« ПретходнаНастави »
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.
TABLE OF CASES.
THE FIGURES REFER TO THE PAGES.
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
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