Chicago & W. I. R. R. v. DeMarko

51 Ill. App. 581, 1893 Ill. App. LEXIS 649
Appellate Court of Illinois·Decided February 1, 1894·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Mr. Justice Waterman

delivered the opinion of the Court.

In the common law record of this case we find no error. We can not consider that portion of the transcript sought to be made a record by a bill of exceptions, because the so-called bill of exceptions was not sealed as well as signed by the judge who certified thereto.

It is indispensable that a bill of exceptions be signed and sealed by the judge by whom the same is made. Widows and Orphans’ Beneficiary Association v. Powers, 30 Ill. App. 82; Clive v. The Toledo, St. Louis & Kansas R. R. Co., 41 Ill. App. 516; Miller v. Jenkins, 44 Ill. 443; James v. Sprague, 2 Scam. 55; Mason v. Gibson, 13 Ill. App. 463; Morse v. Williams, 4 Scam. 285; Cowhick v. Gunn, 2 Scam. 417.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

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

Chicago & W. I. R. R. v. DeMarko, 51 Ill. App. 581, 1893 Ill. App. LEXIS 649 (Ill. Ct. App. 1894).

51 Ill. App. 581 (Chicago & W. I. R. R. v. DeMarko) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Schwartz v. Mandel
133 Ill. App. 542 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1907)
Cudney & Co. v. Martindale
86 Ill. App. 672 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1900)
Masterson v. Furman
82 Ill. App. 386 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1899)
City of Bloomington v. Clark
78 Ill. App. 392 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1898)
Elder v. Bennett
79 Ill. App. 335 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1898)