Case ID: ill-app_191/html/0171-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice McSurely", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Wilhelmine Herrman, Defendant in Error, v. Anton Ernst and Margaretha Ernst, Plaintiffs in Error.
    Gen. No. 18,583.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Judson F. Going, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1912.
    Affirmed upon remittitur; otherwise reversed and remanded.
    Opinion filed January 25, 1915.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Wilhelmine Herrmann against Anton and Margaretha, Ernst to recover for personal injuries received by plaintiff from being bitten by a dog belonging to defendants. To reverse a judgment entered on a verdict for two hundred dollars, defendants prosecute a writ of error.
    Q. J. Chott, for plaintiffs in error.
    
      Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Animals, $ 46
      
      —when recovery for dog hite excessive. A verdict for two hundred dollars for injuries sustained by a dog bite, held excessive to the extent of one hundred dollars, where it appeared plaintiff received a small bite on the leg which healed without delay.
    2. Animals, § 43*—sufficiency of evidence. In an action to recover for an injury resulting to plaintiff from a bite by defendants’ dog, where plaintiff claimed she was bitten by the dog which was chained near the entrance of defendants’ building when she went upon the premises to inquire concerning rooms for rent, and defendant asserted nonliability on the ground that plaintiff was a trespasser and also guilty of contributory negligence, held that a finding for plaintiff was sustained by the evidence.
    No appearance for defendant in error.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Volt. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, earn# topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.