City of Aurora v. Gillett

Illinois Supreme Court

City of Aurora v. Gillett

56 Ill. 132

CourtIllinois Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 15, 1870

StatusPublished

Cited by18 cases

This text of 56 Ill. 132 (City of Aurora v. Gillett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Illinois Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of Aurora v. Gillett, 56 Ill. 132 (Ill. 1870).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The error relied upon for the reversal of the judgment in this case is the refusal of the court to give instructions asked for in behalf of the defendant. All the instructions have been carefully examined, those refused as well as those given. .Most of those refused contained objectionable features, which rendered their refusal proper. Some of them might have properly been given, but we think they were substantially embraced in the instructions that were given for the defendant. Taking all the instructions together, given on both sides, they very fairly laid down the law to the jury, as applicable to the facts of the case.

They rested the liability of the city upon the question of fact, whether the alleged injury was caused by reason of the drains and sewers which the city had constructed, being defective or having become obstructed. The case comes within the principle of the case of Nevins v. The City of Peoria, 41 Ill. 502, and under that decision the law was correctly given to the jmy-

Finding no substantial cause of complaint, in the refusing of instructions, the judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam:

The error relied upon for the reversal of the judgment in this case is the refusal of the court to give instructions asked for in behalf of the defendant. All the instructions have been carefully examined, those refused as well as those given. .Most of those refused contained objectionable features, which rendered their refusal proper. Some of them might have properly been given, but we think they were substantially embraced in the instructions that were given for the defendant. Taking all the instructions together, given on both sides, they very fairly laid down the law to the jury, as applicable to the facts of the case.

They rested the liability of the city upon the question of fact, whether the alleged injury was caused by reason of the drains and sewers which the city had constructed, being defective or having become obstructed. The case comes within the principle of the case of Nevins v. The City of Peoria, 41 Ill. 502, and under that decision the law was correctly given to the jmy-

Finding no substantial cause of complaint, in the refusing of instructions, the judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 Ill. 132, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-aurora-v-gillett-ill-1870.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack