Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad v. Boggess

Appellate Court of Illinois

Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad v. Boggess

21 Ill. App. 336, 1886 Ill. App. LEXIS 653

DecidedNovember 20, 1886

StatusPublished

This text of 21 Ill. App. 336 (Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad v. Boggess) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad v. Boggess, 21 Ill. App. 336, 1886 Ill. App. LEXIS 653 (Ill. Ct. App. 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Cwricm,.

This was an action commenced before a Justice of the Peace, by appellee, for damages for the loss of a colt alleged to have been killed on appellant’s track, through negligence of its servants. On appeal plaintiff recovered judgment on a verdict for $80. He claimed that the colt got upon defendant’s right of way through its negligence in allowing the cattle guards to remain for a long time filled up with and -obscured by snow, and that as the. train approached no danger signal was given. The questions of negligence and its effect were fairly submitted to the jury ; no substantial objections to instructions given are urged. Some were refused, and rightly, because they presented the old rule of contributory negligence and permitted no comparison. There was evidence to support the finding.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Cwricm,.

This was an action commenced before a Justice of the Peace, by appellee, for damages for the loss of a colt alleged to have been killed on appellant’s track, through negligence of its servants. On appeal plaintiff recovered judgment on a verdict for $80. He claimed that the colt got upon defendant’s right of way through its negligence in allowing the cattle guards to remain for a long time filled up with and -obscured by snow, and that as the. train approached no danger signal was given. The questions of negligence and its effect were fairly submitted to the jury ; no substantial objections to instructions given are urged. Some were refused, and rightly, because they presented the old rule of contributory negligence and permitted no comparison. There was evidence to support the finding.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 Ill. App. 336, 1886 Ill. App. LEXIS 653, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chicago-eastern-illinois-railroad-v-boggess-illappct-1886.