Cottew v. Betz

Appellate Court of Illinois

Cottew v. Betz

72 Ill. App. 661, 1897 Ill. App. LEXIS 701

DecidedDecember 17, 1897

StatusPublished

This text of 72 Ill. App. 661 (Cottew v. Betz) 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

Cottew v. Betz, 72 Ill. App. 661, 1897 Ill. App. LEXIS 701 (Ill. Ct. App. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Crabtree

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This was an action of assumpsit, brought bjr appellee against appellant, to recover a balance claimed to be due on an open account, for goods sold and delivered. There was a trial by jury, resulting in a verdict in favor of appellee for $335.76. Appellee entered a remittitur as to $48, which being done the court overruled a motion for new trial, and rendered judgment for $287.76.

The only controversy in the case is as to the amount of a certain payment made by appellant, on April 18,1895; appellant claiming to have paid on that date $450, while appellee insists the amount was only $150. Upon the trial appellant produced a receipt for $450, dated "April 18,1895, signed by appellee, and now contends that the evidence on the part of appellee was not sufficient to overcome it.

As to the amount of this payment there was an irreconcilable conflict in the evidence. If the jury believed the testimony of appellant, the payment was $450. If, on the other hand they believe the appellee, corroborated as he was to some extent by other witnesses and circumstances in the case, then the payment was but $150. The question of the credibility of the witnesses was one solely for the consideration of the jury, who saw them and heard them testify.

There was evidence, sufficient if believed by the jury,* to warrant their verdict, and we think this case falls within the rule so often announced by the courts of this State, that when there is evidence from which the jury could properly find their verdict, it will not be disturbed, when the evidence is conflicting, even though it might seem to the appellate tribunal to preponderate against the verdict, unless it is apparent that the jury have been actuated by passion or prejudice. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. R. Co. v. Reidy, 66 Ill. 43; Toledo, W. & W. Ry. Co. v. Moore, 77 Ill. 217; Plummer v. Rigdon, 78 Ill. 222.

"We can see no just reason for interfering with the verdict of the jury in this case.

We find no error in the rulings of the court on the admission or rejection of evidence, and no complaint is made of the instructions.

Seeing no sufficient reason for interfering with the judgment it will be affirmed. Judgment affirmed.

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

Mr. Presiding Justice Crabtree

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This was an action of assumpsit, brought bjr appellee against appellant, to recover a balance claimed to be due on an open account, for goods sold and delivered. There was a trial by jury, resulting in a verdict in favor of appellee for $335.76. Appellee entered a remittitur as to $48, which being done the court overruled a motion for new trial, and rendered judgment for $287.76.

The only controversy in the case is as to the amount of a certain payment made by appellant, on April 18,1895; appellant claiming to have paid on that date $450, while appellee insists the amount was only $150. Upon the trial appellant produced a receipt for $450, dated "April 18,1895, signed by appellee, and now contends that the evidence on the part of appellee was not sufficient to overcome it.

As to the amount of this payment there was an irreconcilable conflict in the evidence. If the jury believed the testimony of appellant, the payment was $450. If, on the other hand they believe the appellee, corroborated as he was to some extent by other witnesses and circumstances in the case, then the payment was but $150. The question of the credibility of the witnesses was one solely for the consideration of the jury, who saw them and heard them testify.

There was evidence, sufficient if believed by the jury,* to warrant their verdict, and we think this case falls within the rule so often announced by the courts of this State, that when there is evidence from which the jury could properly find their verdict, it will not be disturbed, when the evidence is conflicting, even though it might seem to the appellate tribunal to preponderate against the verdict, unless it is apparent that the jury have been actuated by passion or prejudice. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. R. Co. v. Reidy, 66 Ill. 43; Toledo, W. & W. Ry. Co. v. Moore, 77 Ill. 217; Plummer v. Rigdon, 78 Ill. 222.

"We can see no just reason for interfering with the verdict of the jury in this case.

We find no error in the rulings of the court on the admission or rejection of evidence, and no complaint is made of the instructions.

Seeing no sufficient reason for interfering with the judgment it will be affirmed. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 Ill. App. 661, 1897 Ill. App. LEXIS 701, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cottew-v-betz-illappct-1897.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack