Illinois Appellate Court.

Illinois Appellate Court Unpublished Opinions: first series (Volume Ill. App.v.279) online

. (page 80 of 91)
Online LibraryIllinois Appellate CourtIllinois Appellate Court Unpublished Opinions: first series (Volume Ill. App.v.279) → online text (page 80 of 91)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

to iauesm t aeioiVlu^. b eriots'zeiU fsrft &tfi ^zetnaso noe^xia e^e
fi9fled^a£»l rfoMw a«?fJ;q8 sitt ceBooI o;>^ ?^ocf tzedt xd boiiexs asw ©010 1
Bei^s^lqloeag eiefw £L.1ocf yew r fsie bae *oslicpj ricfTon aritf

belimn eevr le^aixtBcT •liit'. variJ- oollaaqs to -^j^oeri* 9rf;t si 0':.
rfd-tfoa s.U' to ei>la;fi;/r . ,i[;t r>J- Baa .tcfj^XtcfU xfcfioa edi to eBlsni erfif oct
-c^iq ©'C9*T iHoiteieriJ ne^lijj- aXit\n 6aa T»d'a.tT( ,3Jrf.viigir oriT ,«n
mod oalij ©t al x^rf"? .jseilc^ beninLoxo ^^3^1 =3 rf" ^•^y J-ali;f edJ cfa Ijaoi.
fie7.o6,tanoo ^ ":.-> mtioecanl luo lot ;fiwoo pAdit oi beitl^ie

B jarnt '-.'im (-. roo..^^ aj;fi;t al •\fnom.t*3sd' »df S,' - '■ il edS as. marf

9ti& tBd:i Y^a o;f sldBOis eta ew ,8on0&J:v "c:! or iiBioblaa.' t

ai: mjii ,aallaqq p.'^o yX'^'-'.'^^ ?!di T^aliqpbp. itvxiBv i-on 8sw y^v-

ooasjsiljj^a ©43- to •^Jliinv al * cTadJ x'^^i. s^^ "^d giiifealt odj
8i> 9on83J:Ia»xi •^'lotfirdiitnoo rfowe utott aeit selleqqB baa f)esajStfo
,eoxi3f)JtT3 Id&jEPV Bilil' i-anxass xX^raetlasfa "^svcosi )JCj/ow

ni eofl«6xv3 siU lie dtstnoX Ob .'sr^^t o»*- Y^saeeo snni; ai .tl

to isd-ainsd br ? oris- to aoiJiJ&tiuo ©rf 6iooei aii~i

ed-fi^ra r;^ ^fnsioitii/a 2: a. .taeblooa edi to oflii:;f sriJ J^s ©s;)iT:d
-sat agiiiicf ei/ii- b9e20'io b^ii sri j- arfo bslticfaeJ- flJooLeJ blotBli -i>;iJ
«v. - i' .' :" ■ .; f '!»IDV9B tot Y-^J-xiei/jg

ecf yX'2" :qj- a^:? isy'^xc.-^c ?ri,T , .xioJ&iipo ■•^. exif o^ loi-iq

arid" 5as flsftoi sievr ■.■i..'V;t rita ^nB a^d^taqy:; aaj 7 .?^iv a.fjj -^j-axfn aiew
.bQ\&9&b oiQ^ •xe*?iiiJ3r' - - "^ -t teXign ©lew aJrisi-jq;; ©d*, ©^.qx*? Bxeii-ioo
:iad-ta cr-r-^- :- .^.,-^., fieaiiffBx© c' " ^ ^©iti;J-e&:t Xot:ioO elxfcJ

right "rotten enougji so that a part of the top came ff with the
end of the railing". Cj varies etkins stated that he frequently-
crossed brid.^e and at various times he put his hand on the r ail
and notice that it was rotten '-here it vTas nailed to the top of tlE
uprights. Orie Jihben, Roy H-ayes and C>eorge Jibben liVo\.lse testi-
fied as to the ts and banister which they described as rotten
or decayed end also as to the rusty nails taken tlierefroa. One of
th so v/itnesses, Hayes, described the top of the south upright and
the south end of the banister as bein^ "plenty rotten". To over~
come this testimony appellant introduced a number f vatnesses
whose evidence tended to prove that the lu:i'ber used at the time the
bridge "as built was in >;ood c ndition and the bridge properly con-
structed. That it apr^eared to be a substantial bridge cina <Jesse
Higgins, appellant's street comffiission'' r, examined it in i.pril, 1932
and no portion of the banister or UT.^rishts appeared to the nfiked
eye to be decayed or rotten at tliat time. Other witnesses tc;::tlfied
that as they crossed the bridge it did not wobble or v/eave, the
banister appeared to bo in r.ood condition and they did not observe
that either the bcriister or upri.^hts were not svhstant ial, "Sith
the record in this condition, it vras peculiarly the province of the
jury to determine the facts and in the absence of erroneous rulings
of the trial court, either in the admission or rejection of evidence
or upai irstructicTis as to the lar^, this court would not be warranted
in interferin:?: vfith the findings of the jury.

In -this connection counsel for appellant insists that re-

to embody
versible error was conmiitted by the trial court in refusin.^the

following in. its instructions: "That the r)laintiff cannot recover

in this case unless the jury find by a preponderance of the

evidence that the defendant had notice, either actual or constructive

- 6 -

oaa x.u7_ .iiicu qor^ ••sdcr lo ^Tiar.-j 3 J-Bxli oB ^yisom no-' ■'-■■'■ trisln

JLlBiodi ac bn sii esr.iid" asjoliBV ur; ^^ aj-biarf airt)' Jiasaoic

al:* "" - ' ./.±j..: 3BW 3^1 siariv; a&^t&oi rsw tl Jfirft asi^on f^i

-idcv -acfdiT, 9j?ad©{) fiiifl es^nR -^oF ,neflfcriT. etir .- fr. 'r^r,,

flsJj-o-i. .•- ;^<.,, ^.-.aft yerfi*- do.rriw leialdBd 6ae e*rf"^J:Trr):r sriw .„ c.^ ,;:...

io snO .icDilsieifi jcie.>i£s* a Ilea ^ax/i eif;J- o* e>; obXs fcffc 5©yj80^5 rK

Sob *£i>vcTg.rr rfjuoc arl;f lo qod" srlcf bodiioaefi ,aeYflR ,a©Re«n:;tJ:w oa ri^

-•levo 0.- . ' 'f^..f .ro-v v.TCf^, Vf" jniscf bb lec^-elflflcf ftrf.t "io fin© ri^xroa e^-:

aeaaen?!.. „ : „.- : beoi/fioicfiiJ: ititallaqcr-?. YXiotalcrae t cixl^f emo^

-noo xLieqoiq ^6ii«f eri^ Bn.o floxJ-ion-o fif ;:•":■,■ ^j-iiucf r2.or 3;.:-.l-

9386^ on. '-. .'iicf IsldTtSvtacfi/a s sdf o;)' fi^isoocfs fj J Brfj' .. : ::
SSei «Ii'i<:i fix cfx bensiBxe ,i -^nolaalatmoo -Jcieiif^ a 'Jnallocrqe < i1

£>92isn aritf od" fici.- : a- .?;*■ .fe lijif io la^taJtxtjscf eri;t ^o ixoid-ioqr on bi-
Jboi*!!:!? .;aj aoEaonJ.^ .nmit ^Bricf Jb ns^'Jcx ic b&^Boob od od- evi

offj ,: ■:,>-; ■ ■■■■ eicid - ion bib ii sgbAirf s ricT bsasoio X'-^di as &q
gvtaa bib YSJEi^^ ft^s noi-tibnoo fxr-o ; ni od ct beiaeqqa i&^aini:

beiaaiiBm 3cf cfoH olirow Jiimo eld& , :otrT;fan:

-31 *MjC a* a leaauDO aol^HQtmr

Ybo'iBSB of

Bdi\ iiimsBOO BB\'l 1011B ^IdtVit

ic^vooe-i: SDiirroo ttiO'fliftltr «>rft tjedT" : anoint orn#axix a^l itt ^I'noll'.
Oil.-t "rro soaais&ii Gail'tttft ©rf-' saelni; «sbo alri^J" n

© vJ:toui.-tenoo 'jdc Isu&ob tBAiiQ ^tsottoa bad ^asbhet^ Mi soaafiitH

- fO -

of the defective condi'bion of the bridge". There was no error in
refiirinj; to add this to the charge which the court gave to the Jury.
It does not define or explain to tb.9 jury what is meant uy construc-
tive notice. It is true that appellant was not liable unj.sps it had
either actixal or constructive notice of the defective condition of
this bannister and u-xrights, and if the sxv7,::;est ion had i;one fiirther
and defined conctrnctive notice, there might be some merit in ap-
pellant's contention. F.irthermore, we have read the court's in-
stractions and in ur opinion the jury ^;as fully and Dro Brly in-

It is f ina ' ly insisted that it was error for the court to
deny appellant's notion to require appellee to suumi t to a physicel
examina ti on by an-nellant' s physicians. The record discloses that
appellee had testified and while on the stand exhibited his back
and ch. st to the jury, r'; his testimony several ot.her wit-
nesses testified end the court recessed until the follovying mon-\irK .
\7hen court again c-.'-nvened on the following mornin:^, aupellant made
Its notion out of the presence of the jury and requested the coirt
'.,o fi:x Uie tirae , place and conditions under which/the examination
should be made. Counsel for- appellee thereur-on stated that the
court should desi:-rn -te the physician before appellee fj.nisl'ied his
case. GoLU"iSel for aripellant refused. Counsel for appellee then
stated: "I want the examination made before I close my case and
report sade to the court that I may see". Counsel for appellee- iiSBSH
rimde no reply to -this suggestion and after an incxuiry by the court
and a further statoiient by counsel for appellant, tte court denied
the motion. In support of appellant's contention, the cases of
fJwenson v. City of Aurora, 196 111. App. 83 and Pronskevitch v. G,
and A. xRy. Co., 232 111. 136 are cited. Vie have ■ xarnined those cases

- 7 -

ni Tr-TTf" on aesf otarfT ."d;c;Jbi^rf « dJ to ir .tJ xjbaco ©viJoa^afi ariJ ';
•Yi^' - ^rr-% tTuoo 'jdi rioiriv ssTedb arfJ o* airil f>&B oJ '^atzi/t&'i

-oifiJ'ar,- . Jb/Iw Y^wt «rS ot fii '=5[rr>:ft to eaitefe ton eeo£> *I

ftjsxf .tl aasXntf »!.(!» li tan asw dri BlIoqqB . ._ .9 pi ton ers

-qs ni d-ioejB Gtffo*; ad td^tm BUodA ^aoX^oa fDritoiniaaoo bQtiJflab bat
-nX e'^^i/OD ©ifir l)jBfT &V6:{ ev? ,9foiuT»ii.. . -.fefn©*jioo a'rf'naXIe

,biii oi.niz

oi iiuQO Siti 'lo'i 10110 iBW ;ti iterfJ 'iocJ-sieni Y-^'^'^^^t't 8.L" ;tl

XeolaYJiq s oi S tm\>!JH o;f aelXeqqB •liJtrpei o* XKutJ-om a'^nsIXagcr;;! Y^'^^

;tBil:> aQeoXoelf) i';iooei ©rfT ,«CBi:ol3Yrf<T a'JiiBlIsoqa "id aoli &:tt!a&Xi

jiiiBd kXA 5^<tirfidxs biwia edf co sli;f . fiiia JE)9i'!tJ:;ta9* Aed e af Isctxi

-*.iw '19 ■'-Jo lBtf'r©3 Y^owivtadj air! :f>.ilTro II o: .Y'-'tf', ^-^^ o* i'e ,io [);:a

• ^IflTtoia s«-i''*oIIo'i '5iir lictny i^aeaeooi t%SJOO 9di JixiB feoiliJ-ao;! ases^r

©J&BBt injoXIeiff B ^?ial rwollcft. "ixt^ no t ?9rt«9xi'iico oiiss* ifni/oo a»-.

flOi*snlaiax9 adi^olriw 'leJbnx/ anoi^ iftxioo -finfL •aeXqr ,««ij:J exit y:i1 c
efi;j i-ijiii i>eSBd's aoqi^e'xs icT eeXIaTT""' 'Jol XosuiuoO .ofiBm ed ILik
aid be^ial^it ©«XXi»qg» e^olscf iiaJtolaYilq: €>ri^ o;r(s<TsXasfi Muods fTLfo<
n»il>t 69Xi©<Tff£ .£)S8;/l3i J-naXXegqs idl leemsoO [email protected]

ba» aaiio xfn ©sol© I eno'iod efejRia aoltBiiiMBXii aiiu ^asv
BPaiCJt -©eXIoqqs 10I XeeniroO , ''ose y®^! I t»dt JTCwpo ©rW o^ Gl)flK ^oc['
•J-Siffis triu Y>-'' Y*xi0paJ: aB le^ts Me noxteasBjUa aXrfif o.t y-^^®^ o^ 0^'
fioiflefif tauoo , .i-yXXeq^-s icft XearL/oo Y^f ^noiced-isd-a ladttul fi ^xu

I0 3953 9tiJ- tStoitrretiaoo a'cfffsXIaqqa 1:o tioqqwa nl .WDi^Ofii &.
. ' £Ci>;JIi?eaisiio'i-r btu^ C8 .qg . 3(?X ,Bioti/A lo Y=l'i^' ^^ xioaa^;",

ceii.o oaoiiu j&aa.csiBX.'' avfid »i' ^bn^io o%ji dCX .1X1 SSS ,.o3 ,yH .A Shj

- 9 -

and while tha court might have granted apT)ell8.nt ' s request and re-
quired appellee to submit to an examination of that portion of his
body which was e:.hibited to the ,iiiry, certainly &Dpellee had a right
to have his ovm physicifin present and it would hot have been unrea-
sonable to .(.Bve had the exaEiination cornpl' ted before appellee's case
was closed. In the instant case it is not insioted that the damages
are e'xcessive and tiie only purpose of desiring an ex8jr>ination by a
"oiiysician other than of appellee's choor-ln.?!; v/oulc be to determine
the extent of appe.llee's injuries and as that question is not raised
in a-npellant's argunent , the error if any was coniraitted v^as a harm-
less one.

There is no reversible error in this record and the ji^^nt
is therefore affirmed,


airf io jcioiuTDci JedJ Ic ftoJ-d-Bciintfixo "inicrjw o* aeXiaK". fieijtixp

^ ■XlaiB^'ieo ,y 3£?r xloirtw Y^ocf

" tl boB ^Ti n?/o air? Qr.^i oi

.5Ki ii>a;f 'Iqiaoo tiol Im. evm ; ;ioe

. . f?6 "^o eaoqii'- ~ lit dob svi;;a-..o - bib

•Ijj-c.v gxiicooilo e'eellsqci:* lu iisilc)' :e)£l*o flBJro :;•;v'>r^•
tflrivt as boB ioliulat s'sellsqqB to &a&ix^> eiii

. . . ; ae I

9?.J3 ;j'©'.'
3 X^ ^^ ■

beatai ton. ai u.

- 8 -


SECOND DISTRICT J I, JUSTUS L. JOHNSON. Clerk of the Appellate Court, in and

foT said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Becords and Seal thereof, do hereby

certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause.

of record in my office.

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said

Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this . day of

, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine

hundred and thirty-

Clerh of the Appellate Court

(73815— 5M— 3-32)



/ -^



Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, thfe fifth day of Eebruary, fin
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and thirty-five,
within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois:
Present - The Hon. FRED G. WOLFE, Presiding Justice.
Hon. FRANKLIN R. DOVE, Justice.

^^ J.A. 647I

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On
FEB 14 1935 *^® opinion of the Court v;as filed in the
Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:

Appeal from the Circuit
Court of Iroquois County-

Gen, No. 8843 Agenda No. SO

In the Appellate Court of Illinois
Second District
October Term, A. D. 1934

Henry Boomf garden, as Administrator
of the EstaT,e of Augusta Boomgarden,

vs .
Chicago and Eastern Illinois Railway
Company, a Corporation,



This action was brouc^ht to recover damages for the alleged
wrongful death of Augusta Boomgarden, growing out of a railroad
crossing accident accurring at the intersection of Hickory Street
and the right of way of the defendant below, in Watseka on July 9,
1930, The original declaration was filed on October 23, 1930. It
consisted of four counts, each charging the defendantM.*h negligence
only. On October 17, 1931 each of the four counts wex^e amended and
as amended eliminated all charges of negligence and sought to charge
the defendant with wilful and wanton conduct. The defendant plead
the general issue and a trial was had, resulting in a verdict and
judgment in favor of the plaintiff for |3,000.00, Im appeal was taken
to this court, and that judgment was reversed and the cause was re-
manded. Boomgarden, Administrator, etc. v. G. & 1;;. I. Ry. Co.,
266 111. App. 622. That opinion is not published, but what we there
held was that each count of the declaration as amended did not state
a cause of action of wilful and wanton injury and further held that
the evidence wholly failed to show that the defendant was guilty of
any wilful or wanton conduct whic|i in any manner caused the death of
the plaintiff's intestate.

d-iaoilO 9d^ moil l&eqqA

03 .oM Bbae^A 5:^88 ,oH .neO

aloiillll to rf"u/oO 9iBli&qqA eHi al

^QQl .a .A ,mi9T ledoJ-oO

loiB'i^talalmhA a& ,n:d£)'i£:jiaiooa xiaeU

,n6i)1B3JEOO;' M.-l-fr-.t. •■^-^ o'ft+Ra Btii "tO


\, vTlli?)" 2iOi-!.MIi nis^eaS bxifl oasoJtrlO
^aotiBioqtoO n , YriBdmoO

,1, " ayoa

fesssIiB ©ril 10'y as^BiOflJb levooei o* i-rfruoad aaw nol;^Oi5 alifT

bBotlifii B to cfjjo aniwoTS , nefe'iBj^ooG ai'auj^i/A to ri^sei? Ii/lsrtoiw

*99iJo Y^otifoiK 'lo floJtJ-ossnoJni 9xl;J^ cfB suirm/ooe ia&islooA :^.aleGOio

,e \;IwT, I10 By.e3&B\l nl ,7/oIecf i'nB6xi9':t9£) 9xl;f lo ysw to ;^Jri^ia sri^ fine

*T .OoGX ,5S iQdGioO 110 Belxt bbv noiiffitiBloeb IsnlsJtio silT .OSei

©DasgiXsexi dtiwtiis&aelaf) erf:f snis^a^o xioBs ,a;tmfoo vuot to jbe^e/anoo

b^iB babaesiB ea©w oiruLfO!) li/ct e>riJ" to riass 1561 ,VI iscfotfoO nO .yX^^o

©Sisrfo od" *r(ax/03 5nj3 eoxisglXgan to asi^jriBXlo XXb bed-BflimlXe bebnaicfl as

fiflsXq tOBba&lBb etH! ,touhaoc aotoBVf btiB Xi/tXJtw ditw Jnebnatdh 9x1*

£>fiB ^olftisv B nl 3X!i*Xx;a9i ,f)sri sbw Intit b boB ©uasl XB'i9fl9?a erl;^

iraiiBct- saw XBeqqB nA ,00.000,5| lot ttlJxiiBXq aiU to lovst at d-flexngfil/L

-91 8s;v e^uao sdi bas beaievsi bbw ii^eacgbui tsuii baa ,^'jjioo aldt ot

,.oC .xR .1 .ol a"; .0 .r ,ot9 jiotfli^ainlMiA ^aebna-^ooQ .bebaats

©lerlt ew itsrivs :fud .JbeilsiXcfifg Jon sX xioifilqo JsrlT .SSQ .qqA .XXI aSS

Qia^e ion htb bebni^ias sb noi^B-TBloeb sri* to d^fujoo xIobb d'sxit asw JbXeri

tBrl;J' bXexf rtsxid-itrt bns Y'3:J^tcX floJnsw fins Xi/tXiw to noXJoB to ssjjbo b

to Y^J^Xwg 3flw d-nsfiuetsl) ails' Jsxi* worfs ocf fisXXat YXXoiiw eonsbtra esii

to i-'.-fwri^ 3rft bC'P.uQo iQSw,".-:^'^ vo'-^ .:.(■ fi!;.fi-^w i-oubnoo iioJiiBw lo XwtXlw Y^B


Upon the case being reinstated in tlie trial court, the plain-
tiff, on July S5, 1933, filed, by leave of court, what he designated
as first amended count as amended. This count charged that on July
9, 1930 the defendant was operatin^:^ a passenf-er train over its rail-
road, drivin,c- the same through a thickly settled portion of '.'atseka in
a northerly direction across Hickory Street and other stt-eets within
the corporate limits of said city; that it was the custom of the public
generally to pass over the Hickory Street crossing on f6ot, horseback
and by various vehicles of conveyance; that this custom and practice
was well known to the servants in charge of the said train; that about
6:15 P. li'I, on July 9, 1930, Augusta Boomgarden was walking along Hickory
Street in a northwesterly direction across the railroad and over said
crossing; that she was unaware of the approaching train and in a posi-
tion where the servants of defendant saw her or by the exercise of
ordinary care could have seen her and saw or could have seen that she
was unaware of the approaching train or the danger which threatened
her; that said, servants were conscious from their knowledge of sur-
rounding circumstances that their failure to proceed with caution fmd
their driving of said locomotive at a speed in excess of fifteen miles
per hour v/ould naturally result in injury to persons on said crossing,
including plaintiff's intestate; that it became the duty of the engineer
and fireman, in control of said train, who Vs^ere servants of defendant,
to keep a lookout for persons who might be lawfully upon said crossing
and to sound a warning of the approach of said train and to warn
Augusta Boomgarden of the danger threatening her on.d to approach
said crossing with caution and to so manage said train so as not to
inflict injury upon her, then and there knovm by said servants to
be lawfully upon said crossing. This count then charges a breach
of this duty by alleging that the servants of the defendant who x^eve
in control of said locomotive, with reckless disregard of the life
of the said Augusta Boomgarden, wilfully and wantonly failed to keep
a lookout down the trade for the protection of persons lawfully using

-alslq eiiS .^-rxjoo laXnt eit &X be^Btiatei ^[email protected] eeso snt noqU
bBiaa^tReb esi Jsxlw ,;f'iuoo to BvseS. %(f ^belXJ ^€^^1 ,SS ^jIx/T. xio ^lltt
yli/T, no *axl* fcegoaxfo #£»ifoo airiT .bei>a©Jiifl a* iauoo bebaesaa tsitt ae

al fliisatfiW to floicfiog l)9X;}-*98 Y-W^-t-^* ^^^^ 9^' ' "^ ,5«oi

niriJ-lw tt;fs9'id"8 loxl^o bsiQ ieeitS x'to-x.ottf. broiob aol^toeiib Y-i^s^^^on b

cildi/q 9fli- "o moiatK- s:!^ sew ;tJt it/^riJ IX^to btae. '\o sJ^imil aJ-aioqioo 6xf*

iloBcfeaioil ,;to6'^ no ^aiaso-io cTeeni-?. x^oiiofH arid- isvo iJssq o* yJ^-^J81'»"«8

e^oiJ^oeiq Jifus fflo,*aiio etxlJ ^bxI;}^ {©onBitevnoo to aelolriey iuotis^r x^ B^b

iuodn 3orl:f inlBTd- ftise exl;J- to sgasilo at a^fnavies dri;t o* rwoxot II&w aBW

jnojvoiH 3XioIb arii3llfi?r zsn aebiB^)isco5. Bd'airsaA ,05GI ,9 xLul no .M ,'^ 5X:8

bt&e levo Soh beoT-flBi srf* bsoiob noi;t09'rJil) Y-C^o^sawri^ion jb nl f^QiiS

-ieoq fl nJ: ibas nlBiJ ;ixilil0 8 0iqqa eri* lo oiavBXiii asw sjrfa ;fj8£io janleBorto

to eeldloza lo leii wbs *£L3£)aet©X» to **£a»v*i8e ©rf* eieifw noJtt

ri3 :liS£ii mos BTcii i>ii;oo "lo waa Arj?. isri xiese averi fiXuoo s'xqo YiBflifi^o

Jb9fl9*flaiii* floidw 198X13^) aiir to xubtI 3flij:l0BO'iqqj8 eilsr to aiBWs/icf asw

-lira 'to Q^4i)eIr'/ofi2l lierld flxoit atroloanoc ©aaw eJnevaoe l^isa d'iiifj' \iQsi

tii-; iioloi/eo iiJiw l)930Qiq 0* S'iiiXla'r xisxl* cJ-add- aaoiirsrfsxftiroTiio T^thnimi

azLlis. a89d"l±t la easoxo al fSeeqp b ctjb ovltoiaocol ^i«e to, aniviib liexi;^

^^amieaoio J^Jtsa no aixoaicq o;?" Y-^^l^-i ^"-i ^Itfao*! ^Xifi'iw^JBfl Jbli/tw -xju-Oif .leq

isoalaiia ©if* to Y^ui) edt amBoecf dl J-flil* {9Nl-B*8aJaJ: a'ttliTfllBlq gxi±Bi/IonJt

(d'iT^? if>"3f) to s^fixavies »ae'.v oriw ,jciiaa;f Slea to Iort!;fiioo al ^nsineilt ii).iB

saiBBoio X)Ifis iioqi/ Y-tii^wBl «d tii^la oriw axxoaieq aot ;ti;03looX b qeeai o*

XI1SW 03- bjm nlBTt blsa to ils*o:i:qq«, eAS to ^nixinaw e Jbxujoe o* fins

iiOBoiqqii oJ liiiB led :^alaet aeraii le^OBb &xf* to floJbissiaooa bJ-b/jsuA

o^ d-oxi 3js oa clAit blG,?. es^nBffi os o* ba& aoltuBO dtlvr pniaaoio, f»iB«

oj sJxiQT'I^a fiida v;<I «woxdI ©isxit bCB aeriS- jtjoil floqu Y^nJlttl *pJ:Itxtl

il0B«% B ©©QttBjtfo flsrf* cfruiQO sJtjfT .sciaacjo J&iBa floqw Y-tXwtwBX ©cf

©nsw ®ti7r taMbae'ieJb exU to aJftBVtaa ©d* tfeil* jjaigellfi y<^: Y^i^^ aidJf So

stil arid- to , feiBs^ialJ^ aEsXaloei ii;)-xw ^sviuoEXoooX blBc to Xoid"noo ni

qe©2t o* l)9XXsS YXxtoifflBw bjm xtlsslli^ ttt&biB^mooH stsissuA feXflS srijf to

x:ii.tasj YlXiJtwflX sflosiea "^o aot^^oe&oiq odt Tot :3foB'i^ ©ri* m®b tsso'iooJ. b


the Hickory street crossing;: and wilfully and v/antSnly failed t6
approach the crossin'"^ with caution and although they saw the said
Augusta Boomgarden in a situation of peril, they wilfully and v/anton-
ly disreiP;arded their duty and ?ath reckless disregard of the life of
£ald Auf'-usta Boomgarden, the servants of defendant refused to give
her warning and wilfully and wantonly drove said locomotive at a speed
in excess of fifteen miles per hour and without \¥arning wilfully and
wantonly drove the locomotive upon her and wilfully and wantonly
inflicted great bodily injuries upon her, as a consequence of which
she died three houJ.-s thereafter.

To the amended counts filed Octoher 17, 1931 and to the fore-
going first amended count as amended, filed July 25, 1935, the defend-
ant filed its general and special demurrer, which was b; the court
sustained and the plaintiff electin;<3 to bblde by these several counts,
refused to plead further and from a judgment in bar of the action
and for costs the plaintiff brings the record to this court for re-
view by appeal.

Appellee concedes thot the count filed July 25, 1933 stated a
good cause of action but insists that inasmuch as no cause of action
had been stated in any of the previous counts filed by appellant, that
the court therefore properly sustained a demurrer thereto. Appellant
insists that by operation of lav^r this count relates back to the
original cause of action stated in the first declaration, which was
filed on October 23, 1930; that this count does not state a new
cause of action, but ?jas simply a restatement of the specified
conduct upon which the original declaration was based; that the
statute of limitations can not be raised by demurrer in an action
at law but only by a plea, and therefore the judgment of the trial
court should be reversed.

The Injuries Act, upon which this proceeding was instituted,
provides that the action must be brought within one yeajr after the
decease of the party for whose wrongful death the action was instituted,

frlBa silvt WJ33 \:&ri* rijjucil^Iii i)xxr} rtoid-^jBO Aftm j^xxieeoio ed^f xlofloiqqB

L,n.B x^X^'illv ^aistisjf iupiiiiT^ baa •uf.o4 leq esllin neeJli:') 1o eeeois ai

vix OS xXS.u'XLlw boB -xexi uoqi; svlJ-oflioooI erit evoa5 -^clflioJfxijaw

rioir&y io Any.&ijpasaqo e as ,'16x1 noqu Beliulal "(jXlfcod ^sbts f>©;to|nrnJ:

.leJlfleTceri* e-^MOSi B9isit b&lb jpdc
-o . c ■ ,VI •x8a'c.c^oC ^aXil Bd-fltfoo bebaaeia edi oT

■-Oio o :.'j ■;.■ . molt bSiSi 1&R:if.uX i ' ' " ". ' :■'-

x=3-.^;>: .■ ..'uj. i-'oivaag ad* ^o y;iib njt X>e;^B;ts ceecf i)Sii

..-.-1+ r.r ->>'•:' >r.-o r;=.- j-cwoa 8.tii* wsl to noiJfjsisqo i^(/^ *Bii* ^JaiBiii

s aj^a;tB *oa aso . .. aid* i^Bii* jOSei (SS aecfoJoO. oo fioXil

®il* *Bd* {AepBcf asv/ . IceO I ..xislio silrf' xlolilw

rrcrji-^^ ^s xii: teiTirneS ^-c^ fi'^r jxbo acoli'flJJtaLil "c P'd'L^sts

.i)oa'xevei ©cf i>Iiioxla cfixioo
tfi©;^uS^||^eiii 8^ afltfteeooiq elil* ifol4w coqx» j^oa svlrii/tit?^ -^-'^
srf* ^®*^,.3 ^cssx enp ai.s!^t.v i'ilajyo'icf ©cf ;)'Si;B isold^oB ©d* ^jb4^ ^©J&iyeiq


Cahill Illinois Revised Statutes, Chap. 70, Sec. 2. The time
fixed for brinein/T such actions is a oondition of liability,
Hartray v. Chicago Railways ^o., 290 111. B5, G-oldGtein V. Ghicago
City R|[. Oo., 2-86 111. S97, and appellee's demurrer properly raised
the question whether the action was brought within tlie statutory
.period. Holden v. eohley, 271, 111. App. 159. Bishop v. Chicago
Rys. Co. , 303 111. 273.

The original declaration in the instant case was filed October
23, 1930. It consisted of four counts in each count of which negli-
gence only was charged, This declaration was abandoned by the fil-
ing of an amended decleiration on October 17, 1931. McAleeman v.
East St. Louis Light and Power Co., 188 111. App. 291, Holt v.
Qity of Moline, 196 111. App. 235. In this araended declaration
plaintiff sought to charge wilful and y.^anton conduct and this
coTxrt has held that no cause of action was slated in any of these
amended counts, Bommgarden, Adnir. v. C. k E. I. H7/. Co., supra.
The averments of negligence and the averments of wilful and wanton
conduct are entirely different, OMTeill v. Blair, 261 111. App. 470,
and when -a declaration chai'ges negligence and wilful and wanton

Online LibraryIllinois Appellate CourtIllinois Appellate Court Unpublished Opinions: first series (Volume Ill. App.v.279) → online text (page 80 of 91)