stock instruction in Illinois

2024Stock, 2023 IL App (1st) 231753, ¶ 22 ; Castillo, 2024 IL App (1st) 232315, ¶ 34 .

2024Stock, 2023 IL App (1st) 231753, ¶ 22 ; Castillo, 2024 IL App (1st) 232315, ¶ 34 .

1959In Daily v. Universal Oil Products Co., 76 F. Supp. 349 , the court, applying Illinois law, said (371): “A corporation that has actual and constructive knowledge of an equitable interest of a third party in its own stock then outstanding in the name of a trustee, cannot permit a transfer of the stock in violation of the trust.

1959(People v. Smith, 11 Ill.2d 280 .) One of the People’s instructions complained of was a stock instruction that the jury had a right to consider the evidence in the light of their own knowledge and observation in the affairs of life.

1943It was much more favorable to the defendant than the ordinary stock instruction on the subject of the presumption of innocence, such as those approved in Spies v. People, 122 Ill. 1 , and People v. Kopke, 376 Ill. 171 .

1943It was much more favorable to the defendant than the ordinary stock instruction on the subject of the presumption of innocence, such as those approved in Spies v. People, 122 Ill. 1 , and People v. Kopke, 376 Ill. 171 .

1942The law, as stated in the above instruction, has been approved by the Supreme Court in Koshinski v. Illinois Steel Co., 231 Ill. 198 , 83 N. E. 149 ; Chicago City Ry.

1942The law, as stated in the above instruction, has been approved by the Supreme Court in Koshinski v. Illinois Steel Co., 231 Ill. 198 , 83 N. E. 149 ; Chicago City Ry.

1940If such were the meaning and intent of the language quoted and complained of, then Stanly Castle and his wife are in no position to complain for the reason that at their request the court gave a similar stock instruction on damages, telling the jury they had a right “to take into consideration . . . any scars . . . he or she sustained. ...” In Illinois Iron & Metal Co. v. Weber, 196 Ill. 526 , a somewhat similar instruction was held error, and in Chicago v. Colman, 33 Ill.

1940Co., 303 Ill. 339 ).

1940If such were the meaning and intent of the language quoted and complained of, then Stanly Castle and his wife are in no position to complain for the reason that at their request the court gave a similar stock instruction on damages, telling the jury they had a right “to take into consideration . . . any scars . . . he or she sustained. ...” In Illinois Iron & Metal Co. v. Weber, 196 Ill. 526 , a somewhat similar instruction was held error, and in Chicago v. Colman, 33 Ill.

1934People v. Fiereto, 303 Ill. 186 .

1927(People v. Toohey, 319 Ill. 113 .) It was by its language made to apply to all witnesses heard on the trial, and we are unable to see wherein it was more prejudicial to the defense than to the State.

1926Dushane v. Beall, 161 U. S. 513 , is cited to this point, and defendants say that even if there had been no sale of this stock under the rule as announced in that case, the trustee, having been advised of the transfer of the stock to Geer, had the right to have the sale set aside, and that it is therefore apparent that the trustee elected to abandon any right of action against Geer, and having so elected and having had notice of his rights and so- continued to elect for the space of ten years, the successor trustee is now estopped by that election, which was not in any sense negligence but an

1906In Strehmann v. City of Chicago, 93 Ill.

1905Otter v. Williams, 21 Ill. 118 ; Hale v. Barrett, 26 Ill. 195 ; Sinamaker v. Rose, 62 Ill.

1905Otter v. Williams, 21 Ill. 118 ; Hale v. Barrett, 26 Ill. 195 ; Sinamaker v. Rose, 62 Ill.

1905Otter v. Williams, 21 Ill. 118 ; Hale v. Barrett, 26 Ill. 195 ; Sinamaker v. Rose, 62 Ill.