Coyle v. Castle

Appellate Court of Illinois

Coyle v. Castle

201 Ill. App. 1, 1915 Ill. App. LEXIS 1073

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedOctober 13, 1915

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 201 Ill. App. 1 (Coyle v. Castle) 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

Coyle v. Castle, 201 Ill. App. 1, 1915 Ill. App. LEXIS 1073 (Ill. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Graves

delivered the opinion of the court.

11. Partnership, § 407*—when evidence sufficient to sustain allowance of item in action for accounting. A ruling of the trial court in a partnership accounting as to the correctness of a certain item as charged, sustained, though at variance with the deductions made by a partisan expert accountant from records not preserved in the abstract, where witnesses had been heard by the trial court and the expert’s deductions were shown to be unreliable. 12. Costs, § 73*—when appellant properly charged with cost of additional abstract. Where the appellant’s abstract on appeal was defective, the cost of an additional abstract furnished by the appellee was, on affirmance of the judgment, taxed against the appellant.

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

Mr. Justice Graves

delivered the opinion of the court.

11. Partnership, § 407*—when evidence sufficient to sustain allowance of item in action for accounting. A ruling of the trial court in a partnership accounting as to the correctness of a certain item as charged, sustained, though at variance with the deductions made by a partisan expert accountant from records not preserved in the abstract, where witnesses had been heard by the trial court and the expert’s deductions were shown to be unreliable. 12. Costs, § 73*—when appellant properly charged with cost of additional abstract. Where the appellant’s abstract on appeal was defective, the cost of an additional abstract furnished by the appellee was, on affirmance of the judgment, taxed against the appellant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 Ill. App. 1, 1915 Ill. App. LEXIS 1073, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coyle-v-castle-illappct-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack