Fitzgerald v. Hager

Appellate Court of Illinois

Fitzgerald v. Hager

64 Ill. App. 385, 1896 Ill. App. LEXIS 928

DecidedJune 1, 1896

StatusPublished

This text of 64 Ill. App. 385 (Fitzgerald v. Hager) 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

Fitzgerald v. Hager, 64 Ill. App. 385, 1896 Ill. App. LEXIS 928 (Ill. Ct. App. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Gary

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The appellee is administrator of Theodore Karls, late an architect in Chicago, who commenced this suit in his lifetime to recover for professional services alleged to have been rendered by him to the appellant. The evidence was conflicting; by consent the court instructed the jury orally; how is not shown; and therefore the only question that could be in the case is whether the evidence warrants the verdict.

The most deliberate and solemn piece of evidence in the case, is an extract from a bill in chancery, filed and s.worn to by the appellant, which accords with the verdict, and it is impossible for this court to say that the jury ought not to have believed it.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Mr. Presiding Justice Gary

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The appellee is administrator of Theodore Karls, late an architect in Chicago, who commenced this suit in his lifetime to recover for professional services alleged to have been rendered by him to the appellant. The evidence was conflicting; by consent the court instructed the jury orally; how is not shown; and therefore the only question that could be in the case is whether the evidence warrants the verdict.

The most deliberate and solemn piece of evidence in the case, is an extract from a bill in chancery, filed and s.worn to by the appellant, which accords with the verdict, and it is impossible for this court to say that the jury ought not to have believed it.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 Ill. App. 385, 1896 Ill. App. LEXIS 928, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fitzgerald-v-hager-illappct-1896.