Exrs v. Mohler
| Decision Date | 30 September 1875 |
| Citation | 80 Ill. 21,1875 WL 8699 |
| Parties | PETER STRAUBHER et al. Exrs.v.JACOB MOHLER. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Peoria county; the Hon. J. W. COCHRAN, Judge, presiding.
Mr. S. S. PAGE, and Messrs. CRATTY BROS., for the appellants.
Messrs. BURNS & BARNES, for the appellee.
Appellee presented a claim in the probate court of Woodford county, against the estate of Joseph Belsley, deceased. A trial was had in that court, and the cause was removed, by appeal, to the circuit court of that county, but the judge having been counsel in the case, the venue was changed to the circuit court of Peoria county. In the county court, the jury found for the defendants a verdict for 73 cents, but on a trial in the circuit court, the jury found for the plaintiff $1100 over and above a note introduced as a set-off by the executors of the estate, on which a judgment was rendered, allowing the claim against the estate for the sum found by the jury, and the executors appeal.
Various errors have been assigned on the record, and we shall consider such as we regard as having force or plausibility.
It is first urged, that the court below erred in permitting appellee to testify in his behalf, the person being dead for whom he transacted the business and from whose estate he was seeking to recover for services rendered. It appears that he was called to rebut the evidence of Dent as to a settlement, which occurred between him and the executors of the estate after Belsley's death. This evidence clearly falls within the first exception to the second section of the statute entitled “Evidence and Depositions.” Appellee was called to prove what was done and said at the settlement between him and the executors, and this is clearly and expressly sanctioned by this clause of the statute. His evidence only related to what Dent had testified was done or said at that settlement, and, according to his testimony, what is objected to was called out by Dent, when he inquired why appellee had not sooner presented his claim. Appellee only testified to what he said in reply. It is a general rule relating to conversations, that when one party introduces a part, the other may call for and have the entire conversation, so far as it relates to the subject matter in dispute. We fail to perceive any error in admitting this evidence.
It appears that Bangs, for appellee, testified that he was a good, active, prompt business man, and the court refused to permit appellants to cross-examine him on that question. It would seem that this evidence was material, as tending to enhance the value of appellee's services, rendered for deceased, and in that view appellants should have been allowed to cross-examine on that question. Where the evidence is slight, or nearly balanced, such errors may have an important bearing on the finding of the jury. The parties should have all of their rights strictly guarded in the admission of evidence and the instructions given by the court.
Exceptions are taken to appellee's fifth instruction. It is this:
“No adjustment of accounts between Belsley or Mohler, or between the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fabbri v. Cunio
... ... Stat. 299, 35, 36.As to admission of testimony of a husband in a suit where the wife is a party: Rev. Stat. 489, 5; Straubher et al. v. Mohler, 80 Ill. 21.Upon the point of preponderance of testimony: Murray v. Haverty 70 Ill. 318; White v. Stanbro, 73 Ill. 575; Hudson v. Hadden, 82 Ill ... ...
-
Pryor v. Crum
... ... Williamson, 50 ... N.C. 284; Bull v. Harris, 31 Ill. 487; Tank v ... Rohweder, 98 Iowa 154, 67. N.W. 106; Straugher v ... Mohler, 80 Ill. 21. (6) The proof showed that mutual ... accounts existed between plaintiffs and the defendant, and on ... various settlements the ... ...
-
Irwin v. Atkins
...White v. Campbell, 25 Mich. 468; Ashley v. Hill, 6 Conn. 246; Bass v. Bass, 8 Pick. 187; Niles v. Harmon, 80 Ill. 396; Strauber v. Mohler, 80 Ill. 21; Bull v. Harris, 31 Ill. 487; Stuphen v. Cushman, 35 Ill. 199; 2 Greenl. on Ev. § 128; McClelland v. West, 70 Penn. 183; Throop v. Sherwood, ......
-
Hartley v. Lybarger
... ... S. S. PAGE, for appellant; that evidence of admissions are often the most satisfactory evidence, cited Straubher v. Mohler, 80 Ill. 21.The plea of appellant, showing matter in discharge of his personal liability, a judgment could be rendered in his favor, and against the ... ...