The Ohio v. Lackey
| Decision Date | 30 June 1875 |
| Citation | 78 Ill. 55,1875 WL 8418,20 Am.Rep. 259 |
| Parties | THE OHIO AND MISSISSIPPI RAILWAY COMPANYv.JAMES C. LACKEY. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Marion county; the Hon. SILAS L. BRYAN, Judge, presiding.
Mr. H. P. BUXTON, for the appellant.
This is an appeal from the judgment of the Marion circuit court, rendered at the October term, 1870, upon the following agreed state of facts:
“It was agreed in this case that, during the year 1869, three persons were run over and killed by trains on the railroad of appellant, in Marion county, and the appellee, being coroner of said county at the time, held an inquest in each case, the expenses of which, together with the costs of burial, amount, in the aggregate, to $91.15; that if appellant was, in law, liable to appellee, upon the facts stated, for the above amount, then judgment should be rendered in favor of appellee therefor, and if not so liable, then judgment should be for appellant, with the right to either party to appeal.”
In 1855, the General Assembly of this State passed an act entitled “An act to provide for the burial of the dead occurring on railroads, and in or by vehicles carrying passengers,” in the second section of which act it is provided that “every railroad company running cars within this State shall be liable for all the expense of the coroner and his inquest, and the burial of all persons who may die on the cars, or who may be killed by collision, or other accident occurring to such cars, or otherwise; and any coroner, city, town or person who shall take charge of and decently inter any such body or corpse, or cause an inquest to be held over such corpse, shall have cause of action against such company, before any court having competent jurisdiction.” Sess. Laws 1855, p. 170; Scates' Comp. 423. It is insisted by appellant, that this statute is not within the constitutional competency of the General Assembly to enact, as it places the burden of these expenses upon the railroad companies, which, in other cases of like nature, is placed upon the estate of the deceased, or upon the county in which the accident may occur. This is the general law. R. S. 1845, ch. 99, title, “Sheriffs and Coroners,” sec. 23; R. S. 1874, sec. 21, title, “““Coroners.”
It may, very pertinently, be asked, why this distinction? On what principle is it that railroad corporations, without any fault on their part, shall be compelled to pay charges which, in other cases, are borne by the property of the deceased,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hunter v. Colfax Consol. Coal Co.
......Barber, 5 Ohio St. 541, 67 Am. Dec. 312, it is laid down that if the agent or employé waived the omission of duty on the part of the employer he takes the risk ... [154 N.W. 1046] In Railway v. Lackey, 78 Ill. 55, 20 Am. Rep. 259, the question was whether the railroad company was liable under a statute which provided-- “that ......
-
Ives v. South Buffalo Ry. Co.
......Upon these facts the federal Supreme Court held that it was a case of unavoidable accident for which no one was legally responsible. In Ohio & Mississippi Ry. Co. v. Lackey, 78 Ill. 55, 20 Am. Rep. 259, the question was whether the railroad company was liable under a statute which provided ......
- St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Co. v. Keller
-
Hunter v. Colfax Consolidated Coal Co.
...... "that is the doctrine which is embodied in the. maxim." In Mad River & L. E. R. Co. v. Barber, . 5 Ohio St. 541, it is laid down that "If the agent or. employe waived the omission of duty on the part of the. employer he takes the risk upon himself, ... unavoidable accident, for which no one was legally. responsible. [157 N.W. 150] . . In. Ohio & M. R. Co. v. Lackey, 78 Ill. 55, the question. was whether the railroad company was liable under a statute. which provided "that every railroad company running cars. ......