Boyd v. Schnell

Appellate Court of Illinois

Boyd v. Schnell

209 Ill. App. 187

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedDecember 21, 1917

DocketGen. No. 22,910

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 209 Ill. App. 187 (Boyd v. Schnell) 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

Boyd v. Schnell, 209 Ill. App. 187 (Ill. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice McDonald

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Appeal and error, § 1060*—when error cannot be predicated upon giving of an instruction. Error cannot be predicated upon thev giving of an instruction where the record fails to disclose on whose behalf it was given. 3. Damages, § 200*—when instruction properly refused. An instruction excluding the element of profits held properly refused where there was no evidence tending to show profits and plaintiff made no claim therefor. 4. Appeal and error, § 1514*—when improper remarles of counsel are not reversible error. Improper remarks of plaintiff’s counsel in his closing argument to the jury were not reversible error where plaintiff’s recovery was limited to moneys actually advanced by him, in an action on the common counts.

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

Mr. Justice McDonald

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Appeal and error, § 1060*—when error cannot be predicated upon giving of an instruction. Error cannot be predicated upon thev giving of an instruction where the record fails to disclose on whose behalf it was given. 3. Damages, § 200*—when instruction properly refused. An instruction excluding the element of profits held properly refused where there was no evidence tending to show profits and plaintiff made no claim therefor. 4. Appeal and error, § 1514*—when improper remarles of counsel are not reversible error. Improper remarks of plaintiff’s counsel in his closing argument to the jury were not reversible error where plaintiff’s recovery was limited to moneys actually advanced by him, in an action on the common counts.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 Ill. App. 187, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boyd-v-schnell-illappct-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack