Hayden v. Miller

Appellate Court of Illinois

Hayden v. Miller

205 Ill. App. 147

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedApril 19, 1917

DocketGen. No. 6,357

StatusPublished

This text of 205 Ill. App. 147 (Hayden v. Miller) 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

Hayden v. Miller, 205 Ill. App. 147 (Ill. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Niehaus

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Evidence, § 475*—what constitutes preponderance of. It does not follow as a matter of law that because two witnesses testify diametrically opposite each other concerning a matter in dispute that there is no preponderance of the evidence, but the preponderance is established when it is legally ascertained which of the two witnesses testified to the, truth. 4. Instbuctions, § 50*—when instruction on credibility of witnesses n<Jt erroneous. In an action to recover borrowed money, where the testimony of plaintiff and defendant as to the payment of various items was diametrically opposite, held that an instruction concerning the credibility of witnesses and the testimony of parties to the suit, although peculiar in language and not free from criticism, was not erroneous and could not have misled the jury.

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

Mr. Presiding Justice Niehaus

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Evidence, § 475*—what constitutes preponderance of. It does not follow as a matter of law that because two witnesses testify diametrically opposite each other concerning a matter in dispute that there is no preponderance of the evidence, but the preponderance is established when it is legally ascertained which of the two witnesses testified to the, truth. 4. Instbuctions, § 50*—when instruction on credibility of witnesses n<Jt erroneous. In an action to recover borrowed money, where the testimony of plaintiff and defendant as to the payment of various items was diametrically opposite, held that an instruction concerning the credibility of witnesses and the testimony of parties to the suit, although peculiar in language and not free from criticism, was not erroneous and could not have misled the jury.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 Ill. App. 147, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hayden-v-miller-illappct-1917.