Johnson v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.

39 N.W. 242, 75 Iowa 157, 1888 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 288
CourtSupreme Court of Iowa
DecidedSeptember 8, 1888
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 39 N.W. 242 (Johnson v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Johnson v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co., 39 N.W. 242, 75 Iowa 157, 1888 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 288 (iowa 1888).

Opinion

Servers, C. J.

— The only ground of negligence stated in the petition is that defendant’s train which caused the injury was being operated and run at a rate of speed exceeding eight miles an hour. It is provided by statute that any “corporation operating a railroad that fails to fence the same against live stock running at large, at all points where such right to fence exists, shall be liable to the owner of any stock injured or killed by reason of such want of fence, for the value of the property or damage caused, unless the same was caused by the wilful act of the owner or his agent; and in order to recover it shall only be necessary for the owner to prove the injury or destruction of his property: * * * provided, * * * the operating of trains upon depot grounds necessarily used by the company and public, where no such fence is built, at a greater rate of speed than eight miles an hour, shall be deemed negligence, and render the company liable, under this section.” Code, sec. 1289. As the horse killed was not running at large, the material inquiry is whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover under this section. This inquiry must be answered in the negative. It seems to us that it is not possible to construe the statute otherwise. This is what the statute plainly says. The only liability under it is for stock injured or killed which is running at large. Monahan v. Keokuk & Des M. Ry. Co., 45 Iowa, 523. As this view is in accord with the ruling of the district court, the result is that the judgment must be

Aeeirmed.

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

Related

Draffin v. Massey
92 S.E.2d 38 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1956)
Bertram v. Burton
281 P. 892 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1929)
Strever v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.
76 N.W. 513 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1898)
Cohoon v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co.
90 Iowa 169 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1895)
Fawkner v. Lew Smith Wall Paper Co.
55 N.W. 200 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1893)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
39 N.W. 242, 75 Iowa 157, 1888 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 288, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-chicago-northwestern-railway-co-iowa-1888.