Ohio & Mississippi Ry. Co. v. O'Donnell

Appellate Court of Illinois

Ohio & Mississippi Ry. Co. v. O'Donnell

26 Ill. App. 348, 1887 Ill. App. LEXIS 256

DecidedNovember 18, 1887

StatusPublished

This text of 26 Ill. App. 348 (Ohio & Mississippi Ry. Co. v. O'Donnell) 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 Ry. Co. v. O'Donnell, 26 Ill. App. 348, 1887 Ill. App. LEXIS 256 (Ill. Ct. App. 1887).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Ov/riam.

Action on the case against the railway company for negligence in running its train, whereby plaintiff’s cow was billed; for which he recovered judgment below on a verdict for $55 damages.

There seems to be nothing here for our consideration but a question of fact, whether the negligence charged was sufficiently proved. Enough appeared to warrant a finding that at the time of the accident the train, was running backward, on a considerable curve, in a city, and at a rate of speed forbidden by its ordinance. These facts would make a prima facie case under the statute. The jury believed it was not: overcome. All the instructions asked on behalf of the defendant were given, and we see no reason to expect a different result from another trial.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Ov/riam.

Action on the case against the railway company for negligence in running its train, whereby plaintiff’s cow was billed; for which he recovered judgment below on a verdict for $55 damages.

There seems to be nothing here for our consideration but a question of fact, whether the negligence charged was sufficiently proved. Enough appeared to warrant a finding that at the time of the accident the train, was running backward, on a considerable curve, in a city, and at a rate of speed forbidden by its ordinance. These facts would make a prima facie case under the statute. The jury believed it was not: overcome. All the instructions asked on behalf of the defendant were given, and we see no reason to expect a different result from another trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 Ill. App. 348, 1887 Ill. App. LEXIS 256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ohio-mississippi-ry-co-v-odonnell-illappct-1887.