Davis v. Evans

Appellate Court of Illinois

Davis v. Evans

22 Ill. App. 375, 1886 Ill. App. LEXIS 352

DecidedJanuary 26, 1887

StatusPublished

This text of 22 Ill. App. 375 (Davis v. Evans) 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

Davis v. Evans, 22 Ill. App. 375, 1886 Ill. App. LEXIS 352 (Ill. Ct. App. 1887).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This was assumpsit brought by Sarah Evans against Rachel Davis upon a promissory note for $300, and certain indebtedness upon an open account. The defendant pleaded non-assumpsit and set-off, said set-off consisting of certain indebtedness upon an open account against the plaintiff. At the trial the jury found the issues for the plaintiff and assessed her damages at $343.50. From this amount she remitted $42.85, and the court thereupon gave judgment in her favor for $300.65 and costs.

The counsel for the appellant raises no question of law, the only proposition urged being that the amount of the judgment is larger than is warranted by the preponderance of the evidence. As to the note and the amount due thereon there is no dispute. The controversy, however, involves a mutual account between the parties running through several years, and as to a considerable portion of which the evidence is conflicting. If the jury believed the evidence introduced by the plaintiff — and we see no reason why they were not warranted in so doing — they were, we think, justified in giving the plaintiff the damages for which the judgment was rendered. We find nothing in the case taking it out of the usual rule that where the evidence is conflicting and there is nothing to show that the jury have been misled or actuated by passion or prejudice, the verdict should be held to be conclusive as to all controverted facts. We are of the opinion that the defendant has had a fair trial, and with the result she must be content. The judgment will be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

This was assumpsit brought by Sarah Evans against Rachel Davis upon a promissory note for $300, and certain indebtedness upon an open account. The defendant pleaded non-assumpsit and set-off, said set-off consisting of certain indebtedness upon an open account against the plaintiff. At the trial the jury found the issues for the plaintiff and assessed her damages at $343.50. From this amount she remitted $42.85, and the court thereupon gave judgment in her favor for $300.65 and costs.

The counsel for the appellant raises no question of law, the only proposition urged being that the amount of the judgment is larger than is warranted by the preponderance of the evidence. As to the note and the amount due thereon there is no dispute. The controversy, however, involves a mutual account between the parties running through several years, and as to a considerable portion of which the evidence is conflicting. If the jury believed the evidence introduced by the plaintiff — and we see no reason why they were not warranted in so doing — they were, we think, justified in giving the plaintiff the damages for which the judgment was rendered. We find nothing in the case taking it out of the usual rule that where the evidence is conflicting and there is nothing to show that the jury have been misled or actuated by passion or prejudice, the verdict should be held to be conclusive as to all controverted facts. We are of the opinion that the defendant has had a fair trial, and with the result she must be content. The judgment will be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 Ill. App. 375, 1886 Ill. App. LEXIS 352, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-evans-illappct-1887.