Illinois Central Railroad v. Sutton
Citations
- 42 Ill. 438
Syllabus
<p>1. Passengers—violating rules of a railroad company—can only be expelled from, train at a regular station. Where a railroad company carries passengers on a freight train, and in such cases, requires tickets to he purchased before entering the train, and a passenger disregards the rule, he can only he expelled at a regular station.</p> <p>2. Statute—penalty for violation of rules—construction of. The willful neglect to purchase a ticket at the time and place required hy the rules of the company, and a refusal to pay fare, are substantially the same offense against the rights of the road, and the penalty no greater for one than the other.</p> <p>3. -Railroad company—liable for expulsion of a passenger at a place other than a regular station. When a passenger, before the departure of the train, was informed of the rule requiring tickets to he purchased before entering the train, and he then sought to buy them, hut the office was closed, and then entered the train, and offered to pay his fare to the conductor, which was refused, and he was expelled from the train at a place other than a regular station,—Held, that the company was liable for such action.</p> <p>4. Evidence—declarations of a person injured—as to the cause of such injury—inadmissible.. The declarations of a person injured, made to his physician, as to the cause of such injury, are inadmissible in evidence.</p> <p>5. Expert—to what extent may be guided, in forming opinion, by the declarations of the injured party. A physician, in forming his opinion as to the cause of a patient’s bodily condition, must necessarily, to some extent, he guided by what the patient tells him, in detailing his sufferings, and not only the opinion thus founded in part upon such data is admissible, hut the physician may state what the patient said in describing his bodily condition, if such statements were made under circumstances which free it from all suspicion of having been spoken with reference to future litigation, and giv
Judges: Lawrence
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
26 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Co. v. FalveyIndiana Supreme Court· 1885-11-23· cited 129×
- Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati & Indianapolis Railroad v. NewellIndiana Supreme Court· 1885-12-12· cited 107×
- Greinke v. Chicago City Railway Co.Illinois Supreme Court· 1908-06-18· cited 70×
- Birmingham Union Railway Co. v. HaleSupreme Court of Alabama· 1890-11-15· cited 49×
- Chicago City Railway Co. v. BundyIllinois Supreme Court· 1904-04-20· cited 48×
- City of Salem v. WebsterIllinois Supreme Court· 1901-10-24· cited 47×
- State v. BlydenburgSupreme Court of Iowa· 1907-07-03· cited 41×
- Holloway v. Kansas CitySupreme Court of Missouri· 1904-07-16· cited 41×
- West Chicago Street Railroad v. CarrIllinois Supreme Court· 1897-12-22· cited 37×
- Peoria Cordage Co. v. Industrial BoardIllinois Supreme Court· 1918-06-20· cited 20×
- Lake Street Elevated Railroad v. ShawIllinois Supreme Court· 1903-04-24· cited 19×
- West Chicago Street Railroad v. KennellyIllinois Supreme Court· 1897-12-22· cited 18×
- Chicago & Alton Railroad v. Industrial BoardIllinois Supreme Court· 1916-06-22· cited 18×
- Rogers v. Chicago & North Western Transportation Co.Appellate Court of Illinois· 1978-04-20· cited 14×
- Jensen v. Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway Co.Appellate Court of Illinois· 1958-01-30· cited 12×
- Goss v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals· 1892-06-27· cited 12×
- Hintz v. WagnerNorth Dakota Supreme Court· 1913-02-18· cited 9×
- Citizens Nat. Bank of Decatur v. DoranAppellate Court of Illinois· 1954-11-29· cited 7×
- Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. JohnsonAppellate Court of Illinois· 1890-06-21· cited 7×
- Lee v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co.W.D. Arkansas· 1913-01-11· cited 6×
Other cases named Illinois Central Railroad v. Sutton
1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.
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.