Siemens-Lungren Gas Illuminating Co. v. Francis
Appellate Court of Illinois
Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Kirk Hawes, Judge, presiding. This is an appeal from a judgment rendered against appellant and in favor of appellee, for certain regulators alleged to have been manufactured by appellee «for appellant. The evidence shows that appellee brought to appellant’s place of business a regulator, and that a test was made of such regulator upon a gas lamp by appellee and one Wolf who was president of the appellant company.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Kirk Hawes, Judge, presiding. This is an appeal from a judgment rendered against appellant and in favor of appellee, for certain regulators alleged to have been manufactured by appellee «for appellant. The evidence shows that appellee brought to appellant’s place of business a regulator, and that a test was made of such regulator upon a gas lamp by appellee and one Wolf who was president of the appellant company. The test lasted till about eleven o’clock at night, and the regulator appeared to work satisfactorily. Before leaving his…
1Opinion of the CourtMoran, P. J.
Upon the hypothesis contained in the two propositions set out in the statement of facts, it is very clear that appellant would have the right to reject the regulators. Hosmer v. Wilson, 7 Mich. 294; Danforth v. Walker, 37 Vt. 239.
There was a conflict of evidence as to the facts on which the hypothesis contained in the propositions was based, and if the judge was convinced that the appellee was right on this issue of facts, he could have so found and modified the propositions, or have held the law of the propositions and denied the assumed facts. The effect of refusing the propositions is to…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hosmer v. WilsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1859
- W. R. Danforth & Co. v. WalkerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1864
3Cited by1 opinion
- Harris v. ThomasAppellate Court of Illinois · 1891