Barton v. Harris

Appellate Court of Illinois

Barton v. Harris

39 Ill. App. 106, 1890 Ill. App. LEXIS 425

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedJanuary 9, 1891

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 39 Ill. App. 106 (Barton v. Harris) 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

Barton v. Harris, 39 Ill. App. 106, 1890 Ill. App. LEXIS 425 (Ill. Ct. App. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This was an action commenced by appellee against appellant before a justice of the peace to recover damages to his corn grown on land which he had rented from one Jacob Darst. The appellant occupied a piece of land adjoining that occupied by appellee, and the fence not being kept up the cattle of appellant got through and onto the land of appellee, and committed the damages to the corn of appellee complained of and for which the judgment was rendered. This dispute is as to whose duty it was to keep up the fence.

The case was tried without a jury by the court. It appears that after the finding of the court there was a motion made for a new trial which was overruled -by the court; but appellant took no exception to the action of the court in overruling the motion. In this state of the record the appellant is precluded from raising the objection that the finding of the court was against the evidence. When the record fails to show exceptions taken to the overruling of a motion for a new trial, it will be considered that the party acquiesced in the decision of the court and it can not be assigned for error. Law v. Fletcher, 84 Ill. 45; Stern v. The People, 96 Ill. 475; James v. Dexter, 113 Ill. 654; Graham v. The People, 119 Ill. 659.

These cases are decisive and the judgment must be affirmed. Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

This was an action commenced by appellee against appellant before a justice of the peace to recover damages to his corn grown on land which he had rented from one Jacob Darst. The appellant occupied a piece of land adjoining that occupied by appellee, and the fence not being kept up the cattle of appellant got through and onto the land of appellee, and committed the damages to the corn of appellee complained of and for which the judgment was rendered. This dispute is as to whose duty it was to keep up the fence.

The case was tried without a jury by the court. It appears that after the finding of the court there was a motion made for a new trial which was overruled -by the court; but appellant took no exception to the action of the court in overruling the motion. In this state of the record the appellant is precluded from raising the objection that the finding of the court was against the evidence. When the record fails to show exceptions taken to the overruling of a motion for a new trial, it will be considered that the party acquiesced in the decision of the court and it can not be assigned for error. Law v. Fletcher, 84 Ill. 45; Stern v. The People, 96 Ill. 475; James v. Dexter, 113 Ill. 654; Graham v. The People, 119 Ill. 659.

These cases are decisive and the judgment must be affirmed. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 Ill. App. 106, 1890 Ill. App. LEXIS 425, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barton-v-harris-illappct-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack