
    Hattie M. Balsley, Appellee, v. John Hetzel, Appellant.
    Gen. No. 18,005.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Negligence, § 187
      
      —sufficiency of evidence to sustain verdict for injuries resulting from, collision with wagon. In an action to recover for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff by reason of the negligence of defendant in driving his wagon so as to collide with plaintiff who was attempting to board a street car, evidence held sufficient to sustain verdict for plaintiff.
    2. Release, § 22*—Effect of covenant not to sue one of several tort feasors. A covenant not to sue one of several tort feasors does not operate as a release of either the covenantee or the other tort feasors.
    Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon Charles A. McDonald, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1911.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed October 9, 1913.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Hattie M. Balsley against John Hetzel and Chicago Railways Company to recover for injuries sustained by plaintiff by reason of collision of a wagon with a street car at a street intersection, where plaintiff was awaiting to board a street car. Upon suit being discontinued as to the Chicago Railways Company and judgment entered for plaintiff for two thousand five hundred dollars, John Hetzel appeals.
    Lackner, Butz & Miller and W. G. Shockey, for appellant.
    Johnson & Belasco, for appellee.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XIV, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Release, § 26*—questions for jury. In an action against two tort feasors, the question whether a certain sum paid to plaintiff by one of the defendants after the commencement of the suit was received in satisfaction of all claims against such defendant, held properly submitted to the jury.

4. Appeal and errob, § 1507*—when restricting cross-examination as to release, not error. Trial court’s ruling in sustaining objections to questions asked plaintiff on cross-examination relative to her acceptance of a certain sum paid plaintiff by one of the defendants,. held not error where the court allowed counsel large latitude in questioning witness as to such subject.  