Shuman v. the Indianapolis

• Decision Date: 31 May 1882
• Citation: 11 Bradw. 472,11 Ill.App. 472
• Parties: AMOS SHUMANv.THE INDIANAPOLIS AND ST. LOUIS RAILROAD COMPANY.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

11 Ill.App. 472

11 Bradw. 472

AMOS SHUMAN

v.THE INDIANAPOLIS AND ST. LOUIS RAILROAD COMPANY.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District.

May Term, 1882.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Edgar county; the Hon. O. L. DAVIS, Judge, presiding. Opinion filed October 24, 1882.

Mr. A. Y. TROGDON, for appellant; that plaintiff is entitled to recover if the act causing the injury was willful or grossly negligent, cited I. & St. L. R. R. Co. v. People, 91 Ill. 452; I. &. St. L. R. R. Co. v. Blackman, 63 Ill. 117; G. & C. N. R. R. Co. v. Yarwood, 17 Ill. 509; Schmidt v. C. & N. W. R. R. Co. 83 Ill. 405.

Mr. J. V. JAQUITH, and Mr. JOHN T. DYE, for appellee.HIGBEE, J.

After appellant had closed his evidence in chief, on the trial of this cause in the court below, the following demurrer to the same and joinder thereto were filed by the respective parties:

+---------------------+
                ¦STATE OF ILLINOIS, ¦)¦
                +-------------------+-¦
                ¦Edgar County.      ¦)¦
                +---------------------+
                

In the Circuit Court of the March Term, A. D. 1882.

+---------------------+
                ¦AMOS SHUMAN        ¦)¦
                +-------------------+-¦
                ¦v.                 ¦)¦
                +-------------------+-¦
                ¦INDIANAPOLIS & ST. ¦)¦
                +-------------------+-¦
                ¦LOUIS R. R. CO.    ¦)¦
                +---------------------+
                

Comes now the defendant herein by Jaquith, its attorney, and admits that the evidence in this cause proves the following facts: That on or about June --, 1881, Amos Shuman was the owner of two cows; that on that date they were standing on the track of defendant, at a point where it crossed a county road or highway in said county, and had been standing on said place between ten and twenty minutes; that at that point the view of the track was unobstructed for a distance of several miles and the person in charge of trains could see stock thereon for a mile; that a freight train of defendant approaching said crossing from the west, struck said cows on said crossing and knocked one of them a distance of from thirty-five to forty feet and killed her; that she was worth, when killed, between $35 and $40; and that said train struck another of said cows, knocked her off the track, breaking off one of her horns and breaking or putting out of place one of her feet so that she was damaged to the amount of $20; that the train did not stop or slacken its speed on approaching said crossing, but increased its speed; that it is a down grade on said track approaching said crossing from the west; that train was running as fast as they generally run; that train whistled several times, quick and sharp; that the injuries happened about nine or ten o'clock in the forenoon.

Yet, while said defendant admits the truth of all the facts above proved, and all inferences properly to be drawn from them, says that the said facts are not sufficient in law to enable said plaintiff to have and maintain his action and recover against the said defendant herein, wherefore it prays judgment, etc.

INDIANAPOLIS & St. LOUIS R. R. CO.,

By JAQUITH, its Attorney.

+-----------------+
                ¦A. SHUMAN      ¦)¦
                +---------------+-¦
                ¦v.             ¦)¦
                +---------------+-¦
                ¦I. & ST. LOUIS ¦)¦
                +---------------+-¦
                ¦R. R. CO.      ¦)¦
                +-----------------+
                

And now claims the plaintiff, by his attorney, A. Y. Trogdon, and joins in said demurrer, and that said evidence of plaintiff is sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to recover herein. Wherefore he prays judgment, etc.

A. Y. TROGDON.

The court...