Case ID: ill-app_208/html/0030-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Eldredge", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Nora Edwards, Appellant, v. Ruth Prust, Appellee.
    (Not to he reported iu full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Bailment, § 25
      
      —what are questions for jury in action against bailee for injury to horse. Whether plaintiff’s son was her agent and had a right to loan her horse to defendant and receive it back from defendant and turn it over to another girl, held, in an action to recover for injuries to the horse while ridden by the girl, to be questions for the jury.
    2. Appeal and error, § 1744*—when judgment affirmed. Where the instructions, although faulty and subject to criticism, taken as • a series could not have misled the jury, and two juries had found the facts adversely to appellant, held that the judgment should be affirmed.
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Clark county; the Hon. Augustus A. Partlow, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1917.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed October 11, 1917.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Nora Edwards, plaintiff, against Ruth Prust, defendant, to recover for injuries to plaintiff’s horse loaned to defendant by plaintiff’s son. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. For abstract of decision remanding the cause on a former appeal, see Edwards v. Prust, 201 Ill. App. 399.
    Everett Connelly and Arthur Poorman, for appellant.
    Samuel M. Scholfield and John J. Arney, for appellee.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Eldredge

delivered the opinion of the court.