Frank v. City of Chicago

Illinois Supreme Court

Frank v. City of Chicago

75 N.E. 213, 216 Ill. 587

CourtIllinois Supreme Court

DecidedJune 23, 1905

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 75 N.E. 213 (Frank v. City of Chicago) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Illinois Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Frank v. City of Chicago, 75 N.E. 213, 216 Ill. 587 (Ill. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Hand

delivered the opinion of the court:

The objections urged by appellants do not arise upon the face of the record, and unless preserved by' a bill of exceptions cannot be considered by this court. (Kelly v. City of Chicago, 148 Ill. 90; Sargent v. City of Evanston, 154 id. 268; Mallers v. Whittier Machine Co. 170 id. 434; Fisher v. City of Chicago, 213 id. 268.) The appellants have attempted to preserve the evidence, the rulings of the court based thereon, and their exceptions to such rulings, by referring the court to the bill of exceptions which it is said forms a part of the record in another case, (Berdel v. City of Chicago, No. 4083,) and an abstract of which bill of exceptions they have incorporated in the abstract filed in this case, although the record filed dpes not contain a copy of said bill of exceptions. The bill of exceptions filed as a part of the record in the Berdel case cannot thus be incorporated into the record in this case. It has been repeatedly held by this court that a document cannot be made a part of a bill of exceptions by reference, and this is the rule even though the document be found in some other place in the record. Emerson v. Clark, 2 Scam. 489; City of Chicago v. South Park Comrs. 169 Ill. 387; Meissner v. People, id. 530; Call v. People, 201 id. 499.

No reversible error appearing, the judgment of the superior court will be affirmed,

Judgment affirmed.

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

Mr. Justice Hand

delivered the opinion of the court:

The objections urged by appellants do not arise upon the face of the record, and unless preserved by' a bill of exceptions cannot be considered by this court. (Kelly v. City of Chicago, 148 Ill. 90; Sargent v. City of Evanston, 154 id. 268; Mallers v. Whittier Machine Co. 170 id. 434; Fisher v. City of Chicago, 213 id. 268.) The appellants have attempted to preserve the evidence, the rulings of the court based thereon, and their exceptions to such rulings, by referring the court to the bill of exceptions which it is said forms a part of the record in another case, (Berdel v. City of Chicago, No. 4083,) and an abstract of which bill of exceptions they have incorporated in the abstract filed in this case, although the record filed dpes not contain a copy of said bill of exceptions. The bill of exceptions filed as a part of the record in the Berdel case cannot thus be incorporated into the record in this case. It has been repeatedly held by this court that a document cannot be made a part of a bill of exceptions by reference, and this is the rule even though the document be found in some other place in the record. Emerson v. Clark, 2 Scam. 489; City of Chicago v. South Park Comrs. 169 Ill. 387; Meissner v. People, id. 530; Call v. People, 201 id. 499.

No reversible error appearing, the judgment of the superior court will be affirmed,

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 N.E. 213, 216 Ill. 587, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frank-v-city-of-chicago-ill-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack