Beanland v. Sweitzer

Appellate Court of Illinois

Beanland v. Sweitzer

314 N.E.2d 736, 21 Ill. App. 3d 121

Appellate Court of Illinois·Decided July 23, 1974·No. No. 73-343·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Judgment was entered on a jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs in the amount of $2537. Defendants have appealed seeking reversal and remandment for a new trial.

Plaintiffs-appellees have moved to affirm the judgment, on the grounds that the defendants did not file a post-Mai motion, and therefore failed to preserve a basis for review by this court.

We believe plaintiffs-appellees’ interpretation of section 68.1 of the Civil Practice Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 110, par. 68.1) is correct. Roberson v. Leak, 72 Ill.App.2d 11, 218 N.E.2d 819; Farnsworth v. Shops Budding, 77 Ill.App.2d 44, 222 N.E.2d 132.

Judgment affirmed.

Mr. JUSTICE CREBS took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

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

PER CURIAM:

Judgment was entered on a jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs in the amount of $2537. Defendants have appealed seeking reversal and remandment for a new trial.

Plaintiffs-appellees have moved to affirm the judgment, on the grounds that the defendants did not file a post-Mai motion, and therefore failed to preserve a basis for review by this court.

We believe plaintiffs-appellees’ interpretation of section 68.1 of the Civil Practice Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 110, par. 68.1) is correct. Roberson v. Leak, 72 Ill.App.2d 11, 218 N.E.2d 819; Farnsworth v. Shops Budding, 77 Ill.App.2d 44, 222 N.E.2d 132.

Judgment affirmed.

Mr. JUSTICE CREBS took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Beanland v. Sweitzer, 314 N.E.2d 736, 21 Ill. App. 3d 121 (Ill. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

314 N.E.2d 736 (Beanland v. Sweitzer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related