn. Co., 18 Brad. 260 ... Second. Public policy. Contractual Limitations, pp. 197, 198; ... Constitution of Ill. 1870, art. 11, sec. 12; 2 Stat. of Ill ... [St. & C. Ed.], pp. 1921, 1952, 1954, 1955; 1 Stat. of Ill ... [St. & C. Ed.], p. 563; Railroad v. People, 56 Ill ... 369; Railroad v. Vincent, 49 Ill. 33; Pcople ex ... rel. v. Railroad, 55 Ill. 95; Railroad v ... Smith, 62 Ill. 276; Railroad v. People, 67 Ill ... 19; Hoyt v. Railroad, 93 Ill. 609; Co. v ... Hill, 14 Ill.App. 582; Railroad v. People, 120 ... Ill. 206; ... ...
-
Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. Michigan Public Service Commission, 15
...City Express,' made no stop except on Sundays. The Supreme Court of Illinois in C. & A.R.R. Co. v. The People for the use of David D. Pierson (1883), 105 Ill. 657, reasoned as follows (p. 'Indeed, the only difference between this and the other passenger trains on the road was, that the othe......
-
State v. Gladson
...33; Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. 36; Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 666. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. People, 143 Ill. 434, and Chicago & A. R. Co. v. People, 105 Ill. 657, cases sustaining the law. It is supposed by the Illinois court in those cases that such laws have some reference to the des......
-
Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. People
...organized, may have been the expeditious transportation of the United States mail from Chicago through to New Orleans. In Chicago & A. R. Co. v. People, 105 Ill. 657, where a train known as the ‘Kansas City Express,’ being a through train from St. Louis to Kansas City, failed to stop at Car......