Paige v. Illinois Steel Co.
Illinois Supreme Court
Appeal from the Appellate Court for the Second District ;—heard in that court on appeal from the Circuit Court of Will county; the Hon. Dorrance DibEll, Judge, presiding. The appellant, Illinois Steel Company, operated a plant at Joliet, in this State. In the course of its business it converts iron into steel and has what is termed a “mixer mill,” one of the departments of the converter.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Appellate Court for the Second District ;—heard in that court on appeal from the Circuit Court of Will county; the Hon. Dorrance DibEll, Judge, presiding. The appellant, Illinois Steel Company, operated a plant at Joliet, in this State. In the course of its business it converts iron into steel and has what is termed a “mixer mill,” one of the departments of the converter. The iron is brought from the blast furnaces into this mixer mill and combined with other iron and mixed and then converted into steel. This mixer mill is a metal building, in the east half of which are…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Vickers
The errors assigned by appellant are, permitting improper remarks of counsel; refusing instructions; modifying certain instructions; overruling motion to direct verdict at the close of evidence, and admitting improper evidence.
First—In stating the' case to the jury, counsel for appellee, among other things, said: “And the company had sufficient notice of the necessity of providing better lights for the performance of that work.” This remark was objected to and the objection overruled, to which appellant excepted. It is urged that the court erred in this ruling. The purpose of an opening…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Swengel v. Illinois Third Vein Coal Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1910
- Skinner v. Illinois Third Vein Coal Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1922