The Ill. Cent. R.R. Co. v. Waters
| Decision Date | 30 April 1866 |
| Citation | 41 Ill. 73,1866 WL 4539 |
| Parties | THE ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANYv.NELSON T. WATERS. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Iroquois county; the Hon. CHARLES R. STARR, Judge, presiding.
This was an action on the case brought in the court below by Nelson T. Waters, against the Illinois Central Railroad Company, as a common carrier, for injury to a lot of cattle, resulting from delay in transportation.
A trial resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $290, and judgment was entered accordingly, from which the company took this appeal.
So much of the case as is necessary to an understanding of the questions decided, will be found in the opinion of the court.
Messrs. WOOD & LONG and Mr. GEORGE C. CAMPBELL, for the appellant. Mr. T. LYLE DICKEY, for the appellee.
This was an action on the case brought in the Iroquois Circuit Court by Nelson T. Waters, against the Illinois Central Railroad company, as a common carrier, for neglecting to carry forty-four head of cattle from Loda to Chicago, and detaining them in the cars on the track at Loda one night.
The proof shows, the cattle were put on the cars in time for the regular night train, with the knowledge of the station agent; and that, soon after they were put on, two cattle trains of defendants passed the station without stopping to take those cars. This was between ten and eleven o'clock at night.
The cattle remained on the cars all night, when plaintiff took them out and drove them home.
They were considerably injured by remaining in the cars, the extent of which was left to the jury, on the evidence.
The only question is one of damages. The appellants make the point, that, after the trains had passed without taking the plaintiff's cattle, he should then have unloaded them if it was the intention of the owner not to allow appellants to complete the carriage, and the company would have been liable only for the expenses of loading and unloading, which would have been about twelve dollars, and for such other damages as the cattle might have sustained, and that there was nothing to prevent the unloading “except simply to help roll the cars along to the shute,” and if this had been done the cattle would have suffered no appreciable damage, and by not doing this the appellee was guilty of negligence. The appellants press this point with apparent earnestness and confidence, but we are unable to discover its force.
It is rather too much for a railroad company, whose agent has neglected his duty, which it appears this agent did, by not signaling the cars to stop, to require a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- The Wabash v. Black
-
The Chicago v. Harmon
...the consequence of negligence: Galena v. Chicago U. R. R. Co. & Rae, 18 Ill. 488; Am. M. U. Ex. Co. v. Schier, 55 Ill. 141; I. C. R. R. Co. v. Waters, 41 Ill. 73. If the cars were unfit or unsafe vehicles, carrier would be responsible, even although there was an agreement that it should not......
-
Indianapolis v. William Juntgen.
...Frankenburg, 54 Ill. 88; C. & N. W. R. R. Co. v. N. L. P. Co. 70 Ill. 217; I. & St. L. R. R. Co. v. Herndon, 81 Ill. 143; Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Waters, 41 Ill. 73; St. L. & S. E. R. R. Co. v. Dorman, 72 Ill. 504; K. P. R. R. Co. v. Nichols, 9 Kan. 235. The carrier is excused only by uncon......
-
Kansas & Arkansas Valley Railroad Co. v. Ayers
...regular train, and notice given to the company's agent, the company is liable for damage occasioned by not forwarding them by that train. 41 Ill. 73; 67 Am. Dec. 215, and HUGHES, J. BATTLE, J., dissents. OPINION HUGHES, J., (after stating the facts.) Where the facts are undisputed, the reas......