The Ill. Cent. R.R. Co. v. Catharine Grabill.

• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: BREESE
• Citation: The Ill. Cent. R.R. Co. v. Catharine Grabill., 50 Ill. 241, 1869 WL 5213 (Ill. 1869)
• Decision Date: 31 January 1869
• Parties: THE ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANYv.CATHARINE GRABILL.

50 Ill. 241

1869 WL 5213 (Ill.)

THE ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY

v.CATHARINE GRABILL.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

January Term, 1869.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Ford county; the Hon. A. J. GALLAGHER, Judge, presiding.

The facts in this case are fully presented in the opinion of the court.

Messrs. WOOD & LONG, for the appellants.

Messrs. COLER & SMITH, for the appellee. Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE BREESE delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was an action on the case, brought to the Champaign Circuit Court, by Catharine Grabill, against the Illinois Central Railroad Company, to recover damages for the disturbance of her enjoyment of certain premises owned and occupied by her in the city of Urbana, caused by the negligent, careless and improper manner in which the defendants kept and maintained a certain cattle pen, which they had erected near her premises--they permitting dead carcasses of cattle and hogs to remain in it until they had become rotten and putrid, and suffering filth to accumulate in it and remain an unnecessary length of time, by which, noxious and poisonous smells and stenches were generated, to her great discomfort and inconvenience, and rendering her premises unwholesome and uninhabitable; and further, by suffering pools of foul and stinking water to stand in and about the pen, producing noxious vapors, spreading to her premises, and greatly injuring her in the enjoyment of them.

The venue in the case was changed to the county of Ford, where a trial was had by jury, resulting in a verdict for the plaintiff of $650 in damages. A motion for a new trial was made by defendants and overruled, and judgment rendered on the verdict.

To reverse this judgment, the defendants appeal to this court.

Appellants make two principal points, the first being, that the judgment cannot stand upon any evidence contained in the record, for the reason that appellants, in the use of this cattle pen, were following their legitimate and lawful business, and that the annoyances and injuries of which complaint is made, are only such as individuals are frequently obliged to suffer, without redress, being, as they are, of minor importance compared to the general good which springs from the cause of which the plaintiff complains. There is no complaint in the declaration, of annoyance by the running of engines, the escape of steam or otherwise, near her premises. Such consequences of the construction and use of railroads must be borne by all living near them, without complaint and without hope of redress, for they are inseparable from the purposes and objects of such structures. But that a recovery can and should be had for such damages as arise out of the careless or negligent acts of a railroad company in regard to any usual and necessary appurtenance to their road, cannot be denied. Like an individual, such companies are responsible in damages for specific acts of wrong. The maxim, “use your own property, so as not to injure another,” is quite as applicable to corporations of this character as to individuals, except so far as the law creating them may have granted to them immunity.

Appellants, it must be conceded, had no immunity by their charter, or any particular privilege to do and permit the acts complained of in the declaration. In regard to them, they being acts of negligence and carelessness, in a matter respecting which the law would bind individuals to great care and prudence, a railroad corporation would be equally bound. We take no note of the charge in the declaration of annoyances caused by the shouting and noises made by those having charge of such stock as were placed in the pen, for they were not in a position to be controlled by the company or their agents. Should they, as they doubtless did, by their vociferous and rough conduct, outrage the decencies and proprieties of life, the company could not be held responsible, not having this control. It is the misfortune of the plaintiff's particular locality, that she is exposed to such annoyances, but they must be borne, the company, by its agents, not being supposed to encourage them.

On the point of negligence in...