Lockwood v. Onion
| Decision Date | 30 September 1868 |
| Parties | HANFORD LOCKWOOD et al., Executors, etc.v.ADDISON ONION. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
WRIT OF ERROR to the Circuit Court of Woodford county the Hon. SAMUEL L. RICHMOND, Judge, presiding. The opinion states the case.
Messrs. BANGS & SHAW, for the plaintiffs in error.
Messrs. FORT, BOAL & LOWS and Mr. BURNS, for the defendant in error.
This was a claim, filed in the county court, by defendant in error, against the estate of Ralph Lockwood, for services rendered deceased in his lifetime, and for board and lodging. There was a large number of witnesses called and examined on both sides, and as might reasonably have been expected, the evidence varied greatly as to the value of the services which were rendered by defendant in error. It appears that deceased boarded and lodged with defendant in error from some time about the 25th day of August, 1865, till about the 22d day of October, 1866; and that during that time his health was not good, and that he was cared for and nursed by defendant's wife and family during the time, except when he was absent in Canada and other places on business for an inconsiderable portion of the time. The jury returned a verdict for $3,411.60. A motion for a new trial was entered, but overruled, and a judgment rendered for that sum, to reverse which, this writ of error is prosecuted.
The principal error relied upon for a reversal, is, that the damages are excessive, and the refusal of the court below to grant a new trial. Where the evidence is so voluminous as it is in this case, we deem it impracticable, if not improper, to discuss it in detail on such a question, but we shall simply refer to our conclusions, derived from an attentive perusal. It appears, from the testimony, that most of the witnesses on behalf of defendant in error, from their own statements, are not familiar with the prices usually charged for such services, and fix their estimates more from what they would have been willing to have rendered them for, than from a knowledge of their worth. On the other hand, the physicians, who have more experience and better opportunities of knowing the value of such services, fix their worth at a much lower rate. Between the two classes, the weight would seem to rather be with the latter than the former.
When we see, from the evidence, that defendant in error was not situated so as to extend to deceased anything more than ordinary accommodations, his house being poor, the lodging room uncomfortable, and all the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chapin v. Thompson
... ... R. Co. v. Schuler, 44 Ill. 460; Boudreau v. Boudreau, 45 Ill. 480; C. & A. R. R. Co. v. Gretzner, 46 Ill. 74; Ray v. Bullock, 46 Ill. 64; Lockwood v. Onion, 48 Ill. 325; Dalton v. Clough, 50 Ill. 47; Booth v. Hynes, 54 Ill. 363; Peru v. French, 55 Ill. 317; Waggeman v. Lombard, 56 Ill. 42; ... ...
-
The Chicago v. Mcdermott
... ... Spalding, 44 Ill. 80; O. & M. R. R. Co. v. Scheibe, 44 Ill. 460; Ray v. Bullock, 46 Ill. 64; C. & A. R. R. Co. v. Gritzner, 46 Ill. 74; Lockwood v. Onion, 48 Ill. 325; Maynz v. Zigler, 49 Ill. 303; Hibbard v. Molloy, 63 Ill. 471; Puterbaugh v. Crittenden, 55 Ill. 485; Waggeman v. Lombard, 56 ... ...
-
Harms v. Jacobs
...44 Ill. 80; O. & M. R. R. Co. v. Scheibe, 44 Ill. 460; Ray v. Bullock, 46 Ill. 64; C. & A. R. R. Co. v. Gretzner, 46 Ill. 74; Lockwood v. Onion, 48 Ill. 325; Maynz v. Zeigler, 49 Ill. 303. Messrs. CHITTY, CASSELL & GIBSON, for defendants in error; that special damages need not be alleged, c......
- Anderson v. Warner