Horn v. Arnold, Schwinn & Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois

Horn v. Arnold, Schwinn & Co.

124 Ill. App. 185, 1906 Ill. App. LEXIS 13

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedJanuary 4, 1906

DocketGen. No. 12,211

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 124 Ill. App. 185 (Horn v. Arnold, Schwinn & 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

Horn v. Arnold, Schwinn & Co., 124 Ill. App. 185, 1906 Ill. App. LEXIS 13 (Ill. Ct. App. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Ball

delivered the opinion of the court.

We refrain from discussing the details of the accident for the reason we are of the opinion that this case must be again submitted to a jury.

We have examined the evidence carefully and think that the case as now presented differs materially from that passed upon by the Branch Court in Arnold, Schwinn & Co. v. Horn, No. 9,724. Hence this case is res nova, which we must decide upon the record now before us. Penn Plate Glass Co. v. J. H. Rice Co., 216 Ill., 572. Whether the changes and contradictions in the evidence of appellant as given on a former trial and as given on the trial out of which this appeal grew, were honestly or dishonestly made, was a question not for us upon this motion, hut for the jury, whose duty it is to pass upon the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their evidence. Offutt v. Columbian C. Co., 175 Ill., 478. Hpon this appeal the only question before us is, is there testimony in the record which fairly tends to support appellant’s cause of action. Taking all the evidence that makes for appellant, and excluding all that is contradictory, we think a case is presented upon consideration of which reasonable minds might reach different conclusions. Hnder these circumstances the facts must be-submitted to a jury. To hold otherwise would be to invade the province of that constituent part of the court.

The judgment of the Superior Court is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Mr. Justice Ball

delivered the opinion of the court.

We refrain from discussing the details of the accident for the reason we are of the opinion that this case must be again submitted to a jury.

We have examined the evidence carefully and think that the case as now presented differs materially from that passed upon by the Branch Court in Arnold, Schwinn & Co. v. Horn, No. 9,724. Hence this case is res nova, which we must decide upon the record now before us. Penn Plate Glass Co. v. J. H. Rice Co., 216 Ill., 572. Whether the changes and contradictions in the evidence of appellant as given on a former trial and as given on the trial out of which this appeal grew, were honestly or dishonestly made, was a question not for us upon this motion, hut for the jury, whose duty it is to pass upon the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their evidence. Offutt v. Columbian C. Co., 175 Ill., 478. Hpon this appeal the only question before us is, is there testimony in the record which fairly tends to support appellant’s cause of action. Taking all the evidence that makes for appellant, and excluding all that is contradictory, we think a case is presented upon consideration of which reasonable minds might reach different conclusions. Hnder these circumstances the facts must be-submitted to a jury. To hold otherwise would be to invade the province of that constituent part of the court.

The judgment of the Superior Court is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 Ill. App. 185, 1906 Ill. App. LEXIS 13, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/horn-v-arnold-schwinn-co-illappct-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack