Delta Electric Co. v. Whitcamp

Appellate Court of Illinois

Delta Electric Co. v. Whitcamp

58 Ill. App. 141, 1894 Ill. App. LEXIS 540

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedMarch 23, 1895

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 58 Ill. App. 141 (Delta Electric Co. v. Whitcamp) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 Ill. App. 141, 1894 Ill. App. LEXIS 540, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/delta-electric-co-v-whitcamp-illappct-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack