Hatch v. Marsh

Citations

• 71 Ill. 370

Syllabus

<p>1. Texas cattle—having a lien on, does not create a liability as otmer under the statute. Where a party borrowed money with which he purchased Texas or Cherokee cattle, and gave to another a lien on the cattle, to indemnify him as the surety on the notes given by the purchaser for the borrowed money, the party holding such lien, without the possession of the cattle, would not be the owner thereof within the meaning of the statute of 1867 prohibiting- the bringing, having possession, or owning such cattle in this State.</p> <p>3. Same—possession. A party who simply has a lien upon Texas cattle to indemnify him as a surety upon the note of the owner, can not, by-virtue of such lien, be considered as having either the actual or constructive possession, and is not liable, under the statute, for damages done by such cattle.</p> <p>3. Same — ownership must be absolute to render a party liable. The ownership contemplated by the statute to render a party liable for damages resulting from owning Texas or Cherokee cattle in this State, must be an unconditional ownership, and it is error to instruct a jury that a party is liable, under the statute, if he had a conditional ownership in the cattle at the time of the injury complained of.</p> <p>4. Instructions. In doubtful cases, the court should not, by instructions, single out isolated portions of the evidence and tell the jury t$) consider them; all the evidence is for the consideration of the jury, and the practice of making detached portions prominent, should not be encouraged.</p>