Andreas v. Isaac J. Ketcham.
| Decision Date | 31 January 1875 |
| Citation | 1875 WL 8327,77 Ill. 377 |
| Parties | ALFRED ANDREAS et al.v.ISAAC J. KETCHAM. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Morgan county; the Hon. CYRUS EPLER, Judge, presiding.
Mr. E. M. SANFORD, for the appellants.
Mr. I. J. KETCHAM, pro se.
This was an action, originally commenced before a justice of the peace, by appellants, to recover of appellee the sum of $89, claimed to be due for one map of Morgan county, a view of appellee's residence contained in the map, and one hundred extra views of the residence. Appellants obtained a judgment before the justice. Appellee appealed to the circuit court of Morgan county, where a trial was had before a jury, which resulted in a verdict in favor of appellee.
The court overruled a motion for a new trial, and rendered judgment upon the verdict.
Appellants based their right of recovery upon the following contracts offered in evidence:
+-------------------------------------+
¦“$74.00.¦JACKSONVILLE, May 7, 1872.¦
+-------------------------------------+
In consideration for causing a twelve-inch view of my residence to be printed in their atlas map of Morgan county, Illinois, I promise to pay Andreas, Lyter & Co. seventy-four dollars, payment to be made on or before the first day of September next; this order not to be assigned. Address, Jacksonville, Ill. 24 extra views to be given, on delivery of maps. 100 extra views at 6 cents apiece.
I. J. KETCHAM.
We, whose names appear below, do agree to take from Andreas, Lyter & Co. one copy of their atlas map of Morgan county, Illinois, for which we agree to pay to them or their order the sum of nine (9) dollars, payment to be made on delivery of maps at our residences or places of business.
I. J. KETCHAM.”
And the following notice, to-wit:
“The agent presenting this book is a special agent, and is only authorized to receive subscriptions to the agreement herein printed.
ANDREAS, LYTER & CO.”
A pencil sketch of appellee's residence, with his approval ) was introduced in evidence.
The defense interposed by appellee to the contract providing for a view of his residence to be printed in the map, was, that the view was incorrect. The defense made to the contract for the map was, that appellee's place of business, as published in a business card inserted in the map, was located at the wrong place.
It was purely a question of fact, for the jury to determine from the evidence, whether the view of appellee's residence was correct, or whether, as sketched, it was approved by him, and as there was a conflict of evidence upon this branch of the case, had there been no error in the ruling of the court, we would not disturb the verdict. But after the evidence had been submitted to the jury, the attorney for appellee, as appears from the record, submitted to the court the following question: “Whether or not His Honor would know the view to be the residence of defendant, were defendant's name taken from the view.” The court replied, “I do not know that I would.”
We are aware of no rule of law or practice that would allow the presiding judge to give to the jury his opinion on a controverted question of fact.
The knowledge of the judge on the question at issue may have been superior to that of any witness sworn, yet the law would not permit him to bias the jury by his own opinion as to any fact in controversy which had to be established by evidence.
It was the duty of the presiding judge to determine what evidence was proper to go to the jury on the issue involved, and to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Kelly v. Perrault
-
Spies v. People (In re Anarchists)
...or remarks, an hypothesis which is not supported by the testimony. State v. Harkin, 7 Nev. 382;Hair v. Little, 28 Ala. 236;Andreas v. Ketcham, 77 Ill. 377; Howe S. M. Co. v. Rosine, 87 Ill. 105. The jury was not ‘impartial,’ within the meaning of Const. U. S. art. 6, or Const. Ill. 1870, ar......
-
Garland v. Chicago
...I. B. & W. R. R. Co. v. Birney, 71 Ill. 391; C. B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. George, 19 Ill. 510; Sprague v. Hazenwinkle, 53 Ill. 419; Andreas v. Ketcham, 77 Ill. 377. Negligence is a question for the jury: Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Benton, 69 Ill. 174; Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Cragin, 71 Ill. 177. Th......
-
Brant v. Gallup
...Ill. 463; Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Benton, 69 Ill. 174; Badger v. Batavia Mfg. Co., 70 Ill. 302; Hewett v. Johnson, 72 Ill. 513; Andreas v. Ketcham, 77 Ill. 377; Straus v. Minzesheimer, 78 Ill. 492; Russell v. Minter, 83 Ill. 150; King v. Haley, 86 Ill. 106; Wray v. C. B. & Q. R. R. Co. 86 I......