Knight v. Collings

Appellate Court of Illinois

Knight v. Collings

127 Ill. App. 333, 1906 Ill. App. LEXIS 384

DecidedJune 8, 1906

StatusPublished

This text of 127 Ill. App. 333 (Knight v. Collings) 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

Knight v. Collings, 127 Ill. App. 333, 1906 Ill. App. LEXIS 384 (Ill. Ct. App. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Counsel for appellee direct our attention to the abstract of the record filed by appellant in this case. An examination of such abstract discloses that the evidence favorable to appellant is set out in full by questions and answers, as it appears in the record, and that much of the evidence favorable to appellee is entirely omitted. We find it impossible to consider and determine the questions attempted to be raised, by reference to the abstract, and are not disposed to go to the record in search of matter required by the rules of this court to appear in the abstract.

The abstract is so far unfair and defective that it cannot be supplemented by a further abstract, such as is contemplated by the rules to be furnished by the appellee or defendant in error.

For want of an abstract in compliance with the rules, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Counsel for appellee direct our attention to the abstract of the record filed by appellant in this case. An examination of such abstract discloses that the evidence favorable to appellant is set out in full by questions and answers, as it appears in the record, and that much of the evidence favorable to appellee is entirely omitted. We find it impossible to consider and determine the questions attempted to be raised, by reference to the abstract, and are not disposed to go to the record in search of matter required by the rules of this court to appear in the abstract.

The abstract is so far unfair and defective that it cannot be supplemented by a further abstract, such as is contemplated by the rules to be furnished by the appellee or defendant in error.

For want of an abstract in compliance with the rules, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 Ill. App. 333, 1906 Ill. App. LEXIS 384, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knight-v-collings-illappct-1906.