Green v. Phœnix Mutual Life Insurance

Citations

• 134 Ill. 310

Syllabus

<p>1. Sanity—quantum of evidence—to overcome the presumption of sanity. As the law presumes the sanity of all persons, the burden is east upon the party alleging insanity at a particular time, to establish it by a preponderance of proof. No rule can be laid down as to the quantum of evidence necessary to establish insanity, except that it must be sufficient to overcome the legal presumption of sanity, and to overbalance the testimony tending to sustain such presumption.</p> <p>2. Practice—limiting number of witnesses and quantum of proof. The trial court must of necessity exercise a discretion as to the number of witnesses to prove a given fact that is not disputed, or that is collateral to the main issue, depending very much upon the-nature and subject matter of the inquiry. Where a particular point appears to the court to be satisfactorily established, the calling of further witnesses may be stopped, subject, however, to the right to recall, should the point b,e subsequently disputed.</p> <p>3. On the hearing of a cause in chancery involving the sanity of the complainant at a former period, as affecting his capacity to execute certain deeds of trust involved in the litigation, after the examination of eight witnesses by complainant on that question, the court limited the parties each to nine witnesses, including those already examined on the question of sanity, and found the issue for the defendants: Held, that the court erred in limiting the number of witnesses, especially so after the complainant had examined the greater part of his nine witnesses before the rule was announced.</p> <p>4. If the power of the trial court to limit the number of witnesses, as so exercised, existed, which was not conceded, it should have been done at the beginning of the trial, so as to give each party an opportunity of selecting such witnesses as he might have deemed most important.</p>