Jansen v. Varnum
| Decision Date | 30 June 1878 |
| Citation | 1878 WL 9971,89 Ill. 100 |
| Parties | EBERHARD JANSEN et al.v.LEVERETT VARNUM et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Monroe county; the Hon. AMOS WATTS, Judge, presiding.
This was an action originally brought before a justice of the peace, by Leverett Varnum, Frederick Varnum and Sarah Varnum, against Eberhard Jansen, and Bertha Jansen, his wife, to recover damages to real estate caused by the digging of a ditch, whereby water was thrown from the lands of Bertha Jansen upon that of the plaintiffs, and by the building of a dam on other land of Bertha Jansen, whereby the natural flow of the water from the plaintiffs' land was obstructed.
There was a trial in the circuit court, on appeal, resulting in a verdict of $85 damages, in favor of the plaintiffs, upon which judgment was rendered, the court overruling a motion for a new trial. The other material facts are stated in the opinion.
Messrs. TALBOTT, for the appellants.
Mr. E. P. SLATE, for the appellees.
We have examined the evidence in this case with care, and fail to find a particle of testimony against Bertha Jansen. We do not find her name mentioned by a single witness in the entire evidence. She is proved to have done no act, given no directions as to the dam or ditches, nor does it appear that she ever sanctioned or approved anything her codefendant did. It is, therefore, impossible to see on what principle in law or justice she should be held liable. So far as the evidence shows, she was as entirely disconnected from the acts of her co-defendant as any other person. It would, under such circumstances, violate every recognized rule of law to hold her liable on the evidence in this case.
It is, however, said in argument, that she owned the land, but if that be so we fail to find any evidence of the fact in the bill of exceptions. But even if it did appear, that could not render her liable unless she did the acts complained of, or directed them, or knowingly approved and maintained them. If she owned the land, and it was occupied by a tenant or cultivated by her husband, and either of them did the act, she would not be liable unless it was under her direction or by her sanction. In such a case to render her liable she should be connected with the wrongful act, and in this case there is nothing to show she directed, sanctioned, or even knew of the acts complained of by appellees.
In...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
West Chicago St. R. Co. v. Morrison, Adams & Allen Co.
...affirmed as to the others, but, if erroneous as to one, is erroneous as to all. 1 Chit. Pl. 86; McDonald v. Wilkie, 13 Ill. 22;Jansen v. Varnum, 89 Ill. 100;Ragor v. Kendall, 70 Ill. 95;Claflin v. Dunne, 129 Ill. 241, 21 N. E. 834. The question, then, arises, is it true that there is not in......
-
Chmielewski v. Marich
...a reviewing court as to one defendant alone, even though it was not erroneous as to the others. See Fuller v. Robb, 26 Ill. 246; Jansen v. Varnum, 89 Ill. 100; Claflin v. Dunne, 129 Ill. 241, 21 N.E. 834; Seymour v. O. S. Richardson Fueling Co., 205 Ill. 77, 68 N.E. 716; South Side Elevated......
-
Seymour v. O.S. Richardson Fueling Go.
...in whole or is valid as to all the defendants.’ See, also, Tompkins v. Wiltberger, 56 Ill. 385;Mack v. Brown, 73 Ill. 295. In Jansen v. Varnum, 89 Ill. 100, we said: ‘At law a judgment must be a unit as to all the defendants. It cannot be reversed as to a part of them and affirmed as to the......
-
Collins v. Thomas
...Van DeMark, 71 Ill. 117. A judgment of law must be a unit and being erroneous as to one defendant, it must be reversed as to all: Jansen v. Varnum, 89 Ill. 100; Williams v. Chalfant, 82 Ill. 218; Dally v. Young, 3 Bradwell, 38; Logan v. Burr, 3 Bradwell, 458; Ragor v. Kendall, 70 Ill. 95; C......