Legal Opinion

Rogers v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad

Illinois Supreme Court

Decided May 15, 1886PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Appeal from the Appellate Court for the Second'District;— heard in that court on appeal from the Circuit Court of Mercer county; the Hon. Arthur A. Smith, Judge, presiding.

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Scholfield

This was an action on the case, by appellant, against appellee, for negligence. The declaration alleged that appellant was injured, whilst in the exercise of ordinary- care, by reason of the negligence of the defendant. I-t was therefore incumbent on the appellant to establish this allegation by proof, in order that he should be entitled to recover. (Calumet Iron and Steel Co. v. Martin, 115 Ill. 358, and eases there cited.) In the trial court the jury rendered a verdict in favor of appellant for $1000, and the court, after overruling a motion for a new trial, entered judgment upon that…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Calumet Iron & Steel Co. v. MartinIllinois Supreme Court · 1885

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Huyett & Smith Manufacturing Co. v. Chicago Edison Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1897
  2. Caywood v. FarrellIllinois Supreme Court · 1898
  3. Weeks v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1902
  4. Jansen v. SiddalAppellate Court of Illinois · 1891
  5. Laughlin v. NortonIllinois Supreme Court · 1915

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

Powered by the Exa API