Buck v. Citizens' Coal Mining Co.

• Decision Date: 18 April 1912
• Citation: 98 N.E. 228,254 Ill. 198
• Parties: BUCK v. CITIZENS' COAL MINING CO.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

254 Ill. 198

98 N.E. 228

BUCK

v.CITIZENS' COAL MINING CO.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April 18, 1912.

Error to Appellate Court, Third District, on Error to Circuit Court, Sangamon County; James A. Creighton, Judge.

Action by Forest L. Buck against the Citizens' Coal Mining Company. On a judgment of the Appellate Court affirming a judgment for plaintiff rendered on default, defendant brings error. Affirmed.Henry L. Child (P. B. Warren and O. S. Humphrey, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.

C. F. Mortimer and Oscar J. Putting, for defendant in error.

FARMER, J.

This is an action brought in the circuit court of Sangamon county at the March term, 1911, by Forest L. Buck, plaintiff, by his next friend, against the Citizens' Coal Mining Company, defendant, to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by him while in the employ of defendant as a driver in one of its mines. The defendant defaulted, and the court, after hearing the evidence, rendered judgment against it for $1,500. A writ of error was sued out of the Appellate Court for the Third District, and upon a hearing in that court the judgment of the circuit court was affirmed. The case has been brought to this court for review by writ of certiorari.

The only question presented for review is the sufficiency of the declaration to sustain the judgment. The declaration alleges that plaintiff was in the employ of defendant as a driver and was engaged in hauling coal in coal cars by means of a certain mule; that it was the duty of defendant to exercise reasonable care to furnish plaintiff with a reasonably safe mule and instrumentalities with which to do his work, but that it negligently and carelessly furnished him with a certain mule named ‘Kate,’ for the purpose of hauling coal; ‘that said mule was a mean, vicious, sulky, balky, kicking, and dangerous mule, and had a disposition to run away, and plaintiff avers that, upon discovering said facts, he, the said Forest L. Buck, complained to the defendant in regard to said mule, but that the defendant, well knowing the disposition and danger of the said mule, negligently ordered and directed the said Forest L. Buck to continue driving said certain mule, and that by reason thereof the said Forest L. Buck did continue to drive and use said certain mule,’ and that on the 27th day of October, 1910, while the plaintiff was in the performance of his duties and exercising reasonable care for his own safety, the mule gave a sudden jerk, causing two cars to come together with great force, striking, crushing, and bruising the plaintiff while between said cars, thereby injuring him.

[1] That a default admits every material and traversable fact alleged in the declaration is too well settled to need the citation of authorities; but plaintiff in error insists the declaration does not state any cause of action, and, admitting its allegations to be true, did not authorize the court to render judgment.

[2] It is first contended the declaration does not allege the plaintiff in error knew the mule...