Legal Opinion

Schiff v. Supreme Lodge Order of Mutual Protection

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided May 14, 1896PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Assumpsit, on a beneficiary certificate. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Arthur H. Chetlain, Judge, presiding.

1Opinion of the Court

Mr. Presiding Justice Gary

deliveeed the opinion of the Couet.

The bill of exceptions is criticised as not containing all the “ evidence,” because, instead of that word, “ testimony ” is used.

That distinction is a little too fine for every-day use. Garrity v. Hamburger Co., 136 Ill. 499; People v. Henckler, 137 Ill. 580.

Two questions of law are presented by the appellee in justification of the direction of the court below to the jury to find for the defendant.

We can not know whether-it was upon one or the other or both of those questions that the direction was made.

First. The charter says that…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Railway Passenger & Freight Conductors' Mutual Aid & Benefit Ass'n v. RobinsonIllinois Supreme Court · 1893
  2. Tedrick ex rel. Ruffner v. WellsIllinois Supreme Court · 1894
  3. Metropolitan Safety Fund Accident Ass'n v. WindoverIllinois Supreme Court · 1891
  4. Garrity v. Hamburger Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1891
  5. People v. HencklerIllinois Supreme Court · 1891

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Melohn v. GanleyAppellate Court of Illinois · 1951
  2. Continental Casualty Co. v. MaxwellAppellate Court of Illinois · 1906
  3. Smith ex rel. Karle v. Vandalia Railroad Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1914
  4. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. NewtonAppellate Court of Illinois · 1898
  5. Cunat v. Supreme Tribe of Ben HurAppellate Court of Illinois · 1910

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API