Indianapolis v. Strain

• Citation: 1876 WL 10037,81 Ill. 504
• Parties: INDIANAPOLIS, BLOOMINGTON AND WESTERN RY. CO.v.ISAAC H. STRAIN et al.
• Decision Date: 31 January 1876
• Court: Supreme Court of Illinois

81 Ill. 504

1876 WL 10037 (Ill.)

INDIANAPOLIS, BLOOMINGTON AND WESTERN RY. CO.

v.ISAAC H. STRAIN et al.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

January Term, 1876.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of DeWitt county; the Hon. LYMAN LACEY, Judge, presiding.

Messrs. DONAHUE & KELLY, for the appellant.

Messrs. FULLER & GRAHAM, for the appellees.

Mr. JUSTICE SHELDON delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was an action brought by Owens & Strain against The Indianapolis, Bloomington and Western Railway Company, to recover the value of seven lost hogs, claimed to have escaped from the cars of the company, and shipped, as Owens & Strain claim, from Clinton, in this State, to Pittsburgh, but, as the railroad company claim, from Clinton to Indianola, the station at the end of their railroad at Indianapolis, Indiana. There was a judgment against the railway company for $98, from which they have appealed.

The hogs in question were part of a lot of 199 head, contracted to be transported at a certain price per car load, from Clinton to Pittsburgh, but under a special written contract, signed by both parties, whereby it was expressly agreed between them, that the liability of the company as common carriers should cease when the stock should arrive at the station above named, the end of the company's road, ready to be delivered to the next succeeding carrier--the contract containing also other provisions restrictive of the company's liability. The hogs escaped from the cars somewhere between Clinton and Galion, Ohio, and, as the company claim, between India nola and Galion, beyond the termination of their line, and so that they are not liable under the contract. Sundry legal questions have been discussed by counsel, as being supposed to arise under the provisions of the special contract, which we do not deem it necessary to consider, as it is conceded by appellant's counsel, that, under the contract, the company is responsible for its own negligence, and we think there is enough in the evidence to maintain the judgment on the ground of such negligence.

Without undertaking to recite the testimony, we need but to say, that we think it sufficiently appears, from the evidence, that the escape and loss of the seven hogs were occasioned by their having been placed in a car which was defective and out of repair.

We regard it as having been the duty of the company to furnish good and sufficient cars in which to carry the hogs. This they did not do, and thence the loss....