Knudson v. Wacker & Birk Brewing & Malting Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois

Knudson v. Wacker & Birk Brewing & Malting Co.

182 Ill. App. 296

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedOctober 13, 1913

DocketGen. No. 18,017

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 182 Ill. App. 296 (Knudson v. Wacker & Birk Brewing & Malting 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

Knudson v. Wacker & Birk Brewing & Malting Co., 182 Ill. App. 296 (Ill. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Brown

delivered the opinion of the court.

8. Evidence, § 339*—when a written instrument may he varied hy parol evidence. The rule that the written evidence of a contract may not be varied or contradicted by parol is applied only between the parties to the instrument. 9. Appeal and errob, § 1622*—when error in admission of evidence may he cured. Where a boy was injured by being knocked from a street car by a team standing in the street, the admission in evidence, in an action against the owner of the team, of court records showing an agreement hy the boy’s guardian not to sue the street car company on the payment of a certain sum of money, it being argued that such release was not binding on the minor, was not prejudicial error, since an instruction was given which stated that if the injury was partly due to the negligence of the street car company the jury should apply the amount received by the plaintiff in reduction of the amount, if any, which the plaintiff would otherwise have been entitled to recover.

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

Mr. Justice Brown

delivered the opinion of the court.

8. Evidence, § 339*—when a written instrument may he varied hy parol evidence. The rule that the written evidence of a contract may not be varied or contradicted by parol is applied only between the parties to the instrument. 9. Appeal and errob, § 1622*—when error in admission of evidence may he cured. Where a boy was injured by being knocked from a street car by a team standing in the street, the admission in evidence, in an action against the owner of the team, of court records showing an agreement hy the boy’s guardian not to sue the street car company on the payment of a certain sum of money, it being argued that such release was not binding on the minor, was not prejudicial error, since an instruction was given which stated that if the injury was partly due to the negligence of the street car company the jury should apply the amount received by the plaintiff in reduction of the amount, if any, which the plaintiff would otherwise have been entitled to recover.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 Ill. App. 296, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knudson-v-wacker-birk-brewing-malting-co-illappct-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack