McCollom v. Indianapolis & St. Louis Railroad

Citations

• 94 Ill. 534

Syllabus

<p>1. Instruction—whether it shuts out defense. An instruction that the responsibility of a railroad company as a common carrier continued from the time stock were entrusted to it for transportation until the same reached their destination, in a suit to recover of the company for a loss and injury to the animals, is not open to the objection that it asserts an absolute liability, without regard to any defence set up by the defendant.</p> <p>2. New trtai.—newly discovered evidence. Where newly discovered evidence is somewhat cumulative, and is quite inconclusive in its character, there will be no error in refusing a new trial on the ground of such newly discovered evidence.</p> <p>3. Amendment—after overruling motion for a new trial. Where a declaration against a carrier alleged that the defendant received sheep of the plaintiff, and contracted to transport them to “Elwood, Kan.,” and the proof showed an agreement to transport to “ Ellinwood, Kansas,” it was held no error to allow an amendment of the declaration, by striking out the word “Elwood” and inserting the word “Ellinwood,” even after overruling a motion for a new trial, when the motion to amend was made before deciding the motion for a new trial, the words being so nearly alike in sound that the proof could create no surprise.</p>