Illinois Central Railroad v. Taylor
Illinois Supreme Court
This was an action, brought by Taylor, against the railroad company, to recover the value of a trunk and its contents, lost between Chicago and Galena, the wife of the plaintiff being a passenger, between those places, over the road of appellant.
Read the full summary
This was an action, brought by Taylor, against the railroad company, to recover the value of a trunk and its contents, lost between Chicago and Galena, the wife of the plaintiff being a passenger, between those places, over the road of appellant. There was a motion to suppress the deposition of Catherine Taylor, because she was the wife of the plaintiff; because she was interested in the suit; and because it did not appear that there was no disinterested witness by whom the value of the trunk and contents could be shown. The motion was overruled, and exception taken. The deposition proved the…
1Opinion of the CourtBbeese, J.
We think the general rule is, that a wife can be a witness in all cases in which her husband could be a witness. In this case, the husband would have been a proper witness to prove the contents of the lost trunk, but not, as we have said in Davis v. Michigan Southern and Northern Indiana R. R. Co., 22 Ill. R. 278, to prove the value of the articles, if that could be proved by other testimony, or the value of the trunk. The rule, that the owner of a lost trunk or any such article, shall be allowed to prove its contents, results from the necessity of the case, but must not be carried beyond…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Courtney v. CourtneySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1938
- Strong v. City of Stevens PointWisconsin Supreme Court · 1885
- Freeman v. FreemanIllinois Supreme Court · 1871
- Kirman v. HutchinsonAppellate Court of Illinois · 1929
- Bolkhardt v. EdwardsAppellate Court of Illinois · 1923
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.