{
  "id": 5314629,
  "name": "The Illinois and St. Louis Railroad and Coal Co. v. Louis Fehringer",
  "name_abbreviation": "Illinois & St. Louis Railroad & Coal Co. v. Fehringer",
  "decision_date": "1876-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "129",
  "last_page": "130",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "82 Ill. 129"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 211,
    "char_count": 3251,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.52,
    "sha256": "810680c508047ad6cced2a2d1a469d4651e48c160df0db711110a8cf65fd327a",
    "simhash": "1:63678960c64f05d1",
    "word_count": 539
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:54:45.985227+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The Illinois and St. Louis Railroad and Coal Co. v. Louis Fehringer."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Dickey\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThis was an action hy appellee against appellant, wherein plaintiff in his declaration alleged that he was the owner, and possessed of certain lands, and defendant was possessed of certain adjoining lands, over which the water from plaintiff\u2019s land naturally flowed, and that defendant, in 1871, \u2018\u2018did make and construct a certain earthen dam, on defendant\u2019s premises, across the channel of said natural flow of said water so flowing & from plaintiff\u2019s premises, and that by reason of said dam, water from plaintiff\u2019s land could not naturally flow off, and the land of plaintiff was thereby overflowed,\u201d etc., by means whereof plaintiff\u2019s crops were lost and destroyed.\nDefendant pleaded the general issue and the statute of limitations. The jury rendered a verdict for plaintiff, and judgment was entered on the verdict.\nOn the trial plaintiff offered evidence tending to show that lone before 1871 the defendant had constructed on its own land a railroad embankment across the natural course of the surface water escaping from plaintiff\u2019s premises, and constructed a culvert under the embankment, through which the water from plaintiff\u2019s premises was accustomed to escape, until the year 1871, when defendant, by depositing earthy material on the sides of said embankment, closed up the culvert so that the water could not escape by this channel, and was thereby thrown back upon plaintiff\u2019s land, and by reason thereof overflowed plaintiff\u2019s land and injured his crops.\nThe defendant insisted that this proof was variant from the allegations in the declaration, and asked the court to instruct the jury that, \u2018\u2018proof that the company had stopped up a culvert heretofore existing, is not proof of the facts alleged by plaintiff, and the latter can not recover.\u201d\nThe court refused the instruction, and of this appellant complains.\nWe think the proof tended to sustain the allegations. If, by closing up the culvert, the defendant converted the old embankment into a dam, which, with the culvert open, did not operate as a dam, this was, in substance, constructing a dam, and no just objection would lie to this proof upon the ground of a variance.\nIt is also insisted that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. There were some contradictions in the testimony, but we find no sufficient ground for setting aside the verdict. The judgment is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Dickey"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. G. & G. A. Kcerner, for the appellant.",
      "Mr. C. F. ISTcetling, and Mr. E. A. Halbert, for the appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The Illinois and St. Louis Railroad and Coal Co. v. Louis Fehringer.\nVariance. Where a declaration alleges the construction of a dam hy a railway company on its land adjoining that of the plaintiff, and thereby overflowing the land of the latter, and the proof shows the closing of a culvert under its road by the defendant, through w7hich the water was accustomed to flow, this will sustain the allegation in the pleading, and there will be no variance.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of St. Clair county; the Hon. William H. Snyder, Judge, presiding.\nThis was an action on the case, by the appellee against the appellant. A trial was had, resulting in a verdict and judgment of $465 for the plaintiff.\nMessrs. G. & G. A. Kcerner, for the appellant.\nMr. C. F. ISTcetling, and Mr. E. A. Halbert, for the appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0129-01",
  "first_page_order": 135,
  "last_page_order": 136
}