{ "id": 2783320, "name": "Ferdinand Grannemann, Plaintiff in Error, v. Louis Meyer et al., Defendants in Error", "name_abbreviation": "Grannemann v. Meyer", "decision_date": "1912-03-21", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "291", "last_page": "294", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "169 Ill. App. 291" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "91 Ill. 63", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2749882 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/91/0063-01" ] }, { "cite": "168 Ill. 504", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3187543 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/168/0504-01" ] }, { "cite": "211 Ill. 273", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3306785 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/211/0273-01" ] }, { "cite": "142 Ill. App. 183", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 2682004 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/142/0183-01" ] }, { "cite": "182 Ill. 645", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3213916 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/182/0645-01" ] }, { "cite": "6 Ill. App. 267", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 4744956 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/6/0267-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 325, "char_count": 5211, "ocr_confidence": 0.495, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.08439546089366601 }, "sha256": "a818ead298bc55fdbeb1de49994a7ec9fb01af0b88602dd481b5d84048bd2845", "simhash": "1:cdbb900d52d7d495", "word_count": 868 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:27:11.843184+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Ferdinand Grannemann, Plaintiff in Error, v. Louis Meyer et al., Defendants in Error." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Shirley\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis was an action of trespass to real property brought by plaintiff in error, Crannemann, hereinafter called the plaintiff, against the defendants* in error, hereinafter called the defendants. The verdict and judgment were in favor of defendants.\nThe declaration charged the defendants with wrongfully breaking and entering the lands of plaintiff and with digging holes therein, erecting telephone poles and stringing wires thereon without the permission of plaintiff. There was a plea of the general issue and a special plea that defendants entered the premises by the leave and license of plaintiff.\nIt appeared plaintiff was the owner of the fee of a tract of land over which there was located \u00e1 highway. Defendants dug holes along the north side of the highway and placed poles therein upon which they strung wires to use as an extension of a telephone system owned by them. There is some conflict in the evidence whether the holes were dug and poles set by the permission of the plaintiff.\nAbout four months after the telephone line was erected and before this suit was brought, plaintiff\u2019s attorneys sent a letter to one of the defendants in which he was advised the defendants had erected and were maintaining two sets of telephone lines in the road without plaintiff\u2019s consent or authority, and he proposed that if they would remove the line on the north side of the road he would let the other one stand, if not he, plaintiff, proposed to take action under the law to have his rights adjusted. This letter was brought before a meeting of the owners of the line but no action was ever taken by them. This letter was offered to show a revocation by plaintiff of the parol license set up in the special plea. Defendants objected on the ground it was not admissible under the pleadings. The court overruled the objections and admitted the letter in evidence. The ruling was wrong. No replication setting up a revocation was filed to the special plea and the court should have sustained the objection. The defendants, however, having asked an instruction upon a revocation and thus treated the issue as properly formed, cannot now complain that the question was not in issue and that the letter was not properly admitted in evidence. Kinney v. Bauer, 6 Ill. App. 267.\nAssuming defendants had a parol license to place the line in the road the letter was in our judgment sufficient evidence of an express revocation of the license by notice. If there was a license it was by parol and was indefinite and uncertain.\nSuch license is within the Statute of Frauds, cannot be granted by parol, and is void and revocable at the will of the licensor. Ragain v. Stout, 182 Ill. 645; Streator Independent T. Co. v. Interstate T. Co., 142 Ill. App. 183. Even if the defendants\u2019 entry was at first lawful, remaining in possession after revocation makes them trespassers. Ragain v. Stout, supra; Erstwhile v. Henke, 211 Ill. 273.\nThe first instruction given for defendants was erroneous. It told the jury the plaintiff must prove the material allegations of his declaration, without advisr ing the jury in any instruction what the material allegations were, submitting to them a question of law. Such instruction without such advice has been often condemned. The third, fourth and fifth instructions were all erroneous. They direct a verdict ignoring the material question of the revocation of the license.\nAn instruction directing a verdict must not ignore a material element in evidence but must contain all the elements authorizing the verdict. Partridge v. Cutler, 168 Ill. 504. That there were other instructions on the question of a revocation does not cure the error in these instructions. Ill. Linen Co. v. Hough, 91 Ill. 63.\nFor the errors indicated the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.\nReversed and remanded.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Shirley" } ], "attorneys": [ "Sprigg & Gilster, for plaintiff in error.", "A. E. Crisler and A. G. Gordon, for defendant in error." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Ferdinand Grannemann, Plaintiff in Error, v. Louis Meyer et al., Defendants in Error.\n1. Evidence\u2014when of revocation incompetent. A letter containing an alleged revocation of a license is not competent unless relied upon in the pleadings.\n2. Appeals and errors\u2014xohen admission of erroneous evidence waived by instructions. If a letter be improperly admitted because not relied upon in the pleadings such error is waived by the asking of an instruction which treated the pleadings as sufficient to raise the issue.\n3. Statute op Frauds\u2014when license within. Held, that a parol license authorizing the erection of a telephone pole was within the Statute of Frauds and was revocable at the will of the licensor.\n4. Instructions'\u2014submitting questions of law. An instruction which leaves to the jury the determination as to what are material allegations is erroneous.\n5. Instructions\u2014ignoring issues. An instruction directing a verdict must not ignore a material element in evidence but must contain all the elements authorizing the verdict.\nTrespass. Error to the Circuit Court of Randolph county; the Hon. L. Bernreuter, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1911.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed March 21, 1912.\nSprigg & Gilster, for plaintiff in error.\nA. E. Crisler and A. G. Gordon, for defendant in error." }, "file_name": "0291-01", "first_page_order": 309, "last_page_order": 312 }