, 1873-06-09
City Of Bloomington " Chicago T.
Alton Railroad Company--A
Supreme Court Do
CIsiOn.
Mandamus Applied for and Awarded
to Compel the Company to
Build d Street Bridge.
Railroad Companies Held Liable to
Leave all Highways In q
Safe Condition.


following opinion has boon filed in tho Supreme
Court. Opinion by Justice Lnwrouoo
This was an application on the part Of tho Oily Of
Bloomington to compel tho Chicago Alton Railroad
to su p s5esn d s,a III ag Il spps.es e
roaa led from bloomington to pehin which Known
grado short distance south Of ta racc 10 which tho
present controversy relates. i was howeTor, dam
eer0u eonouSroneo % 81 to IL ''' Aailwsy Company to
open out. Front street until It should In
torscct with tho Pek1n road, and to abandon
road passed through cut md To crossing, boing
public. Tbs Company oontributad sloo md Transport
cd tllreo chr loads Of lnlnner without charges for
freight sna hS city @ fsn na bg
old crossing by fenco which ii h.s maintained 70 the
present nc and tho travel has passed over tho bridge
md road, which nre now part Of Front Bsrcet.
presented Iy tbia record il whether tho obligation to
furnish safo crossing to tho public rosa upon tho
1i i seaetatled principle of tho common lay, rest
h 9 os en- s
way fur tho benefit OF such person or corrAnon must
furnish to tho public proper crossing, eyon though
acting Under license from tho proper authorities.
power has not in torms rccvcd the pcrson compa-
OF removing any distractions they may croato. In tho
abscnco Of such m oxpreas proTsion It s palpable
that railway company ID under obligation to leaVo
every highway that 1t GroBEoa In safe condition for
A illustrating tlo common nm y ,sw 4 r4lo refer to
But Independently Of Tho duties imposed upon this
respondent by the common law, tho clarter under
% restore to s previous usefnlnesa any highway hat
1t might cross We tho charter Of the exBsing COM
e. 4 s9 s 9 ss
existing companies md tho road built by them, and
has purchased, must be held to have assumed tho
tho preceding charters.
Al Obligation 10 keep up crossing. irnposcd Is
gaEdcd necessarily attaching to whatever person or
eorporaton may be the ownor Of the road aa long
ths T. Is S1nn
Counsci for respondent Do not deny. these legal
principles, but thoy insist that tho existing roads
was built, tho respondent is under 10 Obligation q
keep up tho crossing Il ia urged by counsel for tho
Ing was oetaSishod BY tic oonon @ consent @ Of the
company and tho public. as substitute for tho old
ono, md the sano obligation rests upon the Company
regafS to the old Pen Noad, when hen it rt % liza is
truck acrosa that road. Tho evidence in tho record
thorltes declined to act In rogar the extension Of
Front strcet 90 as to change the place Of ceosang tho
pany occurred. TWAS for ita interest the change
and aocldena had already occurred. Is the City
would Increase in numbsr. thus exposing
ana hoayy loss. pi Tho cou.i9etaaou % nn8n fsnsh.
cd ample motive for desiring change aud when the
nav crossing made, the old was ot once closed
by tho Company 1gainht the public. To secure this
change, the Company Ind beon willing to contribute
freely towards tho expense. Hnving thus secured
such change In tho place OF crossing 1t dehtre it
cannot DO permitted to cal1 that 1t has also
pshed result which could NOT have been In the con
forever Of liability which ia admitted to Ilayc e1IAted
in regard to tho old crossing.
It Is not necessary to dscuss tho question whether
tho Legislature could authorize tho city OF Uoomiug-
ton to require the railway company to construct safe
uroaeingn ut tho intersection Of n1 streots without
reference to tho question whether tho atrcots wero
ibid out before after the construction OF the railway
Although, bJ why Of distinction, we hnve spoken Of
the crossing In question crossinE It Is in fact
morely tho removal Of old croaAfng to nov pace
eomo thrco hundred feet distant. Tho road Leading
out Of Bloomington townrds Pokin changed from
an obltque to srn1ght courBo, but 1t was the aul
stut1ou Of one Line for another, dnd this having beon
done with the full concurrence Of the Company
tho new croaRlng for concerns the liability OF
tho Company stands In place Of the old. II tho rail-
Its intersection with highways that It might in
process Of construction 1t Ii npparent nt 1t would
not he relieved OF its obligation merely because Of
slight detection Of highway by the proper 1uthor-
ties 70 as TO chaugc tho precao place Of crossing, md
such claim becomes the more unreasonable when
tie ch1ngo has been mato with tho full concurrence
and cooperation OF the Company.
We are Of opinion that peremptory mnndamus
should be awarded.
Reversed and remandel.
tScott, j., took no part In this deciston.}