City of Springfield v. Seiglar

Appellate Court of Illinois

City of Springfield v. Seiglar

21 Ill. App. 334, 1886 Ill. App. LEXIS 651

DecidedNovember 20, 1886

StatusPublished

This text of 21 Ill. App. 334 (City of Springfield v. Seiglar) 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

City of Springfield v. Seiglar, 21 Ill. App. 334, 1886 Ill. App. LEXIS 651 (Ill. Ct. App. 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This was an action for personal injury by means of alleged defect in sidewalk. Plaintiff recovered be-1 ow $200. She could not have received the inj ury complained of at the place mentioned after the walk was renewed, as shown. But the time of its renewal was not definitely fixed. It was not impossible, according to the evidence, that it was after the injury to plaintiff, and it is not denied that such a defect as was described, at about the place described, had existed for a long time before the renewal.

. The jury must have believed the plaintiff and her daughter as to the fact and place of the accident. No sufficient reason appears for overruling their judgment as to the credibility of the witnesses. Nor do we think the instructions given for plaintiff assumed any fact that was in question and to be proved.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

This was an action for personal injury by means of alleged defect in sidewalk. Plaintiff recovered be-1 ow $200. She could not have received the inj ury complained of at the place mentioned after the walk was renewed, as shown. But the time of its renewal was not definitely fixed. It was not impossible, according to the evidence, that it was after the injury to plaintiff, and it is not denied that such a defect as was described, at about the place described, had existed for a long time before the renewal.

. The jury must have believed the plaintiff and her daughter as to the fact and place of the accident. No sufficient reason appears for overruling their judgment as to the credibility of the witnesses. Nor do we think the instructions given for plaintiff assumed any fact that was in question and to be proved.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 Ill. App. 334, 1886 Ill. App. LEXIS 651, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-springfield-v-seiglar-illappct-1886.