Jacobson v. Gunzburg

Citations

• 150 Ill. 135
• 37 N.E. 229

Syllabus

<p>1. Evidence — held not prejudicial. In an action upon notes and checks made in the name of Bennett- Jacobson, where the controversy on the trial was whether Jacob and Morris Jacobson were authorized to execute the notes and checks, a witness was asked, “Do you know of any notes-signed by Jacob, in defendant’s name, that were paid by defendant?” The answer was: “Not that I know of. I know of such checks drawn on Bennett’s bank at Grand Lodge, which were paid.” The suit was abandoned as to the checkst Held, that the answer in no way prejudiced the defendant.</p> <p>2. In the same case a witness was asked, “Do you know whether Jacob Jacobson had authority to sign Bennett Jacobson’s name to commercial paperHeld, that while it might have been better if the question had been confined to the notes and checks, yet there was no substantial error, as the form of the question could do the defendant no injury.</p> <p>3. Instructions — need not be repeated. Where refused instructions contain correct propositions of law, yet if the instructions given contain all the law necessary for the jury to arrive at a correct verdict, there will be no error.</p> <p>4. New trial — for cumulative and impeaching evidence. As a general rule, new trials are not allowed to enable the production of newly discovered evidence which is merely cumulative, and in the nature of impeaching evidence.</p> <p>5. Practice in the Supreme Court — immaterial questions not considered. This court will not consider the propriety of a question to a witness, when the answer thereto is in no manner prejudicial to the party objecting to the same.</p>