Schmidt v. Mitchell
Citations
- 84 Ill. 195
Syllabus
<p>1. Change of venue—right of party consenting to, to withdraw his consent. The statute relating to change of venue requires that an application for such change be made by or with the consent of all the parties plaintiff or defendant, as the case may be; and where such application is made by one defendant, with the consent of his co-defendant, the latter may withdraw his consent at any time before the motion is decided, and thus prevent the change being granted.</p> <p>2. Intoxicating liquok—evidence to show whether injury was the result of intoxication or exposure. If a person, in consequence of intoxication, should get into a difficulty, resulting in being shot in the thigh, the party selling the liquor to him may be responsible for the direct consequences naturally resulting from the injury received, but if, after becoming sober, he should disregard the instructions of his physician, and walk upon the injured limb, and thus cause inflammation to set in, from the effect of which it becomes necessary to amputate the limb, resulting in his death, the liquor seller will not be responsible to the wife of the deceased for the loss of his life; and it is error to exclude testimony offered by the defendant which tends to prove that the death was the result of recklessness and exposure on the part of the deceased.</p> <p>3. Same—liquor seller not responsible for death caused by mistreatment of party wounded in consequence of his intoxication. If the death of a party who receives a wound while intoxicated can be traced as the natural and probable result of any new or' intervening cause, such as reckless exposure of himself, or amputation of the wounded limb when an amputation was not necessary, the liquor seller will not be responsible to the wife for the death.* </p> <p>4. Damages—must be natural result of act complained of'. The damages to be recovered in an action must always be the natural and proximate consequence of the wrongful act complained of. If a new force or
Judges: Cbaig
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
16 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Casey v. BurnsAppellate Court of Illinois· 1955-11-11· cited 27×
- Borck v. Michigan Bolt & Nut WorksMichigan Supreme Court· 1896-12-09· cited 20×
- Currier v. McKeeSupreme Judicial Court of Maine· 1904-12-13· cited 17×
- Hays v. WaiteAppellate Court of Illinois· 1890-05-28· cited 15×
- Whiteside v. O'ConnorsAppellate Court of Illinois· 1911-05-26· cited 14×
- Schulte v. SchleeperIllinois Supreme Court· 1904-06-23· cited 13×
- Danhof v. OsborneAppellate Court of Illinois· 1956-07-17· cited 8×
- Zibold v. ReneerSupreme Court of Kansas· 1906-03-10· cited 8×
- Thompson v. WoganAppellate Court of Illinois· 1941-03-31· cited 8×
- Sauter v. AndersonAppellate Court of Illinois· 1904-03-14· cited 3×
- Wright v. Illinois Central RailroadAppellate Court of Illinois· 1905-03-17· cited 3×
- City of Joliet v. Le PlaAppellate Court of Illinois· 1903-06-25· cited 2×
- Schulte v. MenkeAppellate Court of Illinois· 1903-11-09· cited 2×
- Davis v. StandishNew York Supreme Court· 1882-04-15
- Barks v. WoodruffAppellate Court of Illinois· 1882-12-28
- Hart v. DuddlesonAppellate Court of Illinois· 1886-11-24
Cites
2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.