Firemen's Insurance v. Peck

Appellate Court of Illinois

Firemen's Insurance v. Peck

27 Ill. App. 91, 1887 Ill. App. LEXIS 434

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedJuly 3, 1888

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 27 Ill. App. 91 (Firemen's Insurance v. Peck) 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

Firemen's Insurance v. Peck, 27 Ill. App. 91, 1887 Ill. App. LEXIS 434 (Ill. Ct. App. 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This was an action on the case brought by appellee against the insurance company, appellant, to recover damages for the wrongful refusal of the latter to allow a transfer on its books of thirty shares of its capital stock, of $100 each, for which it had issued a certificate in the usual form to one Louise B. W. Bowen, as paid-up stock, who had indorsed said certificate in blank and which appellee had taken of one S. P. Walker for a valuable consideration, bona fide, and, having filled up said blank with an assignment to him, appellee, he de~ manded of appellant the making of such transfer on its books, which the latter refused. The defendant having pleaded the general issue, the case was, by agreement of the parties, submitted to the court for trial without a jury, and the court finding the defendant guilty, assessed plaintiff’s damages at $5,000, for which judgment was given with costs, and defendant took an appeal to this court.

The entire discussion on behalf of appellant relates to the error assigned, that the judgment was against the law and the evidence, and that plaintiff was an incompetent witness in his own behalf.

It does not appear from the bill of exceptions that the defendant either excepted to the finding of the court, or made a motion for a new trial. That being the case, the defendant is precluded in this court from challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support the finding. Neither does it appear that any propositions of law were submitted to the court by either party.

We do not find, nor are we able to perceive any ground of objection to the competency of the plaintiff as a witness; the ground that the original holder of the certificate having died, rendered plaintiff incompetent, is not tenable.

We are of the opinion that there is no available error in this record, and that the judgment should be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

This was an action on the case brought by appellee against the insurance company, appellant, to recover damages for the wrongful refusal of the latter to allow a transfer on its books of thirty shares of its capital stock, of $100 each, for which it had issued a certificate in the usual form to one Louise B. W. Bowen, as paid-up stock, who had indorsed said certificate in blank and which appellee had taken of one S. P. Walker for a valuable consideration, bona fide, and, having filled up said blank with an assignment to him, appellee, he de~ manded of appellant the making of such transfer on its books, which the latter refused. The defendant having pleaded the general issue, the case was, by agreement of the parties, submitted to the court for trial without a jury, and the court finding the defendant guilty, assessed plaintiff’s damages at $5,000, for which judgment was given with costs, and defendant took an appeal to this court.

The entire discussion on behalf of appellant relates to the error assigned, that the judgment was against the law and the evidence, and that plaintiff was an incompetent witness in his own behalf.

It does not appear from the bill of exceptions that the defendant either excepted to the finding of the court, or made a motion for a new trial. That being the case, the defendant is precluded in this court from challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support the finding. Neither does it appear that any propositions of law were submitted to the court by either party.

We do not find, nor are we able to perceive any ground of objection to the competency of the plaintiff as a witness; the ground that the original holder of the certificate having died, rendered plaintiff incompetent, is not tenable.

We are of the opinion that there is no available error in this record, and that the judgment should be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 Ill. App. 91, 1887 Ill. App. LEXIS 434, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/firemens-insurance-v-peck-illappct-1888.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack