{
  "id": 2460231,
  "name": "Elias Mitchell, Adm'r, v. The Town of Fond du Lac",
  "name_abbreviation": "Mitchell v. Town of Fond du Lac",
  "decision_date": "1871-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "174",
  "last_page": "176",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "61 Ill. 174"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 272,
    "char_count": 4102,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.566,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.265525193615193e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7831524154497038
    },
    "sha256": "20f3094958c9e30081688f96bd29889e592e4f68018d411bebdda03a53dd3bea",
    "simhash": "1:89b86513a4b78cbf",
    "word_count": 701
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:22:01.960225+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Elias Mitchell, Adm\u2019r, v. The Town of Fond du Lac."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice McAllister\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThis was assumpsit, brought by appellant as administrator of the estate of William Mitchell, deceased, against appellee, to recover for the support and maintenance by the intestate in his lifetime of one Eliza McFerren, from the 23d of March, 1857, to the 23d of January, 1858, said Eliza being an alleged pauper and resident of the said township.\nThe jury rendered a verdict for appellee, and the court overruled the motion of appellant for a new trial.\nSeveral grounds are relied upon for reversal:\nFirst\u2014That the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.\nSecond\u2014The court erred in refusing appellant\u2019s second instruction. '\nThird\u2014In giving instructions on behalf of appellee.\nThe first and second grounds are untenable. We have looked into the evidence preserved in the bill of exceptions, and find it of so indefinite a character that we can not say that the verdict was manifestly against the weight of the evidence.\nThe second instruction on behalf of appellant, which was refused, contains no proposition of law applicable to the case. There was no question of the disability of infants involved in the case. Appellant brought the action in the character of administrator, and it was wholly immaterial, under the circumstances of this case, how long he had been under disability.\nThe first instruction on behalf of appellee is as follows :\n\u201cIf the jury believe, from the evidence, that the person', Eliza McFerren, was boarded and lodged and furnished Avith clothing by William Mitchell (Avhose administrator brings suit) from the 1st day of March, A. D. 1857, until his death in 1858, yet, unless they further believe, from the evidence, that during that time the said Eliza McFerren was a pauper for Avhose support the defendant was legally liable, or for whose support the defendant had, by its proper officer, contracted to pay the said William Mitchell for during said time, they will find for the defendant.\u201d\nThis instruction submits to the determination of the jury two questions of law, Avithout any aid from the court, viz.:\nFirst\u2014What shall constitute the legal liability of a town to support a pauper ?\nSecond\u2014Who is the proper officer to make a binding contract on the part of the toAvn for such support by another ?\nThe impropriety of leaving questions of law to the determination of the jury has been so often decided by the courts that the citation of authorities seems unnecessary.\nThe court should have instructed the jury as to Avhat facts were indispensable to create the legal liability of the toAvn for the support of the person in question, and then told them that if such facts were not established by the evidence, to find for the defendant; and should likewise have informed the jury Avho the proper officer to bind the toAvn for such support Avas, and what would be necessary to constitute a contract express or implied, and then left it for them to say whether such officer acted in the premises, and if he did nothing to create a\" contract within the definition given, that then they should find for the defendant. A majority of the court think the instruction erroneous.\nFor this error, the judgment of the court below must be reversed and the cau'se remanded.\nJudgment reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice McAllister"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Williams & Elliott, for the appellant.",
      "Mr. C. A. Egberts and Mr. N. W. Green, for the appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Elias Mitchell, Adm\u2019r, v. The Town of Fond du Lac.\n1. Instructions\u2014must be applicable to the case. Although instructions may contain correct legal propositions, still it is not error to refuse them if they are not applicable to the case.\n2. Same\u2014containing legal propositions. It is error to give instructions to the jury which require tiie jury to find and determine legal propositions. The court should direct the jury what the law is on the facts the evidence tends \u25a0 to prove, or instruct them as to what the law is if they find the facts to be true; or what facts must be proved before the plaintiff can recover.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Tazewell county; the Hon. Charles Turner, Judge, presiding.\nMessrs. Williams & Elliott, for the appellant.\nMr. C. A. Egberts and Mr. N. W. Green, for the appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0174-01",
  "first_page_order": 174,
  "last_page_order": 176
}