Kitz v. Scudder Syrup Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois

Kitz v. Scudder Syrup Co.

199 Ill. App. 605

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedJune 19, 1916

DocketGen. No. 21,307

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 199 Ill. App. 605 (Kitz v. Scudder Syrup 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

Kitz v. Scudder Syrup Co., 199 Ill. App. 605 (Ill. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Goodwin

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Witnesses, § 286*—when party may introduce evidence contradictory to testimony of his own witnesses. While a party may not discredit his own witness by general evidence, he is not precluded from putting in evidence contrary to the testimony of one of his own witnesses even though the incidental effect of such testimony is to impeach or discredit a witness already examined in his behalf. On Rehearing. Automobiles and garages, § 3*—when evidence sufficient to sustain finding that driver of automobile not using automobile on master's business. In an action for the negligent death of a person alleged to have been caused by an automobile driven after business hours by a servant of the owner, evidence held sufficient to sustain a finding that the driver was not using the automobile on his master’s business at the time of the accident.

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

Mr. Justice Goodwin

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Witnesses, § 286*—when party may introduce evidence contradictory to testimony of his own witnesses. While a party may not discredit his own witness by general evidence, he is not precluded from putting in evidence contrary to the testimony of one of his own witnesses even though the incidental effect of such testimony is to impeach or discredit a witness already examined in his behalf. On Rehearing. Automobiles and garages, § 3*—when evidence sufficient to sustain finding that driver of automobile not using automobile on master's business. In an action for the negligent death of a person alleged to have been caused by an automobile driven after business hours by a servant of the owner, evidence held sufficient to sustain a finding that the driver was not using the automobile on his master’s business at the time of the accident.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 Ill. App. 605, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kitz-v-scudder-syrup-co-illappct-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack