Chalcraft v. Louisville

• Decision Date: 22 January 1885
• Citation: 113 Ill. 86
• Parties: JAMES CHALCRAFTv.LOUISVILLE, EVANSVILLE AND ST. LOUIS RAILROAD COMPANY.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

113 Ill. 86

JAMES CHALCRAFT

v.LOUISVILLE, EVANSVILLE AND ST. LOUIS RAILROAD COMPANY.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Filed at Mt. Vernon Jan. 22, 1885.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

WRIT OF ERROR to the Appellate Court for the Fourth District;-- heard in that court on appeal from the Circuit Court of Edwards county; the Hon. C. S. CONGER, Judge, presiding.

This was a bill in equity, to enjoin the construction of a bridge for a farm crossing over a railroad track. The track of the road of defendant in error runs across the land of plaintiff in error, cutting off from the main body, the barn, stock-sheds, cribs, etc., and a tract of wood land. The length of the railroad track through the land of plaintiff in error is twenty-three hundred feet, and there are over that part of the road, within convenient distances, two public crossings, five private or farm crossings for vehicles and cattle, and two foot crossings. But plaintiff in error claims these do not sufficiently accommodate him, and having notified the railroad company to erect a bridge for him at a point indicated, and the company having refused, he was proceeding to erect it himself, when enjoined by this proceeding. The Appellate Court rendered a decree reversing that of the circuit court, and making the injunction perpetual.

Mr. J. M. CAMPBELL, and Mr. WILLIAM F. FOSTER, for the plaintiff in error.

Mr. J. H. STRAWN, and Mr. C. H. PATTON, for the defendant in error.Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE SCHOLFIELD delivered the opinion of the Court:

The motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction to entertain this writ of error, must be overruled. This is not a suit to recover money or chattels, and is not, therefore, affected by the statute limiting appeals and writs of error to $1000, and the writ hence lies, without regard to the magnitude of the interests involved. Baber v. Railroad Co. 93 Ill. 342.

The statute provides that “every railroad corporation shall * * * erect and maintain fences on both sides of its road, * * * with gates or bars at the farm crossings of such railroad, which farm crossings shall be constructed by such corporation when and where the same may become necessary for the use of the proprietors of the lands adjoining such railroad,” and authorizes the owner or occupant to do so if the railroad company, after notice, shall refuse. If the word “necessary,” in this connection, should, according to its primary meaning, be considered as the equivalent of “indispensable” or ““inevitable,” it is quite clear the ruling of the Appellate Court is right, for the evidence shows that plaintiff in error can use all of his farm, and lands, and barns, and other buildings, etc., with the farm crossings that he already has, though probably not with the same facility and...