{
  "id": 5296806,
  "name": "Illinois Central R. R. Company v. William W Wade",
  "name_abbreviation": "Illinois Central R. R. v. Wade",
  "decision_date": "1867-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "115",
  "last_page": "116",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "46 Ill. 115"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 174,
    "char_count": 2349,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.463,
    "sha256": "da8171fac9d26eab3a32f37962add569916745803925e43db0bdcbf55c4a5109",
    "simhash": "1:80f113c8b91b6bbe",
    "word_count": 395
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:31:19.364487+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Illinois Central R. R. Company v. William W Wade."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Lawrence\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThis was an action against the railway company for killing plaintiff\u2019s stock. The only error,assigned is, that the 'demurrer to the first count in the declaration was improperly overruled. The objection taken, is, that the count does not show the place where the stock was killed not to have been one of the excepted places specified in the statute, which the company is not required to fence. The pleader, in stating these excepted places, used the words \u201cwvimproved land at a greater distance than five miles from any settlement;\u201d whereas, the statute used the words \u201cuninclosed lands.\u201d The pleader has, therefore, stated the obligation of the railway company as less than it really is, and that is certainly no ground of objection on its behalf. The enclosure of land is an improvement of it, as would also be the erection of a house upon it. It is something done towards its enjoyment. But land may also be improved without being enclosed, as by ploughing. To aver, therefore, that land is unimproved, is to aver that it is uninclosed, and something more. It is to aver that it is neither inclosed nor cultivated. When, then, this declaration avers that it was the duty of the company to fence its road, except where it ran through umkrirproved land, it states the exception as larger than it really is, and the obligation of the company as less than it is. The verbal inaccuracy in the declaration, in using the word uwvm/proved in place of mvmdosed, was an error in favor of the railway, and one of which it cannot complain.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Lawrence"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Cook & Campbell, for the appellant.",
      "Messrs. Ingersoll & Puterbaugh, for the appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Illinois Central R. R. Company v. William W Wade.\n1. . Pleasing at law\u2014of the declaration. In an action against a railroad company fpr killing stock, the declaration, in stating the excepted places specified in the \u2022 statute, which a railroad company is not required to fence, used the word \u201cwmimproved,\u201d instead of \u201cwienclosed,\u201d as used in the statute ; held, that this averment was sufficient. The exception having been stated larger, and the obligation of the company less than it is, the.defendant could not complain.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Woodford county; the Hon. Samuel L. Richmond, Judge, presiding.\nThe opinion states the case,\nMessrs. Cook & Campbell, for the appellant.\nMessrs. Ingersoll & Puterbaugh, for the appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0115-01",
  "first_page_order": 115,
  "last_page_order": 116
}