Siemens-Lungren Gas Illuminating Co. v. Francis

Appellate Court of Illinois

Siemens-Lungren Gas Illuminating Co. v. Francis

27 Ill. App. 303, 1888 Ill. App. LEXIS 522

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedSeptember 19, 1888

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 27 Ill. App. 303 (Siemens-Lungren Gas Illuminating Co. v. Francis) 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

Siemens-Lungren Gas Illuminating Co. v. Francis, 27 Ill. App. 303, 1888 Ill. App. LEXIS 522 (Ill. Ct. App. 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

Moran, P. J.

Upon the hypothesis contained in the two propositions set out in the statement of facts, it is very clear that appellant would have the right to reject the regulators. Hosmer v. Wilson, 7 Mich. 294; Danforth v. Walker, 37 Vt. 239.

There was a conflict of evidence as to the facts on which the hypothesis contained in the propositions was based, and if the judge was convinced that the appellee was right on this issue of facts, he could have so found and modified the propositions, or have held the law of the propositions and denied the assumed facts. The effect of refusing the propositions is to find the facts as stated in them, but to deny the conclusion of law announced.

The court erred in refusing the 4th proposition, as connected by reference to the 3d, and while, if the judgment rested on a finding of facts in favor of appellee, we might not be disposed to interfere, for the error in law in refusing to hold said proposition, we must reverse the judgment and remand the case.

Me,versed and remanded.

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