Delos Hull & Co. v. Pray

Appellate Court of Illinois

Delos Hull & Co. v. Pray

174 Ill. App. 373, 1912 Ill. App. LEXIS 309

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedNovember 12, 1912

DocketGen. No. 17,537

StatusPublished

This text of 174 Ill. App. 373 (Delos Hull & Co. v. Pray) 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

Delos Hull & Co. v. Pray, 174 Ill. App. 373, 1912 Ill. App. LEXIS 309 (Ill. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice F. A. Smith

delivered the opinion of the court.

Delos Hull & Co., defendant in error, brought suit against P. E. Pray & Sons, plaintiffs in error, in the Municipal Court of Chicago. The claim of the plaintiff was for $64.79 for seven items of coal sold and delivered in September, October and November, 1907. No question was made as to the sale and delivery of the coal. Nor was there any claim that the coal was paid for. The plaintiffs in error claim that an account was stated between the parties which prevents the plaintiffs in error from recovering for the coal. On the trial the jury found the issues for the defendant in error, and assessed the damages at $64.79; and in response to the following interrogatory, “shortly after the accrual of plaintiff’s present claims against the defendants did the parties to this suit state the account between them?” answered, “No.”

The argument of plaintiffs in error is directed to the proposition that the verdict and special finding of the jury is against the law and the weight of the evidence. Upon a consideration of the evidence we do not find that the verdict is against the clear preponderance of the evidence.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Mr. Justice F. A. Smith

delivered the opinion of the court.

Delos Hull & Co., defendant in error, brought suit against P. E. Pray & Sons, plaintiffs in error, in the Municipal Court of Chicago. The claim of the plaintiff was for $64.79 for seven items of coal sold and delivered in September, October and November, 1907. No question was made as to the sale and delivery of the coal. Nor was there any claim that the coal was paid for. The plaintiffs in error claim that an account was stated between the parties which prevents the plaintiffs in error from recovering for the coal. On the trial the jury found the issues for the defendant in error, and assessed the damages at $64.79; and in response to the following interrogatory, “shortly after the accrual of plaintiff’s present claims against the defendants did the parties to this suit state the account between them?” answered, “No.”

The argument of plaintiffs in error is directed to the proposition that the verdict and special finding of the jury is against the law and the weight of the evidence. Upon a consideration of the evidence we do not find that the verdict is against the clear preponderance of the evidence.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 Ill. App. 373, 1912 Ill. App. LEXIS 309, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/delos-hull-co-v-pray-illappct-1912.