Kuhn v. Kunz

187 N.E. 173, 353 Ill. 205
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
DecidedJune 22, 1933
DocketNo. 21836. Judgment affirmed.
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 187 N.E. 173 (Kuhn v. Kunz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Illinois Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kuhn v. Kunz, 187 N.E. 173, 353 Ill. 205 (Ill. 1933).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Stone

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a writ of error sued out of this court by plaintiff in error. His counsel state that it is a proceeding to review a finding of the circuit court of Clinton county changing the center line of a certain section of land in that county. The abstract contains no pleadings, judgment or motion for new trial. It contains nothing but an abstract of the testimony of certain witnesses and assignment of errors. We are unable to gather from the abstract filed what issues were before the court or its rulings thereon. The defendant in error has filed an additional abstract making reference to such of the pleadings as tend to present her claims and abstracting further testimony. The court is unable, however, to consider plaintiff in error’s contentions from the abstract filed.

It has been so many times held as to require no citation of cases, that this court will affirm a judgment where the plaintiff in error or appellant does not file an abstract sufficient to present the issues involved. This court will not go into the record to supply deficiencies in the necessary features of an abstract.

For want of a sufficient abstract the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

rJudgment affirmed.

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

Related

City of Chicago v. Bowman Dairy Co.
10 N.E.2d 994 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1937)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
187 N.E. 173, 353 Ill. 205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kuhn-v-kunz-ill-1933.