Skip to main content
· 4/15/1865

Illinois River Packet Co. v. Peoria Bridge Ass'n

Citations

  • 38 Ill. 467

Syllabus

<p>1. Pleading and evidence. If facts are well alleged in a declaration, they may be proven.</p> <p>2. In an action by the owners of a steamboat navigating the Illinois river against the owners of a bridge over that stream, to recover for injury to the boat resulting from a collision with the bridge, it is a proper pleading of the fact to allege that the bridge materially obstructed the navigation of the river ; and it is competent to ask a witness, an experienced river man, whether the bridge was a material obstruction to the navigation of the river.</p> <p>3. Evidence—what are facts, to be proven, as distinguished from-matters calling for the opinions of experts. The proving that the bridge was a materia] obstruction to the navigation of the river, is not like the testimony of experts, or of scientific men, whose opinions are sought on facts supposed, or proved, but it is testimony to the existence of the fact itself.</p> <p>4. Rights of parties are mutual—application of rules of evidence. As a general principle, rules of evidence are designed as well for defendants as for plaintiffs, and must be applied to them, respectively, in the same spirit of impartiality.</p> <p>5. So where the court allowed a witness to answer a question propounded by the defendant, which was of the same character it had previously refused to allow to be answered when asked by the plaintiff, the unequal application of the rule was held to be error.</p> <p>6. Navigable streams—erection of bridges across them—of the relative rights in respect thereto. It can not be said that the navigation of the Illinois river is of most importance and paramount to all conflicting rights, and that no one has any right to erect a bridge across the same, if it in the least materially obstructs its free navigation.</p> <p>7. The true doctrine is, that conceding the right of the State to authorize building bridges over the navigable waters lying within its jurisdiction, such structures should be so erected, as

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • concluding that the defendant’s kidnapping of his victim was “requisite” to his later murder of the victim because “it was the seizure of the [victim], and the power obtained over him by that seizure, that enabled the [defendant] to conduct him to [a cave] and there kill him”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Breese

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.