Hunt

Appellate Court of Illinois

Hunt

149 Ill. App. 549

DecidedMay 19, 1909

StatusPublished

This text of 149 Ill. App. 549 (Hunt) 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

Hunt, 149 Ill. App. 549 (Ill. Ct. App. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Puterbaugh

delivered the opinion of the court.

The appellant was summoned as garnishee in two attachment suits brought by Edwards and Williams & Son, respectively, against one Hunt. After the causes had been consolidated, a trial by jury was had, which resulted in a judgment against appellant, for the use of appellees, in the sum of $15. The only error assigned is that the verdict is contrary to the evidence. The sole controverted issue of fact in the case was whether or not appellant was entitled to off-set against the demand of Hunt, the reasonable rental value of a room and light which he claimed to have furnished Hunt. The evidence relative thereto was conflicting, and we are unable to say that the verdict of the jury was manifestly against the evidence.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.

'Affirmed.

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

Mr. Presiding Justice Puterbaugh

delivered the opinion of the court.

The appellant was summoned as garnishee in two attachment suits brought by Edwards and Williams & Son, respectively, against one Hunt. After the causes had been consolidated, a trial by jury was had, which resulted in a judgment against appellant, for the use of appellees, in the sum of $15. The only error assigned is that the verdict is contrary to the evidence. The sole controverted issue of fact in the case was whether or not appellant was entitled to off-set against the demand of Hunt, the reasonable rental value of a room and light which he claimed to have furnished Hunt. The evidence relative thereto was conflicting, and we are unable to say that the verdict of the jury was manifestly against the evidence.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.

'Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 Ill. App. 549, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunt-illappct-1909.