Hines v. Woodson
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern Division of the Southern District of Illinois. Action at law by Orion A. Woodson against Walker D. Hines, Director General of Railroads. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
Read the full summary
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern Division of the Southern District of Illinois. Action at law by Orion A. Woodson against Walker D. Hines, Director General of Railroads. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Defendant in error, herein called plaintiff, for 13 years part owner of a 10-acre tract of land and lessee for the same time of the land of the coplaintiff (dismissed out of this cuso), obtained a judgment against plaintiff in error, Director General of Railroads, herein called defendant, on the charge that defendant had wrongfully and…
1Opinion of the CourtPage, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). [1] 1. Defendant contends that the Director General of Railroads neither built the bridge nor had any notice of its insufficiency, and therefore cannot be held liable for damages. We are of opinion that the courts of Illinois have determined this question in accordance with defendant’s contention.
Plaintiff’s urge is that in Groff v. Ankenbrandt, 124 Ill. 51, 15 N. E. 40, 7 Am. St. Rep. 342, the only question was the sufficiency of one count of the declaration, which did not allege that defendant erected the levee. In this, we think that counsel is in error.…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Lambert v. AlcornIllinois Supreme Court · 1893
- Worthley v. BurbanksIndiana Supreme Court · 1897
- Groff v. AnkenbrandtIllinois Supreme Court · 1888
- Rose v. City of FarmingtonIllinois Supreme Court · 1902
- Ribordy v. MurrayIllinois Supreme Court · 1898
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Edwards v. AtchisonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1926
- Wabash Ry. Co. v. WoodsonCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1922