East St. Louis & Carondelet Ry. Co. v. Frazier
Appellate Court of Illinois
Error to the City Court of East St. Louis; the Hon. Wm. P. Launtz, Judge, presiding.
1Opinion of the CourtPillsbuev, P. J.
The court held properly in refusing the second instruction asked by defendant for two reasons: First, it contains a direction to the jury to find for [the defendant generally, if they find the one issue of fact in its favor, the condition of the bolt which broke, entirely ignoring the issues made upon the first and second counts of the declaration. The issues were presented whether the bolt was broken by the negligence of the engineer, and if so whether he occupied such a. relation to the plaintiff as constituted them fellow servant; within the rule prevailing in this State. Other issues may…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- City of Freeport v. IsbellIllinois Supreme Court · 1876
- Adams v. SmithIllinois Supreme Court · 1871
- Wolcott v. HeathIllinois Supreme Court · 1875
- Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. SykesIllinois Supreme Court · 1880
- Wilson v. BaumanIllinois Supreme Court · 1875
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Chicago & St. Louis Railroad v. AshlingAppellate Court of Illinois · 1889
- East St. Louis & Carondelet Railway Co. v. FrazierAppellate Court of Illinois · 1888