Emery v. Hoyt

Citations

• 46 Ill. 258

Syllabus

<p>1. Evidence—when affirmative is entitled to greater weight than negative testimony. In cases of insanity, where much evidence is heard on both sides, the affirmative testimony of those best acquainted with the person alleged to be insane, the testimony of experts not being in the case, should outweigh the testimony of those, who, at or about the time of the act sought to be avoided on the plea of insanity, had interviews with him, and testify they saw nothing indicating an insane mind.</p> <p>2. Insanity—burden of proof. Where a party is insane, except at intervals, the rule is, when insanity is alleged as a defense to a contract made by him, he who claims the performance of the contract must prove it was entered into while the party had a lucid interval.</p> <p>3. The verdict of a jury in a County Court that a person charged with insanity, was sane on a particular 'day, is not prima fade evidence that the same party was sane at a subsequent or prior date.</p> <p>4. Where a contract is sought to be avoided on the ground of insanity, the only inquiry is whether the party was sane when the contract was made.</p> <p>5. Instructions—must not direct a jury to a single fact in the case. An instruction which seeks to direct the minds of a jury to a single fact in the case, and which has no real bearing upon the merits, and is calculated to mislead, should be refused.</p> <p>6. Same—should not be a repetition of one already given. An instruction should not be given which is a repetition of one already given.</p> <p>7. Same—should be applicable to the case. An instruction having no bearing on the rights of the parties, and no effect upon the merits of the case, should be refused.</p>