H. Channon Co. v. Hahn

Appellate Court of Illinois

H. Channon Co. v. Hahn

90 Ill. App. 256, 1899 Ill. App. LEXIS 787

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedJuly 17, 1900

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 90 Ill. App. 256 (H. Channon Co. v. Hahn) 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

H. Channon Co. v. Hahn, 90 Ill. App. 256, 1899 Ill. App. LEXIS 787 (Ill. Ct. App. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion per Curiam.

This is an appeal from, a judgment of $5,000 against appellant, entered upon a verdict for that amount in a suit brought by the appellee to recover for personal injuries sustained by him from falling down an elevator shaft, by reason of the alleged negligence of appellant. The judgment was the result of a second trial of the ease. Mr. Justice Freeman, of this court, presided at the first trial of the case in the Superior Court, and set aside the verdict then returned in favor of the appellee, and granted the motion for a new trial therein.

He accordingly feels that it would be improper to sit in review of this judgment, rendered (as it seems) on much the same facts as those elicited at the first trial, and declines so to do. And upon a consideration of the law and the facts by the remaining justices (Horton and Shepard) it being impossible for them to agree, therefore it is considered that by reason of such disagreement the judgment of the Superior Court must, by operation of law, stand aifirmed, and it is so ordered.

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

Opinion per Curiam.

This is an appeal from, a judgment of $5,000 against appellant, entered upon a verdict for that amount in a suit brought by the appellee to recover for personal injuries sustained by him from falling down an elevator shaft, by reason of the alleged negligence of appellant. The judgment was the result of a second trial of the ease. Mr. Justice Freeman, of this court, presided at the first trial of the case in the Superior Court, and set aside the verdict then returned in favor of the appellee, and granted the motion for a new trial therein.

He accordingly feels that it would be improper to sit in review of this judgment, rendered (as it seems) on much the same facts as those elicited at the first trial, and declines so to do. And upon a consideration of the law and the facts by the remaining justices (Horton and Shepard) it being impossible for them to agree, therefore it is considered that by reason of such disagreement the judgment of the Superior Court must, by operation of law, stand aifirmed, and it is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 Ill. App. 256, 1899 Ill. App. LEXIS 787, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/h-channon-co-v-hahn-illappct-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack