Wilson v. City of Mason City

Appellate Court of Illinois

Wilson v. City of Mason City

190 Ill. App. 510

DecidedOctober 16, 1914

StatusPublished

This text of 190 Ill. App. 510 (Wilson v. City of Mason City) 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

Wilson v. City of Mason City, 190 Ill. App. 510 (Ill. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Scholfield

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision. 1. Appeal and ebbob, § 512*—sufficiency of objections to questions ashed of expert. An objection that questions asked of an expert were irrelevant and immaterial does not save for review the question whether they were strictly hypothetical. 2. Appeal and ebbob, § 512*—when sufficiency of hypothetical questions not saved for review. The sufficiency of hypothetical questions cannot be considered on review where the missing element or inaccuracy is not pointed out in the objection or in the argument in the Appellate Court. 3. Municipal coepobations, § 1122*—when city liable for fall of tower. Where a city improperly constructs a fire alarm tower and the property of an adjoining owner is damaged by the falling thereof during a windstorm, the city is liable though the storm was unusual. 4. Appeal and ebbob, § 1421*—effect of errors in decisions doing substantial justice. Courts will not grant a new trial or reverse a judgment for error in admission or rejection of evidence or in the giving of improper instructions, if it appears from the entire record that justice has been done.

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

Mr. Justice Scholfield

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision. 1. Appeal and ebbob, § 512*—sufficiency of objections to questions ashed of expert. An objection that questions asked of an expert were irrelevant and immaterial does not save for review the question whether they were strictly hypothetical. 2. Appeal and ebbob, § 512*—when sufficiency of hypothetical questions not saved for review. The sufficiency of hypothetical questions cannot be considered on review where the missing element or inaccuracy is not pointed out in the objection or in the argument in the Appellate Court. 3. Municipal coepobations, § 1122*—when city liable for fall of tower. Where a city improperly constructs a fire alarm tower and the property of an adjoining owner is damaged by the falling thereof during a windstorm, the city is liable though the storm was unusual. 4. Appeal and ebbob, § 1421*—effect of errors in decisions doing substantial justice. Courts will not grant a new trial or reverse a judgment for error in admission or rejection of evidence or in the giving of improper instructions, if it appears from the entire record that justice has been done.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 Ill. App. 510, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-city-of-mason-city-illappct-1914.