The Chicago v. John S. Hutchins.
| Decision Date | 30 April 1864 |
| Citation | 34 Ill. 108,1864 WL 2971 |
| Parties | THE CHICAGO AND ROCK ISLAND RAILROAD COMPANYv.JOHN S. HUTCHINS. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from Circuit Court of Henry County.
Case by appellee against appellant, for running against and killing plaintiff's mare and colt with a locomotive on defendant's road.
The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.
Glover, Cook & Campbell, for appellant.
Carpenter & Dunham, for appellee.
Appellee claimed to recover on the ground of negligence by the company. First, in not keeping in repair the fence separating their road from his pasture, in consequence of which the animals got on the road and were killed; and secondly, in failing to ring a bell or sound a whistle, as required by law, at the road crossing at which the animals were killed. The questions were fairly presented to the jury, and they have found that there was negligence on the part of the company. The evidence was sufficient to warrant the finding, and although it may not have been entirely free from doubt, still the verdict is not clearly against the weight of evidence, and unless it was, the verdict will not be disturbed.
A reversal is urged upon the ground that the engine driver was not permitted to testify as to whether the bell was rung at the road crossing where the animals were found. If his neglect of duty caused the injury, and the company should be held liable, he would be liable over to them. His engagement implies the discharge of every duty pertaining to the place. The engine and all of its parts are completely under his control, and the fireman is subject to his orders. This is necessarily so, as otherwise the fireman could regulate the speed, and not the driver. It appears to be customary for the engine driver to ring the bell or sound the whistle at all road crossings, and to frighten the stock from the track when the train is in motion. It is true that he may require this to be done by the fireman, but still it is under the direction of the driver. There can hardly be a doubt that, in the absence of all agreement or instructions, it would be the duty of the engine driver to sound the whistle or ring the bell at all places required by the law. Such is believed to be the universal custom in this country, and it must be understood to enter into and form a part of his contract when employed by the company.
Such being his duty, by a neglect to perform it on his part, he becomes...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Flansburg v. Basin
...where the evidence is conflicting, the verdict will not be set aside unless clearly against the weight of evidence, cited C. & R. I. R. R. Co. v. Hutchins, 34 Ill. 108; C. & R. I. R. R. Co. v. Crandall, 41 Ill. 234; T. P. & W. R'y Co. v. McClannon, 41 Ill. 238; Davis v. Hoeppner, 44 Ill. 30......
-
The Vill. of Warren v. Wright
... 3 Ill.App. 602 3 Bradw. 602 THE VILLAGE OF WARREN v. JOHN W. WRIGHT. Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District. December Term, 1878 ... [3 ... 633; Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. v. McKee, 43 Ill 19; City of Bloomington v. Goodrich, 10 Chicago Legal News, 353. A city is only bound to see that its sidewalks are reasonably safe: City of ... & B. Co. v. Jameson, 48 Ill. 281; Bunker v. Green, 48 Ill. 243; C. & R. I. R. R. Co. v. Hutchins, 34 Ill. 108; C. & G. E. R'y Co. v. Vosburg, 45 Ill. 311; Allan v. Payne, 45 Ill. 339; Cadwell v ... ...
-
The Chicago v. Hale
... ... Bassett, 38 Ill. 96; C. & R. I. R. R. Co. v. Coal & Iron Co. 36 Ill. 60; Tolman v. Race, 36 Ill. 472; C. & R. I. R. R. Co. v. Hutchins, 34 Ill. 108; Schultz v. Lepage, 21 Ill. 160; Smith v. Schultz, 1 Scam. 490; [2 Ill.App. 153] Allen v. Smith, 3 Scam. 97; Ellis v. Locke, 2 Gilm ... ...
-
J. E. Hayner & Co. v. Sherrer
...2 Ill.App. 5362 Bradw. 536J. E. HAYNER & CO.v.JOHN M. SHERRER.Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District.May Term, 1878 ... [2 Ill.App. 536] ... Evans, 48 Ill. 52; Wood v. Hildreth, 73 Ill. 525; Millikin v. Taylor, 53 Ill. 509; Chicago v. Garrison, 52 Ill. 516; Pullian v. Ogle, 27 Ill. 189; Martin v. Ehrenfels, 24 Ill. 187; Morgan v. Ryerson, 20 Ill. 343; C. & R. I. R. R. Co. v. Hutchins, 34 Ill. 108; C. & R. I. R. R. Co. v. Crandall, 41 Ill. 234; Town of Vinegar Hill v. Busson, 42 ... ...