Chapman v. Chicago City Railway Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois

Chapman v. Chicago City Railway Co.

205 Ill. App. 497

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedMay 9, 1917

DocketGen. No. 21,981

StatusPublished

This text of 205 Ill. App. 497 (Chapman v. Chicago City Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chapman v. Chicago City Railway Co., 205 Ill. App. 497 (Ill. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Goodwin

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Appeal and error, § 1316*—when not assumed that jury decided case on another theory. Where the instructions offered on behalf of both parties showed the case was submitted to the jury upon a certain theory, held that the court could not decide the case upon an hypothesis, resting upon surmise and conjecture, that the jury decided the case upon another theory. 4. Instructions, § 18*—lohen fatally erroneous because argumentative and misleading. Where the testimony as to a party’s intoxication was sharply conflicting and the question was of importance, an instruction as to the consideration of such testimony which was argumentative and misleading, held to be fatally erroneous.

O’Connor, P. J., dissenting.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Justice Goodwin

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Appeal and error, § 1316*—when not assumed that jury decided case on another theory. Where the instructions offered on behalf of both parties showed the case was submitted to the jury upon a certain theory, held that the court could not decide the case upon an hypothesis, resting upon surmise and conjecture, that the jury decided the case upon another theory. 4. Instructions, § 18*—lohen fatally erroneous because argumentative and misleading. Where the testimony as to a party’s intoxication was sharply conflicting and the question was of importance, an instruction as to the consideration of such testimony which was argumentative and misleading, held to be fatally erroneous.

O’Connor, P. J., dissenting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 Ill. App. 497, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chapman-v-chicago-city-railway-co-illappct-1917.