Case ID: ill-app_196/html/0211-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Dibell", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Anna Weltz, Appellee, v. John R. Connell, Appellant.
    Gen. No. 6,110.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Carroll county; the Hon. James S. Baume, Judge, presiding.
    Heard in this court at the April term, 1915.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed October 20, 1915.
    
      Certiorari denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final).
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Anna Weltz, plaintiff, against John R. Connell, defendant.
    The facts in this case are stated in Weltz v. Connell, 186 Ill. App. 336. That opinion, reversing and remanding the cause, was based upon the refusal of the court to give instruction No. 17, requested by appellant, which would have told the jury that, before the plaintiff could recover, she must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that misrepresentations relative to the land in question were made by the defendant, that such misrepresentations were false and known by the defendant to be false when made, that the plaintiff was deceived thereby, and that she had been injured because of them. This instruction was given upon the second trial, which also resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff, below, followed by a judgment, from which the defendant below has taken this appeal.
    
      Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Vendor and purchaser, § 54*—when evidence sufficient to sustain verdict. Evidence in an action for fraud and deceit in exchange of lands and for breach of warranty, examined and held to support a verdict for plaintiff.
    2. Instructions, § 18*—when misleading instruction properly refused. An instruction which states a correct proposition of law is properly refused where giving it would tend to mislead the jury.
    B. K. Welsh and Brearton & Walter, for appellant.
    F. J. Stransky, for appellee.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Dibell

delivered the opinion of the court.