Ill. Cent. R.R. Co. v. Owens
| Decision Date | 31 January 1870 |
| Citation | 1870 WL 6216,53 Ill. 391 |
| Parties | ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANYv.RILEY V. OWENS et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of DeWitt county; the Hon. JOHN M. SCOTT, Judge, presiding.
The opinion states the case.
Messrs. MOORE & WARNER and Messrs. WILLIAMS & BURR, for the appellants.
Mr. E. H. PALMER and Messrs. WELDON, TIPTON & BENJAMIN, for the appellees.
This was an action of assumpsit, brought to the circuit court of DeWitt county, by Owens & Strain against the Illinois Central Railroad Company, as common carriers. There was a trial by a jury, and a verdict for the plaintiffs. A motion for a new trial was made by the defendants, which the court overruled, and rendered judgment on the verdict.
To reverse this judgment, the defendants appeal.
The property in question was a lot of hogs, shipped under the following contract:
+-----------------------------------------------+
¦FREIGHT OFFICE, ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD CO.¦)¦
+---------------------------------------------+-¦
¦CLINTON, ILL. Dec. 6, 1864. ¦)¦
+-----------------------------------------------+
Received of R. V. Owens three (3) cars hogs, 150, more or less, shipper's count, to be delivered at Chicago station, at special rates, being forty-seven dollars per car. In consideration of which, and for other valuable considerations, it is hereby mutually agreed that said company shall not be liable for loss by jumping from the cars, delay of trains, or any damage said property may sustain, except such as may result from a collision of a train, or when cars are thrown from the track in course of transportation.
To be fed and taken care of by owner.
No. of cars: 926, 752, 218.
Subject to 2 1/2 per cent U. S. tax.
J. A. RUSBACK, Agent.
R. V. OWENS.
The question is, upon the construction of this contract.
By the terms of the contract, the liability of appellants was limited to damages which the property might sustain from a collision of trains, or when cars should be thrown from the track in the course of transportation.
The case shows that one car was thrown from the track by reason of a broken rail, while all the cars containing appellees' hogs remained on the track, and it is insisted by appellants that, for that reason, the appellees cannot recover. Their idea is, because the cars containing the hogs remained on the track, therefore they should not recover.
We think this is a view of the contract quite too narrow to meet the intention of the parties. We have no doubt that damage from delay occasioned by cars being thrown from the track, though the cause...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Chicago v. Hale
...2 Ill.App. 1502 Bradw. 150THE CHICAGO, BURLINGTON AND QUINCY R. R. CO.v.ALFRED ... Cent. R. R. Co. v. Finnigan et al. 21 Ill. 648; T. P. & W. R. R. Co. v. Arnold, ... C. R. R. Co. v. Owens, 53 Ill. 391; Lang v. N. Y. Cent. R. R. Co. 50 N. Y. 76; 2 Kents' Com ... ...
-
The Wabash v. Black
...v. Talbot, 23 Ill. 357; West. Trans. Co. v. Newhall, 24 Ill. 466; St. L. A. & T. H. R. R. Co. v. Montgomery, 39 Ill. 335; Ills. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Owens, 53 Ill. 391; Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. v. McClellan, 54 Ill. 58; C. & A. R. R. Co. v. Shea, 66 Ill. 471; C. & N. W. R. R. Co. v. Sawyer, 69 Il......
-
Lupe v. Atlantic & Pacific R.R. Co.
...Southern R. R. Co. v. Perkins, 25 Mich. 329; Michigan Southern & Northern Indiana R. R. Co. v. McDonough, 21 Mich. 165; Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. Owens, 53 Ill. 391; Wag. Stat., 1022, sec. 51; Dougherty v. Matthews, 35 Mo. 520; Harper v. Indiana R. R. Co., 44 Mo. 488; Eyerman v. Mt. Sin......
-
M. R. R. v. Rose
... ... Chicago & Alton R. Co. v. Flagg, 43 Ill. 364;Arnold v. I. C. R. Co. 83 Ill. 273;Eaton v. R. Co. 15 Am. Rep. e C., C. & C. R. Co. v. Bartram, 11 Ohio St. 457:Law v. Ill. Cent. R. Co. 32 Iowa, 534. The point on which they are not [8 N.W ... ...