Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

89 Ill. 100

Jansen v. Varnum

Illinois Supreme Court

Decided June 15, 1878

Illinois Supreme Court · decided 1878-06-15

Amos Watts, Judge, presiding. This was an action originally brought before a justice of the peace, by Leverett Varnum, Frederick Varnum and Sarah Varnum, against Eberhard Jansen, and Bertha Jansen, his wife, to recover damages to real estate caused by the digging of a ditch, whereby water was thrown from the lands of Bertha Jansen upon that of the plaintiffs, and by the building of a dam on other land of Bertha Jansen, whereby the natural flow of the water from the…

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1878-06-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently July 1963 · most notably 2 Ill. 2d 568 - Chmielewski v. Marich (1954), Seymour v. O. S. Richardson Fueling Co. (1903)

26 state decisions

1101878188018901900191019201930194019501960decided

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 Walker

¶1delivered the opinion of the Court:

¶2We have examined the evidence in this case with care, and fail to find a particle of testimony against Bertha Jansen. We do not find her name mentioned by a single witness in the entire evidence. She is proved to have done no act, given no directions as to the dam or ditches, nor does it appear that she ever sanctioned or approved anything her co-defendant did.' It is," therefore, impossible to see on what _ principle in law or justice she should be held liable. So far as the evidence shows, she was as entirely disconnected from the acts of her co-defendant as any other person. It would, under such circumstances, violate every recognized rule of law to hold her liable on the evidence in this case.

¶3It is, however, said in argument, that she owned the land, but if that be so we fail to find any evidence of the fact in the bill of exceptions. But even if it did appear, that could not render her liable unless she did the acts complained of, or directed them, or knowingly approved and maintained them. If she owned the land, and it was occupied by a tenant or cultivated by her husband, and either of them did the act, she would not be liable unless it was under her direction or by her sanction. In such a case to render her liable she should be connected with the wrongful act, and in this case there is nothing to show she directed, sanctioned, or even knew of the acts complained of by appellees.

¶4In actions for torts, the plaintiff may recover against so many defendants as the proof shows were guilty of the wrong, but the proof failing as to any of the defendants, they are entitled to a verdict, and if. convicted they are entitled to a reversal. In this case, on the proof, appellees might have dismissed as to Bertha Jansen, and claimed a verdict against her co-defendant; but it was palpable error to take a verdict and judgment against her. At law a judgment must be a unit as to all the defendants. It can not be reversed as to a part of them and affirmed as to the others.

¶5The judgment of the court below must be reversed, and the cause remanded.

¶6Judgment reversed.

/89/ill/100 · .json · Public domain