Chicago, St. Paul & Fond du Lac Railroad v. McCarthy

20 Ill. 385
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
DecidedApril 15, 1858
StatusPublished
Cited by25 cases

This text of 20 Ill. 385 (Chicago, St. Paul & Fond du Lac Railroad v. McCarthy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Illinois Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Chicago, St. Paul & Fond du Lac Railroad v. McCarthy, 20 Ill. 385 (Ill. 1858).

Opinion

Breese, J.

The evidence discloses a case of great negligence on the part of the contractors of this company, on whom the responsibility is attempted to be shifted.

To railroad companies are granted extraordinary privileges, and they must be held so to exercise them as to do the least possible amount of injury to others. The maxim, “ sic utere tuo ut alienum non Icedas,” well applies.

The contractors are the servants of the company, and authorized by law, being such servants, to enter upon the defendant’s land and take down his fences, if necessary; but the company must be responsible, for the consequences of the act. The contractors have no right there, except through the grant to the company, and of course are the servants and agents of the company in doing that particular work. Their tortious acts are properly chargeable to the company. The instructions given on behalf of plaintiff below were proper.

We see no difference in principle between this case and Hinde et al. v. Wabash Nav. Co., 15 Ill. 72, and accordingly affirm the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Southern Ry. Co. v. Hussey
42 F.2d 70 (Eighth Circuit, 1930)
Rooker v. Lake Erie & Western Railroad
114 N.E. 998 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1917)
Monson v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.
181 Iowa 1354 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1916)
Devine v. Illinois Telephone Construction Co.
159 Ill. App. 600 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1911)
Peters v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad
131 S.W. 917 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1910)
Clinger's Admx. v. C. & O. Ry. Co.
109 S.W. 315 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1908)
White v. Peoples Railway Co.
72 A. 1059 (Superior Court of Delaware, 1907)
Patterson v. Kates
152 F. 481 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania, 1907)
Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. v. Haas
56 S.E. 313 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1906)
Boyd v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.
75 N.E. 496 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1905)
Boyd v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.
118 Ill. App. 433 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1905)
Chicago & Grand Trunk Ry. Co. v. Hart
104 Ill. App. 57 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1902)
North Chicago Street Railroad v. Dudgeon
56 N.E. 796 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1900)
Denver & R. G. R. v. Rodder
100 F. 738 (Ninth Circuit, 1900)
Metropolitan West Side El. R. R. v. Dick
87 Ill. App. 40 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1900)
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Satterfield
34 Ill. App. 386 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1889)
East Line & Red River Railway Co. v. Culberson
10 S.W. 706 (Texas Supreme Court, 1888)
Lakin v. Willamette Valley & Coast Railroad
11 P. 68 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1886)
Springfield & Memphis Railway Co. v. Henry
44 Ark. 360 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1884)
Arasmith v. Temple
11 Ill. App. 39 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1882)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
20 Ill. 385, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chicago-st-paul-fond-du-lac-railroad-v-mccarthy-ill-1858.