Skip to main content
· 1/15/1870

President of Mechanicsburg v. Meredith

Citations

  • 54 Ill. 84

Syllabus

<p>1. Pleading—of the dedarrationinan action against a municipal corporation, for injury from defective highways. Iu an action against an incorporated town, to recover damages for injuries received by the plaintiff by-reason of a defective bridge within the corporate limits of the town, it was alleged in the declaration that the town had power to levy and collect a tax, and to require labor to keep its streets, alleys and roads in repair, and that it was the duty of the town to exercise such power during the year 1868, and to keep its highways in repair, and also to keep said bridge in repair, alleging the injury was received on a particular day in that year: Meld, on motion in arrest of judgment, the averment as to the time when the duty of keeping the bridge in repair rested upon the town, was sufficient. The averment that the duty existed during the year, embraced the day the accident occurred;</p> <p>2. And the power to keep the bridge in repair would be inferred, especially after verdict, under the averment that it was the duty of the town so to do. After verdict, it will be intended that every essential fact alleged 4n the declaration, or fairly to be implied from what is alleged, was established on the trial. So the averment of the existence of the duty will be aided after verdict, by the inference that the duty would not have been imposed unless the power was conferred.</p> <p>3. Highways—bbidges—duty and liability of municipal corporations. All towns, whether incorporated by special charter or under the general law, have the power, and it is their duty, to keep-in repair the bridges within their corporate limits, and if injury result to an individual by reason of a neglect of such duty, the town must respond in damages.</p> <p>4. Same—effect of the-duty being assumed by others. In an action against an incorporated town to recover for injuries received on account of a neglect of duty on the part of the defendant to keep a bridge in repair, it is not competen

Judges: Walker

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.