Crawford-Adsit Co. v. Bell

Appellate Court of Illinois

Crawford-Adsit Co. v. Bell

100 Ill. App. 366, 1902 Ill. App. LEXIS 723

DecidedFebruary 21, 1902

StatusPublished

This text of 100 Ill. App. 366 (Crawford-Adsit Co. v. Bell) 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

Crawford-Adsit Co. v. Bell, 100 Ill. App. 366, 1902 Ill. App. LEXIS 723 (Ill. Ct. App. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Waterman

delivered the opinion of the court.

From the brief of counsel for appellant we learn that this is an appeal from an order granting an injunction, and that the alleged reasons for the appeal are that “Neither the bill of complaint nor any of the intervening petitions was verified. Ño affidavits were presented in support of the motion for a temporary injunction. The order granting the injunction recites that ‘the court having heard the testimony of the defendants and other witnesses taken in open court, etc., and being fully advised in the premises, does order,’ etc. But the order does not recite any facts found from such testimony.”

This allegation is denied in the brief of appellees. Whether the objections thus made are well taken we do not know, as the abstract does not contain a word of the bill or of its substance, or even an indication of where, if at all. it can be found.

From the abstract it would appear that the appeal is from an order granting a change of venue.

We have often said that we will not, in the first instance, look through the record to ascertain whether the alleged errors are well taken. The rules of court require that matter to which counsel desire to call attention must be abstracted.

For want of a sufficient abstract the appeal is dismissed.

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

Mr. Justice Waterman

delivered the opinion of the court.

From the brief of counsel for appellant we learn that this is an appeal from an order granting an injunction, and that the alleged reasons for the appeal are that “Neither the bill of complaint nor any of the intervening petitions was verified. Ño affidavits were presented in support of the motion for a temporary injunction. The order granting the injunction recites that ‘the court having heard the testimony of the defendants and other witnesses taken in open court, etc., and being fully advised in the premises, does order,’ etc. But the order does not recite any facts found from such testimony.”

This allegation is denied in the brief of appellees. Whether the objections thus made are well taken we do not know, as the abstract does not contain a word of the bill or of its substance, or even an indication of where, if at all. it can be found.

From the abstract it would appear that the appeal is from an order granting a change of venue.

We have often said that we will not, in the first instance, look through the record to ascertain whether the alleged errors are well taken. The rules of court require that matter to which counsel desire to call attention must be abstracted.

For want of a sufficient abstract the appeal is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 Ill. App. 366, 1902 Ill. App. LEXIS 723, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crawford-adsit-co-v-bell-illappct-1902.