Chicago & Nw. Ry. Co. v. Barrie
| Decision Date | 30 September 1870 |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
| Parties | CHICAGO & NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANYv.JAMES BARRIE. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Whiteside county; the Hon. W. W. HEATON, Judge, presiding.
The opinion states the case.
Messrs. HENRY & JOHNSON, for the appellants.
Messrs. DINSMOOR & STAGER, for the appellee.
This action was originally commenced before a justice of the peace, by the appellee, to recover the value of stock alleged to have been killed by the locomotive and train of the appellants. A trial was had before the justice, which resulted in a judgment in favor of the appellee, and the appellants then removed the cause to the circuit court, where a trial was again had, and resulted, as before, in a judgment for the appellee.
The appellants seek a reversal of the judgment principally on the ground that the verdict in the circuit court was against the weight of the evidence, and that it was error in the court not to award a new trial. The evidence shows, that at the place where the stock of appellee got upon the railroad track, the appellants had hitherto erected and always maintained a good and sufficient fence. The defect in the fence at the time was probably occasioned by the removal of some boards by some men who were engaged in setting poles for the telegraph company. The evidence shows that some workmen were engaged in the vicinity of the place where the stock got upon the track, and it is supposed that, for some purpose, they removed the boards from the fence, and through the gap thus made the stock got upon the track. If this is the true theory of the case, it was simply the unlawful act of strangers, for which the company would not be liable until after the lapse of a sufficient time for the company, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, to have discovered and repaired the injury to the fence. While the company will be held to a high degree of diligence in keeping their fences in good repair, they are not bound to do impossible things, nor are they required to keep a constant patrol, night and day. If their fences should be destroyed and torn down by the unlawful acts of strangers, they would undoubtedly be entitled to a reasonable time in which to discover and repair the same. Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Swearingen, 47 Ill. 206; Same v. Same, 33 Ill. 289.
If the appellants are liable in this instance, it must be solely on the ground of negligence in the agents and servants of the company in running and controlling their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McKissick v. Oregon Short Line Ry. Co.
...18 Mo.App. 578; St. Louis & S. F. Ry. v. Carlyle, 75 Ark. 560, 88 S.W. 584; Wilson v. Norfolk & S. R. Co., 90 N.C. 69; Chicago etc. Ry. Co. v. Barrie, 55 Ill. 226; Shuman v. Indianapolis etc. Ry. Co., 11 472; Missouri P. Ry. Co. v. Reynolds, 31 Kan. 132, 1 P. 150; Woodland v. Union P. Ry. C......
-
Martin v. Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co.
... ... Railroad Co. v. Logue, 58 Ill. App. 142;Id., 158 Ill. 621, 42 N. E. 53;Railway Co. v. Bodemer, 139 Ill. 596, 29 N. E. 692,32 Am. St. Rep. 218; Railroad Co. v. Wren, 43 Ill. 77;Railway Co. v. Barrie, 55 Ill. 226. In this case the track was shown to be entirely straight for four miles. The train was running west, toward the setting sun, and we are unable to see how the view of the fireman could have been interfered with by the bents that extended up the sides of the track at the crossing of the ... ...
-
The Peoria v. Dugan
... ... 217. And no recovery can be had, unless it is shown to have been the result of a want of ordinary care. C. & N. W. R. R. Co. v. Barrie, 55 Ill. 226; R. R. & St. L. v. Connell, 67 Ill. 216; P. P. & J. R. R. Co. v. Barton, 80 Ill. 72; I. C. R. R. Co. v. Bull, 72 Ill. 537. If a person ... ...
-
Centralia & C.R. Co. v. Brake
... ... Railway Co. v. Barrie, 55 Ill. 226. The company would be liable only for injuries to stock resulting from its failure to properly construct its road, or to manage and ... ...