{
  "id": 2882788,
  "name": "Ollie H. Gillette, Appellee, v. The Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Gillette v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.",
  "decision_date": "1915-03-09",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 5,999",
  "first_page": "304",
  "last_page": "306",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "193 Ill. App. 304"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 232,
    "char_count": 3954,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.557,
    "sha256": "8dbdb85c1aa99511a6816d5d9180cb291e8644e2bdd9d0ecbf803980650fc42b",
    "simhash": "1:ca718cf45403da3c",
    "word_count": 680
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:10:43.610055+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Ollie H. Gillette, Appellee, v. The Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Me. Justice Niehafs\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n7. Instructions, \u00a7 159 \u2014lohen instructions considered as a whole. In determining the sufficiency of a portion of an instruction, the charge must be taken\u2019 and considered together as a whole.\n8. Railroads, \u00a7 352*\u2014instruction requiring finding to he based on allegation of declaration instead of proof. An instruction in an action against a railway company for damages caused a crop by the backing up of water as the result of the defendant placing piles closely together in a stream, held not to permit the jury to find the negligence of the defendant from the allegations of the declaration, but to require it to be found from the proofs.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Me. Justice Niehafs"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ralph E. Eaton, for appellant.",
      "F. J. Stransky, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Ollie H. Gillette, Appellee, v. The Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company, Appellant.\nGen. No. 5,999.\n(Not to he reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Carroll county; the Hon. Richard S. Farrand, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1914.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 9, 1915.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Ollie H. Gillette against the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company, for damages caused a growing crop of corn which was overflowed as the result of the defendant driving the piles of a bridge so closely together as to obstruct the waters of a stream during heavy rains or freshets. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant appeals.\nRalph E. Eaton, for appellant.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Railroads, \u00a7 ' 334 \u2014when injury to crops by overflow proximate result of obstruction of stream. Evidence that a railway company obstructed a stream by driving piles closely together, which in times of heavy rains or freshets caused the water to back up on the plaintiff\u2019s land to the injury of his crops, is sufficient to sustain an inference that the negligence of the railway company was the proximate cause of such injury.\n2. Evidence, \u00a7 478*\u2014when inference of ultimate facts sufficient to sustain verdict. Where evidentiary facts fairly justify an inference of the ultimate facts to be proved, their probative force is sufficient to sustain a verdict.\n3. Railroads, \u00a7 348*\u2014evidence as to obstruction backing up waters of stream. A witness may testify in an action for damages to crops caused by a railway company placing piles so closely together in a stream as to cause the water to back up during heavy rains or freshets, as to his observations of the waters at that time.\n4. Railroads, \u00a7 348*\u2014evidence as to effect on crops of backing up water of stream. In an action against a railway company for damage to crops caused by the waters of a stream backing up, in which the defendant had placed piles closely together, a witness may testify as to the effect of the overflow of the waters on the crops.\n5. Railroads, \u00a7 348*\u2014evidence of effect of obstruction on waters of stream. A witness may testify, in an action against a railway company for damages to crops caused by the backing up of the waters of a stream in which 'the defendant had driven piles closely together, as to the effect on the waters of trees, brush, weeds and straw lodging between th,e piling.\n6. Railroads, \u00a7 352*\u2014when instructions sufficient as to liability for obstructing stream. An instruction in an action against a railway company, for damages to crops from the waters of a stream backing up as the result of the defendant placing piles closely together in the stream, as to the liability of the company for overflow of waters during such a heavy rain or freshet as could have been reasonably anticipated, is not bad because of the omission of the words \u201cby an ordinarily prudent person,\u201d where such qualification was fully covered by other portions of the court\u2019s charge.\nF. J. Stransky, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number. \u2022\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0304-01",
  "first_page_order": 326,
  "last_page_order": 328
}