The Chicago v. Mock
Decision Date | 31 January 1874 |
Citation | 1874 WL 8777,72 Ill. 141 |
Parties | THE CHICAGO AND ALTON RAILROAD COMPANYv.MARGARET M. MOCK, Admx. |
Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Morgan county; the Hon. CYRUS EPLER, Judge, presiding.
Messrs. DUMMER & BROWN, for the appellant.
Mr. WILLIAM H. BARNES, for the appellee.
This was an action brought by Margaret M. Mock, as the administratrix of the estate of Anthony Mock, deceased, her late husband, against the Chicago and Alton Railroad Company, for the alleged negligent killing of said Anthony Mock. The plaintiff below recovered, and defendant appealed.
The leading facts of the case are as follows: Manchester, in Scott county, was a regular station on appellant's road. Three trains passed there daily each way. The train which caused the injury in question was a through train, for the accommodation of Peoria through passenger travel, and did not stop at Manchester unless signaled to do so. Its time of arrival there was 3:30 A. M. About 3 o'clock on the morning of April 1, it being very dark and rainy, the deceased started from his home, at Manchester, to take passage thence to St. Louis, on this 3:30 A. M. train, taking with him a lantern to signal the train. In answer to his signal with the lantern, on the platform of the station, the engineer sounded the whistle to stop the train, but the rails being wet and slippery, the train passed the station about two hundred feet before it stopped. The conductor, with a lantern, took his position on the rear platform of the hind car, and the train was backed up until the back car was alongside the station platform. This car was lighted. The conductor got out on the station platform with a light, but could see or hear no one there. The train was composed of two cars. During the time the train was backing up, the brakeman was on the platform between the two cars, with a lighted lantern. The deceased was not seen or heard by any one, after his signaling the train on the station platform, until he was found killed on the track the next morning. The station agent was not at the station on arrival of the train.
On its own cars the appellant uses the Blackstone coupling, which brings the platforms of the cars, when coupled, within six inches of each other. One of the coaches of this train was a Peoria, Pekin and Jacksonville railway coach, which was attached at Jacksonville, and it, like all cars on the latter road, was coupled by a different sort of coupling, which left the cars...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Carscallen v. Coeur D'Alene & St. Joe Transportation Co., Ltd.
...the question whether the plaintiff by his negligence contributed to the loss. (Hackford v. New York C. Ry. Co., 6 Lans. 381; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Mock, 72 Ill. 141.) court should have instructed the jury that the profits accruing to the respondents by reason of work which they were preven......
-
Bosler v. Coble
... ... Strode (Neb.), 28 N.Y. 312; ... Wallace v. Wren, 32 Ill. 146; C. C. & I. R. Co ... v. Troesch, 68 Ill. 545; Chi. & Alton R. Co. v. Mock, 72 ... Ill. 141.) ... The ... action of the court in refusing effectually to strike out the ... improper matters in the reply is ... Beattie v. Detroit (Mich.), 100 N.W. 574; Arbit ... v. St. Louis Co. (Mo.), 81 S.W. 484; Shanahan v. St ... Co., 83 S.W. 783; Chicago &c. Co. v. Hanthorn, ... 211 Ill. 367; Caldwell v. Steamboat Co., 47 N.Y ... 282; People v. McCallan, 103 N.Y. 587; ... Hickenbottom v. R ... ...
-
Butler County Railroad Co. v. Lawrence
...to the weight of authority and should not be adhered to. 269. No. 104; 88 Md. 55, 40 A. 1066; 64 So. 343; 126 Ill.App. 189; 213 Mass. 392; 72 Ill. 141; Tex. Civ. 141, 29 S.W. 948; 140 Cal. 563; 37 S.W. 423; 35 S.W. 208. Costen & Harrison, for appellee. The testimony shows that decedent was ......
-
Morris v. Gleason
...in comparison to that of the defendant: Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Houck, adm'r, 72 Ill. 285; Chicago v. Major, 18 Ill. 349; C. & A. R. R. Co. v. Mock, adm'x, 72 Ill. 141. And to show that the deceased exercised due care, and caution, and that his negligence did not contribute to the injury co......