Litchfield Coal Co. v. Taylor
Citations
- 81 Ill. 590
Syllabus
<p>L Tarty at law—widow to recover under miners’ act. An action to re- • cover damages for the death of a miner, caused by neglect to observe the provisions of the statute relating to miners, is properly brought by the widow of the deceased. The action is given to the widow and not to the personal representative.</p> <p>2. Statute—construed as to repealing special law. The statute of 1874 entitled “Injuries” does not repeal the 14th section of the act relating to miners. The former act is general, while the latter is special and must control as to all cases specially enumerated therein, and the first, being general, will embrace all other cases.</p> <p>3. Amendment—as to parties plaintiff. Under the Practice Act the court has ample power to allow amendments to be made as to the character in which the plaintiff sues, and this is no ground for a continuance unless the defendant shows by affidavit that lie is surprised.</p> <p>4. Pleading and evidence—variance. Where a declaration alleged that the defendant was hoisting coal out of a shaft in its mine at the time the deceased was ascending, and he was killed in consequence of that illegal act, and the proof showed that he had just got upon the cage to be raised when he was killed by the fall of coal, it was held, there was no material variance, as the danger was as great as if the cage was in fact ascending at the time.</p> <p>5. Where a count averred that the defendant used in its mine uncovered cages to hoist out and lower into the mine persons employed to work therein, and that deceased had gone upon an uncovered cage to be hoisted out of the mine, and while upon it was struck by a lump of coal falling- down the shaft, and killed by reason of there being no such cover on the cage, and the proof showed that immediately after the accident he was found lying on his back off the cage, with his feet about six inches from it, it was held, there was not necessarily a variance, and that even if he was killed while in the ac
Judges: Craig
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
20 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Narramore v. Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co.Sixth Circuit· 1899-07-05· cited 118×
- McDonald v. NebraskaEighth Circuit· 1900-03-19· cited 80×
- Berns v. Graston Gas Coal Co.West Virginia Supreme Court· 1885-12-05· cited 40×
- Hall v. West & Slade Mill Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1905-08-02· cited 39×
- Catlett v. YoungIllinois Supreme Court· 1892-11-02· cited 31×
- Durant v. Lexington Coal Mining Co.Supreme Court of Missouri· 1888-10-15· cited 27×
- H. & T. C. R'y Co. v. LeslieTexas Supreme Court· 1882-05-02· cited 22×
- Martin v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa· 1902-10-25· cited 19×
- Leslie v. Rich Hill Coal Mining Co.Supreme Court of Missouri· 1892-05-09· cited 9×
- Bradley v. Chicago-Virden Coal Co.Illinois Supreme Court· 1907-12-17· cited 5×
- Metropolitan Trust Co. v. Bowman Dairy Co.Appellate Court of Illinois· 1937-12-06· cited 5×
- Struthers v. PeopleAppellate Court of Illinois· 1904-10-14· cited 4×
- Fonyo v. Chicago Title & Trust Co.Appellate Court of Illinois· 1938-06-30· cited 4×
- Lewis v. County of CookAppellate Court of Illinois· 1897-11-02· cited 3×
- Leman v. Baltimore & O. R. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illnois· 1904-02-08· cited 2×
- Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co. v. BodemerAppellate Court of Illinois· 1889-09-11· cited 1×
- Rankin v. CowdenAppellate Court of Illinois· 1896-06-01· cited 1×
- Carterville Coal Co. v. AbbottAppellate Court of Illinois· 1899-03-10· cited 1×
- Consolidated Coal Co. v. DombroskiAppellate Court of Illinois· 1903-03-02
- Krause v. MorganOhio Supreme Court· 1895-05-14
Cites
5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Illinois Central Railroad v. GodfreyIllinois Supreme Court· 1874-01-15· cited 99×
- Tonawanda Rail-Road v. MungerNew York Supreme Court· 1848-01-15· cited 81×
- President of Ottawa v. County of La SalleIllinois Supreme Court· 1851-06-15· cited 45×
- Teutonia Life Insurance v. MuellerIllinois Supreme Court· 1875-01-15· cited 31×
- Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. v. LeeIllinois Supreme Court· 1873-09-15· cited 24×
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.