Hayes v. Houston
| Decision Date | 30 September 1877 |
| Citation | 1877 WL 9764,86 Ill. 487 |
| Parties | WILLIAM B. HAYESv.EDWIN S. HOUSTON. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. HENRY BOOTH, Judge, presiding.
Messrs. ELDRIDGE & TOURTELLOTTE, for the appellant.
Mr. JOHN J. KNICKERBOCKER, for the appellee.
This was case, in trover, for a diamond ring, brought to the Cook circuit court by Edwin S. Houston, plaintiff, and against William B. Hayes, defendant, which resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff; and the defendant appeals.
The point chiefly relied on by appellant is, that the verdict is against the evidence. There was some conflict in the testimony, which the jury have considered with the advantage which this court has not, of seeing the witnesses and noticing their demeanor on the stand. To our minds the evidence discloses a transaction akin to the confidence game, in which appellant and his principal witnesses, Langley and Wolf, were the chief actors. The plaintiff, a young lieutenant in the navy of the United States, was proceeding from San Francisco, where he was stationed, by way of Chicago to the city of New York, and called at No. 40, Bryan Block, to see a gentleman to whom he had a letter of introduction. This was on the day of his arrival in Chicago, and was about August 18, 1874. He wore upon a finger of his hand a brilliant--a diamond of about three and one-half carats, set in a plain, heavy gold ring. It had a feather or speck under one of the faces. Appellant, with others, was in the room when the appellee first entered, examining some diamonds. Inquiring for the party to whom he had the letter, he was informed he did not occupy those rooms any more. The conversation at last turned upon diamonds--provoked, perhaps, by the brilliant on appellee's finger, which appellant had observed, and the luster of which he admired. Appellant said he dealt in diamonds, and offered appellee $200 and a city lot he owned for the ring.
After some conversation on the subject, appellee agreed to take for the diamond $250 and the city lot, which the jury had a right, from the testimony, to believe was put in at the value of $1,000, for which a statutory deed was made to appellee by one Silver and wife. Appellee had no opportunity to examine the lot, but relied wholly upon the representations of appellant as to value. He soon found out, after the deed was recorded and he had parted with his brilliant, that the lot was worthless, being but five feet by ten, and fourteen miles south of the Court House Square.
On appellee's return to his station in California, under orders for that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Vill. of Warren v. Wright
- The Wabash v. Black
- The Chicago v. Robinson
-
Wheat v. Summers
...Wallace v. Wren, 32 Ill. 146; Sheeran v. C. & M. R'y Co. 48 Ill. 523; Bunker v. Green, 48 Ill. 243; White v. Clayes, 32 Ill. 325; Hayes v. Houston, 86 Ill. 487; Hunett v. Estelle, 92 Ill. 218; Joequin v. Davidson, 49 Ill. 82; Carpenter v. Davis, 71 Ill. 395; McNally v. O'Brien, 88 Ill. 237;......