Kuhl v. Clark

3 Citing cases

  1. McFetridge v. First Commercial Bank

    171 N.E.2d 791 (Ill. App. Ct. 1961)   Cited 14 times

    Therefore, after defendant's verified answer was filed denying the material allegations of the complaint it was necessary that evidence be adduced to resolve the issues. Kuhl v. Clark, 261 Ill. App. 491 (1931), cited by plaintiff, is not in point since in that case both parties offered evidence, and the refusal of the court to dissolve the injunction was based upon the weighing of this evidence. For the reasons indicated we have concluded that the temporary injunction order and the order denying defendant's motion to dissolve, should be reversed, and it is so ordered.

  2. Sundquist v. Hardware Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

    296 Ill. App. 510 (Ill. App. Ct. 1938)   Cited 2 times

    Where a felony is charged in the pleadings in a civil case, the offense must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. McConnel v. Delaware Mut. Safety Ins. Co., 18 Ill. 228; Rost v. Noble Co., 316 Ill. 357; Kuhl v. Clark, 261 Ill. App. 491; Wargo v. Buske, 273 Ill. App. 28; Gannon v. Kiel, 252 Ill. App. 550. The evidence conclusively shows the loss of the property insured and while appellee was not required to prove the cause of the fire, the record contains evidence from which the jury might have inferred that it was caused by gas escaping into appellee's basement.

  3. Mayer v. Collins

    263 Ill. App. 219 (Ill. App. Ct. 1931)   Cited 10 times

    In this latter case the court said that: "An interlocutory injunction is merely provisional in its nature. . . . Its object is to preserve the subject in controversy, but it is not decisive of the cause upon the merits." See also Fishwick v. Lewis, 258 Ill. App. 402; Kuhl v. Clark, 261 Ill. App. 491. In Rago v. Village of Melrose Park, 161 Ill. App. 18, it was said that injunctions pendente lite will be granted "If it appears that less harm from this course will result to the enjoined party if he should be finally victorious than would accrue to the complainant from the absence of the injunction if he were the winning party."