Haines v. Inter Ocean Publishing Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois

Haines v. Inter Ocean Publishing Co.

20 Ill. App. 207, 1886 Ill. App. LEXIS 122

DecidedOctober 27, 1886

StatusPublished

This text of 20 Ill. App. 207 (Haines v. Inter Ocean Publishing 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

Haines v. Inter Ocean Publishing Co., 20 Ill. App. 207, 1886 Ill. App. LEXIS 122 (Ill. Ct. App. 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

McAllister, P. J.

The question as to the authority of Másente bind the defendant Haines, was, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, a mixed question of law and fact, and was in dispute on the trial upon both elements. But the court, by the first instruction for the plaintiff, assumed such authority to the full measure necessary. That was clearly improper and, as the case stood upon the evidence, a fatal error.

The same assumption was made in the second instruction for plaintiff. Hot only that, but the court therein assumed it as a fact, that Mason allowed Case to introduce him in plaintiff’s office as the president of the Glen Flora Mineral Spring Company, notwithstanding that fact had been explicitly denied by Mason in his testimony. To thus single out and make prominent in an instruction a particular fact, which, if true, is not conclusive, has repeatedly been held to be erroneous.

For these errors the judgment must be reversed and cause remanded.

Judgment reversed.

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

McAllister, P. J.

The question as to the authority of Másente bind the defendant Haines, was, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, a mixed question of law and fact, and was in dispute on the trial upon both elements. But the court, by the first instruction for the plaintiff, assumed such authority to the full measure necessary. That was clearly improper and, as the case stood upon the evidence, a fatal error.

The same assumption was made in the second instruction for plaintiff. Hot only that, but the court therein assumed it as a fact, that Mason allowed Case to introduce him in plaintiff’s office as the president of the Glen Flora Mineral Spring Company, notwithstanding that fact had been explicitly denied by Mason in his testimony. To thus single out and make prominent in an instruction a particular fact, which, if true, is not conclusive, has repeatedly been held to be erroneous.

For these errors the judgment must be reversed and cause remanded.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 Ill. App. 207, 1886 Ill. App. LEXIS 122, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haines-v-inter-ocean-publishing-co-illappct-1886.