Peoria, Decatur & Evansville Railway Co. v. Powell

Appellate Court of Illinois

Peoria, Decatur & Evansville Railway Co. v. Powell

32 Ill. App. 53, 1889 Ill. App. LEXIS 74

DecidedNovember 23, 1889

StatusPublished

This text of 32 Ill. App. 53 (Peoria, Decatur & Evansville Railway Co. v. Powell) 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

Peoria, Decatur & Evansville Railway Co. v. Powell, 32 Ill. App. 53, 1889 Ill. App. LEXIS 74 (Ill. Ct. App. 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

Wall, J.

The appellee recovered a judgment against the appellant for $160 for damage to stock. The negligence alleged was in the management of the train while the stock were on the track. It is insisted by the appellant that there was not sufficient evidence on the part of appellee to warrant the verdict. We have carefully read all the proof from the record and find it conflicting in some respects, and considered altogether, not entirely satisfactory, but it is not so deficient as to require a reversal upon that ground alone.

The instructions given for the appellant called the attention of the jury very pointedly to the issues and it can not be supposed the jury misunderstood the questions submitted for their decision.

It is objected that some of the special interrogatories were not properly or perfectly answered, but we think there is nothing substantial in the objection. Ho complaint is made upon the rulings of the court in the admission of evidence or in the giving or refusing of instructions.

Finding no tangible error in the record we must affirm the judgment. Judgment affirmed.

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

Wall, J.

The appellee recovered a judgment against the appellant for $160 for damage to stock. The negligence alleged was in the management of the train while the stock were on the track. It is insisted by the appellant that there was not sufficient evidence on the part of appellee to warrant the verdict. We have carefully read all the proof from the record and find it conflicting in some respects, and considered altogether, not entirely satisfactory, but it is not so deficient as to require a reversal upon that ground alone.

The instructions given for the appellant called the attention of the jury very pointedly to the issues and it can not be supposed the jury misunderstood the questions submitted for their decision.

It is objected that some of the special interrogatories were not properly or perfectly answered, but we think there is nothing substantial in the objection. Ho complaint is made upon the rulings of the court in the admission of evidence or in the giving or refusing of instructions.

Finding no tangible error in the record we must affirm the judgment. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 Ill. App. 53, 1889 Ill. App. LEXIS 74, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peoria-decatur-evansville-railway-co-v-powell-illappct-1889.