Burlison v. Roberts

Appellate Court of Illinois

Burlison v. Roberts

49 Ill. App. 269, 1893 Ill. App. LEXIS 40

DecidedSeptember 8, 1893

StatusPublished

This text of 49 Ill. App. 269 (Burlison v. Roberts) 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

Burlison v. Roberts, 49 Ill. App. 269, 1893 Ill. App. LEXIS 40 (Ill. Ct. App. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion of the Court,

Scofield, J".

This is an appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Franklin County, in favor of appellee and against appellant, for §37.50, for labor performed, and §17.50 for attorney’s fees for services rendered on the trial of the cause. The bill of exceptious contains neither instructions, nor motion for a new trial. It is true that a motion for a new trial appears in the copy of the record of the judgment as set forth in the transcript. But no exception is preserved even there, to the action of the court in overruling the motion. It is also true that certain instructions have been copied into the transcript by the clerk. But there is not even so much as the judge’s marginal “given’! or “refused” to indicate the ruling of the court on any of these instructions. It is the well established law that the rulings of the trial court in giving or refusing instructions can not be reviewed unless the instructions, together with the rulings and proper exceptions thereto, are preserved in the bill of exceptions.

The condition of this record is such that the merits of the controversy between the parties can not be considered.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Opinion of the Court,

Scofield, J".

This is an appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Franklin County, in favor of appellee and against appellant, for §37.50, for labor performed, and §17.50 for attorney’s fees for services rendered on the trial of the cause. The bill of exceptious contains neither instructions, nor motion for a new trial. It is true that a motion for a new trial appears in the copy of the record of the judgment as set forth in the transcript. But no exception is preserved even there, to the action of the court in overruling the motion. It is also true that certain instructions have been copied into the transcript by the clerk. But there is not even so much as the judge’s marginal “given’! or “refused” to indicate the ruling of the court on any of these instructions. It is the well established law that the rulings of the trial court in giving or refusing instructions can not be reviewed unless the instructions, together with the rulings and proper exceptions thereto, are preserved in the bill of exceptions.

The condition of this record is such that the merits of the controversy between the parties can not be considered.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 Ill. App. 269, 1893 Ill. App. LEXIS 40, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burlison-v-roberts-illappct-1893.