Skip to main content
· 1/15/1873

Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Haggerty

Citations

  • 67 Ill. 113

Syllabus

<p>1. Municipal corporation—power to regulate speed of railroad trains. Where the charter of an incorporated town gave the board of trustees power to declare what should be considered nuisances and remove the same, and to regulate the police of the town, and to make such ordinances as the good of the inhabitants of the town might require: Held, that under these powers the town possessed the authority to so order the use of private property within its limits as to prevent its proving dangerous to the safety of the persons and property of citizens, and to adopt an ordinance prohibiting the running of engines and cars within its limits at a greater rate of speed than six miles per hour.</p> <p>2. Constitutional law—exercise of the police power as to railroads. Where an ordinance of a town prohibited the running of engines and cars within the limits of the town at a greater speed than six miles per hour, it was urged by a railroad company that the regulation interfered with the powers conferred upon it in its charter to fix and regulate the rate of speed of trains upon its road, but it was held, that the company had no just cause of complaint, as the privileges conferred upon it were as much subject to the police laws of the State as an individual pursuing his business.</p> <p>3. Negligence—injury by railroad train running at speed prohibited by ordinance. In a suit against a railroad company to recover for the killing of a cow in an incorporated town, the court instructed the jury, on behalf of the plaintiff, that if they believed from the evidence “ that the cow of the plaintiff was killed within the corporate limits of the town of, etc., by a railroad train of the defendant, and that said train, at the time said cow was killed, was being run at a greater rate of speed than that prescribed by the ordinance of the said town of, etc., which has been read in evidence, then said defendant is presumed to be guilty of negligence in killing the cow of the plaintiff:” Held, t

Judges: Sheldon

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.