Jakl v. Pavlik

Appellate Court of Illinois

Jakl v. Pavlik

94 Ill. App. 368, 1901 Ill. App. LEXIS 480

DecidedMarch 29, 1901

StatusPublished

This text of 94 Ill. App. 368 (Jakl v. Pavlik) 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

Jakl v. Pavlik, 94 Ill. App. 368, 1901 Ill. App. LEXIS 480 (Ill. Ct. App. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Freeman

delivered the opinion of the court.

These two cases have been consolidated, the judgment in the first to control the second.

Judgments were rendered against appellant as garnishee originally before a justice of the peace. Appeals were taken, and at the trials in the Superior Court, a jury having been waived, judgment was again rendered in each case in favor of appellee.

The controversy is one of fact, and the testimony contradictory. There is evidence tending to show that appellant admitted at the trial before the justice that he was then indebted to Pavlik in a sum more than sufficient to satisfy the claims against the latter of the garnishor and judgment debtor. Appellant now claims to have paid his debt before the original garnishment. It is apparent that the trial judge, having the parties and witnesses before him, was in a better situation to ascertain the truth and correctly settle the controversy than we can possibly be, with only the record for our guidance. Gaynor v. Harding, 76 Ill. App. 659.

The judgment must be affirmed.

/

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

Mr. Justice Freeman

delivered the opinion of the court.

These two cases have been consolidated, the judgment in the first to control the second.

Judgments were rendered against appellant as garnishee originally before a justice of the peace. Appeals were taken, and at the trials in the Superior Court, a jury having been waived, judgment was again rendered in each case in favor of appellee.

The controversy is one of fact, and the testimony contradictory. There is evidence tending to show that appellant admitted at the trial before the justice that he was then indebted to Pavlik in a sum more than sufficient to satisfy the claims against the latter of the garnishor and judgment debtor. Appellant now claims to have paid his debt before the original garnishment. It is apparent that the trial judge, having the parties and witnesses before him, was in a better situation to ascertain the truth and correctly settle the controversy than we can possibly be, with only the record for our guidance. Gaynor v. Harding, 76 Ill. App. 659.

The judgment must be affirmed.

/

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 Ill. App. 368, 1901 Ill. App. LEXIS 480, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jakl-v-pavlik-illappct-1901.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack