Town of Pleasant v. Clannin

Appellate Court of Illinois

Town of Pleasant v. Clannin

67 Ill. App. 417, 1896 Ill. App. LEXIS 119

DecidedNovember 21, 1896

StatusPublished

This text of 67 Ill. App. 417 (Town of Pleasant v. Clannin) 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

Town of Pleasant v. Clannin, 67 Ill. App. 417, 1896 Ill. App. LEXIS 119 (Ill. Ct. App. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Boggs

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This was an action under the statute to impose a fine upon appellee under the charge he had obstructed a public highway, by, as it was alleged, constructing a fence within the limits thereof.

He contended the fence was on the boundary line of his premises and the highway. The jury decided the question in his favor. The township appealed and asks reversal upon the sole ground the verdict is against the evidence.

We have read the testimony produced to the jury and considered the arguments (oral and printed) of counsel. The testimony was much in conflict; it was the peculiar province of the jury to determine the truth of the controversy. Ho reason appears why we should regard their findings as manifestly wrong, or to have been the result of passion, prejudice or mistake. The judgment is affirmed by the operation of the familiar rule applicable in such cases.

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

Mr. Presiding Justice Boggs

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This was an action under the statute to impose a fine upon appellee under the charge he had obstructed a public highway, by, as it was alleged, constructing a fence within the limits thereof.

He contended the fence was on the boundary line of his premises and the highway. The jury decided the question in his favor. The township appealed and asks reversal upon the sole ground the verdict is against the evidence.

We have read the testimony produced to the jury and considered the arguments (oral and printed) of counsel. The testimony was much in conflict; it was the peculiar province of the jury to determine the truth of the controversy. Ho reason appears why we should regard their findings as manifestly wrong, or to have been the result of passion, prejudice or mistake. The judgment is affirmed by the operation of the familiar rule applicable in such cases.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 Ill. App. 417, 1896 Ill. App. LEXIS 119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/town-of-pleasant-v-clannin-illappct-1896.