The Ill. Cent. R.R. Co. v. Maffit
Decision Date | 31 January 1873 |
Citation | 1873 WL 8230,67 Ill. 431 |
Parties | THE ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANYv.DAVID A. MAFFIT. |
Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Macon county; the Hon. A. J. GALLAGHER, Judge, presiding.
The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the court. The instructions given for the plaintiff, referred to, are as follows:
Messrs. NELSON & ROBY, for the appellant.
Messrs. CREA & EWING, and Mr. A. B. BUNN, for the appellee.
This was an action on the case, brought by appellee, in the Macon circuit court, against appellant, for personal injury and loss of property, alleged to have been occasioned by appellant in running a locomotive and train of cars against appellee's wagon, killing and crippling his horses and destroying the wagon, etc. The declaration was in the usual form. Appellant pleaded not guilty, and the case was tried by the court and a jury, the trial resulting in a verdict in favor of appellee for $450.
The court, after overruling a motion for a new trial, rendered a judgment on the verdict, and the case is brought to this court on appeal. The errors assigned question the correctness of the instructions given for appellee, and it is insisted they misled the jury to the finding of an erroneous verdict.
This is the second of appellee's instructions:
“If the jury believe, from the evidence, that an engine of defendant struck a wagon of the plaintiff, in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Morris v. Gleason
...Co. v. Murray, 62 Ill. 326; C. B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Van Patten, 64 Ill. 510; St. L. & S. E. R. R. Co. v. Britz, 72 Ill. 256; I. C. R. R. Co. v. Maffit, 67 Ill. 431. That negligence is a question for the jury under the circumstances of each particular case, and an instruction which tells the......
-
The Chicago v. Sykes
...R. Co. v. Murray, 62 Ill. 326; I. C. R. R. Co. v. Waddlesworth, 43 Ill. 66; St. L. & A. etc. R. R. Co. v. Manly, 58 Ill. 306. I. C. R. R. Co. v. Maffit, 67 Ill. 431; I. C. R. R. Co. v. Hammer, 72 Ill. 347; R. R. I. & St. L. R. R. Co. v. Hillmer, 72 Ill. 235; C. B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Triplett......
-
The Vill. of Gibson v. Johnson
...R. R. Co. v. Pondrom, 51 Ill. 333; C. B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Dunn, 52 Ill. 451; Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Baches, 55 Ill. 379; Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Maffitt, 67 Ill. 431; R. R. I. & St. L. R. R. Co. v. Delaney, 82 Ill. 198; C. B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Triplett, 38 Ill. 482. Where the negligence o......
-
The Vill. of Warren v. Wright
... 3 Ill.App. 602 3 Bradw. 602 THE VILLAGE OF WARREN v. JOHN W. WRIGHT. Appellate ... Johnson, 22 Ill. 633; Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. v. McKee, 43 Ill 19; City of Bloomington v. Goodrich, 10 ... 326; Baldwin v. Killian, 63 Ill. 550; Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Maffit, 67 Ill. 431; C. & A. R. R. Co. v. Mock, 72 Ill. 141. Messrs. D. & T. J ... ...