Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 24 October 1901 |
| Citation | 191 Ill. 594,61 N.E. 334 |
| Parties | ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO. v. JOHNSON. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from appellate court, Fourth district.
Action by Laura B. Johnson, administratrix of the estate of Zeddie C. Johnson, deceased, against the Illinois Central Railroad Company. From a judgment of the appellate court (95 Ill. App. 54) affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
William H. Green and J. M. Dickinson, for appellant.
W. F. Bundy and Frank F. Noleman, for appellee.
On the 22d day of November, 1899, one Zeddie C. Johnson, while engaged in the discharge of his duty as an employé of the appellant company, in the capacity of a switchman, in the yards of the company in Centralia, fell or was thrown under the wheels of a moving freight car, and sustained injuries which resulted in his immediate death. The appellee, as administratrix of his estate, instituted in the circuit court of Marion county an action on the case to recover damages under the provisions of the statute for the benefit of his widow and next of kin, on the theory that his death was occasioned by actionable negligence on the part of the appellant company. Upon a trial before a jury, judgment was rendered against the company in the sum of $4,000, and on appeal to the appellate court for the fourth district the judgment was affirmed. This is a further appeal prosecuted by the appellant company to reverse the judgment.
Appellant contends that on the hearing in the circuit court no evidence whatever was produced showing the exercise of any degree of care whatever by the deceased, and that the attempt to show that he was inexperienced, and therefore in some degree, at least, exempt from the necessity of exercising care and caution, failed for a total lack of evidence to support it, and that evidence of negligence on the part of the appellant or any of its servants was wholly wanting. It is therefore urged that we should reverse the judgment for the reason that the circuit court refused to grant a peremptory instruction, presented in behalf of the appellant company at the close of all the evidence, to direct the jury to find the appellant company not guilty. Counsel for appellee insist that the record does not bring before us the question whether the court erred in its ruling with reference to the said peremptory instruction, for the reason that the appellant company filed its motion for new trial in writing, in which it particularly specified the points or grounds relied on to entitle it to a retrial, and did not in such motion specify the refusal of the court to grant the peremptory instruction as one of the points or grounds for such new trial. It appears from the record that counsel for appellant objected to the action of the court in refusing to grant the peremptory instruction, and excepted to such action of the court at the time the same was had and taken, and such objection and exception were duly noted and certified in the bill of exceptions. It also appears from the bill of exceptions that counsel for the appellant company presented to the trial court a motion in writing for a new trial, and in said motion specified four separate points or grounds of the motion, and that the refusal of the court to grant the peremptory instruction was not specified as one of such points or grounds, or included in any of such specifications. We have frequently held that, under the proper construction of section...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Nierstheimer
...new trial and an opportunity given that court to correct the same. Herder v. People, 209 Ill. 50, 70 N.E. 674; Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Johnson, 191 Ill. 594, 61 N.E. 334." I conclude that upon the face of the record, the relator has presented no meritorious case within the scope of......
- Prickett v. Sulzberger & Sons Co.
-
Yarber v. Chicago & A. Ry. Co.
...Among the cases so holding are East St. Louis Electric Railroad Co. v. Cauley, 148 Ill. 490, 36 N. E. 106;Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Johnson, 191 Ill. 594, 61 N. E. 334;Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. Haselwood, 194 Ill. 69, 62 N. E. 315;Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroa......
-
Freeman v. Chicago Transit Authority
...all grounds therefor which he expects to urge in the court of review becomes manifest.'' See, also, Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Johnson, 191 Ill. 594, 597, 61 N.E. 334 (1901); 3A Nichols § 3837. It would seem, therefore, that where the court seizes upon the opportunity itself to do jus......