D. M. Osborne & Co. v. Meyerott

Appellate Court of Illinois

D. M. Osborne & Co. v. Meyerott

39 Ill. App. 425, 1890 Ill. App. LEXIS 484

DecidedFebruary 2, 1891

StatusPublished

This text of 39 Ill. App. 425 (D. M. Osborne & Co. v. Meyerott) 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

D. M. Osborne & Co. v. Meyerott, 39 Ill. App. 425, 1890 Ill. App. LEXIS 484 (Ill. Ct. App. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Green, J.

Appellee brought this suit to recover balance on account alleged to he due him from appellants. A verdict and judgment for §192.74 and costs of suit, in favor of plaintiff and against defendants, was entered in the court below, and defendants took this appeal. The only ground for reversal suggested is, that there is no evidence to support the verdict. We can not sustain this contention. An examination of the record satisfies us the finding of the jury was justified by the evidence and we decline to disturb the verdict. The mistake in the footing of the account attached to the declaration, if it he a matter of any importance in the case, we think is explained by the erasure of an item of said account, without any authority shown to erase the same. The amount of this item we ascertain, by examining the account read in evidence, to be §57.56, charged as commissions. The judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirtned.

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

Green, J.

Appellee brought this suit to recover balance on account alleged to he due him from appellants. A verdict and judgment for §192.74 and costs of suit, in favor of plaintiff and against defendants, was entered in the court below, and defendants took this appeal. The only ground for reversal suggested is, that there is no evidence to support the verdict. We can not sustain this contention. An examination of the record satisfies us the finding of the jury was justified by the evidence and we decline to disturb the verdict. The mistake in the footing of the account attached to the declaration, if it he a matter of any importance in the case, we think is explained by the erasure of an item of said account, without any authority shown to erase the same. The amount of this item we ascertain, by examining the account read in evidence, to be §57.56, charged as commissions. The judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirtned.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 Ill. App. 425, 1890 Ill. App. LEXIS 484, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/d-m-osborne-co-v-meyerott-illappct-1891.