Little v. Munson

Decided March 13, 1894

Appellate Court of Illinois · decided 1894-03-13

1. Instructions—Abstract Propositions of Law.—The practice of instructing a jury as to propositions of law in the abstract is not approved, but it is not error. 2. Same—Frequent Repetition.—It is improper for a court to place, by frequent repetition, too prominently before a jury, any principle of law involved in the case, but it is not necessarily reversible error. 3. Trespass—Damages—Absence of Evil Intent.—In actions of trespass, if the injuries are inflicted without wrong or evil intent, of without a want of reasonable care or prudence, such absence of evil intent and presence of care and prudence, will prevent the recovery of punitory, but not of actual damages.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

and affirmed · Decided 1894-03-13

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently February 1930

4 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mr. Justice Waterman,

¶1dissenting.

¶2From the testimony of the plaintiff’s brother, a man thirty-seven years of age, who was present and consulted when his sister was sent to the detention hospital, the testimony of J. S. Frasher, Geo. W. Little, Sr., M. J. Ilea, B. J. Parker and Doctor Lewis, I -believe that the statements of the defendants on this matter are substantially true.

¶3That Mrs. Little felt bitterly toward the plaintiff, was alarmed, excited and angry, and when the plaintiff ivas at the detention hospital talked to her in a wicked and most unladylike manner, and that the conduct of George Little in making known the feelings of the plaintiff toward him. was not that of a gentleman, while his action in thereafter going to the house where she lived was silly and unwarranted, I have no doubt; but these things do not justify, nor is there, in my opinion, established anything that justifies, the verdict and judgment rendered in this case.