Henline v. Popejoy

Appellate Court of Illinois

Henline v. Popejoy

101 Ill. App. 153, 1901 Ill. App. LEXIS 436

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedApril 9, 1902

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 101 Ill. App. 153 (Henline v. Popejoy) 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

Henline v. Popejoy, 101 Ill. App. 153, 1901 Ill. App. LEXIS 436 (Ill. Ct. App. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Harkeb

delivered the opinion of the court.

This suit was commenced by appellant to recover $108.80 claimed to be due him as grain rent from appellee. The case was tried by the court, a jury having been waived, and the court found the issues for the defendant and rendered judgment against the plaintiff for costs. The alleged error on which a reversal is sought, is that the finding of the court is against.the evidence. It nowhere appears in the bill of exceptions that appellant took any'exceptions le the finding of the court. Without an exception, and without its being preserved in the bill of exceptions, the alleged error can not be considered by us. Exceptions to the finding on which a judgment is based must appear in the bill of exceptions. It will not suffice for the exceptions to appear in the entry orders made by the clerk. Parsons v. Evans, 17 Ill. 238; Gill v. The People, 42 Ill. 322; Force Mfg. Co. v. Horton et al., 74 Ill. 310; James v. Dexter, 113 Ill. 654; Martin et al. v. Foulke et al., 114 Ill. 202; Graham et al. v. The People, 115 Ill. 567; John Bromwell v. Bromwell Estate, 139 Ill. 424; Dignan v. Gilbert, 43 Ill. App. 536; Scanlon v. Wheeler, 51 Ill. App. 179; Sanitary District of Chicago v. Cook, 51 Ill. App. 424.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Mr. Justice Harkeb

delivered the opinion of the court.

This suit was commenced by appellant to recover $108.80 claimed to be due him as grain rent from appellee. The case was tried by the court, a jury having been waived, and the court found the issues for the defendant and rendered judgment against the plaintiff for costs. The alleged error on which a reversal is sought, is that the finding of the court is against.the evidence. It nowhere appears in the bill of exceptions that appellant took any'exceptions le the finding of the court. Without an exception, and without its being preserved in the bill of exceptions, the alleged error can not be considered by us. Exceptions to the finding on which a judgment is based must appear in the bill of exceptions. It will not suffice for the exceptions to appear in the entry orders made by the clerk. Parsons v. Evans, 17 Ill. 238; Gill v. The People, 42 Ill. 322; Force Mfg. Co. v. Horton et al., 74 Ill. 310; James v. Dexter, 113 Ill. 654; Martin et al. v. Foulke et al., 114 Ill. 202; Graham et al. v. The People, 115 Ill. 567; John Bromwell v. Bromwell Estate, 139 Ill. 424; Dignan v. Gilbert, 43 Ill. App. 536; Scanlon v. Wheeler, 51 Ill. App. 179; Sanitary District of Chicago v. Cook, 51 Ill. App. 424.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 Ill. App. 153, 1901 Ill. App. LEXIS 436, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henline-v-popejoy-illappct-1902.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack