Illinois Central Railroad v. Kanouse

39 Ill. 272
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 15, 1866
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 39 Ill. 272 (Illinois Central Railroad v. Kanouse) 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
Illinois Central Railroad v. Kanouse, 39 Ill. 272 (Ill. 1866).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Breese

delivered the opinion of the Court:

On the 11th of March, 1857, the following agreement was made:

“ This agreement, made at Chicago on the 11th day of March, in the year one thousand eight hundred and fifty-seven, between the Peoria and Oquawka Railroad company, of the first part, and the Illinois Central Railroad company, of the second part, witnesseth:

“ The first party agrees to permit the second party to use so much of its track as lies between the intersection of the two lines of railroad near Panola and the intersection of the lines of the two railroads near Onarga for the passage of its freight trains, and to supply the necessary water for such freight trains during such passage. The first party agrees to keep its track between these points in good repair, and to maintain the necessary supply of water. The times of running said freight trains shall be regulated by the first party’s time-table, and the first party agrees to adjust its time-table in such manner as to afford all due and convenient facility to all such freight trains as the second party shall send upon such line. The first party consents that the second party may use, without compensation, so much of the first party’s railroad as lies between the second party’s main line and the junction with the Chicago, Alton and St. Louis railroad; for the use of the remainder of the first described section of the first party’s road, the second party agrees to pay to the first party one-half of all the money which the second party may receive for the transportation of freight upon the first party’s railroad, or any part thereof, between the second party’s main line and its branch. For the purposes of this agreement it is understood between the parties that the distance between the Chicago, Alton and St. Louis railroad and the Chicago branch of the Illinois Central shall be computed the same distance as between the main line and the branch of the second party’s road. The price of transportation to be fixed by the second party at the same rate which may be charged by the party of the second part for the transportation of freight of like description upon the second party’s railroad; but the first party reserves to itself the right to transact all local business upon its own line of railroad, and the parties hereby agree that the same is not embraced within the scope and spirit of this agreement.

“ The second party shall keep its accounts of said transportation open at reasonable times to tlie inspection of the first party or to its lessees, and shall make monthly payments of the first party’s share of said earnings at the second party’s office at Chicago, either to the trustees of mortgage upon said section of said railroad, or to whomsoever may be thereto lawfully entitled.

“ The second party hereby guarantees that it will annually pay, under the above arrangement, during the whole of said term of twenty-five years, a sum of not less than fifty thousand dollars, and the first party consents that the second party may retain all which it may receive for transportation on the first party’s railroad, beyond the sum of seventy-five thousand dollars per annum. In case the track shall become broken or in disrepair, the first party shall immediately repair the same on notice, and maintain it in good running order; if repairs become necessary before notice can be given, the first party shall repay to said second party such reasonable expenses as it shall incur, either for repairs or the supply of water, or any other necessary purpose.

“ The second party shall supply the fuel required for its own trains, and shall have the right to use the stations and station accommodations of first party’s for the trains which second party is entitled to run over said first mentioned section of first party’s road. This contract shall become binding at the time when the track between the two points shall be open for use, and shall continue for the period of twenty-five years from said time. And whereas, the parties intend that the sum which the second party hereby agrees to pay as rent for its use of the above described section of the first party’s railroad, shall be applied, first, to pay the interest and provide the sinking fund of five hundred (numbered from one to five hundred inclusive) of the seven hundred and fifty bonds of one thousand dollars each, secured by a deed of trust of said sections, of which William H. Osborn and I. ¡Newton Perkins are trustees; the balance of said rent to be applied toward paying the. interest and providing the sinking fund of the balance of said bonds, to which deed reference may be had for a specification of the exact conditions and limitations of said trust. It is, therefore, further agreed that it shall be the privilege of the second party to require that this contract, and all the terms and conditions thereof, shall remain in force after the expiration of the twenty-five years, until all and each of said bonds shall be paid.

“And whereas, Messrs. Creegor, Secor & Co., being contractors for the construction of the above described section of said party’s railroad, have acquired certain interests and privileges therein. Mow these presents witness, that the said Creegor, Secor & Co. become parties to this agreement and give their assent to the same and likewise to the making and delivery of the above named proposed bond and mortgage, so that this agreement and each provision thereof may be carried into full effect after the true intent of the parties.

“ It is hereby expressly understood and agreed that nothing herein shall be construed as conferring upon the second party the right or privilege of transporting upon the first party’s railroad any freight, the point of delivery of which is west of the junction of» said .first party’s road and second party’s main line of road. In case this agreement from any cause fail to give authority to the second party to use any portion as it above guarantees, then the second party shall be required to pay to the first party only a just proportion of its receipts for transportation upon such portion of the first party’s railroad, as it may rightfully use by force of this agreement.

The PEORIA & OQUAWKA R R. CO.

[seal.] By N. B. Curtis, President. '

CREEOOR, SECOR & CO.

CHAS. A. SECOR, 1 By Samuel Oilman, their JAS. F. SECOR, j attorney in fact.

SAME. OILMAN,

W. H. CREEOOR,

TITOS. C. FIELDS,

[III. C. R. R. The ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. R. CO.

Seal.] By W. H. Osborn, President.”

The plaintiff below having had a horse killed by the train of the Illinois Central Railroad company, running on this road under this agreement, brought his action against that company for damages. The declaration was in case under the statute imposing liabilities on railroad companies for killing stock, when the roads are not fenced as the statute requires.

The defendant pleaded not guilty, and gave notice of the above agreement, which was put in evidence.

A trial was had by the court, by consent, without a jury, and a finding for the plaintiff below for one hundred and forty dollars, being the proved value of the horse.

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

Related

Sayre Land Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
196 Pa. Super. 417 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1961)
New York Central Railroad v. Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railway Co.
231 S.W.2d 174 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1950)
Midland Valley R. Co. v. Toomer
1917 OK 101 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1917)
Wichita Falls & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Puckett
157 P. 112 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1915)
Clinger's Admx. v. C. & O. Ry. Co.
109 S.W. 315 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1908)
Richard v. Detroit, Rochester, Romeo & Lake Orion Railway
89 N.W. 52 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1902)
New York, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad v. Luebeck
41 N.E. 897 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1895)
Denver & Rio Grande Railroad v. Sullivan
21 Colo. 302 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1895)
Wisconsin Central Railroad v. Ross
31 N.E. 412 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1892)
Dolan v. Newburgh, Dutchess & Conn. R. R.
24 N.E. 824 (New York Court of Appeals, 1890)
Dolan v. Newburgh, Dutchess & Connecticut Railroad
24 N.E. 824 (New York Court of Appeals, 1890)
Indianapolis & St. Louis Railway Co. v. People
32 Ill. App. 286 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1889)
Lake Erie & Western Railroad v. Cruzen
29 Ill. App. 212 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1888)
Ballou v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.
11 N.W. 559 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1882)
Keep v. Indianapolis & St. Louis R.
9 F. 625 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri, 1881)
Union Trust Co. v. Kendall
20 Kan. 515 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1878)
Leonard v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad
10 Jones & S. 225 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1877)
McGrath v. . N.Y.C. H.R.R.R. Co.
63 N.Y. 522 (New York Court of Appeals, 1876)
McGrath v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad
63 N.Y. 522 (New York Court of Appeals, 1876)
Toledo, Peoria & Warsaw Railway Co. v. Rumbold
40 Ill. 143 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1866)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
39 Ill. 272, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/illinois-central-railroad-v-kanouse-ill-1866.