Peoria & Pekin Union Railway Co. v. United States Rolling Stock Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois

Peoria & Pekin Union Railway Co. v. United States Rolling Stock Co.

36 Ill. App. 552, 1890 Ill. App. LEXIS 94

DecidedMay 31, 1890

StatusPublished

This text of 36 Ill. App. 552 (Peoria & Pekin Union Railway Co. v. United States Rolling Stock Co.) 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

Peoria & Pekin Union Railway Co. v. United States Rolling Stock Co., 36 Ill. App. 552, 1890 Ill. App. LEXIS 94 (Ill. Ct. App. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is the same case reported in 28 Ill. App. 79.

On the trial of the case below, the claim for car 3043 was not delivered. The allowance of this claim on the former trial was error, and for that alone the judgment was reversed and the cause remanded. There has been some little change in the stipulation, so as to show more clearly the relationship of appellees and the receiver of the Chicago, Pekin & Southwestern R. R. Co. in respect to the cars in question. Otherwise the proof is substantially the same as it was when the case was here before. We do not think that the change in the stipulation makes any material difference in the principle upon which the case was decided. As we said in our former opinion, we think the Supreme Court has substantially settled the law applicable to the case in favor of appellees’ contention. Appellant v. C., R. I. & P. R. R. Co., 109 Ill. 136.

Having passed on the main questions here involved, when it was here on a former occasion, we do not feel at liberty to change our ruling, since the judgment of the Circuit Court is in conformity thereto.

The judgment of the court below is therefore affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Judge Smith dissents, and says he does not think the case in 109 Ill. controls this case, and that the case is materially different in its facts from what it was when it was here before.

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

Per Curiam.

This is the same case reported in 28 Ill. App. 79.

On the trial of the case below, the claim for car 3043 was not delivered. The allowance of this claim on the former trial was error, and for that alone the judgment was reversed and the cause remanded. There has been some little change in the stipulation, so as to show more clearly the relationship of appellees and the receiver of the Chicago, Pekin & Southwestern R. R. Co. in respect to the cars in question. Otherwise the proof is substantially the same as it was when the case was here before. We do not think that the change in the stipulation makes any material difference in the principle upon which the case was decided. As we said in our former opinion, we think the Supreme Court has substantially settled the law applicable to the case in favor of appellees’ contention. Appellant v. C., R. I. & P. R. R. Co., 109 Ill. 136.

Having passed on the main questions here involved, when it was here on a former occasion, we do not feel at liberty to change our ruling, since the judgment of the Circuit Court is in conformity thereto.

The judgment of the court below is therefore affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Judge Smith dissents, and says he does not think the case in 109 Ill. controls this case, and that the case is materially different in its facts from what it was when it was here before.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 Ill. App. 552, 1890 Ill. App. LEXIS 94, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peoria-pekin-union-railway-co-v-united-states-rolling-stock-co-illappct-1890.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack