Chicago & E. I. R. R. v. Neimann

Appellate Court of Illinois

Chicago & E. I. R. R. v. Neimann

84 Ill. App. 272, 1899 Ill. App. LEXIS 91

DecidedSeptember 5, 1899

StatusPublished

This text of 84 Ill. App. 272 (Chicago & E. I. R. R. v. Neimann) 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

Chicago & E. I. R. R. v. Neimann, 84 Ill. App. 272, 1899 Ill. App. LEXIS 91 (Ill. Ct. App. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Worthington

delivered the opinion of the court.

The failure to deliver the beer under this evidence was due to the neglect of appellant’s agent to bill it to Farthing, at Salem, as he had promised appellee to do. For this neglect appellant is liable. Appellee was not chargeable for freight to and from Salem, when, by appellant’s fault, the beer was not delivered; and was not therefore entitled to insist upon freight charges before delivering the case beer when appellee offered to take it back.

We find no error in the instructions given for appellee.

The instructions given for appellant embraced all that was proper to be given that is contained in the refused instructions. Judgment affirmed.

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

Mr. Presiding Justice Worthington

delivered the opinion of the court.

The failure to deliver the beer under this evidence was due to the neglect of appellant’s agent to bill it to Farthing, at Salem, as he had promised appellee to do. For this neglect appellant is liable. Appellee was not chargeable for freight to and from Salem, when, by appellant’s fault, the beer was not delivered; and was not therefore entitled to insist upon freight charges before delivering the case beer when appellee offered to take it back.

We find no error in the instructions given for appellee.

The instructions given for appellant embraced all that was proper to be given that is contained in the refused instructions. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 Ill. App. 272, 1899 Ill. App. LEXIS 91, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chicago-e-i-r-r-v-neimann-illappct-1899.