Peru Beer Co. v. First National Bank of Peru

Illinois Supreme Court

Peru Beer Co. v. First National Bank of Peru

62 Ill. 265

DecidedSeptember 15, 1871

StatusPublished

This text of 62 Ill. 265 (Peru Beer Co. v. First National Bank of Peru) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Illinois Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Peru Beer Co. v. First National Bank of Peru, 62 Ill. 265 (Ill. 1871).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Beeese

delivered the opinion of the Court:

In this case the testimony is very conflicting, the witnesses for the plaintiff and for the defendant testifying directly opposite. In such a state of case we have looked to see where the probabilities lie, and we are satisfied they are on the side of the plaintiff; and this from two facts, about which there is no dispute, and must control the case. These facts are, first, selling the beer by the appellants after the alleged sale to them by appellee, and exercising control over it by drawing it out from the casks and mixing new beer with it to improve its condition; and, second, passing a resolution appointing Throne an agent, to proceed west to make sales of the beer.

The jury must have considered these as controlling circumstances in favor of the appellee, and we can not say they are not such circumstances as should have weighed heavily in favor of the finding.

As to the instructions, we think the court properly disposed of them, and perceiving no 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

Mr. Justice Beeese

delivered the opinion of the Court:

In this case the testimony is very conflicting, the witnesses for the plaintiff and for the defendant testifying directly opposite. In such a state of case we have looked to see where the probabilities lie, and we are satisfied they are on the side of the plaintiff; and this from two facts, about which there is no dispute, and must control the case. These facts are, first, selling the beer by the appellants after the alleged sale to them by appellee, and exercising control over it by drawing it out from the casks and mixing new beer with it to improve its condition; and, second, passing a resolution appointing Throne an agent, to proceed west to make sales of the beer.

The jury must have considered these as controlling circumstances in favor of the appellee, and we can not say they are not such circumstances as should have weighed heavily in favor of the finding.

As to the instructions, we think the court properly disposed of them, and perceiving no error in the record we must affirm the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 Ill. 265, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peru-beer-co-v-first-national-bank-of-peru-ill-1871.