Foreman v. Johnson

Appellate Court of Illinois

Foreman v. Johnson

37 Ill. App. 452, 1890 Ill. App. LEXIS 217

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedDecember 11, 1890

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 37 Ill. App. 452 (Foreman v. Johnson) 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

Foreman v. Johnson, 37 Ill. App. 452, 1890 Ill. App. LEXIS 217 (Ill. Ct. App. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Waterman, J.

It does not appear from the bill of exceptions that any motion for a new trial was made in this case, or that any exception was taken to any action of the court in overruling such motion, if any was made.

A motion for a new trial is not a part of the record, nor are exceptions taken to the action of the court upon the same. Such motion and exceptions must be made a part of the record by a bill of exceptions or we can not take notice thereof.

The minute made by the clerk of the motion for a new trial and exception to the action of the court thereon are no part of the record. Obermark v. The People, 24 Ill. App. 259; C. & N. W. R. R. Co. v. Benham, 25 Ill. App. 248; Shedd v. Dalzell, 30 Ill. App. 356; Daniels v. Shields, 38 Ill. 197; Gill v. The People, 42 Ill. 321; Graham v. The People, 115 Ill. 566-569; James v. Dexter, 113 Ill. 654; Martin v. Foulke, 114 Ill. 206.

There is nothing in this record upon which we can set aside the action of the court, and its judgment is therefore affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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