Christianson v. Devine, 210 Ill. App. 253 (1918)

April 16, 1918 · Illinois Appellate Court · Gen. No. 23,526

210 Ill. App. 253

Carl Christianson, Appellee, v. Edward J. Devine, Appellant.

Gen. No. 23,526.

(Not to he reported in full.)

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Automobiles and garages, § 6 ^* -—when ordinance as to passing street cars wrongfully excluded in action for injury to automobile by another automobile. A city ordinance prohibiting vehicles from passing or approaching within 10 feet of a street car stopped for the purpose of discharging or taking on passengers is wrongfully excluded, in an action to recover for injury to plaintiff’s automobile as the result of a collision with defendant’s automobile at a street intersection, where it appeared that plaintiff was going in the same direction as a street car which stopped on the near side of the intersecting street, and defendant’s car, which was traveling on the intersecting street, collided with plaintiff’s car after the street car, which had started up again, had stopped to let defendant’s automobile cross, even though there is a conflict in the evidence as to whether or not plaintiff’s automobile came to a stop upon overtaking the street car at the intersecting street.

Appeal from the County Court of Cook county; the Hon. Andrew D. Webb, Judge, presiding.

Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1917.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed April 16, 1918.

Statement of the Case.

Action by Carl Christianson, plaintiff, against Edward J. Devine, defendant, to recover damages for injury to plaintiff’s automobile as the result of a collision with defendant’s automobile*at a street intersection. From a judgment for plaintiff' for $160, defendant appeals.

Donigan & Devine, for appellant.

George E. Gorman, for appellee.

* See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

* See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Justice McDonald

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Appeal and error, § 452 ^* —when objection as to admission of ordinance is too late. An objection as to the admission of a city ordinance, in a negligence action, comes too late where made for the first time on appeal.

3. Trial, § 91*—-what is purpose of specific objection to evidence. The purpose of a specific objection to evidence in the trial court is to enable the other party to meet it.

4. Appeal and error, § 551*—non-necessity of exceptions to rulings. Under section 81 of the Practice Act (J. & A. If 8618), the necessity of excepting to all adverse rulings of the trial court is dispensed with.