State Bank of Chicago v. State

1 Ill. Ct. Cl. 158, 1898 Ill. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 1
CourtCourt of Claims of Illinois
DecidedJanuary 18, 1898
StatusPublished

This text of 1 Ill. Ct. Cl. 158 (State Bank of Chicago v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Claims of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State Bank of Chicago v. State, 1 Ill. Ct. Cl. 158, 1898 Ill. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 1 (Ill. Super. Ct. 1898).

Opinion

This claim was filed in the Auditor’s office, April 22, 1897, by the State Bank of Chicago, a corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Illinois, authorized and empowered, and duly qualified to act as administrator of the estate of Samuel E. Hobson, deceased.

The claim filed in this case, shows, that Samuel E. Hobson came to his death on the 17th day of October, 1895, in the city of Chicago, in the County of Cook, and State of Illinois, and it is claimed by the claimant to have been in the following manner; that is to say, said State of Illinois, acting through and by the South Park Commissioners, were engaged in the work of demolishing and tearing down certain buildings and structures upon the premises lately occupied by the World’s Columbian Exposition, in Jackson Park, in the city of Chicago, aforesaid; and in or about said work, used and permitted to be used, certain dangerous explosives, known as dynamite and nitro-glycerine. That said Jackson Park was a public park, maintained for the use, enjoyment and recreation of the public generally; and that all persons were permitted to assemble and congregate there for pleasure at all times.

That said Samuel E. Hobson was, on the day last above mentioned, rightfully in said park, and was rightfully and properly in the exercise of all due caution, care and prudence, enjoying the same as a public park. That said State of Illinois, acting through and by said South Park Commissioners, in and about the prosecution of said work, wholly failed to use proper care to avoid injury to persons passing through said park, in the vicinity of the place, where said work, was being conducted and where such explosives were being used; and wholly failed to give any notice or warning to said Samuel E. Hobson, who was then and there in said park and near enough to the place where such explosives were being used, to be struck by materials by such explosion. That when such explosives were about to be used, ignited and discharged at the place aforesaid, although .the State of Illinois, through said South Park Commissioners, had full notice that Samuel E. Hobson was in said park, and near said place as aforesaid, wholly failed and neglected to give any warning or notice to persons then in said park, and near the place aforesaid, and to the said Samuel E. Hobson, to withdraw to a place of safety, and after the discharging of such explosives, at about the noon hour, the said State of Illinois, acting through said South Park Commissioners, who were in personal charge of said park, and who caused said explosives to be discharged at the place aforesaid, in said park; and, in consequence of said explosion a large piece or mass of metal was thrown by such explosion, and caused to strike, with great violence and force, the said Samuel E. Hobson, who was then and there in said park, and was then and there in all due exercise of care on his part, and the said Samuel E. Hobson was then and there, greatly bruised, wounded and injured. That he thereafter, on said last mentioned date died by reason of such injuries; whereby this claimant as administrator as aforesaid, and on behalf of the widow and next of kin, has sustained damages to the amount of $5,000.

To this claim, the State files a plea, that it does not owe the said claim or any part thereof, in manner and form as therein alleged; and is in no way indebted to the said claimant, the State Bank of Chicago, administrator of the estate of Samuel E. Hobson, deceased.

It was stipulated by the parties, that- the evidence used at the coroner’s inquest shall be used as the evidence on this hearing; and that the said Samuel E. Hobson left surviving him the following as his only heirs at law and next of kin: Clara Hobson, his widow; Edwin N. Hob-son, his father; Lousadia Hobson, his mother; Beesheba Phillips, Elizabeth Heilwagon and Effie Waller, his sisters; and George L. Hobson, his brother.

The evidence shows in this case, that the Columbia Salvage or Wrecking Company contracted to remove the structures and buildings erected by the World’s Columbian Exposition, in Jackson Park. That the blast that killed Samuel E. Hobson was fired by Bruno Kniffler, a mechanical engineer, in the employ of the said Salvage and Wrecking Company without any permit from Mr. Jacob F. Foster, who was the superintendent for the South Park Commissioners. The use of the dynamite and explosives was prohibited, without the permission of the said superintendent.

And the evidence very clearly shows that Mr. Nusbaum, the superintendent of the Salvage Company, directed Kniffler to use dynamite to wreck the structure of the Machinery Hall building, that they were tearing down; it also shows that he was told before he used the explosives that he must get a permit from Mr. Foster, the superintendent, and he said he would. He did not, however, but directed Kniffler, his engineer, to proceed with his experiment, that of wrecking the Machinery Hall by the use of dynamite.

It is true that Mr. Husbaum testified, that he told Park Officer Ledwith that he was going to use explosives, Thursday noon, and for him to tell Capt. Kelly of the fact, and if Capt. Kelly had any objections, he could notify Kniffler not to proceed. This evidence shows clearly that the Columbia Salvage or Wrecking Company had no permit whatever, from the Park Superintendent, and had no right whatever, to use the explosive in the park and that they did use such explosives entirely on their own responsibility. It also shows that neither the Park Superintendent nor the Park Foreman had any knowledge or notice that the Salvage Company were intending to blast without a permit from the Superintendent.

While it may be true that Ledwith, the Park policeman, was told by Mr. Nusbaum that he was intending to use dynamite to wreck the structure of Machinery Hall, that they were then tearing down, that officer told Nusbaum, that it was necessary to obtain a permit from Mr. Foster, the superintendent of the Park Commissioners, before he had any right to use explosives.

Mr. Dugan, the Park foreman, also informed Mr. Nusbaum, the superintendent of the Salvage Company, that if they were going to do any blasting, it would be necessary for them to get a permit from Mr. Foster the superintendent of the South Park System, and then Mr. Foster could notify him.

Nusbaum’s evidence is to the effect, that he told Park Officer Ledwith that Kniffler was going to use some explosives, Thursday noon, and for him to tell Capt. Kelly of the fact, and if Capt. Kelly had any objections, he would notify Kniffler not to proceed with the experiment.

Thursday noon, about ten o’clock, Park Officer Led-with came into his office and told him, that Superintendent Foster had gone up the road and that if he intended to see him he should do so then. While Mr. Nusbaum does not state what further conversation then took place between him and Ledwith, Ledwith, in his evidence, states, that he told Nusbaum that before he could use any explosives, he must get a permit from Mr. Foster, the superintendent, and Nusbaum said he would.

He also states that he afterwards went down to* see Nusbaum, if he had notified Mr. Foster, and Nusbaum said that he had not, and that he had used explosives before and that the men around had been notified.

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

Related

People ex rel. Wilson v. Salomon
51 Ill. 37 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1869)
Town of Waltham v. Kemper
8 Am. Rep. 652 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1870)
Bussell v. Town of Steuben
57 Ill. 35 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1870)
Tearney v. Smith
86 Ill. 391 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1877)
People ex rel. Dunham v. Morgan
90 Ill. 558 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1878)
Hollenbeck v. County of Winnebago
35 Am. Rep. 151 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1880)
Cooney v. Town of Hartland
95 Ill. 516 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1880)
Dunham v. People ex rel. McCrea
96 Ill. 331 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1880)
Holton v. Daly
106 Ill. 131 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1882)
Elmore v. Drainage Commissioners
25 N.E. 1010 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1890)
Skinner v. Morgan
21 Ill. App. 209 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1886)
Harris v. Carson
40 Ill. App. 147 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1891)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 Ill. Ct. Cl. 158, 1898 Ill. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-bank-of-chicago-v-state-ilclaimsct-1898.