Union Ry. & Transit Co. v. Shacklet.

• Citation: 10 N.E. 896,119 Ill. 232
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Decision Date: 25 January 1887
• Parties: UNION RAILWAY & TRANSIT CO.v.SHACKLET.

119 Ill. 232
10 N.E. 896

UNION RAILWAY & TRANSIT CO.
v.
SHACKLET.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

January 25, 1887.

Error to appellate court, Fourth district.

Case by Louisa Shacklet, as administratrix of Elijah E. Shacklet, defendant in error, against the Union Railway & Transit Company, plaintiff in error, to recover damages resulting from the death of said Elijah E. Shacklet, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the said company.

No single witness testified as to anything else but that the collision was produced by the gross negligence of the Wabash Railroad. When the case by the same plaintiff against the Wabash Railroad was before the supreme court, (105 Ill. 373,) the court say upon the same or even weaker testimony in favor of the present defendants in error, in speaking of the contributory negligence of the Union Railway & Transit Company: ‘Assuming this to be law, we might content ourselves by saying the affirmance of the judgment below [against the Wabash] by the appellate court conclusively negatives the charge of contributory negligence on the part of the transit company.’

It is shown by the testimony that the engine was the only place to ride, and that all stock-men were carried on the tender. It was a mode of travel established by the company itself. In Ohio & M. Ry. v. Muhling, 30 Ill. 9, the court say: ‘Any one lawfully on the train is entitled to all the protection afforded by the obligations of a carrier of passengers.’ In that case a person was riding on a construction train, and was injured. A drover on a stock train is a passenger. Railroad Co. v. Lockwood, 17 Wall. 357; Indianapolis R. Co. v. Horst, 93 U. S. 291. A carrier is bound to do all that human care, vigilance, and foresight can accomplish, consistent with the mode of conveyance, to render a passenger secure. Tuller v. Talbot, 23 Ill. 37; Pittsburg, C. & St. L. Co. v. Thompson, 56 Ill. 138. And in Wabash, etc., R. Co. v. Shacklet, 105 Ill. 372, the court say that while riding on the tender might be regarded as a circumstance showing contributory negligence on the part of Shacklet, ‘if he had any choice in the matter,’ (page 371,) in a suit against that company, yet, ‘ as between him and the carrier company, he had a right to go there in this manner.’

It is claimed the court erred in admitting the letters of administration, but this is also an objection which must be overruled. The point is that an admitted copy of the letters was improperly received as testimony; but there was no issue upon the subject. The defendant did not specially deny that the plaintiff was the administratrix of her husband, and the general issue admitted that fact. Chicago Legal News Co. v. Browne, 103 Ill. 317. And the copy was good evidence, even if it was necessary to establish the plaintiff's representative character. The act of congress does not confine the mode of proving foreign records to a certified copy, as required by its provisions. It simply enacts that, if a copy shall be authenticated in a prescribed manner, the courts must give it full faith and credit; but, if admitted without that proof, there can be no objection. See 1 Greenl. Ev. § 505.

[119 Ill. 233]

G. & G. A. Koerner, for plaintiff in error.M. Millard, for defendant in error.MULKEY, J.

In the month of September, 1879, Elijah E. Shacklet, the plaintiff's intestate, and his brother Absalom Shacklet, who were shippers and dealers in stock, shipped four car-loads of cattle, by way of the Missouri Pacific Railroad, from Dresden, Missouri, to the National Stock-yards, in East St. Louis. The Missouri Pacific Railroad Company gave through bills of lading for the stock, and stock passes to the shippers. There was a caboose attached to the Missouri Pacific train, in which the Shacklets...