Delta Electric Co. v. Whitcamp

58 Ill. App. 141, 1894 Ill. App. LEXIS 540
Appellate Court of Illinois·Decided March 23, 1895·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Mr. Justice Sample

delivered the opinion oe the Court.

The appellee has filed no brief and therefore this cause might be reversed under rule 31 of this court. We have examined the record and find the facts to be, the mule of appellee, which was injured in the collision, was trespassing on appellant’s track. Under this state of facts, the law is the defendant was not liable for the injury unless, first, the act was willful or wanton, or second, that after the animal was discovered to be on the track, the servants of the defendant were negligent. T. P. & W. Ry. Co. v. Barlow, 71 Ill. 640; I. C. R. R. Co. v. Noble, 142 Ill. 578; I. C. R. R. Co. v. Beard, 49 Ill. App. 232. The evidence does not justify a finding against appellant under this view of the law. The judgment is therefore reversed.

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

Delta Electric Co. v. Whitcamp, 58 Ill. App. 141, 1894 Ill. App. LEXIS 540 (Ill. Ct. App. 1895).

58 Ill. App. 141 (Delta Electric Co. v. Whitcamp) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Borah v. Southern Railway Co.
206 Ill. App. 313 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1917)
St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad v. Zachary
2 Indian Terr. 536 (Court Of Appeals Of Indian Territory, 1899)
Chicago & Alton R. R. v. Patterson & Johnson
72 Ill. App. 428 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1897)