{
  "id": 4748884,
  "name": "The President, etc., Town of Earlville v. Joel Carter",
  "name_abbreviation": "President of Earlville v. Carter",
  "decision_date": "1880-06-17",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "421",
  "last_page": "423",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "6 Ill. App. 421"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "16 Ill. 149",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2589585
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/16/0149-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "61 Ill. 482",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2460814
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/61/0482-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "71 Ill. 562",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5309604
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/71/0562-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "71 Ill. 273",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5311024
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/71/0273-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "74 Ill. 91",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2702520
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/74/0091-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "51 Ill. 333",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        816449
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/51/0333-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "17 Am. Law Reg. 181",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Am. Law Reg.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "72 Ill. 108",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2711419
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/72/0108-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "73 Ill. 394",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5319550
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/73/0394-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "38 Md. 588",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Md.",
      "case_ids": [
        1840682
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/md/38/0588-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "64 Ill. 19",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5308378
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/64/0019-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "81 Ill. 300",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2672933
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/81/0300-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "68 Ill. 576",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2626770
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/68/0576-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "46 Ill. 74",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5297169
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/46/0074-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "22 Wis. 677",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Wis.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "39 Vt. 252",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Vt.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "36 Vt. 591",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Vt.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "76 Ill. 25",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5314880
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/76/0025-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 320,
    "char_count": 3546,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.524,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.99651005935052e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3725875524017037
    },
    "sha256": "3258d05fd36cef15d6b42fbab8a6da9ebea1c65dc8e53b249a6af63f08da6e11",
    "simhash": "1:14554e3619569e11",
    "word_count": 650
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:46:27.659948+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The President, etc., Town of Earlville v. Joel Carter."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pleasants, J.\nAppellee recovered judgment below for $75 against appellant, for personal injuries sustained by the falling of a defective bridge in the town while he was crossing it with his team and wagon.\nA judgment for a larger sum on a former trial was reversed in this court, for reasons stated in the opinion reported in 2 Bradwell, 34, in which the legal principles involved were fully discussed.\nThat the bridge was dangerous for months before it fell\u2014 that the fact was known to the authorities of the town \u2014 and that there was gross carelessness in neglecting for so long a time either to fit it for, or effectually close it against public use, are fully shown by the evidence contained in this record. But it is no less clear that the plaintiff also during all this time had actual knowledge of its condition, and well understood that the peril of an attempt to cross it with a team was both great and imminent, \u2014 and so manifested a want of ordinary care for his own safety in voluntarily incurring it.\nIt is well settled that in such a case he cannot lawfully recover for the negligence of the defendant, however gross, unless it be willful \u2014 of which there is here no pretense.\nIf it were necessary to cite authorities for a proposition so familiar they may be found in abundance in the opinion above referred to. Any discussion of the other questions raised would be altogether unprofitable.\nFor the error of the circuit court in overruling defendant\u2019s motion to set aside the verdict \u2014 which was thus against the law and the evidence \u2014 we must reverse this judgment.\nJudgment reversed and cause remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pleasants, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Richolson & Snow, for appellant;",
      "Mr. C. H. Brush and Mr. H. T. Gilbert, for appellee;"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The President, etc., Town of Earlville v. Joel Carter.\nContributory negligence. \u2014 Where a person having full knowledge of the unsafe condition of a bridge, attempts to cross it and is injured in the attempt, it is a want of ordinary care, and he cannot recover therefor, however gross may be the negligence of the town in respect to the bridge, unless such negligence was willful.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of LaSalle county; the Hon. Fbanois G godspeed, Judge, presiding.\nOpinion filed June 17, 1880.\nMessrs. Richolson & Snow, for appellant;\nupon the question of contributory negligence, cited The President, etc. v. Carter, 2 Bradwell, 34; Shearman & Redfield on Negligence, \u00a7 30; C. & A. R. R. Co. v. Becker, 76 Ill. 25; Folsom v. Town of Underhill, 36 Vt. 591; Walker v. Westfield, 39 Vt. 252; Deher v. Town of Fitchburg, 22 Wis. 677; C. & A. R. R. Co. v. Gretzner, 46 Ill. 74; C. B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Lee, 68 Ill. 576; City of Quincy v. Barker, 81 Ill. 300; Centraba v. Krouse, 64 Ill. 19; Lewis v. B. & O. R. R. Co. 38 Md. 588; C. & N. W. R. R. Co. v. Goss, 73 Ill. 394; C. & N. W. R. R. Co. v. Clark, 2 Bradwell, 116.\nMr. C. H. Brush and Mr. H. T. Gilbert, for appellee;\nthat a motion in this court to strike from the record matter improperly inserted therein is competent, cited Bates v. Ball, 72 Ill. 108; A. & N. R. R. Co. v. Wagner, 17 Am. Law Reg. 181; Hayward v. Catton, 1 Bradwell, 577.\nAs to meaning of \u201cnegligence\u201d: C. & A. R. R. Co. v. Pondrom, 51 Ill. 333; C. B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Van Patten, 74 Ill. 91.\nHaving filed a written motion for new trial, appellant cannot now insist upon objections not embraced in said motion: Emory v. Addis, 71 Ill. 273; Jones v. Jones, 71 Ill. 562; O. O. & F. R. V. R. R. Co. v. McMath, 1 Bradwell, 429; Practice Act, \u00a7 57.\nA declaration which states a cause of action is good in arrest of judgment: Com. Ins. Co. v. Treas. Bank, 61 Ill. 482; Smith v. Curry, 16 Ill. 149."
  },
  "file_name": "0421-01",
  "first_page_order": 419,
  "last_page_order": 421
}
