Francis v. Shrader

Illinois Supreme Court

Francis v. Shrader

67 Ill. 272

DecidedJanuary 15, 1873

StatusPublished

This text of 67 Ill. 272 (Francis v. Shrader) 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

Francis v. Shrader, 67 Ill. 272 (Ill. 1873).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam :

We are not satisfied with this verdict on the evidence, and think the jury must have been misled by the first instruction for the plaintiff. They are told the defendant was under obligation to take extraordinary care of the mare if she was loaned by the plaintiff to the defendant without compensation. This is true as a legal proposition, but the objection is, that the mare was not loaned without compensation, even upon the plaintiff’s own testimony. The mare was delivered to the defendant to be broken to service, and he was only b'ound to ordinary care. The jury probably understood the word “compensation,” used in the instruction, as a money compensation. Although the instruction for defendant stated the law correctly, we think the jury was misled by the first given for plaintiff.

Judgment reversed.

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

Per Curiam :

We are not satisfied with this verdict on the evidence, and think the jury must have been misled by the first instruction for the plaintiff. They are told the defendant was under obligation to take extraordinary care of the mare if she was loaned by the plaintiff to the defendant without compensation. This is true as a legal proposition, but the objection is, that the mare was not loaned without compensation, even upon the plaintiff’s own testimony. The mare was delivered to the defendant to be broken to service, and he was only b'ound to ordinary care. The jury probably understood the word “compensation,” used in the instruction, as a money compensation. Although the instruction for defendant stated the law correctly, we think the jury was misled by the first given for plaintiff.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 Ill. 272, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/francis-v-shrader-ill-1873.