Ohio & Mississippi Railway Co. v. Schmidt

Appellate Court of Illinois

Ohio & Mississippi Railway Co. v. Schmidt

47 Ill. App. 383, 1892 Ill. App. LEXIS 105

DecidedMarch 13, 1893

StatusPublished

This text of 47 Ill. App. 383 (Ohio & Mississippi Railway Co. v. Schmidt) 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

Ohio & Mississippi Railway Co. v. Schmidt, 47 Ill. App. 383, 1892 Ill. App. LEXIS 105 (Ill. Ct. App. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Phillips.

The same questions of law and fact are involved in these three cases, they only differing as to amount of damage. The questions involved are precisely similar to those determined by the Supreme Court of this State in O. & M. Ry. Co. v. Webb, 142 Ill. 404. In each of these cases expert evidence was offered by the defendant for the purpose of showing that the deposits which had formed between the Ohio & Mississippi and Vandalia Bail-roads were not caused by the filling up of the trestle, and that they would have formed in the same manner if the trestle had been left open. Objection ivas made to this evidence in each of these three cases, and objection sustained by the court. In O. & M. Ry. Co. v. Webb, administrator, the court held that that evidence should have been admitted, and its rejection was error, for which the judgment in that case was reversed. The rejection of this expert evidence in these three cases was error, and each must be reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Mr. Justice Phillips.

The same questions of law and fact are involved in these three cases, they only differing as to amount of damage. The questions involved are precisely similar to those determined by the Supreme Court of this State in O. & M. Ry. Co. v. Webb, 142 Ill. 404. In each of these cases expert evidence was offered by the defendant for the purpose of showing that the deposits which had formed between the Ohio & Mississippi and Vandalia Bail-roads were not caused by the filling up of the trestle, and that they would have formed in the same manner if the trestle had been left open. Objection ivas made to this evidence in each of these three cases, and objection sustained by the court. In O. & M. Ry. Co. v. Webb, administrator, the court held that that evidence should have been admitted, and its rejection was error, for which the judgment in that case was reversed. The rejection of this expert evidence in these three cases was error, and each must be reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 Ill. App. 383, 1892 Ill. App. LEXIS 105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ohio-mississippi-railway-co-v-schmidt-illappct-1893.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack