Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

PAGE.

568

556

D

PAGE.

Dailey ads. Woods........ 495

Henke ads. Entwhistle.... 273
Delaware & Hudson Canal

Henrietta

Coal Co. V.
Co. v. Mitchell. ... 379

Campbell....

. 216
Dickson v. New York Bis- Higbie v. Rust.....

333
cuit Co.....

468

Hiller ads. Economy Light
Dinsmoor v. Rowse..

and Power Co....

317

Disconto Gesellschaft ads.

Howell ads. Evans.

85

May....

310

Drainage Comrs. of Dis-

1

trict No. 2 v. Drainage Illinois, Iowa & Minnesota

Comrs. of District No. 3. 328 Ry. Co. v. Easterbrook.. 624

Duggan v. Ryan.......... 133 Illinois Nat. Bank v. Trus-

tees of Schools.... 500

E

Illinois Trust and Savings

Easterbrook ads. Illinois,

Bank ads. Woodman.... 578
Iowa and Minn. Ry. Co. 624

Economy Light and Power

K

Co. v. Hiller..... 568 Kaiser ads. Clemens.....

460

Entwhistle v. Henke. 273 Kane ads. Cowan... 572

Evans v. Howell....

85 Kibbie ads. Henderson.

Kizer v. People. .... 407

F

Kozlowski ads. Bolter.

79

Feitl v. Chicago City Ry.

Kuehn ads. Austin... · 113

Co.....

279

Ferns v. Chapman.

L

597

Fitchburg Steam Engine Lanning ads. Miller.... 620

Co. v. Potter....

138 Laughlin ads. Leigh. ...... 192

Franks v. Matson...

Lawrence ads. Chicago Un-

ion Traction Co..

373

G

Leigh v. Laughlin.... 192

Gage v. City of Chicago... 109

Lusk v. City of Chicago... 183

Gage v. Springer...

Lyman v. City of Chicago. 209

Gallagher u. People....... 158

Glosv. Mickow....

117

M

Goold ads. Ross-Lewin.. 384 Marshall ads. Cormack.... 519
Green ads. Town of Cicero. 241 Martin v. Todd.....

105

Greene ads. Tifft... 389 Matson ads. Franks.

Griesbach ads. People. .... 35 May v. Disconto Gesell-

schaft....

310

Н.

McClain ads. Chicago City

Hanberg ads. The Hub....

43 Ry. Co......

589

Hanreddy ads. City of Chi- Merriman v. Schmitt.

263

cago....

24

Mickow ads. Glos..

117

Hanthorn ads. Chicago Un- Miller v. Lanning...

620

ion Traction Co.....

367 Mitchell ads. Delaware &

Henderson v. Kibbie. 556 Hudson Canal Co....... 379

PAGE.

Mobile Fruit and Trading

Co. ads. Olcese.... 539

More v. More....

268

Munson ads. Peabody..... 324

PAGE.

Rodman v. Quick...... 546

Rose ads. People. .259, 252, 249

Rosenthal v. People..... 306

Ross-Lewin v. Goold...... 384

Rostad v. Chicago Subur-

ban Water and Light Co. 248
Rowse ads. Dinsmoor..... 317
Rust ads. Higbie..

333

Ryan ads. Duggan.

133

N

New York Biscuit Co. ads.

Dickson....

Nordgren v. People. ...... 425

O

S

O'Donnell ads. Chicago Sanitary District of Chi-

Union Traction Co..... 349 cago ads. Beidler... 628
Olcese v. Mobile Fruit and Schmitt ads. Merriman. 263
Trading Co.....

539 Schmitz ads. Chicago &

Olsen ads. Chicago Union Eastern Illinois R. R. Co. 446

Traction Co...... 255 Scott v. Aultman Co...... 612

Osgood v. Skinner... 229 Selke ads. Baier...

512
Skinner ads. Osgood. 229

P

Springer ads. Gage... 200

Peabody v. Munson.... 324 Stoltenberg ads. United

People ads. Cummings. 392 States Brewing Co...... 531

People ads. Gallagher. 158

People v. Griesbach.

35

T

People ads. Kizer..

407

The Hub v. Hanberg..... 43
People ads. Nordgren..... 425 Theurer v. People ex rel... 296
People ads. Quigg..

17
Tifft v. Greene...

389
People v. Rose....259, 252, 249

Todd ads. Martin..... 105

People ads. Rosenthal..... 306 Trustees of Schools ads.

People ex rel. ads. Theurer. 296 Illinois Nat. Bank...... 500

Potter ads. Fitchburg Steam

Engine Co....

U

Potter ads. Whittemore.... 138 United States Brewing Co.

v. Stoltenberg..... 531

Q

Quick ads. Rodman...

W

Quigg v. People...

17 Whittemore v. Potter..... 138

Woodman v. Illinois Trust

R

and Savings Bank...... 578

Roby v. Calumet and Chi- Woods v. Dailey.... 495

cago Canal and Dock Co. 173

Rodman ads. Central Safety

Y

Deposit Co....

546 Yates ads. Chicago Title

Rogers v. Cleveland, Cin.,

and Trust Co...

99

Chicago & St. L. Ry. Co. 126 York ads. Choisser.

56

CASES

ARGUED AND DETERMINED

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.

CHICAGO AND EASTERN ILLINOIS RAILROAD COMPANY

V.

E. H. BURRIDGE.

Opinion filed June 23, 1904Rehearing petition dismissed October 4, 1904. Appellate and Supreme Courts, that the refusal of a certain instruction was error, the fact that no authority was cited until a late stage in the proceedings, id pursuance of leave granted by the Supreme Court, is not a waiver of the error.

1. INSTRUCTIONSwhen instruction is not bad for referring to plaintiff's interest. An instruction stating that the jury, in weighing the plaintiff's evidence, may take into consideration that he is interested in the result of the suit, is not improper as singling out the plaintiff, where the suit is against a corporation and the plaintiff is the only witness directly interested in the suit.

2. SAME—it is error to refuse instruction as to right of jury to consider plaintiff's interest. In an action against a corporation for personal injury it is error to refuse an instruction permitting the jury to consider plaintiff's interest in the suit as affecting the weight of his testimony, where no other instruction of like import is given.

3. SAME-when refused instruction is not corered by given one. A refused instruction authorizing the jury to consider the plaintiff's interest in the suit when weighing his testimony is not covered by a given instruction stating the law where witnesses knowingly testify falsely to material matters.

4. SAME-instruction that law as stated by court is binding should be giren. An instruction stating that the instructions given to the jury by the court must be accepted by them as the law governing the case and that they will not be justified in finding a verdict contrary to the law so presented is correct, and should be given.

5. APPEALS AND ERRORS--when error in refusing instruction is not waired. If the appellant urges in his original brief, both in the

C. & E. I. R. R. Co. v. Burridge, 107 Ill. App. 23, reversed.

APPEAL from the Appellate Court for the Fourth District;---heard in that court on appeal from the Circuit Court of Marion county; the Hon. WILLIAM M. FARMER, Judge, presiding.

This was an action on the case in the circuit court of Marion county, brought by appellee to recover for personal injuries received by him while in a freight car containing personal property belonging to him, at Salem, in that county. The injury is charged to have resulted from the negligent act of the plaintiff in driving a train of cars with great violence against the freight car in question. The trial in the court below resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of appellee for the sum of $1000, which has been affirmed by the Appellate Court for the Fourth District, and the case comes here by appeal.

Appellee shipped a stock of goods from Humboldt, Tennessee, to Salem, Illinois, over the Mobile and Ohio railroad and the appellant's railroad, in a freight car, which arrived at Salem on the evening of February 6, 1901, and appellant's agent at that place notified appellee of the arrival of his goods in order that the car might be unloaded by him. The car was placed on a side-track of appellant at Salem a short distance north and east of the depot building and east of the main track, at a point where cars were usually left by appellant for loading and unloading. There was a wagon road east of the side-track where freight was taken from the cars. On the morning of February 7, 1901, the appellee began removing his goods from the car. A dray was driven up to the east side of the car on the side-track, and the drayman, Rose, an assistant or clerk of appellee by the name of Justice, and appellee's business partner, Demp

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »