Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. R'y Co. v. Holden

Appellate Court of Illinois

Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. R'y Co. v. Holden

73 Ill. App. 582, 1897 Ill. App. LEXIS 378

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedFebruary 9, 1898

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 73 Ill. App. 582 (Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. R'y Co. v. Holden) 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

Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. R'y Co. v. Holden, 73 Ill. App. 582, 1897 Ill. App. LEXIS 378 (Ill. Ct. App. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Harker

delivered the OPINION OF THE COURT.

In its leading features this case is like The Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company v. S. Q. & E. C. Lamm, post, page 592. For the reasons set forth in the opinion in that case we think the judgment in this case should be affirmed. The Circuit Court was evidently governed by the holding of our Supreme Court in the Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company v. Jenkins, 103 Ill. 588. As we read the opinion in that case, we understand it to be the view of our Supreme Court that the right of demurrage does not attach to carriers by rail; that liens are only created by law or by contract of the parties; that when the law gives no lien, neither party can create it without the consent of the other; and that where a railroad company has established rules providing for demurrage and published them to the public, no such presumption will be indulged against a shipper that he consented to a charge for demurrage because at the time of shipment he understood what the rules were. We are of the opinion that the holding in that case is decisive of this one. Judgment affirmed.

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

Mr. Presiding Justice Harker

delivered the OPINION OF THE COURT.

In its leading features this case is like The Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company v. S. Q. & E. C. Lamm, post, page 592. For the reasons set forth in the opinion in that case we think the judgment in this case should be affirmed. The Circuit Court was evidently governed by the holding of our Supreme Court in the Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company v. Jenkins, 103 Ill. 588. As we read the opinion in that case, we understand it to be the view of our Supreme Court that the right of demurrage does not attach to carriers by rail; that liens are only created by law or by contract of the parties; that when the law gives no lien, neither party can create it without the consent of the other; and that where a railroad company has established rules providing for demurrage and published them to the public, no such presumption will be indulged against a shipper that he consented to a charge for demurrage because at the time of shipment he understood what the rules were. We are of the opinion that the holding in that case is decisive of this one. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 Ill. App. 582, 1897 Ill. App. LEXIS 378, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cleveland-c-c-st-l-ry-co-v-holden-illappct-1898.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack