Legal Opinion

Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Abend

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided August 13, 1880PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Appeal from the City Court of East St. Louis; the Hon. Charles T. Ware, Judge, presiding.

1Per curiam

' The declaration in this case places the right of recovery upon the allegations that by the custom and rules of the company, it was the duty of the deceased to oil and examine his engine at the point in question, and that by reason of the insufficient construction of the bridge and trestle-work, the want of a suitable platform to walk upon, and by reason of spikes projecting above the timbers of the bridge along where deceased must necessarily have walked, he fell to the ground and lost his life.

The accident occurred at a bridge some two and a-half miles north of Alton Junction. This bridge…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Camp Point Manufacturing Co. v. BallouIllinois Supreme Court · 1874
  2. Illinois Central Railroad v. CoxIllinois Supreme Court · 1858
  3. Toledo, Wabash & Western Railway Co. v. EddyIllinois Supreme Court · 1874
  4. Chicago & Northwestern Railroad v. WardIllinois Supreme Court · 1871
  5. Chicago & Alton Railroad v. MunroeIllinois Supreme Court · 1877

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway Co. v. DochertyAppellate Court of Illinois · 1896
  2. Middendorf v. SchulzeAppellate Court of Illinois · 1902

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API