Village of Altamont v. Baltimore
Illinois Supreme Court
Appeal from the Appellate Court for the Fourth. District;—heard in that court on appeal from the Circuit Court of Effingham county; the Hon. William M. Farmer, Judge, presiding.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Appellate Court for the Fourth. District;—heard in that court on appeal from the Circuit Court of Effingham county; the Hon. William M. Farmer, Judge, presiding. This was an action of debt, brought in the circuit court of Effingham county by the village of Altamont, against the Baltimore and Ohio Southwestern Railway Company, to recover $100 per day for a failure to place and maintain watchmen at the street crossing in the village of Altamont designated in the pleadings as East and West Center street and East and West Maple street. The action was instituted under paragraph 99…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Craig
Paragraph 99 of the Railroad act, (Hurd’s Stat. 1895, p. 1205,) under which the action was brought, provides: “In all cases where the public authorities having charge of any street over which there shall be a railroad crossing shall notify any agent of the corporation owning, using or operating such railroad, that a flagman is necessary at such crossing, it shall be the duty of such railroad company, within sixty days thereafter, to pláce and retain a flagman at such crossing.” The paragraph further provides that any railroad company refusing or neglecting to place flagmen as required shall…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Chicago & Northern Pacific Railroad v. City of ChicagoIllinois Supreme Court · 1898
- Illinois Central Railroad v. GilbertIllinois Supreme Court · 1895
3Cited by24 opinions
- Van Hovenberg v. HolmanSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1940
- Hawks v. BlandSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1932
- State ex rel. Davis v. Board of CommissionersIndiana Supreme Court · 1905
- Steward v. RustSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1952
- Village of Gulfport v. BuettnerAppellate Court of Illinois · 1969
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.