{ "id": 4860865, "name": "Martin Teal v. William Meravey", "name_abbreviation": "Teal v. Meravey", "decision_date": "1882-12-28", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "32", "last_page": "36", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "12 Ill. App. 32" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "37 Ill. 333", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5291732 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/37/0333-01" ] }, { "cite": "35 Ill. 22", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5256130 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/35/0022-01" ] }, { "cite": "33 Ill. 175", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5211091 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/33/0175-01" ] }, { "cite": "87 Ill. 105", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5343810 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/87/0105-01" ] }, { "cite": "42 Ill. 300", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5293511 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/42/0300-01" ] }, { "cite": "90 Ill. 586", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2757406 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/90/0586-01" ] }, { "cite": "18 Cal. 187", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal.", "case_ids": [ 2300991 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/cal/18/0187-01" ] }, { "cite": "63 Ill. 325", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2611525 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/63/0325-01" ] }, { "cite": "82 Ill. 125", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5313798 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/82/0125-01" ] }, { "cite": "98 Mass. 523", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "case_ids": [ 710661 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mass/98/0523-01" ] }, { "cite": "30 Vt. 219", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Vt.", "case_ids": [ 741890 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/vt/30/0219-01" ] }, { "cite": "2 Ohio, 230", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ohio", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "16 Ill. 588", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "67 Ill. 398", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 820131 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/67/0398-01" ] }, { "cite": "64 Ill. 510", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5307851 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/64/0510-01" ] }, { "cite": "49 Ill. 499", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2604205 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/49/0499-01" ] }, { "cite": "46 Ill. 74", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5297169 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/46/0074-01" ] }, { "cite": "45 Ill. 469", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 425065 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/45/0469-01" ] }, { "cite": "43 Ill. 64", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5264678 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/43/0064-01" ] }, { "cite": "42 Ill. 288", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5293669 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/42/0288-01" ] }, { "cite": "92 Ill. 139", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2739723 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/92/0139-01" ] }, { "cite": "72 Ill. 256", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2713133 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/72/0256-01" ] }, { "cite": "7 Wis. 236", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wis.", "case_ids": [ 8712583 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/wis/7/0236-01" ] }, { "cite": "12 Met. 415", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Met.", "case_ids": [ 1976807 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mass/53/0415-01" ] }, { "cite": "7 Wend. 185", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wend.", "case_ids": [ 2009720 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/wend/7/0185-01" ] }, { "cite": "24 Wend. 464", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wend.", "case_ids": [ 2155188 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/wend/24/0464-01" ] }, { "cite": "2 Ala. 359", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ala.", "case_ids": [ 11256721 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ala/2/0359-01" ] }, { "cite": "1 Ala. 423", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ala.", "case_ids": [ 902217 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ala/1/0423-01" ] }, { "cite": "23 Ala. 17", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ala.", "case_ids": [ 3125561 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ala/23/0017-01" ] }, { "cite": "22 Ala. 796", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ala.", "case_ids": [ 8497097 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ala/22/0796-01" ] }, { "cite": "26 Ind. 370", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ind.", "case_ids": [ 1442185 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ind/26/0370-01" ] }, { "cite": "26 Ind. 76", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ind.", "case_ids": [ 1442266 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ind/26/0076-01" ] }, { "cite": "83 Ill. 510", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2659337 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/83/0510-01" ] }, { "cite": "75 Ill. 106", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2698196 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/75/0106-01" ] }, { "cite": "68 Ill. 576", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2626770 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/68/0576-01" ] }, { "cite": "73 Ill. 394", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5319550 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/73/0394-01" ] }, { "cite": "30 Ohio, 223", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ohio", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "19 Wis. 26", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wis.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "23 Ia. 394", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Iowa", "case_ids": [ 344537 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/iowa/23/0394-01" ] }, { "cite": "36 Ga. 635", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ga.", "case_ids": [ 286382 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ga/36/0635-01" ] }, { "cite": "28 Ind. 531", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ind.", "case_ids": [ 1507702 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ind/28/0531-01" ] }, { "cite": "41 Miss. 339", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Miss.", "case_ids": [ 301772 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/miss/41/0339-01" ] }, { "cite": "19 Ill. 29", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 441672 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/19/0029-01" ] }, { "cite": "28 Ill. 135", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5203843 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/28/0135-01" ] }, { "cite": "37 Ill. 342", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "1 Scam. 407", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Scam.", "case_ids": [ 2478639 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/2/0407-01" ] }, { "cite": "46 Ill. 211", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5298517 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/46/0211-01" ] }, { "cite": "14 Ga. 137", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ga.", "case_ids": [ 577637 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ga/14/0137-01" ] }, { "cite": "39 Miss. 147", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Miss.", "case_ids": [ 299271 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/miss/39/0147-01" ] }, { "cite": "7 Gray, 92", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Gray", "case_ids": [ 1996059 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mass/73/0092-01" ] }, { "cite": "9 Gray, 245", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Gray", "case_ids": [ 2080694 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mass/75/0245-01" ] }, { "cite": "76 Ill. 25", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5314880 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/76/0025-01" ] }, { "cite": "23 Penn. 196", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Penn.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "7 Gray, 92", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Gray", "case_ids": [ 1996059 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mass/73/0092-01" ] }, { "cite": "9 Gray, 245", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Gray", "case_ids": [ 2080694 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mass/75/0245-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 672, "char_count": 9224, "ocr_confidence": 0.604, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.925638744517879e-08, "percentile": 0.46174776985067467 }, "sha256": "918639cd72c217eccdf4cc1e8976db5f6853d6ab9376984089e543592041723d", "simhash": "1:26cc63b75c1b2e75", "word_count": 1730 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:05:21.386693+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Martin Teal v. William Meravey." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Lacey, J.\nThis was a suit commenced by the appellant against the appellee, to recover a claim of $25 damages alleged to have been sustained by him on account of appellee\u2019s negligently riding his horse-on to former\u2019s buggy wheel at meeting on the highway.\nThe defense set up is that the collision was caused as much by the negligence on the part of the appellant as appellee, in fact, that the former\u2019s contributory negligence was of such a character as to entirely bar the action. The evidence as to the question of negligence was conflicting and especially to the point, whether there was any contributory negligence, and if so, whether it barred the action. Young Teal, the son of the appellant, who drove the buggy of his father, was a witness on the stand and had sworn to such facts as, if true, would have cleared him of all charge of negligence. Upon cross examination the boy was asked, against the objection of appellant\u2019s counsel and exception properly taken, these questions: Did yon at the time and place of the accident, in presence of Meravey and Jamison, say that neither one was to blame, or in substance, words to that effect? Did you at the time of the accident, or shortly after, and at the place of the accident, say in the presence of Mr. Meravey, Mr. Kilmer, Mr. Bagby and Jamison, that it was an accident and neither one was to blame, or in substance that? Did yon at the time and place of the accident, in the presence of Mr. Kilmer, Mr. Jamison and Mr. Bagby, have a conversation with the defendant, in which he said: \u201cI am sorry this accident happened, but I was not to blame for it,\u201d and did you not in substance reply to Mr. Meravey, \u201cyou are not to blame\u201d? To all which questions Franklin Teal, the son, replied in the negative, and to the last question said, \u201c I told Mr. Meravey I knew very well who was to' blame.\u201d\nBy way of impeachment and by way of contradicting the evidence of Franklin Teal on those points, the appellee was allowed, against the objection and proper exception of apellant, to show by the named parties: the appellee, Egbert Kilmer, Elijah Bagby and John Jamison, that Franklin Teal had made the statements attributed to him in the foregoing questions, and the witnesses did contradict him in those particulars.\nThe allowing of this evidence by the court below is assigned for error. This we think was error. The witness Teal had simply narrated a state of facts, in reference to the collision, from which facts, in connection with all the other evidence, it was the duty of the jury to determine whether or not the appellee was to blame, whether he had been guilty of negligence. The witness had no right to make admissions after the occurrence to bind the appellant in regard to his conduct. There was no agency on his part to do that. It was incompetent as original evidence. The servant to drive the team could not admit away his father\u2019s case by making admissions of this character. Nor was it competent by way of impeachment.\nHis opinion as to whether appellee was negligent or not, was wholly immaterial, nor did it contradict anything which he had testified to. He was not allowed to swear, nor did he swear, that he was of opinion appellee had been to blame in the manner in which he handled his horse.\nHe had simply stated the facts concerning the collision. He was not asked whether he had made statements contradictory to those which he had made on oath. If he had it would have been proper to have shown it; but it was not proper to show an expression of an opinion which decided the whole case.\nThe case of Lane v. Bryant, 9 Gray, 245, is nearly exactly in point, and decides that it is notproper to ask questions of this character. See also 1 Wharton Ev. Sec. 551, 559; Robinson v. F. R. R. Co. 7 Gray, 92.\nThe admission of evidence of this character was well calculated to be very damaging to appellant\u2019s case. We think the law of the road was laid down by the court as favorably as the appellant could ask.\nThe fifth appellee\u2019s instruction should have been so modified as to allow of recovery in case of willful infliction of injury.\nTherefore, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.", "type": "majority", "author": "Lacey, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Mr. Samuel Richolson and Messrs. Geo. H. Haight and Geo. C. Cooper, for appellant;", "Mr. L. L. Thompson and Mr. C. B. Chapman, for appellee;" ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Martin Teal v. William Meravey.\n1. Agency \u2014 Admissions.\u2014A servant to drive a team can not bind his master by admissions made after an accident in regard to his conduct at the time of the accident, which were mere matters of opinion.\n2. Impeachment op witness. \u2014 It was not competent, by way of impeaching the testimony of the servant who denied the admissions, to introduce other witnesses to testify that such admissions were made.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of LaSalle county; the Hon. G-eoege W. Stipp, Judge, presiding.\nOpinion filed December 28, 1882.\nMr. Samuel Richolson and Messrs. Geo. H. Haight and Geo. C. Cooper, for appellant;\nthat it is the duty of a person traveling on horseback to give way to a loaded vehicle, cited Beach v. Parmeter, 23 Penn. 196; Washburn v. Tracy, 2 Chipm. 136.\nAs to cases where an exception will be made to the general rule of contributory negligence: C. & A. R. R. Co. v. Becker, 76 Ill. 25.\nA witness can not be impeached upon immaterial matter: 1 Wharton on Ev. \u00a7\u00a7 551-559; Lane v. Bryant, 9 Gray, 245; Robinson v. Fitchburg R. R. Co. 7 Gray, 92.\nInstructions must not only be correct as abstract propositions of law, but must be applicable to the facts in the case: Lombard v. Martin, 39 Miss. 147; Gorman v. Campbell, 14 Ga. 137; McNair v. Platt, 46 Ill. 211; Atkinson v. Lester, 1 Scam. 407; Hesing v. McCloskey, 37 Ill. 342; South Evanston v. Lynch, 1 Bradwell, 63; Harris v. Miner, 28 Ill. 135; Riley v. Dickens, 19 Ill. 29; Barns v. Kelly, 41 Miss. 339; Hayes v. Hinds, 28 Ind. 531; Southern Ex. Co. v. Newby, 36 Ga. 635; Ochiltree v. Carl, 23 Ia. 394; Pasley v. English, 10 Graft. 236; Ward v. Henry, 19 Wis. 26; Pittsburgh, etc. R. R. Co. v. Krouse, 30 Ohio, 223.\nIf the injury was willfully committed by appellee, appellant can recover without even showing the exercise of ordinary care: C. & N. W. R. R. Co. v. Coss, 73 Ill. 394; C. B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Lee, 68 Ill. 576; C. & N. W. R. R. Co. v. Donahue, 75 Ill. 106; I. C. R. R. Co. v. Hetherington, 83 Ill. 510; Lafayette, etc. R. R. Co. v. Adams, 26 Ind. 76; Indianapolis, etc. R. R. Co..v. McClure, 26 Ind. 370.\nAn instruction is erroneous which withdraws from the jury any facts, however weak, which tend to prove issue: Edgar v. McArn, 22 Ala. 796; Hornes v. State, 23 Ala. 17; Cathron v. Moore, 1 Ala. 423; Toulmin v. Lessen, 2 Ala. 359.\nMr. L. L. Thompson and Mr. C. B. Chapman, for appellee;\nthat where a carriage and a horse pass on the road, each must keep its proper side, cited Shearman & Redfield on Negligence, \u00a7\u00a7 308, 310; Angell on Highways, \u00a7\u00a7 328, 330, 331, 334; Oliphant\u2019s Law of Horses, 166; Turley v. Thomas, 8 C. & P. 103; Dudley v. Bolles, 24 Wend. 464; Clay v. Wood, 5 Esp. 42.\nThe law or usage of the road is not the criterion of negligence: Wayde v. Carr, 2 Dow. & Ry. 255.\nThe fact that the road i\u00bf\u201crough and rutty is no excuse: Earing v. Lansing, 7 Wend. 185.\nAlthough the law imposes upon a party the duty of turning to the right, yet liis disregard-of that duty, will not justify a traveler on the proper side of the road, in carelessly permitting himself to be injured: Parker v. Adams, 12 Met. 415; Kennard v. Burton, 12 Shepley 39; Pluckwell v. Wilson, 5 C. & P. 375; Williams v. Holland, 6 C. & P. 23; Harpell v. Curtis, 1 Smith (N. Y.), 78; Brooks v. Hart, 14 H. H. 307; O\u2019Maley v. Dorm, 7 Wis. 236; Davies v. Mann, 10 M. & W. B. 545; Bridge v. Grand June. R. R. Co., 3 M. & W. 246.\nWhere the injury arises from plaintiff\u2019s want of ordinary care, he can not recover: Washburn v. Tracy, 2 Chipm. 136; St. L. & S. E. R. R. Co. v. Br.itz, 72 Ill. 256.\nAs to the rule of comparative negligence: C. & N. W. R. R. Co. v. Coss, 73 Ill. 394; E. St. L. Pack. & Pro. Co. v. Hightower, 92 Ill. 139; City of Winchester v. Carr, 5 Bradwell, 486; Chi. City Ry. Co. v. Lewis, 5 Bradwell, 242; O. & M. R. W. Co. v. Eaves, 42 Ill. 288; I. C. R. R. Co. v. Middlesworth, 43 Ill. 64; Ortmayer v. Johnson, 45 Ill. 469; C. &. A. R. R. Co. v. Gretzner, 46 Ill. 74; C. B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Payne, 49 Ill. 499; C. B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Van Patten, 64 Ill. 510; Rock R. I. & St. L. R. R. Co. v. Coultas, 67 Ill. 398; C. B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Lee, 68 Ill. 576.\nA previous and contradictory statement may be given in evidence to impeach the credit of a witness: Wright v. Decklyne, Pet. C. C. 199; Gal. & C. N. R. R. Co. v. Fay, 16 Ill. 588; Lamb v. Stewart, 2 Ohio, 230; Allen v. Harrison, 30 Vt. 219; Fort v. Hunkins, 98 Mass. 523; Presley v. Powers, 82 Ill. 125; Craig v. Rohrer, 63 Ill. 325; The People v. Williams, 18 Cal. 187; Mageham v. Thompson, 9 Watts & S. (Pa.) 54.\nAs to instructions upon negligence: C. & N. W. R. R. Co. v. Scates, 90 Ill. 586; I. C. R. R. Co. v. Hetherington, 83 Ill. 510.\nA verdict will not be set aside because evidence lias been erroneously admitted and improper instruct ions given, when a new trial must result in the same verdict: Mattingly v. Crowley, 42 Ill. 300; Howe Mach. Co. v. Rosine, 87 Ill. 105; McConnel v. Kibbe, 33 Ill. 175; Curtis v. Sage, 35 Ill. 22; Peoria M. & F. Ins. Co. v. Frost, 37 Ill. 333." }, "file_name": "0032-01", "first_page_order": 28, "last_page_order": 32 }