Terre Haute & Indianapolis Railroad v. Susannah

Appellate Court of Illinois

Terre Haute & Indianapolis Railroad v. Susannah

60 Ill. App. 111, 1894 Ill. App. LEXIS 648

DecidedJune 3, 1895

StatusPublished

This text of 60 Ill. App. 111 (Terre Haute & Indianapolis Railroad v. Susannah) 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

Terre Haute & Indianapolis Railroad v. Susannah, 60 Ill. App. 111, 1894 Ill. App. LEXIS 648 (Ill. Ct. App. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

Hr. Justice Boggs

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Action by appellee to recover under sections 65, 66, chapter 114, R. S. (S., & C. Statute, Vol. 2, p. 1934), double the cost of repairing fence of appellant company. Cause heard by the court. Judgment v. appellant $100.70. The notice to the company was to repair a fence, and appellant insists that the recovery was for building a new fence. We think not. The company had a fence at the place in question. It was torn down and rebuilt, the necessary new material being added. It is urged that the fence as rebuilt was not suitable and sufficient to turn the animals enumerated in the statute. We have carefully read the evidence. It was not free from conflict, but we incline to agree with the trial court that the preponderance was with the appellee. No other questions are presented. The judgment is affirmed.

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

Hr. Justice Boggs

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Action by appellee to recover under sections 65, 66, chapter 114, R. S. (S., & C. Statute, Vol. 2, p. 1934), double the cost of repairing fence of appellant company. Cause heard by the court. Judgment v. appellant $100.70. The notice to the company was to repair a fence, and appellant insists that the recovery was for building a new fence. We think not. The company had a fence at the place in question. It was torn down and rebuilt, the necessary new material being added. It is urged that the fence as rebuilt was not suitable and sufficient to turn the animals enumerated in the statute. We have carefully read the evidence. It was not free from conflict, but we incline to agree with the trial court that the preponderance was with the appellee. No other questions are presented. The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 Ill. App. 111, 1894 Ill. App. LEXIS 648, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/terre-haute-indianapolis-railroad-v-susannah-illappct-1895.