Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern Railway Co. v. Then
Cases that cite this one
52 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Quevedo v. Union Pac. R. (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1953)
- Louisville & N. R. v. Burns (6th Cir. 1917)
- Carlin v. Deahl (Ill. App. Ct. 1912)
- Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. Ray (Ind. Ct. App. 1905)
- United States Brewing Co. v. Stoltenberg (Ill. 1904)
- Davenport, Rock Island & Northwestern Railway Co. v. DeYaeger (Ill. App. Ct. 1904)
- United States Electric Lighting Co. v. Sullivan (D.C. Cir. 1903)
- Saunders v. Schultz (Ill. App. Ct. 1959)
- Parrino v. Landon (Ill. 1956)
- Sinclair v. Grand Trunk Western Railroad (Mich. 1954)
- Lustig v. Hutchinson (Ill. App. Ct. 1953)
- Wallace v. City of Rock Island (Ill. App. Ct. 1944)
- McGraw v. Oellig (Ill. App. Ct. 1941)
- Foreman Trust & Savings Bank v. Chicago Rapid Transit Co. (Ill. App. Ct. 1929)
- Deming v. City of Chicago (Ill. 1926)
- Mugaviro v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad (Ill. App. Ct. 1926)
- Brownell v. Village of Antioch (Ill. App. Ct. 1919)
- Lichtenstein v. L. Fish Furniture Co. (Ill. 1916)
- Paden v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. (Ill. 1916)
- Follett v. Illinois Central Railroad (Ill. App. Ct. 1916)
- Smith v. Kewanee Light & Power Co. (Ill. App. Ct. 1915)
- Trapp v. Rockford Electric Co. (Ill. App. Ct. 1914)
- Gibbons v. Aurora Elgin & Chicago Railroad (Ill. App. Ct. 1913)
- Swengel v. La Salle County Carbon Coal Co. (Ill. App. Ct. 1913)
- Madl v. Chicago City Railway Co. (Ill. App. Ct. 1912)
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
Appellant urges on this court that the Appellate Court did not consider the seventh instruction asked by it (appellant) and refused by the circuit court, which was°as follows:
“The court instructs the jury, that if you find for the plaintiff, in considering the question of damages, unless it appears from the evidence that the brothers and sisters of the said Estiemes Then, deceased, were in the habit of claiming and receiving pecuniary assistance from her, you will not take into account anything which they may have lost by reason of her death, in assessing the damages in this case. ”
The action was by the father, as administrator, and the declaration avers the deceased left a father, brothers and sisters, etc. The damages to be found by the jury were to be in gross. The jury were not to apportion the amount recovered among the father and the brothers and sisters,—that was the province of the probate court. This instruction, which sought to instruct as to the question of damage, entirely ignored the existence of the father and his right, and was misleading. It was not error to refuse it.
As to other questions discussed by the Appellate Court, we are content with its opinion, and concur therein.
The judgment of the Appellate Court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.