Maginnis v. Hartford Fire Insurance
Appellate Court of Illinois
Assumpsit. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Frederick L. Fake, Jr., Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1909.
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Clark
We consider the questions raised by the appellant in their order as nearly as possible.
Two of the witnesses for the plaintiff were allowed to answer, over the objection of the defendant, the question as to who owned the ice in the ice house described, both of them answering that it belonged to the plaintiff, their mother. Appellant argued that this answer involved a legal conclusion, and that therefore the question was improper. "We do not so regard it. Both of the witnesses were fully cross-examined, and we think that the plaintiff was entitled to make prima facie proof of her ownership in…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Chicago & Alton Railroad v. AdlerIllinois Supreme Court · 1870
- Phenix Insurance v. CaldwellIllinois Supreme Court · 1900
- Knickerbocker Insurance v. TolmanIllinois Supreme Court · 1875
- Clay Fire & Marine Insurance v. WusterhausenIllinois Supreme Court · 1874
3Cited by2 opinions
- Feulner v. GillamAppellate Court of Illinois · 1919
- Feulner v. GillamAppellate Court of Illinois · 1919