Franklin v. Hunter

184 Ill. App. 431
CourtAppellate Court of Illinois
DecidedDecember 31, 1913
DocketGen. No. 18,339
StatusPublished

This text of 184 Ill. App. 431 (Franklin v. Hunter) 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
Franklin v. Hunter, 184 Ill. App. 431 (Ill. Ct. App. 1913).

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Graves

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Appeal and error, § 867*—manner in which bill of exceptions should appear in abstract. Where a bill of exceptions is a part of the record there should be something in the abstract to indicate where it begins and ends. There should be a certificate of the trial judge at the end and not in the middle of the bill of exceptions, and it should so appear in the abstract. 4. Appeal and eror, § 867*—order of arranging matter in the abstract. Matter as it appears in the record should appear in the same order in the abstract. 5. Appeal and error, § 1306*—when presumed that replication was filed. Where no replication to a plea is preserved in the record, it may be presumed that a general replication was filed where the record recites that “issue being joined a trial by jury is waived and cause is submitted to the court for trial without the intervention of a jury.” 6. Appeal and error, § 1000*—when error in refusing admission of evidence not presented for review. Error of court in refusing admission of evidence not presented for review where there is nothing in the bill of exceptions to show that the court excluded the evidence. 7. Replevin, § 124*—when evidence insufficient to show plaintiffs title to the property. In replevin to recover two wagons levied upon by the defendant, an officer, under an execution on a judgment against a third party, the plaintiff claiming ownership of the property as a purchaser at a mortgagee’s sale, a judgment in favor of defendant held sustained by the evidence, it appearing from the record that such third party had been owner of the property and up to the time of the levy had possession thereof, and there being no evidence tending to show that such party had ever parted with his title or possession.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
184 Ill. App. 431, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/franklin-v-hunter-illappct-1913.