Toledo v. Ransom Ingraham.
| Decision Date | 31 January 1871 |
| Citation | 58 Ill. 120,1871 WL 7878 |
| Parties | TOLEDO, PEORIA & WARSAW RAILWAY COMPANYv.RANSOM INGRAHAM. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Hancock county; the Hon. JOSEPH SIBLEY, Judge, presiding.
Messrs. MARSH & MARSH, for the appellant.
Messrs. MANIER, PETERSON & MILLER, for the appellee.
This was an action originally commenced before a justice of the peace, by the appellee, to recover for the price and value of a cow, alleged to have been killed by the engine and cars of the appellant. A trial was had before the justice, which resulted in a judgment for the appellee. The appellant removed the cause to the circuit court, where a trial was again had and resulted as before, in a verdict for the appellee. The appellant now brings the cause to this court on appeal, and seeks a reversal of the judgment, on the ground that the evidence does not sustain the finding of the jury. The errors assigned also question the correctness of the rulings of the court in giving and refusing instructions.
The appellant's track was not fenced at the point where the cow was killed. It does not appear that it was the duty of the appellant to erect a fence at that place, and no evidence is offered on that subject. It was sought to recover solely on the ground of negligence on the part of the company and its servants.
The cow was killed on the track, in the night time, near the depot. The evidence shows that the track at that point was perfectly straight for the distance of half a mile either way. It is supposed that a train approaching or just leaving a depot would run slower than the ordinary running speed. The evidence is to the effect that a cow on the track, even in the night, could be distinctly seen, by the aid of the head light, if the engineer was on the lookout, in time to stop the train before reaching it. One witness places the distance at which the cow could be seen by the aid of a good head light, at eighty rods. If the cow could have been seen in time to stop the train and the engine, it was culpable negligence in the servants of the company not to do so, for which the company must be held responsible. Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. Wren, 43 Ill. 77. The evidence offered by the appellee tended to and did prove facts from which the jury might properly infer that the servants of the company recklessly and wilfully destroyed the property of the appellee. That...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Vill. of Gibson v. Johnson
...257; Rockford v. Hildebrand, 61 Ill. 155. An excessive judgment will not always be reversed: Pahlman v. King, 49 Ill. 266; T. & W. R. R. Co. v. Ingraham, 58 Ill. 120; Hewitt v. Jones, 72 Ill. 218. A new trial will not be granted unless clearly against the weight of evidence: Malburn v. Schr......
-
Garland v. Chicago
...Harlan v. St. L. K. & N. R'y Co. 64 Mo. 482. Error in instructions will not always reverse: Hardy v. Keeler, 56 Ill. 152; T. P. & W. R. R. Co. v. Ingraham, 58 Ill. 120; Graves v. Shoefelt, 60 Ill. 462; C. B. & Q. R. R. v. Dickson, 63 Ill. 151; Daily v. Daily, 64 Ill. 329; Burling v. Ill. Ce......
-
The Lake Erie v. Zoffinger
...a whole, the jury have been fairly and sufficiently instructed, the court will not reverse for slight or technical error: T. P. & W. R'y Co. v. Ingraham, 58 Ill. 120; Hardy v. Keeler, 56 Ill. 152; Chicago v. Garrison, 52 Ill. 517; Cusick v. Campbell, 68 Ill. 508; Kightlinger v. Egan, 75 Ill......
-
Preece v. Oregon Short Line R. Co.
...was that the animals were actually upon the track where they might have been seen in time to have avoided the collision. Indeed, in Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Ingraham, the Supreme Court Illinois, in the course of the opinion, said: "The evidence offered by the appellee (the owner of the anima......