Masterson v. Furman

Appellate Court of Illinois

Masterson v. Furman

82 Ill. App. 386, 1898 Ill. App. LEXIS 673

DecidedApril 17, 1899

StatusPublished

This text of 82 Ill. App. 386 (Masterson v. Furman) 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

Masterson v. Furman, 82 Ill. App. 386, 1898 Ill. App. LEXIS 673 (Ill. Ct. App. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Sears

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an action for false imprisonment. The appellee, who sued by next friend, was twelve years of age when the injury was done which is the basis of the suit. Upon trial the jury found the defendant, appellant, guilty, and assessed the plaintiff’s, appellee’s, damages at $400. Judgment was rendered upon the verdict.

It is now urged by appellant, first, that the verdict is excessive in amount, and secondly, that the instructions are erroneous, in that they submitted questions of law to the determination of the jury.

If we were at liberty to dispose of the case upon a decision of these questions, the result would be the affirmance of the judgment. Ho question was raised as to the amount of the verdict in the court below upon motion for a new trial, the grounds of which were specified in writing; nor is the amount of the verdict called in question by the assignments of error here. Hence this question could not now be considered. Without needless recital of the instructions, we may say that we do not regard them as subject to the objection made.

But there is tanother reason why this judgment must be affirmed. The bill of exceptions is not sealed by the judge who signed the same. That it is essential that the bill of exceptions be sealed, is settled. Jones v. Sprague, 2 Scam. 55; Miller v. Jenkins, 44 Ill. 443; Widow v. Powers, 30 Ill. App. 82; Cline v. Toledo Ry. Co., 41 Ill. App. 516; C. & W. I. Ry. Co. v. DeMarko, 51 Ill. App. 581; City v. Grove, 56 Ill. App. 370.

Appellant, after notice of the defect, has taken no steps to remedy it. We could not, therefore, in any event dispose of the case upon questions as to the procedure and verdict, which could only be presented by a sufficient bill of exceptions.

There being no question raised as to error in the common law record, the judgment is affirmed.

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

Mr. Justice Sears

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an action for false imprisonment. The appellee, who sued by next friend, was twelve years of age when the injury was done which is the basis of the suit. Upon trial the jury found the defendant, appellant, guilty, and assessed the plaintiff’s, appellee’s, damages at $400. Judgment was rendered upon the verdict.

It is now urged by appellant, first, that the verdict is excessive in amount, and secondly, that the instructions are erroneous, in that they submitted questions of law to the determination of the jury.

If we were at liberty to dispose of the case upon a decision of these questions, the result would be the affirmance of the judgment. Ho question was raised as to the amount of the verdict in the court below upon motion for a new trial, the grounds of which were specified in writing; nor is the amount of the verdict called in question by the assignments of error here. Hence this question could not now be considered. Without needless recital of the instructions, we may say that we do not regard them as subject to the objection made.

But there is tanother reason why this judgment must be affirmed. The bill of exceptions is not sealed by the judge who signed the same. That it is essential that the bill of exceptions be sealed, is settled. Jones v. Sprague, 2 Scam. 55; Miller v. Jenkins, 44 Ill. 443; Widow v. Powers, 30 Ill. App. 82; Cline v. Toledo Ry. Co., 41 Ill. App. 516; C. & W. I. Ry. Co. v. DeMarko, 51 Ill. App. 581; City v. Grove, 56 Ill. App. 370.

Appellant, after notice of the defect, has taken no steps to remedy it. We could not, therefore, in any event dispose of the case upon questions as to the procedure and verdict, which could only be presented by a sufficient bill of exceptions.

There being no question raised as to error in the common law record, the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 Ill. App. 386, 1898 Ill. App. LEXIS 673, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/masterson-v-furman-illappct-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack