Butt v. Lee

Appellate Court of Illinois

Butt v. Lee

27 Ill. App. 419, 1888 Ill. App. LEXIS 551

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedDecember 7, 1888

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 27 Ill. App. 419 (Butt v. Lee) 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

Butt v. Lee, 27 Ill. App. 419, 1888 Ill. App. LEXIS 551 (Ill. Ct. App. 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

Moran, J.

Appellant brought an action against appellee, alleging a breach of a certain contract, and claiming liquidated damages in the sum of $3,000, as provided by the contract.

The case was tried by a jury, and a verdict found in favor of plaintiff, but the damages were assessed at $50.

The only error assigned on this appeal is that “the court erred in refusing a new trial on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the evidence.”

There is in the bill of exceptions no motion for new trial set out, and no reference whatever to any such motion. In the judgment order of the court, as copied into the record by the clerk, it is stated that the plaintiff’s motion theretofore entered therein for a new trial in said cause is overruled and a new trial denied, but such statement by the clerk does not make a motion for a new trial a part of the record. There is. nowhere in the record any exception preserved to the overruling of any motion for a new trial, and hence the error assigned can not be considered by this court Smith et al. v. Kahill, 17 Ill. 67; Boyle v. Levings, 28 Ill. 314; Duncan v. Chandler, 5 Ill. App. 499; Deitrich v. Waldron, 90 Ill. 115.

The judgment must therefore be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Moran, J.

Appellant brought an action against appellee, alleging a breach of a certain contract, and claiming liquidated damages in the sum of $3,000, as provided by the contract.

The case was tried by a jury, and a verdict found in favor of plaintiff, but the damages were assessed at $50.

The only error assigned on this appeal is that “the court erred in refusing a new trial on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the evidence.”

There is in the bill of exceptions no motion for new trial set out, and no reference whatever to any such motion. In the judgment order of the court, as copied into the record by the clerk, it is stated that the plaintiff’s motion theretofore entered therein for a new trial in said cause is overruled and a new trial denied, but such statement by the clerk does not make a motion for a new trial a part of the record. There is. nowhere in the record any exception preserved to the overruling of any motion for a new trial, and hence the error assigned can not be considered by this court Smith et al. v. Kahill, 17 Ill. 67; Boyle v. Levings, 28 Ill. 314; Duncan v. Chandler, 5 Ill. App. 499; Deitrich v. Waldron, 90 Ill. 115.

The judgment must therefore be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 Ill. App. 419, 1888 Ill. App. LEXIS 551, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/butt-v-lee-illappct-1888.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack