{ "id": 4839955, "name": "The Chicago and Eastern Illinois Railroad Company v. Richard Hall", "name_abbreviation": "Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad v. Hall", "decision_date": "1881-06-14", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "621", "last_page": "625", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "8 Ill. App. 621" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "13 Wall. 166", "category": "reporters:scotus_early", "reporter": "Wall.", "case_ids": [ 1134186 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/us/80/0166-01" ] }, { "cite": "77 Ill. 275", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 821797 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/77/0275-01" ] }, { "cite": "13 Bush. 669", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Bush", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "10 Bush. 393", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Bush", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "2 Gray, 232", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Gray", "case_ids": [ 1998227 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mass/68/0232-01" ] }, { "cite": "5 Met. 81", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Met.", "case_ids": [ 2062215 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mass/46/0081-01" ] }, { "cite": "68 Ill. 144", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2626323 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/68/0144-01" ] }, { "cite": "79 Ill. 269", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2687565 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/79/0269-01" ] }, { "cite": "90 Ill. 45", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "37 N. Y. 472", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "case_ids": [ 2043984 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ny/37/0551-01" ] }, { "cite": "19 Am. Law Reg. 376", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Am. Law Reg.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "51 N. H. 504", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.H.", "case_ids": [ 11251573 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nh/51/0504-01" ] }, { "cite": "14 Ind. 523", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ind.", "case_ids": [ 1440099 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ind/14/0523-01" ] }, { "cite": "7 Ohio, 459", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ohio", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "9 Ind. 469", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ind.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "7 Ind. 38", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ind.", "case_ids": [ 1469148 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ind/7/0038-01" ] }, { "cite": "2 Stock. 211", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Stock.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "14 Conn. 146", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Conn.", "case_ids": [ 6754048 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/conn/14/0146-01" ] }, { "cite": "57 Ill. 29", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5240355 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/57/0029-01" ] }, { "cite": "62 Ill. 519", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2608931 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/62/0519-01" ] }, { "cite": "56 Ill. 132", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 817825 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/56/0132-01" ] }, { "cite": "49 Ill. 484", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2603539 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/49/0484-01" ] }, { "cite": "85 Ill. 377", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2777246 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/85/0377-01" ] }, { "cite": "82 Ill. 337", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5313842 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/82/0337-01" ] }, { "cite": "83 Ill. 535", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2663185 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/83/0535-01" ] }, { "cite": "67 Ill. 477", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 820071 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/67/0477-01" ] }, { "cite": "77 Ill. 56", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 821730 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/77/0056-01" ] }, { "cite": "90 Ill. 42", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2756868 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/90/0042-01" ] }, { "cite": "68 Ill. 394", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2629178 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/68/0394-01" ] }, { "cite": "38 Md. 234", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Md.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "1 Stock. 487", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Stock.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "20 W. R. 358", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wis.", "case_ids": [ 8708990 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/wis/20/0358-01" ] }, { "cite": "35 Mo. 87", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mo.", "case_ids": [ 8850233 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mo/35/0087-01" ] }, { "cite": "51 Me. 503", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Me.", "case_ids": [ 665418 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/me/51/0503-01" ] }, { "cite": "58 Pa. St. 275", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Pa.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "13 Allen 95", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Allen", "case_ids": [ 2114910 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mass/95/0095-01" ] }, { "cite": "22 N. J. 26", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.J.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "5 S. C. 217", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "S.C.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "63 Barb. 252", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Barb.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "71 N. C. 271", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11277690 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/71/0271-01" ] }, { "cite": "23 Barb. 444", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Barb.", "case_ids": [ 1941869 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/barb/23/0444-01" ] }, { "cite": "54 Me. 272", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Me.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "21 Conn. 213", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Conn.", "case_ids": [ 12123681 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/conn/21/0213-01" ] }, { "cite": "28 Ill. 73", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5202971 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/28/0073-01" ] }, { "cite": "53 Ill. 24", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5277876 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/53/0024-01" ] }, { "cite": "50 Ill. 242", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "39 Ill. 599", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "79 Ill. 269", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2687565 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/79/0269-01" ] }, { "cite": "90 Ill. 42", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2756868 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/90/0042-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 579, "char_count": 7422, "ocr_confidence": 0.544, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.15394333800928162 }, "sha256": "a53af21d722681a4e456225c32272c975ed8227d4649dc103a465bd3eda022a2", "simhash": "1:00b32bbb9fbd861e", "word_count": 1347 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:31:21.704510+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "The Chicago and Eastern Illinois Railroad Company v. Richard Hall." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "McAllister, P. J.\nThis was an action on the case by appellee against appellant to recover for direct physical injuries by the latter to the premises of the former on which he resided with his family, occasioned, as it is alleged, by the appellant operating railway tracks located in a public street of the city of Chicago, on which appellee\u2019s premises abutted, by means of locomotive engines which jarred appellee\u2019s house, cast upon and therein dust, ashes, cinders and smoke, making such dwelling unsafe and uncomfortable, and which, by bad management by appellant\u2019s agents and servants, did other such injury to appellee\u2019s barn and oilier parts of his premises, by knocking said barn off its foundations, and causing, by appellant, of water to flow on to appellee\u2019s premises.\nThe case was tried by jury, under the plea of not guilty resulting in a verdict for plaintiff for eleven hundred and fifty dollars, and the court overruling defendant\u2019s motion for a new trial, gave judgment, and the latter prosecutes this appeal.\nThe evidence tended to show that appellee was in possession as owner of the premises and resided thereon with his family; that such premises abut upon a public street of the city of Chicago known as Carroll avenue; that the Chicago, Danville & Vincennes R. R. Co. constructed the railroad tracks in question, and near to appellee\u2019s premises, in 1872, but that the same was done under a special charter to that company, and an ordinance of the city of Chicago authorizing it, which were both passed before the constitution of 1870, though the tracks were not laid until 1872; that afterwards, through a sale upon a foreclosure of mortgage, given by the Chicago, Danville & Vincennes Co., embracing all its property and franchises, the appellant acquired all such property and franchises, and in September, 1877, commenced operating with locomotive engines said road.\nEvidence was given by appellee, tending to show direct physical injury to his premises by means of the casting upon them and into his dwelling-house, dust, ashes, cinders and smoke; and, besides evidence tending to prove the depreciation in value of such premises :in consequence of such direct physical injury, the court, against the objections of appellant, permitted appellee to give evidence of the difference between the market value of said premises, at the time appellant commenced operating the road and that of the bringing the suit. The scope of the questions called upon the witness, who was the plaintiff himself, to give such difference from all causes; and the jury must have so understood it; because the depreciation on account of the direct physical injury, had already been shown. The witness stated that the market value of the premises when appellant commenced operating, was thirty-five hundred to four thousand dollars, and at the bringing of the suit, such value was about fifteen to eighteen hundred dollars.\nUnder the decisions of the Supreme Court in C. B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. McGinnis, 79 Ill. 269, and C. M. & St. P. R. R. Co. v. Hall, 90 Ill. 42, we are constrained to hold that this evidence was incompetent, and from the circumstances of the case it was prejudicial. The plaintiff below was the only witness upon the question of damages resulting from the direct physical injury to his premises; and upon cross-examination, he confessed himself unable to distinguish between such as was the result of such injury, and those arising from general causes. For this error the judgment of the court below must be reversed and the cause remanded.\nReversed and remanded.", "type": "majority", "author": "McAllister, P. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Mr. H. O. McDaid, for appellant;", "Mr. Henry Crawford for appellee;" ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "The Chicago and Eastern Illinois Railroad Company v. Richard Hall.\nDamages \u2014 Direct and remote. \u2014 In an action against a railroad company for damages arising from a direct physical .injury to plaintiff\u2019s dwelling by reason of running its trains, evidence is not admissible of the general depreciation in value of plaintiff\u2019s property, where the witness is unable to distinguish between damages such as were the result of the injury complained of, and such as arose from general causes.\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Elliott Anthony, Judge, presiding.\nOpinion filed June 14, 1881.\nMr. H. O. McDaid, for appellant;\nthat appellant is liable for the damages sustained whether they arise from a direct physical injury or are the result of the use of the trades in the vicinity of the premises, cited Rigney v. Chicago, 13 Chicago Legal Mews, Mar. 26, 1881; Ottawa Gas Co. v. Thompson, 39 Ill. 599; Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Grable, 50 Ill. 242; Cooper v. Randall, 53 Ill. 24; Ottawa Gas Co. v. Graham, 28 Ill. 73; Sampson v. Smith, 8 Sim. 272; Whitney v. Bartholomew, 21 Conn. 213; Lord Colchester v. Ellis, 2 Starker\u2019s Ev. 538; Rich v. Basterfield, 2 Car. & K. 257; Saville v. Killner, 26 L. T. Rep. 277; Bowers v. Hathorn, 54 Me. 272; Richard v. Collins, 23 Barb. 444; Cartwright v. Gray, 12 Grant\u2019s Ch. 400; Walter v. Selfe, 4 E. L. & Eq. 15; Tipping v. St. Helens Co. 4 B. & L. 508.\nA person must so use his own property as not to injure his neighbor\u2019s: Hyatt v. Myers, 71 N. C. 271; Hutching v. Smith, 63 Barb. 252; Reg v. Waterhouse, 7 Q. B. 545; Barnes v. Ackroyd, 26 L. T. 692; Banham v. Hall, 21 L. T. 116; Higgins v. Guardians of Herndon, 22 L. T. 753; Roberts v. Clark, 17 L. T. 384; Rhett v. Davis, 5 S. C. 217; Tuscombe v. Steere, 17 L. T. 229; Duncan v. Hays, 22 N. J. 26; Shuttleworth v. Cochar, 9 Dow P. C. 88; Wessen v. Washburn Iron Co. 13 Allen 95; Rhodea v. Dunbar, 58 Pa. St. 275; Norcross v. Thoms, 51 Me. 503; Richards v. Ph\u0153nix Iron Co. 7 P. F. Smith, 103; Westwall v. Conover, 11 Fla. Ill; Whalen v. Keith, 35 Mo. 87; Monteath v. Lang, 37 Jur. 726; Citizen\u2019s Gas Light Co. v. Cleveland, 5 C. E. Green. 201; Aldreds\u2019 Case. 9 Coke, 102; Gullich v. Treenlet, 20 W. R. 358; Butler v. Rogers, 1 Stock. 487; Swain v. Great Nor. R. R. Co. 33 L. J. ch. 390; Adams v. Michael, 38 Md. 234.\nDamages are recoverable on the ground of a taking of the property: Stone v. Fairbury, etc. R. R. Co. 68 Ill. 394; Hall v. C. M. & St. P. R. R. Co. 90 Ill. 42; City of Pekin v. Winkel, 77 Ill. 56; City of Pekin v. Brereton, 67 Ill. 477; City of Elgin v. Eaton, 83 Ill. 535; Shawneetown v. Mason, 82 Ill. 337; Ilach v. City of E. St. Louis, 85 Ill. 377; Gilman v. Mad. Co. R. R. Co. 49 Ill. 484; Aurora v. Gillett, 56 Ill. 132; Jacksonville v. Lambert, 62 Ill. 519; Aurora v. Reed, 57 Ill. 29; Pumpelly v. Green Bay, 13 Wall. 166; Harker v. New Haven & N. Co. 14 Conn. 146; Glover v. Powell, 2 Stock. 211; Haynes v. Thomas, 7 Ind. 38; Pratzman v. Ind. etc. R. R. Co. 9 Ind. 469; Crawford v. Delaware, 7 Ohio, 459; Street Railway v. Cummizorth, 14 Ind. 523; Eaton v. Boston, 51 N. H. 504; Cooley on Con. Lim. 542; Caro v. Met. Elevated R. R. Co. 19 Am. Law Reg. 376; Platt v. N. Y. C. R. R. Co. 37 N. Y. 472.\nMr. Henry Crawford for appellee;\nthat there was a blending of improper elements of damage, cited : C. M. & St. P. R. R. Co. v. Hall, 90 Ill. 45; C. B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. McGinnis 79 Ill. 269.\nAs to the rule of damages in such cases : St. L. & S. E. R\u2019y Co. v. Teters, 68 Ill. 144.\nThe cause of action, if any existed against the original corporation, and is barred by the Statute of Limitations : Heard v. Middlesex Canal, 5 Met. 81; Call v. Co. Com\u2019rs, 2 Gray, 232; E. L. & B. S. R. R. Co. v. Combs, 10 Bush. 393; J. M. & I. R. R. Co. v. Erharte, 13 Bush. 669; I. B. & W. R\u2019y Co. v. McLaughlin, 77 Ill. 275." }, "file_name": "0621-01", "first_page_order": 623, "last_page_order": 627 }