Fieldstack v. Chicago City Railway Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois

Fieldstack v. Chicago City Railway Co.

184 Ill. App. 75, 1913 Ill. App. LEXIS 75

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedDecember 22, 1913

DocketGen. No. 18,284

StatusPublished

This text of 184 Ill. App. 75 (Fieldstack 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

Fieldstack v. Chicago City Railway Co., 184 Ill. App. 75, 1913 Ill. App. LEXIS 75 (Ill. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Brown

delivered the opinion of the court.

5. Instructions, § 48*—when instruction on weight of testimony not erroneous. Instruction relating to the weight of testimony containing the expression “it is the duty of the jury to receive the testimony of such witness,” held not objectionable because the word “receive” means “admit as true.” 6. Instructions, § 82*—when not improper as mentioning the name of a witness. Fact that plaintiff’s name is introduced in an instruction as to the weight of the testimony, held not objectionable where plaintiff’s name is not mentioned as a witness.

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

Mr. Justice Brown

delivered the opinion of the court.

5. Instructions, § 48*—when instruction on weight of testimony not erroneous. Instruction relating to the weight of testimony containing the expression “it is the duty of the jury to receive the testimony of such witness,” held not objectionable because the word “receive” means “admit as true.” 6. Instructions, § 82*—when not improper as mentioning the name of a witness. Fact that plaintiff’s name is introduced in an instruction as to the weight of the testimony, held not objectionable where plaintiff’s name is not mentioned as a witness.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 Ill. App. 75, 1913 Ill. App. LEXIS 75, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fieldstack-v-chicago-city-railway-co-illappct-1913.