Goeing v. Outhouse

Citations

• 95 Ill. 346
• 1880 Ill. LEXIS 184

Syllabus

<p>1. Estoppel—waiver of landlord’s lien. A tenant sold his part of a crop of corn raised on the leased premises, and the purchaser from the tenant sold to another. The question arose between the landlord and this second purchaser, whether the former had waived his lien upon the crop for his rent. It appeared that the purchaser from the tenant, after his purchase, and before he had paid for the corn or sold to his vendee, told an agent of the landlord that he had bought the corn, whereupon the agent said it was all right,—that he was satisfied,—that he had settled with the tenant, and that nothing was due except the part of the crop which remained. After this conversation the first purchaser sold, informing his vendee thereof, and out of the money received on his sale he paid the tenant for the corn. It was held to be a case where the doctrine of estoppel by conduct and a waiver would apply.</p> <p>2. Witness—credibility. It is inaccurate to instruct a jury that if they believe a witness has wilfully and knowingly sworn falsely as to any material point in controversy, they may disregard his entire testimony, without the qualification that the witness was uncorroborated by other evidence.</p> <p>3. Error will not always reverse—improper instruction. But in a case where such an instruction was given without the qualification mentioned, it appeared the controverted question was as to an alleged conversation, and the only corroborative evidence was that of the son of the witness whose veracity was questioned, and who was only twelve years of age when he testified, and only nine years old when the conversation took place. So, it was considered, under the circumstances, the inaccuracy in the instruction was not a sufficient error to reverse the judgment.</p>