The Chicago v. the Northern Ill. Coal
| Decision Date | 30 April 1864 |
| Citation | 1864 WL 3099,36 Ill. 60 |
| Parties | THE CHICAGO AND ROCK ISLAND RAILROAD COMPANYv.THE NORTHERN ILLINOIS COAL AND IRON COMPANY OF LA SALLE. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from Circuit Court of La Salle County.
Assumpsit by appellee against appellant for waste water supplied by appellee to appellant from appellee's coal shaft. The judgment below was for the plaintiff. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.
Glover, Cook & Campbell, for appellant.
Bull & Nash, for appellee.
Under the general assignment of error, that the court should have granted a new trial, the plaintiff in error may urge the rejection of proper and the admission of improper evidence. Also, the giving of improper and the refusal of proper instructions, and that the evidence does not sustain the verdict. These are all grounds for granting a new trial, and need not be specifically enumerated, but are embraced in the general assignment of error that the court refused to grant a new trial.
It is insisted, in favor of a reversal, that the evidence fails to sustain the finding of the jury. Loomis testifies that appellant, under the contract, was to finish the protection wall, and erect their tank, and have the use of the water pumped into the tank by the appellee, for one year, as a compensation for the expense of erecting the wall. On the other hand, Coulogue testifies that the appellant was to construct the wall and build the tank, and have therefor the use of the water as long as they desired. In this contrariety in the evidence of the persons who made the contract, it was a question for the jury to determine, from all the circumstances, to whom they would give the credit.
In support of Loomis' evidence is the fact that, after the expiration of the year, and a difference had arisen as to the right to use the water by appellant, they reduced the price of switching appellee's coal cars, from a dollar to fifty cents each, being only one-half of the previous charge. And afterwards, when appellee made other arrangements, by which they did not require appellant to switch their cars, and an account was presented for the rent of a lot in Chicago, used by appellee to store coal, at a charge of forty dollars per month, a claim for rent for the water was made, and the matter was adjusted by the charge for supplying water settling the account for the rent of the lot. And mutual receipts were passed between the parties. This occurred in the winter of 1859. These circumstances seem strongly to corroborate Loomis' version of the contract. No other motive is perceived for the reduction of the price of switching the cars and receipting the account...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Chicago v. Hale
...2 Ill.App. 1502 Bradw. 150THE CHICAGO, BURLINGTON AND QUINCY R. R. CO.v.ALFRED HALE.Appellate Court of ... 146; White v. Clayes, 32 Ill. 325; Umlauf v. 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; ... ...
-
Ramsey v. Tully
...12 Ill.App. 46312 Bradw. 463W. P. RAMSEY ET AL.v.THOMAS TULLY ET AL.Appellate ... 325; Umlauf v. Bassett, 38 Ill. 96; C. & R. I. R. R. Co. v. Coal and Iron Co. 36 Ill. 60; Tolman v. Race, 36 Ill. 472; C. & R. I. R. R. Co ... ...
-
Gale v. William Rector.
...C. & A. R. R. Co. v. Shannon, 43 Ill. 338; First Nat. Bank v. Mansfield, 48 Ill. 494; White v. Clayes, 32 Ill. 325; C. & R. I. R. R. Co. v. Coal & Iron Co., 36 Ill. 60; Umlauf v. Bassett, 38 Ill. 96; Corwith v. Colter 82 Ill. 585. The medical work, being shown to be the standard authority, ......
-
Armour v. Pennsylvania R. Co.
...Co. v. McMath, 91 Ill. 104;Indianapolis, Bloomington & Western Railway Co. v. Rhodes, 76 Ill. 285;Chicago & Rock Island Railroad Co. v. Northern Illinois Coal & Iron Co., 36 Ill. 60. It does not follow, however, that this question must be presented to the court of review by the charge or sp......