A. L. Jones Co. v. Bowman Dairy Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois

A. L. Jones Co. v. Bowman Dairy Co.

209 Ill. App. 579

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedMarch 12, 1918

DocketGen. No. 23,247

StatusPublished

This text of 209 Ill. App. 579 (A. L. Jones Co. v. Bowman Dairy Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

A. L. Jones Co. v. Bowman Dairy Co., 209 Ill. App. 579 (Ill. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice

Barnes delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision. 1. Appeal and erbob, § 482*—when proposition of law unnecessary to raise question of sufficiency of evidence. No proposition of law is necessary to raise the question of the sufficiency of the evidence below to establish a custom, where the materiality of the evidence was objected to and there was a motion predicated on the insufficiency of the entire evidence. 2. Customs and usages, § 27*—when evidence insufficient to establish custom,. Where there is no testimony tending to show a general custom as claimed by plaintiff and his own witnesses testify that they know nothing of a custom with other dealers and that their conclusions are drawn from their own experiences, such evidence is insufficient to establish a custom. 3. Customs and usages, § 27*—what necessary to prove custom,., To establish a usage or custom, it is not sufficient to prove certain isolated instances, as the usage must be positively established as a fact, and not left to be drawn, as a matter of inference, from transactions.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Presiding Justice

Barnes delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision. 1. Appeal and erbob, § 482*—when proposition of law unnecessary to raise question of sufficiency of evidence. No proposition of law is necessary to raise the question of the sufficiency of the evidence below to establish a custom, where the materiality of the evidence was objected to and there was a motion predicated on the insufficiency of the entire evidence. 2. Customs and usages, § 27*—when evidence insufficient to establish custom,. Where there is no testimony tending to show a general custom as claimed by plaintiff and his own witnesses testify that they know nothing of a custom with other dealers and that their conclusions are drawn from their own experiences, such evidence is insufficient to establish a custom. 3. Customs and usages, § 27*—what necessary to prove custom,., To establish a usage or custom, it is not sufficient to prove certain isolated instances, as the usage must be positively established as a fact, and not left to be drawn, as a matter of inference, from transactions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 Ill. App. 579, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/a-l-jones-co-v-bowman-dairy-co-illappct-1918.