Слике страница


All who give special attention to the subject of railroads in their relations to the public, are intently watching Illinois. This is alike true, whether railways are considered from a legal, an economic or a political point of view. The present constitution and recent railway legislation of the State, together with the decision of the Supreme Court based thereon, explain and abundantly justify this prominence. It is obvious that while, in its leading features, the common carrier law is substantially the same as administered in the different States, yet there are many points of diversity, as the result both of legislation and judicial decision. Those special features in this State are of such a nature as to make Illinois the pathfinder in the present effort to readjust the carrying trade of the country.

This treatise is largely the result of investigations prosecuted with no thought of book-making. The writer has constant occasion, in the performance of his daily work, to state some phase of railway law, and has often found it necessary to consult many authorities in ascertaining positively the correct answer to what might seem to be a very simple question. Throughout these pages scrupulous care has been taken to avoid blending mere personal opinions with the authoritative utterances of the judiciary, and the exact limitations of the written law. Great caution has been observed to prevent errors. The author's object will have been attained and lis labors abundantly rewarded if the result shall prove of service in lessening the work of determining with exactitude what is railway law in Illinois, and contribute in some degree to a better understanding and adjustment of the relations which the railroads of the country sustain in law, and should sustain in fact, to the people.

F. G. CHICAGO, Oct. 15. 1873.



A. Adams Express Co. v. Haynes

175 Albany, etc., v. Brownell

70 Alton, etc., C. R. Co.o. Northcote

152 Alton and Sangamon v. Baugh

196 American Central R. R. Co. v. Miles..

59 American Express Co. v. Lesem..

176 American Merchants' Union Express Co. v. Schier.

174 Attorney General v. Birmingham and Derby Junc. R. R. CO. 256 Attorney General v. Great, etc.,

05 Aurora, Chicago, etc., v. Thompson

155 Aurora Co. v. Holthouse


B. Bacon v. Robertson

299 Bagshaw v. Eastern.

65 Baker v. Michigan Southern and Northern Indiana R. R.Co. 175 Baldwin v. Buffalo...

68 v. American Express Co..

176 Bank of Augusta v. Earle

44, 118, 300 Chenango v. Brown

301 Marietta v. Randall.

300 Republic v. Co. of Hamilton..

257 U. S. v. Dandridge

44 Washtenaw v. Montgomery

118 Bartholomew v. St. Louis, Jacksonville and Chicago R.R.Co. 167 Barney v. Steamboat D. R. Martin

166 Bateman v. Ashton-under-Ly....

54 Baxendale v. London and S. W. R. R. Co.

256 Beach v. Fulton

54 Beaty v. Knowler

121 255


Beekman v. Saratoga, etc.,...

93 Belleville R. R. Co. v. Gregory

50 Bell v. Ohio, etc..

71 Beman v. Rufford....

64 Billings v. Providence Bank

255 Binghamton Bridge Case Eissel v. Ryan

181 v. The M. S. and N. I. R. R. Co.. Blanchamp v. State

257 Blatchford v. Ross.

64 Bloodgood v. Mohawk and Hudson R. R. Co....

93, 301 Boston and Lowell R. R. Co. v. Salem and Lowell R. R. Co. 255 etc., v. Boston

73 v. Salem..

73 Braddee v. Brownfield

257 Bradshaw.v. Newman.

151 Bradley v. N. Y. and N. H. R. R. Co....

258 Brewster v. Hough...

257 Bristol v. Chicago and Aurora R. R. Co..

183 British Co. v. Ames

300 Brock v. Connecticut

70 Brown v. Maryland

287 Butler v. Dunham

96 Butler v. Palmer.

301 Byrne v. Byrne..


C. Calder v. Bull

257 Caldwell v. City of Alton..

48 Carpenter v. Pennsylvania

64 Cathcart v. Fire Department of N. Y...

301 Caterham Railway Co......

256 Central Military Tract R. R. Co.v. Rockafellow

189 Central v. Collins...

64, 65 Champlin v. Morgan

65 Chase v. Sycamore and Courtland R. R. Co.

44 Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge..

-255, 257 Cheete v. Winnegar.

79 Chicago and Alton Case

253-277 Chicago and Alton R. R. Co. v. Flagg

161, 162 v. Howard.

188 v. Murphy

192 Chicago and Alton R. R. Co. v. Randolph

-.161, 108 v. Roberts

158 v. Scott...

176 v, Shannon

-158, 303 v. Utley

195 Chicago and Aurora R. R. Co. v. Thompson.

155, 104 Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. Co. v. Dewey

190 v. Hazzard, 156, 158, 182 v. Parks

158, 160, 161, 167, 244 v. Stumps.

177 v. Wilson

124 Chicago, Danville and Vincennes R. R. Co. v. Smith -88, 258 Chicago and Mississippi R. R. Co. v. Dunbar.

172 v. Patchin

125, 178, 198 Chicago and Northwestern R. R. Co. v. Ames

177 v. Barrie

198 v. McCalill

194 v. Merrill

170 v. People.- -95, 169, 206 v. Peacock

159 V. Swett..

159 V. Williams.

163, 178 Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific R. R. Co, v. Otto


191 v. Warren...167, 171

v. Whipple 51 Chicago and Milwaukce R. R. Co. v. Bull

128 Cincinnati, Wilmington and Janesville R. R. Co. v. Com.... 93 City of Chicago v. Evans.

50 9. Laflin

129 v. Larned.

129 v. McGunn.

139 Clark v. Miller

301 Clarke v. New Jersey

300 Clearwater v. Meredith.

86 Cochrane v. Van Surley..

257, 307 Coggs v. Bernard .

203 Cole v. Goodwin... .

246 Coleman v. Eastern

65 v. Hudson


v. Reid

« ПретходнаНастави »