North Chicago Street Railway Co. v. Hudson

Appellate Court of Illinois

North Chicago Street Railway Co. v. Hudson

44 Ill. App. 60, 1891 Ill. App. LEXIS 589

DecidedMarch 4, 1892

StatusPublished

This text of 44 Ill. App. 60 (North Chicago Street Railway Co. v. Hudson) 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

North Chicago Street Railway Co. v. Hudson, 44 Ill. App. 60, 1891 Ill. App. LEXIS 589 (Ill. Ct. App. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Gary, J.

This is an action by the appellee to recover the value of a horse lost by the effect of having his foot caught in the crossing of the track of appellant and the track of the Chicago & Northwestern Railway. We are constrained to reverse the judgment because of the admission, over the objection and exception of the appellant, of evidence of other accidents at the same place while the crossing was in the same condition. The cases conflict as to whether such evidence is admissible. Morse v. Minn. & St. L. Ry., 30 Minn. 465. But this court is committed to the doctrine that it is not. Kolb v. Chicago Stamping Co., 33 Ill. App. 488; Chicago Anderson Pressed Brick Company v. Reinninger, 41 Ill. App. 324.

Whatever inference in favor of the admissibility of such evidence in general, might be drawn from City of Chicago v. Powers, 42 Ill. 169, in Hodges v. Bearse, 129 Ill. 87, is fairly rebutted.

The judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed mid remanded.

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

Gary, J.

This is an action by the appellee to recover the value of a horse lost by the effect of having his foot caught in the crossing of the track of appellant and the track of the Chicago & Northwestern Railway. We are constrained to reverse the judgment because of the admission, over the objection and exception of the appellant, of evidence of other accidents at the same place while the crossing was in the same condition. The cases conflict as to whether such evidence is admissible. Morse v. Minn. & St. L. Ry., 30 Minn. 465. But this court is committed to the doctrine that it is not. Kolb v. Chicago Stamping Co., 33 Ill. App. 488; Chicago Anderson Pressed Brick Company v. Reinninger, 41 Ill. App. 324.

Whatever inference in favor of the admissibility of such evidence in general, might be drawn from City of Chicago v. Powers, 42 Ill. 169, in Hodges v. Bearse, 129 Ill. 87, is fairly rebutted.

The judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed mid remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 Ill. App. 60, 1891 Ill. App. LEXIS 589, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/north-chicago-street-railway-co-v-hudson-illappct-1892.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack