Chicago, St. Paul & Fond du Lac Railroad v. McCarthy
Cases that cite this one
22 later published cases cite this decision.
- Metropolitan West Side El. R. R. v. Dick (Ill. App. Ct. 1900)
- Southern Ry. Co. v. Hussey (8th Cir. 1930)
- Rooker v. Lake Erie & Western Railroad (Ind. Ct. App. 1917)
- Monson v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. (Iowa 1916)
- Devine v. Illinois Telephone Construction Co. (Ill. App. Ct. 1911)
- Peters v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad (Mo. Ct. App. 1910)
- Clinger's Admx. v. C. & O. Ry. Co. (Ky. Ct. App. 1908)
- White v. Peoples Railway Co. (Superior Court of Delaware 1907)
- Patterson v. Kates (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania 1907)
- Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. v. Haas (Ga. 1906)
- Boyd v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. (Ill. 1905)
- Boyd v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. (Ill. App. Ct. 1905)
- Chicago & Grand Trunk Ry. Co. v. Hart (Ill. App. Ct. 1902)
- North Chicago Street Railroad v. Dudgeon (Ill. 1900)
- Denver & R. G. R. v. Rodder (9th Cir. 1900)
- Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Satterfield (Ill. App. Ct. 1889)
- East Line & Red River Railway Co. v. Culberson (Tex. 1888)
- Springfield & Memphis Railway Co. v. Henry (Ark. 1884)
- Arasmith v. Temple (Ill. App. Ct. 1882)
- Smith ex rel. Smith v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Railroad (Kan. 1881)
- Rockford, Rock Island & St. Louis Railroad v. Heflin (Ill. 1872)
- Barron v. Illinois Cent. R. (United States Circuit Courts 1864)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The evidence discloses a case of great negligence on the part of the contractors of this company, on whom the responsibility is attempted to be shifted.
To railroad companies are granted extraordinary privileges, and they must be held so to exercise them as to do the least possible amount of injury to others. The maxim, “ sic utere tuo ut alienum non Icedas,” well applies.
The contractors are the servants of the company, and authorized by law, being such servants, to enter upon the defendant’s land and take down his fences, if necessary; but the company must be responsible, for the consequences of the act. The contractors have no right there, except through the grant to the company, and of course are the servants and agents of the company in doing that particular work. Their tortious acts are properly chargeable to the company. The instructions given on behalf of plaintiff below were proper.
We see no difference in principle between this case and Hinde et al. v. Wabash Nav. Co., 15 Ill. 72, and accordingly affirm the judgment.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.