382; Walton v. Develing, 61 Ill. 202; Edwards v. Pope, 3 Scam, 468; Misner v. Bullard, 43 Ill. 472; Collins v. Sinclair, 51 11. 328; Steele v. Thatcher, 56 Ill. 257; Jevne v. Osgood, 57 Ill. 341; Edwards v. Edwards, 31 Ill. 474; Wilson v. Haecker, 85 Ill. 349; Mix v. Singleton, 86 Ill. 194; Chicago C. Ry. Co. v. Howison, 86 Ill. 215; McAllister v. Clark, 86 Ill. 236; Rees v. Peltzer, 1 Brad. 315; Same, 2 Ch. L. J. 144. 13. Violating injunction. § 13. Upon satisfactory proof being made in vacation that an injunction has been violated, the judge granting the same, or the judge of the court from which the writ was issued, may issue an attachment and cause the party violating the injunc tion to be brought before him. Upon his being brought before the said judge, unless he shall disprove or purge the said contempt, the said judge may, in his discretion, commit him to jail until the sitting of the court in which the said injunction is pending, or take bail for his appearance in the said court at the next term thereof, to answer for the said contempt, and to abide the order of the court thereon. [R. S. 1845, P. 383, § 12; Colcord v. Sylvester, 66 Ill. 540; Andrews v. Knox Co., 70 Ill. 65; Crook v. People, 16 Ill. 534; Campbell v. Gilman, 26 Ill. 120; Springfield v. Edwards, 84 Ill. 627; Safford v. People, 85 Ill. 558. 14. Motion to dissolve or modify in vacation. $ 14. A defendant may move to dissolve or modify an injunction in vacation, either for want of equity in the bill or upon the coming in of the answer, and the judge of the court from which the injunction was issued may hear and determine the motion upon five days' notice of the hearing having been given to the complainant or his solicitor. [See "Courts," ch. 37, 67. 15. Motion to dissolve at any time. 15. A motion to dissolve an injunction may be made at any time upon answer, or for want of equity on the face of the bill. [Weaver v. Poyer, 70 Ill. 567; Higgins v. Bullock, 73 Ill. 205; Swinney v. Beard, 71 Ill. 28; Titus v. Mabee, 25 Ill. 257: Wangelin v. Goe, 50 Ill. 461; Pentacost v. Magahee, 4 Scam 326; Gage v. Eich, 56 Ill. 297; Gage v. Rohrbach, 56 Ill. 262; Gage v. Chapman, 56 Ill. 311; Moses v. Mayor, etc., 15 Wall. (U. S ) 387; Gray v. McCance, II I. 325 Trout v. Emmons, 29 Ill. 433; Hummert v. Schwab, 54 Ill. 142; Reece v. Darby, 4 Scam. 159; Fisher v. Stone, 3 Scam. 68; Puterbaugh v. Elliott, 22 Ill. 157; Richardson v. Prevo, Breese, 216; President, etc., v. Trustees, etc., 54 Ill. 334; Bennett v. McFadden, 61 Ill. 334. 16. Motion to dissolve-evidence. § 16. Upon a motion to dissolve an injunction after answer, the court shall not be bound to take the answer as absolutely true, but shall decide the motion upon the weight of the testimony. [R. S. 1845, p. 383, § 13. 17. Affidavits. 17. The complainant may support his bill and the defendant may support his answer by affidavits filed with the same, which may be read in evidence on the hearing of the motion to dissolve the injunction. [R. S. 1845, P. 383, § 13; Prout v. Lomer, 79 Ill. 331; Hummert v. Schwab, 54 Ill. 142. 18. Continuance for testimony to support bill. § 18. If, after a motion is made to dissolve an injunction, the com[*581] plainant in the bill will satisfy the court, by his own affidavit or that of any disinterested person, that the answer or any material part thereof (to be specified in such affidavit) is untrue, and that he has testi CHAP. 69. INJUNCTIONS. mony which will disprove the answer, or such material part thereof, which he can produce at the next term of the court or at an earlier day, and that he has had no opportunity to procure such testimony since the coming in of the answer, the court may grant a continuance of such motion until the next term, or until such testimony can be procured. [R. S. 1845, p. 383, § 13; Farrell v. McKee, 36 Ill. 226; Smith v. l'owell, 50 Ill. 21; Reece v. Darby, 4 Scam. 162. 19. Testimony to be by deposition. 19. The testimony of witnesses to be used upon such motion, except such as may be contained in the affidavits filed with the bill or answer, shall be depositions in writing, which shall be taken in the same manner as other testimony in cases in chancery. [R. S. 1845, p. 383, § 13. 20. Depositions read in final hearing. § 20. Depositions taken upon a motion to dissolve an injunction may be read in the final hearing of the cause. [R. S. 1845, P. 383, § 13. 21. Effect of appeal in injunction. § 21. No appeal from a decree dissolving an injunction shall have the effect to continue in force the injunction unless the appeal is prayed at the entering of such decree, and the court allowing the same shall so order, or unless the party praying the appeal shall, within ten days after the appeal is allowed, procure from the supreme court, if in session, or a judge thereof if in vacation, an order directing that the appeal shall have the effect to continue such injunction in force; and no such order shall be granted except for good cause appearing in the record, nor when the bill is dismissed by the complainant. The supreme court, or a judge thereof, may for good cause extend the time for procuring such order. [Shaw v. Hill, 67 Ill. 455; Prout v. Lomer, 79 Ill. 331; Weaver v. Poyer, 70 Ill. 567; Hanford v. Blessing, 80 lil. 188; Bressler v. McCune, 56 Ill. 475; Champlin v. Morgan, 18 Ill. 293; Blount v. Tomlin, 26 Ill. 531. 22. Further bond. § 22. The court or judge granting the order for the continuance in force of any such injunction may require, as a condition of granting the same, such further bond and security, to be filed with the clerk of the supreme court, as may be deemed equitable. 23. Injunctions on Sunday. § 23. When an application shall be made on a Sunday for a writ of injunction, and there shall be filed with the bill an affidavit of the complainant, or his, her or their agent or attorney, stating that the benefits of an injunction will be lost or endangered, or irremediable damage occasioned unless such writ be immediately issued, and giving the reasons for such statement, then it shall be lawful for any officer who is authorized by the law of this State to grant writs of injunction, if it appears to him from such affidavit that the benefits of an injunction will be lost or endangered, or irremediable damage occasioned unless such writ be immediately issued, and if the complainant otherwise be entitled to such writ under the law, to grant a writ of injunction on a Sunday; and it shall be lawful for the clerk to issue, and for the sheriff or coroner to serve such writ of injunction on a Sunday as on any other day, and all affidavits and bonds made and proceedings had in such case shall have the same force and effect as if made or had on any other day. [Langabier v. R. R. Co., 64 Ill. 243. AN ACT requiring compensation for causing death by wrongful act, neglect or de fault. Approved Feb. 12, 1853. In force Feb. 12, 1853. L. 1853, p. 97.] 1. Killing-action survives. SEC. 1. Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, represented in the General Assembly, Whenever the death of a person shall be caused by wrongful act, neglect or default, and the act, neglect or default is such as would, if death had not ensued, have entitled the party injured to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, then and in every such case the person who or company or corporation which would have been liable if death had not ensued, shall be liable to an action for damages, notwithstanding the death of the person injured, and although the death shall have been caused under such circumstances as amount in law to felony. [See "Administration of Estates," ch. 3. § 122; "Miners," ch. 93, § 14; City of Chicago v. Ganin, 2 Ch. L. J. 144; City of Mendota v. Fay, 1 Ch. L T. 216; C. & A. R. R. Co. v. Langley, 1 Ch. L. J. 255; Clark v. Gotts, 1 Ch. L. J. 401; C. B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Harwood, 80 Ill. 88; Hackett v. Smelsley, 77 Ill. 109; Toledo, W. & W. Ry. Co. v O'Connor, 77 Ill. 391; C. & A. R. R Co. v. Becker, 76 Ill. 25; T. W. & W. Ry. Co. v. Miller, 76 Ill. 278; T. W. & W. Ry. Co. v. Durkin, 76 Ill. 395; Weick v. Lander, 75 Ill. 93; Chicago v. Scholten, 75 Ill. 468; T. W. & W. Ry. Co V. Brooks, 81 Ill. 245; R. R. & St. L. R. R. Co. v. Byam, 80 Ill. 528; Paxton v. Boyer, 67 Ill. 135: Grand Tower M. & T. Co. v. Hawkins, 72 Ill. 386; Latham v. Rovel, 72 Il. 179; Camp Pt. M'fg. Co. v. Ballou, 71 Ill. 417: O. & M. Ry. Co. v. Stratton, 78 Ill. 88; I. C. R. R. Co. v. Hall, 72 Ill. 222; Same v. Green, 81 l. 19; C. B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Van Patten, 64 Ill. 517; I. C. R. R. Co. v. Goddard, 72 Ill. 567 ; C. & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Clark, 70 Ill. 276; Sterling Bridge Co. v. Pearl, 80 Ill. 251; Fairbank v. Hamtzsche, 73 Ill. 236; Weick v. Lander, 75 Ill. 93; T. P. & W. R. R. Co. v. Conroy, 68 Ill. 561; !. C. R. R. Co. v. Houck, 72 Ill. 285; I. C. R. R. Co. v. Baches, 55 Ill. 379; I. C. R. R. Co. v. Hoffman, 67 Ill. 287; I. C. R. R. Co. v. Welch, 52 III. 183: C. R. I. & P. R. R. Co. v. McKittrick, 78 Ill. 619; C. C. & I. C. R. R. Co. v. Troesch, 68 Ill. 545; C. & N. W. Ry. v. Taylor, 69 Ill. 461; I. B. & W. Ry. Co. v. Flanigan, 77 Ill. 365 I. C. R. R. Co. v. Keen, 72 Ill. 512; Ryan v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co., 60 Ill. 171; 1. C. R. R. Co. v. Jewell, 46 Ill. 99; City of Chicago v. Major, 18 Ill. 356; I. C. R. R. Co. v. Hutchinson, 47 Ill. 408; Same v. Weldon, 52 III. 290; Same v. Phillips, 49 Ill. 234; Same v. Phillips, 55 Ill. 194; Pittsburgh, etc., v. Thomp son, 56 Ill. 138; C. & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Jackson, 55 Ill. 496; C. & A. R. R Co. v. Quaintance, 58 Ill. 391; Indianapolis, etc., v. Stables, 62 I. 313; C. & A. R. R. Co. v. Murphy, 53 Ill. 336; Lalor v. Chicago, etc., R. R. Co., 52 III. 401; Litchfield Coal Co. v. Taylor, 81 II 592; I. C. R. R. Co. v. Crogin, 71 Ill. 177; Utley v. Burns, 70 Ill. 162: Buckingham v. Fisher, 70 l. 123; City of Chicago v Wright, 68 Ill. 587; I. C. R. R. Co. v. Chambers, 71 Ill. 520; I. C. R. R Co. v. Godfrey, 71 Ill 500; Same v Hammer, 72 Ill. 347; G. T. M. & T. Co. v. Hawkins, 72 Ill. 386; C. & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Coss, 73 Ill. 395; St. L. & S. E. R. R. Co. v. Britz, 72 Ill. 256; R. R. I. & St. L. R. R. Co. v. Hillmer, 72 Ill. 235; Kewanee v. Depew, 80 Ill. 119; C. & A. R. R. Co. v. Murray, 71 Ill. 602; T. W. & W. Ry. Co. v. Eddy, 72 Ill. 138 T W. & W. Ry. Co. v. Grush, 67 Ill. 262; T. W. & W. Ry Co. v. Fredericks, 71 In 294: T. W. & W. Ry. Co. v. Moore, 77 Ill. 217; T. W. & W. Ry. Co. v. Maine, 67 Ill 2. Action - by whom brought, etc. — limit of damages. § 2. Every such action shall be brought by and in the names of the personal representatives of such deceased person, and the amount recovered in every such action shall be for the exclusive benefit of the widow and next of kin of such deceased person, and shall be distributed to such widow and next of kin, in the proportion provided by law in relation to the distribution of personal property left by persons dying intestate; and in every such action the jury may give such damages as they shall deem a fair and just compensation, with reference to the pecuniary injuries resulting from such death to the wife and next of kin of such deceased person, not exceeding the sum of $5,000: Provided, that every such action shall be commenced within two years after the death of such person. [Quincy Coal Co. v. Hood, 77 Ill. 68: City of Chicago v. Major, 18 Ill. 359: Same v. Scholten, 75 Ill. 469; T. W. & W. Ry. Co. v. Brooks, 81 Ill. 245; Chicago, etc., R. R. Co. v. Shannon, 43 Ill. 339; Same v. Swett, 45 Ill. 201; Same v. Morris, 26 Ill. 400: Same v. Powers, 42 Ill. 170; I. C R. R. Co. v. Welch, 52 Ill. 188 Same v. Weldon, 52 Ill. 295; Drake v. Gilmore, 52 N. Y. 389; Townsend v. Radcliffe, 44 Ill. 446; Pittsburgh, etc., v. Bumstead, 48 Ill. 221; Conant v. Griffin, 48 Ill. 410; Toledo, etc., R. R. Co. v. Webster, 55 Ill. 338; Goltra'v. People, 53 Ill. 224. AN ACT to require owners of threshing and other machines to guard against accidents. [Approved March 31, 1869. In force April 1, 1869. L. 1869, p. 254.] 3. Duty of owner of machine. SEC. 1. Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, represented in the General Assembly, That all persons in this State who are or may hereafter own or run any threshing machine, corn sheller, or any other machine which is connected to a horse power by means of tumbling rods or line of shafting, shall cause each and every length or section of such tumbling rod (except the one next the horse power), together with the knuckles or joints and jacks thereof, to be safely boxed or secured while running. 4. Penalty. $ 2. Any person owning or running any machine, as mentioned in section I of this act, without complying with the requirements of the aforesaid section, shall be held liable to the person damaged for any damage which may be sustained by such person by reason of such neglect, and no action shall be maintained nor shall any legal liability exist for services rendered by or with any such machine, when it shall be made to appear that the first section of this act has not been complied with. 5. When act in force. §3. This act shall be in force from and after the first day of April next. [*583] SECTION Chapter 71. INN-KEEPERS. SECTION I. Notice to deposit money, etc., to be 2. When inn-keeper not liable for posted. money, etc., lost. AN ACT for the protection of inn-keepers. [Approved February 22, 1861. In force April 24, 1861. L. 1861, p. 133.] 1. Notice to deposit money, etc. SEC. 1. Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, represented in the General Assembly, That hereafter every landlord or keeper of a public inn or hotel in this State, who shall constantly have in his inn or hotel an iron safe, in good order, and suitable for the safe custody of money, jewelry, and other valuable articles, belonging to his guests or customers, shall keep posted up conspicuously, on the office, also at the inside of every entrance door of every public, sleeping, bar, reading, sitting and parlor room of his inn or hotel, notices to his guests and customers that they must leave their money, jewelry or other valuables with the landlord, his agent or clerk, for safe keeping, that he may make safe deposit of the same in the place provided for that purpose, [Johnson v. Richardson, 17 Ill. 303; Kelsey v. Berry, 42 Ill. 469. 2. When inn-keeper not liable. 2. That such landlord, hotel or inn-keepers as shall comply with the requirements of the first section of this act, shall not be liable for any money, jewelry or other valuables, of gold, silver or rare and precious stones, that may be lost, if the same is not delivered to said landlord, hotel or inn-keeper, his agent or clerk, for deposit, unless such loss shall occur by the hand or through the negligence of the landlord, or by a clerk or servant employed by him in such hotel or inn: Provided, that nothing herein contained shall apply to such amount of money and valuables as is usual, common and prudent for any such guest to retain in his room or about his person. [Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Smith, 73 Ill. 360; Bendetson v. French, 46 N. Y. 266. |