Fred Miller Brewing Co. v. Jones

Appellate Court of Illinois

Fred Miller Brewing Co. v. Jones

190 Ill. App. 169

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedDecember 22, 1914

DocketGen. No. 19,920

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 190 Ill. App. 169 (Fred Miller Brewing Co. v. Jones) 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

Fred Miller Brewing Co. v. Jones, 190 Ill. App. 169 (Ill. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Smith

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Evidence, § 173*—when evidence of telephone conversation admissible. Evidence of a telephone conversation with an agent of plaintiff is erroneously admitted where it is not shown who answered the call, that he was known to the witness or recognized as an agent of the plaintiff, or authorized to speak for such plaintiff. 3. Principal and agent, § 225*—who has burden of proving authority of agent. The burden of proof of authority of an agent is on the party dealing with such agent. 4. Principal and agent, § 240*—when evidence of agent admissible to bind principal. Evidence of an agent is not admissible to bind his principal where his authority is not shown. 5. Witnesses, § 209*—what cross-examination improper. Where a witness’ testimony on direct examination was limited solely to identification of signatures on a judgment note, questions asked on cross-examination as to the witness’ duties, were improper.

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

Mr. Justice Smith

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Evidence, § 173*—when evidence of telephone conversation admissible. Evidence of a telephone conversation with an agent of plaintiff is erroneously admitted where it is not shown who answered the call, that he was known to the witness or recognized as an agent of the plaintiff, or authorized to speak for such plaintiff. 3. Principal and agent, § 225*—who has burden of proving authority of agent. The burden of proof of authority of an agent is on the party dealing with such agent. 4. Principal and agent, § 240*—when evidence of agent admissible to bind principal. Evidence of an agent is not admissible to bind his principal where his authority is not shown. 5. Witnesses, § 209*—what cross-examination improper. Where a witness’ testimony on direct examination was limited solely to identification of signatures on a judgment note, questions asked on cross-examination as to the witness’ duties, were improper.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 Ill. App. 169, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fred-miller-brewing-co-v-jones-illappct-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack