Dickson v. the Chicago
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | SHELDON |
| Citation | Dickson v. the Chicago, 77 Ill. 331, 1875 WL 8317 (Ill. 1875) |
| Decision Date | 31 January 1875 |
| Parties | LAURA A. DICKSONv.THE CHICAGO, BURLINGTON AND QUINCY R. R. CO. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
WRIT OF ERROR to the Circuit Court of Fulton county; the Hon. CHAUNCEY L. HIGBEE, Judge, presiding.
This was an action on the case, by Laura A. Dickson against the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Company, to recover for a personal injury. The facts involved in the decision are stated in the opinion.
Messrs. SHOPE & GRAY, for the plaintiff in error.
Messrs. JUDD & WHITEHOUSE, for the defendant in error.
The only question presented on this record is, whether, by the Limitation Act of 1872, the right to sue in actions on the case for damages for an injury to the person, when the cause of action accrued prior to the passage of that act, is limited to two years.
The action here was one on the case, for damages for an injury to the person consequent upon the alleged wrongful act of the servants of the defendant. The cause of action accrued in the year 1870. The suit was brought July 6, 1874. The defendant pleaded two special pleas, setting up, in substance, that the cause of action accrued, if at all, more than two years next before the commencement of the suit. The court below overruled a general demurrer to the pleas, and rendered judgment for the defendant.
When this alleged cause of action accrued, and the alleged liability of defendant was incurred, the act of Feb. 10, 1849, was in force, and limited actions on the case to five years. The 14th section of the Limitation law of 1872, in force July 1, 1872, is as follows: “Actions for damages for an injury to the person, * * * shall be commenced within two years next after the cause of action accrued.” The 24th section of the act of 1872 expressly repeals the Limitation act of February 10, 1849, the section concluding as follows: “But this section shall not be construed so as to affect any rights or liabilities, or any causes of action that may have accrued before this act shall take effect.” The act took effect July 1, 1872.
The 24th section of the act of 1872, in terms, repeals various other limitation laws, as well as that of February 10, 1849.
It is urged by appellee, that section 14 of the act of 1872 shortens the time within which actions for injury to the person may be brought, to two years; that it is wholly inconsistent with the five years limitation of the act of 1849, and, therefore, repeals it by implication, substituting two years in place of five years limitation; so that the two acts can not stand together. Stress is then laid upon the use of the words “this section,” not “this act,” in the saving clause of section 24 of the act of 1872; and it is...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Kitchen v. St. Louis, Kansas City & Northern Ry. Co.
... ... These articles were signed by E. D. Morgan & Co., R. L. Kennedy, A. Cotting, Charles K. Dickson, John R. Lionberger, John Jackson, Barton Bates, [69 Mo. 240] Wm. M. McPherson, E. W. Fox, Jas. S. Rollins, J. A. Ubsdell, J. B ... except at a loss; it would not pay running expenses; it had no local business of any consequence, and the through business was cut off by the Chicago line at Macon. He further says that in October, 1867, it would have taken $4,108,600 to build and equip the road to the North Missouri Junction and ... ...
-
State ex rel. Reardon v. Hooker
...In Edwards v. Denver & R. G. R. Co., 13 Colo. 59, 21 P. 1011, that the word "issuing" was intended for "filing." In Dickson v. C., B. & Q. R. Co., 77 Ill. 331, and Von Campe et al. v. Chicago, 140 Ill. 361, 29 N.E. 892, that the words "this section" should be construed as used for "this act......
-
State v. Hooker
...In Edwards v. Denver & R. G. R. Co., 13 Colo. 59, 21 P. 1011, that the word "issuing" was intended for "filing." In Dickson v. C., B. & Q. R. Co., 77 Ill. 331, Von Campe et al. v. Chicago, 140 Ill. 361, 29 N.E. 892, that the words "this section" should be construed as used for "this act." I......
-
Chisholm v. the Chicago & Nw. Ry. Co.
...42 Ill. 32; Champaign v. Patterson, 50 Ill. 61; Thompson v. Alexander, 11 Ill. 54; Conway v. Cable et al. 37 Ill. 82; Dickson v. C. B. & Q. R. R. Co. 77 Ill. 331; Cooley on Con. Lim. 357; Sedgwick on Stat. and Const. Law, 695; Gardner v. Stevens, 1 Heiskill, 280; Gopel v. Wheeler, 2 Gall. 1......