Casper v. Geek

Appellate Court of Illinois

Casper v. Geek

186 Ill. App. 9

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedApril 1, 1914

DocketGen. No. 18,659

StatusPublished

This text of 186 Ill. App. 9 (Casper v. Geek) 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

Casper v. Geek, 186 Ill. App. 9 (Ill. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Duncan

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Appeal and ebbob, § 936*—when record does not show error of court in refusing to amend hill of exceptions. Refusal of trial court to enter a nunc pro tunc order for the amendment of a bill of exceptions by having certain affidavits made on behalf of plaintiffs in error in support of their motion for a new trial made a part thereof, held not error where there were no minutes of the trial judge introduced in evidence and incorporated in the record and no proper evidence in the record that the affidavits were ever read to the court or presented to him for consideration on the motion for a new trial or otherwise, although there was a recital in the record “that it appeared to the court from an examination of his minutes” that the said affidavits were read to the court during the argument of the motion for a new trial, but such recitals being insufficient as not being a recital of the evidentiary facts.

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

Mr. Justice Duncan

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Appeal and ebbob, § 936*—when record does not show error of court in refusing to amend hill of exceptions. Refusal of trial court to enter a nunc pro tunc order for the amendment of a bill of exceptions by having certain affidavits made on behalf of plaintiffs in error in support of their motion for a new trial made a part thereof, held not error where there were no minutes of the trial judge introduced in evidence and incorporated in the record and no proper evidence in the record that the affidavits were ever read to the court or presented to him for consideration on the motion for a new trial or otherwise, although there was a recital in the record “that it appeared to the court from an examination of his minutes” that the said affidavits were read to the court during the argument of the motion for a new trial, but such recitals being insufficient as not being a recital of the evidentiary facts.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 Ill. App. 9, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/casper-v-geek-illappct-1914.