Conrad v. Charles A. Stevens & Bros.

Appellate Court of Illinois

Conrad v. Charles A. Stevens & Bros.

205 Ill. App. 494

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedMay 9, 1917

DocketGen. No. 21,942

StatusPublished

This text of 205 Ill. App. 494 (Conrad v. Charles A. Stevens & Bros.) 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

Conrad v. Charles A. Stevens & Bros., 205 Ill. App. 494 (Ill. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Goodwin

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Instructions, § 67*—when not erroneous because assuming facts. It is not erroneous to assume, in an instruction, the existence of an uncontroverted fact fully disclosed by the evidence. 4. Appeal and ebbor, § 883*—necessity of abstracting instruction. Where complaint was made on appeal of the modification “of another instruction,” but the instruction itself was not identified or abstracted, held that the court was not constrained to search the record for it. 5. Damages, § 115*—when judgment not excessive. A judgment for $2,500 for personal injuries held not excessive. 6. Appeal and error, § 1752*—when judgment affirmed for insufficiency of abstract. Where appellant’s abstract was stricken from the record as not complying with the rules, and he filed a so-called “additional abstract of record” which merely attempted to supplement the former abstract and was altogether incomplete in itself or with the former, held that affirmance of the judgment was proper.

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

Mr. Justice Goodwin

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Instructions, § 67*—when not erroneous because assuming facts. It is not erroneous to assume, in an instruction, the existence of an uncontroverted fact fully disclosed by the evidence. 4. Appeal and ebbor, § 883*—necessity of abstracting instruction. Where complaint was made on appeal of the modification “of another instruction,” but the instruction itself was not identified or abstracted, held that the court was not constrained to search the record for it. 5. Damages, § 115*—when judgment not excessive. A judgment for $2,500 for personal injuries held not excessive. 6. Appeal and error, § 1752*—when judgment affirmed for insufficiency of abstract. Where appellant’s abstract was stricken from the record as not complying with the rules, and he filed a so-called “additional abstract of record” which merely attempted to supplement the former abstract and was altogether incomplete in itself or with the former, held that affirmance of the judgment was proper.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 Ill. App. 494, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conrad-v-charles-a-stevens-bros-illappct-1917.